Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: International Issues

  • Resolution 1205 (1998)

    Adopted by the Security Council at its 3939th meeting.

    The Security Council,

    Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions on the situation in Iraq, in particular its resolution 1154 (1998) of 2 March 1998 and 1194 (1998) of 9 September 1998,

    Noting with alarm the decision of Iraq on 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission, and its continued restrictions on the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),

    Noting the letters from the Deputy Executive Chairman of the Special Commission of 31 October 1998 (S/1998/1023) and from the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission of 2 November 1998 (S/1998/1032) to the President of the Security Council, which reported to the Council the decision by Iraq and described the implications of that decision for the work of the Special Commission, and noting also the letter from the Director General of the IAEA of 3 November 1998 (S/1998/1033, annex) which described the implications of the decision for the work of the IAEA,

    Determined to ensure immediate and full compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 and the other relevant resolutions,

    Recalling that the effective operation of the Special Commission and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991),

    Reaffirming its readiness to consider, in a comprehensive review, Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under all relevant resolutions once Iraq has rescinded its above-mentioned decision and its decision of 5 August 1998 and demonstrated that it is prepared to fulfil all its obligations, including in particular on disarmament issues, by resuming full cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and the Secretary-General on 23 February 1998 (S/1998/166), endorsed by the Council in resolution 1154 (1998),

    Reiterating the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq,

    Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

    1. Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions;

    2. Demands that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998, to suspend cooperation with the Special Commission and to maintain restrictions on the work of the IAEA, and that Iraq provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA;

    3. Reaffirms its full support for the Special Commission and the IAEA in their efforts to ensure the implementation of their mandates under the relevant resolutions of the Council;

    4. Expresses its full support for the Secretary-General in his efforts to seek full implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding of 23 February 1998;

    5. Reaffirms its intention to act in accordance with the relevant provisions of resolution 687 (1991) on the duration of the prohibitions referred to in that resolution, and notes that by its failure so far to comply with its relevant obligations Iraq has delayed the moment when the Council can do so;

    6. Decides, in accordance with its primary responsibility under the Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security, to remain actively seized of the matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    and:

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

  • United Nations Considering Two Resolutions That Would Advance the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons; Support Needed for New Agenda Coalition and Malaysian Resolutions

    The New Agenda Coalition (NAC) and Malaysia have submitted two resolutions in the United Nations which will advance the goals of Abolition 2000. The NAC Resolution, organized by the Eight Nation Intitiative of Ireland, Sweden, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Egypt, New Zealand, and Slovenia, calls on the nuclear weapons states ” to demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to the speedy and total elimination of their respective nuclear weapons and without delay to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to the elimination of these weapons, thereby fulfilling their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).”

    The Malaysian government has called for the commencement of “multilateral negotiations in 1999 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention.” The two resolutions are complementary, and both work to further the Abolition 2000 agenda.

    IT IS CRITICAL THAT WE GAIN THE SUPPORT OF OUR GOVERNMENTS FOR THESE IMPORTANT INITIATIVES!

    The co-sponsors of the NAC resolution are Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Ireland, Lesotho, Liberia, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, New Zealand-Aotearoa, Nigeria, Peru, Samoa, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

    The co-sponsors of the Malaysian resolution are Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei, Darussalam, Burundi, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Losotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Mynamar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.

    If your government is NOT listed on both of the resolutions above, please activate your grassroots networks to send letters urging your government to vote in favor of the resolutions. (If they are on the list of sponsors, thank them for their efforts.)

    Time is short! Voting on all the NAC resolution may occur between November 6-13.

  • 13 Million Signatures in Support of Abolition 2000 Presented to the United Nations

    Press Conference, United Nations. Statement by Vernon C. Nichols on the Presentation to the United Nations of 13 Million Signatures in support of the Abolition 2000 Campaign.

