Text fwd: INDIA AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS

IINDIA AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
BY J. Narayana Rao.
General Secretary , All India Peace &Solidarity Organization
Maharashtra State Committee, INDIA.
----------

After US dropped Nuclear Weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Aug 1945, killing lakhs of people and destroying both the citities the entire mankind was appauled and horrified at this barbaric and inhuman act.

Mahatma Gandhi expressed his anguish on the barbarity through a statement published in “Harijan” a journal which he used to edit and publish during the freedom struggle. On September 29, 1946 he wrote that “I regard the employment of the atom bomb for the whole sale destruction of men, women and children as the most diabolical use of Science”. In unequivocal terms Mahatma Gandhi condemned the use of Atomic Weapons to kill people. This is not only a reflection of his philosophy of non-violence but a total disapproval of the use of science for killing human beings to such a magnitude.

Sensing that the madness of Nuclear Proliferation Gandhiji advocated that non-violence should become an integral part of human society. Subsequently Gandhiji expressed that “unless the world adopts non-violence, this will spell certain suicide for humanity. I hold that those who invented the atomic bomb have committed the gravest sin”. Thus Gandhiji expressed his total disapproval of producing and using atomic weapons.

When Mrs. Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister of India,on 18.05.1974 the first nuclear test was conducted at Pokharan in the State of Rajasthan. That event code named as ‘Buddha has smiled. It was a great humiliation for the memory of a great person who lived for Peace & Non-violence. Then it was declared that this explosion was for peaceful purposes and India had no intention to produce Nuclear Weapons. From 1974 till 1998 India remained a non-nuclear country.

NUCEAR NON-PROLIFERATION:

Late Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi, made a fervent and passionate appeal against nuclear weapons in his speech on June 9,1988 in the United Nations General Assembly. He demolished every argument in support of the nuclear weapons in a splendidly articulated address. He expressed that “It is a dangerous delusion to believe that nuclear weapons have brought us peace. It is true that in the past four decades, parts of the world have experienced an absence of war. But a mere absence of war is not a durable peace. The balance of Nuclear terror rests on the retention and augmentation of nuclear armories. He assailed the concept of nuclear deterrence by saying that “nuclear deterrence is the ultimate expression of the philosophy of terrorism, holding humanity hostage to the presumed security needs of a few”.
Rajiv Gandhi stood for a nonviolent world order, free of nuclear weapons. He concluded his address to the U.N general Assembly by saying that “the battle for peace, disarmament and development must be waged both within this Assembly and outside by the people of the world. This battle should be waged in cooperation with scientists, strategic thinkers and leaders of peace movements who have repeatedly demonstrated their commitment to those ideals. We, therefore, seek their cooperation in securing the commitment of all nations and all peoples to the goal of non-violent order free of nuclear weapons.

INDIA GOES NUCLEAR:

Unfortunately Rajiv Gandhi was assasinated and after his death India could’t stick to Nuclear Non-Proliferation. When the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party under the Prime Ministership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee came to power, on May 11,1998 India tested three nuclear devices and on May 13,1998 two more were tested .Thus India became the sixth country to join the Nuclear Club. It was declared immediately that “India will not be first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail”.

There are different estimates regarding the number of Nuclear Weapons which are in the possession of India now. According to the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission headed by Hans Blix, there are about 50 Nuclear Weapons with India. According to another estimate India has produced enough weapons grade plutonium for 50-90 more nuclear weapons and an unknown quantity of weapons grade uranium.

WHY INDIA BECAME NUCLEAR:

Why India tested Nuclear Weapons in 1998,when, even prior to Independence in 1948,prominent leaders of India were advocating against Nuclear Weapons. Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi have expressed in un-equivocal terms against Nuclear Weapons and wanted that Nuclear weapons should be banned. The May 1998 tests were conducted by the NDA Government and not by the Congress Government. Relations with two important neighbouring countries were not so good. There was a war with China in 1962 and India and Pakistan fought on the issue of Kashmir thrice. China has border claims on some Indian territory including Arunachalpradesh one of the North East States of India. But the relations between India and China are steadily improving.

