ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/abolition-usa.9811

Internet Message Format | 1998-11-30 | 403KB

From: hcaldic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) FWD: Re: SpaceNews:  Energy / Plutonium
Date: 01 Nov 1998 16:28:47 +1100

Peace through Reason wrote:
>
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:42:37 -0500 (EST)
> From: Mark Gubrud <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: SpaceNews:  Energy / Plutonium
>
> <<
>     Huge rockets will launch NASA's deep-space missions early
> in the next millennium, first to Europa, one of Jupiter's moons,
> and later to Pluto.
> ...
> power cells in the space probes will convert heat that is
> supplied by plutonium into electrical power.
> >>
>
> At the risk of being called (again) a "government scientist" or
> something equally ugly, I offer the following OPINION:
>
> All the concern about NASA's use of plutonium batteries has been
> and is a bit silly.  It is a shame that (apparently former)
> anti-nuclear weapons activists such as Michio Kaku and Helen
> Caldicott have lent themselves to these antinuke reunions which
> are profoundly embarassing to the community that fought the nuclear
> power industry to a standstill and helped put the brakes on the
> nuclear arms race but seems to have lost its vision under the
> New World Order.  A few pounds of plutonium, exquisitely well
> protected against being released into the environment in the
> (admittedly very possible) event of a launch accident, are a
> ridiculously irrelevant threat at a time when thousands of nuclear
> weapons remain in the inventories of the major powers, Russia
> teeters on the edge of chaos, the non-proliferation treaty regime
> is threatened with collapse, the US remains committed to a path
> that will result in evisceration of the ABM Treaty and deployment
> of space weapons, and we face a new century laden with the
> promise and threat of technologies many times more powerful than
> even those we have today.  But there is apparently no appetite
> to take on these very serious and scary issues.  Instead, it
> seems the old antinukers would prefer to gather in Florida to
> protest a symbol that probably everybody understands is of no real
> consequence.  It is the very silliness of this gathering that
> makes it attractive to people.  Meanwhile, the real storms are
> quietly brewing...
>
> Mark Gubrud
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> * Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org - Convert the War Machines! *
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

    Mark, Every issue you mentioned are of supreme importance, never to be
ignored, don't worry, we are working on all of them, Helen Caldicott



-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Lisa Ledwidge <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Reminder
Date: 02 Nov 1998 11:11:34 -0500

Please vote Tuesday, November 3rd.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Phyllis Turner Jepson/Local-Regional Coord." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) IEER Disarmament Resource
Date: 02 Nov 1998 11:21:05 +0000

Please send a copy to:

    Phyllis Turner Jepson
    Pax Christi USA - Local/Regional Coordinator
    442 33rd Street
    West Palm Beach, FL 33407

Many thanks.

Peace,
Phyllis

At 09:37 AM 10/30/98 -0500, you wrote:
>===================================================
>        Disarmament/De-alerting Resource Available
>
>The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research has just released a
>double issue of its newsletter, "Science for Democratic Action," which
>covers many aspects of nuclear disarmament and de-alerting.
>
>This issue examines technical and other requirements for achieving enduring
>nuclear disarmament; the role of treaties; de-alerting measures that can be
>achieved before the end of 1999; and post-Cold War threats, such as
>accidental nuclear war, black markets in nuclear materials, and research
>that could lead to the development of pure fusion weapons.  Also presented
>is an extensive plan for urgent, short-term, medium-term, and long-term
>disarmament measures.
>
>Articles in this issue:
>
>    -Achieving Enduring Nuclear Disarmament
>    -De-Alerting: A First Step
>    -Treaties Are Not Enough
>    -Pure Fusion Weapons?
>    -The Nature of Post-Cold War Nuclear Dangers
>    -The South Asian Nuclear Crisis
>    -and more...
>
>You will also find regular features of IEER's newsletter, such as "Dr.
>Egghead" (a guide to nuclear jargon), and the Atomic Puzzler (a chance for
>you to sharpen your technical skills and have some fun doing it).
>
>The newsletter is free and is available from IEER. If you would like a
>copy, ether reply to this message ([e-mail]), or call IEER at
>301-270-5500.  You can also request bulk copies. This newsletter will be
>posted on our website (www.ieer.org) in the next week or so.
>
>
>************************************************************
>* Hisham Zerriffi                                          *
>* Project Scientist                Phone: [phone]   *
>* Institute for Energy             Fax:   [phone]   *
>* and Environmental Research       E-mail: [e-mail] *
>* 6935 Laurel Ave. Suite 204       Web:    www.ieer.org    *
>* Takoma Park, MD  20912                                   *
>************************************************************
>
>
>-
> To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
> with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Phyllis Turner Jepson
Pax Christi USA Local/Regional Coordinator
<mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: US lobbying SCFAIT
Date: 02 Nov 1998 12:50:20 -0500

Dear Friends,
Did you write your letter to President yet about the need to support the
NAC resolution in the UN?  If not, please do, and you may want to tell our
country to lay off Canada which is doing the right thing.  When are we
going to have a nuclear policy review in the US?  Regards, Alice

>Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 10:21:47 -0500
>Subject: US lobbying SCFAIT
>Priority: non-urgent
>To: [e-mail]
>X-FC-Forwarded-From: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>National Post, 2 November 1998
>
>Axworthy making Americans nervous
>Soft on Nukes?: U.S. officials fear he will undermine global security
>
>Mike Trickey
>Southam News=20
>
>United States officials are lobbying members of the Commons
>foreign affairs committee in a bid to subvert what they perceive as
>Lloyd Axworthy's soft nuclear agenda.=20
>
>Of particular concern to the Americans is a recommendation in a
>draft report -- currently under study by the committee and due to
>be delivered to the government by the end of November -- that
>Canada push NATO into a declaration that it will not be the first to
>use nuclear weapons in any future conflict.=20
>
>A senior State Department official said Canada and the U.S.
>continue to have a strong relationship unmatched anywhere in the
>world, and credited Mr. Axworthy with playing a leading role in
>this.=20
>
>But the official reserved strong words for Canada's "soft" approach
>to areas of foreign policy, which rests more on persuasion and
>high-mindedness than on the use of superior economic and military
>power:=20
>
>"He [Axworthy] has this vision of the world, espousing that kind of
>soft power notion that other countries can be inspired and led by
>attractive ideas, and that military and economic might are not as
>consequential as they once were. A lot of that is at odds with what
>we feel.=20
>
>"We believe that economic might does matter, that military might
>does matter. When you're dealing with people like Saddam Hussein
>or Slobodan Milosevic, you have to have the military might that
>backs up the diplomacy."=20
>
>What has set the Americans off is Mr. Axworthy's charge two
>years ago to the committee to review nuclear non-proliferation,
>arms control, and disarmament (NACD) policies. In addition to
>some general instructions, with which Washington has no quarrel,
>the minister told the committee to focus on: the International Court
>of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of
>nuclear weapons; the report of the Canberra Commission on the
>Elimination of Nuclear Weapons; the proposal for a program of
>action for the elimination of nuclear weapons as proposed by a
>group of non-aligned countries; and the Project Ploughshares
>report titled Canada and the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons.=20
>
>The Americans believe the study could be the first step toward
>Canada calling for a review of NATO's nuclear deterrence
>strategy, which they claim would pose a threat to global security.
>They are also unhappy with the Axworthy-led international
>campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines, which the U.S. has
>refused to sign, as well as with Canada's lead role in the creation of
>a new International Criminal Court, which Washington opposes,
>and Canada's friendly relations with Cuba.=20
>
>"It is our hope that the Canadian position will remain that there is an
>appropriate balance between nuclear arms control and
>disarmament obligations and the role of nuclear deterrence with
>alliance strategy," says a State Department official.=20
>
>"Nuclear weapons have played a key role in preserving peace and
>preventing war on the European continent, and Canada has
>supported the alliance's nuclear posture in that context. People will
>wonder if Canada goes in with a robust initiative to change the
>alliance's nuclear policy if it might be interpreted as Canada
>rethinking its commitment to NATO."=20
>
>Bill Graham, Liberal MP and chair of the committee, says the
>Americans are overreacting.=20
>
>"The idea that this is some Axworthy plot to get rid of nuclear
>weapons, I don't know where they get that," he says. "They're a bit
>sore on the landmines issue and a bit sore on the ICC issue, but I
>don't think that this should be a reason to therefore assume that
>every other issue is going to have some hidden agenda."=20
>
>Mr. Graham notes Mr. Axworthy has not appeared before the
>committee and does not know what is in the draft report, which is
>based on two years of public consultation.=20
>
>Even Reform foreign affairs critic Bob Mills, a vocal opponent to
>Mr. Axworthy's soft power approach, believes the Americans are
>overreacting.=20
>
>"They're concerned by this, but I think they're reading more into it
>than there really is. The Liberals tend to waffle over to the soft side
>of foreign policy, but I think the reality will bring them back closer
>to the centre, which is they want to reduce the number of nuclear
>weapons but don't really know how to do it, so let's keep doing
>what we're doing."=20
>
>However, Mr. Mills says the Americans are worried about the
>direction Mr. Axworthy is taking Canada, and he agrees with them.
>
>"They see him as believing a very, very liberal, almost scary, kind of
>concept, and one which would cut them out of any kind of power
>position.=20
>
>"He sees an unreal world, and when he's out of the country he
>presents a view that I don't think most Canadians are prepared to
>accept. This is a view that the United Nations can solve all of our
>problems, where the Ottawa Accord is a prototype for a nuclear
>accord or for a small-arms accord. He's in a dream world that
>doesn't recognize the realities of today's world."=20
>
>Mr. Axworthy has told the National Post he had no policy direction
>in mind when he asked the committee to begin its review. He
>refuses to comment on the U.S. position, but his office points to
>Canada's 75% vote in last month's successful bid to gain a seat on
>the Security Council as proof his soft power advocacy has
>widespread support.=20
>
>Nonetheless, the U.S., particularly the Republican-dominated
>Congress, is becoming increasingly chagrined at Canada's
>freelancing on global security issues.=20
>
>John Carson, a University of Toronto international affairs specialist,
>says American officials responsible for international policy must be
>very concerned that one of their closest allies, if not their closest
>ally, is constantly provoking them: "We poke a stick in their eye and
>then say 'By the way, we're your friends.' I think it does test their
>patience."=20
>
>"At this very difficult time, the American ability to be able to be
>seen as an international leader outweighs, on balance, a number of
>questions that Canada has been involved in, all of which are
>excellent issues deserving of our attention.=20
>
>"I'm not suggest that the landmines campaign is silly or a waste of
>time or that there ought not to be a sensible debate about outlawing
>nuclear weapons. But I am essentially a realist and I don't believe
>debating these things at this particular moment is in our interests."
>
>Copyright =A9 Southam Inc.
>
>--=20
>Bill Robinson, Project Ploughshares,
>Conrad Grebel College, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada  N2L 3G6
>Phone: [phone] x264  Fax: [phone]
>E-mail: [e-mail]
>http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough
>
>Project Ploughshares is a member of the Canadian Network to Abolish
>Nuclear Weapons (http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough/cnanw/cnanw.html)
>=20

Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Norm Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Reminder
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:35:16 -0500

Reminder also: I email you last week asking about info on the slide show.
Please reply

Peace,
Norm Cohen
Executive Director
Coalition for Peace & Justice

Lisa Ledwidge wrote:

> Please vote Tuesday, November 3rd.
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.






-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jan Harwood <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) FWD: Re: SpaceNews:  Energy / Plutonium
Date: 02 Nov 1998 15:51:06 -0800

Your argument is sensible, but it leaves out the fact of the opportunity to
bring nuclear dangers to the attention of a public that has lost almost all
awareness of them over the last ten years or so.  The idea that our
government could kill thousands of its people by a careless (however
carefully protected) use of plutonium, reaches the American on the street.
I know, because I talk to them about nuclear weapons, also, while getting
signatures on the AB 2000 petition, and the threat of nuclear holocaust
seems too unreal and remote to stir up much interest.  Horrendous, but true.



-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) ACTION ALERT! RUSSIAN ANTI-URANIUM MINING CAMPAIGN
Date: 03 Nov 1998 10:59:20 -0500

Dear Friends,
We've been able to hold things up at Jabiluka in Australia based on the
World Heritage Committee visit.  Can we do no less for Russian uranium
mining?  Please send your fax right away.  Regards, Alice

>Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 00:55:42 -0500
>Subject: NUKE-WASTE: support anti-uranium-mining campaign
>Priority: non-urgent
>To: [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>We urge you to support the campaign against uranium mining in Karelia
>(republic within Russian Federaion), below you'll find
>details. On November 4, Parliament of Karelia will have a special session
>about this issue and they has power to stop the
>project. Would be great if you send your fax before November 4. But if you
>get this appeal later, don't hesistate to send
>faxes too. International support is very important in Russia, sometimes in
>the history of environmental activity we even saw
>its decisive role for the campaigns. Now it's very important to show
>international solidarity and organize strong pressure on
>Karelian government. Thank you very much and don't forget to let us know
>that you faxed to support, us.
>
>For details and further information on the case, please contact:
>Vladimir Slivyak,
>Antinuclear campaign of Socio-Ecological Union and ECODEFENSE!,
> Tel/fax [phone] or 7(095)2784642, e-mail: <[e-mail]>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>Chairman of the Government of Karelia, Mr. Sergei Leonidovich Katanandov
> FAX + 7-8142-764148
> Parliament of the Republic of Karelia,
>FAX + 7-8142-772827
>
>
>Dear Mr. Katanandov,  Dear Parliamentarians of Karelia,
>
>I call for your attention concerning proposed project of uranium-vanadium
>mining at Zaonezhie area (Srednaya Padma deposit,
>Republic of Karelia) which currently under your review. I support
>principal position of Russian environmental organizations
>opposed to this project for reasons presented below and urge you to ban
>all kinds of land mining in Zaonezhie.
>
>Because there is no safe technology for mining of uranium-vanadium ore in
>the world, this project will definitely cause great
>environmental destruction and as consequence of it - social and political
>instability in the region. Because ore contains
>uranium, large territory will be comtaminated radioactively soon after
>mining begins and it will prevent people from use of
>this land for hundreds of years. Finally, people will have to leave
>contaminated areas. You presently decide about not only
>mining project but about the future for whole republic: will it soon be
>deadly radioactive or will it have chance to be
>developed in environmental- and economic-friendly way to become
>historical, national and environmental monument.
>
>Karelian Academy of Sciences suggested that Zaonezhie, part of Karelia
>where uranium-vanadiumm deposit located, receives
>status of protected area for its great importance for the regional
>ecosystem. One of many possible consequence of land mining
>there will be pollution of Onego lake (located in 11 km from
>uranium-vanadium deposit) with chemical substances including
>heavy metals and radioactive elements. In addition to environmental
>disaster, economic profit of mining will never justify
>the fact that great drinking water reservoir will be out of use forever.
>
>Historical importance of this area for local population, which strongly
>opposed to the project of mining, is also very big. I
>urge you to respect the rights of indigenous people and organize public
>hearings to learn the opinion of local population.
>Democratic procedures request that this opinion must be taken into account
>during decision-making. The same must be done in
>case of your nearest neighbor - Finland. Radioactive pollution from mining
>may become transboundary issue because Karelia has
>common border with this country.
>
>Power to decide is in your hands. Make a right decision to provide
>sustainable development for Karelia which includes clean
>environment and economic stability. Ban the mining, let the future be safe!
>
> <Name, Organization, Country, Date>
>
>
>**************************************************************************
>   To send a message to everyone on the list, address your message to:
>                         [e-mail]
>  To unsubscribe, send a message containing "unsubscribe NUKE-WASTE" to:
>                          [e-mail]
> Problems or Questions, contact James Quinn, Citizen Alert, Las Vegas NV:
>                             [e-mail]
>**************************************************************************
>
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NAC RESOLUTION-MPI UPDATE!!
Date: 03 Nov 1998 16:21:08 -0500

Dear Friends,
We have learned that in response to US pressure to vote against the NAC
resolution in the General Assembly, THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT is sending
representations at the ambassadorial level to the following capitals to ask
them to support the NAC resolution:

Tokyo, The Hague, Bonn, Oslo, Rome, Vienna, Canberra, Madrid and Copenhagen.

MPI is urgently asking NGOs in all of these capitals to contact their
governments in support of the NAC resolution in the General Assembly
calling on the nuclear weapons states to honor their NPT promises for
nuclear disarmament.

While the capitals above are of key importance, don't forget to write to
your government, even if it is not scheduled to receive a visit from the
Canadian government.

THIS COULD BE A BREAKTHROUGH FOR ABOLITION IF WE ALL DO OUR PART!!  OUR
GOVERNMENTS NEED TO HEAR FROM US!!

In the US, letters should be written to Clinton and Albright, asking them
to stop strong-arming other countries which are trying to do the right
thing by voting for the NAC resolution to put us on the path to nuclear
abolition.

PLEASE POST YOUR LETTERS TO THE CAUCUS AS AN INSPIRATION TO OTHERS!!
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NAC Resolution-Clinton letter
Date: 03 Nov 1998 16:47:39 -0500

                                                October 30, 1998

President Bill Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC 20500
202-456-2461(fax)
[e-mail] (email)

RE:  New Agenda Coalition Resolution, UN First Committee

Dear President Clinton:

A few days ago I wrote to you to express my dismay at the hypocritical remarks
of the US government with regard to the New Agenda Coalition Resolution.  The
speech given  by the United States Delegation to the 53rd UN General Assembly
First Committee rejecting the resolution was a shameful moment for our
country.

Now we have learned that the US is using ôstrong-armö tactics all around the
world to pressure governments to support its position against the New Agenda
Coalition resolution calling on the nuclear weapons states to take immediate
steps to fulfill their promises for nuclear disarmament under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The Treaty will crumble into a heap of empty
promises if we do not comply with our Article VI obligation and the ruling of
the International Court of Justice to conclude negotiations on a treaty to
eliminate nuclear weapons.

The United States has shown absolutely no commitment toward the ôspeedy and
total eliminationö of nuclear weapons.  In fact, US nuclear weapons laboratory
programs are expected to rise 33% above the Cold War average with the
stockpile
stewardship program costing $60 billion over a 13-year period.  ôSub-criticalö
nuclear weapons tests, under this program are providing diagnostic information
to enable our Dr. Strangeloves to design new weapons  through computer
simulation.  These are the reasons given by India for its recent nuclear
tests.

According to Lake, Sosin, Snell, Perry & Associates, 87% of all Americans have
stated their desire for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  Why have you
not only failed to take a leadership position on this issue, but do you
continue to undermine the efforts of allies like Ireland, Sweden, Mexico,
Egypt, Brazil, New Zealand, South Africa, and Slovenia who have taken the lead
in submitting the New Agenda Resolution to the UN?

The actions of the United States are being carefully monitored in the United
Nations by thousands of citizens around the world.  The US must stop blocking
efforts to support the New Agenda Coalition Resolution, and begin immediate
negotiations on a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Sincerely,


Alice Slater
President

cc:  Secretary of State Madeline Albright
     Department of State
     2201 C St. NW
     Washington, DC
     202-647-7120(fax)
     [e-mail] (email)



Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) News: more than 300 cocaine users at US N-Plants
Date: 04 Nov 1998 14:02:17 -0500

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a report in October.


http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/GENACT/GC/IN/1998/in98039.html


The NRC is reporting more than 300 positive tests for cocaine abuse by

nuclear workers in 1996-1997.


Medical marijuana is mentioned:


<paraindent><param>out</param>      "The medical use of marijuana has
been approved in certain jurisdictions. A utility has told its employees
that such approval will have no effect on the utility's Fitness-for-Duty
program, and this position has been incorporated in the general employee
training program."

</paraindent>





-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) US ACTION ALERT
Date: 04 Nov 1998 14:45:14 -0500

Dear Friends,
Listed below is the simply outrageous response of the US delegation to the
New Agenda Coalition Resolution submitted in the UN General Assembly First
Committee.  Claiming their demonstrated commitment to nuclear disarmament,
the US neglects to mention the $4.4 billion it just voted to continue the
design and development of new nuclear weapons in the "stockpile
stewardship" program.  While chastising the NAC drafters for not mentioning
India and Pakistan's tests, they dare not mention the four US
"sub-critical" tests at the Nevada test site.  They find the call for
verification of nuclear disarmament measures "premature" while claiming we
can't dealert because of difficulties in verification.  They say they have
enough places to talk about nuclear disarmament while they busted up the
NPT PrepCom last May, in large part because they vetoed a South African
proposal merely to discuss nuclear disarmament.  They have also blocked
repeated efforts to establish an ad hoc committee in the Committee on
Disarmament to discuss nuclear disarmament. The talk is laced with
hypocritsy.

PLEASE WRITE TO CLINTON AND ALBRIGHT AND EXPRESS YOUR DISMAY AT THE
STALLING TACTICS OF THE US GOVERNMENT.  LET THEM KNOW THAT AMERICANS ARE
WATCHING THEIR ACTS IN THE UN AND THAT WE CARE ABOUT HOW THEY REPRESENT US.
 ASK THEM TO SUPPORT THE NAC RESOLUTION AND TO BEGIN IMMEDIATE NEGOTIATIONS
ON A TREATY TO ELIMINATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!  Eighty seven percen to all
Americans said they want a treaty to eliminate nukes, in a 1997 poll by
Celinda Lake's firm, Lake Soison, Snell.

President Bill Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20500
email: [e-mail]
fax: [phone]

Secretary Madeline Albright
2201 C St. NW
Washington, DC  20520
fax: [phone]


>Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 18:30:37 -0500
>Subject: UN 1st Cmte/US response to New Agenda res.
>Priority: non-urgent
>To: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>October 29, 1998
>
>United States Delegation to the 53rd UN General Assembly First Committee
>
>Statement on Eight Nation Resolution
>
>"Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda"
>
>I take the floor today to comment on the resolution entitled, "Towards a
>Nuclear Free World: The Need for a New Agenda," tabled by a group of eight
>nations. The United States delegation listened carefully to the discussion
>of this resolution on Tuesday and would like to comment on both that
>discussion and the text itself.
>
>In listening to the comments of its sponsors, we noted that while the
>resolution is one of the longest on this year's agenda, its supporters
>referred almost entirely to its first operational paragraph. They clearly
>consider that the heart of the resolution is its call for the nuclear
>weapon
>states to "demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to the speedy and total
>elimination of their respective nuclear weapons." I would have thought it
>unnecessary to demonstrate once again the commitment of the United States
>to
>nuclear disarmament, a commitment we undertook when we adhered to the NPT,
>but let me recall for others the steps we have taken and are taking in
>fulfillment of our Art. VI commitment. Some of the most important ones are
>described in resolution L.49 on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations and
>nuclear disarmament.
>
>To review those specifics, let me just point out that since the height of
>the Cold War, the U.S. has almost completely eliminated its non-strategic
>nuclear weapons, going from 15 Systems in 1971 to two systems today. We
>have
>eliminated more than 10,000 nuclear warheads from our military arsenal,
>along with more than 1,700 missile launchers and bombers under the INF and
>START I treaties. We have not conducted a nuclear weapon test explosion
>since 1992. We ceased the production of fissile material for nuclear
>weapons
>many years ago and have removed more than 200 tons of fissile material from
>our military stockpile. Once we have completed the next step in strategic
>arms control, as agreed by the U.S. and Russia, we will have made
>reductions
>of 80 per cent from Cold War peaks of deployed weapons. If this doesn't
>demonstrate a commitment to nuclear disarmament--in deeds. not words--I
>don't know what does.
>
>The logic of this paragraph also puzzles the United States. If the
>commitments we have already undertaken are sufficient, the world would gain
>nothing from their repetition. Alternatively, if the sponsors of the
>resolution do not consider those commitments trustworthy, why should we
>think they find another one more reliable?
>
>As I have noted, the sponsors of this resolution stress the first operative
>paragraph. But the U.S. takes seriously the entire resolution and urges
>this
>committee to consider all its provisions carefully. We have held our
>counsel
>while we waited to see what would emerge from the deliberations the eight
>held with other members of this body, but now that we see a more developed
>text we have decided to make our views known. The United States could
>support some of the ideas it expresses, but finds many more fundamentally
>misconceived or flawed in practice.
>
>Let me elaborate:
>
>--We reject the alarmist tone expressed in the first several preambular
>paragraphs. As ACDA Director and Under Secretary cf State Holum said to
>this
>committee a few weeks ago, the U.S. "identifies with the yearning for more
>progress--and with disappointment that the progress can be difficult and
>slow." This does not cause us alarm, however, but rather gives us the
>determination to work harder at the task of making more progress. What is
>alarming, but paradoxically not addressed explicitly in this resolution, is
>nuclear testing by India and Pakistan.
>
>--We have a similar reaction to the fourth preambular paragraph. The U.S.
>has had a long history of successfully controlling nuclear weapons and
>cannot accept the assertion that their mere existence leads to their use.
>There have, of course, been no instances in which nuclear weapons have been
>used for more than 50 years.
>
>Let me turn now to the operative sections of the resolution.
>
>It makes some useful points on the NPT, CTBT and related issues and we
>appreciate the revision of the paragraphs on cutoff to conform with the
>decision to start negotiations in the CD. On the other hand, we join others
>in pointing out that the call for the three non-members of the NPT to
>adhere
>to that agreement makes no mention of the recent tests by two of the states
>concerned.
>
>I have already discussed OP1. Let me repeat: the U.S. has made a commitment
>to nuclear disarmament. If that is not sufficient, we fail to see what a
>repetition would add.
>
>The resolution calls twice for the "seamless integration" of five-power
>negotiations into the current bilateral process. This sounds good, but what
>does it really mean? Have the sponsors considered the alternatives? Are we
>sure a five-power process would be most effective, or might there be
>parallel processes? TIc United States doesn't have answers to these
>questions now, and we suspect neither does anyone else, nor will they until
>the process has moved further along.
>
>In one of the few concrete proposals it contains, the resolution calls on
>the nuclear weapons states to de-alert those weapons. The U.S. has
>considered carefully this issue and has agreed with Russia on pre-launch
>notification of strategic launch vehicles and space launchers. However, we
>believe the wholesale adoption of de-alerting measures leads to
>instability.
>Because such measures are unverifiable, a situation could arise--similar to
>the August 1914 rnsh to mobilization--in which the potential that one
>country might quickly return to alert status could start a dangerous rush
>by
>all to do so, leading to greater instability. We have instead targeted our
>efforts at improving command and control systems--a more valuable approach
>than wholesale de-alerting.
>
>The U.S. finds the call for the IAEA to explore verification of a nuclear
>free world premature and will certainly not abdicate that responsibility
>when we are dealing with the total elimination of nuclear weapons. We
>suspect other states will not accept that idea either.
>
>The calls for the CD to create an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament
>and for the convening of a nuclear disarmament conference--like much of
>this
>resolution--substitute more talk for concrete action. The U.S. has
>consistently described the problems with this proposal, especially the
>negative affect it would have on real nuclear disarmament reductions and
>talks with the Russian Federation. We believe there would be no purpose
>served by running the serious risk of slowing or even stopping this proven
>and productive disarmament process, and that position will not change. And
>in any case we already are fully engaged in nuclear disarmament discussions
>in multilateral fora. We discuss nuclear disarmament here, in the UNDC, in
>plenary sessions of the CD, in the NPT enhanced review process and
>potentially in an SSOD IV, should the international community agree to
>hold one.
>
>Finally, the U.S. considers the affirmation that a nuclear free world would
>require "a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally binding
>instrument..." completely premature. The U.S. believes it more important to
>concentrate on the practical measures needed before we reach that point,
>rather than considering now the legal form of an agreement.
>
>Let me conclude with some general comments. Although frustrated by the pace
>of progress on nuclear disarmament, we--and we expect many others--do not
>see the need to replace the existing agenda with a new one. We all know
>what
>has to be done to move us further along the path of nuclear disarmament.
>Those actions include:
>- the continuation of the destruction of strategic offensive weapons as
>provided for under START I;
>- the completion of ratification of the START II agreements and the
>beginning of START III negotiations;
>- the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
>- the start of serious, good-faith negotiations on a treaty prohibiting the
>production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear
>explosive devices;
>- the universalization of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
>
>This is an ambitious agenda, but not an unrealizable one. Some seem to
>consider it already accomplished; we do not. It includes tasks for the
>United States and Russia, for the other nuclear weapon states, for NPT
>parties, for those countries that have not signed the NPT -- for the
>international community as a whole. If we could achieve it, we would have
>made decisive steps in the direction the eight nations call for.
>
>But what does this resolution include that will advance us in that
>direction? For the most part, it is an expression of concern that
>"something
>must be done." But apart from actions already under way and the call for an
>international conference on nuclear disarmament, what does it contain? And
>what will another international disarmament conference accomplish? In fact,
>it could well distract attention from the NPT review process and other
>established fora for negotiation and discussion of disarmament issues,
>while
>giving non-parties to the NPT another excuse for their failure to adhere to
>the Treaty.
>
>The United States urges the sponsors and others inclined to support the
>eight-nation initiative to reconsider their approach, which offers little
>beyond the exhortation to do something. The U.S. can suggest no panaceas,
>no
>easy ways forward. The process of nuclear disarmament is deliberate and
>painstaking. It takes advantage of opportunities for progress, when they
>arise.
>
>In our view, we don't need a new agenda, but a rededication to the agenda I
>have already outlined. It is a challenging agenda but an achievable one if
>we have the collective will to pursue it. It may not be a "new agenda" but
>it is a realistic one.
>*    *    *    *    *    *    *
>Roger Smith
>Network Coordinator
>NGO Committee on Disarmament
>777 U.N. Plaza #3B, New York, NY 10017, USA
>tel [phone]  fax [phone]
>[e-mail]    http://www.peacenet.org/disarm/
>

Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hisham Zerriffi <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Explosive Fusion Research Sign-on Letter
Date: 04 Nov 1998 13:12:59 -0800 (PST)

Dear Friends,

    Recent research by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
(IEER) has determined that proposed fusion experiments at a US government
laboratory would violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  This
issue needs to be resolved through an appropriate international forum.  In
the interim, we believe that the University of California should suspend
work on this project.  To that end, we are circulating this letter for the
signature of as many scientist, engineers, community activists, and other
concerned people in the United States.  As you know, the University of
California is the contractor operating Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory and the Regents are the governing body of the university.  The
letter also calls on the Regents to initiate a public debate about the
continuing role of the university in nuclear weapons research.

Background:  The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a multi-billion dollar
laser fusion facility being constructed at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.  NIF is designed to create fusion explosions of 10 pounds of TNT
or even more.  While the US government asserts this research is exempt from
the CTBT, our research has shown these explosions are "nuclear explosions"
covered by the CTBT and are therefore banned.  In fact, since the treaty
bans planning for such explosions, the current construction is in violation
of the treaty.  Moreover, if NIF is successful in creating fusion explosions
using lasers, it would establish the scientific feasibility of designing
pure fusion weapons.  Such weapons would not require plutonium or highly
enriched uranium and would radically alter the threat of nuclear weapons.
Most of IEER's report, Dangerous Thermonuclear Quest, is on our website
(http://www.ieer.org).  If you would like a hard copy please let us know.

    If you would like to add your name to the list of signatories, please
contact Hisham Zerriffi at IEER by e-mail ([e-mail]) or phone
(301/270-5500).

Thank you,

Arjun Makhijani, President
Hisham Zerriffi, Project Scientist

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 204
Takoma Park    MD    20912



John G. Davies
Chairman of the Board
University of California Regents
1111 Franklin Street, 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607

Dear Mr. Davies,

    We, the undersigned, are writing to urge the University of California
Regents to declare a moratorium on construction of the National Ignition
Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  The facility,
being built and to be operated by the University of California, is designed
to conduct contained thermonuclear explosions, experiments which may be
considered illegal under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).  The CTBT
prohibits "any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear
explosion."  The CTBT also requires parties to "prevent" nuclear explosions
in their jurisdictions.

A July 1998 report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
(IEER), Dangerous Thermonuclear Quest, determined that the planned
explosions in NIF are banned under the CTBT.  While NIF cannot be
miniaturized into a weapon, research on it would establish the scientific
feasibility of creating fusion explosions without a primary fission trigger
-- a first step toward establishing the feasibility of pure fusion weapons.
It would feed directly into research at Los Alamos and Sandia on
technologies which have the potential for miniaturization.

If the scientific and engineering barriers to pure fusion weapons are
overcome, a new class of weapons could emerge that would radically increase
the nuclear threat.  Pure fusion weapons would not require plutonium or
highly enriched uranium, the acquisition of which is one of the main
obstacles to nuclear proliferation.  These weapons could also be made in
various sizes, from very small to very large, and would not produce the
highly radioactive fallout of current nuclear weapons.  At the same time,
the release of large numbers of neutrons would make them very effective at
killing people while minimizing blast effects.

Given the grave implications of this research and the troubling questions
surrounding its legality, we strongly urge the UC Regents to take immediate
action.  As the governing body of the University of California overseeing
its contract to operate national laboratories, the Regents should take
whatever action is necessary for the Laboratory to suspend work on the NIF
project until the legal questions are resolved by the CTBT review conference
or other appropriate international body.  The Regents could also use the
time during the work suspension to conduct a university-wide debate on the
appropriateness of one of the world's greatest universities continuing with
nuclear weapons research.  This should be a matter of far wider public
debate within the academic community and the country as a whole.  We urge
that you use the occasion of the NIF review to initiate that debate.  We
would appreciate receiving your response, which should be sent to Arjun
Makhijani and Hisham Zerriffi of IEER at 6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 204, Takoma
Park, MD 20912.

Sincerely,

Arjun Makhijani
President, IEER
Ph.D., UC Berkeley, 1972

Hisham Zerriffi
Project Scientist, IEER

Cc: All members of the University of California Board of Regents.


************************************************************
* Hisham Zerriffi                                          *
* Project Scientist                Phone: [phone]   *
* Institute for Energy             Fax:   [phone]   *
* and Environmental Research       E-mail: [e-mail] *
* 6935 Laurel Ave. Suite 204       Web:    www.ieer.org    *
* Takoma Park, MD  20912                                   *
************************************************************


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: aid to Honduras
Date: 04 Nov 1998 23:29:18 EST

In a message dated 11/3/98 10:33:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Subj:     aid to Honduras
 Date:    11/3/98 10:33:45 AM Eastern Standard Time
 From:    [e-mail] (Mennonite Church Peace and Justice Committee,
Orrville Ohio)
 Sender:    [e-mail]
 Reply-to:    [e-mail] (Mennonite Church Peace and Justice
Committee, Orrville Ohio), [e-mail],
[e-mail]
 To:    [e-mail], [e-mail]

 Friends,

 I sent that note about Honduras to you all and less than an hour
 later came questions from several of you about how to help. So, I
 called and talked with Bruce Glick, MCC Great Lakes, who was my SST
 coordinator in Honduras. . .well, way back when!

 He said this is major, major, major, major, much of the country under
 water, and lots of money and a long-term response will be needed. MCC
 is already contacting people to go down and has okayed $300,000 for
 beginning work.

 Someone asked if MDS is going. They mostly work in the United States
 and Canada (?), but are working in Puerto Rico and perhaps the
 Domican Republic as a result of the hurricanes there.

 If you want to send money, it can go through your regional MCC or:

 MCC
 PO Box 500
 Akron PA 17501-0500

 MDS can receive donations at the same address.

 Another report should be coming from Akron later today. I'll also
 forward that to this list.

 Oh, and if you happen to live near Kidron and want to run in and help
 Bruce set up an "e-mail list" on his soft ware this morning quick
 since the MCC secretarial help isn't in the office today, well, that
 would be a fine bit of help! Or you could answer the phone a bit. .
 .he says it's ringing off the hook!

