+++++++++++++++++++ WHAT'S NEW IN INES? +++++++++++++++++++

No. 11/1997 ---------------------------------------------------------
Dateline: 26 Oct 1997

--- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES?---

Editor: Tobias Damjanov, Kreutzkamp 33, D-21465 Reinbek, Germany

INES homepage: http://www.mindspring.com/~us016262/ines.html

No proofreading by Kate Maloney (SGR UK) this time because she is ill.

Note: Except as indicated, all web links are working as of October 28, 1997; e-mail links are not verified.

--- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES?---


=== > INES opens office in Brussels
This idea was under discussion for quite a while. INES itself wouldn't have had both the energy and the money for establishing such an office, but jointly with IPPNW, IALANA as well as other organisations it has become feasible now.
On 18 October, the official opening of the joint office took place attended by Members of the European Parliament, representatives of various General Directories of the European Union, the Mayor of Brussels, and NGO representatives.
"Brussels is the Capital of Europe - please accept it, it can provide us a lot!" as the Mayor put it. With this office, INES intends to move closer to the decision-making structures of European politics, improving, at the same time, its lobbying, its contacts and last but not least the efforts to get a faster and more efficient access to the opportunities for funding existing in Brussels.
It will be an NGO Office which should particularly be used by initiatives based in eastern Europe and Russia. A small team will be working at the office headed by Susanne Drake and Gerd Greune who both are well-experienced and who have established many contacts since years. INES feels grateful for their preparatory activities to the opening of the office.
For the European development of INES this office is an important and
courageous step.
Reiner Braun, Executive Director, INES
!NOTE! The address of the office is as follows:
IFIAS, 81 a Avenue Jan Stobbaerts, B-1030 Brussels, Belgium;

=== > Campaign in France for the elimination of nuclear weapons
Two INES member organizations in France, SNCS (Syndicat National des Chercheurs Scientifiques) and SNTRS (Syndicat National des Travailleurs Scientifiques), associated with two other unions of engineers and scientists, SNESup (Union of University teachers) and SNPCEN (Union of Engineers in Nuclear Physics), have decided to publish a 16 pages "Edition Speciale" of their reviews, entirely dealing with nuclear disarmament problems. Under the title "Pour un desarmement nucleaire total", this Edition Speciale (in French) focuses on the following topics: Nuclear arsenals and risks of holocaust; international law and UNO recommendations; nuclear weapons free zones; action of concerned scientists; why PALEN (French Simulation Program); irrelevance of the nuclear deterrence; the huge amount of resources wasted in nuclear weapons arsenals. Finally, this special issue, which has been sent to 12,000 unions members, calls for the signature of Abolition 2000 international petition.
!CONTACT! INES members who would be interested in this document can get it from:
SNCS, 1 place Aristide Briand, F-92195 Meudon Cedex, France; Tel.: (33-1) 4507 5870, Repondeur : 4507 5892, 
Friendly yours, Marc Ollivier

=== > News from the Union of Democratic Scientists (BdWi), Germany
The BdWi will hold its 26th General Assembly in Marburg, 30 November 1997. Major topics include university politics and the Project "Wealth in Germany" as well as the working plan for the future, budgeting, and elections of the Executive Board and the Executive Management. The day before, the Conference "Disbalance as a Project" will take place.
In 1998, a major event for the BdWi will be the Second Congress of the Initiative "Information Society * Media * Democracy", to be held at Frankfurt/Main University, 12-14 June 1998. As a programme-oriented title, the following is currently being considered: "The Question of Power within an Information Society. Economics, Democracy, Social Justice". (Mainly due to the efforts of the BdWi, this Initiative was established in January 1996).
!INFO! BdWi, Dr. Rainer Rilling, Secretary, Postfach (POB) 543, D-35017 Marburg, Germany; 

=== > All aboard for the Climate Train to Kyoto
(Information by the Scientists for Global Responsibility, UK)

