internet19

At a meeting held in mid-March of this year, a group of about thirty people from all corners of the globe – North America, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia – seized the initiative to create a World Forum of Alternatives whose Manifesto is attached.

We are writing to solicit your participation in and support for this initiative, and likewise we would be grateful if you could supply us with names of people in your country or region who could be invited to join the list of Forum members.

Once enough signatures have been gathered, we will make the Manifesto widely known. We will equally keep you informed of all progress made in this direction through our Newsletter.

Please send your response to the Secretary of the Monitoring Committee:

Samir Amin, Forum du Tiers Monde

Professor Samir Amin from Dakar is Director of the Forum du Tiers Monde; he is a member of the INES council.

MANIFESTO

It is time to reclaim the march of history

Humanity’s future is at stake. Scientific progress and technical advances, the supreme achievements of knowledge, fortify the privilege and comfort a minority. Instead of contributing to the well-being of all, these feats are used to crush, marginalize, and exclude countless human beings. Access to natural resources, especially in the South, is monopolized by the few and is subject to political blackmail and threats of war.

It is time to reclaim the march of history.

It is time to make the economy serve the peoples of the world. The economy provides goods and services mainly to a minority. In its contemporary form, it forces the majority of the human race into strategies for abject survival, denying hundreds of millions of people even the right to live. Its logic, the product of neoliberal capitalism, entrenches and accentuates grotesque inequalities. Propelled by faith in the market’s self-regulating virtue, it reinforces the economic power of the rich and exponentially increases the numbers of the poor. It is time to make the economy serve the peoples of the world.

It is time to make the economy serve the peoples of the world.

It is time to break down the wall between North and South. Monopolies of knowledge, scientific research, advanced production, credit and information, all guaranteed by international institutions, create a relentless polarization both at the global level and within each country. Trapped in patterns of development that are culturally destructive, physically unsustainable and economically submissive, many peoples throughout the world can neither define for themselves the stages of their evolution, establish the basis of their own growth, or provide education for their younger generations.

It is time to break down the wall between North and South.

It is time to confront the crisis of our civilization. The confines of individualism, the closed world of consumption, the supremacy of productivism – and, for many, an obsessive struggle for sheer daily survival – obscure humanity’s larger objectives: the right to live liberated from oppression and exploitation, the right to equal opportunities, social justice, peace, spiritual fulfilment and solidarity.

It is time to confront the crisis of our civilization.

It is time to refuse the dictatorship of money. The concentration of economic power in the hands of transnational corporations weakens, even dismantles, the sovereignty of states. It threatens democracy – within single countries and on a global scale. The dominance of financial capital does more than imperil the world’s monetary equilibrium. It transforms states into Mafia’s. It proliferates the hidden sources of capitalist accumulation – drug trafficking, the arms trade, child slavery.

It is time to refuse the dictatorship of money.

It is time to replace cynicism with hope. Stock prices soar when workers are laid off. A competitive edge is gained when mass consumerdom is replaced with elite niche markets. Macro-economic indicators react positively as the ranks of the poor multiply. International economic institutions coax and compel governments to pursue structural adjustment, widening the chasm between classes and provoking mounting social conflict. International humanitarian aid trickles to those reduced to despair.

It is time to replace cynicism with hope.

It is time to rebuild and democratize the state. The programme of dismantling the state, reducing its functions, pilfering its resources and launching sweeping privatization leads to a demoralized public sector, weakened systems of education and health and the eventual usurping of the state by private economic interests. Neoliberal globalization divorces the state from the population and encourages corruption and organized venality on an unprecedented scale. The state becomes a repressive instrument policing the privilege of the few.

It is time to rebuild and democratize the state.

It is time to recreate the citizenry. Millions of people are deprived of voting rights because they are immigrants; millions more fail to vote because they are angry or discouraged, because parties are in crisis or because they feel impotent and excluded from political life. Influence mongering and deceit often distort elections. However, democracy is about more than elections. Democracy means participation at every level of economic, political and cultural life.

It is time to recreate the citizenry.

It is time to salvage collective values. Modernity, conveyed by capitalism and ideologized by neoliberalism, has destroyed or profoundly corrupted existing cultures. It has imploded solidarities and dismantled convictions, extolling instead the high-performance individual evaluated on the basis of economic succes. Rather than bring emancipation to the peoples of the world, modernity is generating a crisis in education, fuelling social violence and triggering an explosion of insular movements that seek salvation and protection in identity politics – nationalist, ethnic or religious.

It is time to salvage collective values.

It is time to globalize social struggles. In all this, it is not the internationalization of the economy per se that is to blame. It could represent a dramatic step forward for material, social and cultural exchanges between human beings. But in its neoliberal form it becomes a nightmare lived by the victims of unemployment, young people traumatized by the future, workers shut out of the production system and nations subjected to structural adjustment, labour deregulation, the erosion of social security systems and the elimination of networks serving the poor. It purports to link and unite; yet separates and imprisons.

It is time to globalize social struggles.

It is time to build on peoples’ resistance. Across the world, people are organizing resistance, engaging in social struggles and creating. Women, men, children, unemployed people, excluded and oppressed people, workers, landless peasant, communities suffering from racism, impoverished city dwellers, indigenous peoples, students, intellectuals, small business people, migrants, outcasts, declining middle classes – citizens – are asserting their dignity, demanding respect for their human rights and natural heritages and practicing solidarity. Some have given their lives for these causes. Others practise heroism in their day-to-day lives. Some are rebuilding knowledge based on concrete situations, some are trying out new economic forms, some are creating the basis of a are inventing a new culture.

It is time to build on peoples’ resistance.

Now it is time for joining forces. The convergence of struggle, of knowledge, of resistance, of innovations, of minds and hearts for a world of justice and equality, invention and material progress, optimism and spiritual development. We can build this world by seeking and discovering viable alternatives to neoliberalism and unilateral globalization – alternatives based on the interests of peoples and respect for national, cultural and religious differences.

Now it is time for joining forces.

A time of creative universal thought has arrived. Honest, probing analysis of the current economic organization and its economic, social, ecological, political and cultural consequences can only delegitimize this phenomenon which is paraded to the world as the paragon of progress. The search for balance between personal initiative and the pursuit of collective goals – based on a celebration of human diversity and creativity – must open the way to new models. Studies of expanding non-market sectors, productive techniques that respect the well-being of those who use them, and the organization and nature of work will help create more human forms of organization.

A time of creative universal thought has arrived.

The time to rebuild and extend democracy is here. Democracy is no longer merely a goal for the organization of societies. It is also the key to the functioning of communities, social movements, political parties, businesses, institutions, nations, and international bodies. It is progressively experienced as an essential contribution to the respect of popular interests and the preservation of national and international security. By prising open spaces for all cultures – not patronizingly, but because they represent humanity’s endowment – we can reverse the retreat into enclaves of narrow self-interest and the seclusion of identity politics. The existence of democratic, competent and transparent states is considered the basis for restoring their powers to regulate. Regional economic and political groupings based on internal complementarity are viable answers to the real needs of the population and a necessary alternative to neoliberal globalization. Strengthening and democratizing regional and international institutions is a realistic imperative. It is a condition for progress in international law and the indispensable regulation of economic, social and political relations at the global level, particularly in the fields of financial capital, taxation, migration, information and disarmament.

The time to rebuild and extend democracy is here.

The time for action has already begun. This is why the signatories of this declaration support the creation of the World Forum for Alternatives. At this moment, we need to create a network of committed individuals, popular organizations, social movements, and research centres. The time has come to establish a "forum of forums," bringing together existing organizations throughout the world. To think and work together, support the social struggles that embody hope for the future, encourage viable alternatives to neoliberal globalization, share and disseminate the results of study and experience. These tasks are imperative. We believe it is possible to build viable, democratic alternatives that respect the identity and dignity of every human being.

We invite you to sign this declaration, to join the Forum and to bring movements and institutions that share these ideals, and to which they belong, into the Forum.

It is time to reclaim the march of history.

OOOOOOOOOO

Forum for Alternatives

Forum du Tiers Monde – Third World Forum, Dakar, Senegal

The Third World Forum has about 1000 members in Africa, Latin America and Asia. It organises study groups involving about 5 to 7 experts each. The results of the study groups are printed in four languages (English, French, Spanish, Arabic). The current theme of the Forum is "The World Seen from the South."

