Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: NATO

  • Condition Black: End the War in Afghanistan

    On any given day NATO hospitals in southern Afghanistan enter “CONDITION BLACK” – a status that alerts military tactical commanders that hospital beds are full and patients should be diverted elsewhere. Commanders’ options are limited however – in the south NATO has only two Role-3 hospitals – those that are capable of dealing with complex polytrauma that is a common result of IED blasts.

    It’s typical for a soldier to arrive from the battlefield with injuries requiring vascular, orthopedic, burn, and general surgery. The most seriously wounded will stop at the British hospital in Helmand province or the US hospital in Kandahar province for stabilization surgery prior to the long flight to Europe for further care. These hospitals are modern-day “trauma factories” dealing with scores of brutally battered patients daily, not all of whom are soldiers.

    Many of the wounded are innocent Afghan civilians whose neighborhoods have become battlefields. In fact, Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM) (an independent and impartial Afghan rights group) reports that 1,074 civilians were killed and over 1,500 were injured in the first six months of 2010. And that’s where this gets complicated.

    Even though the NATO hospitals will report CONDITION BLACK, they will always make room for NATO troops requiring care; there just is not another option. Not so for the civilian casualties; in CONDITION BLACK NATO will either refuse to collect them from the battlefield, or deliver them to the poorly-staffed Afghan Army hospital near Kandahar – the only Afghan Army hospital in the entire southern region – and not capable of complex polytrauma surgery. The result is that NATO is triaging patients based on nationality vice on medical need.

    Although the Geneva Conventions require the warring parties to protect civilians and provide medical care to the wounded, the US chose to escalate the war knowing that civilians would increasingly be killed and wounded – without a proper level of trauma care in place. While ARM attributes 60 percent of civilian casualties to the Taliban, they are not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and have no medical facilities. Such is the condition of conducting a counterinsurgency – the burden lies with the nation states – US/UK.

    The General: In July 2009 General McChrystal issued a directive that required commanders to more carefully consider civilian casualties while engaging the enemy. A 29 June 2010 article by Amnesty International credits this policy with a 28 percent reduction in civilian deaths in the second half of 2009 from the same period in 2008. Ironically, also on 29 June, The New York Times quoted General Petraeus as having a “moral imperative” to protect his troops. General Petraeus has since directed a review of the rules of engagement that will likely result in lessening restraint and increasing civilian deaths. As the principle author of the US counterinsurgency doctrine, General Petraeus must realize what this failure to protect the population will cost in terms of civilian support of foreign troops.

    The Senator: A small group of veterans – part of Veterans For Peace – in Traverse City Michigan – appealed to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee to investigate the lack of medical care to civilians. Senator Levin has yet to respond. Meanwhile, in this poor isolated nation with few true allies, it continues that the most innocent bear the brunt of the suffering; six civilians are killed and eight wounded daily. It’s time to end the war. Short of that the Commander-In-Chief must do the morally right thing – provide medical care to civilians at the same level offered to NATO forces.

  • Nuclear Deterrence Scam Blocking Progress to a Safer World

    This article was originally published on The Huffington Post.

    I recently returned home to New Zealand from attending a major conference at the United Nations in New York reviewing prospects for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Because a shaky consensus was reached, the conference has been hailed a success. However, what struck me was how detached the negotiations were from the reality of what the diplomats were haggling over.

    As a former operator of British nuclear weapons, I try to articulate this reality, and to “get up close and personal” with this desperately serious issue for humanity, most recently in Security Without Nuclear Deterrence and a New York Review of Books symposium on “Debating Nuclear Deterrence.”

    The nuclear weapon states’ blocking of any serious moves towards honoring their obligation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to get rid of their nuclear arsenals is driven by their uncritical acceptance of nuclear deterrence. Yet my carefully considered conclusion is that nuclear deterrence is a huge confidence trick – an outrageous scam cooked up fifty years ago by the US military industrial monster created by the Manhattan Project and now dominating US politics. Look at how President Barack Obama’s vision for a nuclear weapon free world, raising global expectations in his Prague speech in April last year, was quickly contradicted by his caveat that “as long as these weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies…”

    In a statement on behalf of the non-governmental organization (NGO) community to delegates, I pointed out that belief in nuclear deterrence is based on a crazy premise: that nuclear war can be made less likely by deploying weapons and doctrines that make it more likely.

    A rational leader cannot make a credible nuclear threat against a nuclear adversary capable of a retaliatory strike. And a second strike is pointless, because it would be no more than posthumous revenge, in which millions of innocent people would die horribly. This is why enthusiasm for a nuclear weapon free world is incompatible with the nuclear-armed states’ copout mantra: “We’ll keep nuclear weapons for deterrence as long as anyone else has them.”

    Nuclear deterrence, like all theories, is not foolproof. It entails a hostile stand-off where, in the case of the US and Russia, each side still has over 2,000 warheads ready for launch within half an hour, over twenty years after the Cold War officially ended. What is more, they still have nearly 18,000 more nuclear warheads between them held in reserve.

    The George W. Bush administration was the first to admit nuclear deterrence would not work against terrorists, now perceived to be the greatest threat to Americans – other than the real risk of inadvertent nuclear war with Russia because nuclear deterrence dogma requires all those warheads on hair-trigger alert. As for terrorism, a nuclear “weapon” is militarily unusable, combining uniquely indiscriminate, long-term health effects, including genetic damage, from radioactivity with almost unimaginable explosive violence. In fact, it is the ultimate terror device, far worse than chemical or biological weapons, which are banned by global treaties.

    Recent research assessing a regional nuclear war involving use of just 100 warheads, each with an explosive power of 15 kilotons like the US bomb detonated over Hiroshima, on cities in India and Pakistan found that, in addition to millions of immediate casualties, smoke from fires could block enough sunlight to cause widespread famine. For all these reasons, the overwhelming majority of states feel more secure without depending on the circular logic, myths and misleading promises of nuclear deterrence – which is effectively state-sponsored nuclear terrorism.

    As in 2005, this year’s NPT Review Conference was bedevilled by two closely related issues: the nuclear programmes of Iran, which is suspected of trying to build nuclear weapons, and Israel, which has denied having them for over forty years. Intertwined with these is one of several fundamental contradictions about the NPT: its promotion of nuclear energy, which inevitably stimulates nuclear proliferation because it provides the fissile material for nuclear weapons. This, and the double standards imposed on the non-nuclear member states by the privileged five recognized nuclear-armed states, with their associated veto power in the UN Security Council, have finally reduced the NPT process to impotence.

    Perhaps the most positive outcome was a new groundswell of opinion among a large majority of the non-nuclear signatory states that the only hope of making any meaningful progress towards nuclear weapon abolition is to start a parallel process leading to a Nuclear Weapons Convention, like the ones banning chemical and biological weapons. A model treaty exists, drafted by a group of experts from the NGO community. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has been sufficiently impressed to have endorsed it as part of his five-point plan for nuclear disarmament.

