news36

Editor: Armin Tenner
Buziaustraat 18, 1068 KN Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel / Fax: , E-mail:

Conference announcements:
From knowledge to sound policy and action,
Mathematics and war,
Engineering education in sustainable development,
Can scientists be trusted?

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, www.wagingpeace.org.
He can be contacted at .

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush gathered together his top security advisors to consider the implications of terrorism for US nuclear policy. A few facts were clear. There were well-organized and suicidal terrorists who were committed to inflicting large-scale damage on the US. These terrorists had attempted to obtain nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. They probably had not succeeded yet in obtaining nuclear weapons, but would certainly keep trying to do so. It was highly unlikely that terrorists would be able to deliver nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction by means of missiles, but they could potentially smuggle one or more nuclear weapons into the United States and use them to attack US cities. The death and destruction would be enormous, dwarfing the damage caused on September 11th.

These facts alarmed the Bush security advisors. They went to work immediately developing plans to protect the American people against the possible nuclear terrorism that threatened American cities. The first prong of their defense against nuclear terrorism was to call for dramatically increased funding to secure the nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. Encouraged by the success that had been achieved up to this point with the Nunn-Lugar funding, they realized that this was an area in which they could work closely with Russia in assuring that these weapons were kept secure and out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. The Russians were eager to get this help and to join with the Americans in this effort to prevent nuclear terrorism.

The second prong of the US plan was to work with the Russians in achieving significant reductions in the nuclear arsenals of each country in order that there would be less nuclear weapons available to potentially fall into the hands of terrorists. Since the end of the Cold War the US and Russia have been reducing their nuclear arsenals, and now it was time to make even greater progress toward the promise of the two countries "to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals." This meant reaching an agreement as a next step to slash the size of their arsenals to a few hundred nuclear warheads and to make these reductions irreversible. The international community applauded the boldness of this step, celebrating this major achievement in nuclear disarmament and this important step toward realizing the promise of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The third prong of the US plan was to give its full support to bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force, giving momentum to assuring an end to nuclear testing for all time. This step was viewed by the Bush security advisors as having indirect consequences for nuclear terrorism by assuring that other countries would forego the capability to improve the sophistication of their nuclear arsenals. It would be seen as a sign of US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons, and this would have a positive effect on preventing further proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The fourth prong of the US plan was to reevaluate the administration’s commitment to developing and deploying missile defenses. Prior to September 11^th, President Bush and his security team had been strong advocates of developing and deploying ballistic missile defenses. President Bush had even been threatening to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in order to move forward with missile defense deployment. Following September 11^th, it was clear that it made little sense to devote another $100 billion or more to missile defenses when terrorists were capable of attacking US cities by far simpler means. There were more urgent needs for these resources to be used in improving US intelligence and keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Therefore, the decision was made to put the development of missile defenses on the back burner and instead devote major resources to safeguarding nuclear materials throughout the world. These actions were extremely helpful in improving our relations with both Russia and China, which were both relieved at not having to respond to our missile defenses by increasing their nuclear arsenals.

The fifth prong of the US plan was to work intensively with countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel to convince them that nuclear weapons were not in their security interests and that they would have a heavy price to pay if they did not join us in moving rapidly toward a nuclear-weapons-free world. The Bush advisors knew that this would be difficult, but they were certain that the US example of curtailing its own nuclear arsenal and foregoing missile defenses, along with support to these countries for economic development, would convince them to follow our lead.

The world’s leaders and citizens have not heard about these US actions to combat nuclear terrorism because they never happened. The most remarkable thing about the US response to the terrorist attacks of September 11^th, 2001 is how little these attacks have actually affected US nuclear policy. Although US nuclear forces will certainly not deter terrorists, US nuclear policy remains highly dependent on nuclear weapons and the policy of nuclear deterrence.

To set the record straight, the Bush administration has supported cuts in the Nunn-Lugar funding for securing Russian nuclear weapons and materials. It has called for reductions in deployed strategic nuclear weapons over a ten-year period, although not within the scope of a binding treaty and, in fact, has indicated it plans to put the deactivated warheads on the shelf for potential future use. It has come out against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and boycotted a UN conference to bring the treaty into force more rapidly. President Bush has announced that the US will unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and move forward rapidly to deploy ballistic missile defenses, a move that has drawn critical response from both Russia and China. Finally, the Bush administration, rather than putting pressure on India and Pakistan to disarm, has ended the sanctions imposed on them for testing nuclear weapons in May 1998. The administration has never put pressure on Israel to eliminate its nuclear arsenal, although this is a major factor in motivating Arab countries to develop their own nuclear arsenals.