Do the difference between India and China and India &Pakistan justify India possessing Nuclear Weapons. But ever since China tested a Nuclear Weapon in 1964 for what ever reasons, a section of the Political leadership of India is inching for India to become Nuclear since then.This ambition was fulfilled when the NDA Government came to power in 1998.Even after a new Government headed by the Congress Party came to power there is no change towards nuclearisation and the Nuclear Weapons have become part of the Indian weaponary system.

INDIA&CTBT.

From the beginning India was linking the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(CTBT) with total ban on nuclear weapons. Ban on testing should ultimately lead to ban nuclear weapons. Former Prime Minister of India Morarji Desai put forth a proposal in the U.N. General Assembly on 9 June 1978 containing (1) A declaration that utilization of nuclear technology for military purposes, including research in weapons technology should be outlawed.(2) Qualitative and quantitative limitations on nuclear weapons and an immediate freeze under international inspection (3) Formulation of a time bound program not exceeding a decade for gradual reduction of the stockpile with a view to achieving total elimination of all nuclear weapons and (4) A comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to be adopted. The Indian stand was a Comprehensive Test Ban should be part of a comprehensive agreement on total ban on Nuclear Weapons.
The first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru realized as early as in 1954 after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with Atomic Weapons in August 1945 that the new weapon if not prohibited, many countries will try to acquire these weapons. Nehru wrote in 1954 that “fear would grow and grip nations and peoples and each would try frenetically to get this new weapon or some adequate protection from it” and Nehru recognized that “a dominating factor in the modern world is this prospect of these terrible weapons suddenly coming into use before which our normal weapons are completely useless”.

India mooted several proposals which were much more useful than the CTBT. When Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister, in 1982 India proposed a convention on no use or threat to use of nuclear weapons, a freeze on the manufacture of nuclear weapons, combined with a cut-off in the production of fissionable material for weapons purpose.

Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi proposed an action plan in 1988.The salient features of this plan were that (1)Nuclear Weapon States were to cease production of nuclear weapons and weapons grade fissile material;(2) a CTBT Convention outlawing the use and threat to use of nuclear weapons were to be concluded and (3)transfer of weapons, delivery systems and weapon grade fissionable material were to cease and (4) non nuclear weapon powers would not acquire nuclear weapons.

INDO US NUCLERA DEAL:

Article 9 of the Indo-US 123 Nuclear Deal for peaceful use of nuclear energy prohibits “Nuclear material, equipment and components transferred pursuant to this Agreement and nuclear material and by-product material used in or produced through the use of any nuclear material, equipment, and components so transferred shall not be used by the recipient party for any nuclear explosive device, for research on or development of any nuclear explosive device or for any military purpose”.

This Article does’t interfere with using domestic fissile material for producing nuclear weapons. The Uranium that will be now imported can completely go for power generation and the domestic product can be fully diverted for nuclear weapon production. This will augment the Nuclear Weapons stock in the Country.

INDIA AND NPT:

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is linked with elimination of Nuclear Weapons ultimately. But inspite of this treaty is in existence since 1968,for want of unanimity on how and when Nuclear Weapons can be eliminated, there is no progress in implementing the objectives of this treaty. The position of India is that it is either NPT or CTBT elimination of Nuclear Weapons should be targeted. India during the time of the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proposed as early as in 1954 that the Nuclear Testing should be stopped. India refused to sign the NPT since this treaty is not leading to ending the nuclear weapons and it devides the country into two groups; Nuclear Weapon Countries and non Nuclear Weapon Countries. India wants a universal and comprehensive non-proliferation treaty. But the treaty allowed possession and multiplication of nuclear stockpiles by some countries.

In 1982 India proposed a convention to ban nuclear weapons and it was reiterated in 1988 during the U.N Special session on Disarmament. In a scathing attack on the previliged position of some countries to hold nuclear weapons indefinitely while others are being pressurized not to be nuclear in the name of non-proliferation, Rajiv Gandhi the then Prime Minister of India, in a speech in the UN argued that “we cannot accept the logic that few nations have the right to pursue their security by threatening the survival of mankind nor is it acceptable that those possess nuclear weapons are free of all controls while those without nuclear weapons are policed against their production. History is full of such prejudices paraded as iron laws. That men are superior to women; that white races are superior to the coloured; that colonialism is a civilizing mission; and that those who possess nuclear weapons are responsible powers and those who do not are not”.

