Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: International Issues

  • Policies Rooted In Arrogance Are Certain To Fail

    Policies Rooted In Arrogance Are Certain To Fail

    These are difficult times for peace. Since the Bush administration assumed power in the United States, there has been a steady beating on the drums of war accompanied by a systematic undermining of the foundations of international law. The September 11th terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon bolstered the Bush administration’s plans to secure US global military dominance through increased military budgets, deployment of missile defenses, development of more usable nuclear weapons and the weaponization of space. Congress has largely acquiesced in supporting these plans.

    The United States has always held to a double standard with regard to nuclear weapons. This double standard was given legal form in the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), in which five countries were designated as nuclear weapons states (United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France and China), and the rest were designated as non-nuclear weapons states. The latter agreed in the treaty not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise by the nuclear weapons states to pursue good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    Throughout the life of the NPT, the non-nuclear weapons states have called for more tangible signs of progress toward achieving the nuclear disarmament promise of the nuclear weapons states. They were successful in 2000 in getting the nuclear weapons states to commit unequivocally to undertake the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. However, the nuclear weapons states, and particularly the United States, have broken this promise as well as a string of other promises with regard to their NPT obligations.

    Now the United States has gone even further. It has developed policies for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons. In its secret 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, which was leaked to the media in March 2002, the United States outlined its intention to develop contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Russia and China). Five of these are non-nuclear weapons states, which at a minimum contradicts the spirit of the NPT as well as previous US security assurances to non-nuclear weapons states.

    President Bush, flush with popularity from his war against Afghanistan, continues to threaten war against Iraq. The principal reason he gives for attacking Iraq is to replace its leader, Saddam Hussein, and to preemptively strike Iraq for its refusal to allow UN inspectors to assess whether or not it is developing weapons of mass destruction.

    Prior to the Bush administration, the US had a policy of nuclear deterrence, far from a policy that provided the United States with security from nuclear attack. The Bush administration has criticized deterrence policy but yet maintained it, while at the same time promoting policies of preemption.

    Preemption is the new catch-word of Bush’s nuclear policy. It is a means of assuring that a nuclear double standard continues to exist. It is a policy of nuclear apartheid in which select states are bestowed (or bestow upon themselves) nuclear privilege while others are attacked for seeking to enter the elite club of nuclear powers.

    Ironically, Bush’s nuclear policy makes it more likely that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons or materials. The fraudulent arms control agreement that was signed in May 2002 by Bush and Putin, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), allows thousands of nuclear warheads to be put in storage rather than destroying them. These stored nuclear warheads will be tempting targets for terrorists as will be the thousands of tons of nuclear materials available throughout the world that could be fashioned into nuclear or radiological weapons. The Bush administration is spending only approximately one-third of the three billion dollars per year called for by the US blue ribbon commission to prevent Russian nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists.

    Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and his advances toward deployment of missile defenses are compelling China to substantially strengthen its nuclear forces aimed at the United States, as China forewarned it would do in these circumstances. Under Bush’s leadership, US allies in Europe and Asia will be brought in as “partners” in a global missile defense system that will be hugely expensive, unlikely to be effective and provide no protection against terrorists who would initiate their attacks, nuclear and otherwise, without launching missiles.

    Mr. Bush is squandering US leadership potential for global cooperation under international law, and instead pursuing policies that are based on military dominance, uncertain technology and nuclear apartheid. They are policies rooted in arrogance and certain to fail. They are, in fact, already failing by their allocation of resources to increasing the militarization of the planet rather than to meeting existing basic human needs that would help eradicate the fertile breeding grounds for continued terrorism and hatred of the United States.

  • Act to Save the Children of Iraq

    August 6, 2002 (Hiroshima Day) marked the 12th year of the economic sanctions against Iraq. These economic sanctions were described to me during my visit to Iraq by an Iraqi teenager as being a “silent nuclear bomb that drops into every home and is slowly destroying not only the children but the whole Iraqi nation.” Well over a half million Iraqi children have died of malnutrition and preventable diseases (resulting from the after-effects of the Gulf War and continuing economic sanctions) and each day more children die unnecessarily.

    Now, as the Bush Administration is making extremely clear, Iraq is in serious danger of an all-out US assault in the coming months. This week when the Iraqi government offered weapons inspections, the American administration responded by saying it is not about weapons inspections. Rather than going into yet another war causing further untold suffering to Iraqi civilians (also effecting the Middle East and the entire human family, as we are now so interconnected), every diplomatic option must be tried to divert war. The age of wars has gone, such barbaric activity is not acceptable at any time. But even for those who believe in war, it should not be acceptable when diplomatic options are readily available as has been, and continues to be, the case with Iraq.

