Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: International Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    David Krieger, President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • Taking Stock of the Non-Proliferation Regime

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

    Reporting

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

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

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

    The US Nuclear Posture Review

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

    Despite commitments to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons, the NPR reaffirms the role of nuclear weapons in US national security policy. In the past, nuclear weapons have been viewed as a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. However, the NPR reveals that the US intends to integrate nuclear weapons into a full spectrum of war-fighting capabilities, including missile defenses. The NPR unveils that nuclear weapons are no longer weapons of last resort, but instruments that could be used in fighting wars. States at the NPT Prep Com also raised concerns about the possible resumption by the US of full-scale nuclear testing and plans to develop and deploy new “earth-penetrating” nuclear weapons.

    The NPR contains contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against seven states — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Russia and China — constituting a disturbing threat in particular to the named states and in general to international peace and security. Contrary to long-standing US assurances not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear States, five of the named states for which the US has contingency plans are non-nuclear states. As Reverend Joan Brown Campbell noted in a Middle Powers Initiative presentation, when the US reserves to itself the right of first strike, it gives up the moral high ground and the right to tell other nations to give up their weapons of mass destruction.

    Counter-proliferation or Prevention?

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

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

    Regional Issues

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

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

    NGOs and the NPT

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

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

    Conclusion

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

    Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Background on the Non-Proliferation Treaty

    Background on the Non-Proliferation Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

    The Nuclear Disarmament Promise of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

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

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

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

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

    New Promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Stopping a Rogue Superpower: Time Is Running Out

    Stopping a Rogue Superpower: Time Is Running Out

    “If another country were planning to develop a new nuclear weapon and contemplating preemptive strikes against a list of non-nuclear powers, Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state.”
    — New York Time Editorial, March 12, 2002

    In April the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the world’s most important international agreement to achieve non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, will meet at the United Nations to review progress toward achieving the goals of the Treaty. They will undoubtedly conclude that the Treaty stands in peril, as do the people of the world, due to the failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their obligations under the Treaty to achieve progress on nuclear disarmament. This failure has been driven by the actions of the world’s only superpower.

    The United States has acted in defiance of the international community in flagrantly failing to fulfill its promises and in actions undermining nuclear arms control treaties. The United States, under its current administration, has taken the following actions in direct opposition to the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to by all parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the 2000 NPT Review Conference:

    • given notice of its intention to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to unilaterally pursue missile defenses and the weaponization of outer space;
    • failed to ratify and promote the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and made plans to shorten the time needed to resume underground nuclear testing;
    • developed contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, five of which are non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to the NPT, in direct contradiction to long-standing security assurances given to countries without nuclear weapons;
    • made nuclear war more likely by making plans to use nuclear weapons for specific purposes, such as bunker busting or destroying chemical or biological weapons stockpiles, and by developing smaller, more useable nuclear weapons; and
    • made nuclear “disarmament” easily reversible by implementing policies that place deactivated nuclear warheads in storage rather than destroying them.

    Taken together, these polices demonstrate a clear failure to pursue the “unequivocal undertaking” to achieve nuclear disarmament that was agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Rather, these unilateral policies threaten the entire non-proliferation regime and raise the specter of nuclear war.Time is running out, and what is at stake is the future of humanity and all life. The nations and people of the world are challenged to stop a “rogue” superpower, uphold the Non-Proliferation Treaty and fulfill the goal of nuclear disarmament before disaster strikes.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Rethink the Unthinkable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Neglecting Moral Approach to US and World Security

    From Mr David Krieger,

    Sir, Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, in his speech to the Labour party conference of October 2, invoked “the moral power of a world acting as a community” to combat terrorism. But to take a truly moral approach to US and global security, the US must heed seven urgent moral imperatives that we are still neglecting:

    First, to take far stronger measures to prevent future attacks rather than simply to avenge the acts of September 11, beginning with redressing US intelligence’s massive failure to detect the threat, despite ample warnings.

    Second, to assign top priority to preventing terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction, focusing resources on plausible threats of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons attacks, before funding costly missile defences against the implausible ones.

    Third, to deploy military protection now for all nuclear power plants and rapidly phase them out. Nuclear reactors are dormant radiological weapons in proximity to highly populated areas. Until shutdown, protect plants and spent fuel with troops and anti-aircraft weapons.

