2 February 2009
Dear Reaching Critical Will friends and advisors:
The Conference on Disarmament (CD) has met for its first three plenary meetings of 2009, each of which has featured an interesting discussion on questions of regional security, military spending, and civil society participation. Regarding the latter, several delegations supported increased engagement between the Conference and civil society. Austria's Ambassador Strohal noted that time and again "cooperation between governments, parliaments and civil society" has been beneficial to "other security related initiatives" and that "success in the field of disarmament in general will depend not only on a full commitment on the political level but on a strong involvement by our civil societies as well."
In the spirit of strong involvement of civil society and cooperation between governmental and non-governmental actors, Reaching Critical Will encourages our readers to take action. On 15 January, the E-News announced an opportunity for NGOs to make submissions to the Australian government's review of its nuclear treaties - submissions will be accepted until 15 February. Another chance to contribute to global disarmament efforts is the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, which will next meet in Washington, DC on 13 February. Civil society organisations in Australia and Japan are forming an NGO Shadow Commission and are welcoming groups from all of the ICNND Commission countries to join. Please contact WILPF International's Vice President Felicity Hill at [email protected] or more information. Also see Reaching Critical Will's Action page to learn about more oppotunities for getting involved.
In peace and action,
Ray Acheson, Project Director
1) Resources on anti-nuclear nuclearism
From Darwin BondGraham and Will Parrish, "Anti-nuclear Nuclearism," Foreign Policy in Focus, 12 January 2009
Anti-nuclear nuclearism is a foreign and military policy that replies upon overwhelming U.S. power, including the nuclear arsenal, but makes rhetorical and even some substantive commitments to disarmament, however vaguely defined. Anti-nuclear nuclearism thrives as a school of thought in several think tanks that have long influenced foreign policy choices related to global nuclear forces. Even the national nuclear weapons development labs in New Mexico and California have been avid supporters and crafters of it.
As a policy, anti-nuclear nuclearism is designed to ensure U.S. nuclear and military dominance by rhetorically calling for what has long been derided as a naïve ideal: global nuclear disarmament. Unlike past forms of nuclearism, it de-emphasizes the offensive nature of the U.S. arsenal. Instead of promoting the U.S. stockpile as a strategic deterrence or umbrella for U.S. and allied forces, it prioritizes an aggressive diplomatic and military campaign of nonproliferation. Nonproliferation efforts are aimed entirely at other states, especially non-nuclear nations with suspected weapons programs, or states that can be coerced and attacked under the pretense that they possess nuclear weapons or a development program (e.g. Iraq in 2003).
Effectively pursuing this kind of belligerent nonproliferation regime requires half-steps toward cutting the U.S. arsenal further, and at least rhetorically recommitting the United States to international treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It requires a fig leaf that the United States isn't developing new nuclear weapons, and that it is slowly disarming and de-emphasizing its nuclear arsenal. By these means the United States has tried to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, even though it has designed and built newly modified weapons with qualitatively new capacities over the last decade and a half. Meanwhile, U.S. leaders have allowed for and even promoted a mass proliferation of nuclear energy and material, albeit under the firm control of the nuclear weapons states, with the United States at the top of this pile.
Many disarmament proponents were elated last year when four extremely prominent cold warriors — George P. Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn — announced in a series of op-eds their commitment to "a world free of nuclear weapons." Strange bedfellows indeed for the cause. Yet the fine print of their plan, published by the Hoover Institute and others since then, represents the anti-nuclear nuclearist platform to a tee. It's a conspicuous yet merely rhetorical commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. These four elder statesmen have said what many U.S. elites have rarely uttered: that abolition is both possible and desirable. However, the anti-nuclear posture in their policy proposal comes to bear only on preventing non-nuclear states from going nuclear, or else preventing international criminal conspiracies from proliferating weapons technologies and nuclear materials for use as instruments of non-state terror. In other words, it's about other people's nuclear weapons, not the 99% of materials and arms possessed by the United States and other established nuclear powers.
