Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Uncategorized

  • Cold War Comeback? The nuclear threat from within

    Originally Published in the San Francisco Chronicle

    With mounting casualties in Iraq and other news of the war dominating headlines, it’s no wonder that President Bush’s drive for a revolutionary breed of new nuclear weapons has gone largely unnoticed. Since Bush first came to office and presented the so-called Nuclear Posture Review, it has been clear that this White House has a dramatically different view of nuclear weapons compared with previous administrations.

    The Nuclear Posture Review actively sought to find new uses for nuclear weapons, emphasized pre-emptive military action and shortened the timeline to restart nuclear tests in Nevada. The Bush administration has been actively pursuing new nuclear weapons that are explicitly for use on the battlefield. These tactical weapons — the powerful “bunker buster” Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and “mini-nukes” less than 5 kilotons — turn the notion of strategic deterrence on its head and create a world in which nuclear weapons are seen as legitimate offensive alternatives.

    Neither of these weapons was asked for by the Pentagon. They were not driven by a real threat. They will not make the United States any safer. Instead, the administration’s actions are having the opposite effect by erasing the taboo on the use of nuclear weapons. Russia has already indicated that it will develop new “tactical” weapons in response, and no one doubts our enemies will follow suit.

    This is a major departure from where we were as a country only a few years ago and deserves serious debate. Do we want a world in which the United States is spurring a new global arms race with our own development of a new generation of nuclear weapons? Or do we want a world in which the United States, confident in the proven deterrence of our existing nuclear stockpile and the success of our conventional forces in every conflict since the Cold War, is able to lead the world in preventing the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?

    At the same time the administration is hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is paving the way to test nuclear weapons in Nevada and reigniting America’s nuclear weapons industry. This is like throwing gasoline on a fire.

    What is perhaps most troubling is that the intense desire for these new weapons is fueled by ideology rather than a national security need. A recently leaked classified report by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board recommended pursuing new nuclear weapons, writing that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator “has been requested, but much more needs to be done,” in spite of the fact that the Department of Defense has “neither clear requirements nor persuasive rationale for changing the nuclear stockpile.”

    In fact, the administration’s two main arguments — that new nuclear weapons are needed so American scientists can think and excel and that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is needed to defeat terrorists — don’t stand up to scrutiny. The utility of bunker-busting nuclear weapons is highly questionable. Even the most powerful nuclear weapons cannot destroy every bunker, as there is virtually no limit to how deep enemies can tunnel. They will never surgically destroy targets, offer no guarantee of destroying chemical and biological agents without releasing them into the atmosphere and hinder our ability to gain valuable reconnaissance in the bunkers by making them radioactive. Moreover, even a 1-kiloton nuclear bomb — many times smaller than the warheads under consideration for a bunker-buster — would kill tens of thousands of civilians if detonated in an urban area.

    These are not theories in a vacuum. Congress recently repealed the decades-old law forbidding research and development of nuclear weapons smaller than 5 kilotons and soon will provide millions of dollars for researching nuclear bunker-busters. Simply put, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, America is back in the business of developing new nuclear weapons.

    A handful of my congressional colleagues and I tried to counteract the push for new nuclear weapons, but we were defeated by near-unanimous Republican support for the administration. I am gravely concerned that our minor successes in requiring the administration to provide a long-term plan for our nuclear weapons stockpile pales in comparison to what is to come on this perilous path.

    We should learn from history. Nearly half a century ago, President Eisenhower rejected the counsel of advisers who wanted a new variety of nuclear weapons they said would allow the United States to fight a winnable nuclear war. Eisenhower responded, “You can’t have this kind of war. There just aren’t enough bulldozers to scrape the bodies off the streets.” As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, our conventional weapons can do the job. There is no military, scientific or strategic reason to go nuclear at this time — and every reason not to.

    Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, sits on the House Armed Services Committee and is a leader on nonproliferation.

  • Livingstone says Bush is ‘Greatest threat to life on planet’

    Originally Published in independent.co.uk

    Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the “greatest threat to life on this planet that we’ve most probably ever seen”.

    His provocatively timed comments, on the eve of Mr Bush’s arrival in London tonight, threaten to create severe embarrassment for the Prime Minister. They also come with talks under way on whether to re-admit Mr Livingstone to the Labour Party before his five-year exile ends.

    Although he made his many differences with the Government on a range of issues clear, he reserved his strongest comments for the American President in an interview with The Ecologist magazine.

    The President’s three-night trip, which will culminate on Friday with a visit to the Prime Minister’s Sedgefield constituency, has sparked a flood of protests from those opposed to his foreign policy. But Mr Livingstone’s outburst makes him one of the most high-profile and explicit of his critics.

    Mr Livingstone recalled a visit at Easter to California, where he was denounced for an attack he had made on what he called “the most corrupt and racist American administration in over 80 years”. He said: “Some US journalist came up to me and said: ‘How can you say this about President Bush?’ Well, I think what I said then was quite mild. I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we’ve most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction.”

    Mr Livingstone, who is holding a “peace party” for anti-war groups in City Hall tomorrow, added: “I don’t formally recognise George Bush because he was not officially elected. So we are organising an alternative reception for everybody who is not George Bush.”

    He said he supported stronger links between European Union countries only because he wanted to see a powerful bloc emerge to rival the United States. “The American agenda is sweeping everything before it, and although it’s not perfect, the EU is better on environmental issues. It’s a less rapacious form of capitalism.”

    The Mayor said he had viewed Labour’s 1997 election manifesto as a “load of old guff they’d come out with because they didn’t want to upset the Daily Mail” that would rapidly be ditched. “I was amazed when it transpired that Blair had been serious,” he said.

    Accusing Mr Blair of suffering from a “background problem”, he said: “There is nothing in his past that was radicalising. He wasn’t interested in all the great student activities, the radical campaigns.

    “He did not get involved in politics until the 1970s, when the high point was passed. So you have someone of the summer of ’68 generation who actually wasn’t part of it.”

    On GM foods, he said: “If the Government ignores public opinion, then civil disobedience on this issue is legitimate, as long as it’s not violent.

    “But the most important thing that affects a government is not peaceful protest, but fear of the ballot box.

