newsletter 27

In the last decade sustainable, stable development became a very popular term for scientists and policy makers. Since the UN-conference about environmental questions, 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, thousands of dissertations have been written on this subject, millions of lectures have been given, but more "stability" did not emerge from this effort. Quite the contrary is true: The planet is shaken up by social and ecological catastrophes, local and regional wars do not come to an end and thousands of armament factories and millions of scientists are working for the creation of destructive, more and more effective weaponry, including also weapons for mass destruction.

Humankind enters the 21^st century with the burden of the unsolved problems of the nuclear arms race. Regardless of the Non-Proliferation Treaty of nuclear weapons, which has been in existence now for nearly 30 years, within the frame of which also nuclear disarmament should be promoted, there are at the moment more nuclear powers in the world than before this treaty was signed. India and Pakistan have declared themselves nuclear states. The nuclear weapons of Israel are an open secret. It is well known that 40 countries are trying their hand at the creation of atomic bombs and that 20 of them are in a position to produce them.

Finally, the complete stagnation of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons that relies on bilateral Russian-American conventions becomes clearly visible. The Russian Parliament (the Duma) has not ratified the START-2 convention up to this day. The Russian President and the President of the USA signed it already in 1993, and it was ratified by Parliament of the USA at the beginning of 1996. According to this convention, the nuclear weaponry of both countries should be reduced to 3,500 units each until the year 2007.

This delay in the ratification of the START-2 convention obstructs any progress of nuclear disarmament. As one of the direct consequences, also the official negotiations for signing the next convention -- START-3 -- are in jeopardy. This convention aims for a reduction of nuclear weapons up to 1,500 units. For the first time, this might create the possibility for the other nuclear powers to join the process of nuclear disarmament.

Therefore, humankind does not enjoy a stable sustainable development, but finds itself in a stable nuclear trap. In Russia, people ask two ever-lasting questions in such a situation: "Who is to be blamed" and "what can be done?"

For the fist question, there seems to be a clear answer. The Russian Duma is responsible, whose communist majority failed to ratify START-2 during several years. But why did the Russian Parliament up to now not ratify a document which is of such importance for the whole world? Of course, Russia is not strong enough economically and has not the money to finance the necessary measures. However, this is not the main reason for the non-ratification of the convention. The main reason can be seen in the fact, that, after the collapse of the USSR, a completely new geopolitical situation came into existence for the whole world and also for Russia: The balance of power between the USSR and the USA was destroyed. One of the superpowers had disappeared and the international balance strongly slipped into only one direction, that of the USA, with all the resulting consequences. I am not going to deal with all the consequences -- political, ideological, military, economic, and social -- but will confine myself to the nuclear ones.

In 1991, President Bush (in September) and M. Gorbachov (in October) made a statement that their countries would take away nuclear weapons from the territories of states that do not possess nuclear weapons themselves. Russia did so, it has removed its nuclear weapons from the East European countries, the former allies of the Warsaw Pact, as well as from Kazachstan and the Ukraine. The world has welcomed this step. However, in the general euphoria the Western World has "not noticed" that hundreds of atomic bombs remained on the territories of seven West European NATO-countries.

This is the first reason, why the Russian delegates -- and not only the communists -- take their time for the ratification of the START-2 convention. (In this place, we will not eleborate on the fact, that the stationing of US nuclear weapons on the territories of countries that do not possess atomic weapons, is a violation of the treaty of non-proliferation).

A second reason is the disloyal expansion of the nuclear military-political blocks of the NATO to the East. Why disloyal? Because, in the time when Gorbachov battered down the communist empire (fall of the Berlin Wall, drop of the military-political block of the Warsaw Pact states, liquidation of the RGW, withdrawal of the nuclear weapons on the Russian territory, etc.), the Western heads of state and US President Bush promised him not only that the NATO would not be expanded to the East, but also that the block would possibly change its military-political nature and its countenance. Unfortunately, it seems that many of the Western politicians have lost their memory. The USSR had hardly declined, when they "forgot" their promises, they even denied them. Recently an article of the former ambassador of the USA in Moscow, John Matlock, has been published in the "Washington Post." Matlock was a witness of these negotiations between Gorbachov, Bush and other leading Western politicians. In his article, Matlock confirms the quickly forgotten promises of the Western state heads and those of the USA. (The error of Gorbachov was, that he trusted them too much and that he has forgotten to formulate these promises in written obligations and guarantees).

The third reason is the fear, which is not unfounded, that NATO will station also nuclear weapons on the territory of the new member states when extending its own territory. In Russia, the military-nuclear NATO block is not considered associated with peace and justice. I think this is understandable. You only should remember the reaction of the Western World and especially of the USA when Soviet leader Khrushchov sent his nuclear weapons to the shores of the American mainland (the Cuba crisis in 1962). That was pure hysteria! How can you expect today the Russian Parliament to feel happy, when the NATO moves its nuclear weapons up to the Russian borders? Following a similar logic, also Russia would have to send its nuclear weapons, to Belarus or Tadzhikistan, perhaps even to Cuba.