 [e-mail]

 peace,
 Susan
 Susan Mark Landis
 Minister of peace and Justice for the Mennonite Church
 PO Box 173, Orrville OH 44667-0173
 phone/fax [phone]
 [e-mail]
 http://www.MennoLink.org/peace/


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: HELP!!! Please.
Date: 04 Nov 1998 23:29:22 EST



<< Subj:           HELP!!! Please.
 Date:    11/2/98 10:57:48 AM Eastern Standard Time
 From:    [e-mail]
 To:    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

 dear friends--

 i need your help. honduras and tegucigalpa need your help.

 you've already received two updates from me. i'm not completely
 comfortable asking for assistance via email, but believe me, your
 help is urgently needed. please read this email. if you can, please
 send what you can (i'm tempted to say "as much as you can and as
 soon as you can") to:   paul marsh
                         6837 lanewood court
                         san diego, ca 92111
                         [phone]
 checks should be made payable to my father, "Paul Marsh/COHAPAZ."
 trust that every cent will go straight to feeding and relocating
 members of COHAPAZ in the barrios who have lost their homes and
 belongings to hurrican mitch, and to other crisis activities of
 COHAPAZ (like activities for kids in refugee centers, etc.)

 i can hardly describe the things i've seen these last few days:
 calm streams turned to raging torrents tens of times bigger than
 normal, hundreds of homeless people with all their belongings lined
 along the roadsides in the rain, and entire communities lost--
 including one where i regularly work.

 today's news: first and foremost on everyone's mind, an hour ago, the
 mayor of tegucigalpa, Cesar Castellanos, died in a helicopter crash.
 he is (was) an extremely popular man and effective politician. i even
 liked him and i hardly ever say anything positive about politicians.
 he was a person who made noticeable changes in this city during his
 ten months as mayor, a person who cared deeply about the poor and who
 spent many days in the barrios of tegucigalpa. during this crisis he
 has been an effective and inspiring leader. i can't imagine who will
 organize us out of this mess on an institutional level now. his loss
 adds tremendously to this tragedy!

 on the personal side, elsy and i spent the day walking and working in
 campo cielo, flor uno, 14 de febrero and fuerzas unidas, all
 communities where COHAPAZ is very active. the damage in the barrios
 is extensive and literally makes me want to cry. none of my
 friends have died, at least that i'm aware of, but the destruction
 is horrible. in campo cielo an entire section of the community,
 approximately 15 homes, slid on top of one another. another section
 has huge fissures running parallel along the hillside and is no
 longer habitable, although the houses are standing up to now. fuerzas
 unidas is a community on the outskirts of the city built on clay. six
 members of COHAPAZ has partially or totally lost their homes there.
 and worst of all, the community 14 de febrero, is a complete loss.
 walking through the area in ankle deep mud was a sad and surrealistic
 experience. homes of our members, homes that i had visited on
 numerous ocassions, were carried over 200 yards down the hillside.
 some landed intact including the possessions! seeing a home, nearly
 intact, two blocks from where i knew it should be is unlike any
 experience i've ever had. others were a complete loss. and everywhere
 were people working under very precarious conditions to salvage what
 little they could from their homes. one thing is clear: the people
 with the least have the most to lose. i promised to return to help
 with the salvage tomorrow. for now i can't bring myself to total the
 census that i took--i think about fifty of our members in just these
 five communities lost their homes!

 also on the personal side, news which is almost too horrible to
 believe (and let's hope that it is): a ham radio operator in tocoa,
 colon, just reported that over 98% of the home's in the neighboring
 town of saba (elsy's hometown) have sustained damage. the entire
 population was evacuated five days ago, but to where no one seems to
 know. phone service remains down, as do all of the bridges to the
 area.

 also this: the city has no water. not even the hospitals have water.
 the radios have asked people to bring water to the hospitals. we've
 been told that the water won't arrive for at least ten days due to
 powerless pumps, and broken and plugged water mains. we have some
 water here in the house, though bathing with less than a gallon of
 water after working in the mud all day is maddenly and brings the
 crisis home.

 other notes: every police station we passed today was filled with
 looters (male) that had been arrested and dozens of women in front
 with food waiting for a chance to hear about their loved ones and
 leave the food. honduran prison food, and i imagine this is
 especially true during this crisis, is practically inedible so women
 line up each day to bring food to their men. from the direction of
 the market i hear gunshots every hour or so. the barrios were filled
 with people washing looted goods that were still covered with mud.

 the school year here in honduras ends officially in two weeks, but
 all of the schools that i have seen here in tegucigalpa are filled
 with refugees. the word on the radio is that the school year will
 be cut short, students will be spared their final exams and their
 final grades will be their average for the work that they've done so
 far this year. we'll see if this becomes reality. tomorrow may or may
 not be a school day.

 the expected: the supermarket had more people inside than it had food
 on the shelves. i'm so happy that i have my garden to supplement the
 food that elsy was smart enough to buy the day before yesterday!

 for those of you who know tegucigalpa, here's a list of some of the
 specific damages that i have seen: the stadium bridge is completely
 gone, the market bridge remains open to foot traffic only and is the
 only bridge left intact which connects the two sides of the city,
 mallol (by the congress) and soberania (4th avenue) bridges are
 completely underwater still and may be complete losses, the bridge
 from the center to cerro grande is completely underwater and possibly
 destroyed, the bridge (puente la isla) is the only bridge open to
 traffic, the prado bridge (the cute iron and wood bridge) is gone,
 the bridge in front of the estado mayor sustained heavy damage but
 is open to foot traffic, as is the villa adela bridge. as for the
 comayaguela market, it is completely under mud, up to six feet deep
 in places. a large section of the colonia las brisas (where the
 indigenous protesters were encamped last year after the desalojo) was
 completely washed away. the colonia 14 de febrero, one of the
 colonias where COHAPAZ works, no longer exists as a result of a huge
 landslide. areas also hard hit: campo cielo, nueva esperanza, la hoya
 (where the prison is--was--located), villa adela, los altos de san
 francisco and los laureles, nueva suyapa, all the area around parque
 concordia...

 that's it for now. please send a donation as soon as you can, and
 email me to let me know that you are sending it (it would help to
 know the dollar amount, if that doesn't seem too pushy, because that
 would allow me to seek a loan during the interim) to help during this
 crisis. also, clothes and food and medicines are all badly needed if
 you know a way to get them here. our address is: COHAPAZ, apdo postal
 4736, tegucigalpa, honduras, america central. (my home phone number is
 [phone] and i'm home before 7:30 am and after 7 pm, usually.)
 some cities have honduran consulates that may be of help to those who
 wish to send goods.

 thanks for your assistance and moral support (which i personally
 need!) spending a day among destruction and surrounded by bad news is
 not easy.

 much love from the country i love,

 michael (marsh)

  >>

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) peaceful spam
Date: 05 Nov 1998 00:41:04 EST


 Friends,

 As we head toward the holiday season, I gently (being a pacifist) call your
attention to the War Resisters League's annual peace calendar, which makes a
splendid gift.
 The theme of this year's Calendar is: "Young People Look at The World",
introduction by Betty Jean Lifton. Illustrations by children. This is a 5 1/2
"by 8 1/2"
 desk calendar, 128 pages, colover covers, spiral bound, with an extensive
list of peace resources and international contacts. $12 each, four for $44,
postage included. Send your check to War Resisters League, 339 Lafayette St.,
New York City, 10012. If you want to see a copy of the calendar brochure, send
at email to WRL at: [e-mail] and you will get one in the mail.

 "From tomorrow I shall be sad,
 From tomorrow on.
 Not today. Today I will be glad.
 And every day, no matter how
 bitter it may be,
 I shall say:
 From tomorrow I shall be sad,
 Not today."

 (anonymous poem by child found in WW II concentration camp)

 Peace,
 David McReynolds

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) left a desk job for this!!
Date: 05 Nov 1998 00:59:30 EST


 Date:    11/4/98 11:58:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
 From:    [e-mail]
 To:    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

 hi everyone--

 it sure is good that i love honduras and my friends here, because
 this sure isn't fun.

 but first all the good news. i want to thank the many people who have
 sent us a kind word or a donation. i've always felt that i have the
 best friends in the world, and no one has let us down. the financial
 and material contributions have been unlike anything i've ever
 encountered--so many people giving so much that if this continues
 i'll have to hire a bookkeeper, an accountant and a lawyer or two.
 (just kidding, obviously, but the generosity of people is
 overwhelming.) but equally important for me personally has been the
 words of support from everyone. this work--seeing the damages and
 hearing the stories--is depressing. knowing that people are listening
 and that others care is a big boost. i've even translated a few of
 the notes so that the women of cohapaz can share the encouragement.
 thanks!! and a special thanks to those of you who have circulated our
 appeal and to those of you, whom i don't even know, who have
 contributed to cohapaz. you're all wonderful!

 with the money we've received so far, tomorrow we are going to buy
 three tons of corn, rice, beans and cooking oil to distribute to 300
 families who were displaced by the flooding and landslides. that will
 still leave us some funds toward a second round of purchases next
 week, and allow us to buy simple supplies for children's activities
 in the shelters. your donations and interest have made this possible.

 other good news: elsy's mother is well and her home was saved!! after
 ten days without any communication, elsy spoke with one of her
 sisters today. the news is wonderful and perplexing. her entire
 immediate family is well. they all gathered in what they assumed
 would be the driest house. as it turned out, they were up to their
 ankles in water, while the two houses closest to the "rio aguan",
 Aguan River, (her mother's very simple home and her brother's home)
 were left untouched. miraculously, the floodwaters stopped two yards
 shy of her brother's riverside home, and while the waters washed out
 the bridge only fifty yards away, elsy's mother's home was untouched.
 i can't describe the jubilation that elsy and i feel tonight. what a
 relief! tomorrow we will wire them money to help them deal with the
 lack of food and the price-gougers. then i'll be able to focus on
 cohapaz and the barrios.

 as for tegucigalpa, the rivers are still swollen despite the fact
 that it hasn't really rained for three days. the problem is
 landslides (near barrio el chile and el parque concordia) have
 partially dammed the river. as a result, only two bridges between the
 two halves of tegucigalpa remain open to foot traffic from time to
 time. parts of the market remain under five or six feet of mud. the
 education ministry remains flooded, with nearly its entire river-side
 wall ripped off, and inumerable important documents lost. traffic,
 both vehicular and pedestrian, is horrendous. for instance, elsy
 walks the three or four miles from our apartment to the medical
 school. of course, some industrious people have found a business in
 this--both nancy and elsy report that strong men, for the equivolent
 of 40 cents, will give piggyback rides to pedestrians not wanting to
 mess their shoes and pants over the muddiest sections. nancy went for
 a ride, while elsy saw a man fall and his passenger dumped headfirst
 in the mud and decided it was better to take off her shoes and walk
 through the knee-deep mud. word is they charge extra for heavy
 people. you got to love capitalism!

 as for the looting, it has slowed considerably. i'm not sure why this
 so. it could be that we now have a 9pm to 5 am curfew. but it could
 also be that there is nothing left to loot or that the most active
 looters are now in jail. our local police station, about eight blocks
 away, now holds 700 people suspected of looting. since 94% (and i'm
 not making that number up) of honduras' prison population has never
 been tried and sentenced, who knows what will become of them. the
 most shocking aspect of the looting, for me however, has been how
 accepted it is. as long as one doesn't actually enter a store with
 a broken door or window, everything else is up for grabs. saddly,
 the curfew was put into place too late and there was no system to
 allow small store owners and market vendors the opportunity to
 recover their goods. the positive side: nancy, dona candida and other
 women of cohapaz worked for an entire day in the market to help clear
 the streets of mud. cohapaz is everywhere, and nancy works like crazy
 everywhere she goes.

 we're still without water. six days have passed and the water
 company says its likely to be five to ten days more. so we flush the
 toilet once a day, (tonight we used the water that we used to cook
 the spaghetti), i continue to bathe with a gallon of water, and
 someday, when the water comes back on i'll wash my clothes.
 fortunately, we are just two people and have no dirty diapers to wash.
 the streets are filled with people carrying water buckets and the
 pick-up trucks are loaded with fifty-gallon drums looking to be
 filled. it's so odd-looking seeing everyone carrying buckets in
 search of water, like when walkman's were first made and everyone
 started to carry them. like it's a new style or something. and
 as for food, the price gougers have not been stopped by government
 decrees. prices have skyrocketted and there is a great scarcity of
 just about everything you can eat, (not to mention fuels). we, like
 everyone, get by the best we can--buying something the minute we see
 it, knowing that it won't last. with any luck, the international
 contributions and the opening of the roads will alleviate this.

 we took a census of our members and their communities today. our
 meeting of coordinators was a mixture of very sad stories and
 somewhat optimistic (at least responsive) planning to address the
 crisis. our numbers: in the communities where cohapaz works there are
 over 200 families (over 1,200 people) in shelters due to homes lost
 and a still uncounted number of people living in homes and areas that
 are no longer safely habitable. the plan we devised calls for us to:
 1) purchase and distribute emergency foods immediately for three
 hundred or more families; 2) distribute donated clothing; 3) work
 with the community health centers rather than try to distribute
 medicines ourselves; 4) plan activities for kids in the centers; and
 5) reevaluate the situation next week. Our long term plans include
 using whatever funds that are left after the immediate emergency is
 over to build retaining walls and gutters in still-habitable areas
 that must be made safer, and to work with the municipality to see
 that everyone gets relocated to safer grounds to rebuild.

 the school year was officially announced closed yesterday. those
 students who passed their midterms passed their school year and those
 that did not, will repeat the year. such is the continuing crisis in
 honduras' public school system. last year less than half (49%) of the
 public elementary and highschool students in this country moved on to
 the next grade. none of this bodes well for the long term development
 of honduras, but that's another story. elsy, meanwhile, is back at
 medical school. she wasn't mobilized for the coast afterall, because
 things got so bad here. she now spends her time in the national
 university shelter, doing a census and promoting preventive medicine.

 you've all probably seen the national estimates already. no one knows
 for certain the level of the damage done or the risks that still
 exist, but here are the numbers reported by various agencies of the
 honduran government: 4,000 to 5,000 dead; 240,000 people left
 homeless in tegucigalpa alone; 8 police dead and 70 missing; 83
 bridges destroyed; in the department (state) that elsy is from,
 colon, 10,000 homes destroyed and 300 people still missing; and on
 and on. obviously, we'll never know the exact numbers. the most
 important message is this: this is a disaster of huge proportions and
 this will setback honduras' development goals a long, long way.

 so while tonight i'm personally feeling a great relief with the good
 news about elsy's mother, tegucigalpa and honduras are still a long
 way from recovering. if you haven't sent a donation yet, believe me,
 we still need it. if you can circulate this or one of my earlier
 reports to your friends or coworkers, please do. we need your help.

 i wish that i could send everyone pictures with my emails, but i
 can't. if i could, however, i'd send two--one of a group of older
 women wielding hammers to save what little they could of their
 toppled homes, and the other of a child learning (via a game) about
 health and higiene. i have faith that honduras can be rebuilt.

 thanks, again, for everything!

 love,

 michael


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews: Plowshares Conviction
Date: 08 Nov 1998 00:36:48 -0500

http://www.bergen.com/region/peaceag199811062.htm

Bergen peace activist convicted of sabotage=20

             Friday, November 6, 1998

             By ADAM GELLER
             Staff Writer

             Oliver Sachio Coe finally got his chance to put
             nuclear weapons on trial.

             But after three days in a federal courtroom in
             Colorado, it was the Ridgewood peace activist who
             was found guilty.

             A Denver jury convicted Coe late Wednesday of
             sabotage, conspiracy, and destruction of
             government property, charges stemming from the
             vandalism of a nuclear missile silo in August.

             Coe, 25, and a fellow activist each face up to 30
             years in prison and a $750,000 fine. Under federal
             guidelines, they will probably be sentenced to far
             less.

             But Coe, who has been arrested numerous times in
             North Jersey and elsewhere for staging protests
             bordering on theater, is already behind bars. He and
             co-defendant Daniel Sicken refused to promise
             Wednesday to return for sentencing and were
             immediately detained.

             Coe and Sicken were arrested just after dawn Aug.
             6 by military police who found them sitting atop a
             nuclear missile silo out on the Colorado prairie.

             The men had clipped through a fence at the site,
             battered the silo with sledgehammers, and
             decorated it with paint mixed with their own blood,
             authorities said. Coe freely admitted having done
             so, proclaiming it an attempt to beat swords into
             plowshares.

             The men could have accepted a plea bargain with
             federal prosecutors in exchange for a more limited
             sentence. But Coe said they were determined not to
             do so, because they wanted a chance to speak to a
             jury and "put nuclear weapons on trial."

             Coe could not be reached Thursday. But before the
             trial began Monday, he spoke optimistically about
             focusing attention on nuclear weapons and laughed
             off the possibility of prison.

             "I think it's one of the most worthwhile things I've
             ever done in my life," he said in a telephone
             interview. "A lot of peace work can be done from
             there [prison]. I don't see myself leaving the
             movement . . . I see myself as, maybe, being based
             in a different place."

             Coe and Sicken acted as their own attorneys during
             the trial. A small clutch of supporters, including
             some from North Jersey, carried signs of protest
             outside the courthouse before the trial began
             Monday. Some supporters, including Coe's
             mother, Adriana Coe of Park Ridge, testified on
             their behalf.

             The two activists told jurors they had no intent to
             interfere with national defense, arguing that the
             missile they attacked was intended for offensive
             "first-strike" use rather than to defend the nation.

             "The jury obviously rejected that, because they
             found them guilty," said Richard Stuckey, a Denver
             attorney who acted as Coe's advisory counsel.

             Stuckey said Coe took the verdict in stride.

             "He doesn't get angry," Stuckey said. "He was
             disappointed."

                   Copyright =A9 1998 Bergen Record Corp.=20
_______________________________________________________________________

* Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org - Convert the War Machines! *
_______________________________________________________________________

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews: U.S. 11/7/98
Date: 08 Nov 1998 01:02:11 -0500

1. http://ens-news.com/ens/nov98/1998-11-05-09.html
ROCKY FLATS AGAIN SHIPPING URANIUM

2.
http://www.mostnewyork.com/1998-11-05/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City/a-10016
.asp?last6days=1
Tiny Device Big On Sniffing Smuggled Nukes

3. http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/natwadig03.htm
Nuclear-plant anti-terrorism program cut

4. http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1998/1102/fcw-polcarl-11-2-98.html
A LEGAL VIEW:  What is the 'government contractor defense?'

5. http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/codes/N/docs/N541.htm
Preliminary study doesn't disqualify Yucca Mountain


1. http://ens-news.com/ens/nov98/1998-11-05-09.html

Environmental News Service
AmeriScan: November 5, 1998

ROCKY FLATS AGAIN SHIPPING URANIUM

Shipments to transfer highly enriched uranium components from Rocky Flats,
a former nuclear facility near Denver, Colorado, to the Y-12 facility at
Oak ridge, Tennessee have resumed, the Department of Energy (DOE) Rocky
Flats Field Office has announced. Jessier Roberson, DOE Rocky Flats manager
said several shipments of "national security uranium" have safely arrive at
Oak Ridge. More shipments will continue until all highly enriched uranium
destined for Y-12 is removed. The target date for completion of the
shipments is September 1999. The uranium has been stored at Rocky Flats
since nuclear operations stopped there in late 1989. Shipments to Oak Ridge
took place in 1996 and up to September 1997 to accomodate improvements at
Y-12. The uranium will be stored at Oak Ridge pending final disposition.
Times and routes of shipment are not announced because of "national
security considerations," the DOE said.


2.
http://www.mostnewyork.com/1998-11-05/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City/a-10016
.asp?last6days=1

November 05, 1998

Tiny Device Big On Sniffing Smuggled Nukes

By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM  Daily News Staff Writer

Federal law enforcement and intelligence officials call it a worst-case
scenario - nuclear weapons material stolen from the former Soviet Union
gets into terrorist hands.

To combat the threat, the U.S. Customs Service has introduced a new
high-tech weapon - a radiation pager that acts as a tiny Geiger counter.

Slightly larger than a pack of cigarettes, it detects radioactive materials
when an inspector walks past someone trying to smuggle them.

U.S. Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly showed off the new device yesterday
as he announced the agency is playing a key role in a U.S.-Russian
anti-proliferation initiative unveiled at the Moscow summit on Sept. 2.
It's an initiative, Kelly said, that hits home for city residents.

"New York is the world's most important center for international trade,
commerce and communications," he said. "It is also an important symbolic
center of American democracy. It should be no surprise, then, that New York
is a prized terrorist target."

Extremists haven't been shy about wanting nuclear material. Osama Bin
Laden, named in indictments as the force behind East Africa embassy
bombings last summer, allegedly sent his emissaries shopping for
weapons-grade material.

Kelly said the collapse of the Soviet Union has weakened security that used
to block thefts of the deadly commodity.


3. http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/natwadig03.htm

November 3, 1998, in the San Jose Mercury News

Nuclear-plant anti-terrorism program cut

The federal government has eliminated its only program for testing the
ability of commercial nuclear-power plants to repel armed terrorists --
part of a cost-cutting reorganization of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Established in 1991, when the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War
heightened fears about terrorist attacks, the program, while small, had
identified serious security lapses at nearly half the nation's 104
nuclear-power reactors.

At one reactor, an agency team simulating an armed attack ``was able to
reach and simulate sabotaging enough equipment to cause a core melt,'' said
David Orrik, the NRC security specialist who directed the counter-terrorism
program known as Operational Safeguards Response Evaluations, or OSRE. The
program had sparked complaints by some in the nuclear-power industry that
it was too costly -- although others had praised the program for improving
their security plans.



4. http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1998/1102/fcw-polcarl-11-2-98.html

NOVEMBER 2, 1998

A LEGAL VIEW:  What is the 'government contractor defense?'

By Carl Peckinpaugh

A company official raised the following questions: Can a
government contractor be found liable to third parties who
might be injured as a result of the contractor's work? Does it
make any difference if the government controls the way the
work is done?

In general, a government contractor can be held liable to third
parties for damages caused in contract performance in the
same way as it might under a commercial contract. [See United
States v. Boyd, 378 U.S. 39 (1964), in which it was ruled that
government contractors are not automatically cloaked with
governmental immunity.] However, in some cases, a
contractor in compliance with government specifications may
be able to assert a "government contractor defense" to escape
claims by injured persons.

In the landmark Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. [487 U.S.
500 (1988)], the U.S. Supreme Court discussed the
government contractor defense in a case involving a Marine
pilot who was killed when his helicopter crashed. The pilot's
father sued the manufacturer of the helicopter under Virginia
state law, claiming negligence in the design of the helicopter.
The jury awarded $725,000, but the appeals court reversed the
decision.

In its review, the Supreme Court first determined that issues
relating to civil tort liability arising out of government contracts
were "uniquely federal interests" because they involve U.S.
contracts, and indirectly, the civil liability of federal officials. In
addition, "the federal government's interest in the procurement
of equipment is implicated by suits such as the present one
even though the dispute is one between private parties."

The court also found that a significant conflict exists between
these uniquely federal interests and state law. According to the
court, the Federal Tort Claims Act exempts the government
from suits based on the exercise of discretion by a government
official in selecting designs of military equipment. The court
believed that the same exemption should apply to contractors
under certain conditions. According to the court: "Liability for
design defects in military equipment cannot be imposed,
pursuant to state law, when (1) the United States approved
reasonably precise specifications, (2) the equipment
conformed to those specifications, and (3) the supplier warned
the United States about the dangers in the use of the equipment
that were known to the supplier but not to the United States."

Since the Boyle decision was issued, a split of opinion has
developed among the federal circuit courts regarding the
applicability of the government contractor defense in
nonmilitary procurements. The 3rd, 7th and 11th circuits have
held that the government contractor defense is available to all
government contractors. [See Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991
F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1993); Boruski v. United States, 803
F.2d1421, 1430 (7th Cir. 1986); Burgess v. Colorado Serum
Co., 772 F.2d 844, 846 (11th Cir. 1985).] Trial courts in other
circuits have reached the same conclusion. [See, for example,
Yeroshefsky v. Unisys Corp., 962 F. Supp. 710 (D. Md.
1997); Andrew v. Unisys Corp., 936 F. Supp. 821 (W.D. Ok.
1996).]

In contrast, the 9th Circuit has ruled that the defense is
available to military contractors only. [See in re Hawaii Federal
Asbestos Cases, 960 F.2d 806 (9th Cir. 1992).] Some trial
courts have reached the same conclusion. [See, for example,
in re Chateaugay Corp., 146 B.R. 339 (S.D.N.Y. 1992);
Johnston v. United States, 568 F. Supp. 351 (D. Kan. 1983).]

Several district courts have expanded the scope of the
defense, applying it to performance-based contracts as well as
more traditional contracts for the procurement of goods. For
example, in Richland-Lexington Airport District v. Atlas
Properties Inc. [854 F. Supp. 400, 422 (D.S.C. 1994)], the
defense was applied to a contract for the placement of toxic
waste sites. In Lamb v. Martin Marietta Energy Systems Inc.
[835 F. Supp. 959 (W.D. Ky. 1993)], it was applied to a
contract for the operation of a uranium enrichment facility. In
Askir v. Brown & Root Services Corp. [No. 95 Civ. 11008
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 1997)], the defense was applied to a
contract with the United States and the United Nations to
provide military repair services and logistical support for
humanitarian operations in Somalia.

The exact parameters of the government contractor defense
are somewhat in flux. Indeed, the conflicts among the lower
courts almost guarantee that the Supreme Court will have to
address the issue again. In some cases, at least, the defense
can be used to shield companies from liability for actions in
performing their government contracts.

-- Peckinpaugh is a member of the government contracts
section of the law firm Winston & Strawn, Washington, D.C.
This column addresses legal topics that arise in government
acquisition and management of ADP resources. Readers are
encouraged to submit topics by e-mail to [e-mail].



5. http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/codes/N/docs/N541.htm

Friday, October 23, 1998

Preliminary study doesn't disqualify Yucca Mountain

Associated Press

LAS VEGAS -- The Energy Department says a preliminary study of Yucca
Mountain contains nothing that would disqualify the site as a nuclear waste
repository.

``I've seen nothing in the viability assessment that would change the
testimony that I gave before to Congress -- that we have found nothing so
far that would disqualify Yucca Mountain,'' said Lake Barrett, acting chief
of civilian nuclear waste storage.

Barrett said he has completed a draft of the assessment, now being reviewed
by senior management.

The report will not be released until late this year. Barrett acknowledged
the department is waiting until after the Nov. 3 elections so the study
will not become a factor in this year's campaigns.

The viability assessment is a key factor in the Yucca Mountain project.
Over the objections of Nevada leaders, it will enable the Energy Department
to proceed to the next phase of developing the site into a repository for
thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel rods from nuclear power
plants.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the key to the report's significance is that
it found nothing to disqualify Yucca Mountain: ``Of course, there's nothing
to qualify it either,'' he said. ``We have had numerous reports that the
minions in the DOE do this all the time. This is a preliminary report, it's
under review, the secretary (of Energy) hasn't approved it. ... It means
nothing, absolutely nothing.''

Reid said Nevada's most serious problem is not the viability of Yucca
Mountain, but the threat of interim storage at the Nevada Test Site while
other scientific studies move forward.

President Clinton has promised to veto an interim storage bill, he said,
but ``we have to maintain our 34 (Senate) votes'' to sustain the veto.

Rep. John Ensign, R-Nev., said he had heard rumors in Washington that the
Clinton administration was trying to speed up the viability process. The
findings of the report concern him, he said, because they could begin to
undermine the president's promise to veto an interim storage bill.

``The president's promise is only if it's not viable or only until it's
determined it's viable,'' said Ensign, who is trying to unseat Reid. ``If
we're now one step closer to viability, that means we're one step closer to
losing that promise. That's exactly why I said I don't want to see this
bill get to the president's desk.''

He said he's not surprised the Energy Department doesn't plan to release
the report until after the November elections: ``Harry Reid's running for
re-election and they don't want anything to hurt him.''

Barrett emphasized the viability assessment will not designate Yucca
Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, for nuclear waste storage. That
decision will not be made until July 1, 2001, when the department is
scheduled to release a statement concluding whether Yucca Mountain is
suitable.

But supporters of nuclear waste storage in Nevada are eager to use the
assessment to renew efforts in Congress to build an interim repository at
the test site. The temporary site would be used until Yucca Mountain is
ready to accept waste for burial. That won't occur before 2010.


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tracy Moavero <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) URGENT: CONTACT US MISSION RE NAC
Date: 09 Nov 1998 11:27:06 -0800 (PST)

We're glad that many of you have been writing to President Clinton and
Secretary Albright to protest the US attack on the New Agenda Coalition at
the UN. We have sent out the following action alert which calls for letters
to go the the US Mission with copies to the President. The Administration
definitely needs to hear from us, but if we can generate letters to the
Mission, that will be reported to the Administration too. We think there is
value in breaking the shroud of silence around the US delegation in such
forums. Let them know we are paying attention and we are not happy!

Happy faxing,

Tracy Moavero

ACTION ALERT: UNITED STATES BLOCKING PROGRESS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

The Cold War may be long over, but the United States and other declared
nuclear powers still cling to their nuclear weapons. An estimated 36,000
nuclear weapons remain in the world's nuclear arsenals, thousands of them
ready to launch on a moment's notice, and the nuclear powers continue to
squander billions of dollars on nuclear weapons research and development.
Meanwhile an ever growing list of countries are lining up to join the
nuclear club, raising the specter of a new, more deadly chapter in tbe arms
race and the danger of a nuclear strike somewhere in the world.

A New Arms Race or a New Agenda?

The United Nations General Assembly is about to vote on two important
nuclear disarmament resolutions. One, sponsored by Ireland and seven other
nations calls for a New Agenda for nuclear disarmament. These governments
(Ireland, Brazil, South Africa, Slovenia, Mexico, Sweden, Egypt, and New
Zealand) have recognized that without a serious new approach, the dangerous
legacy of the Cold War will live on. Their New Agenda indcludes a call for
negotiations on a treaty that would eliminate nuclear weapons. Malaysia has
introduced a resolution calling on nations to honor the 1996 International
Court of Justice opinion that a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons is
required by law.

The United States, preferring the nuclear status quo, has strongly rejected
these resolutions and is intensively lobbying other nations to vote them
down. The US delegation needs to hear from you! A vote is expected by
November 13.

Take Action to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Contact US Ambassador to the United Nations Robert Grey Jr., United States
Mission to the United Nations, 799 UN Plaza, New York NY 10017, Fax
212-415-41198
cc: President William Jefferson Clinton, The White House, Washington DC
20500, Fax [phone]

Tell the Ambassador
* The United States should be leading the world toward the abolition of
nuclear weapons instead of blocking good faith efforts to jumpstart the
stalled disarmament process.

* Support the Malaysian and New Agenda resolutions submitted to the United
Nations.

* Contrary to your statement at the UN, the continued existence of thousands
of nuclear weapons IS a clear and present danger to life on the planet.

* Past reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals are welcome but insufficient.

* The United States should support and advance verifiable measures to
immediately reduce the nuclear danger.

******************************************
Tracy Moavero
Peace Action International Office
866 UN Plaza, Room 4053
New York, NY 10017-1822
USA
Tel.:  [phone]
Fax:   [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Web:   www.peace-action.org

Peace Action is a member of the International Peace Bureau and Abolition
2000: A Global Network for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, and has
endorsed the Hague Appeal for Peace


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Culp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Russian Gov't. Urges Duma to Ratify START II
Date: 10 Nov 1998 12:20:26 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BE0CA4.7B075300
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT URGES DUMA TO RATIFY ARMS PACT HOME


Tuesday November 10 7:11 AM ET
By Patrick Worsnip

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's new government urged parliament Tuesday to
ratify the START-2 arms deal with the United States, in a bid to improve
Moscow's case for Western help in its economic crisis, Interfax news
agency said.

But the agency said many deputies in the Communist-dominated State Duma,
which despite government pleas has repeatedly delayed ratifying the
treaty since it was signed in 1993, opposed the call by First Deputy
Prime Minister Yuri Maslyukov.

Interfax quoted an unidentified parliamentary source as saying that
Maslyukov, himself a Communist, told a closed Duma hearing that efforts
should be intensified to close a further disarmament deal, START-3.

START-2 slashes the two countries' deployed nuclear warheads by up to
two thirds to no more than 3,500 each by 2007.

The U.S. Senate has ratified the treaty, but the Duma has held back,
concerned by fears over U.S. plans for missile defense systems, by the
expansion of NATO, and by the cost of scrapping unwanted missiles.

Russian President Boris Yeltsin and President Clinton have agreed to
open negotiations on START-3 -- which would provide for further
reductions -- as soon as START-2 comes into force.

Interfax quoted the parliamentary source as saying that radical
communist Albert Makashov led an attack on Maslyukov's proposals during
the hearings, which were called to provide details of the government's
anti-crisis economic plan.

Makashov attracted attention last month when he addressed a leftist
rally in Moscow with anti-Semitic remarks, which have sparked
indignation among Russian liberals.

RIA news agency quoted Vladimir Lukin, chairman of the Duma's
international affairs committee, as saying Maslyukov had raised the
START issue in order to ``create a political environment'' for rescuing
Russia from its economic plight.

Maslyukov spelled out details of the economic plan whose broad outlines,
made public over the last two weeks, have already alienated foreign
creditors with calls for more state regulation and printing of money.

The plan devised by the recently installed government of Prime Minister
Yevgeny Primakov aims to save Russia from a crisis that erupted in
August when the previous government devalued the rouble currency and
froze loan repayments.

The session of the State Duma, the lower house, was closed to
journalists but Lukin told reporters the economic situation described by
Maslyukov was ``as you can imagine, not brilliant.''

Primakov's government is seeking rapid passage by parliament of its
economic moves.

``In 10 days, approximately, we will have a schedule of what has to be
done, be it presidential decrees, government resolutions or amendments
and draft laws to be approved by parliament,'' Maslyukov said in a
weekend television interview.

Maslyukov has made clear the state role in the economy will increase and
has said the government's program will put Russia on the road to a
``socially-oriented'' market economy.

He says the government will work closely with the Duma to ensure swift
approval of laws and amendments, although the annual battle is looming
over setting the state budget.

The government's plan won partial approval Tuesday from Communist Party
leader Gennady Zyuganov, an endorsement hardly likely to endear it to
the International Monetary Fund which is holding back on further credits
to Russia for the moment.

Zyuganov said before Tuesday's hearing that the plan was ``a step
forward toward the real economy and the social protection of citizens.''
But he said only time would tell if it worked.

Unlike in previous years, the opposition-dominated Duma is largely
behind the prime minister.

Primakov is a compromise figure approved by the chamber after President
Boris Yeltsin -- who has been recovering for the last two weeks from
another bout of ill health -- was forced to drop his first choice to end
a political stalemate.


Copyright ⌐ 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BE0CA4.7B075300
Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature;
    name="smime.p7s"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
    filename="smime.p7s"
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------=_NextPart_000_0009_01BE0CA4.7B075300--


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jackie Cabasso <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Chinese nuclear test site converted to camel sanctuary!
Date: 10 Nov 1998 15:50:01 -0800 (PST)

Dear friends. As the remarkable article which follows explains, the Lop Nur
nuclear test site in China is being converted into a sanctuary for the rare
Bactrian camel!! (Let's hope its safe for the camels.)  Meanwhile, instead
of making plans to close the Nevada Test Site, the United States is
preparing to conduct its 5th "subcritical" underground nuclear test,
code-named "Cimerron," within the next few weeks....

San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, Nov. 8, 1998, P. A-13

Nuke test site to camel sanctuary
London Independent
By Geoffrey Lean
Sunday, November 8, 1998

LONDON -- Beating swords into ploughshares is old hat, it seems.  This week
there is to be an international treaty to give up atomic weapons for camels.

    On Wednesday China and the United Nations are to sign an agreement to turn
China's Lop Nor nuclear test site into a sanctuary for the rare Bactrian
camel.  The unprecedented move results from three pioneering expeditions to
the desolate area north of Tibet--replete with extraordinary feats of
derring-do--by a group of explorers whose average age was well above 60.
The new nature reserve--a barren and still partially unexplored tract the
size of Germany--is to be set up to protect 400 wild Bactrian camels, which
have survived more than 40 overhead nuclear explosions, only to be
threatened by hunters.  It is the first such reserve ever to be set up on an
atomic bomb test site.

    The two humped wild Bactrians are thought to the last representatives of
the herds from which all the world's camels are descended.  The one-humped
dromedaries of North Africa and the Middle East are believed to have evolved
from them--a single hump equips them better to withstand extreme heat.

    This week's agreement largely springs from a long campaign by John Hare, a
retired international civil servant from Britain, who persuaded the Chinese
authorities to allow him to be the first foreigner to enter the area for
half a century.

    He led three expeditions into the former test site, fighting off bandits,
repairing a truck with wire from an old rocket, and twice almost being
stranded hundreds of miles from the nearest villages in one of the most
inhospitable places on earth.

    There is no fresh water in the vast area, only salt springs, and the camels
have adapted to drinking salt water.  They eat dry grass and tamarisks that
grow around the springs.

    "There is no nothing, no people, no fresh water, virtually no vegetation,
no birds and almost no animals except the camels," said Hare.

    At least 45 atmospheric explosions are thought to have been carried out
over the area, before the tests went underground.  Testing stopped
completely in 1996.

    Hare admits to having been a "camel wallah" for 40 years.  As a
colonial-era member of the British Overseas Civil Service in northern
Nigeria, he used camels for transportation on the fringes of the Sahara.  He
also employed them while working for the U.N. Environment Program in Kenya.
   ********************************************
       WESTERN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION
           1440 Broadway, Suite 500
             Oakland, CA USA 94612
              Tel: [phone]
              Fax: [phone]
               [e-mail]
   ********** Part of ABOLITION 2000 **********
   Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) FWD: Bellefont
Date: 10 Nov 1998 16:40:55 -0500

I received this message on November 10, and thought you would be
interested.  Please respond to Michael Bernard <<[e-mail]>

with ideas and words of support?


Ellen Thomas - [e-mail]

Proposition One Committee









<flushright><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>Proposistion One,


There is a large project going on in Bellefont Alabama, located in the
northeast, that is being kept very quiet nationally and internationally.
The nuclear facility located in Bellefont has been left uncompleted for
some time, but now the Department of Energy has decided to complete it
and use it for the manufacture of Tritium. A simple research done on
Tritium will show that it is the most valuable substance on Earth and
that the only use for it will be in the manufacturing of Nuclear
Weapons.

    If America continues to sign treaties for the reduction of Nuclear
Arsenals, then why do we need to, for the first time in history,
manufacture Tritium when there is a stockpile that can keep our currently
huge arsenal effective well into the next century. The only reason is for
an expansion of the arsenal.

    This subject is discussed here like an everyday thing, because people
are hypnotized by the idea of 500 new jobs instead of the world wide
implications of such a plant. I am hoping that someone somewhere will
read this and get the word out worldwide about what is going on in
Bellefont and stop it before it is too late.



