Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: US Nuclear Weapons Policy

  • Congress and Courts must not let Bush kill missile pact

    Originally Published in Legal Times

    The president’s plan to terminate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia was always a bad idea. It has only gotten worse with recent revelations that the Pentagon has submitted to Congress a document calling for contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against Russia, China, and a number of other countries. Unfortunately most members of Congress, including those opposed to termination, are under the impression that this is a done deal which they are powerless to reverse. But there is still time for Congress to act as a body before the president’s decision becomes effective next June — as a historical precedent illustrates.

    In December 1978, President Jimmy Carter decided to terminate the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1954 between the United States and Taiwan. Court challenges to his authority to do so without congressional consent went all the way to the Supreme Court. It is generally believed that Congress “lost” this case, Goldwater v. Carter (1979), and that the resulting Supreme Court decision precludes further challenges to unilateral presidential treaty termination. In fact, Goldwater embodies no such obstacle — and indeed suggests a course of action that Congress might follow, thus proving that its role in treaty termination is still very much alive. As then-Justice William Rehnquist, quoting Chief Judge J. Skelly Wright of the D.C. Circuit, stated in his Goldwater concurrence, “Congress has a variety of powerful tools for influencing foreign policy decisions that bear on treaty matters.”

    In the first stage of the Goldwater constitutional debate between 24 members of Congress and President Carter, Judge Oliver Gasch of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the plaintiffs had standing to invoke the aid of the judiciary, and that their suit was not barred by the political question doctrine. Regarding the substantive question of treaty termination authority, on which the Constitution is silent, Judge Gasch first reviewed the history of two centuries of treaty termination. He found that, while there had been some apparently unchallenged instances of unilateral termination by the president, most of these “involved commercial situations where the need for the treaty, or the efficacy of it, was no longer apparent.” More significant, he found that “[t]he great majority of the historical precedents involve some form of mutual action, whereby the President’s notice of termination receives the affirmative approval of the Senate or the entire Congress.”

    The Sole Organ?

    President Carter invoked his foreign affairs power in support of his position. He cited the famous — or infamous, depending on one’s view — dictum in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp (1936) that the president is “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.” Judge Gasch dismissed the president’s argument in the following terms: “While the President may be the sole organ of communication with foreign governments, he is clearly not the sole maker of foreign policy. In short, the conduct of foreign relations is not a plenary executive power.”

    In further support of the plaintiffs’ position, Judge Gasch relied on the constitutional status of treaties as the supreme law of the land and the president’s obligation to faithfully execute the laws. The president “alone cannot effect the repeal of a law of the land which was formed by joint action of the executive and legislative branches, whether that law be a statute or a treaty,” he wrote. The judge also quoted these words — a prescient comment on what has come to be known in common parlance as the imperial presidency — of Justice Felix Frankfurter: “The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority.”

    In conclusion, Judge Gasch wrote that “the President’s notice of termination must receive the approval of two-thirds of the United States Senate or a majority of both houses of Congress for it to be effective under our Constitution.”

    President Carter appealed, and the D.C. Circuit reversed in a per curiam opinion with concurrences. After reviewing a number of arguments in support of reversal, the per curiam opinion (filed by Chief Judge Wright) concludes, “Viewing the issue before us so narrowly and in the circumstances of this treaty and its history to date, we see no reason which we could in good conscience invoke to refrain from judgment . . . .” Perhaps more important for purposes of guiding Congress today, the opinion also takes pains to point out that the Senate had not, “since the giving of the notice of termination, purported to take any final or decisive action with respect to it, either by way of approval or disapproval.” This implies that had the Senate taken a final or decisive action of disapproval, the result might have been different.

    No Single Voice

    Chief Judge Wright, with Judge Edward Tamm concurring, would have dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. They also pointed out that “if Congress wants to participate directly in a treaty termination it can find the means to do so.”

    Judge George MacKinnon, though concurring in part, thunderously dissented from the per curiam opinion’s reasoning. He chastised the majority for rendering “an obviously expedient decision” with which, he said, history “will not deal kindly.” He reviewed the 200-year history of treaty termination at length and concluded that reliance upon “miniscule precedent forcibly illustrates the great weakness in the President’s claim to absolute power in the present circumstances.” And he added, in a passage particularly relevant to the contemporary state of affairs, that “[foreign affairs become our national affairs. Hence, to the extent that we complacently grant to the President unbridled power in the international realm, we increase his power nationally, to an ever expanding degree.”