We are told: NATO will not station its nuclear weapons on the territory of the new member states. Is this really the case? Well, first we remember that we have been promised before that NATO would not expand at all. Secondly, there are dozens of documents, which show that NATO does not have any intention to abstain from its nuclear weapons in Europe -- quite on the contrary. I like to quote only a few from these documents in this place: In the paper "Nuclear Program of the USA," which has been published in September 1994, the following conclusion has been drawn: The nuclear weapons of the USA would remain in Europe "as a symbol of our bond with the alliance" (the North Atlantic one -- the author). In February 1995 William Perry, Minister of Defense, said in his annual report for the President and the Congress of the USA: "A very progressive aspect of the American nuclear weapons can be explained by the fact, that this is in some way an international nuclear course." In the beginning of 1995, the Chairman of the United Committee of the Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashwili, explained in the Congress, that the bombs in Europe will remain "for the protection of our alliance partners."

In the summer of 1995, Perry and Shalikashwili, on their circular tour through states that were prepared for NATO accession, proposed the involved government heads, to think over their position as to a possible stationing of nuclear weapons on their territory. In the end of September of the same year, the NATO Secretary General, Willi Claas, declared that the nuclear weapons had not to be "stationed at all costs" on the territory of the East European countries, at the time being it had rather been the point to create a new nuclear infrastructure on their territory. Now, can you tell me, why create a nuclear infrastructure, if you do not intend to station nuclear weapons?

According to a recent declaration of the US Foreign Minister, Madeleine Allbright, the "new members of the NATO can have the same rights as the old ones." Does this mean then, that there is the possibility of stationing nuclear weaponry on the territories of the new NATO member countries, as it is already the case in the "old" member countries of the NATO?

Do the politicians understand that nuclear rockets or bombs, wherever they are stationed, are a target for other nuclear rockets already by themselves? And can anybody then assume that such kind of measures could strengthen the security in the middle and the east of Europe and could contribute to the ratification of the START-2 convention?

After the beginning of the NATO-Yugoslavia war, the crisis of the UNO and the final collapse of the world architecture that was created in the international legal system after the end of the Second World War, the problems for the nuclear disarmament have still increased.

I do not at all intend to act as a defender of Milosevic. My fundamental point of view regarding the NATO-Yugoslavia war is, that it is probably too simple, to explain everything from the mutual relations between the bad Milosevic and the good NATO or vice versa. The problem of the NATO-bombardments largely exceeds the scope of the Balkans-War and has worldwide starting points. Its nature consists of the (not unsuccessful) attempt, to exploit the collapse of a superpower and to change the geopolitical map of the world in favour of the stronger superpower and the huger military block. The West European countries act in this as little assistants of the USA. (Although -- in the last time it seems, that the elite of these countries is aware of this fact and tries to activate the West European military alliance, which seemed to be already buried).

The consequences of the NATO-bombardments also have a global character: For the first time in the whole history of the existence of the UNO, which has been created by mankind as an instrument of peace and not of war, one of the military blocks has attacked a sovereign, independent state, without an instruction from the United Netions. This has created a dangerous precedent of the supremacy of force over the international right. The UNO has been degraded, the international legal system actually been destroyed. The NATO-bombardments also opened the door for other states: Why shall other countries not be allowed to do what NATO is allowed to do? And right now, we are witnessing bombardments between India and Pakistan -- two nuclear powers!

We are told that NATO has protected the Albanians against the ethnic cleansings. However, such protection reminds of a classic anecdote: You chop off the head, so that the tooth stops hurting. You cannot protect the rights of one nation and while doing so, kill human beings of another nation, including children. And: If Milosevic is to be held responsible for the ethnic cleansings, NATO should hold itself in the same way responsible for the bombarded (the streets into hell are paved with well-meant intentions) civil objects, hospitals, the embassy of another sovereign state, for the death of absolutely innocent citizens, for the immense ecological damages and the damages of the health of the population due to the application of forbidden bombs with uranium filling in this war. (The horrible consequences of the application of similar US bombs in the war against Iraq have been studied by a group of scientists under the guidance of Rosalie Bertell from Canada).

The Kosovo war has been utilized for testing the efficiency of the own NATO weapons (...). The top of cynicism is, that in the middle of the war, the North Atlantic Treaty passes a new concept, (during the ceremony of the 50^th anniversary of the NATO-foundation) by which NATO essentially grants itself the universal right to decide about any country that it does not like for some reason or another. This is the kind of policy against which the Russian society acted largely in former times. Can you then be surprised by the fact, that this policy is not adopted in Russia today?

Strictly speaking, the NATO bombardments in Yugoslavia became the last drop which made the pot boiling over, not only in the Russian Parliament but also in Russian society. The Duma does not need to hurry with the ratification of the START-2 convention, as long as NATO and the USA are violating existing international agreements for solution of conflicts.

