Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: US

  • Call for Children to Help Children

    Dear Parents and Teachers:

    President Bush has asked each child in America to send one dollar to the White House to help Afghan children. However, the President is already spending billions of dollars to bomb Afghanistan. These bombs have hit villages, hospitals and a Red Cross relief storage building. They have already killed many Afghans, including children.

    Our government has provided some emergency food relief, but it is far from adequate. According to aid workers in Afghanistan, some 7.5 million Afghans may be threatened with starvation this winter unless the bombing is halted to allow food to reach the Afghan people.

    Recognizing that sending a dollar to President Bush’s effort will do very little to prevent mass starvation in Afghanistan this winter, we suggest that children send one dollar or more to the United Nations agency in charge of relief efforts for Afghan children at this address: UNICEF, 333 East 38th Street, New York, NY 10016.

    We also suggest that children write to President Bush to ask him to stop the bombing so that relief workers can get food through to the Afghan people to prevent millions of them, including children, from starving this winter.

    The President’s address is: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20509-1600. You can also email him at president@whitehouse.gov. Copies of emails can be sent to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at wagingpeace@napf.org.

    It is time for the children of the world to unite in calling for an end to all violence and for a global effort to provide food, shelter, clothing, health care and education for every person on the planet.

    We encourage you to share these ideas with your children, and to pass on this message.

  • The Many Faces of Terrorism

    We cannot minimize the horror of the recent acts of terrorism in the U.S. The individual loss of a loved one multiplied 5,000 times over adds up to an arithmetic of terrible sorrow. You cannot fight what you consider injustice by acts that are themselves extreme violations of justice. Indiscriminate violence is the terrible curse of the mind of the terrorist. All acts of terrorism must be totally rejected as illegitimate means of struggle, because they fail the principle of discrimination. Indiscriminate violence in times of war or peace violates this principle. Resistance to injustice that discriminates has always been historically justified. The Geneva Protocols relating to war demand that the essential discrimination between combatants and non-combatants be rigorously maintained. The most serious and significant violation of this protocol was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a total of 200,000 prompt deaths of civilians and the decades-long delayed torture of radiation effects. This was committed by a so-called civilized people.

    Thus we must not let the larger perspective be carried away on the flood of sympathy. While it is totally unacceptable to use unjust means to fight injustice, this does not make the injustice disappear. By all the criteria of current social indicators the U.S. is an unjust society compared to the rest of the highly industrialized Western world.This is manifest in structural terrorism against the poor, other minorities and persistent racism. “Hate acts” against Moslem Americans have already multiplied, including the bombing of mosques.

    All major religions contain elements of forgiveness and vengeance. At the same time, all major religions have a fundamentalist or exclusionary group who embrace fanaticism. The current horrendous acts of terrorism were obviously carried out by this kind of extremist position. The evidence to date is that the culprits were Islamic fundamentalists. However, if you have read my book on Ronald Reagan, you will see that there are high-ranking U.S. Christian fundamentalists – Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and their ilk – who believe a great war between good and evil will take place – Armageddon – and that only “true” Christians will ultimately survive. They have prepared to fight that war in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Falwell and Robertson have now revealed their twisted minds by suggesting that the terrorist attacks on the U.S. were a form of divine punishment for its tolerance to secularism, feminism, homosexuality, etc. Every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan has operationalized programs to fight and win a nuclear war with Russia through a preemptive disarming strike against all Russian missile sites on land, on and under the oceans and in the sky. The talk about rogue states as the reason for a National Missile System (NMD) is an outright deception. Russia is the only country that threatens the U.S.¹s global hegemony. The above strike would lead to fifteen million civilian Russian deaths or two and a half holocausts. This is an act of extreme terrorism which I have documented beyond any possible dispute. The International Court of Justice has concluded that such a threat is a violation of International Humanitarian Law. Perhaps the NMD system will shoot down hijacked planes on U.S. territory, a costly exchange of human life.

    Returning to the events in New York City, if you had read a novel in which some nineteen persons hijacked four civilian jumbo jets, one terrorist on each of the hijacked planes having been trained in an accredited school for flying these jets and that all nineteen were prepared to die in their acts of terror, you would have had to conclude that this plot was farfetched. The amount of detailed planning and the level of organization to accomplish such a task is mind-boggling. They had to do this with primitive plastic weapons, break into the cockpit and keep the flight crews and passengers under control.

    Returning to my earlier theme that we must retain a larger perspective on terrorism, the blockade of Iraq has led to an estimated death of some one million of its citizens, mostly children. This is also an act of terrorism. Even in the war against the scourge of fascism, the allies used unacceptable means insofar as they violated the principle of discrimination by the mass bombing of Axis cities which, in any case, later proved to be counter-productive. The U.S. has consistently supported right-wing leaders in Central and South America who carried out reigns of terror. Using the current U.S. argument that countries that harbour terrorists are, themselves, guilty proves the guilt of the U.S.

    We must also adjust our perspective to the realities of a unipolar world and the singular force of Pax Americana. The current political solidarity is politically correct, but cannot cover up the profound and persistent political differences that divide the U.S., a division that will outlast such solidarity. Congress, by giving George W. Bush carte blanche to retaliate, has assured the perpetuation of violent response. It has been reported that only one member of Congress voted against this blanket resolution.

    In conclusion, the U.S. is now reaping and will continue to reap what it has sowed. The scars of the Middle East wedded to Islamic terrorism and Israeli intransigence will never put an end to their acts of terrorism until some final peaceful solution is achieved, creating a Palestinian State (with no armed forces) and making Jerusalem an international city. These are minimum requirements. George W. Bush will not solve the problem but exacerbate it. In many ways he is the problem. We can now all see that the NMD policy cannot protect the American public. Some time in the near future terrorists will explode a small suitcase nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city. And a ground war in Afghanistan could not only unite Islamic fundamentalists but prove to be a second Viet Nam, as the Soviets learned.

    The U.S. could yet be the victim of blowback for having supported the Taliban in that war. Blowback is the phenomenon of supporting regimes who later become your worst enemy. Blowback could also haunt the C.I.A. for its legion of dirty tricks, including murder, throughout the world. Even now there is a case pending against Henry Kissinger for the murders in Chile of the head of the military and the democratically-elected president. This launched the Pinochet reign of terror. The U.S.’s major Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, hardly a model of democracy. Then, of course, there was the Iran Contra affair, illustrating that the CIA is not above making deals with terrorists, including those from Islam. In fact the CIA is a terrorist organization, not unlike its counterparts in almost all countries. In this way the terrible events in New York were truly the reaping of what was sowed. The tragedy, of course, is the slaughter of the innocents.

    There is still the opportunity for positive defensive measures. All civilian air carriers could implement some simple reforms following El Al’s procedures, i.e. carrying an armed sky marshal aboard and having cockpits on large passenger planes sealed off from crew and passengers. This would prevent hijackings. Together with a permanent solution to the Palestinian issue, this will help. But ultimately U.S. policy will have to undergo radical change from the new imperialism of its present posture to a true democratic society dedicated to peace and justice. This will involve a fundamental change in an American culture of structural violence and a self-image of being Number One. And under the present administration, this is less likely than ever.

    All of this does not preclude the legitimate task of identifying dedicated terrorists and preventing further acts of terrorism. But if this is attempted through excessively violent means, it will prove counter-productive and only perpetuate the dynamics of violence.

  • Missile Defense and Space War Do Not Provide Security Against Terror

    Speech by Juergen Scheffran* at an anti-war demonstration in Berlin, October 13, 2001 (Revised translation from German)

    The events of September 11 have terribly demonstrated how vulnerable our industrial society is. Military lobbyists are using the public fear about terror for their own purposes. They try to convince us that war and new weapons can protect us against terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and missile attacks. They promote the vision of the military controlling outer space in order to counter all threats on earth.

    September 11 marks the complete failure of all security systems of the world’s greatest military power. All intelligence and secret services, expensive reconnaissance satellites and a giant high-technology military arsenal were incapable to detect people from the neighborhood using pocket knifes to convert commercial airliners into weapons of mass destruction. The attempt to achieve security from great distance with most advanced technical systems failed miserably against a determined enemy sitting within society, waiting for the appropriate moment to attack. Contrary to the vision of a high frontier in outer space, in reality the concept of frontier becomes meaningless in an interlinked, globalized and fractal society where the threat can be everywhere and nowhere.

    Nevertheless, US President George W. Bush still believes that his country can be protected by a multi-billion dollar space shield against ballistic missiles from rogue states. His Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is heading towards space weapons to prevent a Pearl Harbor in space. And the US Space Command aims at a comprehensive space dominance to control earth. The intention is to control the information flows around the globe, to achieve the capability to strike everywhere at any time, and to protect against all adverse consequences. A huge network of missile interceptors and laser weapons, military satellites and radars shall detect, pursue and destroy any threat.

    In order to realize these plans Bush has recently nominated the previous director of the Space Command, Richard Myers, to become the leader of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Instead of dreaming visions of space war, Myers now directs the attack on Afghanistan, a country which has been devastated by decades of civil war. People who until now were massacred by swords, knifes and rifles are now being attacked by laser-guided bombs which probably will not hit those responsible for the terror.

    The quest for total security may lead to total control and total war. Missile defense and space dominance feed a dangerous illusion of security which prevents the search for alternatives and real solutions. Those who feel protected against any threat are tempted to continue a miserable globalization policy, to ignore poverty and hunger, environmental destruction and climate change, scarcity of energy and water in the world. Similar to the attacks on Afghanistan, which sow new terror and drive the chain of violence, the attempt to control earth from space provokes feelings of powerlessness. Despair, anger and hate create the breeding ground for terrorism.

    Promoting missile defense and space war adds fuel to the flames of conflict, heats the arms race on earth and in space, provokes instabilities in crisis regions of the Middle East, South Asia and North-East Asia, wastes valuable resources which are required to solve global problems. The destruction of existing arms control and disarmament treaties, including START II, the ABM Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention, ultimately will strike back to the USA. What they do, others can claim for themselves.

    Many have dreamt of invulnerability in history but noone ever reached it. Sometimes it is the recognition of the own vulnerability that requires conflict resolution, the settlement of disputes and agreement. The people in Central Europe had to live over four decades of the Cold War with the worst of all threats: complete nuclear annihilation. Inspired by the peace movement and Gorbachev’s New Thinking they learned that only a policy of common security and disarmament could bring peace to Europe. The history of Berlin clearly demonstrates that walls do not exist forever, that parts of the world can neither be excluded nor confined.

    Power projection into space and anti-terror wars cannot provide true security. The alternatives are clear and simple: avoid threats before they emerge; dry out the causes of terror; cut the instruments of violence and destruction. To be specific, it is essential to improve international control of missiles and space weapons, of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, leading towards their ultimate elimination and prohibition. Here Europe can be a leader instead of following the US in military strikes. In addition, the possible motivations and the social conditions of terrorism have to be tackled. Sustainable peace requires a broad basis within society which includes the well-being of all people. This is the best way to undermine the sources and resources of terror.

    *Juergen Scheffran is physicist, co-founder of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) and editor of the INESAP Information Bulletin at the Technical University of Darmstadt in Germany.

  • U.S. Needs a Contigency Plan For Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal

    There is growing concern, and evidence for concern, that the instability in Afghanistan could quickly spread to neighboring Pakistan and undermine the security of that country’s nuclear arsenal. Of all of the negative consequences this turn of events might bring, none would be more dangerous and catastrophic than nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

    Until Sept. 11, the Pakistani regime and the Taliban were very close, and there have been reports out of Pakistan that military officers assisted the Taliban in preparing for U.S. airstrikes—counter to direct orders from Pakistan’s leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Top military officers, including the head of Pakistan’s intelligence services, recently have been sacked, reportedly for their pro-Taliban views.

    Violence in the streets, while not widespread beyond the border area with Afghanistan, speaks to the tensions inside Pakistan. A Newsweek poll this week found that 83% of Pakistanis polled sympathized with the Taliban in the current conflict. It is possible, therefore, that Pakistani forces assigned to protect Pakistan’s nuclear forces could be compromised.

    This is surely the nightmare scenario, and immediate steps should be taken to prevent such a turn of events from coming to pass.

    Pakistan possesses enough nuclear material for close to 40 nuclear weapons, if not more. The U.S., however, knows very little about how this material is stored, what security measures are applied to its protection, how personnel with access to nuclear weapons and materials are screened and where the material is located.

    Pakistan has a responsibility to ensure that its assets are adequately protected and to convince other countries that this responsibility is taken seriously. Other countries and organizations have a responsibility to help Pakistan keep these materials secure, without in any way assisting that country in modernizing or deploying its nuclear capability.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, a U.N.-affiliated organization, has decades of experience in developing and verifying security measures associated with nuclear weapons-usable materials. The agency routinely assists countries in ensuring that their peaceful nuclear programs are adequately protected. Despite its lack of membership in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Pakistan could receive advice and assistance from the IAEA.

