NEWSLETTER 35
November 2001
OO Preventing a terrorist mushroom cloud -- David Krieger
The images of the hijacked planes crashing into the World Trade Center are nightmare images of unspeakable horror that will forever be a part of our reality. Imagine, however, another nightmare – that of a mushroom cloud rising over an American city. This is a threat we can no longer ignore. Perhaps today citizens and leaders alike will better understand the seriousness of the nuclear threat.
OO Seven steps to improving US and global security -- David Krieger
The US response to the attacks on September 11th should adhere to three basic criteria: it should be legal, moral and thoughtful. It should be legal under both domestic and international law, sanctioned by the United Nations, and multilateral in scope. It should be moral in not taking more innocent lives. And it should be thoughtful in asking why this has happened and what can be done to decrease the cycle of violence. Taking these criteria into account, I would urge the US to implement the following seven policy actions in order to increase both domestic and global security.
OO Only justice creates sustainable peace -- Reiner Braun
This article is the attempt to present alternatives to war and terror in the form of catchwords and theses. To my point of view their validity has been confirmed by the current war events in Afghanistan. I am looking forward to a critical and controversial discussion.
OO The Merida Manifesto
University professors from different Latin American countries and participants in the First Latin American Colloquium on Interpretive Systemology carried out in Mérida, Venezuela (1-4 October, 2001), consider of primal importance to let know systems thinkers in particular and the public in general, their reflections on the current world crisis. In the last four days, participants in the Colloquium have presented their research projects on and debated about a number of Latin American organizational and institutional problems related to: education, justice, social welfare, community organizations, poverty, technology and society, cultural diversity in peasant communities, managerial technologies and organizational phenomena.
OO Letter to the New York Times -- Joseph Rotblat
In the agonizing analysis of Tuesday’s tragic events, two points need to be stressed germane to future dangers. One is the complete disregard by the perpetrators for human life, as evidenced by the choice of targets and the timing of the attacks on New York. The second is that the terrorists are a powerful organization with huge financial, manpower, and very likely technological resources. This means that much more devastating attacks cannot be excluded.
OO Perspectives for INES -- Hartwig Spitzer
Almost ten years after its foundation it is time to review the status and outlook for INES. Former chairman Hartwig Spitzer (University of Hamburg) addressed the Council meeting in Berlin (25-27 May 2001) on perspectives for the network. Here is what he had to say:
OO Reconciliation projects -- Example for Conflict Solutions, Alternatives to War?
Interview with Branca Jovanovic, held by Reiner Braun
The conflict in Yugoslavia or the war in this country respectively has been on our minds within the last few years again and again. Prevention, reconciliation between the people, is the alternative to the warlike, nationalist procedure. About such a project we want to speak today with Branca Jovanovic. Branca is an INES Council member, representing the member organization "Responsibility for the Future" in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
OO A Maginot Line in the Sky -- Edited by David Krieger and Carah Ong.
Book review by Philip Smith
OO Johannesburg
Many of us considered the 1992 Summit Conference a landmark in the development of our global society. Clear formulations in the Rio documents pointed into the direction of a sustainable world and a bridge seemed to have been created from the wealthy industrial countries to the poor world outside. "Sustainable Development" was the name of that bridge, allowing still for different interpretations
INES NEWSLETTER
Editor: Armin Tenner
Buziaustraat 181068 KN Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Tel/Fax:
Email:
.
The world fell under the sentence of terrorism. The recent terrorist acts have killed innocent people and left the living in a state of distress and confusion. We need a reflection on peace and war, on law and social order. We need new thinking and new action, knowing that everything will be more difficult than before. The present Newsletter contains views from inside and outside of INES, showing positions from different parts of the world. The beginning of a discussion.
PREVENTING A TERRORIST MUSHROOM CLOUD
By David Krieger
The images of the hijacked planes crashing into the World Trade Center are nightmare images of unspeakable horror that will forever be a part of our reality.
Imagine, however, another nightmare – that of a mushroom cloud rising over an American city. This is a threat we can no longer ignore. Perhaps today citizens and leaders alike will better understand the seriousness of the nuclear threat.
The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were a powerful warning. They signal that determined terrorists are prepared to sacrifice their lives to harm us, that future attacks could involve weapons of mass destruction, and that nuclear dangers are increasing because of terrorist activity.
Our leaders have failed to grasp that our present nuclear weapons policies contribute to the possibility of nuclear terrorism against our country. We are simply not doing enough to prevent nuclear weapons or weapons-grade nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists.
A US blue ribbon commission, headed by former Senate majority leader Howard Baker, has called for spending $3 billion a year over the next ten years to maintain control of the nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and nuclear scientists in the former Soviet Union. Yet, the Bush administration has proposed funding cuts for this program from $1.2 billion to $800 million next year.
The Bush Administration’s primary response to the nuclear threat has been to push for a national missile shield costing billions of dollars, the technology of which is unproven, and which would at best be years away from implementation. A missile shield would likely do irreparable harm to our relations with other countries, countries that we need to join us in the fight against international terrorism.
The mad nuclear arms race during the Cold War, and the paltry steps taken to reverse it since the end of the Cold War, have left tens of thousands of nuclear weapons potentially available to terrorists.
Today there is no accurate inventory of the world’s nuclear arsenals or weapons-grade fissile materials suitable for making nuclear weapons. Estimates have it, however, that there are currently more than 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world. We simply do not know whether these weapons are adequately controlled, or whether some could already have fallen into the hands of terrorists.
Osama bin Laden claims to possess nuclear weapons. His claim is feasible. Former Russian Security Advisor Aleksandr Lebed has stated that some 80 to 100 suitcase-size nuclear weapons in the one kiloton range are missing from the Russian arsenal. This claim was reiterated by Alexey Yablokov, an advisor to former Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
The Russian government has denied the claims of missing Russian nuclear weapons, but former US Deputy Energy Secretary Charles Curtis has expressed doubt about these assurances. According to Curtis, "We believe we have a full accounting of all of Russia’s strategic weapons, but when it comes to tactical weapons the suitcase variety we do not know, and I’m not sure they do, either."