While there is much the Bush administration might have done to make nuclear terrorism less likely, the path they have chosen increases the risks of nuclear terrorism. It also undermines our relationship with countries we need in the fight against terrorism in general and nuclear terrorism in particular. Finally, the US nuclear policy after September 11^th is a slap in the face to the 187 parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and increases the possibilities of nuclear proliferation and a breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and regime.

At its 2001 session, the UN General Assembly voted 12 times on issues related to nuclear disarmament. The US led all nuclear weapons states in voting against the nuclear disarmament position on 10 of the 12 votes, abstained once and only voted in favor of a procedural resolution concerning the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. By contrast, China supported nuclear disarmament measures on 9 of 12 votes and abstained on the other three. Russia had five Yes votes, five abstentions and two No votes. The UK had four Yes votes, two abstentions and six No votes. France had four Yes votes, three abstentions and five No votes.

The US was the only country in the world to vote No on placing a resolution on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on the agenda of next year’s United Nations General Assembly.

In one other important UN Resolution on Preventing an Arms Race in Outer Space, the General Assembly voted 156 in favor with no vote opposed. Only four countries abstained. Among them were, you guessed it, the United States. The US seems to have other plans for outer space, as the motto of the US Space Command suggests, "Masters of Space."

Global Biotechnology and Biological Weapons Monitoring and Transparency Network of Non-Governmental Organizations

The recent anthrax mailings have highlighted the threat of deliberate disease as a weapon of terror and war. Yet, at a time when the norm against biological weapons (13W) is being violated most seriously and the threat of BW has penetrated the consciousness of the greater public, the international efforts against biological weapons are suffering serious setbacks. The negotiations on a compliance Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) came to a halt in the summer 2001 after nearly seven years of meetings in Geneva. The Fifth Review Conference of the BWC, November 19 -- December 7, closed in disarray and without agreement on a Final Declaration after it was suspended over a serious disagreement over the future of the Ad Hoc Group charged with negotiating the Protocol. As a result of these two events, the nearly three decades old Convention still lacks means to monitor compliance and the international community remains paralyzed in taking joint action against BW, strengthening the regime and responding to the contemporary and very real challenges.

Concerned about the setbacks and the serious gap in international security arrangements, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have been working to strengthen the ban on biological weapons have decided to undertake an initiative to study how they can make a contribution to strengthening the ban on biological weapons through increased transparency in this area. The success of the Landmine Monitor has served as an example, encouraging the exploration of that model in a biological context. The NGOs propose to serve as a watchdog to enhance international transparency and to increase political pressure on governments to comply with the BWC, thereby helping to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons and advancing international peace and security. A network of different stakeholder groups worldwide will be organized to monitor military and civilian biological activities through open sources and other available means.

Before launching the Global Biotechnology and Biological Weapons Monitoring and Transparency Network, however, it will be important to conduct careful preparatory work to see how the NGOs concerned with BW could best make their contribution in this relatively unexplored field. Thus, it is planned that the group of NGOs conducts a five-month study on the initiative under the auspices of the Geneva Forum, preparing the groundwork for the network’s launch in 2002. An essential part of the five-month preparatory phase (January -June) will be a workshop in Geneva, March 21-22, on existing monitoring campaigns, exploring comparative monitoring models and methodologies. This will provide the NGOs with an opportunity to learn from the experiences of the Landmine Monitor and the Small Arms Survey as well as from other monitoring and transparency projects.

The underlying objective of the joint NGO initiative is to highlight the importance of transparency in maintaining the norm against biological weapons, and to rectify, to the extent possible, the deficiencies in the current regime. The cooperating organizations are deeply concerned about the lack of compliance monitoring and transparency with regard to biological activities, the recent setbacks in international efforts in this area, and the growing threat of biological weapons. The NGOs want to highlight the governments’ legal and political commitments under the BWC regime and stop ‘backsliding.’ We want to conduct an experiment to test the value of transparency measures -- already in place for nuclear and chemical weapons -- in the field of biological weapons. To the extent that the experiment succeeds, it will set an example for future international action.

At a meeting of interested NGOs in Geneva on November 23, a number of members from different well-known NGOs working on BW issues expressed a strong interest in the project and volunteered to play and a role in the preparatory phase:

Harvard-Sussex Program (HSP) Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, UK;

a contribution to sustainable development and the mitigation of climate change

Some of you will recall that participants of the INES Congress in Amsterdam 1996 "Challenges of Sustainable Development" contributed a CO₂-compensation fee in order to make up for CO₂ emitted by Congress travel and operations. A workshop at the Congress estimated that the total CO₂ emission of the Congress amounted to 220 tons, mostly from long distance air travel (160 tons). One half of the collected fee (total USD 2000) was passed to the Scottish charity "Trees for Life" for a forest restoration project in the Scottish highlands. The other half was directed through a German NGO PrimaKlima -- weltweit to an afforestation project in Argentina. In September 2001 1 hectare of forest was planted through by partners.

