Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • NAPF Congratulates Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) congratulates the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for receiving the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.

    OPCW is the body that enforces the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty that prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons. Since the Convention came into force in 1997, it has been ratified by 189 states and the OPCW has conducted more than 5,000 inspections in 86 countries. According to its statistics, 81.1 percent of the world’s declared stockpile of chemical agents has been verifiably destroyed.

    Syria is due to become the 190th member state to join the Chemical Weapons Convention on October 14, 2013. OPCW is the organization responsible for destroying its stockpiles of chemical weapons.

    Thorbjoern Jagland, the head of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, said in his announcement of this year’s peace laureate that the award is a reminder to other nations, including the United States and Russia, to eliminate their own stockpiles of chemical weapons, “especially because they are demanding that others do the same, like Syria.”  He added, “We now have the opportunity to get rid of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction… That would be a great event in history if we could achieve that.”

    The Norwegian Nobel Committee said, “The conventions and the work of the OPCW have defined the use of chemical weapons as a taboo under international law.” It also stated, “Disarmament figures prominently in Alfred Nobel’s will. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has through numerous prizes underlined the need to do away with nuclear weapons. By means of the present award to the OPCW, the Committee is seeking to contribute to the elimination of chemical weapons.”

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s vision is a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons. The implementation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, which would make the manufacture, testing, possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons illegal under international law, would build on and expand what the OPCW has accomplished in enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention, making the world a safer place.

  • Fueling the Fire in North Korea

    Santa Barbara, CA – While tensions appear to have eased between North Korea and the U.S. in the past few weeks, the U.S.- North Korean nuclear crisis is not over. Any overt action by either country could easily reignite an already volatile and dangerous situation.

    It is in this context that later this month, on May 21, the U.S. plans to launch a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, 4,200 miles away. The test was originally scheduled for early April, at the height of the current U.S.-North Korea nuclear crisis. At that time, U.S. officials postponed the test, stating they did not want to provoke a response from North Korea.

    So one must ask, has anything truly changed between North Korea and the U.S. since early April? Is a missile launch really any less provocative now than it was then? The answer is clearly that missile testing remains provocative. The posturing and exchanges that the world has been witnessing are capable of spiraling out of control and resulting in nuclear war today, just as they were a month ago.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, said, “The testing of a Minuteman III nuclear missile at this time is a clear example of U.S. double standards. The government believes that it is fine for the U.S. to test-fire these missiles when we choose to do so, while expressing criticism when other countries conduct missile tests. Clearly U.S. leaders would be highly critical if North Korea were to conduct a long-range missile test, now or at any time. We seem to have a blind spot in our thinking about our own tests. Such double standards encourage nuclear proliferation and make the world a more dangerous place.”

    One must also consider that each missile test is a clear reminder of the United States’ continued reliance on nuclear weapons in spite of proclamations by the Obama administration of the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. Nor should one overlook the tens of millions of dollars spent on each missile test at a time when the U.S. economic recovery is still weighing in the balance.

    Clearly this upcoming long-range missile test is more than just a test. It is a provocative move in a nuclear war game. A game where there is no winner.
    #  #  #

    For further comment, contact Rick Wayman, Director of Programs of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, at rwayman@napf.org or (805) 965-3443. Outside of regular office hours, please contact Rick Wayman at (805) 696-5159.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation — The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.  Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations.  For more information, visitwww.wagingpeace.org. 

  • Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Statement Opposing War Against Iraq

    We are firmly opposed to waging war against Iraq.

    The rush to war against Iraq violates the spirit and letter of the US Constitution, as well as disregards the prohibitions on the use of force that are set forth in the UN Charter and accepted as binding rules of international law. The proposed war would also have dangerous and unpredictable consequences for the region and the world, and would likely bring turmoil to the world oil and financial markets, and might well lead to the replacement of currently pro-Western leaders in Egypt and Saudi Arabia with militantly anti-American governments.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation opposes on principle and for reasons of prudence, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, by any country, including, of course, Iraq. Our position is one of support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a temporary expedient, while a good faith effort is being made to achieve the overall abolition of nuclear weapons through a disarmament treaty with reliable safeguards against cheating. Unfortunately, at present, no effort to achieve nuclear disarmament is being made.

    At the same time, the acquisition of nuclear weaponry, prohibited to Iraq by Security Council resolution, is not itself an occasion for justifiable war. After all, the United States, along with at least seven other countries, possesses, and continues to develop such weaponry. There is no good reason for supposing that Iraq cannot be deterred from ever using such weapons, or from transferring them to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. The government of Iraq, notwithstanding its record of brutality and regional aggression, has shown a consistent willingness to back down in the face of overwhelming force, as it did in the Gulf War and during the subsequent decade.

    It is necessary to take seriously the possibility that al Qaeda operatives could gain access to weaponry of mass destruction, and would have little hesitation about using it against American targets. Unlike Iraq, al Qaeda cannot be deterred by threats of retaliatory force. Its absence of a territorial base, visionary worldview, and suicidal foot soldiers disclose a political disposition that would seek by any means to inflict maximum harm. The US government should guard against such risks, especially with respect to the rather loose control of nuclear materials in Russia. Going to war against Iraq is likely to accentuate, rather than reduce, these dire risks. It would produce the one set of conditions in which Saddam Hussein, faced with the certain death and the destruction of his country, would have the greatest incentive to strike back with any means at his disposal, including the arming of al Qaeda.

    The recent hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did not provide an occasion for public debate, as the witnesses called accepted the premise of a regime change in Baghdad, disagreeing only with respect to the costs and feasibility of a war strategy. No principled criticism of the strategy itself was voiced, and thus the hearings are better understood as building a consensus in favor of war than of exploring doubts about the war option. As well, it is regrettable that the hearings paid no attention to the widely criticized punitive sanctions that have had such harsh consequences on Iraqi civilians for more than a decade.

    Granting the concerns of the US government that Saddam Hussein possesses or may obtain weapons of mass destruction, there are available alternatives to war that are consistent with international law and are strongly preferred by America’s most trusted allies. These include the resumption of weapons inspections under United Nations auspices combined with multilateral diplomacy and a continued reliance on non-nuclear deterrence. This kind of approach has proved effective over the years in addressing comparable concerns about North Korea’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.