THE SIXTH IRNES CONFERENCE

422 and 23 September 1997

Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK

Key themes:

Communication

Communication between professional disciplines
The influence of the media
Public perceptions and involvement in environmental

issues

Government response to public pressure
Exploitation of the green image
The role of Internet in research, industry and public awareness

Application of technology

The transition of research papers into practice
Exploitation of new technologies and their impact upon the environment
The role of the engineer in society
Non-conventional but realistic technologies

Technology and behaviour

The relationship between technology and behaviour
Land and resource use
Policy, legislation and industry practice

Sustainability

Sustainable cities
Provision for a growing population
Sustainable transport
Aspects of biodiversity

Human needs and environment

Balancing global and local issues
Interactions between countries at varying stages of development
Prioritising human and environmental health

Andrew Dixon (IRNES Conference)

Graduate School of the Environment, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AZ

INESAP annual report 1996

INESAP is a non-profit, non-governmental network organization with participants from all over the world. Participation extends to scientists and engineers from all disciplines interested in promoting non-proliferation issues. INESAP is part of worldwide activities of INES. The Interdisciplinary Research Group in Science, Technology and Security (IANUS) at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany, as a member organization of INES, coordinates existing activities in the INESAP network with nodes in different countries.

The main objectives of INESAP are to promote nuclear disarmament, to tighten existing arms control and non-proliferation regimes, as well as to implement unconventional approaches to curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to controlling the transfer of related technology.

Breakthrough for Nuclear Abolition

The year 1996 brought tremendous progress in the political efforts to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons, leading to unprecedented erosion of both the legitimacy of and the political support for nuclear weapons. The International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) actively supported the global abolition wave, which emerged during and after the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. One major INESAP contribution was the promotion of the concept of a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) similar to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which would ban and eliminate nuclear weapons. The anti-nuclear chain reaction in 1996 not only comprised Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) but governments as well, creating a window of opportunity for a nuclear-weapon-free world (NWFW). The major development and events in 1996 were as follows:

By signing the African-Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone (NWFZ) Treaty of Pelindaba in April 1996 in Cairo, 43 African States declared a whole continent to be free of nuclear weapons, and added the last brick to make the Southern Hemisphere essentially nuclear-weapon-free.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a historic advisory opinion on 8 July 1996 in The Hague, stated that "the threat and use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and particularly the principles and rules of humanitarian law."
On 14 August 1996, the Canberra Commission for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, initiated by the Australian government, presented its report, analyzing and recommending steps towards a NWFW, including US/Russian bilateral agreements, a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), a fissile cut-off convention, a no-first-use treaty, and nuclear weapon free zones.
In August, the large majority of the G-21 states proposed a phased Programme of Action for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons within a time-bound framework. It contains very important elements that should be seriously considered.
In September, after French and Chinese nuclear testing had been ceased, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva concluded negotiations on the CTBT, which bans all nuclear explosions, although not all research and development for nuclear weapons.
On 5 December 1996, 60 military leaders from 17 countries, including a large number of former generals and admirals from the USA and Russia, published a declaration in favor of the elimination of nuclear weapons.
On 10 December 1996, in a UN Resolution initiated by Malaysia, more than two-thirds of the 169 voting states called for negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, in fulfilment of the ICJ advisory opinion.

Around such major events, INESAP has further improved its networking, research, and policy-related activities, which it began in 1993. From the beginning, INESAP played an initiating and catalyzing role in the nuclear abolition movement. In 1996, the following INESAP activities are especially worth mentioning:

Of central importance was the 1996 INESAP Conference "From Non-Proliferation towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World," which took place 30^th May to 2^d June 1996 in Gothenburg, Sweden. It was organized in cooperation with the Swedish FIMK (Swedish Scientist and Engineers against Nuclear Weapons) and the Interdisciplinary Research Group in Science, Technology and Security (IANUS) of the Technical University Darmstadt, Germany. The Swedish Foreign Ministry and the Swedish Research Council FRN granted additional funds. The conference was a success in gathering more than 30 active INESAP participants and others who wanted to become involved in the planning process and implementation of the next years activities that were decided at the conference. The conference examined and discussed comprehensive approaches towards a NWFW that could be accomplished in a systematic process. Topics discussed during parallel sessions were nuclear disarmament, halting nuclear weapons development, regional approaches to an NWFW, cut-off and disposal of nuclear-weapons usable materials, nuclear-capable delivery and missile defence. Various future activities and improvements in INESAP's work were discussed and planned, including working groups on the NWC, fissile materials and missiles; a strengthening of regional activities and representation; a formal framework for participation, membership and decision making; formation of a new INESAP Coordinating Committee. Plans for a 1997 INESAP Conference in China were made, to be hosted by Prof. Dingli Shen.
Through continuing INESAP activities in 1995, in particular the INESAP Study "Beyond the NPT -- A Nuclear-Weapon-Free World" and an INESAP-organized seminar at the NPT Conference in New York, INESAP actively worked in the Abolition 2000 Network. This was founded in November 1995; it consolidated its work and increased the number of member organizations to more than 700. INESAP representatives also joined meetings related to Abolition 2000 that took place at Edinburgh in February 1996 and during various conferences and other occasions. INESAP took a leading role in initiating and facilitating the NWC Working Group of Abolition 2000. Out of this Working Group, ideas and activities emerged, leading towards the foundation of a NWC Drafting Group and promoting a UN Resolution linking the World Court judgement with the NWC. In 1996 drafting of a Model NWC took place in New York, at three meetings of the NWC Drafting Committee, consisting of lawyers, scientists, disarmament experts and activists, organized by the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. INESAP actively supported this process by participation in the meetings and providing scientific input, e.g. by a meeting at the INESAP Conference in Sweden. INESAP from the beginning was a strong supporter of the Malaysian resolution, e.g. by two related statements of the INESAP Coordinating Committee and by promoting it in the German press and parliament.
Much of INESAP's scientific and political activities in 1996 focused on raising attention to weaknesses of a limited test ban and providing scientific input to the CTBT negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament. A number of publications was produced dealing with CTBT circumvention technologies. Largely due to the international protest, hydronuclear tests are included in the ban and subcritical tests, announced by the US government, were not conducted in 1996.
INESAP participants made proposals to induce negotiations on a Cut-off for nuclear-weapons usable materials, e.g. by promoting a Comprehensive Cut-off Convention. These activities were supported by a research project on the Cut-off at IANUS. Together with the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), a large project was prepared with the title "Effective international control of nuclear-weapons usable materials as a step towards a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World." The main goal of this project is to establish a science-policy interface to promote ideas and concepts for the elimination and safety-control of all weapons-usable nuclear materials. Applications for funding this project were submitted to a number of foundations and a core group of liaisons was established which consists of 17 individuals in 13 countries.
On 19-21 January 1996, INESAP organized, together with the "German Scientists Initiative Responsibility for Peace" and the Protestant Academy Mülheim, a workshop on the future of nuclear weapons in Europe. About 30 participants attended the workshop, which discussed historical aspects of the atomic bomb, nuclear strategy of the nuclear powers, the status of nuclear weapons research and development, Germany and nuclear sharing, and the future role of European nuclear weapons in NATO and WEU. The workshop was concluded by a discussion among NGOs from France, Britain, Switzerland, Italy, and Germany on a strategy for a Europe without nuclear weapons.
As part of networking activities, INESAP participants joined and sometimes initiated debates on various issues. Round the 10^th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the future of nuclear energy and its connection to non-proliferation was discussed from a range of perspectives, e.g. in the INESAP Bulletin, at a nation-wide Chernobyl conference in Germany, and at an international workshop of the Argentinean Physical Society, organized by Prof. Luis Masperi. During the INES Congress on "Challenges of Sustainable Development" in Amsterdam on August 22-25, 1996, a working group was held on "Nuclear weapons abolition and nuclear waste storage." An INESAP Study Group on delivery systems and missile defence was under preparation in 1996, aimed at assessing the missile threat and possible options to respond to this threat from the perspective of various countries. The INESAP e-mail discussion list, organized by Johan Swahn, continued to be a source of relevant information and exchange among participants about political events, opinions, and facts. INESAP also maintains a homepage on the World Wide Web, which includes some of INESAP’s publications and statements.
Many of the above-mentioned activities have been explicitly linked to the science-policy interface, e.g. aimed at delegates to the CTBT and Cut-off negotiations, at decision makers in national parliaments and governments and at the press and public. The INESAP Coordinating Committee and INESAP participants have published a number of political statements. Wide international distribution was given to a statement of September 4, 1996 calling "upon the General Assembly of the United Nations to conclude the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and, as an implementation of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, to support a resolution to begin immediate negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention which would provide for nuclear disarmament in all its aspects." Other statements were: welcoming the votes on the NWC resolution in the UN First Committee (November 14) and in the UN General Assembly (UNGA, Dec.12), a letter to the G7 Summit, and a letter to the Russian President to release Alexandr Nikitin.
Four issues (No. 8-11) of the quarterly INESAP Information Bulletin were published and disseminated to about 500 readers, especially during the above-mentioned events. As a major source of information and exchange on science-based information and policy debates on non-proliferation and disarmament among scientists, non-proliferation and disarmament experts, diplomats and politicians, activists and journalists around the globe, the INESAP Bulletin was essential in linking all INESAP activities. By involving authors from a variety of organizations, it contributed to building a global community of experts and activists in this field. In terms of quality and quantity, layout and content, the INESAP Bulletin has made considerable progress in 1996, despite technical and financial restrictions. The responses from authors and readers to the Editor (Jürgen Scheffran) were very encouraging and resulted in a voluntary financial support by some.