WHEN the Climate Change Conference gets under way in Kyoto  on the 1st December this year, up to 50 of the delegates in  attendance will have traveled for over a month and crossed the  East European and Asian land-masses by rail and sea to  participate. In a bid to highlight the extensive contribution to greenhouse gasses made by air travel and to challenge the *business as  usual* attitude, this group of activists, concerned scientists and environmentalists is due to meet in Moscow on 10 November to catch a Trans-Siberian Train which will transport them via Novosibirsk and Beijing to Tianjin on the Chinese seaboard. Then a ferry will convey them to Kobe in Japan. En route the travelers will meet scientists and activists from the different countries they are traveling through, hold conferences and workshops on climate change and local environmental topics, and spread the message that it is high time air travel was put under scrutiny as part of a move towards more eco-friendly practices.

The Climate Train proposal was first broached over the Internet and has received a warm welcome from climatologists and activists world-wide. It is supported by numerous organisations including Friends of the Earth Finland, ASEED Europe and Japan, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), UK, ISAR Siberia, the Siberian Ecological Foundation, the Social Ecological Union and INES.

!INFO! Background information on the journey and global warming and related topics can be obtained from the dedicated Web Page:  http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e256/kyoto/journey.html


--- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES?---

++++++ ABOLITION 2000 NEWS ++++++

=== > List of Abolition Statement Endorsers
<> A list of Abolition Statement Endorsers currently with 734 signers is available at: http://www.pgs.ca/pages/a2endorg.html
These were received in various ways and email addresses are not available for all.
<> There are over 100 signers and supporters of the Abolition 2000 Municipal Resolution readable at:
http://www.pgs.ca/pages/a2municp.htm (or: http://www.wagingpeace.org/municlist.html)
Some of these have postal addresses but no email addresses are included.

=== > Nobel Declaration for Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone
Nine Nobel Peace Laureates issued a declaration on 23 October to mark UN Disarmament Day (October 24th), calling for a nuclear weapon-free zone in Central and Eastern Europe. The declaration is motivated by the discussion to expand NATO eastwards and NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence. Among other things, the Declaration of Peace Laureates states: "We believe that the transfer of nuclear weapons to Central and Eastern European States, which are presently free of nuclear weapons, pose grave consequences for security and stability in Europe."

The original idea for such a declaration was suggested by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and INES to Professor Bernard Lown, Founder of IPPNW and Professor Joseph Rotblat, Former President of the Pugwash Conferences, both recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. In a letter to the other Nobel Peace Laureates, Professors Lown and Rotblat warned that in response to NATO expansion, "the Russian military is discussing a return to first use policy. The role of short-range tactical nuclear weapons may also be revived in response to the perception of NATO expansion as a threat to Russia's security. These changes in policy would set nuclear disarmament back enormously."

The Declaration remains open for signature by other Nobel Peace Laureates until the end of the year. The first nine signatures are from: Oscar Arias (1987), Michail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (1990), Prof. Dr. Joseph Rotblat (1995), Bishop Desmond Mpilo Tutu (1984), Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan Maguire (1976), the International Peace Bureau (1910), American Friends Service Committee (1947), and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (1985).

!INFO! Xanthe Hall/Jens-Peter Steffen, IPPNW Germany, ,
, e-mail:

=== > From the current debate on the future of Abolition 2000
Currently, a debate is going on about the future of the Abolition 2000 Network policy. Here you find some edited extracts from contributions recently distributed via the abolition-caucus listserver.