    We are encouraged by the reported opposition to the proposed war by important US military leaders and most US allies. We urge the American people to exercise their responsibilities as citizens to join in raising their voices in opposition to waging war against Iraq.

  • The Non-Proliferation Treaty Crisis

    The global nuclear weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty is in jeopardy due to the continued failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their obligations under the Treaty.

    Background

    The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was signed on July 1, 1968 and remains the foundation of the post-World War II global nuclear nonproliferation. 187 nations signed the treaty; four did not — Cuba, Israel, India and Pakistan. The signers agreed to convene a special conference in 25 years to decide on whether or not to continue the treaty. And in 1997 at the UN headquarters in New York, 174 nations agreed to strengthen the treaty’s review process, i.e., to continue to hold more review conferences in the years to come.

    The latest treaty review conference — the year 2000 NPT Review Conference — will be held at United Nations Headquarters in New York from April 24 to May 19, 2000. The central issue for that conference is if this treaty will continue to be the centerpiece for global efforts to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or if the Treaty will begin to unravel.

    The upcoming Review Conference has crucial implications not only for NPT member states, but also for non-member states, especially India, Pakistan and Israel. The upcoming conference presents a tremendous opportunity to make substantive progress towards nuclear disarmament. Crucial to the outcome of this Review Conference will be the extent to which the nuclear weapon states are able to demonstrate any progress made toward fulfilling obligations under Article VI of the NPT, which 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.”

    In its 1996 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice concluded unanimously that:

    “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.’

    While the number of nuclear weapons possessed by the nuclear weapon states has decreased, the status of Article VI obligations is in a state of impasse. Parties of the NPT must take nuclear responsibility and avoid further attempts to weaken non-proliferation efforts.

    Challenges to the NPT

    The following developments represent the growing peril that challenges international and human security:

    Though the Cold War ended more than ten years ago, more than 30,000 nuclear weapons remain worldwide.

    Since the 1995 NPT review and extension conference, two additional countries, India and Pakistan, have tested nuclear weapons.

    US and Russian nuclear arsenals remain in permanent, 24 hour, “launch on warning” status in spite of recommendations to de-alert nuclear weapons made by the Canberra Commission (1996), two resolutions passed by massive majorities in the UN General Assembly in 1998, another two in 1999, and a unanimous resolution of the European Parliament (1999).

    The US Senate has failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in spite of nearly unanimous endorsement of the treaty by the international community and massive US public support for nuclear disarmament. In addition, the US and Russia, continue to conduct “subcritical” nuclear tests, undermining the spirit and purpose of the CTBT. The clear aim of the CTBT is to restrain weapons development, yet the US, Russia, and other weapons states proceed to develop new nuclear weapons in computer-simulated “virtual reality”, with the aid of subcritical underground nuclear testing.

    NATO has jeopardized the NPT by declaring in April 1999 that nuclear weapons are “essential” to its security.

    US efforts to deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) system and circumvent the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, have increased tensions with Russia and China and threaten a new arms race.

    The irresponsibility of the nuclear weapons states to pursue good faith negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Failure to make progress on Article VI obligations provides incentive for non-nuclear states to acquire nuclear weapons, thereby increasing the nuclear danger.

    Nuclear tests by India and Pakistan have undermined the international norm of nonproliferation established by the treaty.

    medium range missile tests in India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea have undermined the NPT

    Iraq’s defiance of UN Security Council Resolutions requiring it to complete its disclosure of efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction have threatened the stability of the NPT

    Nuclear weapons states are not strongly supporting the treaty’s review process. For example, the US Senate failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999 sending a message to the world that nuclear nonproliferation was not a critical issue according to the US Senate.

    Sharing peaceful uses of nuclear energy has become a contentious issue

    “Additional threats to the regime’s [NPT’s] stability came in 1999 from the erosion of American relations with both China and Russia resulting from NATO’s 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia — with additional harm to relations with China resulting from US accusations of Chinese nuclear espionage and Taiwan’s announcement that it was a state separate from China despite its earlier acceptance of a US-Chinese ‘one China’ agreement. Major threats to the regime also came from the continued stalemate on arms control treaties in the Russian Duma and the US Senate, from a change in US policy to favor building a national missile defense against missile attack and from a Russian decision to develop a new generation of small nuclear weapons for defense against conventional attack.” Ambassador George Bunn, former US Ambassador to the Geneva Disarmament Conference and a negotiator of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

  • Groups win Landmark Nuclear Weapons “Cleanup” Victory

    WASHINGTON, DC/SAN FRANCISCO, CA — To settle a lawsuit brought by 39 environmental and peace organizations including the Oakland-based Western States Legal Foundation and Livermore’s Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has signed a landmark agreement which will increase public oversight of its efforts to address severe contamination problems in the nation’s nuclear weapons complex.

    The settlement, which was delivered to Federal District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin today, ends nine years of litigation charging that DOE failed to develop its “cleanup” plans properly. DOE faced a contempt of court hearing before Judge Sporkin for not complying with a previous legal agreement in the case.

    “From the perspective of protecting the nation’s water, air and land, this settlement is superior to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement DOE originally agreed to prepare,” said David Adelman, a Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer who represented the plaintiffs. “We now have the data, the resources and the processes necessary to make DOE’s environmental work more accountable to the public.” The Washington, D.C. law firm of Meyer & Glitzenstein provided pro bono litigation counsel.

    Key elements of the settlement include:

    • Creation of a regularly updated, publicly accessible database including details about contaminated facilities and waste generated or controlled by DOE’s cleanup, defense, science and nuclear energy programs, including domestic and foreign research reactor spent fuel, listing characteristics such as waste type, volume, and radioactivity, as well as transfer and disposition plans;
    • DOE funding for at least two national stakeholder forums to assure the database is comprehensive, accurate and useful;
    • Completion of an environmental analysis, with public input, of plans for “long-term stewardship” at contaminated DOE sites to ensure protection of the public and the environment;
    • Establishment of a $6.25 million fund for non-profit groups and tribes to use in monitoring DOE environmental activities and conducting technical reviews of the agency’s performance;
    • Payment of plaintiffs’ legal fees and expenses incurred to litigate this case; and
    • Continuing federal court oversight to assure adherence to the agreement.

