Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: Bush administration

  • Nuclear Mirage

    Even as it strives to keep nuclear weapons from proliferating around the world, the Bush administration is moving toward research on a new generation of less powerful nuclear warheads. That effort, recently endorsed by Congress, unwisely overturns a decade of restraint intended to discourage development of a new nuclear arms race.

    The new weapons are portrayed as a way to meet emerging threats that the existing nuclear arsenal, aimed at obliterating the Soviet Union in an all-out war, was not designed for. Some would be relatively small, low-yield weapons that could be used against a variety of targets, ranging from mobile targets to underground bunkers. Others would be even larger bunker-buster warheads.

    The trouble is that the smaller weapons might be tempting to use in situations where no one would dream of dropping a more massively destructive nuclear bomb. That could speed the end of the “nuclear taboo” that has kept the world free of nuclear warfare since World War II.

    For the past decade, design and development of the smaller weapons, with a yield below five kilotons, has been banned in this country by law. The goal was to keep from blurring the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons by lessening the difference in their destructive power. This year the Bush administration asked that the ban be lifted, and both the Senate and House passed bills authorizing research to proceed while requiring further Congressional approval before moving to development or production.

    Nuclear proponents argue that rogue nations are burying command centers and facilities to make nuclear, biological and chemical weapons underground, often in hardened structures that are difficult to destroy. But even a small nuclear weapon detonated below ground would spew out a mass of radioactive material. Moreover, any president would need to have extraordinary confidence in intelligence assessments about underground facilities before ordering a nuclear strike. Given the difficulty in finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, such confidence may be hard to come by.

    Instead of creating a new generation of nuclear warheads, Washington should concentrate on improving its precision-guided bombs and missiles that carry conventional warheads. Administration officials insist that they are only doing research and are not committed to developing new weapons, but this project could well become the opening wedge for a full-fledged production program. Congressional opponents of a nuclear arms race should make sure that this effort stops at the research stage.

  • Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd “A Troubling Speech”

    In my 50 years as a member of Congress, I have had the privilege to witness the defining rhetorical moments of a number of American presidents. I have listened spellbound to the soaring oratory of John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. I have listened grimly to the painful soul-searching of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

    Presidential speeches are an important marker of any President’s legacy. These are the tangible moments that history seizes upon and records for posterity. For this reason, I was deeply troubled by both the content and the context of President Bush’s remarks to the American people last week marking the end of the combat phase of the war in Iraq. As I watched the President’s fighter jet swoop down onto the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, I could not help but contrast the reported simple dignity of President Lincoln at Gettysburg with the flamboyant showmanship of President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

    President Bush’s address to the American people announcing combat victory in Iraq deserved to be marked with solemnity, not extravagance; with gratitude to God, not self-congratulatory gestures. American blood has been shed on foreign soil in defense of the President’s policies. This is not some made-for-TV backdrop for a campaign commercial. This is real life, and real lives have been lost. To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the President to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech. I do not begrudge his salute to America’s warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln, for they have performed bravely and skillfully, as have their countrymen still in Iraq, but I do question the motives of a desk bound President who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech.

    As I watched the President’s speech, before the great banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished,” I could not help but be reminded of the tobacco barns of my youth, which served as country road advertising backdrops for the slogans of chewing tobacco purveyors. I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw.

    What I heard the President say also disturbed me. It may make for grand theater to describe Saddam Hussein as an ally of al Qaeda or to characterize the fall of Baghdad as a victory in the war on terror, but stirring rhetoric does not necessarily reflect sobering reality. Not one of the 19 September 11th hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence to link the September 11 attack on the United States to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was an evil despot who brought great suffering to the Iraqi people, and there is no doubt in my mind that he encouraged and rewarded acts of terrorism against Israel. But his crimes are not those of Osama bin Laden, and bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not bring justice to the victims of 9-11. The United States has made great progress in its efforts to disrupt and destroy the al Qaeda terror network. We can take solace and satisfaction in that fact. We should not risk tarnishing those very real accomplishments by trumpeting victory in Iraq as a victory over Osama bin Laden.

    We are reminded in the gospel of Saint Luke, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” Surely the same can be said of any American president. We expect, nay demand, that our leaders be scrupulous in the truth and faithful to the facts. We do not seek theatrics or hyperbole. We do not require the stage management of our victories. The men and women of the United States military are to be saluted for their valor and sacrifice in Iraq. Their heroics and quiet resolve speak for themselves. The prowess and professionalism of America’s military forces do not need to be embellished by the gaudy excesses of a political campaign.

    War is not theater, and victory is not a campaign slogan. I join with the President and all Americans in expressing heartfelt thanks and gratitude to our men and women in uniform for their service to our country, and for the sacrifices that they have made on our behalf. But on this point I differ with the President: I believe that our military forces deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and not used as stage props to embellish a presidential speech.

  • Thank You, Dear President Bush

    Thank you, President Bush;

    For creating an atmosphere proper to develop again the perils and Apocalyptic Doomsday of the Cold War.