Financial support in 1996 came from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Berghof Foundation, the Swedish Research Foundation and public funds given to IANUS, where the office and staff of INESAP is located. The office of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) in Dortmund is supporting the work of INESAP, especially in respect to the Abolition 2000 Network. The amount of funding related to INESAP was around $ 210,000 in 1996. About 70% of this were made available through IANUS. However, financial prospects for 1997 are poor and indicate a further shrinking budget. The reduced funding by foundations is an indicator of reduced interest in supporting non-proliferation, disarmament, and nuclear issues after the NPT Extension.

Martin Kalinowski, IANUS

c/o Institut für Kernphysik, Schloßgartenstr. 9, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany

E-Mail, group: , private:

INTERNET: www.th-darmstadt.de/ze/ianus/welcome.htm and .../inesap.htm

Nuclear Powers reluctant to talk with other nations on nuclear disarmament

Martin Kalinowski

The New York Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Conference in April 1997 ended under significant dissent. Many instances were at stake, since it was the first meeting of the Parties to the Treaty after the unlimited and unconditional extension of the NPT two years before. Back then, it was concluded to significantly strengthen the review process. The course to this end was set in a two-week session, which was the first of three.

Preparatory Committee meetings for the review conference in the year 2000.

It was the first time that factual debates were held in such a preparation conference as opposed to the mere discussion of procedural questions. Another novelty was that the topical discussions were not just limited to the review of NPT implementations in the past, but were extended to measures to be negotiated in the future. The dominating nations proposed three such measures at the end of the NPT conference, to which the debate is to be confined.

1. Security guarantees for NPT-members, not to employ nuclear weapons against them.

South Africa has proposed to settle this by the year 2000 and many countries would like to see a protocol to the NPT on this topic.

2. The establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

This is in the tradition of a 1995 security-council resolution and relates to a point in the "Principles and Objectives" NPT-paper of the same year. Since all the countries in the concerned region except Israel have already become members of the NPT, this demand aims exclusively at the disarmament of the Israeli nuclear arsenal.

3. The prohibition of the production of fissile material for weapon employment ("Cut-off").

This demand was put forward by the German Ambassador Günther Seibert. This is a measure thought to primarily put the non-NPT countries Israel, India, and Pakistan under control. Most of the non-aligned countries want to include the existing stockpiles in the Treaty in order to get the nuclear powers to do more than just confirm existing production moratoria.

Whereas nuclear disarmament has been judged in the usual fashion by observing the past achievements, the demand for inclusion of negotiations with the NPT member states on future measures as a fourth point on the list was strictly denied by the nuclear powers. The Mexican Ambassador Angelica Arce de Jeannet was persistent up to the very last minute to prevent a common agreement on the concluding statement of the Treaty if this demand was not included. The session of 148 present of 186 members of the Treaty was in danger of ending without an official result. The chairperson of the Treaty, the Finnish ambassador Pasi Patokallio finally succeeded in saving the report with an ingenious move. He took the problematic paragraph completely out and appended it to the protocol as a personal declaration, however without supplementing the aspect of nuclear disarmament.

The Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) were -- except for the opening and concluding sessions and the national declarations -- excluded from participation. This is a step backwards, stands in contrast to other conferences and sets a highly unsatisfactory precedent. The vast majority of the NGOs demands a definitive commencement of term-fixed negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the abolition of all nuclear weapons by the year 2000 under a campaign named "Abolition 2000." By means of the concurrent publication of supplementary factual material, INESAP (International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation) has substantially contributed to the organisation, the development of substantial discussions and the quality of the briefing program of the NGOs during this conference. The highlight of the Conference was marked by the presentation of a model for a Nuclear Weapons Convention that was prepared by a community of lawyers, physicists, and disarmament experts. The majority of states demands such a treaty. The Irish Ambassador John Campbell praised this proposal as the newest milestone of important events leading to the abolition of nuclear weapons.

A word from the chairman

I am writing these lines shortly before leaving for the INES Council meeting in Riga (25-28 July 1997). We choose Latvia as a meeting site, hoping to get first hand impressions of this transition country a few years after reobtaining its independence. Latvia is challenged by economic and ethnic problems. We will spend a full day for excursions and exchanges on approaches towards more sustainability in the region.

Some 35 representatives of member organisations and INES projects will meet at the council session. Major points on the agenda are:

a review of current projects and the networking function of INES,
a brainstorming on next steps, and
an election of a new Executive Committee.

Let me now report about some recent developments within INES:

n Shortly after the successful INES congress in Amsterdam, a plan for a next congress is already drawing considerable attention within and beyond INES. The idea is to use the symbolic appeal of the year 2000 for a congress on CHALLENGES FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AT THE THRESHOLD OF A NEW MILLENUM. Representatives of various organisations in Sweden (including the Academy of Sciences) have voiced strong interest in this congress project. A preparation meeting will be held on 29 July in Uppsala, Sweden.

n The Proceedings of the Amsterdam Congress CHALLENGES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT have finally come from the printer. The volume has 576 pages, 200 more than originally anticipated. The price is approx. DM 55.- including shipping. The proceedings will be mailed to everyone, who ordered them during the Congress. Additional orders should be sent to the Network office.

n The INES office will mail the INES Annual Report 1996 shortly. The report gives an overview over the development of INES projects and INES at large. It has turned out that two disarmament-related projects (SWENESCO’s work on conversion and INESAP’s work on nuclear disarmament) suffer from funding shortage. Funding agencies apparently have shifted their priorities, although the issues are still pressing. Project work within INES is a demanding challenge because projects have to operate largely in a self-supporting way.

n Luckily, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has committed additional funds for support of special projects within INES or its member organisations. These funds are meant to give critical edge support to smaller projects, which are already on their way, but need supplementary funding to become a success.

Applications for special project support of up to $500.- per case should be directed to me:

or to Reiner Braun at the Network Office.

n Networking within INES remains a hot topic, which needs much improvement. A healthy network needs lively nodes. I like to see such nodes strengthened on the regional level. Members of the Executive Committee have volunteered to act as regional contact and coordination nodes. You will find a list of the contact persons and their regions in this issue.

I wish dearly that both individual members and representatives of member organisations make ample use of this option.

If you have questions about INES and your role in it, if you want to raise issues of concern, if you are looking for support or cooperation in the region, please approach your regional coordinator.

n The INES Newsletter is still the main vehicle for communication of news from INES at large to its membership and beyond. Starting March 1 of this year Armin Tenner has taken over from Claus Montonen the important task of the acting editor. Armin is a retired professor of physics in Amsterdam. He was a leading figure in making the INES Congress in Amsterdam happen and has co-edited the Proceedings with Philip Smith. Thank you, Armin, for your commitment and diligence!

n The main forum for electronic communication within INES is the discussion list INESnet. INESnet has some 85 inscribed members. Recently some members voiced concern about the lack of qualified input into INESnet. It is my wish to use INESnet for more regular and rapid information about recent developments within INES. Tobias Damjanov is in charge of editing and distributing such information via INESnet and to all Council members who are on e-mail. The new service WHAT’S NEW IN INES has been edited twice. If you want to be included contact Tobias at .

n I would like to remind you of the INES Whistle Blower Fund. Limited financial and other support can be given to individuals, who are threatened because of their efforts to protect other people, the society or nature against severe damage. Priority in the general fund is given to cases revealing in the secret work on weapons of mass destruction. Please direct questions and suggestions to

n INES has two new member organisations:

Centre for Development of Small Scale Industries and Local Technologies, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
CESTA, Centro Salvadareno de Technologia Apriopriada, El Salvador.

Both organisations work on the field of applied engineering for sustainable development. Welcome!

Let me conclude by welcoming also all new individual members.

With my best wishes to all of you.

Hartwig Spitzer

Published by INES:

Wissenschaften Technik und Ethik

by Wolfgang Bender and Linda Hartenberger

The book is a German compilation of short descriptions of institutes, centers, working groups, projects and initiatives. It gives an overview over major research centers, teaching programs and a selection of related initiatives relevant to the interface of science, engineering and ethics. It provides information as a basis for networks and further permeation of research, teaching and public debate on this timely, but difficult topic.

The geographic focus has been put – as an initial step – on activities in Germany, enriched by a few selected examples from Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Even in the case of Germany, the compilation does not intend to provide a complete coverage but rather focusses on some of the centers that put major weight on the subject and on programs which have been initiated during the last 5 – 10 years.

