Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: International Issues

  • International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) and INES Against Proliferation (INESAP) Statement on Nuclear Dangers

    India and Pakistan stand on the brink of war over Kashmir with serious dangers of nuclear war between the two countries.

    We call upon the international community, through the United Nations Security Council to immediately intervene diplomatically to prevent war and with peace keeping forces, if necessary, to ensure that neither country uses nuclear weapons under any circumstance.

    In this context we express our strong dissatisfaction with the United States Nuclear Posture Review and with the United States withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and the recently signed nuclear arms treaty between the United States and Russia. This treaty, reflecting the United States Nuclear Posture Review, does far too little too slowly and continues to set the example to the world that nuclear weapons are useful even for the strongest nations.

    We urge the United States and Russia to return to the negotiation table to agree to deeper cuts, the irreversible destruction of dismantled warheads, and the immediate de-alerting of their nuclear arsenals.

    We further urge that all five declared nuclear weapon states begin multilateral negotiations to fulfill their obligation for an “unequivocal undertaking” to achieve the total elimination of nuclear weapons in the world, including those of India, Pakistan and Israel. The leadership of the United States and Russia, as well as that of the United Kingdom, France and China, is essential to achieve these ends and to present nuclear weapons from being used again.

  • U.S. Can’t Ignore Nuclear Threat

    Originally Published in USA TODAY

    I’m worried that we’re about to make the same mistake we made a decade ago.

    In August of 1991, when a coup by Soviet hard-liners fell apart, then-president Mikhail Gorbachev gave credit to live global television for keeping world attention on the action, and Time magazine wrote: ”Momentous things happened precisely because they were being seen as they happened.”

    But if good things can happen because a lot of people are watching, bad things can happen when few people are watching. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the media moved off the story of the nuclear threat — and we moved into the new world order without undoing the danger of the old world order.

    In the wake of Sept. 11, people are realizing that the nuclear threat didn’t end with the Cold War. Soviet weapons, materials and know-how are still there, more dangerous than ever. Russia’s economic troubles weakened controls on them, and global terrorists are trying harder to get them.

    When President Bush (news – web sites) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (news – web sites) meet in Moscow next week, they will sign a treaty to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on each side. They need to reduce a lot more than that. Some of the poisonous byproducts of the two powers’ arms race are piled high in poorly guarded facilities across 11 time zones. They offer mad fools the power to kill millions.

    At a Bush-Putin news conference two months after the terrorist attacks, Bush declared: ”Our highest priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.” He also has told his national security staff to give nuclear terrorism top priority.

    Where’s the money?

    But it’s hard to see this priority in the budget and policies of the administration. Not a dollar of the $38 billion the administration requested in new spending for homeland defense will address loose weapons, materials and know-how in Russia. The total spending on these programs — even after Sept. 11 — has remained flat at about a billion dollars a year, even though, at this rate, we will still not have secured all loose nuclear materials in Russia for years to come.

    But what worries me most is not the lack of new spending, but the lack of new thinking. Where are the new ideas for preventing nuclear terrorism?

    We can’t just keep doing what we’ve been doing, and we can’t just copy old plans; we’ve got to innovate. If we are hit with one of these weapons because we slept through this wake-up call from hell, it will be the most shameful failure of national defense in the history of the United States.

    Waning public interest

    Unfortunately, public pressure for action is weak, partly because media attention on nuclear terrorism has begun to fade. And it’s fading not because the threat has been addressed or reduced, but because the media cover what changes, and threats don’t change much day to day. They just keep on ticking.

    The media need to stay on this story because it’s harder to get government action when there’s not much media coverage. If something’s not in the media, it’s not in the public mind. If it’s not in the public mind, there’s little political pressure to act. If public attention moves off this nuclear threat before the government has moved to reduce it, we will be making the same mistake we made after 1991.

    Leadership, however, means being out in front even if no one’s pushing from behind. Bush and Putin need to think bigger and do more. They need to reduce the chance that terrorists can steal nuclear weapons or materials or hire away weapons scientists. They need to work together as partners in fighting terror and encourage others to join. They need to launch a worldwide plan to identify weapons, materials and know-how and secure all of it, everywhere, now — if we are to avoid Armageddon.
    *CNN founder Ted Turner last year established the Nuclear Threat Initiative, dedicated to reducing the threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. He has pledged to provide $250 million to fund its activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    More Resources on Nuclear South Asia

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

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

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

  • An Open Letter to Vladimir Putin – Why?

    The Russian agreement to the U.S.-initiated agreement to cut their strategic nuclear forces by two-thirds is astounding, given that this is playing directly into U.S. plans for global supremacy. For one thing, the U.S. is not going to actually destroy but only shelve the above cuts, at any time able to retrieve them from storage. The Russian nuclear military regime, on the other hand, is in shambles. Retrieval for them will be more difficult. At the same time, the Russians are actually requesting U.S. assistance to rationalize their nuclear regime, providing the U.S. with important intelligence data, such as the stored missile site.

    But even worse, the basic motive of the U.S. in initiating these strategic missile cuts is to improve the effectiveness of their anti- ballistic missile defences, radically reducing the number of targets comprising a Russian attack on the U.S. Given the U.S. basic counterforce strategy, we are moving into a time when mutual assured destruction between the two major nuclear powers is becoming an American monopoly, altering the mutual to the unilateral. Do the Russians really believe that the land-based missile defences being constructed in Alaska and the new Northern Command are directed to an attack by Iraq?

    The only possible rationale for the Russian position is that they are confident they can develop a variety of penetrating aids for their strategic missiles which will distract, confuse and overcome U.S. missile defences. We would then be entering a new dynamic of the nuclear arms race between anti-missiles and anti anti-missiles. Given the disarray of the Russian nuclear regime and their general economic problems, the latter may be a vain hope.

    Thus we are left to conclude that the Russian position is inexplicable. They had the opportunity to tie strategic missile reductions in exchange for the U.S. to uphold the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Could it just have been the mighty U.S. dollar that denied them this option? For example, we know they desperately require assistance to clean up their vast nuclear reserves consisting of huge amounts of radioactive waste, large numbers of tactical weapons and stockpiles of weapons grade nuclear materials comprising an open invitation for accidents or acts of malice of one kind or another. Also we are witnessing an increasing U.S. presence in the former Soviet republics that surround Russia, at some future time representing a direct threat. And finally, we cannot understand Russia’s lack of response at being identified as one of the seven enemy states to be targeted with nuclear weapons in the U.S. 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, let alone the existing U.S. Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), a nuclear hit list against Russian targets of value. And surely they are aware of the U.S. first disarming strike policy.

    Putin can still recoup a major diplomatic victory by supporting the forthcoming Space Preservation Treaty. Both Russia and China have expressed their opposition to the U.S. abrogation of the Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972. Together Canada, Russia and China could have a very positive impact on the success of the Treaty. The Space Preservation Treaty, initiated by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), is being circulated to every nation state leader. It can be immediately signed and sent to the U.N. Secretary General’s office as Treaty Depositary, and ratified quickly.