    For taking decisions unilaterally or coaxing other countries to accept aggression instead of diplomacy.

    For dividing the nation and bringing feuds, bias and hatred among our citizens.

    For saying that your administration disregards the opinion of the world like you did with world opinion opposed to war against Iraq.

    For alienating billions of people worldwide who see the US as the a bully nation that acts for the sake of its own interests only.

    For leaving me speechless when trying to explain to my sobbing young daughter why humans are acting like cavemen in what you have called “the First War of the 21st Century.”

    For letting us know that the use of “tactical nuclear weapons” are possible and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be reenacted again.

    For bringing xenophobia to the “land of the free.”

    For making us act like imperialists who still want to rule the world.

    Thank you, thank you so much!
    *Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Politics of Education Reform

    President Bush recently announced that he wants to expand federal funding for school services to help low-income children. Yet the $1 billion of his proposed new funds for these kids amounts to less than a single day of military spending. Regardless, the Los Angeles Times reported that such “education reform” is a “signature issue” backed by Democrats and Republicans.

    Political differences do exist, however. Some Democrats have responded that the president’s proposed funding increase for poor students falls far short of what’s needed. This qualifies as the understatement of the young new year.

    Both parties supported the No Child Left Behind Act that Bush signed on Jan. 8, 2002. The NCLBA partly allocates funds to low-income families to move their children from inferior to superior schools. The funding is also available to pay tutors for after-school instruction.

    Yet if educational opportunity was more than a word used to dupe the public, Congress and the president could have transferred tens of billions of taxpayer dollars from the Pentagon for Star Wars to public schools for smaller class sizes. But that was not to be. So goes the politics of education reform in the U.S.

    Puzzling? The nation’s political circles of power have their priorities. High on the list is fully funding the Pentagon, not public schools.

    The absence of evidence that military spending is more socially useful than education spending is evidence of the absence of critical journalism on these two subjects. To be sure, exceptions to this sorry state of affairs do exist. Regrettably, they are too few to shape public opinion much.

    Concerning the NCLBA, the LA Times article noted that, “Some critics have said that approach emphasizes standardized testing at the expense of instructional time and imposes unfair penalties on problem schools.” Bush disagreed, shifting the criticism to unchanging schools where teachers fail students. “Instead of getting excuses, parents will now get choices,” he said.

    Particularly, market choices are what await these parents. The Republican White House and Congress firmly back the competition of the marketplace as the path to social improvement. Presumably, the GOP’s mission to level the educational playing field by removing market fetters will unleash the untapped learning potential of poor students.

    Positive education results, we can be sure, will follow the mandatory math and reading tests, given annually by states, to needy students in the third through eighth grades under the NCLBA. This testing requirement begins in fall 2005. Then, states will be able to determine which students are (not) learning their lessons.

    Such testing is “the only way” to make accurate educational evaluations, according to the president. One standardized test fits all. More marketization of education means more standardization in public schools.

    The LA Times article also reported that the Bush administration has boosted total federal expenditures on public education to $22 billion, a 40 percent increase, for the current instructional year. Crucially, this overall amount of public school spending pales in comparison to the current Pentagon budget of about $400 billion. Here are two public programs that receive disproportionate amounts of tax dollars, but aren’t generally reported in relation to each other.

    The contrast between the two programs is stark. Accordingly, the political priorities are self-evident once people are informed. To this end, they need journalists with independent news media to buck the conventional wisdom and give the business of war more than a wink and a nod.

    Meanwhile, low-income households are being used as pawns by political power interested in scoring points around reform of the nation’s underfunded public schools. But the marketization of education is no more a solution to the substandard schools that poor U.S. kids attend than “smart bombs” are the tools to liberate the Iraq people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Many in the U.S. would no doubt vote to transfer their taxes from the Pentagon to public schools if the politics of education reform was made clearer.
    *Seth Sandronsky is an editor with Because People Matter, Sacramento’s progressive newspaper.

  • Security in the Post 9/11 World

    Security in the Post 9/11 World

    The Bush administration’s approach to security in the post 9/11 world is built on military strength, and is composed of the following elements: increased military expenditures, the pursuit of global military dominance, indefinite reliance on nuclear weapons, the development and deployment of missile defenses and the threat to initiate preemptive wars in the name of security. There was a time, when nations fought nations and armies battled against armies, when this strategy might arguably have been relevant, but in the post 9/11 world it is a dysfunctional strategy that is certain to fail.

    Military force is too blunt an instrument for providing security against terrorists. One need only look at the results of the US-led war against Afghanistan. Military force could topple the Taliban regime, but it could not capture or kill the leading terrorists purported to have initiated the 9/11 attacks. In the process of prevailing over the Taliban, which hardly required the world’s most advanced military force, many innocent civilians were killed, undoubtedly resulting in new sympathies and new recruits for the terrorist forces aligned in their hatred toward the policies of the United States.