    The Supreme Court had the last word in Goldwater, but it turned out to be a rather garbled one. It ordered the judgment of the D.C. Circuit to be vacated, and remanded the case to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint. The individual justices were somewhat more verbose.

    Justice Lewis Powell Jr. agreed with the Court’s result, but would have dismissed the case as not ripe for judicial review. He thus disagreed with Justice Rehnquist (with whom Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices Potter Stewart and John Paul Stevens concurred) that the issue was nonjusticiable on the grounds that it constituted a political question. On the contrary, Powell wrote words that, like the D.C. Circuit’s per curiam opinion, might offer some guidance to Congress today. He stated, “If the Congress, by appropriate formal action, had challenged the President’s authority to terminate the treaty with Taiwan, the resulting uncertainty could have serious consequences for our country. In that situation, it would be the duty of this Court to resolve the issue.”

    Justice Harry Blackmun, joined by Justice Byron White, held that it was indefensible for the Court to have decided the case without briefing and oral argument; they would have set it for oral argument and given it “the plenary consideration it so obviously deserves.” Justice William Brennan Jr., accusing Justice Rehnquist of profoundly misapprehending the political question principle as applied to foreign relations, would have affirmed the “prudently narrow” judgment of the D.C. Circuit solely on the ground that the power to recognize and withdraw recognition from foreign regimes is the president’s alone. Justice Thurgood Marshall concurred in the result, without joining the statements of any of his brethren or issuing one of his own.

    Plan of Action

    So what is the lesson in this convoluted judicial history for the current dispute between Congress and the president? First, it is not possible to discern a coherent reason for the Court’s action in Goldwater. Given the fact- based but divergent opinions of Powell and Brennan, the nonsubstantive opinions of Blackmun and White, and the Sphinx-like silence of Marshall, it is impossible to extract from the judgment a majority rule that would provide guidance to a Court considering a new challenge to presidential termination.

    Second, and equally important, some of the concurring and dissenting judicial voices suggest a plan of action for Congress. Congress can act, as an institution, to pass legislation or a sense of the Congress (or of the Senate) resolution, or to hold hearings, to assert its role in foreign affairs and indicate its strong objection to allowing the president to unilaterally terminate the ABM treaty. Such steps might work to stop the president’s action. And if they do not, they would at least provide a stronger basis for judicial intervention than existed in Goldwater.

    If Congress fails to act, it will only risk — in the words of Justice Frankfurter — “the accretion of dangerous power” taking another giant step forward.
    *Peter Weiss is president of the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, based in New York.

  • The Folly of Yucca Mountain

    Have we lost our senses? The Bush administration is trying to steamroll establishment of Yucca Mountain as the country’s nuclear waste dump, while planning to build more “mini-nukes” and threatening to use our nuclear weapons against a handful of nations and in situations where they were previously off-limits. In this case, not only is Bush threatening to destroy life in the countries named in the Nuclear Posture Review, but he’s willing to sacrifice his own nation in order to kept the nuclear industry afloat.

    Yucca Mountain was not chosen to be the nation’s nuclear repository based on “sound science” as those in the Bush administration would have us believe, but it had been singled out almost 20 years ago based on political vulnerability – the small congressional delegation of Nevada is no match for the nuclear industry lobby and their friends in Congress. The state of Nevada does not even have a nuclear reactor, so why should it be the dump for the rest of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel? In fact, sound science shows us that Yucca Mountain is the one place studied so thoroughly that the Department of Energy (DOE) knows that it will leak. The Nuclear Waste technical Review Board described the DOE’s science at the site as “moderate to weak,” and the General Accounting Office (the independent investigative arm of Congress) found that 293 scientific issues still need to be resolved before the site should even be considered as a waste dump.