This position emphasizes an anti-nuclear politics entirely for what it means for the rest of the world — securing nuclear materials and preventing other states from going nuclear or further developing their existing arsenals. U.S. responsibility to disarm remains in the distant future, unaddressed as a present imperative.
Please go to http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5782 to continue reading this article.
For more information, please see:
Darwin BondGraham on the Wall Street Journal op-ed http://darwinbondgraham.blogspot.com/2009/01/in-january-2007-four-elder-statesmen.html
2) Brief overview of the new US administration's take on space weapons and missile "defence"
On 20 January 2009, US President Obama reportedly pledged to seek a "'worldwide ban' on weapons that could be used against military or commercial satellites." Results of the Congressionally-mandated Space Posture Review, due December, are expected to further formulate the Obama administrations national space policy. Obama's statement, however, did not "entirely" rule out "military action to defend U.S. spacecraft."
According to Reuters, Obama's administration will also review plans to deploy elements of its ballistic missile "defence" system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Michele Flournoy, undersecretary for policy at the Pentagon, said the plans should be reviewed as part of a regular broad look at policy, known as the quadrennial defense review, or QDR, due to take place this year. However, Flournoy also indicated it is in US interests to "cooperate" with Russia on missile defence, providing further indications that "reducing tensions with Russia" over the plans to install missile "defence" systems in Eastern Europe means bringing Russia into the fold, not withdrawing the plans themselves. Russian officials have previously rejected US offers of cooperation as "insufficient", though they have not ruled it out as an option altogether. Since this review has been announced, the Russian government declared a halt to its own plans to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad in response to US missiles in Eastern Europe.
It is also important to remember that US Defense Secretary Robert Gates supports missile "defence" in general and the plans for US interceptors and radars in Europe. In addition, Obama has picked a former Raytheon lobbyist, William Lynn, to serve as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Raytheon is one of the major US missile defence contractors. While Obama previously "vowed to stop the revolving door that lets onetime lobbyists go to work for the Federal Government and oversee contracts that could harm—or help—their former employer," administration officials said the loophole was allowed because Lynn is "uniquely qualified" for the job. Danielle Brian, head of the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group in Washington, pointed out, "While Lynn may be well qualified, it is absurd to argue that he is uniquely qualified. There are plenty of people with far greater business-management experience than that of a lobbyist." Likewise, Time Magazine argues, "the idea that Lynn is 'uniquely qualified'—the White House's language—for the post is simply bogus. The phrase doesn't mean merely good or talented; it means that Lynn, of all the possible candidates for the position, is the only person who could fill it."
3) International Conference on missile "defence" in the Asia Pacific to convene in April
From Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
International Conference against the Asia Pacific Missile Defense and for the End of Arms Race
Seoul, South Korea | 16-18 April 2009
1. Background Information
The 17th annual conference of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space will be held in Seoul, Korea from April 16-18, 2009, under the title of the 2009 International Conference against the Asia Pacific Missile Defense and for the End of Arms Race.
The Korean committee for the conference, lead by the Peace Network (Korean), (English) and Center for Peace and Disarmament, People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (Korean), (English) and is formed by 10 peace organizations is the Co-Sponsor with the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space for this conference.
The signs of a 'new cold war' are brewing as the U.S. pushes ahead with the missile defense (MD) system installations in Eastern Europe against Russia's strong opposition. There is an urgent need for the international civil society to respond against the current rapid arms race in the Asia Pacific where the US leads the Asia Pacific MD efforts, supported strongly by Japan, Australia and South Korea; against the frontline of opposition formed by China, Russia and North Korea.
The MD issue is becoming the core element of the destabilization of peace in Northeast Asia, not to mention the Korean peninsula, especially when the U.S. intends to make South Korea its MD outpost and the Lee Myung Bak government promotes stronger US-South Korea alliance and the US-South Korea-Japan trilateral system formation.
By this great chance, the Korea Committee points out the Korean peace issues within the international peace movement circles, and wants to share international understanding and cooperation about Korean peninsula's peace and reunification issues.