    Meanwhile, in Britain a coalition government has taken power at a crucial moment for the future of British and global nuclear policy. The deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, leads the Liberal Democrats, whose election manifesto included opposition to both nuclear energy and replacing the Trident nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine force with a similar system. What is more, Clegg challenged the value to Britain of the US-UK special relationship, after the debacle of blindly following the US into Iraq and Afghanistan. Such poor decisions, driven by British nuclear dependence on the US, have left a black hole in the British defence budget, with the white elephant of a replacement Trident system increasingly vulnerable.

    Britain should take this opportunity to reassert its sovereignty, and exploit the US-UK relationship in a dramatically new way. Making a virtue from necessity, it should announce that it had decided to rescue the dysfunctional non-proliferation regime by becoming the first of the P5 to rely on more humane, lawful and effective security strategies than nuclear deterrence.

    As with the abolition of slavery, a new world role awaits the British. Such a ‘breakout’ would be sensational, transforming the nuclear disarmament debate overnight. In NATO, the UK would wield unprecedented influence in leading the drive for a non-nuclear strategy – which must happen if NATO is to survive the growing strains from overstretch in Afghanistan and confusion over a common European security policy. British leadership would create new openings for shifting the mindset in the US and France, the other two most zealous guardians of nuclear deterrence.

    The key is to see nuclear disarmament as a security-building process, moving from an outdated adversarial mindset to a co-operative one where nuclear weapons are recognized as a lethal liability.

  • How to Build on the Start Treaty

    This article was originally published by The New York Times

    This has been a remarkable time for the Obama administration. After a year of intense internal debate, it issued a new nuclear strategy. And after a year of intense negotiations with the Russians, President Obama signed the New Start treaty with President Dmitri Medvedev in Prague. On Monday, the president will host the leaders of more than 40 nations in a nuclear security summit meeting whose goal is to find ways of gaining control of the loose fissile material around the globe.

    New Start is the first tangible product of the administration’s promise to “press the reset button” on United States-Russian relations. The new treaty is welcome. But as a disarmament measure, it is a modest step, entailing a reduction of only 30 percent from the former limit — and some of that reduction is accomplished by the way the warheads are counted, not by their destruction. Perhaps the treaty’s greatest accomplishment is that the negotiations leading up to its signing re-engaged Americans and Russians in a serious discussion of how to reduce nuclear dangers.

    So what should come next? We look forward to a follow-on treaty that builds on the success of the previous Start treaties and leads to significantly greater arms reductions — including reductions in tactical nuclear weapons and reductions that require weapons be dismantled and not simply put in reserve.

    But our discussions with Russian colleagues, including senior government officials, suggest that such a next step would be very difficult for them. Part of the reason for their reluctance to accept further reductions is that Russia considers itself to be encircled by hostile forces in Europe and in Asia. Another part results from the significant asymmetry between United States and Russian conventional military forces. For these reasons, we believe that the next round of negotiations with Russia should not focus solely on nuclear disarmament issues. These talks should encompass missile defense, Russia’s relations with NATO, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, North Korea, Iran and Asian security issues.

    Let’s begin with missile defense. Future arms talks should make a serious exploration of a joint United States-Russia program that would provide a bulwark against Iranian missiles. We should also consider situating parts of the joint system in Russia, which in many ways offers an ideal strategic location for these defenses. Such an effort would not only improve our security, it would also further cooperation in dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat, including the imposition of consequential sanctions when appropriate.

    NATO is a similarly complicated issue. After the cold war ended, Russia was invited to NATO meetings with the idea that the country would eventually become an integral part of European security discussions. The idea was good, but the execution failed. NATO has acted as if Russia’s role is that of an observer with no say in decisions; Russia has acted as if it should have veto power.

    Neither outlook is viable. But if NATO moves from consensus decisions to super-majority decisions in its governing structure, as has been considered, it would be possible to include Russia’s vote as an effective way of resolving European security issues of common interest.

    The Russians are also eager to revisit the two landmark cold war treaties. The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty enabled NATO and Warsaw Pact nations to make significant reductions in conventional armaments and to limit conventional deployments. Today, there is still a need for limiting conventional arms, but the features of that treaty pertaining to the old Warsaw Pact are clearly outdated. Making those provisions relevant to today’s world should be a goal of new talks

    Similarly, the 1987 treaty that eliminated American and Soviet intermediate-range ballistic missiles was a crucially important pact that helped to defuse cold war tensions. But today Russia has neighbors that have such missiles directed at its borders; for understandable reasons, it wants to renegotiate aspects of this treaty.

    Future arms reductions with Russia are eminently possible. But they are unlikely to be achieved unless the United States is willing to address points of Russian concern. Given all that is at stake, we believe comprehensive discussions are a necessity as we work our way toward ever more significant nuclear disarmament.

  • NATO Goes Anti-Nuclear?

    This article was originally published by Foreign Policy in Focus.

    President Obama’s call
    for a nuclear-weapons-free world in Prague last April unleashed a great
    outpouring of support from international allies and grassroots
    activists demanding a process to actually eliminate nuclear weapons.
    One recent and unexpected initiative has come from America’s NATO
    allies. Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Norway have called
    on NATO to review its nuclear policy and remove all U.S. nuclear
    weapons currently on European soil under NATO’s  “nuclear sharing”
    policy. Despite U.S. insistence on strict adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
    (NPT), which prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear
    weapons states, several hundred U.S. nuclear bombs are housed in
    Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey.

    Citing Obama’s announcement in Prague of “America’s commitment to
    seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” the
    NATO allies have broken ranks with the United States. All five
    governments are experiencing domestic pressure to end the hypocrisy of
    the NPT, where nuclear “haves” disregard their disarmament requirements
    with impunity while using coercion, sanctions, threats of war, and even
    actual war (as in Iraq) to prevent the nuclear “have-nots” from
    acquiring nuclear bombs. Together with calls from major former political and military leaders to eliminate nuclear weapons, as well as UN Secretary General Ban-ki Moon’s proposal for a five-point program
    “to rid the world of nuclear bombs,” these NATO members have seized the
    political moment. They have decided to do their part to maintain the
    integrity of the NPT in advance of the five-year review conference this
    May at the UN in New York.

    The NATO five put NATO’s nuclear policy on the agenda
    for an April strategy meeting in Estonia. They have neither been
    dissuaded by Obama’s cautionary note that the goal of a
    nuclear-weapons-free world “will not be reached quickly — perhaps not
    in my lifetime,” nor discouraged by Secretary of State Hillary
    Clinton’s mistaken qualification of Obama’s remarks when she said that “we might not achieve the ambition of a world without nuclear weapons in our lifetime or successive lifetimes” (emphasis added).

    Progress Elsewhere

    Japan has also called for more rapid progress on nuclear
    disarmament. The new Democratic Party government, which ended 60 years
    of one-party rule, wrote Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to
    disavow the pro-nuclear advocacy of former Japanese officials. U.S.
    militarists often cited such advocacy as a rationale for maintaining
    the U.S. nuclear “umbrella” over Japan. Supporting Obama’s call for a
    nuclear-weapons-free world, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada urged the
    United States to declare that nuclear weapons would be used only for
    the “sole purpose” of deterring a nuclear attack. The declaration would
    end current U.S. policy, first expanded by the Clinton administration
    and maintained throughout the Bush presidency, to preemptively use
    nuclear weapons against the threat or use of chemical, biological, or
    conventional forces. Additionally, over 200 Japanese parliamentarians wrote to reassure
    Obama that, contrary to assertions by U.S. military hawks, Japan would
    not seek the possession of nuclear weapons were the United States to
    declare a “sole use” limitation on its nuclear arsenal.