    Fourth, to bring the world’s nuclear weapons and fissile materials under control and move quickly towards eliminating these weapons. In the short term, reduce nuclear arsenals now to reliably controllable numbers to keep them out of terrorist hands.

    Fifth, to commit to multilateral action to bring terrorists to justice, expressly under UN auspices and existing international treaties on terrorism and sabotage. Try perpetrators for transnational crimes against humanity before an international tribunal established for this purpose.

    Sixth, to use US pre-eminence to uphold security and justice, not just for ourselves and industrialised allies but for the world, recognising that true security is co-operative and that life in the US is ultimately only as secure and decent as life on the planet.

    Last, to have the moral courage to reconsider US policy in light of the question: Why are Islamic extremists willing to die to murder us? Is it, as President George W. Bush said, hatred of freedom and democracy, or our Middle East policy?

    Until the 1960s, the Islamic world generally admired the US as a non-colonialist beacon of freedom and democracy. Subsequent US policies changed that. While terrorists cannot dictate US actions, neither can we fail to amend policies detrimental to our security simply for fear of appearing soft on terrorism.

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

  • Search for a Political Solution in Afghanistan

    Statement by Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, October, 8 2001

    Following is the text of a statement made today by Secretary-General Kofi Annan on military strikes in Afghanistan:

    Immediately after the 11 September attacks on the United States, the Security Council expressed its determination to combat, by all means, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The Council also reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The States concerned have set their current military action in Afghanistan in that context.

    To defeat terrorism, we need a sustained effort and a broad strategy to unite all nations, and address all aspects of the scourge we face. The cause must be pursued by all the States of the world, working together and using many different means — including political, legal, diplomatic and financial means.

    The people of Afghanistan, who cannot be held responsible for the acts of the Taliban regime, are now in desperate need of aid. The United Nations has long played a vital role in providing humanitarian assistance to them, and it is my hope that we will be able to step up our humanitarian work as soon as possible.

    It is also vital that the international community now work harder than ever to encourage a political settlement to the conflict in Afghanistan. The United Nations is actively engaged in promoting the creation of a fully representative, multi-ethnic and broad-based Afghan Government.

  • Some Points on Terrorism

    Here are some points in connection with U.S. reaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks:

    Atrocious crimes have been committed. It is right to make every effort to bring the perpetrators to justice.

    This effort should be aimed at justice, not undiscriminating revenge.

    Holding the perpetrators accountable and bringing them to public trial before a suitable tribunal will disseminate the lessons to be drawn from these atrocities and act as a deterrent for the future.

    If it is demonstrated that governments as well as terrorist groups are implicated, then responsible persons in those governments should be named and their delivery to a tribunal demanded, as the U.S. has done with Osama bin Laden and his collaborators.

    All anti-terrorist actions of the United States should clearly show that the U.S. is holding specific individuals accountable for specific reasons and should avoid blanket accusations and indiscriminate death and injury. U.S. actions should not create future terrorists.

    The use of military force should only be a last resort, should be limited to the purpose of bringing presumed perpetrators to justice, and should be visibly related to that purpose.

    The UN Security Council resolution of September 12, 2001 proposed by the United States and passed with its vote makes explicit this point of bringing individuals to justice. Paragraph 3 of the resolution states: “[The UN Security Council] Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable.”

    We must study the sources and causes of terrorist motivation. Information thus far available shows that most of the nineteen perpetrators of the September 11 hijackings were educated men from fairly solid middle class families, not unemployed residents of refugee camps. In conducting this study, we must be as balanced as possible, including in the study U.S. actions and policies that might have contributed, but also considering all other pertinent sources of motivation.

    Because it is already widely known that one important source of Muslim resentment against the USA is U.S. support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, we should urge the administration to develop an equitable and practical plan for resolving this confrontation, perhaps based on the last stage of the Barak-Arafat negotiations before their collapse, and to press this plan systematically on both Israelis and Palestinians. The time has come for both, in the interest of world security and their own security, to agree to a plan for reconciling their differences.

    We also need an administration action plan to alleviate the plight of the Iraqi civilian population under UN sanctions.

    We should continue to remind the Administration and the U.S. public of the relevance of the UN role in combating terrorism.

    This is a time of high emotions with much pressure for unity and uniformity. It entails a risk here that the American public and the Congress may be stampeded into unwise actions. We should insist that all decisions on terrorism be approached with reflection and best judgment. All U.S. citizens should insist on retaining the right to draw their own conclusions and to use their own judgment.