    In addition, the U.S. and other IAEA members have extensive experience—publicly available—on how to protect nuclear materials and on how to ensure that weapons-usable uranium or plutonium cannot be diverted without being detected. States could make equipment available to Pakistan that did not directly assist in its development or control of nuclear weapons, such as alarm systems and polygraph equipment for personnel screening. In addition, corporations and nongovernmental organizations with significant expertise in nuclear matters could provide Pakistan with assistance on security.

    Pakistan has resisted any outside attempts to help secure its nuclear materials. There is the risk that receiving assistance for its nuclear program from outside powers might further destabilize the current situation. Yet Pakistan has already made its strategic decision to throw in with the West against terrorism. Taking this additional step, while difficult, may be part of the price it pays to reestablish itself as a responsible global partner.

    If Pakistan does not agree to these types of programs, the U.S. should begin to work immediately on contingency plans should the Islamabad regime lose control over its nuclear arsenal. These plans should include the ability to rapidly deploy forces to Pakistan to find and regain control of any lost nuclear materials and, only as a last option in a crisis, remove them from Pakistan to a secure location.

    These steps might seem extreme. Yet when faced with the real possibility of losing control of nuclear weapons to the types of organizations capable of the destruction seen Sept. 11, they could be considered realistic and even prudent. The consequences of not being prepared to act are too great for us to imagine, even with our new ability to imagine the horrible.

    *Jon B. Wolfsthal is an associate in the Carnegie Endowment’s nonproliferation program and a former nonproliferation policy advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy.

  • This War is Illegal

    A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K. attack on Afghanistan is that it is clearly illegal. It violates international law and the express words of the United Nations Charter.

    Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defence under Article 51, the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and security.

    The Security Council has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor progress on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90 days to report back to it.

    Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military force. True, both, in their preambles, abstractly “affirm” the inherent right of self-defence, but they do so “in accordance with the Charter.” They do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defence. Nor could they. That’s because the right of unilateral self-defence does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped.

    The right of self-defence in international law is like the right of self-defence in our own law: It allows you to defend yourself when the law is not around, but it does not allow you to take the law into your own hands.

    Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who die from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Even the Security Council is only permitted to authorize the use of force where “necessary to maintain and restore international peace and security.” Now it must be clear to everyone that the military attack on Afghanistan has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This attack will be far more likely to provoke terrorism. Even the Bush administration concedes that the real war against terrorism is long term, a combination of improved security, intelligence and a rethinking of U.S. foreign alliances.

    Critics of the Bush approach have argued that any effective fight against terrorism would have to involve a re-evaluation of the way Washington conducts its affairs in the world. For example, the way it has promoted violence for short-term gain, as in Afghanistan when it supported the Taliban a decade ago, in Iraq when it supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, and Iran before that when it supported the Shah.

    The attack on Afghanistan is about vengeance and about showing how tough the Americans are. It is being done on the backs of people who have far less control over their government than even the poor souls who died on Sept. 11. It will inevitably result in many deaths of civilians, both from the bombing and from the disruption of aid in a country where millions are already at risk. The 37,000 rations dropped on Sunday were pure PR, and so are the claims of “surgical” strikes and the denials of civilian casualties. We’ve seen them before, in Kosovo for example, followed by lame excuses for the “accidents” that killed innocents.

    For all that has been said about how things have changed since Sept. 11, one thing that has not changed is U.S. disregard for international law. Its decade-long bombing campaign against Iraq and its 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia were both illegal. The U.S. does not even recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court. It withdrew from it in 1986 when the court condemned Washington for attacking Nicaragua, mining its harbours and funding the contras. In that case, the court rejected U.S. claims that it was acting under Article 51 in defence of Nicaragua’s neighbours.

    For its part, Canada cannot duck complicity in this lawlessness by relying on the “solidarity” clause of the NATO treaty, because that clause is made expressly subordinate to the UN Charter.

    But, you might ask, does legality matter in a case like this? You bet it does. Without the law, there is no limit to international violence but the power, ruthlessness and cunning of the perpetrators. Without the international legality of the UN system, the people of the world are sidelined in matters of our most vital interests.

    We are all at risk from what happens next. We must insist that Washington make the case for the necessity, rationality and proportionality of this attack in the light of day before the real international community.

    The bombing of Afghanistan is the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to the Americans on Sept. 11. We may come to remember that day, not for its human tragedy, but for the beginning of a headlong plunge into a violent, lawless world.

    *Michael Mandel, professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, specializes in international criminal law.

  • Nuclear Weapons and Homeland Security

    Nuclear weapons do not make us safer. They make us less secure.

    The greatest vulnerability of the United States and the rest of the industrialized world is not to terrorists who hijack planes or disperse biological agents. It is to terrorists with nuclear weapons.

    September 11th was a shocking reminder of the futility of relying on nuclear weapons for security. Nuclear weapons cannot deter a suicidal terrorist, but a suicidal terrorist with nuclear weapons could destroy the United States.

    US nuclear policies make it more likely that terrorists will be able to attack the United States with nuclear weapons. In general, the US has pursued a nuclear weapons policy of “Do as I say, not as I do.” We have set the wrong example for the world, continuing to rely upon nuclear weapons long after the end of the Cold War.

    The US has slowed the process of nuclear disarmament, leaving many thousands of nuclear weapons potentially available to terrorists. If we want to prevent a nuclear holocaust by terrorist nuclear bombs in American cities, the US must take leadership in a global effort to bring all nuclear weapons and nuclear materials under control. This will require significant policy changes.

    To gain control of nuclear weapons, the numbers of nuclear weapons in the world must be dramatically reduced. Numbers need to be brought down from the over 30,000 currently in the arsenals of the US and Russia to far more reasonable numbers capable of being effectively controlled in each of the eight nuclear weapons states, on the way to zero.

    The numbers being discussed by the Bush administration of 2,000 to 2,500 strategic nuclear weapons are far too high and will send a signal to the world that the US is not serious about nuclear disarmament. The Russians have already proposed many times joint reductions to 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons. Even this number is too high. Just one of these weapons in the hands of terrorists could do immeasurable damage.

    To gain control of nuclear materials, a global inventory of all nuclear weapons and materials must be established immediately. We must know what nuclear materials exist in order to establish a rational plan to guard and eliminate them.

    All nuclear weapons should immediately be taken off hair-trigger alert and policies of launch on warning should be abandoned. The US and Russia still have some 4,500 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. This is an accidental nuclear holocaust waiting to happen, particularly given the gaping holes in the post Cold War Russian early warning system. Smart and determined terrorists could potentially trick one of the nuclear weapons states into believing it was being attacked by another nuclear weapons state, leading to retaliatory strikes by one nuclear power against another.

    The US should forego its plan to build a national missile defense system, and reallocate these funds to more immediate security risks. US deployment of a national missile defense will lead Russia and China to rely more heavily on their nuclear arsenals and to develop them further. No so-called rogue state currently has nuclear weapons or long-range missiles capable of reaching the United States. Nor could a national missile defense system protect us from terrorists.

    The US should rejoin the international community in supporting a treaty framework to control and eliminate nuclear weapons. We should fulfill our treaty obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for good faith negotiations to eliminate all nuclear weapons. We should stop threatening to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We should honor the Outer Space Treaty, and stop seeking to weaponize outer space. We should ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and move forward with START III negotiations. Finally, we must stop putting up obstacles to nuclear disarmament in the United Nations and its Disarmament Commission, and instead actively assist them in their efforts.

    Since September 11th, the US government has made only one change in our nuclear weapons policy. It removed the sanctions on India and Pakistan that were put in place in response to their testing nuclear weapons in 1998. That change was a move in the wrong direction, away from nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

    President Bush made campaign promises, which he has reiterated since assuming office, to move forward with unilateral reductions and de-alerting of our nuclear arsenal. But unilateral actions are not sufficient.

    The US must lead the way in bringing all nuclear weapons states to act swiftly and resolutely in dramatically reducing all nuclear arsenals and assuring that no nuclear weapons or materials fall into the hands of terrorists. If the US fails to provide this leadership, efforts to achieve homeland security could fail even more spectacularly than they did on September 11th.

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, an international organization on the roster of the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

  • We Have Already Lost

    The Bombing Begins! screams today’s headline of the normally restrained Guardian. Battle joined, echoes the equally cautious International Herald Tribune, quoting George W. Bush. But with whom is it joined? And how will it end? How about with Osama bin Laden in chains, looking more serene and Christ-like than ever, arranged before a tribune of his vanquishers with Johnny Cochran to defend him? The fees won’t be a problem, that’s for sure.

    Or how about with Osama bin Laden blown to smithereens by one of those clever bombs we keep reading about that kill terrorists in caves but don’t break the crockery? Or is there a solution I haven’t thought of that will prevent us from turning our archenemy into an arch martyr in the eyes of those for whom he is already semi-divine?

    Yet we must punish him. We must bring him to justice. Like any sane person, I see no other way. Send in the food and medicines, provide the aid, sweep up the starving refugees, maimed orphans and body parts – sorry, “collateral damage” – but Osama bin Laden and his awful men, we have no choice, must be hunted down.

    Unfortunately, what America longs for at this moment, even above retribution, is more friends and fewer enemies. And what America is storing up for herself, and so are we Brits, is yet more enemies. Because after all the bribes, threats and promises that have patched together this rickety coalition, we cannot prevent another suicide bomber being born each time a misdirected missile wipes out an innocent village, and nobody can tell us how to dodge this devil’s cycle of despair, hatred, and-yet again-revenge.

    The stylized television footage and photographs of this bin Laden suggest a man of homoerotic narcissism, and maybe we can draw a grain of hope from that. Posing with a Kalashnikov, attending a wedding or consulting a sacred text, he radiates with every self-adoring gesture an actor’s awareness of the lens. He has height, beauty, grace, intelligence and magnetism, all great attributes, unless you’re the world’s hottest fugitive and on the run, in which case they’re liabilities hard to disguise.

    But greater than all of them, to my jaded eye, is his barely containable male vanity, his appetite for self-drama and his closet passion for the limelight. And, just possibly, this trait will be his downfall, seducing him into a final dramatic act of self-destruction, produced, directed, scripted and acted to death by Osama Bin Laden himself.

    By the accepted rules of terrorist engagement, of course, the war is long lost. By us. What victory can we possibly achieve that matches the defeats we have already suffered, let alone the defeats that lie ahead? “Terror is theatre,” a soft-spoken Palestinian firebrand told me in Beirut in 1982. He was talking about the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics 10 years before, but he might as well have been talking about the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The late Mikhail Bakunin, evangelist of anarchism, liked to speak of the Propaganda of the Act. It’s hard to imagine more theatrical, more potent acts of propaganda than these.

    Now Mr. Bakunin in his grave and Mr. bin Laden in his cave must be rubbing their hands in glee as we embark on the very process that terrorists of their stamp so relish: as we hastily double up our police and intelligence forces and award them greater powers, as we put basic civil liberties on hold and curtail press freedom, impose news blackouts and secret censorship, spy on ourselves and, at our worst, violate mosques and hound luckless citizens in our streets because we are afraid of the colour of their skin.

    All the fears that we share – Dare I fly? Ought I to tell the police about the weird couple upstairs? Would it be safer not to drive down Whitehall this morning? Is my child safely back from school? Have my life’s savings plummeted? – are precisely the fears our attackers want us to have.

    Until Sept. 11, the United States was only too happy to plug away at Vladimir Putin about his butchery in Chechnya. Russia’s abuse of human rights in the North Caucasus, he was told – we are speaking of wholesale torture, and murder amounting to genocide – was an obstruction to closer relations with NATO and the United States. There were even voices – mine was one – that suggested Mr. Putin join Slobodan Milosevic on trial in The Hague: Let’s do them both together. Well, goodbye to all that. In the making of the great new coalition, Mr. Putin looks a saint by comparison with some of his bedfellows.

    Does anyone remember any more the outcry against the perceived economic colonialism of the G8? Against the plundering of the Third World by uncontrollable multinational companies? Seattle, Prague and Genoa presented us with disturbing scenes of broken heads, broken glass, mob violence and police brutality. Tony Blair was deeply shocked. Yet the debate was a valid one, until it was drowned in a wave of patriotic sentiment, deftly exploited by corporate America.

    Drag up Kyoto these days; you risk the charge of being “anti-American.” It’s as if we have entered a new Orwellian world where our personal reliability as comrades in the struggle is measured by the degree to which we invoke the past to explain the present. Suggesting there is a historical context for the recent atrocities is, by implication, to make excuses for them: Anyone who is with us doesn’t do that; anyone who does, is against us.