About 120 years ago the first European settlers reached the impressing mountains of the Andes traveling from the Atlantic coast all the way across wide desert-like Patagonian steppe. Approaching the Andes they encountered extensive natural forests, first of rather small height and scattered, but then, closer to the Cordillera, successively higher and more vital.

Still today the vegetation shows this typical gradient, mainly due to differences in rainfall. However, the frontline between forest and steppe has shifted many kilometers towards the Andes and the Chilean border. Cause for forest destruction in this ecologically fragile interface was almost exclusively the livestock orientated agriculture introduced by the settlers. In order to extend grazing areas the pristine forests were cleared, intentional wildfires provided an effective tool to reach this aim. Additionally, grazing on remaining forestland made natural generation of these forests largely impossible.

Actually, after decades of repeated fires and overgrazing, large quantities of land have been left neither with forest cover nor with the potential to serve as grazing area. Parallel to the deterioration in agricultural productivity the world market prices for wool and meat have declined drastically. The ones who suffer most from these processes are the local workers on the large-scale farms, the famous Gauchos. These people, who oftentimes work for less than one US$ a day, loose their jobs and are forced to migrate either to local villages or urban areas, such as the outskirts of Buenos Aires.

The crisis in the agricultural sector has made clear that sustainable forest management and the implementation of afforestations is an important development option for the region. The overall potential for afforestations in Patagonia is estimated to be about two million ha, which is equal to not less than 20 % of Germany’s actual forest cover. Newly created forests would not only help to restore degraded land, but also supply employment for the local people and produce valuable goods.

Having noted this vast potential as well as the evolving social and ecological benefits, the Germany based NGO PrimaKlima -- weltweit has promoted several afforestation projects during recent years. In cooperation with local partners more than 150 ha of new forests were created so far. The projects included mostly the planting of native species. More resistant Pine trees have been placed on sites that did not allow the direct re-introduction of native species.

A donation of 1000 US$ by INES to PrimaKlima has made it possible that one extra hectare of new forest was added to a PrimaKlima project on the grounds of the small community of Cerro Centinela, located about 60 km south of the rural Patagonian town of Esquel, Province of Chubut. During recent years PrimaKlima has installed several hectares of native forest on the land of this community in close cooperation with its local partner Fundación Bosques de la Patagonia.

A key aspect of all project activities in this area was community involvement. After an agreement on the protection of the forests in the future was settled, the locals themselves constructed fences that will keep the livestock from entering the new forests. Subsequently community members planted the seedlings obtained from nurseries in the region.

The native tree species used were Roble Pellin (Nothofagus oblicua), Rauli (Nothofagus nervosa) and Maiten (Meintenus boaria). A local forester of the Fundación Bosques e la Patagonia coordinated all project activities. It can be resumed that the new forests will be an important contribution to the improvement of the environment and of the living conditions of this disadvantaged community.

The prevention of forest destruction and the creation of new forests contribute to the mitigation of global climate change.

Forest preservation and afforestation measures initiated by PrimaKlima are designed to prevent emissions of CO₂ or to absorb atmospheric CO₂, which means a relief for the atmosphere from this major greenhouse gas. The forestry option -- realized in addition to a drastic cut in emissions from the use of fossil fuels -- can help substantially to reduce the pace of climate change.

Today land-use change and especially forest loss contributes to about 25 % of the global CO₂-emissions. Leading scientists of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimate that up to the year 2050 around 10-20 % of the cumulated emissions from energy consumption could be compensated through biotic measures.

Not ignoring this potential, PrimaKlima promotes ecologically and socially valuable forestry projects as a means to compensate the actually not avoidable CO₂-emissions. For 10 years PrimaKlima has successfully reforested and implemented CO₂-related ecological measures on more than 2,300 hectares of land all over the world -- of which 1,600 hectares are located in Germany. Over five million trees have been planted so far. Altogether the PrimaKlima-projects set off more than 21,000 metric tons of CO₂ every year. This means CO₂-neutrality of more than 1,050 private households with an average Central European lifestyle.

The 1 ha of additional forest financed by INES will set off about 10 t CO₂ year by year. This annual sequestration will compensate e.g. the personal emissions from flying about 60,000 km (3-4 transatlantic flights) or the emissions from traveling around 50,000 km by car (8l / 100 km). CO₂-neutrality for these activities is reached for many years and even decades, and all this at virtually no cost.

What is INES? About its past, present and future perspectives this booklet informs engineers and scientists in Russia and in other past-soviet countries, all people, who are interested to participate in INES activities and ongoing projects focused on disarmament and international peace, justice and sustainable development.