    These promising anti-nuclear positions come at an important
    political moment. Obama has been expected shortly to deliver to
    Congress a new nuclear posture review setting forth U.S. policy for the
    use of nuclear weapons. Originally scheduled for a January release, the
    review has been delayed several times. News of conflicting views among
    the drafters and of Obama’s dissatisfaction with the most recent
    version, which promotes the status quo on outdated Cold War nuclear policies, has been prominently reported in the mainstream press.

    Pentagon Pushback

    Gates has defended existing nuclear policy and expressed dissatisfaction with our NATO allies. At a meeting to discuss NATO’s 21st Century Strategic Concept — and on the heels of the Dutch government’s collapse over the decision to extend its troop deployment in Afghanistan — Gates stated that:

    The demilitarization of Europe — where
    large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to
    military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing
    in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st.

    At the same meeting, U.S. National Security Advisor General James
    Jones said, “NATO must be prepared to address, deny, and deter the full
    spectrum of threats, whether emanating from within Europe at NATO’s
    boundaries, or far beyond NATO’s borders.”

    Clinton, furthermore, urged the exponential growth of “missile defense throughout the world and warned that:

    [N]uclear proliferation and the
    development of more sophisticated missiles in countries such as North
    Korea and Iran are reviving the specter of an interstate nuclear
    attack. So how do we in NATO do out part of ensure that such weapons
    never are unleashed on the world?

    Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, commenting on the new NATO
    strategic concept, raised Russia’s deep concerns that NATO’s assertion
    of a right to use military force globally violated the UN Charter.
    Russia views U.S. plans to ring Europe with missiles in Bulgaria,
    Poland, and Romania, with a missile command center in the Czech
    Republic, as a threat. The Obama-Medvedev negotiations on the first
    round of nuclear arms cuts on START (the Strategic Arms Reduction
    Treaty) have been delayed repeatedly by disagreements on U.S. plans for missile proliferation.

    Momentum Builds

    Nevertheless, there is extraordinary momentum behind calls to
    abolish nuclear weapons. Thousands of international visitors are
    expected to join U.S. citizens to assemble, march, and rally in New York during the NPT Review Conference in May. Mayors for Peace is working to enroll 5,000 mayors in its Vision 2020 Campaign to complete negotiations on a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2020. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Abolition 2000 Network
    are committed to work for a nuclear weapons convention regardless of
    the NPT outcome. Norway, host of the successful Oslo process to ban
    cluster bombs, noted that the Oslo and Ottawa processes banning
    landmines could be replicated to move forward on a nuclear disarmament based on
    “powerful alliances between civil society and governments.” There has
    been an unprecedented media focus on U.S. nuclear policy and debate
    about whether Obama can make good on his pledge and earn his Nobel
    Peace Prize.

    Nearly 25 years ago, Mikhail Gorbachev unleashed the forces of perestroika and glasnost
    in the Soviet Union. These forces kindled people’s aspirations for
    freedom, resulting in the fall of the Berlin Wall and dissolution of
    the Soviet empire. Despite the formidable array of powerful interests
    lawlessly brandishing their missiles and refurbishing their nuclear
    arsenals, Obama and Medvedev’s call for a nuclear-weapons-free world
    may similarly have unleashed forces that will transform the 20th-century paradigm of perpetual war and terror.

  • Letter to NATO Secretary General and Member States

    Excellency,

    This letter comes to you, to the leaders of other NATO members and to the NATO Secretary General from the councils that represent churches across the member states of NATO, namely, the Conference of European Churches, the National Council of Churches of Christ USA, the Canadian Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.

    Our letter is a joint initiative to encourage joint action.  We ask your Government to ensure that the forthcoming NATO summit commits the Alliance to a thorough reform of NATO’s Strategic Concept. The 60th anniversary meeting is a welcome opportunity to begin the process of up-dating the Alliance’s security doctrine.  In particular, we encourage new initiatives that will end NATO’s reliance on nuclear weapons and will engage with nuclear weapon states and other states outside of NATO in the serious pursuit of reciprocal disarmament.

    Such collective action by NATO can be a major factor in revitalizing the nuclear non-proliferation regime at this critical time.  It is also an important opportunity for the alliance to reinforce the vision of a world without nuclear weapons so compellingly put forward in recent months by eminent figures on the global security stage. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, four elder statesmen of Germany and former Foreign Secretaries of the United Kingdom are among those urging both a recovery of that vision and concrete steps to realize it.

    NATO has the opportunity to fashion a new strategic doctrine that, on the one hand, takes full account of the threats posed by nuclear weapons, and, on the other hand, takes full advantage of the political momentum that is now finally available to support decisive inter-governmental action against the nuclear threat.

    We encourage NATO to consign to history the notion that nuclear weapons “preserve peace” (as claimed in paragraph 46 of the current Strategic Concept), and instead to recognize the reality that “with every passing year [nuclear weapons] make our security more precarious” (President Gorbachev’s assessment; echoed by other leaders).

    We are convinced that NATO security in the years ahead will require not only long-delayed action on reciprocal disarmament but also concerted new action to resolve injustices, divisions and conflicts that affect both the Alliance and its neighbours.  We believe security must be sought through constructive engagement with neighbours and that authentic security is found in affirming and enhancing human interdependence within God’s one creation.

    Inasmuch as all NATO members are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), we urge the Alliance to promote the actual implementation of the backlog of disarmament and non-proliferation measures already elaborated through the NPT review process or awaiting negotiation as the current cycle culminates.

    One very important measure of NATO’s good faith in terms of NPT and the pursuit of nuclear disarmament will be its willingness to remove the 150-250 US tactical nuclear weapons still based in five member countries — Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Turkey.  In so doing NATO would boost international confidence in an NPT regime that has been seriously eroded since 2000.  NATO would also honor the longstanding international call that all nuclear weapons be returned to the territories of the states that own them.  Removal of these weapons would be a timely signal that NATO’s old nuclear umbrella will not be extended and that there are real prospects for progress on collective security agreements in greater Europe.

    The emerging vision of a world without nuclear weapons is giving citizens and churches in every NATO country cause for hope.  We are requesting that NATO’s security doctrine be realigned in a direction which establishes such hopes.

    Sincerely,

    Rev. Dr. Samuel Kobia
    General Secretary
    World Council of Churches

     

    		 The Venerable Colin Williams
    General Secretary
    Conference of European Churches
    Rev. Michael Kinnamon, Ph.D.
    General Secretary
    National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA    		 The Rev. Dr. Karen Hamilton
    General Secretary
    The Canadian Council of Churches

  • The UN and NATO: Which Security and for Whom?