    Members of the Diplomatic Missions to the United Nations, members of the press and fellow Non-Governmental Organization representatives: I am Vernon C. Nichols and I represent the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at the United Nations. Today, I am speaking in place of its President, Dr. David Krieger, who is also one of the leaders of Abolition 2000. I currently serve as President of the NGO Committee on Disarmament.

    It is an honor for me to participate in the presentation of the more than 13 million signatures in support of nuclear arms abolition to the UN and its announcement at this press conference. I commend Soka Gakkai International and its youth for the dedication shown by its members in this magnificent work. This is the kind of citizen activity which Abolition 2000 encouraged.

    Abolition 2000 is a global network of nearly 1100 citizen action groups in over 75 countries. It grew from an abolition caucus at the 1994 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference and has become a major citizens’ voice in the global movement for nuclear weapons abolition. It calls on all governments, but especially the nuclear weapons states, to commit themselves to three things:

    First, end the nuclear threat by withdrawing all nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters, separating warheads from delivery vehicles, and commiting unconditional “no-first-use” of nuclear weapons.

    Second, sign an international treaty – a Nuclearn Weapons Convention – by the year 2000, agreeing to the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a fixed period of time.

    Third, reallocate resources from military purposes to assuring a sustainable global future.

    We believe that such a coalition can have a similar kind of success as that we have witnessed by the Coalition to Ban Landmines. The Soka Gakkai 13 million petition signatures show the strength of peoples’ hopes and prayers for peace, and the abolition of nuclear weapons as a vital component of that peace. Other important steps are the abolition appeals of the retired admirals and generals. Also the June 9th call for the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide by the eight nations in the New Agenda Coalition, including this appeal, “The International Community must not enter the third millenium with the prospect that the maintenance of these weaposn will be considered legitimate for the indefinite future, when the present juncture provides a unique opportunity to eradicate and prohibit them for all time.”

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, wrote an Open Letter to President Clinton in response to the nuclear testing by India and Pakistan. He concluded, “We must either move toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons, or we must expect further proliferation of these weapons to other states. In many respects the choice is yours. I hope that you will choose wisely – both for yourself and for humanity.” Thank you.

  • Statement of His Excellency Archbishop Renato R. Martino Apostolic Nuncio, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations on Landmines

    Before the First Committee of the 53rd Session Of the United Nations
    General Assembly

    General and Complete Disarmament
    New York City

    Mr. Chairman,

    The international community has, in recent times, witnessed some positive-albeit modest-trends in disarmament. An anti-personnel landmines treaty has come into existence and all who worked to make this a reality, deserve congratulations. Unknown numbers of innocent civilians, particularly children, will be spared the cruel maiming and death caused by these evil instruments. The Holy See, which expeditiously ratified the treaty, calls on all nations to do the same.

    The Holy See notes another recent gain in the new momentum given to the small arms issue. Small arms cause the violent death, injury and psychological trauma of hundreds of thousands of people each year. These simple and comparably inexpensive weapons of death find their way into areas of conflict and instability and, shockingly, even into the hands of children, who are locked into a culture of violence. Casualties often occur in the context of religious, ethnic, political and national conflicts. These conflicts are the cause for the existence of millions of refugees and internally displaced persons. The weaponization of society fuels cycles of violence, despair and ultimately state collapse. Thus, the establishment of the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, alongside the work of the Vienna Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, are a positive step forward.

    In the recent meeting, which took place in Oslo, government officials agreed that governments have primary responsibility to reduce the flow and accumulation of small arms. A study of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace noted the anomaly by which certain States have stringent controls on the international transfer of heavy arms, but few if any regarding the sale of small arms and handguns. The supplying of small arms must be regulated at its source, at the same time as efforts are being made to lessen the demand and to choke off access to illicit supplies. In certain areas there is an urgent need to ensure a more effective control of stockpiles. Furthermore, the sale of excess supplies of small arms and light weapons, rendered redundant either through modernization or reduction in the size of military forces, can lead, in a cascading effect, to an ongoing flow of sophisticated arms from developed to developing countries.