    The American Government has a responsibility to uphold its democratic constitution, abide by international law, and respect the democratic wishes of many American people and the vast majority of governments and peoples of the world, who are calling for a non-violent solution to this crisis. War on our Iraqi brothers and sisters would be a war on the spirit and dignity of the entire human family.

    We are currently in the UN Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World (2001-2010). This challenges us all to focus on the children and do all in our power to see they have clean water, food, medicine, and a safe environment and safe world. Children in Iraq do not have these things because of UN/USA/UK sanctions. The continuing death and suffering of Iraqi children is preventable. Let us therefore prevent it.

    Oppose US war against Iraq and work for diplomatic options, including the lifting of economic trade sanctions against the Iraqi people, who have been living and dying under these brutal sanctions and effects of war for too long.
    *Mairead Corrigan Maguire, a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council, is a Nobel Peace Laureate from Northern Ireland and a founder of Peace People.

  • Don’t Attack Saddam

    Originally Published in the Wall Street Journal

    Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush administration vows regime change, but states that no decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an invasion.

    It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when he is gone.

    That said, we need to think through this issue very carefully. We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities — notably the war on terrorism — as well as the best strategy and tactics available were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.

    Saddam’s strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both.

    That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam’s goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

    He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail — much less their actual use — would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor.

    Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam’s problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs.

    Given Saddam’s aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our pre-eminent security priority — underscored repeatedly by the president — is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken.

    The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam’s regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive — with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy — and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.

    Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.

    But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.

    Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict — which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve — in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.

    Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam’s strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.

    If we are truly serious about the war on terrorism, it must remain our top priority. However, should Saddam Hussein be found to be clearly implicated in the events of Sept. 11, that could make him a key counter-terrorist target, rather than a competing priority, and significantly shift world opinion toward support for regime change.

    In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq — any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect.

    In sum, if we will act in full awareness of the intimate interrelationship of the key issues in the region, keeping counter-terrorism as our foremost priority, there is much potential for success across the entire range of our security interests — including Iraq. If we reject a comprehensive perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region of the world.
    *Mr. Scowcroft, national security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, is founder and president of the Forum for International Policy.

    Dated: Wall Street Journal 15 Aug 2002 p.A12

  • Force Above Law: The New International Disorder?

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

    Security in the Post-September 11th World

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

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

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

    Manifest Destiny: Divine Right to Use Force?

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

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

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

    New Nuclear Policy: First Strike

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

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

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

    Arms Control: Significant Nuclear Reductions or Maximum Nuclear Flexibility?

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

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

    Retreat from Law

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

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

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

    Conclusions

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

  • Law vs. Force

    Law vs. Force

    An important marker of civilization has always been the ascendancy of law over the unbridled use of force. At the outset of the 21st century, we are faced with a pervasive dilemma. Reliance on force given the power of our destructive technologies could destroy civilization as we know it.

    The trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo following World War II were an attempt to elevate the force of law over the law of force. The newly created International Criminal Court, which will bring the Principles of Nuremberg into the 21st century, is supported by all major US allies. Unfortunately US leaders are opposing the Court and seem to fear being held to the same level of accountability as they would demand for other leaders.

    Of course, law does not prevent all crime. It simply sets normative standards and provides that those who violate these standards will be punished. In the case of the most heinous crimes, the remedies of law are inadequate. But even inadequate remedies of law are superior to the unbridled use of force that compounds the injury by inflicting death and suffering against other innocent people. Perpetrators of crime must be brought before the bar of justice, but there must also be safeguards that protect the innocent from being made victims of generalized retribution.

    When an individual commits a crime, there should be clear liability. When a state commits a crime, however, who is to be held to account? According to the Principles of Nuremberg that were applied to the Axis leaders after World War II, it should be the responsible parties, whether or not they were acting in the service of the state. At Nuremberg, it was determined that sovereignty has its limits, and that leaders of states who committed serious crimes under international law would be held to account before the law. These crimes included crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

    Without the international norms that are established by law, the danger exists of reverting to international anarchy, in which each country seeks its own justice by its own means. Only established legal norms, upheld by the international community and supported by the most powerful nations, can prevent such chaos and the ultimate resort to war to settle disputes. International legal norms are essential in a world in which violence can have even more fearful results than were first experienced at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    International law is needed if we are to abolish war before war abolishes us. We cannot have it both ways. If we choose law, the nations of the world must join together in a common effort to support and enforce the law. Albert Einstein, the great 20th century scientist and humanitarian, wrote, “Anybody who really wants to abolish war must resolutely declare himself in favor of his own country’s resigning a portion of its sovereignty in favor of international institutions: he must be ready to make his own country amenable, in case of a dispute, to the award of an international court. He must in the most uncompromising fashion support disarmament all around….”