The compilation was put together at the Institut für Theologie und Sozialethik of the Technische Hochschule Darmstadt as a project of the INES working group "Standing Committee on Ethical Questions and the Responsibility of Scientists and Engineers." The project has been financed by the Berghof-Stiftung für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Copies of the booklet may be obtained from the INES office at Dortmund.

Conference announcements

Expansion of NATO and nuclear disarmament

IPPNW European Seminar

Hotel IBIS, Montrouge, Paris, October 10-11 1997

Friday: Papers will be presented on Russia and the Extension of NATO; Strategies for Nuclear Disarmament; and Kazakhstan: nuclear disarmament of the fourth nuclear power, followed by a meeting with members of the French Parliament.

Saturday: Papers on: the PESK research programme on low-dose radioactivity; Article IV of the NPT; consequences of new radiobiology; recent data on biological dosimetry concerning the population; children and war; a critical study of epidemiological methods in areas exposed to low doses of radioactivity; international student campaign against landmines.

Registration deadline: September 1 1997

E-Mail: or

Alba Kör Scientific Conference

Budapest, Hungary, November 14-16 1997

Contact:

Health and Security in Europe

Two IPPNW Workshops on:

1. Health Risks of Manipulating Radioactive Materials,

2. Nuclear Weapons in Central and East Europe

Brno, Czech Republic, November 15 & 16 1997

Conference Language: English

Registration deadline: September 10 1997

Hague Appeal for Peace (HAP) 1999

In 1999, it will be hundred years ago that the First Hague Peace Conference was conducted. on this occasion, a coalition of international NGOs, currently consisting of IALANA, IPB, IPPNW and the World Federalist Movement (WFM) is preparing a Citizens Peace Conference at The Hague, Netherlands in May 1999, to celebrate this anniversary. A Draft Vision Statement of a "Hague Appeal" is currently under consideration, which says, among other things, "Abolish nuclear weapons, land mines and all other weapons imcompatible with humanitarian law; ..."

Anna Paulownastraat 103, L-2518 BC Den Haag, Netherlands;

Fax:

A VOW OF GRATITUDE FOR

ABDUS SALAM

By Ana Maria Cetto

"When Professor Salam talks of Theoretical Physics, let us remember that Theoretical Physics is the Rolls Royce of Science. What the developing countries need are donkey carts."

Such was an answer given to Abdus Salam when he first proposed, in September 1960, the foundation of an international post-graduate centre for theoretical physics under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Far from being overcome by the disqualifying and skeptical comments from some scientific representatives of the North, Salam went ahead with his proposal until eventually, with the support of a number of countries, most of them from the South, a centre of this kind was created, with the purpose of contributing to solving one of the most frustrating problems for many scientists in the developing countries: their isolation from other colleagues and from the generation of new ideas.

The International Centre for Theoretical Physics, established finally in 1964 in Trieste under the auspices of the IAEA and the Italian Government, has achieved much more than bringing together isolated scientists, by receiving every year around 5,000 physicists from all latitudes, for brief periods of research, advanced summer courses, workshops, conferences, and so on. Salam personally guided the activities of the Centre for almost thirty years during which it developed into a highly recognized scientific institution and a permanent forum for contacts and collaboration among physicists from North and South, East and West. The Centre has become also a guiding example for other international research institutions created with the purpose of supporting the science produced in developing countries.

Under the same principle of unification of the weak with the strong, Salam decided to set up an Academy of Sciences that would gather a group of eminent and recognized scientists from the South, with the purpose of promoting scientific capacity in these countries and opening a forum for the dialogue with the international scientific community. The Third World Academy of Sciences, founded in 1983, is recognized today not only by the prestige of its members, but also by the numerous grants provided systematically to active scientists from the poorest countries as a way of stimulating their participation in international research activities.

The next step in the promotion of scientific activity in developing countries was taken by Professor Salam in 1988, with the creation of the Third World Network of Scientific Organizations (TWNSO), a body that assembles national science academies, councils and ministries of science and technology with the purpose of taking joint action to develop science in the South.

In all this intensive activity of organizing and promoting science for development, the almost total absence of women scientists became manifest. Salam therefore undertook to foster the creation of a body that would promote the involvement of women in science as well as support the women scientists in their effort to contribute to national development in the countries of the South. Thus emerged, in 1989, the seed of the Third World Organization for Women in Science, which since its formal launching in 1992 has developed into a vigorous body with 1,500 members from all corners of the world.

Abdus Salam always acted under the firm conviction that the construction of a scientific and technological capacity of their own is a prerequisite for developing countries to move forward and thus contribute their share in defining the destiny of humanity as a whole. He also knew well how necessary it is to persuade political leaders, international institutions, and the scientific community itself, to share this view. Through the various institutions created by him, in his writings, conference lectures, speeches and even in his personal conversation - always pleasant and with a deeply humane touch - he showed himself as a strong and persistent advocate of the cause of science in the South. In addition to creating the institutions referred to above, he introduced a novel discourse in scientific policy, which has exerted an important influence in various spheres of international science.

One could hardly think that a scientist with his strength of action and thought would not himself come from a country that provides the most precarious conditions for making science. Salam was born in Pakistan, where he finished his first studies; he then took a Ph.D. degree at the University of Cambridge, and after working three years as a professor in his country of origin he decided to return to England. Having lived through and witnessed already at an early age the contrasts and tensions between North and South, he decided to embrace a scientific career as a theoretical physicist that would turn out to be particularly fruitful. Among his numerous important contributions to the physics of elementary particles, the most well-known is the gauge unification of the weak and electromagnetic interactions, two of the fundamental interactions existing in nature, into the unified force named by him electroweak. For this work of enormous impact and predictive power, he received, along with Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg, the Nobel Prize in physics of 1979. He further worked on the unification of the electroweak and the strong nuclear forces, towards the so-called Grand Unification.

Very sadly, a couple of years ago Abdus Salam fell victim of a serious neurological illness, from which he finally died on November 20, 1996. The scientists of the whole world, and particularly those of us who, in the South, share his conviction that only by building our own scientific capacity we can contribute to the development of our countries and become integrated into international science, are deeply indebted to Abdus Salam.

The Baltic University Programme

by Lars Rydén

Associate Professor at Uppsala University, Project Director of the Baltic University Program and member of the INES Executive Committee.

The Baltic University Programme is a network of universities in the Baltic Sea region. The general guidelines for the Programme were developed at a planning conference in 1991. Today, some 150 universities and other institutes of higher learning in 14 countries take part. All countries within or partly within the Baltic Sea drainage area are included: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, and more marginally the Ukraine, Slovakia, Norway and Czechia.

A large network of researchers and teachers at the universities has come into being, consisting of some 800 individuals. Most of these are active within environmental science but also within humanities and social sciences.

Programme goals

The programme has evolved into activities in four fields:

Undergraduate teaching using modern communications technology, in particular satellite TV, on issues of common concern for the region.
Cooperation with public and educational TV companies for broadcasts to the general public on the same issues
Research cooperation on a regional basis mostly on environmental issues;
A beginning cooperation with municipal and regional administrations and schools.

Courses

The Baltic Sea Environment is an English-language undergraduate course dealing with the environmental situation of the Baltic Sea and its drainage area. It is interdisciplinary – including e.g. geography, biology, chemistry, technology, environmental economics and law – research based, and problem oriented. It consists of ten 2-hrs satellite TV broadcasts, two of which were space bridges, produced in 1991 / 92 and now available as video cassettes, and a 35 page booklet for each of these.

The Baltic Sea Environment contains some 150 video-filmed contributions from a large number of researchers at the participating universities. Four follow-up TV broadcasts have been produced in 1993 and 1994. Some 7000 students have registered. An international diploma is granted students passing a common examination.

The course Peoples of the Baltic focuses on the common culture, history and multi-ethnicity of the Baltic region, addressing three current issues: The process of democracy, human, civil and minority rights and security, and security communities. The topics are all introduced to the participants of the course by researchers at universities in the region. The course consists of eight 90-min TV broadcasts produced in 1993 / 94 with eight accompanying booklets and a 2.5-hrs videotape introducing the countries in the Region. Two follow-up TV broadcasts were produced in 1995.

The new course A sustainable Baltic Region has been implemented in the spring of 1997. It makes extensive use of information technologies to network some 100 students over the entire region.

Research cooperation

In 1992 / 93 research cooperation within the network intensified. A common effort to develop a Baltic Region environmental GIS database, the BUGIS project, took shape and received financing. A network of laboratories in the region was established and equipment was installed in laboratories in five countries.

In 1993 and 1995 conferences were arranged for teachers and researchers at biological field stations in the Region. This initiative is now developing into a regional cooperation among field stations.

In 1995, a conference on International Politics in the Baltic See Region 1945-1995 was organized in Gdansk in cooperation with Gdansk University. A main topic was a possible future Security Community in the Baltic Region.