The content of the NPT has not changed inspite of many review meetings and the stand of India has also not changed and screwed to the logic of late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. India has got a holistic approach regarding abolition of Nuclear Weapons, CTBT and NPT. What is lacking is India’s initiative in the international arena to press for it’s stand. After Rajiv Gandhi’s address in the UN General Assembly on June 9,1988 India has not tried to press the big powers who are holding the maximum number of weapons to accept a time bound programme for abolition of Nuclear Weapons while some other countries are taking initiatives in this. The voice of India has become dormant. India has forsaken the idea of Rajiv Gandhi to wage the battle for peace, disarmament and development in cooperation with scientists, strategic thinkers and leaders of the peace movement.

Text fwd: [From India] NORTH KOREA’S NUCLEAR BLAST

NORTH KOREA’S NUCLEAR BLAST
BY J.NARAYANA RAO
GENERAL SECRETARY ALL INDIA PEACE & SOLIDARITY ORGANISATION
MAHARASHTRA STATE COMMITTEE, NAGPUR

On 25 May 2009 North Korea conducted the Second Nuclear Test after the first which was conducted on October 9, 2006. A howl of condemnation mostly from those countries which are clinging to Nuclear weapons is being trumpeted. President Barack Obama of US says that “North Korea’s Nuclear and Ballistic Missile programmes pose a grave threat to the peace and security of the world and I strongly condemn their reckless action’.

What ever may be the circumstances which forced North Korea to conduct this test including to defend itself , at this juncture the action of North Korea cannot be appreciated. US never reconciled l to the existence of North Korea. But for the support it got from the former USSR and China and the third world countries North Korea must have been obliterated from the face of the earth by US long back. US is the main obstacle for the unification of Korea. People of both the Koreas ardently desire for the unification. US is is still maintaining more than 35,000 soldiers in South Korea after the Armstic Agreement. North Korea ever since it came into existence is living under constant fear of being invaded by US. While South Korea made tremendous economic progress North Korea is diverting all it’s resources for defence.

The Nuclear Nations are united in not only damning North Korea but also bent upon some action against it using the United Nations Security Council. The Nuclear Nations, US, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan and Israel have no moral authority to condemn North Korea. They are sinners who are keeping Nuclear Weapons against several UN Resolutions including the NPT. Only the Non-Nuclear Nations and the International Peace Movements alone can express anguish against North Korea’s Nuclear Test.

NPT came into existence more than 41 years ago in the year 1968. Article VI of the NPT states that “Each of the Parties to the Treaty under takes to pursue negotiations in good faith on affective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament ,and a on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control’.

In every NPT Review Conference the US was the obstacle for any progress in implementation of the NPT. US has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(CTBT). US never spoke against Israel acquiring Nuclear Weapons . If countries like India and Pakistan feel that they the have ground for possessing Nuclear Weapons and the UNO Security Council is not discomforted with these countries possessing Nuclear Weapons why can’t North Korea or any other country cannot have Nuclear Weapons.

US basing on it’s hegemonic behavior, while not doing any thing to abolish Nuclear Weapons and work for an international treaty to disarm the existing countries which are in possession of Nuclear Weapons, it always harps on countries like North Korea, Iran should’t test any Nuclear Weapons. It is interesting to note what the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission headed by Hans Blix in it’s report submitted to the UN General Secretary in June 2006 states that “some current setbacks in treaty based arms control and disarmament can be traced to a pattern in US policy that is called some ‘selective multilataralism’ an increased sceptism regarding the affectiveness of international institutions and instruments coupled with a drive for freedom of action to maintain an absolute global superiority in weaponary and means of their delivery”.

This statement from such a high power committee is an indictment of the attitude of the US in not agreeing to abolish Nuclear Weapons.

When the issue of the illegality and the threat or use of Nuclear Weapons was before the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion as sought by the UN General Assembly the Court unanimously expressed that “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nulclear disarment in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”. At that time Before the International Court of Justice the US justified use of Nuclear Weapons when it stated that “The United States has long taken the position that various principles of International Law of armed conflict would apply to the use of Nuclear Weapons as well as to other means and methods of war fare . This in no way means ,however, that the use of nuclear weapons is precluded by the law of war”.

This justification of US for the use of Nuclear Weapons applies not only for US itself but also for all countries . US is the only country to use Nuclear Weapons, and conducted the highest number of tests. Therefore there is no justification for howling against the Nuclear Test by North Korea.