More than ten years after the end of the Cold War we and the Russians still have more than 10,000 nuclear weapons each with a total of some 4,500 of them on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in moments. Russia has been urging the US to move faster on START 3 negotiations to reduce the size of the nuclear arsenals in both countries, but US leaders had been largely indifferent to their entreaties.
In November 2001, President Bush announced that the US was prepared to reduce its arsenal of long-range nuclear weapons to between 2,200 and 1,700 over the next ten years. President Putin indicated that Russia would make commensurate cuts. These steps are in the right direction, but they still indicate reliance on Cold War strategies of deterrence. They also do not address tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons, which are the most likely weapons to be used and to fall into the hands of terrorists.
Large nuclear arsenals, measured in the thousands, on hair-trigger alert are Cold War relics. They do not provide deterrence against terrorist attacks. Nor could a missile shield have prevented the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, or protect against future nuclear terrorism.
From the outset, the Bush administration’s foreign policy course has been based on unilateral US actions and indifference bordering on hostility to international law. Since September 11th, the administration seems to have recognized that we cannot combat terrorism unilaterally. A multilateral effort to combat terrorism will require the US to change its policies and embrace multilateral approaches to many global problems, including the control and elimination of all weapons of mass destruction.
The global elimination of nuclear weapons can no longer be a back-burner, peace activist issue. It is a top-priority security issue for all Americans, and it will require US leadership to achieve.
SEVEN STEPS TO IMPROVING U.S. AND GLOBAL SECURITY
The terrorist attacks against the United States have shocked the world and left Americans feeling vulnerable and fearful of future attacks. The US has made a major military deployment to the Middle East and seems intent on military action against Osama bin Laden and possibly Afghanistan and other states that may harbor terrorists or be linked to these attacks. But the military is a blunt instrument that could easily increase the cycle of violence by causing the deaths of more innocent civilians.
The US response to the attacks should adhere to three basic criteria: it should be legal, moral and thoughtful. It should be legal under both domestic and international law, sanctioned by the United Nations, and multilateral in scope. It should be moral in not taking more innocent lives. And it should be thoughtful in asking why this has happened and what can be done to decrease the cycle of violence.
Taking these criteria into account, I would urge the US to implement the following seven policy actions in order to increase both domestic and global security.
1. Protect Americans by improving our intelligence gathering and analysis, and by taking far stronger preventative security measures. Particular emphasis must be placed on preventing weapons of mass destruction from being used by terrorists, and in considering how terrorists might turn other technologies, such as aircraft, into weapons of mass destruction as they did on September 11th. We must make an honest assessment of why our intelligence services failed to prevent the September 11th attacks. Why were known associates of Osama bin Laden, for example, not being effectively tracked by US intelligence services? As a specific example, why did the arrest of a known associate of bin Laden for suspicious behavior at a flight school weeks before the attacks not alert the FBI of the danger to Americans?
2. Work multilaterally to find the perpetrators of the crime and bring them to justice. This should be done under the auspices of the United Nations and the international treaties on terrorism and sabotage. Since the September 11th attack was an international crime against citizens of some 80 countries, the perpetrators should be brought before an International Tribunal established for this purpose.
3. Focus on preventing the use of biological or chemical weapons against population centers. There are indications that the terrorists involved in the September 11th attacks may have been planning chemical or biological attacks with crop dusting planes. Stopping such attacks should be a top priority.
4. Bring all nuclear weapons in the world under control and move rapidly toward banning them under international law. A critical part of this effort is to rapidly reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals to a controllable number, such as 100 weapons per nuclear weapon state in the short term, so that these weapons can be adequately safeguarded and will not fall into the hands of terrorists. An international inventory of all nuclear weapons, weapons-grade materials and nuclear scientists should also be established. The US should increase its financial and technological support for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs that strengthen non-proliferation efforts in the former Soviet Union while reductions are being made. Plans should be developed for taking control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the event that the government of Pakistan should fall to extremists.
5. Provide military protection to all nuclear power plants in the US and urge that these plants be phased out as rapidly as possible. Nuclear power reactors are dormant radiological weapons located in the proximity of major US cities. Flying an airplane into a nuclear reactor or waste storage site could result in a Chernobyl type release of radioactive materials causing panic and enormous potential for death in surrounding populations. Until shut down, all operating nuclear power plants should be protected by military forces, including anti-aircraft weapons. Radioactive waste sites, including those at nuclear power plants, should also be guarded by military forces, as should shipments of all radioactive materials that could be used for nuclear or radiological weapons.
6. Ask the question to ourselves: Why is the United States hated so much that terrorists are willing to commit heinous acts and give their own lives to attack the country? President Bush has expressed his belief that it is because these terrorists hate freedom and democracy. In fact, while the reasons may include an antipathy to American society on social, cultural and economic levels, there is also deep hostility to American policies, including our military presence in the Middle East, our support of a despotic Saudi regime, our conduct of the Gulf War, and our ongoing economic and military support for Israel. If we can not at least neutralize the intense hatred of the United States by changes in our policies, then no amount of security may be able to protect Americans from future attacks.
7. Use our wealth and power to help make the world more just and equitable, and to uphold human dignity for all persons. In doing so, we will make America safer and the world a more decent place. Throughout the world, there are still some 35,000 children dying quietly each day from malnutrition and preventable diseases. America must assume the responsibility of leadership to uphold justice, human rights and sustainable development. We cannot escape the fact that we are one world and each country must contribute to the security of all. The job must be done globally by the United Nations, but America must not shirk its responsibility for leadership.
The world is at a turning point. By resorting to the old methods of military force, we are likely to intensify the hatred toward the US without substantially reducing the threat of terrorism against us. We should never lose sight of the fact that biological, chemical or nuclear terrorism could be thousands of times worse than what we have witnessed to date. Following the seven-step plan outlined above would provide a comprehensive way to make both the US and the world more secure in all respects.