    “I’m really excited! This is a major victory both for the environment and for public participation,” said Marylia Kelley, of Tri-Valley CAREs in Livermore, California, one of 39 plaintiff groups.” We have won access to the tools the public needs to monitor DOE’s compliance with the nation’s obligation to address the radioactive and toxic legacy of nuclear weapons production.” DOE’s “cleanup” program is slated to become the largest environmental project in U.S. history, with an estimated total cost of more than $250 billion.

    “Since the mid-1980’s we’ve been asking for a breakdown of DOE-generated waste by program and facility,” added Jackie Cabasso of Oakland’s Western States Legal Foundation, a plaintiff and communications coordinator for the lawsuit. “DOE is currently gearing up its nuclear weapons research and development activities — the same kinds of activities that created this environmental disaster. Now, for the first time, using DOE’s own data, we’ll be able to demonstrate the link between cause and effect, a powerful argument against any further nuclear weapons design and production.”

    Many of the groups first sued DOE in 1989, claiming that the agency must conduct a thorough analyses before moving ahead with plans to address the radioactive and toxic legacy of nuclear weapons production and modernize its facilities. The next year, DOE signed a legal agreement promising a full public review of its proposals. In 1994, however, DOE leaders decided to abandon the Environmental Restoration Programmatic Environmental Impact

    Statement process without consent of the plaintiffs or Federal Court Judge Sporkin, who had approved the initial settlement. In April, 1997, plaintiffs went back to Judge Sporkin seeking enforcement of the original agreement.

    In a series of court hearings, Judge Sporkin made it clear that he expected DOE to abide by its commitments. Earlier this year, he ordered DOE to “show cause” why it should not be held in contempt for failing to conduct the environmental analysis. In depositions taken by the plaintiffs, former Energy Secretary James Watkins and other former senior DOE officials strongly backed plaintiffs claims. The discussions which led to today’s settlement were conducted at Judge Sporkin’s urging.

    PLAINTIFF ORGANIZATIONS

    The Atomic Mirror, CA

    Bay Area Nuclear (BAN) Waste Coalition, CA

    Citizen Alert, NV

    Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping, NM

    Citizens Opposed to a Polluted Environment, CA

    Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, NM

    East Bay Peace Action, CA

    Energy Research Foundation, SC

    Friends of the Earth, Washington, DC

    Greenpeace, Washington, DC

    Hayward Area Peace and Justice Fellowship, CA

    Lane County American Peace Test, OR

    Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, NY

    Livermore Conversion Project, CA

    Los Alamos Study Group, NM

    Nashville Peace Action, TN

    Natural Resources Defense Council,Washington, DC

    Neighbors in Need, OH

    Nevada Desert Experience, NV

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, CA

    Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, TN

    Peace Action, Washington, DC

    Peace Farm of Texas

    Physicians for Social Responsibility, Washington, DC

    Physicians for Social Responsibility – Greater SF Bay Area, CA

    Physicians for Social Responsibility, CO

    Physicians for Social Responsibility, NM

    Physicians for Social Responsibility, NY

    Plutonium Free Future, CA

    Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, CO

    San Jose Peace Center, CA

    Seattle Women Act for Peace/Women Strike for Peace

    Shundahai Network, NV

    Sonoma County Center for Peace and Justice, CA

    Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, CA

    Western States Legal Foundation, CA

    Women Concerned/Utahns United

    Women for Peace – East Bay, CA

    Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom – East Bay Branch, CA

  • International Peace Bureau Condemns Pro-Nuclear Strong Arm Tactics

    The International Peace Bureau (IPB), at their annual meeting in London today, protested against intimidation tactics used by the United States, United Kingdom and France in trying to kill a resolution at the United Nations which calls for a commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons, and to achieve practical steps towards that goal.

    IPB, a Nobel Peace laureate, gave its full support for draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.48, which has been introduced by Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Slovenia and Sweden and is expected to be voted upon in the Disarmament Committee of the United Nations on November 13.

    Senator Douglas Roche of Canada, speaking to the IPB meeting, reported that the U.S., U.K., and France are sending representatives to the capitals of key countries in an attempt to persuade them to oppose the resolution. “They are using the same bullying tactics used three years ago when they tried unsuccessfully to stop the United Nations taking a case to the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons,” said Senator Roche.

    IPB called on its members around the world to urge their governments to support the draft resolution, whose purpose is to revitalise the disarmament agenda.

    The draft resolution is considered by its sponsors to be a moderate but clear expression of international concern about the dangers to the world of the continued impasse on nuclear disarmament. “The continuing existence of thousands of nuclear weapons, many on high alert status, cannot be maintained without a risk of use by accident, miscalculation or design,” warned Maj Britt Theorin, President of IPB. “In addition, the refusal of the nuclear-weapon states to commit themselves to nuclear disarmament or to take practical steps towards this goal, in violation of their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is threatening the treaty, and could lead to further proliferation of nuclear weapons.”

    “The western nuclear-weapon states have tried to portray this resolution as anti-NATO,” said Ms Theorin. “This resolution is not anti-NATO. Rather it is anti-nuclear.”

  • Canada Defies U.S. and Lobbies UN for Passage of NAC Resolution

    In response to US pressure to vote against the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) resolution in the General Assembly, THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT is sending representations at the ambassadorial level to the following capitals to ask them to support the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) resolution: Tokyo, The Hague, Bonn, Oslo, Rome, Vienna, Canberra, Madrid and Copenhagen.

    The Middle Powers Initiative (MPI) is urgently asking NGOs in all of these capitals to contact their governments in support of the NAC resolution in the General Assembly calling on the nuclear weapons states to honor their NPT promises for nuclear disarmament.

    While the capitals above are of key importance, don’t forget to write to your government, even if it is not scheduled to receive a visit from the Canadian government.

    THIS COULD BE A BREAKTHROUGH FOR ABOLITION IF WE ALL DO OUR PART!! OUR GOVERNMENTS NEED TO HEAR FROM US!!

