Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: International Issues

  • Time is running out, and what is at stake is our common future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    David Krieger, President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • Taking Stock of the Non-Proliferation Regime

    From 8-19 April 2002, States parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) met at the United Nations in New York for the first Preparatory Committee (Prep Com) meeting to the 2005 review conference of the treaty. This was the first meeting of the States parties to the NPT since the 2000 Review Conference at which the Thirteen Practical Steps to Implement Article VI Obligations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty were adopted. While the NPT is the most universal arms control regime, there are serious problems facing its survival as the cornerstone for nuclear disarmament.

    Reporting

    The issue of reporting sparked heated debate during the meeting. In the final consensus document of the 2000 Review Conference, the States parties agreed to “regular reports, within the framework of the strengthened review process for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, by all States parties on the implementation of article VI and paragraph 4 (c) of the 1995 Decision on “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament”, and recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996.” However, at the Prep Com, the nuclear weapons states, led by the US, resisted the idea of a standardized procedure that was put forward by Canada and advocated by many other countries.

    While reporting would be a means to ensure that States are more transparent and accountable for their actions, the US argued that reporting should be left to the determination of individual States parties. Ambassador Javits of the United States delegation stated, “Engaging in technical or legal interpretation of the [13] steps [agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference in the Final Document] individually or collectively would not, in our judgement, be a useful exercise. The question that should be before us on Article VI is not whether any given measure has or has not been fulfilled, but rather: is a nuclear weapon state moving toward the overall goal? For the United States, the answer is an emphatic yes.”

    While the reduction of large nuclear stockpiles that were built up during the Cold War is certainly welcomed, the nuclear weapons States must not simply limit their reporting to these reductions while ignoring specific commitments they made in the context of the NPT. It is a complete hypocrisy for the nuclear weapons States on the one hand to claim that they are fulfilling their obligations to eliminate nuclear weapons by making large reductions in strategic stockpiles, while on the other hand taking no action to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons. In fact, the nuclear weapons States continue to rely on nuclear deterrence, modernize nuclear arsenals and develop new nuclear weapons.

    The US Nuclear Posture Review

    Many statements made by delegations expressed concern, whether explicitly or indirectly, with the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that leaked to the media in March 2002. Fears about US plans and the future of the NPT were heightened when the US said during its opening statement that it only “generally” agrees with the conclusions of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

    Despite 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. States at the NPT Prep Com also raised concerns about the possible resumption by the US of full-scale nuclear testing and plans to develop and deploy new “earth-penetrating” nuclear weapons.

    The NPR contains contingency plans for using 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 the named states for which the US has contingency plans are non-nuclear states. As Reverend Joan Brown Campbell noted in a Middle Powers Initiative presentation, when the US reserves to itself the right of first strike, it gives up the moral high ground and the right to tell other nations to give up their weapons of mass destruction.

    Counter-proliferation or Prevention?

    After 11 September, there has been an effort to divert attention from key issues facing humanity to the war on terrorism. However, in the post-11 September environment there remains an opportunity to address the prospect of terrorism from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in a way that deligitimizes their use. There is a legitimate concern about WMD and missile proliferation. However, the only way to ensure that WMD do not reach terrorists is to abolish them and their means of delivery.

    Serious concerns were raised about US plans to deploy missile defenses. Despite agreeing to preserving and strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in the 2000 Thirteen Practical Steps document, the US delivered formal notification to the States of the former Soviet Union on 13 December 2001 that it will withdraw from the treaty in June 2002 in order to proceed with the deployment of missile defenses. While the stated purpose of missile defenses is to defend against missile attacks, it is unlikely that they could do so effectively. The deployment of missile defenses will only produce instability and insecurity in critical regions of the world, including in North East Asia, the Middle East, and South Asia. Additionally, the inherent link between the deployment of missile defenses and the weaponization of outer space means that withdrawal from the ABM Treaty will allow the US to research and develop space weapons and space-based weaponry using technological overlaps from missile defenses.

    Regional Issues

    In light of the current conflict in the Middle East, many delegations condemned Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons and failure to join the NPT. There was also concern that no action has been taken by the States parties to promote the achievement of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East, nor the realization of the goals of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East.

    There was little talk about India and Pakistan, despite the escalating conflict between the two nuclear rivals in the last several months. Neither India nor Pakistan has joined the NPT. The US called on all four non-NPT parties — Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan — to show restraint in their nuclear programs and to “protect against the proliferation of technology and materials to others seeking nuclear weapons.”

    NGOs and the NPT

    Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are playing an increasing role in the NPT process that is largely reflective of a more globalized world. During the Cold War, States were the primary actors in the world. However, today, groups and individuals are playing greater roles. The challenge for NGOs is to increase their role in the NPT process and at the same time to reach beyond the governmental process to the people. As UN Undersecretary for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala noted in his address during the Middle Powers Initiative presentation on the first day of the Prep Com, there is a need to reactivate civil society on the nuclear issue because of the complacency and apathy that set in after the Cold War.

    At the Prep Com, NGOs were given one meeting of the session to deliver 14 prepared statements on issues related to the NPT. Following the presentations, there was a roundtable for NGOs and delegates to exchange information. Several delegations complimented the NGOs on the level of expertise and professionalism in both the presentations and in the literature that NGOs brought to the Prep Com. NGOs also held a number of panel presentations outside of the Prep Com.

    Conclusion

    The time leading up to the 2005 NPT Review Conference is critical. NGOs bear great responsibility to raise awareness in civil society about the issues facing the survival of the non-proliferation regime and efforts towards eliminating nuclear weapons. NGOs also must transform the discussion of nuclear abolition into a dynamic of action by urging individuals everywhere and non-nuclear weapons States to put pressure on the nuclear weapons States to fulfill their obligations of verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament.

    Resources

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Briefing Book on the Status of Nuclear Disarmament
    https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/new/programs/index.htm

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its Importance to Disarmament Efforts
    http://www.nuclearfiles.org/prolif/index.html

    Chairman’s Factual Summary of the NPT 2002 Prep Com
    http://www.nuclearfiles.org/articles/2002/020424ongchairman.htm

    NGO Presentations at the NPT Prep Com
    http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/ngostate2002.html

    Reaching Critical Will NGO Shadow Report to the Prep Com http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/npt/shadowreport/ngoshadrepindex.html

    Thirteen Practical Steps to Implement Article VI Obligations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
    http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/2000/0713nptsteps.html

  • Letter from the Co-Presidents of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) to President Bush regarding the US Nuclear Posture Review

    George W. Bush
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
    Washington, DC 20510

    Dear President Bush:

    As the Co-Presidents of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which was awarded the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for raising global awareness of the medical and environmental consequences of nuclear war, we wish to express our deep concern that the recently completed Nuclear Posture Review represents a repudiation of US disarmament commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and thus will undermine decades of efforts to prevent the spread-and eventual use-of nuclear arms.