                    Michael Bernard

                    Scottsboro, Alabama

</smaller></fontfamily>

_______________________________________________________________________


* Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org - Convert the War Machines! *

_______________________________________________________________________

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tracy Moavero <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) ACTION ALERT CORRECTION
Date: 11 Nov 1998 11:57:54 -0800 (PST)

It seems that I accidentally put an extra digit in the US Mission fax number
in the action alert below. The correct number is 212-415-4119 or you can try
212-415-4443. Today the US voted against the Malaysia (International Court
of Justice) resolution at the UN, which passed by a vote of 100 to 25 with
23 absentions. The vote on the New Agenda Coalition is expected Friday
morning, and the pressure on other countries to vote against is extremely
high. Let's show them that we see what's going on and that the US position
does not reflect what the people want.

Tracy Moavero

ACTION ALERT: UNITED STATES BLOCKING PROGRESS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

The Cold War may be long over, but the United States and other declared
nuclear powers still cling to their nuclear weapons. An estimated 36,000
nuclear weapons remain in the world's nuclear arsenals, thousands of them
ready to launch on a moment's notice, and the nuclear powers continue to
squander billions of dollars on nuclear weapons research and development.
Meanwhile an ever growing list of countries are lining up to join the
nuclear club, raising the specter of a new, more deadly chapter in tbe arms
race and the danger of a nuclear strike somewhere in the world.

A New Arms Race or a New Agenda?

The United Nations General Assembly is about to vote on two important
nuclear disarmament resolutions. One, sponsored by Ireland and seven other
nations calls for a New Agenda for nuclear disarmament. These governments
(Ireland, Brazil, South Africa, Slovenia, Mexico, Sweden, Egypt, and New
Zealand) have recognized that without a serious new approach, the dangerous
legacy of the Cold War will live on. Their New Agenda includes a call for
negotiations on a treaty that would eliminate nuclear weapons. Malaysia has
introduced a resolution calling on nations to honor the 1996 International
Court of Justice opinion that a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons is
required by law.

The United States, preferring the nuclear status quo, has strongly rejected
these resolutions and is intensively lobbying other nations to vote them
down. The US delegation needs to hear from you! A vote is expected by
November 13.

Take Action to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Contact US Ambassador to the United Nations Robert Grey Jr., United States
Mission to the United Nations, 799 UN Plaza, New York NY 10017, Fax [phone]
cc: President William Jefferson Clinton, The White House, Washington DC
20500, Fax [phone]

Tell the Ambassador
* The United States should be leading the world toward the abolition of
nuclear weapons instead of blocking good faith efforts to jumpstart the
stalled disarmament process.

* Support the Malaysian and New Agenda resolutions submitted to the United
Nations.

* Contrary to your statement at the UN, the continued existence of thousands
of nuclear weapons IS a clear and present danger to life on the planet.

* Past reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals are welcome but insufficient.

* The United States should support and advance verifiable measures to
immediately reduce the nuclear danger.
******************************************
Tracy Moavero
Peace Action International Office
866 UN Plaza, Room 4053
New York, NY 10017-1822
USA
Tel.:  [phone]
Fax:   [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Web:   www.peace-action.org

Peace Action is a member of the International Peace Bureau and Abolition
2000: A Global Network for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, and has
endorsed the Hague Appeal for Peace


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sue Broidy <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Grassroots International A2000 News
Date: 11 Nov 1998 12:11:25 -0800 (PST)

Grassroots News from Austria and Egypt

Great Results to Inspire the Abolition 2000 Movement

We have wonderful news from Bahig Nasser our Abolition 2000 Regional
Representative in Cairo, Egypt.  He has sent us the names of 50
organizations who have recently endorsed the Abolition 2000 statement - 23
from Egypt, 5 in Syria, 9 in Palestine,3 in Israel, 1 each in Bahrain,
Morocco ,Kuwait, Libya, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Algeria and Tunisia.

He also sent the following list of important leaders who have signed the
petition:

Khalid Moheey El- Eden
The leader of the parlimentarian opposition in the People' s Assembly of
Egypt ( the first house )
President of the Arab Coordination Center of NGOs

Prof.Dr. Refaat El Said
Professor of history
Expert in the field of Islamic fundamentalism
Member of the Shoura Council ( the Second house )

Prof.Dr. Ismail Sabry Abdallah
Former minister of planning in Egypt
President of the Third World Forum
Cooperative expert with UN

Dr. Mourad Ghalib
Former minister of foreign affairs in Egypt
President of APPSO

Prof.Dr. Samir Amin
Former director of  Devlpoment and planning institute for Africa  ( UN
University ),Dakar, Senegal
Currently ,Director of Third World Forum , Dakar , Senegal.
and Chairman of Arab Research Center

Mr. Farouk Abou Essa
Former foreign minister of Sudan
Currently Secretary General of Arab Lawyers Union


 Dr. Mohamed Shaker
Former Ambassador, Expert in the field of nuclear weapons
President of the  NPT THIRD REVIEW CONFERENCE.

 Mr. Mohamed Fayek
former minister of Media in Egypt
currently Secretary General of Arab Organization of Human Rights

Mr. Omran Elshafei
Former assistant to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt

Prof. Dr.Mostafa Elway,Egypt
Expert in the field of security and conflict resolution

Prof. Dr. Hassan Nafaa,Egypt
Expert in the field of UN and other international organizations

Mr. Taher Shash
Former judge and former Ambassador,Egypt
 Expert in the field of Human rights and Humanitarian Laws

Dr.Ahmed Abdul Halim (Retired General )
Deputy President of National Center for Middle East Studies
Expert in the field of Disarmament and Nuclear Weapons

Dr. Essmat Ezz (Retired General )
Pugwash
Expert in the field of Disarmament and Nuclear Weapons

Prof Dr.Fawzy Hammad
Former president of Atomic Energy Authority of Egypt

Prof. Dr.Abd Elgwad Emmara
Expert in the field of Nuclear Energy.

NEWS FROM AUSTRIA

We were also very pleased to hear recently from Georg Breuer in Vienna,
Austria who sent us  news about his great achievements for Abolition 2000.

The following people have signed the petition:

Cardinal Dr. Franz Konig, former Archbishop of Vienna
Alois Kothgasser, Bishop of Innsbruck
Reinhold Stecher, former Bishop of Innsbruck
Gertraud Knoll, Protestant Superintendentin
Werner Horn, Superintendent
Alfred Stingl, Lord Mayor of Graz
Ferdinand Lacina, former Minister of Finance
Peter Kostelka, leader of the Social Democratic Party in Parliament
Albrecht Konecny, leader of the Social Democratic Party in the Bundesrat
(Senate)

also: a socialist MP and five members of the Bundesrat: all nine Green MPs
and many Green regional and communal deputies and party functionaries; a
dozen university professors; several prominent actors and a number of other
well known Austrians.

Georg writes," We also wrote to some 200 groups and organizations informing
them about the petition and inviting them to spread it among their members,
to publish it in their bulletins and to contact you directly if they want
to become part of the network...More and more signed forms are coming in.
So far I received 750 signatures.  At my post office I shoed the petition
to the girl at the counter.  She said, That's fine, give me one" and
collected the signatures of all her colleagues in the office."

He also gave us the names of four potential partner organizations we will
be contacting immediately.

This is all very encouraging and hopefully will inspire others to do the
same. Look for this information on our website at
http://www.wagingpeace.org and watch the numbers grow!


Sincerely,

Sue Broidy
Coordinator, Abolition 2000
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
1187 Coast Village Road
Santa Barbara CA 93108

Phone [phone]  FAX[phone]

Email: [e-mail]
Website http://www.waginpeace.org/abolition2000

To subscribe to the abolition-usa listerve, send a message (no subject) to
[e-mail]
To post to the list, mail to: [e-mail]

To subscribe to the international abolition-caucus, send a message (no
subject) to [e-mail]
To post to the list, mail to: [e-mail]



-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Timothy Bruening <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) My new GOP Congressman Doug Ose and military spending
Date: 11 Nov 1998 21:48:39 -0800 (PST)

The 3rd Congreessional District of California has a new GOP Representative
named Doug Ose.  I saw him decry government waste in his TV ads.  I would
like to help him in his mission to fight government waste by sending him a
list of wasteful military projects.  Please send me a list of wasteful
military programs.

I would also like to see peace activists meet with Doug Ose to urge him to
oppose wasteful military programs.  His email is [e-mail].


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) draft statement on Iraq
Date: 12 Nov 1998 01:03:24 EST


  Friends,

  This is a DRAFT statement which I prepared earlier this year for the War
Resisters League. I don't believe it was adopted in this form by WRL but I
send it on as a basis for discussion because - unhappily, very unhappily - not
much has changed and this analysis remains pretty much on target, in my view.

 In terms of what can be done NOW, while I certainly support all calls for
"day after" actions, it is urgent that in this brief span of time before the
die is cast (if that time still remains), we call or write our members of
Congress, to express our absolute opposition to Clinton's course. He should
not be impeached for his sexual life, but his political life, from the erratic
and illegal bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan to the impending illegal and
unilaterial military action against Iraq is very much the basis for charges of
impeachment.

 Peace,
 David McReynolds, staff, War Resisters League, NYC

  David McReynolds
  War Resisters League Statement on Iraq

  It is necessary, as we examine the present crisis, to concede that the
government of Iraq is an unlovely one, an oppressive military dictatorship.
As such, it joins a number of other unlovely regimes, such as those in
Indonesia, Burma, Syria, Iran, some of which have strong U.S. support (the
United States is currently supplying military aid to Indonesia, in spite of a
record of oppression of its own people as well as those in East Timor).
  And we remind ourselves, even as the drums of war are heard on the nightly
news, that democratic governments can do terrible things, to match anything
Saddam has done.  We look at our own recent history in Indochina, in Central
America, in Panama. We remember that we, alone, have used nuclear weapons -
the ultimate weapon of mass terror.
  Let us, therefore, begin by not allowing the nightly news, nor the daily
headlines, to make up our minds for us. The current crisis is a manufactured
one, and the United States is functioning once more as a bully because it is
the only true "super power" in the world. When Iraq attacked Iran, and a war
dragged on from 1980 to 1988 during which time a million young men from both
nations were killed, the United States said and did absolutely nothing. Since
both Iraq and Iran were considered hostile to U.S. interests, the terrible
slaughter (with weapons eagerly supplied to the two sides by outside dealers,
including the U.S.) was not covered on the evening news, nor was it an
occasion for urgent meetings of the Security Council.

  Today Iraq has attacked no one. It lost the Gulf War, it was driven from
Kuwait (which was not a democracy when Iraq invaded it, and has not become a
democracy since its "liberation"), it suffered massive destruction from U.S.
air strikes which crippled much of its infrastructure. The United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization estimates (December, 1995) that the UN-imposed
blockade has killed more than 567,000 under the age of five, due to lack of
food or medical supplies. More than 4,500 children under the age of five are
dying each month from hunger and disease (United Nations Children's Fund,
October 19, 1996).

  We can deplore the failure of Saddam to accept the terms the UN has laid
down - which amount to unconditional surrender. But Saddam is hardly
exceptional in defying UN Resolutions. You would never guess it from Peter
Jennings or Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather, but for the sixth year in a row the
United Nations General Assembly has voted by overwhelming margins against the
U.S. embargo on Cuba. This year Japan, Canada, and the entire European Union
voted against the U.S. - only two countries - Israel and Uzbekistan - voted to
support the U.S. We must ask by what right the United States defies the United
Nations (failing even to pay its dues), and yet feels free to threaten war
against Iraq. And, in the Middle East, Israel has repeatedly shown utter
contempt for UN resolutions and even, as in the case of the Oslo Accords, with
treaties it signed.

 President Clinton has rarely been less candid or convincing than when he
talks about the danger of Iraqi chemical and biological warfare. Yes, such
weapons are profoundly dangerous. Unhappily it has to be assumed that not only
does the U.S. possess such weapons but that in the Middle East Iran, Syria,
and Israel can all be assumed to have them or be working on their development.
Certainly Israel has a number of nuclear weapons and has threatened to use
them. The United States Congress has not yet voted full U.S. compliance with
the international treaties banning chemical weapons.  The U.S., while
demanding that UN teams (heavily staffed with U.S. inspectors) be permitted
on-site inspection anywhere in Iraq, has refused to accept the same
verification measures for itself.

 We deplore all weapons of mass destruction and terror - and note that most of
these weapons are held by the United States. We deplore all war. We deplored
and spoke out against the Iraqi attack on Iran when the U.S. was silent. We
deplored Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people while the U.S. was
silent - and even provided massive funding to Israel.  Most of all we have
spoken out against the double standards so swiftly resorted to by the U.S.
President, Secretary of State, and Congressional leaders.

 The Gulf War has been over for six years. It is time to end the sanctions
against Iraq, which have achieved nothing except terrible suffering within
Iraq. We deeply oppose the U.S. policy of choosing "an enemy of the month" to
help fuel support for military spending.
  The government of Iraq has committed a number of "sins" but they are hardly
unique.  The government of Syria is at least as undemocratic and ruthless as
Iraq, but the U.S. is eager to bring Syria into peace negotiations. The
government of Israel is, on a daily basis, engaged in the oppression of the
Palestinian people, destroying their homes and subjecting them to military
occupation. The government of Indonesia has engaged in unspeakable oppression
in East Timor - but it long had a warm and friendly relationship with Bill
Clinton.

  It should now be clear that despite the enormous military power of the U.S.,
its position on Iraq does not even command full support of its European
allies, which are desperately searching for alternatives to war. And it should
be clear that the government of the United States continues to play a shell
game with the American people, focusing on the "wrong-doing" of some
governments as if they were unique, while ignoring similar "wrong-doing" by
governments we are doing business with.

 While we directly urge the government of Iraq to take steps to assure the
world that it will not produce nuclear weapons or chemical and biological
weapons, we also directly urge that every government take similar steps and,
most important, that those nations possessing the ultimate weapon of mass
terror - the nuclear bomb - move toward a world with zero nuclear weapons.

  At this point, and judged on the record, the good faith of Bill Clinton and
the U.S. government is no better than that of Saddam Hussein.  To say that is
not to speak in support of Saddam Hussein, but to suggest how much Americans
need to focus on fundamentally changing our own government. Not only is the
United States not authorized to be the "cop of the world", it is not qualified
to play that role. International conflicts must be resolved within the
framework of the United Nations, free of the constant threats by the U.S.
government to engage in unilateral military action.

  Finally, we must point out that behind the dramas of confrontation between
Sadaam and Clinton are the ordinary working people of Iraq, who cannot vote
freely, yet are the targets of the U.S. sanctions and of Clinton's threats.
There is, in the U.S. approach to Iraq, and to much of the Middle East, a
profound arrogance which overlooks the fact that much of civilization may well
have had its origins here in the fertile crescent. The people who live there
merit a greater measure of human respect than its seems possible for a heavily
armed state such as our own to give. There is about U.S. policy, both in
dealing with Iraq, and also in dealing with Libya, a sense that no national
leader who defies a U.S. President should be able to "get away with it".
Clinton has continued this unhappy tradition of "personalizing foreign
policy", which made it so very hard to bring the Indochina War to an end. The
old saying is that "pride goes before a fall" and in this case, the pride to
worry about is not in Baghdad but in Washington D.C.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Speaker Livingston's Backers: Defense Contractors
Date: 12 Nov 1998 07:48:41 -0500

It's good to get this information, although it's disturbing.  Do we need to
put some pressure on the House NOW not to elect Livingston to Speaker?

Ellen Thomas
[e-mail]


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Livingstons-Backers.html

November 12, 1998

        Defense Cos. Big Livingston Backers

        By The Associated Press

        WASHINGTON (AP) -- Though he has no major
        Pentagon installations in his district, Louisiana
        Republican Rep. Bob Livingston, the man in line to
        become House speaker, has raised more money from
        defense companies than from any other source.

        That's because in the Washington money game, where
        you sit matters more than where you're from. And for the
        last four years, Livingston has sat at the head of the
        Appropriations Committee, deciding where billions of
        federal dollars go.

        Even before ascending to the committee's top post,
        Livingston was a member of the Appropriations
        subcommittee that wrote the annual defense spending
        bill, supporting more money for the military.

        ``They are his closest friends in Washington,'' said
        Charles Lewis, director of the Center for Public
        Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group. ``They have
        sponsored his career to this point. When you're a
        politician, you tend to remember who your good friends
        are over time. These defense companies have been close
        to him for the last decade.''

        Since he became Appropriations chairman, other special
        interests also have been generous, according to Federal
        Election Commission records. In 1994, the election that
        gave the Republicans control of the House, Livingston
        raised $169,032 from political action committees.
        Through Oct. 14 of this year, PACs contributed
        $578,951 to Livingston's re-election committee and an
        additional $389,878 to the leadership PAC that he
        formed in March.

        Some of these contributions closely tracked issues
        before Livingston's Appropriations Committee. For
        instance:

        --The drug company Schering-Plough contributed
        $10,370 to Livingston's re-election committee and his
        PAC. Livingston ultimately backed the company's
        unsuccessful efforts in the closing weeks of the
        congressional session to gain a patent extension for its
        anti-allergy drug Claritin. Schering-Plough lobbyist
        Robert Lively also provided $448 worth of tickets to a
        Baltimore Orioles game to assist a Livingston-related
        fund-raiser.

        --Chrysler Corp. contributed $5,000 to Livingston's
        leadership PAC on Oct. 3 and $2,000 to Livingston's
        re-election committee on Oct. 6, as the final spending
        bill was being written. The legislation prevented the
        federal government from increasing the fuel efficiency
        standard for light trucks and cars.

        --In the spring, the House debated whether to impose
        new standards on managed care health organizations.
        Livingston's PAC received $2,000 from Blue
        Cross-Blue Shield, one of the leaders of the lobbying
        effort to block new regulations, and $7,500 from two
        members of the anti-regulation lobbying group
        Healthcare Leadership Council: Tenet Healthcare Corp.
        and the U.S. Surgical Corp.

        ``We are here to raise money for Republican
        candidates,'' said John Emling, executive director of
        Livingston's Building Our Bases PAC, which raised
        $1.1 million in seven months. ``The timing of the
        contributions? We get them when they're sent.''

        Still, the defense industry has helped lead the way.
        Livingston's two most generous givers are from nowhere
        near his home state of Louisiana: Textron, based in
        Rhode Island, which has contributed $43,000 over the
        last decade, and Maryland-based Lockheed Martin,
        which has given $39,800.

        ``You have natural allies,'' Emling said. ``Bob is a
        defense hawk. It's logical that defense-related industries
        are going to support him. We've had a dialogue with
        them for years.''

        Livingston has taken pride in helping to spare the
        Pentagon the same sort of paring that other agencies
        have endured in the drive to balance the federal budget.

        ``We do not apologize for trying to maximize the dollars
        we put into this bill and provide for the national defense
        of this country,'' Livingston declared in June.

        Defense contractors say they appreciate his support.

        ``He's been an articulate advocate for our industry,''
        Lockheed Martin spokesman Charles Manor explained.
        ``We have a high comfort level with Bob Livingston.''

----------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Livingston-Glance.html

November 12, 1998

        List of Livingston's Major Donors

        By The Associated Press

        The five companies, all defense contractors, whose
        employees and political action committees have made
        the heaviest donations to Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La.,
        since 1987, according to Federal Election Commission
        records and the Center for Public Integrity:

        --Textron Inc., $43,000.

        --Lockheed Martin, $39,800.

        --Diagnostic Retrieval Systems, $35,000.

        --Avondale Industries, $32,650.

        --Northrop Grumman, $31,900.



        Related Information From Hoover's Inc.

Avondale Industries -
   http://www.nytimes.com/partners/quote/hoovers.cgi?ticker=AVDL
Chrysler Corp -
   http://www.nytimes.com/partners/quote/hoovers.cgi?ticker=C
Lockheed Martin Corp -
   http://www.nytimes.com/partners/quote/hoovers.cgi?ticker=LMT
Northrop Grumman Corp -
   http://www.nytimes.com/partners/quote/hoovers.cgi?ticker=NOC
Tenet Healthcare Corp -
   http://www.nytimes.com/partners/quote/hoovers.cgi?ticker=THC
Schering Plough -
   http://www.nytimes.com/partners/quote/hoovers.cgi?ticker=SGP
United States Surgical -
   http://www.nytimes.com/partners/quote/hoovers.cgi?ticker=USS -

_______________________________________________________________________

* Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org - Convert the War Machines! *
_______________________________________________________________________

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Save Ward Valley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) My new GOP Congressman Doug Ose and military spending
Date: 12 Nov 1998 08:48:53 -0800

This message if for Timothy Breuning.  What is Doug Ose's stand on the
dumping of radioactive waste in the CA desert, i.e. Ward Valley?

Molly
Save Ward Valley
107 F Street
Needles, CA  92363
ph. 760/326-6267
fax [phone]

www.shundahai.org/SWVAction.html
http://earthrunner.com/savewardvalley
www.ctaz.com/~swv1
http://banwaste.envirolink.org
www.alphacdc.com/ien/wardvly4.html
www.greenaction.org


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Germany and NAC resolution
Date: 12 Nov 1998 14:13:57 -0500

>Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 07:58:03 -0500
>Subject: Germany and NAC resolution
>To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>After endless phone calls and fax messages, brilliant networking and great
>
>connections, we have at last managed to move the German position from a
>no-
>vote to an abstention. Please pass on this information to any contacts you
>
>have in countries where they are trying to do the same.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Xanthe
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>
>Luckauer Str. 5, D-10969 Berlin, Tel: [phone], Fax:(wk)693 8166
>__________________________________________________________________________
>## CrossPoint v3.11 R ##
>
>
>************************************
>*  Kate Dewes                      *
>*  Disarmament and Security Centre *
>*  P O Box 8390                    *
>*  Christchurch                    *
>*  Aotearoa/New Zealand            *
>*  Ph/Fax [phone]           *
>*  [e-mail]         *
>************************************
>
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Culp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) More Encouraging News Today on START II
Date: 12 Nov 1998 16:30:33 -0500

RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY NEWSLINE
Nov. 12, 1998

START-II RATIFICATION ON FAST TRACK?

A new draft law on ratification of the START-II treaty will be
finalized
in 10 days and a vote may be put on the State Duma's agenda in late
November or early December, according to Duma deputy Shokhin. Duma
chairman Gennadii Seleznev said that the new draft is "larger" and
"spells out how to act, how to finance this program, and how to think
about Russia's security," Interfax reported on 12 November.

---------------

MPs OPTIMISTIC ON START 2, SEE VOTE SOON

MOSCOW, Nov. 12, 1998 -- (Reuters) Russian parliamentary leaders said
on
Thursday they were optimistic the lower house would ratify the
long-stalled START 2 strategic arms treaty with the United States.

Centrist Aleksander Shokhin said after a meeting of a council which
manages the Duma, the lower chamber, that the vote on an amended
version
of the ratification law might take place as early as this month.

"The ratification process is now getting to the final stage," said
Shokhin, head of the Our Home Is Russia bloc's parliamentary group.

"It is possible that by the end of November or early December the
issue
will be up for voting at a Duma plenary meeting."

Shokhin said the old version of the draft law, which consisted of only
one line, was inadequate and called for certain conditions and
reservations to be included. He was backed by Gennady Seleznyov, the
Duma's Communist speaker.

"The old law does not suit us. A new draft law has been prepared which
says how Russia should act -- how we should finance this program and
how
we should take care of Russia's security in the future," said
Seleznyov.

Shokhin said a new version of the draft law on ratification would be
prepared in 10 days.

He said the Foreign and Defense ministries approved of the conditions
that the deputies wanted to include in the law, but did not say what
they were.

One condition is expected to be an immediate start to work on a START
3
treaty allowing further reductions in U.S. and Russian arsenals.

Russia's government has repeatedly urged parliament to ratify the
treaty, signed in 1993.

In the latest plea this week, it said approval could help Russia win
foreign credits to tackle the country's worst economic crisis since
the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

That has prompted a string of unusually optimistic comments on the
chances of ratification by parliamentarians from a range of parties.

START 2 slashes the two countries' Cold War nuclear arsenals by up to
two thirds to no more than 3,500 warheads each by 2007.

President Boris Yeltsin and U.S. President Bill Clinton have agreed to
open negotiations on START 3 -- which would cut warheads by another
third or half -- as soon as START 2 comes into force.

The U.S. Senate has ratified START 2, but despite repeated pleas by
the
Kremlin the Duma has held back, concerned by U.S. plans to develop
missile defenses, by NATO expansion and by the cost of scrapping
missiles eliminated by the pact.

Some deputies in the State Duma have said there is as yet no majority
in
favor of ratifying the treaty.

Opposition to ratifying START 2 has long centered on the opposition
Communists, but Russian analysts said the situation had changed since
a
compromise government was formed by Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov,
who
was appointed in September.

Another point that may help is the government's call to build a number
of new Topol-M missiles, known to NATO as the SS-27, to replace some
of
the aging rockets to be scrapped.

(c) 1998 Reuters

---------------

RUSSIAN LAWMAKERS LOOK AT APPROVING NUCLEAR ARMS REDUCTION TREATY
November 12, 1998

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russian parliamentary leaders agreed Thursday to revise
a
bill that could pave the way for ratification of the stalled START II
treaty on sharply reducing Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals.

Gennady Seleznyov, speaker of the State Duma, the lower chamber of
parliament, said a new version of the bill had been drawn up by
several
parliamentary committees and was ready for consideration by the
chamber
and the government. He said the bill could be acted upon in weeks if
President Boris Yeltsin accepts its provisions.

"If the president agrees (with our final version), we'll put it on the
agenda for ratification," he said.

START II would cut Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals in half to 3,500
warheads each. START II was signed by both nations in 1993 and the
U.S.
Senate ratified it in 1996.

The revised bill in the State Duma, parliament's lower house, contains
unspecified stipulations and conditions on which lawmakers insist
after
two years of debate, Seleznyov said. In particular, the bill would
specify how the agreement would be implemented and financed, he said.

Lawmakers objected to Yeltsin's call to approve START II because it
only
gave lawmakers the option of ratifying the treaty without spelling out
other details, he said.

It was not clear if the United States would accept any changes or
revisions raised as conditions for the Duma to approve the treaty.

The Duma repeatedly delayed action on START II with Communist and
nationalist deputies charging it would weaken Russia and be too
expensive too implement. The government of Prime Minister Yevgeny
Primakov, who took office in September, has made a major effort to get
the treaty approved.

Some Russian officials have indicated that the government hopes that
quick ratification of the START II would improve Russia's prospects of
receiving much-needed aid from the International Monetary Fund to
tackle
the country's economic crisis.

Roman Popkovich, head of the Duma's Defense Committee, said Thursday
that ratification of START II would enhance Russia's defense
capability.
The treaty would allow Russia to devote large sums of money to
developing new weapons and reviving the cash-strapped military, he
told
the Interfax news agency.

He said Duma deputies were concerned about such issues as the
expansion
of NATO and deployment of nuclear forces and NATO forces closer to the
Russian border. But he claimed that possible revisions of the treaty
would not alter the "essence" of the treaty.

Copyright (c) 1998 The Associated Press.




-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Culp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) More on START II Ratification from Moscow
Date: 13 Nov 1998 12:51:58 -0500

WOULD SPEEDY START TWO RATIFICATION BRING MORE AID MONEY?

By Floriana Fossato
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Moscow, 12 November 1998 (RFE/RL) -- What do Russia's mysterious
anti-crisis plan and the START-Two arms reduction treaty have in
common?
Apparently a lot, according to the Russian government. At least that
is
what the Russian media are reporting today, following yesterday's
State
Duma session that was closed to the press.

Cabinet members reportedly gave deputies an overview of the state of
Russia's economy and of its prospects for the future. The cabinet, led
by
Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, won the deputies' partial support for
an
anti-crisis program and a draft budget for next year -- something that
previous governments were never able to achieve without a fight.

Government ministers also managed to produce some signs of activity on
the
long-stalled START-Two treaty with the United States.

Primakov recently called on parliamentary leaders to finally ratify
the
treaty -- and his ministers yesterday repeated the call, reportedly
adding
new economic reasons to military ones.

Deputies quoted by Russian news agencies said government ministers --
particularly First Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Maslyukov and Foreign
Minister Igor Ivanov -- strongly lobbied for ratification of the
treaty.

Accounts of the closed session provided by Duma members indicated that
Maslyukov hinted that a quick ratification of START Two would help
Moscow's
quest for Western financial help, especially in talks with the
International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Maslyukov has so far failed to win the release of a much-needed $4.3
billion tranche of an IMF-led $22.6 billion package of loans. The IMF
approved the package in the summer, but froze it when it appeared
clear
that Russia would not be able to meet obligations under the deal. IMF
officials are waiting for Russia's draft 1999 budget to measure its
commitment to stick to a tight economic policy.

Alexander Shokhin, leader of the centrist "Our Home Is Russia" faction
said
"there was no direct link" between the debate on the draft budget and
START
Two. But he added that "many lawmakers made exactly that conclusion
from
the way it was presented."

Russian newspapers came to the same conclusion. The daily "Segodnya"
wrote
today that good news on the progress of the ratification process would
help
Primakov's case for more financial aid in a coming meeting with U.S.
President Bill Clinton.

Primakov is scheduled to meet Clinton during an Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) forum meeting in Kuala Lumpur next week.

START Two was signed in 1993, and the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty
in
1996. However, on the Russian side, Communists and nationalists
dominating
the Duma have so far resisted ratification. They claim that trimming
strategic weapons would harm Russia's security, particularly as NATO
is
expanding. They also argue that Russia cannot afford the costs of
dismantling its arsenal.

START Two slashes the two countries' Cold War nuclear arsenals by up
to
two-thirds to no more than 3,500 warheads each by 2007.

The daily "Kommersant" quoted Maslyukov, who is seen as close to
industries
in Russia's military-industrial complex, as telling deputies that
Russia's
nuclear shield would remain in place, if Russia goes ahead with
building a
new Topol-M missile. This missile, known to NATO as the SS-27 and not
included in START II, would replace some of the aging rockets to be
scrapped under the treaty. Duma speaker Gennady Seleznyov said after
yesterday's session that "these were essentially the last
parliamentary
hearings" on the issue. He told journalists ratification of the treaty
is
no longer a strategic question, but a purely economic one.

Seleznyov said a vote on the issue would be scheduled as soon as the
cash-strapped Primakov government provides concrete figures on how
much the
treaty would cost Russia.

Some deputies in the State Duma say there is as yet no majority in
favor of
ratifying the treaty. Seleznyov's deputy, Vladimir Ryzhkov, agreed,
but
added that "there is essential progress on this question". He said
that
four parliamentary committees would prepare all necessary
documentation on
START Two over the next 10 days, together with proposals for further
action.

Today, Shokhin of the "Our Home Is Russia" faction said the Duma may
vote
on an amended version of the START Two ratification law as early as
this
month.

--------


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Demos opposed to Iraq attack by US
Date: 14 Nov 1998 23:28:09 EST

In a message dated 11/13/98 4:35:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, [e-mail]
writes:

<< Subj:     Demos opposed to Iraq attack by US
 Date:    11/13/98 4:35:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
 From:    [e-mail] (John Reese)
 Sender:    [e-mail]
 To:    [e-mail] (JR)

 PLEASE PASS THIS ON

 PLEASE SEND ANY CHANGES, UPDATES, ADDITIONS TO:  [e-mail]


 INTERNATIONAL:

 OSLO, NORWAY, Day after attack, 4:30 pm if attack occurs on a weekday or
Sunday, 2 pm if
 Saturday
 at the U.S. Embassy, Called by Arnljot Ask (Coalition of 28 organizations)


 IN US:

 ANN ARBOR, MI, Demonstrate the "day after" a military attack, at 5 pm, at the
Liberty
 and 5th Federal Building, if the "day after" is a weekday, or at 12 noon, if
the "day
 after" is a weekend.

 AUSTIN, TEXAS, Day of attack if by 5:00 or day after attack otherwise, State
Capitol
 building, Also: Saturday November 14 at the State Capitol. George Bush will
be there
 promoting his new book

 BALTIMORE, MD, emergency demonstration at Charles & Centre Streets, 5:30 PM
to 7:00 PM
 on the day of aggression.  If the aggression occurs after 5:30 PM, gather the
following
 day.  Bring appropriate signs and banners that speak out against U.S.
terrorism.  Call
 410-323-7200 or 410-243-2077 for information.  BERN's next meeting is
scheduled for
 Monday, Dec. 7 at 7:30 PM at 327 East 25th Street, Baltimore, Maryland.
Baltimore
 Emergency Response Network

 BOSTON, Day after attack, 4:30 pm, at Park Street T-Stop, The Campaign for
the Iraqi
 People

 BURLINGTON, VERMONT, Day AFTER attack, 12 noon, Federal Bldg (Pearl St &
Elmwood),
 Instant Anti-War Coalition, If you live near UVM, meet at the Royall Tyler
steps at
 11:15 to walk to Fed Bldg.

 CHICAGO, Day of attack, 4:30 pm, Federal Bldg, Adams & Dearborn,
312-641-5151, 8th Day
 Center for Justice

 CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE, Day of/Day after attack, 6 PM, at State House Plaza
(weekly
 vigils against the sanctions at same location every Wed at noon),
603-228-0559

 DALLAS TEXAS, Anti-War Rally, Monday, November 16, 1998, 2-3 P.M.  Federal
Building
 Downtown, 1100 Commerce, Dallas Peace Center and other Dallas peace and
justice
 organizations, The Dallas Peace Center, 4301 Bryan Street, Suite #202,
Dallas, Texas
 75204, [phone] - phone, [phone] - fax, [e-mail]

 DAYTON, OHIO, Federal Building In Dayton 5 PM, Same day if attack is before
noon, Next
 day if attack is after noon, Monday if attack is on weekend, Dayton Peace
Action And
 Dayton Pledge Of Resistance, 937-233-3425, 937-277-7102
 Demonstration at 4:30, at Newest Federal Building (corner of 4th & 3rd
streets)

 GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, Day of Attack, 4:30 pm, at 13th & University, bring
signs & black
 arm bands

 HARRISONBURG, VA, 16 students at James Madison U are now in day two of a 7
day fast in
 solidarity with the Iraqi people who have been suffering from U.S.-led United
Nations
 sanctions since August 1990.  Our fast is also in protest of the possibility
of bombing
 Iraq.  We are asking students around the country to wear a tourqious ribbon
in
 solidarity with the sixteen fasters at JMU and their message that neither war
nor
 inhumane sanctions are the answer to the problem with Iraq.

 HARTORD, CONNECTICUT, The day after attack, 11:30-12:30 at the Federal
Building, 457
 Main Street, Hartford

 HONOLULU, HAWAII, Day after attack OR Monday if bombing occurs on a Friday or
the
 weekend, 4 PM, Federal Bldg--on the Nimitz side, Called by Vietnam Veterans
Against the
 War Anti-Imperialist, Honolulu Chapter

 LOS ANGELES, CA, Day of attack, 5pm, Westwood Federal Bldg, 213-487-2368,
International
 Action Center

 MEMPHIS, TN, On going acitons for info 901.458.9907, de Cleyre cooperative

 MINNEAPOLIS, Demonstration against war threats on Iraq, Thursday, November
19th, in
 front of the newest Federal Building (corner of 4th and 3rd streets in
downtown
 Minneapolis), Iraqi Peace Action Coalition--a combined group of Peace and
Justice groups
 in the Twin Cities including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee,
Women
 Against Military Madness, Progressive Student Organization, Committee in
Solidarity with
 the People of El Salvador and MANY others (over 40 groups have endorsed
previous
 actions).