Cooperation with TV companies

The Peoples of the Baltic series has been broadcast to the public by Latvian TV2, Lithuanian TV3, and Szczecin regional TV as well as by several cable TV networks. The Baltic Sea Environment series has been edited to a series of programs for the public in Poland. In the fall of 1994, the Program Save the Sea on the environmental situation of the seas of Europe was produced by the Swedish Educational TV in cooperation with the Baltic University Programme and the Swedish council for Planning and Coordination of Research. Live TV broadcasts have been produced in cooperation in e.g. Turku, Tallinn, Riga, Gdansk, Poznan, Berlin, and Lüneburg. The Swedish Tele-X satellite has been used for broadcasting.

Programme Coordinating Secretariat, The Baltic University Programme

Uppsala University, Box 2109, 750 02 Uppsala, Sweden

Tel: , Fax: , E-Mail:

INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONFERENCE

Organized by the International Peace Bureau

Global Security, National Interests,

the Role of Civil Society

followed by the IPB Triennial Assembly

Moscow, 25-28 September 1997

Thursday, September 25, Plenary sessions:

The future of global security and East-West relations: the NATO / OSCE debate;

The work of NGOs: against militarism, and for peaceful conflict resolution and Cooperation among ethnic / national groups;

Panel discussion: Democracy in Russia and the shape of European security at the edge of the 21^st century.

Workshops first session.

Friday, September 26, Parallel sessions:

Women’s Forum;

Youth for Peace in the 21^st century;

Ethnosphere.

Workshops, second session.

Saturday, September 27, IPB Assembly and Council

The IPB Assembly is the triennial worldwide meeting of the IPB’s peace family. We hope for as many participants as possible from our 159 member organizations scattered around the globe. Observers are also most welcome. At this meeting, we will make plans for our programme of the work in the final 3 years of the century. In particular, we will discuss how to put the Hague Appeal for Peace on the international agenda. Since this broad global campaign will act as an umbrella for all our IPB work in the coming 3 years, we shall discuss issues such as abolishing nuclear weapons and landmines, curtailing the arms trade, establishing the International Criminal Court, fostering conflict prevention and resolution, and promoting the International Women’s Day for Peace and Disarmament.

IPB has to spread its wings! Come along and help us build an effective worldwide network.

Sunday, September 28, Cultural visits, return travel

Registration:

Margarita Lobecheva

Civic Peace, Degtiarny per. 15 str., Moskva 103050

Fax: +7 , E-Mail:

and:

International Peace Bureau,

41 rue de Zürich, 1201 Genčve, Suisse

Fax: ; E-Mail:

The International Peace Bureau is an international NGO forming a network of non-aligned peace organizations. The roots of IPB go back to the Hague Conference of 1898. In 1910, IPB received the Nobel Peace prize. The offices of IPB are in Geneva. INES is a member of the IPB network.

FIET Code of Ethics

by Gerhard Rohde

FIET is the 11 million strong International Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees. FIET was founded in 1904 in Amsterdam and is now based in Geneva, Switzerland. FIET has around 420 affiliates in over 100 countries. Within FIET, there is a special department for professional and managerial staff, which represents also engineers and scientists. FIET has a working relationship with INES. Together with INES they have organized a major international congress for engineers and scientists in Amsterdam last year on "Challenges of Sustainable Development." Recently the Committee for Professional and Managerial Staff (P&MS) has adopted its own code on professional, social and ethical responsibility, which is meant to be kind of guideline for professionals organised in their member organisations.

Code of Professional, Social, and Ethical Responsibility for

Professional and Managerial Staff

Preamble

FIET P&MS World Committee has decided to promote the following Code of Professional, Social and Ethical Responsibility for members of unions affiliated to FIET who work in a professional or managerial capacity. It represents the standards, which it is reasonable to expect members to comply with when carrying out their duties within their special fields. FIET affiliates represent a very broad range of individuals who are employed as professionals or managers by corporate bodies operating in many countries of the world and who consequently find themselves working under different cultural, economic and social conditions, and under diverse laws, statutes and regulations which frequently interact or overlap.

Continual radical changes in economy, sciences, and technologies play an essential role in the working lives of professional and managerial staffs. Scientific and technological processes are exerting a greater influence on the work and lives of professional and managerial staff than at any other time in our history. The belief that technology can progressively solve the problems, which it has often created for itself has to some extent been undermined. Professional and managerial staff are now often faced with skepticism and uncertainty created by the complexities and apparent inflexibility of technologies, where disagreement amongst experts on possible consequences sometimes calls the objectivity of scientific advance into question.

Because of the diversity of circumstances in which professional and managerial staff work around the globe, it is not possible to reach immediately all the objectives set up by this Code. Though the focus of this code is directed towards the responsibilities of professionals and managers, it does not diminish those of other participants, such as employers, shareholders, governments, politicians, and the public.

This code does not set out to vary any contract of employment, which may exist between an individual member of an affiliated union and the employer. Nor is it intended to do so. Nor is it a substitute for members' obligations to the individual rules of their trade unions affiliated to FIET.

Professional and Managerial Staff

Article 1. General

In the pursuit of their professional activities, professional and managerial staff shall take into account not merely the scientific, technical, and economic considerations, but also the social, environmental, and ethical implications of their work. The responsibility of professional and managerial staff for the sustainable welfare of the community is an integral part of their professional responsibility. Professional and managerial staff shall ensure that their activity contributes to an equitable distribution of world resources.

Article 2. Sustainability.

Professional and managerial staff shall take all steps to maintain sustainable systems of work and to avoid angers, which may cause death, injury, or ill health to any person. They shall also avoid damage to nature and goods by any act or omission because of the execution of their duties. Professional and managerial staff shall take all steps to safeguard public interest in matters of health and safety.

Article 3. Human Rights

Professional and managerial staff shall respect and defend human rights, including trade union rights, in particular by promoting international standards. They shall have the right to be unionised and shall actively take part in the working community, in particular in unions, with their professional skills.

Article 4. Regulations and Standards

Professional and managerial staff shall familiarise themselves with the culture, economic and social background, laws, and regulations appropriate to the country in which their work is being undertaken.

Article 5. Professional Integrity

Professional and managerial staff shall act in a manner, which neither compromises nor impairs, nor is likely to compromise or impair, their professional integrity in the performance of their duties. In particular they shall take all steps to make business agreements clear and fair, including the social clauses. Professional and managerial staff shall uphold equity and dignity and conduct their affairs faithfully.

Article 6. Industrial Democracy

Professional and managerial staff shall support the democratic process in industry, in particular collective bargaining, and the establishment of arrangements for participation by employees in companies and in the workplace. They shall seek to ensure that those affected by organisational change, or by the introduction of new technologies, are adequately consulted about the implementation of the changes and systems and their effect on working conditions.

Article 7. Data Protection and Privacy

Professional and managerial staff shall ensure that protection of personal data and privacy is effective, in particular by observing relevant national or international laws and regulations.

Article 8. Information and Training

Professional and managerial staff shall take steps both to maintain and develop their professional competence and knowledge within their special fields and to keep abreast of developments in economic, scientific, technical, and social or other related disciplines relevant to their field of professional activity. Professional and managerial staff shall take steps to further the information education and training facilities of their subordinates and to encourage their employers to allow appropriate facilities for their staff so that they can participate in continuing professional development courses and seminars. Professional and managerial staff shall familiarise themselves with the systems applications in the workplace and display an understanding of their implications for employees and a willingness and understanding to respect the needs and interests of all interested parties.

Article 9. Confidentiality

Professional and managerial staff shall not disclose or authorise the disclosure of information covered by "professional secret," which has been acquired by them in the course of their professional activities and which is not already in the public domain, without prior written consent for disclosure. Professional and managerial staff shall, however, make information public where disclosure is in the public interest.

Article 10. Moral Conflict

Those who inform the public in accordance with previous articles, or refuse to work on projects, which violate previous articles, shall be protected from dismissal and shall not incur other disadvantages in the work place.

National Trade Unions

Article 11. Promotion

Trade unions affiliated to FIET with professional and managerial staff in their membership shall distribute this code to their members and promote professional, social and ethical responsibility at the workplace.

Article 12. Protection

Trade unions shall encourage the professional, social and ethical responsibility of professional and managerial staff and protect their members in case of conflicts by means of legal advice and support and through collective agreements.

Article 13. Report back

Trade unions shall report back to the FIET P&MS World Committee their experience of good practice and conflicts concerning the professional, social and ethical responsibility of professional and managerial staff.

FIET P&MS World Committee

Article 14. Interdisciplinary dialogue

FIET will use its good offices to facilitate discussion between individuals of different disciplines and specialisations and to ensure dialogue takes place on topics selected by the FIET P&MS World Committee. A record of the discussions will be made public from time to time.

Article 15. Implementation

The FIET P&MS World Committee will organise procedures for the discussion and implementation of this code at regional and at world level. The FIET P&MS World Committee will establish a library of experiences of good practice or conflicts concerning the professional, social and ethical responsibility of professional and managerial staff. The FIET P&MS World Committee will act with relevant organisations and institutions to promote the contents of this code and to ensure respect for it.