Notwithstanding to the fact that nothing prevents North Korea conducting a Nuclear Test while other countries doing the same including India and Pakistan, the question is whether to defend and protect 20,000,000 of it’s people does North Korea needs Nuclear Weapons. There are many countries ruled by Communist Parties like Vietnam,Cuba etc are able to survive and achieve economic progress without Nuclear Weapons. Almost the entire continent of Latin America is opting for socialism by electing leaders committed to socialism. Do these countries which always attract US wrath should opt for Nuclear Tests.

Thanks to the p0licy of militarization, the economic development of North Korea is lymping. South Korea and all other countries around North Korea have made significant economic progress, North Korea must realize that it has got a responsibility to provide a comfortable living to its people .It is high time that North Korea should come out of the Nuclear Syndrome.There is no meaning in loosing the support and good will of the supporters and friends including countries like Russia and China.
------------

Text Fwd: [SPARK Statement] on the North Korea's Nuclear Weapon Test

* Image source: same as below.

* Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea on May 26, 2009

(Translatation by No Base Sories of Korea and Agatha Haun)

Original Korean site: http://spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_news3&action=viewForm&uid=1064&page=1

The United States should promptly take steps to abolish its hostile policies toward North Korea and to support the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula!

On May 25, North Korea conducted its second nuclear weapon test. It was anticipated as the reaction to the UN Security Council's denunciation of North Korea's recent launching of a satellite and to the sanctions against North Korea. The tension and the confrontation surrounding the Korean peninsula have intensified since the UN Security Council again proceeded to criticize North Korea's action and to impose sanctions.

We who aspire to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the abolition of nuclear weapons in the rest of the world urge the international community to use this event as the first stepping stone toward promptly bringing about denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the whole world. We don’t want to see a deterioration of the relations between the United States and North Korea, which would mean the worst political outcome for the Korean peninsula. The countries involved in the tension on the Korean peninsula must respond in a sober and realistic manner.

Past experience shows that sanctions and pressure against North Korea do nothing to solve the problems, but rather worsen the situation. We also want to point out that the Obama administration’s “benign neglect” is only an irresponsible way to avoid seriously confronting and settling the North Korean nuclear issue. Therefore, the United States and other concerned countries, particularly those involved in the 6-Party talks, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Russia, should not seek to solve the problem by having the UN Security Council impose sanctions against North Korea, but rather by actively engaging in dialogue to deal with the North Korean nuclear issue. It is needless to say that North Korea's real intention, first and last, is to send the message that it wants dialogue with the United States, on the basis of equality and mutual respect.

If both countries, the United States and North Korea, act in good faith to seek an equitable settlement of the North Korean nuclear issue, according to the principle of "action for action", through the process of equal and fair negotiation, it is possible to achieve rapid and positive results. There is a precedent for this approach, which proves that such results can be achieved: in October 2000, the landmark agreement known as the "Joint Communique*" between the United States and Korea was concluded, providing for the establishment of a structure of peace on the Korean peninsula .

If the US renounces its hostile policy against North Korea, a peace agreement is concluded on the basis of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, and normal relations are established between the United States and North Korea, according to the terms of the Joint Communique, the way for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula will open very quickly and easily. The United States has no need to be afraid of dialogue or reluctant to enter into negotiations. The time for confrontation and conflict is past. This current situation presents the countries concerned with an opportunity to begin a new phase in their relationship.

[ Workers World Editorial] On the North Korea Nuclear Weapon Test

* Workers World
EDITORIAL
Korea’s defense & U.S. belligerence
Published May 27, 2009 1:15 PM

Anyone in the United States who pays attention to the corporate news media must think that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea just violated the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Right?

Except that no such treaty exists.

Some 180 countries have signed it, but only 148 have ratified it. According to the Web site of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, “All 44 States specifically listed in the Treaty—those with nuclear technology capabilities at the time of the final Treaty negotiations in 1996—must sign and ratify before the CTBT can enter into force.” (ctbto.org)

Nine out of those 44 nuclear states have not ratified the treaty, despite having signed it some 13 years ago. Therefore, the treaty is not and has never been in force.

The government that seems to protest the most when a country like the DPRK conducts tests sits in Washington. But guess what? The U.S. Senate has not ratified the treaty. In fact, it is Washington’s refusal that is the main obstacle to the CTBT treaty taking effect.