    The Los Angeles Times reports that the NPR names seven countries-five of which are non-nuclear states-as targets of US nuclear weapons and that the US plans to develop small, tactical nuclear weapons for use in a variety of battlefield contingencies. If accurately described, this targeting policy will make the use of nuclear weapons more, rather than less, likely and must be retracted. Such a policy is also in violation of international law according to the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

    US nuclear policy as we now understand it places the world in greater jeopardy of nuclear war than at any time since the height of the Cold War. By asserting a central role for nuclear weapons well into the middle of this century, the NPR removes all incentive for the existing nuclear weapon states to disarm. Countries that joined the NPT on the condition that the nuclear weapon states, including the US, would honor their disarmament obligations under Article VI, might well reconsider their own “nuclear postures.”

    The reductions in strategic nuclear weapons that have been announced as a key element of the NPR would be welcome as an important step toward US disarmament obligations were it not for the apparent decision to retain most of them in an inactive “responsive” force, ready to be re-deployed on short notice. This shift in the operational status of US warheads does not equate to a reduction in the size of the arsenal in any legitimate sense and, in any case, is too easily reversible.

    Moreover, we cannot avoid the conclusion, from what has been published about the NPR, that the US intends to resume nuclear testing as soon as new warhead designs emerge from the DOE weapons labs, so that a new generation of nuclear weapons can be added to the arsenal even as older ones are removed. If the US “modernizes” its nuclear arsenal, other countries will do the same. A resumption of nuclear testing in the US will inevitably lead to a global breakdown of the decade-long moratorium on testing, which has been one of the most promising developments in the global campaign to prevent further nuclear proliferation.

    Your administration has already declared its intention to withdraw from the ABM Treaty in order to develop and deploy an enormously expensive system that cannot protect against the most likely means of nuclear weapons delivery by terrorists or by countries that might acquire a small number of nuclear weapons with hostile intent against the US. Missile defenses will provoke other nuclear weapons states to counter what they see as a threat to their own security by building more nuclear weapons rather than by honoring their treaty commitments.

    Finally, the NPR underscores a dangerous trend in US strategic policy in which the distinctions between nuclear and non-nuclear “missions”-and even nuclear and non-nuclear weapons- become blurred. Giving officers in the field a nuclear “capability” to destroy an underground bunker, for example, increases the likelihood that the nuclear threshold will be crossed by military decision makers who would come to think of nuclear weapons as just one option among many. This must never be allowed to happen.

    As physicians concerned with the prevention of nuclear war, our objections to US nuclear policy as articulated in the NPR take on a heightened sense of urgency given the expansion of US military activity around the world, enormous increases in military spending that cannot be justified by legitimate concerns over terrorism, and a disturbing trend toward unilateral decision making. Rather than leading the way toward a world in which our common security is assured, as much as possible, by the norms and structures of international law and by policies that address and alleviate the root causes of conflict, the United States is needlessly endangering not only American lives, but the lives of people throughout the world who, unless this policy is reversed, must continue to live under the shadow of weapons of mass destruction for generations to come.

    IPPNW and its affiliates joined the world in condemning the terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, and we mourned the loss of innocent life. We were gratified to see the huge reservoir of sympathy for the victims of those attacks, for their families, and for the rescue workers who lost their lives in the attempt to save the lives of others. We are terribly saddened, therefore, at the prospect that the US could squander the good will of the international community by adopting what amounts to a permanent state of war in which nuclear threats play an ever more intricate part.

    There is another way. The US and the other nuclear weapon states can negotiate a verifiable and enforceable Nuclear Weapons Convention that would release the world from its perpetual state of nuclear terror. As the world’s wealthiest nation, the US is also in a unique position-and has a unique responsibility-to lead the nations of the world in efforts to alleviate the conditions that give rise to terrorism and to global conflict.

    On behalf of our affiliates, comprising medical associations in 65 countries, we urge you to abandon the course set out in the Nuclear Posture Review, to honor the US commitment to eliminate its nuclear weapons, and to join the international community in productive, collaborative efforts to resolve conflicts without resort to war.

    Sincerely,
    Mary-Wynne Ashford, MD – Co-President, Canada
    Abraham Behar, MD – Co-President, France
    Sergei Grachev, MD – Co-President, Russia

  • Background on the Non-Proliferation Treaty

    Background on the Non-Proliferation Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

    The Nuclear Disarmament Promise of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

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

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

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

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

    New Promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    12. Regular reports, within the framework of the strengthened review process for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, by all States parties on the implementation of article VI and paragraph 4 (c) of the 1995 Decision on “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament”, and recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996.

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

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

  • Global Military Expenditures 2002

    Global military expenditures currently exceed $800 billion.

    The top military spenders are:

    United States $343.2 Billion
    Russia* $60
    China* $42
    Japan $40.4
    United Kingdom $34
    Saudi Arabia $27.2
    France $25.3
    Germany $21
    Brazil $17.9
    India $15.6
    Italy $15.5
    South Korea $11.8

    *Based on 2000 funding (most recent year available)

    Global Priorities

    For approximately 30% of Annual World Military Expenditures (~$810 billion), all of the following could be accomplished***:
    o Eliminate Starvation and Malnutrition ($19 billion)
    o Provide Shelter ($21 billion)
    o Remove Landmines ($4 billion)
    o Build Democracy ($3 billion)
    o Eliminate Nuclear Weapons ($7 billion)
    o Refugee Relief ($5 billion)
    o Eliminate Illiteracy ($5 billion)
    o Provide Clean, Safe Water ($10 billion)
    o Provide Health Care and AIDS Control ($21 billion)
    o Stop Deforestation ($7 billion)
    o Prevent Global Warming ($8 billion)
    o Stabilize Population ($10.5 billion)
    o Prevent Acid Rain ($8 billion)
    o Provide Clean, Safe Energy: Energy Efficiency ($33 billion), Renewable Energy
    ($17 billion)
    o Stop Ozone Depletion ($5 billion)
    o Prevent Soil Erosion ($24 billion)
    o Retire Developing Nations Debt ($30 billion)

    ***For more information, please visit: http://www.worldgame.org

    sources: Center for Defense Information, Council for a Livable World, International Institute for Strategic Studies, US State Department, US Central Intelligence Agency

  • Rethink the Unthinkable

    Nuclear weapons are back on the front pages, with news of a Bush administration policy document, the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, which projects the role of nuclear weapons into the future — not as deterrents, but for the purpose of waging wars. The document even names potential targets. This document and the thinking behind it are reckless. They not only jeopardize international law but the support of America’s closest allies. Canada must state its opposition immediately.