    The Space Preservation Treaty is an international companion to legislation introduced by Kucinich in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 3616, the Space Preservation Act of 2002, in January, 2002. Both the Treaty and the bill ban all space-based weapons and the use of weapons designed to destroy any object in space that is in orbit. It also immediately terminates research, development, testing, manufacturing, and deployment of all space- based weapons, but does not prohibit space exploration, R&D, testing, production, manufacturing and deployment of any civil, commercial or defense activities in space that are not related to space-based weapons, thus reserving space for the benefit of all living things on our small planet. This Treaty will also be verifiable. It requires that an outer space peacekeeping agency be established to monitor and enforce the ban.

    The momentum of getting this Treaty supported and passed into law has begun, and this ban on space-based weapons can become reality in 2002. This world treaty will fill the legal void left by the abrogation of the ABM Treaty. It will replace the ABM Treaty. With the support of Canada, Russia and China a large majority of members of the United Nations would likely sign on to the Treaty, as most nation-state leaders have already expressed support for preserving space for weapons-free peaceful, cooperative purposes. The European Union (with the exception of Britain) are likely signatories. isolating the United States and exposing its unilateralism and contempt for the rest of the world is, in itself, a lofty goal. A possible change in the balance of power in the U.S. Congress at the end of 2002 and a strong contender for a president in 2004 devoted to strength through peace rather than the reverse, who could establish this Treaty as Universal Law and save the world from an inevitable nuclear catastrophe.

    In conclusion, the Space Preservation Treaty is one of the most important initiatives of our time! It is truly worthy of our support. Let us all begin by moving Canada to be an early signatory.

    For detailed information on the Space Preservation Treaty, contact the Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) at www.peaceinspace.com, c/o Dr. Carol Rosin : e-mail: rosin@west.net or call 805-641-1999 (in the U.S.) or Alfred Webre JD MEd at info@peaceinspace.com or call 604-733-8134 (in Canada).
    *F.H. Knelman received his doctorate in Engineering at the Imperial College of Science, University of London, U.K. He has enjoyed a long teaching career, having taught Liberal Studies of Science, York University, 1962-1967 and Director and Full Professor of Science & Human Affairs, Concordia University, 1967-1987. Dr. Knelman also taught Peace Studies at the Grindstone Island Peace School, Santa Barbara College, Langara College and Simon Fraser University. As well, he taught Environmental Studies at UC Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz and the University of Victoria. He is the author of over 500 articles, papers and studies on the subjects of common security, environment, energy and the social relations of science and technology, as well as many technical papers and numerous keynote addresses.

    Among his books are 1984 and All That, Wadsworth Publishing; Nuclear Energy: The Unforgiving Technology, Hurtig Publishers (1975); Anti-Nation: Transition to Sustainability, Mosaic Press (1979); Reagan, God and the Bomb, Prometheus Books (1985); America, God and the Bomb: The Legacy of Ronald Reagan, New Star Books (1987) and Every Life is a Story: The Social Relations of Science, Peace and Ecology, Black Rose Books (1999).

    He is the recipient of many awards, among which are the World Wildlife Fund Prize, 1967, the World Federalists Peace Essay Prize (1970), the White Owl Conservation Prize (1972 – as Canada’s outstanding environmentalist), the Ben Gurion University Medal of Merit, 1983, the United Nations Association Special Achievement Award (Montreal) and a special award for meritorious service to the cause of common security by the Canadian Peace Research and Education Association in 1987. Dr. Knelman was awarded the Queen’s 1992 Commemorative Medal and, in 1994 the World Federalists of Canada “World Peace Prize.” In 1996 he was awarded the Environmental Lifetime Achievement Award by The Skies Above Foundation. He is also a lifetime member of the 500 Club of Rome.

    Professor Knelman has a long history of involvement in environmental issues, spanning some forty years. He is associated with the founding of the earliest environmental Non-Government Organizations (ENGOs) in Canada, as well as being the founder of Scientists for Social Responsibility, Canada’s first scientific group concerned with environmental issues (1964). He is currently Vice- President and Founding Director of the Whistler Foundation for a Sustainable Environment. Dr. Knelman was attached to the Science Council of Canada on a major energy conservation study (Background Study #33). He is on the Advisory Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara, CA and past Editor of The Health Guardian, a Journal of Alternative Medicine.

    Dr. Knelman has conducted extensive research in energy/environment policy. He has been the keynote speaker at some twenty-five national and international conferences on these themes. In 1981 he was the special adviser on energy/environment to the State of California and an early consultant to the Federal Department of Environment, Ottawa, in the 1970’s. He was one of forty scientists in the world invited to a parallel conference at the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972. He co-authored a Nobel Prize Winner Declaration submitted to the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio.

    Dr. Knelman is a founding member of the Canadian Peace and Education Association and writes a regular monthly column, “Our Nuclear Age” for the Vancouver-based journal “Outlook” and is a frequent contributor to several other journals.

  • Nuclear Dangers Remain After Bush-Putin Agreement

    Nuclear Dangers Remain After Bush-Putin Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

  • Groups Urge Countries to Oppose Bush’s Nuclear Plans

    Originally Published on OneWorld US

    As country representatives enter the second week of discussions on a treaty aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear arms around the world, peace groups are urging them to oppose a possible United States policy shift that could mean a new role for nuclear weapons as part of the “war against terrorism.”

    International delegates, who are currently meeting in New York to prepare the ground for a 2005 review of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are under pressure from lobby groups to take a stand against controversial U.S. nuclear defense proposals which have been publicized in recent months.

    David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which has a representative at the NPT meeting, says the U.S. is in danger of violating international law if it goes ahead with proposals to make nuclear weapons a legitimate part of the country’s portfolio of defense options.

    “That the U.S. is making contingency plans and preparations to use nuclear weapons is revealed in its secret Nuclear Posture Review,” said Krieger, referring to a confidential policy report, partially declassified in January, which outlined the case for the weapons in the post-September 11 security climate.

    “Just as planning and preparation for aggressive war was held to be a crime at Nuremberg, U.S. planning and preparation to use nuclear weapons constitutes…a crime under international law,” said Krieger, noting a 1996 International Court of Justice ruling that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be illegal.

    Leaks to the media last month revealed that the Posture Review named seven states–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea (news – web sites), Russia, and China–against which nuclear weapons could be used. Of those states, only Russia and China are known to possess nuclear weapons.

    Since the second bomb was dropped by the U.S. on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945, nuclear weapons have not been used. However, the Review raises the prospect of the development of smaller and more functional nuclear weapons that could be more easily deployed, according to media reports.

    Jan Øberg, director of the Sweden-based Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, believes that the new U.S. posture signals a change in how nuclear weapons will be perceived in the future.

    “Morally and politically nuclear weapons are not something you just throw around, but now there is the prospect they could be used against a government we don’t like, and in particular, a list of countries that don’t have the capacity to invade or who don’t have nuclear weapons at all,” Øberg explained.

    The posture is consistent with the lack of enthusiasm demonstrated by the administration of George W. Bush for multilateral efforts to controls arms, said John Isaacs, head of Council for a Livable World, pointing to the U.S. government’s reluctance to support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

    “We hope the rest of world does not do the same thing because the more the U.S. goes against world opinion, the more likely it will weaken treaties, leading other countries to withdraw and to begin to develop nuclear capabilities,” said Isaacs.