The U.S. tested the world’s first atomic bombs in 1945 and almost immediately dropped two of them on Japanese cities, killing 220,000 people on the spot and leaving another 200,000 so poisoned by radiation that they died soon after. From that time until it signed the treaty in 1996, the U.S. had tested 1,032 nuclear weapons.

That is more nuke tests than have been carried out by all the rest of the countries in the world combined, right up to the present.

So how can the world have any confidence in a nuclear test ban treaty if the country that has tested such a hugely disproportionate number of weapons won’t ratify it?

The DPRK has successfully conducted two underground tests of nuclear devices, one in 2006 and another on May 25. It has not dropped any bombs on anyone. In fact, its troops have never fought anywhere except in Korea, and then it was to expel foreign invaders.

The DPRK’s determination to devote substantial resources to building a nuclear deterrent reflects Korea’s tragic history. First invaded and annexed by colonial Japan, then occupied by U.S. troops at the end of World War II, Korea suffered enormously from the rise of imperialism in the 20th century.

The U.S. created a puppet military dictatorship in the south, which in 1948 declared itself the Republic of Korea. It was only then that the revolutionary forces, who had liberated the northern part of Korea from Japan’s iron grip, responded by declaring the establishment of the DPRK, not as a permanent state that would ratify the division of Korea, but as a recognition of reality. The goal of the DPRK, and of the Korean people as a whole, has always been to reunite the country. Within two years, however, the DPRK was fighting a new war against imperialist invaders—this time hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops.

Several million Koreans, civilians and soldiers, were killed in the 1950-53 war. Some 53,000 U.S. soldiers died. Though the war ended in a ceasefire with the two sides roughly where they had been at the start, the U.S. occupiers of southern Korea refused to sign a peace treaty with the DPRK. And that’s where things have stood ever since, with between 30,000 and 40,000 U.S. troops occupying the south at any one time.

Many countries—first among them the United States—have declared they had to have nuclear weapons for self-defense. None has a stronger claim to a nuclear deterrent than the DPRK, which for more than half a century has faced the constant threat of new aggression from the world’s most heavily armed imperialist superpower.

If Washington were sincere about wanting to move toward a nuclear-free world, it would start by signing a peace treaty with the DPRK, ratifying the CTBT and removing its occupation troops from Korea.
Articles copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

Text Fwd: WILPF Statement on the North Korea Nuclear Weapon test

* Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
May 26, 2009
WILPF Response to the Nuclear Weapons Test of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)

The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) is deeply concerned by and condemns the nuclear weapon test conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at GMT 0054 on 25 May 2009. This test shows the urgent need for the rapid entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a powerful shift from security strategies relying on nuclear weapons to those predicated on collective human security.

If the CTBT were in force, an on-site inspection could quickly determine whether the seismic event recorded in the DPRK was indeed a nuclear explosion and if so, its precise characteristics. The Treaty would also give greater legitimacy to international responses. The Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), Tibor Tóth, has deplored the DPRK’s action as “a serious violation of the norm established by the [CTBT] and as such deserves universal condemnation.” If the Treaty were in force, its member states could adopt sanctions against the DPRK for violating international law. Currently, the task of coordinating an international response falls to the UN Security Council, a body not entitled to enforce international norms per se, but an unrepresentative political body dominated by the interests of its five permanent, veto-wielding members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The UN Security Council has issued a presidential statement and is currently preparing another resolution, following on Resolution 1718, which was issued after the first DPRK test in October 2006. Yet two of the permanent Security Council members, China and the United States, have not yet ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. WILPF calls on all states outside the CTBT- China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, United States, India, Pakistan and the DPRK - to sign and ratify without delay or conditions and to make unilateral declarations of their commitments to a nuclear weapon test moratorium until national level processes for ratification are complete.

All nuclear explosions, in fact all nuclear materials, leave a radioactive legacy for thousands of generations. The exposure of the population, the water, and the land of the Korean Peninsula to this legacy is irresponsible and immoral. The people of Kilju likely had no warning and will suffer from the legacy of this test. Women in particular have suffered from the long-lived mutagenic and tetragenic effects of nuclear weapons tests. The long-term impacts of nuclear testing are so great to all those living near test sites that the French Government has recently acknowledged the harm it caused by testing in the South Pacific and is offering compensation for its nuclear testing victims. WILPF calls on all states possessing nuclear weapons to immediately shut down their nuclear test facilities and to acknowledge and compensate the victims of their testing programmes.