The first part of this booklet begins by the Appeal to Engineers and Scientists, Membership Application, data on INES structure and leaders, the Council of this network, activists in Russia and their points of view about the global and regional problems of mankind. More detailed description of the Russian contribution to the INES Congress "Challenges for Science and Engineers in the 21^st century" (Stockholm, June 2000), conferences "Regional Aspects of Sustainability and the Role of the Universities" (Kaliningrad, September 2000) and "10 years after Rio" (Berlin, May 2001) will be presented in the second part of this issue.

Science, Education and Sustainability in the context of INES new initiatives -- this topic will be considered in the following part, related to the organization of the working group "INES and Sustainability in Education." The positive experience of the "Guide" Environmental Group (INES Member Organization in Kaliningrad) will be described as a good example of informal environmental education and of the possibilities of children’s contributions to Sustainability.

Perspectives of INES from different points of view, including efforts in the preparation of the World Summit 2002 in Johannesburg will be discussed in the last part of this booklet. In the attachment some information will be presented about Robert Havemann scholarships, possibilities for Russian students, INES publication, contact-persons addresses etc.

The main goal of this booklet is the distribution of information about INES activities in Russia and the enlargement of the sphere of interest for INES projects at the Universities of the Russian Federation (mostly for students, teachers and young scientists). The total volume of the edition is about 50 printed pages (without illustrations).

The purpose of this event is to develop a wide-angle, systemic view of the world, covering the full spectrum of ecological, social, and individual issues. We intend to integrate the knowledge of many disciplines to design rational and humane solutions to problems of the highest priority. The expected outcomes are a set of sound policy options, and recommendations for global and for local action. We invite individuals from all sectors of society to create working groups, or to participate in existing ones, and to contribute papers to the conference on the following themes, or related topics:

Systemic View of the World -- Universal values, basic needs of individuals and nations, knowledge integration, holistic, spiritual, and religious worldviews, action priorities for a just and sustainable world.

Ecological Sustainability -- Ecological integrity and environmental ethics, human impact on the global ecosystem, environment and health; population, consumerism, technology; energy and climate change; biodiversity, genetic manipulations; the precautionary principle.

Self-organization of the Human Society -- Security through cooperation, global governance and the United Nations, continental unions, domains of sovereignty, justice and international law, civility, transparency, democracy, political economy, fair taxation, regulated globalization, local self-reliance, and the Canada Well-Being Measurement Act.

Individual Responsibilities and Rights -- Human duties, human rights, the Earth Charter, change of attitudes, sustainability education, critical thinking, the role of the media, of art, and of religion.

The results of the preparatory working groups, and invited papers will be presented in plenary sessions at the conference. All contributed papers will be posted for discussion on the website before the conference, and at the conference. A selection of papers will be published in proceedings as beacons for political action.

Anatol Rapoport, University of Toronto, honorary conference chair. Helmut Burkhardt, Ryerson University, and Laura Westra, University of Windsor, conference co-chairs; all conveners of the electronic working groups and local round tables are members of the conference committee, which will consult advisors in academia, business, government, and non-government organizations.

Ryerson University, Science for Peace, Council on Global Issues, SGI Canada, Global Ecological Integrity Project, IHTEC Canada, IEEE Toronto.

Please join one or more of the electronic working groups, and local round tables listed on the website.

Please submit an abstract for individual papers as soon as possible and the paper before April 30, 2002.

Conference registration is open now, and will be closed, when 120 participants are registered.

A registration form and more information is available on the conference website.

Contact:
Helmut (Ken) Burkhardt, Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B 2K3
Tel: +1- / 7246
Fax: +1-
E-mail: ,
Website (in development): www.ryerson.ca/~woc

The Meeting is open subject to registration. It is supported by the Blekinge Institute of Technology (BTH), the Danish Network for History and Philosophy of Mathematics (MATHNET), and the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES).

Organizers: Maurice de Gosson, mathematician, Karlskrona, Sweden; Stig Andur Pedersen, Philosopher, Roskilde, Denmark.

Purpose: The aim of the conference is to consider the role of mathematics in the service of war.

Mathematics has for centuries been vital in war. During World War II mathematical work by the Anti-Hitler coalition was part of an aspiration that humanity would be served in an essential way, and that it was not a part of a methodology that would help destroy humanity. At the present moment, it is not an easy task to view the bellicose aspects of mathematics in a proper perspective.

At the conference, we will present historical evidence and point out recent trends. We will discuss changes in the interaction between mathematics and the military. In particular, we will discuss the recent acceleration in the development of military technology that has been mathematically enhanced and which has even brought about changes in the very character of modern warfare. Clearly, the debate on the "use"/ "misuse" of mathematics has now gained new dimensions.