    Mr. Bush has named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an Axis of Evil, certainly a provocative statement which, combined with Bush’s stated willingness to engage in preemptive war, is likely to elicit steps by these nations to protect themselves against possible attacks by US forces. The Bush administration is already well advanced in its plans to wage war against Iraq. It is worth contemplating that such a war against Iraq would be the first war ever fought for nuclear disarmament, ironically pursued by a country with 10,000 nuclear weapons against a country with no demonstrated nuclear weapons.

    Would a war against Iraq make US citizens more secure? There is every reason to believe that it would make US citizens far less secure. Such a war, rightly or wrongly, would be perceived in the Arab world as reflecting the double standards that allow the US to turn a blind eye to Israel’s arsenal of some 200 nuclear weapons while being willing to attack an Arab country for pursuing the same path. A US-led war against Iraq would require a bloody battle to topple Saddam Hussein, and would undoubtedly result in more hatred and determination by terrorists, old and new, to attack US citizens where they are most vulnerable.

    A war against terrorism is not a war that can be won on the battlefield because there is no battlefield. It is not a war that can be won by throwing more money at the military or by building the most dominant military force in the world (we already have that). Nuclear weapons certainly will not be able to deter terrorists, particularly since they are virtually unlocatable. Nor will missile defenses be of any value against terrorists, who will use low-tech stealth approaches to go under the high-tech missile defenses. And the threat of preemptive war by the US will only provoke other countries to seek clandestinely to develop their own deterrent forces.

    In sum, the Bush administration’s approach to providing security in the post 9/11 world is a strategy not only destined to fail, but to make matters far worse than they already are. Achieving security in a world of suicidal and determined terrorists requires a new approach, something other than the Rumsfeld doctrine of “find and destroy the enemy before they strike us.”

    This new approach to security must be built on the power of diplomacy and aid rather than on military power. It must be built on policies that reverse inequities in the world and seek to provide basic human rights and human dignity for all. These policies must adhere to international law, and end the double standards that have helped to produce extreme misery in much of the Arab world. In the 21st century there must be dignity for all, or there will be security for none.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is the editor of The Poetry of Peace (Capra Press).

  • The Bush Administration’s Nuclear Policies and the Response of Citizens

    The Bush Administration’s Nuclear Policies and the Response of Citizens

    The Bush administration came into office with the clear intention to strengthen US military dominance, including its nuclear dominance, and it has been true to this major policy goal. While the Bush administration views nuclear weapons as central to US security, it has a larger vision of US military dominance as a principal means for serving US national security interests. The administration has shown scant concern for US treaty obligations, particularly in the area of arms control. Most prominently, the administration has disavowed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, arguing it is no longer relevant in a post-Cold War environment.
    The US Nuclear Posture Review

    The clearest statement of US nuclear policy can be found in the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review Report, a classified document mandated by Congress, which was leaked to the press in March 2002. This report lays out a “New Triad,” composed of offensive strike systems (nuclear and non-nuclear), defenses (active and passive), and a revitalized defense infrastructure to meet emerging threats. The old strategic triad of land-based missiles, sea-based missiles and long-range bombers now fits into the nuclear branch of the New Triad’s offensive strike systems.

    The Nuclear Posture Review states, “Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends. They provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and large-scale conventional military force. These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that give the United States options to hold at risk classes of targets [that are] important strategic and political objectives.” This is an extraordinary admission of the benefits that US leaders attribute to nuclear weapons in US defense policy, benefits that they are clearly reserving for themselves and a small group of other nuclear weapons states.

    The report also finds utility in the use of nuclear weapons under certain circumstances: “Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand a non-nuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities).” The report further calls for development of contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven countries, five of which are non-nuclear: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Russia and China. Such threat to use nuclear weapons violates the negative security assurances that the US gave to the non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the time of that Treaty’s Review and Extension Conference in 1995.

    The report calls for strengthening the “U.S. Nuclear Warhead Infrastructure.” It states, “The need is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that will: …be able, if directed, to design, develop, manufacture, and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground nuclear testing if required.”

    In sum, the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review is a strategy for indefinite reliance on nuclear weapons with plans to improve the capabilities of the existing arsenal and to revitalize the infrastructure for improving US nuclear forces in the future. The Nuclear Posture Review promotes a nuclear strategy of maximum flexibility as opposed to measures for irreversible nuclear disarmament as agreed to at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

    As a candidate for president in 2000, Mr. Bush announced that he wanted to reduce the level of strategic nuclear weapons in the US arsenal to the lowest number compatible with US security. Based on military studies, that number was placed at between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed strategic nuclear weapons. According to the Nuclear Posture Review, “Based on current projections, an operationally deployed force of 1700-2200 strategic nuclear warheads by 2012…will support U.S. deterrence policy to hold at risk what opponents value, including their instruments of political control and military power, and to deny opponents their war aims.”

    The upper end of 2,200 strategic nuclear weapons is nearly identical with the 2,500 strategic nuclear weapons that Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin had agreed upon for START III, when the method of counting is taken into consideration. Under the counting system proposed in the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, the weapons aboard submarines being overhauled are not counted. Even the lower end figure of 1,700 strategic nuclear weapons was above the level of 1,500 (or less) that President Putin had proposed.

