No. 18/2002

Dateline: June 26, 2002

This is the weekly electronic information service of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility

Editor: Tobias Damjanov, e-mail: 
WNII is archived at: http://inesglobal.org/archive.htm    
INES homepages: http://inesglobal.org       http://www.inesglobal.com/
INES International Office   
INES Chair: Prof. Armin Tenner    [Please note that the first "1" in q18 is the number one, while the last "l" is an "L"]

CONTENTS of WNII No. 18/2002


Netherlands: Pugwash Manifesto "Sharing the Planet" (Source: Pugwash Netherlands Press Release, 17 June 2002)

Pugwash Netherlands, a Dutch INES member organisation, has released its manifesto "Sharing the Planet" which was elaborated at a Pugwash conference by a group of internationally renown scientists, including Jane Goodall, Anne Ehrlich, and Atiq Rahman. The manifesto's key point: The international order needs to be drastically changed toward sustainability. Also in education more attention must be devoted to sustainable development.

According to the manifesto, global governing bodies such as the World Trade Organization must be drastically changed. The approach followed by the World Trade Organization does not duly recognize other legitimate concerns than international trade. This leads to a dramatically decline in biological diversity. It is important that the World Trade Organization starts cooperating in the implementation of biodiversity-related agreements. Biodiversity has intrinsic value; moreover, all life depends upon it.

Jane Goodall, one of the participants in the Pugwash conference and renown from her activities for saving the chimpanzee, will present the manifesto at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in August. Goodall acts as an adviser to secretary-general Kofi Annan for this summit.

The manifesto can be found at:  http://www.sharingtheplanet.org 

For more information about the conference and the manifesto, contact Arthur Petersen, press officer Sharing the Planet: < >

IPB: Peace movements ask for help to organize for 9/11, 2002

The International Peace Bureau (IPB) has posted the following:

Already, events are being organized in big cities like New York, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and small towns such as Seadrift, Texas and Chester, West Virginia. Organizations involved include the National Coalition for Peace and Justice, Global Exchange, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, the War Resisters League, the Independent Progressive Politics Network, and many more.

September 7-8 weekend events - For the weekend gatherings, we suggest an upbeat tone that focuses on the world we would like to create. Events could include a peace concert, town hall meeting, Walk-a-Thon or Bike-a-Thon, film showings, interactive art projects, community picnic, street theater and dance, teach-in and workshops with global/local themes. Let1s make our events inter-generational, multi-ethnic ones that bring together unexpected allies: Indians & Pakistanis, Jews & Arabs, veterans & peace activists, labor organizers & business leaders.

September 11 itself - For the day of September 11, we suggest a more somber, respectful tone to commemorate those who died on 9/11 and all other innocent victims. Appropriate actions include interfaith services and silent vigils, perhaps even an overnight vigil from the evening of September 10 to the morning of September 11.

Be part of a national movement by building locally

The local groups will function autonomously, but will be tied together nationally through a common name, purpose, website and media strategy. We need your help!!! If you are interested in organizing an event in your community, or want to know if something in your area is already being planned, please contact us at the address below.

Let's show the world that in hundreds of US cities, we are claiming the anniversary of 9/11 as a time to say YES, a peaceful, more just world IS possible, and we are building it!

We look forward to working with you!  Contact: < >

Campaign to Build the Rongelap Peace Museum in the Marshall Islands

At the end of June, Carah Lynn Ong of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation posted the following information:

On 1 March 2002, the Mirar in Eaan Committee (the Committee to build Rongelap Peace Museum in the Marshall Islands) released an appeal calling for support of the Rongelap Peace Museum. The museum is an attempt to record, remember and make known the damage of US nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands. The Rongelap Peace Museum will exhibit the damage and effects of the nuclear test at Bikini, as well as the efforts of the sufferers to overcome them. It will help bring public attention to many unknown sufferings and contribute to the relief of the sufferers. The museum will thus encourage people to endeavor for a nuclear-weapons-free Pacific and a nuclear-weapons-free future. Ground breaking for the museum will begin in August 2003. The museum inauguration is scheduled for 1 March 2004, the 50th Anniversary of the "Bravo" Test. The museum will be located in Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands. Please send a donation to support this extremely important project. It is preferred that contributions be transferred to the bank account of the project at: Bank of Marshall Islands, P.O. Box J, Majuro, Marshall Islands 96960, Tel: ; Savings account number: 881-72-2006-7, Routing Number: 121405212. Donations can also be sent to Mirar in Eaan Committee (People from the North), P.O. Box 350, Majuro, Marshall Islands 96960. Tel: Email:  