We will also address the current glorification of mathematics in its role of creating the high-precision bombing of civilian objects, the concept of technological supremacy, the illusion of predictability, and the lowering of the war-waging barrier.

In this conference, emphasis will be on description and analysis. Our main ethical commitment is to support realistic behaviour. We aim at knowing what is going on and knowing what are the most comprehensive perceptions of the intended and unintended effects of mathematized military practice. Normative aspects, however, can and will not be excluded. We will also touch upon ways in which the continuing military diversion of mathematical resources can possibly be countered. We will speculate on ways in which, by educational reforms, even the more pernicious illusions might be seen for what they are and prevented. We will discuss ways in which mathematics might aid arms control and disarmament.

Speakers will include historians of mathematics, science and engineering, historians of war, military analysts, philosophers, and educators.

Topics: (1) Instances in the history of mathematics of military applications. Instances in present day mathematics and civilian "spin-off" effects. (2) Changes in the character of warfare under the influence of mathematical theory and mathematically supported technology. (3) Ethical and social aspects of the interaction between mathematics and the military. Mathematics and arms control and disarmament. Educational consequences.

Format: There will be invited lectures and ample time for discussions opened by invited comments by respondents. The lectures, major points of the discussion, and introductory material to the subject will be published afterwards.

Place: The meeting will be held at the Karlskrona Campus Annebo of the University of Karlskrona-Ronneby in scenic Blekinge (South-East of Sweden). Accommodation is at Hotel Conrad.

Speakers (preliminary): Bernhelm Booss-Bavnbek (Denmark), Mathematics and War, Evidence and Open Problems · Wolfgang Coy (Germany), John von Neumann -- Computing Politics · Philip J. Davis (USA), Mickey Flies the Stealth: War and Entertainment · Svend Bergstein (Denmark), War Cannot Be Calculated · Svend Clausen (Denmark), Warfare Can Be Calculated · Helge Löfstedt (Sweden), Opposing Technologies · Elmar Schmähling (Germany), TBA · Finn Aaserud (Denmark), Niels Bohr’s Political Crusade During World War II · Andrew Hodges (UK), Military Use of Mathematics During and After World War II: the Case of Alan Turing · Jesper Ryberg (Denmark), The Ethics of Scientific Warfare Intensifying · Ib Martin Jarvad (Denmark), Mathematics and the Law of War: The Concept of the Rational Actor.

Registration and more information by Email to Charlyne de Gosson at . se The registration deadline is August 1, 2002. The registration fee is SKR 500.

Delft University of Technology will be hosting a conference on Engineering Education in Sustainable Development. Sustainable development is a challenge for the engineering community. Delft University of Technology decided in 1998 that all of its engineering graduates, working towards careers as designers, managers or researchers, should be prepared for the challenge of sustainable development and as such, they should leave university able to make sustainable development operational in their designs and daily practices. Teaching engineering students how to incorporate sustainability in their work was not an easy job, as there was a lack of teaching experience and study material. To tackle this lack, we adopted various approaches. As time went by, we discovered a fast growing number of colleagues at other institutions struggling with the same problem. We are now approaching the end of the start-up phase of our enterprise at DUT and we want to share our experiences with our international colleagues and learn from them. We welcome papers that:

Reflect on the concept of sustainable development and its importance for engineering practices such as design, maintenance and management. Analyze (sustainable) technological innovation practices, and the role engineers play in these projects to address the question: what knowledge/abilities should the future engineer have? Evaluate existing sustainable technological development courses or curricula describe how specific sustainable development related challenges, such as providing food, shelter, transport or water for future generations is integrated into engineering education. Analyze the social implications of (sustainable) technological change Analyze and evaluate (interdisciplinary) student project work targeted at sustainability Address the question whether we need special ‘sustainable development’-engineers or rather to integrate sustainable development into existing curricula and courses. Analyze the tension between teaching students the long-term sustainable development view as a global challenge and the, in that perspective apparently trivial, optimization of minor details of technologies. Analyze organizational and/or political issues related to the introduction of sustainable development in higher education Analyze and/or evaluate activities to teach sustainable development to staff members.

Key note speakers will include: Prof. Manuel Heitor (TU Lisboa), Prof. Charles Hendriks (DUT), Prof. Leo Jansen (Netherlands Sustainable Technological Development program and DUT) Prof. David Marks (MIT), and Prof. Karl-Hendrik Robért (The Natural Step and Chalmers University).