 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, Day of attack if it occurs before 4:30pm, or, Day
after attack
 if it occurs after 4:30pm

 NEW YORK CITY, Protest U.S. Threats To Bomb Iraq, demonstrating on Tuesday,
November 17
 at 4:30 p.m. in Grand Central Station, AND, immediate response demonstration
within 24
 hours in Times Square should the U.S. bomb Iraq before November 17th, The
International
 Action Center, AND, Day after attack, 4:30-6 pm, at Times Square, Called by
 International Action Center AND, organizing meeting, Nov 16, 6:30 pm, at A.J.
Muste
 Institute, 339 Lafayette, 3rd Floor (East Village at Bleeker & Lafayette)

 ORLANDO, FLORIDA, emergency response meetings, every Wed at 10 pm, front lawn
of Rollins
 College (1000 Holt Ave), 407-987-6943

 PHILADELPHIA, PA, Day after attack, noon--nonviolence vigil, Philadelphia
City Hall
 (west side, 15th & Market), 610-544-1818, Brandywine Peace Community

 PORTLAND, OREGON, Demonstrate 4:00 pm-6:00 pm on the day of the attack (the
next day if
 bombing begins after 4:00 p.m.), Federal Building, SW 3rd and Jefferson,
Contact: Peace
 and Justice Works, [phone], [phone]  (Office),
[e-mail],
 http://www.rdrop.com/~pjw/Iraq.html

 SACRAMENTO, CA, Sacramento, California, "Don't Bomb Iraq" Rally, Friday, Nov.
13, 4:30
 PM, at 16th and J streets in Sacramento, info, Sacramento-Yolo Peace Action
at (916)
 448-7157

 SAN FRANCISCO, CA, Day after attack, 5pm, at Market & Powell, 415-821-6545,
 International Action Center

 SAN JOSE, CA, Day after attack, 5pm, Federal Bldg (San Carlos & 2nd St),
Coalition to
 Lift Iraq Sanctions, 408-297-2299, 650-493-9044, 408-428-7379

 SEATTLE, Day AFTER any U.S. attack on any country  (this is to have a meeting
about what
 to do but if enough people show up for a rally of somekind there will
probably be that
 also), 5 PM, Federal Bldg (2nd & Marion), Citizens Concerned for the People
of Iraq,
 Communities Against U.S. Military Aggression, 206-789-5565, 206-547-0952,
ALSO: ===Town
 Hall Meeting===, Friday Nov. 20, 6:30 (UW Main Campus -- Room TBA), The
Education for
 Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC), Student Action Network, and others present a
Town Hall
 Meeting with Jerry Haines (member of the 16th Voices in the Wilderness,
delegation to
 Iraq), veteran Jeff Gustafson (cofounder of EPIC), Ruth Wilson (author of "10
lies about
 Iraq") and others to be annouced.  A march will follow, Call for room or to
help
 organize.  425-747-7673

 ST. LOUIS, Vigil at 8 pm beginning at the Robert A. Young Federal Building
(Spruce and
 Tucker in downtown St. Louis), evening of any US air strike against Iraq, St.
Louis
 Forum for a Just Peace, 314-862-5773
 Tim Craine, Committee to Oppose Gulf War II, [e-mail]

 TUCSON, ARIZONA, Day of attack (Day after if news breaks after 12 noon), 4:30
pm, Tucson
 Federal Bldg, (also weekly vigils to end the sanctions every Thurs 4:30-5:30
at Fed
 Bldg), 520-323-8697, Nuclear Resister

 WASHINGTON DC, Day of/Day after attack, first 5pm after U.S. attack, at the
White House
 (16th St & Pennsylvania Ave NW--on the sidewalk), International Action
Center,
 202-588-1205

 WORCESTER, MASS, Demonstration on Day of (or day after) Attack at 5 PM,
Lincoln Square,
 Contact:  St. Francis and Therese Catholic Worker [phone]
  >>

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Peace CENTRE/USA-- Please call your radio stations...
Date: 15 Nov 1998 01:03:03 EST

In a message dated 11/14/98 10:07:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Subj:     Peace CENTRE/USA-- Please call your radio stations...
 Date:    11/14/98 10:07:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
 From:    [e-mail] (Kathy Kelly)
 To:    [e-mail]

 Dear Friends,

 Deep, heart-felt thanks to all of you for sending us good wishes -- whether
 in writing or in your thoughts -- for Kathy and others who are traveling (so
 far, Bert Sacks, Ken Hannaford-Ricardi, and Anne Montgomery).

 The preparation is going smoothly -- we even have plane tickets!  And we,
 those remaining behind at the office, will keep you posted.

 In the mean time -- to keep this short and to the point -- we would like to
 ask you to contact radio stations in your area and find out whether they
 would be interested in getting a phone call from Baghdad and broadcasting a
 first-hand report of what is going on.

 From our experience in the past, calling in to radio stations is an
 effective way of reaching the public.  We have a fairly good list, but it is
 far from being comprehensive.

 We know we can reach many people, as we have in the past, this way.  Real
 stories from Baghdad help dismantle many myths that the media and our
 government would have us believe in: Saddam Hussein is the only person
 living in Iraq; it's in Iraqis' hands to overthrow their own government
 (while scrounging for food and drinkable water); it's merely a hardship the
 Iraqis are experiencing; Iraq is the only country with a capacity for mass
 destruction,and therefore, needs to be feared; the lives of hundreds of
 thousand children are a price worth paying for...well, I haven't figured
 that one out yet.

 Please call us at the number below and let us know if any radio stations
 would be interested in hearing from Kathy and company.  (Please don't let us
 stop you from contacting other forms of media, such as TV, if you can.  We'd
 greatly appreciate any help you can give us.)

 The information we need is:
         names of people to ask for
         a phone number with a real person behind it
         when is the best time to call? (FYI - There is an eight-hour time
 difference between Baghdad and the East Coast, that is, if it's 12pm in NY,
 it's 8pm in Baghdad; 10pm Seattle, then 9am in Baghdad.  The delegation
 anticipates being able to call between 8am and 10pm Baghdad time.
 In short,       East Coast --   12am (midnight) until 2pm
                 Central --      11pm            until 1pm
                 West Coast --   9pm             until 11am
 Apologies for these excruciating details, it's mostly for me to get it
 straight.


 Many thanks as always.  We couldn't do this without you.



 Praying for peace,

 Soyun Kim
 for Voices in the Wilderness





 Voices in the Wilderness
 A Campaign to End the US/UN Economic Sanctions Against the People of Iraq
 1460 West Carmen Ave.
 Chicago, IL 60640
 ph:773-784-8065; fax: [phone]
 email: [e-mail]
 website: http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw

  >>

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) IRAQ: MOBILIZE NOW! (FWD from Washington Peace Center)
Date: 15 Nov 1998 05:59:04 -0500

Please join the following actions organized by the D.C. Coalition to Stop the
U.S. War on Iraq.

Sunday, November 15 9:30a.m.-11 a.m.
Zap Action!  Protest outside ABC's This Week with David Brinkley.  At ABC News
on DeSalles St., next to the Mayflower Hotel

Tuesday, November 17 4 p.m.-6 p.m.
Demonstration at the White House!  Bring signs and join us while we picket on
the White House sidewalk.

Wednesday, November 18 7 p.m.
Organizing Meeting of the D.C. Coalition to Stop the U.S. War on Iraq.  All
welcome.  At 1640 Hobart St., 1 block west of Mt. Pleasant St.  (Take the 42,
S2, S4, or H2 buses)

Saturday, November 21
March and Rally
11 a.m. Gather at Dupont Circle
for a March to the White House followed by a rally.
Town Hall Meeting 2 p.m.
details will be announced soon, watch your email!

Please send this email to all who may be interested!  Stop the bombing!  End
the Sanctions!  Stop the U.S. War on Iraq!

Come to these actions and stop the bombing before it starts, so that we don't
have to activate the following contingency plan:
5 p.m. following a U.S. attack on Iraq, gather at the White House for a
demonstration.

For more information, respond to this email or call the Washington Peace
Center at 202-234-2000.


_______________________________________________________________________

* Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org - Convert the War Machines! *
_______________________________________________________________________

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Demos opposed to Iraq attack by US
Date: 15 Nov 1998 15:14:07 EST

For a complete list of demos (though with the crisis seemingly past, it is
doubtful we will have them) has been put out by one of the WRL folks in
Seattle. Note the address in the cc box.

<< Subj:     Re: Demos opposed to Iraq attack by US
 Date:    11/15/98 3:27:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
 From:    [e-mail] (Steve Liguori)
 To:    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

 Where do I find info on these?

  >>

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: OVER 3,000 PEACE/ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AVAILABLE
Date: 16 Nov 1998 01:33:10 EST

I want to second Bill's friendly SPAM - and am sending it also to the US list.
Housman's Peace Diary is really essential to international workers - and has a
nice intro on Abolition 2000.

Peace,
David McReynolds

<< Subj:     OVER 3,000 PEACE/ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AVAILABLE
 Date:    11/15/98 11:30:06 PM Eastern Standard Time
 From:    [e-mail] (Robert Smirnow)
 Sender:    [e-mail]
 To:    [e-mail]

 ----
 From: Housmans Peace Resource Project <[e-mail]>
 Sender: [e-mail]
 To: [e-mail] (Robert Smirnow), [e-mail]
 Date:          Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:06:28
 Subject:       Re: ANTI-NUCLEAR CONTACTS, GREENPEACE OUTLETS, MORE
 Reply-to: [e-mail]



     Anyone interested Contact:
 [e-mail]   Thank you. Phone, Fax #s listed below.



 FROM:  Housmans Peace Resource Project, 5 Caledonian Road, Kings
 Cross, London N1, UK (tel [phone]; fax [phone];
 e-mail [e-mail]).

 Dear friends

 Please note that if you need a source of reference giving postal
 addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers, e-mail addresses, etc, not
 only of Greenpeace International offices around the world but
 also of over 3000 other peace, environmental and related
 organisations, you can find all this in the World Peace Database
 published by this project.  Please e-mail me if you want more
 details.

 Best wishes

           Albert Beale
           (Editor, World Peace Database and Directory)


 > Date sent:      Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:49:36 -0600 (CST)
 > From:           [e-mail] (Robert Smirnow)
 > Subject:        ANTI-NUCLEAR CONTACTS, GREENPEACE OUTLETS, MORE
 > To:             [e-mail]

 >      Friends,
 >               I hope you find the following useful for future
 > postings.If interested, there are between 30-35 international
 > Greenpeace branches available through their international
 Headquarters
 > in Amsterdam.I store all of them in my address book & post or forward

 > at will.All international access codes for faxes starting with 011
 are
 > FROM the United States out.
 >
 >
             ...........................
                     .............................
 >
 >        No-Nukes,
 >                 Bill Smirnow
 >
  >>

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: MCC delegation to Iraq sees first-hand sanctions' devastating impact
Date: 17 Nov 1998 05:02:26 EST

Another post from the Mennonites. The reality behind the human lives so
casually dealt with by the empty heartless talking heads of the TV panels.

David McReynolds

<< Subj:     MCC delegation to Iraq sees first-hand sanctions' devastating impact
 Date:    11/12/98 3:46:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
 From:    [e-mail] (Jon Harder, Minneapolis, MN)
 Sender:    [e-mail]

 BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Strict economic sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990
 prior to the Persian Gulf War have created widespread suffering in
 this once prominent Middle Eastern country.  A seven-member Mennonite
 Central Committee (MCC) delegation saw this first-hand during an
 October 27 to November 5 visit to Iraq. The group, composed of MCC
 staff, a U.S. journalist and a Canadian hospital administrator, toured
 hospitals and a school and met with  government and church leaders.

 The Iraqi Red Crescent Society, similar to the Red Cross, hosted the
 MCC delegation.  MCC's only MCC worker in Iraq, Wanda Kraybill,
 organized the delegation's schedule.  Kraybill is from Lancaster, Pa.

 Eight years of  sanctions:  Snapshots of an unfolding disaster

 * Bob Herr of MCC's Peace Office noticed especially the devastated
 state of Iraqi children's heath.  "It's becoming quite evident that
 the impact of years of war, and now sanctions, are taking a toll, and
 that impact is landing with brutal force on innocent children.  Rates
 of child malnutrition and disease are all up sharply in recent years,"
 he noted.   Many of Iraq's water filtration systems remain in
 disrepair and even the most basic medicines are scarce.

 *  Pearl Sensenig of  MCC's Communications department recalled
 visiting a hospital in the southern city of Basra.  There a 52-year
 old school superintendent lay in a fly-infested ward, facing a
 hysterectomy, knowing that no painkillers were available.  The head
 doctor said the anesthesiologist would have to do his job with "his
 hand on his heart," knowing that he'll have to rely on guesswork
 rather than proper medical supplies to put the woman to sleep for the
 operation, and then wake her again.

 *  Peter Peters of White City, Sask., reflected on the young beggars
 and shoe-shine boys who crowded around him.  "Every kind of emotion"
 from annoyance to frustration to anger to horror -- welled up in me.
 The ongoing, all-encompassing sanctions place children --  who should
 be society's greatest treasure --  into the streets."  Iraqis too
 expressed horror at the growing phenomenon of street children, which
 they say was formerly unheard of.  With huge increases in food prices
 and the collapse of the Iraqi currency, many families need every bit
 of income they can gather.

 * Daryl Byler, director of MCC's Washington office, reflected,
 "Everywhere tired eyes told the story of millions for whom life has
 become a daily struggle for survival.  In hospitals poorly paid
 doctors are squeezing the last drops of healing from out-dated medical
 equipment and scarce supplies.  We met and heard about doctors,
 engineers and lawyers working as taxi drivers to supplement their
 meager incomes."

 * Tim Wichert of MCC's Ontario office remarked on both the frustration
 and the hope he noticed among Iraqis. "At the pediatric hospital we
 met kids with their mothers, unsure where enough medication would be
 available for their treatment.  That evening we watched as more than
 100 newlyweds, accompanied by their extended families and hired
 musicians, checked into our hotel, obviously hopeful for a brighter
 future."

 Others on the delegation included Elizabeth Cummings, editor of the
 Central Penn Business Journal in Harrisburg, Pa., and Paul
 Pereverzoff, former MCC Jordan program director.

 The MCC Peace Office organized this delegation in response to a call
 from MCC workers in the Middle East for greater attention to the
 impact of U.N. sanctions on Iraq.  MCC staff at the United Nations in
 New York and in the Washington office will continue discussions with
 officials.

 Another delegation is scheduled to visit Iraq in January 1999, further
 focusing attention on the impact of sanctions on Iraqi people,
 especially on children.

 -30- pls13november1998

 MCC photos available:

 1) At Al Monsour Pediatric Hospital in Baghdad, Iraq, Canadian
 hospital administrator Peter Peters delights Stalone, 7, with a packet
 of toys and candy.  Stalone, who suffers from leukemia, is one of the
 lucky few.  In December his mother plans to take him to Italy for a
 bone marrow transplant.  Most parents with sick children struggle to
 afford even basic medicines, often selling off refrigerators, TVs and
 other household items.   Peters of White City, Sask., was in Iraq from
 October 27 to November 5 as part of an MCC delegation.  Currently
 Peters is executive director of the Saskatchewan Cancer Foundation in
 Regina, Sask., and is a member of Regina Peace Mennonite Church.  (MCC
 photo by Pearl Sensenig)

 2) At the Red Crescent center in Basra, Iraq, a woman implores MCC
 worker Wanda Kraybill (right) for insulin for her diabetic child.  Due
 to strict economic sanctions, Iraq imports only a portion of the
 medicines it did prior to the Persian Gulf War.  Those Iraqis with
 chronic illness are especially affected because they need a
 continuous, steady supply of medicines to remain well.  Kraybill is
 from Lancaster, Pa., where she is a member of East Chestnut Street
 Mennonite Church.  (MCC photo by Pearl Sensenig)

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                Reprinting this article is encouraged.
                       Please send clippings to
                          MCC Communications
                             P.O. Box 500
                         Akron, PA  17501-0500
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  >>

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) ACTION ALERT-UN NAC resolution
Date: 17 Nov 1998 16:18:05 -0500

Dear Friends,
As you may have read on this list, the vote on the UN resolution for a New
Agenda for rapid nuclear disarmament was the first breach in the NATO
coldwar wall.  While the US lobbied furiously in all the NATO capitals,
Canada (in a replay of its landmines role) lobbied against the US and all
of the NATO nations (except for Turkey, UK and France) abstained on the
vote instead of voting NO as the US requested! (Canada. Germany,
Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Luxembourg, Iceland,
Irtaly, Denmark)  Also abstaining were Japan and Australia.  The final vote
was 97 yes, 19 no, and 32 abstentions.  The Resolution was voted on in the
UN's First Committee which deals with disarmament issues and will be voted
on by the full General Assembly, probably the first week in December.
Listed below is the disgraceful US speech explaining its vote against the
resolution.

WRITE A LETTER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON ASKING HIM TO CHANGE THE US VOTE FROM
NO TO YES!
TELL HIM THAT NUCLEAR ABOLITION'S TIME HAS COME AND WE CAN NO LONGER HOLD
ON TO OUR OLD COLDWAR POLICIES AND EXPECT THAT OTHER COUNTRIES WILL NOT
ALSO WANT TO JOIN THE NUCLEAR CLUB

If you have international contacts ask them to write their governments: in
the countries which abstained, to change their vote to YES; in the
countries which voted YES, to thank them; in countries which were absent,
to vote YES in the General Assembly vote. (the full voting list will be
posted later)

Explanation of Vote on L.48

BEFORE THE VOTE

Towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World:  The Need for a New Agenda

Mr. Chairman,

Since the United States has already spoken at some length on the reasons
for its opposition to L.48, I will be brief.  We have two major concerns:

--first, this resolution calls into question a fundamental doctrine of our
defense and that of our allies and

--second, far from advancing the nuclear disarmament agenda, it will in all
probability delay it.

Mr. Chairman,

As to the first point, the representative of one of the original sponsors
could not have been clearer when, in response to the statement of our
British colleague, he said that the resolution was intended to call into
question the doctrine of deterrence.

This doctrine has stood in the United Statesand indeed, the world in good
stead for the past half century.  It has kept the peace and ended the Cold
War.  Along with our allies we reviewed it recently and concluded that it
should remain the basis for our defense.  Article 51 of the Charter gives
us all the right to take measures for individual and collective self
defense.  My country will continue to exercise that right.

Beyond this, the sponsors of this resolution seem to believe that the
doctrine of deterrence is a major obstacle to more rapid progress on
nuclear disarmament and conversely that if only it were abandoned, the
nuclear powers would disarm speedily.  We disagree.  Nuclear weapons and
nuclear disarmament do not exist in a vacuum.  The nuclear disarmament
process can take place only in the context of national security interests;
the dramatic progress we have made to date has been possible because of
changes in the international security climate, even as it has contributed
to the increased stability that make further progress possible.


The United States intends to continue to move towards greater security and
stability at lower levels of weapons in a step-by-step process towards the
ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons.  But the security and stability
would be empty concepts without nuclear deterrence.  Let me be clear: you
will not make nuclear disarmament occur faster by suggesting that a
fundamental basis of our national security for more than fifty years is
illegitimate.

Mr. Chairman,

As to the second point, we have already noted that far from a new agenda this
resolution contains a mix of items already on the arms control/disarmament
agenda; proposals of which de-alerting is one we have already considered and
rejected; and suggestions such as the call for a nuclear disarmament
conference that will lead nowhere.  Indeed, if the purpose of this
resolution is to speed the nuclear disarmament process, it can only be
counter-productive.

--By lecturing the nuclear weapons states about their inadequacies, while
neglecting to criticize the actions of states that have conducted recent
nuclear weapons tests and have thereby damaged the global non-proliferation
regime, the resolution will hardly encourage the entry into force of the
CTBT or START II.  Instead, it will only give aid and comfort to those who
are skeptical about multilateral arms control and disarmament.

--By seeming to require a new commitment to nuclear disarmament as a
prerequisite to further steps to reduce nuclear weapons, it will only
provide an excuse for delay.

--Finally, by proclaiming the need for a new agenda and for still another
conference on nuclear disarmament, it calls into question the agendas on
which the international community already agrees, such as the ôPrinciples
and Objectives for Disarmament and Non-Proliferationö and tends to
undermine existing forums, such as the CD, the enhanced NPT review process,
and the First Committee and other UN disarmament machinery, including a
possible SSOD-IV.  We do not understand how this would promote speedier
progress on disarmament.

Mr. Chairman,

This resolution is still another example of ôfeel goodö arms control.  The
proponents may believe they will accomplish something, but the resolution
destroys no weapons, prevents no proliferation and makes the world no
safer.  My delegation hopes that many of our friends and allies decide they
can not support this unnecessary and potentially harmful resolution.  The
United States for its part will continue to pursue meaningful measures to
reduce and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and their delivery
systems, as well as preventing the proliferation of such weapons.



Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews: Nov. 17, 1998
Date: 17 Nov 1998 16:25:57 -0500


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-11/17/059l-111798-idx.html

Kerrey: U.S. Should Cut Nuclear Arms Unilaterally

              By Walter Pincus
              Washington Post Staff Writer
              Tuesday, November 17, 1998; Page A13

              Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) today plans to call on
              President Clinton to order immediate unilateral
              reductions in U.S. strategic nuclear forces and to remove
              the hair trigger from many of those that remain.

              The $25 billion now spent to maintain the current U.S.
              nuclear arsenal "is diverting resources from real and
              imminent threats," Kerrey said, suggesting reduction of
              the stockpile "would free money and resources to
              confront other, newer, threats from regional war to
              ethnic conflict to international terrorism."

              The Nebraska Democrat, who said yesterday in an
              interview that he expects to make a decision by
              December on whether to run for the presidency in 2000,
              also said that "our maintenance of a nuclear arsenal
              larger than we need provokes Russia to maintain one
              larger than she can control." With Russia short of funds
              to keep its weapons secure, "keeping massive nuclear
              arsenals far in excess of what we need is an accident
              waiting to happen," Kerrey said.

              "We need a new nuclear policy to confront new nuclear
              dangers," Kerrey said, because nuclear weapons
              represent the "one big threat left [from the Cold War]
              and we are not paying enough attention to it." Terrorism,
              drug trafficking and political instability "are pale
              worries in comparison to the number of Americans who
              would die if just one of Russia's nuclear weapons were
              to be launched at the United States," he said.

              In a speech scheduled to be delivered today before the
              Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, Kerrey
              says he will seek repeal of a congressional ban on
              reducing U.S. warheads below the 6,000 level set by the
              START I arms reduction accord before the Russian
              Duma approves START II. The United States is
              currently waiting for the Russian Duma to approve
              START II before continuing further with traditional arms
              negotiations.

              The Clinton administration has been quietly exploring in
              an interagency group various proposals involving
              de-alerting forces and reducing warhead numbers and
              may include the ideas in next January's State of the Union
              message. Kerrey's proposal would reduce today's
              roughly 6,000 U.S. warheads deployed on strategic
              missiles to "no more than" the proposed START III
              amounts of 2,000 to 2,500 warheads, and would
              immediately take all missiles above that level off of
              hair-trigger alert by removing their warheads. He wants
              Clinton to "seriously explore" negotiating with Moscow
              "standing down all forces from hair-trigger alert."

              Kerry also called for sharply increased funding for the
              Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program that
              helps fund Russian dismantling of nuclear weapons and
              securing of their fissionable materials.

              "A bold gesture of friendship and leadership that does
              not threaten our security would give Russia the
              confidence to significantly reduce her own nuclear
              arsenal," Kerrey said. As a precedent, he pointed to
              President George Bush's decision in 1991 to order the
              unilateral elimination of thousands of tactical nuclear
              weapons, deactivation of 450 ICBMs and the standing
              down of the strategic bomber fleet, many of which were
              on 15-minute alert.
_______________________________________________________________________

* Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org - Convert the War Machines! *
_______________________________________________________________________

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Sally Light" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Tri-Valley CAREs' Letter to Secretary Richardson re: "subcritical" nuclear test Cimarron
Date: 17 Nov 1998 20:29:03 -0000

Please sign and send this letter.  Add additional comments at the end, if
you wish.  Thank you.

US Department of Energy
1000 Independent Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20585
By fax:  [phone] or 1-202-586-1567=20
Attention:  Bill Richardson, Secretary of Energy

Dear Secretary Richardson:

I am shocked and dismayed that you are planning to carry out yet another
subcritical nuclear test =96 codenamed Cimarron =96 within the next few w=
eeks.=20
If detonated, it would be despite widespread, ongoing opposition from man=
y
individuals, environmental organizations, peace groups, and Native
Americans, as well as by other countries. =20

Just two months ago, the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, representing t=
he
Japanese citizens who have never forgotten the horror of the atomic
bombings of their cities during World War II, appealed to you not to go
through with the Bagpipe subcritical nuclear test.  Unfortunately, you
ignored their, and others', pleas, as Bagpipe was detonated on September
26, 1998. =20

India's government has cited US subcritical nuclear tests as one
justification for conducting its own nuclear tests earlier this year.

I ask that you stop further subcritical nuclear tests.

Subcritical nuclear tests, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and other
new weapons projects throughout the US nuclear weapons complex are all
pieces of the "Stockpile Stewardship" program, a $60 billion enterprise t=
o
maintain the capability to develop new weapons.  This program threatens t=
o
continue the nuclear arms race into the 21st century and beyond.  For
example, Russia has announced that it, too, will detonate a subcritical
nuclear test by the end of this year, thus reacting to US subcritical tes=
ts
with a competitive "arms race" response.  I ask that you constrain the
"Stockpile Stewardship" program so that it performs the role it should,
that is, to oversee a shrinking nuclear arsenal (at a much reduced,
reasonable budget) while the US pursues the goal of abolition of nuclear
arms, consistent with its treaty obligations.

The National Ignition Facility is being built at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory at enormous expense, now estimated at $5 billion over
NIF's lifetime excluding the costs for its waste management,
decontamination and decommissioning.  NIF is not about maintaining the
"safety" or the "reliability" of the nuclear stockpile.  Rather, NIF woul=
d
further new nuclear weapons development while robbing funds from needed
programs such as DOE cleanup, health studies and civilian science
initiatives, now facing severe cutbacks.

I ask that you halt construction of the National Ignition Facility.

The health, safety and even the very survival of future generations will =
be
affected by what you do today to eliminate nuclear weapons and to deal wi=
th
radioactive wastes already created by DOE's nuclear facilities.  Therefor=
e,
on behalf of our future children, I ask that you, as our new Secretary of
Energy, provide the leadership we need to accomplish the above requests.

Sincerely,

_________________________________
Name
_________________________________
Street
_________________________________
City            State/Zip
_________________________________
Date







-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Smirnow)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: NUCLEAR HEALTH EFFECTS STUDY UPDATE, YOUR INPUT NEEDED
Date: 17 Nov 1998 23:29:21 -0600 (CST)

----

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]



RECLAIMING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR NUCLEAR HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES
Another Report in a Continuing Series
November 18, 1998

by: Dan Yurman   [e-mail]
    PO Box 1569, Idaho Falls, ID 83403

    PERMISSION GRANTED TO RE-POST ON ANY PUBLIC DATA NETWORK

An opportunity exists for you to have input to a national conference on
nuclear health effects studies to be held in Salt Lake City on December
8th and 9th of this year.  This posting describes the reasons the
conference is being held and why your views are important.

Background

The Centers for Disease Control is conducting dose reconstruction
studies
at four Department of Energy sites to determine if there are health
effects that can be measured as a result of the release of toxic
chemicals
or radionuclides from these facilities.  The four sites are Hanford,
WA;
INEEL, Idaho; Savannah River, SC; and, Fernald, OH.  CDC has chartered
citizens advisory committees at all four sites.  Since 1992 the
committees
have been meeting to review CDC's actions and to provide input to the
agency's research agenda.

Several events this year have placed new urgency on developing credible
health effects studies to determine the legacy of the cold war.  In
1997
the National Cancer Institute release a 14-year old study on
radioactive
fallout resulting from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the
1950s
and 1960s.  A year later the director of the National Cancer Institute
apologized to the Senate Governmental Affairs committee for his
agency's
actions that delayed release of the report by 14 years from the time
Congress asked for it.  The study concluded a minimum of 11,000 and a
possible maximum of 20 times that number of cases of thyroid cancer
could
occur as a result of fallout from atomic testing.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Fallout-Study.html

A year later in September 1998 a review panel chartered by the
Institute
of Medicine and the National Research Council concluded,

". . . Some Americans are at higher risk for developing thyroid cancer
after being exposed to radioactive iodine released during nuclear bomb
tests int he 1950s and 1960s, but the government should not sponsor
national or regional thyroid cancer screening . . .there is no evidence
to
suggest that early detection of thyroid cancer through a routine
screening
program would prolong lives or lead to other health benefits."

http://www2.nas.edu/new/21ba.html
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/iodine/

Despite this finding some citizen activists have asked CDC why the
doses
from DOE nuclear facilities, such as Hanford, and the doses from atomic
bomb testing, are not added together?  In November of this year a
national
alliance of more than 30 nongovernment organizations sent a petition to
Bill Richardson, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, asking the agency to
establish a national registry of people who have been made ill as a
result
of exposures to hazardous chemicals and radionuclides at DOE sites.

http://www.ananuclear.org/

A spectacular and alarming series of reports were published earlier
this
fall by the Tennessean detailing health effects claimed by more than
400
people at DOE sites across the country.

http://www.tennessean.com/


CDC National Conference

Where is all this leading?  On December 8th and 9th this year CDC will
convene a first of its kind meeting of all four citizens advisory
committees.  CDC has asked the committees to address four questions
over
the two day meeting.  The questions are;

1. What is the utility of the citizen advisory committees and how can
they
best represent the interests of their communities in working with the
agency?

2. When is a dose reconstuction study done?  When has a site been
studied
enough?

3. How can the government be innovative in reaching out to the public
and
build trust between stakeholder groups and federal health agencies?

4. What is the balance between research and addressing the public
health
of workers at DOE sites and in the community?

The conference will review the lessons learned at each site in terms of
how the advisory committees have succeeded and failed to achieve their
objectives over time.

An Invitation for Wider Participation

The conference is only open to members of the advisory committees.
However, an opportunity exists for you to have input.  I certainly have
my
own views as do other members of the advisory committees.  However, I'm
going to hold off sharing them at this time.

I want to invite you to submit your ideas.  I am asking all readers of
this list to send in your ideas about how federal health agencies such
as
CDC, NIOSH, ATSDR, etc., should address these questions.  I pledge to
take
your input to Salt Lake City with me.  I will read your questions into
the
record, and I will ask federal officials to answer you.

If you prefer to address CDC directly, you can send you comments or
questions to:

Mr. Arthur Robinson
Designated Federal Official
Radiation Studies Branch
Centers for Disease Control
4770 Buford Highway NE
Atlanta, GA 30341
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

This is not a contest and there are no right or wrong answers.  There
are
scientific issues, moral and ethical issues, and a inpetus to establish
accountability for health effects suffered by people exposed without
their
consent to hazardous chemicals and radionuclides as a result of the
cold
war.

I will also write a report on the outcome of the conference and post it
on
the Internet.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you!

*** Disclaimer ***

Dan Yurman is a member of the CDC Citizens Advisory Committee on Public
Health Services Activities and Research at Department of Energy Sites.
The views expressed here are his own, and do not necessarily represent
those of CDC nor other members of the committee.

*/ -------------------------------------------------------------
*/ Dan Yurman  [e-mail]  Eagle Rock, Idaho  43N
*/ The mountains are high and the Emperor is far away.  112W





-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: (Fwd) (Fwd) Canada and NATO pieces
Date: 18 Nov 1998 10:42:32 -0500


>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>From:          "stephanie mills" <[e-mail]>
>Organization:  Greenpeace
>To:            [e-mail]3
>Date:          Mon, 9 Nov 1998 00:16:10 +0000
>Subject:       (Fwd) Canada and NATO
>Priority:      normal
>
>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>From:          "greenbase" <[e-mail]3>
>Organization:  greenpeace
>To:            [e-mail]3, [e-mail]
>Date:          Fri, 6 Nov 1998 15:26:21 -0800
>Subject:       Military and Nuclear Weapons News 11/06
>
> The Toronto Star  November 6, 1998 Editorial A28  Will Ottawa defy
>nuclear
> theology? By Gordon Barthos THAT BLIP working its way across  American
> radar screens is Jean Chretien's government, daring to take a  fresh look
> at Canada's attitude to nuclear weapons.   To American  officials, it's
> about as welcome a sight as a Russkie missile winging its  way across the
> Great White North.  ``The nuclear review, and the use the  Canadian
> government may make of it, is our Number 1 concern'' about the
>Canada-U.S.
>military partnership, a U.S. diplomat told me recently.  ``Canada doesn't
> want to lead the charge to unravel the fragile consensus within the
> Alliance on nuclear weapons.''
> Not surprisingly, the nuclear-armed British and French echo that
>view.
>  They worry that a parliamentary committee headed by Liberal MP Bill
>Graham will challenge nuclear dogma in the next few weeks, by
>issuing a report recommending that Ottawa adopt the view that
>nuclear weapons have outlived their usefulness and should be
>discarded, pronto.
> While Canada does benefit from being a member of a nuclear-armed
>alliance, the Chretien Liberals promised in the 1997 election to
>``work vigorously for the elimination of nuclear . . . weapons . . .
>'' That has a fair bit of domestic support.
> Nuclear weapons never were supposed to be forever.
> Indeed, some 30 years ago the nuclear powers promised to negotiate
>``a treaty on general and complete disarmament (emphasis added)
>under strict and effective international control,'' provided that
>other countries refrained from acquiring nukes. Most, Canada
>included, kept their part of the bargain. The nuclear powers dragged
>their heels.
>  While the end of the Cold War brought big reductions in U.S. and
>Russian arsenals, there's little great-power enthusiasm for
>abandoning nukes altogether. If anything, the psychological barriers
>to using nukes in a fit of mutual madness are crumbling.
>  U.S. politicians, including Bill Clinton, have sent out
>deliberately mixed signals about dropping the Big One on any state
>that threatens to use biological or chemical weapons against U.S.
>allies or U.S. troops. That explodes another pledge by the nuclear
>powers never to use nukes against non-nuclear countries.
>  And, increasingly, conservatives talk about the North Atlantic
>Treaty Organization's nuclear arsenal as a general, all-purpose
>deterrent to be waved at enemies armed even with only conventional
>weaponry.
> This creeping legitimization of nuclear war-fighting is worrisome.
>  Graham hopes to spark some political debate about these
>developments - to ``move the agenda forward in a positive way'' -
>with his report, which should appear within a few weeks. It isn't
>likely to endorse the status quo.
>  The timing couldn't be worse, for those who hate to see Ottawa
>implicitly encouraging other non-nuclear players in NATO to question
>the consensus.
>  Chretien and the other NATO heads of government meet in Washington
>in April to update NATO's 1991 ``strategic concept'' document.
>  Article 38 asserts that nukes are essential and permanent fixtures
>in the arsenal. NATO officials refer to this as ``the theology.''
>  ``The Alliance will maintain for the foreseeable future an
>appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces,'' it states.
>``Both elements are essential to Alliance security and cannot
>substitute one for the other . . . The Alliance's conventional
>forces alone cannot ensure the prevention of war. Nuclear weapons
>make a unique contribution in rendering the risks of any aggression
>incalculable and unacceptable. Thus they remain essential to
>preserve peace.''
>  There's more. ``NATO countries have no . . . need to change any
>aspect of NATO's nuclear posture on nuclear policy - and we do not
>foresee any future need to do so (emphasis added),'' NATO declared
>in 1996.
>  Graham's report will be useful if it does nothing more than
>question prevailing assumptions about the permanency of nuclear
>weapons.
> While the nuclear powers continue to pay lip-service to abolition,
>NATO's declarations move in the other direction.
>  Canadian MPs have every right to question this.
>  Why shouldn't Ottawa put a higher priority on trying to rid the
>world of these weapons than on legitimizing them?
>  Why shouldn't Canada join other countries at the United Nations in
>supporting resolutions calling for stronger efforts to abolish them?
>And why shouldn't Ottawa, as an interim measure, ask the nuclear
>powers to promise that they won't be the first to strike with
>nuclear weapons? To stop threatening non-nuclear states? To take
>more weapons off ``alert'' status? And to make deeper cuts in
>existing arsenals?
>  Canadians don't want to bolt NATO, or demilitarize this country.
>  If anything, the Chretien government ought to be concerned about
>the enfeebled state of our military (after cutting the defence
>budget from $12 billion to $9 billion a year), and about our
>shrinking presence in NATO's European theatre.
>  But Canada can be a solid member of NATO, without subscribing to
>nuclear hypocrisy.
>  Gordon Barthos' column appears on Fridays. His E-mail address is
>gbartho thestar.ca
>
>
>************************************
>*  Kate Dewes                      *
>*  Disarmament and Security Centre *
>*  P O Box 8390                    *
>*  Christchurch                    *
>*  Aotearoa/New Zealand            *
>*  Ph/Fax [phone]           *
>*  [e-mail]         *
>************************************
>
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: (Fwd) (Fwd) Canada's latest challenge...
Date: 18 Nov 1998 10:43:25 -0500

>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>Date:          Sat, 24 Oct 1998 10:30:41 -0700
>From:          "B.Robinson & J.Newman" <[e-mail]>
>To:            [e-mail]
>Subject:       Canada's latest challenge...
>Reply-to:      [e-mail]
>
>Canadian Seeks Shift in NATO Nuclear Policy
>
>By Steven Pearlstein
>Washington Post Foreign Service
>Saturday, October 24, 1998; Page A26
>
>OTTAWA, Oct. 23-In its latest challenge to U.S. foreign policy, Canada
>is considering asking NATO to revamp its battlefield strategy and
>forswear
>the first use of nuclear weapons.
>
>Next week, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons is
>set to meet behind closed doors to consider the issue at the urging of
>Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, a longtime opponent of nuclear
>weapons.
>
>Although Canada has always declined to build nuclear weapons of its own,
>it remains an active member of the NATO alliance, whose doctrines call
>for the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a last resort in the defense
>of
>Europe, even against a conventional military attack.
>
>Government sources said Axworthy would like to initiate a public
>discussion of the issue in hopes of prodding the alliance into adopting
>a "no
>first use" strategy at the NATO meeting scheduled for next April.
>
>Defense experts predicted this week that Axworthy is likely to get a
>friendly hearing from the new government in Germany, where the
>anti-nuclear Greens party is part of the new left-of-center coalition.
>
>But any change in policy is strongly opposed by the United States and
>NATO's top military planners, who argue that NATO's nuclear missiles
>remain a powerful and successful deterrent to attacks on Western Europe.
>
>In Washington, a State Department official said it is aware of the
>Canadian
>discussions, adding, "We don't feel it's time now to adjust NATO's
>nuclear
>policy. . . . We just don't want to open up that box right now."
>
>Axworthy, a former academic and a vocal critic of old-fashioned
>Realpolitik, has become something of a thorn in the side of U.S.
>policymakers. Last year, he successfully outmaneuvered the United States
>and, with the help of Nobel-prize winning activists, secured passage of
>a
>global treaty banning the use of land mines. Washington has refused to
>sign
>the treaty, largely out of concern that mines are still needed to
>protect
>South Korea from attack.
>
>And in recent months, Axworthy has led the way in pressing for creation
>of
>a strong new International Criminal Court with broad powers to punish
>those who commit war crimes. The United States opposes creation of the
>new tribunal because of fears that it could be used unfairly against
>U.S.
>soldiers sent abroad on peace-keeping missions.
>
>Axworthy's campaign also got a recent boost when Canada assumed one
>of the rotating seats on the U.N. Security Council. In campaigning for
>the
>position, he called for a new era of "soft power" in the world of
>diplomacy
>and security, one that "relies more on negotiation rather than coercion,
>powerful ideas rather than powerful weapons."
>
>William Graham, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said it is
>not
>clear yet whether the panel would embrace a "no first use" nuclear
>policy
>for NATO, despite its majority from Axworthy's Liberal Party. Members
>of the main opposition party, the conservative Reform Party, are said to
>oppose it, while the left-leaning New Democratic Party favors it.
>
>Staff writer Bradley Graham in Washington contributed to this report.
>
>         c Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
>
>Steve Shallhorn
>Campaign Director
>Greenpeace Canada
>[e-mail]
>
>
>************************************
>*  Kate Dewes                      *
>*  Disarmament and Security Centre *
>*  P O Box 8390                    *
>*  Christchurch                    *
>*  Aotearoa/New Zealand            *
>*  Ph/Fax [phone]           *
>*  [e-mail]         *
>************************************
>
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: (abolition-usa) Fwd: (Fwd) (Fwd) Canada's latest challenge...
Date: 18 Nov 1998 11:41:05 -0600

Makes me proud of the fact that my Mother's maiden name is Monarque and her
family comes from Montreal.
Oh Canada! Oh Canada!
fab.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, Ill. 61820
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please delete all copies.