    As a candidate, Bush also promoted development and deployment of a National Missile Defense to protect the United States against nuclear attacks by so-called rogue states, a proposal that would have been prohibited under the ABM Treaty. Upon assuming the presidency, Bush dealt with the impediment of the ABM Treaty by withdrawing from it. He gave the six months’ notice required by the Treaty for withdrawal on December 13, 2001, and US withdrawal became effective on June 13, 2002.

    Prior to providing notice of withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, both the Chinese and Russians attempted to dissuade Mr. Bush from taking this step. Chinese officials told the Bush administration that deployment of a US missile defense system would necessitate an increase in the Chinese nuclear arsenal capable of reaching the US in order for China to maintain an effective although minimal deterrent force. The response of the Bush administration was that it had no problem with a build-up of Chinese nuclear forces capable of threatening US territory since the US missile defense system was aimed at “rogue” nations and not at China.
    Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty

    In Spring 2002, Mr. Bush also reached agreement with President Putin on a Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). The two presidents signed this treaty in Moscow on May 24, 2002. In the treaty, the two governments agreed to reduce the actively deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side to Bush’s preferred numbers, as set forth in the US Nuclear Posture Review, of between 1,700 and 2,200 by the year 2012. The treaty made no provisions for interim reductions, and thus, despite SORT, it remains possible for either or both sides to actually increase the size of their arsenal between the inception of the treaty and 2012, so long as the reductions to the agreed numbers occur by 2012. The treaty is also set to terminate, unless extended, in 2012.

    The treaty also made no provision for the nuclear warheads that were removed from active deployment. The US has announced that it intends to put many or most of these warheads into storage in a reserve status, where they will remain available to be reintroduced to active deployment should this decision be taken in the future. Presumably Russia will follow the US lead on this, thus making many of its strategic nuclear weapons more prone to theft by criminal organizations, including terrorists.

    The Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty was announced with considerable fanfare. It gave the public a sense of progress toward nuclear disarmament, when in fact it was far more of a public relations effort than an actual arms reduction treaty. Although it did provide for removing several thousand nuclear weapons on both sides from active deployment, and in this sense it was a de-alerting measure, it did not make these reductions irreversible as agreed to by the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

    The Bush administration’s nuclear policies have not been favorable to nuclear disarmament. Many of its policies have been contrary to the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament set forth in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Not only has the Bush administration withdrawn from the ABM Treaty, the President has made it clear that he does not intend to send the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty back to the Senate for ratification. His administration has given indications that it wishes to shorten the time needed to resume underground nuclear testing, and is developing more usable nuclear weapons and contingency plans for their use.

    In sum, the Bush administration is not taking seriously, nor attempting to fulfill, US obligations for nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT. Nor has it shown good faith in fulfilling the 2000 NPT Review Conference’s 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament, including pursuing the promised “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals….” And without US leadership to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, there is not likely to be significant progress.
    The Role of the Anti-Nuclear Movement

    The effectiveness of the anti-nuclear movement in reaching the US public and policy makers seems to have diminished under the Bush administration. While the promise of this movement seemed bright in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, this promise has not been realized and at the moment is receding. In part, this is because the ideologues in the Bush administration are not receptive to proposals, no matter how reasonable, to reduce nuclear arsenals or even nuclear risks. Another factor in the diminished effectiveness of the US anti-nuclear movement is that the issues of terrorism and war have moved to the forefront and taken precedence over nuclear weapons issues in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the US.

    In the aftermath of September 11th, public receptivity to challenging Bush’s nuclear policies became highly restricted. The concern and fear generated by the terrorist attacks created a greater willingness to use force for protection of the US civilian population and foreclosed possibilities for public consideration of any reductions in armaments, nuclear or conventional, other than those proposed from above, such as the SORT agreement. The attacks also strengthened Bush’s position of leadership in the US, a fact that was reconfirmed in the recent US elections.

    One current challenge to the Bush administration’s defense policy is being mounted by 31 members of Congress, led by Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). Kucinich and his fellow members of Congress are challenging in federal court the president’s authority under the Constitution to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without congressional approval. The lawsuit is based on the theory that the Senate must ratify a treaty for it to enter into force, and that once it does enter into force the treaty becomes the “supreme Law of the Land” under Article 6(2) of the Constitution. The congressional challengers argue that once a treaty becomes law under Article 6(2), it is not within the president’s unilateral authority to terminate that law and that the president must seek congressional approval before acting to terminate a treaty.

    Many important proposals from non-governmental organizations, including ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, agreement on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, and de-alerting of the deployed nuclear arsenal, were simply taken off the table as the administration focused its efforts on rooting out terrorists, the war in Afghanistan, and now the threat of war against Iraq. But, while the anti-nuclear movement in the US has receded, the peace movement has grown, and this has been particularly so in relation to the administration’s threatened war against Iraq.