Conference Secretariat
Dr.ir. K.F. Mulder
Delft University of Technology
Faculty Technology Policy & Management
Jaffalaan 5, NL 2628BX Delft
The Netherlands
, www.odo.tudelft.nl/conference.html

Science today is at a crossroads. More and more questions are being asked about whether scientific research is ‘ethical.’ In a world increasingly geared towards economic globalisation, there is great pressure for scientific research to be geared towards corporate needs, often at the expense of wider social and environmental goals. Further, much existing funding of science and technology, particularly in the UK, comes from the military. And with the tragic events of 11 September, the pressure will be for this source of funding to expand.

So can scientists now be trusted to contribute to a more just and sustainable society? If not, what changes need to occur? And how can we make sure these changes are not simply PR exercises?

Professor John Ziman FRS, Prof.Em. of Physics, Bristol University, What Does Society Need Science For?

Further information will follow, but please make a note of the date in your diaries now!

Scientists for Global Responsibility
PO Box 473, FOLKESTONE CT20 1GS
Tel.: +44 7771 883696, E-mail: , Website: www.sgr.org.uk

The creation of a European Network for Peace and Human Rights was prepared during several meetings of peace activists and NGO delegates in the parliament building of the European Union in Brussels. The launch conference, in which both INES and INESAP participated, took place on January 31. As Tony Benn remarked in his opening speech, it was two days after George Bush in his State of the Union speech issued his ultimatum to the world. In the plenary sessions, all speakers underlined the seriousness of the present situation; a call was made for unified action leading to "Full Spectrum Resistance."

Against the spreading war -- for peace and human rights, the effects of new military doctrines on peace policy;

We come from many different countries, municipalities and organisations. We recognise that all of us live in a world of fear and insecurity. We hold in common the belief that the first aim in all disputes should be to find solutions which build and secure peace, guarantee human rights, and protect the environment.

A better world is possible. We call for new concepts of security, nuclear disarmament, welfare not warfare, education for peace, and peaceful means of overcoming conflict through a reformed and strengthened United Nations.

But we face a turning point. We are in a situation where the greatest military and economic power on earth has declared war on its enemies, as it perceives them. This it has done with the support of most European Governments. We express our profound sympathy for all victims of terrorism, including state terror. But war cannot be the way to defeat terror. The United States has shown itself ready to unleash the most prodigious weapons of destruction against human beings and their means of livelihood. It is extending its power from land, sea and air into space and information to achieve what its commanders call "full spectrum dominance," at the same time that it pressures others to support its actions.

We refuse to do that, and call upon our fellow Europeans to join with us in our refusal to become accomplices in such a development.

We have special responsibilities in Europe to work for peace, for the dissolution of NATO rather than its expansion, and for peaceful development instead of the militarisation of the European Union. This is not only because of our relative wealth, but also because of our history of internal warfare and external aggression.

We have now established a European Network for Peace and Human Rights, and look forward to its extension. We recognise the growing movements of protest throughout the world, many of them represented at our founding convention -- peace workers, anti-militarist and anti-nuclear activists, environmental campaigners, religious groups, women’s movements, labour movements, relief agencies, fair traders, indigenous peoples’ organisations, human rights and other political organisations, including all those who have joined in protest at the corporate globalisation of trade, services, culture and the resurgent military-industrial complex.

We ask them to join together with others in resistance to military solutions and in the search for peace and global justice. Peace, democracy, and a safe environment are necessary for the world our children will inherit: war is waste and waste is the greatest environmental crime; democracy depends on free and unlimited discussion, and on the full participation of women, men and youth; allocation of resources that gives more to the military than to health and education prevents justice. It is for these reasons and more that it is necessary to create a movement for sustainable peace and justice.

Open a dialogue with the many movements in the United States working for peace and seek an exchange of delegations;

Create an active dialogue with peace and human rights movements in the new war zones of the Middle East, opposing violence and injustice throughout the region of West Asia and Northern Africa, including Israel’s occupation and settlements in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and other Arab territories; and to support the immediate enforcement of the Fourth Geneva Convention as an essential first step towards a just and lasting peace, as well as the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and independent statehood;

Give support to prisoners of conscience; and to those campaigning for the right to conscientious objection to military service and taxation;

Strengthen and reform the United Nations system, which could be the best answer for Europe and a uniting factor in the struggle against United States hegemony without being anti-American;

Strengthen our links with the World Social Movement, currently meeting in Porto Alegre in Brazil, in its opposition to global militarism and support for human rights, sustainable development and democracy.

To further these ends we are establishing a representative liaison committee to draw up detailed plans, find the necessary resources, and propose co-ordinated actions throughout Europe.

The fight against the ‘axis of evil,’ homeland defense, and a ‘new triad’ of conventional and nuclear offensive as well as defensive weapons -- that is US President George Bush’s promise for the next few years. And, he adds, the ‘friends and allies’ are not to interfere with any of these plans. The outlook for a continuation of the arms control process is therefore not very promising.