I do not intend at this place to look at the price of nuclear weapons for the "poor" Russia. However, I like to mention an obvious fact. The whole budget of the Russian country amounts to 20 billion dollars, in the USA only the defense budget amounts to 400 billions.

That the USA is acting according to the right of the stronger can also be seen from the events of the last months around the ABM convention of 1972. The US Parliament decided to allocate money in order to create the possibility of stationing a new antiballistic missile defense technology within three years. This means, that the USA actually unilaterally cancels a fundamental, bilateral convention, which has been of elementary importance for stopping the nuclear arms race. This is also one of the reasons for the non-ratification of the START-2 convention by Russia.

In addition, the NATO-Yugoslavia war does not only slow down the processes of real disarmament and of real non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, it also provokes those states to speed up their activities that are secretly drawing up their nuclear plans (...).

What can and what shall the reasonable and peace loving part of humankind do in view of this newly created situation? Is it able to influence the metamorphosis that takes place in any way? It can -- and this above all through the non-governmental organizations which can be found in each civil society.

You should start with the withdrawal of UN-Secretary General, Kofi Annan, who has done nothing himself to express the protest against the NATO bombardments without UN-resolution. Then a radical discussion should take place in all Parliaments of the world and in the UNO itself, in order to find out, where we stand at the end of the 20^th century. A scientific plan for a far-reaching re-organization of the UNO has to be created, which will consider the new geopolitical realities after the collapse of the USSR and of communism, after the connected total globalization and the impoverishment of a large part of the world population as well as the menacing global ecological catastrophe. The UNO is not allowed to turn only towards the one "golden" billion of the world population, it has to turn towards the whole world population.

Therefore, it is necessary, that the UNO will again become the sole international authority, which can make decisions for the solution of conflicts, so that the solution of conflicts through military punishment of any people by any nation will be excluded in the future.

If we intend to be honest with ourselves and with future generations, we must stop juggling with words about a stable peace and a sustainable development. It should be clear to us, that these concepts actually do not exist and that the rich individuals and nations do not want any alterations. On the contrary, they want to leave things unchanged, because whoever reigns over richness, rules over the world. This truth is as old as humankind is. However, all reasonable men and women, who have not lost their conscience until now, should strive to improve this world.

Alla Yarochinskaya, member of the Executive Committee of INES holds a doctors degree in philosophy. She is member of the Advisory Board of the Russian President.

E-mail:

back to CONTENTS

Regional INES contacts

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

COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES

Alla Yaroshinskaya
Tel / Fax:
E-mail:

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

Lars Rydén
Fax:
E-mail:

CENTRAL / EASTERN EUROPE
(Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Successor states of former Yugoslavia)

Jiri Matousek
Fax:
E-mail:

GERMANY

Reiner Braun
Fax:

WESTERN EUROPE
(The Netherlands, UK, Ireland, Switzerland)

Armin Tenner
Tel / Fax:
E-mail:

WESTERN / SOUTHERN EUROPE
(France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Greece)

Jean-Paul Lainé
Fax:
CENTRAL , SOUTHERN AFRICA

Ogunlade Davidson

E-mail:

NORTHERN AFRICA

Hamed El-Mously
Fax:
E-mail:

ASIA

Chitralekha Marie Massey
E-mail:

CANADA

Eric Fawcett
Fax:
E-mail:

UNITED STATES

David Krieger
Fax:
E-mail:

LATIN AMERICA

Luis Masperi
Fax:
E-mail:

AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND

John Peet
Fax:
E-mail:

back to CONTENTS

The Earth Charter --
Values and Principles for a Sustainable Development

Frank Meyberg

Sustainable Development" is a key word -- but sometimes not more than a buzz word -- since the Rio Conference 1992. The INES Congress in Amsterdam 1996 revealed a lot of different dimensions of sustainability, as is shown in the printed conference proceedings. But what can be said in short words about sustainabilty? What is the spirit of sutainability?" The Earth Charter is a document that wants to give inspiring expression to the most fundamental principles of a sustainable development -- an integrated vision for our common future!

Representatives from governmental and nongovernmental organisations worked to secure adoption of an Earth Charter during the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. However, the time was not right. A new Earth Charter initiative was launched by the Earth Council and Green Cross International in 1994. Meanwhile, Draft I and Draft II of this document have been published; but the consultation process is still going on. Many groups and individuals are involved to secure the document really becoming a "Peoples Earth Charter!"

All interested persons and institutions are invited to give their comments during the next weeks, so that they may contribute to the final version of the Earth Charter, to be completed in early 2000.

Send your comments to:

Earth Charter Drafting committee
c/o Prof. Steven Rockefeller
P.O. Box 648
Middlebury VT 05753 USA
Fax
E-mail: .

General information about the Earth Charter process is given by:

Earth Charter Campaign, International Secretariat
The Earth Council
Apdo. 2323-1002
San José Costa Rica

E-mail:
Website: http://www.earthcharter.org .