    Yucca Mountain is very seismically active, with over 600 earthquakes occurring in the last 25 years, including one that did over a million dollars’ worth of damage to the DOE’s own testing facilities. An even more interesting geological feature of the site is that a line of lava cones extends westward from Yucca Mountain, the youngest of which lies closest to the mountain, suggesting a magma pocket underneath. Global positioning satellites which track the movement of the earth’s crust note that the crust at Yucca is expanding and moving steadily westward. The earliest analyses of the site show that water flows very quickly through the mountain. Recent analysis of abundant crystals in the mountain found they were formed by hot water welling up into the mountain from below. This presents the possibility of a catastrophic explosion caused by steam, chemical interaction or a chain reaction, much like what would happen in a core meltdown of a nuclear reactor.

    Then there are the problems of transportation. The waste must be stored in dry casks and then placed on trains, trucks, and barges to begin their slow, dangerous journey from the nation’s 103 nuclear reactors to Yucca Mountain, at least 6 shipments a day for 30 years or more. The planned routes pass within miles of over 50,000,000 people, passing through large cities such as Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., and countless smaller cities including Santa Barbara. The potential for a catastrophic accident is enormous, as these slow-moving shipments are basically sitting ducks for any would-be terrorist, not to mention the risk involving road accidents. However, the nuclear industry needs it that way, because as soon as the spent fuel moves off the reactor site, all responsibility shifts to the taxpayer, thanks to the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the industry’s liability in case of an accident even when it occurs on reactor property.

    The shocking proposal to establish Yucca Mountain has been vetoed by Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn, throwing the ball back to Congress to override the veto and create the nation’s first nuclear repository. A bill has already been introduced to establish the repository, and will be voted on within 90 days. These next few months are crucial, so please write a letter to your senators and representative and urge them to vote against this extremely dangerous plan.
    Senator Barbara Boxer
    112 Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510-0505
    Tel.: (202) 224-3553
    Fax: (415) 956-6701
    Environment and Public Works

    Senator Dianne Feinstein
    331 Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510-0504
    Tel.: (202) 224-3841
    Fax: (202) 228-3954
    Energy and Natural Resources Committee

    Representative Lois Capps
    1118 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515-0522
    Tel.: (202) 225-3601
    Fax: (202) 225-5632
    Energy and Commerce Committee

    If your representative is not listed here, please visit www.congress.org for contact info.

    This article was written with the help of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, http://www.nirs.org

  • End the Nuclear Terror: A Call to Action from the Abolition 2000 Global Council

    The Global Council of the Abolition 2000 Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons condemns the United States Nuclear Posture Review and US plans to develop new nuclear weapons that are more useable, and thus more likely to be used. The Bush Administration has directed the US military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in warfare. We condemn this policy as insane, immoral and illegal.

    These plans break promises that the US made thirty-two years ago in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) when it agreed to negotiate in good faith to eliminate its nuclear weapons. Along with other nuclear-armed countries, the US renewed that promise in 2000, when it agreed to an “unequivocal undertaking” to accomplish the “total elimination” of its nuclear arsenal, plus twelve other practical steps leading to nuclear disarmament.

    Instead of implementing these 13 practical steps, the US has reawakened the specter of nuclear horror with its plans for developing new nuclear weapons, and giving three unthinkable scenarios for using them: “against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or in the event of surprising military developments.” With these steps, the US shows it will use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them, a complete reversal of previous agreements. This policy increases nuclear danger in a world already rife with conflicts involving nuclear-armed countries (India and Pakistan in South Asia, and Israel in the Middle East), and fearful of terrorists acquiring nuclear materials.

    We, the members of the Abolition 2000 Global Council, call on all citizens of the Earth to wake up and act! At a time when the people of our planet desperately seek ways to create a safer, more secure world, the US strikes nuclear terror into all of our hearts. Stark gaps between the world’s “haves and the have-nots,” and glaring social injustice, contribute to a rising tide of violence everywhere. Yet the world’s richest and most powerful nation can only offer the threat of the ultimate violence: the use of nuclear weapons.

    The world is in grave danger. Everything and everyone we love is at risk. Now is the moment to get deadly serious about nuclear abolition, while we still have time. We urge all citizens: Make your voices heard – in the halls of government, in the media, to your friends, family and neighbors. We must act now!