    The preparatory committee session, which began Monday, is scheduled to end April 19. The NPT itself, which includes 187 member states, has led international initiatives on non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament, and other nuclear treaties, such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, since 1970.

  • The New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade – New Agenda Position Paper

    Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Preparatory Committee, New York
    April 2002

    I Background

    In 1995, the States parties extended the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty indefinitely and undertook to make every effort to achieve its universality. The Review Process of the Treaty was strengthened and Principles and Objectives to address the implementation of the Treaty were adopted. The Resolution on the Middle East was adopted as an integral part of the 1995 package.

    In 1996, the Advisory Opinion of 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”.

    The Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference represents a positive step on the road to nuclear disarmament. In particular, nuclear-weapon States made the unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals and agreed on practical steps to be taken by them that would lead to nuclear disarmament. To this end, additional steps were necessary to improve the effectiveness of the strengthened review process for the Treaty.

    II Fundamental Principles

    The participation of the international community as a whole is central to the maintenance and enhancement of international peace and stability. International security is a collective concern requiring collective engagement. Internationally negotiated treaties in the field of disarmament have made a fundamental contribution to international peace and security.

    Unilateral and bilateral nuclear disarmament measures complement the treaty based multilateral approach towards nuclear disarmament. It is essential that fundamental principles, such as transparency, verification and irreversibility, be applied to all disarmament measures.

    We reaffirm that any presumption of the indefinite possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear-weapon States is incompatible with the integrity and sustainability of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and with the broader goal of the maintenance of international peace and security.

    Irreversibility in nuclear disarmament, nuclear reductions, and other related nuclear arms control measures is imperative. A fundamental pre-requisite for promoting nuclear non-proliferation is continuous irreversible progress in nuclear arms reductions.

    Each article of the Treaty is binding on the respective State parties at all times and in all circumstances. It is imperative that all States parties be held fully accountable with respect to the strict compliance of their obligations under the Treaty.

    Further progress on disarmament must be a major determinant in achieving and sustaining international stability. The 2000 NPT undertakings on disarmament have been given and the implementation of them remains the imperative.

    A nuclear-weapon-free world will ultimately require the underpinning of a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally binding instrument or a framework encompassing a mutually reinforcing set of instruments.

    III Developments since the 2000 NPT Review Conference

    To date, there have been few advances in the implementation of the thirteen steps agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. We remain concerned that in the post Cold War security environment, security policies and defence doctrines continue to be based on the possession of nuclear weapons. The commitment to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies and defence doctrines has yet to materialise. This lack of progress is inconsistent with the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to achieve the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. In addition, we are deeply concerned about emerging approaches to the future role of nuclear weapons as part of new security strategies.

    The Conference on Disarmament has continued to fail to deal with nuclear disarmament and to resume negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devises taking into consideration both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives. The expectations of progress that resulted from the 2000 NPT Review Conference have to date not been met.

    Although implementation of the CTBT’s international monitoring system has proceeded, the CTBT has not yet entered into force. There are no indications that nuclear-weapon States have increased transparency measures. Measures have been taken by one nuclear-weapon State to unilaterally reduce the operational status of its nuclear weapons systems. To date, there is no evidence of any agreed concrete measures to reduce the operational status of nuclear weapon systems.

    There is no sign of efforts involving all of the five nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. On the contrary, there are worrying signs of the development of new generations of nuclear weapons. While welcoming the statements of intent regarding substantial cuts by the United States and the Russian Federation to deployed nuclear arsenals, we remain deeply concerned at the continuing possibility that nuclear weapons could be used. Despite the intentions of, and past achievements in bilateral and unilateral reductions, the total number of nuclear weapons deployed and stockpiled still amounts to thousands.

    There is concern that the notification of withdrawal by one of the State parties to the treaty on the limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile systems (ABM), the additional element of uncertainty it brings and its impact on strategic stability as an important factor contributing to and facilitating nuclear disarmament, will have negative consequences on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It could also have grave consequences for the future of global security and create an apparent rationale for action based solely on unilateral concerns. Any action, including development of missile defence systems, which could impact negatively on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, is of concern to the international community. We are concerned about the risk of a new arms race on earth and in outer space.

    The achievements and promise the bilateral START process held, including the possibility it offered for development as a plurilateral mechanism including all the nuclear-weapon States, for the practical dismantling and destruction of nuclear armaments, undertaken in the pursuit of the elimination of nuclear weapons, is in jeopardy.

    In the United Nations Millennium Declaration, the heads of State and Government resolved to strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, and to keep all options open for achieving this aim, including the possibility of convening an international conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers.

    We are concerned by the continued retention of the nuclear-weapons option by those three States that operate unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and have not acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as well as their failure to renounce that option.

    There has been progress in the further development of nuclear-weapon-free zones in some regions, and, in particular, the movement towards freeing the Southern Hemisphere and adjacent areas from such weapons. In this context, the ratification of the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba by all the States of the region, and all concerned States is of great importance. They should all work together in order to facilitate adherence to the protocols to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties by all relevant States that have not yet done so. States parties to those treaties should be encouraged to promote their common objectives with a view to enhance cooperation among the nuclear-weapon-free zones and to working together with the proponents of other such zones. On the other hand, no progress has been achieved in the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East, South Asia and other regions.

    IV The Way Ahead

    We remain determined to pursue, with continued vigour, the full and effective implementation of the substantial agreements reached at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. That outcome provides the requisite blueprint to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    Multilaterally negotiated legally binding security assurances must be given by the nuclear-weapon States to all non-nuclear-weapon States parties. The Preparatory Committee should make recommendations to the 2005 Review Conference on the modalities for immediate negotiations on this issue. Pending the conclusion of such negotiations, the nuclear-weapon States should fully respect their existing commitments in this regard.

    The nuclear-weapon States must increase their transparency and accountability with regard to their nuclear weapons arsenals and their implementation of disarmament measures.

    Further efforts by nuclear-weapon States to effectively reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally are required. Formalisation by nuclear-weapon States of their unilateral declarations in a legally binding agreement including provisions ensuring transparency, verification and irreversibility is essential. Nuclear-weapon States should bear in mind that reductions of deployments are a positive signal but no replacement for the actual elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear-weapon States should implement the NPT commitments to apply the principle of irreversibility by destroying the nuclear warheads in the context of strategic nuclear reductions and avoid keeping them in a state that lends itself to their possible redeployment. While deployment reduction, and reduction of operational status, give a positive signal, it cannot be a substitute for irreversible cuts and the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Further reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons should be a priority. Nuclear weapon States must live up to their commitments. Reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons should be carried out in a transparent and irreversible manner and to include reduction and elimination of non-strategic nuclear weapons in the overall arms reductions negotiations. In this context, urgent action should be taken to achieve:

    • further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process;
    • further confidence-building and transparency measures to reduce the threats posed by non-strategic nuclear weapons;
    • concrete agreed measures to reduce further the operational status of nuclear weapons systems; and to formalising existing informal bilateral arrangements regarding non-strategic nuclear reductions, such as the Bush-Gorbachev declarations of 1991, into legally binding agreements.