"The SEU TIMES" No 7 (29) – June 2002

"The SEU TIMES" is the electronic newsletter of the "Socio-Ecological Union", one of the Russian INES member organisations.

The June 2002 edition No 7 (29) is entirely devoted to the Vladivostok-based whistle-blower Grigory Pasko: "Supreme Court Upholds Pasko Treason Sentence. Pasko case: all main charges were rejected but the verdict remains in force".

Editor: Sviatoslav Zabelin < > Previous issues of "The SEU Times" may be found at "The Online Gadfly": http://www.igc.org/gadfly 

NOTE that the Socio-Ecological Union is running a specific English-language website with regard to Grigory Pasko: http://www.seu.ru/projects/eng/pasko/court.htm 

Hague Appeal for Peace: "Peace Matters" now electronically available

The Hague Appeal for Peace has made its publication "Peace Matters" available via its website: http://www.haguepeace.org  .  There, you can download "Peace Matters" in PDF format.  If you would like a hard copy mailed to you, please kindly send your request to:  

 USA: The Commonwealth Institute/Project on Defense Alternatives Briefings

PDA co-director Carl Conetta draws attention to the following new PDA Briefings:


Canadian Parliament: Ban Weapons Space motion introduced

On 20 June, MP Svend Robinson has introduced the following motion M-527 to the Canadian Parliament:

"That, in the opinion of this House the government should, given the termination of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and U.S. military plans to include space-based weapons in the National Missile Defence (NMD) system, lead an international effort to ban the introduction of all weapons in space through a binding international agreement against the weaponization of space."

NOTE in addition that the Canadian NGO End the Arms Race (EAR) is sponsoring a Petition to Sign the Space Preservation Treaty.

For details, contact Peter Coombes, EAR National Organizer: < > or < >

 ABM Treaty information

 President Bush's statement on 13 June marking the end of the ABM Treaty

You can find this statement at the following website:


 David Krieger: Farewell to the ABM Treaty

Without a vote of the United States Congress and over the objections of Russia and most US allies, George W. Bush has unilaterally withdrawn the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, rendering it void. His withdrawal from this solemn treaty obligation became effective today, June 13, 2002.

Bush’s action is being challenged in US federal court by 32 members of Congress, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI). We should be thankful that there are still members of Congress with the courage and belief in democracy to challenge such abuse of presidential power.

Since becoming president, Bush has waged a campaign against international law. Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty is but one of a series of assaults he has made, including pulling out of the Kyoto Accords on Climate Change, withdrawal of the US from the treaty creating an International Criminal Court, opposing a Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would allow for inspections and verification, and failing to fulfill US obligations related to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Bush told the American people that he was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty so that the US could proceed with the deployment of missile defenses, defenses that most independent experts believe are incapable of actually providing defense. The president has traded a long-standing and important arms control treaty for the possibility that there might be a technological fix for nuclear dangers that would allow the US to threaten, but not be threatened by, nuclear weapons. In doing so, he has pulled another brick from the foundation of international law and created conditions that will undoubtedly make the US and the rest of the world less secure. He has also moved toward establishing an imperial presidency, unfettered by such constitutional restraints as the separation of powers.

In 1972, when the US and USSR agreed to a treaty limiting anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, they did so for good reasons, which are described below in the Preamble to the treaty to which I have added some comments.

Proceeding from the premise that nuclear war would have devastating consequences for all mankind, [Nothing has changed here, except that 30 years later we might better use the term “humankind.”]

Considering that effective measures to limit anti-ballistic missile systems would be a substantial factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms and would lead to a decrease in the risk of outbreak of war involving nuclear weapons, [This relationship between offensive and defensive systems still holds true.]