    Our strength as a Global Council comes from the over 2000 citizen groups in 90+ countries who form the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons <www.abolition2000.org/>. Since our founding in 1995 at the NPT Review and Extension Conference, our network’s many groups have demonstrated their commitment to a more sustainable world by creating ways to bring about nuclear abolition. One of our most valuable tools has been the law: the treaties our nations have signed and ratified, the International Court of Justice 1996 Advisory Opinion on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the model Nuclear Weapons Convention.

    Now is the time to speak together in one voice! Join us in our call for a legal end to the nuclear madness that never went away. Let us focus our efforts, exercise our citizenship muscles, and use every nonviolent means to get rid of the nuclear threat once and for all. Hiroshima and Nagasaki must never happen again! Speak Out! Take action! We cannot do it alone, but together we will succeed!!

    Yours for a sustainable and nuclear-free world,
    The Abolition 2000 Global Council

  • New US Nuclear Posture Under Fire

    Originally Published by the Inter Press Service

    A top U.N. disarmament official assailed Thursday U.S. proposals to deploy nuclear weapons against countries wielding biological and chemical weapons.

    “I don’t think it makes sense,” said Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala. “If somebody uses a basic weapon against you, you do not use the maximum weapon you have in your arsenal.”

    ”We know from scientific evidence that the use of nuclear weapons can destroy not only large numbers of human beings but also the ecological system that supports human life,” and that ill-effects from radiation are prolonged, Dhanapala added.

    Last week, the New York Times reported that the administration of President George W. Bush is planning a broad overhaul of its nuclear policy.

    As part of the proposed policy, it reported, the administration is planning to develop new nuclear weapons including so-called “mini” weapons suited to striking specific targets in countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Libya.

    All five countries have been accused by the United States of either developing or possessing weapons of mass destruction including nuclear, biological, and chemical arms.

    Arab officials have complained that the United States has remained silent, however, on Israel, which they say possesses large quantities of mass destruction weapons.

    There are five declared nuclear powers in the world: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, all of them veto- wielding permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

    At least three other countries are generally considered “undeclared nuclear powers”: Israel, India and Pakistan.

    The United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, when it bombed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

    In a report titled ‘The Nuclear Posture Review’ (NPR), the U.S. Department of Defence has said there is a need to resume nuclear testing and to develop new nuclear weapons to blow up underground bunkers where biological and chemical weapons may be in storage.

    Last week, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the only choice against adversaries using weapons of mass destruction is to make it clear in advance “that it would be met with a devastating response.”

    Dhanapala said the new U.S. policy “flies in the face of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty undertakings.” Under Article VI of the NPT, he said, states are expected to reduce nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminate them.

    “So this is to me a very serious contradiction of that, and will be a very major stumbling block, as we begin the process of preparing for the 2005 NPT Review Conference,” he said. These preparations are scheduled to begin next month.

    Dhanapala also warned that if the United States resumes nuclear testing or develops new nuclear weapons, it would encourage other countries to discard their obligations under the NPT and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

    “To go back on those treaties would amount to opening the flood gates, and regressing in the development of the norms that we have had,” he added.

    John Burroughs, executive director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, told IPS the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, including retaliation against a nuclear, chemical or biological attack, must meet the requirements of humanitarian law. These include necessity, proportionality, and discrimination between military targets and civilians.

    “Nuclear weapons cannot meet these requirements,” he said. “As the International Court of Justice said, their radioactive effects cannot be limited in space and time. Therefore their use is barred.”

    Burroughs added that one of the “disturbing aspects” of the NPR is that it signals the possibility of U.S. nuclear use against a non- nuclear country – and not in retaliation for a chemical or biological attack, but rather to pre-empt such an attack.

    The NPR also refers to “surprising military developments” as a rationale, taking the issue out of the realm of weapons of mass destruction, he added.

    Chris Paine, a senior analyst with the Natural Resources Defence Council, said only a massive and unusually lethal chemical attack on large numbers of non-combatants could conceivably justify a nuclear response.

    Biological weapons have a much greater inherent lethality against unprotected civilian populations, and the devastating consequences of such an attack could possibly render nuclear weapons a proportionate response – “but not necessarily a rational or moral one”, he argued.

    This is particularly so, if alternative military means exist for punishing the perpetrators, who may or may not be readily targeted, or even susceptible to identification.