    Nuclear-weapon States must undertake the necessary steps towards the seamless integration of all five nuclear-weapon States into a process leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    We underline the importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications to achieve the early entry into force of the CTBT without delay and without conditions. This gains additional urgency since the process of the installation of an international system to monitor nuclear weapons tests under the CTBT is more advanced than the real prospects of entry into force of the treaty. This is a situation not consistent with the idea of elaborating a universal and comprehensive test ban treaty.

    In the interim, it is necessary to uphold and maintain the moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending entry into force of the CTBT. The strict observance of the CTBT’s purposes, objectives and provisions is imperative.

    The Conference on Disarmament should establish without delay an ad hoc committee to deal with nuclear disarmament.

    The Conference on Disarmament should resume negotiations on a non discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices taking into consideration both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives.

    The Conference on Disarmament, as the single multilateral negotiating forum, has the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements, as appropriate, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects. The Conference should complete the examination and updating of the mandate contained in its decision of 13 February 1992, and to establish an ad hoc committee as early as possible.

    The international community must redouble its efforts to achieve universal adherence to the NPT and to be vigilant against any steps that would undermine its determination to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Those three States [India, Pakistan and Israel] which are not yet parties to the NPT, must accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon States, promptly and without condition, and bring into force the required comprehensive safeguards agreements, together with the additional model protocol, for ensuring nuclear non-proliferation, and to reverse clearly and urgently any policies to pursue any nuclear weapons development or deployment and refrain from any action that could undermine regional and international peace and security and the efforts of the international community towards nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation.

    The Trilateral Initiative between the IAEA, the Russian Federation and the United States must be implemented, and consideration should be given to the possible inclusion of other nuclear-weapon States.

    Arrangements should be made by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material no longer required for military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification.

    International treaties in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation must be observed, and all obligations flowing from those treaties must be duly fulfilled.

    All States should refrain from any action that could lead to a new nuclear arms race or that could impact negatively on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

    V The Strengthened Review Process

    The Preparatory Committee should deal with the procedural issues necessary to take its work forward but also with matters of substance as was decided in the 1995 and 2000 outcomes, and to ensure that the issues of substance deliberated upon are recorded in the factual summary of the Preparatory Committee.

    The Preparatory Committee should substantively focus on nuclear disarmament so as to ensure that there is a proper accounting in their reports by States of their progress in achieving nuclear disarmament. Accountability will be assessed in the consideration of these reports that the States parties agreed to submit. The Preparatory Committee should consider regular reports to be submitted by all States parties on the implementation of article VI and paragraph 4(c) of the 1995 Decision.

    The strengthened review process envisioned in the 2000 NPT Final Document concerning the implementation of the Treaty and Decisions 1 & 2 as well as the Resolution on the Middle East adopted in 1995 should be fully implemented.

    These reports should be submitted to each session of the Preparatory Committee. The reports on article VI should cover issues and principles addressed by the thirteen steps and include specific and complete information on each of these steps (inter alia, the number and specifications of warheads and delivery systems in service and number and specifications of reductions, dealerting measures, existing holdings of fissile materials as well as reduction and control of such materials, achievements in the areas of irreversibility, transparency and verifiability). These reports should address current policies and intentions, as well as developments in these areas.

  • Letter to US Senators on ABM Treaty Nuclear Weapons Policy

    April 2002

    Senator Tom Daschle 1-202-224-7895
    Senator Joseph Biden, Chair, Senate Foreign Relations Committee 1-202-224-0139
    Senator Carl Levin, Chair, Senate Armed Services Committee 1-202-224-1388
    Senator Edward M. Kennedy, 1-202-224-2417,
    Senator Russell Feingold 1-202-224-2725,
    Senator Dianne Feinstein 1-202-228-3954,
    Senator Robert Byrd 1-202-228-0002
    Congressman Dennis Kucininch 1-202-225-5745

    Re: US Withdrawal from ABM Treaty

    Dear Senators Daschle, Biden, Levin, Kennedy, Feingold, Feinstien, and Congressman Kucinich,

    The undersigned organizations and parliamentarians, representing large numbers of people from around the world, write to you to express our concern over the proposed withdrawal from the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty by the Bush administration, and our concern over the direction of US nuclear weapons policy as expressed in the recent Nuclear Posture Review. This, combined with what seems to be a trend toward unilateral actions on a variety of fronts, can only serve to decrease the confidence of long-term US allies in US policy direction.

    We strongly urge the Senate to do all that is in its power to prevent a withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

    We further urge the Senate to impress on the administration the vital need for the US to demonstrate its determination to implement its obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty(NPT), and the final document of the Year 2000 NPT Review Conference. In the light of recent revelations from the nuclear policy review this is now more important than ever.

    The 2000 NPT Review Conference Final Document committed nuclear weapon states to an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. It also urged the ‘…early entry into force and the full implementation of START-II and the conclusion of START-III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the ABM treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons in accordance with its provisions’.

    The US should not set aside either the ABM treaty, or its obligations under the nearly universal NPT. The Senate has a clear duty to ensure that it does not do so.

    At a time when the US is working with a broad-based coalition of nations (including Russia and China) in the struggle against terrorism, unilateral withdrawal from an important arms-control treaty sends a very negative signal to the rest of the world. Now more than ever, the US should be mindful of its international treaty obligations.

    In the post-cold-war era, it is important to proceed with Russia toward the total and unequivocal elimination of nuclear arsenals, and to immediately remove weapons systems from launch on warning status.

    The agreements proposed for finalizing in Moscow and Petersburg 23-25 May do not do this. The deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system will make it unlikely that such an agreement can be reached. Already, the Russian Duma has passed a motion urging the Russian government to examine Russia’s military options in response to the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

    The deployment of a US BMD system will also give China a pretext to further upgrade its nuclear missiles, from the current 20 single- warhead ICBMs to a system with 200 much more sophisticated warheads. This is not in the security interests of the US.

    The deployment of a US BMD system would have been of no utility whatsoever in preventing the terrible events of 11 September 2001. Such a system is of no relevance to the real security needs of the US, but diverts vital funding and attention from the measures that are truly required.

    The US Congress had to approve the ABM treaty before it became the law of the United States. In 1798 when the US had to withdraw from a treaty with France, the then President John Adams, signed an act of Congress to withdraw from treaty obligations. In 1846, Congress had to pass a joint resolution to withdraw from a treaty with the UK.

    A number of key US Senators have strongly expressed opposition to US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and rightly so. It is vital that the good statements that have been made by you be translated into action.

    There are a number of clear actions that the US should be taking instead of withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.

    It is unfortunate and alarming that the current nuclear posture review seems to assume that nuclear weapons will remain a part of the US strategic posture indefinitely, and envisages even the development of new varieties of nuclear weapon. This is directly contrary to US obligations under the NPT as reinforced by the final document of the year 2000 NPT Review Conference.

    We urge you to impress on other Senators and the Bush administration that the US, instead of proceeding to withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, should instead place the highest priority on the implementation of its obligations under Article VI of the NPT and the 13 points of the final document of the NPT Review Conference, on which international attention will be focussed at the NPT Prepcom of 8-19 April.

    To Reiterate:

    – The US should be seen to be clearly proceeding toward the implementation of its NPT obligations, to accomplish the total and unequivocal elimination of its nuclear arsenal.