<> Janet Bloomfield on behalf of Abolition 2000 UK (e-mail: ): (...)
--- We have made great progress since April 1995: the Abolition statement has gained the support of over 700 organisations on 6 continents, the International Court of Justice has given its historic opinion, the Canberra Commission Report was published, the generals and admirals have spoken and opinion polls in the US and UK show large majorities in favour of A2000's central demand. I could go on.... But despite the growth of the movement and a widespread recognition that we have a great opportunity to make progress the chances of the world entering the next century with a nuclear weapons convention negotiated and signed are not great.
--- The implications of this analysis cannot be ducked by the Abolition network. We run the risk of entering the year 2001, not with a sense of achievement and hope, but demoralised and disempowered. This does not have to happen.
--- First we need to collectively apply our minds to developing a strategy (or strategies) that will maximise the chances of some form of agreement being entered into by the end of the year 2000 that commits the world to nuclear abolition. This may well not be a convention but the crucial thing is that the negotiations should have begun. What are the most likely allies, pressure points and forms that we need to focus on?
--- Second we have to honestly face the problem of what the Abolition statement and the very words Abolition 2000 imply. I propose that we consider now how we deal with such questions as "You have only got ...years/months, what are you doing about it?" and "Its now 2001, you have failed haven't you?". It is painful but it can't be ignored.
--- For instance, should we just move the year on to 2005? Probably not a good idea - because then might it just as well be timeless. It may be a better idea to do what Charter 88 (a UK organisation dedicated to democratic renewal and citizen's rights) did - they did not get their Charter by 1988, but they kept the name. The name could be kept: but in the basic demand the words "by the year 2000" could be dropped, so that it reads: "Immediately initiate and conclude negotiations on..." Then Abolition 2000 becomes a label - where the 2000 bit becomes part of its history. That is just one possible option?

<> Lachlan Forrow (e-mail: ):
(...) I'd like to offer a few observations:
--- 1. The chance of getting our full goal within 38 months (12/31/2000) is not lower than the chance, 38 months earlier, that the Berlin Wall would come down or that Nelson Mandela would peaceably become President of South Africa.
--- 2. Nonetheless, it is still a long shot, especially given the cynical attitude embodied in John Deutch's recent remarks about Article VI.
--- 3. Except for the "timebound framework and effective verification..." [key points, to be sure], the ICJ has ruled that we already have a signed global agreement committing the world to abolition in Article VI, so one can argue that what's left is timeframe and enforcement.
--- 4. In just 30 months (since April 1995 in NYC), Abolition 2000 has gone from a phrase few had ever heard to a globally uniting, widely-known title. That's pretty amazing. (...)
--- 5. In practical terms, I would completely agree with Janet's suggestion about Charter 88, with the addition that I think this approach will work much, much better for Abolition 2000. Talking about Charter 88 in 1992 isn't as natural as talking about XYZ 2000 in the early 21st century.
--- 6. We need to continue to build simple, recognizable grassroots vehicles for helping people identify with Abolition 2000. Sunflowers/seeds everywhere! 1000 co-sponsors by next year; 2000 by 2000.

<> Rev. Robert Moore, Executive Director, Coalition for Peace Action, USA (40 Witherspoon Street, Princeton, NJ 08542, USA; Tel.: (1-609) 924 5022, Fax: (1-609) 924 3052, e-mail: )
Dr. Ted Taylor, a former U.S. nuclear weapons designer who is now at Princeton University and on our board, says he has been talking with some other experts. They are thinking a more acheivable goal might be to initiate abolition negotiations by the year 2000--even that would be a major breakthrough. As to the longer term name, national Peace Action here in the U.S. simply calls it the Nuclear Abolition Campaign.

<> David McReynolds, US War Resisters League ():
... our job is not only nuclear abolition, it is total, comprehensive, complete disarmament of the nation states. Not by the year 3000 but soon.
--- No, we won't get abolition by the year 2000 but if we don't ask for it, we will continually be weakening our goals. In the same way that my problem with the CTBT is that this is really - as it now stands - a treaty which Clinton and the Pentagon will use to limit the spread of weapons without taking any action at cutting our own. Since the US is THE ONLY super power left, it is the one at which we need to take aim.
--- Our demand is surely that the US (and China and France and Israel and England, etc.) get rid of their nuclear arsenals, not simply put in place this 60 billion dollar stewardship program to continue testing for "security". Until we understand ourselves, and make it clear to others, that our definition of national security is disarmament, conventional as well as nuclear, but starting with nuclear, we will be easily bought off by the folks in power.

