ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n036

Internet Message Format | 1998-11-03 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #36
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest    Wednesday, November 4 1998    Volume 01 : Number 036




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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:51:06 -0800
From: Jan Harwood <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) FWD: Re: SpaceNews:  Energy / Plutonium

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

                                                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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:12:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Hisham Zerriffi <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Explosive Fusion Research Sign-on Letter

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.

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

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #36
**********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" 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.