The Earth Charter will be discussed at the INES Congress 2000 in Stockholm in workshop B1 "Spirit and Rationality of Sustainability and the Earth Charter Process." Interested persons can contact the convener:

Dr. Frank Meyberg
Eberhardstr. 9
D-22041 Hamburg Germany;
E-mail: .

back to CONTENTS

EARTH CHARTER Benchmark Draft II, April 1999

PREAMBLE:

In our diverse yet increasingly interdependent world, it is imperative that we, the people of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations. We are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny.

Humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life. The well-being of people and the biosphere depends upon preserving clean air, pure waters, fertile soils, and a rich variety of plants, animals and ecosystems. The global environment with its finite resources is a primary common concern of all humanity. The protection of Earths vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.

The Earth community stands at a defining moment. With science and technology have come great benefits and also great harm. The dominant patterns of production and consumption are altering climate, degrading the environment, depleting resources, and causing a massive extinction of species. A dramatic rise in population has increased the pressures on ecological systems and has overburdened social systems. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, corruption, crime and violence, and armed conflict deepen the worlds suffering. Fundamental changes in our attitudes, values, and ways of living are necessary.

The choice is ours: to care for Earth and one another or to participate in the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life.

As a global civilization comes into being, we can choose to build a truly democratic world, securing the rule of law and the human rights of all women, men, and children. We can respect the integrity of different cultures. We can treat Earth with respect, rejecting the idea that nature is merely a collection of resources to be used. We can realize that our social, economic, environmental, and our spiritual problems are interconnected

and cooperate in developing integrated strategies to address them. We can resolve to balance and harmonize individual interests with the common good, freedom with responsibility, diversity with unity, short term objectives with long term goals, economic progress with the flourishing of ecological systems.

To fulfill these aspirations, we must recognize that human development is not just about having more, but also about being more. The challenges humanity faces can only be met if people everywhere acquire an awareness of global interdependence, identify themselves with the larger world, and decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life will be strengthened if we live with reverence for the sources of our being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in the larger scheme of things.

Having reflected on these considerations, we recognize the urgent need for a shared vision of basic values that will provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. We, therefore, affirm the following principles for sustainable development. We commit ourselves as individuals, organizations, business enterprises, communities, and nations to implement these interrelated principles and to create a global partnership in support of their fulfillment.

Together in hope, we pledge to:

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. Respect Earth and all life,

recognizing the interdependence and intrinsic value of all beings;
affirming respect for the inherent dignity of every person and faith in the intellectual, ethical, and spiritual potential of humanity.

2. Care for the community of life in all its diversity,

accepting that responsibility for Earth is shared by everyone;
affirming that this common responsibility takes different forms for differen individuals, groups, and nations, depending on their contribution to existing problems and the resources at hand.

3. Strive to build free, just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful societies,

affirming that with freedom, knowledge, and power goes responsibility and the need for moral self-restraint;
recognizing that a decent standard of living for all and the quality of relations among people and with nature are the true measure of progress.

4. Secure Earths abundance and beauty for present and future generations,

accepting the challenge before each generation to conserve, improve, and expand their natural and cultural heritage and to transmit it safely to future generations;
acknowledging that the benefits and burdens of caring for Earth should be shared fairly between present and future generations.

II. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earths ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain and renew life.

Make ecological conservation an integral part of all development planning and implementation.
Establish representative and viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands, sufficient to maintain Earths biological diversity and life-support systems.
Manage the extraction of renewable resources such as food, water, and wood in ways that do not harm the resilience and productivity of ecological systems or threaten the viability of individual species.
Promote the recovery of endangered species and populations through in situ conservation involving habitat protection and restoration.
Take all reasonable measures to prevent the human-mediated introduction of alien species into the environment.

6. Prevent harm to the environment as the best method of ecological protection and, when knowledge is limited, take the path of caution.

Give special attention in decision making to the cumulative, long-term, and global consequences of individual and local actions.
Stop activities that threaten irreversible or serious harm even when scientific information is incomplete or inconclusive.
Establish environmental protection standards and monitoring systems with the power to detect significant human environmental impacts, and require environmental impact assessments and reporting.
Mandate that the polluter must bear the full cost of pollution.
Ensure that measures taken to prevent or control natural disasters, infestations, and diseases are directed to the relevant causes and avoid harmful side effects.
Uphold the international obligation of states to take all reasonable precautionary measures to prevent transboundary environmental harm.

7. Treat all living beings with compassion, and protect them from cruelty and wanton destruction.

III. A JUST AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC ORDER

8. Adopt patterns of consumption, production, and reproduction that respect and safeguard Earths regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.