Proceeding from the premise that the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems, as well as certain agreed measures with respect to the limitation of strategic offensive arms, would contribute to the creation of more favorable conditions for further negotiations on limiting strategic arms, [The recent treaty signed by Bush and Putin only applies limits to actively deployed nuclear weapons and at levels high enough to still destroy civilization and most life on the planet.]

Mindful of their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, [The United States under the Bush administration has been contemptuous of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its Article VI obligations to achieve nuclear disarmament.]

Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to take effective measures toward reductions in strategic arms, nuclear disarmament, and general and complete disarmament, [These promises remain largely unfulfilled 30 years later.]

Desiring to contribute to the relaxation of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States…. [The US missile defense program and related US plans to weaponize outer space have the potential to again send the level of international tensions skyrocketing, particularly in Asia.]

The ABM Treaty was meant to be for an “unlimited duration,” but allowed for withdrawal if a country should decide “that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.” Bush never bothered to explain to the American people or to the Russians how the treaty jeopardized the supreme interests of the Untied States. It is clear, though, that withdrawal from the treaty as a unilateral act of the president has undermined our true “supreme interests” in upholding democracy and international law.

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Deputy Chair of INES.

Russia withdraws from defunct Start II nuclear arms treaty (Source: Associated Press, 14 June 02)

Russia formally withdrew from the START II nuclear arms treaty with the USA, calling the accord meaningless given current U.S. defense policies.

"The Russian Federation notes the absence of any preconditions for START II to come into force and no longer considers itself committed to the international legal obligations" of the treaty, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

START II, which was signed in 1993, would have reduced nuclear warheads to 3,000 to 3,500 each, but the treaty was never implemented and has been considered dead for some time.

The U.S. Congress ratified the treaty in 1996 and the Russian parliament followed suit in 2000, but Russian lawmakers linked START II to preservation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

300 organisations' letter to US Senators not to withdraw from the ABMT

Prior to the US decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, 300 organisations and elected representatives from around the world have written to key US Senators asking the Senate to take action to block the Bush administrations withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

The 301 signatories to the letter, coordinated by Friends of the Earth Australia, include 34 parliamentarians including 12 from Australia, 5 from Belgium, 4 from Canada, and 3 from the UK, as well as the Nobel-prizewinning IPPNW, the Womens International League for Peace and Freedom (also a Nobel prizewinner), the Anglican Church worldwide via its UN observer, Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace International, and large national antinuclear organisations such as CND in the UK, Gensuikyin in Japan, and PSR in the USA. 81 US organisations have signed. A number of INES member organisations are among the signatories, as well.

The letter itself is available from the WNII Editor as an rtf-formatted email attachment.

David Krieger: Unusual Courage From 31 Members of Congress

Thirty-one courageous members of Congress, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), are challenging the president's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. These representatives deserve our appreciation for taking action to prevent Mr. Bush from trampling on the Constitution in his continuing effort to undermine international law and expand US military domination.

This is a critical challenge to the abuse of presidential authority. A lot is riding on it. If the president can unilaterally voids our laws, which ones will be the next to go? Perhaps the first and fourth amendments? If your congressional representative is not one of the 31 parties to this lawsuit, he or she should be asked why not and urged to join the lawsuit and support it in the Congress.

Not a single US Senator has had the courage to join this lawsuit. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) initially indicated his intention to join the lawsuit, but then backed off when his request to receive pro bono legal services was not approved by the Senate Ethics Committee. All US Senators should also be urged to join in this challenge.

The ABM Treaty required a two-thirds vote of the Senate in 1972 for ratification to enter into force and to become US law. Now the 100 members of the Senate appear content to sit on the sidelines as the president unilaterally nullifies the law they made.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), a plaintiff in the lawsuit, recently wrote: "The ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of international arms control. Now that more countries have nuclear weapons, international treaties are even more important. International cooperation is the way to peace and international security; not increased military build-up. Over the past 30 years, the ABM Treaty has been a vital link to working with the international community and it is more important than ever that we not turn our back on it."