    The document also breaks a commitment. In 2000, the United States joined the other nuclear-weapons states in making an “unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination” of their nuclear arsenals. The United States made this commitment at a review conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, with 187 nations involved, is the world’s largest arms-control and disarmament treaty.

    There are still 31,000 nuclear weapons in the world, most of them American or Russian, with lesser amounts held by the United Kingdom, France and China, India, Pakistan and Israel. At least 5,000 of the U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons are maintained on hair-trigger alert, meaning they could be fired on 15 minutes notice.

    The Bush administration has offered cuts in the nuclear weapons the United States deploys, but is reinforcing its maintenance of core stocks and planning the development of new ones. By rejecting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, it is holding open the door to resumed nuclear testing. This has greatly worried many non-nuclear weapons countries and has already led to charges that the United States is acting in bad faith. The Non-Proliferation Treaty insists that negotiations for elimination should be held in “good faith.”

    Periodically, the United States reviews its policies on nuclear weapons; it did so last year, the results of which are seen in this week’s alarming headlines. “Behind the administration’s rhetorical mask of post-Cold War restraint,” comments the U.S. National Resources Defence Council, a prestigious non-profit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists, “lie expansive plans to revitalize U.S. nuclear forces, and all the elements that support them, within a so-called ‘New Triad’ of capabilities that combine nuclear and conventional offensive strikes with missile defences and nuclear-weapons infrastructure.”

    According to the council’s analysis, the Bush team assumes that nuclear weapons will be part of U.S. military forces at least for the next 50 years; it plans an extensive and expensive series of programs to modernize the existing force, including a new ICBM to be operational in 2020 and a new heavy bomber in 2040.

    The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review says that there are four reasons to possess nuclear weapons: to “assure allies and friends”; “dissuade competitors”; “deter aggressors”; and “defeat enemies.” Over the next 10 years, the White House’s plans call for the United States to retain a total stockpile of intact nuclear weapons and weapons components roughly seven to nine times larger than the publicly-stated goal of 1,700 to 2,200 “operationally deployed weapons.”

    Moreover, the U.S. administration has ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only the “axis of evil” (Iraq, Iran and North Korea) but also Russia, China, Libya and Syria.

    This position has prompted the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to move the minute hand of their “Doomsday Clock” forward two minutes — to seven minutes to midnight, the same position as when the clock made its debut in 1947. “Despite a campaign promise to rethink nuclear policy, the Bush administration has taken no significant steps to alter nuclear targeting policies or reduce the alert status of U.S. nuclear forces,” said George A. Lopez, chairman of the Bulletin’s board of directors.

    The shift in U.S. policy has immense implications for Canada and the other members of NATO. NATO has traditionally presented its nuclear doctrine as one of deterrence, not war. Canada is now caught in the middle, between its international legal obligations to support negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons, or to support the United States in its determination to keep them. All this will come to a head at an important Non-Proliferation Treaty meeting at the United Nations, starting April 8.

    Canada has higher obligations to international law, as it is being developed in the United Nations system, than it does to its friendship with the United States, which is violating the very law that Canada stands for. Good friends don’t let their friends drive drunk. It’s time for Canada to blow the whistle on its U.S. friends in Washington, who are veering out of control in their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

    Because of its military strength and commanding position as the world’s lone superpower, the United States occupies the central position when it comes to making progress on nuclear disarmament. NATO’s stance — that nuclear weapons remain “essential” — would fold in an instant if the United States took action in entering comprehensive negotiations for elimination. Russia and China, struggling to move their economies into strong positions, do not want to engage in a new nuclear arms race, which is precisely what they fear will happen if and when the United States actually deploys a National Missile Defence system.

    Most people do not realize that the United States spends $100-million (U.S.) a day maintaining its nuclear weapons. Because Washington is pouring huge new sums into its defence budget — it will soon be spending, at $400-billion annually, more than the next 15 countries combined — the international community has become rightfully alarmed about U.S. intentions.

    Nor is the rest of the world reassured when we see the Pentagon’s Web site proclaiming the U.S. intention to weaponize space and thus ensure “full-spectrum dominance” on land, sea, air and space.
    *Douglas Roche is an independent senator from Alberta and Canada’s former ambassador for disarmament. He is a former chairman of the UN Disarmament Committee. Currently, Senator Roche is Chairman of the Middle Powers Initiative and a member of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: a Threat to Peace

    DC Iraq Coalition, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca

    “Should war break out in the Middle East again,… or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability.”
    Seymour Hersh(1)

    “Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.” Ariel Sharon(2)

    ——————————————————————————–

    With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World’s 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publically recognized as such. Since the Gulf War in 1991, while much attention has been lavished on the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the major culprit in the region, Israel, has been largely ignored. Possessing chemical and biological weapons, an extremely sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and an aggressive strategy for their actual use, Israel provides the major regional impetus for the development of weapons of mass destruction and represents an acute threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. The Israeli nuclear program represents a serious impediment to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation and, with India and Pakistan, is a potential nuclear flashpoint (prospects of meaningful non-proliferation are a delusion so long as the nuclear weapons states insist on maintaining their arsenals). Citizens concerned about sanctions against Iraq, peace with justice in the Middle East, and nuclear disarmament have an obligation to speak out forcefully against the Israeli nuclear program.

