|
WHAT'S NEW IN INES? |
||||
|
No.22/2003 |
Dateline: July 18, 2003 |
|||
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. 22/2003
MEMBERSHIP AND PROJECTS NEWS
Editor's note on possible misuse of email messages
Dear WNII readers,
I had been informed that at least one WNII reader recently received a WNII issue including an email attachment. This attachment was infected by a virus. Also, my name in the email header was misspelled. Furthermore, the reader referred to does usually not receive WNII issues individually mailed by me.
If certain email software converts too long messages automatically into attachments, it is impossible that these semi-attachments would be virus-infected during the process of converting. Therefore, I ask you not to open any other attachments which are being sent along with WNII issues, because I have never added any attachments to WNII issues, and will not do so in the future.
Yours, Tobias Damjanov
UK: Scientists for Global Responsibility Criticise Big Jump in Military R&D (Source: SGR Press Release, 18 July 03)
On 18 July, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) has criticised the major jump in spending by the [UK] Ministry of Defence (MoD) on research and development over the last year, as revealed this week by Office of Science and Technology statistics.
In the financial year 2002-03 spending by the MoD on R&D rose to £2.61 billion, an increase of 27% over spending in the previous year. This huge jump has brought this spending back up, in real terms, to the average levels of the 1990s. Military sources now account for one third of the total public spending on scientific research and technological development in the UK.
SGR believes that scientific and technological expertise should be directed towards peaceful and sustainable ends, and hence that the MoD budget should be being cut not increased.
Dr Stuart Parkinson, Director of SGR said: "Much of the MoD's research and development is geared towards making weaponry, sometimes for export to regimes with bad human rights records. It would be much more ethical to use the scientific expertise to accelerate, for example, the development of environmentally-friendly technologies."
Contact Stuart Parkinson: < >
Note: UK Government R&D statistics were announced in "The Forward Look 2003: Government-funded science, engineering and technology" published by the Office of Science and Technology on 16th July. The figures above were calculated from Tables 4 & 5, and excluded the UK contribution to EU R&D: http://www.ost.gov.uk/research/forwardlook03/
THE US-UK WAR AGAINST IRAQ
Some useful web references
A primary goal of the center is to monitor the direct impact of the U.S.-U.K. invasion: This includes keeping track of civilian casualties; civilian access to the basic necessities of food, water and shelter; and how depleted uranium weaponry and cluster bombs have affected Iraq.
The center will also keep an eye on the military occupation and U.S.-appointed government in terms of potential violations of human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, labor rights and the rights of women.
Foreign corporate activity in Iraq will also come under scrutiny, with a particular emphasis on the use of Iraqi oil resources. The center will report on contracts obtained by corporations such as Halliburton and Bechtel and their track record on the ground in Iraq. The international delegation will deliver to Iraqis several letters from communities around the world subjected to the Bechtel corporation’s privatization efforts.
Finally, the center will actively support the creation of independent Iraqi organizations such as media and environmental groups, groups that promote women’s rights, and independent trade unions. http://www.occupationwatch.org
Abolition 2000 homepage: http://www.abolition2000.org Grassroots News: http://www.napf.org/abolition2000/news/
North Korea says it is ready to go nuclear (Sources: Australian Broadcasting Corporation – Dateline, 14 July 03; New York Times, 15 July 03)
North Korean officials told the Bush administration that they had finished producing enough plutonium to make a half-dozen nuclear bombs, and that they intended to move ahead quickly to turn the material into weapons, senior American officials said today.
The new declaration set off a scramble in American intelligence agencies - under fire for their assessment of Iraq's nuclear capability - to determine if the North Korean government of Kim Jong Il was bluffing or had succeeded in producing the material undetected.
Officials said on July 14 that the answer was unclear. A preliminary set of atmospheric tests for the presence of a gas given off as nuclear waste is reprocessed into plutonium is the best indicator the United States has from one of the world's most closed nations. The most recent tests suggested that nuclear work has accelerated, but the results were inconclusive.
North Korea's latest declaration, if true, would pose a direct challenge to President Bush, who said two months ago that a nuclear-armed North Korea "will not be tolerated."
South Korea, however, said (on 14 July) it has no evidence the Communist North has finished reprocessing 8,000 spent fuel rods, a claim North Korean officials allegedly made to the United States.
OPLAN 5030: The Pentagon plan to face down North Korea (Sources: Global Security Institute, USA; US News and World Report, 21 July 03)
At its website http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5030.htm the San Francisco-based Global Security Institute informs that,
"In late May 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld directed military commanders to develop a new approach for conflict with North Korea, Operations Plan 5030. The fact of the existence of OPLAN 5030 as well as details of this plan were first revealed in the 21 July 2003 edition of US News and World Report, in an article by Bruce B. Auster and Kevin Whitelaw." This article is available at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030721/usnews/21korea.htm
The institute further stated:
"According to Auster and Whitelaw, options available under OPLAN 5030 include flying RC-135 surveillance aircraft closer to North Korean airspace, provoking the DPRK to wear out scrambled interceptor aircraft and burn up jet fuel. Under another gambit, US commanders might stage a surprise or short-notice military exercises, provoking North Korean forces to disperse to [or from] bunkers. This could disclose details of DPRK war plans, and deplete reserves of food, water, and other materiel.
"The initial draft of 5030 included a variety of operations not included in traditional operational war plans, such as disrupting financial networks and strategic disinformation activities. Indeed, the entire OPLAN 5030 story might be part of such offensive information operations, creating a bewildering wilderness of mirrors for the historically paranoid North."
U.S. Pre-emptive Strike Doctrine Bane of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Watchdogs
This is the title of a commentary written by Martin Schwarz and published by "Foreign Policy in Focus". Martin Schwarz < > is author of the forthcoming book (in German) Saddams blutiges Erbe:- Der wirkliche Krieg steht uns noch bevor on the consequences of the Iraq war. (For more information go to http://irak.go.cc )
The commentary can be found at: http://www.presentdanger.org/commentary/2003/0307iaea.html
=== > With printer-friendly PDF version at: http://www.presentdanger.org/pdf/gac/OUS0307iaea.pdf
General Assembly adopts 'Landmark' Resolution on the Prevention of Armed Conflict (Sources: UN Press Releases GA/10144 and GA/10145, 3 July 03)
On 3 July, the Plenary of the 57th UN General Assembly by consensus adopted a resolution on the prevention of armed conflict (A/RES/57/337). A Summary of the text is published at: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/ga10145.doc.htm
The text in full is supposed to be published at: http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r57.htm but was not available yet as of 20 July (which was the reason why I did not report on this resolution earlier; th.ed.).
The Hague Appeal for Peace commented on 15 July:
"You might want to ask people what they think of it, if it's effective, if it's comprehensive, and then use it to remind your governments of their commitment. For example, it never refers to education or peace education as a means to prevent armed conflict. Maybe some governments might want to amend it to add that idea. Civil society can bring these issues to the attention of governments. (…)We believe this may be a useful resolution for discussion. Let us know what your suggestions are for its improvement and implementation."
Hague Appeal for Peace: < >
The Pentagon's New Map
"It explains why we're going to war, and why we'll keep going to war", says the introduction at the following website: http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm
by Thomas P.M. Barnett, U.S. Naval War College.
After visiting this URL you will understand why no further comments are necessary.
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. 22/2003 what's new in ines < < < < <