    In the US, letters should be written to Clinton and Albright, asking them to stop strong-arming other countries which are trying to do the right thing by voting for the NAC resolution to put us on the path to nuclear abolition.

    PLEASE POST YOUR LETTERS TO THE CAUCUS AS AN INSPIRATION TO OTHERS!!

    Alice Slater
    Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
    15 East 26th Street, Room 915
    New York, NY 10010
    tel: (212) 726-9161
    fax: (212) 726-9160
    aslater@gracelinks.org

    and:

    Sue Broidy
    Coordinator, Abolition 2000
    Phone (805) 965 3443 FAX (805) 568 0466; a2000@silcom.com

  • Nelson Mandela Calls for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

    [fusion_builder_container type=”flex” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” overlay_color=”” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” padding_top=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” padding_right=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”true” min_height=”” hover_type=”none” link=”” border_sizes_top=”” border_sizes_bottom=”” border_sizes_left=”” border_sizes_right=”” first=”true”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hue=”” saturation=”” lightness=”” alpha=”” content_alignment_medium=”” content_alignment_small=”” content_alignment=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” fusion_font_family_text_font=”” fusion_font_variant_text_font=”” font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_transform=”” text_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_color=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_delay=”0″ animation_offset=”” logics=””]

    President Mandela, in an impassioned speech to the United Nations General Assembly today, called on the nuclear-weapon States to make a firm commitment to eliminating nuclear weapons and on the global community to eradicate poverty. Mandela, the third to speak in the Assembly’s opening session after Brazil’s Foreign Minister Luiz Felipe Lampreia and U.S. President William Clinton, received two standing ovations from the full assembly hall.

    Mandela recalled the very first resolution of the United Nations, adopted in January 1946, which called for “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction,” and lamented the fact that “we still do not have concrete and generally accepted proposals supported by a clear commitment by the nuclear-weapon States to the speedy, final and total elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capabilities.”

    Mandela asked those who justify “these terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction – why do they need them anyway?”

    “In reality, no rational answer can be advanced to explain in a satisfactory manner what, in the end, is the consequence of Cold War inertia and an attachment to the use of the threat of brute force to assert the primacy of some States over others.”

    Mandela announced that in an attempt to contribute to the elimination of these weapons, South Africa, together with Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden will be submitting a draft resolution to the First Committee (Disarmament and Security) for consideration by the General Assembly. He called on all members of the United Nations to support the resolution, which will be entitled “Towards a Nuclear Weapons Free World: The Need for a New Agenda.”

    Ambassador Luiz Felipe Lampreia, Foreign Minister of Brazil, who opened the General Assembly debate, also noted the nuclear disarmament initiative of the eight aforementioned countries.

    Commendation letters can be sent to President Mandela, C/o The Permanent Mission of South Africa to the United Nations, 333 East 38th Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10016. Fax (1) 212 692 2498.

    _________________________________________________________________________________
    Address by President Mandela at the 53rd United Nations
    General Assembly
    New York, 21 September 1998

    Mr. President;
    Mr. Secretary General, the Hon. Kofi Annan;
    Your Excellencies;
    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Mr. President, may I take this opportunity as President of the Republic of South Africa and as Chairperson of the Non-Aligned Movement to extend to you our sincere congratulations on your election to the high post of President of the General Assembly. You will be presiding over this august Assembly of the nations of the world at a time when its deliberations and decisions will be of the greatest consequence to the continuous striving of humanity at last to achieve global peace and prosperity.

    The Non-Aligned Movement, as well as my own country which is a proud member of that Movement, invest great trust in this organisation that it will discharge its responsibilities to all nations especially at this critical period of its existence. Quite appropriately, this 53rd General Assembly will be remembered through the ages as the moment at which we marked and celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Born in the aftermath of the defeat of the Nazi and fascist crime against humanity, this Declaration held high the hope that all our societies would, in future, be built on the foundations of the glorious vision spelt out in each of its clauses.

    For those who had to fight for their emancipation, such as ourselves who, with your help, had to free ourselves from the criminal apartheid system, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights served as the vindication of the justice of our cause. At the same time, it constituted a challenge to us that our freedom, once achieved, should be dedicated to the implementation of the perspectives contained in the Declaration.

    Today, we celebrate the fact that this historic document has survived a turbulent five decades, which have seen some of the most extraordinary developments in the evolution of human society. These include the collapse of the colonial system, the passing of a bipolar world, breath-taking advances in science and technology and the entrenchment of the complex process of globalisation. And yet, at the end of it all, the human beings who are the subject of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights continue to be afflicted by wars and violent conflicts. They have, as yet, not attained their freedom from fear of death that would be brought about by the use of weapons of mass destruction as well as conventional arms.

    Many are still unable to exercise the fundamental and inalienable democratic rights that would enable them to participate in the determination of the destiny of their countries, nations, families and children and to protect themselves from tyranny and dictatorship.

    The very right to be human is denied everyday to hundreds of millions of people as a result of poverty, the unavailability of basic necessities such as food, jobs, water and shelter, education, health care and a healthy environment.

    The failure to achieve the vision contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights finds dramatic expression in the contrast between wealth and poverty which characterises the divide between the countries of the North and the countries of the South and within individual countries in all hemispheres.

    It is made especially poignant and challenging by the fact that this coexistence of wealth and poverty, the perpetuation of the practice of the resolution of inter and intra-state conflicts by war and the denial of the democratic right of many across the world, all result from the acts of commission and omission particularly by those who occupy positions of leadership in politics, in the economy and in other spheres of human activity.

    What I am trying to say is that all these social ills which constitute an offence against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not a pre-ordained result of the forces of nature or the product of a curse of the deities. They are the consequence of decisions which men and women take or refuse to take, all of whom will not hesitate to pledge their devoted support for the vision conveyed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    This Declaration was proclaimed as Universal precisely because the founders of this organisation and the nations of the world who joined hands to fight the scourge of fascism, including many who still had to achieve their own emancipation, understood this clearly that our human world was an interdependent whole.

    Necessarily, the values of happiness, justice, human dignity, peace and prosperity have a universal application because each people and every individual is entitled to them.

    Similarly, no people can truly say it is blessed with happiness, peace and prosperity where others, as human as itself, continue to be afflicted with misery, armed conflict and terrorism and deprivation.