David Krieger, an attorney and political scientist, is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Other articles on nuclear dangers and other critical issues of peace may be found at the Foundation’s web site:
www.wagingpeace.org
Only justice creates sustainable peace
By Reiner Braun
Introduction:
This article is the attempt to present alternatives to war and terror in the form of catchwords and theses. To my point of view their validity has been confirmed by the current war events in Afghanistan. I am looking forward to a critical and controversial discussion.
By the brutal, inhuman terrorist attacks on New York and Washington more than 6,000 people from more than 80 states have been murdered in an extremely cruel way. The terrorist signal for this profound inhumanity cannot be justified by anything.
Several weeks after the attack, I feel that the following statements should be made:
We must keep a cool head and a clear-headed view on our reactions to proceed against the dangers and causes of terrorism.
Fear and hate increase the dangers, because they lead to malreactions and panic reactions which, in practice, would play into the hands of the terrorists and help them materialize their intentions.
This means that acts of reprisal by warlike violence hold great dangers of further military escalations and would further drive the violence spiral in an irresponsible way. This is strongly confirmed by numerous scientific peace and conflict studies.
The system of terror and its backgrounds cannot be eliminated by a military blow but can only be prevented and overcome by a carefully calculated policy with short-term, middle-term and long-term strategies.
I suggest the following principles for peace, future and security:
Principle 1: Prudence and Differentiation
Subtly differentiated analyses, considered planning and consistent action are in demand against terrorist violence with a critical view on its intentions, its chances and risks as well as the sum of its results and consequences.
Principle 2: World Domestic Politics and Legal System
The development of an international (penal) legal system is more than ever overdue and indispensable, in order to decisively improve the now still underdeveloped structures, mechanisms and procedures of a world domestic policy conform a globalization of the constitutional state.
Principle 3: Logic of Constitutional Combating of Crime
It is important not to conduct the defence against terrorism following the logic of war but following the logic of combating crime. Remedies for the prevention and overcoming of terror violence have to be strictly and consistently in accordance with the civil methods of a constitutional state.
The field must not be left to terrorism for further crimes. The perpetrators and their helpers must be investigated, imprisoned, convicted and submitted to a just punishment. It would be fatal to make martyrs out of them by rash behaviour.
Principle 4: Peacefulness and Non-violence
In principle, all political behaviour, like every human behaviour, must be orientated to existential principles of peacefulness and non-violence. This we learn from the ethics of peace, it becomes evident from the terrible explosions of violence in history, particularly in the European history.
Police command actions with strong-arm methods would not be acts of revenge, but could protect the people against further crimes and maintain and restore the international law system. The activities of such special actions would have to be tied to the following stringent criteria: the strict compliance with the rules of international law, the retention of the principle of the appropriateness of the means, the cautious treatment of all the consequences of the actions.
According to these criteria, a military attack on so-called "rogue states" including their civilian population as a method to fight against terrorism can not be justified and is irresponsible.
It is necessary:
that all measures of the USA and the alliance against terror have to be sanctioned by the UN security council;
that the evidences against Osama Bin Laden, his organization and his environment must be examined by the UN security council;
that the UN security council gives a mandate for an international police force – if necessary with a solid equipment for the capture of the terrorists;
that the UN submits the presumed perpetrators and their backers to a legal method (e.g. by the implementation of a special court like the tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda)
that the UN general meeting agrees on a common definition of terrorism;
that the crime "terrorism" is added to the statute of the international court of justice;
that the UN asks the USA and all others who hesitate, to ratify this statute so that the court of justice can finally take up its work;
that the overdue reforms of the UN are finally realized and the Arabic Islamic region e.g. gets an adequate representative in the Security Council.
Principle 5: Constructive, Civil Solution of Conflicts
We have to discuss whether the developed concepts for a preventive reduction of violence, civil conflict settlement and structural creation of peace are still sufficient for a more and more polarized world situation or that they have to be developed further.
The manifold of experiences and results of the research in the fields of violation, conflicts and peace should be made available, in order to develop strategies for the population in different social areas, geographical regions and fields of policy.
Principle 6: Global Justice
Sustainable peace can only be won if the growing discrepancy in the world is dismantled. The states of the 1st world contain 20% of the world population, but dispose of 80% of the riches and utilize approximately 60% of the resources. They are demanded to give first priority to the fight against poverty.
All people, wherever they reside, have an inalienable fundamental right to a life without exploitation and impoverishment without poverty and hunger, without pursuit and expulsion, without violence, terror and war, without fear, revenge and retaliation.
Principle 7: Critical Self-Reflection
The first world must make all possible effort, to devote its potentials to a violence-decreasing, conflict-settling and peaceful development and has to make arrangements for a just and fair world peace order with corresponding peace cultures. It must do this without dominance and arrogance but achieve it by intercultural dialog, peaceful cooperation and sustainable support.
Principle 8: Tolerance and Dialog
It is enriching for everybody’s life, to get into contact with other cultures and people and to improve and to cultivate the intercultural relations. A new policy of peace requires the critical support by the peace movement and by a critical reflection on violence, conflict and peace.
Reiner Braun is Executive Director of INES
The undersigned, university professors from different Latin American countries and participants in the First Latin American Colloquium on Interpretive Systemology carried out in Mérida, Venezuela (1-4 October, 2001), consider of primal importance to let know systems thinkers in particular and the public in general, the following reflections on the current world crisis.
Jorge Dávila (Venezuela), José Daniel Cabrera (Colombia), Ramsés Fuenmayor (Venezuela), Lilia Gélvez (Colombia), Eduardo Ibarra (México), Jorge Ishizawa (Perú), Bruno Jerardino (Chile), Edmundo Leiva (Chile), Hernán López Garay (Venezuela), Hugo Marroquín (Perú), Alejandro Ochoa (Venezuela), María Teresa Santander (Chile), Ricardo Sotaquirá (Colombia), Roldan T. Suárez (Venezuela), Miriam Villarreal (Venezuela);.professors from different Latin American universities and speakers in the Primer Coloquio Latinoamericano en Sistemología Interpretativa.
In the last four days, participants in the Colloquium have presented their research projects on and debated about a number of Latin American organizational and institutional problems related to: education, justice, social welfare, community organizations, poverty, technology and society, cultural diversity in peasant communities, managerial technologies and organizational phenomena.