In light of such concerns, holding an international peace conference in South Korea on missile defense and arms race issues will provide an important momentum in bringing the issues pertaining to the Korean peninsula-one of the last divided countries by the cold war in the world- and the North East Asia to the international community and in developing international solidarity.
We, the Korea Committee is already excited and grateful by many international participants' enthusiasm to participate. Above all, we, the Korean Committee welcomes everyone in the world, who wants to share the urgent issues in each country regarding the Missile defense, military base, arms race etc. issues and to promote further international solidarity one another.
2. Summary of the International Conference
Official event dates: April 16 to 18, 2009
- Core issues: MD and space weaponization; Arms race and arms reduction; US bases and the peace movement in Northeast Asia; and global meaning of the peaceful reunification process in Korea etc.
- Main events: International symposium (Seoul), International news conference (Seoul), Visit to Panmunjeom, Peace campaign (Pyeongtaek) and GN annual strategy and business meeting (Seoul)
- Interpretation: International symposium will be translated in Korean and English simultaneously while the other programs will be done consecutively. The GN annual strategy and business meeting will be done in English. For the effective usage of time, we integrated the whole program rather than having separate workshops.
3. Daily events and programs of the GN International Conference(Consecutive Interpretation)
(1). April 16, 2009 (Thursday)
09:00(07:00)-15:00(17:30): International participants trip to Panmunjeom(the symbol of Korean division, http://koreadmztour.com/english/tour/tour2.htm) or Visit to the vicinity of the DMZ(Imjingak, Dorasan observatory etc.)/meeting with activists/cultural event etc as a plan B
18:00-21:00: dinner and entertainment(including the speech by 3~4 GN participants)
(2). April 17, 2009 (Friday): International meeting (Simultaneous interpretation)
9:00-10:00 Foreign and domestic press conference (consecutive translation)
9:45-10:00: Registration
10:00-10:10: Welcome speech (Korean dignitary)
10:10-10:20: Greeting speech (GN Chairman )
10:20-10:40: Keynote speech, "Star Wars (space weaponization), Future Warfare, and the Global Peace" (GN)
10:40-12:20: Plenary session I "MD and the World"
10:40-11:00: The MD policy of the overall and Obama government (USA participant)
11:00-11:20: MD, Europe and the New Cold War including the NATO missile defense(European participant): 11:20-11:40: MD, Arms Race and the Future of the North East Asia(Korean participant):
11:40-12:00: What is the alternative against the MD?: Nuclear Disarmament and Conversion of the Military Industrial Complex(GN participant)
12:00-12:20: Q and A
12:20-14:00: Lunch and break (There will be short presentation(about 4min.) of the slide projection )
14:00-15:20: Plenary session II "Global Anti-War and Peace Movements"
* Each international participant requested to give a ten minute speech on the MD and No US bases movements; and Q&A. The participants from GN are cordially asked to give a speech.
15:20-15:30: Break
15:30-17:00: Plenary session III " Korea, Japan and the Northeast Asia Peace
15:30-16:00: Peace Constitution in Japan and the Northeast Asia Peace (Japanese participant):
16:00-16:30: Korea Peace and Reunification Process and the Northeast Asia Peace (Korean participant): ?
16:30-17:00: Q& A
17:00: Closing the symposium
18:00-21:00: Dinner and Entertainment: includes three Keynote speeches
(3) April 18, 2009 (Saturday) (English)
9:00-12:00: GN Annual Strategy and Business Meeting
12:00-13:00: Lunch
13:00-20:00: visit and rally/ protest in front of the military base in Pyeongtaek (the emerging hub of US military bases in construction) and dinner meeting with the local peace organizations
(4). Official Conference and Stay site
Seoul Women's Plaza, Seoul, from April 15 to April 19(During the given official dates above, no stay cost by the international participants. The Korean Committee is reserving seven western-style two-bed rooms and seven Korean-style two bed rooms except for the special request. The rooms are the building can best afford. Reservation for the first comers, first. The international participant may pay for other nights at low cost or request for the info. of home stay/ other hotels as alternative. Regarding stay, please [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].