    Thus can we say that the challenge posed by the next 50 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by the next century whose character it must help to fashion, consists in whether humanity, and especially those who will occupy positions of leadership, will have the courage to ensure that, at last, we build a human world consistent with the provisions of that historic Declaration and other human rights instruments that have been adopted since 1948. Immediately, a whole range of areas of conflict confronts us, in Africa, Europe and Asia.

    All of us are familiar with these, which range from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola and Sudan on my own continent, to the Balkans in Europe and Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Sri Lanka in Asia.

    Clearly, this Organisation and especially the Security Council, acting together with people of goodwill in the countries and areas concerned, has a responsibility to act decisively to contribute to the termination of these destructive conflicts.

    Continuously, we have to fight to defeat the primitive tendency towards the glorification of arms, the adulation of force, born of the illusion that injustice can be perpetuated by the capacity to kill, or that disputes are necessarily best resolved by resort to violent means.

    As Africans, we are grateful to the Secretary General for the contribution he has made to help us find the way towards ending violent strife on our Continent. We have taken heed of his report, which will reinforce our efforts to banish war from our shores.

    The very first resolution of the General Assembly, adopted in January 1946, sought to address the challenge of “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction”.

    We must face the fact that after countless initiatives and resolutions, we still do not have concrete and generally accepted proposals supported by a clear commitment by the nuclear-weapons States to the speedy, final and total elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capabilities. We take this opportunity to salute our sister Republic of Brazil for its decision to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and urge all others that have not done so to follow this excellent example.

    In an honest attempt to contribute to the definition of the systematic and progressive steps required to eliminate these weapons and the threat of annihilation which they pose, South Africa together with Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden will be submitting a draft resolution to the First Committee for consideration by this Assembly. This is appropriately titled: “Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free World: The Need for a New Agenda”.

    I call on all members of the United Nations seriously to consider this important resolution and to give it their support. We must ask the question, which might sound naove to those who have elaborated sophisticated arguments to justify their refusal to eliminate these terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction – why do they need them anyway!

    In reality, no rational answer can be advanced to explain in a satisfactory manner what, in the end, is the consequence of Cold War inertia and an attachment to the use of the threat of brute force, to assert the primacy of some States over others.

    Urgent steps are also required to arrive at a just and permanent peace in the Middle East, on the basis of the realisation of the legitimate aspirations of the people of Palestine and respect for the independence and security of all the States of this important region.

    We also look forward to the resolution of the outstanding issues of Western Sahara and East Timor, convinced that it is possible to take these matters off the world agenda on the basis of settlements that meet the interests of all the peoples concerned.

    Similarly, we would like to salute the bold steps taken by the and Government to cooperate fully in all regional and international iniiatives to ensure that the peoples of the world, including our own, are spared the destructive impact of these crimes.

    The world is gripped by an economic crisis which, as President Clinton said in this city only a week ago, has plunged “millions into sudden poverty and disrupt(ed) and disorient(ed) the lives of ordinary people ” and brought “deep, personal disappointments (to) tens of millions of people around the world “.

    “Recent press reports”, President Clinton went on, “have described an entire generation working its way into the middle class over 25 years, then being plummeted into poverty within a matter of months. The stories are heartbreaking – doctors and nurses forced to live in the lobby of a closed hospital; middle class families who owned their own homes, sent their children to college, traveled abroad, now living by selling their possessions”.

    He said “fast-moving currents (in the world economy) have brought or aggravated problems in Russia and Asia. They threaten emerging economies from Latin America to South Africa ” and he spoke of “sacrifice(ing) lives in the name of economic theory” President Clinton further recognized that, in his words, “with a quarter of the world’s population in declining growth we (the United States) cannot forever be an oasis of prosperity. Growth at home (in the US) depends upon growth abroad”.

    I have quoted the President of the United States at this length both because he is correct and because he is the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Accordingly, we would like to believe that with the problem facing all humanity, and especially the poor, having thus been recognised, courage will not desert the powerful when it comes to determining the correct course to be taken and following this course, to address the challenge that has been identified.

    The tragedy President Clinton describes goes far beyond the sudden impoverishment of the middle class to which he correctly refers. Poverty has been and is the condition of the daily existence of even larger numbers of ordinary working people.

    Paradoxically, the challenge of poverty across the globe has been brought into sharp focus by the fact of the destructive “fast movements of currents” of wealth from one part of the world to the other. Put starkly, we have a situation in which the further accumulation of wealth, rather than contributing to the improvement of the quality of life of all humanity, is generating poverty at a frighteningly accelerated pace. The imperative to act on this urgent, life and death matter can no longer be ignored. The central challenge to ensure that the countries of the South gain access to the productive resources that have accumulated within the world economy should not be avoided by seeking to apportion as much blame as possible to the poor.

    Clearly, all relevant matters will have to be addressed, including such issues as greater inflows of long-term capital; terms of trade; debt cancellation; technology transfers; human resource development; emancipation of women and development of the youth; the elimination of poverty; the HIV/AIDS epidemic; environmental protection and the strengthening of financial and other institutions relevant to sustained economic growth and development.

    Fortunately, the matter is no longer in dispute that serious work will also have to be done to restructure the multilateral financial and economic institutions so that they address the problems of the modern world economy and become responsive to the urgent needs of the poor of the world.

    Similarly, this very Organisation, including its important Security Council, must itself go through its own process of reformation so that it serves the interests of the peoples of the world, in keeping with the purposes for which it was established.

    Mr. President; Your Excellencies: The issues we have mentioned were discussed in a comprehensive manner at the Twelfth Summit Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement held in the city of Durban, South Africa, earlier this month. I am privileged to commend the decisions of this important meeting to the General Assembly and the United Nations as a whole, including the Durban Declaration, which the Summit adopted unanimously. I am certain that the decisions adopted by the Non-Aligned Movement will greatly assist this Organisation in its work and further enhance the contribution of the countries of the South to the solution of the problems that face the nations of the world, both rich and poor. This is probably the last time I will have the honour to stand at this podium to address the General Assembly.

    Born as the First World War came to a close and departing from public life as the world marks half-a-century of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I have reached that part of the long walk when the opportunity is granted, as it should be to all men and women, to retire to some rest and tranquility in the village of my birth.