Eliminate harmful waste, and work to ensure that all waste can be either consumed by biological systems or used over the long term in industrial and technological systems.
Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy and other resources, and reduce, reuse, and recycle materials.
Rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as the sun, the wind, biomass, and hydrogen.
Establish market prices and economic indicators that reflect the full environmental and social costs of human activities, taking into account the economic value of the services provided by ecological systems.
Empower consumers to choose sustainable products over unsustainable ones by creating mechanisms such as certification and labeling.
Provide universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.

9. Ensure that economic activities support and promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.

Promote the equitable distribution of wealth.
Assist all communities and nations in developing the intellectual, financial, and technical resources to meet their basic needs, protect the environment, and improve the quality of life.

10. Eradicate poverty, as an ethical, social, economic, and ecological imperative.

Establish fair and just access to land, natural resources, training, knowledge, and credit, empowering every person to attain a secure and sustainable livelihood.
Generate opportunities for productive and meaningful employment.
Make clean affordable energy available to all.
Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and respect their right to develop their capacities and to pursue their aspirations.
Relieve developing nations of onerous international debts that impede their progress in meeting basic human needs through sustainable development.

11. Honor and defend the right of all persons, without discrimination, to an environment supportive of their dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being.

Secure the human right to potable water, clean air, uncontaminated soil, food security, and safe sanitation in urban, rural, and remote environments.
Establish racial, religious, ethnic, and socioeconomic equality.
Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of traditional sustainable livelihoods.
Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and judicial procedures, including redress and remedy, that enable all persons to enforce their environmental rights.

12. Advance worldwide the cooperative study of ecological systems, the dissemination and application of knowledge, and the development, adoption, and transfer of clean technologies.

Support scientific research in the public interest.
Value the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities.
Assess and regulate emerging technologies, such as biotechnology, regarding their environmental, health, and socioeconomic impacts.
Ensure that the exploration and use of orbital and outer space supports peace and sustainable development

IV. DEMOCRACY AND PEACE

13. Establish access to information, inclusive participation in decision making, and transparency, truthfulness, and accountability in governance.

Secure the right of all persons to be informed about ecological, economic, and social developments that affect the quality of their lives.

Establish and protect the freedom of association and the right to dissent on matters of environmental, economic, and social policy.

Ensure that knowledge resources vital to peoples basic needs and development remain accessible and in the public domain.
Enable local communities to care for their own environments, and assign responsibilities for environmental protection to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.
Create mechanisms that hold governments, international organizations, and business enterprises accountable to the public for the consequences of their activities.

14. Affirm and promote gender equality as a prerequisite to sustainable development.

Provide, on the basis of gender equality, universal access to education, health care, and employment in order to support the full development of every persons human dignity and potential.
Establish the full and equal participation of women in civil, cultural, economic, political, and social life.

15. Make the knowledge, values, and skills needed to build just and sustainable communities an integral part of formal education and lifelong learning for all.

Provide youth with the training and resources required to participate effectively in civil society and political affairs.
Encourage the contribution of the artistic imagination and the humanities as well as the sciences in environmental education and sustainable development.
Engage the media in the challenge of fully educating the public on sustainable development , and take advantage of the educational opportunities provided by advanced information technologies.

16. Create a culture of peace and cooperation.

back to CONTENTS

SCIENCE AND VIOLENCE - SCIENCE FOR LIFE

The present article was written by the Committee on Ethical Questions and the Responsibilities of Scientists and Engineers, as a working paper for the INES workshop "Science, Ethics, Peace" at the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference in May 1999. The paper equally serves as an input for the Conference "Challenges for Science and Engineering in the 21^st Century," to be organized by INES in June 2000 in Stockholm, Sweden.

More information may be obtained from: Dr. Hans-Jürgen Fischbeck,

SCIENCE AND VIOLENCE

1. Violence is the foremost mode of behaviour to suppress, to exploit, to degrade, to damage or even to kill life. It is directed not only against human life. Violence is always the "right of the stronger" and insensitive to its victims.

War is the worst case of violence. War with weapons of mass destruction is beyond any justification. Also threatening with means of mass destruction is violence which by far exceeds the military dimension. In general violence generates counter violence and often causes uncontrollable spirals of escalation.

Besides military violence, there are many other forms of violence: structural, economic, technological, psychic etc.

To an immense extent, violence is directed against non-human life. Thus, the perturbation or even destruction of ecological balances is violence as well as hurting the integrity and specific dignity of living beings.

Violence should be distinguished from power, as a responsible use of democratically determined law for ensuring public interests. Killing non-human life for nutrition needs belongs to the symbiosis of man with nature as he has cultivated it.

2. Modern science as it is described and essentially influenced e.g. by Descartes and Bacon is a social process and a most important factor of our culture. Although many scientists are inspired by the wish to search for truth, this social process was not least determined by the motive of ensuring human survival in nature which was considered to be alien and hostile (Meyer-Abich). In this sense modern science claimed to control non-human nature by objectifying it completely. Nature is indiscriminately considered to be "res extensa" and, consequently, degraded to a disposable resource only. This was, and is, done in complete harmony with the concept of private possession of parts of nature.