    This point is especially applicable to proposals to limit political freedoms inside the U.S. and for military action abroad.

  • Letter to Kofi Annan

    September 21, 2001

    Dear Mr. Secretary General,

    It is of historic, world importance, and it would make you one of the most important leaders of the 21st century, if you would recommend today the creation of a United Nations Anti-Terrorist Agency.

    The United Nations Anti-Terrorist Agency could be equipped with a World Police Center which would serve as a clearing house for any information on potential terrorism from any nation or source around the world.

    The United Nations Anti-Terrorist Agency would be accompanied by a World Anti-Terrorist Tribunal to judge cases of terrorism and apply sanctions and punishment.

    With my warmest wishes and prayers for permanent peace,

     

    Robert Muller Former UN Assistant Secretary General Co-Founder of the UN University for Peace in Costa Rica

  • Terrorism: The Search for Measured Responses

    September 11, 2001 may be considered a defining moment in world history. For a decade now pundits have been groping for a new catch phrase to identify the main features of the post-Cold War era. End of History, Clash of Civilizations, and Globalization have been obvious candidates. These terms catch an aspect of the phenomenon but distort others. None of these terms seems to fit the new reality of a global war of terrorism and counter-terrorism that seems to lie ahead of the world. There is no catch phrase to grasp the tragedy and complexity of this new reality. Since both state and non-state actors are acting with willful planning, we may call our troubled times, “The Era of Death by Design”. There is also no panacea for the crisis. The problem seems to have three linked features. First, we have witnessed mounting terrorist acts in the past 40 years carried out both by state and non-state actors. Second, we are witnessing the rise of a new global system characterized by growing gaps among and within nations. Third, we now live in a global fishbowl in which Hollywood extravaganzas as well as starving children in Africa are displayed for all to see on their television screens. The envy and hatred generated by global communication seems to have outpaced the benefits.

    In the past decade, Western powers have demonstrated that they can destroy their adversaries in Iraq and Yugoslavia with high tech weapons without much damage to themselves. Terrorism has consequently become the weapon of choice by the weaker states and groups. The suicide attacks in New York, Washington, and Israel are part of that lesson. The “enemy” in this case is not a territorial state. It is the fringe elements of a much larger global resentment against the way the world is being run. We have entered into a new form of politics and warfare. Against the commodity fetishism of globalization, identity fetishism has become the ideological vehicle of the marginalized groups. Benjamin Barber has called it “Jihad vs. McWorld”. Against the market fundamentalism of neo-liberalism, religious and ethnic fundamentalism is the new battle cry. Against post-modern cosmopolitanism of the centers, pre-modern kinship and tribal loyalties are the cultural orientation of the peripheries. Since the advanced industrial world is powerful but highly vulnerable to sabotage and surprise, the new weapon of shock terrorism is deadly and effective. In future, it may include other weapons of mass destruction. The types of weapons that could possibly be deployed by terrorists in the future are too horrible to contemplate.

    The response to terrorism cannot be divorced from its underlying causes. Both problems are global in scope. The approach must be commensurately global. Despite its shortcomings, the United Nations system continues to provide us with a useful institution under which a carefully devised strategy of war on violence and poverty can be fought. The United Nations counter-terrorism and peacekeeping forces must be reinforced. We need a standing UN peacekeeping force that is fully equipped with counter-terrorist intelligence and the necessary means to prevent tragedies such as that of September 11th.

    That is necessary but not sufficient. The world community under the UN auspices must demonstrate that it cares for the fate of some 2 million people in the world today living on $2 a day. UN member-states should commit themselves to a war on world poverty and injustice by tangible means. A certain portion of national defense budgets, say 10 percent, should be allocated to the United Nations peacekeeping and poverty eradication programs. The world cannot afford to continue living one-fifth rich, two-fifths in abject poverty, and another two fifth struggling for a decent life.

    As Huxley has said, “civilization is a race between education and catastrophe”. We often learn through our pains and sufferings. Historical leaps often result from major human tragedies. The League of Nations resulted from World War I. United Nations emerged out of World War II. This time, global terrorism has proved to be a scourge of humanity. Its victims have paid a high price. For their blood not to be in vain, we must learn to come together. We must establish a more democratic and just global governance. We must pledge to a new rule of international law for nations large or small.

     

    Majid Tehranian Professor, University of Hawaii at Manoa Director, Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research Honolulu, Hawaii, September 19, 2001