    The world the UN advocates looks good on paper. (1)
    In June 1945, the Charter of the United Nations was signed by 51 member states. Several years later, the two great conventions for civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights came into being, and in subsequent years, important conventions on torture, genocide, women’s and children’s rights followed. After long negotiations, the UN member states came to a consensus at the end of 2008 on a cluster bomb treaty – unfortunately containing limitations – on which several countries insisted, including Germany.
    The existence of extensive international law shows that governments in all parts of the world know what is important for human security and what must be protected.
    And yet, since 1945 international law has been continuously broken. Basic rights to food, health, housing, education, work, freedom of opinion have remained unattainable for many. Wars have been (and are) carried on, in utter violation of the United Nations Charter, e.g. against Yugoslavia, Iraq and in Palestine.
    Torture is practiced, genocide carried out, weapons treaties ignored, the environment robbed of irreplaceable treasures. Uncontrolled financial transactions and economic activities and greed have given rise to an unprecedented crisis of worldwide dimensions.
    Pragmatism flourishes while moral principles are shunted aside. “Ethics” has become a foreign word. Political lying prevails. The gap between the rich and the poor grows wider. The life and survival chances of people have become yet more unequal. Behind all this lie such significant causes as the lack of political will to speak out in defense of the community of the majority as opposed to the welfare of the few and the resulting neglect of rights and the rule of law. The United Nations strains to carrying out its mandate.
    21st century born under the sign of worldwide hypocritical denial
    It should thus come as no surprise that the twenty-first century was born under the sign of confrontation and of worldwide, hypocritical denial.
    Western alliances such as NATO are being challenged by new alliances with weighty members such as Russia, China and India. The key word here is “rearrangement”. Dag Hammarskjoeld, the great man of the United Nations (2), in 1964 shortly before his death expressed his great concern that “ways out of the narrow, matted jungle in the struggle for honor, power and advantage” must be found. Looking back at the beginning of 2009, one can see that since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, two systems, communism and capitalism have collapsed. Maximization of profit hand-in-hand with dishonesty and ethnocentrism are among the causes.
    The UN at a crossroads
    The world of the 192 UN member states has come to a fork in the road. One way leads to a world focused on the well being of society, conflict resolution and peace, i.e. to a life of dignity and human security with social and economic progress for all, wherever they may be – as stated in the United Nations Charter. Down the other road is where the nineteenth century “Great Game” for power will be further played out, a course which, in the twenty-first century, will become more extensive and dangerously more aggressive than ever. This road supposedly leads to democracy, but in truth it is all about power, control and exploitation.
    The peace dividend never existed
    Nothing has ever been seen of the peace dividend that was expected from the end of the Cold War. The aggregate military budgets of all United Nations member states set a new record in 2007, reaching $1,200 billion. The United States military alone represents some 50% of this; the NATO countries 70%. (3) In the same year, development aid was $103 billion. (4) or 8.3% of the amount spent on the military!
    Since 1969, the United Nations has requested that every year the tiny amount of 0.7% of the GDP of the industrialized countries be allocated to development aid. In fact, the figure for 2008 is around 0.3%. (5) This extreme inequality between military and development spending shows that the current emphasis is not on human security as envisioned in the United Nations Millennium Goals (6} but on countries’ military security. Those who point out how ludicrous such a comparison is willingly misunderstand that strengthening personal human security constitutes a decisive contribution to reducing the root causes of worldwide conflict. They refuse to accept that military security through alliances and the self-interest of governments encourages and deepens international conflicts.
    UN and NATO: bonum commune or western interests
    A comparison of the mandates of the United Nations and of NATO shows clearly how opposed the purposes of these two institutions are. In the 63 years of its existence, the United Nations mandate has remained the same.
    The United Nations was created to promote and maintain worldwide peace. NATO exists to assure the self-interest of a group of 26 UN member countries. Its mandate, grounded in the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, originally dealt with the defense of its member states. At the end of the Cold War, in 1989, its mandate appeared to have been fulfilled. Nevertheless, the NATO members wanted to maintain this Western alliance. This launched the search for a new role for NATO.
    21st century NATO incompatible with UN Charter
    In 1999, NATO acknowledged that it was seeking to orient itself according to a new fundamental strategic concept. From a narrow military defense alliance it was to become a broad based alliance for the protection of the vital resources’ needs of its members. Besides the defense of member states’ borders, it set itself new purposes such as assured access to energy sources and the right to intervene in “movements of large numbers of persons” and in conflicts far from the boarders of NATO countries. The readiness of the new alliance to include other countries, particularly those that had previously been part of the Soviet Union, shows how the character of this military alliance has altered.
    In the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the Charter of the United Nations was declared to be NATO’s legally binding framework. However, the United Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO doctrine.
    NATO’s territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its member to encompass the whole world in keeping with a strategic context that was global in its sweep. At the Budapest summit, on 3 April 2008, NATO declared that it intended to meet the emerging challenges of the twenty-first century “with all the possible means of its mission.”
    It added that the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty of the founding countries had been ratified by the current parliaments and thereby had become international law. This did not hold for later NATO strategies and doctrines.
    UN-NATO-accord: serious threat to peace
    In spite of this NATO declaration, which, officially, would serve only the interests of a small minority of United Nations member states, on 23 September 2008, an accord was signed between the United Nations and NATO Secretaries General, Ban Ki-moon, and Jaap de Hoop-Scheffer. This took place without any reference to the United Nations Security Council.
    In the generally accepted agreement of stated purposes, one reads of a “broader council” and “operative cooperation”, for example in “peace keeping” in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Both secretaries general committed themselves to acting in common to meet threats and challenges.
    In these current times of confrontation, one expects from the United Nations secretariat an especially high level of political neutrality. The UN/NATO accord is anything but neutral and will thus not remain without serious consequences. The Russian representative to NATO in Brussels, Dmitry Rogozin, has characterized the United Nations agreement with NATO, a politico-military structure, as “illegal”; Serge Lavrov, former Russian ambassador to the United Nations in New York and current Russian foreign minister has declared himself “shocked” that such a pact has been ratified in secret and without consultation.
    UN-NATO-accord: incompatible with UN Charter
    Several important questions thus arise:
    Is the United Nations accord with NATO – a military alliance with nuclear weapons – in contradiction with Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, which requires that conflicts be resolved by peaceful means? Can UN and NATO actions be distinguished when three of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are also NATO members? How can future violations of international law by NATO be legally prosecuted? Is an institution like NATO, which in 1999, without a UN mandate, unlawfully bombed Serbia and Kosovo, a suitable partner for the United Nations?
    UN mandate makes NATO obsolete
    Any evaluation of the UN/NATO pact must take into account that NATO is a relic of the Cold War; that NATO, as a Western alliance, is regarded with considerable mistrust by the other 166 United Nations member states; that a primary NATO aim is to assert, by military means, its energy and power interests in opposition to other United Nations member states and that the United States, a founding member of the NATO community, in the most unscrupulous ways, has disparaged the United Nations and broken international law. (7)
    Finally, it must be pointed out that the Charter of the United Nations provides for a Military Staff Committee, whose mandate is to advise and assist the United Nations Security Council “on all questions relating to the Security Council’s military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security.” (8) If it is thus a matter of NATO countries looking after the well-being of the international community and not the interests of small group of states, then the United Nations mandate makes NATO obsolete!
    It is urgent that one or several member states petition the International Court of Justice to rule on the interpretation of the UN/NATO pact of 23 September 2008, in conformity with the Courts statutes. (9)
    The people of the world have a right to request such a ruling and a right to expect an answer. It will be recalled that the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations Charter states, “We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined […] to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained,” and not “We, the governments”! (10)
    Thus, the question of what road the peoples of the world should take would be answered. Whoever seeks to serve the cause of peace and conflict resolution must take the rough road of United Nations multilateralism and eschew the smooth road of the NATO alliance. As the Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy said to the Security Council in 1998: “We must find our way to multilateralism, which exists for the benefit of the world community and not for the self-interest of the few.” The way to it will be a long one, for there has never yet been a multilateralism of this kind.
    In 1994, the United Nations began promoting the concept of “human security”. In so doing, it wished to emphasize how important it is to see human rights as part of the daily lives of individual persons – freedom from fear and freedom from want. In 2000, for the first time in the history of the United Nations, development goals were quantified. This represents real progress for the strengthening of human security. Eight so-called Millennium Development Goals in the fight against poverty, child and mother mortality, primary education etc. are to be reached between 2000 and 2015. “Military humanism” – deception for self-interests
    In this way, the United Nations seeks to make clear that besides country-related (national/military) security, there is also human-related security. Advocates of national security, for example governments, whose goal is military security through the strengthening of alliances such as NATO, know this.
    They openly speak of “military humanism”. They pursue their legitimate interests. From this comes their interpretation of the new concept of “responsibility to protect”. (11)
    This is a sham, for it is a matter of advancing specific, individual interests and not of simply protecting the innocent. Were this really the case, it would be obvious in Afghanistan, Darfur, Gaza, Goma, Somalia, Zimbabwe and elsewhere.
    In all areas of human security, there has been progress. Yet it improbable that the Millennium Goals will become reality by 2015. A sum of $135 billion will be needed for the attainment of these goals in the remaining time of 2009–2015. This comes to $ 22.5 billion per year. Those who claim that this is a huge sum probably do not realize that the United States spends $ 180 billion per year for its military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – or that in late 2008 the countries affected by the economic and financial crisis made available at a few days’ notice some $ 3,000 billion (!) for the bailout of mismanaged institutions in need of reform within their borders.
    The possibilities are available – the political will is required