In particular current plans to build missile defense systems against the projected ‘missile threat’ pose serious problems in the coming years for international security and stability, arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament.

In this context, the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) in collaboration with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) undertakes the project Moving Beyond Missile Defense last year. The project will introduce science-based proposals into the international debate and the political decision-making process on missile defense, and promote concepts and initiatives that enhance international stability and cooperation on governmental and non-governmental levels.

A first workshop was held in Santa Barbara / USA in spring 2001 to outline both the project structure and contents and the work of study groups. In December 2001, a second conference was held in Shanghai / China that concentrated on the impact of missile defense on North-East Asia. Here, the nuclei were formed to study in more detail four aspects of the project: nuclear disarmament and the nuclear weapons free world; improving the international missile control and disarmament; a space weapons ban; and North-East Asia. The latter group decided to create their own sub-project, the North-East Asia Forum, to be convened by the Institute of American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai.

Moving Beyond Missile Control will remain the largest activity of INESAP in 2002. In August, the third workshop will be held in Berlin. It will concentrate on the European and Russian participation and implications of missile defense systems.

In cooperation with other groups, INESAP will also examine chances to promote the international debate on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) within and outside the framework of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. A basis had been laid last autumn, when an expert workshop which was attended, among others, by several staff persons from the German Ministry on Foreign affairs, investigated several aspects of a space weapons ban.

Nuclear abolition remains a major topic for INESAP. Accordingly, INESAP plans to take part in NGO activities and convene a workshop at the NPT PrepCom meeting to be held in New York in April 2002.

Under the motto of ‘Missile Disarmament Instead of Missile Defense,’ a national initiative was launched by INESAP and INES members in Germany. The appeal is aimed at the German parliament and government and demands to strengthen efforts for nuclear abolition, missile disarmament, and a space weapons ban rather than promoting dubious missile defense strategies. The German Abolition 2000 section (Trägerkreis ‘Atomwaffen Abschaffen’) adopted the initiative, which will be continued at least until the parliamentarian elections in Germany in autumn 2002. We were able to secure funds from a German foundation, which will allow us to publish a little brochure and a poster exhibition on the subject for the broader public. Just prior to the cancellation of the Anti-Ballistic (ABM) Treaty in June, the initiative plans to organize a major public event in Berlin.

The work of INESAP is reflected in the INESAP Information Bulletin, the next of which is due in March 2002.

Four years ago the employee of the newspaper "Pacific Ocean Fleet" was accused of spying in favour of Japan. Amnesty saved Pasko from prison; he could leave the courtroom as a free man.

The military court acted against his release and revoked the sentence. After a two-month legal procedure Grigory Pasko was declared guilty and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The indictment was: "secret collection of information for the employee of the Japanese newspaper ‘Asachi Simbun,’ Anaka Todaschi."

In Russia and abroad several NGOs objected to the verdict. Pasko rejected the suggestion of Sergey Mironow, member of the board of the Russian parliament, to apply to President Putin for amnesty, since he feels not conscious of any guilt.

Meanwhile, the military prosecutor lodged an appeal against the verdict, four years of prison being insufficient for the committed crime.

1-K-22, Dadabari, Kota -- 324009, Rajasthan India
Tel: +91 744 420823, Fax: +91 744 361205, Email:

The Rural Development & Youth Training Institute (RD & YTl) is a voluntary organization (NGO) registered under the Societies Registration Act of the Rajasthan Government.

The small group of dedicated workers is engaged in rural youth training programmes, cultural environmental movement, youth organization, health education, legal education, peace education, empowerment of women, human rights issues and community development programmes etc., particularly for poor people, poor landless labourers, tribal women and children groups through the method or non-violent direct action.

To help young people to acquire knowledge and skills with social consciousness and responsibility;

To evolve and develop the concept and methodology of youth work and community work;

To co-ordinate and co-operate with youth organizations, welfare agencies and government departments;

To organize training facilities for preparing poor people for long term commitment;

PEACE CORPS FOR AFRICAN RENAISSANCE (PCAR)
OR
ORGANISATION POUR LA PAIX AU SERVICE DE LA RENAISSANCE AFRICAINE (OPSRA)

PCAR or OPSRA is a humanitarian, nonprofit, nonpartisan, and nongovernmental organization whose headquarters are based in Lomo-Togo West Africa.

Our organization works for a peace based upon justice, freedom and human dignity: the organization is established in response to a fundamental need for effective monitoring of the human rights in Africa, especially in Togo, and the promotion of democracy.

In addition, it works for social development, stands up against poverty and promotes education, healthcare, childcare and women promotion…

When we need to become a member organization of INES, it is simply because our organization is a young one and it needs to gain experience from others. This is why we are opened to any worldwide organization that really wants to accept us as its member, ready to work together with us.