    Civil society also has an important role to play, for the human cost of small arms casualties is a societal issue. Reducing arms expenditures and heightened health care costs could enable more resources to be directed to sustainable development programs. The strain on public health care facilities in affected areas would be relieved and the physical and mental health of individuals and families improved. The new efforts to bring together the communities of international arms control and disarmament, humanitarian law, peace and security, public health, gun control, international development and conflict resolution, are hopeful signs of a new global awareness.

    The Holy See appeals, in particular, for increased measures to be taken to effectively identify those individuals and groups who traffic in small arms outside all bounds of legal control, and who, through their activity, unscrupulously contribute to violence and instability. More decisive international police and intelligence cooperation is required. A reliable system of marking small arms would make tracking more effective. All governments must ensure maximum transparency and absolute respect for their own norms and the norms of the international community concerning arms transfers, especially to conflict areas.

    Turning to the nuclear weapons field, the worthy initiative by eight states from different areas of the world which have formed the New Agenda Coalition, is a welcome advance. They have called on the governments of the nuclear weapons states and the nuclear weapons-capable states to commit themselves unequivocally to the elimination of nuclear weapons and to agree to start work immediately on the practical steps and negotiations required for its achievement

    In this context, the development of the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of prominent international nongovernmental organizations, is also welcomed. It aims at encouraging the governments of the nuclear weapons states and the nuclear weapons-capable states to move rapidly to a nuclear-weapon-free world.

    A measure of progress was made this year in the tentative agreement at the Conference on Disarmament to establish committee discussions on a Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty. This work would be enhanced by a general recognition that steps toward non-proliferation must go hand-in-hand with steps to disarmament.

    The upgrading of the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs signals a higher priority that the UN itself will give to disarmament activities.

    Mr. Chairman, the review of positive developments I have just given should fill us with encouragement for the future. A distinct mark of our time, however, is that the work of disarmament is proceeding slowly. But an offsetting trend of negative developments is slowing us down further. These negative trend lines must be identified in order for us to take action.

    Foremost is the breakdown in the preparatory process for the 2000 Review of the NPT. During two sessions over two years, the NPT Preparatory Committee has struggled to find an acceptable format for deliberations on nuclear disarmament. The debates over terminology, subsidiary bodies and time schedules are but a surrogate for the real debate over a comprehensive program to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    It is not just the NPT that is in trouble. The impasse in the ratification process of both START II and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty bespeak the lingering resistance to disarmament. Further progress is inhibited by the failure to consolidate hard-earned gains.

    The testing of nuclear weapons by States which stand outside the NPT exacerbates the dangers caused by a weak nonproliferation regime. Nuclear testing by any nation is to be deplored. Criticism of those who test, however, does not deal adequately with the central problem. This is the determination of the nuclear weapons states to carry their nuclear weapons into the 21st Century, despite their obligation under the NPT to negotiate nuclear disarmament.

    The continued existence of 30,000 nuclear weapons almost a decade after the end of the Cold War, poses a grave danger to humanity. This is further worsened by the fact that 5,000 of these weapons are on alert status, meaning they are capable of being fired on thirty minutes’ notice. The danger of nuclear catastrophe through accident or terrorism is an unacceptable risk.

    Mr. Chairman, nothing so reveals the negative trend lines in disarmament as the continued insistence that nuclear weapons are essential to national security. The exaggerated claim that nuclear weapons are an aid to peace can only provoke other states to do the same. At this point, I would like to recall the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, that states have an obligation to conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

    More over, what is deeply troubling is the prospect of a new nuclear arms race. The modernization programs of those who already have nuclear weapons, combined with the acquiring of nuclear weapons by other states, and research now going on in still others, plunge the world into more danger than existed during the Cold War. The longer this situation continues, the more a growing number of states will falsely claim that nuclear weapons are legitimate.