    The Mayor’s comments will infuriate Downing Street at a time when No 10 is examining ways of bringing Mr Livingstone, who was expelled from the Labour Party for standing as an independent in the London mayoral elections of 2000, back into the fold.

    AS THE PRESIDENT PREPARES TO VISIT SEDGEFIELD, TONY BLAIR’S CONSTITUENCY, WILL HE BE WELCOME?

    Chris Lloyd, political editor of The Northern Echo: “The paper is Bush neutral and he has a right to visit but equally, the people here have a right to demonstrate. I hope he gets to see all, or at least some of those protests and I hope Mr Blair will explain what they are about because that’s what friends are for. Despite Mr Bush’s unpopularity, there is a frisson of excitement because nothing of this magnitude has ever happened there.”

    Lucy Hovvels, vice-chairwoman of Sedgefield constituency and Labour councillor in Trimdon: “I’ve had local people asking where they can get Union Jacks and American flags because they think it’s an exciting and historic visit. I really believe Bush will get a warm welcome in Trimdon and the mood is one of excitement. We have the two most important people in the world coming to us – no one would otherwise know where Trimdon is.”

    Richard Wanless, co-ordinator of the ‘Sedgefield Against War’ protest: “The visit is a massive security risk and for those living in the area, it jeopardises our safety. No matter where he goes, there will be protests from London to the North-east to make sure he knows he is not welcome. To me, he is a war criminal that has illegal occupation of Iraq. To add to the insult, there are families here who lost their children to the war.”

    The Rev Martin King, rector of Sedgefield: “A lot of people here are very angry with the way the US administration is putting itself above the law. One person in my congregation said if President Bush wanted to look around the church, he would be welcome because it is a place for sinners, but he hoped his henchmen would leave their ironware at the door. His policies are very unwelcome in the region – I have not heard anyone voicing support for him.”

    Martin Callanan, Conservative MEP for Sedgefield: “The visit is hugely beneficial for the area. Most of the security threat to the people in Sedgefield will be represented by left-wing demonstrators. And how would we feel if our Prime Minister, whatever his political party, was treated similarly in another part of the world? It was Blair’s decision to send our troops to Iraq, so those who are anti-war should not take it out on Bush.”

    Martin McTague, former chairman of the North-east Regional Federation of Small Businesses: “It will put Sedgefield on the map and benefit the image of the North-east. Our business community is often viewed as a backwater and this will redress some of the old stereotypes. Because this is Blair’s constituency, a security risk is always there. The fact that Bush will be with him increases that risk but it is a notional increase.”

  • Armageddon Back on the Table

    U.S. ratchets up debate on `usable’ nuclear weapons
    Critics fear fallout from Bush cadre’s pro-nuke strategy

    Originally Published by the Toronto Star

    Since nuclear bombs exploded on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the possibility of an atomic Armageddon has made the use of such cataclysmic weapons unthinkable.

    But after the election of President George W. Bush, and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the word “nuclear” has been creeping back into the vocabulary of American policy, reaching for a respectability that until recently was thought gone for good.

    Lobbying Congress for funds to research and develop new nuclear weapons, Bush has opened the back door to the doctrine of a “fightable” nuclear war, one in which the use of small or limited nuclear weapons would be possible or even desirable to defeat ruthless and unconventional enemies.

    “Nuclear programs are a cornerstone of U.S. national security posture,” said Congress’ Armed Services Committee, which recently backed the allocation of $400 billion (all figures U.S.) for national defence in the coming year.

    Both critics and supporters of developing “usable” nuclear weapons agree that the path from the laboratory to the launching pad is a long and difficult one.

    But since the Bush administration presented its radical “Nuclear Posture Review” in March, 2002, pro-nuclear officials have been pushing steadily ahead toward developing weapons that will cross the line that separates conventional from unconventional warfare, threatening half a century of disarmament negotiations, treaties and taboos.

    This month, the Senate endorsed an Energy and Water Appropriations Bill allocating $7.5 million to research on nuclear “bunker-buster” bombs and $10.8 million to plans for nuclear “pit” facilities to produce triggers for new nuclear bombs. Both sums were reduced from totals originally requested by Bush officials.

    A final environmental study is being prepared to determine how and where the pits should be manufactured.

    Crucial to the administration’s hopes for developing a new generation of nukes was the repeal in May of a 1993 ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons — those with a force of less than 5 kilotons, or 5,000 tonnes of TNT.

    The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, by comparison, was approximately 15 kilotons.

    “A one-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated 20 to 50 feet underground would dig a crater the size of Ground Zero in New York and eject one million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air,” says California Senator Diane Feinstein, an opponent of usable nuclear weapons.

    The development of any new nuclear arms would require testing. And as early as June, 2001, Bush also signalled that he might consider ending an 11-year moratorium on underground nuclear blasts.

    He called for a scientific review of the Nevada test site that resulted in shortening the time it would take to restart nuclear test explosions from 36 months to no more than 18 months from the time an order to resume nuclear testing is given.

    And although the Bush administration has so far made little progress in promoting the development of “mini nukes” that could be used against enemy forces, the influential Defence Science Board that advises the Pentagon has thrown its weight behind them.

    In a leaked report, due to be tabled in the next few months, the board urges the development of lower-yield weapons that would have more battlefield “credibility” than the more powerful current nuclear bombs.

    The rationale of the pro-nuclear supporters is clear: After Sept. 11, America is fighting an unpredictable enemy that must be attacked and eradicated by any possible means.

    “As seen in Afghanistan, conventional weapons are not always able to destroy underground targets,” said the Armed Services Committee, which backed the new nuclear policy.

    “The United States may need nuclear earth penetrators (bunker-busters) to destroy underground facilities where rogue nations have stored chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.”

    Keith Payne, the Pentagon’s civilian liaison with the U.S. Strategic Command, which plans how a nuclear war could be fought, has for a decade promoted the idea of usable nukes.

    Payne believes the lessons of the 1991 Gulf War included the discovery that Scud missiles might elude attack. In a 1999 paper on the future of American nuclear weapons, he wrote: “If the locations of dispersed mobile launchers cannot be determined with enough precision to permit pinpoint strikes, suspected deployment areas might be subjected to multiple nuclear strikes.”