We are a new generation of young people, almost students with a new vision and point of view working as pioneers of change. Yes, the continent of Africa must positively change and we, the Africans do have to work for it.

ATCHADE Dossou Emmanuel
President, PCAR/OPSRA
P.O.Box: 80657
Lomo-Togo West Africa
Tel: +228 09 11 59, +228 21 78 57
Fax: +228 21 81 44
E-mail:

Develop the South-East region of Brazil, including the North-East of the State of São Paulo creating an interaction with the environment and the young people who live there. This project intends to restructure and develop this population, enrich and maintain their environment:

Through lectures and classes for the community and showing them the notion that the ecological preservation of nature is extremely important, such as not cutting the trees and throwing the garbage around.

By developing environmental educational programs for the municipality and the state governors.

Space for Courses and Other Events -- room for workshops, courses, expositions, etc.

Organic Market Garden -- place where we will plant vegetables and will prepare the vegetable beds with nutritional materials. Develop the technique to mix the organic materials with the ground. There will be a place where all the products raised in this area will be sold locally. We train the producers to sell their products in the city.

Recycling Workshop -- place where we will teach the students to recognize what materials from the waste are recyclable and how to use these materials.

Projects Workshop -- lectures which will teach the people how to elaborate projects and to develop environmental projects. The objective is to motivate the people to create their community project.

Breeding small Animals -- place where the people will learn how to raise small animals, like chickens, rabbits, fishes, ducks, geese, goats, etc, in an ecological manner.

Garbage Workshop -- classes that will demonstrate to the community how to use organic materials found in the left-over waste.

Alternative Energy Workshop -- Proposals and studies in the use of alternative energy in the communities.

The place we will develop this project is in Brazil, in the State of São Paulo, in the city of Mirassol (40.000 hab.), where there is one of the last remains of the Atlantic Forest. In this city and around there are severe social and environmental problems. The children and young people live together with drugs, alcoholism, and violence. They do not know what to do in their free time.

Based on preliminary studies and researches, the people who we will teach are children and young people at the age from 7 to 16, in total 210 individuals a month in all activities. In a year we would have reached a total of 2500 children and young people.

Bradford University
Richmond Road, West-Yorkshire BD14HU
Midland Hotel. Forster Square, Bradford.

On 23 and 24 May the seminar "New Security Architectures after the 11^th September 2001" will be held. The preliminary program of this seminar is shown hereafter.

24 May, 20:00h -- Guest Lecture
Joseph Rotblat, The responsibility of scientists in struggling for peace and the design of the future

Opening · Introductions · Report from the Chairman, Treasurer and Executive Director · Information about the INES Projects

25 May, 09:30 -- 12:30 h
Nothing is any more like before, The world after September 11^th Chairman David Krieger:

Poster Session, presentation of projects · INES projects 2002 · Council 2003 · Outlook 2003/2004 · Summary.

INES Seminar in Cooperation with Scientists for Global Responsibility
New Security -- Global and Regional Priorities

The main topic of this seminar will be the request for a civilian security policy. Rather than concentrating on the analysis of the militarization which was strengthened by the events of September 11^th, the focus will be on the beginning or continuation of a comprehensive discussion about civilian alternatives and prospects of a security policy which should be guided by the following criteria:

The events of September 11^th (this date does not only stand as a synonym for the terrorist attacks, but for the whole period from September 11^th to the end of the year 2001) have indispensably raised the question of the international security architecture of the 21^st century.

The military policy of the great powers, especially the unilateralism of the USA, and the rash or tactical reactions of governmental politics to the events of September 11^th require a principle answer of the NGOs. This seminar should give fresh impetus to our actions.

Reflections for a civilian, non-military safety structure, Dr. Wolfgang R. Voigt (Bundeswehrhochschule Hamburg);

The topology of crises stability and arms control process, Phil Webber (Scientists for Global Responsibility);

International Justice -- A just commodity or just a commodity? Chitralekha Marie Massey.

From the perspective of worldwide disarmament, particularly the abolition of nuclear weapons, David Krieger;

Proliferation of biological and chemical weapons: Emerging challenges, N.N. Bradford speaker.

Friday 24 May, 9:30 -- 12:30 h, Continuation of regional requirements for an international policy of peace

Challenges in combating and preventing transnational terrorism, Jiri Matousek;

Role and meaning of international organizations (UNO, OSCE, regional organizations), Owen Greene;

New Security Architecture and the role of non-governmental organizations, Alice Slater.

Action prospects -- What has to be done? Summary of the Security elements which have been worked out during the discussion.
Owen Greene, David Krieger.