    Birth of the Israeli Bomb

    The Israeli nuclear program began in the late 1940s under the direction of Ernst David Bergmann, “the father of the Israeli bomb,” who in 1952 established the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission. It was France, however, which provided the bulk of early nuclear assistance to Israel culminating in construction of Dimona, a heavy water moderated, natural uranium reactor and plutonium reprocessing factory situated near Bersheeba in the Negev Desert. Israel had been an active participant in the French Nuclear weapons program from its inception, providing critical technical expertise, and the Israeli nuclear program can be seen as an extension of this earlier collaboration. Dimona went on line in 1964 and plutonium reprocessing began shortly thereafter. Despite various Israeli claims that Dimona was “a manganese plant, or a textile factory,” the extreme security measures employed told a far different story. In 1967, Israel shot down one of their own Mirage fighters that approached too close to Dimona and in 1973 shot down a Lybian civilian airliner which strayed off course, killing 104.(3) There is substantial credible speculation that Israel may have exploded at least one, and perhaps several, nuclear devices in the mid 1960s in the Negev near the Israeli-Egyptian border, and that it participated actively in French nuclear tests in Algeria.(4) By the time of the “Yom Kippur War” in 1973, Israel possessed an arsenal of perhaps several dozen deliverable atomic bombs and went on full nuclear alert.(5)

    Possessing advanced nuclear technology and “world class” nuclear scientists, Israel was confronted early with a major problem- how to obtain the necessary uranium. Israel’s own uranium source was the phosphate deposits in the Negev, totally inadequate to meet the need of a rapidly expanding program. The short term answer was to mount commando raids in France and Britain to successfully hijack uranium shipments and, in1968, to collaborate with West Germany in diverting 200 tons of yellowcake (uranium oxide).(6) These clandestine acquisitions of uranium for Dimona were subsequently covered up by the various countries involved. There was also an allegation that a U.S. corporation called Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) diverted hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium to Israel from the mid-50s to the mid-60s.

    Despite an FBI and CIA investigation, and Congressional hearings, no one was ever prosecuted, although most other investigators believed the diversion had occurred (7), (8). In the late 1960s, Israel solved the uranium problem by developing close ties with South Africa in a quid pro quo arrangement whereby Israel supplied the technology and expertise for the “Apartheid Bomb,” while South Africa provided the uranium.

    South Africa and the United States

    In 1977, the Soviet Union warned the U.S. that satellite photos indicated South Africa was planning a nuclear test in the Kalahari Desert but the Apartheid regime backed down under pressure. On September 22, 1979, a U.S. satellite detected an atmospheric test of a small thermonuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean off South Africa but, because of Israel’s apparent involvement, the report was quickly “whitewashed” by a carefully selected scientific panel kept in the dark about important details. Later it was learned through Israeli sources that there were actually three carefully guarded tests of miniaturized Israeli nuclear artillery shells. The Israeli/South African collaboration did not end with the bomb testing, but continued until the fall of Apartheid, especially with the developing and testing of medium range missiles and advanced artillery. In addition to uranium and test facilities, South Africa provided Israel with large amounts of investment capital, while Israel provided a major trade outlet to enable the Apartheid state avoid international economic sanctions.(9)

    Although the French and South Africans were primarily responsible for the Israeli nuclear program, the U.S. shares and deserves a large part of the blame. Mark Gaffney wrote (the Israeli nuclear program) “was possible only because (emphasis in original) of calculated deception on the part of Israel, and willing complicity on the part of the U.S..”(10)

    From the very beginning, the U.S. was heavily involved in the Israeli nuclear program, providing nuclear related technology such as a small research reactor in 1955 under the “Atoms for Peace Program.” Israeli scientists were largely trained at U.S. universities and were generally welcomed at the nuclear weapons labs. In the early 1960s, the controls for the Dimona reactor were obtained clandestinely from a company called Tracer Lab, the main supplier of U.S. military reactor control panels, purchased through a Belgian subsidiary, apparently with the acquiescence of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.(11) In 1971, the Nixon administration approved the sale of hundreds of krytons(a type of high speed switch necessary to the development of sophisticated nuclear bombs) to Israel.(12) And, in 1979, Carter provided ultra high resolution photos from a KH-11 spy satellite, used 2 years later to bomb the Iraqi Osirak Reactor.(13) Throughout the Nixon and Carter administrations, and accelerating dramatically under Reagan, U.S. advanced technology transfers to Israel have continued unabated to the present.

    The Vanunu Revelations

    Following the 1973 war, Israel intensified its nuclear program while continuing its policy of deliberate “nuclear opaqueness.” Until the mid-1980s, most intelligence estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal were on the order of two dozen but the explosive revelations of Mordechai Vanunu, a nuclear technician working in the Dimona plutonium reprocessing plant, changed everything overnight. A leftist supporter of Palestine, Vanunu believed that it was his duty to humanity to expose Israel’s nuclear program to the world. He smuggled dozens of photos and valuable scientific data out of Israel and in 1986 his story was published in the London Sunday Times. Rigorous scientific scrutiny of the Vanunu revelations led to the disclosure that Israel possessed as many as 200 highly sophisticated, miniaturized thermonuclear bombs. His information indicated that the Dimona reactor’s capacity had been expanded several fold and that Israel was producing enough plutonium to make ten to twelve bombs per year. A senior U.S. intelligence analyst said of the Vanunu data,”The scope of this is much more extensive than we thought. This is an enormous operation.”(14)

    Just prior to publication of his information Vanunu was lured to Rome by a Mossad “Mata Hari,” was beaten, drugged and kidnapped to Israel and, following a campaign of disinformation and vilification in the Israeli press, convicted of “treason” by a secret security court and sentenced to 18 years in prison. He served over 11 years in solitary confinement in a 6 by 9 foot cell. After a year of modified release into the general population (he was not permitted contact with Arabs), Vanunu recently has been returned to solitary and faces more than 3 years further imprisonment. Predictably, the Vanunu revelations were largely ignored by the world press, especially in the United States, and Israel continues to enjoy a relatively free ride regarding its nuclear status. (15)

    Israel’s Arsenal of Mass Destruction

    Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world’s most sophisticated, largely designed for “war fighting” in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are “neutron bombs,” miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow, cruise missiles, land mines (In the 1980s Israel planted nuclear land mines along the Golan Heights(17)), and artillery shells with a range of 45 miles (18). In June, 2000 an Israeli submarine launched a cruise missile which hit a target 950 miles away, making Israel only the third nation after the U.S. and Russia with that capability. Israel will deploy 3 of these virtually impregnable submarines, each carrying 4 cruise missiles.(19)

    The bombs themselves range in size from “city busters” larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for “deterrence.”