    The reemergence of an active peace movement is a hopeful sign. In recent weeks the numbers have grown to tens of thousands of people, even hundreds of thousands in large cities, taking to the streets. In California in the small city of Santa Barbara where I live, there have been hundreds of people taking to the streets each Saturday to protest a war against Iraq. Should a war against Iraq actually begin, the number of protestors throughout the country will likely swell into the millions.
    The Logic of War Against Iraq

    The Bush administration has premised its case for war against Iraq on the need for regime change, primarily because Saddam Hussein may be trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. It is conceded that Hussein does not presently have nuclear weapons, but may be able to develop one or more in the future. The logic of the war from the perspective of the Bush administration is that Hussein must be stopped from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which he might use or pass on to a terrorist organization. Thus, we have the irony of a country with some 10,000 nuclear weapons seeking to go to war to achieve nuclear disarmament of a country that has yet to acquire a nuclear weapon. Surely this irony cannot be entirely lost on the American people or the people of the world, despite the official rhetoric of the Bush administration justifying our possession of a huge nuclear weapons arsenal.

    This could be an educable moment for Americans. There are many inconsistencies in US nuclear policies that carry with them significant attendant dangers. Should terrorists obtain nuclear weapons, they might kill 300,000 or three million inhabitants of a US city rather than the 3,000 that were killed in the terrorist attacks of September 1l, 2001. And yet, US policy is to spend some seven to eight times more on developing missile defense systems than on eliminating the threat of “loose nukes” in the former Soviet Union. A bipartisan Department of Energy Task Force on Russia, headed by former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, concluded that the US should be spending some $3 billion annually for the next ten years to keep Russia’s nuclear arsenal out of danger of terrorists. Instead, however, the US is spending only some $1 billion annually on this, while spending $7.5 billion on missile defenses. If the US goes to war against Iraq, that could cost some $200 billion and require a continuing US military occupation of Iraq, while increasing the threat of new incidents of terrorism.
    Global Dangers

    Throughout the world nuclear dangers are increasing. In South Asia, India and Pakistan continue to posture and threaten each other with their relatively new nuclear forces. These two countries continue their periodic outbreaks of violence in their long-standing dispute over Kashmir. In Northeast Asia, on the volatile Korean peninsula, North Korea, according to the CIA, may have developed a few nuclear weapons. North Korean representatives have recently admitted to enriching uranium, which may be used to develop nuclear weapons. In the Middle East, the Israeli nuclear arsenal of some 200 nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems, including submarines, continues to provoke attempts by other countries in the region, including Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, to develop or acquire their own nuclear arsenals. The security of the Russian nuclear arsenal cannot be guaranteed, and the US is developing more usable nuclear weapons and contingency plans to use them. Should terrorists succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons, anything could happen. These alarming circumstances create an incendiary set of conditions that could explode suddenly and without warning into nuclear holocaust.

    The likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used in the next five to ten years is greater today than at any time since the end of World War II. Yet, at the present moment, the world seems to be preoccupied with other issues, while critical issues of nuclear control and disarmament are removed from the public mind and agenda. Rather than distracting the world from nuclear disarmament, the increasingly grave threats of terrorism should be providing additional impetus for fulfilling the already well-established obligations to achieve complete nuclear disarmament.

    It should also give us pause to consider the relationship of nuclear weapons to terrorism. In the end, nuclear weapons may serve the poor and disenfranchised better than they serve the rich and powerful. The rich and powerful countries have far more to lose, and their cities are extremely vulnerable to nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological terrorism. In a more rational world, such considerations would lead the most powerful nuclear weapons states to act in their own interests by leading the world toward nuclear disarmament. Alas, this lesson has yet to be grasped by leaders in the United States and other powerful nations. In the meantime, it is these powerful nations that threaten the use of nuclear weapons, and this must be seen by objective viewers to constitute its own form of terrorism.

    An active and effective nuclear disarmament movement has never been more needed. Our best hope is that this movement will reemerge with renewed energy and spirit from the anti-war activities in the US and throughout the world. It is extremely important now that the nuclear implications of the current global crisis not be lost on the anti-war movement, nor on the citizens of the world’s most powerful nations. The failure to make these connections and to act upon them could result in tragedies beyond our greatest fears.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. His recent books include Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age and Missile Defense: The Great Illusion, both available in Japanese language.

  • North Korea and the Bush Administration’s Proliferation Folly: Nuclear Admission Demonstrates Militarism is not a Solution

    The Bush administration’s recent announcement of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) admission to developing a nuclear weapons program has thrust the fact that Iraq is not an isolated nuclear weapons proliferator into the center of the war debate. The announcement highlights startling questions as to the administration’s lack of a consistent and comprehensive nonproliferation strategy and has evoked serious accusations as to why Congress was not told about the DPRK’s admission prior to voting on the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

    The parallels between the DPRK and Iraq’s nuclear weapons program are undeniable. Both countries are known to have had programs to develop nuclear weapons and have been designated as members of the “axis of evil” by the Bush administration. The United States even came close to war with North Korea over their nuclear weapons program in 1994.