    As I sit in Qunu and grow as ancient as its hills, I will continue to entertain the hope that there has emerged a cadre of leaders in my own country and region, on my Continent and in the world, which will not allow that any should be denied their freedom as we were; that any should be turned into refugees as we were; that any should be condemned to go hungry as we were; that any should be stripped of their human dignity as we were. I will continue to hope that Africa’s Renaissance will strike deep roots and blossom forever, without regard to the changing seasons. Were all these hopes to translate into a realisable dream and not a nightmare to torment the soul of the aged, then will I, indeed, have peace and tranquility.

    Then would history and the billions throughout the world proclaim that it was right that we dreamt and that we toiled to give life to a workable dream.

    [/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • JAMA Study Calls for Medical Organizations to Unite in Campaign for Nuclear Abolition

    BOSTON, Aug. 4 /PRNewswire/ — Since Hiroshima, physicians have frequently warned of the horrifying burn, blast, and radiation casualties a nuclear war would produce. Even in the post-Cold War era, the world faces the continuing risks of proliferation, terrorism, and deliberate or accidental nuclear war. An organized, global campaign led by medical organizations in support of a verifiable and enforceable Nuclear Weapons Convention would make a significant contribution to safeguarding health in 21st century, according to a study published in the August 5 Journal of the American Medical Association.

    “With a united, global voice, we in medicine must call for the zero tolerance of nuclear weapons — no different from the world’s zero tolerance of chemical and biological weapons,” says Lachlan Forrow, MD, principal author of the JAMA article, “Medicine and Nuclear War: From Hiroshima to Mutual Assured Destruction to Abolition 2000,” and internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

    The study, co-authored by Victor Sidel, MD, co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and former president of the American Public Health Association (APHA), of the Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, traces the history of nuclear weapons, from a medical perspective, since the blast at Hiroshima in 1945 and reviews the current status of nuclear arsenals and the dangers they pose worldwide. According to the JAMA authors, today’s dangers include the 35,000 warheads that remain in superpower nuclear arsenals, many of them still on hair trigger alert.

    For more than 50 years, physicians have played important roles in public policy related to nuclear weapons, first as partners in the government’s civil defense planning in the late 1940s and the 1950s. A decade later, in the 1960s, physicians organized to help end atmospheric nuclear testing and, in the 1980s, doctors would again unite, helping to end the superpowers’ plans to fight a nuclear war.

    The authors report that as early as 1946, just one year after the attack on Hiroshima, a high-level U.S. Government committee was urging a United-Nation-enforced global ban on all nuclear weapons. When their efforts failed, the superpowers, led by the United States, entered an era in which having “more” and “better” nuclear weapons was thought to be the best safeguard against nuclear disaster. Dangers of radiation from nuclear weapons was routinely minimized, according to Dr. Forrow, with U.S. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project testifying before the U.S. Congress that radiation poisoning, was “a very pleasant way to die.”

    In 1962, there was an abrupt change in the medical profession’s role in the fight against nuclear weapons. An issue of the New England Journal of Medicine was dedicated to articles on the medical consequences of nuclear war and a new force emerged. Physicians for Social Responsibility was born and began documenting in graphic detail the dire health effects of nuclear explosions. The NEJM articles and an accompanying editorial concluded that physicians, because of their special knowledge of the real medical effects of nuclear weapons also had a special responsibility to prevent their use.

    Countless medical studies have documented the toll of nuclear weapons production and testing. According to the authors, the U.S. National Cancer Institute estimated recently that the release of I-131 in fallout from U.S. nuclear test explosions was responsible for nearly 50,000 excess cases of thyroid cancer among Americans. In a separate study by the IPPNW, the physician organization estimated that the Strontium-90, Cesium-137, Carbon-14, and Plutonium-239 released worldwide in all such explosions would be responsible for 430,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000.

    In an NEJM article earlier this year, Forrow and his medical colleagues warned that the risk of an “accidental,” nuclear attack has increased recently and called for immediate de-alerting steps to be rapidly followed by a signed global agreement by the Year 2000 committing the world to the elimination of all nuclear weapons within a specified timeframe.

    Known as Abolition 2000, the initiative has been endorsed by leading U.S. medical organizations, including the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association and Physicians for Social Responsibility, as well as International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and over 1000 other nongovernmental agencies in 75 countries. Over 80 percent of Americans support the abolition of all nuclear weapons even though the U.S. government has yet to seriously question its own commitment to maintaining a nuclear arsenal, says Forrow.

    “As physicians we have an opportunity and a responsibility to make our own commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons a living example of the power of our convictions,” says Forrow. “We must do this for ourselves, our families, and the generations that will follow, for as Albert Schweitzer once said, ‘Example is not the main thing in influencing others; it is the only thing.’”
    This study was supported by the Albert Schweitzer Fellowship.

  • What is Next After the Latest Nuclear Tests? A Review of Nuclear Armament by the Trustees’ Committee of the Campaign “Abolish Nukes – Start with Ourselves”

    Dortmund, Germany

    (The Campaign is member of the Abolition 2000 Network and consists of 42 German organisations.)

    On the 11th and 13th May of this year India has conducted nuclear test explosions, followed suit by Pakistan detonating nuclear devices of their own on the 28th and 30th May. The design of the devices and the according statements of the respective governments confirm previous suspicions that India and Pakistan are now both to be counted among the nuclear armed states. Both states have weapons systems at their disposal well capable of delivering nuclear warheads.

    The Trustees’ Committee of the Campaign “Abolish Nukes – Start with Ourselves” states the following position on this issue:

    We categorically disapprove of the possession, storage and use, including testing, of weapons of mass destruction as well as the threat of their use, no matter what the rationale for justifying otherwise. We specifically make reference to the legal assessment by the International Court of Justice who declared in July 1996: The use of and the threat to use nuclear weapons constitute a general violation of international law.