    Ten years ago, I was making an idealistic bore of myself by telling anyone who would listen, that with the Cold War behind us, we were missing a never-to-be repeated chance to transform the global community.

    Where was the Marshall Plan? I pleaded. Why weren’t young men and women from the U.S. Peace Corps, Britain’s Voluntary Service overseas and their continental European equivalents pouring into the former Soviet Union by the thousands?

    Where was the world-class statesman and the man of the hour, with the voice and vision to define for us the real, if unglamorous, enemies of mankind: poverty, famine, slavery, tyranny, drugs, bush-fire wars (racial and religious), intolerance, greed?

    Now thanks to Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, all our leaders are world-class statements, proclaiming distant their voices and visions in distant airports while they feather their electoral nests.

    There has been unfortunate talk – and not only from Silvio Berlusconi – of a “crusade.” Crusade, of course, implies a delicious ignorance of history. Was Mr. Berlusconi really proposing to set free the holy places of Christendom and smite the heathen? Was George W. Bush? And am I out of order in recalling that we (Christians) actually lost the Crusades? But all is well: Signor Berlusconi was misquoted and the presidential reference is no longer operative.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Blair’s new role as America’s fearless spokesman continues apace. Mr. Blair speaks well because Mr. Bush speaks badly. Seen from abroad, Mr. Blair in this partnership is the inspired elder statesman with an unassailable domestic power base, whereas Mr. Bush – dare one say it these days? – was barely elected at all.

    But what exactly does Mr. Blair, the elder statesman, represent? Both he and the U.S. President at this moment are riding high in their respective approval ratings, but both are aware, if they know their history books, that riding high on Day One of a perilous overseas military operation doesn’t guarantee you victory come election day.

    How many American body bags can Mr. Bush sustain without losing popular support? After the horrors of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the American people may want revenge, but they’re on a very short fuse about shedding more American blood.

    Mr. Blair – with the whole Western world to tell him so, except for a few sour voices back home – is America’s eloquent white knight, the fearless, trusty champion of that ever-delicate child of the mid-Atlantic, the “Special Relationship.”

    Whether that will win Mr. Blair favour with his electorate is another matter because the Prime Minister was elected to save the country from decay, and not from Osama bin Laden. The Britain he is leading to war is a monument to 60 years of administrative incompetence. Our health, education and transport systems are on the rocks. The fashionable phrase these days describes them as “Third World,” but there are places in the Third World that are far better off than Britain.

    The country Mr. Blair governs is blighted by institutionalized racism, white male dominance, chaotically administered police forces, a constipated judicial system, obscene private wealth and shameful and unnecessary public poverty. At the time of his re-election, which was characterized by a dismal turnout, Mr. Blair acknowledged these ills and humbly admitted that he was on notice to put them right.

    So when you catch the noble throb in his voice as he leads us reluctantly to war, and your heart lifts to his undoubted flourishes of rhetoric, it’s worth remembering that he may also be warning you, sotto voce, that his mission to mankind is so important that you will have to wait another year for your urgent medical operation and a lot longer before you can ride in a safe and punctual train. I am not sure that this is the stuff of electoral victory three years from now. Watching Tony Blair, and listening to him, I can’t resist the impression that he is in a bit of a dream, walking his own dangerous plank.

    Did I say “war”? Has either Mr. Blair or Mr. Bush, I wonder, ever seen a child blown to bits, or witnessed the effect of a single cluster bomb dropped on an unprotected refugee camp? It isn’t necessarily a qualification for generalship to have seen such dread things- and I don’t wish either of them the experience – but it scares me all the: same when I’ll watch uncut, political faces shining with the light of combat, and hear preppy political vices steeling my heart for battle.

    And please, Mr. Bush – on my knees, Mr. Blair – keep God out of this. To imagine God fights wars is to credit Him with the worst follies of mankind. God, if we know anything about Him, which I don’t profess to, prefers effective food drops, dedicated medical teams, comfort and good tents for the homeless and bereaved, and without strings, a decent acceptance of our past sins and a readiness to put hem right. He prefers us less greedy, less arrogant, less evangelical, and less dismissive of life’s losers.

    It’s not a new world order, not yet, and is not God’s war. It’s a horrible, necessary, humiliating police action to redress the failure of our intelligence services and our blind political stupidity in arming and exploiting fanatics to fight the Soviet invader, then abandoning them to a devastated, leaderless country. As a result, it’s our miserable duty to seek out and punish a bunch of modern medieval religious zealots who will gain mythic stature from the very death we propose to dish out to hem.

    And when it’s over, it won’t be over. The shadowy bin Laden armies, in the emotional aftermath of his destruction, will gather numbers rather than wither away. So will the hinterland of silent sympathizers who provide them with logistical support.

    Cautiously, between the lines, we are being invited to believe that the conscience of the West has been reawakened to the dilemma of the poor and homeless of the Earth.

    And possibly, out of fear, necessity and rhetoric, a new sort of political morality has, indeed, been born. But when the shooting dies and a seeming peace is thieved, will the United States and its allies stay at their posts or, as happened at the end of the Cold War, hang up their boots and go home to their own back yards? Even if those back yards will never again be the safe havens they once were.

    *John Le Carre is the author of 18 novels, including his most recent, The Constant Gardener.

  • A Matter of National Priorities: National Missile Defense (NMD) and Theatre Missile Defense (TMD) as Violations of International Law and a Threat to Human Survival

    Introduction: Legal, Economic, Strategic and Political Issues Involving NMD Investment and Deployment

    The technology for building a comprehensive national missile defense (NMD), in the true sense of the word “defense” is not available. The technology for the deployment of NMD currently does not exist. Reoccurring test failures indicate that it is likely that the technology will not exist in the future. Rather, the technology that does exist is for offensive purposes in outer space. What is currently available for deployment in outer space is a weapons technology capable of uniting the military, economic, and political components of a U.S. strategy for the hegemonic dominance of the globe.

    The proposed investment in national missile defense (NMD) and theatre missile defense (TMD) dramatically alters the strategic balance between nations. Not only are major powers such as Russia and China affected, but also U.S. allies and the geopolitical terrain of the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, East and Central Asia. Taken in combination, these realities also impinge upon the very integrity of the international law environment which regulates not only relations between states but affects the integrity of the treaty system, the future direction of the military industrial complexes of the world, and the way in which humanity views “crimes against peace” through the lens of the 1945-Nuremberg Principles. Further, the economic costs of NMD, not only in its research, production, and deployment aspects, but also in the wider global context, raises serious questions about the leadership of the international financial system and the growing gulf between haves- and have-nots.

    The processes of globalization, as exemplified by the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, have effectively reinforced worldwide economic disparities through its structural adjustment programs (SAP). Increasingly, most nations on the planet, as acknowledged by the United Nations Millennium Summit, are unable to enjoy the benefits of international trade and the related benefits of a global economy. Globalization is a combination of political, economic, social, military, and cultural elements. In combination, globalization represents a fundamental historical shift for humanity. It has reframed the entire context in which governments, corporations, NGOs, and global civil society thinks and acts. It is in this context that U.S dominated NMD investment and deployment strategies must be viewed.

    Insofar as the growing gulf between haves- and have-nots is exponentially expanding, those individuals and nations with the greatest stake in the status quo increasingly rely on military solutions to what are predominantly political problems. According to the World Bank’s report, World Development Report 2001/2002: Attacking Poverty, the gulf between the haves- and the have-nots already leaves 2.8 billion people living on less than $2 a day. The social, economic, and political consequences of this disparity leads to growing conflicts between nation-states and regions. Unless these problems of global governance are addressed by providing concrete solutions both conflict and terrorism will escalate. In this new environment, a planned deployment of NMD technology can only be viewed by billions of human beings as a repressive and oppressive device to maintain the injustices and deprivations of the status quo.

    The militarization of space, as proposed by the advocates of NMD, represents a radical departure from established international laws and customs, which historically have guided international relations on earth. Because of the problems associated with maintaining economic and political hegemony, over large geographical regions and billions of people, the complexity of global governance has expanded. The U.S. military- industrial complex and certain corporate and financial interests, which guide many aspects of U.S. government decision making, have decided that planning and preparation for aggressive war is going to be the most effective way to govern the planet. As expressed by U.S. Space Command’s book, Vision for 2020, the goal of dominating the space dimension of military operations is ” to protect U.S. interests and investment” [EXHIBIT 6].

    The goal of achieving the domination of the space dimension of military operations, with its central purpose of protecting U.S. interests and investments, is not a “defensive” posture or purpose. Rather, the stated plan involves the militarization of space for aggressive purposes, aimed at rivals, anticipated revolts, and opposition to U.S. hegemony around the globe. As such, in violation of the 1945-Nuremberg Principles, the vision of U.S. Space Command, as well as its governmental and industrial supporters, constitutes “planning and preparation for war”. In the language of the Nuremberg Principles, it constitutes “a crime against peace”.

    Insofar as the year of 2001 is the first year in which formal funding requests for NMD are being renewed in the United States Congress, it may be alleged that the four major companies who seek this funding (Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, TRW, Boeing), in conjunction with the Pentagon/CIA, are currently engaged in what the Nuremberg Principles call a “conspiracy to engage in planning and preparation for aggressive war”. As such, this is an indictable offense/violation of international law. It should be opposed within the United States and submitted to the World Court (The Hague), and the United Nations, for legal action and condemnation. For while each nation has the right to “defend” itself, no nation has a protected right, under international law, to engage in a “conspiracy” to promote “planning and preparation for aggressive war”. Should such a course be funded or endorsed, then, by definition, it will constitute a sanctioning and legitimation of a “crime against peace”. To move in this direction will also allow for the abrogation of treaties, such as the 1972-ABM Treaty.

    (A) The Abrogation of the 1972 ABM Treaty

    The Bush administration, in its efforts to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, has demonstrated its commitment to establishing an offensive military capability. It has also expressed such an intention in terms of the planned production and deployment of various space-based weapons systems [EXHIBITS 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, E]. The U.S. Space Commands’ position, as recently expressed in its book, Vision For 2020, makes clear its intention to embark upon the militarization of space in conjunction with a variety of war fighting capabilities [EXHIBIT 6]. In response to this threat, Russian leaders have repeatedly and consistently declared their strong opposition to even limited NMD and to amending the ABM Treaty. Russian concerns about U.S. efforts to install even a limited NMD capacity fall into six categories:

    First, the Russian leadership fears that even a limited NMD would only serve to undermine confidence in the retaliatory capability of its current forces;

    Second, Russia assesses its nuclear capabilities by a more demanding standard than the one the U.S. has used, so even a limited NMD system would appear still more threatening;

    Third, Russia fears that the planned limited deployment would provide the United States with the infrastructure and experience to field a larger and more advanced NMD system in the future;

    Fourth, even if the Bush administration had favored amending, rather than abandoning the ABM Treaty, Russia would remain worried that amending the ABM Treaty to allow limited NMD would set a precedent that would support the eventual elimination of negotiated limits on NMD. Because the real value of the treaty is premised on the belief that the parties will abide by its terms, U.S. insistence upon amending the ABM Treaty would reduce the value that Russia would place on an amended treaty;

    Fifth, Russia is most likely concerned about the symbolic implications of the deployment of an NMD system;

    Sixth and finally, responding to the U.S. deployment of a NMD system would require Russia to increase spending on strategic nuclear forces at a time when resources are scarce and much of the Russian nuclear force is nearing the end of its useful lifetime [EXHIBIT P].

    In light of these concerns, the United States should take Russia’s position and its perceptions much more seriously. To fail to do so, leaves the U.S. in an international stance of moving toward a unilateral direction, separating it from both allies and potential adversaries. In this formulation, the adoption of NMD represents a revived American isolationism for the 21st century. It is supportive of exclusionary governance, the search of geopolitical dominance, and the endorsement of an imperial hegemony. Such an approach is divorced from traditional American values of democratic deliberation, inclusionary forms of governance, and inclusionary decision-making at the national and international levels.

    As the International Tribunal at Nuremberg put the matter in its judgment: “…individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state”. The judgment at Nuremberg relates to those individuals in government, industry, and the military-industrial complex of the United States, who advocate the abrogation of the 1972-ABM Treaty. The imposition of NMD, on the international stage, constitutes an offensive, aggressive, and hostile intent by seeking to undertake the domination of the space dimension of military operations to “protect U.S. interests and investment” by “integrating space forces into war fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict” [EXHIBIT 6].