    – We strongly urge the Senate to do all in its power to prevent withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
    Signed:

    International Groups

    Mary Wynne-Ashford, Co-Chair, John Loretz Program Director, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), Victoria BC Canada/Boston, USA,
    William Peden, Disarmament Campaigner, Greenpeace International,Lond, UK,
    Ricardo Navarro, Chair, Friends of the Earth International (FOEI),
    Daria Cave, General Secy., Womens International League for Peace and
    Freedom International Office (WILPF-International), Geneva,
    Colin Archer, International Peace Bureau (IPB) Geneva,
    Ian Davis, Director, British/American Security Information Centre, (BASIC)
    Lond/Washington,
    Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space (Globenet),
    Gainesville Fl, USA,
    Pol D’ Huyvetter, For Mother Earth International, Ghent, Belgium,
    Ak Malten, Global Anti-Nuclear Alliance, The Hague, Neth,
    Per de Rijk, World Information Service on Energy (WISE), Amsterdam, NL,
    Peter Weiss, President, Phon Van Den Biesen, Secy., International
    Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), The Hague, Neth,
    Lorraine Krofchock, Director, Grandmothers for Peace International, Elk
    Grove, Calif, USA,
    Archdeacon Taimalelagi Fagamalama Tuatagaloa-Matalavea (Faga)
    Anglican Observer at the United Nations, ‘on behalf of 73 million Anglicans
    and Episcopalians around the world’
    Virginia Baron, International President, International Fellowship of
    Reconciliation, (IFOR), Alkmar, Neth,
    Rev. Vernon C. Nichols, President, NGO Committee on Disarmament, UN, NY,
    David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), Santa
    Barbara, Calif, USA,
    Dr. Rosalie Bertell (Recipient of the MacBride Peace Prize, International
    Peace Bureau, 2001 UNEP 500 Laureate 1993 Recipient of the Right
    Livelihood Award 1986) International Institute for Concern for Public
    Health, Toronto, Canada,
    Karen Talbot, International Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ), San
    Francisco USA,
    Regina Hagen, Coordinator, International Network of Engineers and
    Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) Darmstadt, Germany,
    Douglas Mattern, President, Association of World Citizens, San Francisco, USA,
    Athanassios Pafilis, World Peace Council, Greece,
    Fiona Dove/Ophelia Cowell, Transnational Institute, Amsterdam/Jakarta,
    Prof. Charles Mercieia, International Association of Educators for World
    Peace,

    United States Groups

    Robert K Musil PHD MPH, Executive Director, Physicians for Social
    Responsibility (PSR) Washington, DC, USA,
    Andrew Harris MD, Past President, PSR,
    John Burroughs, Executive Director, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy
    (LCNP), New York, NY, USA,
    Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action, Washington DC,
    Alfred L. Marder, US Peace Council, NY,
    James K. Galbraith, Chair, Economists Allied for Arms Reduction (ECAAR) NY,
    Sally Light, Executive Director, Nevada Desert Experience, Las Vegas, NV USA,
    Carol Wolman, Nuclear Peace Action Group, Albion, Calif, USA,
    Ellen Thomas Proposition One Committee Washington DC USA,
    Marylia Kelley, Executive Director,Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a
    Radioactive Environment), Livermore, CA USA,
    Mary Olson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, (NIRS) Wash, DC.,
    Bill Smirnow, Nuclear Free New York, Huntington, New York, USA
    Steve Malkus, Project Catalyst, Falmouth, Ma, USA,
    Robert M. Gould, MD, President, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Physicians
    for Social Responsibility (PSR), Berkeley, USA,
    Ed Arnold, Executive Director, Tom Ferguson, Physicians for Social
    Responsibility Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA,
    Peter Wilk, Physicians for Social Responsibility Maine,
    Deborah Du Nun Winter, PhD, President, Psychologists for Social
    Responsibility, Wash DC, USA,
    Alice Slater, GRACE Public Fund, NY, USA,
    Dr. Kathleen Sullivan, Nuclear Weapons Education and Action Project, NY, USA,
    Stephen Kobasa, Trident Resistance Network, New Haven, Ct., USA,
    Alice Swift, CPPAX Nuclear Weapons Abolition Task Force,
    Robert Alpern, Sonoma County Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, CA, USA,
    Bob Kinsey, Peace and Justice Task Force, United Church of Christ, Rocky
    Mountain Conference, Colo, USA,
    Dr. David Joslin, Capitol Region Conference of Churches,
    Andrew Greenblatt, Coordinator, Religious Leaders for Sensible Priorities,
    NY, USA,
    Scott Kennedy, Chair, National Council, Fellowship of Reconciliation, NY,
    Tom Cordaro, Dave Robinson, Chair, Pax Christi USA,
    Darlene Ehinger, Pax Christi Huntsville,
    Peter Ediger, Pace e Bene,
    Sr. Mary Kay Flanagan, OSF, 8th Day Centre for Justice, Chicago, Ill,
    Robert M. Smith, Brandywine Peace Community, PA, USA,
    Stacey Fritz, Nonukes North, Fairbanks, Alaska,
    Andrew Hund, Coordinator, Alaska Arctic Environmental Defense Fund,
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA,
    Stacey Studebaker, Kodiak Rocket Launch Information Group, Alaska,
    Wilson(Woody) Powell, National Administrator, Veterans for Peace, St Louis,
    Mo.,
    James C. Allen MD, Veterans for Peace Chapter 25, Madison, Wisc,
    Peggy Macintyre, Coordinator, Grandparents for Peace,
    Molly Johnson, Coordinator, Grandmothers for Peace San-Luis Obispo, Calif, USA,
    Rochelle Becker, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Calif, USA,
    Rosalie Tyler Paul, Peace Action Maine, Maine, USA,
    Francis Chiappa, Vice Pres., Cleveland Peace Action, Ohio, USA,
    Peter T. Ferenbach, Executive Director, California Peace Action,
    Peter Bergel, Oregon Peaceworks, Salem, Ore,
    Peter Bergel, President, Centre for Energy Research,
    Jeanne Koster, South Dakota Peace and Justice Centre, SD, USA,
    Lisa Brown, President, North Dakota Peace Coalition,
    Phyllis W. Stanley, Environment and Peace Education Centre, Fort Meyers, Fl,
    Myra Breshanan, Earth Day New York, USA,
    Alanna Hartzok, Director, Earth Rights Institute, Pa, USA,
    Elise Harvey, Lansing Area Peace Education Center, Lansing, Mich, USA,
    North Carolina Peace Action, NC, USA,
    Harvey Wasserman, Citizens Protecting Ohio, Ohio, USA,
    Glenn Carrol, Georgians Against Nuclear Energy, Atlanta, Ga,
    Bruce A. Drew, Prairie Island Coalition, Minn., USA,
    Dave Kraft, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Evanston, IL USA.
    Eric Garis, Director, Antiwar.Com., USA,
    Preston Truman -Director, Downwinders, Idaho, USA,
    Prof. Glen Acalay, Co-Chair, National Committee for Radiation Victims (NCRV),
    Jonathan Mark, Flyby News, Florida,
    Dr. Carol Rosin, President, Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS),
    Norman Cohen, Executive Director, Coalition for Peace and Justice, NJ,
    Florida Coalition for Justice and Peace ,
    Greg Mello, Director, Los Alamos Study Group (LASG), Santa Fe, NM,
    Michael J. Keegan, Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, Monroe, Mich,
    Corrinne Carey, Don’t Waste Michigan,
    Mitzi and Peter Bowman, Don’t Waste Connecticut, Conn, USA,
    Adele Kushner, Action for a Clean Environment, Alto, GA, USA,
    Keith Gunter, Citizens Resistance at Fermi-Two,
    Vivian Stockman, Concerned Citizens Coalition, WV, USA,
    George Crocker, North American Water Office, MN, USA,
    Juliette Majot, International Rivers Network, Berkeley, CA,
    Alyson Ewald, Sacred Earth Network, Amherst, MA, USA,
    Jan Hively, Peace Garden Project, MN, USA,
    Fern Katz, Womens Action for New Directions (WAND)Metro Detroit, Detroit,
    Jen Randolph Reise, Co-Director, Women Against Military Madness (WAMM)
    Minnesota,
    Mary Day Kent, Executive Director, Womens International League for Peace
    and Freedom (WILPF) USA, Philadelphia, PA,
    Bernice Fisher, Peninsula Chapter WILPF,
    Rear-Admiral Eugene J. Carrol, USN(Retd.), Vice Chair CDI(Pers Capy)
    Hyman Rudoff, (Physicist, Ex-Manhattan Project), Los Alamos,
    Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University,
    Daniel Ellsberg, Manhattan Project-II,