> ----------
> From:     ASlater[SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Reply To:     [e-mail]
> Sent:     Wednesday, November 18, 1998 9:43 AM
> To:     [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject:     (abolition-usa) Fwd: (Fwd) (Fwd) Canada's latest
> challenge...
>
> >------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
> >Date:          Sat, 24 Oct 1998 10:30:41 -0700
> >From:          "B.Robinson & J.Newman" <[e-mail]>
> >To:            [e-mail]
> >Subject:       Canada's latest challenge...
> >Reply-to:      [e-mail]
> >
> >Canadian Seeks Shift in NATO Nuclear Policy
> >
> >By Steven Pearlstein
> >Washington Post Foreign Service
> >Saturday, October 24, 1998; Page A26
> >
> >OTTAWA, Oct. 23-In its latest challenge to U.S. foreign policy, Canada
> >is considering asking NATO to revamp its battlefield strategy and
> >forswear
> >the first use of nuclear weapons.
> >
> >Next week, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons is
> >set to meet behind closed doors to consider the issue at the urging of
> >Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, a longtime opponent of nuclear
> >weapons.
> >
> >Although Canada has always declined to build nuclear weapons of its own,
> >it remains an active member of the NATO alliance, whose doctrines call
> >for the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a last resort in the defense
> >of
> >Europe, even against a conventional military attack.
> >
> >Government sources said Axworthy would like to initiate a public
> >discussion of the issue in hopes of prodding the alliance into adopting
> >a "no
> >first use" strategy at the NATO meeting scheduled for next April.
> >
> >Defense experts predicted this week that Axworthy is likely to get a
> >friendly hearing from the new government in Germany, where the
> >anti-nuclear Greens party is part of the new left-of-center coalition.
> >
> >But any change in policy is strongly opposed by the United States and
> >NATO's top military planners, who argue that NATO's nuclear missiles
> >remain a powerful and successful deterrent to attacks on Western Europe.
> >
> >In Washington, a State Department official said it is aware of the
> >Canadian
> >discussions, adding, "We don't feel it's time now to adjust NATO's
> >nuclear
> >policy. . . . We just don't want to open up that box right now."
> >
> >Axworthy, a former academic and a vocal critic of old-fashioned
> >Realpolitik, has become something of a thorn in the side of U.S.
> >policymakers. Last year, he successfully outmaneuvered the United States
> >and, with the help of Nobel-prize winning activists, secured passage of
> >a
> >global treaty banning the use of land mines. Washington has refused to
> >sign
> >the treaty, largely out of concern that mines are still needed to
> >protect
> >South Korea from attack.
> >
> >And in recent months, Axworthy has led the way in pressing for creation
> >of
> >a strong new International Criminal Court with broad powers to punish
> >those who commit war crimes. The United States opposes creation of the
> >new tribunal because of fears that it could be used unfairly against
> >U.S.
> >soldiers sent abroad on peace-keeping missions.
> >
> >Axworthy's campaign also got a recent boost when Canada assumed one
> >of the rotating seats on the U.N. Security Council. In campaigning for
> >the
> >position, he called for a new era of "soft power" in the world of
> >diplomacy
> >and security, one that "relies more on negotiation rather than coercion,
> >powerful ideas rather than powerful weapons."
> >
> >William Graham, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said it is
> >not
> >clear yet whether the panel would embrace a "no first use" nuclear
> >policy
> >for NATO, despite its majority from Axworthy's Liberal Party. Members
> >of the main opposition party, the conservative Reform Party, are said to
> >oppose it, while the left-leaning New Democratic Party favors it.
> >
> >Staff writer Bradley Graham in Washington contributed to this report.
> >
> >         c Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
> >
> >Steve Shallhorn
> >Campaign Director
> >Greenpeace Canada
> >[e-mail]
> >
> >
> >************************************
> >*  Kate Dewes                      *
> >*  Disarmament and Security Centre *
> >*  P O Box 8390                    *
> >*  Christchurch                    *
> >*  Aotearoa/New Zealand            *
> >*  Ph/Fax [phone]           *
> >*  [e-mail]         *
> >************************************
> >
> Alice Slater
> Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
> 15 East 26th Street, Room 915
> New York, NY 10010
> tel:  [phone]
> fax:  [phone]
> email:  [e-mail]
>
> GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
> to eliminate nuclear weapons.
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
> "[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Culp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) START II vote set for Dec. 4; Chances are 50-50
Date: 18 Nov 1998 12:59:29 -0500

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Newsline, Wednesday, November 18, 1998

START-II CHANCES RATED FIFTY-FIFTY
The START-II treaty has only a fifty-fifty chance of passage in the
Duma when the vote takes place on 4 December, predicted military
analyst Pavel Felgengauer in "Segodnya" on 17 November. Felgengauer
cited Aleksei Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Duma's Defense Committee
and member of the Yabloko faction, who said that 70 percent of the
Duma's deputies are against the treaty but only 10 percent of these
are "implacable foes." Arbatov said that "if the executive 'works'
thoroughly on faction leaders," then the Communist faction may split
during the vote. He also predicted that the Liberal Democratic Party
(LDP) will vote solidly in favor if Primakov reaches an agreement with
LDP leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky. On the other hand, Felgengauer notes
that the Communists have "bad- mouthed the treaty for so long that the
patriotic electorate may not understand a 'volte face.'"


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Please Help Refute!; Bad News Congress; NV Nuc Dump Opposition
Date: 19 Nov 1998 08:29:01 -0500

1.  Funniest quote of the week? (Have you any information to HELP REFUTE
this?) :

       "Republican Party officials argued yesterday against a proposal to
ban the biggest political donations, contending that there was no evidence
that labor unions, corporations and wealthy donors get favorable treatment
in exchange for the money they give...."

(Washington Post/ AP 11/19/98 - "At Hearing, GOP Officials Oppose 'Soft
Money' Ban")

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-11/19/154l-111998-idx.html

ALSO BELOW:

2.  http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Congress-National-Security.html
Few Changes for National Security

3. http://www.usatoday.com/news/digest/nd1.htm
Nevada nuke dump faces opposition

2.  Bad News:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Congress-National-Security.html

Few Changes for National Security
By The Associated Press - November 18, 1998

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Forget Senate ratification of the
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty next year. Jesse Helms
is likely to remain as chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.

Fast-track trade authority, which died in the current Congress,
is likely to suffer the same fate, given the ingrained
Democratic opposition and the Democrats' net pickup of five
House seats.

In short, the midterm elections -- and some changes in key
committee posts -- should have little overall impact on House
and Senate panels that oversee national defense issues or the
legislation they handle.

Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., is stepping aside as chairman
of the Senate Armed Services at age 95, after serving 40
years on the panel, the last four as chairman. In line to
replace him is Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a former Navy
secretary now the senior most Republican on the panel after
Thurmond.

Warner and Thurmond have worked hand-in-hand in the past
and are both strong supporters of Pentagon programs. Both
have supported prospective U.S. military action in Iraq.

One issue on which Warner differs from most of his
colleagues is Kosovo. Before the crisis eased, Warner had
voiced support not only for U.S. airstrikes against Serb
targets but also for an international ground force of
peacekeepers.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., stays on as senior Democrat on the
panel. Like Thurmond and Warner, Levin has voiced support
for the use of U.S. military force in Iraq if necessary.

Barring the unexpected, Helms will keep his chairmanship of
Foreign Relations.

That probably means the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, which the Clinton administration has considered a top
priority, will continue to languish.

Helms blocked it this year the same way he stopped the
nomination last year of William S. Weld to be ambassador to
Mexico: by refusing to hold a single hearing.

The global treaty to ban all nuclear tests has been signed by
the United States but must be ratified by the Senate. Helms
has said he won't bring it up until the administration submits
changes in the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty agreed to
by Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin -- changes the
administration holds don't need Senate approval.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., who has accused
the administration of not being assertive enough on Iraq, is
expected to hold onto his job. And while House Speaker
Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., is stepping down, his expected
successor, Rep. Bob Livingston, R-La., generally toes the
same GOP line on national security policy sounded by Lott
and Gingrich.

Livingston's leaving the chairmanship of the House
Appropriations Committee opens that powerful spot to the
next-in-line Republican, Rep. C.W. ``Bill'' Young, R-Fla. As
chairman of the national security subcommittee, Young has
had considerable influence over Pentagon spending and
policies and is likely to bring this same emphasis to bear as
chairman of the full committee.

One of the most respected voices in the House on foreign
policy -- Democrat Lee Hamilton of Indiana -- is leaving
after 34 years. When Democrats were in control, Hamilton
was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the
special House Iran-Contra committee and the International
Relations Committee.

While Rep. Benjamin Gilman, R-N.Y., is expected to be
renamed chairman of the International Relations panel,
Hamilton's slot as top-ranking Democrat will go to Rep. Sam
Gejdenson of Connecticut, who has worked closely with
Hamilton in the past. However, Gejdenson has been more
partisan and has a more liberal record than Hamilton.

``I don't think there's any way to judge the next Congress,'' the
departing Hamilton says.

But, Hamilton said, one thing is clear -- there was wide
bipartisan support for launching military strikes against Iraq
in the since-defused recent standoff with Saddam Hussein and
that support is likely to continue.

``I think Congress would have supported action months ago,''
Hamilton said.

EDITOR'S NOTE -- Tom Raum covers national and
international affairs for The Associated Press.


3. http://www.usatoday.com/news/digest/nd1.htm

USA Today, November 19, 1998

Nevada nuke dump faces opposition

About 200 environmental groups demanded
Wednesday that the government abandon plans to bury
nuclear waste in the Nevada desert, arguing the area's
geology might cause radioactivity to leak into
groundwater. The environmentalists said the
discovery two years ago that rainwater had penetrated
from the surface to the underground disposal vault
raises questions about radioactive waste eventually
seeping into the groundwater. The Energy Department
issued a statement in which it said it planned to
continue evaluating the movement of water through
rock formations at Yucca Mountain as part of its
overall scientific assessment of the site. A final
decision is expected in 2001.










_______________________________________________________________________

* NucNews - subscribe: [e-mail] - http://prop1.org ("Nuclear") *
_______________________________________________________________________

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Germany & NFU
Date: 19 Nov 1998 12:45:18 -0500

>Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:25:19 -0500
>Subject: Germany & NFU
>Priority: non-urgent
>To: [e-mail]
>X-FC-Forwarded-From: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>The Guardian
>
>Bonn wants Nato pledge on no first nuclear use=20
>
>By Ian Traynor in Bonn
>Thursday November 19, 1998=20
>
>Germany wants Nato to break with half a century of military
>and strategic doctrine and commit itself not to use nuclear
>weapons first.=20
>
>The policy shift by Chancellor Gerhard Schr=F6der's coalition
>of Social Democrats and Greens is already encountering
>resistance in Western capitals and threatens to put the new
>Bonn government on a collision course with Washington.
>
>In the run-up to next April's Nato summit in Washington,
>which marks the alliance's 50th anniversary and is to adopt
>a new "strategic concept" redefining its purpose in the light
>of its expansion into eastern Europe, senior German officials
>said they would fight to have the no-first-use commitment
>enshrined in the document.
>
>"The security and military situation has changed so radically
>in recent years that the time is right for this," a senior
>German foreign ministry official said. "It belongs in the Nato
>review and we want to push it at the April summit."
>
>"These are highly sensitive issues," another German official
>said. "But if the nuclear states don't move towards more
>disarmament, then the incentive for those states on the brink
>of going nuclear is extremely low."
>
>Nato officials in Brussels said they had not been formally
>notified of the German initiative, but were aware of the new
>thinking in Bonn.
>
>"At the moment this is a German debate. If they intend to
>raise it there will be rigorous debate, but the United States
>will not support that position, will not agree that no-first-use
>becomes Nato policy," an alliance official said.
>
>Reserving the option of going nuclear first in a conflict has
>been a keystone of Nato deterrence strategy for decades. It
>became particularly controversial in the closing phase of the
>cold war in the 1980s, when the Soviet Union adopted a
>no-first-use stance in an attempt to force Nato to make a
>similar commitment.
>
>"Deterrence depends on having and being prepared to use
>nuclear weapons," a Nato official said.
>
>Western governments are monitoring shifts in German
>foreign and security policy. The no-first-use demand is a
>concession to the environmentalist Greens, the junior
>coalition partner, whose leader, Joschka Fischer, is the new
>foreign minister.
>
>His foreign policy watchword is "continuity". He told foreign
>journalists this week: "In foreign policy I have no ambition
>to be a revolutionary. That's the last thing Germany needs."
>
>But the call to reverse nuclear policy is being seen as a
>breach in continuity. The 50-page coalition pact agreed by
>the Social Democrats and the Greens last month included a
>line stating that the new government "will campaign to lower
>the alert status of nuclear weapons and for a renunciation of
>the first use of nuclear weapons".
>
>The first indication of the position emerged last Friday at the
>United Nations in New York when Germany abstained on
>a motion by neutral countries for nuclear disarmament. The
>key Nato allies - the US, France, and Britain - all voted
>against the resolution.
>
>"There may be question marks over the German approach,"
>a Western diplomat in Bonn said. "The abstention at the
>UN caused some concern with the Americans."
>
>A German official said: "The abstention showed that we
>can't say yes because of the allies, but that we don't want to
>say no."
>
>The US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, is believed
>to have raised the issue with Mr Fischer, while the Nato
>secretary-general, Javier Solana, is believed to have voiced
>concern to Mr Schr=F6der in Berlin last week.
>
>--=20
>Bill Robinson, Project Ploughshares,
>Conrad Grebel College, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada  N2L 3G6
>Phone: [phone] x264  Fax: [phone]
>E-mail: [e-mail]
>http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough
>
>Project Ploughshares is a member of the Canadian Network to Abolish
>Nuclear Weapons (http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough/cnanw/cnanw.html)
>=20

Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: National Post 19Nov98
Date: 19 Nov 1998 12:46:25 -0500

>Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:34:36 -0500
>Subject: National Post 19Nov98
>Priority: non-urgent
>To: [e-mail]
>X-FC-Forwarded-From: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>National Post, 19 November 1998
>
>Commons report likely to rile the U.S. over disarmament
>Canadian policy review :
>Committee seeks to line up allies for nuclear contraction
>
>Mike Trickey
>Southam News
>
>A Commons committee reviewing Canada's nuclear
>policy wants the government to push the United States to
>remove its nuclear defence umbrella from Europe.
>
>The recommendation, one of several likely to bring Canada into
>conflict with its closest ally and primary defender, is
>part of a report obtained by the National Post.
>
>The report of the Commons foreign affairs committee is to
>be presented to Parliament next month.
>
>Other potentially controversial recommendations include, "at
>minimum," the commitment of all NATO states to the eventual
>elimination of nuclear arsenals, the need for a revised NATO
>nuclear policy that carries an implicit renunciation of "first-use" of
>nuclear weapons, and a strong endorsement of the concept of
>"de-alerting" all nuclear forces, particularly in the cases of Russia
>and the United States.
>
>The report's recommendations are in step with Canada's abstention
>last week on a United Nations resolution calling for fast-track
>negotiations to abolish nuclear weapons.
>
>That vote passed by a 97-19 count, with most NATO members
>joining Canada in abstaining in a shocking repudiation of the U.S.
>position. Fellow nuclear club members France and Britain, as well
>as Turkey, were the only NATO nations supporting Washington in
>voting against the non-binding resolution.
>
>Canada argues that opposition by the U.S. and other nuclear
>powers to the UN resolution runs counter to the commitments it has
>made by signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
>
>Article 6 of the treaty, which has been signed by every country in
>the world except Cuba, India,  Israel and Pakistan, commits
>signatories to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.
>
>The committee wants Canada to reaffirm its support for the treaty
>as the centrepiece of global nuclear non-proliferation, and to reject
>any attempt to revise it in a way that would recognize India and
>Pakistan as "nuclear-weapon states" after they successfully tested
>nuclear weapons in May.
>
>The committee argues that the government should use its best
>efforts to convince fellow NATO members that international
>developments since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 should
>be reflected in NATO nuclear policy to help achieve global
>disarmament goals.
>
>"At a minimum, the updated Strategic Concept should reflect:
>
>- The commitment of all NATO member states to the reduction and
>eventual elimination of nuclear arsenals;
>
>- The further reduction in any likelihood of the use of nuclear
>weapons, and the need for progressive limitation of recourse to
>them on a global basis;
>
>- The fact that the modern Alliance is now so strong politically and
>militarily that the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe is no
>longer essential as a demonstration of solidarity and the
>transAtlantic link;
>
>- The need, in light of transformed international security
>circumstances and common security goals, to update Alliance
>nuclear policy on an on-going basis."
>
>American and British officials have said that any review of NATO's
>
>nuclear strategy raises the spectre of renouncing the "first-use"
>policy.
>
>They also argue that such a declaration is unacceptable because it
>would undermine the credibility of their deterrence capabilities.
>
>Commitment to "de-alerting" is also sure to draw fire from the
>nuclear states, who say the process, which involves separating the
>warhead from the delivery system, undermines the ability to retaliate
>promptly and is a concept which is virtually impossible to verify.
>
>Other committee recommendations include encouraging Russia and
>the United States to continue the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks
>process, in particular, prompt Russian ratification of START-2; the
>feasibility of establishing a NORAD hotline with the U.S. and
>Russia to address the potential dangers of the "millennium bug;"
>encouraging all nuclear states to increase the transparency about
>their nuclear stockpiles and fissile material; and that Canada ratify
>as quickly as possible the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
>
>Legislation ratifying the CTBT is now in third reading in parliament,
>and is expected to be passed by the end of the year.
>
>--
>Bill Robinson, Project Ploughshares,
>Conrad Grebel College, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada  N2L 3G6
>Phone: [phone] x264  Fax: [phone]
>E-mail: [e-mail]
>http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough
>
>Project Ploughshares is a member of the Canadian Network to Abolish
>Nuclear Weapons (http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough/cnanw/cnanw.html)
>
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Culp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) START II Articles from Moscow (Thursday)
Date: 19 Nov 1998 15:37:54 -0500

Segodnya (Moscow)
Thursday, November 19, 1998

(Summary translation from Russia Today)


START 2: SORRY TO DROP IT, BUT IT'S TOO HEAVY TO CARRY

Summary Duma defense committee chairman Roman Popkovich on Wednesday
spoke about the START 2 treaty signed by Russian and U.S. leaders in
1991.

The daily wrote that from his speech, it finally became clear why the
Duma has refused to ratify START 2 for so long: The deputies were
unhappy with the treaty's technical parameters.

It was hard to dare to cut heavy RS-20 missiles made in Ukraine. But
the
most important thing was that Russia still hoped to have closer
military
cooperation with Ukraine, which would have made cooperation in missile
construction viable. For this reason, in 1992-93 the START 2 treaty
was
considered premature, if not damaging.

Now, it is obvious that economic cooperation with Ukraine has become
impossible for political as well as economic reasons. To keep up at
the
level of the START 1 treaty, Russia would need 50-60 billion rubles
annually -- more than the whole budget for its military.

Popkovich concluded that ratification of START 2 by the incumbent Duma
is better for Russia's strategic defense capabilities, because
rejection
would result in great problems in the future.

----------

Washington Post
Thursday, November 19, 1998


TROUBLES INVIGORATE DEBATE ON START II:  RUSSIAN CRISIS SAPS BUDGET
FOR MISSILES

By David Hoffman
Washington Post Foreign Service

MOSCOW, Nov. 18=97After years of delay, Russia's lower house of
parliament
has begun making serious headway toward ratification of the START II
strategic arms accord, lawmakers and experts said today. The shift
followed delivery to parliament of a secret government report warning
that Russia's nuclear shield will shrink dramatically and unavoidably
in
the years ahead due to weapons obsolescence and national economic
decline.

The treaty -- signed in January 1993 by President Bush and President
Boris Yeltsin and ratified by the U.S. Senate in January 1996 -- has
attracted sharp opposition in the lower house, the State Duma, from
nationalists and Communists, who dominate the 450-member chamber. The
accord has languished there for almost six years, despite Yeltsin's
repeated promises to push it forward.

But lawmakers said there has been a change in the political outlook
for
the treaty that could bring it to a vote as soon as next month. The
shift is based on an increasing realization that Russia's economic
troubles have seriously undermined its ability to maintain a large
strategic nuclear force. Backers say the treaty will limit the size of
the U.S. nuclear force, which has become a compelling argument for
ratification as the scope of the Russian decline grows apparent.

Alexei Podberiozkin, an influential Communist Party member and deputy
chairman of the International Affairs Committee, has decided to back
the
treaty.

"I had been very strongly opposed to this treaty for many years, but
the
situation has changed -- not in favor of Russia," he said.
Podberiozkin
added that "until recently, I thought there was no chance for
ratification. Now, if we work hard, I suppose we can ratify it in
December."

Like many other officials here, Podberiozkin said he wants
ratification
to lead "as quickly as possible" to negotiations for a follow-on START
III accord, with still lower levels of strategic weapons, which
Yeltsin
and President Clinton have pledged. START II would set limits of 3,500
to 3,000 warheads for each side, down from 6,000 under START I. The
tentative goals for START III, set earlier by Clinton and Yeltsin, are
between 2,500 and 2,000 warheads for each side.

However, the reality of Russia's dwindling strategic forces is that it
cannot support even that many and that its heavy multiple-warhead,
land-based missiles are reaching the end of their service life. Some
hard-liners had argued that those missiles could be kept in service
for
many years more, but "it became painfully obvious that we will not
have
the money to maintain any kind of multiple-warhead missiles and that
it
is wiser to concentrate on modernization of strategic forces," said
Vladimir Averchev, a supporter of START II and a member of the
centrist
Yabloko bloc in parliament.

START II outlaws land-based, multiple-warhead missiles, and Russia has
started replacing them with new, single-warhead missiles, but the new
Topol-M rocket recently failed a test flight, and it is not clear how
many Russia can build, given its economic problems.

Roman Popkovich, chairman of the Duma's Defense Committee, said that
if Russia does not ratify START II and decides to maintain the older
missiles, it would consume more than the current military budget.
Moreover, he said, the older missiles are a safety threat. "After
lengthy storage . . . nobody knows where it is going to fly after
launch," he said.

The projected decline in Russian strategic arms capability in the
years
ahead was documented in a secret report recently sent to the Duma by
First Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Maslyukov, a former top Soviet-era
military-industrial planner who has pushed for ratification of START
II.

According to two sources who asked not to be identified, Maslyukov
estimated in his report that, because of obsolescence and other
factors,
Russia may be able to field only 800 to 900 nuclear warheads seven
years
from now. Such predictions are highly reflective of the state of the
economy, but Maslyukov's estimates appear to fall well below the
levels
envisioned by a Kremlin strategic weapons review Yeltsin approved last
July.

Maslyukov's views are believed to have carried weight with Communist
legislators who previously were leading opponents of the treaty.
"Maslyukov said many times and continues to say that Russia has no
choice and parliament should ratify, because in 10 years the current
Russian missiles will die," said his spokesman, Anton Surikov.

      =A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

----------

Voice of Russia (Moscow)
Thursday, November 19, 1998

The Defense Committee of the Russian State Duma has favored an early
ratification of the Russian-American START II treaty. According to
members of the Russian parliament, the ratification of the treaty will
not lower the country's combat capability nor will it weaken national
security. Earlier the Speaker of the State Duma Gennady Seleznyov said
the State Duma suggested its own version of the document, a supplement
of the document suggested by the President with a number of new
articles.



-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Culp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) More on START II from Moscow (Thursday)
Date: 19 Nov 1998 15:57:51 -0500

Moscow Times
Thursday, November 19, 1998


DUMA DRAFTS BILL TO RATIFY START II


By Chloe Arnold
Staff Writer

The State Duma is ready to debate ratification of the long-awaited
START II nuclear disarmament treaty, speaker of the lower house
Gennady Seleznyov said Wednesday.

A parliamentary bill calling for ratification of the treaty has been
drafted by lawmakers, was approved by Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov
and is unlikely to be snubbed by President Boris Yeltsin, Seleznyov
said. He did not say when the treaty will be put to a vote, butDuma
sources said it is likely to be put on the agenda for next month.

The drafting of the bill marks the most significant progress yet
toward ratifying the treaty, which has been languishing in the Duma
for several years.

The Communist and nationalist-dominated Duma has repeatedly refused to
discuss START II in the past, claiming the treaty would put Russia at
a strategic disadvantage compared to the United States.

But analysts say that today's dire financial climate and the need to
curry favor with Western governments and lending institutions have
persuaded many lawmakers of the need to ratify the document.

Deputies, however, insisted on including several conditions in the
bill on ratification, in particular that the government immediately
begin negotiating a START III disarmament treaty, which the Duma hopes
will further reduce the United States' strategic advantage over
Russia.

"The problem of security must be viewed in a wide context," Seleznyov
said. "Duma deputies and other state officials are aware of this."

"The bill provides for funds needed to keep the remaining missiles
combat -ready and calls for the speedy signing of START III, which
would protect

Russia's security," Interfax quoted Seleznyov as saying during a
meeting with visiting Ukrainian Foreign Minister Boris Tarasyuk.

Signed in 1993 by Yeltsin and then- U.S. President George Bush, the
START II agreement bans all multiple-warhead intercontinental
ballistic missiles by 2003 and cuts the number of single-warhead ICBMs
on both sides to between 3,000 and 3,500. The U.S. Senate ratified the
treaty in 1993, but the Duma has dragged its feet until now.

The Russian government insists that it needs the treaty to maintain
parity with the United States. While Washington keeps a massive
nuclear arsenal, Moscow cannot afford to do so and its stockpile is
shrinking as aging missiles are taken out of service and not replaced.

At a briefing Wednesday, Duma Defense Committee chairman Roman
Popkovich said deputies, too, are beginning to share the government's
view.

"The point of ratification is not just to bring down the ceiling, but
to protect our national security," Popkovich said. "We must clearly
realize that today it is not necessary to have stocks of 6,000
warheads."

Popkovich said the Russian state could no longer afford to maintain as
many nuclear arms as the United States and that ratifying the accord
was therefore essential.

"In order to maintain our nuclear missile potential, we will need 50
to 60 billion rubles [$3 billion to $3.5 billion] a year for the next
seven years," he said. "The Duma approved an entire defense budget for
this year of 82.5 billion rubles. So we have to decide whether or not
this is feasible."



-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Smirnow)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: CDC Nuclear Halth Effects Mtg
Date: 19 Nov 1998 23:38:43 -0600 (CST)

--

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]



DOE Sites; Citizens Advisory Committee

Notices
Public Health Service Activities and Research at DOE Sites; Citizens
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

11/19/1998
Federal Register
Copyright 1998. All rights reserved.

  Citizens Advisory Committee on Public Health Service Activities
and Research at Department of Energy Sites: Fernald Health
Effects Subcommittee; Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee; Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Health Effects
Subcommittee; and Savannah River Site Health Effects
Subcommittee; and the Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health
Projects: Meetings.

  In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the National Center for
Environmental Health (NCEH) and the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) announce the following Federal
advisory committee meetings. Name: Citizens Advisory Committee on
Public Health Service Activities and Research at Department of
Energy Sites.

  Times and Dates: 8 a.m.-5 p.m., December 8, 1998; 8:30
a.m.-5:30 p.m., December 9, 1998.

  Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84101, telephone [phone], fax [phone].

  Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space
available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 150
people.

  Background: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
and the Department of Energy (DOE) have two Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU) for public health activities and research at
DOE sites. One transferred the responsibility for the management
and conduct of energy-related analytic epidemiologic research to
HHS, and HHS subsequently delegated program responsibility to
CDC. The other is a separate MOU between ATSDR and DOE. This MOU
addresses ATSDR public health responsibilities around DOE sites.
In addition, ATSDR is required by law (Sections 104, 105, 107,
and 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act) to conduct public health
assessments, and where appropriate, other health activities, many
of which are conducted at DOE sites.

  Implementing these MOUs requires significant interaction with
communities living in proximity to DOE sites. This committee was
chartered in response to the requests by representatives of the
communities surrounding DOE sites to provide consensus advice and
recommendations on community concerns related to CDC's and
ATSDR's activities related to the sites.

  Purpose: This committee provides advice and recommendations to
the Director, CDC, and the Administrator, ATSDR, regarding
community, American Indian Tribes, and labor concerns pertaining
to CDC's and ATSDR's public health activities and research at
respective DOE sites. Activities focus on providing a forum for
community, American Indian Tribal, and labor interaction, and
serve as a vehicle for communities, American Indian Tribes, and
labor to express concerns and provide advice and recommendations
to CDC and ATSDR.

  Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items will include
presentations from each of the four established subcommittees;
status of the Advisory Committee for Energy-Related Epidemiologic
Research Subcommittee for Community Affairs; up to four break-out
sessions with presentations post break-out; proposed evaluation
of the health effects subcommittees; group discussions and public
comments.

  Name: Fernald Health Effects Subcommittee (FHES).

  [Page Number 64266]

  Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m., December 10, 1998.

  Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84101, telephone [phone], fax [phone].

  Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space
available. The meeting room will accommodate approximately 75
people.

  Purpose: This subcommittee reviews and provides consensus
advice to CDC and ATSDR on their public health activities and
research at the Fernald, Ohio, site.

  Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include an update on
worker studies related to the Fernald site from NIOSH; an update
on risk assessment from NCEH; selection of FHES representative
for an evaluation project; and subcommittee discussion.

  Name: Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects (ICHHP)
in Association with the Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee
(HHES).

  Time and Date: 8 a.m.-12 noon, December 10, 1998.

  Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84101, telephone [phone], fax [phone].

  Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space
available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 75 people.

  Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to address issues that
are unique to tribal involvement with the HHES, including
considerations regarding a proposed medical monitoring program
and discussion of cooperative agreement activities designed to
provide support for capacity-building activities in tribal
environmental health expertise and for tribal involvement in
HHES.

  Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items will include a dialogue
on issues that are unique to tribal involvement with the HHES.
This will include exploring cooperative agreement activities in
environmental health capacity building and providing support for
tribal involvement in and representation on the HHES.

  Name: Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee (HHES).

  Times and Dates: 1 p.m.-5 p.m., December 10, 1998; 8:30
a.m.-3:30 p.m., December 11, 1998.

  Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84101, telephone [phone], fax [phone].

  Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space
available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 75 people.

  Purpose: This subcommittee reviews and provides consensus
advice to CDC and ATSDR on their public health activities and
research at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

  Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items will include an update
from the ICHHP; the review and approval of Minutes of the
previous meeting; updates from ATSDR, NCEH, and NIOSH; reports
from the Outreach, Public Health Assessment, Public Health
Activities, and Studies Workgroups; and other issues and topics
as necessary.

  Name: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
Health Effects Subcommittee (INEELHES).

  Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., December 10, 1998.

  Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84101, telephone [phone], fax [phone].

  Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space
available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 75 people.

  Purpose: This subcommittee reviews and provides consensus
advice to CDC and ATSDR on their public health activities and
research at the INEEL.

  Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include an update on the
status of research at the INEEL, discussion on document
management at DOE; and subcommittee discussions.

  Name: Savannah River Site Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES).

  Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., December 10, 1998.

  Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84101, telephone [phone], fax [phone].

  Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space
available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 75 people.

  Purpose: This subcommittee reviews and provides consensus
advice to CDC and ATSDR on their public health activities and
research at the SRS.

  Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include an update from
ATSDR on its research; the schedule for release to the public of
the Phase II report; presentations by NCEH, ATSDR, and NIOSH on
the design of their respective web pages; and subcommittee
discussion.

  All agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information on the HHES and
the ICHHP may be obtained from Leslie C. Campbell, Executive
Secretary, HHES, or Marilyn Palmer, Committee Management
Specialist, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation,
ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, NE (E-56), Atlanta, GA 30333, telephone
1-800-447-1544, fax [phone]. Information on the FHES may be
obtained from Steven A. Adams, Executive Secretary, FHES,
Radiation Studies Branch (RSB), Division of Environmental Hazards
and Health Effects (DEHHE), NCEH, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE,
(F-35), Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, telephone [phone], fax
770-488-7044. Information on the INEELHES may be obtained from
Arthur J. Robinson, Jr., Executive Secretary, INEELHES, RSB,
DEHHE, NCEH, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, (F-35), Atlanta,
Georgia 30341-3724, telephone [phone], fax [phone].
Information on the SRSHES may be obtained from Paul G. Renard,
Executive Secretary, SRSHES, RSB, DEHHE, NCEH, CDC, 4770 Buford
Highway, NE, (F-35), Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, telephone
770-488-7040, fax [phone].

  The Director, Management Analysis and Services office has been
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee
management activities, for both CDC and ATSDR.

  Dated: November 13, 1998.