Article 16. Review

The FIET P&MS World Committee is committed to a periodical review of the effectiveness and relevance of its code of professional, social and ethical responsibility.

Adopted by FIET's P&MS Committee on 13 May 1997

Gerhard Rohde is Secretary General of FIET, and a member of the INES council.

International Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees

Avenue de Balexert 15, 1219 Châtelaine, Genčve, Suisse

TEL: , FAX:

E-Mail:

Open Skies over Bosnia

INES chairperson Hartwig Spitzer visited Bosnia in June as part of his professional work on arms control research and image analysis.

On June 17 and 18, 1997 I had the opportunity to participate in a joint Hungarian-Romanian Open-Skies trial flight over Bosnia and Herzegovina. This flight was one of those rarely reported events outside of the limelight of international media attention, which support confidence building and reconciliation amidst a deeply split population and high levels of tension. The actors behind such steps are representatives of international organizations like OSCE as well as courageous members of non-governmental organizations, which are engaged in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The addressees are both official representatives and the threefold "general" public.

How do you facilitate multiple communication after a war when almost everyone feels as a looser? The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) took a threefold approach: Firstly, OSCE supports the mutual verification of (modest) arms reductions according to the Dayton accord through multilateral on-site inspections. E.g. an OSCE representative escorts officers from Republicka Srpska for an inspection of a military site operated by the Bosnian army or by the HVO (the military of the Bosnian Croats). Bosnian Serbs would not dare to pass the border of their "canton" in their own cars. SECONDLY, OSCE (with the help of other organizations) organizes elections. Thirdly – and least known – OSCE has arranged a number of voluntary confidence building measures in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Open-Skies flight in June was one of these confidence-building measures. The earliest foundations for this flight were laid in 1992 when the member states of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact signed an Open-Skies Treaty, which foresees mutual cooperative observation (imaging) flights over any site in their territories. One of the fathers of the treaty was Ambassador Krasznai of Hungary, whom I met first in 1994. He was also one of the architects of the Hungarian-Romanian Open-Skies Agreement, which is successfully in force since 1992. In 1996 Krasznai was appointed as personal representative of the chairperson in office of the OSCE for the implementation of part (Article 2) of the Dayton Accord in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Krasznai believed that Open-Skies would be a viable tool for overcoming suspicion, because the opening of ones own airspace to the "eyes" of the other side in an important gesture.

In consequence, observers from the three Bosnian parties as well observers from Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were invited for joining an Open-Skies trial flight over Hungary in October 1996, which was jointly organized by Hungary and the United States. I witnessed how the officers from the divided camps slowly opened up after four days of joint bus rides, flights, discussions and meals. The next step was a seminar on Open-Skies and regional confidence building measures, which was held in Sarajevo by OSCE in February 1997. The seminar brought me to Sarajevo for the first time. In March of this year Hungary and Romania agreed to take aside one of their bilateral Open-Skies flights, offering it as a trial flight to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the only diplomatically accepted entity). A final agreement was only obtained after including the army leadership of the Bosnian Croats, Serbs, and Muslims in the negotiations. Although the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina represents the country to the outside, state agencies lack functionality and authority. The leaderships of the three ethnic groups make most decisions.

I flew into Sarajevo on board of the Hungarian Open-Skies aircraft, a Russian-made twin engine cargo plane (model Antonov 26). Arriving in Sarajevo is still a breathtaking experience. South of the airport, quite sizeable mountain ridges rise into the glaring summer sky. On the other side the former Olympic Village got so heavily destroyed by the fire of light arms that it is now nearly uninhabited. The airport itself, which was the former front line, resembles a busy military camp. It is one of the main entry and exit points of the multinational force (SFOR), which brought the war to a standstill. Parts of the airport have recently been opened for civilian flights.

I was one of many observers invited from Germany, the UK, France, the United States, Denmark, Russia, The Ukraine, Croatia and Slovenia. Part of the delegation was housed in the nearby Serbian canton (which calls itself Republika Srpska), the other one -- an hour’s drive away – in Kiseljak, in the Croat canton (which calls itself Croat Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Kiseljak lies in a charming valley surrounded by lush green fields and wooded hills. The place took well off. In Contrast To Sarajevo, you might forget that this was a place of war. However, when you stroll down the main street, you pass a heavily destroyed mosque and a fenced off orthodox chapel. Whereas Croats made 52% of the population before the war, they are now at 99%.

In the hotel, we found ourselves heavily guarded by soldiers of the Croat army (HVO). This was not needed for security reasons, but was rather meant as a demonstration of the self-confidence of this well-equipped and well-paid army (in contrast to the Bosnian and Serbian army). A sergeant told me that he earns DM 1,200.- per month, definitely more than the Hungarian and Romanian officers in our group. The soldier could not comment on the financial sources of HVO.

On June 17 and 18 two flights were carried out from Sarajevo, which led to Mostar and to Tuzla passing various military sites. Representatives of the three "entities" had agreed after substantial bargaining – on a joint list of nine targets to be photographed (four in the Bosnian canton, three in the Serbian canton and two in the Croat canton).

A dual camera on board of the aircraft took two identical pictures each time. In the end, the pictures from both flights were evenly divided between the military representatives of the three entities and the State. Everyone took home both pictures of own sites and of sites belonging to the other entities. This is one of the elements, which express the open and cooperative nature of the Open-Skies approach. Observers from all Bosnian parties and international observers were on board during the flights.

They also met formally and informally before and after the flights. All parties concerned welcomed the outcome of the flights. Ambassador Krasznai reminded us that a successful flight in 1991 was at the beginning of the formal Hungarian-Romanian Open-Skies Agreement. The Open-Skies practice of Hungary and Romania definitely has contributed to the fact that political tensions between the two countries were eased and never incited to the level of military tensions.

It can be expected that more Open-Skies demonstration flights over Bosnia will follow, carried out by Romania and potentially also the United States and Germany as lead nations. Romania has already submitted a formal offer to the Foreign Ministry of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A distant goal – envisaged by some – is a regional Open-Skies agreement, which might also involve Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

What is the outlook for lasting peace in Bosnia? We cannot tell. Whenever I talked to representatives of the three entities, I heard words of polarization, blaming the other sides. At the same time, the outside world is being held responsible for solving the internal problems. Everyone believes that an international force like SFOR has to stay present for years in order to prevent the outbreak of new fighting. An Open-Skies Agreement could be one of many measures (most importantly economic reconstruction), which could support the parties in a true normalization of their relations. This will take time, persistence, and dedication. The goal is a transformation of hate, fear, and helplessness into an attitude of taking care of oneself, and of accepting the others.

New INES members

Member organizations:

Centre for Development of Small-Scale Industries and Local Technologies

Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University

El-Sarayat Str., Abdou Pasha, Abbassiah, Cairo, Egypt

Tel / Fax: +

The Centre aims at directing R&D efforts to the endogenous development of local communities via the innovative use of their renewable resources. A pilot project promotes the use of date palm leaves as an industrial raw material. The Centre has the status of an NGO; it has been established in 1990 and has 25 permanent staff menbers.

CESTA

Apdo.3065, San Salvador, El Salvador

Tel: +, Fax: +

E-Mail:

This is a group of engineers interested in appropriate technology. They want to work for the sustainability of the counrtry. In particular, they want to create public awareness and initiate actions for environmental protection. They cooperate with Friends of the Earth.

Personal members:

Herman van de Stadt

Praedinissingel 35, 9711 AD Groningen, Netherlands

Tel: , Fax:

E-Mail:

Areas of interest: conversion.

Dalia Martinkiene

Karoso 10-5, Klaipeda, Lithuania

Areas of interest: global ecological problems and human health

Ilona Cicinskaite

Riomerio 2-27, Kaunas, Lithuania

Areas of interest: global ecological problems and human health

Jochen Hopf

Salmdorfer Str. 3a, 85540, Haar, Deutschland

Ricardo Navarro

CESTA, Apdo.3065, San Salvador, El Salvador

Tel: +, Fax: +

E-Mail:

Mathew Ojielo

26 Ilupeju by pass Ilupeju, Lagos, Nigeria

Areas of interest: conversion, non-proliferation and development.

Helmut Burkhardt

Department of Physics, Ryerson Polytechnic Univ.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B 2K3

Areas of interest: sustainable civilization, use of solar energy, human population control .

Regional INES Contacts

INES as a network relies on healthy nodes. The members of the Executive Committee have been asked to serve as contact persons for their respective region. Readers are encouraged to approach the INES contact person in their region. Please raise any question you have, voice wishes and ideas for cooperation.