    The policy of pre-emptive strikes is foolish and counter- productive on several levels, he said, because it encourages other nation’s to consider whether they will be able to sustain an adequate conventional deterrent to foreign military interference or invasion, and therefore to acquire the very weapons of mass destruction that Bush claims so vigorously to oppose.

    Paine said that such a policy also deprives the United States of the moral and political standing to oppose other nation’s weapons of mass destruction programmes, leaving military coercion as the primary instrument for “dissuading” foreign countries from competing with the United States in the realm of mass destruction weaponry.

    “The Bush administration’s stance reduces a once vigorous U.S. non- proliferation posture to rubble,” he added.

     

  • CNDP Denounces USA’s Nuclear Terror

    The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, India voices its outrage at the unprecedented nuclear threat to the whole world held out the militarists at the helm of the United States of America. The CNDP also expresses its indignation at the servile silence of New Delhi over the subject.

    The “contingency plans” revealed in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)by the Pentagon under the Bush Administration cannot be clearer in their intent. The multi billion populaces of seven countries — with Russia, China, Syria and Libya now added to the “axis of evil” comprising Iraq, Iran and Korea — have been made the potential targets of nuclear lunacy on the part of the world’s strongest ever superpower. If countries close to these targets are taken into account, the NPR (leaked to the media) is an attempt to intimidate a large swathe of humanity.

    The NPR threatens nuclear strikes against targets too tough for non-nuclear weapons, in “retaliation” against attacks by biological and chemical weapons of which the USA has the largest stockpiles, and even in case of “surprising military developments” of an undefined kind. The added threats of nuclear assaults in an Arab-Israel conflict and a Taiwan-China clash make for a truly alarming prospect. The list of targets leaves no doubt that the Bush regime is not going to be bound by treaties the US has signed including the NPT and the CTBT.

    While the madness has been denounced even by many in the West, the Government of India has yet to find its tongue. New Delhi, which has acquiesced in Washington’s space weaponization schemes and its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, is failing thispeace-loving nation even more by its tacit support for the USA’s line of nuclear terror.
    –Achin Vanaik, Praful Bidwai, Admiral L.Ramdas (Retd.), J. Sri Raman, Prabir Purkayastha, Jayaprakash, and Christopher Fonseca

  • Star Wars Steals from Our Future

    Native Americans tell the story of how the white man came to be named Wasichu, the fat-taker. “You shall know him as washi-manu, steal-all, or better by the name of fat-taker, wasichu, because he will take the fat of the land. He will eat up everything….This new man is coming, coming to live among you. He will lie, and his lie never ends. He is going to make a dark, black hoop around the world.”

    Today the fat-taker lives in the White House, the Congress, the Pentagon, and inside the aerospace industry. George W. Bush, and his team, are requesting massive increases in Pentagon spending during the coming year. Cuts will be made in education, child care, health care, social security and the like. Our future is being destroyed to fatten the weapons corporations and their rich allies.

    Star Wars research & development (R & D) will be the recipient a significant portion of this theft from our children. Everything from space-based lasers, nuclear-powered rockets, and Theatre Missile Defense (TMD) systems (that will be used to surround China) are now on-line. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be wasted on these new “21st Century weapons technologies” as Bush calls them.

    The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space enters its 10th year of organizing in 2002. On May 10-12 the organization will hold an International Space Organizing Conference & Protest in Berkeley, California. (On May 10 a protest will be held at Lockheed Martin – Sunnyvale where work is underway on many of these key space weapons technologies.) On May 11 Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has been invited to deliver the keynote address at the international conference. Kucinich has recently introduced HR 3616, the “Space Preservation Act”, that would ban all weapons in space.

    For the past two years the Global Network has organized in October, an international day of protest to stop the militarization of space. In 2001 there were 115 local actions held in 19 countries. In 2002, the day of protest will be expanded to an entire week of events to be called “Keep Space for Peace Week” and will be held on October 4-11. Groups will organize local events throughout the week that would include things like visits to political leaders, community teach-ins, meetings with religious leaders, visits to local schools, media work, public displays, and protests at military bases and aerospace corporation facilities.