3. Empirically objectifying knowledge states "what the case is." This is value-free. Therefore, it has been concluded that science is entirely value-free so that ethical questions only arise outside science when it is applied. It has been widely overlooked that ethical questions should already be asked before undertaking research in order to reason why and for what just this and no other project should be done.

4. Empirically objectifying knowledge possesses a (causal) if -- then structure and can, consequently, be applied. It is disposable knowledge which easily can be changed to ruling knowledge if it belongs or remains in the hands of relatively small groups of people This is assured by keeping such knowledge secret or privatizing it by means of the patent law. Patenting knowledge is one of the most important means to keep the dominance of the rich countries and to strengthen unequal development. Military research is always secret research. Secrecy is the "mark of Cain" of violent science.

Bacons sentence "knowledge is power" should be specified as follows: Scientific knowledge enables violence against nature in general. Secret scientific knowledge makes violence over humans possible.

5. In this way, science can be misused arbitrarily. Violently usable knowledge has been produced by a "generation of inventive dwarfs who can be hired for anything" (Bertolt Brecht). Since the World War 2, by far the largest part of scientific intelligence has been misused to develop increasingly effective means for extermination of life. After the end of the Cold War, military research has not been reduced, if it is born in mind that civil research is now increasingly utilized for military purposes ("dual use").

NON-VIOLENT SCIENCE -- SCIENCE FOR LIFE

1. Science belongs to life because it is a part of the human way of life. Man became "homo sapiens" when he ate the apple from the "tree of knowledge." This made him responsible for the whole creation on earth. Modern science, as it arose in the enlightenment, understood its task to ensure human life against nature which has been looked upon as alien and hostile. Today, on the brink of ruin, a new kind of science is necessary, a science which understands itself as the search for "common security" of man and nature. The science of the 21^st century needs a new concept, the concept of co-science (Mit-Wissenschaft) as it is called and described by Meyer-Abich. It must be non-violent. It should protect and sustain the network of life on earth in its full diversity as a symbiosis of culture and nature.

2. Co-science is a vision of a new participative science. It does not deny empirically observing (Cartesian) science and its results, but clarifies that this is a one-sided perspective revealing only partial truth which has to be completed by wisdom coming from the insight that humans participate in nature. Causal explanation ought to be complemented by hermeneutical understanding, especially if living nature is concerned.

Co-science is not value-free, because it comprises the reasoning why and for what it is worth knowing one thing or another. Such reasoning leads by itself to a responsible science, responsible for the persistence and the thriving of life on earth.

3. Scientists who account for their doing in this way cannot be so simply misused as providers of ruling knowledge as before. They resist the classification of their work. They publish their results together with their true reasons because publication belongs to the essence of science

and is a precondition of their truth. Therefore, unrestricted publication is the necessary condition of co-science. In the final analysis, also the privatization of knowledge by patenting it in todays way is actually not consistent with co-science because of its tendency of exclusion. This indicates a deep dilemma between private financing research, which seems to be necessary, and free access to its results.

Truth is not compatible with ruling. In order that disposable knowledge becomes knowledge of truth and not violent knowledge of ruling, unrestricted publication of science is necessary.

4. Co-science is the opposite of military research. As the principle of "common security" leads to disarmament, so the general principle of common security of man and nature as a whole leads to a non-violent life-worthy science.

If scientists refuse because co-science is unsuited for military research, further armament is stopped and disarmament is facilitated. Disarmament and a reliable non-violent conflict resolution are a basic condition for sustainability.

5. Sustainable development as a coevolution of culture and nature is possible only by respecting the value of non-human life in its own right, which is ore of the basic principles of co-scientific thinking and doing It is the comprehensive task of Co-science -- as science for life -- to explore the necessary conditions for sustainability and to propose ways and means to reach it.

back to CONTENTS

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY RATIFICATION

Statement by David Krieger

California, October 14, 1999.

"In voting down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the U.S. Senate acted with irresponsible disregard for the security of the American people and the people of the world. It is an act unbecoming of a great nation. The Senate sent a message to the more than 185 countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that the United States is not prepared to lead the global effort for non-proliferation nor to keep its promises to the international community. I urge the American people to send a strong message of disapproval to the Senators who voted against this treaty, and demand that the United States resume a leadership role in supporting the CTBT and preventing further nuclear tests by any country at any time and at any place. "The American people should take heart that the Treaty is not dead, and this setback should be viewed as temporary -- until they have made their voices reverberate in the halls of the Senate."

COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY RATIFICATION IS VITAL

David Krieger and Jane Olson

After two years of being bottled up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), an issue of vital importance to the United States and the world, suddenly faces a vote for ratification in the Senate on October 12. The timing gives little opportunity for a public debate and seems suspiciously maneuvered by partisan politics to keep the American people from understanding the enormous implications of a potential defeat of the treaty.

