ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n040

Internet Message Format | 1998-11-18 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #40
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest    Thursday, November 19 1998    Volume 01 : Number 040




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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

- ----
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:46:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Yurman <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Nuclear Health Effects Studies Update

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.

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

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

>------- 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.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:43:25 -0500
From: ASlater <[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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #40
**********************************

-
 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.