    Other pro-nuclear theorists say a new generation of fightable nukes might have a deterrent effect on the kind of enemies America now faces: guerrilla groups and unpredictable terrorists.

    “All we have left is nuclear use and pre-emption, so that something a little bigger, with a little more bite, does not emerge as the next threat against our security and values,” says Barry Zellen, publisher of the electronic security bulletin, SecureFrontiers.com.

    “Our willingness to go beyond deterrence to a more pro-active strategy of nuclear use might just end up achieving what we wanted in the beginning: successful deterrence of further aggression and terror against us, now and in the future.”

    Opponents of nuclear weapons fiercely disagree. They shudder at the thought of crossing the line between fighting a conventional and nuclear war, once considered unthinkable. And they argue that such a move would promote, rather than deter terrorism.

    One of the most troubling aspects, critics say, is the “creeping respectability” of arms that have been considered beyond the pale of defence policy.

    “It creates the image of `clean’ nuclear weapons,” says Brice Smith of the Maryland-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.

    “We can use them without all the old Cold War anxieties about total destruction. A lot of psychology is involved here and it includes the very powerful idea of being able to defeat attempts to use chemical and biological weapons against us.”

    However, experts say, usable nukes would be far from environmentally safe. Bunker-busting bombs would explode close to the surface of their targets, spreading radioactivity through an explosion of dust and causing the death of tens of thousands of people if dropped on urban areas.

    It is also likely, says Smith, that the explosions would spread deadly chemicals or bioagents, rather than destroying them.

    And, critics argue, the political fallout from threatening to use, let alone using, such weapons would be dangerous to the United States and its Western allies.

    Apart from inciting terrorism, such a policy would create deeper cynicism about Washington’s disregard for international treaties on nuclear weapons, convincing countries like Iran and North Korea that Washington is applying double standards when it insists they halt efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

    The Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, which monitors nuclear peril worldwide, last year moved its Doomsday Clock forward two minutes, to seven minutes to midnight, citing the Bush administration’s failure to change its Cold War nuclear-alert practices while authorizing its weapons labs to work on the design of new nuclear arms.

    “Terrorist efforts to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons present a great danger,” concluded George Lopez, the Bulletin’s board chairman.

    “But the U.S. preference for the use of pre-emptive force rather than diplomacy could be equally dangerous.”

    Historian and Kennedy-era political adviser Arthur Schlesinger Jr., put it more flamboyantly.

    “Looking back over the 40 years of the Cold War,” he wrote in The New York Review Of Books, “we can be everlastingly grateful that the loonies on both sides were powerless. In 2003, however, they run the Pentagon, and preventive war — the Bush doctrine — is now official policy.”

    Those who follow the progress of the new nuclear doctrine say its resurgence signals the comeback of its backers, a pro-nuclear cadre that has for years urged a more aggressive approach to both domestic and military nuclear policy.

    The cadre includes Vice-President Dick Cheney, who urged planning for nuclear strikes against Third World “enemy” countries as secretary of defence in the first Bush administration; Payne, who wrote a doctrine of fightable nuclear war; and Pentagon threat-reduction chief Stephen Younger, a director of the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory and one of the first scientists to promote the use of low-yield nuclear weapons.

    With an influential group of lobbyists working closely with the White House, it appears highly likely that plans to produce a new generation of nuclear weapons would go forward if Bush wins a second term.

    However, there is trepidation in the ranks of both Republican and Democratic parties about such a development.

    Congress has so far made sure that funding is limited to the exploratory stages of the project and that millions rather than billions of dollars have been allocated

    “By seeking to develop new nuclear weapons,” says Senator Feinstein, “the United States sends the message that nuclear weapons have a future battlefield role and utility. That is the wrong direction and, in my view, will only cause America to be placed in greater jeopardy in the future.”

    The opposition is unlikely to weaken the pro-nuclear cadre’s resolve, however.

    “What you’re seeing is a thoughtless strategy being pursued under cover of the war on terrorism, by people who always wanted to do this,” says arms-control expert William Arkin of Johns Hopkins University’s Institute of Advanced International Studies.

    “Now, they’re in a position to seize their chance.”

    Critics say a new arms race is on the horizon and they predict the effect on global security to be gloomy, as resentment escalates toward the United States for its double standard of developing nuclear weapons, while insisting that others desist.

    In the United States, says Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, “there is a creeping respectability of nuclear weapons.”What Bush has done is emphasize that there are not only bad weapons out there, but bad people with bad weapons.

    “Then, the line becomes blurred, because he’s implying that responsible states are entitled to possess and even use the same kinds of weapons.

    “In fact, these are all weapons of mass terror, and we should never forget that.”

    Copyright 1996-2003. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited

  • Then and Now

    PLOTLINE: A small network of ideologues in positions of power beyond their due are intent upon reshaping the world on their terms. Their existence revolves around a black and white reality; a world of perfect days ever threatened by perfect storms. Frustrated with intelligence experts who forecast partly cloudy skies in the atmosphere of international relations, they conjure rogue intelligence to justify stormy international arrogance. They flood media with propaganda. Winds of fear shift the public mood. Hearts of nations harden. Conflicts simmer. Military budgets explode.

    Sound familiar? While the plot and the actors are the same, the stage is different. In late 1975, a small group of conservatives across the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government were convinced that America’s military strength was falling behind the Soviet war machine. Out of this group — known as “the cabal” — came the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), a group of like-minded ideologues who contended that CIA analysts had chronically understated the threat posed by the Soviet Union, and thus that U.S. military spending levels were dangerously low.

    At the request of then-CIA chief George H.W. Bush, the Committee was brought in to develop an alternative assessment of the CIA’s raw intelligence. The resulting report — known as the Team B assessment — wildly overestimated Soviet military capability, and led to dire warnings to U.S. policymakers and the public. President Ford’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger condemned the report.

    But one of the assessment’s primary promoters acquired what he needed. That man was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the same Rumsfeld who championed the war on Iraq nearly 30 years later based upon overblown conclusions from his rogue Office of Special Plans. Saying back then that “no doubt exists about the capabilities of the Soviet armed forces” Rumsfeld and his allies used the report to undercut nuclear arms control negotiations for years to come, and to lay the groundwork for procurement of a wide range of new weapons systems, including the MX missile.

    MX was designed to thwart the first-strike threat of the Soviet Union. It called for a basing system in which hundreds of missiles — each one capable of destroying scores of Soviet cities and vaporizing millions of human beings — would be transported continuously on tracks crisscrossing my home state of Utah and other surrounding states. It was called the “shell game” basing system: by employing thousands more decoys on the same tracks, it was thought, the Russians would not be able to wipe out the real missiles. In the view of its champions, the MX missile system might also have served the purpose of focusing Soviet nuclear firepower into the heart of the West, away from the more populated East.
    To realize this crazy scheme, some astonishing feats of engineering would have been required: more concrete than was used to create the entire U.S. interstate highway system; rivers, reservoirs and aquifers watering five states would have been tapped; some of the world’s most beautiful national parks would have been destroyed, and sacred American Indian lands violated.

    In short, Rumsfeld’s MX would have destroyed America’s West in a twisted effort to save it, transforming an oasis of ancient natural beauty into the biggest labyrinthine wasteland, by far, of the many wastelands our children now inherit from their fearful, militaristic ancestors.

    But today’s growing opposition to Rumsfeld’s obscene vision of international policy can take heart: my father, along with scores of other citizens across the West, mounted a grass-roots campaign 25 years ago. They brought the MX battle into the streets, synagogues, churches and schools. Students, teachers, parents, bishops, workers, cowboys and sisters took the debate to neighbors and news stations across the West. And after four years of fighting, they brought down Rumsfeld’s monster, and the insanity of policy by brass was revealed.

    As we witness the same old cold warriors regurgitate the same old insanities, as they shred international accord while cheerleading international democracy, as they spark nuclear arms races while decrying nuclear proliferation, we can take heart: true power always remains with the people willing to exercise it, and ordinary people have beaten back powerful barbarians in the past.

    If students, teachers, parents, bishops, workers, cowboys and sisters — and those few politicians who remember their responsibilities — remember the power granted them by the founders of this great nation, we can and will do so again in 2004.

    *Joseph P. Firmage is Chairman & CEO of The ManyOne Network

  • IAEA Head Proposes New Limits on Nuclear Materials

    Originally Published in U.N. Wire

    UNITED NATIONS — Saying “recent events have made it clear that the nonproliferation regime is under growing stress,” Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, yesterday suggested limiting the processing and production of nuclear materials that can be used for bombs and placing facilities under international control.

    In presenting his annual report to the General Assembly, El Baradei said, “In light of the increasing threat of proliferation, both by states and terrorists, one idea that may now be worth serious consideration is the advisability of limiting the processing of weapon-usable material in civilian nuclear programs, as well as the production of new material through reprocessing and enrichment, by agreeing to restrict these operations exclusively to facilities under multilateral control.”

    “Weapon-usable material” is plutonium and highly enriched uranium.

    Countries seeking nuclear weapons, most famously Iraq, have historically called their nuclear programs peaceful while developing a weapons capacity. ElBaradei’s proposal would build on recent initiatives to make it harder to disguise a weapons program as a source of energy for a country. One of those initiatives is the Additional Protocol to the IAEA safeguards agreements nations sign as part of their Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitment. The protocol allows the agency to conduct inspections of undeclared as well as declared nuclear sites.

    After it became clear in the early 1990s that Iraq had pursued a secret nuclear weapon development program while deceiving the IAEA inspectors working in the country under the NPT, “the international community committed itself to provide the agency the authority to strengthen its verification capability” by expanding inspections to include undeclared facilities, ElBaradei said. The authority is contained in a protocol which, he said, more than 150 countries have not yet signed. “The broader authority,” he said, “is still far from universal.”

    This drive for more intrusive inspections has played a part in the current debate over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran, which has announced its intention to sign the Additional Protocol, has received “considerable attention” this year, said ElBaradei. “Recently we have received what the Iranian authorities have said is a full and accurate declaration of its past and current nuclear activities and are in the process of verifying this declaration, which is key to our ability to provide comprehensive assurances,” he said.

    The United States says Iran is working on nuclear weapons and the IAEA hopes the data will lead to some conclusions. It is scheduled to address the assembly today. ElBaradei will report to his agency’s Board of Governors later this month on his findings. Ambassador Javad Zarif of Iran told the assembly the documents will show “that all Iranian nuclear activities are in the peaceful domain.”

    “Arbitrary and often politically motivated limitations and restrictions will only impede the ability of the IAEA to conduct its verification responsibilities,” Zarif added. Such restrictions will not lead a country to renounce nuclear power, he said, but rather, “In all likelihood, it will lead, as it has, to acquisition of the same peaceful technology from unofficial channels in a less than transparent fashion, thus exacerbating mutual suspicions.”

    Zarif said NPT membership should not be an impediment to peaceful uses of nuclear technology “while non-membership is rewarded by acquiescence, as is the case in the development of one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the Middle East” — a reference to Israel.

    ElBaradei said he is continuing to consult with Middle East governments “on the application of full-scope safeguards to all nuclear activities in the Middle East, and on the development of model agreements.” However, he regretted that “the prevailing situation” has prevented progress. He said any comprehensive settlement in the region “includes the establishment of the Middle East as a zone free from weapons of mass destruction.”

    ElBaradei also said it would be “prudent” for the United Nations and the IAEA to return to Iraq to “bring the weapons file to a closure.” He repeated the agency’s conclusion from earlier this year that “we found no evidence of the revival of nuclear activities prohibited” by the Security Council.

    The IAEA has two mandates concerning Iraq — the inspections imposed by the council and those mandated by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The agency has not been in Iraq under either mandate since the U.S. invasion in March. The council mandate “still stands,” ElBaradei said.

    The assembly is debating a draft resolution accepting the IAEA’s report. The draft acknowledges the agency’s annual report and “takes note” of various resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors, including on the application of safeguards, progress on the Additional Protocol and of the dealings with North Korea. No date has been set for voting on the draft. In previous years, North Korea has introduced amendments altering the references to its nuclear programs. Such proposals have been defeated.

    ElBaradei said that since the agency has not been in North Korea since December 2002 it “cannot provide any level of assurance about the non-diversion of nuclear material” since Pyongyang demanded IAEA inspectors leave the country last year. He also called for “comprehensive settlement of the Korean crisis through dialogue.” The Board of Governors referred the issue to the Security Council in February, but the council has not yet taken any action.

    Ambassador Kim Sam-hoon of South Korea said the North’s program “cannot be tolerated under any circumstance and … there is no substitute for North Korea’s complete, irreversible and verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear weapons program.” Seoul “is committed to a diplomatic and peaceful resolution,” he added. North Korea is scheduled to speak today.

    Despite increased attention to the threat of nuclear material being diverted to terrorists, “deficiencies remain” in the security of nuclear and radiological materials, said ElBaradei. “Information in the agency database of illicit trafficking, combined with reports of discoveries of plans for radiological dispersal devices [the so-called ‘dirty bombs’], make it clear that a market continues to exist for obtaining and using radioactive sources for malevolent purposes.”

    Another sign of increased awareness of the potential diversion of nuclear material is the fact that the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material has gained 20 new parties in two years, he said. “States are now working on a much-needed amendment to broaden the scope of the convention, that I hope will be adopted soon,” ElBaradei said.

    Full Speech:
    http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n023.shtml 

  • Annan Names High-Level Panel to Study Global Security Threats

    In a letter sent this morning to Assembly President Julian R. Hunte of St. Lucia, Mr. Annan says former Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun of Thailand will chair the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.

    The Secretary-General says the Panel is “tasked with examining the major threats and challenges the world faces in the broad field of peace and security, including economic and social issues insofar as they relate to peace and security, and making recommendations for the elements of a collective response.”

    The other 15 members of the Panel include Robert Badinter of France, Member of the French Senate and former Minister of Justice; João Clemente Baena Soares of Brazil, former Secretary-General of the Organization of American States (OAS); former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway and former Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO); and Mary Chinery-Hesse of Ghana, Vice-Chairman of the National Development Planning Commission and former Deputy Director-General of the International Labour Organization (ILO).

    Gareth Evans of Australia, President of the International Crisis Group and former Minister of Foreign Affairs; David Hannay of the United Kingdom, former UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations and UK Special Envoy to Cyprus; Enrique Iglesias of Uruguay, President of the Inter-American Development Bank; Amre Moussa of Egypt, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States; and Satish Nambiar of India, former Lt. General in the Indian Army and Force Commander of the UN Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia (UNPROFOR); are also on the panel.

    The remaining members are Sadako Ogata of Japan, former UN High Commissioner for Refugees; former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov of the Russian Federation; former Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Qian Qichen of China; Nafis Sadik of Pakistan, former Executive Director of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA); Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania, former Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU); and Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft (ret.) of the United States, former US National Security Adviser.

    In his letter to Mr. Hunte, the Secretary-General notes, “The past year has shaken the foundations of collective security and undermined confidence in the possibility of collective responses to our common problems and challenges. It has also brought to the fore deep divergences of opinion on the range and nature of the challenges we face, and are likely to face in the future.

    “The aim of the High-Level Panel is to recommend clear and practical measures for ensuring effective collective action, based upon a rigorous analysis of future threats to peace and security, an appraisal of the contribution collection action can make, and a thorough assessment of existing approaches, instruments and mechanisms, including the principal organs of the United Nations.”

    The Secretary-General stresses that the Panel is not being asked to formulate policies on specific issues, nor on the UN’s role in specific places. “Rather, it is being asked to provide a new assessment of the challenges ahead, and to recommend the changes which will be required if these challenges are to be met effectively through collective action,” he says.

    Specifically, the Panel is charged with examining today’s global threats and providing an analysis of future challenges to international peace and security, the Secretary-General adds. “Whilst there may continue to exist a diversity of perception on the relative importance of the various threats facing particular Member States on an individual basis, it is important to find an appropriate balance at a global level. It is also important to understand the connections between different threats,” he says.

    The Panel will also identify clearly the contribution that collective action can make in addressing these challenges and recommend the changes necessary to ensure effective collective action, including but not limited to a review of the principal organs of the United Nations, the letter says.”The Panel’s work is confined to the field of peace and security, broadly interpreted,” Mr. Annan concludes. “That is, it should extend its analysis and recommendations to other issues and institutions, including economic and social, to the extent that they have a direct bearing on future threats to peace and security.”

    For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

  • 100 Letters, 100 Days: Suggested Talking Points, Requests, and Logistics

    Campaign Overview

    Initiated in the spring of 2001, the UC Nuclear Free Campaign stands on the shoulders of a long history of community mobilization toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. The campaign honors this legacy and provides opportunities for a younger generation to contemplate critical issues related to nuclear weapons, claim a voice, and create positive change. Specifically, the campaign highlights the University of California’s management of the nation’s primary nuclear weapons labs: Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore.

    To date, the campaign is driven by student groups on 5 key UC campuses (Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Davis) and community groups with an expertise in nuclear issues: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs) in Livermore, California; Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California; Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety in Santa Fe, New Mexico; and the Los Alamos Study Group in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Toward advancing the UC Nuclear Free Campaign, these groups have formed the Coalition to Demilitarize the University of California.
    A Warm Welcome

    On October 2nd, 2003, UC President Designate Robert Dynesl began his term overseeing one of the largest public university systems in the world: $1 billion in annual donations, 1.2 million alumni, 190,000 students, and 2 nuclear weapons laboratories. During his term, the Regents will decide whether or not to bid to continue managing Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the primary US nuclear weapons laboratories. We ask that members of the UC community, specifically students, faculty, staff, and alumni, seize each of the first 100 days of Dynes’ presidency as opportunities to voice our varied opposition to UC’s role in the development of nuclear weapons. We ask that these voices are joined by diverse stakeholders in the future of humanity, such as high school seniors applying to a UC school, former and current lab employees, parents of UC students, community residents, hibakusha (survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), elected officials, religious leaders, and entertainers. Our aim is for Dynes to receive at least 1 letter per day for 100 days beginning with his first day in office and lasting through January 9th, 2004.
    Getting Started