    In fact the DPRK’s weapons program may be far more advanced than Iraq’s. North Korea has enough plutonium to construct an estimated six nuclear weapons within six months, is pursuing technology to enrich uranium, and has consistently resisted the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) push for full inspections. Iraq, on the other hand, is not thought to have the materials necessary to build a nuclear weapon, and has stated that it will allow United Nations lead weapons inspections.

    Yet the administration has made clear its commitment to find a diplomatic solution to crisis with North Korea and to pursue the option to use force against Iraq, without providing convincing answers as to why its response to the two nations should differ so greatly.

    This glaring inconsistency puts a spot light on the fact that the Bush administration’s Iraq policy does not provide a comprehensive, long-term solution to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If we must wage war on Iraq because of the threat of nuclear weapons, why not Israel, which is thought to possess approximately 200 nuclear weapons? Why not Pakistan, which is nuclear capable and is thought to have provided North Korea with enrichment technology? Why not China which provided Pakistan with that technology in the first place? It is clear the United States cannot and should not take pre-emptive military action against each of these proliferators.

    On the other hand, if the Bush Administration is confident that diplomacy is the correct option for North Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan and other potential proliferators, why not Iraq? The very fact that the United States is treating Iraq differently from other proliferators is infuriating many countries, particularly Arab ones, and threatening US interests in the region. This was made very clear in the recent Security Council emergency session on Iraq where country after country condemned Iraq’s violation of disarmament obligations, but also opposed the US push for authorization for the use of force against Iraq.

    Though the administration claims that its militant Iraqi policy proves that it is hard on proliferation, the White House has, in fact, impeded effective arms control not only by thwarting multilateral treaties such as the CTBT and the protocol to the Biological weapons convention and but also by providing insufficient funds for efforts to control nuclear materials. The administration’s expectation that other nations will embrace disarmament and nonproliferation principles while the United States continues to disengage from multilateral solutions and advance its nuclear weapons technology seems clearly unreasonable.

    Congress Kept in the Dark

    Democrats in Congress have, through their aids, voiced criticism that they were not told of North Korea’s admission to its nuclear weapons program while they were considering the resolution authorizing the administration to use force against Iraq. The Washington Post quoted one aid as stating, “Senators are concerned and troubled by it…This cloud of secrecy raises questions about whether there are other pieces to this puzzle they don’t know about” (October 19, 2002).

    Informing Congress about the DPRK’s admission could have delayed the vote on the war resolution to allow further consideration of the precedent that would be set in Iraq and how that could affect US policy towards proliferators such as the DPRK. Congress would have been forced to address the Iraq situation in the broader context of global proliferation through the concrete example of North Korea.

    The White House’s explanation for the delay is that analysts were still considering a response to the DPRK. Yet when the announcement was eventually made no planned response was released, and the administration is clearly still in the process of consulting other nations.

    Though Congress had been briefed on evidence of North Korea’s nuclear weapons effort, the outright admission by the DPRK significantly increases pressure on the United States to deal with the program in a timely manner. Keeping such clearly relevant information from Congress during a debate on whether the United States should go to war is likely to damage even further the credibility of the administration’s intelligence claims.

    Solution Remains Unclear

    Exactly what the DPRK hoped to get out of the admission that it has an active nuclear weapons program is still far from clear. It may be that the Kim John Il felt he had little left to lose in relations with the United States besides nuclear power reactors its deteriorated electrical grid cannot accommodate and heating fuel shipments which make up less than five percent of the country’s yearly energy needs.

    North Korea has responded to criticism by pointing out that, by neglecting for years its commitment through the 1994 Agreed Framework to make significant efforts to end hostile relations and normalize diplomatic and economic ties, it was the United States that first violated the bilateral pact.

    Some analysts suggest that North Korea made the announcement in preparation to make significant concessions in dismantling its nuclear weapons program. Such negotiations will depend on the commitment of both the Kim regime and the Bush administration to finding a peaceful resolution to this looming conflict, and the ability of Bush administration to navigate diplomatic avenues without relying on military action.
    *Devon Chaffee is the Research and Advocacy Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Bush Abandons Biological Weapons Inspection Agreement

    Last week the Bush administration announced that it has no intention of cooperating with international efforts to verify compliance to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). This latest move in a series of similar policy decisions indicates a disinterest in weapons inspections and brings into question the Bush administration’s commitment to a comprehensive regime of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    In December 2001 the Bush administration rejected a draft Protocol to the BWC and pulled out of protocol negotiations, stating that it would return in a year with creative solutions to solve the negotiation impasse.

    The promised innovative solutions, however, were never proposed. Instead, the Bush administration stated last week that it had abandoned any efforts to come to an agreement over the protocol and that it would not return to discussions over the BWC until 2006, when the next review conference of the treaty is scheduled. As an alternative to the protocol the administration only offered guidelines for unilateral measures that countries can take to reinforce the BWC, with no international verification structure.