The DPRK first got its nuclear technology while party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)- wherein it agreed to never acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for the assistance, materials, and technology to develop nuclear energy. When the government of the DPRK withdrew from the NPT, and did not return the nuclear technology it had acquired from Treaty-related cooperative agreements, it abused the grand bargain of the Treaty and demonstrated the proliferation risks associated with the development of nuclear energy. Every nuclear energy facility is a bomb waiting to happen, whether through an accident like the one at Chernobyl, or by providing the raw materials to make these horrible weapons. WILPF calls on all states to join the International Renewable Energy Agency and develop clean, safe, sustainable energy technology while shifting away from the environmental and proliferation risks of nuclear energy.

The communiqué issued on North Korean Radio, which stated that this test was “part of measures to enhance the Republic’s self-defensive nuclear deterrent in all directions” highlights the urgency for other states- both those who possess nuclear weapons and those who rely on the nuclear umbrella of other states- to reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons in their security strategies and to immediately abandon the failed concept of nuclear deterrence. As the Canberra Commission said in 1996, “So long as any state has even one nuclear weapon, it is inevitable that other states -- or even non-state actors -- will try to get them.” WILPF calls on all states to eliminate the reliance on nuclear weapons from their security strategies and to effectively negotiate the elimination of the weapons themselves.

While the DPRK communiqué stated that this test would “contribute to safeguard the sovereignty of the country,” WILPF recognizes that the only true way to contributing to anyone’s safety and sovereignty is to move from a unilateral and isolationist security paradigm to one of cooperative and collective human security.


WILPF 1, rue de Varembé, Case Postale 28, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 919 7080 /Fax: 7081
To contact the website manager, send an email to web@wilpf.ch

Text Fwd: "The News on Nukes" by Frida Berrigan

Text fwd by Max Obuszewski and Frank Cordaro on May 8, 2009

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6106
Friday, May 8, 2009 Foreign Policy in Focus

The News on Nukes
by Frida Berrigan berrigan@newamerica.net

It's not on the front pages of what is left of U.S. newspapers. The
headlines are dominated by violence in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and
Iraq, by Miss America's semi-nude photo scandal, and by the Chrysler
fiasco. But just about everyone who is anyone is talking about nuclear
weapons this week.

At the United Nations, representatives from the world's 190 or so
nations are meeting (in typical fashion) to prepare to meet. The
preparatory meeting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is
taking place the first two weeks of May to get ready for the Review
Conference of the Treaty, which will happen next year. Closer to home
this week, Congress heard from its Congressional Commission on the
Strategic Posture of the United States. And the Department of Energy
released its budget for 2010 requesting $6.4 billion for nuclear
weapons programs out of an overall budget of $26.4 billion.

In all of this nuclear attention, there is good, bad and mixed news,
all of which is taking place against the background of President
Barack Obama's historic Prague speech, in which he pledged to work for
a world free of nuclear weapons. The president also identified
immediate, concrete measures toward that goal, including negotiating a
new treaty with Russia involving deep cuts in our respective nuclear
arsenals; seeking ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT); accelerating spending designed to eliminate "loose nukes" and
bomb-making materials (plutonium and enriched uranium) in Russia and
beyond; and ending all new production of bomb-making materials
worldwide.

The Good News

Over the last eight years, the United States all but dropped out of
the NPT process. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty entered into
force in 1970. It sets up a bargain between the nations that possessed
nuclear weapons at the time - the United States, the Soviet Union,
France, China, and the United Kingdom - and the rest of the world.
While nuclear-haves work to dismantle their arsenals, the
nuclear-have-nots won't pursue nuclear weapons programs. The carrot in
the mix was the "peace atom:" allowing non-nuclear states access to
nuclear technologies for energy.

The NPT regime has been under assault by the slow pace of nuclear
disarmament and the spike in nuclear proliferation outside the treaty
by Israel, India, North Korea, and Pakistan. Iran appears to be close
behind, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission warns that as
many as a dozen other nations have the ability to develop nuclear
weapons capabilities within the next decade.