<> Francis Chiappa, Cleveland Peace Action, USA
(2997 Hampshire Rd., Cleveland Hts., OH 44118 USA; e-mail: )
In order to win, we must work for proximal goals, putting ourselves in a position to achieve longer range goals. The CTBT is one short term goal. We shouldn't think its achievement will solve our problem, but it puts us closer to solving it. (...) We must work for it's ratification, understanding that the Stockpile Stewardship program [SSMP] and subcritical testing will be the concessions to the conservatives to secure ratification. This is not to say that we should ignore the SSMP as we push for a CTBT. In fact, the more opposition we can build against SSMP, the more pressure we put on Senators to vote yes on CTB, as a concession to us. In negotiations, we must push for everything we want but not be too disappointed when we only get part of it.
(...) With a CTB, we are in a better position to push for the dismantling of the weapons labs, than if we have no CTB. Later, with no weapons labs, we are in a better position to call for abolition of nuclear weapons.

Instead of planning for failure by figuring out what to call ourselves after the year 2000, let us make some calls to the people who can reach Mandela and ask South Africa to take the lead at this 1998 PrepCom in Geneva; or contact Colin Archer at to see how your country can get on board their exciting new initiative. In the US, UK, France, and Russia we must keep meeting with parliamentarians, congresspeople, the press, administration officials and let them know we're serious about a treaty by 2000.

We must see that we have failed on several points:
- The two sub-critical tests [by the USA] encourage those in nuclear countries who say that we need to continue research on nuclear weapons. I have the feeling that the protest for the 2nd test had been more difficult? Am I right?
- The Committee of Disarmament in Geneva underwent a failure. Peace movements weren't able to mobilize in order to develop pressure.
- the holding of a SSD4 [a Fourth UN Special Session on Disarmament; -ed.] in 1999 seems uncertain: an SSD4 would help us in order to create a stream of opinion for disarmament before the Year 2000. There is not a lot of mobilization during the present General Assembly of the UN. We must therefore work hard and concentrate our efforts on some objectives of decisive action.
In France, ... the 1998 Defense Budget foresees a 13% decrease of nuclear weapons funds (from 18.8 to 16,3 billion French Francs) and the delay of a year of the construction of the third nuclear submarine.

<> David Krieger (INES Vice Chair), President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation:
Abolition 2000 is the right goal at the right time. It is a critical goal for humanity's future. I encourage all of us seeking to realize this goal to keep working creatively to achieve it. Keep your focus on what we need to do to succeed rather than on what to do if we should not succeed. It is possible to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention by the year 2000. Far more dramatic changes have happened in shorter time spans in recent history.

<> Graham Daniell, People for Nuclear Disarmament, Western Australia ()
... For the last several years at our Hiroshima day vigil here in Perth we have had an A2000 petition for people to sign, and we find often we have people queueing up to sign it. Most people at first walk past without looking, not wanting to get involved. But if we have someone spruiking "sign here to abolish n-weapons" those same people will very often turn around, come back to our table and sign. I am convinced that the people of the world want it, what we need is politicians who are ready (and can see the political advantages) to give them what they want.

--- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES?---

++++++ NEW PUBLICATIONS ++++++

=== > Database of conflict-related projects and strategies This is a new project designed to bring together in a single electronically-accessible database details of a large number of conflict-related projects and strategies. This material will be of great use to practitioners, NGOs, grant donors and policy-makers.
!CONTACT! International Conflict Initiatives Clearinghouse (ICIC), c/o IWA, 1321 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Washington DC 20002, USA; Tel.: (1-202) 544 4141, Fax: (1-202) 544 5115, e-mail:

=== > Debate is about the political and technical significance of the US
Department of Energy's Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program:
http://web.mit.edu/sts/www (click on "nuclear weapons management")
The participants in the debate are:
--- Arjun Makhijani (Director of the Institute for Energy & Environmental
--- Phil Goldstone, Deputy Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory
--- David Dearborn, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory weapons designer
--- Ray Kidder, retired scientist and internal critic at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory
Moderator: Hugh Gusterson
The initiators are hoping the debate will continue for a couple of weeks. Once the debate has closed and been archived on the web site, visitors to the web site will be able to post their own comments on and responses to the debate. It is also hoped that the web site will grow organically as people add to it and link into it.
!CONTACT! Hugh Gusterson/Babak Ashrafi, STS Program, MIT, E51, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA; e-mail:

=== > Krieger, David: From Arms Control to Abolition. Global Action for a Nuclear Weapons Free World (the article can be found at: http://www.wagingpeace.org/arms_control_abolition.html)
--- The Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference
--- Abolition 2000 Global Network
--- The World Court Project
--- The Canberra Commission Report
--- The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
--- The Statement by International Generals and Admirals
--- A Nuclear Weapons Convention
--- From Arms Control to Abolition
The article contains links, references, and a bibliography.
!INFO! Should you like to have an e-mailed or surface mailed version, please contact the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at:

=== > Open Society Institute (ed.): Country in Crisis: A Burma Handbook
Available at: http://www.soros.org/burma.html
!INFO! Full address: Open Society Institute, 888 Seventh Avenue, 27th Floor, New York NY 10106; USA; Tel.: (1-212) 887 0632, Fax: (1-212) 489 8455

=== > UK Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu and for a Nuclear-Free Middle East (ed.): Voices for Vanunu. 25 international and Israeli experts contribute under the main headings:
--- The Vanunu Story
--- Legal and medical aspects
--- Whistleblowers
--- Israel and security
--- Human rights aspects
Contributions from Joseph Rotblat, Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Barnaby, Susannah York and others.
!CONTACT! UK Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu and for a Nuclear-Free Middle East, 89 Borough High St, London SE1, UK; Tel./Fax: (44-171) 378 9324, e-mail:
US contact: US Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu, att: Sam Day, 2206 Fox Avenue, Madison WI 53711, USA; Tel./Fax: (1-608) 257 4764

--- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES?---


NOTE: Events listed here are being published only once due to limited space. Changes, however, will be taken into account - they will be marked with "!CHANGE [reference to the issue of "What's New In INES?" in which they were mentioned first]!"

=== > International Criminal Court Campaign - Preparatory Meeting New York, 1-12 Dec 1997
The Federation Internationale des Ligues de Droits de l'Homme (International Federation of Human Rights Leagues), the International Commission of Jurists, the International Peace Bureau, Human Rights Watch, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights are working together on a project to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). This is the third meeting of the Preparatory Committee.
!CONTACT! NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court (ICC), c/o World Federalist Movement (WFM), 777 UN Plaza, 12th Floor, New York NY 10017, USA; Tel.: (1-212) 599 1320, Fax: (1-212) 599 1332, e-mail: , http://www.igc.apc.org/icc (Note: the ICC homepage is a central internet resource for NGOs, scholars, government officials, and others interested in the United Nations negotiations to create a permanent international criminal tribunal.)

--- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES? --- what's new in INES?---


To reduce the length of "What's New In INES?" issues, only changes of email addresses and homepages as well as new ones will be listed here regularly. A full list of e-mail addresses and homepages of INES member organisations and the INES Executive Committee members is available upon request. Simply send an email to .
=== > Please do not forget to inform us about changes of your email address or your homepage!


!CHANGE! Movimiento Cubano por la Paz y la Soberania de los Pueblos (Cuban Movement for Peace and Sovereignty of the Peoples):

=== end of No. 11 what's new in ines === end of No. 11 what's new in ines ===