    Canadian Groups

    Peter Stoffer MP Sackville-Musquodboit Valley, Ottawa, Canada,
    Svend Robinson, MP Barnaby-Douglas Ottawa, Canada,
    Libby Davies MP, Vancouver East, Canada,
    Bill Blaikie MP, New Democrats, Canada,
    Jennifer Simons, President, Simons Foundation, BC, Canada,
    Desmond Berghofer, Institute for Ethical Leadership, Vancouver, BC,
    Hannah Newcombe, Director, Peace Research Institute, Dundas Ontario, Canada,
    Neil Arya, President, Ross Willcock, Physicians for Global Survival(PGS),
    Canada,
    Carolyn Bassett, Coordinator, Canadian Peace Alliance, Canada,
    Ernie Regehr, Project Ploughshares, Ontario, Canada,
    Gordon Edwards, President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
    (CCNR)Montreal, Canada,
    Joan Russow, Global Compliance Research Project, Victoria BC, Canada,
    Stacey Chappel, Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG),
    Vancouver, BC, Canada,
    Sue Fraser, Secy., Vancouver Island Network for Disarmament, BC, Canada,
    Ivan Bulic, Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, (SPEC), Vancouver
    BC, Canada,
    David Bruer, Peacefund Canada, Ottawa, Canada,
    Anne Williams, Chair, Lethbridge Network for Peace,Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada,
    Ben Webster, New Green Alliance, Saskatchewan, Canada,
    Gordon Simpson, Inter-Church Uranium Committee, Sask,
    Dave Greenfield, Who On Earth Music and Art Collective, Saskatchewan, Canada,
    David Morgan, National President, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms (VANA),
    Canada,
    Kira Van Deusen, Foundation for Siberian Culture and Native Exchange,
    Canada,

    UK Groups

    Commander Robert D Green, Royal Navy (Retd.) International Chair, World
    Court Project UK,
    Peter Nicholls, Chair, Abolition 2000 UK,
    Carol Naughton, Chair, CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) Lond, UK,
    Anna Cheetham, Chair, Leicester Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament,
    Neil Kingsnorth/Dave Webb, Yorkshire CND,
    Jenny Maxwell, West Midlands CND(WMCND), UK,
    Jill Stallard, CND-Cymru, Wales,
    Camille Warren, Greater Manchester and District CND,
    Ralph Say, Woking CND, UK,
    David Platt, Barbara Sunderland, Christian CND, Lond, UK.,
    Lindis Percy and Anni Rainbow Joint Co-ordinators Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (CAAB), Yorkshire, UK,
    Helen John, Menwith Hill Women, Menwith Hill, Yorks, UK,
    Ulla Roeder, Trident Ploughshares,
    Sian Jones, Aldermaston Womens Peace Campaign, AWE, Berkshire, UK.,
    Peter J. Davies, US Rep, Saferworld, UK.,
    Di Mc Donald, Nuclear Information Service, Southampton, UK,
    Pat Gaffney, Secy., Pax Christi UK,
    Tony Compton, Chair, Elizabeth Compton, Vice-Chair, Fellowship of
    Reconciliation, UK,
    Andrew Tanner, SMILE Tribe International, Cornwall, UK
    Penny Kemp, Chair, Green Party of England and Wales,
    David Drew MP, House of Commons, UK,
    Frank Cook, MP for Stockton North House of Commons, UK,
    Caroline Lucas MEP for SE England, Green Party, UK,
    Patricia Mc Kenna MEP, Greens, Ireland,

    German Groups

    Xanthe Hall, IPPNW-Germany, Berlin, Germany,
    Hans-Peter Richter, German Peace Council,
    Anette Merkelbach, Darmstaedter Friedensforum (Germany),
    Roland Blach, Gewaltfrieie Aktion Atomwaffen Abschaffen Kornwesthiem,
    Markus Pfluger, AGF-Trier, Germany,
    Roland Blach, Landesgeschaftsführer
    Deutsche-Friedens-Gesselschaft-Vereinigte Kriegsdienstgegner Innen
    Baden-Wurtemberg,
    Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck, BoD Friedens -und Begegnungstaette Mutlangen eV, Germany,
    Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck, Tragerkreis Atomwaffen Abschaffen, Germany,
    Dr. Reinhard J. Voss, Secy. General, Pax Christi, Germany,
    Wolfgang Hertle, Archiv-Aktiv, Hamburg, Germany,
    Hiltrud Breyer MEP,

    Austrian Groups

    Maria Reichl, President, Centre for Encounter and Active Nonviolence, Bad
    Ischl, Austria,
    Andreas Pecha, Secy., Austrian Peace Council, Vienna,
    Joseph Puehringer, OÖ Plattform Gegen Atomgefahr, Austria,

    Czech Groups

    Jan Beranek, Director, Hnuti Duha (Friends of the Earth Czech Republic), Brno,
    Joseph Puehringer, Centrum Energie, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Rep,
    Burgerinitiative Umweltschutz, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Rep.,

    Netherlands Groups

    Martin Broek, Campagne Tegen Wapenhandel Amsterdam, Neth,
    Karel Koster, Project on European Nuclear Nonproliferation (PENN), Neth,
    Carolien Van de Stadt, WILPF-Netherlands,
    Dr. J.P. Feddema MP, Green-Left, Neth,
    Frank Van Schaik, ASEED-Europe, Amsterdam, Neth,

    Belgian Groups

    Eloi Glorieux, MP(Greens) Flemish Parliament, Belgium,
    Peter Vanhoutte MP, Belgian Chamber of Representatives, Brussels, Belg,
    Claudine Drion MP(Greens) Brussels, Belgium,
    Zoe Genot, Federal MP, Greens(Ecolo), Belgium,
    Leen Laenens MP, Brussels, Belgium,
    Mich Crols, Forum Voor Vredesaktie, Belgium,
    Georges Spriet, Vrede VzW, Belgium,
    Saraswati Matthieu/Ruben Vanhaverbeke, Jong Agalev (Young Greens), Belgium,