Beyond the obvious underlying and connecting theme – the systems approach as applied to institutional problems – another theme emerged that gathered our thought and reflections in this Colloquium. It has become clear at the end of our meetings that a crucial problem unfolded by our research is the growing devastation brought about by several anti-cultural forms that high modernity (or postmodernity) has made possible.
These anti-cultural forms – which are present in such areas as the ontological ground of technology, the media, the lack of an authentic education, organizational phenomena, neo-liberalism, and in the strong sway that the market and the instrumental rationality of our time holds over our lives – pose a serious threat to the basic cultural practices (proper of a culture in "good condition") of nursing, raising and caring.
The violent devastation of cultural soils that we are experiencing in the present, as the result of the widespread of these anti-cultural forms, is leading to a meaningless world; a world under the serious threat of various forms of nihilism and violence; a world subjected to a deep and growing process of desolation.
A clear manifestation of this process is the response given by the governments of so called "developed world," led by the United States, to the tragic events that took place in New York and Washington last September 11.
In this context, and bearing in mind the anti-cultural phenomena previously mentioned, the undersigned systems thinkers want to make public the following manifesto:
THE MERIDA MANIFESTO
1. We add our name to the large list of peoples that condemn the terrorist attack which regrettably took the lives of thousands of human beings last September 11. It is a defining feature of our humanity to be able to empathize with other fellow humans (i.e. to have the ability to put oneself in the position of other human being) and thus experience something close to the grief and sorrow they may be undergoing in the United States. Nonetheless, we must also add our name to two other lists. These, unlike the first are, perhaps, much shorter.
2. We join the short list of those who clearly and strongly condemn the international behaviour of the United States government and other imperialist states in the last century and the beginnings of the twenty first. As a matter of fact, such unjustified behaviour has been, directly or indirectly, the cause of the death of millions of children and innocent people in general. We do not have to go too far in this history of State violence to see its real proportions. Just recall the criminal behaviour of the United States government at the end of the Second World War when the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was perpetrated. Examples of similar behaviour in Latin America abound. We recall for instance the death of more than seven thousand people in Panamá as a result of the illegal military invasion carried out by the USA army to capture General Noriega, a man who had previously worked very closely with the CIA. Let us recall also the bloody dictatorships set up by the USA government in Chile and Argentina during the seventies and eighties.
Another example of the criminal foreign policy of USA is the long embargo this government has led against Iraq and which has resulted in the death of more than five hundred thousand Iraqi children. These examples are but a few of the many outrages and great injustices perpetrated by the USA government around the world, the proof of which are nowadays even provided by the CIA itself! It is clear then, that such a State violence – which is conducted with the active involvement of other governments such as Britain – is breeding violence all over the world. This is not to say that we justify in any way the violent events that took place in New York and Washington last September 11. However, we equally disapprove the violent and murderous response of the USA government against the people of Afghanistan (regretfully with the support of the majority of world governments). Therefore, we must add our name to a third list.
3. This list is formed by those people who reject and condemn the brutal retaliation carried out by the USA government – joined in this irrational and inhuman task by its allies – as a response to the aforementioned events of September 11. It is brutal because it rallies a coalition of the most powerful armies of the world to bombard Afghanistan, one of the poorest, most ravaged war-torn nations of the earth. Millions of Afghans are fleeing their country at this very moment, seeking refuge and starving in the process. The response is brutal also because as one can see from declarations of the White House and other government officials, they reveal a flagrant contradiction of the most cherished principles and ideals which constitute the legitimating foundation of the power of a modern democratic State, as the governments of the USA and their allies are supposed to represent. These ideals are none other than those of justice, democracy and freedom!
According to those principles, these governments led by the USA should seek and bring to justice, to a fair trial in an international court of justice, those who committed the murderous attacks of September 11. However, in order to accomplish this task, they ought not launch a war to massacre innocent people, as they are doing it right now, and risk the lives of millions more (including those of their own people) who inevitably will be dragged into this war.
We must also denounce the unfair and quite disproportionate significance given to the terrorist attack of September 11 by comparison with many other terrorist acts carried out around the world – many of them performed by the US government. Let us imagine this attack had been launched against Bolivia, Nicaragua or Iraq rather than to the USA. It is not hard to see that the response of the developed nations and their friends would have been completely different. Another example of such unfairness is the fact that on September 11, the very same day of the terrorist attack – and something similar can be said of any other day- according to statistics offered by international organizations, thousands of children died of starvation in so called underdeveloped countries, in some cases as the direct result of economic policies enforced by the USA government through the IMF and the World Bank.
Should not we regret with equal sorrow the unjustified dead of these human beings? Yet there were neither special 24 hour editions of CNN for several days lamenting this tragedy nor marches in several cities showing their solidarity with the families of the victims, much less a minute of silence in Wall Street for them. How come? Why the billions of dollars being spent in the bloody revenge of the USA government against Afghanistan and other countries are not destined to feed and take care of millions of starving children in this world? Is it not here, in such a great unbalance, the key to find a peaceful solution to world terrorism?
We hope these reflections will make clear why we add our names to three lists which most people would consider incompatible. Their common thread is their underlying notion of justice and the perhaps more and more uncommon ability nowadays to empathize with the grief and suffering of other human beings, regardless of whether they are US citizens, Colombians or Chinese, or whether they are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or simply atheists.
by Joseph Rotblat
In the agonizing analysis of Tuesday’s tragic events, two points need to be stressed germane to future dangers. One is the complete disregard by the perpetrators for human life, as evidenced by the choice of targets and the timing of the attacks on New York. The second is that the terrorists are a powerful organization with huge financial, manpower, and very likely technological resources. This means that much more devastating attacks cannot be excluded.
One such attack could be by the use of a biological weapon, and there are plenty of them in the world. But far worse would be the use of a nuclear device. I would not be surprised if a group like Bin Laden’s had managed to acquire such a device and had already smuggled it into a city in the USA, or, indeed, in the UK. Try to imagine devastation ten, or even a hundred, times greater than we saw on Tuesday. The mind boggles. But this is a real threat.