    In recent years, the United States has pulled away from international law by disavowing treaties, particularly in the area of disarmament, and by withdrawing its support from the International Criminal Court. Without US leadership in support of international law, force rather than law will gain strength as the international norm. Relying on force may be tempting to the most powerful country on the planet, but it portends disaster, not least for the United States itself.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

     

  • Real Fireworks, or Just Bombs Again?

    Published in Common Dreams

    As Interdependence Day approaches, the United States humbly admitted error in bombing a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing around 40 people and injuring more than 60. Bombs and rockets in our country symbolize a celebration of freedom, but in other parts of the world, these explosions are all too real, bringing carnage, death and grueling efforts to survive destruction of homes and livelihood.

    This error, undoubtedly labeled ‘collateral damage’, stands next to a smattering of misguided bombs which have inadvertently and regrettably killed hundreds of civilians in numerous countries over the past few years. As reported by the BBC, during the current Bush administration’s war on terror in Afghanistan, U.S. planes accidentally killed four Canadians in April, bombed the town of Hazar Qadam in January, fired at a caravan of tribal elders en route to the inauguration ceremony for Hamid Karzai and last October hit a residential area in Kabul rather than the intended helicopter at the airport. Oops.

    For the pilots and American citizens, these mistakes are akin to losses while playing a video game. From afar, with targets merely illuminated points on a screen, the people who die are unreal, just numbers and statistics. When we kill by remote control, our hands are theoretically clean. The computer won’t show blood and won’t cry; it’s a machine, an abstraction.

    The people affected by our ubiquitous blunders, however, are terribly real, as is their pain. In February of 1991, during the Gulf War, U.S. planes bombed a women’s and children’s shelter in Baghdad called al-Amiriya. Hundreds of civilians died as a result of the two bombs hitting this supposed-safe haven. The U.S. apologized after realizing what happened, but still continues to bomb the country, even in the past week.

    The rhetoric about a “new war” with Iraq is a farce. We are already at war informally with them. Friday June 28th we dropped bombs in the South of Iraq. Wednesday the 26th of June as well. On Thursday the 20th of June four people in Iraq were killed when U.S. planes bombed them. Eighteen people were wounded when bombs fell on Iraq on the 25th of May. And another four were killed when we bombed Iraq on February 6th. I’d imagine that Iraqis feel attacked and besieged as bombs continue to fall in an undeclared, ongoing, indefinite war that inevitably targets civilians.

    When I tell people this, they invariably say, “Where’d you hear this? Why didn’t I know about it?” It’s in the news, alright, but it’s just hard to find. These statistics get buried in the middle of stories about deposing Saddam Hussein and vilifying his evil acts.

    “But Saddam kills his own people!” He did this in the 1980’s as well when he was our friend. We just turned a blind eye then. Besides, we kill our own people, executing hundreds of people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. The crime of a state murdering its own civilians looks different when it’s on our own soil.

    Incidentally, these bombs that rain down on Iraq are illegal under international law. They were not approved by Congress nor by the United Nations. The United States justifies dropping bombs as we unlawfully patrol Iraqi borders enforcing the bogus “no fly zones.” Iraqis have become sadly accustomed to the noisy air raid sirens.

    You cannot achieve peace through war. The United States cannot continue to be proud guardians of weapons of mass destruction and deify their usage, apologize for their errors and claim that we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. Do these mistakes which take innocent lives make us safer or prove our strength or our liberty? Is it righteous or noble to kill unarmed guests at a wedding? Moreover, to what end are we still bombing Afghanistan – has it brought us closer to capturing Osama bin Laden? Has enough justice not been rendered on the citizens of Afghanistan to make up for the loss of lives on September 11th?

    We are not alone on this small planet, a fact that ought to be in the hearts and minds of all Americans as the nationally celebrated holiday approaches. We drive automobiles made in Japan, drink coffee from South America, wear clothes made in Southeast Asia, buy oil from the Middle East and Africa and import furniture from Sweden. Even our fireworks are made in China!