4) Pouring water on the fire of military spending
Several articles providing arguments against increased military spending as a reasonable response to the financial crisis have been released recently. All of them point out the counterproductive nature of giving money to the US Department of Defense in order to increase jobs.
In the Washington Times, William Hartung and Christopher Preble argue, "The defense budget is not a jobs program, nor should it be. Decisions on how many Humvees to buy, or how many bases to refurbish, should rest on military necessity, not economic expedience subject to political chicanery."
See William Hartung and Christopher Preble, "Defense Doesn't Need Stimulus," The Washington Times, 28 January 2009.
In CounterPunch, William T. Wheeler notes, "if employment is the aim, it makes more sense to cut defence spending and use the money in programmes that do it better."
See Winslow T. Wheeler, "Save the Economy by Cutting the Defense Budget," CounterPunch, 27 January 2009.
In addition, Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group (LASG) argued in a recent letter, "there could be a temptation, what with very large financial bailouts and large economic stimuli passing and under discussion in Congress, to consider defense spending and Weapons Activities spending in particular as useful forms of economic stimuli. Relative to almost any other use for federal money, they aren't." He goes on to cite a recent study (pdf) "of the relative merits of various forms of fiscal stimulus" done by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier at the University of Massachusetts in 2007, noting, "health care or home weatherization creates about 1.50 times as many jobs as defense spending, education 2.07 times as many, and mass transit 2.31 times as many. Total wages and benefits are also higher."
5) Nobel Laureates send a letter to US President Obama on the abolition of nuclear weapons
On 20 January 2009, twelve Nobel Prize Laureates and a former Under-Secretary General of the United Nations addressed US President Barack Obama on nuclear disarmament. In an open letter, they reminded President Obama of his promise to seek a world in which there are no nuclear weapons. Pointing to the shortfalls of the existing international regime for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, Sir Harold Kroto (Nobel Prize for Chemistry), Member of the Advisory Board of INES, and his co-signers remind Barack Obama of the recent suggestion by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to use the existing Model Nuclear Weapons Convention as a starting point for the path into a nuclear weapons free world.
Letter Text
An initiative of International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES)
International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP)
20 January, 2009
Open Letter to the President of the United States of America Barack Obama
Dear Mr. President,
Much hope has been created in your nation and in the entire world due to your election as President of the United States of America.
We are inspired by your public statements, that you will seek a world in which there are no nuclear weapons. This fundamental change of thinking deserves our full support. We agree that the dangers of existing nuclear arsenals of the five acknowledged nuclear weapon states and the four de-facto nuclear weapon states (more than 100,000 Hiroshima bomb equivalents) as well as the dramatically increasing risks of nuclear proliferation to other states and terrorists require new political concepts and technical approaches. Nuclear weapons are inherently inhumane because they can cause the extinction of all humankind and have long-term genetic and ecological effects.
The world desperately needs a conspicuous signal of commitment and willingness by the nuclear weapon states to eliminate their arsenals as well as a convincing and irreversible plan to achieve a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World, one which can be secured and stabilized against possible new proliferators and which would be enshrined in international law.
We would like to offer our support in helping to conceptualize and elaborate the details of a plan towards this goal meeting the demands for new thinking and for realistically feasible action.
Our proposal today is to start negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention now. The pattern has to be the one which has already been set by the Biological and the Chemical Weapons Conventions – a total ban. A Nuclear Weapons Convention should not be regarded as a premature jump to a distant goal. Instead, it establishes the framework for a logical sequence of steps that ensure the safe transition to the complete disarmament of nuclear weapons in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. The Convention should guarantee the irreversibility of disarmament and security against break-out scenarios by using stringent verification measures, preventive control measures leading to non-accessibility to proliferation-prone nuclear materials and technology.
We would like to encourage you to take the lead in this direction. We believe that the arguments for choosing this path are irrefutable.