BALTIC REGION

(Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland)

Lars Ryden , Fax: ;

E-Mail:

CENTRAL / WESTERN EUROPE

(Germany, Benelux, UK, Ireland)

Reiner Braun, Fax:

E-Mail:

WESTERN / SOUTHERN EUROPE

(France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece)

Marc Ollivier,

E-Mail:

CENTRAL / EASTERN EUROPE

(Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Successor states of former Yogoslavia)

Jirí Matousek , Fax: E-Mail:

NORTH AFRICA

Esmat Ezz, Fax: +

CENTRAL / SOUTHERN AFRICA

Ogunlade Davidson, Fax:

E-Mail:

CANADA AND UNITED STATES

David Krieger, Fax: +1

E-Mail:

LATIN AMERICA

Ana Maria Cetto, Fax:

E-Mail:

ASIA AND OCEANIA

to be determined

The INES Newsletter is edited by

Armin Tenner

Buziaustraat 18, 1068 KN Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Tel/Fax: , E-Mail:

Contributions to the Newsletter may be sent immediately to this address, preferentially by E-Mail.

The Newsletter in printed by Jürgen Heinze, Dortmund, Germany.

Schlaining Manifesto

Burg Schlaining, Austria

June 15, 1997

NATO expansion and nuclear weapons in Europe

Steps towards non-nuclear European security

Introduction

Since the end of the Cold War, public debate on security issues, and in particular on nuclear weapons, has receded and become overshadowed by other more apparently pressing problems. Despite this fact, opinion polls in many countries show an overwhelming majority in favour of the abolition of nuclear weapons. For this reason, NGOs working in the peace and security fields see a necessity to propose a political programme of action to move from military defence alliances dependent on nuclear deterrence to a cooperative and non-nuclear security structure that aims to prevent and resolve conflicts rather than solve them by use of force.

On March 13 1997, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, calling "on the Member States to support the commencement of negotiations in 1997, leading to the conclusion of a convention for the abolition of nuclear weapons." With this resolution, the European Parliament joined for the first time the International Court of Justice, the Canberra Commission and more than 60 active and retired high-ranking military officers in seriously questioning the legitimacy of nuclear weapons and the concept of nuclear deterrence. While today there is a realistic chance to finally develop a European Security Architecture no longer based on nuclear weapons, NATO governments still neglect this option. Instead, they continue to insist that European security will require nuclear weapons. They intend to base the future European Security Architecture on a reformed and enlarged NATO and to develop a (Western and Central) European Defence and Security Identity. Thus, the opportunity to develop a truly Pan-European Security Architecture no longer centred on a military alliance has been missed.

NATO's Nuclear Future

NATO still clings to its nuclear war-fighting doctrine and insists on retaining nuclear weapons. Up to 200 US nuclear bombs are still deployed throughout seven European NATO-members; France and Britain retain their national nuclear postures. NATO refuses to give up its doctrine to use nuclear weapons first. Thus NATO explicitly contradicts the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of July 8, 1996, which declares the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons to be generally contrary to international law.

It should be emphasised that the ICJ declared the threat or use of nuclear weapons to be generally illegal. The ICJ did not approve any "right" to threaten or use nuclear weapons, but it asserted that it "cannot conclude definitely" whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful "in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake." This doubtful area of uncertainty does not cover NATO nuclear strategy. Indeed, NATO threatens to use nuclear weapons even when no member state is threatened in its very survival.

NATO nuclear forces serve much broader political purposes: "The nuclear forces of the Alliance continue to play a unique and essential role in Alliance strategy. (...) A credible Alliance nuclear posture and the demonstration of Alliance solidarity and common commitment continue to require widespread participation by European Allies involved in collective defence planning, in nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces on their territory and in command, control and consultation arrangements." (NATO: The Alliance New Strategic Concept, Rome, 1991). NATO's nuclear strategy has not been changed since the ICJ advisory opinion.

Due to NATO enlargement, the number of countries committed to such policies will be increased. At the next NATO summit from 8 to 9 July in Madrid, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and possibly other states are expected to be invited to become member states of NATO in 1999. Independently of whether NATO deploys nuclear weapons in the new member states, it will increase the number of countries relying on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence. It will expand NATO's system of nuclear sharing arrangements.

NATO stated in the Founding Act between NATO and the Russian Federation: "The member States of NATO reiterate that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspect of NATO's nuclear posture or nuclear policy -- and do not foresee any future need to do so." NATO also stated that it does not intend to build or use nuclear weapons infrastructure on the territory of its new members. (Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation of 27 May 1997).

Nevertheless, the Founding Act fails to provide an internationally binding guarantee that NATO will not deploy nuclear weapons in these countries. In fact, NATO unilaterally reserves the right to change this declared policy on nuclear deployments in the new member states. It is intended that they will become full and equal members and thus eligible to fully participate in NATO nuclear sharing and decision-making arrangements. Full membership status includes the right to ask for the deployment of US-nuclear weapons as well as an obligation to accept that US nuclear weapons can be deployed at least during wartime (Denmark, Norway).

Participation of non-nuclear weapons states in NATO nuclear sharing includes the possibility that the control over nuclear weapons in wartime will be transferred to the Armed Forces of non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). Peacetime storage of nuclear weapons on the territory of a new NNWS and peacetime training of the use of nuclear weapons are possible, which is already the case for existing member NNWS.

NATO nuclear sharing and decision making arrangements are perceived as a violation of Articles I and II of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by many non-NATO NNWS. Agreement among the parties to the NPT as to whether this is in compliance or in violation of the NATO countries' obligations under the NPT has never been reached. NATO unilaterally declares its nuclear sharing arrangements to be in compliance with the NPT, but even so the NATO states did not use the opportunity to deposit clear and formal reservations to that effect. Nevertheless, during both the NPT Review and Extension Conference in 1995, and the 1997 PrepCom for the Review Conference in 2000, the issue was again subject to controversy. When re-evaluating this question it should be taken into account that Russia has withdrawn all of its nuclear weapons from the territory of foreign countries.

NATO -- The Right Institution of European Security?

NATO argues that the Alliance's expansion will provide more stability for Europe. Despite the Founding Act between NATO and the Russian Federation, the opposite may in fact become true. Neither the Founding Act nor NATO's enlargement effectively ensure the prohibition of new division lines through Europe. They might even contribute to their creation.

The goal of being admitted to NATO has already become a driving force for many countries to overexaggerate the perceived threat from Russia. In an enlarged NATO, they might feel a need to continue to do so in order to show that their decision to join was justified. Those not admitted during the first round of enlargement will continue to compete for accession. Those countries, which do not join might start to overexaggerate the perceived threat from NATO, and may seek closer cooperation with Russia. If that option is not available to them, they could eventually feel isolated and insecure. One answer to this problem may be to develop a neutral position.

If the Founding Act between NATO and Russia succeeds in keeping fear of NATO low in Russia and in developing a common international security policy, it may result in a joint northern block confronting southern countries. It may thus become an instrument for increasing north-south tensions in the world.

More likely, however, the NATO Russia Founding Act will not eliminate Russian opposition to NATO enlargement. Russia is raising serious security concerns. NATO expansion will leave Russia greatly outnumbered by NATO's conventional forces. NATO has promised to seek a solution at the Vienna negotiations about the Conventional Forces Treaty in Europe, but has not yet tabled a proposal for future conventional force limitations that could really meet Russian concerns. Russia might therefore finally decide to compensate its conventional inferiority by copying NATO's "flexible response" strategy of the 1970s and 1980s. Therefore, Russia would have to rely heavily on tactical nuclear weapons and would also have to resort to a first use policy. Because of this possibility, NATO expansion may put the ratification of START II at risk and thus jeopardise the future of nuclear disarmament.

The cost of NATO expansion must also be taken into account especially given current severe economic and social problems. Cost estimates range from US$ 20 to US$ 125 billion over 7-12 years. Cost will have to be shared between the current and the new NATO members. Severe burdens will be placed on the new member states already struggling to transform their weak economies. They will be forced to spend scarce resources, urgently needed for stabilising the countries' economies and saving their social security and education systems, on new defence equipment. They might be forced to repeat a core mistake from Cold War times - spending much more on armaments than their economies can afford. This might destabilise newly established democracies and encourage radical positions.

The USA and several European countries are at present negotiating sales of fighter aircraft to candidate states for NATO membership, which indicates underlying motives for NATO expansion quite separate from the NATO claim of desiring stability in the region.

A Nuclear Future for Europe?

"The debate on the European nuclear deterrent will be the moment of truth in the construction of a European political union." (Assembly of the WEU, Document 1420, 19.5.94, p.35). European Union members are in the process of developing their own security and defence identity. The Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht Treaty, Art. J4) commits them to eventually frame "a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence." Forming the latter will inevitably put the future of the British and French nuclear arsenals onto Europe's agenda. While this is not likely to happen soon, the European Union members will eventually have to take a decision: whether the European Union should become a nuclear or a non-nuclear state. The European governments are slowly starting to explore this ground.

France and Germany have already declared themselves "ready to engage in a dialogue on the role of nuclear deterrence in the context of a European defence policy." (Franco-German defence and security concept, Nuremberg, Dec. 9, 1996). The former French Prime minister Alain Juppé proposed a "concerted" deterrence for Europe under which France would be prepared to discuss putting its nuclear weapons at European disposal.

Britain and France have formed the "Anglo-French Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy" in 1992, which is used for intensifying technical cooperation as well as political consultations between both countries.

While the three big European countries have thus started to intensify consultations on defence related nuclear matters on a bilateral level, they might wish to explore the ground behind closed doors for a consensus about the future role of British and French nuclear weapons in European security.

Nevertheless, attempts to speed up the development of a European defence including a nuclear component have met with serious resistance. Firstly, countries with a longstanding history of neutrality, such as Austria, Sweden and Switzerland do not at present want to enter collective defence commitments. In a new development, the recently elected UK government has stated its opposition to a common EU defence policy. Secondly, the public in many countries is largely opposed to a common European nuclear deterrent. Finally, the creation of an Independent European Nuclear posture is bound to violate Articles I and II of the NPT. It is likely to require a step by step approach of integration which includes interim steps of nuclear sharing arrangements somewhat modelled on those of NATO, before Europe is one state, thus transferring nuclear weapons to NNWS.

Alternative Security Structure for Europe

More attention needs to be given to the development of a common security for the whole of Europe including the East and Russia, based on conflict prevention rather than on a military alliance. Examination of the likely causes of conflicts and methods of increasing stability within Europe should lead to a joint conceptualisation of a common security architecture by European countries on an equal basis.

To achieve these goals a democratic organisation, in which NGOs play a significant role, should progressively take over the role as the overall decision-making security body for Europe. The likely candidate for this would be the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). All existing military alliances in Europe should eventually dissolve when the political and civilian security model of the OSCE, as defined in Lisbon in December 1996, is ready to be fully implemented, as they would become obsolete. The European Union, the strongest substructure in financial and political terms in the OSCE, should adapt its emerging Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP) to strengthen the stabilising capability of the OSCE, as the most important component of pan-European security.

A very important problem is the present parallel existence of military alliances alongside the OSCE, which compete for dwindling resources, political mandates and status. As long as the military aspects of security drain most financial resources, which protect the interests of only some member states, the OSCE can never achieve its very important objectives for stability and peace in Europe. Moreover, the costs of the expansion of NATO will make it almost impossible for many member states to set apart adequate and urgently needed resources for the OSCE.

Intervention in a conflict, once it has become violent, inevitably turn out to be more expensive than mediation and conciliation in the early stages, which also seeks to prevent the human and social tragedy of war. The necessary shift from the intervention option and military solutions to the conflict prevention option requires drastic readjustments of the current disparity between the budgets of NATO and the OSCE.

OSCE action has demonstrated that OSCE member states are able, without the help of NATO, to prevent conflicts from openly breaking out, and to allow democratic elections to take place. This has been attempted in Chechnya and Albania, although with only a moderate degree of success. Early detection, early warning, negotiations, mediation, consultations, arbitration, sanctions, and follow-up procedures are important existing components of the OSCE mandate. The help of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in peace and conflict research as well as in the field (in humanitarian or medical assistance and particularly women's groups) would be invaluable for all of these components to be adequately fulfilled.

In its Annex, the Lisbon Document, emphasised the importance of establishing "Nuclear Free Weapon Zones" (NFWZ) in the OSCE region as a step towards total nuclear disarmament, also contained in the Stockholm Declaration of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in July 1996. A strategy for achieving this goal needs to be more clearly defined.

OOOOOOOOOOO

Political Programme of Action

The USA should immediately withdraw all nuclear weapons from the territory of non-nuclear weapon states. Such withdrawals should be made legally binding.
First of all, all nuclear weapons should immediately be taken off alert, as a next step, warheads should be separated from delivery systems and removed from their deployment sites to an existing, remote and safe storage site, under international inspection (e.g. by the OSCE).
As an important step towards a nuclear-weapons free Europe, all states in Central and Eastern Europe, which are currently free of nuclear weapons, should be declared a nuclear weapon free zone. No country should undertake any preparations or construction of infrastructure to be able to deploy nuclear weapons on its territory.
Decisive steps should immediately be undertaken by all European states to comply with Article VI of the NPT and with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of July 8, 1996, by starting negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) to eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide. This should be coordinated with efforts to promote the effective implementation of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions as well as to improve international control of delivery systems.
The Member States of the UN Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva should be creative in finding ways of ending the impasse currently overshadowing the negotiations on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation issues.
In no case should nuclear weapon states continue or start to offer a nuclear umbrella to non-nuclear weapons states.
To exclude all doubts on the intended legal implications of deposited reservations made by various states during the NPT ratification process in the late 60s and early 70s ("European Option"), the Treaty on the European Union should be amended by a specific clause (e.g. Title V, Article J.4, Paragraph) which could read: "Under international obligations established by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Union renounces the production and possession of nuclear weapons or any form of control over them, as part of its common defence." If the European Union accedes to the NPT, it should do so with a non-nuclear status.
Military as well as commercial production, reprocessing, and reuse of all nuclear-weapons-usable materials, including tritium, should be unilaterally phased out or prohibited by an internationally agreed cut-off treaty. The first step should be to establish transparency by creating a complete and detailed inventory, updated annually, of all such materials, past and present. The next step should be the reduction and elimination of existing stocks, taking into account materials in warheads. The current impasse regarding a fissile materials cut-off agreement can only be overcome if disarmament measures are linked to non-proliferation measures.
Levels of conventional armament under the new CFE should be reduced to the absolute minimum level required for purely defensive operations. Levels should not only be measured in numbers but also in technical quality. Commercial arms transfers should be controlled and reduced and a conversion programme for the arms industry needs to be initiated.
OSCE member states should continue, in a constructive and innovative way, the ongoing process of the drafting of "A Common Security Model for Europe in the 21st Century." The security needs of each group of OSCE member states should be integrated into the framework of a "common and cooperative security without dividing lines" as defined in the Lisbon Document. Steps should be taken by member states, especially the members of the European Union within the proposed CSFP, to strengthen the OSCE both politically and financially.
The OSCE should improve its decision-making process by refining the Moscow mechanism for the "unanimity minus one" procedure. Recognition by all member states of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in Geneva, as the OSCE's mandatory dispute-resolution authority (for instance by deleting the proviso clause), is essential. The OSCE should improve the performance of its tasks, by expanding the existing Forum for Security Cooperation (FSC) and the Economic Forum, and in particular by establishing a sanctions authority, which would measure case by case the effectiveness and consequences to the population of imposing sanctions, and draw up a code disallowing sanctions on humanitarian and medical assistance.
A concept for the establishment of fully integrated OSCE mobile peace-keeping police contingents, trained in conflict moderation and capable of self-defence should be developed. An initiative to develop the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) into a forum for cross-frontier NGO cooperation should be launched.
Setting up an early-warning system for conflict prevention which is supported by civilians and local organisations can help to identify flash points before conflicts break out. Recognised mediation training in conflict resolution should be more widespread and could be encouraged as a voluntary service. East and west European citizens should establish a Citizen Verification Network, which observes their own military as closely as possible and especially any actions taken about nuclear weapons.
There needs to be more widespread discussion on the lessons that are learned from each war or conflict that is experienced. Mediators should be encouraged to regularly communicate with each other to share their experiences with each other and with NGOs. A network of people working in conflict prevention, humanitarian assistance and research should be established. A self administered NGO liaison within the OSCE should be established, which would draw on the experience and capacities of NGOs in the field of peace work, and would support NGOs in introducing, on a decentralised basis, a voluntary Civil Peace Service (CPS), and a European civilian youth association.
Yearly allocations to the OSCE, from 1998 on, irrespective of increases in their financial contributions to the actual implementation of individual missions, should be at least doubled.
The Forum for Security Cooperation (FSC) should be entrusted with the task of elaborating a comprehensive disarmament treaty (new Military Forces in Europe -- MFE -- treaty), in order to achieve nuclear-weapon-free zones in the area of the OSCE (beginning with Central and Nordic Europe and Central Asia) as a step towards the global abolition of all nuclear weapons. Furthermore, negotiations with Mongolia (not an OSCE member state and a declared nuclear weapons free state) should be initiated, to allow their participation in the proposed OSCE nuclear-free zone in Central Asia (Almaty Declaration).

The Schlaining Declaration is signed by representatives of the following NGOs in preparation for formal approval by these organisations:

International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA);
International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES, INESAP);
International Peace Bureau (IPB);
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW);
Mouvement de la Paix / France;
Peace Centre Burg Schlaining / Austria;
Project on European Nuclear Non-Proliferation;
Woman's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).