  Carolyn J. Russell,

  Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

  [FR Doc. 98-30913 Filed 11-18-98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE
  4163-18-P



END




-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Nat Post 20Nov98
Date: 20 Nov 1998 14:41:37 -0500

>Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:10:04 -0500
>Subject: Nat Post 20Nov98
>Priority: non-urgent
>To: [e-mail]
>X-FC-Forwarded-From: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>Another article by Mike Trickey in the National Post. I believe some
>other Southam papers ran the full article (appended at the end of this
>message), but I guess the Post just didn't have room for a favourable
>Canadian point of view. Maybe they should use this as one of the
>examples in their Pre/Post ad campaign...
>
>
>National Post, 20 November 1998
>
>Opposition growing to 'first-use' strategy
>
>Mike Trickey
>Southam News
>
>A Canadian push for the NATO defence alliance to renounce the
>right to first use of nuclear weapons is gaining support, and is
>causing growing discomfort for the United States.
>
>The new German government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a
>coalition of Social Democrats and Greens, is seeking such a
>declaration as part of a new strategic concept to mark NATO's
>50th anniversary at a summit next April in Washington.
>
>Canada's Commons foreign affairs' committee is preparing a report
>to Parliament that implicitly seeks the renunciation of the first-use
>policy, as well as the removal of American nuclear weapons from
>Europe.
>
>A third recommendation that runs directly counter to U.S. policy
>calls for disarming nuclear weapons through a process which
>separates the warhead from the delivery system.
>
>The committee also recommends Canada "redouble its efforts, in
>co-operation with like-minded states, to mobilize public opinion on
>the humanitarian aspects of nuclear non-proliferation, arms control
>and disarmament" in a process similar to that which mobilized the
>international effort culminating in last year's signing of the treaty
>banning the use, production and transfer of anti-personnel
>landmines.
>
>The committee report is to be presented next month to the
>government, which will then have 150 sitting days to determine a
>course of action.
>
>Indications are the report will not become new government policy
>despite support from Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy,
>because Prime Minister Jean Chretien is loath to split with Canada's
>two largest allies over the issue.
>
>The coalition to change NATO's nuclear policy is already at work,
>with Canada and Germany joined by 10 other non-nuclear states
>resisting U.S. pressure to vote last week against a United Nations
>resolution calling for the fast-tracking of negotiations to abolish
>nuclear weapons.
>
>The 12 abstained in the non-binding vote, which passed by a 97-19
>margin, to send a message to the U.S. that they are seeking change
>but do not want to openly challenge the alliance leader.
>
>Joschka Fischer, the new German foreign minister and a member of
>the Greens, told foreign journalists last week he has "no ambition to
>be a revolutionary," but his party has long advocated the abolition
>of nuclear weapons.
>
>The option of "first-use" of nuclear weapons has been the
>underpinning of NATO's deterrence strategy in the second half of
>the 20th century.
>
>The U.S. insists it must reserve the right to determine the time, place
>and nature of its response to aggression.
>
>A paper from the National Defence University in Washington sums
>up the U.S. position. "The very uncertain nature of the potential
>U.S. response, coupled with an ability to respond overwhelmingly,
>complicates an aggressor's calculations, contributes to his
>uncertainty of success and makes deterrence credible."
>
>One of the recommendations in the committee's draft notes, "the
>modern alliance is now so strong politically and militarily that the
>presence of U.S. nuclear weapons is no longer essential as a
>demonstration of solidarity and the transatlantic link."
>
>END OF POST VERSION
>
>
>LONGER VERSION OF ARTICLE
>
>Canada's nuclear position gains supporters
>
>By MIKE TRICKEY
>
>OTTAWA -- A Canadian push for the NATO defence alliance to renounce the
>right
>to first use of nuclear weapons is gaining support and is causing
>growing
>discomfort for the United States.
>
>The new German government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, a coalition of
>Social Democrats and Greens, is seeking such a declaration as part of a
>new
>strategic concept to mark NATO's 50th anniversary at a summit next April
>in
>Washington.
>
>Canada's Commons foreign affairs committee is preparing recommendations
>to
>Parliament which implicitly seeks the renunciation of the first-use
>policy,
>as well as calling for the removal of the United States' nuclear weapons
>from
>Europe.
>
>A third recommendation that runs directly counter to U.S. policy calls
>for
>de-arming nuclear weapons, a process which separates the warhead from
>the
>delivery system.
>
>The committee also recommends that Canada "redouble its efforts, in
>cooperation with like-minded states, to mobilize public opinion on the
>humanitarian aspects of nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and
>disarmament" in a process similar to that which mobilized the
>international
>effort that culminated in last year's signing of the treaty banning the
>use,
>production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines.
>
>That coalition is already at work, with Canada and Germany joined by 10
>other
>non-nuclear states resisting U.S. pressure to vote last week against to
>a
>United Nations resolution calling for the fast-tracking of negotiations
>to
>abolish nuclear weapons.
>
>The 12 abstained in the non-binding vote, which passed by a 97-19
>margin, to
>send a message to the U.S. that they are seeking change but do not want
>to
>openly challenge the alliance leader.
>
>New German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, a member of the Greens,
>told
>foreign journalists last week that he has "no ambition to be a
>revolutionary," but his party has long advocated the abolition of
>nuclear
>weapons.
>
>The option of "first-use" of nuclear weapons has been the underpinning
>of
>NATO's deterrence strategy in the second half of the 20th century.
>
>The United States insists that it must reserve the right to determine
>the
>time, place and nature of its response to aggression while leaving open
>the
>precise character of that response.
>
>To renounce that option, goes the argument, would permit an aggressor to
>devise strategies that limit the ability to respond.
>
>A paper from the National Defence University in Washington sums up the
>American position.
>
>"The very uncertain nature of the potential U.S. response, coupled with
>an
>ability to respond overwhelmingly, complicates an aggressor's
>calculations,
>contributes to his uncertainty of success and makes deterrence
>credible."
>
>Canada and the like-minded nations argue that such thinking is outdated.
>One of the recommendations in the parliamentary committee's draft report
>notes, "the modern alliance is now so strong politically and militarily
>that
>the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons is no longer essential as a
>demonstration of solidarity and the transAtlantic link."
>
>The committee also wants a new NATO strategic concept to recognize the
>post-
>Cold War era and the "reduction in any likelihood of the use of nuclear
>weapons" by committing all member states to the reduction and eventual
>elimination of nuclear arsenals.
>
>Though the Americans and British reject any suggestion that the
>first-use
>option be scrapped, peace organizations see a growing repudiation of
>that
>position within the alliance.
>
>"The argument we get from the Americans is that first use is required
>because
>the European allies demand it and if they didn't provide it that the
>Europeans might consider going nuclear themselves, which is just not a
>realistic option," says Bill Robinson of Project Ploughshares.
>
>"I think for the European allies to say they want this reviewed is an
>important step and one which should help free up the Americans to
>reconsider
>that idea, too."
>
>Robinson says the committee has put together a good report, but could
>have
>gone further.
>
>"We would have hoped to see some stronger recommendations; an explicit
>position, for example, on no first use. We also would have liked
>explicit
>support for joining the new agenda coalition."
>
>The committee report is to be presented next month to the government,
>which
>will then have 150 sitting days to determine a course of action.
>
>Indications are that the report will not become new government policy
>despite
>support from Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy  because Prime
>Minister
>Jean Chretien is loathe to split with Canada's two largest allies over
>the
>issue.
>
>
>
>--
>Bill Robinson, Project Ploughshares,
>Conrad Grebel College, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada  N2L 3G6
>Phone: [phone] x264  Fax: [phone]
>E-mail: [e-mail]
>http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough
>
>Project Ploughshares is a member of the Canadian Network to Abolish
>Nuclear Weapons (http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough/cnanw/cnanw.html)
>
Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Clinton/NAC letter
Date: 20 Nov 1998 19:31:02 -0500

Dear Friends,
Here's my letter to President Clinton.  I hope you have written one too.  He
needs to hear from lots of us.  Peace, Alice Slater

                                November 20, 1998


President Bill Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC  20500

Dear President Clinton,

I am utterly appalled at the position taken by our country at the United
Nations on a vote that was held on the New Agenda CoalitionÆs resolution
L48 in
the UNÆs First Committee on November 13, 1998.  The New Agenda, led by
Ireland,
Sweden, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, and Egypt (Slovenia had to
drop out after unconscionable arm-twisting by the US) has issued a clarion
call
to the nuclear weapons states and the nuclear capable states which are not
members of the NPT (India, Pakistan, Israel), to take more rapid steps towards
nuclear disarmament, urging that we not enter the next millenium without a
clear and rapid path towards the elimination of the nuclear scourge.

Our country shamefully objected in the UN to the New AgendaÆs call to
re-evaluate our nuclear policy in NATO and to dealert all nuclear weapons and
make our world a safer place.  Particularly with the Y2k problem, it is
critical that we separate our bombs from the missiles to prevent tragic
accidents.

All of our NATO allies, despite heavy handed lobbying by the US, with the
exception of France, UK and Turkey, broke ranks with us and voted to
abstain on
resolution L48, despite our immoral urging of them to vote against this
rational plan for the coming millenium.  Canada, following its lead on the
landmines treaty and the International Criminal Court, was lobbying against
us.  Germany, Italy , Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Spain, Belgium, Luxemburg,
Iceland, Portugal, and Denmark, as well as non-NATO allies Japan and Australia
all rejected the immoral position of our country.

Germany has just issued a call that NATO adopt a no first use policy and
Canada
is preparing a review of its nuclear stance in NATO.  Now is the time to heed
our friends and move to rapid nuclear disarmament.  Events in Russia support
such a move as we learn that their arsenal will be vastly reduced.

The very possession of nuclear weapons is an invitation to other nations to
acquire them--witness events in India and Pakistan.  ItÆs time to put the cold
war behind us and negotiate a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  By
clinging
so obdurately to our useless and dangerous nuclear capability we are joining
the league of so-called "rogue" states who use the terror of weapons of mass
destruction as an instrument of policy.  You can make your place in history
 if
you join with our allies in working rapidly to eliminate the nuclear scourge.
DonÆt let us repeat the tragic and shameful events that led to our pariah
status on the landmines and International Criminal Court treaties.

Sincerely,



Alice Slater

Cc: Vice President Al Gore
    Robert Bell, National Security Council


Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
15 East 26th Street, Room 915
New York, NY 10010
tel:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]
email:  [e-mail]

GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty
to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Smirnow)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: DISQUALIFY YUCCA MOUNTAIN
Date: 20 Nov 1998 18:27:55 -0600 (CST)

----
Reply-To: [e-mail]


NEWS FROM NIRS
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
1424 16th Street NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036
202-328-0002; fax: [phone]; [e-mail]; www.nirs.org

Wednesday November 18, 1998
Contact:  Michael Mariotte or Mary Olson  [phone]

DUMP YUCCA MOUNTAIN!
NATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AGREE:
YUCCA MOUNTAIN IS A TERRIBLE PLACE TO MIND ATOMIC WASTE

Today the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), Public
Citizen, US Public Interest Research Group, Sierra Club and 225 local,
national and international organizations sent a letter and petition to
Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson demanding that his Department
disqualify the Yucca Mountain site from further development as a
possible high-level nuclear waste dump.

The groups took this action because Yucca Mountain clearly cannot be
qualified as the nation's only high-level atomic waste dump under the
Department of Energy's (DOE) own guidelines. "At this point, it is
clear
that Yucca Mountain can be approved as a high-level radioactive waste
dump only if the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission change or
ignore their own stated regulations for an atomic waste repository,"
said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information
and
Resource Service (NIRS), a national nuclear watchdog group based in
Washington, DC. "And the DOE and NRC have no public health or safety
basis to change their rules," Mariotte said. "Continuing with work on
Yucca Mt. now would be an accommodation to the nuclear power industry,
not evidence of a sound radioactive waste policy."

The petition delineates evidence that Yucca Mountain does not meet the
Site Suitability Guidelines for a permanent nuclear waste repository as
established by the Department of Energy, under current law at the
outset
of the high-level waste program. The presence of even a single
"disqualifier" at Yucca Mountain requires the Secretary of Energy to
disqualify the site. The petition shows two disqualifying factors
already documented, while a host of unresolved issues remain that could
also rule out the site. Disqualifying factors pertain to elements of
the
repository system that would undercut the goal of a nuclear waste
disposal site: to isolate the waste from the environment for as long as
it is hazardous. Irradiated fuel from commercial reactors and
bomb-making must be isolated for about a quarter-million years.

"Under law, the Secretary must act on any day that it is clear that a
prospective site has a disqualifying condition to reject the site from
further consideration as a nuclear waste dump. It is only the decision
to use the site that requires a lengthy process of validation. The
Secretary must not ignore the new information that shows that Yucca
Mountain will leak if nuclear waste is buried there," said Mary Olson,
a
nuclear waste specialist with NIRS.  "Earthquakes at that site have
fractured the rock. Thirty-five active faults in the area have
registered more than 600 quakes of 2.5 or greater magnitude just in the
last 20 years. New data has shown that when it rains the water moves
very quickly from the surface to the ground water. If you put nuclear
waste in the middle of that mountain, sooner or later it will leak. We
can't afford to make a mistake with this waste, it contains more than
95% of the radioactivity of the Nuclear Age," concluded Olson.

Scientists from Los Alamos identified the presence of chlorine-36
inside
Yucca Mountain at concentrations that could only have originated from
nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific. This radioactive material results
from the activation of the salt in seawater, and is not characteristic
of nuclear weapons tests done in Nevada. The radioactive chlorine
traveled as fallout with the rains and is not unique to this site. It
merely serves as a marker for where that rainwater went. It shows that
surface water traveled inside Yucca Mountain to the repository depth
within the last 50 years.

The fact that more than 200 environmental groups from 39 states signed
the letter to Richardson gives the lie to the notion that Yucca Mt. is
somehow just a Nevada issue. "In fact," said Mariotte, "opposition to
Yucca Mt. as a nuclear waste site is reaching a crescendo all across
the
nation. Nobody concerned with public health and safety-- anywhere in
the
country--believes that the nation's atomic waste should be stored in an
earthquake-prone, leaking mountain. Make no mistake, the environmental
movement is now united against Yucca Mountain."

Mariotte also pointed out that several international organizations
signed the letter--without prompting--indicating that the entire world
is looking at this project as a potential precursor for other nations'
high-level waste decisions. "No nation has solved the problem of
high-level atomic waste," Mariotte pointed out, "and the entire world
is
looking at the U.S. and whether we will address this issue
scientifically and with the public's interests in mind, or whether we
will capitulate to the nuclear industry's desire for a quick fix."

The petition is being made shortly before the Department of Energy is
expected to release a "viability assessment" on the Yucca Mt. project.
This assessment likely will advocate continued work on the project.
"Even the DOE has said this viability assessment is a virtually
meaningless document," said Olson. "This is not a scientific assessment
of the project, it is a political paper intended to keep Congress
funding the radioactive waste bureaucracy. There is nothing in the
viability assessment that overrides the simple truth: Yucca Mt. cannot
meet protective regulations today and it cannot ever meet them."

NIRS also warned against further congressional consideration of
"Mobile
Chernobyl" legislation, which would establish an interim site at Yucca
Mt. and begin the transport of thousands of casks of high-level atomic
waste through the nation's cities and suburbs, as well as its most
productive farmland. "There is no point--and a lot of risk--in moving
radioactive waste from the reactor sites to an unsuitable site in
Nevada," said Mariotte.  "Congressional activity on this issue is a
waste of time--President Clinton has been consistent: he will veto any
such bill, and the Congress will uphold the veto; nothing has changed
in
that regard. Congress needs to begin work on a new radioactive waste
policy that recognizes that Yucca Mt. will not be the nation's dumping
ground and also recognizes that a speedy phase-out of nuclear power--as
Germany and other countries are now beginning--is the best solution to
the nuclear problem."

--30--




-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hcaldic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Clinton/NAC letter
Date: 20 Nov 1998 15:02:29 +1100

ASlater wrote:
>=20
> Dear Friends,
> Here's my letter to President Clinton.  I hope you have written one too=
.  He
> needs to hear from lots of us.  Peace, Alice Slater
>=20
>                                 November 20, 1998
>=20
> President Bill Clinton
> 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
> Washington, DC  20500
>=20
> Dear President Clinton,
>=20
> I am utterly appalled at the position taken by our country at the Unite=
d
> Nations on a vote that was held on the New Agenda Coalition=92s resolut=
ion
> L48 in
> the UN=92s First Committee on November 13, 1998.  The New Agenda, led b=
y
> Ireland,
> Sweden, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, and Egypt (Slovenia =
had to
> drop out after unconscionable arm-twisting by the US) has issued a clar=
ion
> call
> to the nuclear weapons states and the nuclear capable states which are =
not
> members of the NPT (India, Pakistan, Israel), to take more rapid steps =
towards
> nuclear disarmament, urging that we not enter the next millenium withou=
t a
> clear and rapid path towards the elimination of the nuclear scourge.
>=20
> Our country shamefully objected in the UN to the New Agenda=92s call to
> re-evaluate our nuclear policy in NATO and to dealert all nuclear weapo=
ns and
> make our world a safer place.  Particularly with the Y2k problem, it is
> critical that we separate our bombs from the missiles to prevent tragic
> accidents.
>=20
> All of our NATO allies, despite heavy handed lobbying by the US, with t=
he
> exception of France, UK and Turkey, broke ranks with us and voted to
> abstain on
> resolution L48, despite our immoral urging of them to vote against this
> rational plan for the coming millenium.  Canada, following its lead on =
the
> landmines treaty and the International Criminal Court, was lobbying aga=
inst
> us.  Germany, Italy , Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Spain, Belgium, Luxe=
mburg,
> Iceland, Portugal, and Denmark, as well as non-NATO allies Japan and Au=
stralia
> all rejected the immoral position of our country.
>=20
> Germany has just issued a call that NATO adopt a no first use policy an=
d
> Canada
> is preparing a review of its nuclear stance in NATO.  Now is the time t=
o heed
> our friends and move to rapid nuclear disarmament.  Events in Russia su=
pport
> such a move as we learn that their arsenal will be vastly reduced.
>=20
> The very possession of nuclear weapons is an invitation to other nation=
s to
> acquire them--witness events in India and Pakistan.  It=92s time to put=
 the cold
> war behind us and negotiate a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  By
> clinging
> so obdurately to our useless and dangerous nuclear capability we are jo=
ining
> the league of so-called "rogue" states who use the terror of weapons of=
 mass
> destruction as an instrument of policy.  You can make your place in his=
tory
>  if
> you join with our allies in working rapidly to eliminate the nuclear sc=
ourge.
> Don=92t let us repeat the tragic and shameful events that led to our pa=
riah
> status on the landmines and International Criminal Court treaties.
>=20
> Sincerely,
>=20
> Alice Slater
>=20
> Cc: Vice President Al Gore
>     Robert Bell, National Security Council
>=20
> Alice Slater
> Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
> 15 East 26th Street, Room 915
> New York, NY 10010
> tel:  [phone]
> fax:  [phone]
> email:  [e-mail]
>=20
> GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a tre=
aty
> to eliminate nuclear weapons.
>=20
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.=
com"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

    Good stuff Alice!, Helen



-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Smirnow)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Y2K: MANY CHERNOBYLS POSSIBLE ACCORDING TO "TIMES OF LONDON"
Date: 21 Nov 1998 19:15:13 -0600 (CST)

----


Nov 13, 1998
2000 Glitch Poses Nuclear Threat
THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES
Western intelligence is warning of possible nuclear "meltdown" in the
former Soviet bloc as a result of the so-called
millennium bug, The Times of London reported on Sunday.
The millennium bug is a glitch in many of the world's computers that is
expected to cripple them worldwide at midnight on
December 31, 1999.
Intelligence sources say some of the 65 Soviet-made civilian nuclear
power plants scattered across Russia and the former
Warsaw Pact countries could malfunction as their computers fall victim
to the "Y2K" (year 2000) glitch, which makes
them interpret the 00 date as 1900 instead of 2000, The Times reported.
"America, Britain and France have been quick to see the dangers. But
anxieties about Russian nuclear safety, branded on
global memory by the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, have not been diminished
by Moscow's assurances that the problem is
'under control,'" the paper reported.
An intelligence source was quoted by The Times as saying, "Russia's
nuclear industry is in desperate straits. Throw in
Y2K and you could have a giant Chernobyl on your hands."
It emerged last week that William Daley, the U.S. commerce secretary,
is to host an international millennium bug
conference this year, indicating the seriousness with which the U.S.
White House views the problem, the paper said.
"Nuclear safety is bound to be an important item on the agenda," The
Times reported, adding, "Al Gore, the [U.S.] vice
president, also raised Y2K at a recent meeting with Viktor
Chernomyrdin, the former Russian prime minister."
In a recent circular to all American power plants, the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission warned that "control room
display systems, radiation monitoring and emergency response" are
particularly at risk, The Times reported.
"The Y2K problem is urgent because it has a fixed, non-negotiable
deadline," that circular concluded. "This matter
requires priority attention because of the limited time remaining to
assess the magnitude of the problem."
Even if the Russian government heeds such warnings, it may not have
enough computer experts to go round, The Times
reported.
Former Soviet bloc countries have 36 Soviet-made civilian nuclear
reactors, while Russia itself has 29. Of Russia's, 11
are models similar to the one that exploded at Chernobyl, in Ukraine,
releasing 200 times as much radioactivity as the
atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The oldest Chernobyl-style nuclear power plant is the Leningrad Nuclear
Power Plant, or LAES, an accident-prone
power station just 80 kilometers west of St. Petersburg. LAES's
reactors were actually the prototype for Chernobyl's.
Russian officials say the LAES reactors have been upgraded since the
Chernobyl accident revealed vulnerabilities in them.
LAES has been plagued with problems - ranging from a hunger strike last
year by unpaid engineers, who continued to
work monitoring the reactor's safety despite dizziness and fainting
spells, to an overburdened nuclear waste storage
facility.
In 1992, an accident at LAES released radiation outside the plant. Last
week saw conflicting reports that another
accident in March had again released a minor amount of radiation
outside the plant.





-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Timothy Bruening <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) The Iraq Crisis and U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Date: 22 Nov 1998 01:32:24 -0800 (PST)

I am trying to write a letter about the contradiction between U.S.
insistence that Iraq rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and submit to
UN inspectors to determine if Iraq has done so, and U.S. refusal to rid
itself of its nuclear weapons or submit to international inspection of its
nuclear arsenal.  Below is my proposed outline.  Please help me flesh it out.

I. For over 7 years, the U.S. has insisted that Iraq rid itself of its
weapons of mass destruction and submit to UN inspectors to determine if Iraq
has done so, using sanctions and threats of air strikes to force Iraq to comply.

II. At the same time, the U.S. refuses to negotiate a treaty to eliminate
nuclear weapons, in defiance of the World Court, 87% of the American public,
about 60 retired high ranking military officials, and 117 former civilian
leaders.

        A. The DOE's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program to
continue and expand U.S. nuclear weapons design, testing, development, and
production.

                1. NIF

                2. subcritical testing

                3. computer simulations

                4. SSMP undermines nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

III. The U.S. refuses to allow international inspections of its nuclear
arsenal, and arrests Citizen Inspectors who try to inspect U.S. military
facilities.

IV. To end the hypocrisy, give Iraq and North Korea no excuse to resist
inspections or keep weapons of mass destruction, and end the threat of
nuclear war, the U.S. should:

        A. Take half its nuclear warheads off alert and remove them from
their delivery vehicles.

        B. Invite international inspectors in to verify above steps.

        C. Call on all the other nuclear states to do A and B, and call for
the negotiation of a Nuclear Abolition Treaty.

        D. Promise to de-alert and remove the rest of its nuclear warheads
once C has occurred.


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Boyle, Francis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: (abolition-usa) The Iraq Crisis and U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Date: 22 Nov 1998 08:55:00 -0600

Dear Timothy: For what it is worth: The IAEA has already stated that Iraq
has no nuclear weapons capability. Also, if I remember correctly, the former
UNSCOM Inspector, Ray Zalinskas has already said in public that at least 90%
of Iraq's chemical and biological warfare capability has been destroyed.
This is just a bogus issue that the United States and Britain are currently
using to build public support for a war of extermination against the People
of Iraq. We must not fall into their trap.
Best regards,
Francis Boyle
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820
217-333-7954(voice)
217-244-1478(fax)
[e-mail]


> ----------
> From:     Timothy Bruening[SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Reply To:     [e-mail]
> Sent:     Sunday, November 22, 1998 3:32 AM
> To:     [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject:     (abolition-usa) The Iraq Crisis and U.S. Nuclear Weapons
>
> I am trying to write a letter about the contradiction between U.S.
> insistence that Iraq rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and submit
> to
> UN inspectors to determine if Iraq has done so, and U.S. refusal to rid
> itself of its nuclear weapons or submit to international inspection of its
> nuclear arsenal.  Below is my proposed outline.  Please help me flesh it
> out.
>
> I. For over 7 years, the U.S. has insisted that Iraq rid itself of its
> weapons of mass destruction and submit to UN inspectors to determine if
> Iraq
> has done so, using sanctions and threats of air strikes to force Iraq to
> comply.
>
> II. At the same time, the U.S. refuses to negotiate a treaty to eliminate
> nuclear weapons, in defiance of the World Court, 87% of the American
> public,
> about 60 retired high ranking military officials, and 117 former civilian
> leaders.
>
>         A. The DOE's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program to
> continue and expand U.S. nuclear weapons design, testing, development, and
> production.
>
>                 1. NIF
>
>                 2. subcritical testing
>
>                 3. computer simulations
>
>                 4. SSMP undermines nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
>
> III. The U.S. refuses to allow international inspections of its nuclear
> arsenal, and arrests Citizen Inspectors who try to inspect U.S. military
> facilities.
>
> IV. To end the hypocrisy, give Iraq and North Korea no excuse to resist
> inspections or keep weapons of mass destruction, and end the threat of
> nuclear war, the U.S. should:
>
>         A. Take half its nuclear warheads off alert and remove them from
> their delivery vehicles.
>
>         B. Invite international inspectors in to verify above steps.
>
>         C. Call on all the other nuclear states to do A and B, and call
> for
> the negotiation of a Nuclear Abolition Treaty.
>
>         D. Promise to de-alert and remove the rest of its nuclear warheads
> once C has occurred.
>
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
> "[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
>

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Culp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NYT:  Pentagon Ready to Shrink Arsenal of Nuclear Bombs
Date: 23 Nov 1998 08:16:15 -0500

PENTAGON READY TO SHRINK ARSENAL OF NUCLEAR BOMBS
Monday, November 23,
1998 New York Times

By STEVEN LEE MYERS


WASHINGTON -- Driven by budget constraints as much as diminishing
security threats, Pentagon officials are quietly recommending that the
Clinton administration consider unilateral reductions in the nation's
nuclear arsenal.

Since the United States has already committed itself to drastic cuts
in its nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon believes that the unilateral
reductions would have no effect on America's ability to deter a
nuclear adversary. The recommendations, if adopted, would reduce the
American arsenal below the 6,000 nuclear warheads allowed by the first
strategic arms reduction treaty, or START I, senior administration
officials said. The United States and Russia have signed a second arms
treaty, START II, that would cut their arsenals even more sharply, to
between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads. But for nearly six years, Russia's
Parliament has refused to approve START II.

Because of Russia's delay, and U.S. legislation blocking unilateral
cuts, the Pentagon faces the prospect of paying hundreds of millions
of dollars to maintain -- and soon to rebuild -- nuclear weapons that
the United States has already agreed to scrap.

The Pentagon has spent $95 million more over the past two years than
it would have if START II had taken effect. Next year it would cost
$100 million more, and the year after that, $1 billion. The Navy, in
particular, could be forced to pay more than $5 billion between now
and 2003 to refuel nuclear reactors and install new missiles on four
Trident ballistic-missile submarines that would otherwise be
dismantled. With this budget crunch looming, the Pentagon submitted to
Congress a highly classified report last April that outlined nine
proposals for reducing the strategic arsenal unilaterally.

Neither President Clinton nor Secretary of Defense William Cohen has
made a decision on the recommendations, and a senior White House
official said they would not do so until Russia's Communist-dominated
Parliament completes its latest deliberations on START II, which was
signed in 1993.

Although Russia's nationalists and Communists have vehemently opposed
the treaty, the lower house has begun debate and could vote as soon as
December.

The Pentagon's recommendations underline the stakes: START II's
ratification would not only rid the world of thousands of nuclear
warheads, but would also save the United States billions of dollars
that the Pentagon would rather spend elsewhere or that Congress might
allocate to other programs. Officials in Washington and Russia agree
that prospects for ratification have improved as the realization sinks
in that Russia's economic problems have left the country hard pressed
to maintain a nuclear force as large as that allowed by START I.

"I'm reluctant to discuss at all Plan B," one White House official
said of the Pentagon's recommendations, "when we have the best
on-course momentum here in a long, long time for Plan A."

But if the Russian Parliament again rejects the treaty, officials in
the Pentagon plan to recommend that Clinton seek permission from
Congress to move ahead with unilateral reductions. The officials said
a decision could come as part of the budget Clinton will submit to
Congress early next year. Adm. Richard Mies, the new commander of the
nation's strategic arsenal, said the United States was committed to
maintaining a "robust and credible force." But he suggested that this
effort did not preclude unilateral cuts in warheads or the systems to
deliver them.

"I think you will inevitably see us take some unilateral actions that
we have to take to modernize our forces and maybe streamline our
forces to some degree," Mies said in an interview last week at the
U.S. Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in
Nebraska. "We're driven by our own imperatives."

Mies did not elaborate on what steps were under consideration. In
recent weeks, however, Pentagon and administration aides have begun
discussions with congressional staff members as they draw up next
year's budget and decide whether to set aside enough money for a
larger nuclear force, the officials said.

In each of the last two years, Republicans in Congress have put
language in the Department of Defense's budget bills explicitly
prohibiting reductions below START I levels by the United States
alone.

Some administration officials and members of Congress have argued that
the legislation is necessary to press the Russians to ratify START II.
Others dispute the effect that such legislation has had on the Russian
Parliament's deliberation, and argue that unilateral reductions could
revive a stagnant arms control process.

"The issue is, how much longer are we going to pay to stay at a higher
level to retain some leverage over the Russians to ratify the treaty,"
a senior defense official said.

Under START I, which was signed in 1991, the United States has
drastically reduced its arsenal of strategic nuclear warheads, from
more than 10,000 to about 7,000 today. In Helsinki, Finland, in March
1997, Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin agreed that once the lower
house approved START II, the United States and Russia would begin
talks on still further reductions, to 2,000 to 2,500 warheads.

Political pressures for slashing the number of warheads have begun to
grow here. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York
last week, Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., called on the administration to
make unilateral reductions and take other steps that would reassure
Russia, including removing remaining warheads from the highest state
of alert. Kerrey said he would seek to repeal the congressional limits
on further reductions, arguing that among other things, the higher
levels of weapons sapped money from efforts to combat "newer threats"
like terrorism and ethnic wars.

"Our old policies of arms control and deterrence no long work and may
be increasing the danger," he said, "both by making nuclear threats
worse and by diverting money and resources away from the conventional
forces that are the key to our safety in the post-Cold War world."

In its budgets, the Pentagon has already anticipated reducing the
arsenal to START II levels over the next several years. Likewise,
strategists have concluded that a nuclear force as small as that
planned under START III, which has not yet been negotiated, can
adequately defend the United States, making spending on anything more
seem wasteful.

Administration officials declined to spell out the proposals under
consideration should the Russian Parliament fail to ratify START II.
But one senior military official said some options would allow the
Pentagon to reduce the number of warheads to 5,000 to 6,000 and reduce
or eliminate some categories of strategic weapons.

Under these plans, the Navy would move ahead with its current plan to
reduce its fleet of 18 Trident submarines by retiring the four oldest
by 2003. The Air Force would be able to reduce or eliminate the
stockpile of 50 intercontinental ballistic missiles that it is now
financing in its budget year to year.

In both cases, Congress has prohibited reductions in those forces. The
senior military official called the money spent on updating those
forces as "rat hole dollars."

"We don't necessarily feel we should be locked into a certain force
structure," the official said. "We want to have flexibility."


Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Culp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) More on START II from Moscow (Friday)
Date: 23 Nov 1998 08:34:20 -0500

RUSSIA CANNOT AFFORD ITS NUCLEAR SHIELD
Izvestia
Friday, November 20, 1998

by Vladimir YERMOLIN


The State Duma committees on defence and international affairs, which
drafted a law on the ratification of START-2, believe that the treaty
takes into account both the interests of national defences and
Russia's economic possibilities.

The main thing is that Russia does not need the current large shield,
say experts of the Defence Ministry. National security can be easily
ensured by a smaller arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons. With
figures in hand, the specialists of the General Staff have been trying
to prove to the deputies the expediency of ratifying the treaty for
several years now.

Today they have been joined by members of the Duma committees on
defence and international affairs. But it appears that we are
approaching the end of this drawn-out story, which began with the
signing of the treaty by the two presidents in Moscow in January 1993.

Roman Popkovich, chairman of the defence committee provided many
arguments in favour of ratification at a press conference on November
18. But one would be enough: Russia does not have the money to
maintain 5,000 nuclear warheads. Russia should spend at least 60
billion roubles a year (in pre-August 17 prices) to maintain and renew
its nuclear arsenals, which is a utopian dream, as the 1998 defence
budget amounts to only 82.5 billion roubles. Worse still, the treasury
will be able to provide only 75% of this sum. This is a purely
economic argument. Military arguments have been discussed many times,
and today we can only rely on the aforementioned opinion of
professionals.

The draft law, submitted by deputies Vladimir Lukin and Roman
Popkovich, takes into account all wishes and arguments of ratification
opponents. For example, it stipulates the conditions under which
Russia may withdraw from START-2. This can happen if the USA violates
ABM treaties and agreements.

The draft law also mentions the threat of the NATO eastward
enlargement. Russia will withdraw from START-2 if NATO creates a
threat to its national security on the territory of European members
by deploying nuclear or pin-point weapons there. And lastly, the law
stipulates guarantees of stable funding and fulfilment of the
development programme of the Russian strategic nuclear forces until
the year 2010.

It is difficult to say if the deputies will ratify the treaty at their
December session, but the chances are good enough. Maybe the Communist
Party faction, which has always opposed treaty, will listen to its men
in the government. And Vladimir Zhirinovsky might amend his stance if
the government takes into consideration his personal interests. And
yet, there are many ways to explode the situation, to reduce to naught
the efforts of ratification proponents. For example, the problem could
be moved to the political plane, with ratification linked with IMF
credits. This would be the best present imaginable for the
irreconcilable deputies who claim START-2 is a programme of destroying
national defences on Western money.

----------

RUSSIA MULLS START 2 RATIFICATION

MOSCOW, Nov. 20, 1998 -- (Reuters) The Russian parliament may debate
next month the much delayed ratification of the START 2 nuclear arms
reduction treaty with the United States, a prominent member of the
Duma said on Thursday.

U.S. officials cautiously welcomed the signs of progress but warned
the Communist-led Duma not to risk wrecking the 1993 treaty, which has
already been ratified by the U.S. Senate, by inserting amendments
unacceptable to Washington.

Vladimir Lukin, the liberal chairman of the Duma foreign affairs
committee and a former ambassador to Washington, told reporters he
felt a "measured optimism" that a ratification bill he had helped draw
up would win backing from the chamber.

The bill, a draft of which was circulated on Thursday, spells out
conditions under which Russia would reserve the right to break the
1993 treaty, which provides for cuts in the two sides' deployed
nuclear warheads by up to two-thirds from about 6,000 each to no more
than 3,500 each by the year 2007.

Among the conditions were that Russia would consider the treaty no
longer binding if the United States broke either START 2 or the 1991
START 1 or 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty or threatened
Russia's national security in other ways.

Another clause said Russia would be free of its obligations if a third
power created a nuclear threat. Addressing a major concern in Moscow,
it also foresaw canceling START 2 if the United States or its allies
threatened Russia by deploying nuclear weapons in new NATO member
states in Eastern Europe or developed armaments in space that could
damage Russia's early warning system for missile attacks.

Lukin said the bill had been drafted in cooperation with the Defense
and Foreign ministries, indicating he believed that the conditions in
the ratification bill did not run counter to the Kremlin's reading of
the treaty itself and that President Boris Yeltsin would sign the
ratification bill if it were passed.

However, the bill may face opposition in the Duma, where some are
pressing for more stringent security guarantees. And Senator Richard
Lugar, an expert on Russian disarmament who was in Moscow on Thursday
during a tour of sites where weapons are being dismantled, warned that
the whole treaty could be wrecked if Duma skeptics attached too many
strings.

Noting that the Senate had avoided amending the treaty itself but
added some clarifying language in its ratification, Lugar said the
Duma could answer its concerns by doing the same.

"But to add an item such as no nuclear weapons in the Baltics or
something of this variety as a condition clearly would be unacceptable
and we're not going to have a START 2 under those conditions," he
added.

"It would require the United States to have another debate on START 2
ratification on those terms. That does not look promising," he said.
The United States and Yeltsin have been pressing the house to ratify
the treaty and have even begun work on what would be a START 3 while
waiting for it to do so.

A U.S. embassy spokesman said he had yet to see the draft but added:
"We are encouraged to see the Duma accelerating the pace of the work
on this."

But opponents of the treaty, especially Communists, say the
dismantling of nuclear warheads puts too great a strain on Russia's
stretched finances and threatens funding for maintaining and
modernizing the rest of its defenses.

They have been seeking greater guarantees on financing, including U.S.
aid, before they will ratify START 2.

The Duma's draft bill contained clauses demanding parliamentary
oversight of the progress of implementing the treaty and government
and presidential commitments to provide funding for maintaining
Russia's nuclear arsenal. It put forward an end-2003 deadline for
reaching an accord on further cuts in warhead numbers.

(c) 1998 Reuters

----------

Russia Today
Friday, November 20, 1998

A Duma official said on Thursday that Russia's parliament could start
debate on the START II arms reduction treaty ratification next month.
The chairman of the Duma's Foreign Affairs Committee, Vladimir Lukin,
told reporters that he felt hopeful that a compromise bill would be
ratified. U.S. officials reacted with cautious optimism, but warned
the Communist-lead Duma not to wreck the 1993 treaty by adding
amendments. Opponents of the treaty argue that dismantling the nuclear
warheads would strain Russia's already stretched finances and they
seek greater guarantees of funding for the project.




-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Two items from today's (11.23) NY Times
Date: 23 Nov 1998 20:52:48 EST

Skip if you get the Times. The first is on page one, reminding us why the
death penalty is so risky. Hayes Williams, a Black, entered prison at 19 and
has left it thirty years later, based on the willingness of a federal judge to
rule that the prosecution had withheld evidence in the 1967 case that would
have proved him innocent. The story documents how Hayes Williams remains "in
jail" in spirit. But let's realize, somewhat unnerved, by what a narrow chance
he escaped being executed for a crime with which he had nothing to do.

Page eight is at least as scary - and of great value to all of us in the peace
and disarmament movement. It documents how Gore (one of the brightest and
best) rejected a CIA report in 1995 because it reported Prime Minister Viktor
Chernomyrdin to be personally corrupt. This didn't fit Gore's and the
Administration's line. The report was sent back to the CIA "with a barnyard
epithet scrawled across its cover". As a result the CIA analysts now say they
are censoring themselves and that when they found it cost a German business
executive $1 million just to get a meeting with Chernomydrdin to discuss deals
in Russia, it decided not to circulate the report outside the CIA.

Some of us have long argued for the abolition of the CIA - this fairly large
story on page eight outlines some of the reasons the CIA can't do its job -
even we wanted it to.

Peace,
David McReynolds

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Culp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Defense Secretary Cohen on START II and No First Use
Date: 24 Nov 1998 09:30:58 -0500

DEFENSE SECRETARY COHEN ON START II AND ON NO FIRST USE

Defense Department News Briefing
Monday, November 23, 1998 - 10 a.m. (EST)

...

Q: On another subject, if I may. The German government is now pressing
that NATO make a major reversal of policy and declare no first use of
nuclear weapons. In connection with that, the New York Times is
reporting, the report's been around for a long time, the United States
would like, the U.S. military would like to unilaterally cut nuclear
weapons even if START II isn't approved because we simply can't afford
the budget crisis to maintain them.

I wonder if you'd comment on those two issues.

Secretary Cohen: Since we have the new German Minister of Defense
coming tomorrow perhaps we could discuss the new German position as
far as the strategic doctrine is concerned for NATO. It is our
position that this doctrine is viable. It's something that is integral
to the NATO strategic doctrine. We think it makes sense and there's
good rationale for keeping it as it is. That we have reduced our
nuclear stocks rather dramatically, certainly at the theater level,
and even at the strategic level under START I, hopefully coming down
to START II levels as soon as the Russian Duma ratifies START II.