Given all of this, there was palpable relief following Assistant
Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller's presentation at the 2009
preparatory meeting, which began on Monday, May 4th. The head of the
U.S. delegation read a message from Obama in which he reaffirmed the
U.S. commitment to the treaty and called for collaboration, saying,
"we must define ourselves not by our differences, but by our readiness
to pursue dialogue and hard work to ensure the NPT continues to make
an enduring contribution to international peace and security."
Gottemoeller then described U.S. support for the each of the three
pillars of the Treaty: disarmament, nonproliferation, and nuclear
energy. Perhaps most dramatically, she called on all countries to
abide by the NPT, singling out India, Pakistan, Israel, and North
Korea by name as nations not in compliance with the treaty, and
calling the development of effective consequences for treaty violators
a priority. Her statement and full participation in the meetings
stands in marked contrast to the track record over the last eight
years, and signals U.S. seriousness about international cooperation.

The Mixed News

Congress gave a blue ribbon collection of strategic sages - former
lawmakers and nuclear laboratory directors, retired Pentagon and
Department of Energy officials, and representatives from research
institutions like the National Institute for Public Policy - the task
of examining the long-term strategic posture of the United States and
making recommendations about what the future shape of that posture
should be. Those recommendations were released this week in a 360-page
report.

While nothing in the report purports to set policy for the Obama
administration, the commission's recommendations will be taken into
consideration as the administration begins work on its Nuclear Posture
Review scheduled to be released late this year or early next year.
Read with an eye towards the future of nuclear policy, against the
backdrop of Obama's pledge to seek a world free of nuclear weapons,
the report offers up a somewhat confused picture. On the one hand, the
commission acknowledges the "final abolition of nuclear weapons" as a
goal and asserts that the use of nuclear weapons should be a
"defensive last resort." It also observes that the "moment appears
ripe for a renewal of arms control." The Bush administration's nuclear
posture asserted the possibility of a first use of nuclear weapons,
failed to mention abolition, and as a rule took a dim view of arms
control regimes.

But on the other side of the ledger, the commission couldn't reach
consensus on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - seen by the rest of
the world as a critical litmus test of the U.S. commitment to eventual
nuclear disarmament. Just as alarming, within the context of promoting
a "lead and hedge" policy, in which the United States simultaneously
leads disarmament efforts and maintains a strategic hedge of nuclear
weapons, the commission asserts the necessity of the nuclear
laboratories' warhead "life extension program," calling on the
laboratories to maintain the ability to design new nuclear weapons.
This can be understood as a back door to new weapons designs because
the nuclear labs have used "life extension" to introduce new design
elements into at least two types of nuclear warheads. In the same
vein, the commission's urging that the labs maintain their weapons
design capabilities opens the door to billions of dollars in spending
on a veritable wish-list of high-tech computer modeling, lasers,
imaging systems, and new facilities.

The Bad News

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced his department's budget
requests for fiscal year 2010. Amid a lot of fanfare about renewable
resources and sustainability was a Bush-like $6.4 billion for the
National Nuclear Security Administration's continued work on nuclear
weapons technologies, facilities, and designs.

This request is in line with the NNSA's longer term plans for
upgrading the nuclear weapons complex over the next two decades, an
endeavor that could cost tens and tens of billions of dollars. Besides
being expensive, the plan for so-called Complex Transformation was
crafted during the Bush administration, and is obsolete now that the
Obama administration has pledged to dramatically accelerate the
reduction of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. A $6 billion-plus budget for
moving forward on nuclear weapons research and development while
negotiating for nuclear nonproliferation and pledging a
nuclear-weapons-free world sends mixed signals to allies, provides
political cover to adversaries, and makes it more difficult to
persuade Iran and North Korea to roll back their nuclear programs.

Another Chance

Obama cannot unilaterally get rid of all the United States nuclear
weapons tomorrow - even if that's what he wanted to do.

But he can halt these expensive and short-sighted nuclear weapons
plans with a stroke of his pen when the budget comes back to him in a
few months. In that way, he can reconcile the U.S. nuclear weapons
budget and U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

And that would be good news from Washington for the whole world.