    In contrast to the statements issued by the established nuclear powers USA, France, Russia, Great Britain, and China we do not confine our criticism to India and Pakistan as if these two were the only ones suddenly in possession of nuclear weapons in this world. Rather do the nuclear powers and some of the non-nuclear states allied with them share responsibility that India and Pakistan were able to acquire the appropriate nuclear and weapons technologies with which they now have turned into nuclear armed states on their own. Furthermore are we not satisfied with purely demanding that India and Pakistan immediately now sign the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty because

    • nuclear weapons would neither be dismantled nor outlawed
    • the treaty does not ban computer simulated and sub-critical testing of nuclear weapons
    • only two of the long standing-nuclear armed states, France and Great Britain, have ratified the treaty, leaving doubts about the seriousness of the intentions of the remaining three states.

    We see absolutely no chance of success in demanding that India and Pakistan sign the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty now, knowing that both have refused to do so for decades.

    Alarming Situation in South East Asia

    Nevertheless, we see at the same time that the decade old volatile situation on the Indian subcontinent has arrived at an extremely dangerous boiling point, now that all the parties in the immediate geographic vicinity – China, India and Pakistan – are capable to launch nuclear weapons. Admittedly, the respective governments in New Delhi and Islamabad have issued assurances to consider their atomic weapons “only” for a defensive role and not for a nuclear first strike. Yet, we are deeply concerned for several reasons:

    1. History has taught us that “defence” is a term that lends itself for some heavy stretching. The reason is that the trigger event for military defence action is subject to the subjective perception and judgement of one party. This holds particularly true if a conflict has already extremely escalated as in the case of the Kashmir region. It applies even more so with antagonists who like the current governments of India and Pakistan are locked in a deep rooted animosity towards each other’s ideological and here particularly religious beliefs. The capacity to rationally assess the intentions of the respective other is dangerously degraded by one’s own pattern of perception.

    2. A defence concept that encompasses nuclear weapons, even if it is as yet only a declared intention, means nothing less than that the opponents are entering the hazard level of nuclear warfare. We do not – even with a public denial of first-use intentions provided – share those notions of security that consider a system based on nuclear deterrence a stabilising factor.

    3. The precarious economic situations in India as well as Pakistan constitute a major factor of internal destabilisation for both. The adverse effects could still increase drastically if even more resources urgently needed for economic recovery were to be diverted to an already overdimensioned military budget. The Indian government has already gone ahead and decided to increase military spending with the Pakistani government expected to follow suit.

    4. Should the international economic sanctions imposed against both India and Pakistan start to take effect things will go from bad to worse. Both countries may feel driven towards compensatory arrangements which may have, for example, Pakistan transfer nuclear arms technology and the corresponding weapons systems to Iran. This, in turn, could trigger a chain reaction in the Near and Middle East which would on the one hand immediately bring the de facto nuclear power Israel into the nuclear gamble and on the other hand also inspire more states in the region to rise to nuclear power status.

    5. The ramifications of trying to establish a balance of nuclear deterrence between India and Pakistan would be fatal and destabilising not only for the states directly afflicted but would reach beyond the confines of the region: a chain reaction of newly arising nuclear states and more nuclear arms racing in other regions would be the likely results.

    The Global Connection

    The entire problem is aggravated by the fact that so far no effort is being made to turn to appropriate mechanisms or institutions for conflict solving. A key reason for that is rooted in the attitude of the former nuclear monopolist states:

    • by enforcing an indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1995 those states have made an effort – proved futile now by India and Pakistan – to divide the world into two classes of states: those who have nuclear weapons and those who do not, where the former five preferred to have the privilege of exclusive membership in the first group reserved for themselves. That was one of the reasons for India and Pakistan, who liked to see complete nuclear disarmament negotiated, not to join the treaty. The position of the established nuclear powers was duly reflected at the Preparatory Committee Meeting for the next NPT Review Conference where it was particularly the USA which saw to it that the motion of a great number of member states to make far-reaching disarmament steps an imperative were blocked.
    • To safeguard their previous nuclear arms monopoly the USA have developed a “Counterproliferation Strategy” intended to keep others from obtaining nuclear weapons and including as a last resort even the threat of nuclear punishment. NATO has adopted something similar for itself. At the same time NATO will not definitely rule out that nuclear weapons may under certain circumstances (subject to definition by NATO) be stationed on the territories of its new and future member states. Notwithstanding, all NATO member states have ratified the NPT.
    • Ever since the Warsaw Pact was disbanded the previous nuclear monopolist states have not acted to seize the political opportunities that arose out of the collapse of the confrontation between the two antagonistic systems. Case in point is the START II agreement designed to cut down the nuclear long range arsenals of Russia and the US. Not even this treaty could be implemented because the Russian parliament has not ratified it yet. Even after the International Court of Justice in its already referred to assessment has clearly ruled nuclear weapons a clear violation of international law and at the same time assigned a collective responsibility for nuclear disarmament to all states, there was as little reaction from the nuclear powers as there was to the resolution of last year’s UN-General Meeting demanding to start negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention. Arriving at the same conclusion, the currently convening Conference on Disarmament in Geneva states clearly that the former nuclear monopolist powers pursue a policy of refusal on the subject of disarmament, especially evident in their refusal to approve of an ad hoc committee of this sole UN body on disarmament which would deal directly with the issue of nuclear disarmament.
    • This policy goes along with efforts to modernise one’s own nuclear weapons systems. The dismantling of obsolete systems in favour of modernisation is often sold as “disarmament” whereas the sub-critical tests performed for instance by the USA after (!) having ratified the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty clearly indicate modernisation. An important point to remember is that the existing nuclear weapons remain on alert status and that NATO and Russia both uphold a nuclear first strike option under their respective military strategies.
    • The present demands that India and Pakistan enter immediate negotiations on mutual nuclear disarmament remain untrustworthy and thus dishonest as long as those demanding are themselves not willing to put their own nuclear stockpiles up for disposal in multilateral negotiations. Likewise contradictory remains a type of attitude exhibited by India’s leadership who on the one hand keep urging repeatedly for total global disarmament as Indian governments have been doing for decades now, but on the other hand believe in backing their demands by achieving equal footing with the nuclear monopolist powers.