    The U.S. Space Command predicts that because of “corporate globalization” the gap between “haves” and “have nots” will widen worldwide in coming years. With space “control and domination” in place, the Space Command will become the military arm for the multi-national corporations enabling the U.S. to suppress those who protest U.S. global dominance. The fat-takers now have a global strategy. Suppress all the people around the world. Lower the standard of living for everyone. Cut social spending and increase profits for the few who are rich. Control the people of the world by controlling space. With space domination in place the military will be able to hear everything, see everything, and target everyone on Earth.

    We are back to the days of kings, queens, lords, and castles protected by knights in shining armor. The time has come for the peasants to organize and revolt. Our children’s future depends on it.
    *Bruce K. Gagnon is Coordinator for the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

     

  • Might Real Disarmament be on the Agenda?

    As a person who has believed ever since August, 1945 that nuclear disarmament was the single most important condition for the longrun survival of civlized life on earth, I was much encouraged a few days ago by several strong reactions to the contents of the US “Nuclear Posture Review” which had been leaked to the press on March 9. The “posture” includes contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven states, to which plans The New York Times replied with an editorial beginning: “If another country were planning to develop new nuclear weapons and contemplating pre-emptive strilkes against a list of non-nuclear powers, Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state. Yet such is the course recommended” by the Pentagon planning papers. The Washington Post, while reiterating its constant support for current American military actions, concluded its editorial by saying “The Bush administration is right to focus more of its strategic planning on deterring rogue states, but developing new nuclear weapons for that threat is neither necessary nor sensible.”

    Robert S. McNamara, who was US Secretary of Defense during the first stages of the Vietnam War, immediately criticized the posture review on several grounds: that the US has scrapped the ABM treaty in order to build a new missile shield in space; that the above-mentioned contingency plans undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by targeting several non-nuclear countries with our nuclear arms; that the review “appears to set forth a forty-year plan for developing and acquiring new nuclear weapons,” and that the nuclear testing of such new weapons would “fly in the face of vital US non-proliferation commitments.” Finally, not to limit my examples to the immediate reaction against the Nuclear Posture Review, I would mention that The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in the US has been circulating since the beginning of this year an appeal to “commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.” This appeal carries the signatures of such widely admired world figures as Muhammad Ali, former President Jimmy Carter, the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, and Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba of Hiroshima.

    In the balance of the present article I would like to assess the possibilities for real disarmament. But first a caution: the momentum of President Bush’s “war against terror”, and the advice of all his important counselors with the partial exception of Colin Powell, is strongly in favor of new weapons, both nuclear and non-nuclear, developed hopefully with allied approval, but unilaterally if such approval is not forthcoming. The editorial reactions I have cited above do not call for disarmament of any kind. They reflect dismay at the failure of the administration even to realize how dangerous for the US itself are these rejections of international obligations and readiness to extend nuclear competition and militarize outer space as well as the long suffering earth. They thus call for a modicum of common sense restraint.

    The administration favors a certain disarmament on its own terms. In order to free up nuclear resources, plus the scientific and technical talent to create more sophisticated, precise new weapons, the US proposes a large voluntary reduction in the thousands of missiles now on alert in US and Russian bases. This is to be done without signing scraps of paper, and with the missiles kept in storage just in case some unpredictable change in the international atmosphere might require us to be able quickly to alert them again. The Russians, who have recovered their sense of humor since the demise of communism, have referred to this as a “nuclear warehouse” policy.

    A more difficult obstacle lies in the fact that American public opinion, as reflected in the behavior of the US Senate, does not like to accept international obligations. The Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because it would, quite obviously, limit the country’s ability to create and test new weapons. Many legislators have nothing good to say for the United Nations as such, and will have nothing to do with a proposed international tribunal for the trial of war crimes. They feel no embarrassment whatever in saying that they will not permit any American soldier to be tried by such a tribunal. Their forbears conquered the American West without having to apply any Geneva conventions to captured Indian braves, and they declare that the captured Taliban and Al Quaida fighters are not legitimate prisoners of war (another psychological throwback to their forbears’ attitude towards the Indians).

