Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: International Law

  • Law vs. Force

    Law vs. Force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • Unusual Courage from 31 Members of Congress

    Unusual Courage from 31 Members of Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Smoke and Mirror Security

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

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

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

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

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

  • Farewell to the ABM Treaty

    Farewell to the ABM Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

  • New Security Challenges: Ten Themes

    New Security Challenges: Ten Themes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The President Has Gone Too Far

    The President Has Gone Too Far

    The president can no longer be considered simply a vacuous puppet brought to power by big business, a family name, and election fraud. He must now be viewed as a dangerous opponent of our constitutional form of government, international law and the international order that was born in the aftermath of World War II.

    The US withdrawal from the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, announced by the Bush administration on May 6, 2002, has all the markings of a watershed event, an event that could make one weep for what it portends for the future of humanity and our country. The Bush administration is marching ahead in its assault on international law. Never before has a nation removed its sovereign signature from a treaty. Now it is done.

    In a one paragraph letter to the United Nations Secretary General, the US undersecretary of state for arms control, John Bolton wrote, “The United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United states has no legal obligations from its signature on December 31, 2000.” In other words, our commitment means nothing. There is no reason for other sovereign states to rely upon the commitments of the United States. The administration has sent a clear signal that the US will decide which laws it will support and which it won’t and the rest of the world be damned.

    The Bush administration demonstrates little interest in supporting international law. It is also pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to pursue missile defenses and space weaponization. This is an administration of militarists and unilateralists. They talk about withdrawing from the International Criminal Court because they fear that US servicemen could be brought to justice under the provisions of the Court, but what they really fear is that US leaders will be held to the same set of standards that the Court will apply to all leaders throughout the world.

    In an article written in 1999, the same John Bolton pointed out that it was not American soldiers that would be in the most jeopardy, but rather “the president, the cabinet officers who comprise the National Security Council, and other senior civilian and military officers responsible for our defense and foreign policy.” But what would US leaders have to fear if they do not commit the most heinous of crimes under international law, crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the same crimes for which the Nazis were held accountable at Nuremberg?

    Since Bush has become president, the United States has increased its military budget by nearly $100 billion, from $300 billion to almost $400 billion. Military power is the administration’s answer to international law. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld talks in plain language about our efforts to kill whomever we deem as our enemy. We are breaking with our allies, who are committed to international law. The US has become a unilateralist superpower, a rogue superpower, a dangerous force for international anarchy.

    The House of Representatives has rubbed salt in the wound of our allies in the international community who support the Court by voting 264 to 152 in a sense of the Congress amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Bill that no funding in the bill “should be used for any assistance to, or to cooperate with or to provide any support for, the International Criminal Court.” The House of Representatives, at the instigation of Tom DeLay, Also attached an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Bill that would prohibit US cooperation with the Court and would even authorize the US to invade Holland to free members of U.S. armed forces, civilians and allies held by the Court.

    Most of the Senate has remained silent on Bush’s decision to withdraw from the Court. Senator Christopher Dodd, whose father was a prosecutor at Nuremberg, referred to the president’s decision as “irresponsible, isolationist, and contrary to our vital national interests.” Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle responded to Mr. Bush’s decision with these words of opposition: “This decision vastly decreases our ability to shape the ICC, ignores the fact that the ICC will come into existence regardless of whether we are involved or not, and raises the specter of unilateralism just as we will be turning to our allies for help in a series of crucial policy, diplomatic–and perhaps military–undertakings.”

    The United States, which has an unparalleled opportunity to lead the world in upholding human rights and achieving a just peace, has slipped precipitously from the aftermath of World War II when it led the world in bringing Nazi leaders to justice at the Nuremberg Trials. The US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Justice Robert Jackson, argued, “The law must also reach the men who seize great power and deliberately combine to make use of it to commit an evil which affects every home in the world. The last step in preventing the periodic outbreak of war, which is unavoidable with international lawlessness, is to make a statesman responsible before the law.”

    Bush’s policies promote international lawlessness and impunity under international law to leaders accused of grave crimes such as Osama bin Laden, General Augusto Pinochet, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Henry Kissinger. The president’s policies encourage present and future leaders to believe that their crimes will also be blessed with impunity under the law. In the eyes of the world, including those of our closest allies, these policies underscore the US abdication of leadership in upholding international law and human rights.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

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

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

    I Background

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

    In 1996, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice concluded unanimously that: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”.

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

    II Fundamental Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    III Developments since the 2000 NPT Review Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    IV The Way Ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    V The Strengthened Review Process

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

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

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

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

  • Letter to US Senators on ABM Treaty Nuclear Weapons Policy

    April 2002

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

    Re: US Withdrawal from ABM Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    To Reiterate:

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

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

    International Groups

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

    United States Groups

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

    Canadian Groups

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

    UK Groups

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

    German Groups

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

    Austrian Groups

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

    Czech Groups

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

    Netherlands Groups

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

    Belgian Groups

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

    Other European Groups

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

    Finnish Groups

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

    Norwegian Groups

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

    Swedish Groups

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

    Danish Groups

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

    Russian Groups

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

    CIS Groups

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

    French Groups

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

    Asian, African, & Latin-American Groups

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

    Pakistani Groups

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

    Indian Groups

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

    Phillipines Groups

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

    Japanese Groups

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

    New Zealand Groups

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

    Australian Groups

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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