Urgent measures need to be taken to lessen the probability of this occurring, namely by reducing the availability of the materials necessary to nuclear weapons – highly-enriched uranium and plutonium.
There are huge quantities of weapon-grade uranium. Russia has more than 1000 tonnes, enough to make 20,000 atom bombs. It is quite easy to render it harmless by mixing it with natural uranium. A deal was arranged some years ago between the USA and Russia to dilute 500 tonnes of the latter’s uranium but, for mainly commercial reasons, this is proceeding at an incredibly slow pace (about 30 tonnes per year). President George W. Bush should authorize an acceleration of the programme.
There are also large quantities of plutonium, in the USA and Russia, from the dismantlement of nuclear warheads. A programme for the disposition of the plutonium has been prepared but according to recent reports, the design work on a US plutonium immobilization plant has been suspended, apparently for financial reasons. The Russian programme is also ailing for lack of finance. Here again President Bush should take action.
Yours faithfully,
Joseph Rotblat
8 Asmara Road, NW2 35T
September 13
Almost ten years after its foundation it is time to review the status and outlook for INES. Former chairman Hartwig Spitzer (University of Hamburg) addressed the Council meeting in Berlin (25-27 May 2001) on perspectives for the network. Here is what he had to say:
Dear colleagues and friends on the INES Council,
The Executive Committee has asked me to share with you some of my views on perspectives for INES. When trying to do this I am aware of potential biases on my side. As cofounder of the network and first chairman of the Executive Committee I am in a special position. Also my views are probably shaped by the fact that I live in the rich industrialized North of the Globe.
Today I would like to address three topics:
Where do we stand ten years after the network foundation?
Evaluation of INES by twelve Council members;
Perspectives and directions.
Where do we stand?
INES was founded in 1991, two years after the collapse of the wall, which divided Europe. This was a time of big transitions and big hopes. The countries of the former ‘Eastern Block’ were confronted with the upcoming transformation to market economies. Worldwide, a peace dividend was expected after the end of the military East-West confrontation. Sustainability became a new catch word which manifested itself in the Rio summit of 1992. Non-governmental organisations enjoyed growth and increasing public acceptance as forces of social and political innovation.
Today we again go through deep changes. However the changes are sobering.
Some 200 wars have been fought since 1990 which caused a death toll similar to that of world war II. The expected peace dividend did not substantiate.
The divide between the rich and the poor is growing both globally and inside societies.
The sustainability movement encounters backlashes. Ironically, some corporations are the most vocal proponents of sustainability, which – from their perspective – includes sustainable profits.
Trends in the One-Third-World
In the industrialized and computerized One-Third-World we observe unsustainably high resource consumption levels and a revitalization of capitalism. The dominating paradigm of fast profit induces:
a strong growth of financial transfers which are decoupled from the trade of goods,
strong shareholder value pressure on companies, and
a transfer of market risks from the company level to the shoulders of employees and free lance contract workers.
This development did not come out of the blue. It was triggered by the deregulation of financial markets during the last twenty years. Until the seventies big US pension funds were forced by law to invest in bonds at fixed interest rates only. Now they are allowed to invest in stocks and to draw profit from speculation with stocks and foreign currencies. I.e. the big institutional investors suddenly achieved enormous influence on the economy. New financial products like derivatives are heating up the markets. There is a growing amount of floating capital which has only one objective: seeking for profit.
Mind you, the One-Third-World manifests itself not only in the rich North but also among the rich elites of the Global South. Computer scientists and engineers have acted as catalysts, by providing and operating the computer networks and software which is needed to chase a trillion dollars around the globe per day.
The reaction of young people – as far is I can see it in Germany – has been comparably mild. Most of them adapt to the new working conditions. Many turn away from natural sciences and engineering towards business. We see a new generation of creative young entrepreneurs. There is a little interest in ‘crisis talk’ or in the conceptualization of political and social alternatives. The globalization protest movements from Seattle to Genoa might indicate some awakening. But this awakening certainly has not reached the vast majority of my students.
Effects for the Two-Third-World
The Two-Third-World continues to suffer both from external pressures (debts, trade conditions etc.) as well as from internal pressures like population growth, poverty, corruption, lack of good governance. The majority of the World population is largely left out from the development in the Global North.
Trends in the NGO world
It is my impression that the number and importance of NGO’s is still growing. But – at large – they have to work in a more difficult environment. In order to face international developments and to challenge international organizations NGO’s need to organize themselves on an international level. This is costly and requires full-time activists. In spite of the protests at Seattle, Göteborg and Genoa, big protest movements which focus on issues are rare. Debates in the media on issues of concern to NGO’s often miss the point. I.e. it remains difficult for NGO’s to get their message through to the public.
On the other hand, the decision makers in government and business are not dormant. These actors have their own staff, which builds up expertise on complicated international affairs like governance in the European Union, the WTO agenda or the Kyoto protocol. In this situation NGO activists and experts need a high level of a professional standard, political expertise and persistence in order to influence the crucial debates. Usually, NGO’s with a clear thematic focus are most successful.
The buzz words are "Serve the long view" and "Foster responsibility." The big strength of NGO activists is their primary motivation. Rather than being driven by greed or the kick of power – as many leading actors in business and polities – they are led by values (deep in their heart) and by the ability to think ahead far enough.
Inside INES
From the very beginning a special culture has developed within the network. It is futile to ask for perspectives without addressing this culture. The INES culture can be illustrated through looking at four questions:
Who are we? The first answer which comes to my mind is "We are a family, a family which shares values and joint experiences." There are annual small family meetings, the Council sessions. There are occasional large meetings which link the family to people from the outside which are interested in similar issues: The INES conferences. However, INES as a family is very asymmetric. The majority of individual and organizational members rarely or never are able or willing to participate in the meetings. Such members must feel isolated, because they never experienced the family spirit personally. Some of them might not have the desire to participate in meetings. That is o.k., of course. INES needs both active members and intentional supporters.