    A series of talking points and questions are listed herein to help individuals craft their letters. We ask that each letter end by making the following requests: (1) sponsor a series of public forums and (2) hold a televised debate on the UC management of nuclear weapons. Advice from Congressional staff suggests that handwritten, personalized letters are highly effective. Similarly, crayon drawings may be a way to involve young children in discussions about peace, nonviolence, and the power of one person. Editorial assistance is available through contacting either Tara Dorabji (925) 443-7148 or Michael Coffey (805) 965-3443.
    Talking Points

    1. Every nuclear weapon in the US arsenal was created in part by a UC employee.
    2. The UC Regents have managed the nation’s primary nuclear weapons labs under a contract that has never been put up for competitive bid in over 50 years. Earlier this year, the Department of Energy announced that the Los Alamos contract will be put up for bid. UC has not decided whether or not to bid.
    3. The current administration is pushing for a possible return to full scale underground nuclear testing and develop new, “more usable” and “bunker busting” nuclear weapons.
    4. The development and production of new nuclear weapons are illegal under Article VI of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which became law in 1970 and requires that: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the 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.”
    5. UC scientists conduct subcritical nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site on Shoshone land that was seized by the U.S. government. The battle for land rights continues in courts to this day.
    6. Both the Livermore and Los Alamos sites are contaminated by large amounts of radioactive waste that has seeped off-site.
    7. US nuclear weapons policy is explicitly offensive and several documents name countries that the US has contingency plans for preemptive strikes. Some of these nations do not possess nuclear weapons.
    8. The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war.
    9. As institutions within the University of California system, Los Alamos and
      Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories gain access to some of the “best and brightest” minds to recruit into nuclear weapons design.
    10. There are numerous historical examples of young people and students fighting on the frontlines of the movement for social justice. Continuing this legacy, many student groups were active during the 2002-2003 school year, speaking out and organizing around militarism, environmental, and racism issues.
    11. For decades, UC faculty members have been active, vocal opponents of UC’s continued and expanded role in nuclear weapons development. While this activism has taken the form of letters to newspaper editors, testimony at Regents meetings, and referendums, a series of reports serves as the greatest resource for gauging faculty sentiment on this issue: Academic Senate Report (November 1989), Galvin Report (February 1995), and University Committee on Research Policy Report (January 1996
      UC President Designate Robert Dynes has been a consultant with the Los Alamos National Laboratory for over 20 years.
    12. Nuclear weapons constitute one category of weapons of mass destruction. The other categories are chemical and biological weapons. UC Davis is being considered as a site for a Biosafety Level 4 Laboratory for biological weapons. Researchers at level 4 laboratories study the most dangerous germs known to humans, such as SARS, anthrax, and Ebola.

    Requests

    Sponsor a series of objective and inclusive forums on the issue, at least one on every campus. Such forums need to reach various constituencies, specifically students, faculty, and staff.

    Hold a televised debate on the UC management of the nuclear weapons labs.Stop the University of California from all collaborations that develop or enable the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    Logistics

    Please pre-date your letter between October 2nd, 2003 and January 9, 2004. Contact Michael to find out which date we need you to cover. Address your letter to Robert Dynes and copy each UC Regent. It would help this effort a great deal if you would send us your letter as soon as possible. We will continue to accept letters throughout the duration of the campaign. This will enable us to maintain a persistent stream of letters. If you’re interested in a particular day, such as Dia de la Raza, Veterans’ Day, or Christmas, please contact Michael Coffey as soon as possible at (805) 965-3443 or youth@napf.org.
    Please address the letters as follows:

    Robert Dynes, President

    The Regents of the University of California

    Office of the Secretary

    1111Franklin Street, 12th Floor

    Oakland, CA 94607-5200
    Please “CC” each Regent:

    Richard Blum, Ward Connerly, John Davies, Judith Hopkinson, Odessa Johnson, Joanne Kozberg, Sherry Lansing, David Lee, Monica Lozano, George Marcus, Velma Montoya, John Moores, Gerald Parsky, Norman Pattiz, Peter Preuss, Haim Saban, Tom Sayles, Cruz Bustamante, Herb Wesson, Gray Davis, Jack O’Connell, Matt Murray, Jodi Anderson
    Please send letters to the following address:

    Michael Coffey, Youth Outreach Coordinator

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1

    Santa Barbara, CA 93108-2761

    Upon receipt of letters, we will make an electronic copy for documentation purposes, make additional hard copies to send to each Regent, and mail the letters on the appropriate date. In order to confirm that we received your letter, please provide us with your email address and/or phone number.

    During the campaign, select letters will be featured online, while at the end of the campaign a “best of” document will be created that includes selected letters, photographs, an introduction to the issues, and ideas for actions. The document will be a valuable organizing tool for future efforts.

    We would love to hear from if you know others who would be interested in writing a letter and/or contributing toward the success of the campaign in some other way. Thank you for your time and devotion!

    Draft Letter Outline

    Your name

    Full Address

    Your telephone, fax, and email information
    Date the letter
    Robert Dynes, President

    The Regents of the University of California

    Office of the Secretary

    1111Franklin Street, 12th Floor

    Oakland, CA 94607-5200
    Dear President Dynes,
    · Identify yourself (state your UC affiliation or connection to issue).

    · Share your personal thoughts on UC’s role in weapons development.

    · State requests.

    · Thank Dynes for his attention to your concerns.

    · Let Dynes know that you look forward to hearing from him.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    Sign your name

    Type or print your name

     

    CC: Richard Blum, Ward Connerly, John Davies, Judith Hopkinson, Odessa Johnson, Joanne Kozberg, Sherry Lansing, David Lee, Monica Lozano, George Marcus, Velma Montoya, John Moores, Gerald Parsky, Norman Pattiz, Peter Preuss, Haim Saban, Tom Sayles, Cruz Bustamante, Herb Wesson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jack O’Connell, Matt Murray, Jodi Anderson

    Please contact Michael Coffey, Youth Outreach Coordinator, for further information on campaign at 805. 965.3443 or youth@napf.org

  • Retired Adm. Foley will oversee labs for UC

    The University of California Board of Regents on Monday appointed a well-connected retired Navy admiral and former federal weapons director to manage three national laboratories that the university runs on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy.