    The Holy See has stated before and states again: “Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the peace we seek for the 21st century. They cannot be justified. They deserve condemnation. The preservation of the Nonproliferation Treaty demands an unequivocal commitment to their abolition.” (Statement of the Holy See before the First Committee of the 52nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, 15 October 1997.)

    My delegation believes that the world must move more and more toward the abolition of nuclear weapons through a universal, non-discriminatory ban with intensive inspection by a universal authority. This process would begin by the nuclear weapons states committing themselves unequivocally to the elimination of their nuclear weapons and without delay to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations to this end. Practical steps to move this process forward should be taken immediately, such as de-alerting and de-activating nuclear weapons. A pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons should be made, as an interim step, by every State possessing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, it would be a constructive step to hold an international conference on nuclear disarmament in which both governments and civil society could unite their strengths to develop the political will to take the courageous steps necessary for abolition.

    Mr. Chairman, the great task ahead for the Twenty-first Century is to move the world from a culture of violence and war to a culture of peace. UNESCO has already taken a lead in promoting a culture of peace. This consists in promoting values, attitudes and behaviors reflecting and inspiring social interaction and sharing, based on the principles of freedom, justice and democracy, human rights, tolerance and solidarity. Rather than intervening in violent conflicts after they have erupted and then engaging in post-conflict peace building, it is more human and more efficient to prevent such violence in the first place by addressing its roots.

    Let it not be said that the promotion of a culture of peace, the rooting out of the causes of violence, the abolition of nuclear weapons, are unreachable goals. The world has rid itself of the evils of legalized slavery, legalized colonialism and legalized apartheid. These were eliminated as the result of rising global awareness and political determination. So, also, the growing momentum to delegitimize and eliminate nuclear weapons must now be accompanied by political action by all States. Humanity deserves no less from us.

    Thank you Mr. Chairman.

     

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

    Signed by 46 Representatives of European NGOs

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

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

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

  • Nelson Mandela Calls for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The Challenge Posed by India and Pakistan

    In a three-week period, India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, thus becoming new members of the nuclear weapons club. Their tests have brought forth broad, even jubilant, support among the Indian and Pakistani people. Following the Pakistani tests, one Pakistani clerk effused, “Pakistan is now a superpower.”

    It is not surprising that India and Pakistan would view nuclear weapons as a path to international security and prestige. The five original members of the nuclear weapons club – the U.S., UK, France, Russia, and China – have treated their possession of nuclear weapons this way for decades.

    The major problem is not that India and Pakistan have conducted nuclear tests. It is that they, like the other members of the nuclear weapons club, have indicated by their tests that they now choose to rely upon nuclear weapons to maintain their national security.

    The Indians and Pakistanis are doing no more – in fact, much less – than the United States and the former Soviet Union did throughout the Cold War in relying upon their nuclear arsenals for deterrence. The policy of nuclear deterrence – despite the end of the Cold War and ostensibly friendly relations – continues to be the official policy of the U.S. and Russia, as it is of the other nations in the nuclear weapons club.

    The nuclear weapons states claim that there has been no nuclear war because of their nuclear weapons rather than in spite of them. If deterrence is a viable theory, however, there should be no problem with it being adopted by all states, including India and Pakistan.

    Deterrence Is Only a Theory

    The truth is that deterrence is only a theory, and not one that is believed to work universally. If deterrence were in fact considered reliable, nuclear weapons proliferation should in theory be encouraged rather than opposed.

    I doubt if anyone believes that the Indian subcontinent is safer now that India and Pakistan have demonstrated their nuclear weapons capabilities. It is generally and rightly recognized that the region has become far more dangerous with this new capacity for nuclear annihilation.