    (B) The 1945 Nuremberg Principles

    With the inauguration of the Bush administration in 2001, the executive branch of the U.S. government has sought to unilaterally abrogate the ABM Treaty [EXHIBITS 9, M, P], has refused to reintroduce in the U.S. Senate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) [EXHIBITS F, G], has chosen to ignore the terms of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and has intentionally violated the Nuremberg principle which maintains that the laws of war and some other rules of international law are superior to domestic law. In this context, the Nuremberg Principles assert the proposition that individuals may be held accountable to them.

    In pertinent part, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal convened at Nuremberg, August 8, 1945, outlines in the section on “Jurisdiction And General Principles” (Article 6), the means by which to identify acts and crimes coming “within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) Crimes Against Peace: Namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing” [EXHIBIT 3, pp. 19-20 (Italics are mine)]. It is legitimate to contend that the proposed withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, when combined with the continued and renewed corporate lobbying of Congress by: (1) Boeing; (2) Lockheed-Martin; (3) Raytheon; (4) TRW, constitutes “planning” and “preparation” for aggressive war by the Bush administration and U.S. Space Command, in conjunction with corporate collusion with U.S. governmental agencies by “participation in a common plan or conspiracy” to fund the industrial component of the American National Security State. Under this analysis, taken together, both individually and collectively, members of the Bush administration may be legally indicted, under international law, for their “conspiracy” with elements of the military-industrial-complex to engage in “planning and preparation for aggressive war” in violation of the 1945 Nuremberg Principles [EXHIBIT 3].

    (C) The Legal Basis for an Indictment of the United States’ Military-Industrial Complex Regarding NMD/TMD Funding

    In combination, the Bush administration’s refusal to comply with the rules and norms of international law represents a grave danger to both world peace and the control of weapons of mass destruction through: (1) the abrogation of treaties; (2) numerous violations of international law; (3) the lack of fidelity to the maintenance of peace through the commission of crimes against peace by undertaking policy, spending, research, and deployment measures designed to advance the process of planning and preparation for waging aggressive war. The dominant reason for this unlawful trend, as acknowledged by the U.S. Space Command, is “to protect U.S. national interests and investment” and to provide the means to begin the process of “integrating space forces into war fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict.”

    The Charter of the International Military Tribunal convened at Nuremberg, August 8, 1945, also set forth definitions for “leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in the execution of such plan”. In Article III, section (B), a militarist is defined as: “(1) Anyone who sought to bring the life of the German people into line with a policy of militaristic force; (2) Anyone who advocated or is responsible for the domination of foreign peoples, their exploitation or displacement; or (3) Anyone who, for these purposes, promoted armament”. Further, in Article III, section (C), “(I) A profiteer is: Anyone who, by use of his political position or connections, gained personal or economic advantages for himself or others from the national socialistic tyranny, the rearmament, or the war. (II) Profiteers are in particular the following persons, insofar as they are not major offenders…anyone who made disproportionately high profits in armament or war transactions”.

    In the case of the United States, it may be argued that, since the 1950s to the present, there has been a continuous effort by a variety of persons and corporations who sought to bring the life of the American people into line with a policy of militaristic force (the Korean War, Vietnam, Star Wars). Since the early 1950s, the country has spent over $100 billion on ballistic missile defense, $70 billion of it since Reagan’s SDI proposal, with little to show for it. By the year 2000, the Congressional Budget Office had estimated the cost of the Star Wars plan at around $60-billion dollars. Yet, a more comprehensive land-, sea-, and space-based scheme, as favored by many Republicans, would cost more on the order of $240-billion dollars. This price tag precedes any further calculations that would take into account the inevitable delays and cost overruns [EXHIBIT X].

    Viewed in this light, following the 1945-Nuremberg Principles, it may be argued that: (1) militarists in the Pentagon/CIA, throughout a string of administrations since the 1950s, have sought to increasingly divert U.S. government funding into planning and preparation for aggressive war by giving the United States a “nuclear first-strike” capability; (2) this capacity/capability for a military “first-strike”, whether from land-, sea-, or space-based stations would be provided for by civilian profiteers who have made “disproportionately high profits” in the name of ballistic missile defense; (3) this expenditure has taken place despite the warning of President John F. Kennedy, in 1961, that “unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer concern the great powers alone. For a nuclear disaster, spread by wind and water and fear, could well engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted alike. Mankind must put an end to war-or war will put an end to mankind” [EXHIBIT Z].

    (D) Funding for the Military-Industrial Complex

    From 1999 to 2000, just four U.S. corporations have accounted for 60% of all missile defense contracts. These four corporations are: Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, and TRW. These four corporations are in a unique position to provide the Bush administration with the technological means to use the resources of the United States government to fund research and development for the planning and preparation for aggressive war. This is not a “defensive” process or task for a variety of key reasons. According to U.S. Space Command, the capabilities of NMD will comply with four central operational concepts: (1) control of space; (2) global engagement; (3) full force integration; (4) global partnerships. It has been asserted, by U.S. Space Command, that these operational concepts provide the new conceptual framework to transform the Vision For 2020 into war fighting capabilities [EXHIBITS 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, E, L, N]. The role of the aforementioned corporations will include the enjoyment of virtually unlimited access to permanent funding by the military industrial complex [EXHIBITS I, J, O, P, T, V, X, Y].

    As early as 1988, the Council on Economic Priorities completed a study which predicated that the potential economic impact of the NMD program (referred to as “Star Wars” at that time), would result in a cost to every American household of as much as $12,000 for a fully funded $1 trillion dollar NMD system. In fact, the council found that research funds alone would dwarf all other military programs and the needs of all other domestic programs. Further, it would engage the energies and talents of up to 180,000 scientific and engineering specialists if the program moved into production. Production of such a system impacts many interrelated areas of the economy. For example, “Whatever the final costs of an SDI system, it will clearly cost the average American household a total of $5,000 to $12,000, spread over eight to twenty years. For the average family earning between $30,000 and $50,000 a year, SDI could increase the annual tax bill by $570.” Such a massive shift of economic priorities, if implemented, would “seriously weaken the nation’s ability to meet the challenges of unemployment, export market loss, dwindling technological leadership, and antiquated industrial plants”. Now, at the dawn of the 21st century, the United States finds itself in precisely this exact position [EXHIBITS H, I, J, O].

    Throughout the Third World, from Latin America to South Asia, and from Sub-Saharan Africa to the countries of Europe and Central Asia, there resides a deepening poverty amid plenty. According to the World Bank’s report, World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty, “of the world’s 6-billion people, 2.8 billion-almost half- live on less that $2 a day, and 1.2-billion–a fifth– live on less than $1 a day, with 44% living in South Asia.” The cited statistics are indicative of the fact that funding for the military industrial complexes of the world, as well as an unrestrained trade in global armaments, not only fuels violent conflicts but also contributes directly to enduring and deepening poverty. The correlation between the trade and purchase of weapons, on the one hand, and rising levels of poverty on the other, provides clear and convincing evidence that humanity cannot sustain this trend. This relationship is well documented throughout the scholarly literature on the subjects of war and peace in the nuclear age.

    With the deployment of NMD, an international reaction will most likely result in a new arms race. With the continuation of these trends, the tragic consequences of the Cold War, which ended in 1990, will only worsen with a second Cold War at the dawn of the 21st century [EXHIBIT R]. If continued spending on weapons increases and expands under NMD and TMD, nationally and internationally, there will be a corresponding depletion of human capital, as social programs and investments in health, education, and welfare, are cut even deeper. This, in turn, will result in the inevitable widening of circles of poverty and a growing gap between the haves- and the have-nots. Such an outcome will probably produce revolts, revolutions, and rising levels of terrorism around the globe.

    (E) International Relations and Security Concerns

    On the international scene, the proposed NMD system and TMD system has the potential to dramatically destabilize an already precarious series of international relationships [EXHIBITS Q, S, T, U]. According to the Center For Defense Information (CDI), ” to pull out a keystone of arms control by abrogation of the ABM Treaty could weaken stability world wide, particularly sensitive areas of Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani programs”. The Bush administration’s desire to remove the U.S. from its obligations under the 1972 ABM Treaty reflects the tragic course of policy makers who dismiss the linkage of disarmament, proliferation, and unproliferation as softheaded. The tendency to dismiss the linkage between these various courses of action reflects a genuine contempt for the aspiration for equity between states. With the dismissal of policy choices that support equity between states, the primary emphasis in strategic planning returns to a calculation of how to factor the balance of armored divisions or missiles between states.

    History is a record of the downplaying of the equity dynamic of nuclear politics. The downplaying of the equity dynamic presents a double irony, insofar as American policy makers promote democracy precisely because equity is seen as a worthwhile objective. According to the “democratic peace thesis”, it is believed that states that achieve relative equity will be more stable and peace loving. In this sense, democracy is perceived as a means to equity. Yet, when policy makers confront the challenge of global nuclear policy, American (and other) officials devalue equity as a necessary element in their planning and decision-making. In this context, NMD/TMD expands the scope of global instability with respect to global nuclear policy. If this trend is to be reversed, a more forthright acknowledgment of the balance of power mentality versus concerns with equity must be addressed. A better U.S. strategy toward the developing world as a whole and East Asia, in particular, will require a complete overhaul of the structures and processes of policy making, to bring them into accord with genuine equity, social justice considerations, human rights norms, United Nations covenants and conventions, and a nuclear weapons regime which promotes demilitarization within a specified timeline that can be consummated with the abolition of nuclear weapons through global disarmament. Such a course will benefit all states involved and will be more suitable to take into account, the non-military threats to international stability, such as terrorism.

    To remove the keystone of arms control through the abrogation of the 1972 ABM Treaty would be especially tragic insofar as, in future years, the ABM Treaty could serve as the bridge to a new era in which further reductions in offensive missiles could be accompanied by the testing and building of more limited defensive systems [EXHIBIT W]. In this critical regard, as a practical matter, “no one will be reliably defended unless everyone is. The most objectionable feature of the current NMD effort is that it is being conducted as a unilateral initiative for the United States alone in defiance of legitimate opposing security concerns.”

    The ramifications of ignoring the legitimate security concerns of other nations leaves the United States permanently trapped in a position of making unilateral policy decisions. The high diplomatic costs of taking a unilateral path have taken already their toll with regard to America’s NATO allies throughout Europe. Britain, Italy, Germany, and France have already voiced wide disapproval of President Bush’ conduct of foreign policy with regard to the administration intent to withdraw from the ABM treaty [EXHIBIT G].

    In the East Asian context, North Korea has known, since the mid-1980s, that it was no match for South Korea-let alone a South Korea with U.S. military support, insofar as North Korea could no longer rely on Russia for its security and could expect assistance from China if attacked. The efforts of the late 1990s to defuse the DMZ and efforts to open negotiations for the normalization of the relationship between the North and South, as undertaken by the “sunshine policy”, represented new steps toward peace. However, by August 2001, the Bush Administration had undertaken efforts to sabotage these negotiations. If North Korea were to remain as a hostile state, it would allow the United States to continue to characterize it as a rogue nation. As a rogue nation, it would also allow the United States to raise the possibility that China would become a threat to American security interests in the region, and thereby justify NMD/TMD deployment [EXHIBITS Q, S].

    The introduction of Theatre Missile Defense (TMD) [EXHIBIT 12, L, Q] also contributes to a sense of insecurity for China. The TMD concept originated in the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), forged during the Reagan administration. Following the end of the Cold War, the Bush (Sr.) administration revised the SDI into a program called Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS). By 1993, the Clinton administration declared the termination of the SDI era. The new focus was to be placed upon missile defense systems, such as NMD. By 2001, these trends have resulted in major shifts in perceptions in policies among Japan, Taiwan, China, North and South Korea. The greatest negative impact on these nations has been to damage efforts at confidence building among big powers, by bringing about new complications and problems for Sino-U.S. relations, Russian-U.S. relations, Sino-Japanese relations, Russian-Japanese relations and U.S-Japanese relations. In summary, the NMD/TMD program has harmed gradual progress toward cooperation and security in the region by deepening suspicion and confrontational sentiments among them [EXHIBIT L, Q].

    (F) Planning and Preparation for Aggressive War

    Beginning in 1957, the United States military prepared plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), based on America’s growing lead in land-based missiles [EXHIBIT 4]. Top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that point in time, a portion of high-ranking Air Force and CIA leadership “apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963”. Kennedy’s response indicates his personal determination, shared by his civilian advisors, that a first strike capability never be implemented or become U.S. policy. However, “the fact that first strike planning got as far as it did raises questions about the history of the Cold War. Much more needs to be known: about nuclear decision-making under Eisenhower and Nixon, about the events of late 1963, about later technical developments such as MIRV and Star Wars”.