    Israel also possesses a comprehensive arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. According to the Sunday Times, Israel has produced both chemical and biological weapons with a sophisticated delivery system, quoting a senior Israeli intelligence official, “There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapon . . .which is not manufactured at the Nes Tziyona Biological Institute.”)(20) The same report described F- 16 fighter jets specially designed for chemical and biological payloads, with crews trained to load the weapons on a moments notice. In 1998, the Sunday Times reported that Israel, using research obtained from South Africa, was developing an “ethno bomb; “In developing their “ethno-bomb”, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying distinctive a gene carried by some Arabs, then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus… The scientists are trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.” Dedi Zucker, a leftist Member of Knesset, the Israeli parliament, denounced the research saying, “Morally, based on our history, and our tradition and our experience, such a weapon is monstrous and should be denied.”(21)

    Israeli Nuclear Strategy

    In popular imagination, the Israeli bomb is a “weapon of last resort,” to be used only at the last minute to avoid annihilation, and many well intentioned but misled supporters of Israel still believe that to be the case. Whatever truth this formulation may have had in the minds of the early Israeli nuclear strategists, today the Israeli nuclear arsenal is inextricably linked to and integrated with overall Israeli military and political strategy. As Seymour Hersh says in classic understatement ; “The Samson Option is no longer the only nuclear option available to Israel.”(22) Israel has made countless veiled nuclear threats against the Arab nations and against the Soviet Union (and by extension Russia since the end of the Cold War). One chilling example comes from Ariel Sharon, the current Israeli Prime Minister “Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.”(23) (In 1983 Sharon proposed to India that it join with Israel to attack Pakistani nuclear facilities; in the late 70s he proposed sending Israeli paratroopers to Tehran to prop up the Shah; and in 1982 he called for expanding Israel’s security influence to stretch from “Mauritania to Afghanistan.”) In another example, Israeli nuclear expert Oded Brosh said in 1992, “…we need not be ashamed that the nuclear option is a major instrumentality of our defense as a deterrent against those who attack us.”(24) According to Israel Shahak, “The wish for peace, so often assumed as the Israeli aim, is not in my view a principle of Israeli policy, while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence is.” and “Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of averting domestic change not to its liking, if it occurs in some or any Middle Eastern states…. Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East…, without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones.”(25)

    Israel uses its nuclear arsenal not just in the context of deterrence” or of direct war fighting, but in other more subtle but no less important ways. For example, the possession of weapons of mass destruction can be a powerful lever to maintain the status quo, or to influence events to Israel’s perceived advantage, such as to protect the so called moderate Arab states from internal insurrection, or to intervene in inter-Arab warfare. (26) In Israeli strategic jargon this concept is called “nonconventional compellence” and is exemplified by a quote from Shimon Peres; “acquiring a superior weapons system(read nuclear) would mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes- that is forcing the other side to accept Israeli political demands, which presumably include a demand that the traditional status quo be accepted and a peace treaty signed.”(27) From a slightly different perspective, Robert Tuckerr asked in a Commentary magazine article in defense of Israeli nukes, “What would prevent Israel… from pursuing a hawkish policy employing a nuclear deterrent to freeze the status quo?”(28) Possessing an overwhelming nuclear superiority allows Israel to act with impunity even in the face world wide opposition. A case in point might be the invasion of Lebanon and destruction of Beirut in 1982, led by Ariel Sharon, which resulted in 20,000 deaths, most civilian. Despite the annihilation of a neighboring Arab state, not to mention the utter destruction of the Syrian Air Force, Israel was able to carry out the war for months at least partially due to its nuclear threat.

    Another major use of the Israeli bomb is to compel the U.S. to act in Israel’s favor, even when it runs counter to its own strategic interests. As early as 1956 Francis Perrin, head of the French A-bomb project wrote “We thought the Israeli Bomb was aimed at the Americans, not to launch it at the Americans, but to say, ‘If you don’t want to help us in a critical situation we will require you to help us; otherwise we will use our nuclear bombs.’”(29) During the 1973 war, Israel used nuclear blackmail to force Kissinger and Nixon to airlift massive amounts of military hardware to Israel. The Israeli Ambassador, Simha Dinitz, is quoted as saying, at the time, “If a massive airlift to Israel does not start immediately, then I will know that the U.S. is reneging on its promises and…we will have to draw very serious conclusions…”(30) Just one example of this strategy was spelled out in 1987 by Amos Rubin, economic adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who said “If left to its own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense which will endanger itself and the world at large… To enable Israel to abstain from dependence on nuclear arms calls for $2 to 3 billion per year in U.S. aid.”(31) Since then Israel’s nuclear arsenal has expanded exponentially, both quantitatively and qualitatively, while the U.S. money spigots remain wide open.

    Regional and International Implications

    Largely unknown to the world, the Middle East nearly exploded in all out war on February 22, 2001. According to the London Sunday Times and DEBKAfile, Israel went on high missile alert after receiving news from the U.S. of movement by 6 Iraqi armored divisions stationed along the Syrian border, and of launch preparations of surface to surface missiles. DEBKAfile, an Israeli based “counter-terrorism” information service, claims that the Iraqi missiles were deliberately taken to the highest alert level in order to test the U.S. and Israeli response. Despite an immediate attack by 42 U.S. and British war planes, the Iraqis suffered little apparent damage.(32) The Israelis have warned Iraq that they are prepared to use neutron bombs in a preemptive attack against Iraqi missiles.

    The Israeli nuclear arsenal has profound implications for the future of peace in the Middle East, and indeed, for the entire planet. It is clear from Israel Shahak that Israel has no interest in peace except that which is dictated on its own terms, and has absolutely no intention of negotiating in good faith to curtail its nuclear program or discuss seriously a nuclear-free Middle East,”Israel’s insistence on the independent use of its nuclear weapons can be seen as the foundation on which Israeli grand strategy rests.”(34) According to Seymour Hersh, “the size and sophistication of Israel’s nuclear arsenal allows men such as Ariel Sharon to dream of redrawing the map of the Middle East aided by the implicit threat of nuclear force.”(35) General Amnon Shahak-Lipkin, former Israeli Chief of Staff is quoted “It is never possible to talk to Iraq about no matter what; It is never possible to talk to Iran about no matter what. Certainly about nuclearization. With Syria we cannot really talk either.”(36) Ze’ev Shiff, an Israeli military expert writing in Haaretz said, “Whoever believes that Israel will ever sign the UN Convention prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons… is day dreaming,”(37) and Munya Mardoch, Director of the Israeli Institute for the Development of Weaponry, said in 1994, “The moral and political meaning of nuclear weapons is that states which renounce their use are acquiescing to the status of Vassal states. All those states which feel satisfied with possessing conventional weapons alone are fated to become vassal states.”(38)

    As Israeli society becomes more and more polarized, the influence of the radical right becomes stronger. According to Shahak, “The prospect of Gush Emunim, or some secular right-wing Israeli fanatics, or some some of the delerious Israeli Army generals, seizing control of Israeli nuclear weapons…cannot be precluded. …while israeli jewish society undergoes a steady polarization, the Israeli security system increasingly relies on the recruitment of cohorts from the ranks of the extreme right.”(39) The Arab states, long aware of Israel’s nuclear program, bitterly resent its coercive intent, and perceive its existence as the paramount threat to peace in the region, requiring their own weapons of mass destruction. During a future Middle Eastern war (a distinct possibility given the ascension of Ariel Sharon, an unindicted war criminal with a bloody record stretching from the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Quibya in 1953, to the massacre of Palestinian civilians at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and beyond) the possible Israeli use of nuclear weapons should not be discounted. According to Shahak, “In Israeli terminology, the launching of missiles on to Israeli territory is regarded as ‘nonconventional’ regardless of whether they are equipped with explosives or poison gas.”(40) (Which requires a “nonconventional” response, a perhaps unique exception being the Iraqi SCUD attacks during the Gulf War.)

    Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, “Should war break out in the Middle East again,… or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability.”(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel’s current President said “The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional.”(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard’s spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, “… if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon – for whatever reason – the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration.” (44)

    Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region’s states to each seek their own “deterrent.” Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel’s nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith. Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
    ——————————————————————————–

    Footnotes:

    1. Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, New York,1991, Random House, p. 319 (A brilliant and prophetic work with much original research)2

    2. Mark Gaffney, Dimona, The Third Temple:The Story Behind the Vanunu Revelation, Brattleboro, VT, 1989, Amana Books, p. 165 (Excellent progressive analysis of the Israeli nuclear program)

    3. U.S. Army Lt. Col. Warner D. Farr, The Third Temple Holy of Holies; Israel’s Nuclear Weapons, USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air War College Sept 1999 <www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr,htm (Perhaps the>best single condensed history of the Israeli nuclear program)

    4. Hersch, op.cit., p. 131

    5. Gaffney, op.cit., p. 63

    6. Gaffney, op. cit. pp 68 – 69

    7. Hersh, op.cit., pp. 242-257

    8. Gaffney, op.cit., 1989, pps. 65-66 (An alternative discussion of the NUMEC affair)

    9. Barbara Rogers & Zdenek Cervenka, The Nuclear Axis: The Secret Collaboration Between West Germany and South Africa, New York, 1978, Times Books, p. 325-328 (the definitive history of the Apartheid Bomb)

    10. Gaffney, op. cit., 1989, p. 34

    11. Peter Hounam, Woman From Mossad: The Torment of Mordechai Vanunu, London, 1999, Vision Paperbacks, pp. 155-168 (The most complete and up to date account of the Vanunu story, it includes fascenating speculation that Israel may have a second hidden Dimona type reactor)

    12. Hersh, op. cit., 1989, p. 213

    13. ibid, p.198-200

    14. ibid, pp. 3-17

    15. Hounman, op. cit. 1999, pp 189-203

    16. Hersh, 1989. pp.199-200

    17. ibid, p. 312

    18. John Pike and Federation of American Scientists, Israel Special Weapons Guide Website, 2001, Web Address <http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/index.html (An invaluable>internet resource)

    19. Usi Mahnaimi and Peter Conradi, Fears of New Arms Race as Israel Tests Cruise Missiles, June 18, 2000, London Sunday Times

    20. Usi Mahnaimi, Israeli Jets Equipped for Chemical Warfare October 4, 1998, London Sunday Times

    21. Usi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin, Israel Planning “Ethnic” bomb as Saddam Caves In, November 15, 1998, London Sunday Times

    22. Hersh, op.cit., 1991, p. 319

    23. Gaffney, op.cit., 1989, p. 163

    24. Israel Shahak, Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies, London, 1997,Pluto Press, p. 40 (An absolute “must read” for any Middle East or anti-nuclear activist)

    25 ibid, p.2

    26. ibid, p.43

    27. Gaffney, op.cit., 1989, p 131

    28. “Israel & the US: From Dependence to Nuclear Weapons?” Robert W. Tucker, November 1975 pp41-42

    29. London Sunday Times, October 12, 1986

    30. Gaffney, op. cit. 1989. p. 147

    31. ibid, p. 153

    32. DEBKAfile, February 23, 2001 WWW.debka.com

    33. Uzi Mahnaimi and Tom Walker, London Sunday Times, February 25, 2001

    34. Shahak, op. cit., p150

    35. Hersh, op.cit., p. 319

    36. Shahak, op. cit., p34

    37. ibid, p. 149

    38. ibid, p. 153

    39. ibid, pp. 37-38

    40. ibid, pp 39-40

    41. Hersh, op. cit., p. 19

    42. Aronson, Geoffrey, “Hidden Agenda: US-Israeli Relations and the Nuclear Question,” Middle East Journal, (Autumn 1992), 619-630.

    43 . Hersh, op. cit., pp. 285-305

    44. Gaffney, op. cit., p194
    Copyright, John Steinbach, DC Iraq Coalition, 2002. Reprinted for fair use only

  • Open Letter from an American to the World: HELP!

    The Bush Administration is blundering into a global conflagration. There is currently no force within the U.S. likely to stop it. It is up to the rest of the world, and especially America’s friends and allies — both governments and their citizens — to constrain its rush to disaster.

    The Bush administration was warned by its European and Arab allies and its friends around the world to avoid:

    A long bombing campaign with significant civilian casualties in Afghanistan. –Seizure of Kabul by the Northern Alliance. Bombing Afghanistan during Ramadan. Failure to reestablish the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Each of these warnings was ignored. And the emerging result of these and similar Bush Administration policies is a vast global destabilization that is acquiring a momentum going far beyond the responses to September 11. As The New York Times reports, “new battlegrounds” have opened up “from the Palestinian territories to Kashmir.”

    Whether or not the war in Afghanistan was justified, the issue is no longer about destroying Al Qaeda, or removing the repressive Taliban regime, or even whether the U.S. will attack Iraq.

    The issue is now an emerging world crisis provoked by a superpower administration that is acting without rational consideration of the effects of its actions. The number of additional civil and international wars it may stir up is simply incalculable — and certainly is not being rationally calculated by the Bush administration.

    This represents a new stage in testing what it means to be the world’s only superpower. As a German official put it in The New York Times, in the past Washington determined its national interest in shaping international rules, behavior, and institutions.

    “Now Washington seems to want to pursue its national interest in a more narrowly defined way, doing what it wants and forcing others to adapt.”

    The Bush Administration has a list of dozens of countries for possible intervention, and it is presently debating who’s next. “Pentagon officials have openly agitated to finish off Mr. [Saddam] Hussein…. Recently an American delegation from the State Department was in northern Iraq, discussing activities in that part of Iraq with Kurdish leaders… [S]ome administration officials say that Pakistan may be where the next phase of the war must unfold.”