Defeat would open the door to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, risk a return to dangerous testing practices, and seriously undermine U.S. credibility in the international community. Passage requires a two-thirds Senate vote, seemingly impossible now unless the American people immediately and overwhelmingly express strong support.

A brief background illustrates U.S. leadership and self-interest in the CTBT. In 1963 president Kennedy made a major breakthrough in negotiating the Partial Test Ban Treaty that eventually ended atmospheric testing and resultant fallout now known to have caused major health and environmental damage. While testing continued underground, justified as necessary to improve weapons systems and build arsenals, parties to the Partial Test Ban Treaty promised to work towards ending all testing.

After 33 years and with U.S. leadership, the CTBT finally achieved that goal in the 1996. The U.S. was the first country to sign the treaty, a proud moment.

In releasing the treaty for a Senate vote with no time for public debate, the Republican majority seems to be putting partisan politics ahead of national security. Whether the aim is to embarrass the Clinton Administration or to hold open the possibility of nuclear weapons testing as part of a ballistic missile defense system, this is a dangerous, high-stakes gamble.

In fact, the U.S. has more to gain and less to lose from ratification than any other country. We have already conducted more than 1,000 nuclear weapons tests. Because of advanced technologies, we can test systems by methods that do not require actual nuclear explosions. And it clearly is in everyones self-interest to contain proliferation and to stop all current nuclear nations from resuming testing.

U.S. failure to ratify could be seen as betrayal by nations agreeing to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which went into effect in 1970 and was extended indefinitely in 1995. At the time of the indefinite extension of the NPT, the nuclear weapons states promised to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. If the U.S. does not fulfill that promise, party nations could conclude that they need not be bound by the NPT.

To enter into force, the CTBT requires ratification of all 44 countries with nuclear capacity. Of those 44 countries, only India and Pakistan, who recently terrified the world by testing and proving their nuclear might, and North Korea have not signed the treaty.

Twenty-four of these 44 countries have already ratified the treaty. American leadership is essential to complete the ratification process to allow the treaty to enter into force.

With U.S. leadership through ratification of the CTBT, India and Pakistan might be brought into the nuclear treaty regime. Without U.S. support, future testing by these countries and others is almost assured.

Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says that if the treaty is ratified, "the American people will be left with no defensive or offensive deterrent. Its not going to happen on my watch!"

In fact, the security of the American people will be immeasurably increased by this universal prohibition on nuclear testing. The American people must reject this Cold Warrior rhetoric and outrageously false characterization of the strength of this nation and demand ratification of the CTBT.

Then we should consider Sen. Helms use of the term, "offensive deterrent," and ask ourselves whether anyone feels safe under his "watch."

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, and Vice-Chair of INES.
Jane Olson is a board member of Human Rights Watch and of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is an international education and advocacy organization focusing on issues of international peace and security. The Foundation is non-profit and non-partisan. It is a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) on the roster in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is the international contact for Abolition 2000, a Global Network of 1,362 activist organizations in 88 countries who are working together to eliminate nuclear weapons.

A LETTER FROM ALICE SLATER

Submitted as a Letter to the Editor to The New York Times

Alice Slater is President of the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) and a member of the INES Council. GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, and a member organization of INES.

The lesson to be learned from the politicized debacle which defeated the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the Senate, is not only how isolated and insular our Republican Senators appear to be, but how utterly bankrupt the Democrats nuclear policy is as well.

Administration spokespeople argued repeatedly for the passage of the Treaty on the basis that it would lock in US nuclear superiority, that our stockpile stewardship program would give us a technological edge which other worrisome states likes Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran would be unable to emulate, maintaining our powerful nuclear lead forever, and that it was to our advantage to preclude others from underground nuclear testing because this would prevent proliferation.

Does anyone seriously believe that we could really stop other countries from working to develop their nuclear arsenals when the US stockpile stewardship program, without full-scale underground tests, (although we argue that sub-critical tests are permitted) has allowed us to develop and deploy a new earth penetrating bunker-busting warhead, tested last April in Alaska and a new for our nuclear submarines, while we continue to research new weapons? The Democrats, ostrich-like in their arguments, seem to lack any awareness

that the whole world has been listening in on the Congressional debate and has heard their "non-proliferation" arguments in favor of the Treaty to insure US nuclear superiority. Presumably, they will act accordingly to protect their own perceived interests.