    At the dawn of the 21st century, with strong governmental and corporate support for NMD/TMD, placed at the center of U.S. strategic thinking and planning, research and investment, offensive capabilities, and geopolitical implications from military strategy to international relationships, the need to re-examine Star Wars, National Missile Defense (NMD), and Theatre Missile Defense (TMD), is more vital than ever. For advances in technological capabilities, both military and civilian, have reached a new stage of maturation, placing the fate of humanity at a critical juncture. The dynamics of war and peace are now, even more, left hanging in the balance. For example, Donald Rumsfeld before assuming the position of Secretary of Defense headed a 13 member “Space Commission” which included 2 former commanders in chief of the United States Space Command and an ex-commander of the Air Force Space command. The commission’s finding restored enthusiasm among NMD advocates to launch a new battle in congress for funding [EXHIBITS C,D,H,S,V,Y]. Contrary to NMD advocates, the critics of this recently endorsed proposal for a space weaponization plan, contend that its purpose is primarily offensive in nature. By removing the mythology of a defensive capability, the critics of NMD have reconfigured the debate and the dynamics of the “dog-fight” for dollars to be allotted NMD. [EXHIBIT J]

    Specifically, with regard to the militarization of outer space, history reveals a continuing struggle within the highest echelons of the United States Government from 1963 through 2001. Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, September 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy stated: “To destroy arms…is not enough. We must create even as we destroy-creating worldwide law and law enforcement as we outlaw worldwide war and weapons…For peace is not solely a matter of military or technical problems-it is primarily a problem of politics and people. And unless man can match his strides in weaponry and technology with equal strides in social and political development, our great strength, like that of the dinosaur, will become incapable of proper control-and like the dinosaur, vanish from the earth. As we extend the rule of law on earth, so must we also extend it to man’s new domain-outer space…The new horizons of outer space must not be driven by the old bitter concepts of imperialism and sovereign claims. The cold reaches of the universe must not become the new arena of an even colder war”.

    Kennedy’s prophetic analysis of 1961 remains at the heart and center of debates on NMD in the year of 2001. His analysis will probably persist as a constant reminder that the search for peace is usually juxtaposed to unrestrained technological advances that are united with the military mind and its search, not so much for defensive capabilities as for offensive capabilities [EXHIBIT Z]. In this regard, the argument of the advocates of missile defense, to the extent they articulate their general strategic purpose, “tend to emphasize the moral superiority of the defensive mission. It is better, they say, to defend against attack than to threaten retaliation. They implicitly acknowledge, however, no feasible elaboration of defensive technology would make it a reliable substitute for the threat of retaliation, and they do not propose to accompany a more robust NMD deployment with the very drastic restrictions on US offensive capability that would be necessary to make it plausibly acceptable to the principal potential opponents. In fact, most of the assertive NMD advocates also aggressively support the development of advanced conventional offensive capability that is the principle concern of such opponents”. Both NMD and TMD have strong U.S. offensive capability built into them. In fact, the U.S. Space Command’s own book, Vision For 2020, constantly repeats terminology such as: “dominating the space dimension of military operations”, “integrating space forces into war fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict” [EXHIBIT 6].

    By 1999, leading American experts argued that both NATO and the cause of peace would gain from ” a no-first-use” policy. Thomas Graham Jr., Robert McNamara and Jack Mendelsohn, argued that, “it is critical for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to reconsider its nuclear policy and agree to a no-first-use provision on nuclear weapons. Such a policy would be a signal to the international community that the most powerful nations in the world are prepared to accept that nuclear weapons have no utility other than to deter a nuclear-armed opponent from their use”. The emphasis upon deterrence must be underscored as the most essential place to begin analysis of nuclear policy, whether it be a “no-first-strike” or NMD/TMD. U.S security is still influenced by how other major powers understand Washington’s goals. In the context of NMD, Space Command’s publication, Vision For 2020, places emphasis not so much on defense as upon war fighting capabilities “across the full spectrum of conflict”. This is significant because the distinction between defense per se and planning and preparation for aggressive war, allows us to bifurcate the ideological arguments of advocates for NMD from the critique of opponents. The publication, Vision For 2020, is clearly a blueprint for the implementation of a first-use-strike capability.

    The recognition by Russia and China that NMD constitutes the basis for planning and preparation for aggressive war understandably gives rise to anxiety about how, where, and when the U.S will employ its newly acquired military capabilities in space, as it proceeds in the pursuit of advancing its vital interests. The advance of U.S military power in space increases an entire spectrum of considerations that could be augmented by a destructive force without parallel in the nuclear age. In this regard, “because Russia and China are not confident that the United States will respect their vital interests, U.S security policy, while pursuing its other requirements, should avoid fueling their fears and triggering reactions that ultimately would decrease U.S security.” In this regard, the dangers of miscalculation are enormous [EXHIBITS 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, A, B, O, P, Q, R, S, T, Y, Z].

    As with World War I, the greatest danger of NMD, may be that it could actually make the U.S more vulnerable, because of the dangers of miscalculation. Miscalculation can be registered in rising levels of global insecurity since it would exacerbate strategic, psychological, and geopolitical tensions between the U.S, Russia, and China. Senator Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota), summed up the danger in articulate terms when he stated on May 2, 2001, “many in the administration… argue that deploying an ineffective defense can still be an effective system simply because it would cause uncertainty in the minds of our adversaries. That position is based on the flawed assumption that the president would be willing to gamble our nations security on a bluff, and that no adversary would be willing to call such a bluff. Instead of increasing our security, pursuing a strategy that cannot achieve its goal could leave our nation less secure and our world less stable.” Senator Daschle’s assessment closely corresponds to the interpretation of historians with respect to the start of World War I. The combination of flawed assumptions, bluffs, and an unexplored and previously unused military technology was responsible for the worst carnage the world had yet experienced in war. Similarly, the NMD plans, as proposed in, Vision For 2020, comprise an analogous set of flawed assumptions.

    In the context of international law, even before the introduction of NMD/TMD technologies, scholars have argued that, “the effects produced by nuclear weapons have forced the need for a fundamental reevaluation of the nature and objectives of war in the ‘nuclear age’.” The necessity for this reevaluation is even more pertinent in the NMD context, because NMD exponentially expands the capacity of an NMD state to fundamentally alter the balance of terror through the destruction of international law, in its totality, by abrogating treaties and principles which have provided an effective restraint and deterrent effect [EXHIBITS K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, T, U, W, Y, Z]. To maintain the integrity of international law it will be necessary to uphold treaties that have enduring significance and principles that embody enduring guidelines [EXHIBITS U, W]. In conjunction with the 1945 Nuremberg Principles, the International Court of Justice ruling on the threat or use of nuclear weapons has direct bearing on NMD funding, research, and ultimate deployment. With this in mind, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, on July 8, 1996, provides the basis on which to critique many of the flawed assumptions behind the advocacy of NMD.

    (G) The Opinion of the International Court of Justice

    On July 8, 1996, the International Court Of Justice (hereinafter referred to as, ICJ) responded to requests by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) for an advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The case divided the judges jurisprudentially and doctrinally in fundamental ways, with a narrow majority (that depended on a second casting vote by the President of the Court, Judge Mohammed Bedjaoui of Algeria, See-International Court of Justice Statute Article 55 [2]) forging a consensus that lends strong, yet partial and somewhat ambiguous, support to the view that nuclear weapons are of dubious legality. According to Professor Richard Falk, “the most critical aspect of the dispositif on the core issue of legality reach a result that surprised those who anticipated an either/or outcome, the court having created some new doctrinal terrain by deciding that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is prohibited by international law, subject to a possible exception for legal reliance on such weapons, but only in extreme circumstances in self-defense in which the survival of a state is at stake”.

    Professor Falk’s interpretation of the ICJ advisory opinion brings to the foreground of legal analysis an emphasis upon the defensive role of nuclear weapons. The fact that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is strictly prohibited by international law, with only one extreme exception, the self-defense of a nation, underscores the defensive aspect. This point is extremely relevant in the case of NMD. The impact of NMD on Russia and its nuclear security is significant. Russia today, according to The Center For Defense Information, “can barely cope with U.S offensive power, let alone a combination of offensive and defensive” [National Missile Defense: What Does It All Mean?-A CDI Issue Brief, (enclosed with the attached EXHIBITS as the APPENDIX to Volume-I)]. The report also emphasizes the fact that, “if Russia wants to overwhelm an NMD shield it must plan to launch massively and quickly in a crisis”. If the U.S decides to follow Space Command’s language in carrying out U.S policy by “dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S interests and investments” through its ability to integrate space forces “into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict”, then the aggressive side of U.S force capabilities will be unleashed in violation of the ICJ ruling and the understandings contained in the 1972 ABM Treaty. The offensive nature of NMD engages the U.S in a historically new project by embarking upon the militarization of space. The militarization of space, for analytical purposes, should be understood as the aggressive nuclearization of space (my term) for offensive purposes.

    The 1972 ABM Treaty states that the parties declare that it is “their intention to achieve [at] the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to take effective measures toward reductions of strategic arms, nuclear disarmament, and general and complete disarmament”. Further, the treaty states that the parties desire “to contribute to the relaxation of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States.” In conjunction with this purpose, it is appropriate to interpret the ICJ ruling in which a unanimous conclusion was reached that upholds the finding that any use of nuclear weapons contrary to Article 2 (4) of United Nations Charter, and not vindicated by Article 51, is “unlawful”. It was agreed by all the judges that a threat or use of nuclear weapons is governed by “the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of humanitarian law, as well as [by] specific obligations” arising from treaties and other undertakings that “expressly deal with nuclear weapons”. On this matter, this finding was not challenged by any nuclear weapons states in their pleading.

    The plan of U.S Space Command and the Bush administration, as outlined in, Vision For 2020, reflects none of these propositions. Rather, the reports states in no unequivocal terms that, “just as land dominance, sea control, and air superiority, have become elements of current military strategy, space superiority is emerging as an essential element of battlefield success and future warfare” [EXHIBIT 6]. This plan, contradicts all of the aforementioned laws, rules, conventions, charters, and treaties since the 1970s. In part, American high technology weapons, ever since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, have laid the basis of the phenomenal pace of innovation in the modern computer industry which, in turn, has led directly into a virtual revolution in military affairs. Defense analysts have posited that we are on the threshold of a revolution in military affairs (RMA). RMA proponents “believe that military technology, and the resulting potential of radically new types of warfighting tactics and strategies is advancing at a rate unrivaled since the 1930s and 1940s”. These changes reflect radical developments in offensive forces, not defensive forces, as alleged by the Bush administration. Dennis M. Ward has argued that, “American policymakers’ interest in both theatre and national missile defenses is driven by their perceptions of new ballistic missile threats. The threats stem from the proliferation of relatively unsophisticated missiles, not from exotic technologies.” Unfortunately the U.S Space command and the Bush administration have continued to worked in collusion with the civilian and military sectors dedicated to achieving the goal of “global engagement” that “combines global surveillance with the potential for a space-based global precision strike capability” [EXHIBIT 6].

    In the aftermath of the ICJ decision, Professor Falk has argued that it is the obligation of all nuclear states to pursue their good faith obligations by bringing to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament and all of its aspects. According to Falk, such an obligation entails giving “weight to the legal commitment by the nuclear weapons states to pursue disarmament as a serious policy goal”. Professor Terrence E. Paupp, in his study, Achieving Inclusionary Governance: Advancing Peace and Development in First and Third World Nations, has emphasized the fact that “genuine security and a peaceful world order cannot be premised upon notions of ‘deterrence’ and ‘balance of power’ because a spiral of violence is created by these concepts so that the exercise of power becomes self-defeating…the process that is identified by the spiral model of conflict is associated with the characteristics I have attributed to the leadership and policies of exclusionary states”. The U.S may be depicted as an exclusionary state on the international stage in light of the fact that it retains a strategic focus on the “balance of power” paradigm as its governing principle, it has reinvigorated justifications for unilateral actions in defiance of allies and potential adversaries, and has demonstrated a fidelity to an isolationist credo in an age of “globalization” and interdependence among nation-states. By retaining a “balance of power” focus, the U.S along with the most important nuclear weapon states, has betrayed an arms control approach that is based on minimizing the risks of possessing nuclear weapons. Rather than minimizing the risks, it has enhanced them. In fact, the U.S has periodically, in times of diplomatic and political crisis, actually threatened to use them [EXHIBITS 3 (p.16.), 4].

    Significantly, the legal endorsement of disarmament, also amounts, even if unwittingly, to a sharp criticism of the nuclear weapons states for their abandonment of any serious pursuit of disarmament goals in recent decades. If the ICJ advisory opinion is to achieve any meaning, it must be within the context of helping the advocacy of those committed to nuclear disarmament, demilitarization, and ultimately the abolition of all nuclear weapons on land, sea, and outer space. Such a conclusion demands a thorough condemnation of NMD and its associated technologies.