Who keeps the family running? According to my perception, it is – to first order – the office, the chairman of the Executive Committee and the funding from Nuclear Age Peace Foundation which keep the network together. Other activities and resources make up only for 10 to 20% of the metabolism of the network (not counting self reliant projects). Hence our network is largely dependent on activity from the center (Chairman, Executive Director) and on one funding source. This is not sustainable.
Who is the boss? Paradoxically, in spite of the dependence on activity from the center, INES is fairly non hierarchical. There is no boss, expect when it comes to finances: Most budget decisions are effectively made by 2-3 persons only. In my time as a chairman I often wished that the full Executive Committee would have carried more of the responsibility for fundraising and expenses.
Who generates ideas and substance? Here it is primarily the project initiators and conference organizers who put INES intentions into praxis. Again, it is a handful (or two) of people only, including the chairman, the Executive Director and the newsletter editor. Some projects involve several active persons. But often a project is in danger of collapsing if the initiator drops out. We did not manage to activate the large pool of expertise and creativity which is present in the Council and in the membership at large.
Evaluation of INES by twelve Council members
In preparation of this talk I approached the Council by E-mail. I sent out questions to 75 members and got 12 responses. This kind of responsiveness is typical of INES. INES is a net with large holes. The questions were as follows:
In which areas and through which projects has INES really made a difference in the last years?
What are the strengths of the network? On which potential can we build?
Which are the weak points?
What can we do to strengthen the network internally? How can we attract more people, who put expertise, time and commitment into INES projects?
How should and how can INES redirect its resources and priorities in order to have an impact as an NGO and as a network in the future?
Let me just mention some of the answers on questions 1.-3.:
INES has made a difference through some of its projects: INESAP/ nuclear abolition work (5x), INESPE /ethics (3x), promotion of sustainable development (2x), Havemann scholarship (1x), European Data Bank (1x), Nepal project (1x), INES conferences (2x, only!).
The strengths of INES are i.a. the moral and ethical foundation, the continuous work in projects and the competence as NGO of engineers and scientists.
Weak points are seen in the small practical significance of some INES projects, in the small impact on the general public and on scientific organizations, in the underuse of member competence, in the small involvement of young people and in the insufficient fundraising.
Owen Greene feels that INES fills an important niche. One of the challenges remains getting the balance right between maintaining a broad agenda, while concentrating sufficient resources on 1-3 specific issues so that INES can develop a comparative advantage and distinct profile in some areas.
Perspectives and directions – a personal view
In my experience both at the university and beyond I learned about some network secrets of success. I would like to share these secrets with you.
Clarify the common visions and intentions first.
Look for allies and cooperation partners.
Ensure that the ways of cooperation are productive and mutually enriching ("I profit and you profit if you and I cooperate").
Provide adequate coordination and communication.
Find adequate resources, both human and material / financial resources.
On this background my recommendations and wishes for INES are as follows:
Keep the family spirit and a strong value orientation.
Live up your own standards. Walk your talk.
Attract good people. Good people are attracted by good projects.
While addressing a broad agenda give special emphasis to 2 or 3 leading edge projects.
Intensify media work and public outreach for the leading edge projects.
Actively seek cooperation with scientists, engineers and scientific organizations which have links to the themes of the leading edge projects.
Facilitate renewal.
Thank you.
Reconciliation Projects - Example for Conflict Solutions, Alternatives to War?
Interview with Branca Jovanovic, held by Reiner Braun
The conflict in Yugoslavia or the war in this country respectively has been on our minds within the last few years again and again.
Prevention, reconciliation between the people, is the alternative to the warlike, nationalist procedure. About such a project we want to speak today with Branca Jovanovic. Branca is an INES Council member, representing the member organization "Responsibility for the Future" in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
Branca, you can describe the projects which are executed in the south of Yugoslavia?
We execute projects in three municipalities in the south of Serbia. These municipalities lie at the border of Kosovo-Macedonia and are inhabited by Albanians, by Serbs and Romanies. After the events in Kosovo, a demilitarized safety zone was set up between Yugoslavia and Kosovo. The actions of militant, armed Albanian or paramilitary groups lead to conflicts in this demilitarized zone at the end of last year. In the media in Belgrade this was interpreted as a renewed adherence of these militant groups to the terrorist model with the political aim to create a big Kosovo. According to this interpretation, these groups wanted to follow the Albanian Macedonian movement in order to establish a big Albania in the end. However, this was not the whole truth.
We went to the region and saw that the local citizens were structurally not involved in political activities at all and their influence on local or global politics was less than marginal.
What did you try then to improve the situation?
It was our task to free the citizens of both nationalities from the political circles that only wanted to instrument them for their political claims to power and prevented them from recognizing their own ability to political action. Therefore we founded a little meeting center for Serbians, Albanians and Romanies. In the first place, people will be there for different purposes, they may pursue different projects but are all concerned with the same question: What do we actually want to do with our city, our future? We organized small groups particularly for young people and, among others, arranged computer courses for them. These groups as well as their leaders reflect the ethnic multinationality of the population. Particularly, we initiated women’s groups on different topics. At present they are working on the topic: Women and health. We have an Albanian and a Serbian woman doctor and a Serbian psychologist who lead the groups. They give information about different health problems and discuss stressful situations, particularly stressful for women. The area is very poor. Much of the work lies on the shoulders of women who are in a hopeless situation and, in this region, are extremely dependent on men. There is nothing for them to repose, no theater or cinema nor any venue for meetings, where women can convene or at least take some rest. For women we have organized a sewing course; already 30 women have got in touch with us. They are 14 Albanians and 16 Serbians. The coordinators are an Albanian and a Serbian woman. Furthermore, we plan a winter school where farmers can learn how to repair their agricultural machinery and how to employ it for better use in farming. We will also give fundamental agricultural advice here, especially for the improvement of seeds and for more concern about the use of pesticides and other chemical compounds. We want to discuss the environmental situation with the young people of the region because disastrous conditions have developed here within the last few years. Chemical materials are burnt in the open air and in large quantities, immediately inside the city so that it is often wrapped in a poisonous cloud. As a result of this burning, nature areas have been completely destroyed. We are now working out the ecologically oriented alternatives together with an Albanian youth forum which collaborates very intensively and offers many creative suggestions.