We briefly outline a few of these:
• If a smaller number of states continue to possess nuclear weapons and have plans to use them to enforce regional security or their global interests that will certainly increase the perceived "value" of these weapons and thus dangers of proliferation. Steps aiming at only reduced arsenals will not suffice, since there is no permanent stability at low numbers. There are only two options: one is the progression down to zero; in the absence of a serious move to zero, the other option is the spread of nuclear weapons to many nations. Any argument in favour of maintaining nuclearweapons is an unwanted and dangerous support for nuclear weapon related activities in other states. Thus, maintaining the arsenals increases the danger of further spread of these weapons. North Korea and other countries should not be given an excuse by the nuclear-weapons-based rationale of those countries that still maintain nuclear arsenals and doctrines.
• Two decades after the end of the Cold War and four decades after finalization of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the time is ripe for the nuclear weapon states to fully comply with the spirit and letter of NPT Preamble and Article VI. The world has lost trust in the repeated declarations of nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapon states. Instead, the world sees the stabilization and modernisation of nuclear arsenals without fundamental changes and, even worse, that nuclear strategies tend to reduce the threshold to nuclear weapons use.
• We recall the 13 steps noted in the Final Document of the NPT Review Conference of 2000 asking for the abolition of all nuclear arsenals to which all States parties are committed. In particular, we recall the promise of an unequivocal undertaking of the five acknowledged nuclear weapon states for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Further, we recall the globally accepted interpretation of the NPT norms and goals as recorded in the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament objectives of the NPT Review and Extension Conference of 1995. Thus, we as world citizens are awaiting a substantial move from the side of the nuclear weapon states.
• We recall the Advisory Opinion issued on 8 July 1996 by the International Court of Justice on the illegality of the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons. The Court called for a legally binding instrument filling the gap in international law as promised in Article VI of the NPT by negotiating in good faith the global ban of nuclear weapons and bringing the negotiations to a conclusion by a new Treaty.
• A carefully elaborated Model Nuclear Weapons Convention has already been developed and released by NGOs in 1996 and revised in 2007; it was first submitted in 1997 to the UN Secretary-General and in a revised version in 2007. On 18 January 2008, the UN Secretary-General has circulated it as UN Document No. A/62/650 to all UN member States at the request of Costa Rica and Malaysia. On 24 October 2008, United Nations Day, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon gave a landmark speech, entitled "The United Nations and Security in a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World", in which he called on governments to fulfill their nuclear disarmament
obligations. He gave a five-point disarmament plan calling for negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention and recommended the
existing Model Convention to be used as a starting point.
• The NPT might not be the suitable framework for the entire path towards total elimination. First, the NPT has been criticized for its
loopholes allowing further spread of nuclear weapons. Second, the NPT is regarded by many as discriminatory in nature and unjust in practice. Third, the disarmament objective is not elaborated in detail. Further, the NPT can hardly be universalized because the de-facto nuclear weapon states cannot be drawn in by signing the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states. Indeed, there have been encouragements to stay outside such as by the Indo-US nuclear co-operation agreement. Finally, the NPT cannot be sustained when nuclear weapon states give up their status as this is defined in Article IX (3). Thus the Nuclear Weapons Convention would eliminate the contradictions and weaknesses of the NPT and could substantially increase effectiveness against further proliferation.
We know quite well that the Nuclear-Weapon-Free World will not come overnight. We are also aware that other fundamental questions regarding peaceful and just living together of people and nations will be on the agenda when the renouncing of nuclear weapons by their possessors will become reality. However, we are convinced that the process of negotiations has to be started right now. Only then, we can expect to bring in the harvest of this undertaking within the coming ten to twenty years.
Please, act now and take the lead in starting negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The people and nations of the world will follow suit, we are sure.
We hope that we can join you in your efforts towards this challenging goal, which is deeply rooted in our respect to humankind and our planet as well as in our own commitment to humanity.