© 2009 Foreign Policy in Focus

Frida Berrigan

[1] is a Senior Program Associate at the New America Foundation's Arms
and Security Initiative
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/american_strategy/arms_security

[2] (ASI). She is a columnist for Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.fpif.org/

[3] and a contributing editor at In These Times. The recently released
Weapons at War 2008: Beyond the Bush Legacy
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/u_s_weapons_war_2008_0

[4], co-authored by Berrigan and William D. Hartung, is an examination
of U.S. weapons sales and military aid to developing nations, conflict
zones, and nations where human rights are not safeguarded.


------------------------------

-----

And the daughter of our beloved friends Phil Berrigan and Liz
McAlsiter and raised at Jonah House http://www.jonahhouse.org/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "STRATCom / Offutt AFB List" group.
To post to this group, send email to Offitt-list-one@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Offitt-list-one+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Offitt-list-one?hl=en

Text Fwd: Obama Goes Ahead With Missile Defense Shield Despite Disarmament Pledge

* Image source/ caption*
Saem as the forwarded article below

Mr Obama also spoke of the potential for a rapprochement with Iran Photo: GETTY

* Text fwd from Bruce Gagnon on April 6, 2009*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5110918/Barack-Obama-goes-ahead-with-missile-defence-shield-despite-disarmament-pledge.html
Monday, April 6, 2009, The Telegraph in the UK
Obama Goes Ahead With Missile Defense Shield Despite Disarmament Pledge

The United States would continue to develop a missile defence shield until Iran abandoned its nuclear ambitions, President Barack Obama said in the Czech Republic.

by Toby Harnden and Bruno Waterfield

"As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defence system that is cost-effective and proven," he told a crowd of about 20,000 gathered in Hradcany Square, next to Prague Castle.

"Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbours and our allies."

He hailed the "courageous" Czech Republic and Poland for "agreeing to host a defence against these missiles". Russia is strongly opposed to radar stations for a missile defence shield being established in countries that it still regarded as within its sphere of influence.

But Mr Obama also spoke of the potential for a rapprochement with Iran that would remove the need for such a system.

"If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defence construction in Europe will be removed."
Tehran, he said, had a choice. "We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That is a path that the Islamic Republic can take."

The centrepiece of Mr Obama's speech was a declaration that because the United States had dropped two atom bombs on Japan in 1945 it had a "moral responsibility" to work towards securing "a world without nuclear weapons".

He said nuclear weapons were the "most dangerous legacy of the Cold War" and the risk of a nuclear attack had never been greater because "terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one".

The crowd enthusiastically cheered the more idealistic parts of Mr Obama's speech but was relatively subdued when he spoke about his backing for missile defence.

Petr Sramek, 33, was among those disappointed that Mr Obama had not dropped a policy that was opposed by more than two thirds of Czechs.

"I really liked the clear message on nuclear disarmament but I am against the missile defence system. It is more about geopolitical influence then defence against missiles."

Arena Protivinska, 30, described herself as a "big fan" of Mr Obama but accused him of "hypocrisy" for urging world peace while also pushing forward with the missile shield.

"He sounded like George W Bush saying that we should be afraid in order to justify missile defence."

Speaking in a city chosen for the symbolism of its peaceful toppling of communism through the Velvet Revolution of 1989, Mr Obama denounced "fatalism" over nuclear proliferation and said he would lead a global effort to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons.

"As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act," he said. "We cannot succeed in this endeavour alone, but we can lead it.

"So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment and desire to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."

Mr Obama called for a reduction of the role of nuclear weapons in American national security strategy. He wanted to negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia - to which Moscow agreed in principle last week - and was seeking a treaty to end the production of fissile materials used in nuclear weapons.

He also announced that the US would host a global summit on nuclear security next year and that he would work to ratify the nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1999 but rejected by the US Senate.

He strongly condemned North Korea over its rocket launch, which came hours before his speech. He said Pyongyang had to be called to account. "This provocation underscores the need for action, not just at the UN Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons," he said. "Rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."

Mr Obama's reference to the atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing as many as 220,000, was part of his effort to rebuild bridges with the world by promising, as he said in Strasbourg, "to listen to learn and to learn" and to acknowledge American failings.

Gary Samore, a White House adviser on arms control, indicated that Mr Obama's call for ridding the world of nuclear weapons should not be taken too literally. "In terms of a nuclear-free world, we recognise this is not a near-term possibility," he said. Rather, the call was an attempt to "seize the moral high ground" in order to increase pressure on countries such as North Korea and Iran.

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog)