INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS FOR GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY

Jonathan Heller is a mechanical engineer doing energy conservation research and consulting in Seattle, Washington for a company called Ecotope Inc. He has been interested in El Salvador since the early 1980's when the US government was actively supporting the Salvadoran military with money, training, and weapons in their civil war against the FMLN. After the Peace Accords were signed in 1992, he and his wife went to El Salvador, to see how a country could create Peace after such a long and brutal civil war. They also wanted to contribute to the improvement of the lives of the poor majority of El Salvador and worked in El Salvador for nine months as volunteers for ITAMA*.

El Salvador is currently in the process of recovering from a brutal twelve-year civil war. With the assistance of the United Nations, Peace Accords were signed in 1992, putting a stop to the fighting, but actually resolving few of the problems which led to the war in the first place in this tiny, heavily-populated country. The war left El Salvador with a destroyed infrastructure, widespread poverty and illiteracy, a generation of young people accustomed to violence, huge numbers refugees, and critical levels of deforestation and soil erosion.

There are hundreds of organizations and government entities in El Salvador, dedicated to "development" and trying to address some of the problems left by the war, but the majority are having limited success in creating long-term changes in the material conditions of life for the poor. This is because the two most widely practiced models of development, promoted by charity and government organizations, have tended to create dependency among the population and have led to continued poverty and further degradation of the environment. Most often, development projects focus on technology transfer, looking for simplistic technical fixes and ignoring more deeply rooted structural or cultural problems.

In this article I present my experiences of nine months in El Salvador, where I came to see that the complexity of the Salvadoran experience dooms these traditional models of development to failure. Ultimately what I learned is that if foreign organizations want to help, rather than send outside "experts" or technology, they should support the local organizations which are capable of providing culturally appropriate training, organization, and technical support to struggling communities. I would like to offer a case study of one such organization which employs a democratic model of development, based on the reality of the poor people, which I believe can create positive changes in peoples lives which are truly environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable.

In 1991, I became acquainted with an exiled Salvadoran priest, José "Chencho" Alas, who was then in the process of creating the Institute for Technology, the Environment, and Self-Sufficiency (ITAMA, [however, see recent changes in name and contact info below*]). This organization uses concepts of "self-development," assuming that real lasting change can not come from the outside, but must come from an organic process within the people themselves. The fundamental belief of ITAMA is that truly sustainable development must be based on promoting healthy living and working conditions. This leads to a focus on protecting the environment, organic farming methods, appropriate technology, and reforestation. In September 1995, my wife and I went to El Salvador to learn from and work with them as volunteers.

During our stay in El Salvador, we visited a number of projects funded by Northern organizations. Perhaps the most prevalent form of development projects, which we encountered, is what can be called the "Charity" or "Church Model." This is generally based on the idea of "helping the poor" and presupposes that the community is unable to help themselves. These projects usually consist of donations of money and / or materials with very little training or participation from the recipients. Once the support is withdrawn, the projects are typically doomed to failure. I visited one community that had been given a significant amount of aid through a sister-city relationship in the United States. They had received donations of, among other things, irrigation equipment, solar panels for pumping drinking water, and trucks. At the time of my visit, the irrigation equipment was broken and in storage. As they had not received training nor taken care of the equipment, they had damaged it and had no money for repairs. The solar panel pump system was also broken, and I noticed that the panels had been mounted directly beneath a large shade tree. One of the trucks appeared to be acting as a storage locker, and the community was asking for more aid for a project to improve the foundation of the community house and build a church.

The second most common paradigm for development projects could be called the "Government Model." This type of development usually involves an analysis of the communitys needs by "Experts." Solutions are then imposed on the community with little or no input from the people themselves. An example of this type of project was a US-AID sponsored "reforestation" project, focused on fast-growing non-native trees with high market value. The project consisted of cutting down one of the last large areas of native forest in the area and replacing it with a tree plantation. Due to their high value as construction material, the trees, which are large enough to be harvested, are being stolen during the night from an area which is difficult and dangerous to patrol. The smaller trees are cut by the local population for firewood.

The alternative to these common models of development is "Self-Development." This model is well described by the popular saying, "Give a person a fish and he / she will eat for a day; teach a person how to fish and he / she will never be hungry." Self-development is a much more time-consuming process as it focuses primarily not on technological solutions, but on training, organization and education of communities to prepare them to identify and create their own development. This philosophy of development assumes that with technical assistance and minimal access to materials and capital, the people have the ability to raise themselves out of poverty, and to do so without sacrificing their health or the health of the environment. The primary goal is to initiate projects, which will put poor people in control of their own futures.

While there has been ample research which has shown that the active involvement of the target population at every step is critical to the acceptance and success of a project, most organizations are having a hard time putting that theory into practice. This is partly due to the structure of Northern charity and aid organizations. Because of bureaucratic accounting mechanisms and fear of corruption, many funders are much more likely to give money for things that can be seen and accounted for such as machinery or latrines, as opposed to intangibles such as education, training, organization, and administration of projects. In addition, Northern organizations often want measurable progress on a relatively short timeline before they will fund a project. In reality, many steps, which are necessary before a development project can be truly successful, are difficult to measure, and Northern timelines often do not mesh well with the pace of culture in Latin America. For a variety of reasons, many organizations want to send their own experts to head up development projects. In practice, even if they try to get the cooperation and involvement of the local population, it is often difficult to bridge the cultural gap and to gain the trust of the people.

In El Salvador, ITAMA is struggling financially because their development strategy implies a number of important steps before any specific grant proposals are written, or loans applied for. They are often able to find funders for projects which are fully defined, with a timeline which shows the measurable goals and deliverables, however, the problem that ITAMA is confronting is that Northern funders do not like to pay for the important "pre-development" work.

Pre-development is a process of popular education, organization, and scientific study. First, a development organization must have a deep understanding of the community, which they are trying to help, regardless of the nature of the project. To obtain this level of understanding it is necessary to live in the community with the people, gain their confidence, and share their experiences.

Secondly, the community must understand, support, and actually manage the development process. This is more difficult then it might seem in El Salvador when you consider that it requires uniting communities with divisions left over from a civil war, explaining economic and financial concepts to people who may never have been inside a classroom, and it requires getting hungry people to look beyond where their next meal is going to come from. To have true unity and involvement of the majority of the community, also requires teaching methods of democratic participation in a country with no real democratic history, and where women have had very little encouragement to participate in the public arena.

We had an opportunity to see how this process of pre-development works first-hand. At the invitation of the local community, my wife and I moved to the town of El Platanar in the North of the Department of San Miguel, as representatives of ITAMA. For generations, the people of El Platanar have grown Maguey and Jute: natural fiber plants for making rope, burlap, and sacks for exporting agricultural products. Because of the influence of global free-trade agreements such as GATT and NAFTA, the government is curtailing import taxes on cheaper synthetic rope and sacks which will have a devastating impact on the producers of natural fibers. El Platanar and the surrounding communities were originally haciendas owned by some of the richest families in El Salvador. At the beginning of the armed conflict, this area was included in an Agrarian Reform Program wherein the land was purchased by the government, and turned over to cooperatives of peasants living on the land. However, the new owners, poor and largely illiterate, were given no training, very little access to capital, and a huge debt to the national bank. The original owner of El Platanar maintained control over the local factory, which purchases all of the fibers, produced by the cooperative, and remains the largest employer in the area. Thus, as a result of the Agrarian Reform, the people are growing the same crops, for the same old owner, for the prices that he wants to pay, but they now have a debt of nearly $2 million (USD). The illiteracy rate of the cooperative members is still around 70%, and they continue to live in extreme poverty. The president of the cooperative has a 9th grade education and earns about $90 a month, and the average field-worker is illiterate and earns $2.50 a day. This history has left El Platanar very ill prepared to receive and manage development projects.

As volunteers living in El Platanar for six months, we helped the ITAMA staff carry out the pre-development process for that region. The first step was to determine what it is that the people want and need. To do this, we took the cooperative through a series of meetings where they first defined their goals for the next 5-10 years. They created a vision of a healthier, cleaner community with more job opportunities, better salaries, improved infrastructure, and public services. This process also uncovered a concern for the environment, especially deforestation that has lead to a reduction in the local water supply. The vision statement is the basis of what ITAMA will attempt to accomplish in the community in the coming years.

The next step was to take stock of their natural, cultural, human resources, and the obstacles in the way of attaining their vision. The obstacles identified included political, economic, cultural, and organizational barriers. The cooperative then listed strategies and tactics for overcoming their obstacles. This included organizing and uniting the entire community around a development plan, having one of their members run for mayor, and searching for funding for a range of project ideas. The identified projects will touch and enhance all facets of life in the area, including the environment, agriculture, local business, health, and youth and recreation. Along with members of the cooperative, we held community meetings in El Platanar and the surrounding villages, addressing schools, churches, soccer teams, and other local organizations, introducing ITAMA and the cooperatives vision and ideas of development, and soliciting the peoples cooperation and active participation.

At this same time, agronomists and geologists from ITAMA surveyed the soil, topography, climate, and water resources of El Platanar to determine a range of alternative crops. This included taking a range of soil samples, measuring water flows in springs and streams, and mapping the region. Other ITAMA professionals evaluated the natural, historic, and cultural heritage of the region. This includes ruins from a pre-Columbian Indian civilization, historic hacienda buildings from the turn of the century, and natural springs, which provide outstanding recreation spots.

The final step in ITAMAs pre-development process was to organize a coordinating body for the region to manage the development projects and to eventually develop the ability to plan projects and solicit credits by themselves, creating in effect their own development organization with legal and financial standing. ITAMA believes that with a concerted effort of organizing financing for a range of projects, they can leave a community after a period of 5-10 years and that the community will be able to go on by itself soliciting and managing its own development projects in the future.

Because of this 6-month pre-development process, ITAMA has received funding for an environmental project to create a 200-acre native forest to recuperate endangered flora and fauna, and to protect the ground water supply. This forest will be protected, but will allow for the sustainable harvest of fruit and wood.

ITAMA is soliciting another project to fortify the local economy, as there are very few jobs in the area that are not directly connected to the declining natural fiber market. This project will focus on creation of small businesses to supply better nutrition to the local population and provide basic services that are now being purchased from outside sources. This would include an organic vegetable farm, dairy, bakery, tailors, shoe repair, carpentry, metal shop, and small family farms raising chickens, turkeys, goats, and iguanas. ITAMA has had success with iguana farms in another area of the country as iguanas are a popular food source for Salvadorans and have a high market value in meat, eggs, skins, and as exported exotic pets. Market access to farm-raised iguanas may give the endangered wild iguanas a chance to recuperate.

Because these projects came directly from the local people, and because they have set up a local representative body to solicit, direct and monitor them, I believe that these projects stand a high chance of success.

While this paper is based on a specific regional example, I believe that this model of development can be extended to other parts of the world to achieve improved results from development projects. "Charity" and "government" development projects currently being promoted are only serving to create more economic and technical dependency among the poor communities, which they are trying to help out of poverty. This is not a step forward in the end, as it ensures the necessity of additional aid in the future. Real change can not be brought to people from the outside, but must be earned by each community through a process of education, organization, and personal growth. Only through "self-development" are poor people going to put themselves in a position to escape the cycle of poverty. In addition, because of the depth of their poverty, significant pre-development study, education, and organizing is required before development work with those people can succeed. It is a fact that this method requires more time and attention to each region, but if successful, at the end of the process the community will no longer require the help of a development organization.

From my experiences in El Salvador, Northern aid organizations are not effectively delivering self-development projects. This is partly due to the way they are structured, and because of cultural differences and barriers. On the other hand, El Salvador and other Latin American countries have a wealth of well-educated professional development workers who understand the conditions of their countries, but are woefully under-funded. Instead of sending aid in the form of "experts" and technology from the North, we should be supporting local organizations with local professionals who are committed to development for self-sufficiency, and who are capable of doing the necessary pre-development work.

Cavanagh, John. Trading Freedom: How free trade affects our lives, work, and environment. San Fran., CA: Institute for Food and Development Policy, 1992.

Danaher, Kevin, Phillip Berryman, and Medea Benjamin. Help or Hindrance: US economic aid in Central America. San Fran., CA: IFDP, 1987.

Donahue, John. Sustainable Development in El Salvador. Communitas Charitable Trust, Chicago IL, November 1995.

Lappe, Francis Moore. Aid as an Obstacle: Twenty questions about our foreign aid and the hungry. San Fran., CA: IFDP, 1980.

Sachs, Wolfgang. The Development Dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power. New Jersey: Zed Books, 1992.

This article has been first published in IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Summer 1997.

*The organization that represented ITAMA here in the United States now goes
by a new name and has a new address:

Foundation for Self-Sufficiency in Central America
1411 Lisa Rae Dr.
Round Rock, TX 78664

http://fssca.net

At the meeting in Riga, Council members expressed their wish to strengthen the outreach of INES. One proposal is to have more information about international congresses in the Newsletter. I request participants of a professional congress that deals with the subjects of our network, to send me a short review of the congress, or a preview in which the importance and the expected long-term impact of the congress are explained.

26, Ilupeju By Pass, Ilupeju, Lagos, Nigeria -- Tel: +234 1 820 125 -- Fax: +234 1 821 383

Our Centre is an independent, not-for-profit organisation with the following aims and objectives:

The Third World Forum is an international independent organisation, associating some 1000 intellectuals of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. It organises research and debates on "alternative visions and strategies" for the future. Members are mostly researchers in the various fields of social sciences. Created in 1980 with its headquarters in Dakar, TWF is currently an active member in the launching of a World Forum for Alternatives, initiated in Cairo, March 1997.

c/o Luis Masperi -- Centro Atómico Bariloche -- 8400 s.c. de Bariloche, Argentina -- Tel: +54 944 45159, Fax: +54 944 45299

The group has around ten members of different local institutions: among them physicists, an electronic engineer, a chemist, and a psychologist. In the last three years it has organized three international mainly Latin American conferences on: Nuclear-weapon non-proliferation, civilian nuclear energy, and science and human rights.

Mireille Wösten -- Droevendaalsesteeg 83 -- 6708 PR Wageningen, The Netherlands

Fields of interest: Environmental management, health and environment in the third world.

Magazine House -- Naddapara, Dakshin Khan -- P.O. Ashkona, Uttara -- Dhaka - 1230, Bangladesh

Fields of Interest: Science, engineering and development, Buddhist perception of Nature.

The local host, Igors Tipans, welcomed the INES Council. He emphasized that Latvia is a country in transition. It used to be one of the most militarized regions of the Soviet Union. Now it has no military industry and a very small army of a few thousand soldiers. In addition, the turbulence in transition to a market economy has to be overcome.

Council members from eighteen countries in four continents representing eighteen member organizations were present.

The Council chairman, Hartwig Spitzer, reported on the state of INES and its development since the last council meeting.

The discussion resulted in statements, that sustainability and the ethics of science and engineering are the core issues of INES. INES should address the social dimension of sustainability and disarmament as a fundamental condition for sustainability and for a world without war. An important issue for INES will be the conflicts that arise in the realization of sustainability.

John Peet (New Zealand) reported on the work of the Balaton Group. The group was founded 18 years ago out of IAASA, Laxenburg (Austria), by Donnella and Dennis Meadons and others. The official name is International Network of Resource Information Centers. They have about 600 members, among which 100 are active. Some 60 members attend the annual meeting in Hungary (Lake Balaton).

The group applies systems analysis to social, economic, ecological and ethical questions.

John Peet feels that the group and INES work in a complimentary way. The system's model has been applied to a set of sustainability indicators in the Seattle region.

INES should extend its efforts to other parts of the world and activate its members and member organizations to develop their own regional network and take part in personal communication within their region. Local networks can concentrate on the specific problems of the region and apply the principles of INES to the local situation.

More use should be made and more selective use of the modern communication technology.

With Boris Rubarth in Germany and Friedemann Greulich in Japan, he will install mirror pages of the home page elsewhere.

INES should intensify its relation to the press. One member of the EC should take responsibility for presswork.

The student network should get more members. The Council members are asked to invite their students to the student network.

Knut Aufermann will write a letter to all INES members, he will give information about the forthcoming student congress and the webside of the student network.

The council members endorsed a change of the statutes to the effect that the Executive Committee will comprise up to twelve persons (including chairs and treasurer). The previous number was ten. The amendment will only become effective, once two third of all Council members have endorsed it (in writing).

Chair: Hartwig Spitzer (Germany)

Deputy Chair: David Krieger (USA)

Treasurer: Jiri Matousek (Czech Republic)

Ogunlade Davidson (Sierra Leone)

Esmat Ezz (Egypt)

Luis Masperi (Argentina)

Marc Ollivier (France)

Ulrike Otto (Germany)

John Peet (New Zealand)

Valerij Petrosyan (Russia)

Lars Rydén (Sweden)

Hamed El-Mously for Esmat Ezz;

Samir Amin for Ogunlade Davidson;

Catherine Peet for John Peet.

The membership of John Peet will only get into force once a two third quorum of votes on the amendment of statutes has been submitted.

Hartwig Spitzer indicated that he will not stand for reelection at the next EC election. However, he will work for a viable successor solution.

D. Meissner will be the new council representative of the German Scientists Initiative.

Kate Maloney represents Scientists for Global Responsibility (UK).

Reiner Braun

Owen Greene

Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse

The next Council meeting will be held in Boston / USA in July 1998, provided a local organizer and additional funding support can be found. First reactions from three INES member organizations in the Boston area were very positive.

The Havemann-Scholarship provides financial support to PhD students in Russia for one year in order to help them to complete their thesis or scientific work. Members of the German Scientists Initiative initiated it in 1995. Recipients of the scholarship are asked to sign the INES code of ethics.

Recently additional funds became available from various scientific organizations. The Council endorsed to include INES as one of the two co-sponsors of the fund.

David Krieger reported on the state of Abolition 2000. Abolition 2000 is a worldwide grassroot network for nuclear disarmament with more than 700 member organizations. The network office is presently located at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara.

The idea was under discussion for quite a while. INES alone would not have had both the energy and the money for establishing such an office, but jointly with IPPNW, IALANA as well as other organizations it has become possible now.

On 18 October, the official opening of the joint office took place, attended by members of the European Parliament, representatives of various General Directories of the European Union, the Mayor of Brussels, and NGO representatives. "Brussels is the Capital of Europe - please accept it, it can provide us a lot!" as the Mayor put it. With this office, INES intends to move closer to the decision-making structures of European politics, improving, at the same time, its lobbying, its contacts and last but not least the efforts to get a faster and more efficient access to the opportunities for funding existing in Brussels.

It will be an NGO Office which should particularly be used for initiatives based in Eastern Europe and Russia. A small team will be working at the office headed by Susanne Drake and Gerd Greune who both are well experienced and who have established many contacts since years. INES feels grateful for their preparatory activities to the opening of the office.

For the European development of INES, this office is an important and courageous step.

Walter L. Elden, a licensed professional engineer, is a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the IEEE Ethics Committee. He also serves on the IEEE Member Conduct Committee. He can be reached via e-mail at

The IEEE is at a crossroads in matters of rendering ethical support (i.e. legal, financial, publicity, etc.) to its members. When a member requests such support, upon being placed in ethical jeopardy in his or her career for attempting to uphold the Code of Ethics, what will the IEEE do in the future? Will it go forward to perform as an independent professional institute, free from external corporate concerns and influences, as its current policy says it will, and offer support to its members when they are placed in professional or employment jeopardy?

"The IEEE shall strive to enhance the quality of life for all people throughout the world through the constructive application of technology in its fields of competence." Further, upon accepting and signing the IEEE's membership card each year, each member agrees to the statement that "All members of the IEEE shall be governed by IEEE's Constitution, Bylaws, Statement of Policies and Procedures and Code of Ethics."

As a professional, in carrying out these objectives, the engineer is supposed to exercise independent professional judgment in protecting the public's safety, welfare, environment, etc., in his or her practice. What happens when an engineer's professional judgment goes against his or her client's or employer's views and places them in employment ethical jeopardy?

Since 1976, IEEE Policy 7.8 has stated that "members who are placed in jeopardy as a consequence of adherence to the Institute's Code of Ethics may be offered assistance, provided that in the opinion of the Board of Directors or its designated representative such assistance is warranted."

Since 1996, the Ethics Committee has operated an Ethics Hotline (Tel: +1 ), which members may contact for information about ethical matters, interpretation of the Code of Ethics or guidance on how they may request ethical support in matters where adherence to the code has placed their employment in jeopardy.

The Member Conduct Committee, under IEEE Policy 7.12, is empowered to receive such formal requests for ethical support, on the basis that the member's adherence to the code may have affected the member's employment or professional activities, and then conducts investigations and issues a report on the preliminary investigation to the IEEE Executive Committee with its findings and recommendations.

The author is seeing increasing anxiety on the part of some IEEE members over its involvement in such ethical support matters, in the increase in members' requests for support and in the operation of the Ethics Hotline. Those who have shown this anxiety recognize that within IEEE's ranks there are numerous employers, managers, executives and administrators of engineers, and that many of their companies or owners make up customers for IEEE services and products.

What, then, is the IEEE, and what should its policy be when its members are placed in employment jeopardy for upholding the IEEE Code of Ethics? The IEEE is a professional society, comprised of individual engineers ranging from entry-level positions up to owners and executives of companies, government, and institutions of education, among other kinds. One condition of membership in the IEEE is adherence to its Code of Ethics. This is to be performed as a personal responsibility, which requires the exercise of independent professional judgment on the part of each engineer, free from coercion or harassment.

If this is so for the individual engineer member, should the IEEE, as a whole be an institute independent in its operations and decision making from outside corporate, academic or governmental influences? Should members pay IEEE dues and Professional Engineering license fees out of their personal resources and not rely on their employer? These are a few of the ethical questions before the IEEE membership.

While the answers to such questions continue to be a subject of debate, the Ethics Committee believes that IEEE leaders should strive to remain free from influence or pressure from outside interest groups in their decision making when acting in an official IEEE capacity, and to consider support for ethical engineering conduct. Likewise, the committee feels that the IEEE should continue its 21-year-old policy to "render ethical support to its members who are placed in employment or professional jeopardy for practicing to uphold the IEEE Code of Ethics."

Cathy Downer -- IEEE Ethics Committee: 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, USA

The committee maintains a World Wide Web home page at: http://www.ieee.org/committee/ethics

At the outset of President Clintons second term there was hope among those working for a more peaceful world that the new term would be different and more positive than the first term. Clinton has been a master at generating hope and then dashing it with policies that fail to meet the expectations he has engendered. Sadly, by his lack of positive initiative in the area of disarmament, President Clinton may be missing his appointment with history.

Clinton began his first term as U.S. President by announcing support for gays in the military. The military opposition to this was so strong that Clinton has not challenged the military on any issue since. Even now in his second term, with no further elections facing him, Clinton appears to be incapable of challenging the military in any significant way, no matter how outrageous their appetite for armaments and other resources.

Most recently, under pressure from the military, Clinton refused to support the ban on land mines, which has now been signed by over 100 other countries. The reason given was that land mines were needed to protect U.S. troops in Korea. Weighing the risks to U.S. troops from a low probability of attack by North Korea against the ongoing carnage of some 26,000 civilians annually caused by land mines, Clinton again made a shortsighted choice. It is a choice, however, which fits his pattern of supporting the position espoused by the military regardless of the values of human decency being trampled upon or the prospects of creating a more peaceful world.

Congressman Walter Capps responded to the Presidents refusal to support the land mine ban, stating, "I rise today in great dismay over the Presidents decision not to sign the Ottawa Treaty banning antipersonnel land mines. The administrations position defies reason. The only way that the United States can show leadership on this issue is to sign the comprehensive ban treaty on these deadly devices. One hundred nations courageously have changed their policy, but U.S. lawyers have simply changed the definition of a land mine."

"But a land mine by any other name is still a land mine, and land mines are immoral. People around the globe have come together to say, no more. No more killing, no more maiming, no more maiming of innocents. No more fear of leaving ones home to find food. No more social and economic dislocation to the worlds neediest countries. I ask the President to sign the treaty to ban the antipersonnel land mines."

President Clinton has supported an unnecessarily high military budget in the post-Cold War period. The U.S. budget for "defense" of around $265 billion per year exceeds the combined military expenditures of the next nine highest spending countries. It is more than 25 times greater than the combined military budgets of countries which might be perceived as potential enemies of the United States, such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and North Korea. These huge military expenditures are expected to continue throughout Clintons second term to the detriment of domestic programs for health and education and alleviation of poverty in the United States and abroad.

Under Clintons leadership, the U.S. continues to be the worlds largest arms dealer. In 1996, the U.S. sold $13.8 billion in weapons and military supplies to the rest of the world, including some $7.3 billion to developing countries. The Clinton Administration has been active in seeking new markets for U.S. weapons. In 1997, President Clinton reversed a 20-year prohibition on the sale of sophisticated weapons systems to Latin America. He appears to be willing to sell high-tech military equipment to Latin America, such as jet fighters, that even Presidents Reagan and Bush would not consider doing.

When the U.S. Congress passed an Arms Trade Code of Conduct as an amendment to the State Department Authorization Act, which set limits on selling arms to dictators, including the most egregious violators of human rights, the Clinton Administration opposed the legislation. The Administration argued that the President needed the freedom to sell arms to whatever countries he chose, regardless of their human right records or whether or not they were democracies.

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, the principal sponsor of the Arms Trade Code of Conduct amendment, has pointed out, "In the past four years, 85 percent of U.S. arms sales to the Third World have gone to undemocratic governments. The United States is responsible for 44 percent of all weapons deliveries in the world. The United States is unqualifiedly the arms dealer to the world, and the merchant for death to the worlds dictators." During Clintons first term in office, his administration supported the militaries of non-democratic governments with $35.9 billion for arms and training, an average of $9 billion per year. This was 82 percent of the $44 billion in total U.S. military support for developing nations.

In the area of nuclear disarmament, President Clinton has been a great disappointment. He has done virtually nothing to advance the process toward a nuclear weapons free world. In fact, he has taken steps, which move us in the opposite direction. His strong advocacy of NATO expansion is viewed by the Russians as threatening and has been an impediment to the Russian Duma ratifying START II. George Kennan has called NATO expansion "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era."

The Clinton administration agreed with the Russians earlier this year to push back the date for completing START II reductions to 3,000-3,500 deployed strategic nuclear warheads for five years from the beginning of 2003 to the end of 2007. The number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads is only about one-third of the total number of nuclear weapons that each side will continue to retain in its arsenal. At the same time, the administration negotiated Russian approval for the U.S. to continue its extensive Ballistic Missile Defense testing without being in violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

President Clinton has had preliminary discussions with Russian President Yeltsin about a START III agreement to reduce deployed strategic nuclear arsenals to 2,000-2,500 by the year 2007. This would be a reduction of some 1,000 nuclear warheads beyond START II levels in the five-year period following the initial date set for completion of START II. While this is a welcome small step, it is a step of minimal significance, which largely misses the unique opportunity now available to take larger strides.

While President Clinton did give leadership in achieving a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the U.S. has already begun conducting "sub-critical" nuclear weapons tests in the first year of his new term. This testing, which may be used to improve the reliability and efficiency of nuclear weapons and even to test new weapons designs, is widely viewed by non-nuclear weapons states to be a sign of bad faith and to undermine the treaty. U.S. "sub-critical" tests may lead other nuclear weapons states to conduct similar tests, and could lead to a breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.S., under Clintons leadership, is also embarking on a $60 billion Stockpile Stewardship Program over the next 13 years, a main feature of which is laboratory testing of nuclear weapons. The program includes the development of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory for conducting thermonuclear tests with high-powered lasers.

The most positive effort made by President Clinton on disarmament issues was his leadership in achieving Senate ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. He has also indicated his intention to provide leadership for Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is unlikely that this treaty will ever enter into force, however, because Indias ratification is also necessary for this to happen. India has stated that it will not ratify the treaty until the declared nuclear weapons states make a serious commitment to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, as they are required to do by Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Clinton Administration has taken some positive steps to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Overall, however, the Administrations record on disarmament leaves considerable room for improvement. President Clintons Administration has continued to feed the militarys gargantuan appetite for resources, has been the major pusher of armaments throughout the world, has been largely indiscriminate in the sale of armaments, has been hypocritical in its approach to arms control and disarmament, has failed to seize the extraordinary opportunity now present for nuclear disarmament, and has opposed reasonable and needed measures such as the ban on landmines.

In part, the Clinton administrations record on disarmament may be attributable to having to compromise in order to contend with a conservative Congress. This, however, does not explain fully why President Clinton has failed to provide more significant leadership in realizing the opportunities for disarmament presented by the end of the Cold War.

If Mr. Clinton wants to be remembered positively for his accomplishments in the area of controlling armaments and achieving disarmament in his second term, he will need to rethink most of his present policies and exercise more visionary and courageous leadership in approaching disarmament and the curtailment of arms transfers as a means to increase U.S. and global security. If he fails to exercise such leadership, he will almost certainly miss his appointment with history.

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a founding member of and global contact point for the Abolition 2000 Global Network for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

Third Conference of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists against Proliferation

The Third International Conference of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists against Proliferation (INESAP) was the first conference specifically dealing with nuclear weapons and delivery systems in China. It was hosted by the Center for American Studies at the Fudan University in Shanghai. Prof. Dingli Shen, Deputy Director of the Center and member of the INESAP Coordinating Committee together with his staff cared very efficiently for the local organization and created a very pleasant and productive working atmosphere. International invitations and the program were managed by Dr. Martin Kalinowski and his colleagues at the research group IANUS of the Darmstadt University of Technology. The conference was made possible by fundings from the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the State of Hessen.

The main topical interest of the INESAP 1997 Conference focused on challenges and opportunities for a nuclear-weapon-free world. The central goals of this conference were to foster the international network of engineers and scientists who engage in nuclear disarmament issues, to plan future INESAP activities and to provide an extensive opportunity for Chinese and international disarmament experts to meet with each other and exchange views. Nineteen analysts from China were attending, many of them working with various governmental institutions. The 28 international participants came from 13 countries.

Prof. Yang Fujia, President of the Fudan University gave the welcome speeches in the opening session of the conference. Prof. Xie Xide, Director of the Center for American Studies, a former President of the Fudan University, and Dr. David Krieger, the Deputy Chair of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) introduced the topic of the conference and called scientists to act responsible with regard to international peace and natural resources.

During the course of the conference a total of 50 presentations were given on the following major topical areas: The Nuclear Weapons Convention, consequences from the advisory opinion of the World Court of Justice, rethinking nuclear non-proliferation, how to draw further states into the nuclear disarmament process, next steps for nuclear disarmament and their verification, nuclear weapons free zones, ending nuclear weapons research and development, No-First-Use-Treaty, relations to arms control of conventional weapons, nuclear energy and non-proliferation in Asia, ballistic missile defense, counter proliferation and the future of the ABM treaty as well as future perspectives for the cut-off agreement.

In the opening plenary session, Rebecca Johnson discussed the prospects for negotiations on nuclear disarmament and she pointed out that there is a new trend towards qualitative rather than the classical quantitative disarmament approach, which reduces the number of deployed nuclear weapons. Steps like a No-First-Use Treaty, dealerting of nuclear weapons, ending the deployment on foreign territory, sequestration of warheads, and extending the area of nuclear weapons free zones in the world, establish a qualitative disarmament which may lead to the marginalization of nuclear weapons. Jürgen Scheffran discussed the difference between an incremental and a comprehensive approach to negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention and he presented a scheme that demonstrated that both approaches are not necessarily excluding each other. Merav Datan introduced to the content of the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention as well as to the historic process, which led to the drafting of the Model by an international group of disarmament experts and diplomats. The drafting process was managed by the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and scientific-technical input was provided by INESAP. Wu Jun made clear that China always supported the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and actually supported the Nuclear Weapons Convention.

During the conference it was discussed that the United States is preparing to conduct its second "subcritical" nuclear test, code-named Holog, later in September, underground at the Nevada Test Site. According to a public statement by an U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) official, Holog was "important for understanding performance" of nuclear weapons. Fifteen conference participants sent a letter to President Bill Clinton expressing their deep concern that the subcritical tests and the huge "Stockpile Stewardship" program of which they are part, are making it possible for the U.S. to continue modernizing its nuclear arsenal, even under a CTBT. They believe that subcritical tests are acts of bad faith, provocative to other States that jeopardize prospects for the global entry into force of the CTBT.

All participants of the INESAP 1997 Conference in Shanghai sent their warmest greetings to the distinguished delegates to the International Conference on "Central Asia - Nuclear Weapon Free Zone," being held in Tashkent, September 14-16, 1997. They fully supported and endorsed the efforts of the people and governments of Kazakstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan to create a nuclear weapons free zone in Central Asia.

Owen Greene and Jürgen Scheffran facilitated a special session on future activities of INESAP. Reiner Braun, the executive manager of INES gave an inspiring talk on actions and activities of NGOs towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. He put special emphasis on the international network "Abolition 2000." The next focus for common activities will be the second Preparatory Committee meeting for the NPT Review Conference in the year 2000, which will take place from April 27 to May 8 in Geneva. INESAP plans to contribute with a number of activities and at least 9 participants of this conference will meet again there.

It was agreed that in 1998 INESAP will conduct a project that concentrates on security in the Middle East and prospects for a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in that region. As a central element to this project, in September 1998 the fourth INESAP Conference will be hosted by the Center for Research in Arms Control and Security in Amman, Jordan. Another element will be a workshop on ballistic missile defense at Tel-Aviv University, Israel. The Egypt Scientists Against Proliferation (ESAP) and the Coordinating Center for activities include networking among scientists and engineers in the Middle East and educate them and the public. IANUS will coordinate research work on technical issues about the goal of a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone. This includes questions of transparency and verification.

A main point of the future work of INESAP will continue to be the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention. In cooperation with the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) the drafting process will continue, a seminar with delegates to the Conference on Disarmament will be held in Geneva in February 1998. At this stage, it is important to develop a strategy to bring the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention into the political process in order to support progress towards global elimination of nuclear weapons.

The delivery sytems working group continued its work and is planning a workshop in Israel (see above) and a book publication. The cut-off project "Breaking the deadlock - How can negotiations get started on effective international control of nuclear-weapon-usable materials?" is under preparation in cooperation with IANUS and UNIDIR. Seven persons of the core group of liaisons in a dozen of countries were in Shanghai and gave their reflections to the current draft of the proposal.

It is of special interest for INESAP to further develop regional activities. It is hoped that this conference triggers more future activities in China. The Middle East will be in the focus of next years activities of INESAP. The connections of INESAP to France and Russia need to be improved. Within the regional activities, Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZ) will play a major role. A group was formed in Shanghai that will organize a workshop on this topic in early 1999.

The INESAP Information Bulletin will remain the main medium of INESAP for international communication. The next issues will have special emphasis on verification of a Nuclear Weapons Free World, the next but one willprobably put a focus on NWFZs. The distribution of the INESAP Information Bulletin should be broadened. Selected articles will be translated into German, Arabic as well as Indian native languages like Hindi and Maradi. Brochures with selected articles of the INESAP Information Bulletin will be printed and distributed to interested people.

INES has just started a project on NATO expansion. INESAP suggests broadening its scope to create a comprehensive picture on NATO activities in different regions of the world like in the Middle East and on their impact on security perceptions in neighboring countries.

INESAP will continue to reflect responsibility of scientists and engineers. They should not get involved in nuclear weapons related research. Conference participants took a position against academic support for nuclear weapons. Cal Tech's grant of 250 Mill US $ for the Strategic Computing Initiative as part of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program can serve as an example.

The conference lasted for three days and ended with a sightseeing tour to the fast developing "technology park" of the Pudong Area in the east part of Shanghai and to the center of downtown in the west part of the city.

The meeting of 47 experts from 14 countries was an opportunity to learn from each other across the cultures and to make friends. International participants acknowledged that the presentations and discussions helped them to get a better understanding of the people in China and especially of their position on nuclear disarmament related issues. Nineteen Chinese participants from twelve different institutions had the opportunity to hear foreign political positions and to argue with those who put them forward. All participants shared the goal of a nuclear weapons free world. Differences appeared with respect to specific ideas about how to arrive there. The experience of harmony was very encouraging for the future common work. It is hoped that this kind of work will continue.

Proceedings of this conference are under preparation and will appear as number 3 in the INESAP proceedings series by the end of 1997.

INESAP (International Network of Engineers and Scientists against Proliferation)

c/o IANUS, Institut für Kernphysik -- Schlossgartenstrasse 9 -- 64289 Darmstadt, Germany

In December 1997, the United Nations Climate Convention will be held in Kyoto, Japan. In the present paper, INES member Ben Matthews gives a preview of the convention and tries to estimate its outcome and long-term impact.

The UNFCCC was created at Rio in 1992. The text is very vague, only requiring signatories to work towards a substantive agreement at future meetings: COP1: Berlin April 1995, COP2: Geneva July 1996, COP3: Kyoto 1^st-10^th December 1997.

At Berlin ASEED organised a gathering of over 600 environmental activists gathered outside the main conference, and together were very influential in forcing the delegates to do something. At Geneva, there was no such gathering and little was agreed except endorsing the IPCC scientific assessment and rebuking of the fossil fuel lobby.

The subsidiary bodies (AGBM, AG13, SBI, SBSTA) meet more often, there are two meetings left before COP3 in Bonn (where the Secretariat is located): 28^th July- 7^th August and 20^th-31^st October. Anybody who is on the list of a registered organisation can attend these too.

To get a new organisation registered for COP3 in Kyoto and the meetings in Bonn, contact the NGO Liaison officer in the Secretariat, Azza Taloub.

Few observers expect a substantial agreement to be signed in Kyoto, but the industrialised countries ("=Annex 1") will probably agree to a token gesture of a few % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels to be achieved by some date about 10 years from now. That is because they are obliged to do this by the "Berlin Mandate" agreed at COP1. This acknowledged that the "developed" countries are responsible for by far the biggest share of the cumulative emissions, i.e. they caused the problem, so they must be the first to do something about it. However, future projections show that developing countries emissions will rapidly overtake those of Annex 1, unless they are also restrained. That is a much greater challenge. Currently there is a dispute between the short term approach of CAN which dislike differentiation and back the AOSIS protocol (20% reduction for Annex 1 by 2005) and the long term approach of GCI ("Contraction and Convergence," in which all countries accept a quota based on gradual shift to equal per capita emissions). For more details, see the GCI web page, and back issues of "Eco" (also on web).

Recently both the European Community and Japan made flexible proposals based on equal per-capita emissions (within annex 1), and the EC offers a 15% reduction (more for the rich, less for the poor) by 2010. The US position keeps changing but they are reluctant to reduce their very high oil consumption, and so prefer distractions such as JI, cost benefit analysis (which can be used to prove anything you like) and a delay in emissions reductions (get rich now so you can solve the problem later...). Australia (selling coal), and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (selling oil) do their best to block any substantive agreement. The Russian position is very unenthusiastic although closing heavy industries is already reducing emissions.

Meanwhile the small islands, states in sub-Saharan Africa, and Bangladesh are extremely vulnerable to climate change and want a global solution as soon as possible, but they are outnumbered by the other developing countries led by China and India, who seem to be more concerned about increasing their share of emissions relative to Annex 1. Basically, the US says: we cannot do anything alone, what about all those people in China? And China says: the US is responsible for such a large share of the problem, they must reduce emissions before we even consider it.

The US position has backtracked considerably since their call for clear targets and timetables last year. In Geneva, the fossil fuel business lobby was discredited by the US minister due to their ruthless attack on climate science, and due to much pressure from CAN, while the business lobby representing renewable energy and sustainable technology urged politicians to agree financial incentives to boost their products. Since then the fossil fuel lobby, backed by some unions purporting to defend jobs, has recovered strength (under new disguises!).

Despite all this, after ten days in Kyoto the politicians will want to agree something so as not to look too silly. They may then be invited next door, to the headquarters of the "Research Institute for Innovative Technology for the Earth" which will offer some technological quick-fixes such as pumping CO₂ to the bottom of the ocean, genetically engineering algae, or reflecting sunlight with stratospheric dust. Such proposals carry great risk and many people may think we should not experiment with global climate feedback processes. I will be trying to arrange a debate on this topic in Kyoto: for more details see my paper on the SGR web page.

Alternatively, there is one measure to reduce emissions upon which all politicians could agree without losing "face:" to put a tax on aircraft fuel. Unless this is agreed internationally, planes will just fill up wherever fuel is cheaper, and so airlines (and shipping) get away without paying any fuel tax and are at an unfair advantage compared to overland transport. This encourages very rapid growth in air transport, which causes far greater emissions of greenhouse gases per person-kilometre (see "aircraft and global warming"). Many politicians recognise this, but since jetting around the world is a perk of their job, they are unlikely to be enthusiastic nor set a good example: that is up to us!

Remember, although only a token gesture is likely in Kyoto, we have to be there to set the agenda for the future.

For more background about the Covention, see the official Climate Convention web page:

For a better idea of the official proceedings and update on recent meetings of the subsidiary bodies, look at the Earth Negotiations Bulletins and other web links:

Following a proposal of the Council of Europe, the International Centre of Educational Systems (ICES) and its affiliate UNESCO / ICES, (International Chair-Network "Transfer of Technologies for Sustainable Development"), together with the Russian Federation Commission for UNESCO and the State Committee for Environmental Protection, will organize a conference about

in the Academy of State Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow.

The results of recent research that were summarized in the report of the International Commission on Environment and Development, headed by Brundtland (1987) and in the Agenda 21, adopted by the International Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), show that co-evolution of the biosphere and society may and should lead to sustainable development to meet the demands of humanity, and fulfil its moral obligations to future generations. The decree of the President of the Russian Federation "A concept of the Russian Federation Transition to Sustainable Development," No. 440 of 1 April 1996 and resolutions of the Russian Federal Government in "Draft Government Strategy for Sustainable Development in the Russian Federation" of 8 May 1996, reflect the concern of the Russian population for the environmental situation in the country and in the world.

One of the vital issues is the necessity to develop regional strategies and plans for sustainable development under permanently changing economic conditions in the country. The Russian Federation concept emphasizes that a transition to sustainable development in the country is possible only by securing sustainable development in all its regions. A concept for regional and spatial planning is essentially a geographical reflection of geopolitical, economic, social, cultural, and environmental policies of the society.

The Conference is expected to comprehensively analyze the issues of regional planning and management to promote sustainable development, ecomonitoring, ecological expertise, and the protection of landscape diversity. Experience will be exchanged in the field of improving the skills of decision-makers in regional planning and ecomonitoring, and of training sustainable development specialists.

Special attention will be paid to target-oriented environmental education and population awareness. Specialized environmental programmes with a broad participation of the mass media will be worked out.

The Conference will provide a forum for critical and all-round analysis of the strategy for sustainable development, elaborated by the RF Government. The participants will discuss a broad spectrum of development scenarios based on different approaches including those that significantly differ from the well-known and published ones.

The Conference is intended for representatives of federal and regional authorities, planning and finance bodies, environmental agencies, scientific researchers, technology designers and NGO representatives.

Among the Conference participants will be representatives of UNESCO HQ, the Commission of France on Sustainable Development, the Council of Europe Environmental Commission, the UNESCO Representation in the Russian Federation, the Association Progress of Science and Industry for Sustainable Development (APSI), the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, etc.

All technical information about the Conference may be obtained from the INES office in Dortmund.

Mordechai Vanunu worked as a technician at Israels Dimona nuclear facility. He chose as a matter of conscience to reveal to the Israeli people and the entire world his realization that nuclear weapons were being built at Dimona. He brought this information to the Sunday Times of London. While the information was being verified, a Mossad agent lured him to Rome. There he was drugged and forcibly brought to Israel, where he was convicted of treason and espionage during a secret trial and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Since then, he has been kept in solitary confinement in a small cell in Ashkelon Prison.

Sixteen activists from around the world joined together with Israelis for a week long series of vigils to demand freedom for nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu. In 1986, Vanunu was kidnapped by Israeli secret police and charged with treason and espionage for giving information about Israels nuclear weapons production to the London Sunday Times.

Representing Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Israel, the United States, and Belgium, vigilers stood each day, September 24-30, outside the gates of Ashkelon Prison, where Vanunu has spent the past 11 years in solitary confinement in a 2 x 3 meter cell. With their banners, placards, petitions, and leaflets in English and Hebrew, they also vigiled at other sites related to the case, such as the Ministries of Justice and Defense, various embassies and the Prime Ministers and Presidents residences.

On September 27, the international delegation joined over 50 Israelis of all ages at the Dimona nuclear facility in the Negev Desert, where Vanunu had worked as a technician. Joined for speeches and songs, and carrying their colorful signs and banners, the group held the largest anti-nuclear demonstration in Israeli history!

In public places during the week, vigilers handed out thousands of leaflets to Israeli citizens. A good deal of the response they received was predictably angry, referring to Vanunu as the "atom spy" and traitor he has been thoroughly and inaccurately portrayed to be by the Israeli government and media over the years. Yet even among those who thought that Vanunu had done something wrong, were many who expressed that 11 years is enough, and he should be released. Most hartening were the gestures and words of support. Some drivers gave a thumbs up or peace sign while driving by. Passersby stopped to talk, and some thanked the vigilers for being there. One man shared his belief that Vanunu is the greatest man in Israel, and is a hero.

Five of the American participants fasted on liquids only for seven days of the vigil. They stated: "We appeal to those in power who can effect Vanunus release to have mercy and compassion. We hope and pray this fast will help to change the hearts of a people who themselves have suffered injustice and oppression and ultimately help free Vanunu."

On September 30, the last day of the vigil and the 11^th anniversary of Vanunus imprisonment, the rock band U2 performed their first concert in Israel. As a result of a written request from vigilers earlier in the week, lead singer Bono, his face projected on a huge screen, made an eloquent appeal during the concert for Vanunus release to the more than 40,000 assembled fans. His statement was broadcast on TV and radio the next day, and reported in four newspapers.

Meir Vanunu, who had come from London to join the vigils for his brothers release, was able to visit Mordechai twice during the week inside Ashkelon prison. Mordechai asked him to thank the vigilers for coming, and stated "I am here because of the nuclear weapons reality, and I am going to fight and struggle on this issue until they are dismantled."

To receive a sample copy of the next issue of "I Am Your Spy," the newsletter of the U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu, write to:

The international vigil was organized jointly by the U.S., British, and Israeli campaigns to free Vanunu.

International delegates participating were, from Great Britain Marie Stone, Hope Liebersohn, Ben Thompson, David Polden, Meir Vanunu, and Rami Heilbronn; from the U.S. Hattie Nestle, Joe and Jean Gump, Barry Roth, Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, Art Laffin, and Felice Cohen-Joppa; from Belgium Carla Goffi; from Austria Vivienne Porzsolt, and from Canada Stephen Dankowich

Alla Yaroshinskaya is a member of the Presidential Council of Russia. She is a member of INES and presently a member of the INES Council. The present paper is an abridged version of an article that appeared in Komssomolskaya Pravda, December 21, 1996.

General Klaus Naumann, chairman of NATOs Military Committee, has published in the Russian press a reply to General Boris Gromov, member of the State Duma, the Russian parliaments lower house, who some time ago publicly expressed his attitude to the plans for NATOs expansion and, in particular, the blocs nuclear ambitions. Mr. Naumann cites a couple of well-polished semi-facts, which are expected to demonstrate NATOs goodwill with regard to nuclear arms reduction in Europe and convince the Russian reader that there can be no further nuclear expansion on the blocs part, not only to its future new members from Eastern Europe, but even in the territory of its old members. Is the picture really as idyllic as the esteemed general has depicted it?

It is common knowledge that the US forward-based nuclear bombs are now deployed in seven West European countries: Germany, Belgium, Greece, The Netherlands, Italy, Turkey and Great Britain. The groups six non-nuclear states are participants in the secret Cooperation Programs and their hardware is being certified as nuclear weapons delivery vehicles. (Great Britain, which has its own nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles, simply does not need it.)

Forward-based nuclear bombs are stationed on 16 Western European bases, including American bombs on 15 of them. Five of these fifteen bases are American air force bases and the remaining ten belong to the armed forces of the countries in whose territory they are situated.

Because of the secrecy of information (this must be what NATO understands as "transparency"), it is hard to give the real number of nuclear bombs stationed in Western Europe. The trustworthiest figure seems to be 520, including 480 American B-61 bombs. West German, British, Italian Tornado and American F-16 aircraft can be used as their delivery vehicles, if the need arises. The overall yield of the nuclear bombs stationed in Western Europe is about 98 megatons, or 7,500 times higher than the bomb, which razed Hiroshima to the ground. Russia wants to know whether NATOs "Eastern Express" will be carrying anything of the kind for deployment, say, near the Brest customs point.

In his article, the esteemed NATO general describes as valour the reduction of nuclear weapons in Western Europe in 1991-1993, describing in detail what and how was done. Somehow, he "forgets" to mention that the USSR and Russia did the same. It is also worth recalling for how long and how stubbornly NATO rejected the Soviet proposal to begin talks on tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. This continued up to the disintegration of the USSR in 1991. Writing about the NATO "disarmament race," the general should have mentioned the contributions made by Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Byelorussia, which voluntarily gave up the nuclear weapons deployed in their territories. By the way, Russia is not deploying its nuclear weapons abroad. However, the General does not even mention it. However, he does not fail to mention that Russia has probably more tactical nuclear weapons than NATO deployed in Europe. I do not know if it is true, but I want to say that we live in Europe and not in America. Shouldnt we, following his logic, also move our tactical weapons closer to the American coasts?

Another important question arises concerning the presence of NATO nuclear bombs in Western Europe: Does this agree with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the United Nations extended last year indefinitely and unconditionally? It has been signed, among others, by the non-NATO countries in whose territories nuclear weapons are deployed. Under that treaty, these countries may not agree to the transfer of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices or assume the direct or indirect management of such weapons or nuclear explosive devices. The US, Great Britain and the other nuclear powers have assumed the obligation not to transfer nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and their direct and indirect management to anyone.

NATOs answer is known: NATO has no nuclear weapons; all the nuclear weapons belong to the US and Great Britain. The answer of the US is also clear: we have not transferred nuclear weapons to anyone; they belong only to us and the nuclear button is in our hands. In the meantime, non-nuclear countries are involved on a daily basis in NATO nuclear planning, take an active part in the endorsements of the plans for the deployment and modernisation of nuclear arsenals and elaborate systems of command, control and communications.

Nuclear weapons and their management can be transferred to non-nuclear NATO countries only if there is a decision to enter a war, during which the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty lose their force, the general writes. That is why there are no treaty violations in the opinion of the NATO and the US. However, no one takes into account that non-nuclear countries comprehensively train their personnel, preparing them for the probable nuclear mission. It is a blatant case of dual morality.

Last year, I took part in the work of Russias government delegation to the UN conference on the extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The countries which have not signed it, publicly asked the same questions over and over again, while the conference was in session, namely: How much nuclear weaponry is already deployed in Western Europe? What is its status; when will it be scrapped at last? Byelorussia came up with the initiative of creating a nuclear-free zone in Europe. However, the US and its NATO allies kept silence.

What are todays sentiments in NATO and the US about Europe-based nuclear weapons?

The review of the US Nuclear Program, issued in September 1994, arrives at the conclusion that US nuclear weapons will be kept in Europe, as the projection of its allegiance to the North Atlantic alliance. The Review introduced for the first time a new term "the international nature of US nuclear forces."

In their rhetorics of nuclear deterrent as a political instrument of peace, the European NATO countries continue to pursue a perfectly concrete goal, namely: the deployment of nuclear weapons in their territories gives access to the US nuclear planning, and this, enables the US to assert itself each time as the leader of NATO.

When making public the results of the study on the expansion of NATO in the end of September 1995, the then NATO secretary-general Willy Claes said that nuclear weapons would not necessarily be deployed in the territory of Eastern European countries and that the issue at hand at that stage could be the creation of a new nuclear infrastructure. However, may I ask, for what a nuclear infrastructure is created, if not for the deployment of nuclear weapons?

Lastly. When the leader of one of the US "power structures" arrived in Moscow last year, he was to exchange opinions with Russians and prospects for the ratification of the START-2 by the Russian Duma. I asked the American guest about the NATO nuclear weapons in Western Europe, the above-mentioned 520 nuclear bombs deployed in the territory of the European NATO countries. I mention this only, because the gentlemans answer shocked me. He said that he knew nothing about it. Other participants in the meeting tried to delicately prompt him what the issue was. No matter how hard he tried, he could not remember anything. Finally we exchanged business cards with him and he promised to investigate the matter and send me corresponding information by fax.

I still wait for his answer, wondering whether the fax machine could be out of order in such an important US department.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has decided to contribute $ 1,000.- per month to INES for getting projects through a difficult time (complementary critical edge funding). The support is available both to INES projects and to projects of INES member organizations. Projects should be in accord with the intentions of INES.

The support can be up to $500.- per case. Applications with a short explanation should be sent to:

INES as a network relies on healthy nodes. Readers are encouraged to approach the INES contact person in their region. Please make comments and raise any question to them.

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

Lars Rydén -- Fax: -- E-Mail:

(Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, Ireland)

Reiner Braun --

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

Jiri Matousek -- F

Valerij Petrosyan -- Fax:

(France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Greece)

Marc Ollivier -- Fax:

Esmat Ezz -- Fax: + -- E-Mail:

Ogunlade Davidson -- Fax:

Eric Fawcett -- Fax:

David Krieger -- Fax:

Luis Masperi -- Fax:

John Peet -- Fax:

Jörn Brömmelhörster, head of the military expenditure project at the Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC) writes: The BICC Military Expenditure project has recently launched a new home page that deals exclusively with MILEX issues (bibliographies, review section, data sets, events, discussion forum, other projects etc).

Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC) -- An der Elisabethkirche 25 -- D-53113 Bonn, Germany

In May 1990 when the collapse of the East European communist-led economic system was taking place I started asking myself: When will the winner of the East-West competition collapse? What will be the follow-up system of the present neoliberal capitalism? Today the question is even more timely and urgent. We do not have a clear answer yet. In fact, market-oriented capitalism might turn out to be quite flexible and adaptable. However, I believe that it will need much stronger ethical constraints and reorientation than ever before. "We are producing too little wealth from too much resources, and we distribute the wealth produced too unevenly" (J. Spangenberg). Both the legal and political boundary conditions of economy need deep reorientation as well as the value systems and behaviour of each of us, as professionals, consumers, and citizens. It is time to ask in which way the enormous monetary profits and fortunes can be regulated and invested in a way which builds up not only economic capital but also natural, human and social capital (in the language of the World Bank). We also have to ask how much corruption can a society tolerate without endangering its viability.

These are some of the questions, which I would like to see raised at the INES congress Science And Engineering in the Next Century, which is anticipated to take place in Sweden in the year 2000. We had a first discussion on this congress plan on 29 July in Uppsala with a very interesting group of Swedish scientists and engineers from various backgrounds.

The discussion took place immediately after the Council meeting in Riga (25 -28 July 1997). The Council meeting was the most lively and international meeting we had so far, uniting delegates from four continents (Europe, Africa, America, Australia, and Oceania). The links of INES in Asia clearly need to be developed. However worldwide participation is also a budgetary question. The expenses of INES for the meeting of DM 23,000. - exceeded the usual DM 12,000 - 15,000. However, I feel we made optimum use of the investment by having sufficient quality time for personal exchanges and policy discussions. In addition, we spent one and a half days on an excursion program, which exposed us to local conditions in Latvia and approaches towards more sustainability. You find a summary report on the Council discussions and decisions in this issue of the Newsletter.

One important step of INES in Asia was made by the fourth INESAP Annual Conference, which was held in Shanghai, China, on September 810, 1997. The conference was very successful, it focussed on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament (see the report in this Newsletter).

It is well known that most programs of development aid set up by industrialized countries suffer from serious flaws. However, there are also apparently successful approaches. One of such stories is told in the cover article of this issue, which we include although the work was done outside of INES.

I mentioned budgetary considerations above. The independent work of INES as a network relies crucially on membership contributions from its organizational and individual members. In particular INES is asking its individual members for an annual contribution of between 0.1 and 0.2 percent of the annual net income. We will approach those who have committed themselves to an annual contribution, but have not paid yet.

A final reminder: Monthly news about recent developments in INES are distributed by Tobias Damjanov in the e-mail news service "WHATS NEW IN INES" which is also accessible through the INES homepage. Everyone interested in being included in the distribution list, please contact Tobias at: .

With my best wishes,

Hartwig Spitzer

Hamburg

Why is INES little known in many parts of the professional world, and how can we change this?

The INES Council is asking all individual members of INES and all affiliates of its member organizations to make the work of INES known at professional meetings and conferences. The best way is still face to face, when talking to colleagues. Invite them for membership.

Published by Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, Germany. Hard cover, 576 pages.

Copies of the proceedings of the INES Congress are still available for the price of DM 50,-, for those who place their order at the INES Office in Dortmund.

Jan Karel Gevers, Samir Amin, Nikita Moiseyev, Jan Pronk, Pentti Malaska, Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek, Manfred Max-Neef, Ervin Laszlo, Philip Smith, Joseph Rotblat.

In addition, there are reports of the 20 workshops of the Congress and selected contributed papers:

Ethical dimension of sustainability * Sustainable lifestyles and underlying human attitudes * Social problems of sustainability * Education for sustainable development.

Economic dimensions of sustainability: challenges to the world economic order * Criteria and indicators for sustainability * Industry and sustainability * Management of material flows and energy supply * Evaluation of personal and institutional energy and resource budgets * Sustainable agriculture and forestry * Management of water and waste water.

Transportation and mobility * Telecommunication and sustainability * Case studies for successful development through sustainability * Confronting unequal development * The politics of sustainability: challenges to democracy.

Peaceful resolution of social, ethnonational and environmental conflicts * Nuclear weapons abolition and nuclear waste storage * Chemical and biological disarmament * Conventional disarmament and conversion of military resources and production.