Can these most interesting projects lead to a change of attitude of the different nationalities towards each other? And – if so – how can you recognize the improvement?
We are at the beginning of our work and alone the fact that our programs attracted more than 200 regular attendants within the first two months, shows that the people are very interested in doing something together. I think that very much has changed already, at least one sees that Serbians and Albanians can sit in a room together without saying that they do not know each other. We thus have a clear proof that living together works in collectively answering actual life questions. So this little center has become the location where people of different nationalities meet and neither the local politicians nor anybody else can ignore it. We are now a group that can act in local politics. I would therefore say that we have accomplished our first goal, we are there, we are visible, we already have a small power and, above all, we bring people together, we reconcile.
Are there opponents against this reconciliation process?
Yes, of course there are opponents from various sides. I would mention the nationalists in the first place. There are really militant people among them. We are often threatened, among others that our center will be bombed.
Also the government have their objections against us because of our critical attitude. We see the faults not only at the Albanian but also at the Serbian side.
The government did not help these two ethnic groups in making concrete steps to come together; they do not solve the people’s problems by promoting multiethnic agreement. Their power policy results in reforms that are merely cosmetic.
Often we are not pleasant for the international organizations either because like the government, they tend to control our movement or, at least, make it dependent upon them. We consider ourselves an autonomous group and we insist upon formulating our aims and upon developing our programs ourselves. That enables us to raise a critical voice in our communities and stand up for the population and its life interests.
Does this project already have consequences for other activities; can it be a sample for other projects?
I think that we can talk about a pilot project. In the nearby city of Medlecz, recently a similar center has been set up and in the city of Preschwov one will build a center following the same lines. We soon will integrate them into a network. Our center starts out from elementary values, among others those connected with the region. Historical roots of friendship may lie in the region. There are regions where people are friendly since generations. We want to base the Yugoslavian society on this original foundation where people could live with each other, before they were incited against each other by the ruling politicians who divided them for their own benefit. It is an art to create new structures for the common natural life, to revitalize it. This also may have its influence on politics. And it will be NGOs that can help the citizens to organize themselves and not let them be played off against each other.
Who is a cooperation partner of this project? What can INES do from your point of view to furthermore help this project to become successful?
I experience INES above all as an organization which has much knowledge and experience. Now, where our soft plant has consolidated easily and the groups do actually work, INES could make an offer to come with experts to us in order to promote an active exchange of knowledge. I would like to point out that we expect many conflicts arising during the future development. Many voices speak about a transformation society. Changes in this multinational multiethnic area may produce many conflicts which are not foreseen at the moment by most people. A look to Eastern Europe should be enough to recognize the problems that may arise in the Kosovo transformation.
So one starts privatizing without thinking to whom the big businesses belong and who will get the economic power in this region. The one who gets the economic power will be the master of the other groups. Our efforts are to create multinational multiethnic capital and to develop multinational social and economic structures, also structures of property. I think that INES could bring in experiences in this field, especially from its cooperation with trade unions and other social movements. This could bring us into contact with citizens from other countries, who have made similar experiences. INES can assist us with advice and action, with the selection of competent experts and in participating in practical discussions. That may lead to a valuable exchange of experience and ideas and give us theoretical impulses. I see a very good support in INES.
Many thanks for this informative interview
A Maginot Line in the Sky -- Edited by David Krieger and Carah Ong
The editors have presented an invaluable collection of articles on the significance, the effectiveness, the inevitable repercussions, as well as the probable motives behind the determination of the Bush administration to construct, coûte que coûte, a Maginot Line in the Sky. In addition they provide the texts of a number of documents and declarations, such as those of the Russian president, alone as well as together with the Prime Minister of Canada and of the Russian and Chinese leaders, which will serve the reader well in arriving at the inescapable conclusion that, as far as the professed reasons for even thinking of an NMD, "there is something rotten in the state of ... "
After reading the opinions and facts presented by the almost twenty contributors, every one of whom writes with authority, and after mulling over it all for a while, one wonders how anyone could possibly believe that NMD is really intended to provide a defence against a missile attack on the U.S.A. As the editors state in their preface, "Ballistic Missile Defences have so little potential value for security that one might (sic) conclude that profit and greed are the primary motivating factors in promoting them." On the basis of the evidence presented, this is an extremely polite formulation, but perhaps that is the best way to get the magnitude of the dishonesty behind the administration’s argument across to the reader.
Below I have collected a few of the arguments and conclusions of contributors In his authoritative contribution Rear Admiral Eugene Caroll, Jr. describes, under the heading ‘Threat’ the reality that the government of any minor power desirous of damaging the United States of America knows all too well:
"As to the threat, it does not now exist. Although some say that North Korea could create a missile capable of reaching the United States by 2005, the consensus is that it will be years later, if ever, that they would have both the missile and a weapon which could be fitted to it. And why would they, or any rogue nation, invest in such a costly, challenging venture when there are far more feasible means of delivering a weapon against us? For example, a crude nuclear device (which could never be fitted to a missile) could easily be welded in the hull of a tramp steamer and sail unchallenged into any US port. Furthermore, any missile fired at America carries a very clear return address, insuring massive US retaliation. The fact is that NMD would be a defence against the least likely means of attack on America while providing no protection whatever against clandestine, less costly, more reliable means of attack."
Samsung Lee, professor at the Catholic University of Korea has the following to say about the consequences of an NMD programme on the political and military balance in the Far East:
" ... the predictable negative reactions of China and Russia with more nuclear buildup will lead the Japanese power blocs to supplement their growing insecurity with other means, including nuclear armament. In other words, the missile defences will give the power blocs of Japan and the public a false sense of security sufficient to Justify and support the missile defence plans, but never enough to forget completely the threat against them from the nuclear weapons in China or Russia. This duality should be one of the essential qualities inherent in the "false sense of security." This is no wonder, considering that from the very beginning, the ideas of building missile defences without eliminating nuclear weapons themselves was a product of a profound sense of insecurity, which nuclear weapons themselves were responsible for creating and are destined to perpetuate."