Meanwhile, at Fort Greely, Alaska, the Bush administration has broken ground on six underground missile interceptor silos, is spending more than $7 billion on missile defense this year, and continues to move ahead with its plans to weaponize outer space in order to protect US interests and investments throughout the world.

Meanwhile, the Russians have withdrawn their ratification of the START II Treaty in response to the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. This opens the door for the Russians to use multiple independently targeted warheads (MIRVs) on their missiles.

Meanwhile, the leaders of India and Pakistan, following the example of US leaders, act as though nuclear deterrence will prevent a nuclear war between them as they confront each other over Kashmir.

Thank you, Representatives Kucinich and Woolsey and your colleagues in this lawsuit for demonstrating unusual courage at a difficult time.



Abolition 2000 homepage: http://www.abolition2000.org  Grassroots News: http://www.napf.org/abolition2000/news/ 

Secret plan for N-bomb factory in Britain (Source: The Observer, UK, 16 June 02)

A massive nuclear bomb-making factory is being planned for Aldermaston, raising concern that Britain is heading towards a new era of atomic weapon production. The plant will be able to test, design and build a new generation of nuclear bombs. Arms experts believe it will focus on smaller atomic warheads for use against terrorist groups and rogue states.

Analysts warn that it appears to be a blatant breach of Britain's obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. William Peden, nuclear disarmament expert at Greenpeace, said: 'We are talking a massive nuclear bomb-making factory.'

The plans - the existence of which were confirmed by the Atomic Weapons Establishment - will involve proposals for a hydrodynamics research facility to help design and develop nuclear weapons, a £15 million supercomputer to simulate the effects of atomic devices and a factory producing tritium, a substance used to maximise the effects of a nuclear explosion. An AWE spokesman said they had to 'maintain the capability to design a successor' to Trident, although the Government had not asked it to start work on one.

Paul Rogers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University, said: 'But, at the very least, they want to build the infrastructure to create a new generation of weapons.

America's recent Nuclear Posture Review Report details the need for an 'offensive' nuclear deterrent and a revitalised nuclear weapons complex with massive investment in facilities in order to modernise its weapons production capability. Experts point to a series of statements from British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon in which he insists Britain has a right to use nuclear devices - pre-emptively if necessary - against states that are not nuclear powers.

New US Pre-emptive Strike Doctrine / New US Nukes On the Horizon (From: BASIC Washington Nuclear Updates, 20 Jun 02)

On June 1, President George W. Bush announced a new doctrine allowing for military pre-emption during his speech to graduating cadets at West Point:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html 

The new policy expands the notion of self-defence to include the use of military action to prevent future attacks against the United States. In elaborating on the policy proposal in Brussels, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2002/t06062002_t0606sd.html 

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alarmed NATO allies by saying that the United States could not always wait for “absolute proof” before launching a pre-emptive attack.

By imposing new limits on the sovereignty of adversaries, real and potential, Washington is reinterpreting the meaning of self-defence. The policy will be formally outlined in the National Security Strategy to be released in the fall. (…)

New US Nukes On the Horizon - The new policy of pre-emptive strikes links closely with the ongoing discussions over new nuclear weapons. According to senior US officials, scientists and military planners are looking to new weapons to give Bush "options different than those he may have had in the past," thus preserving the flexibility that the administration values. Those options range from advanced conventional weapons, low-yield nuclear bombs, and even modifying high-yield weapons to destroy an underground target.

BASIC’s own analysis of the current status of the debate surrounding new nuclear weapons is outlined in a presentation given at the European Parliament:  http://www.basicint.org/USNukePresentation0205.htm 

Re: WNII Special: References concerning the India-Pakistan crisis

In WNII 16/2002, I have announced the compilation of a reference list available upon request. This is to inform you that now, I have closed this list which contains 39 articles and 20 NGO statements to choose from. Also included are a number of website references.

The editor


Global Governance 2002 (G02): Civil Society and the Democratization of Global Governance Redefining Global Democracy

For more details, visit: http://www.fimcivilsociety.org/g02/ 


No new or changed email or web addresses in this issue.  All INES e-mail addresses and homepages are available upon request from:  

< < < < <  end of No. 18/2002  what's new in ines < < < < <