    The success of the United Nations Millennium Goals is not a question of money even in the context of the present economically critical times. Progress in the area of increased human security requires political will for such a transformation. Over the previous decades of international discussion about financing international cooperation, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that it would be easy to create innovative financing alternatives. (12) Plausible suggestions are ignored or rejected. Many governments fear that the independence of international institutions such as the United Nations might become too great.
    Those who in the twenty-first century want to live in peace will encounter no difficulty in choosing the road to follow. Access to this road is open. The Charter of the United Nations, which is to be the means by which we beat swords into ploughshares and not ploughshares into swords, remains the basis for human progress and security.
    Endnotes:
    1. The new alliances include i) the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), founded in 2001 by China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Its main objective is security in Central Asia. India, Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia enjoy observer status with the SCO. ii) Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) created a political and commercial community in 2001, and iii) Brazil, India and South Africa, a combination that has on several occasions brought about the downfall of the WTO Doha trade round on the grounds of a dispute on tariffs. 2. Dag Hammerskjoeld, born near Lund (Sweden) in 1905. He was the second UN Secretary General from 1953 to 1961, when he was killed in a mysterious air crash near the Congo border in Rhodesia. 3. See: Swedish International Institute for Peace Research (SIPRI), 2008 Almanac, 9 June 2008. 4. See: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Aid Targets Slippage out of Reach? DAC 1 Official and Private (Aid) Flows. 5. According to a 1969 UN guideline, donor countries should provide 0.7% of their GNP each year for international development cooperation. Only Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have so far achieved this target. 6. In 2000, the UN General Assembly adopted eight development objectives for the period 2000–2015. These include reducing hunger and poverty by 50%, basic schooling for all children, equality of men and women, reducing child mortality by 66% and mortality rates for women in connection with childbirth by 75%. 7. The keywords are the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and torture flights. 8. Chapter VII Article 47 of the UN Charter provides for a Military Staff Committee consisting of the chiefs of staff of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Although it has never been convened since 1945, the Article has remained in effect. 9. The statute of the International Court of Justice is given jurisdiction for the interpretation of treaties by Chapter XII, Article 36. 10. See Preamble to the UN Charter. 11. This concept is mentioned in the UN Document 2005 World Summit Outcome (A/60/L.1 – 15 September 2005), paras. 138 and 139, see also para. 79). In this document, the UN General Assembly clearly states that only the Security Council has the right to use Chapter VII of the Charter to protect populations against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, if necessary using force. 12. The innovatory proposals for financing also include the “Tobin tax” named after James Tobin, an American economist, who in 1972 proposed that a tax (0.05-1.00%) should be levied on international currency transactions that could be used inter alia to finance development aid.
    Seven challenges for the present:
    1) Progress towards a fundamental reform of the UN as a global objective. Multilateralism in the interests of humanity can be achieved; 2) Return to the principles of the UN Charter. The UN must no longer simply be a political toolbox; 3) Recognition and furtherance of human security as the priority for dignified survival. Military security cannot substitute for human security; 4) Compliance with international law. Political responsibility without having to render accounts for the consequences of actions must not be permitted; 5) Abandonment of the free (and anarchic) market economy. Order, supervision and control of the economy and of the finance industry are a guarantee and not a threat to democracy; 6) Urgency of a UN declaration against double standards. The elimination of special rights for alliances is a precondition for settling conflicts and serves peace; 7) Development of ethical principles for state and governmental information and media standards. Organized untruths must be punished. Finally, an appeal to the general public to continue to make demands of the body politic and to take a more active role in contemporary events. Dag Hammerskjoeld used the term “negotiations with oneself.”

    Hans von Sponeck is former UN Assistant Secretary General and Chairman of the Centre for the UN Millenium Development Goals in Basel, Switzerland. He is a Councilor of the World Future Council.

  • President Obama and the Ballistic Missile Defense System in Eastern Europe

    Overview

    Will nuclear weapons remain a key instrument to reinforce American national security? The dawning of a new American leadership has aroused much curiosity within the international community: how will President Obama respond to the planned American ballistic missile defense system in Eastern Europe? This analysis seeks to answer the following questions concerning President Obama’s position on the ballistic missile defense (BMD) system and prospects on future Russo-American relations:

    • How has the BMD project redefined Russo-American relations?
    • Should this plan go ahead, what implications would it have on the international community?
    • How can President Obama maintain global stability?