    (H) The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

    In Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the relevant treaty obligation provides: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effect measure relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control” (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, July 1, 1968, 21 UST 483, 729 UNTS 161). Based on this provision, the ICJ found unanimously that “[t]here exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects in strict and effective international control”[Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory opinion of July 8, 1996, 35 ILM 809 & 1343, 1996, para. 105 (2) (F)]. The ICJ’s advisory opinion of July 8, 1996, expanded on the phrase, “and bring to a conclusion” as follows: “the legal import of that obligation goes beyond that of a mere obligation of conduct: the obligation involved here is an obligation to achieve a precise result-nuclear disarmament in all of its aspects-by adopting a particular course of conduct, namely, the pursuit of negotiations on the matter in good faith” (paragraph 99).

    The significance of the ICJ’s additional language is to underscore the obligation, which exists to pursue negotiations in good faith toward a particular result-namely, a duty to make all reasonable efforts to reach the goal of disarmament through the negotiating process. The problem is that the Court’s finding does not dictate any timetable or negotiating forum for reaching this result. The failure to establish either a specific timetable or a particular negotiating forum, has resulted in the current crisis surrounding the NMD proposals and the continuing advocacy of TMD strategies. For example, on May 23, 2000, Governor George W. Bush, proclaimed, “it is time to leave the Cold War behind, and defend against the new threats of the 21st century. America must build effective missile defenses, based on the best available options, at the earliest possible date”. On May 1, 2001, President George W. Bush, stated: “more nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear aspirations…Some have already have developed a ballistic missile technology that would allow them to deliver weapons of mass destruction at long distances and incredible speeds, and a number of these countries are spreading these technologies around the world”. These statements of candidate Bush and later President Bush demonstrate the tragic consequences of the American National Security State failed to act on the ICJ Advisory Opinion which calls for meeting an obligation to achieve the precise result of nuclear disarmament in all of its aspects [EXHIBITS 13-22]. Hence, the continuing relevance and importance of a CTBT is even more apparent. The fact that there have been no good faith negotiations on the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the testing of nuclear weapons, or the first steps toward genuine disarmament has created the political and economic opportunity for R&D investment in NMD and the deployment of NMD/TMD.

    The response of most European countries, with regard to the planned NMD system, has been negative. According to the Center For Defense Information, “the NMD plans put the European countries in a position of assisting a program aimed at providing additional safety for the United States but doing so at the likely expense of their own security. Many European states do not agree with the threat assessment that has led to NMD’s conception in the first place. All oppose any steps that would violate the AMB Treaty.” [EXHIBITS 9, F, G, K, N, O, P, R, T, U, W, Y,]

    Rising levels of fear throughout the entire Asia-Pacific region match the negative response of most of the European countries to Bush’s NMD stance. The introduction of TMD and its impact on security in the Asia-Pacific region has exacerbated China’s fears, increased tension in the Taiwan Straits, and sabotaged negotiations for reconciliation between North and South Korea [EXHIBIT Q]. Further, the Bush administration seems to be leading the United States into an intensified and unnecessary conflict with China. This trend is entirely reckless insofar as China’s foreign policy is predictable. China has never been a global power or thought itself an actor in global affairs, like the European great powers or the United States [EXHIBIT A]. Laying the groundwork for potential hostilities with China, the Bush administration has proposed to tell the Chinese government that it would not object to a missile build up by the Chinese in order to win Chinese acquiescence for an American NMD program [EXHIBIT B]. The American strategy is pursuing a foreign policy course developed by Donald Rumsfeld in the early 1970s under President Gerald Ford. It was a poor proposal at that time and a worse one at the dawn of the 21st century [EXHIBIT C].

    With the nomination of General Richard M. Myers, a former head of Air Forces and Space Command, to the position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there is reason for greater consternation among opponents of NMD, in particular, and the international community at the large. General Myers’ nomination is important because it signals the commitment that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have toward an NMD program. The nineteen months General Myers spent as head of the Space Command, ending in February 2000, gave him a familiarity with the kinds of technology the program would use [EXHIBIT M]. Senator Joseph Biden has assaulted President Bush’s foreign policy focus on NMD, because, he maintains, “everything-including relations with Russia and China, even NATO-is viewed through the prism of missile defense, which is dangerous and potentially disastrous. It weakens us. It weakens NATO. And it weakens our ability to deal with the real threats”. [EXHIBIT R]

    In combination, Article V1 of the NPT, the 1999 defeat of the CTBT in the U.S Senate, and the proposed withdrawal of the U.S from the 1972 ABM Treaty all signal a ruthless disregard of the clear mandates contained in key instruments of international law. Further, despite denials Under Secretary of State, John R. Bolton, of a strict deadline for Russia to accept changes to the ABM Treaty by November 2001, the Bush administration has continued to push for the militarization of outer-space in violation of the good faith principles demanded by the ICJ advisory opinion of 1996 [EXHIBIT 22]. The domestic debate within the U.S over the wisdom of pursuing investment in NMD has become overly conflated with the September 11, 2001 bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. For the first time in American history, in July, 2001, the defense of the “American homeland” was incorporated into guidelines of American military strategy and also used to request more money from congress in order to spend countless billions of dollars in developing a high- tech missile defense [EXHIBIT 19].

    If congress allocates funds for a truly “defensive” system, then congress must also mandate that such an expenditure does not violate any provisions of the 1972 ABM Treaty. A congressional mandate ensuring the integrity of the 1972 ABM Treaty is essential for the sake of constraining the course and scope of R&D to purely defensive, not offensive, capabilities. Should the advocates of NMD prevail in undermining attempts in the U.S Senate to protect the existing safeguards contained in the treaty, then there will be no effective legal restraint remaining to keep NMD research and deployment from transmuting into an offensive war fighting capability with existing military technologies.

    In terms of substantive international law, and in the mind of the American general public, the salient feature of the Nuremberg trials was the decision that individuals could be held guilty for participation in the planning and waging of “a war of aggression”. As the International Tribunal at Nuremberg put the matter in its judgment: “…individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the state if the state in authorizing the action moves outside under international law”. Under this standard, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the leadership of Space Command, President Bush, and the corporate interests behind NMD (Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, TRW), maybe held guilty for participation in the planning of a “war of aggression” [EXHIBITS C, D, E, H, I, J, L, M, N, P, R, X, Y, 4-22]. Space Command’s report, Vision For 2020, reveals that the interest of the military is not defense, but the protection of U.S.-based investments and commercial interests [EXHIBITS N, 6, 10-12].

    Conclusion: International Duties Transcending National Obligations

    In retrospect, the crusade by the advocates of NMD signals a back-to-the-future scenario, repeating the same depleted arguments of the Reagan administration. Prospectively, the crusade by the advocates of NMD constitutes a vision of a United States that is disconnected from the rest of the world. In the words of William D. Hartung, the President’s Fellow at the World Policy Institute at New School University, “the unifying vision behind the Bush doctrine is nuclear unilateralism, the notion that the United States can and will make its own decisions about the size, composition and employment of its nuclear arsenal without reference to arms control agreements or the opinions of other nations”. It is essential, in the area of NMD/TMD that the United States give up its unilateralism if humanity is to survive and prevail as a species. Such a view demands that the American foreign policy framework, employed since the end of World War II, must be discarded and reconfigured. This will mean taking the problem of exclusionary governance and exclusionary states more seriously. This will mean taking the promise and challenge of achieving inclusionary governance and the building of inclusionary states more seriously.

    Exclusionary states are a reflection of the fact that, “in many parts of the Third World, economic systems function primarily to benefit a relatively limited number of people, and political systems are frequently manipulated to guarantee continued elite dominance. The general public often has little or no opportunity to influence the policy-making process or to participate fully in the economic system. These domestic inequalities, along with an international economic system not designed to operate in the interests of Third World countries, are at the root of underdevelopment.” In this situation, it is incumbent upon the nuclear states, especially the U.S., to move beyond the traditional preoccupation with its narrowly defined national interest (elite-centered) and begin to address the larger human interest. This means that a “better U.S. strategy toward the developing world as a whole will require an overhaul of the structures and processes of policy making.”

    Global Inclusionary Governance in the 21st Century

    The United States has international duties transcending national obligations. In this critical regard, the NMD/TMD approach to global governance is antithetical to building a peaceful, just, or secure world. Rather, the employment and deployment of NMD/TMD systems threaten the integrity of the entire international legal order and the objective living conditions of humanity as a whole. The waste and danger coupled with such an expenditure of resources cannot be either legitimated or rationalized in this content, in this early part of the 21st century.

    If the promise and binding force of the 1945 Nuremberg Principles are to have any meaning and application in building more accountable states, advancing peace between nations, establishing accountability within and between states, then the U.S., the United Nations, and the entire international community, must reject the NMD/TMD approach to global governance and human security. Instead, a new definition of human security must emerge that is no longer primarily prefigured by the imprints and images of the military-industrial mind. Rather, the achievement of inclusionary governance demands the following:

    First, structures and policies that allow for the continued investment in and expansion of both nuclear and non-nuclear assets shall be dismantled and replaced with peacekeeping and monitoring institutions.

    Second, in recognition of the fact that spending on nuclear and non-nuclear assets depletes both First and Third World economies, it shall be the task of inclusionary governments and inclusionary regimes to embark upon the deepening of democratic norms, practices and policies so as to alter current spending priorities (especially in NMD/TMD).

    Third, the necessity to embark upon a path toward inclusionary governance and demilitarization is supported by accumulated scientific evidence, which proves that the exchange and/or detonation of just a few nuclear bombs will have the capacity to create a global condition known as “nuclear winter” that could lead to climate catastrophe, agricultural collapse, and world famine.

    Fourth, the history and evolution of international law is moving in the direction of disarmament and has the capacity to build a global institutional structure that supports an alternative security system. Such a system must lead toward the effective subordination of military establishments of the nation-states under the rubric of values, principles, policies and goals of inclusionary governance.

    Fifth, the historical experience of war and conflict has proven that a failure to recognize the influence of pre-existing beliefs has implications for decision making and that, therefore, the process of decision making must become more inclusionary so as to overcome a history and practice of concealment, secrecy and distortion through propaganda as well as bureaucratic and media manipulation.

    Sixth, genuine security and a peaceful world order cannot be premised upon notions of “deterrence” and “balance of power” because a spiral of violence is created by these concepts so that the exercise of power becomes self-defeating (i.e., the publication of U.S. Space Command, (Vision For 2020).

    Seventh, and finally, the recognized need for a global security policy which places emphasis upon non-military incentives to channel government’s behavior empowers the international system to give added support to an expanded role for international organizations or security regimes to facilitate cooperation and regulate inter-group conflict.

    Establishing a New Congressional Role

    In all of the aforementioned principles surrounding the principles of inclusionary governance there is one underlying requirement that has profound relevance for the U.S Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities. That requirement is in the category of congressional oversight of the executive branch. Specifically, the oversight of Pentagon contracting with major industries and corporations, as well as oversight with respect to procurement decisions and policies, constitutes a primary and fundamental role for the nation’s security.

    With regard to the Star Wars project in 1993, The New York Times reported that the Star Wars project rigged a crucial 1984 test and faked other data in a “program of deception that misled congress as well as the intended target, the Soviet Union.” Former Reagan administration officials said that a program of deception had been approved by Casper W. Weinberger (Secretary of Defense from 1981 to 1987). Mr. Weinberger denied that Congress was deceived but argued that deceiving one’s enemies is natural and necessary to any major military initiative. The lesson to be drawn from this deception, in the context of the NMD debate of 2001-2002, is that congressional oversight and investigations into the actions and activities of the executive branch and the Pentagon is essential to maintaining any semblance of democratic accountability. It is also necessary for the sake of overcoming the inherent limitations of the mind-set of the military-industrial complex. I, therefore, propose the following policy changes for the U.S Congress to initiate in order to maintain democratic accountability with respect to NMD funding:

    1. Enhancing Congressional-Oversight

    As the Congress considers the cost of an NMD program, it must take into account numerous lessons that may be learned from the past. For example, in June of 1993, The New York Times reported that federal investigators had determined that the Pentagon misled Congress about both the cost and necessity of many weapons systems built in the decade of the 1980’s to counter the military forces of the Soviet Union. Eight reports from a three-year study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) exposed a pattern of exaggeration and deception by military leaders. In particular, the B-52 bomber, the B-1 bombers, and the B-2 bomber, were cited in the reports as part of a pattern in which the Pentagon misrepresented certain facts to the Congress in order to maintain or increase financing for new nuclear-weapons systems. In the year 2001, it may well be that that Rumsfeld Report of 1998 on the relevance of NMD will fall into the same category. In fact, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was sharply questioned about the high cost and unproven effectiveness of an NMD system and the Bush administration’s threats to withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty [EXHIBITS C, V]. Rumsfeld was forced to admit that the technology did not exist and could not guarantee any specific date at which it would be available for defensive purposes.

    2. Combating Terrorism Does Not Justify Investments in NMD

    In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks, Rumsfeld stated that “it is the asymmetric threats that are a risk, and they include terrorism, they include ballistic missiles, they include cyber-attacks” [EXHIBIT 19]. Despite the attempted linkage of disparate and unrelated threats to U.S. national security, the Rumsfeld analysis cannot stand the test of critical analysis. In the final analysis, terrorist attacks are a symptom rather than a cause of the underlying global maladies of our age.

    Terrorist attacks are, in large measure, an expression of the powerless position of persons and groups who come from exclusionary states at the periphery of the international capitalist system. Behind the frustration of generations, there is a history of colonialism, imperialism, and great power rivalry. Where widespread poverty and deprivation is the rule, rather than the exception, there is little empirical support for the proposition that a truly “defensive” NMD system could prevent such attacks even if a truly “defensive” system existed [EXHIBIT 21]. Where poverty and deprivation have reigned supreme, there is no basis for alleging the possibility of a missile attack. The real source of U.S. support for investment in and the proposed deployment of a NMD system is largely a domestic concern, more closely associated with peacetime military spending than with the actual world situation. On this matter, Robert Higgs has argued: “if an effective NMD system is ever successfully produced-a big “if”-it will certainly have cost far more than the presently projected amount. Unfortunately, that vast expenditure will have availed little or nothing in the provision of genuine national security, for an enemy can always choose to play a different game, foiling the best -laid NMD plans by firing a nuclear-armed cruise missile from a ship lying off New York, or by delivering a chemical or biological weapon of mass death tucked into a shipment of cocaine bound for Los Angeles, or by any number of other means immune to the missile defense system”.

    3. Establishing New Forms Of Arms Control

    Ever since the mid-1980s, scholars, government officials and military experts have admitted that the deployment of a Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system will not facilitate the limitation and reduction of offensive forces. In fact, “if the adversary’s deployment of strategic defense is understood to reflect aggressive intentions, as it almost certainly would be” then nuclear states are likely “to be unable to pursue offensive limits or any other form of arms control.”[Italics mine] The planned deployment of space-based weapons, as proposed in, Vision For 2020, represents “aggressive intentions” by the U.S military to dominate space and earth for the purpose of achieving “war fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict”[EXHIBIT 6].

    The entire U.S Congress must be concerned with establishing new forms of arms control. In this technologically driven environment, which operates behind the camouflage of what defense analysts have euphemistically termed a “revolution in military affairs” [RMA], the Pentagon’s official version of RMA disguises its true intent, which is to embark upon the militarization of space. It focuses on “information systems, sensors, new weapons concepts, much lighter and more deployable military vehicles, missile defenses, and other capabilities…Precision engagement conjures up images of very accurate and long-range firepower. Full dimensional protection suggests, among other things, highly effective missile defenses”. Throughout history, “military revolutions” have been driven by vast social and political changes. “Revolutions in military affairs” have marked war in the Western world since the 14th century. These revolutions are inevitable but difficult if not impossible to predict. In the context of NMD, new forms of arms control must be established in order to avoid a multiplicity of contradictory and conflicting paths, which are antithetical to America’s genuine security.

    America’s genuine security is intimately tied to international agreements such as the CTBT, the NPT, and the ABM Treaty. These agreements are obviously tied and connected to the expectations and stability of other nations. America’s international responsibilities and global power can never be reduced to military calculations, technological superiority, or economic dominance. Rather, America’s ultimate responsibilities can only be effectuated through political trust. Missile defense will destroy political trust. For example, “when the U.S and Japan pursue missile defenses, they do so out of the mentality of ‘fortress ourselves.’ That creates and intensifies distrust and tension among concerned nations that will in turn work as reasons for further arms races and will never be able to serve as forces for building stability”.

    4. Keeping the Nuremberg Principles Alive in the 21st Century

    The late 20th century revealed, in stark horror, the tragedy of genocide in Rwanda and Kosovo. Once again, the specter of “ethnic cleansing” had raised its head. Yet, crimes against humanity can take many forms. According to the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, such crimes must also contemplate “crimes against peace”. As Professor Richard Falk has noted: “The decision to prosecute German and Japanese leaders as war criminals after World War II, although flawed as a legal proceeding, represents an important step forward. It creates a precedent for the idea that leaders of governments and their subordinate officials are responsible for their acts and can be brought to account before an international tribunal. It affirms the reality of crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, as well as the more familiar crimes arising from violations of the laws of war.”

    Proposals for NMD contemplate the inclusion of a variety of offensive weapons capabilities that lend themselves to a hegemonic dominance of the globe, the reinforcement of regimes of exclusion, poverty-producing financial orders, and a deepening gulf between the haves and have-nots. Hence, the NMD scenario represents “imperial overreach”. In the 20th century, its origin may be traced to Wernher von Braun. As a technical leader in the Third Reich’s program of the militarization of space, he embarked upon embracing the goal of creating weapons of terror and mass destruction. His ideological heir, Edward Teller, brought the dream to America. As the father of the H-bomb, he laid the foundation for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) under President Reagan. However, Teller swept responsible science under the rug and led America into the fantasy of NMD, in pursuit of the most dangerous military program of all time.

    We, on this planet, can neither allow nor permit the slow undoing of treaty commitments embodied in the 1972-ABM Treaty, block the application of the Nuremberg Principles, or ignore the lessons contained in diplomatic history and the history of conflict resolution. Rather, it is our task as human beings to recognize and honor our common humanity. In recognizing our common humanity, we also recognize the dangers of pride and arrogance when coupled to power. The possession and exercise of power requires both wisdom and restraint. The production, deployment, and potential use of NMD and TMD reflect neither wisdom nor restraint. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us, in this generation, to advance a strategy of peace that emphasizes the value of inclusionary governance at the state and international level. For, in the final analysis, it is not the triumph of exclusionary forms of governance and decision making that will enhance the chances for peace but, rather, it is the achievement of inclusionary governance in all of our deliberations that makes peace and development possible and achievable for all people on this small planet.

    _____________________________________________________ Footnotes

    Telford Taylor, Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, Bantam Books, c. 1971, pp. 83-84. Vision 2020 is available online at, www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace/visbook.pdf. Kevin Martin, Rachel Glick, Rachel Ries, Tim Nafziger, and Mark Swier, “The Real Rogues: Behind the Star Wars Missile Defense System”, Z-Magazine, September 2000, pp. 29-33. Rosy Nimroody, senior project director for, The Council on Economic Priorities, Star Wars: The Economic Fallout, Ballinger Publishing company, c. 1988, pp. 27 and 206. Center For Defense Information, National Missile Defense: What Does It All Mean?— a CDI Issue Brief, c. 2000, p. 1. John D. Steinbruner, “NMD and the Wistful Pursuit of Common Sense”, National Security Studies Quarterly, Summer 2000, Volume VI, Issue #3, p.114. Heather A Purcell and James K. Galbraith, “Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?”, The American Prospect, Fall 1994, p.88. Id., p.96. John F. Kennedy, speech to the United Nations General Assembly, New York, September 25, 1961, “Let The Word Go Forth”: The Speeches, Statements, and Writings of John F. Kennedy, Selected and with an Introduction by Theodore C. Sorenson, Delcorte Press, p.380. John D. Steinbruner, “NMD and the Wistful Pursuit of Common Sense”, National Security Studies Quarterly, Summer 2000, Volume VI, Issue 3, p.112. Thomas Graham Jr., Robert McNamara, and Jack Mendelsohn, “NATO-and Peace- Would Gain From a No-first-Use Policy”, Los Angeles Times, December 15, 1999, p. B-9. Charles L. Glaser and Steve Fetter, “National Missile Defense and the Future of U.S Nuclear Weapons Policy”, International Security, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001), p. 41. Senator Tom Daschle, as quoted in, ” Ballistic Missile Defense: Shield or Sword?” by Carah Ong, Waging Peace: News letter of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Summer 2001, Vol. 11, No. 2, p 7. Richard Falk, Lee Meyrowitz, and Jack Sanderson, ” Nuclear Weapons and International Law,” The Indian Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, 1980. p. 595. “Legality of The threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons” (advisory opinion of July 8, 1996), 35 ILM 809 & 1343 (1996) [ hereinafter, Opinion for UNGA ]; and “Legality of the use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict”, 1996 ICJ Rep. 66 (Advisory Opinion of July 8 ) [ hereinafter Opinion for WHO] Ved P. Nanda and David Krieger, Nuclear Weapons and the World Court, Transnational Publishers, Inc. c. 1998 Richard Falk, ” Nuclear Weapons, International Law and the World Court: A Historic Encounter”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 91, No. 1, January 1997, p.64. Center For Defense Information, National Missile Defense: What Does It All Mean? A CDI Issue Brief, c. 2000, p.20. Ibid., p 21. Richard Falk, “Nuclear Weapons, International Law and The World Court: A Historic Encounter”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 91, No. 1, January 1997, p. 65. Micheal O’Hanlon, Technological Change and the Future of Warfare, Bookings Institution Press, c. 2000, p.7. Dennis M. Ward, ” The Changing Technological Environment”, Rockets’ Red Glare: Missile Defenses and the Future of World Politics, edited by James J. Wirtz and Jeffery A. Larsen, Westview Press, c. 2001, p. 80. Richard Falk, “Nuclear Weapons, International Law, and The World Court: A Historic Encounter”, American Journal Of International Law, Vol.91, No.1, January 1997, p. 65 Terrence E. Paupp, Achieving Inclusionary Governance: Advancing Peace And Development In First And Third World Nations, Transnational Publishers, Inc. c. 2000, p. 101 Ibid., p. 76 George W. Bush, “New Leadership on National Security”, May 23 2000, as quoted in, Rockets’ Red Glare: Missile Defenses and The Future of World Politics, edited by, James J. Wirtz and Jeffrey A. Larsen, Westview Press, c. 2001, p. 331 Ibid, p.334 Center For Defense Information, National Missile Defense: What Does It All Mean?-A CDI Issue Brief, c.2000, p.36. Senator Joseph Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware), as quoted in, “Democrats Plan Attack On Missile Defense”, Los Angeles Times, September 10, 2001. I Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg, 1947), p. 223, as quoted in, Telford Taylor, Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, Bantam Books, c. 1971, p. 84. William D. Hartung, “Bush’s Nuclear Revival”, The Nation, March 12, 2001, p.4. Terrence E. Paupp, Achieving Inclusionary Governance: Advancing Peace and Development in First and Third World Nations, Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2000. Nicolle Ball, Security and Economy in the Third World, Princeton University Press, c.1988, p.390. Robert Chase, Emily Hill, and Paul Kennedy, editors, The Pivotal States: A New Framework for U.S. Policy in the Developing World, W.W. Norton & Company, c.1999, p. 425. Terrence E. Paupp, Achieving Inclusionary Governance: Advancing Peace and Development in First and Third World Nations, Transnational Publishers, Inc., c. 2000, pp.84-104. Tim Weiner, “Lies and Rigged ‘Star Wars’ Test Fooled the Kremlin, and Congress”, The New York Times, August 18, 1993. Tim Weiner, “Military Is Accused of Lying on Arms for Decade”, The New York Times, June 28, 1993, p.A-8. Ernest A. Fitzgerald, The Pentagonists: An Insider’s View of Waste, Management, and Fraud in Defense Spending, Houghton Mifflin, 1989, p. 132. Robert Higgs, “The Cold War Is Over, But U.S Preparation Continues”, The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, Vol. VI, No.2, Fall 2001, p. 300. Charles L. Glaser, “Do We Want The Missile Defenses We Can Build?” The Star Wars Controversy: An International Security Reader, edited by Steven E. Miller and Stephan Van Evera, Princeton University Press, c. 1986, p.113. Michael O’Hanlon, Technological Change and the Future Of Warfare, Brookings Institution Press, c. 2000, p.19. Macgregor Knox, Williamson Murray, editors, The Dynamics of Military Revolution, Cambridge University Press, c. 2001; John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, W.W. Norton & Company, c. 2001; Michael O’Hanlon, “Alternative Architectures and U.S Politics”, Rockets’ Red Glare: Missile Defenses and the Future of World Politics, James J. Wirtz and Jeffrey A. Larsen, editors, Westview Press, c. 2001; Steven Lambakis, On The Edge of Earth: The Future of American Space Power, The University Press of Kentucky, c. 2001; Gordon R. Mitchell, Strategic Deception: Rhetoric, Science, and Politics in Missile Defense Advocacy, Michigan State University Press, c. 2000; David Krieger and Carah Ong, editors, A Maginot Line In The Sky: International Perspectives On Ballistic Missile Defense, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, c. 2001. Samsung Lee, “Missile Defenses And The Korean Peninsulas”, A Maginot Line In The Sky: International Perspectives On Ballistic Missile Defense, David Krieger and Carah Ong, editors, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, c. 2001, p. 30. Richard Falk, “Keeping Nuremberg Alive”, International Law: A Contemporary Perspective, edited by Richard Falk, Friedrich Kratochwil, and Saul H. Medlovitz, Westview Press, c.1985, p.494. Dennis Piszkiewicz, The Nazi Rocketeers: Dreams of Space and Crimes of War, Praeger, c.1995. William J. Broad, Teller’s War: The Top Secret Story Behind the Star Wars Deception, Simon & Schuster, c.1992.