    Somalia, the Sudan, the Philippines — the shopping list goes on and on.

    The Bush administration’s global destabilization is not limited to the war on terrorism. U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty is initiating a new nuclear arms race.

    Joseph Biden, Jr., the chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, cites widely reported U.S. intelligence community conclusions that “pulling out of ABM would prompt the Chinese to increase their nuclear arsenal tenfold, beyond the modernization they are doing anyway…. And when they build up, so will the Indians, and when the Indians do, so will the Pakistanis. And for what? A system no one is convinced will work.”

    It is an illusion to believe that the U.S. is in any way in control of events. Consider the mid-East peace process. Just as Bush and Powell were rolling out a major peace initiative, the combination of war parties in Israel and Palestine sabotaged it completely.

    The U.S. then tilted wildly toward the very forces in Israel that had sabotaged the U.S. initiative. The attack on the Indian parliament — believed by our new friend India to have been organized with the connivance of our old friend Pakistan — threatens to provoke a war that the U.S. will now be in the middle of.

    The U.S. justification for its attack on Afghanistan as “harboring terrorists” has already been echoed almost word for word by India, Israel, Russia, and China for their own purposes. The use of the “right of self-defense” as a justification for a unilateral decision to attack any country one accuses of harboring terrorists provides a pretext that any national leader can now use to make war against anyone it chooses in complete disregard of international law.

    Internal constraints?

    There is something that peoples and governments around the world need to understand: There are currently no effective internal constraints on what the Bush Administration can or will do. Because of popular response to the September 11 attacks, the Administration feels –correctly, at least for a time — that it can do anything without having to fear dissent or opposition.

    It withdrew from the AMB treaty with barely a ripple of public questioning. Its endorsement of Sharon’s attacks on the Palestinian Authority wins overwhelming Congressional support. Open advocacy of a military attack and occupation of Iraq causes no stir.

    The peace movement that has challenged Bush administration policies may become a significant restraint in the future, but it isn’t now.

    Nor is there any effective institutional constraint. The U.S. Congress has almost unanimously given the Administration a blank check to conduct any military operations it chooses.

    Practical concerns of senior military officers at the Pentagon are apparently ignored by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his ubiquitous supporters. Secretary of State Colin Powell, looked to by many as a source of reason and restraint, has been unable to make the Administration heed any of the warnings listed above. It is hard to detect any indication of a business or foreign policy “Establishment” putting any constraints on the unleashing of US power.

    Most serious of all is a lack of constraint based on rational evaluation of long-term consequences. As an “exuberant senior aide” put it recently, the Bush administration is “on a roll”; its “biggest concern” is “how to make maximum use of the military as well as the diplomatic momentum he has built up abroad and the political capital he has accumulated at home.”

    As an article in The Guardian entitled “Washington hawks get power boost: Rumsfeld is winning the debate” puts it, “For the time being, at least, there is little in Washington to stop Mr. Rumsfeld chasing America’s foes all the way to Baghdad.”

    A time for friends to help friends

    The U.S. in the Cold War era at least purported to be protecting its allies. But today, as the U.S. projects its power unilaterally, it friends and allies are the ones most likely to feel the blowback from destabilization in the form of terrorism, refugees, recession, and war.

    It is up to governments and civil society outside the U.S. to put constraints on what it does — both for their own sake and for America’s.

    In the Suez Crisis of 1956, the armies of Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt and began advancing on the Suez Canal. The U.S. under President Eisenhower intervened — not to support the invaders but to restrain them. It is time for the world to return the favor. For example:

    * A “coalition” in which the U.S. Goliath cuts a separate deal with each “coalition partner” is a formula for U.S. dictation. U.S. coalition partners must insist that the U.S. spell out its intentions for open world discussion before they agree to provide any support.

    * U.S. coalition partners with few exceptions oppose U.S. attacks on Iraq, Somalia, the Sudan, or anywhere else. Yet it is no secret that planning for such attacks is under way in Washington. Coalition partners must move from private grumbling to a concerted public united front against such actions.

    * The U.N. can serve as an arena for challenging and providing alternatives to superpower supremacy. At the least, the U.S. can be forced to isolate itself by vetoing resolutions that run counter to its unilateralism.

    (The Security Council recently voted 12 to 1, with Britain and Norway abstaining, for a resolution calling for international monitors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The U.S. vetoed the resolution — thereby isolating itself from many of its own “coalition partners.”)

    Strong, unified, public endorsement of Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s campaign against an attack on Iraq would have a big impact in the U.S. at this point.

    * It has been widely reported in the U.S. that foreign critics of the war in Afghanistan have now concluded that they were wrong because the war was short and because it freed Afghans, especially women, from the tyranny of the Taliban.

    This is being used in Washington to argue that popular opinion abroad need not be regarded as an impediment to further U.S. attacks elsewhere. Washington needs to hear a clear message that that is not the case.

    * There are concrete ways in which people and governments can begin putting the brakes on Washington. The refusal of European countries to extradite suspects who may be subject to military tribunals or the death penalty provides an excellent example.

    This is going to be a long struggle, not just about one policy, but about a basic historical tendency of the world’s only superpower. It is sad but true that the rest of the world may not have enough leverage in the short run to stop the U.S. from attacking whomever it chooses to target next. But it is time to begin laying the groundwork for a long-term strategy of containment.

    Such international pressure can serve as a deterrent to the craziest actions the Bush administration is considering. For example, press reports suggest that opposition from Russia, Europe, and Arab countries may be leading Bush’s advisors at least to delay an attack on Iraq on the grounds that “there is insufficient international backing.”

    If U.S. friends and coalition partners toll the alarm bell, it will begin to evoke different responses in Congress, the Pentagon, corporate elites, and the American public as well, especially as the untoward consequences of the Bush administration juggernaut become apparent.

    Without an outside wake-up call, these forces are currently prepared to plunge into the abyss in an empty-minded trance.

    Restraining the Bush Administration is anything but anti-American. It is the best thing America’s friends can do for us right now. We have a slogan here: “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.”

    PLEASE: America’s friends need to take the car keys away until this power-drunk superpower sobers up.

    *Jeremy Brecher is an historian and the author of twelve books, including GLOBALIZATION FROM BELOW, and producer of the video documentary GLOBAL VILLAGE OR GLOBAL PILLAGE? (website: www.villageorpillage.org) Anyone is welcome to forward or reprint this piece.