    Background

    The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was followed by Eastern Europe’s hasty departure from Moscow’s periphery. To quickly integrate these former Soviet satellites under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) security umbrella, the Alliance initiated the Partnership-for-Peace program, which served as a stepping stone towards full NATO membership. This was seen as an aggressive encroachment into Russia’s immediate periphery and drastically tipped Eastern Europe’s delicate power balance. With clashing regional security interests and some 3,000 Russian and American nuclear weapons remaining on high (hair-trigger) alert, it has become ever so critical to revisit or replace major nonproliferation accords: the 1972 Antiballistic Treaty (from which President Bush withdrew in 2001), 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (suspended by Russia in 2007), 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (expires in December 2009), and 2002 Treaty of Moscow (scheduled to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles to 1,700 to 2,200 per country by 2012). Still, existing weaknesses of these accords paralyze the international community from eliminating nuclear weapons altogether: reduction cannot be reliably verified and the lack of a requirement to dismantle the weapons allows the U.S. and Russia to simply keep the weapons in storage.

    On the American side, while President Bill Clinton was hesitant about NATO’s eastward expansion, his successor’s defense policies considerably deteriorated Russo-American relations. In particular, President George W. Bush’s strong push of the BMD system in Eastern Europe has rekindled a dangerous Cold War mentality of distrust and rivalry. Despite fervent objections from the Russian side and European public leaders, NATO members meeting at the April 2008 summit reluctantly endorsed Washington’s controversial plan to install the BMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

    Even as U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) experts questioned its effectiveness, the Bush administration claimed that the missile shield’s “purely defensive capabilities” would allow the U.S. to respond to any potential attack on its chief ally, Europe, from “dangerous and unpredictable regimes” like Iran. President Bush explained in 2007, “Instead of spending decades trying to develop a perfect shield, we decided to begin deploying missile defense capabilities as soon as the technology was proven ready — and then build on that foundation by adding new capabilities as they matured.”1 Poland plans to host ten interceptor missiles in exchange for significant U.S. military assistance. The Czech Republic plans to host a related tracking radar system designed to identify and shoot down missiles. Tests and developments on the project are already costing $10 billion annually, the Pentagon’s largest procurement program.2

    As the BMD project progresses, Moscow has warned of retaliation. President Dmitrii Medvedev chose to postpone his State of the Union speech until the day after the U.S. presidential election to criticize America’s missile shield plan. In recent months, he has intensified the testing and mass production of advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles specifically designed to penetrate antiballistic shields such as the Bulava and Russian RS-24.3 More relevant is a proposal to install mobile Iskander missiles in Kalingrad, Russia’s southern enclave bordering Poland. Clearly, these weapons will be capable of destroying America’s proposed interceptor missiles in Poland. Furthermore, Medvedev plans to utilize radio equipment to intercept Washington’s planned defense system. Seeking to compromise, the Bush administration offered to allow Russian observers at the planned BMD sites, but President Medvedev swiftly rejected the offer.
    Again disregarding Russia’s opposition to the project, on December 5, 2008, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency tested its “largest, most complex” $120-150 million long-range ballistic missiles from Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California. This was the first remote launching of an expansively coordinated experimental project incorporating multiple systems from various branches of the armed forces. While the agency immediately declared success, claiming that “all its components performed as designed,” there were several notable deficiencies associated with the test. This missile test actually failed to “release countermeasures designed to try to confuse the interceptor missile like decoys or chaff to throw off an incoming interceptor.”4 Since these tests began in 2001, many have failed or been scaled back because of technical problems. Adding to these are the unpredictability of missile attacks and unreliability of a missile shield. This leads us to ask: how reliable are the Bush administration and MDA’s “successful” missile tests and are they worth an annual cost of $10 billion?5 Costs of the United States’ missile defense program in the past 25 years have accrued to at least $150 billion.6

    Analysis

    Russia remains committed to a “reactive” foreign policy. With the Kalingrad plan, President Medvedev aims to “neutralize – if necessary – the [American] anti-missile system”. Furthermore, he is confident in Russian technological superiority that would counter any incoming missile attack. He recently asserted that “the Americans will never be able to implement this scenario, because Russian strategic nuclear forces, including the Strategic Missile Forces, will be capable of delivering a strike of retribution under any course of developments.” To take this a step further, President Medvedev announced in early December a comprehensive upgrade of Russia’s missile program. New developments would include the RS-24 missiles specifically designed to counter space-based missile attacks as well as penetrate any missile shield.

    What explains Russia’s intensified reaction? Eastern Europe is strategically positioned at the heart of continental Europe. Washington’s increasingly intimate relations with Poland and the Czech Republic is seen as an intrusion into Russia’s “near-abroad” and traditional sphere of influence. Iran recently announced that it produced and tested missiles capable of hitting southern Europe, but experts remain skeptical as there is not much concrete evidence to support this claim. More notably, the ballistic missile plan explicitly targets space-based military weaponry, and with Russia as the only country with technological capability to develop such advanced weaponry, one could assume that the missile shield targets Russia.

    After European leaders heavily criticized Russia’s proposed missile plan in Kalingrad, both the Russian political and military leadership requested renewed Russo-U.S. relations and invited the new American leadership to engage in deeper dialogue and cooperation on European security. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has expressed renewed hope in cooperating with his new American counterpart, suggesting that new U.S. leadership would unfold a fresh chapter in Russo-American relations, “We very much hope that these changes will be positive. We are now seeing these positive signals.” Obama’s cautious stance on the ballistic missile defense plan has attracted much attention from the Russian leadership; he explains, “If we want the world to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example… We cannot and should not accept the threat of accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch.”7 While the Russian leadership anxiously awaits concrete actions, Prime Minister Medvedev also states, “If it’s not just words, if they are transformed into practical policy, we will respond accordingly…we will not do anything until America does the first step.”8

    Obama, throughout his presidential campaign, persistently reiterated two primary global concerns: nuclear terrorist attacks and nuclear weapons proliferation by rogue states. He envisioned the U.S. taking up global leadership to denuclearize to allow for “a world in which there are no nuclear weapons” and promised more commitment and funding towards nuclear nonproliferation, which he calls “the most urgent threat to the security of America and the world.” To move toward this nuclear-free world vision, the Obama administration hopes to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty aimed at reducing nuclear weapons and materials by limiting nuclear development, testing, and proliferation. In addition, the Obama administration has outlined plans to cooperate with Russia to remove thousands of nuclear weapons from operational readiness, or hair-trigger alert, to avoid the possibility of an accidental nuclear launch. To allow for an actual chance for a nuclear-free world, the President-elect staunchly believes that Russo-American cooperation is integral to leading a global effort.

    According to Obama, in the immediate future, any American unilateral nuclear disarmament would prove futile and enormously dangerous to American national security. 9 His foreign policy statement says, “As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong nuclear deterrent.”10 President Obama singles out “dangerous” regimes, notably Iran and Korea, whose nuclear missile developments could lead to a global nuclear catastrophe. Because of this, he acknowledges that a missile defense system would still serve as a vital security shield to strategic America’s European partners. However, the President urges against any “premature” deployment of the missile system but would support the missile plan only after “vigorous testing” has proven the system’s operational effectiveness. In the long run, he warns that such a plan would certainly produce highly undesirable implications on the entire international security regime with the American public bearing enormous financial costs for an experimental project whose capability remains far from able to guarantee Americans and its allies security from missile attacks.

