ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n041

Internet Message Format | 1998-11-19 | 42KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #41
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest     Friday, November 20 1998     Volume 01 : Number 041




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

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

>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.

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

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

>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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

- --
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:02:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Yurman <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: CDC Nuclear Halth Effects Mtg

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



Subject: INEL: Public Health Service Activities and Research at
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.

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

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

>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.

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

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #41
**********************************

-
 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.