The only way to guarantee US security from nuclear terror abroad is to move promptly to negotiations to make nuclear weapons taboo -- banning them in a verifiable, international treaty for their abolition, just

as the world had done for chemical and biological weapons. That is the only thing that will protect us, and all of humanity as well, now that the flawed test ban, with its provocative promise of new weapons development funds for the labs, has been so ignominiously defeated.

back to CONTENTS

INES Council meeting 1999
Armin Tenner

The purpose of INES is to promote responsible use of science and technology. This leads to two orientations in our work. One is the search for sustainability, performed with the methods of natural and social sciences. The other is the struggle for lasting peace and for social justice, where science may or may not be involved, but where the scientist feels responsibility. In the past year, the centre of gravity strongly moved into the direction of the second orientation: in the political and military field to NATO and Kosovo, in economy to MAI. This shift in weight was reflected by our activities and was made clearly visible in the contents of the Newsletter. A major event was the conference "Hague Appeal for Peace" in The Hague, in May 1999 for which INES prepared three workshops and was involved in a fourth one. The workshop conveners were Hans-Jürgen Fischbeck, Götz Neuneck, Jürgen Scheffran and Dieter Deiseroth. In the Kosovo war, INES formulated and distributed a strong appeal, supporting also the statements of the IPB, the Inter-national Peace Bureau of which INES is a member. During the Council meeting, time was allocated for a debate about the Kosovo war, after introductions given by Alla Yaroshinskaya and Reiner Braun.

The Council discussed the successful development of INES in the last year, the growing numbers of individual members and member organizations, the extension of the INES program and the intensified contact with other international NGOs and with organizations like UNESCO and ICSU. The latter contacts lead to our participation in the "World Conference on Science" in Budapest. Several proposals were made for activities in the coming year:

Together with a new African member organization, INES will try to organize a conference "Peace in the Big-Lake area," its first activity on African ground.
A new project will be developed in collaboration with members in Kaliningrad: "Regional aspects of sustainability and the role of universities in this field."
For the next year, a summerschool is planned for members of the younger generation.
The Robert -Havemann Foundation which, during the past year, granted 58 scholarships to Russian postgraduate and doctorate students in their last academic year, will be further developed.
The action for the universities of Nepal will be continued. Material and money has been collected to improve the desolate conditions of the university education in Nepal. During the Council meeting, a donation could be made to Ramesh Babu Shrestha, Council representative from Nepal.

The 1998 Council in Cambridge made a strong recommendation and gave instructions to the Executive Committee, that INES should rejuvenate itself, find more young members and elect them in the Council and the Executive Committee. In addition, more female members should be attracted and the participation of women in the steering committees should be improved. The efforts were quite successful, as shown by the new council, in which six young and/or female members were nominated: Chitralekha Marie Massey from India, Salazar Martinez and Maria Mona Piciu from Mexico, Åse Richard from Sweden, Zoltan Mayer from Hungary and Sandra Striewski from Germany. Four new members were elected in the Executive Committee, as shown hereafter. With Chitralekha Massey, the Executive Committee has its first Asian member, after having a vacancy for a representative of this continent for several years.

A special word of thanks must be devoted to Hartwig Spitzer who, being the founding father and first chairperson of INES, now left the INES Executive Committee. With great gratitude we remember his activity and endeavour in the turbulent years of the existence of INES. He will not leave us: The preparation of next years INES conference in Stockholm will be his major occupation.

A variety of subjects has been discussed during the sessions: chemistry for a sustainable world, renewable materials, alternative energy production, new resources of finances and development of local communities. The question "what is sustainability" was central in these discussions. It was stressed that for the future of INES the further development of working groups and projects is essential.

The council heared detailed reports from Hartwig Spitzer and Lars Rydén about the preparation for the conference "Challenges for Science and Engineering in the 21^st Century" in June 2000 in Stockholm. Lars Rydén explained that two difficulties in Sweden were successfully overcome: Finding a new host institution, the Royal Institute of Technology and keeping the Royal Academy in the boat. The core of the program had been established upon recommendation of the Program Committee and consultation of representatives of the Royal Swedish Academy. The Council welcomed the general progress. However, several members strongly criticized that the Program Committee was not actively involved any more in the development of the program after March 1999. The chairpersons of the Organizing Committee and the Program Committee took responsibility for this and stepped back.

After intensive discussion the Council agreed to extend the Organizing Committee with seven representatives from the side of INES, to strengthen the preparation basis of the conference. The new Preparation Committee takes responsibility for all future preparations. Armin Tenner was nominated by the Council as the chairperson of the new committee, Lars Rydén and Hartwig Spitzer became vice chairpersons.

INES EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
as elected by the INES Council, 26 September 1999

Armin Tenner (The Netherlands), chair;

David Krieger (USA), deputy-chair;

Dieter Meissner (Germany), treasurer;

Hamed El-Mously (Egypt);

Jean-Paul Lainé (France);

Luis Masperi (Argentina);

Chitralekha Marie Massey (India);

Jiri Matousek (Czech Republic);

Ulrike Otto (Germany);

Lars Rydén ( Sweden);

Peter Weish (Austria);

Alla Yaroshinskaya (Russia).

back to CONTENTS

NEW INES MEMBERS

Djillali Rouane Hacene, Schiedam, The Netherlands, Interest: Science and Development in the 3^d world

Dr. Hanny Nover, Brussels, Belgium, E-mail:

Jan von Brevern, Hamburg, Germany, E-mail: , Interest: Environment, Ethics, Development

Bahig Nassar, Cairo, Egypt, E-mail:

back to CONTENTS

E N D