  • Courage and Wisdom are Needed, Exceprt from the Christmas Message

    Fanatical hatred and the destructive power of evil struck the Western world this year with a shock that erodes our feelings of security and critically diminishes our sense of well-being. Human life is exceedingly vulnerable and modern society is very fragile, just exactly where it has created, with all of its luxury and cherished safety, a sense of impregnability.

    The lack of respect for life and death and the intolerance that feeds terrorism confront us with a world view that confounds us. God’s peace is ever foremost in all of the world’s religions. Respect for the sanctity of life is the cornerstone of every religion’s morality. Justice is everywhere recognized as the basis of human society. Solidarity is the universally accepted basis of coexistence.

    Despite this, history teaches us that no religion has been free of profanation and false preaching. Where ideologies and religious misinterpretations incite bigotry, promulgate hatred and stimulate aggression, tolerance ends. When the common good is desecrated and human rights are defiled, one must lay down clear limits. No concessions may be made with respect to the principles and norms of a state based on the rule of law.

    The principles of our democracy include, at a minimum, the recognition of diversity of convictions and respect for the beliefs of all. This means tolerance of the opinions and cultures of others. The maintenance of good relations requires that differences be recognized for what they are, and in the mutual search for balanced attitudes, the background of these differences be examined. No one may be absent from this dialogue.

    The problems of this world are so gigantic that some are paralysed by their own uncertainty. Courage and wisdom are needed to reach out above this sense of helplessness. Desire for vengeance against deeds of hatred offers no solution. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. If we wish to choose the other path, we will have to search for ways to break the spiral of animosity.

    To fight evil one must also recognize one’s own responsibility. The values for which we stand must be expressed in the way we think of, and how we deal with, our fellow humans.

    From the Christmas Message 2001 of HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands

  • The Unity of Lemmings

    The Unity of Lemmings

    As a consequence of the September 11th terrorist attacks, our country appears united as never before. President Bush has had approval ratings above 90 percent and it is reported that initial support for bombing Afghanistan also was above 90 percent.

    Congress was nearly unified in giving the President the authority to use force. Only Congresswoman Barbara Lee withheld her vote from this resolution. In doing so, she recalled the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in which Congress authorized the Vietnam War, and quoted Senator Wayne Morse, one of two Senators who voted against the resolution. “I believe,” said Morse, “that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States. I believe that with the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake.” Congresswoman Lee stated: “Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today. And I fear the consequences.”

    Congress is also massively bailing out corporations and filling military coffers to overflowing. Civil liberties are being eroded and the United States is relentlessly bombing Afghanistan. So far, in addition to empty terrorist camps, we have accidentally bombed villages and hospitals, leaving an unknown number of Afghans injured and dead. We have bombed Red Cross warehouses three times. Aid workers in Afghanistan are warning that unless there is a bombing halt to allow food through to the Afghan people, millions of them could starve this winter.

    Perhaps it is time for an assessment of how well the President is really doing. I have suggested three criteria for judging the US response to terrorism: morality, legality and thoughtfulness.

    Morality can be evaluated on whether or not our response is resulting in widespread suffering and loss of innocent lives. It is. Although our military forces may be trying to avoid loss of innocent lives, they are not succeeding. Hundreds of innocent Afghans have already been killed. We call it “collateral damage.” If the relief workers in Afghanistan are correct, the US bombing could indirectly result in millions of innocent deaths by starvation this winter. Some half million Afghans have already fled their homes to avoid the bombing and have become refugees. On morality, the President’s military action is failing.

    Legality can be judged on whether or not our response is meeting the standards of domestic and international law. It is certainly questionable. Congress has not declared war against Afghanistan. It has simply given the President a blank check to use force. The United Nations Security Council has called on states “to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks.” It has not, however, explicitly given authorization to carry out military action in Afghanistan, and it is questionable whether the present military actions against the Taliban regime can be construed as self-defense. Certainly if US bombing results in massive starvation in Afghanistan, its actions will be illegal under the laws of war.

    The Taliban regime offered at one point to turn Osama bin Laden over to a neutral third state if the US would provide evidence of his guilt and stop its bombing. Whatever one may think of the Taliban, this was not an unreasonable offer. President Bush refused, saying that he would not negotiate. It might also be noted that President Bush has not provided evidence of bin Laden’s guilt to the American people. On legality, the President’s military action appears to be failing and on the verge of causing a major humanitarian disaster.

    Thoughtfulness can be evaluated on the basis of whether the response is likely to reduce or increase the cycle of violence. Thus far, the cycle of violence is increasing by our military response, and there seems to be no clear end in sight. Some members of the Bush administration are calling for spreading the war into Iraq and other countries in which terrorists may be operating. They are also warning that this will be a long war.

    In terms of thoughtfulness, there has also been very little reflection at the level of the government with regard to US policies that are generating such strong hatred toward us. Rather than thoughtfulness, the Bush administration has relied primarily on force. Here, too, the President’s military action is failing.

    In addition to the other failures of our military action, we appear to be no closer to apprehending Osama bin Laden or to destroying his terrorist network. It also seems unlikely that capturing or killing bin Laden will put an end to terrorism.

    Rather than being united like lemmings behind a failing military action, perhaps we should be thinking about other ways to make the American people safe from terrorism. Perhaps we should be having more public discussion of alternatives rather than being bombarded by military “analysts” on the news night after night. Perhaps we should be reflecting upon the implications of our policies in the Middle East and throughout the world, and evaluating them on the basis of their justice, equity and support for democratic practices.

    Perhaps we should be thinking more deeply about our lack of support for the United Nations and for international law. Perhaps we should be reconsidering our failure to support the treaty banning landmines, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Kyoto Accords on Global Warming, the verification protocol of the Biological Weapons Convention, and the treaty creating an International Criminal Court. Perhaps we should be reflecting on our failure to live up to our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the increased dangers that has created of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

    Terrorism poses a very serious threat to the American people and to the survival of civilization. Our only way out is to forge bonds of unprecedented global cooperation to end terrorism by getting to its roots. This will require police and intelligence cooperation globally. The military may have a role, but it should be one primarily of helping to provide intelligence and protecting our transportation systems, our nuclear plants, and other vulnerable areas of our society.

    Before we reach the edge of the cliff and go over like lemmings, it’s time to stop blindly following the path of military force. We should instead give leadership to strengthening an international system through the United Nations capable of ending terrorism and the conditions that give birth to it.

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a non-governmental organization on the roster of the United Nations Economic and Social Council.