    Retired Adm. S. Robert Foley, 75, will serve as the UC’s vice president for laboratory management and oversee the operations of the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons labs and the Lawrence Berkeley lab. Foley will report directly to UC
    President Robert Dynes, who recommended his appointment.

    “Admiral Foley brings tremendous history of expertise and knowledge of the nuclear weapons laboratories,” said Bruce Darling, UC’s senior vice president for
    university affairs and interim vice president of the labs for the past 10 months.

    The UC-operated labs, particularly Los Alamos in New Mexico, have been under fire for months from the federal government and nuclear watchdog groups forshoddy business practices and security breaches. Those troubles prompted a congressional investigation last year and caused Energy Department officials to put the lab contract up for competitive bid — the first time in the lab’s 60 years that UC’s management has been
    challenged.

    “In the past 60 years, the university has done great science at the laboratories,” Foley said. “Over the years, some of the business practices have deteriorated. We need a fresh way to do things.”

    With a combined budget of $4 billion, the labs represent roughly a quarter of the UC’s annual budget and are the source not only of research opportunities
    but of national prestige and political clout.

    In recent months, Foley has been an adviser to UC and Los Alamos officials working to improve management and security at the laboratory. UC officials must decide
    in coming months whether to compete for the Los Alamos contract, and Foley could be a shrewd choice for the university.

    He has connections to the Bush administration, serving on the president’s Energy Transition Team and working as a consultant to both the Defense and Energy
    departments. Foley also served as President Reagan’s assistant secretary of energy for defense programs, a job that made him responsible for the nation’s entire
    nuclear weapons complex.

    A graduate of the Naval Academy, Foley rose to commander in chief of the Navy’s Pacific Fleet. One California-based nuclear watchdog group said UC’s hiring of Foley sends the strongest signal yet that the university intends to maintain its management of the weapons labs.”It seems like the UC is doing all it can to position itself to bid for the contract and to
    keep nuclear weapons as a central mission of the labs,” said Tara Dorabji, outreach coordinator for Tri-Valley CAREs in Livermore.

    Foley’s appointment takes effect Nov. 1. His salary
    will be $350,900.


    —————————
    The Bee’s Lesli Maxwell can be reached at
    (916) 321-1048 or lmaxwell@sacbee.com

  • Whose Side Are You On?

    Abraham was born in the town of Ur, in what is present-day Iraq. His spiritual lineage includes the triad of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

    This may not be common knowledge, however, among people who have become fearful of Muslims in the past few decades. They have been used as scapegoats and bad guys in movies, and more recently since the war on terror brought Muslim countries in the fix of its scope. We are led to believe that Muslims are all jihadists running around with bombs in their backpacks, hating the West for its democratic institutions.

    The covert message is that Muslims, with widely stereotyped accents further delineating their difference, are suspect; they are not like us. The deft linguistic move of identifying with a “Judeo-Christian” background alienates what is the third of the Abrahamic traditions, Islam.

    Yet it’s not as simple as saying that if only those identified as “Judeo-Christian” recognized their shared past with Muslims, there would be a magic resolution to the deeply entrenched problems in the Middle East and the United States would not have to fear being attacked again. Language is not the whole problem, but it is evidence for how we posture the problem, and how we define who the enemy is.

    While there are clear cultural, linguistic and religious differences between the Abrahamic faiths, they all have a common history. A verse in the Quran quotes that Muslims believe in the same God as Jews and Christians. How we use language to make distinctions, like identifying a “Judeo-Christian” background, satisfies the objective of making us separate in thought and practice even when we share the same history.

    But objectives don’t define themselves. When an indisputable historical link exists between these three religions, why is all-inclusive terminology not used?

    Early in the war on terror post-September 11th, President Bush made an important retraction after calling his plan a “crusade.” He made belated, yet important, outreach to religious leaders in the Muslim community, visiting mosques, shaking hands and proclaiming solidarity. He condemned the hate crimes visited upon non-whites in the United States in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

    Clearly, the way we talk about who we identify with distinguished us from others. Primed with national rhetoric of “us versus them”, the subtle transition to “Judeo-Christians” versus Muslims is nearly invisible. Many people make that presumptuous leap without even knowing it. Others are not so inhibited in shifting their perception.

    Lt. Gen. William Boykin has recently come under scrutiny for making what many consider to be inflammatory remarks against Islam. “I knew my God was bigger than his,” said Lt. Gen. William Boykin in reference to a Muslim in Somalia, proclaiming that they hate us because we are a Christian nation.

    However problematic, offensive or inaccurate these comments may be, the deeper problem is that people who control the language of war and politics have the capacity to wield exclusivist terminology, creating artificial boundaries between groups of people, between Jews and Christians, and Muslims.

    So is the idea that there are two groups to be divided, an “us” and a “them,” legitimate?

    Thought comes before form; we use language to think about what we will do. We troubleshoot. We brainstorm. We categorize and sort. Politics may very well be the art of convincing others to look at the world through our categories. Creating predominant thought is a powerful job.

    Having an “us” and “them” ensures that there will be a “winner” and a “loser”. The way we talk about the problem of fighting them, our enemies, not only influences our decisions, it legitimizes and reinforces the notion that we have enemies in the first place. Indisputably, there were people selfish and hateful enough to orchestrate and carry out a morning of terror two years ago on September 11th. But can the problem be viewed only through the lens of “us” versus “them”? Physicists could argue that at the quantum level, there is no distinction between anyone or anything, but at present this idea does not have much of a foothold in geopolitics.

    Still, to this day we have looked at no other options for how the problem might be defined, or redefined, than in terms of “us” versus “them.” The ability to mobilize a negative mass perception of Islam and continue the path of our war on terror rests on the persuasion that Muslims are disqualified from the “Judeo-Christian” tradition.

    *Leah Wells is a consultant to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She may be reached at leah@peaceed.org

  • The World After 9/11

    If anything the horrid events of 9/11 have accentuated the religious divisions around the world giving one side the license to regard the other side as a “terrorist” and use repressive means to suppress and oppress the minority.