We think that the ambiguity involved in the issue of the use of
nuclear weapons contributes to our own security, keeping any potential
adversary who might use either chemical or biologicals unsure of what
our response would be.

So we think it's a sound doctrine. It was adopted certainly during the
Cold War, but modified even following and reaffirmed following at the
end of the Cold War. It is an integral part of our strategic concept
and we think it should remain exactly as it is.

With respect to the issue of nuclear levels, Congress of course has
mandated that we maintain our nuclear levels at the START I levels
until such time as the Russian Duma ratifies START II. We are,
pursuant to congressional direction at least, exploring a variety of
options which even according to the New York Times this morning, a
report that was filed with Congress last spring was "a highly
classified document." We intend to keep it at that level for the time
being.

Q: Do you personally believe that it would be viable to unilaterally
cut U.S. weapons given the budget constraints on the cost of
maintaining these thousands of...

Secretary Cohen: As I've indicated before, it is costly to the United
States to maintain those levels. It is more costly to Russia to
maintain those levels. That is the reason why we have tried on each
and every occasion to persuade our Russian counterparts it's in their
interest as well as the United States to ratify START II as quickly as
possible so we can reduce the levels down to the START II levels and
then move on to START III.

Q: Have you or any other Pentagon official quietly recommended to the
Administration that there be consideration of unilateral cuts as the
New York Times story reports?

Secretary Cohen: I can't comment whether anyone has recommended such a
proposal. We're looking at a variety of options in terms of how we
deal with the issue of maintaining START I levels consistent with the
congressional mandate

...


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jack & Felice Cohen-Joppa)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Tahitians jailed for 1995 nuclear test protests
Date: 24 Nov 1998 19:48:08 -0700

[e-mail preface from the editors:  this information comes from a letter and
news clippings in French, which we do not read, sent by Gabriel Tetiarahi.
Friends helped with translation, and a copy of this was sent to Gabriel
Tetiarahi, but we have not yet received his reply with more accurate
information, as noted at end.  Republication is encouraged - please cite
source: the Nuclear Resister.)

From the Nuclear Resister #114, November 16, 1998:

Tahitians Jailed for Protesting French Nuclear Tests

        In September of 1995, the French colonialists began their final
series of nuclear tests beneath the atolls of the south Pacific.  In
Tahiti, the growing international anti-nuclear protests were joined by
trade unionists and advocates for independence.  France detonated the first
of the series on September 6, and the next day outraged protesters occupied
the runway of the international airport at Papeete.  Police, portraying the
protest as a serious threat to the tourist-based economy of Tahiti, moved
forcefully to break it up, and provoked a riotous response.
        Afterwards, at least sixty people - including four supporters from
a French pacifist community - faced criminal charges.  Some of those
charged had suffered serious beatings at the hands of the police who
arrested them.  Most were charged with disturbing air traffic, while others
faced such charges as instigation, destruction of furniture, assault on
public servants, stealing, carrying objects to serve as weapons, and
provoking damage of buildings.
        Three years later, their trial finally took place last September.
The Palace of Justice was specially renovated for the trial and police and
reserve troops mobilized, in preparation for the number of defendants and
large crowd expected.  The trial proceeded in a calm and serious manner, as
defendants were given the opportunity to tell the story of their protest.
Some placed the blame for the riots squarely on the shoulders of French
President Jacques Chirac.
        Testifying for the defense on behalf of several nongovernmental
organizations, Gabriel Tetiarahi, a leader of the pro-independence group
Hiti Tau, said the only "crime" committed was the success of protesters in
preventing Chirac from completing all ten of his planned nuclear tests at
Murorua and Fangataufa atolls.
        The defendants were convicted on September 22, and sentences were
announced on October 20.  Thirty-three were sentenced to probation and
suspended fines.  Twenty-eight others received prison sentences (some, in
part, suspended or suspended upon payment of fine), fines equivalent to
about $300-$800, and probation.  The most severe sentences were reserved
for the accused leaders of the protests.  Hiro Tefaarere, lead organizer of
A Tia I Mua, a trade union organization, was sentenced to three years in
prison, 18 months suspended, plus loss of rights for five years.  Ronald
Terorotua, former secretary general of A Tia I Mua, was sentenced to two
years, one suspended, plus loss of rights for three years.  Terorotua says
they will appeal the conviction.
        After subtracting suspended sentences, at least eleven others will
serve one to six months behind bars:  Henri Temaititahio, Albert
Temataholoa, and Winfred Lacour, six months; Eugene Teriitua Yao Tham Sao,
Emile Teuahau, Alexandre Puupuu, Irvine Paro, and Timau Heitaa, three
months; Henri Moana, two months; and Rosette Pautu and Georges Mendiola,
one month.


support action

        Letters of support and solidarity may be sent to the prisoners c/o
Hiti Tau, POB 8075, Taravao, Tahiti, French Polynesia.  Financial support
for the families of those in prison, particularly those serving longer
sentences, is requested and will also be accepted by Hiti Tau.

(Editors' Note: At press time, we could not confirm that the 13 are now
serving their jail sentences, but we assume that they are based on
translations of the information we have received.  And until more
information regarding bank transfers is available, we presume contributions
of currency are readily exchanged in Tahiti.  For updates as they become
available, call the Nuclear Resister at [phone], email:
[e-mail]  or check our website at
http://www.nonviolence.org/nukeresister)


_____________________________________
                  the Nuclear Resister
                  "a chronicle of hope"
                      P.O. Box 43383
                    Tucson  AZ 85733
        - information about and support for
imprisoned anti-nuclear and anti-war activists -
        Jack & Felice Cohen-Joppa, editors
                     [phone]
US$15/year/US$20 Canada/US$25 overseas
        - selections from current issue
          - updated prisoner addresses
            - & more can be read at:
   http://www.nonviolence.org/nukeresister
       * FREE SAMPLE ISSUE ON REQUEST *
(please supply a postal address for samples)
_____________________________________



-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Two items from today's (11.23) NY Times
Date: 25 Nov 1998 22:04:58 EST

I did not get the New York Times, is it possible to get the article on why the
CIA should not exist?

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shundahai Network <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) WARD VALLEY SIGN ON LETTER
Date: 26 Nov 1998 20:10:42 -0800

PLEASE SEND YOUR REPLIES TO: [e-mail]

THANK YOU



Important! Please sign onto this letter by <underline>December
5</underline> asking

Governor-elect Gray Davis to stop the proposed Ward Valley nuclear waste
dump. We

plan on presenting this letter to the Governor - Elect in a Dec. 7th
meeting. Please reply to [e-mail] and forward to

other groups. Thank you for your support.


Dear Governor-Elect Davis:


We are a broad coalition of Sovereign Tribal Governments, environmental

and social justice groups, indigenous environmental networks,
international

non-governmental organizations, cancer survivors, scientists,

physicians, and other concerned citizens all opposed to the proposed
nuclear waste

dump at Ward Valley.


This project has plagued the Wilson administration for the last eight

years and has attracted growing public opposition.  The Spring 1998
occupation

of the site by Native Americans and environmental activists coupled
with

the analysis by state Democratic leaders concluding that the proposed
method

of land acquisition violates state law, has indefinitely delayed the

federal review of the project.


The dump threatens contamination of area aquifers and the Colorado

River, source of water for over 22 million people.  It would destroy
critical

habitat for the threatened desert tortoise and desecrate sacred
ancestral

land for five Native American tribes.


Economic analyses of the proposed project have concluded that the dump

would be financially unviable.  The 1998 Congressional Research Service
report

found that the vast majority of waste slated for Ward Valley would come

from nuclear power plants.  The National Environmental Justice Advisory

Council (NEJAC) of the Environmental Protection Agency resolved that the
dump

project would violate environmental justice mandates and recommended

that EPA act to end the project.


We strongly urge you to stop this ill-fated project once and for all.

Withdraw the state of California's request for the land and cease the

state's legal actions regarding Ward Valley. Protect our precious water

resources, uphold environmental justice, and ensure that the California

taxpayer would not be burdened with the astronomical clean-up costs of
a

leaking dump.


Signed,






Save Ward Valley

107 F Street

Needles, CA  92363

ph. 760/326-6267

fax [phone]


www.shundahai.org/SWVAction.html

http://earthrunner.com/savewardvalley

www.ctaz.com/~swv1

http://banwaste.envirolink.org

www.alphacdc.com/ien/wardvly4.html

www.greenaction.org



><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><<
><<><< ><<><<


SHUNDAHAI NETWORK

"Peace and Harmony with all Creation"

<paraindent><param>out,out</param>5007 Elmhurst St., Las Vegas, NV
89108-1304

Phone:[phone] (FAX)647-9385

</paraindent>Email: [e-mail]

 <underline><color><param>0000,0000,fefe</param>http://www.shundahai.org


</color></underline>Shundahai Network is proud to be part of:


Healing Global Wounds Alliance, a multi-cultural alliance to

foster sustainable living and break the nuclear chain; and


Abolition 2000: A Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons


><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><<
><<><< ><<><<




-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Job announcement - LCNP
Date: 27 Nov 1998 11:05:51 EST

The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy has a position open for Associate
Director in its New York office. Responsibilities would include managing legal
and policy research, fundraising,    managing the development and use of outreach
tools including email, newsletter and website, and assisting with the
coordination and implementation of programs.

For further details contact LCNP, [e-mail], ph (1) 212 818 1861.


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hcaldic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) WARD VALLEY SIGN ON LETTER
Date: 26 Nov 1998 16:55:44 +1100

Shundahai Network wrote:
>
> PLEASE SEND YOUR REPLIES TO: [e-mail]
> THANK YOU
>
> Important! Please sign onto this letter by December 5 asking
> Governor-elect Gray Davis to stop the proposed Ward Valley nuclear
> waste dump. We
> plan on presenting this letter to the Governor - Elect in a Dec. 7th
> meeting. Please reply to [e-mail] and forward to
> other groups. Thank you for your support.
>
> Dear Governor-Elect Davis:
>
> We are a broad coalition of Sovereign Tribal Governments,
> environmental
> and social justice groups, indigenous environmental networks,
> international
> non-governmental organizations, cancer survivors, scientists,
> physicians, and other concerned citizens all opposed to the proposed
> nuclear waste
> dump at Ward Valley.
>
> This project has plagued the Wilson administration for the last eight
> years and has attracted growing public opposition. The Spring 1998
> occupation
> of the site by Native Americans and environmental activists coupled
> with
> the analysis by state Democratic leaders concluding that the proposed
> method
> of land acquisition violates state law, has indefinitely delayed the
> federal review of the project.
>
> The dump threatens contamination of area aquifers and the Colorado
> River, source of water for over 22 million people. It would destroy
> critical
> habitat for the threatened desert tortoise and desecrate sacred
> ancestral
> land for five Native American tribes.
>
> Economic analyses of the proposed project have concluded that the dump
>
> would be financially unviable. The 1998 Congressional Research Service
> report
> found that the vast majority of waste slated for Ward Valley would
> come
> from nuclear power plants. The National Environmental Justice Advisory
>
> Council (NEJAC) of the Environmental Protection Agency resolved that
> the dump
> project would violate environmental justice mandates and recommended
> that EPA act to end the project.
>
> We strongly urge you to stop this ill-fated project once and for all.
> Withdraw the state of California's request for the land and cease the
> state's legal actions regarding Ward Valley. Protect our precious
> water
> resources, uphold environmental justice, and ensure that the
> California
> taxpayer would not be burdened with the astronomical clean-up costs of
> a
> leaking dump.
>
> Signed,
> Helen Caldicott MD
> Save Ward Valley
> 107 F Street
> Needles, CA 92363
> ph. 760/326-6267
> fax [phone]
>
> www.shundahai.org/SWVAction.html
> http://earthrunner.com/savewardvalley
> www.ctaz.com/~swv1
> http://banwaste.envirolink.org
> www.alphacdc.com/ien/wardvly4.html
> www.greenaction.org
>
> ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><><
>
> SHUNDAHAI NETWORK
> "Peace and Harmony with all Creation"
> 5007 Elmhurst St., Las Vegas, NV 89108-1304
> Phone:[phone] (FAX)647-9385
> Email: [e-mail]
> http://www.shundahai.org
>
> Shundahai Network is proud to be part of:
>
> Healing Global Wounds Alliance, a multi-cultural alliance to
> foster sustainable living and break the nuclear chain; and
>
> Abolition 2000: A Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
>
> ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><><
>
> - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
> "[e-mail]" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body
> of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old
> messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your
> message.



-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) The Iraq Crisis and U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Date: 27 Nov 1998 21:18:15 -0500

Dear Timothy Bruening: Your letter is excellent. Francis' additions
would make it even better.
                    Peter Weiss

Boyle, Francis wrote:
>
> Dear Timothy: For what it is worth: The IAEA has already stated that Iraq
> has no nuclear weapons capability. Also, if I remember correctly, the former
> UNSCOM Inspector, Ray Zalinskas has already said in public that at least 90%
> of Iraq's chemical and biological warfare capability has been destroyed.
> This is just a bogus issue that the United States and Britain are currently
> using to build public support for a war of extermination against the People
> of Iraq. We must not fall into their trap.
> Best regards,
> Francis Boyle
> Francis A. Boyle
> Law Building
> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
> Champaign, IL 61820
> 217-333-7954(voice)
> 217-244-1478(fax)
> [e-mail]
>
> > ----------
> > From:         Timothy Bruening[SMTP:[e-mail]]
> > Reply To:     [e-mail]
> > Sent:         Sunday, November 22, 1998 3:32 AM
> > To:   [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject:      (abolition-usa) The Iraq Crisis and U.S. Nuclear Weapons
> >
> > I am trying to write a letter about the contradiction between U.S.
> > insistence that Iraq rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and submit
> > to
> > UN inspectors to determine if Iraq has done so, and U.S. refusal to rid
> > itself of its nuclear weapons or submit to international inspection of its
> > nuclear arsenal.  Below is my proposed outline.  Please help me flesh it
> > out.
> >
> > I. For over 7 years, the U.S. has insisted that Iraq rid itself of its
> > weapons of mass destruction and submit to UN inspectors to determine if
> > Iraq
> > has done so, using sanctions and threats of air strikes to force Iraq to
> > comply.
> >
> > II. At the same time, the U.S. refuses to negotiate a treaty to eliminate
> > nuclear weapons, in defiance of the World Court, 87% of the American
> > public,
> > about 60 retired high ranking military officials, and 117 former civilian
> > leaders.
> >
> >         A. The DOE's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program to
> > continue and expand U.S. nuclear weapons design, testing, development, and
> > production.
> >
> >                 1. NIF
> >
> >                 2. subcritical testing
> >
> >                 3. computer simulations
> >
> >                 4. SSMP undermines nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
> >
> > III. The U.S. refuses to allow international inspections of its nuclear
> > arsenal, and arrests Citizen Inspectors who try to inspect U.S. military
> > facilities.
> >
> > IV. To end the hypocrisy, give Iraq and North Korea no excuse to resist
> > inspections or keep weapons of mass destruction, and end the threat of
> > nuclear war, the U.S. should:
> >
> >         A. Take half its nuclear warheads off alert and remove them from
> > their delivery vehicles.
> >
> >         B. Invite international inspectors in to verify above steps.
> >
> >         C. Call on all the other nuclear states to do A and B, and call
> > for
> > the negotiation of a Nuclear Abolition Treaty.
> >
> >         D. Promise to de-alert and remove the rest of its nuclear warheads
> > once C has occurred.
> >
> >
> > -
> >  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
> > "[e-mail]"
> >  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> >  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> >  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
> >
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.



-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: (abolition-usa) The Iraq Crisis and U.S. Nuclear Weapons]
Date: 27 Nov 1998 23:23:28 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------04A3C98AC6436DC5F3280BEA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


--------------04A3C98AC6436DC5F3280BEA
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Mozilla-Draft-Info: internal/draft; vcard=0; receipt=0; uuencode=0; html=0; linewidth=0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Timothy Bruening: Your letter is excellent. Francis' additions
would make it even better.
                    Peter Weiss

Boyle, Francis wrote:
>
> Dear Timothy: For what it is worth: The IAEA has already stated that Iraq
> has no nuclear weapons capability. Also, if I remember correctly, the former
> UNSCOM Inspector, Ray Zalinskas has already said in public that at least 90%
> of Iraq's chemical and biological warfare capability has been destroyed.
> This is just a bogus issue that the United States and Britain are currently
> using to build public support for a war of extermination against the People
> of Iraq. We must not fall into their trap.
> Best regards,
> Francis Boyle
> Francis A. Boyle
> Law Building
> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
> Champaign, IL 61820
> 217-333-7954(voice)
> 217-244-1478(fax)
> [e-mail]
>
> > ----------
> > From:         Timothy Bruening[SMTP:[e-mail]]
> > Reply To:     [e-mail]
> > Sent:         Sunday, November 22, 1998 3:32 AM
> > To:   [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject:      (abolition-usa) The Iraq Crisis and U.S. Nuclear Weapons
> >
> > I am trying to write a letter about the contradiction between U.S.
> > insistence that Iraq rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and submit
> > to
> > UN inspectors to determine if Iraq has done so, and U.S. refusal to rid
> > itself of its nuclear weapons or submit to international inspection of its
> > nuclear arsenal.  Below is my proposed outline.  Please help me flesh it
> > out.
> >
> > I. For over 7 years, the U.S. has insisted that Iraq rid itself of its
> > weapons of mass destruction and submit to UN inspectors to determine if
> > Iraq
> > has done so, using sanctions and threats of air strikes to force Iraq to
> > comply.
> >
> > II. At the same time, the U.S. refuses to negotiate a treaty to eliminate
> > nuclear weapons, in defiance of the World Court, 87% of the American
> > public,
> > about 60 retired high ranking military officials, and 117 former civilian
> > leaders.
> >
> >         A. The DOE's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program to
> > continue and expand U.S. nuclear weapons design, testing, development, and
> > production.
> >
> >                 1. NIF
> >
> >                 2. subcritical testing
> >
> >                 3. computer simulations
> >
> >                 4. SSMP undermines nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
> >
> > III. The U.S. refuses to allow international inspections of its nuclear
> > arsenal, and arrests Citizen Inspectors who try to inspect U.S. military
> > facilities.
> >
> > IV. To end the hypocrisy, give Iraq and North Korea no excuse to resist
> > inspections or keep weapons of mass destruction, and end the threat of
> > nuclear war, the U.S. should:
> >
> >         A. Take half its nuclear warheads off alert and remove them from
> > their delivery vehicles.
> >
> >         B. Invite international inspectors in to verify above steps.
> >
> >         C. Call on all the other nuclear states to do A and B, and call
> > for
> > the negotiation of a Nuclear Abolition Treaty.
> >
> >         D. Promise to de-alert and remove the rest of its nuclear warheads
> > once C has occurred.
> >
> >
> > -
> >  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to
> > "[e-mail]"
> >  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
> >  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
> >  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
> >
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


--------------04A3C98AC6436DC5F3280BEA--


-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews: Nov. 28 1998
Date: 28 Nov 1998 07:09:07 -0500

1. http://www.cleveland.com/news/pdnews/metro/wmissing.phtml
Missing bombs are called a legacy of the Cold War

2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-11/28/058l-112898-idx.html
Armageddon Moves Inside The Computer

3. http://www.abcnews.com/sections/world/DailyNews/starr981123.html
Pentagon Fears Rogue N. Korea Nuclear Program

4. http://nt.excite.com/news/bw/981125/usec
USEC Annual Meeting Date Set - BETHESDA, Md. 2/2/99


1. http://www.cleveland.com/news/pdnews/metro/wmissing.phtml

Missing bombs are called a legacy of the Cold War

Friday, November 27, 1998

By J. SCOTT ORR
NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON - Information is sketchy about what
happened that warm July night 41 years ago. It was
the height of the Cold War, a time when Americans
feared that at any moment a nuclear attack would
shatter the calm of the nation's post-war happy days.

On this night - July 28 or 29, the records aren't clear
- when a pair of bombs dropped off the coast of
Atlantic City, N.J., they came not from one of the
Soviet Union's feared TU-95 Bear bombers, but from
a U.S. Air Force C-124 cargo plane.

The bombs each contained about a ton of high
explosives, enough to level a city block. The good
news was that when these bombs fell, their nuclear
payload - grapefruit-sized hunks of plutonium
capable of delivering the impact of up to 47,000 tons
of TNT - stayed aboard as the crippled cargo plane
returned to an airport near Atlantic City.

The bombs, called Mark 5s, survived impact with
the Atlantic, one 50 miles from shore, the other 75
miles out. By Nov. 1, 1957, the Air Force had called
off its search for the lost bombs, leaving them to the
whims of North Atlantic tides. They are still out
there.

The two Mark 5s are among a group of 11 known
U.S. nuclear bombs, or parts of bombs, that were
lost during the Cold War because of aircraft
malfunctions or accidents. Most are at sea. At least
four live nuclear payloads are out there.

"If you thought syringes on the beaches were bad a
few years ago, imagine if a nuclear bomb were to
wash up. Lots of heavy things wash ashore," said
Stephen Schwartz, a scholar at the Brookings
Institution and the editor of "Atomic Audit: The
Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Since 1940."

Schwartz, a leading expert on Cold War nuclear
policy, said it is remarkable that there weren't more
serious nuclear accidents, given the constant
movement of nuclear weapons during the '50s and
'60s.

"These weapons didn't just sit around in bunkers
somewhere until things got hot. . . . We put those
weapons out of harm's way by deploying them all
over the world. There were B-52s carrying nuclear
bombs flying around the world constantly for a good
couple of decades," Schwartz said.

Despite dozens of acknowledged mishaps over the
years, the Pentagon points out that "there never has
been even a partial inadvertent U.S. nuclear
detonation." In a 1981 report on nuclear weapons
accidents during the Cold War, the Department of
Defense said that only two of the accidents "resulted
in widespread dispersal of nuclear materials."

There is no way of knowing the full extent of this
Cold War legacy, even though the Pentagon has
acknowledged the existence of the missing U.S.
bombs. There could be dozens more weapons at
large that were lost by the Soviets and other nuclear
powers. A 1989 report from Greenpeace estimated
that some 50 warheads are scattered on ocean floors
worldwide.

"The Russians had many, many accidents, but of
course they have not been forthcoming about them.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the British, the French
and the Chinese had their share as well," Schwartz
said.

Schwartz, who has spent years poring over
declassified Pentagon documents about so-called
"broken arrow" incidents, said the Atlantic City
accident was fairly typical of the kinds of
circumstances that left bombs and bomb components
scattered about the globe.

The Pentagon routinely declines to talk about nuclear
weapons. But in its 1981 report, the Defense
Department released sketchy summaries of 32
"broken arrow" accidents involving nuclear
weapons.

According to the Pentagon report, most of the
accidents happened in the '50s and early '60s, during
the days of the Air Force's "airborne alert" when
nuclear weapons were kept airborne around the
clock to respond to any attack from the Soviets.
Airborne alert was terminated in 1968, largely
because of the two accidents that resulted in
significant contamination by nuclear materials.

The first of those accidents happened on Jan. 17,
1966, when a B-52 collided with a KC-135
refueling aircraft over Palomares, Spain. Two of
four nuclear bombs were recovered, but the high
explosive charges in the other two went off on
contact with the ground, scattering radioactive
material.

On Jan. 21, 1968, a B-52 crashed seven miles
southwest of the runway at Thule Air Force Base in
Greenland. Four nuclear weapons burned in the
crash, spreading radioactive contamination over sea
ice.

Though the incidents at Palomares and Thule are the
best known of the Air Force's nuclear mishaps, at
least the nuclear payloads were easily accounted for
at both locations. In other incidents, however,
nuclear warheads remain unaccounted for.

In one case, two bombs fell from a B-52 as it broke
up over Goldsboro, N.C., on Jan. 24, 1961. One of
the bombs parachuted to the ground safely, but the
second free-fell and hit the ground. The
thermonuclear portion of that bomb, which contained
uranium, could not be recovered from waterlogged
farmland despite excavation to a depth of 50 feet.
The Air Force purchased an easement prohibiting
digging at the site and left the bomb there.

On March 10, 1956, a B-47 was lost in clouds over
the Mediterranean Sea. No trace of the plane, its
crew or its cargo of two nuclear capsules was ever
found.

On Dec. 5, 1965, an A-4e Skyhawk warplane rolled
off the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga
and sank, along with a live hydrogen bomb, 80 miles
from Okinawa. In 1989, the United States told Japan
that the bomb had leaked radioactive material.


2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-11/28/058l-112898-idx.html

Armageddon Moves Inside The Computer
Los Alamos Is Calculating A New Nuclear Testing Era

By Mark Leibovich
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 28, 1998; Page A01

LOS ALAMOS, N.M.-When Department of Energy
engineer John Pedicini was 27, he exploded his first
brainchild -- a large nuclear device -- and felt a surge of
patriotism as the Nevada desert quaked. That was in the
mid-1980s, when the Evil Empire seemed as tangible as
the underground detonations that measured the strength of
the nation's nuclear arsenal.

Today, Pedicini is waging a new race, one known to few
beyond the shrinking community of nuclear weapons
designers here at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Far from desert bunkers, their pursuit is unfolding on a
massive computer that can perform more calculations in
one second than a hand-held calculator can in 3 million
years.

"I'm here because I wonder if [Russian President Boris]
Yeltsin's economy will keep falling apart," said
Pedicini. "I worry that Russia will go the way of
[Germany's] Weimar Republic in the 1920s, and they
will become a threat to us again."

Such vigilance still pervades America's nuclear
birthplace. But as the Cold War recedes deeper into
history, the lab's basic mission has undergone a seismic
shift. The United States stopped developing nuclear
weapons in 1989 and ceased underground testing in
1992; that leaves about 8,000 warheads in today's U.S.
stockpile (the exact number is classified). Now the
scientists entrusted with maintaining these weapons must
create a simulated testing ground. Computer skills have
become a gold standard.

And Los Alamos has reinvented itself. Earlier this
month, the Department of Energy, which oversees
nuclear weapons, announced that the "world's fastest
computer," called "Blue Mountain," w
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) SpaceNews: Nov. 28 1998
Date: 28 Nov 1998 07:08:37 -0500

http://www.oregonlive.com/todaysnews/9811/st112709.html

Space program considers Hanford to make plutonium

Friday, November 27 1998

By James Long of The Oregonian staff

In a move that is raising an outcry from
environmental groups, the federal
government is considering a role for the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the U.S.
space program.

The Department of Energy, which makes
plutonium-powered electrical generators
for NASA and military spacecraft, is
thinking of relocating its production plant
from Ohio to Hanford, in southeast
Washington. The agency also is considering
reopening a Hanford research reactor, the
Fast Flux Test Facility, to manufacture
plutonium-238, a rare and hugely expensive
isotope that runs the generators.

The generator assembly plant could mean
as many as 120 jobs and a $6 million
payroll for the former nuclear weapons
complex. If Hanford also restarted the Fast
Flux reactor to make Pu-238, an additional
400 to 600 jobs would be created, with a
payroll of as much as $30 million.

But Hanford has competition for both
projects. The Energy of Department is
considering five other sites for the
generator assembly plant, including the
Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory near Idaho Falls.

The Idaho facility and the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory near Clinton, Tenn.,
also are in the running as possible sites for
irradiating neptunium "targets" to produce
Pu-238. Oak Ridge and Hanford are under
consideration for fabricating and
processing the targets.

A dozen activist organizations oppose
relocating the generator project to Hanford,
particularly if it includes reopening Fast
Flux.

"It would take us back to plutonium
production," said Tom Carpenter, a Seattle
lawyer for the watchdog Government
Accountability Project.

Carpenter worries not only about the
environmental problems of an active
reactor, such as the creation of nuclear
waste, but also what he said were
unanswered questions about operating an
unconventional reactor in modes for which
it was not designed.

Fast Flux was completed in the 1970s for
research into fuels and materials for
fast-breeder reactors that were never built.
Those reactors were designed to create
more nuclear fuel than they used.

Carpenter said isotope production would
require running the reactor harder than
normal, using highly enriched fuel. He said
critics, including engineers within the
Energy Department, think this could make
the reactor harder to control and increase
the risk of an accident.

But the Energy Department said that, in any
event, it could not reopen Fast Flux without
proving its safety to the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.

The possibility of using Fast Flux to make
Pu-238 was proposed less than two months
ago, while Energy Secretary Bill
Richardson was still studying a proposal to
restart the reactor to make tritium for
nuclear weapons. Tritium, a heavy form of
hydrogen, has a half-life of only 12.3 years
and must be replenished regularly to assure
the reliability of the bombs. The United
States quit making tritium in 1989 and has
maintained its nuclear stockpile by
scavenging the hydrogen isotope -- the "H"
in H-bombs -- from retired weapons.

That option will soon run out, and the
department is studying several new
sources, including the Fast Flux. The
earlier proposal would use the reactor to
create tritium and new medical isotopes for
treating cancer and other diseases.

But the Pu-238 proposal presents a
conundrum: For the Hanford reactor to
make economic sense, Energy Department
officials said, it would have to manufacture
tritium for the bomb program. But creating
Pu-238 would take up almost the whole
capacity of the reactor, leaving little room
for making tritium.

Al Farabee, manager of the mothballed
reactor, sees no possibility that Fast Flux
could simultaneously meet U.S.
requirements of 2 to 5 kilograms annually
of Pu-238 for spacecraft and 1.5 kilograms
of tritium for bombs.

A Pu-238 program, by itself, could not be
justified economically, Farabee said,
although medical isotopes could be made
alongside the Pu-238 or beside the tritium.

But the medical isotopes would be largely
experimental and would not have enough of
a market in the near future to help pay for
the reactor.

Farabee said that operating the Fast Flux
reactor would cost $80 million to $90
million annually to operate Fast Flux.

If Hanford is chosen only to assemble the
space generators, Energy Department
officials said, the work would be done at
the half-billion dollar Fuel and Materials
Examination Facility, which was built
alongside the Fast Flux reactor in the 1970s
but never used. Encapsulated Pu-238 fuel
elements would be shipped to Hanford
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory
in New Mexico.

If the Fast Flux reactor is reopened to make
Pu-238, several scenarios are possible.
The neptunium targets that are bombarded
with neutrons in the reactor to make Pu-238
could be shipped off site, possibly to Oak
Ridge, for chemical reprocessing to
recover the plutonium and recycle the
neptunium. Pu-238 oxide powder would
then be shipped to Los Alamos,
encapsulated in irridium and forwarded to
Hanford.

The entire operation also could be done at
Hanford. According to an Energy
Department study, processing the neptunium
targets to obtain as much as five kilograms
of Pu-238 annually would create about
4,000 gallons of high-level nuclear waste.
But that amount is dwarfed by the more than
50 million gallons of waste in 177 huge
underground tanks at Hanford. The Energy
Department is building a multibillion dollar
vitrification system to turn that waste into
glass. That system also would be available
for space generator waste.

The United States gets its Pu-238 from
stocks that were created at South Carolina's
Savannah River weapons complex before
1989 and from Russia. In 1992, the Energy
Department signed a contract with Russia
to buy as much as 40 kilograms for the
space program. But the continuing turmoil
in Russia has cast doubts on the reliability
of the supply, leading to the current plan to
resume domestic production.

_______________________________________________________________________

* NucNews - subscribe: [e-mail] - http://prop1.org ("Nuclear") *
_______________________________________________________________________

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

as fully operating
at Los Alamos. It was the latest milestone of a
transformation that has seen the laboratory's elite group
of Cold War physicists replaced by -- or transformed
into -- a new generation of nuclear nerds.

At the crux of this evolution is the U.S. government's
$4.5 billion-a-year effort to preserve its nuclear
weapons. Called "Stockpile Stewardship," the project's
objective is to maintain the reliability of aging weapons
systems without the benefit of the underground
detonations used for decades.

The weapons project requires a computing system
powerful enough to produce a three-dimensional
likeness of how a device would perform if exploded. It
would portray the heat, light and chaos of a nuclear
detonation and, virtually speaking, place the scientists
inside a bomb as it unchains the greatest destructive
power unleashed by human beings.

The project has infused the lab with fresh urgency
following a post-Cold War identity crisis.

In the early 1990s, "there was a sense that we would just
grab the peace dividend and get out of the weapons
business," said Gilbert G. Weigand, deputy assistant
secretary for strategic computing and simulation at the
Energy Department. Technicians feared this would
render them overeducated maintenance workers. Or
worse, unemployed.

But stockpile stewardship has presented fresh
challenges, many made up of bits and bytes rather than
protons and neutrons. While the program includes
noncomputerized tasks, such as the routine transport of
weapons between facilities, the simulation work
represents its leading edge, many weapons scientists
here say.

Aging is perhaps the most persistent foe in the modern
arms race. By 2004, the average age of the weapons in
the stockpile will be nearly 20 years, or the expected
lifespan of many of these weapons at the time they were
constructed. During the Cold War, older weapons were
retired and new ones designed to take their place.

But just as urgent is the aging of the Cold War scientists
who built the arsenal. Their ranks are dwindling fast, at
Los Alamos and at its sister, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California. These are the last
U.S. scientists to design nuclear bombs, the last to run
underground tests.

"In the next 10 or 15 years, most of the people who
helped develop these devices will no longer be alive,"
said Mark Goldman, director of government programs
for Silicon Graphics Inc., which holds the $121.5
million contract to build the Los Alamos Blue Mountain
supercomputer on which the simulations will be
performed.

Weigand would not divulge exactly how many nuclear
weapons designers are still employed by the
government, citing national security concerns. Speaking
broadly, he put the figure at "a couple of hands full."

Pedicini, at 41 among the youngest desert veterans, is
one of the few scientists with firsthand knowledge of
how these weapons were built and how they behave
when they explode. It makes him a prized informant. Like
anthropologists taking oral histories, younger Los
Alamos scientists and computer programmers are
plumbing their older colleagues' memories in taped
interviews. They ask why tests were conducted in
certain ways, why one set of diagnostics was used and
not another, how certain components behaved. By
amassing these anecdotal accounts, the scientists can
glean the intangibles behind the objective test data and
create a more true-to-life simulation.

The Los Alamos supercomputer can run at nearly 3
teraflops at peak, or 3 trillion operations per second.
The ultimate goal will be to produce a 100-teraflop
system by 2004. Scientists determined that it will take
that much computing power to fully replicate the
conditions inside a bomb.

The Energy Department's weapons laboratories have
been pioneers of advanced computing. Los Alamos,
Livermore, and Sandia National Laboratory in
Albuquerque traditionally have been among the first
testing incubators for the world's fastest computers. The
labs now boast of their high-tech capability. Livermore
is especially proud of its in-progress $1.2 billion laser
facility, the most elaborate assembly of its kind,
expected to be complete by 2003. On Oct. 28, the Energy
Department announced that a system capable of 3.88
trillion calculations per second at peak performance had
been built by IBM technicians for Livermore.
Code-named "Pacific Blue," the Livermore system was
said to surpass "Option Red" at Sandia as the world's
fastest.

The next day, a Silicon Graphics spokesman said that its
Los Alamos machine -- "Blue Mountain" -- would have
a "theoretical peak performance" of 4.2 trillion
calculations per second, exceeding Pacific Blue's 3.88.
A Los Alamos spokesman later revised the estimate
downward, to about 3 trillion. Blue Mountain was up
and running a week later.

Blue Mountain will afford weapons testers an
unprecedented level of realism in their simulations, said
Steve Younger, the associate lab director for nuclear
weapons at Los Alamos. The machine now fills a tightly
guarded Los Alamos floor the size of a small hockey
rink. The disc memory is contained on a separate floor,
and the cooling system is housed in the basement. The
machine runs on 1.6 megawatts of electrical power, and
is connected by 500 miles of fiber cable.

"There is no blueprint for what we're trying to achieve
now," said Charlie Slocomb, a 27-year lab veteran who
oversees computing-related programs at Los Alamos.

When Slocomb takes a visitor inside, a red light flashes
to indicate the presence of someone without security
clearance. He marvels at the creation-in-progress,
pointing to water flowing in an elegant stream over a
blue and gold cooling box. Blue Mountain's cooling
system requires about 40,000 gallons of water a day.

The laboratory's supercomputing power also is being put
to nondefense applications. Frank Harlow, a 45-year lab
veteran, is building a simulation system to help
firefighters predict the path of wildfires. Harlow works
in a trailer lined with white boards and computer
terminals, part of the lab's 43 square miles.

With long gray hair and a hoop earring, Harlow, 70,
defies the strait-laced stereotype of the defense industry.

In fact, when J. Robert Oppenheimer founded the
laboratory 56 years ago, he fostered an idiosyncratic,
flatly structured and oddly countercultural mentality that
persists. "To think that Silicon Valley invented this
high-tech work culture would be a mistake," said Janet
Bailey, author of "The Good Servant: Making Peace
With the Bomb at Los Alamos."

But scientists here remain acutely suspicious of the
"uncleared" world, delineating between those "inside the
fence" and "outside the fence." Within the campus
border, a short drive from the downtown junction of
Trinity and Oppenheimer avenues, guides still follow
visitors into some restrooms.

Seventy percent of the laboratory's budget still goes to
defense-related programs, and the Energy Department --
which oversees stockpile stewardship -- will spend an
estimated $45 billion over the next 10 years under the
program.

Still, Cold War veterans here say, it can be difficult to
conjure urgency without an easily recognized enemy.
Nostalgia still abounds for the life-and-death headiness
of beating the Soviets, and for the sport of underground
testing.

"Blowing a huge hole in Nevada was great for the ego,"
said Jas Mercer-Smith, the deputy chief of nuclear
weapons here. Mercer-Smith is an astrophysicist who
said he once supervised a nuclear test that registered 4.8
on the Richter scale.

"A lot of people here felt betrayed by the end of testing,"
he said, and not just because they were fun. "Nuclear
weapons play the same role in society as the witches in
the Grimms' fairy tale," Mercer-Smith said. "Their job is
to scare small children. Personally, I'm worried that this
country hasn't been scary enough lately."

It's hard to be scary with nuclear weapons that can't be
detonated, Mercer-Smith said. "Historically, preserving
a technology without new innovation has not worked
well," he said. How exactly will the bombs chip, crack
and crumble when they explode?

"We can't know for sure any more," he said. "But we
built these things, and now we're stuck taking care of
them."


3. http://www.abcnews.com/sections/world/DailyNews/starr981123.html

Pentagon Fears Rogue N. Korea Nuclear Program
Building an Atomic Economy?

By Barbara Starr
ABCNEWS.com

In 1994 Washington agreed to give North Korea two advanced nuclear reactors
and 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil a year in return for Pyongyang
halting its nuclear program.

"This is not something that can go on forever." -U.S. Defense Secretary
William Cohen

W A S H I N G T O N, Nov. 23 - Four years after North Korea vowed to halt
development of nuclear weapons, the Clinton administration is growing
increasingly convinced Pyongyang is pursuing the atomic bomb with a
vengeance.  Washington's most urgent concern is a suspected underground
nuclear facility under construction at Kumchang-ni, some 25 miles northeast
of Yongbyon. Yongbyon is the site where North Korea is believed to have
made enough plutonium for one or two bombs before the 1994 accord in which
it promised to halt nuclear development.  The Kumchang-ni site, which
includes a massive underground excavation, has been under construction for
some years. But recent activity there has been especially disturbing to the
United States. Based on its analysis of satellite imagery, the Pentagon
believes the North Koreans are building either an underground power plant
or nuclear fuel processing facility. North Korea denies the allegations.

 No Nukes Deal Violated?

Washington's conclusion is based on the size of the excavation and
construction of several dams nearby. U.S. intelligence estimates the
project will take four to six years to finish, although an accelerated
effort could see the plant done in as little as two years. The facility,
when finished, will be able to produce enough plutonium to build eight to
10 nuclear weapons a year, analysts believe. In October 1994, North Korea
signed a so-called framework agreement in which it froze its nuclear
weapons program in exchange for billions of dollars in aid.  The agreement
specifically focused on a plutonium facility then under construction at
Yongbyon. But all military nuclear programs were to be abandoned as part of
the agreement, in favor of fuel oil shipments and construction of
commercial nuclear power plants.

 Stopping Short of Official Rebuke

While the Clinton administration has not yet publicly confirmed the
existence or purpose of the site, Defense Secretary William Cohen strongly
implied that North Korea has violated the 1994 agreement by developing an
underground nuclear facility.  "This is not something that can go on
forever," said Cohen. "We are concerned about reports that we have had
about the developments in North Korea as to whether they are complying with
the agreed framework. We are going to need inspection of the site or sites
that might be involved." Cohen declined however to verify reports that U.S.
and South Korean scientists have already found traces of plutonium in water
and soil samples at both Kumchang-ni and Yongbyon.

 A Pattern of Belligerence

The underground nuclear facility is just one part of North Korea's overall
effort to expand its weapons development efforts.  It is widely assumed
that Pyongyang wants to place atomic weapons on its ballistic missiles. To
accomplish that goal, the North also is stepping up its missile development
efforts.  So far, the severe economic crisis in the North doesn't appear to
be hampering any of the programs. In late August, North Korea for the first
time tested a three-stage Taepo Dong I missile with a range of 1,250 miles.
Now the United States believes an underground launch facility at Yongo Dong
could be completed next year. Two additional launch facilities at
Sangnam-ni and Yongnim Up may be completed in the next three to four years.
Still another facility is under construction at Chiha-ri to handle Scud
missile launches.

 Missiles for Sale

While North Korea clearly is pursuing both nuclear weapons and ballistic
missiles for its own military forces, it also is trying to export both as
commodities that can earn the government desperately needed cash.  North
Korea has already exported the No Dong missile to Iran for its Shahab
ballistic missile program and to Pakistan for its Ghauri ballistic missile
program.  U.S. intelligence analysts also believe that North Korea may
eventually try to market the Taepo Dong as a launch vehicle for nations
trying to deploy satellites. Recent talks between U.S. and North Korean
officials on possible inspections of the underground facility adjourned
without any agreement. Now U.S. officials hope to resume the talks. While
the 1994 agreement may be fraying at the edges, for the moment, there may
be no other option but to hold on to it.

[Photo] North Korea is alleged to have sold missiles to the other countries
pictured here. Click a country name, [Iran, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan,
Syria], to see where various missiles could hit: a Scud C missile (Range:
550 kilometers), a No Dong missile (Range: 1,000 kilometers), or a Taepo
Dong 1 missile (Range: 2,000 kilometers). (ABCNEWS.com)


[I include this in case there are any activists near Bethesda that would
like to attend this meeting.  You might have to buy a share of stock to
raise your voice.]

4. http://nt.excite.com/news/bw/981125/usec

USEC Annual Meeting Date Set

BETHESDA, Md.
(BUSINESS WIRE) - USEC Inc.
(NYSE:USU) has set the date for its first Annual
Meeting of Shareholders. The meeting will be
held on February 2, 1999 at 10 a.m. at the
Bethesda Marriott Hotel, 5151 Pooks Hill Road,
Bethesda, Maryland. Shareholders of record on
December 4, 1998 will be entitled to attend and
vote at the meeting, or vote by proxy.

USEC Inc. is the world leader in production and
sales of uranium fuel enrichment services for
commercial nuclear power plants. A global
energy company with customers in 14 countries,
the Company's operations involve approximately
5,000 people. With headquarters in Bethesda,
Maryland, the Company manages production
plants in Kentucky and Ohio, and is developing an
advanced laser enrichment technology in
California.

_______________________________________________________________________

* NucNews - subscribe: [e-mail] - http://prop1.org ("Nuclear") *
_______________________________________________________________________

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hcaldic <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Subject: Sample letter to Reynolds
Date: 28 Nov 1998 21:44:42 +1100

Dear Good People,
I write with a sense of impending urgency. The World Heritage Committee
this minute is considering whether to allow the Australian Government to
continue to sanction a company called Energy Resources of Australia to
dig up an aboriginal sacred area in a most beautiful wilderness site in
the north of Australia to mine uranium, which almost certainly will, in
the future, be the source of nuclear weapons and massive quantities of
nuclear waste.
I therefore ask, indeed implore you to copy the letter below, to sign
it, and to fax it to the US representative on the committee - John
Reynolds. The fax number is in Kyoto Japan, the site of the meeting. It
is 81757051100.
        Yours very Sincerely
         Helen Caldicott

>
> 10834 Oak Tree Rd
> Fort Wayne, IN 46825
> USA
> [e-mail]
>
> TO JOHN REYNOLDS
> FAX: [phone]
>
> United States Rep on World Heritage Bureau and Committee
>
> REG:  KAKADU WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER LISTING
>
> Dear Mr Reynolds,
>
> I urge you to recommend Kakadu National Park be placed on the World
> Heritage in Danger List, and that you recommend to the Australian
> government in the strongest possible language that construction stop
> immediately on the Jabiluka uranium mine.
>
> I ask that you agree to the findings of the World Heritage Committee Review
> Mission to Kakadu, in particular the recommendation for "Application of the
> Precautionary Principle" and that inter alia "the proposal to mine and mill
> uranium at Jabiluka should not proceed." Please note also that both IUCN
> and ICIMOS  have formally endorsed the findings of the Mission and agreed
> that construction at Jabiluka should stop.
>
> Allowing another six months of construction will further damage Kakadu and
> denigrate both the natural and cultural values for which it has been
> listed.  Construction is continuing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
>
> I also urge you to reinforce the high standards of conservation that the
> World Heritage Convention represents, and its subsequent international
> prestige.  The credibility of the Convention is at stake
>
> The Jabiluka mine is bitterly opposed by the legally recognised Traditional
> Owners, the Mirrar people.  It will leave 20 million tonnes of radioactive
> waste within 500 metres of a Ramsar listed wetlands and in close proximity
> to   rock art sites and the oldest archeological evidence of human
> habitation of the Australian continent.
>
> The evidence is now overwhelming that both the cultural and natural values
> of Kakadu will be damaged by Jabiluka.
>
> As a US citizen, I expect you to provide a written and detailed explanation
> if you support any proposal other than World Heritage in Danger Listing for
> Kakadu when the full Committee discusses this issue on Monday the 30th of
> November.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Doran
>
>  Those



-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NucNews: IAEA vs. UNSCOM 11/29/98
Date: 29 Nov 1998 07:06:46 -0500


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-11/29/125l-112998-idx.html

Iraq's Inspector Games

By Paul Leventhal and Steven Dolley

Sunday, November 29, 1998; Page C01

Little noticed in the current war of nerves with Saddam
Hussein is Iraq's preference for United Nations
inspectors who search for nuclear weapons over U.N.
inspectors who look for other weapons of mass
destruction.

On Oct. 31, before U.N. inspectors were withdrawn in
anticipation of U.S. military strikes, Iraq's government
announced that the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) could continue its monitoring activities but that
the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) would no
longer be permitted to monitor suspected missile,
chemical and biological weapons sites. When inspectors
returned in mid-November, Iraq resumed its open
defiance of UNSCOM and its cooperation with the
IAEA.

Why? The answer has to do with sharp differences in
how the two agencies do their work. UNSCOM is more
confrontational, refusing to accept Iraqi obfuscations and
demanding evidence of destroyed weapons--what former
UNSCOM chief Rolf Ekeus once called "the
arms-control equivalent of war." The IAEA is more
accommodating, giving Iraqi nuclear officials the benefit
of the doubt when they fail to provide evidence that all
nuclear weapons components have been destroyed and
all prohibited activities terminated. Ekeus has
acknowledged "a certain culture problem" resulting from
UNSCOM's "more aggressive approach, and the IAEA's
more cooperative approach."

As a result, there is a widespread and dangerous
perception that Iraq's nuclear threat is history, thanks to
the IAEA's official judgment that Iraq's nuclear weapons
program has been "destroyed, removed or rendered
harmless." Meanwhile, Iraq is generally perceived to be
concealing other weapons of mass destruction--because
UNSCOM refuses to accept unverified claims of their
elimination.

Iraq's willing acceptance of IAEA inspectors reinforces
the IAEA's findings and helps France, China and Russia
argue in the U.N. Security Council for "closing the
nuclear file" on Iraq. There is an eerie familiarity to all
this. Before the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein used
his chemical and biological threat to deflect attention
away from a hidden nuclear threat. "I swear to God," he
proclaimed in March 1990, "we will let our fire eat half
of Israel if it tries to wage anything against Iraq. We
don't need an atomic bomb, because we have binary
chemicals."

Iraq learned early on that it could conceal a nuclear
weapons program by cooperating with the IAEA.
Khidhir Hamza, a senior Iraqi scientist who defected to
the United States in 1994, wrote in the Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists earlier this year that Saddam Hussein
approved the deception-by-cooperation scheme in 1974.
"Iraq was careful to avoid raising IAEA suspicions; an
elaborate strategy was gradually developed to deceive
and manipulate the agency," Hamza said.

The strategy worked. Iraq, as a signer of the 1968
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, was subject to IAEA
inspections on all nuclear facilities. But the agency's
inspectors failed to detect any sign of the Iraqi-style
"Manhattan Project" discovered after the Gulf War by
IAEA teams at sites identified by UNSCOM.

The IAEA's track record of missing evidence of Iraq's
nuclear weapons program predates the Gulf War. In
1981, Israeli airstrikes destroyed Iraq's nearly complete
Osirak research reactor because Tel Aviv feared Iraq's
plutonium-production capacity if the plant were allowed
to start up. After the attack, IAEA inspector Roger
Richter resigned from the agency to defend Israel's
action. He had helped negotiate the IAEA's "safeguards"
arrangement for the reactor and later told Congress that
the agency had failed to win sufficient access to detect
plutonium production for weapons. Agency officials
privately hinted that Richter was spying for Israel and, at
Iraq's behest, suspended Israel's IAEA credentials.

In August 1990, only weeks after Iraq invaded Kuwait,
IAEA safeguards director Jon Jennekens praised Iraqi
cooperation with the IAEA as "exemplary," and said
Iraq's nuclear experts "have made every effort to
demonstrate that Iraq is a solid citizen" under the
nonproliferation treaty.

In 1991, after the Gulf War, the U.N. awarded the
nuclear-inspection portfolio in Iraq to the IAEA rather
than UNSCOM, following a concerted lobbying
campaign by the IAEA, supported by the United States
and France. The principal argument was political: With
only a few years remaining before the Non-Proliferation
Treaty had to be extended, it would be extremely
damaging for the treaty's survival if the agency were
downgraded in any way.

Its turf battle won, the IAEA continued to see things
Iraq's way. In September 1992, after destruction of the
nuclear-weapons plants found in the war's aftermath,
Mauricio Zifferero, head of the IAEA's "Action Team"
in Iraq, declared Iraq's nuclear program to be "at zero
now. . . totally dormant." Zifferero explained that the
Iraqis "have stated many times to us that they have
decided at the higher political levels to stop these
activities. This we have verified."

But it eventually became clear that Iraq had concealed
evidence of its continuing nuclear bomb program. In
1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Gen. Hussein
Kamel, fled to Jordan and revealed that he had led a
"crash program" just before the Gulf War to build a
crude nuclear weapon out of IAEA-safeguarded, civilian
nuclear fuel, as well as a program after the war to refine
the design of nuclear warheads to fit Scud missiles. Iraqi
officials insisted that Kamel's work was unauthorized
and led IAEA officials to a large cache of documents at
Kamel's farm that, they said, proved Kamel had directed
the projects without their knowledge.

But the Kamel revelations refuted an IAEA claim, made
by then-Director General Hans Blix in 1993, that "the
Iraqis never touched the nuclear highly enriched uranium
which was under our safeguards." In fact, they had cut
the ends off of some fuel rods and were preparing to
remove the material from French- and Russian-supplied
research reactors for use in weapons when the allied
bombing campaign interrupted the project. The IAEA
accepted a technically flawed claim by Iraqi officials
that the bomb project would have been delayed by the
need to further enrich the bomb-grade fuel for use in
weapons, but defector Hamza later made clear that Iraq
could have made direct use of the material in a bomb
within a few months.

Although there is evidence that Iraq manufactured and
tested nuclear weapon components, including the
high-explosive "lenses" needed to trigger a nuclear
explosion, none of these components or evidence of their
destruction have been surrendered to IAEA inspectors.
Iraq also has refused IAEA requests for its bomb design
and scale model, as well as for details of its overseas
nuclear procurement and cooperation activities.

Meanwhile, Iraq's nuclear team of more than 200 PhDs
remains on hand. The IAEA acknowledged to the U.N.
Security Council that these scientists are not closely
monitored and are increasingly difficult to track as they
are supposedly being transferred back to the "private
sector."

The ominous implications of missing components and
surplus scientists were exposed by Scott Ritter, who
resigned in August as head of UNSCOM's Concealment
Investigation Unit. Ritter said, in testimony to Congress,
that UNSCOM "had received sensitive information of
some credibility, which indicated that Iraq had the
components to assemble three implosion-type [nuclear]
devices, minus the fissile material." If Iraq procured a
small amount of plutonium or highly enriched uranium,
he testified, it could have operable nuclear weapons in a
matter of "days or weeks."

Ritter later said this intelligence was provided by a
"northern European" government based on information
from three Iraqi defectors, one of whom was privy to
high-level discussions at Saddam Hussein's "Special
Security Organization"--his elite bodyguard unit whose
role had been secretly expanded to protect his weapons
of mass destruction. Ritter considered the information
solid because it corresponded with details--which he
had obtained from other sources--of how this unit was
trucking missile and other weapon components from one
depot to another. Ritter was able to use aerial
photographs to pinpoint the locations of five of seven
buildings from rough outlines of the structures drawn by
a defector.

The IAEA promptly disputed the validity of Ritter's
information. IAEA Director General Mohammed
ElBaradei reported to the U.N. Security Council on Oct.
13 that "all available, credible information. . . provides
no indication that Iraq has assembled nuclear weapons
with or without fissile cores," adding that "Iraq's known
nuclear weapons related assets have been destroyed,
removed or rendered harmless."

State Department and White House officials--as well as
Richard Butler, who succeeded Ekeus as Ritter's
boss--joined the IAEA in denying ever receiving any
information from Ritter about Iraqi concealment of
nuclear-weapon components. U.S. officials were already
furious with Ritter for accusing Secretary of State
Madeleine K. Albright of pulling the rug out from under
UNSCOM's plan to confront Iraq with surprise
inspections of certain facilities, including the suspected
weapons depots. They belatedly acknowledged having
received the information from Ritter, deeming it
plausible but uncorroborated.

Butler, who personally admired Ritter, nonetheless
could not acknowledge that UNSCOM had withheld
much of Ritter's information from the IAEA out of
concern that it might be leaked to the Iraqis. And Butler
also felt the need to protect the lives of UNSCOM's
intelligence sources.

Given Ritter's reputation as a hard-nosed intelligence
analyst who does not stretch the truth, his information
about Iraqi concealment of nuclear-weapons components
should be taken seriously by the IAEA. The threat of an
Iraqi nuclear breakout remains real. The prudent
assumption for the IAEA should be that Iraq's nuclear
program continues, and that the Iraqis may now lack only
the fissile material. Even the possibility that Iraq has
already procured this material cannot be ruled out
because of serious nuclear-security lapses in the former
Soviet Union and the abundance of such material in
inadequately safeguarded civilian nuclear programs
worldwide. There is also a nagging worry that Iraq is
concealing a small centrifuge plant for enriching
uranium.

The Security Council should ask the IAEA for a
complete inventory of all nuclear-bomb components,
designs and models for which there is documentation or
intelligence but which the agency cannot account for.
This has been UNSCOM's approach, but the IAEA
seems to place an almost naive confidence in an absence
of evidence contradicting unsubstantiated Iraqi claims.
The burden of proof should be on Iraq, not on the
inspectors.

ElBaradei should retract his Oct. 13 findings, including
his remarkable suggestion that although unanswered
questions remain, none are significant enough to
preclude closing the nuclear file and shifting from
investigative inspections to less intrusive monitoring and
verification. Unless the IAEA is prepared to admit its
limitations and redouble its efforts to locate
nuclear-bomb components and other evidence of nuclear
weapons activities, it should be taken off the nuclear
case. Finding bombs is more important than protecting
turf. UNSCOM should be given the job if the IAEA
cannot do it.

Paul Leventhal is president of the Nuclear Control
Institute, a Washington-based non-proliferation research
and advocacy center. Steven Dolley is the institute's
research director.


_______________________________________________________________________

* NucNews - subscribe: [e-mail] - http://prop1.org ("Nuclear") *
_______________________________________________________________________

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Sally Light" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Pol's fast - correct fax number in Belgium
Date: 29 Nov 1998 12:14:32 -0000

Dear Friends,

After an unsuccessful attempt to fax Erik Derycke, Belgium's Minister of
Foreign Affairs, at the number Pol gave us, I called the Ministry and was
given the following fax number which worked:  +32-2-514.30.67.

As Pol is starting his 11th day of fasting, which is only 4 days away from
the final vote in the UN General Assembly, let us once again deluge Mr.
Derycke with messages in support of our courageous friend.

In peace ...


Sally Light
Nuclear Program Analyst
Tri-Valley CAREs

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ike <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Thanks Ellen
Date: 30 Nov 1998 15:15:50 -0500

Dear Ellen,

Again, thank you very much for reporting the news. Recently three of
your stories have been especially helpful for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-11/27/079l-112798-idx.html
Russian Nuclear Security Called Lax
Easy Access to Fuel, Failure to Pay Wages Alarm U.S. Experts
By David Hoffman
Washington Post Foreign Service

http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/ND98/nukes.html
[The MoJo Wire] Mother Jones, November-December, 1998
Security Meltdown Who is watching the people who are watching our nukes?
by
Ken Silverstein

http://www.smh.com.au/news/9811/26/text/pageone5.html
Keating on eliminating nuclear weapons
Sydney Morning Herald, Date: 26/11/98

With best wishes,
Ike

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sue Broidy <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Abolition 2000 December Newsletter
Date: 30 Nov 1998 16:44:29 -0800 (PST)

ABOLITION 2000

INTERNATIONAL GRASSROOTS NEWSLETTER  DECEMBER  1998

PLEASE GIVE US SOME FEEDBACK

Please check our website which is now at www.abolition2000.org and let me
know what features you would like to see added.

We have a site search engine, we have news, articles, a Citizen Action
Guide, and campaign activist documents for you to download, copy, and
distribute as widely as possible!

In addition, for those of you who are interested in having our new posters
and leaflet, we can send you the Pagemaker files by email!


PETITION COUNT

We remind you that we need you to count up the petitions sitting in your
offices and let us know the totals.

We welcome the following:  Another 6 signatures from Costa Rica, 11 from
Greece, 65 from Mt Diablo Peace Center, Walnut Creek CA, 120 signatures
from Southern California Federation of Scientists, 13 from Great Neck NY, a
grand total reported from Santa Cruz of 3,561 and 662 postcards to Clinton.
We also got a call from Claire Nason in Berkeley, pledging 1000 signatures
by the end of the year .

BUT THIS IS NOT ENOUGH if we are to achieve anything like 2 million by the
end of the year 2000.

So please visit our website, download the petition form at
http://www.napf.org/intpetition.html,  copy it and distribute it as widely
as possible.  This is more than just a petition - it is public education
and also great political strategy because when copied and included with
your letters,  it is another way of impressing our Congressional
Representatives that we mean business!


Items of Interest
1.  Welcome to our new Latin America Coordinator.
2.  Peace Walk for A2000 in 1999
3.  Protesters held at N-Base
4.  Local action in Santa Cruz CA
5.  Nuclear Free Norwich CT
6.  Other Municipal Resolution Action
7.  Churches and Abolition 2000
8.  Nuclear Reactor in Cambridge, Mass.
9.  Municipal Action in Canada
10. New Organizations in Abolition 2000
11. Recent Polls
12. Letter from India
13. Video Available



WELCOME RUBEN ARVIZU

We welcome Ruben Arvizu who has been appointed the International
Coordinator of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation for A2000 activities in
Latin America.  Ruben has arranged for the publication of several articles
on nuclear weapons abolition in Spanish including OXIDO magazine and a
website containing information and translations of Abolition 2000 material.
The petition is available in Spanish and we hope for  a new interest from
Spanish organizations wishing to join the A2000 network.  The website is
http://www.ciudadfutura.com/oxido.

PEACE WALK FOR ABOLITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Between May 16 and May 26 1999 the international For Mother Earth network
is convening a major end-of-the-millennium Peace Walk for the Abolition of
Nuclear Weapons. For Mother Earth wants to mobilize 2000 walkers linking
the UN World Court (ICJ) in The Hague (Netherlands) to NATO headquarters in
Brussels (Belgium). The event will end with a four days international peace
camp in Brussels on May 30th 1999.

Pol D'Huyvetter, campaigner at For Mother Earth, and initiator of the walk
stated :
"Our dream is for the peace walk to count 2,000 participants walking for
the immediate start of multilateral negotiations for a Treaty Banning All
Nuclear Weapons by the year 2000. We demand the NATO member states to abide
by their international treaty obligations as confirmed by the ICJ in July
1996. NATO's nuclear policy is hypocritical and criminal. It is time for
the world to realize that NATO is the main obstacle for negotiating a
treaty banning nuclear weapons. With this walk we will take international
law to the ones breaking the law in Brussels."

Pol d'Huyvetter is at present taking a dramatic and heroic action - he is
fasting in protest of the Belgian government's lack of support for the New
Agenda Coalition. The network is responding to a call to send letters and
faxes to the Belgian Foreign Minister in support of Pol's dramatic and
courageous act.  Send faxes to: MR ERIK DERYCKE, MINISTER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS, BELGIUM, 0011+32-2-514.30.67.


PROTESTERS HELD AT N-BASE

On 19 November, nine anti-nuclear demonstrators were arrested at the
shipyard where
Britain's fourth and final Trident submarine is nearing completion.
Security officers at the former VSEL yard in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria,
found them in a car park and handed them over to police.  The demonstrators
were three Britons,  five Swedes, and an American.

SANTA CRUZ ABOLITION 2000 HOLDS A PUBLIC FORUM

About seventy-five people attended the Santa Cruz Abolition 2000
Committee's first public forum on Sunday, November 8th, at Veterans
Memorial Hall.  Marion Vittitow was the skilled facilitator who introduced
the speakers: Jackie Cabasso and John Burroughs, of Western States Legal
Foundation, original founders of Abolition 2000, and Joann Fuller, of Peace
Action '98.  A video was shown on the medical effects of nuclear war, "The
Last Epidemic," and there were questions and comments from the audience.

Mayor Celia Scott presented Abolition 2000 with a Mayor's Proclamation
declaring that the City of Santa Cruz has designated November 8, l998, as
"Abolition 2000 Day," and thanking them for their work in educating people
about the dangers of nuclear war and proliferation.

The hall was brightly decorated with masses of sunflowers, two large
sunflower oil paintings by Lynn Zachreson, and a number of bright textile
hangings, as various members of Abolition 2000, including Nadine Winslow of
WILPF and Susy Sherman of Peace Action, explained what members of this
community can do to aid in the goal of a complete worldwide abolition of
nuclear weapons.

The Committee is already at work on its next projects, a teach-in at UCSC,
and a speaker's bureau.  Anyone who is interested may contact Jan Harwood
at [e-mail]


NUCLEAR FREE NORWICH CT

We are pleased to report that Norwich City Council in Connecticut  endorsed
the Abolition 2000 Municipal Resolution unanimously on Monday November 9th.
Nancy Neiman Hoffman has been working on this project with the Hartford
AFSC and reports that at first they were concerned that it would not pass
because Norwich is in a heavy defense industry area.  However, by patient
lobbying, meeting individually with Council members and sending them
material, a unanimous vote of 11 was achieved.  They also got townspeople
to write to the Council and make phone calls.

"It was a very satisfying experience" Nancy said, " and before the vote was
taken, five of the Council members actually spoke enthusiastically in
support of Abolition 2000." A key element in their success was the
involvement with a local High School.  A 16 year-old student made a
statement at the Council meeting and presented 447 signatures on petitions
from the Norwich Free Academy.

This is the way to go!  Congratulations Nancy and colleagues.  Let us hope
for more similar action throughout the nation - and we will be waiting for
word from West Hartford City Council who will be presented with the
Abolition 2000 resolution on November 24th.


OTHER MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION ACTION

On Monday evening, November 2, the City Council of Portland, Maine
unanimously passed the Nuclear Abolition Resolution presented to the City
Council by the Maine Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Portland is the largest city in Maine and the first to pass a Nuclear
Abolition Resolution.

Abolition 2000 is working in Vermont in 62 towns to put the Municipal
Resolution on the March Town Meeting ballot. They hope for 200 towns by the
end of the year 2000 - great work!  The Vermont initiative is working
through a coalition of The Women's International League for Peace and
Freedom, American Friends Service Committee,
Unitarian-Universalist Church and others.

Look for a photo of Vermont activists marching for abolition on our website
www.abolition2000.org

CHURCHES AND ABOLITION 2000

Recently Christ Episcopal Church Vestry, in Pasadena, CA signed on to
Abolition 2000.  In addition, the resolution was voted affirmatively by the
Episcopal Diocese
(the CA state organization) at their convention on November 14, 1998.

The resolution included an educational resolve "that each parish plan an
educational program to help its parishioners understand the present dangers
of nuclear war and the concept that nuclear proliferation is a crime
against God and humanity."

Also in Santa Barbara, the congregation of the Unitarian Society recently
endorsed the Abolition 2000 Resolution.  This is significant action from
churches and should encourage more abolitionists to take the Resolution to
their own congregations.


CAMBRIDGE MA VOTES TO MOVE MIT NUCLEAR REACTOR OUT OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD

By a vote of 5791 to 2889, a ratio of more than 2 to 1, voters in Cambridge,
Massachusetts voted to move the MIT Nuclear Reactor out of the city. Seeking
to ignore this referendum vote, MIT plans to double the capacity of its
Nuclear Reactor, and to maintain the reactor in this thickly settled
residential neighborhood.

"Most Cambridge residents are unaware there is a Nuclear Reactor in
Cambridge, on Albany Street near Mass. Ave, in the middle of Greater
Boston," says attorney David A. Hoicka. "There was no public discussion or
locationing decision open to residents of Cambridge, when the Reactor was
built.

"We put the Nuclear Reactor on the ballot so the public policy of having
such a facility in residential Cambridge may be publicly reviewed," says
Attorney Hoicka. "The first chance Cambridge Voters got to review the
Nuclear Reactor, they firmly rejected it.

"Cambridge Voters have decided that a Nuclear Reactor does not belong among
homes, schools, small businesses, playing fields, parks with features for
small children, basketball and tennis courts," says Hoicka. "This is a
decision that should have been made in the first place by Cambridge
residents and voters, not by technocrats and bureaucrats who live
elsewhere."

"Of course, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claims its Nuclear
Reactor is perfectly safe," says Hoicka. "MIT has not in the past disclosed
the details of classified research.  The public policy question, regardless
of MIT's claim of complete nuclear safety, is whether a Nuclear Reactor
properly belongs in a residential neighborhood, or should be moved to a
safer and less densely populated area."

This Cambridge "Move the Nuke Ballot Initiative" is the only referendum
question this year relating to Nuclear Reactors in Massachusetts or
anywhere in the United States. Through this Ballot Initiative, 5,791
Cambridge residents voted directly to show the State House that  moving the
Nuclear Reactor out of Cambridge is critical to health and well-being.

By contrast, if a Harris poll of only a few hundred people is statistically
significant, a vote of 5,800 Cambridge Voters, should carry weight in the
state legislature and even have national impact.

We will be watching this issue as it develops  -  a very interesting
example of democracy at risk.  Our congratulations to those involved!


MUNICIPAL ACTION IN CANADA

On Nov.2, both Kitchener and Waterloo Councils voted unanimously to support
the Resolution of the Kitchener-Waterloo Roundtable on Nuclear Weapons.
The group supported by PGS Waterloo and Project Ploughshares presented the
following resolution:
"that the City calls upon the Government of Canada to take a leadership
role in abolishing nuclear weapons by calling on nuclear-weapons states to
commit  themselves unequivocally to the elimination of their nuclear
arsenals and to agree to start work immediately on the practical steps and
negotiations required to achieve this goal. (An example of such leadership
would see Canada's joining with the recently-formed New Agenda Coalition of
eight middle power states-Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand,
Slovenia,
South Africa, and Sweden. This coalition of like-minded countries is
actively working towards the goal of nuclear weapons elimination.); and
THAT our Cities invite all the members of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities to pass similar motions and by so doing support our Country's
efforts to make the World a more secure place for its citizens."

Bill Robinson and Grant Birks did a great job presenting to the Councils.
Both mayors introduced the resolutions.  There was support voiced from
councilors who had participated in the Roundtables and finally, with little
debate the resolution passed unanimously at both meetings. It does show
that indeed, the tide has turned. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities
is meeting in two days to consider this request.


CHILLING THOUGHT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported in October more than 300
positive tests for cocaine abuse by nuclear workers in 1996-1997.


ORGANIZATIONS SIGNING ON IN NOVEMBER:

Welcome to two groups from Greece, Women for Security and the Association
of Women in the Mediterranean Region.  Welcome also to the Friend's Society
Monthly Meeting from Rutherford Place,  New York.  The 50 groups from
Egypt, Middle East and Africa were welcomed in a separate posting - it is
good to be getting feedback from some of them already.  We also welcome
Abolition 2000 -Bergen County Chapter (Bergen County, New Jersey), the
Youth Leadership Support Network/USA, two new groups from India, the Open
University of Alternative Medicine in Calcutta and the National Women's
Welfare Center in Kerala, and also the United Youths Association from Sri
Lanka.  Two organizations based in London also signed on -- the Sudanese
Committee against the Violation of  Human Rights and the Sudanese Womens
Union. We now have a total of 1197 - three more will give us 2000!


RECENT POLLS

A joint Russo-Japan opinion poll was conducted recently and asked the
following questions related to nuclear weapons.

Do you feel threats from Russian military forces? (to Japanese)
Yes   52 %   No 39 %  Others or no answer. 9 %.

Do you feel threats from Japan-US military alliance? (to Russians)
Yes  42%   No 38%   Others or no answer. 20 %.

Do you think that all the nuclear weapon states should eliminate such
weapons in their possession whatever rationale they may have? Or, do you
think it is permissible that some states possess nuclear weapons for their
own defense purposes?

Japan:  They should eliminate nuclear weapons. 78 %  It is permissible 18
%; Others. 4 %.
Russia: They should eliminate nuclear weapons. 61 %;  It is permissible 31%
Others 8 %.

The Australian Peace Committee (South Australian Branch) and the Australian
Anti-Bases Campaign commissioned a poll recently throughout every state and
territory of Australia on the question of nuclear weapons.  The survey was
carried out on the 11th and 12th of November, and the results of the survey
were faxed to the Australian Government before the vote on Resolution L.48
was taken at the United Nations on November 13th.

87% of people agreed that all nuclear weapons should be destroyed.

92% of people think that Australia should help negotiate a global treaty to
ban and destroy all nuclear weapons.

80% of people agreed that  Australia should keep its military alliance with
the United States even though the United States is the biggest nuclear
power in the world.

Irene Gale of the APC commented, "Although Australians wish to maintain an
alliance with the United States, they overwhelmingly desire that alliance
to be nuclear weapons free.  They also overwhelmingly desire the Australian
Government to work earnestly to remove nuclear weapons from the world, and
to help negotiate a global treaty to achieve this end.  This attitude of
the Australian people is reflected by the fact that 144 Local Authorities
and many thousands of individuals have endorsed the Abolition 2000 campaign
by calling upon the Australian Government to work to remove nuclear weapons
from the world.  It clearly follows that the Australian Government must
vote in favor of resolution L.48 when it is voted upon in the UN General
Assembly in December."


LETTER FROM INDIA, from Dr. Balkrishna Kurvey, Regional Contact

"After attending the International conference of Peace Museums in Osaka,
Kyoto and Okinawa, I returned to India safely on November 19, 1998. I read
my paper "Nuclear tests by India and Pakistan and its effects on Regional
Security" and presented my posters for peace in India.

I have decided to establish the Peace Museum in Nagpur. In India, we do not
have peace museums. Our peace museum will initially be based on the theme
of "No more Hiroshima: No more Nagasaki, Peace Museum" the beginning will
be on a modest scale."

VIDEO AVAILABLE

We strongly recommend a video produced by the CDI called "Can We Learn to
Live Without Nuclear Weapons?"  The video features Jonathan Schell, Alan
Cranston, Admiral Stansfield Turner and Admiral Noel Gayler. An excellent
resource for town and campus meetings, it can be ordered from the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation for $18.00 including postage.  Visit the website
http://www.wagingpeace.org/store/ to order online.

Sincerely,

Sue Broidy
Coordinator, Abolition 2000
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
1187 Coast Village Road
Santa Barbara CA 93108

Phone [phone]  FAX[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Website http://www.abolition2000.org

To subscribe to the abolition-usa listerve, send a message (no subject) to
[e-mail]
To post to the list, mail to: [e-mail]

To subscribe to the international abolition-caucus, send a message (no
subject) to [e-mail]
To post to the list, mail to: [e-mail]



-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) (NYC area) // Teach In On Iraq on December 15
Date: 30 Nov 1998 21:24:19 EST

Friends in the NYC area,

 A somewhat loose coalition of New York area groups is having a Teach In on
the Iraq Crisis on December 15, 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. at the Park Ave. Christian
Church, 1010 Park Ave. (at 85th Street).

 Phyllis Bennis is one of the confirmed speakers, we hope one of those just
back from Iraq will speak, and there are several other top notch speakers
being contacted but I don't feel free to list them.

 I'm rushing this note because the real credit for organizing this goes to
Nick (whose last name I don't have in front of me) and Clayton Ramey at FOR,
and Vince Romano, and Chris Ney on the staff at WRL.

 I am worried that if we wait until we have more info (and I have Nick's last
name) that it will be New Year's.

 The loose coalition has had at least two vigils and leafletings. The groups
involved or that have attended the meetings at 339 Lafayette, include: War
Resisters League, Metro Peace Action, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Pax
Christi, Socialist Party, Committees of Correspondence, International Action
Center,  Catholic Worker, and several others (as I said, if I wait it may
sooth bruised feelings of those who merited mentioning - but it won't build
the Teach In).

 The group doesn't have an official name, but it is meeting before the Teach
In, and will be leafleting - if you want info on this for the moment the
easiest thing is to phone, or email either Chis Ney or Vince Romano at the War
Resisters League, 212 / 228.0450, and the email is: [e-mail]

 A better more defined post will be out in a day or two. But in the meantime,
hold the date, December 15. This is an important - even an urgent - response
to continued pressure for war.

 PLEASE - this IS urgent - can you relay this post to your own lists or
contacts in the NYC area? And get in touch with Chris or Vince to find out how
you can help.

 Peace,
 David McReynolds

-
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.