    On July 4th, millions of American children will be lighting sparklers and tracing their names in the night sky. They should also trace the names of any of the thousands of displaced Afghani children, due to the bombings, who are still refugees on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They should trace the names of the Iraqi children who are their same-age counterparts, held captive under the sanctions and threatened almost daily by U.S. bombs. On Interdependence Day, each and every one of us is affected by an errant bomb.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. This article was also published at Commondreams.org and Counterpunch.org

  • Unusual Courage from 31 Members of Congress

    Unusual Courage from 31 Members of Congress

    Thirty-one courageous members of Congress, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), are challenging the president’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. These representatives deserve our appreciation for taking action to prevent Mr. Bush from trampling on the Constitution in his continuing effort to undermine international law and expand US military domination.

    This is a critical challenge to the abuse of presidential authority. A lot is riding on it. If the president can unilaterally voids our laws, which ones will be the next to go? Perhaps the first and fourth amendments? If your congressional representative is not one of the 31 parties to this lawsuit, he or she should be asked why not and urged to join the lawsuit and support it in the Congress.

    Not a single US Senator has had the courage to join this lawsuit. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) initially indicated his intention to join the lawsuit, but then backed off when his request to receive pro bono legal services was not approved by the Senate Ethics Committee. All US Senators should also be urged to join in this challenge.

    The ABM Treaty required a two-thirds vote of the Senate in 1972 for ratification to enter into force and to become US law. Now the 100 members of the Senate appear content to sit on the sidelines as the president unilaterally nullifies the law they made.

    Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), a plaintiff in the lawsuit, recently wrote: “The ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of international arms control. Now that more countries have nuclear weapons, international treaties are even more important. International cooperation is the way to peace and international security; not increased military build-up. Over the past 30 years, the ABM Treaty has been a vital link to working with the international community and it is more important than ever that we not turn our back on it.”

    Meanwhile, at Fort Greely, Alaska, the Bush administration has broken ground on six underground missile interceptor silos, is spending more than $7 billion on missile defense this year, and continues to move ahead with its plans to weaponize outer space in order to protect US interests and investments throughout the world.

    Meanwhile, the Russians have withdrawn their ratification of the START II Treaty in response to the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. This opens the door for the Russians to use multiple independently targeted warheads (MIRVs) on their missiles.

    Meanwhile, the leaders of India and Pakistan, following the example of US leaders, act as though nuclear deterrence will prevent a nuclear war between them as they confront each other over Kashmir.

    Thank you, Representatives Kucinich and Woolsey and your colleagues in this lawsuit for demonstrating unusual courage at a difficult time.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Smoke and Mirror Security

    Last week, the Bush Administration took the American people a step backwards to the dark days of the Cold War. The U.S. formally withdrew from the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with Russia. The withdrawal from the treaty will facilitate Bush’s development of a National Missile Defense System.

    Now, without the treaty and with $8 billion earmarked for National Missile Defense, the Bush administration is clear to develop this controversial and questionable program. But we have a major problem; we simply don’t have the technology to make it work. According to Dr. David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists, President Bush is rushing to develop “systems [that] will not provide ’emergency capability’ against real-world threats, only the illusion of capability.”

    A National Missile Defense system would not have prevented September 11th. Every day we encounter more national security challenges that do not have military solutions. We don’t need government “hocus-pocus,” we need to invest our scarce economic resources on proven, cost effective ways to provide for our national security and the future of our children. The $8 billion ear marked for National Missile Defense could be better spent on rebuilding our national economy, improving schools, developing alternative energy resources to lessen our dependency on foreign fossil fuels and enhancing our homeland security: protecting our international borders, increasing airline security and expanding public health measures to combat bioterrorism.

    When President Bush first threatened withdrawal, I introduced House Resolution 313 with the support of 50 of my colleagues to keep the U.S. on the ABM treaty. Most recently, I joined 31 of my colleagues in a lawsuit charging that President Bush does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty without the consent of Congress.

    The ABM treaty is the cornerstone of international arms control. Now that more countries have nuclear weapons, international treaties are even more important. International cooperation is the way to peace and international security; not increased military build-up. Over the past 30 years, ABM treaty has been a vital link to working with the international community and it is more important than ever that we not turn our back on it.

  • Farewell to the ABM Treaty

    Farewell to the ABM Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

  • New Security Challenges: Ten Themes

    New Security Challenges: Ten Themes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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