    The claimed “success” of the December 5, 2008, test has produced serious implications for the progression of the BMD plan. Not only has it consolidated public support of the proposed missile shield, but it has already forced the new President into an awkward position and could effectively undermine his commitment to nuclear disarmament. To immediately withdraw the BMD plan, the President-elect would be criticized for appeasing to the Russian demands as well as neglecting to provide sustained support to NATO allies; some fear that such a move would drastically undermine American global leadership. This issue is especially delicate, so the Obama administration will have to develop strategic ways to cooperate with Russia.

    Future Outlook

    Should President Obama move forward with the BMD project:

    • The only real winners are Boeing and other major contractors from the military industrial industry, which are reaping enormous profits at the cost of American taxpayers’ money.
    • The current international structure would become dangerously destabilized. This would antagonize Russia, a crucial participant in global nonproliferation and disarmament, and retard two decades of moderate cooperation on nuclear issues.
    • Continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile defense would spur a new Cold War arms race with more sophisticated weaponry with the devastating possibility of a nuclear launch. This would prompt other countries to continue or start their own nuclear programs with nuclear weapons becoming strategic instruments of political leverage in international relations.
    • American unilateral security engagement would undermine European security. Instead of deterring, Washington’s active engagement with Eastern Europe would trigger a new arms race with Russia and others. Continental Europe could become a new target for attack by the United States’ adversaries.

    If President Obama stops the BMD project, the implications are as follows:

    • Much-needed resources could be diverted towards more strategic security measures to safeguard American and global security.
    • Reinforce American leadership and commitment to international security and nonproliferation through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and European Union.
    • President Obama could gain full support from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has actively pushed for more funding for the State Department to substantially expand its diplomatic corps, cautious NATO expansion and engagement in the former Soviet satellites, and limited reliance on military defense.

    Conclusion When did nuclear deterrence ever deter? Paradoxically, America’s deeply ingrained confidence in nuclear deterrence has only accelerated the arms race. The national missile defense project has consistently exacerbated the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and pushed the international community to the brink of a dangerous arms race. The Bush administration’s “new deterrence” policy put at great risk the delicate power balance of the global community.11 The new presidency presents America a unique opportunity to reassess the missile defense plan. Russia’s top political and military leadership, Medvedev, Putin, and General Nikolai Marakov, have already extended their offer of engagement. President Obama has immense power to pursue wise, pragmatic, and strategic global leadership; these are some recommended strategies that he could take:

    1. Initiate regular, high-level dialogue to foster mutual understanding and cooperation with Russia.
    2. Revisit arms control treaties to make necessary changes to address newly emerging dangers of nuclear weaponry. This includes placing a limitation on nuclear stockpiles and the development and production of particularly dangerous weapons of mass destruction. To ensure their effectiveness, the U.S. and Russia would need to engage other nuclear powers, particularly Pakistan, India, and China.
    3. The U.S. could pursue a more multilateral strategy and engage with Moscow through the NATO-Russia Council. This would level the playing field and provide a more transparent forum for the engagement of all 26 members of NATO, in particular Poland and the Czech Republic.
    4. Collaborate with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to develop more strategic, pragmatic, capable, and cost-effective defense strategies which emphasize diplomacy and are detached from the military-industrial complex.

    Endnotes

    1. Bush, George W. (2007, October). Discussion of Global War on Terror. Speech presented at National Defense University, Washington, DC.

    2. Gordon, M. (May 2006). “U.S. Seeks antimissile shield to block Iran.” International Herald Tribune.

    3. Faulconbridge, G. (Dec 2008). “Russia Starts Production of New Ballistic Missiles.” Reuters.

    4. “Pentagon Says It Destroyed Missile In Test of Air Shield” (Dec 2008). Associated Press.

    5. “Obama’s challenge at the Pentagon” (Nov 2008). International Herald Tribune.

    6. “How to Pay for a 21st-century Military” (Dec 2008). New York Times.

    7. “The Candidates and Nuclear Nonproliferation”. Council on Foreign Affairs. <www.cfr.org>.

    8. Isachenkov, V. (Dec 2008). “Russia’s leaders optimistic about ties with US”. Huffington Post.

    9. White House Website <www.whitehouse.gov>.

    10. White House Website. <www.whitehouse.gov>.

    11. Colby, E. (Apr 2008). RAND Corporation. <www.rand.org>.

    Loan C. Pham is a Nuclear Age Peace Foundation intern and is pursuing a Masters degree in Global Studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

  • NATO Nuclear Weapons: Power Without Purpose

    David KriegerEurope is heavily armed with nuclear weapons. Both Britain and France possess their own nuclear forces and the United States has a long history of keeping nuclear weapons on European soil. Britain’s nuclear force is estimated at under 200 weapons, with approximately 150 deployed on four Vanguard submarines and the remainder kept in reserve. France is thought to have approximately 350 nuclear weapons in its Force de frappe (strike force). The US keeps some 200-350 nuclear weapons in six countries: Belgium, Germany, Holland, Italy, Turkey and the UK. Recent unconfirmed reports indicate that the US has pulled its nuclear weapons out of the UK. If this is correct, approximately 240 US nuclear weapons remain in five European countries.

    On the NATO website, it states, “NATO has radically reduced its reliance on nuclear forces. Their role is now more fundamentally political, and they are no longer directed towards a specific threat.” This is a rather enigmatic statement, leaving one to ponder how nuclear weapons are used in a “fundamentally political” role. The NATO website adds, “NATO’s reduced reliance on nuclear forces has been manifested in a dramatic reduction in the number of weapons systems and storage facilities. NATO has also ended the practice of maintaining standing peacetime nuclear contingency plans and as a result, NATO’s nuclear forces no longer target any country.”

    Given the fact that NATO does not target any other country with nuclear weapons, one wonders what role they still serve. Again, the NATO website provides an answer, which is “to maintain only the minimum number of nuclear weapons necessary to support its strategy of preserving peace and preventing war.” But this still leaves one wondering with whom one is “preserving peace and preventing war.” Although nothing is stated, it would seem that the answer is likely to be Russia. This might explain why NATO has expanded up to the Russian western border, despite earlier US promises to Russia not to do so, and also why the US continues to pursue the placement of missile defense installations in new NATO states Poland and the Czech Republic, despite continuing Russian protests.

    NATO reasoning for maintaining nuclear weapons seems very flimsy. If there is anything that is clear about nuclear weapons, it is that they cannot protect their possessors. All of the nuclear weapons in Europe cannot protect any European city from a nuclear attack by an extremist organization. Reliance upon these weapons provides an incentive for nuclear proliferation, increasing the possibilities that these weapons will fall into the hands of such an organization and will be used.

    If European nations want to provide true security to the citizens of their countries, they should end NATO’s reliance upon nuclear weapons by taking the following steps:

    • Call for the removal of all US nuclear weapons from Europe.
    • Call for the US to remove its missile defense installations from the Russian border
    • Negotiate the removal of all tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and the western regions of Russia.
    • Create a global treaty to bring all weapons-grade fissile material under strict and effective international control.
    • Call for the NATO nuclear weapons states (US, UK and France) to fulfill their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.
    • Take a leading role in initiating negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, setting forth a roadmap for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.
    • Join Russia and China in negotiating a ban on space weaponization.
    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), and a councilor of the World Future Council (www.worldfuturecouncil.org).