This excerpt makes clear that in the background there always lurks the threat of nuclear extermination with which all of us live. This seems to lead all political leaders to live in an, Director of imaginary world. Rajesh Basrur the Centre of Global Studies in Mumbai, India describes this world in the following excerpt.
"The politics of nuclear weapons is played out on two levels. On one level, the threat of cataclysm brings caution and war-avoiding behaviour. On the other – what 1 would call a ‘secondary’ – level, states play symbolic games of balancing and maneuvering that have little relation to reality. This explains the building of multiple overkill capability by the ma) or nuclear powers during the Cold War. Such games continue to be played today. The politics surrounding ‘missile defence’ is a case in point. If a nuclear power already has the ability to deter, why would it need to install a missile defence system against a ‘state of concern?’ If the adversary is undeterrable, as has sometimes been argued (a dubious proposition in the first place), then it could surely choose to employ other horrific means of destruction that are less expensive and difficult. In a sense, the reaction of the Chinese and the Russians to American missile defence initiatives is equally unrealistic. It cannot answer a fundamental objection: how can a country possessing a missile defence system be certain that it will work a hundred percent? If it cannot, how can it risk launching a first strike (assuming this made political sense to begin with)?"
The above taste of the contents should inspire many INESites to read the whole book. It would not be honest, however, if I didn’t point out something that could have been included ? a discussion of the motivation behind the whole crazy scheme of NMD. I realize full well that motivation is firmly locked up in the inviolable consciousness of the actor, and one treads on uncertain ground when one imputes a given motivation to another person. Yet I dare assert that observable behaviour sometimes can give an ironclad proof of what the motivation must be behind a given action.
I believe that this is provided here by the way in which the requirements placed on the tests of the "kill lowered in the last two years. It is not well known that a year ago the director, Mr. Philip Coyle, of the independent (civilian) department of the American armed forces, Operational Test and Evaluation prepared an annihilating evaluation of the tests performed so far. The Pentagon fought tooth and nail against making the contents known (do you wonder why?). But Representative John Tierney succeeded, after eight months of fighting, in getting a hold of it. Under his direction an analysis of the long (69 pages) Coyle report was prepared (released on 26 June 2001).
Everyone with any knowledge of missile warfare knows that any weapons-carrying missile will release a large number of decoys to confuse the detector system of any approaching kill-vehicle. If a country has the capacity to develop a nuclear-weapon-carrying missile, it will certainly have the technical prowess to have such vehicles release these decoys. The following excerpt shows the way the Pentagon has handled this elementary requirement:
" ... there are other instances in which the Pentagon has chosen to ignore fatal errors rather than remedy them. For instance, the Department has been making flight tests easier rather than more difficult. According to the Coyle Report:
‘The target suites flown in IFTs [Integrated Flight Tests] 3, 4, and 5 each contained only two objects – a Medium Reentry Vehicle (MRV) and a Large Balloon – a significant reduction in complexity from the original plan. Target requirements ... called for nine to ten objects in flight tests IFT-1 through IFT-5, suites that contained both unsophisticated and sophisticated decoys. In 1998, target requirements were pared down to three balloons (one large and two small balloons) and the MRV. Then, in July 1999, less than three months before IFT-3, the target suite was further reduced to two objects, as indicated above.’
"Now, instead of discriminating the reentry vehicle from nine or ten decoys, the system tests only against a reentry vehicle and one decoy – a large balloon that ‘does not mimic in any way the current test RW’ In fact, the report warns that not even one flight test will include ‘objects with radar signatures designed to mimic those of the [reentry vehicle].’
"This process of dumbing down requirements has not prevented additional test failures. Indeed, during a flight test last summer, even the single balloon decoy failed to deploy. According to the report, the balloon ‘was never deployed because of some unknown failure ... ‘‘‘
In short, whether the system works or not is quite unimportant to those entrusted with its development. What is important ... ? The fact that the Coyle report is not mentioned should not be seen as a shortcoming of the volume under review. Krieger and Ong have presented proof that, whether or not it works or ever can work, the NMD is a bad idea. But it is worth noting that the above excerpt provides a substantial confirmation of the polite suggestion quoted in the first paragraph of this review that something else, and not a fiery determination to defend the country, is behind the vociferous defence of the NMD.
That NMD has little to do with defence but to the contrary has everything to do with the American thrust towards world hegemony is not (meant to be) treated in this volume (although in its overtones the suggestion is there). The compact and excellently researched book, "Weapons in Space," of Karl Grossman can be highly recommended to the reader who, after reading a "Maginot Line in the Sky" says to herself, "Well if NMD has nothing to do with defence, then what is it for?"
JOHANNESBURG
Many of us considered the 1992 Summit Conference a landmark in the development of our global society. Clear formulations in the Rio documents pointed into the direction of a sustainable world and a bridge seemed to have been constructed from the wealthy industrial countries to the poor world outside. "Sustainable Development" was the name of that bridge, allowing still for different interpretations.
The decade after Rio only brought disappointment. Not only that the cherished principles and visionary ideas have not been converted into real achievements, but the pressure on our environment and our living conditions has only increased, the poverty gap became wider and peace is farther away than we ever could imagine.
After ten years we are now preparing for the follow-up Summit in Johannesburg in September 2002. Final documents, to be confirmed by the Summit are in preparation; governments, commercial organizations and NGOs try to get their memoranda accepted and make their objections. Also INES is active in formulating contributions about science and technology, environmental sustainability and climate change, peace and social sustainability. It is not attempted to strive for new assessments; the emphasis lies on the lack of fulfillment of the Rio promise, the worsening situation and new dangers that came up in the last years. Preferably, the papers will be submitted in collaboration with trade unions and other NGO’s.
The spirit of Johannesburg is expected to become different from that of Rio. The tone will be harder and more polemic, the voices of the Third-World representatives will be louder and the discussion will put more emphasis on poverty rather than on environment and sustainability.
OO For more information look in "Projects" at the web site www.inesglobal.com.