    Imagine, for example, that the Indians decided to respond to the Pakistani threat by a pre-emptive first-strike to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. Should the Indians fail, the Pakistanis might respond with a nuclear attack. Even the fear of such pre-emptive action by the Indians might lead the Pakistanis to themselves launch a pre-emptive first-strike against India. There are many other possible scenarios that might lead to nuclear war.

    Just as the problem is not the nuclear weapons tests, but the policies that they represent, the danger is not limited to South Asia. By the Indian and Pakistani tests, we are reminded of the danger that exists from all nuclear weapons in the world – those in the hands of all nuclear weapons states. We are also reminded that nuclear weapons proliferation remains a serious threat to regional and global stability.

    There are not responsible and irresponsible nuclear weapons states. All are irresponsible because they base their national security on weapons which have the capacity to murder millions of innocent people.

    A Worst Case Scenario

    As a worst case scenario, and one that has been long understood, a large-scale nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia could result in ending human civilization, such as it is, and destroying the human species and most life on earth. Being willing to run this risk does not demonstrate a high level of responsibility – quite the opposite.

    The choice before us is whether to deal with India and Pakistan as an isolated regional problem, or whether to view their nuclear tests as a wake-up call to commence international negotiations to achieve a treaty to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world.

    The first option is not viable. India and Pakistan will not reverse their course unless the other nuclear weapons states clearly demonstrate their commitment to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. Following its tests, India issued a statement appealing for such a commitment in the form of a Nuclear Weapons Convention: “India calls on all nuclear weapons states and indeed the international community to join with it in opening early negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention so that these weapons can be dealt with in a global, nondiscriminatory framework as other weapons of mass destruction have been, through the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.”

    Nuclear “Haves” and “Have-Nots”

    I have long maintained that a world with a small number of nuclear “haves” and a much larger number of nuclear “have-nots” is unstable and unrealistic. This instability has begun to manifest itself in a detrimental way through nuclear proliferation. We will continue in this direction unless the course is reversed by serious negotiations among the nuclear weapons states to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world.

    The United States is capable of providing the leadership to attain a world free of nuclear weapons. The U.S., however, has shown no inclination to assert this leadership. In fact, U.S. policies under the current administration have all been directed toward maintaining the existing structure of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots”. This must change. It is our best hope for preventing a nuclear holocaust in the 21st century.

    One other possibility exists. It is for other nations of the world, without the U.S. but including other nuclear weapons states, to move forward on a treaty banning nuclear weapons in the way that the treaty to ban landmines was created without U.S. participation. Unless the U.S. steps forward as a leader on this issue, I would hope that other nations will proceed without us.

    At the edge of a new millennium, the nation state system is challenged on many fronts to solve global environmental and security problems. The greatest of these challenges is posed by weapons of man’s own creation, the most dangerous of which are nuclear weapons capable of destroying humankind. Will we meet this challenge? Are there leaders among us capable of picking up where Gorbachev left off that can lead the world to end the nuclear weapons era?

    Such leaders will have to pierce the illusions of security that have been created to manipulate the people, now including the people of India and Pakistan, into believing that nuclear weapons should be a source of national pride. Nuclear weapons are quite simply weapons of mass destruction, meaning mass murder, and should be viewed as a national disgrace. But where are the leaders to say this?

    Leadership from the People

    As in all great issues of social change, the leadership for a nuclear weapons free world will have to arise from the people. This grassroots leadership is already emerging from Abolition 2000, a global network working to eliminate nuclear weapons, which is now composed of nearly 1100 citizen action groups from around the world.

    The challenge posed to the world by the two new members of the nuclear weapons club is nothing less than creating a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a challenge of finding new means of achieving security and settling our differences without resorting to weapons of mass destruction.

  • Appeal for Negotiations to Eliminate Nuclear Arms

    The nuclear tests in South Asia have jarred the world into new awareness of nuclear danger. They have demonstrated unmistakably the peril of nuclear proliferation and the weakness of international measures of control. They have also cast harsh new light on the persistence of the arsenals of the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France, who jointly possess some 35,000 nuclear weapons. These two main components of nuclear danger-proliferation on the one hand, and the remaining cold war arsenals on the other-can no longer be considered in isolation. They must be addressed together.