    Since the “terrorists” in the WTC event happened to be Muslims and the United States is a Christian country the conclusion is that the attack is religiously motivated – and that this is a war between Muslims and Christians.

    I don’t think the United States was attacked because it is a Christian country. Given the circumstances that exist in the United States today and its relationships with the world, the US would have been attacked even if it were a predominantly non-Christian country by a non-Muslim group of “terrorists.” We have become so embroiled in the religious fervor that we have overlooked the non-religious aspects of this conflict. The fact is the attack was motivated more by our selfish relationships rather than religious commitment.

    Our volatile reaction to the World Trade Center tragedy has had several consequences: First, we jumped to the conclusion that this is a religious war; second, it has given many countries the right to brand all disaffected groups in their countries as “terrorists”; third, to look at all Muslims as potential terrorists and, fourth, it has given the world the right to use repressive and violent methods to eliminate “terrorists” within their borders.

    Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Ariel Sharon, used the same language as President Bush to justify the action he is now taking against the Palestinians and President Bush, more recently and rather thoughtlessly, condemned the Palestinian “sacrificial” bombing as motivated by Muslim religion. The fact is the Palestinian young people are not sacrificing their lives simply because their religion tells them to nor, as the American media will have us believe, are they sacrificing their lives because they are told they will enjoy luxuries and sex with beautiful women in heaven. If that is the motivation one may ask why are Muslims in so many other countries of the world with grievances not sacrificing their lives for the same purpose?

    The US response to the events of 9/11 was motivated by anger. It was natural for the nation to feel anger but it was not right for the nation, as it is not right for individuals, to respond in a moment of madness. When a nation or an individual acts in a moment of madness it is always violent with violent repercussions.

    I am often asked how would Gandhi react to the events of 9/11? There is a parallel in Indian history, which is very relevant. On April 19, 1919 , soon after Mohandas K. Gandhi, my grandfather, launched a peaceful, nonviolent struggle against British repression, the British Military Governor of the northern state of Punjab declared martial law, severely curtailing the rights of citizens. In fact his law demanded that Indian citizens crawl on their stomachs every time they passed a British citizen on the streets or a British owned establishment. If one dared to disobey the order one would be publicly flogged, even to death.

    The citizens of Punjab , inspired by grandfather’s teachings of nonviolent action, peacefully protested. Ten thousand men, women and children responded to the call and assembled in the Jullianwala Garden in the heart of the city. The crowd stood peacefully listening to their leaders speak about nonviolent civil action against repression. General Dyer, the British Military Governor of Punjab , was incensed by what he considered a flagrant disregard for British authority. He assembled his troops, marched to the garden, surrounded the people and ordered the troops to open fire. In a matter of minutes hundreds of men, women and children lay dead and several thousand were grievously injured. The troops stopped firing only when they ran out of ammunition. General Dyer did not allow anyone to take care of the wounded and the dying. He said later he wanted to teach the Indians a lesson.

    When the news of this mindless tragedy spread in the country the Indians were as enraged as the Americans were after September 11. If their anger was allowed to be expressed the Indians could have massacred every British person in India because in 1919 the Indians outnumbered the British 4000 to 1. This is when grandfather intervened to turn the Indian anger into positive nonviolent action for peace. Grandfather realized he had to liberate the British from their own imperialism as much as liberate the Indians. With words of wisdom and moral leadership he turned the memory of the massacre into nonviolent power for constructive action.

    Obviously, we in the United States lacked the words of wisdom and moral leadership to help us deal with the anger of September 11. Our anger was fanned into flames so that we are now embroiled in a “war on terrorism,” a war that we cannot win, because terrorists are scattered all over the world and are difficult to identify. There are terrorists in the United States as well.

    This worldwide witch-hunt for terrorists will lead to more violence that could make the 20th century look peaceful. Israel has already branded all Palestinians as “terrorists” and has launched a campaign to eliminate them. The fundamentalists in India have begun to look at local Muslims as “terrorists” and are building a case for harsher treatment. If the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was savage and unlawful then this “lawful” ethnic cleansing is no better.

    I have often been asked what would I do if I was President of the United States and, unfortunately, it is precisely because of what I would do that I would never be elected President of the United States . I would have spoken to the nation and calmed the people with words of wisdom. I would have gone to the United Nations as an equal member and sought world sympathy and support to deal with “terrorists” in a humane way through dialogue rather than hunting them down. I would definitely not have told members of the United Nations that you are either “with us or against us in this fight against terrorists.” I would have dismissed that as a very arrogant statement, which is why most of the world despises us. We have long since proved to the world that we are a super-power in terms of our military strength can we now prove to them that we can also be a super-power in terms of our moral strength ?

    As President I would have asked for a complete review of our foreign policy that has for too long been based on what “is good for the United States .” I think we can now afford to look at what is good for the world and do the right thing so that people in the world can aspire to live in peace and harmony. We may think it is none of our business and that we cannot go around the world and help everyone who is in need. But it is equally true that we cannot live in isolation and cannot preserve our security and sanity while the rest of the world falls apart. As individuals and as nations we are inter-related, inter-connected and inter-dependent and the sooner we realize and respect this fact the better it will be for all of us.

    It is not enough that we give government-to-government aid because much of the aid is consumed by corrupt officials. It is essential that we build community-to-community relationships and build a bond with a community while helping them in whatever way we can. We helped a community in Jamtland , Sweden , build a relationship with a community in Amravati , India , in 1978. This relationship is going strong and both communities have benefited immensely from this interaction. We need to do this on a large scale. To begin with the communities in the United States can start a “Hope for Humanity Fund” – saving a coin every day to help a community in a Third World country. The reason why we need to save a coin everyday is because we must be conscious every day of the need to help someone, somewhere in the world. Writing a check at the end of the year does not create the consciousness that is necessary to build a relationship. Saving a coin everyday also gets children involved in the process and they learn early that life is about giving and helping and not just about amassing and consuming.

    Arun Gandhi is the fifth grandson of India’s peace and spiritual leader, Mahatma Gandhi. He is an accomplished author and activist for peace who co-founded the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonciolence in Tennessee. For more information please visit: http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/wafter911.html