Sincerely,
Sir Harold Kroto (Nobel Prize for Chemistry)
On behalf of my colleagues who, until January 20, 2009 have also signed this letter:
Mairead Corrigan-Maguire (Nobel Peace Prize)
Paul Crutzen (Nobel Prize for Chemistry)
Jayantha Dhanapala (former Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament
Affairs at the United Nations)
Dudley Herschbach (Nobel Prize for Chemistry)
International Peace Bureau (Noble Peace Prize)
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (Nobel Peace Prize)
Jerome Karle (Nobel Prize for Chemistry)
Wolfgang Ketterle (Nobel Prize for Physics)
Wangari Maathai (Nobel Peace Prize)
Erwin Neher (Nobel Prize for Medicine)
John Polanyi (Nobel Prize for Chemistry)
Jack Steinberger (Nobel Prize for Physics)
For more information, please contact:
Prof. Dr. Harry Kroto, Member of the Advisory Board of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES)
c/o INES, Glinkastrasse 5, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 30-20 65 38 31; Fax: +49 (0) 30- 21 23 40 57
[email protected], www.inesglobal.co
6) IANSA Women's Network to address connections between HIV/AIDS and small arms
From the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) Women's Network, Bulletin No. 17, January 2009
The 53rd session of the Commission on the Status of Women will be held at the United Nations headquarters in New York from 2-13 March 2009. The priority theme is 'The equal sharing of responsibilities between women and men, including care giving in the context of HIV/AIDS'.
IANSA women will be making the connection between small arms and HIV/AIDS, and how small arms fuel conflicts that contribute to forced migration, infectious disease, and psychological trauma. Sexual violence at gunpoint poses high risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
Sexual violence and exploitation, all too common in conflict and post-conflict settings, contribute to increased rates of HIV transmission. Rape by an infected man directly exposes a woman to the virus, and the abrasions or tearing of vaginal tissues that may result, increase their risk of infection even more.
In some conflicts the planned and purposeful infection of women with HIV becomes a tool of ethnic warfare. Some HIV-infected rape survivors may become pregnant as a result of the assault, bearing children who will eventually become AIDS orphans or succumb to the disease themselves.
There are many important dynamics involved in HIV transmission, including ongoing displacement and poverty which create environments that place women at risk. Internally displaced women face additional dangers as they are often invisible to the international community within the context of violent conflict.
Camps for refugees and the internally displaced have been criticised for not addressing women's needs and concerns in their design and procedures. Failure to account for women's security and health needs can make a camp intended to provide refuge a dangerous and deadly place for women and girls.
"Wars and armed conflicts generate fertile conditions for the spread of HIV. Rape inside or outside refugee camps has doubtless played a part in spreading the virus." UNAIDS
Small arms proliferation may also force governments to focus a majority of their efforts on defense and security measures, leaving them with few resources to cope with the health effects of gun violence, or deal with HIV/AIDS.
Even as conflicts subside, the extremely difficult economic and social conditions that follow often leave many people unemployed and unable to resume their normal community or family lives. In such situations, where AIDS is already a problem, women bear the largest burden of care for family members. Thus, women are not only uniquely at risk of HIV contraction during and after conflicts; they also bear a disproportionate amount of the burden of caring for family members with HIV/AIDS.
HIV/AIDS is not only a health issue: it is a social issue. Girls and women who have been raped and/or captured are often blamed for their fate. Therefore impact of conflict and HIV/AIDS on women and girls' affects their social status and can lead to further violence.
The review theme of the CSW "Equal participation of women and men in decision making processes at all levels" adopted at the 50th session of the CSW will be discussed through an interactive dialogue. IANSA will participate as part of the NGO Working Group (NGO WG) on Women Peace and Security and link the issue of gun violence with women's peace and security, to ensure that women's participation in disarmament processes and the development of small arms policy and practice are clearly included in issues of 1325 implementation, and in advocacy around 1325 National Action Plans.
For more information, see:
Commission on the Status of Women
www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw
HIV/AIDS, Conflict and Displacement
UNICEF and UNHCR, 2006
http://data.unaids.org
IANSA Women's Network
http://www.iansa.org/women/