    To this end, we call for negotiations to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons in a series of well defined stages accompanied by increasing verification and control. We direct our appeal especially to the nuclear powers, to confirm and implement their existing commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons in Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. India has declared a moratorium on tests and its willingness to give up nuclear weapons in the context of a global plan for their elimination. Today, only a commitment to nuclear abolition can realistically halt nuclear proliferation.

    The tests of South Asia pose great danger but, against the background of the end of the cold war, they have also created an opportunity that must not be missed to take action that can at last free the world of nuclear danger. The hour is late, and the time for action is now.

    Signatories are:
    Oscar Arias, Alan Cranston, Daniel Ellsberg, Mark Hatfield, Joseph Rotblat, Admiral Eugene Carroll, Richard Barnet, Mikhail Gorbachev, Marcus Raskin, Bishop Walter R. Sullivan, Jimmy Carter, Jonathan Dean, Morton Halperin, Douglas Roche, David Cortright.

     

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

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

    The Honorable Boris Yeltsin
    The Kremlin
    Moscow, Russia

    Dear President Clinton and President Yeltsin:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sincerely yours,

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

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

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

    Donnan Runkel, Executive Director
    Peace Links

    Christopher Ney, Disarmament Coordinator
    War Resisters League

    Anne Anderson, National Coordinator
    Psychologists for Social Responsibility

    Ellen Thomas
    Proposition One Committee

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

    Robin Caiola, Executive Director
    20/20 Vision

    Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
    Nuclear Information and Resource Service

    Gordon S. Clark, Executive Director
    Peace Action

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

    Daniel Plesch, Director
    British-American Security Information Council

    John Isaacs
    Council for a Livable World

    Tim Barner
    World Federalist Association

    David Krieger, President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Clayton Ramey
    Fellowship of Reconciliation

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

    Marie Dennis, Director
    Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

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

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

    Bishop Walter F. Sullivan, President
    Pax Christi USA

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

    L.William Yolton, Executive Secretary
    Presbyterian Peace Fellowship

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

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

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

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

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

    Greg Mello
    Los Alamos Study Group (New Mexico)

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

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

    Wayne Shandera, MD
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Houston

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

    Ed Arnold, Executive Director
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Atlanta

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

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

    Jennifer Aldrich, Executive Director
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Oregon

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

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

    Daniel Kerlinsky, MD
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/New Mexico

    Martin Fleck, Executive Director
    Physicians for Social Responsibility/Washington

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

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

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

    Organizations from other nations
    John Hallam
    Friends of the Earth
    Australia

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

    Graham Daniell
    People for Nuclear Disarmament
    Western Australia

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

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

    Pauline Mitchell, Secretary
    Campaign for International Cooperation and Disarmament
    Australia

    Debbie Grisdale, Executive Director
    Physicians for Global Survival
    Canada

    Norman Abbey, Director
    Nanoose Conversion Campaign
    Canada

    Joanna Miller
    Project Ploughshares
    Canada

    Peter Coombes, President
    End the Arms Race
    Canada

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

    Peter G. Rasmussen, Co-chairperson
    Pax Christi
    Denmark

    Laura Lodenius, Press Secretary
    Peace Union of Finland
    Finland

    Malla Kantola, Secretary General
    Committee of 100
    Finland

    Regina Hagen
    Darmstaedter Friedensforum
    Germany

    David Wakim, Chairperson
    Pax Christi Trust
    Aotearoa-New Zealand

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

    Professor Bent Natvig
    Science and Responsibility in the Nuclear Age
    Norway

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

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

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

    George Farebrother, Secretary
    World Court Project UK
    United Kingdom

    Dave Knight, Chair
    Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
    United Kingdom