  • For a Nuclear Weapon Free World

    This article was originally published in Italian by Corriere della Serra

    Dear Editor, an article published in the Wall Street Journal entitled “A
    world without nuclear weapons”, signed by George Schultz and Henry
    Kissinger, former Secretaries of State under Republican Presidents
    Reagan and Nixon, and by Bill Perry and Sam Nunn, the former Defence
    Secretary under President Clinton and the Democratic chairman of the
    Senate Defence Committee, in January 2007 opened up an extremely
    important debate for the future of humanity. In that article, the four
    American statesmen proposed the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
    Their argument, taken up again in a second article in January 2008, is
    that, unless the nuclear-weapon States – and there are now 8 of them –
    and especially the two main ones, United States and Russia, take the
    lead   in launching a process aimed at their total elimination, it will
    become increasingly difficult to prevent other countries from acquiring
    them, with the risk that sooner or later these weapons may be used, and
    that would have catastrophic consequences for the world.

    The importance of their article lies in the fact that, for the first
    time, the issue of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons was being
    addressed, in the United States, by politicians who represent the
    mainstream of American stategic policy, from both parties, stressing the
    fact that this is an objective to be pursued in the interests of both
    the nation and the world. Several very important statements followed
    their Op-ed. The two US presidential candidates have substantially
    agreed with this aim, as have the majority of those who, in the past,
    held positions of major responsibility in the USA in this field. In
    Russia, there was a positive reaction by Gorbachev and a more cautious,
    but not negative, reaction by the Government. In Britain, Gordon Brown
    spoke out favourably; the Defence Minister proposed hosting experts from
    United States, Russia, England, France and China in the English nuclear
    labs, in order to establish the methodologies of verification for the
    elimination of nuclear weapons; recently, the Times carried an article
    by another bipartisan quartet, including three former Foreign Ministers
    and a former Secretary General of Nato, expressing agreement.  In
    France, the Defence White Paper indicates that the objective to be
    pursued is the elimination of nuclear weapons. In Australia, the
    Government has established a new international Commission of Experts,
    whose task is to chart the road towards the elimination of all nuclear
    weapons. There have been innumerable positive reactions among
    non-governmental groups.

    We think it is important that Italy, too, should give indications that
    go in that same direction. Our joint signatures, like those on the
    Op-eds in other countries, are evidence of the fact that in both main
    political camps, and in the scientific community, there is a shared
    common opinion on the importance of this issue and this aim. We wish to
    suggest the main steps along this road. The first is the entry into
    force of the Treaty banning all forms of nuclear testing, including
    underground tests, thus enshrining into a treaty the current moratorium.
    The second is to set in motion the stalled negotiations, within the
    Disarmament Conference in Geneva, on the FMCT, which prohibits the
    production of highly enriched uranium and of plutonium with the isotope
    composition necessary for the production of nuclear weapons. Here, too,
    there is a de facto moratorium, but without any formal agreement and
    without verification measures. The entry into force of these two
    Treaties would be appreciated by non-nuclear-weapon States and would
    prepare a more favourable ground for the periodical Conference of the
    Non-Proliferation Treaty planned for 2010, strengthening the world’s
    non-proliferation regime, including the monitoring of the actual
    observance of the commitments – in both letter and spirit – envisaged by
    the NPT.

    We are fully aware that the road that will lead us to the elimination of
    nuclear weapons is long. It will call for certain political conditions.
    The first is an actual improvement in the relations between the nuclear
    superpowers, United States and Russia, who still maintain – despite
    recent reductions – over nine tenths of all nuclear weapons in the
    world. This would help the other nuclear weapon States recognized by the
    NPT – Britain, France and China – to do their part. It is also
    necessary to reduce the tensions in those parts of the world where the
    risk of nuclear weapons actually being used is highest, perhaps even by
    terrorist groups. We refer here to South-east Asia (India and Pakistan)
    and to the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab problem in the Middle East. In both
    these contexts, moves by the nuclear weapons States indicating that they
    are progressing towards a nuclear weapons free world would undoubtedly
    have a positive effect. Italy and Europe can and must do what they can
    to promote the path towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It
    is clear that this final result will be achieved only with the
    commitment of the major protagonists, United States and Russia, and of
    the other nuclear weapon States. But the spread of a new way of thinking
    – of a new “shared wisdom” – is a fundamental step along this path, and
    Italy too must contribute. It is necessary that on these fundamental
    issues for the very survival of humanity, despite our legitimate –
    indeed necessary – political differences, we join together in
    recognizing a superior, common interest.

  • Support the Czech Hunger Strikers

    On May 13th, Jan Tamas and Jan Bednar began a hunger strike in Prague. They are asking for respect for the expressed will of 70% of the people of the Czech Republic and that a democratic referendum be held to determine whether or not to install a U.S. military base on Czech territory. “We have tried almost everything, but our government has failed to listen to us,” says Tamas.
    The U.S. government, as part of its global so-called “Missile Defense” initiative, is planning to install a radar base in the Czech Republic, despite the opposition of the overwhelming majority of the Czech people. Although it is presented as a defense system against possible attacks from non-existent Iranian missiles, the “Missile Defense” system is, in fact, a first strike weapon. It is a tool for global dominance which represents the first step towards U.S. weaponization and control of space. It is seen by the Czech Republic’s neighbor and former Cold War ally, Russia, as a threat and a provocation, which is spurring Russia to engage in a new arms race with the United States.
    For over two years, citizens in the Czech Republic have repeatedly expressed their opposition to the proposed base through mass demonstrations, opinion polls, and petitions, yet the Czech government has refused to allow a public debate on the issue. Time is now running out, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to travel to Prague in June to sign the agreement between the two countries.
    We can show our support for the hunger strikers as we call upon our own government to end its plans for the “Missile Defense” project, which endangers the peace and co-existence of people worldwide. While a military base in the Czech Republic would be located thousands of miles away from the U.S., it would have major implications for people around the United States and the world.

    Leslie Cagan is National Coordinator of United for Peace and Justice (www.unitedforpeace.org).

    Here’s what you can do:
    1) Add your name to the more than 99,000 people who have already signed the online petition – and then encourage others to sign on as well: http://www.nonviolence.cz You can also read messages of support that have come in from around the world at http://www.nenasili.cz/en/723_messages-of-support
    2) Throughout Europe groups have been demonstrating their support for the hunger strikers – as well as their opposition to the U.S. “Missile Defense” initiative. Find out more about these activities: http://nenasili.cz/en/1081_campaign-in-europe
    3) Make sure your member of Congress knows about your opposition to the radar base in the Czech Republic, and to the whole “Missile Defense” initiative. Click here to see a letter that Congressman Dennis Kucinich recently wrote in support of the hunger strikers.
    4) Forward this message to others in your networks!