    The BWC announcement follows the Bush administration’s opposition to a verification structure for the recent strategic nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia, as well as displays of relative ambivalence about United Nations inspections in Iraq and recent signs that North Korea may be ready to allow unfettered inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Cuba has also recently announced its intention to sign on to the Non-proliferation Treaty, further evidence that US designated “rogues” are noting the importance of participating in multilateral non-proliferation efforts.

    International inspections have served as indispensable instruments of treaty verification, assuring countries that arms control agreements are indeed being adhered to. Without enforcement measures the weight of any international treaty is greatly reduced.

    Bush’s short-term enforcement alternative to inspection regimes seems to be the use of pre-emptive, unilateral force. This policy, however, falls short of a sustainable solution. Threatening a US invasion of every country suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction is impractical, inconsistent with international laws and norms, and unacceptable to the international community.

    Refusing to participate in reciprocal regimes de-legitimizes all US stated commitments to non-proliferation efforts and creates an atmosphere of distrust is likely to agitate, not ameliorate, the perceived need for state actors to possess weapons of mass destruction.

    Representatives from the international community have put decades of work into trying to develop lasting systems that would rein in the unnecessary threat caused by weapons of mass destruction. It is true that the regimes negotiated are not ideal and could be improved upon through creative diplomacy. The Bush administration, however, seems intent on unraveling the fruits of these nonproliferation and disarmament efforts while offering no sustainable alternative.

    For an in-depth critique of the Bush administrations policy towards the BWC see:http://www.stimson.org/pubs.cfm?ID=66

  • Sort of a Treaty, But Not Really

    Sort of a Treaty, But Not Really

    Published in International Law and Editorial

    Nuclear weapons were the greatest threat to humanity’s future before 9/11, and remain the greatest threat after 9/11. They are the only weapons capable of destroying major cities and even ending human life on Earth. Given the dangers that these instruments of genocide pose to humanity, it is baffling why we’re not doing more to end this threat.

    I attribute the lack of action primarily to the myopic leadership in the United States, where the short-sightedness of U.S. political leadership on this issue is bipartisan. During its eight-year tenure, the Clinton administration made little progress to make good on the formal U.S. commitment in the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to undertake good-faith efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the nuclear-weapons states clarified their treaty commitments by pledging to pursue the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. Promises also were made for “[t]he early entry into force and full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons.”

    Instead of fulfilling these promises, however, the newly installed Bush dministration announced its opposition to the ABM Treaty, and later withdrew from it. It then foisted a fraudulent Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) on the Russians, a treaty so problematic that it accomplishes little more than mislead the public into thinking that some progress is being made toward nuclear disarmament.

    SORT will lead only to the reduction of the number of actively deployed strategic (long-range) nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 by year 2012, with no timetable other than the endpoint and no procedures for verification. And the U.S. has announced that it will not be destroying most of the weapons taken off active deployment: It plans merely to place them on a shelf for retrieval in case they are deemed to be needed again in the future. The treaty has no effect on tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons.

    When this fraudulent treaty, which the U.S. Senate still must ratify, is combined with the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review presented to Congress earlier this year, the clear indication is that the U.S. is committed to keeping its nuclear arsenal, and to lowering the political and military thresholds of its possible use.

    The portions of the secret Nuclear Posture Review that were leaked to the press indicate that the U.S. is developing new, more usable nuclear weapons, as well as plans for their use against at least seven countries (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Russia and China). This is hardly the stance of a country seeking to provide leadership toward fulfilling its NPT obligations to eliminate its nuclear weapons.

    Terrorism is the threat to injure or kill innocent people for political ends. The terrorist acts that targeted the United States on September 11 last year were despicable, and condemnable as crimes against humanity. But isn’t planning to use nuclear weapons, which would kill not 3,000 people but hundreds of thousands (in a small-scale use) to millions of people (in a larger scale use), terrorism too?

    It is past time for the United States and the other nuclear-weapons states to recognize their own terrorist threats against humanity. These states have existing obligations under international law to achieve the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, including under the NPT and the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the nternational Court of Justice, which ruled that the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons would violate international law under nearly all conceivable circumstances.

    Fulfilling their international law obligations with respect to nuclear disarmament is also in the self-interest of these states. By eliminating nuclear weapons and strengthening non-proliferation regimes, these states would diminish the risk that such weapons would fall into the hands of terrorist groups, like those that targeted the United States last September.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Published in International Law and Editorial, September 15, 2002.

  • Opposing the President’s Call for ‘Relentless War’

    Opposing the President’s Call for ‘Relentless War’

    In an article reflecting on the anniversary of September 11, President Bush wrote, in an instant, America was transformed from a nation at peace to a country at war. We were called to defend liberty against tyranny and terror. And we have answered that call with the might of our military and the spirit of a nation inspired by acts of heroism.

    I am in complete accord on two issues. Yes, there was a horrendous attack on two major structures that symbolize our country s economic and military power, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, costing thousands of innocent lives. And yes, there was genuine heroism shown by those who resisted the terrorist attacks and by the emergency workers who sacrificed selflessly for the victims of September 11.

    But was America, as Bush claims, instantly transformed from a nation at peace to a country at war? If it was transformed in this way, it is because this is the direction in which Bush and his advisors transformed it. Becoming a country at war meant to the Bush administration an opportunity to expand US military forces while constricting civil liberties for ordinary Americans. Starting with his candidacy, Bush has pressed for increasing funding for the military. The September 11 attacks, along with a frightened and compliant Congress and American public, provided the opportunity to do so.

    We responded to September 11 with the might of our military, which pummeled Afghanistan and attacked al Qaeda training camps, leading to a regime change in Afghanistan. But all of this military might has failed to apprehend Osama bin Laden, the individual purported to be responsible for the attacks. Has the use of this military might against Afghanistan truly made us any more secure?

    There are few signs that Americans are more secure now than they were before the terrorist attacks. Our airports and other potential targets remain penetratable by terrorists, and virtually nothing has been done to address the root causes of terrorism. Our policies on the Middle East have become less even-handed, and we no longer seem to have sufficient respect in the region to play the role of honest broker in a peace process. Our dependence on foreign oil has not diminished. We have been an obstacle to upholding and strengthening international law in virtually all areas.

    Bush and his military team have not spent much time addressing the reasons that the terrorists chose to attack symbols of American economic and military power. They have simply used the blunt instrument of military force to strike out at a regime viewed as dangerous. The United States under the Bush administration appears more like a helpless flailing giant than a country basing its responses on reason, law and morality. The Bush administration seems oblivious to the decent respect for the opinions of Mankind referred to by the founders of our nation in the Declaration of Independence.

    Our attacks against Afghanistan have resulted in the deaths and injuries of thousands of innocent Afghanis due to our high-altitude bombing. Our response to September 11 has probably killed more innocent Afghanis than the number of innocent persons who died in the terrorist attacks. But our President tells us we are a country at war, and dismisses the deaths of the innocent people we kill as collateral damage.

    This will be a long war, Mr. Bush tells the American people, and unprecedented challenges await us. It will be a long war because we are failing to take necessary steps to achieve peace. It will be a long war because we are led by an administration that has no vision of peace or of a better world for others. It has no vision and few resources for alleviating poverty, or for building schools instead of tanks. It has no vision of preserving the environment and natural resources for future generations because it is intently focused on goals that merely serve corporate interests. It has no vision of halting arms sales, an area where the US remains indisputably number one in the world. Nor does it have a vision of bringing nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction under control. We are an empire and empires require double standards. Thus, this will be a long war.

    The concepts of war and defense have often been confused in the minds of Americans, and appear particularly confused in the minds of Bush and his advisors. Through most of our nation s history, we had a War Department, but in 1947 the name of this department was changed to the Department of Defense, one suspects largely for purposes of public relations. Commenting on this change, novelist Joseph Heller astutely observed that since switching the name to Department of Defense, we have never again been in danger of war, only of defense.

    Now we are in danger of perpetual war. The United States under the Bush administration is leading the world in exactly the wrong direction, away from international law and toward increasing reliance on military force. Although no connection has been found between Iraq and the terrorist acts of September 11, Bush and Cheney are eager to wage war against Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Hussein may have weapons of mass destruction. But other countries, including dictatorships, actually have weapons of mass destruction. Possession of weapons of mass destruction has never been the litmus test for launching a pre-emptive and aggressive war. If we considered the elimination of nuclear weapons truly important, perhaps we would model the behavior we seek for others.

    It is highly unlikely that Saddam Hussein would attempt to inflict injury on citizens of the United States even if he had weapons of mass destruction unless, of course, he was attacked by the United States. Such an attack would put American soldiers in harm s way of Hussein s arsenal, and give Hussein the right under international law to act in self-defense. This right would still not include using weapons of mass destruction, although he might still choose to use them illegally when confronted by overwhelming US force.

    Bush has called for our government to wage an effective and relentless war against terrorists. Perhaps we should think instead of waging peace against the terrorists, acting with such justice and decency in the world that we would again be viewed as a positive model.

    How does a country wage peace? There are some seeds of an answer in Bush’s advice to the American people: Overcome evil with acts of goodness. Love a neighbor. Reach out to somebody in need. Feed someone who is hungry, teach a child to read&. These were Bush s suggestions for what Americans can do to help in the war on terror. But imagine if these suggestions were followed by our country in our policies toward the rest of the world. What if America sought to overcome evil with acts of goodness, rather than military might? What if America reached out to people everywhere who were in need of food, shelter, health care and education?

    Americans must choose the direction they wish to take. If left to make the choice itself, the Bush administration will lead the United States into a potentially devastating war against Iraq, which will undoubtedly increase the already simmering hatred toward the United States in most of the poorer areas of the world. The only way that Mr. Bush can be derailed from the perpetual war he seeks to wage is if the American people make their voices heard so clearly and persistently that Congress will have no alternative but to stand up to the President and say No! If the American people choose to docilely follow Mr. Bush into war against Iraq, we should not be surprised when the next front of the war returns to America in the form of increased terrorism.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.