    Other European Groups

    Pietro Folena MP, Italian Parliament, Rome,
    Ospaaal-Solidaridad, Madrid, Spain,
    Jordi Armadans, Director, Fundacio Per La Pau, Barcelona, Spain,
    Dr. Vasos Poupis, President, Cyprus Peace Council, Cyprus,
    Alba Circle Nonviolent Peace Movement, Hungary,
    Aurel Duta, Mama Terra/For Mother Earth Romania, Bucharest, Romania,
    Thor Magnusson, Peace 2000 Institute, Reykjavik, Iceland,
    Elizabeth Erlandsson, Women for Peace, Switzerland,

    Finnish Groups

    Malla Kantola, Committee of 100, Helsinki, Finland,
    Teemu Matinpuro, Finnish Peace Committee, Helsinki, Finland,
    Lea Launokari, Women for Peace
    Pirkko Lindberg, Women against Nuclear Power
    Gerd Söderholm, Amandamaji ry
    Lea Rantanen, Grandmothers for Peace
    Anneli Pääkkönen, Weaping Women

    Norwegian Groups

    Hallgeir H. Langeland MP, Norway,
    Prof. Bent Natvig, Chair, Norwegian Pugwash Committee, Oslo, Norway,
    Bjorn Hildt, Norwegian Physicians Against Nuclear Weapons (IPPNW-Norway),
    Trondhiem, Norway,

    Swedish Groups

    Maj-Britt Theorin MEP, Sweden,(President, International Peace Bureau)
    Ursula Mueller, Swedish Green Party,
    Stefan Bjornson, Swedish Scientists and Engineers Against Nuclear Arms (SEANA),
    Gunnar Westberg MD, President, SLMK (IPPNW-Sweden),

    Danish Groups

    Dr. Bo Normander, Friends of the Earth Denmark (NOAH),
    Poul-Eck Sorensen, Peace Movement of Esbjerg, Esbjerg, Denmark,
    Birgit Horn/Ulla Roeder, Women for Peace, Denmark,
    Finn and Tove Eckmann, Liason Committee for Peace and Security, Denmark,
    Anja Johansen, MILITAERNAEGTERFORENINGEN (Conscientious Objectors), Denmark,

    Russian Groups

    Prof. Sergei Grachev, Academician Sergei Kolesnikov (Member State Duma),
    IPPNW-Russia,
    Prof. Alexi Yablokov, President, Centre for Russian Environmental Policy,
    Moscow, Russia,
    Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair, Ecodefense, Moscow, Russia,
    Alla Yaroshinskaya, Ecological Fund, Moscow, Russia,
    Jennie Sutton, Baikal Environmental Wave, Irkutsk, Russia,
    Dr. Vyacheslav Sharov, Ural State Medical Academy, Chelyabinsk, Russia,
    Dr.Valery Sukhanov, Chief Director, MediTrust (Chelyabinsk , Russia)
    Oleg Bodrov, Chairman,NGO Green World, St. Petersburg region, RUSSIA
    Ecological North-West Line, St Petersburg, Russia,
    Dr. Andrei Laletin, Friends of the Siberian Forests, Krasnoyarsk, Russia,

    CIS Groups

    Victor Khazan Member of Verkhovna Rada (Parliament of Ukraine),
    Victor Khazan, Friends of the Earth Ukraine,
    Ilya Trombitsky, BIOTICA Ecological Association, Moldova,
    Green Alternative, Tblisi, Georgia,
    Rusudan Simonidze, Friends of the Earth Georgia,
    Farida Huseynova, Chairperson, Azerbaijan Green Movement, Baku, Azerbaijan

    French Groups

    Solange Fernex, Womens International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), France, Paris, France,
    Abraham Behar/Patrice Richard, IPPNW-France (AFMPGN)
    Daniel Durand,Secy., Mouvement de la Paix, Paris, France,
    Jean-Marie Matagne, President, Action des Citoyens pour le Desarmement
    Nucleaire (ACDN),
    Dominique Lalanne, Stop-Essais, Paris, France,
    Bruno Barrilot, Director, Nuclear Weapons Observatory, France,

    Asian, African, & Latin-American Groups

    Bahig Nassar, Coordinator, Arab Coordination Centre of NGOs, Cairo, Egypt,
    Dr. Mourad Ghaleb, President, Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization
    (AAPSO), Egypt,
    Gideon Spiro, Israeli Committee for Mordecai Vanunu, Jerusalem, Israel,
    The Ceasefire Campaign, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, South Africa,
    Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth/Environmental Rights Action Nigeria
    Nam Abdul Hai, Secy. General, Youth Approach to Development and Cooperation
    (YADC), Dhaka, Bangladesh,
    Ron Mc Coy, Malaysian Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War,
    Petaling Jaya, Malaysia,
    Bishan Singh, President, Sustainable Development Network, (SUSDEN), Malaysia,
    Hyun Sook Lee, Women Making Peace, Korea,
    Longgena Ginting, WALHI-Friends of the Earth Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia,
    Harley, Executive Director, Forum for the Environment (WALHI), Central
    Sulawesi, INDONESIA,
    Grace de Haro, APDH, Bariloche, Argentina,
    Jean Patterson, LIMPA-Heredia, (WILPF) Costa-Rica,
    Luis Gutierrez-Esparza, President, Latin American Circle for International
    Studies (LACIS) Mexico City (MEXICO)
    Ricardo Navarro, Friends of the Earth El-Salvador,(Chair, Friends of the
    Earth International)

    Pakistani Groups

    Prof. M. Ismail, Chair, RISE-Peshawar, Pakistan,
    Dr. A. H. Nayyar, Pakistan Peace Coalition, Islamabad, Pakistan,
    Muhammed Sharif Bajwa, Human Rights Foundation, Pakistan,
    M.A. Hakim, Save the Earth International,
    Arshad Mahmood, SPARC, Pakistan,

    Indian Groups

    Ammu Abraham, Womens Centre, Santa Cruz, Mumbai, India,
    Dr. Vikram Vyas, The Ajit Foundation, Jaipur, India,
    S. P. Udayakumar, Community Centre for Education, Research and Action,
    Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu,
    Dr. George Thomas, Physicians for Peace, Chennai (Madras) India,

    Phillipines Groups

    Myrla Baldonado, Coordinator, Alliance for Bases Cleanup (ABC), Quezon
    City, Phillipines,
    Corazon Valdes-Fabros, Nuclear-Free Phillipines Coalition, Quezon City,
    Phillipines,
    Olola Ann Zamora OLIB, exec. Director, Peoples Task Force for Bases
    Cleanup-Phillipines,
    John Witeck, Phillipine Workers Support Committee,

    Japanese Groups

    Riko Asato, Japan Council Against A and H Bombs (Japan Gensuikyo), Tokyo, Japan,
    Satomi Oba, Plutonium Action Hiroshima, Hiroshima City, Japan,
    Mari Takenouchi, Citizens Nuclear Information Centre (CNIC) Japan,
    Yumi Kikuchi, Founder, Global Peace Campaign,
    Sachiyo Oki/Kuzhou Sanada MD, President, Japanese Physicians for the
    Prevention of Nuclear War (JPPNW),
    Hiro Umebayashi, President, Akira Kawasaki, Peace Depot, Yokohama, Japan,