    It is obvious now that the NPT is not an effective means to stop nuclear proliferation and achieve a total disarmament down to zero. This treaty is not capable to provide a cornerstone for global security as it leaves the five formerly established nuclear powers unaffected and does not safeguard against the possibility of conducting nuclear developments for military purposes under the cover of civilian programmes. In a disturbing manner the current events in India and Pakistan demonstrate once more how urgent and imperative it is to take action well beyond what the traditional approach of a supposed non-proliferation policy suggests is necessary.

    A New Nuclear Disarmament Policy

    As we principally stand up for a different understanding of security policy and a comprehensive ban of all nuclear weapons we know ourselves in the company not only of hundreds of non-governmental organisations worldwide like those working together in the “Abolition 2000” network but in the company of a great many of governments as well.

    We are convinced that any kind of security concept has to measure up to the criteria of sustainability. From this follows clearly that in the nuclear age security can no longer be defined in purely military terms. Security in our terms refers to a secure prospect for human beings for a humane and unthreatened existence and not to the well-being of military structures and ‘defence’ contractors. In view of the severe escalation of the international situation it is not productive to come up with ambitious schemes with only long-term prospects of realisation without offering short-term concepts for immediately extinguishing the smouldering nuclear fire.

    1. India and Pakistan have followed the lead of the nuclear five. The five have to consider this anytime they direct demands and suggestions at India and Pakistan. This means in concrete terms: any steps demanded from Pakistan and India must likewise be achieved by the nuclear five themselves, otherwise any such suggestions are bound to fail.

    2. There were will be no meaningful way avoiding bloodshed out of this crisis unless the nuclear five immediately initiate some dramatic changes in their nuclear military policies: as first steps towards restoring their international credibility they should unconditionally lift the alert status off their nuclear armed units and they should jointly issue a statement bound by international law to drop for an unlimited time all options of a nuclear first strike.

    3. As permanent members of the UN Security Council the nuclear five share a special responsibility. Concerning the situation on the Indian subcontinent this responsibility demands that these members of the Security Council develop a system of mutual, non-nuclear political security assurances to offer India and Pakistan a way to reverse their mutual threat mechanisms step-by-step. Picking up on the concept of the Asian Regional Security Forum (ARF) of the ASEAN member states the objective should be to develop a security concept tailored to the specific situation in South Asia along the lines of the OSCE and under premium participation of all parties involved (no “imposing” of concepts). This model should be based on the principles of dialogue, confidence building measures, and mutual non-military security assurances. Economic sanctions constitute a violation of these principles: they have to be lifted immediately.

    4. The very issues of controversy focusing on the Kashmir region urge to bring in the United Nations and the International Court of Justice as mediators. Concrete objective must be to establish a regional security constellation that offers everybody involved more gain from a political settlement than from further military, – and perhaps even nuclear – action.

    5. Along with it, the political dimension of disarmament strongly suggests a fundamental break in the military nuclear policies of the established as well as the recent nuclear armed states. Otherwise, the latest developments, having led to the emergence of two new nuclear powers, may encourage other nuclear ‘threshold’ states to follow the path taken by India and Pakistan. As a short-term prospect to set the stage for truly preventive negotiations we urge to immediately approve of setting up an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament at the UN Conference on Disarmament. The need to start such negotiations is now more pressing than ever.

    6. Both Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and NPT have to be revised accordingly. The first treaty is scheduled for reviewing in 1999, the second one in the year 2000. On that occasion the Test Ban Treaty should have amendments added to it to outlaw computer simulated and subcritical testing. The revised treaty should be ratified by all signatory states until 1999. The disarmament obligation in article VI of the NPT has to be fulfilled in compliance with a definite time-bound frame down to zero.

    7. Following the lead of already existing treaties, the prospects for setting up zones free of weapons of mass destruction need to be put on the agenda for negotiations. Predisposed areas are in the Near and Middle East including the still undeclared nuclear state Israel, in Central Europe, and on the Indian subcontinent.

    8. All negotiating approaches must navigate along definite and binding timetables.

    Demands on German Politics

    We advise the forthcoming (*) German government bound to be elected in the fall of this year to start in advance to re-evaluate the foundations of the previous security policy. We are not content making a general reference that we expect the future German government to evaluate the above proposed alternative concepts in an affirmative and constructive manner. We ask the next German government outright to provide a timetable with specific deadlines for:

    • eliminating the nuclear capacity of the German armed forces with suitable conversion actions and abandoning the principle of “Nuclear Sharing”
    • expelling all nuclear weapons still located on German soil for return to their respective countries of origin
    • principally outlawing both the use and the utilisation of weapons-grade and highly enriched uranium granting no exemptions for research
    • making a strong case against the separation of plutonium off spent fuel rods and its use in reactors
    • pushing for a revision of the NATO treaty using its leverage as a NATO member state to definitely deny NATO any option to station nuclear weapons on the territories of new or future member states
    • making a strong argument using its weight as a leading EU- and WEU member state to have no nuclear elements included in the future European “Common Foreign and Security Policy” (CFSP)
    • promoting setting up a “Central Europe Nuclear Weapons Free Zone ” backed by binding treaties.

    We are fully aware that German federal governments have on too many occasions in the past ignored the peace promoting non-military proposals and demands of non-parliamentarian forces. We are calling attention to the fact that at the same rate as the economic and social conditions deteriorate any government grows more dependent on a consensus on security policy with the very people who have voted them into office. The levels of military expenditure disproportionate to any conceivable threat and based on an outdated understanding of security have made it clear to anybody willing and able to see: there is no consensus on security policy. As far as nuclear weapons are concerned this has been impressively confirmed by a FORSA survey commissioned by the German chapter of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). The results published on the 2nd June 1998 indicate that 87% of those questioned like to see the nuclear armed states “getting rid of their own nuclear weapons as soon as possible”, 93% consider nuclear weapons an outright violation of international law and another 87% share the view that nuclear weapons stationed on German soil “ought to be removed right away”.

    The German Federal Government should jointly with other non-nuclear states launch an initiative in the United Nations to push for the immediate start of negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention.

    Since a sustainable concept of security cannot be reduced to the sole issue of nuclear weapons we advise the next German government to establish a national “Round Table on Alternative Security”. This forum should have forces both inside and outside the administration and independent scientists working together to design a new security policy consensus for Germany that will replace military concepts of security with a civilian understanding of security aligned along the real needs of people.