|
WHAT'S NEW IN INES? |
||||
|
No. 27/2002 |
Dateline: October 11, 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. 27/2002
"INES Newsletter" No. 38 out now
The "INES Newsletter" No. 38/August 2002 carries the following.
The "INES Newsletter" is edited by Armin Tenner: < > [Please note that the first "1" in q18 is the number one, while the last "l" is a "L"]
A pure ASCII version is available for distribution by e-mail. Ask the "INES Newsletter" editor to put you on his distribution list. The "INES Newsletter" is also available at: http://inesglobal.org Previous issues are archived at: http://inesglobal.org/ines2.htm
USA: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), The Sunflower, No. 65, October 2002 Back issues: http://www.wagingpeace.org/sf/backissues.html Events are listed at: http://www.wagingpeace.org/calendar/events_current.html
The October 2002 issue of The Sunflower covers the following:
To read "The Sunflower", please send an email to Carah Lynn Ong, Director of Research and Publications: < > or goto: http://www.wagingpeace.org/sf/index.html (The newsletter is also available in pdf format online)
THE US POLICY ON IRAQ
(SPECIAL SECTION)
US House of Representatives gives Bush authority for war with Iraq (Stop press sources: CNN; Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC), USA)
On 10 October, the House of Representatives voted 296-133 to give President Bush the authority to go to war to disarm Iraq. The resolution authorizes Bush to commit U.S. troops to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring Iraq give up weapons of mass destruction. It requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce those resolutions have failed.
Despite tremendous pressure from the White House, 133 lawmakers voted against the Bush-Gephardt war resolution (H.J.Res.114). Among the 296 "yea" votes, numerous Representatives expressed deep misgivings with regards to voting in favor of the Bush-Gephardt war resolution.
"The absence of unreserved support for the President's war resolution conveys opposition to the President's pre-emption doctrine," declared Gulf War veteran and EPIC Executive Director Erik Gustafson. "We are encouraged to see many Members of Congress courageously take a step further by altogether rejecting the President's request of war authority."
155 lawmakers voted for a proposal sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) that would authorize the use of U.S. force against Iraq contingent upon authorization by the UN Security Council. If the Council failed to sanction the use of force, the Spratt Amendment would require the President to come back for a second vote before he could act unilaterally against Iraq.
A second amendment sponsored by Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) secured 72 votes from lawmakers. Rather than authorizing war, the Lee Amendment urges the President to work peacefully "through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction."
A 'motion to recommit' sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) garnered 101 votes. If the motion had passed, before Congress could authorize war, Bush would have been required to first answer critical questions concerning the long-term costs and consequences of a preemptive war on the stability of the Middle East and the U.S. economy.
Prior to the voting, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said he'll vote to give President Bush the authority to use U.S. forces to disarm Iraq, saying Saddam Hussein is a threat that "cannot be ignored."
UK: Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) Statement on Possible Military Action by US/UK against Iraq
2nd October 2002
As scientists promoting the peaceful use of science and technology, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) is deeply concerned about the possible use of military force by the USA and UK on Iraq.
SGR believes that unilateral pre-emptive military action against Iraq, or indeed any state, is an aggressive not defensive act and is therefore a breach of the UN Charter and fundamentally unethical. Hence, SGR opposes any unilateral US/UK military action. While we believe that Iraq should allow UN weapons inspectors unrestricted access within the country to identify and supervise the dismantling of any nuclear, biological and chemical weapons facilities, we also believe that efforts to achieve this should focus on peaceful means through the UN. We believe that these efforts should involve consideration of the interlinkages with the Israel/ Palestine conflict.
SGR also believes that it is essential not to forget that military action against Iraq will lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and is likely to increase rather than decrease the threat of terrorist action against Western countries.
SGR further believes that the current threat to global security posed by weapons of mass destruction is due in no small part to the current and past policies of the US and UK Governments. Hence we believe that fundamental policy changes are required by those Governments to tackle this problem in the long term.
Specifically:
SGR believes that the five declared nuclear weapons states, including the USA and UK, have laid the foundations for the proliferation of nuclear weapons by their failure to "pursue negotiations in good faith" towards complete multilateral nuclear disarmament (as they agreed to do when they signed the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and re-affirmed in the review of that treaty in 2000). We believe the recent SORT treaty, agreed by the US and Russian Governments, is largely inadequate in this regard due to many loopholes and should be renegotiated, and cover also the nuclear weapons held by the UK, France and China. Further SGR calls for the US military to immediately cease its current attempts to develop 'bunker-busting' nuclear weapons.
SGR believes that the US Government must bear particular responsibility for effectively sabotaging attempts to control the threat from biological weapons by its withdrawal from negotiations on a Protocol to the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention. Hence, SGR calls for the US to re-enter negotiations to be concluded within one year.
SGR believes that the US Government's current unilateralist policies on these and many other issues, e.g. missile defence, landmines, climate change, and the International Criminal Court, undermines international law and therefore will lead to other countries and organisations disregarding it. Hence we call for the US to abandon its unilateralist stance.
SGR believes that to truly resolve international security issues, much greater emphasis must be placed on:
- measures to reduce and eventually eliminate the international trade in all weapons; - tackling poverty and injustice; and - tackling racial and cultural intolerance.
For further information, contact Dr Stuart Parkinson: < >
Campaigning information update (Sources: Hague Appeal for Peace; The Sunflower No 65/Oct 02)
UK Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Briefing on Iraq: http://www.cnduk.org/briefing/iraq.htm
Updated list of articles and references (Sources: Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq (CASI), UK)
VERTIC report proposes reform of chemical weapons organisation
VERTIC, the London-based verification think-tank, has released a report proposing substantial reform of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The report, Getting verification right: proposals for enhancing the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, is being published to coincide with a week-long meeting in The Hague of the parties to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
‘While the parties to the chemical weapons treaty have achieved a great deal, in recent years their organisation has suffered from mismanagement, financial shortfalls and benign neglect, all of which must be corrected if chemical weapons are to be effectively banned,’ said VERTIC’s Executive Director, Dr Trevor Findlay.
Among the report’s major conclusions are:
The report is available at: http://www.vertic.org/current/CWC%20report.pdf
CONFERENCES, MEETINGS, SEMINARS
Cordoba Dialogue on Peace and Human Rights in Europe and West Asia
For more details, mailto:
Stakeholders' Conference on Approaches to the Management of Environmental Radioactivity
The Conference will discuss the present system of environmental radiological protection and its advancement, both in terms of its adequacy from a scientific perspective and of its public acceptance, with a view to obtaining input for developing the proposed Environmental Action Programme under the Euratom Treaty. It is intended that the participants should represent both general society and science, thus including the media, the general public, non-governmental organisations, professions, industry, regulators and elected representatives.
Further information on the Conference is available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/radprot/
For any additional information on the organisation please contact Eberhardt Henrich, < >
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. 27/2002 what's new in ines < < < < <