    Actually there already exists a very practical basis from which to initiate real nuclear disarmament. In 1970 the existing -and still the principal- nuclear powers (the EEUU, Russia, the UK, France, and China) sponsored a Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which they asked all the rest of the world to forego the development of nuclear weapons, in return for which the nuclear group itself undertook a solemn obligation to negotiate the reduction and eventual elimination of their own nuclear arsenals. Without any unnecessary sarcasms and finger pointings, without any reference to other treaties never ratified by the Senate, the nuclear “club” could now take the initiative to fulfill that obligation.

    There are also several practical circumstances which should make it possible for the leaders of all nations to recognize the increasing importance of nuclear disarmament for the survival of civilized life. Since 1970 (as well as before) there have been accidents at nuclear plants releasing dangerous quantities of radioactivity into the atmosphere, and eventuallly into the soil and water on which millions of people depend. There has been no way to hide these facts. Regardless of governmental secrecy, seismographs all over the world have detected every single nuclear test and every single nuclear accident in the years since 1945. There have also been at least nine very little publicized sinkings of nuclear submarines with consequent poisoning of the ocean waters. In addition, the safe disposal of radioactive wastes from well controlled civilian activities is a completely unsolved problem, of which political elites are surely aware even if they avoid public discussion of the subject. Where, and in what quantity, potentially endangering whose homes and lands, are to be buried the hundreds of tons of nuclear waste which include elements that will remain radioactive for several centuries? By what right do we deliberately endanger the health of these future generations? Without hurting anybody’s religious or ideological sensibilities, the delegates to a disarmament conference could mutually assume the obligation to reduce as far as it may still be possible, these health hazards.

    Another relevant circumstance is the fact that, in contrast to the situation in 1970, we no longer live in a bi-polar world. At that time, the EEUU and the USSR were so overwhelmingly powerful that, since the two of them could destroy each other 100 times over, and were aware of that fact, the rest of the world could relax in the assurance that such pragmatic leaders as Nixon and Brezhnev would be careful not to start a nuclear war. But today we live in a world of strongly revived religious differences, of militant nationalisms, of less ideological debate but more fear, hatred, and jealousy based on the increasing inequality between prosperous and poor societies, and the fact that this increasing inequaltiy is so obvious on the TV screens seen by almost everyone. This situation must lead all sane persons to realize that no small group of powers such as the nuclear club of the 1970’s can hope to restrict the spead of nuclear arms. In that sense I can agree that the ABM treaty is “outdated”, but not for the purpose of eliminating it so as to feel free to create all kinds of monstrous new weapons.

    Thue only sane policy is to recognize that either we get rid of nuclear weapons or their eventual use, whether by intent or by accident, will inevitably kill millions of persons and poison the living conditions of the survivors and successors. We need a world disarmament conference for as many years as it may take to negotiate comprehensive, verifiable, permanent disarmament of all the existing stocks of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

     

  • 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.

  • Revealed Nuclear Policies Are a Sign of Bad Faith To Rest of the World

    On 9 March, reports surfaced in major US media that the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) released on 9 January contains contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against seven states: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Russia and China. It also reportedly contains plans to develop and deploy new “earth-penetrating” nuclear weapons and to accelerate the time it would take to resume full-scale nuclear testing. Using nuclear weapons against other states or developing new nuclear weapons would directly violate US obligations to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons under Article VI of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

    At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the US, along with the other state parties to the treaty, committed themselves to an “unequivocal undertaking” to eliminate nuclear weapons and to a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies. Even if the US does not pursue the plans outlined in the NPR, as Secretary of State Colin Powell and other top military and government officials are claiming, the provocative rhetoric could unravel the non-proliferation regime.

    “The fact that the US is developing contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states will certainly be viewed as a sign of bad faith by most of the world and will do serious damage to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” said David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.”

    Weapons of mass destruction and missile proliferation do pose a legitimate threat not only to US security, but also to international security. However, unilateral US threats to use nuclear weapons, in conjunction with developing and deploying missile defenses, as a means of countering these threats is likely to provoke rather than prevent proliferation. A much better option would be for the US to take the lead on negotiations for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has issued an international appeal that has now been signed by over 100 prominent individuals, including 38 Nobel Laureates. The Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity and All Life calls upon the US and other nuclear weapons states to take the following practical steps as a means to preserve the non-proliferation regime and achieve the complete elimination of nuclear weapons:

    * De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.

    * Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    * Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.

    * Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.

    * Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

  • 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.