    *Terrence Edward Paupp, J.D. is a Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Policy Analyst; National Chancellor of the United States, for the International Association of Educators for World Peace (IAEWP); on the Advisory Board of, The Association of World Citizens; Professor of Politics and International Law, National University, San Diego, CA.

  • Pursuing Justice for the Crimes of September 11, 2001 and Reducing the Risks of Terrorism

    After more than three weeks of massive military build-up as well as restraint and diplomatic activity in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States and Britain began air strikes on Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. The U.S.-British air strikes are being accompanied by small humanitarian airdrops, but have triggered a large increase in refugees. The United States has sought and obtained a condemnation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 from the United Nations Security Council, though the resolutions do not directly authorize the use of force.

    For a number of reasons, the military air strikes by the United States and Britain, with the support of Pakistan and Russia, are likely to aggravate the crisis.

    There is a tension between reducing the risks of further terrorism and carrying out actions to bring the perpetrators of the September 11 crimes to justice. That tension should be explicitly recognized in the organization of a response. Bombing Afghanistan in the context of the massive suffering of the Afghani people has created even angrier appeals to religious war in the region. There is already a great deal of turmoil in Pakistan. A disintegration of Pakistan is possible and creates heightened risks that nuclear materials or warheads might be captured or transferred by sections of the Pakistani establishment to the Taliban and/or the al-Qaeda network. The Pakistani government has had close ties with the Taliban and still maintains relations with that regime. The Pakistani government’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency has played a major role in training and supplying the Taliban. The nuclear implications of that historical relationship for the region, the United States, and the rest of the world are unclear. There is clearly some risk, though its magnitude is difficult to establish in the midst of this crisis.

    The U.S. choice of response to terrorism is raising the risks of wider wars. For instance, there was a terrorist attack in Kashmir on October 2, 2001, when about 40 people were killed. The Indian government has warned that it will attack the Pakistani-occupied portion of Kashmir if there are further attacks, on the same grounds that the U.S. is justifying its air attacks on Afghanistan.

    To take the approach that this is a war rather than a police action to arrest suspects who have committed crimes against humanity (in the legal definition under international law) is to accord the terrorist network the status of a state, which Osama bin Laden has implicitly claimed for years. This approach legitimizes the use of weapons of mass destruction, since states, including the United States and Britain, have long claimed the prerogatives of such use for themselves. The very doctrine of air warfare has its historical roots in the idea of terrorizing populations.(1) The United States, Britain, France, NATO, and Russia all maintain the option of using nuclear weapons first in any conflict. Osama bin Laden has more than once referred to the U.S. use of nuclear weapons over Japan, an act carried out in wartime, as justification for the attacks he is calling on terrorists to carry out against the United States. He repeated that justification after the October 7, 2001 U.S.-British strikes on Afghanistan.

    Military action threatens to de-stabilize the situation in Saudi Arabia, where feelings against the stationing of U.S. troops since 1991 have run very high and are the main source of popular support for Osama bin Laden. The flow of oil as well as the position of the U.S. dollar as a global currency are dependent on Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). OPEC’s decision of the, anchored by Saudi oil reserves, the largest in the world, to denominate the price of oil in U.S. dollars, is one of the anchors of the U.S dollar. In the present crisis, the states of the Persian Gulf may be pushed by their people to follow the 1999 example of Saddam Hussein, who asked to be paid for Iraqi oil in euros, the new European currency. If OPEC decides to denominate the price of oil in euros, the effect on the U.S. and world economies could be profoundly de-stabilizing, with unpredictable economic, political, and military consequences.(2) Other oil exporting countries also face de-stabilization, notably Indonesia, where anti-U.S. government tensions have been high since the International Monetary Fund’s intervention in its financial crisis in 1997.

    The United States, British, and Russian governments, as distinct from the people who were killed on September 11, are widely seen in the region and the world as having had major roles in the crisis in the Central Asian, South Asian, and Middle East regions that has spawned terrorist cells. The proxy war between the Soviet Union and the United States carried out via Pakistan’s government, with financing both from the Saudi government and by all accounts, from drug trade profits, has been at the center of the chaos and mass deprivation in Afghanistan. Many of the present opponents of the United States were its allies and instruments then. (For instance, in a proclamation published in the Federal Register, President Reagan said of the Islamic opposition to the Soviets on March 20, 1984 that “[w]e stand in admiration of the indomitable will and courage of the Afghan people who continue their resistance to tyranny. All freedom-loving people around the globe should be inspired by the Afghan people’s struggle to be free and the heavy sacrifices they bear for liberty.”)

    The United States and Britain are also seen as promoting and being allied with undemocratic regimes for the sake of oil supplies and profits, both historically and at the present time.

    The British military role is also likely to inflame unpleasant memories. The present Pakistani-Afghan border dates back to its British demarcation by Colonel Algermon Durand in 1893, and was part of the British-Russian imperialist rivalry in the region. It divided the Pushtu people, who found themselves on both sides of the line. After the partition of South Asia in 1947, Pakistan, allied with the United States, tried to use Islam as an ideological counterweight to Pushtu nationalism on its side of the border. The various coups between 1973 and 1979 in Afghanistan cemented the drift of Afghanistan and Pakistan into opposite camps of the Cold War. The arrival of Soviet troops at the end of 1979 sealed the division and a devastating proxy war followed. When wars and partitions result in such immense misery, memories are long and bitter, as the continuing problems in South Asia, Israel/Palestine, and Ireland/Northern Ireland demonstrate. Military attacks and wars have not contributed to solutions in any of these conflicts, only aggravated them and inflamed and hardened hatreds.

    The announced U.S.-British goal of protecting the civilian population of Afghanistan is at odds with aerial bombing. An operation more complex and vast than the Berlin airlift of 1948-1949 (“Operation Vittles”) would have to be launched in order to meet emergency demands. Operation Vittles involved airlift to an airport of thousands of tons of food, fuel, and other supplies every day, over distances of a few hundred miles. Given the magnitude of the historical refugees crisis and the one that is being created by the threat and reality of bombings, an operation of similar or larger scale will be needed over much vaster distances and more inhospitable terrain. It will need to be over areas that are controlled by the Taliban as well as forces opposed to the Taliban, meaning that inefficient airdrops are involved. The starving people in theTaliban controlled areas are hardly in a position to topple that government. They face a humanitarian crisis of stunning proportions. Both Pakistan and Iran, already hosting millions of refugees between them, are trying to keep their borders closed. In sum, the relief operation will have to be roughly a hundred times larger than the one carried out on October 8, if it is to have substantial actual effect in relieving the suffering of the people of the region. By all accounts, the best way to deliver food aid is by road. This mode of aid is made difficult or impossible by air attacks, which have, moreover, already resulted in the deaths of four civilian U.N. workers.

    For profound historical, legal, practical, and moral reasons, the use of military force, especially air strikes, to resolve the crisis, is a recipe for continued violence, terrorism, insecurity, and injustice, not to mention the immense increase in suffering for millions of Afghani people. These problems will not be resolved until the U.S., British, and Russian governments show far more understanding of their own role in the problems of the people of the region. And until that time, military action by these countries, directly or by proxy, is likely to increase problems rather than contribute to their solution.

    A different approach to resolving the crisis is urgently needed. The most important ingredient is that American people must work with the international community to put together a force for a police action to carry out the arrests in Afghanistan that does not involve U.S., British, Russian, or non-state proxy militaries. The September 11, 2001 tragedy has brought the people of the world closer to the people of the United States in their suffering. The heartfelt worldwide demand for justice and for greater security against terrorism can be the basis for a framework to address the issues of justice relating to the crimes against humanity committed on September 11, 2001 and other aspects of the crisis that have enveloped the world since that date.

    Basis of a solution

    1. It is essential to de-legitimize the use of or threat of use of weapons of mass destruction and other tactics that have the same effect, whether by states or non-state groups. The people who were killed did not create the chaos in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region or contribute to the hatreds that led to the September 11 attacks. Therefore the search for justice for those attacks should not be linked to any other injustices and problems, which should also be addressed in their own right.

    2. The use of military force by the United States and Britain, as well as the arming of proxy military forces, should stop immediately.

    3. The process of apprehending the suspects should be carried out under the mandate of the U.N. Security Council using existing international law to pursue crimes against humanity. The people of the United States should rely at this time on a police action in which neutral countries from all over the world are mainly involved. It is crucial that this be defined explicitly as a police action to make arrests.

    4. The U.N. force must have firm rules of operation. Violence against civilians, including bombing of cities, villages, and refugee camps, should be prohibited. The parties to the coalition should commit to respecting human rights. Participating states and personnel should act within the confines of humanitarian and international law, including the Nuremberg principles. They should expect to be held to the same level of accountability in an international judicial process that they seek to impose.

    5. Even though its military forces would not be involved, the United States will, as a practical matter, have a powerful voice in how the U.N. force operates for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the September 11 attacks were on U.S. soil. In order that the United States have moral authority in regard to threats and acts of mass destruction, the United States should take the leadership against the very idea of mass destruction by explicitly renouncing first use of nuclear weapons. To show its good faith, it should begin the process of de-alerting them. It should invite Russia and all other nuclear weapons states into an urgent process of verifiable de-alerting of all nuclear weapons and of putting all nuclear warheads and weapons-usable nuclear materials under international safeguards. This will strengthen the international coalition against terrorism and fulfill longstanding demands of the international community. It will also help stabilize nuclear situation in South Asia, with attendant positive security implication for that region, and the rest of the world, including the United States.

    6. There should be no proxy wars, as for instance, was the practice during the Cold War, or arming of groups that could result in proxy wars.

    7. There should be explicit recognition that the suffering of the Afghani people has its roots, in large measure, in Cold War politics and proxy wars. That recognition, both from Russia and the United States, is long overdue. When translated into practical humanitarian policies, this means that the alleviation of their suffering must be a central, co-equal goal to that of apprehending the suspects. Most of all, any process must take into account that a re-ignition of the civil war would be disastrous for the people of Afghanistan and probably Pakistan, and could have other far-reaching serious de-stabilizing consequences.

    8. It is essential that the United States protect human rights, civil rights (including freedom of speech, assembly, and religion and freedom from discrimination) at home. The rights of immigrants should be respected along with all other people living in the United States. While the evidence clearly indicates that the crimes of September 11 were likely committed by non-citizens, there are many examples where U.S. citizens have committed acts of terror, including the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City and the many crimes over a long period by the “Unabomber.” Immigrants should be accorded due process and liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

    9. The formation of a coalition against terrorism and the rules of its operation should be taken up as a matter under the many treaties against terrorism that already exist. The crisis of September 11 should be used as the time to create a direction for the world community that will be based on morality, equity, the rule of law and justice for all. It is crucial to create a direction in which the rules and norms of behavior against mass violence imposed on individuals and non-state groups be extended to states, rather than the opposite, which is the direction that the bombing of Afghanistan is taking the world.

    Notes 1: The doctrine was first elaborated by an Italian, Brigadier Douhet, who wrote: “The conception of belligerents and nonbelligerents is outmoded. Today it is not the armies but whole nations which make war; and all civilians are belligerents and all are exposed to the hazards of war. The only salvation will be in caves, but those caves cannot hold entire cities, fleets, railways, bridges, industries, etc.” That doctrine of air warfare was first employed on a large scale by Germany during the mid-1930s against Spain and again in 1940 and thereafter against Britain, and also by Britain and the United States, in conventional bombing, fire bombing, and nuclear bombing during World War II. For a history of aerial warfare see Jack Colhoun, “Strategic Bombing,” at http://www.ieer.org/comments/bombing.html 2. For an analysis of the oil-dollar problem see Arjun Makhijani, “Saddam’s Last Laugh” at http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/03/09/

  • Neglecting Moral Approach to US and World Security

    From Mr David Krieger,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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