    New Zealand Groups

    Dr. Kate Dewes, Disarmament & Security Centre, Christchurch, New Zealand,
    Marion Hancock, Peace Foundation Aotearoa/NZ, Auckland, NZ,
    Desmond Brough, Chair, National Consultative Committee on Disarmament and
    Peace, NZ,
    Desmond Brough, President, Peace Council of Aotearoa/New Zealand
    Peter Low, Quaker Peace and Service Action Committee, Aotearoa/NZ,
    Alyn Ware, Aotearoa Lawyers for Peace, Aotearoa/NZ,
    Roger Kemp, Quaker Peace and Service, Aotearoa/NZ.,
    Margot Parkes/Simon Hales, Med. Eco, Aotearoa/NZ,
    Wellington Quakers Peace and Public Questions Committee, Aotearoa/NZ.,
    Nelson Peace Group, Nelson, New Zealand,
    John La Roche, National President, Engineers for Social Responsibility,
    Auckland, NZ
    R.E. White, Deputy Director, Centre for Peace Studies, Auckland, NZ.,
    Lawrence F. Ross, New Zealand Peacemaking Association, Auckland, NZ,
    Keith Locke MP, Greens, NZ.,
    Sue Kedgley, MP Greens, NZ,

    Australian Groups

    Lee Rhiannon MLC, Greens, NSW, Aust,
    Giz Watson MLC, WA Greens,
    Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, Leader, Australian Democrats,
    Senator Vicki Bourne, Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs, Defence &
    Broadcasting, Australian Democrats Senator for NSW, Aust,
    Senator Andrew Bartlett, Australian Democrats Senator for Qld, Aust,
    Senator Lyn Allison, Australian Democrats Senator for Victoria,
    Kelly Hoare MHR, ALP Federal Member for Charlton, NSW, Aust,
    Jill Hall MHR, ALP Federal Member for Shortland, NSW, Aust,
    Jann Mc Farlane MHR, ALP Federal Member for Stirling, W.A.,
    Sharon Grierson MHR ALP Federal Member for Newcastle, NSW,
    Tanya Plibersek MHR, ALP Federal member for Sydney, NSW,
    Sue Wareham, President, Giji Gya, Executive Officer, Medical Association
    for the Prevention of War Australia (MAPWA),
    Irene Gale AM, Australian Peace Committee, Adelaide, SA,
    Jo Vallentine, People for Nuclear Disarmament W.A.,
    Natalie Stevens, Campaigner, People for Nuclear Disarmament(PND) NSW, Surry, Hills, NSW,
    Michael Priceman, Nuclear Study Group, Sutherland Shire Environment Centre,
    Joan Shears, Rally for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament Brisb, Aust,
    Kirsten Blair and Mark Wakeham, Coordinators, Environment Centre of the
    Northern Territory(ECNT) Darwin, NT,
    Jan Dixon, Big Scrub Environment Centre, Lismore, NSW,
    Glenn Marshall, Coordinator, Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC), Alice
    Springs, NT,
    Ray Richmond, Wayside Chapel, Uniting Church in Australia, Kings Cross, NSW,
    Rev. Greg Thompson, St Johns Anglican Church, Darlinghurst,
    Margaret Hinchley, Catholics in Coalition for Justice and Peace, Croydon
    Park, NSW, Aust,
    Matt Skellern, National Environment Officer, National Union of Students,
    (NUS)
    Cherie Hoyle, Urban Ecology Australia,
    Kel Dummett, Global Justice Inc., Melbourne, Aust,
    John Hallam, Nuclear Weapons Spokesperson, Friends of the Earth Australia
    (Letter Coordinator)

     

  • Let Us Choose Life; Let Us End The Nuclear Weapons Threat Now

    As a member of the human family, as a person who feels a deep kinship with all life, as a war veteran who supported President Truman’s decision to use atom bombs to end the war in the Pacific in 1945, I call upon the leaders of my country to act now to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity’s future.

    Mr. Truman told me that he made his horrifying decision when our nation and other nations were in hell. “War is hell,” he said. “We were burning up thousands of Japanese men, women, and children with fire bombs, night after night. I wanted to end that slaughter.” In a speech he made in 1948, he said: ” I decided that the bomb should be used in order to end the war quickly and save countless lives – Japanese as well as American.”

    I was a soldier in Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis when he took that action. With thousands of other soldiers there and elsewhere, I knew that I might be sent to Japan, to take part in an invasion that might cost my life and the lives of many thousands of people. When the bombs were dropped and the Japanese Emperor surrendered quickly, I took part in a celebration. The hellish time of torment was ended. The joy of release from war uplifted us all.

    As a science fiction writer in the 1930’s, I assumed that the release of nuclear energy would occur. I knew it would cause great dangers, but I thought it could be harnessed for peaceful purposes. I thought that the unlocking of nuclear knowledge might be part of the Creator’s plan for the high development of civilization. With unlimited power available, prosperity might be available for everyone. Poverty would be abolished. Humanity would enter a new age of fulfillment.

    But now I know that nuclear weapons are monstrous instruments that threaten to obliterate life on our beautiful planet. My country, as the nation that used these weapons in a war, has a special obligation to take the lead in getting rid of them.

    As a taxpayer, I helped to finance the construction and proliferation of these terrible weapons. When I worked as a speechwriter for President Truman and for members of the U.S. Senate, I supported the idea of “deterrence” – the belief that such weapons would keep heavily armed nations from going to war. I realized that President Ronald Reagan was right when he said: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” But I did not fully understand that the very existence of such weapons constituted an unbearable peril. Now I do.

    Now I completely endorse the statements in the recent appeal issued by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The signers of the appeal declared:

    “We call upon the leaders of the nations of the world and, in particular, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to act now for the benefit of all humanity and all life by taking the following steps:

    • De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.
    • Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
    • Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.
    • Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.
    • Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education, and welfare throughout the world.”

    That appeal has been signed by former President Jimmy Carter; Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union; Archbishop Desmond Tutu; Elie Wiesel, and many other Nobel prize winners.

    I believe it is an appeal that could be signed by millions of human beings like myself, who have become aware that nuclear weapons endanger all of us and may destroy the whole earth.

    I ask for the forgiveness of my fellow citizens and people everywhere for the part I had in supporting the nuclear arms race when I worked in Washington as a special assistant to the Senate Majority Leader from 1949 to 1952; for the belligerent speeches I wrote for Senators, and the statements I made to friends.

    I still believe that Harry Truman was principally motivated by a desire to save lives when he authorized the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The destruction of those two cities, depicted on film and viewed later by millions of people, had profound effects on the leaders of nations in the subsequent years. It is possible that those bombings prevented a third world war.

    But now it is folly to risk the survival of life on earth by permitting nuclear weapons to exist. Let us choose life; let us get rid of them as fast as we can. I can no longer support their existence. I urge everyone to call for their abolition, as I do now.
    *Frank K. Kelly is senior vice president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • A New Court to Uphold International Criminal Law: The World Moves Forward without the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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