ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n168

Internet Message Format | 1999-08-18 | 47KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #168
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest     Thursday, August 19 1999     Volume 01 : Number 168




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

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:31:29 -0400
From: Bob Tiller <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: [y2k-nuclear] Y2K CAMPAIGN SUGGESTED SHORT/MID TERM ACTION PLAN

Dear John,

Thank you for identifying these elements of a plan.  I support the five steps
listed, and I will commit PSR to working on items 2 and 3 in the coming weeks.

Some questions arise.  With regard to item 2, are you or others knowledgeable
about the G8 agenda and also about the content of pre-meeting discussions among
bureaucrats?   With regard to item 4, are some European parliamentarians working
together to shape strategy for debate and vote on the resolution?

I want to suggest two additional steps which I believe can be very valuable:

#6 (Actually an extension of #5)  I believe that people across the globe should
work within their own countries, pressuring their own governments on the issue.
I think we ought to be asking people outside the U.S. and Russia to send faxes to
their own leaders, urging them to publicly support de-alerting.   If the U.S.
government rarely hears support for de-alerting from its strategic partners and
economic partners, it will not move very quickly.   If, on the other hand, the
leaders of nations like Ireland, Sweden, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy, South
Africa, Egypt, Australia and Japan publicly advocated dealerting, the U.S.
government would have to face the issue seriously.  this should become a major
political issue in twnety, thirty, forty nations around the globe.  We should not
assume that the only way to get some movement on de-alerting is by pressuring the
top two nuclear weapon states, or even by pressuring the eight states with such
weapons.

#7   I believe that we need to encourage grassroots people to work on the media,
not just in the U.S. but everywhere.  We have gotten some letters-to-the-editor
and op-eds published in the U.S. this year, and others have also.   We need much
more of that.   There are (at least in the U.S.) community newspapers, small town
daily newspapers, radio talk shows, community cable television programs, etc.
Often it is possible to relate a letter-to-the-editor to an upcoming anniverary,
such as the fall of the Berlin Wall (Nov. 9, 1989) or the first Soviet nuclear
test (Aug. 29, 1949).

I hope these thoughts are helpful.

Shalom,
Bob Tiller




FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign wrote:

> Dear Y2K Campaign People,
>
> I have been asked what 'the plan' is for the Y2K campaign.
>
> I am sure I do not have the entire campaign at my fingetips, and I know
> there are people who have much more sophisticated and longer range plans
> than I do.
>
> However, the following suggestions seem to have support from a number of
> quarters and seem to look as if we can do them.
>
> There are a vast number of events happening that this does not in any way
> cover. These are just obvious short/mid term foci for a Y2K campaign.  But
> I do suggest strongly that these are and should be priorities for effort.
>
> The suggested plan is as follows:
>
> 1)Continue to gather signatures for the existing B&B monster, and keep
> faxing it till December.
> (I am still looking for Congressional signatures and still only have Ed.
> Markeys. I'd like to correct this situation asap)
>
> 2)Start a fax campaign aimed at initially the G8 Y2K meeting in Berlin over
> sept 21, asking for strategic nukes to be taken off alert.
>
> 3)Support for the Markey resolution. This is best coordinated by US groups,
> not from faraway Australia.
>
> A resolution is also happening in the Canadian parliament, from senator
> Doug Roche. This deserves support.
>
> 4)A resolution in the European parliament in September.
>
> 5)Further pressure on our own govt back in Oz.
>
> I am trying very hard to make sure as many folk as possible committ to
> participation in the Sept 1 fax campaign. If people can't get up to speed
> by sept 1, but only a bit later that doesn't matter.
>
> I'll be doing a model letter in the next few days.
>
> I don't think its a very complicated plan, and others certainly have much
> more sophisticated planning abilties than I do.
>
> However, I think that these are all obvious tasks that we can all focuss on.
>
> I would like to formally suggest that abolition caucus members and members
> of the Y2K list(s) do now focuss as much as possible:
>
> 1)On preparing for a global fax campaign starting sept 1, initially
> focussing on the sept 21 G8 Y2K meeting, and
>
> 2)on support for any congressional/parliamentary resolutions that may come
> up in the US Congress, the European parliament or national parliaments
> (such as the Canadian one), and
>
> 3)finally on getting more preferably really prominent signatories for the
> letter.
>
> I trust this makes sense, and is achievable, and don't at all want to
> discourage people who are doing other things and arranging events etc that
> don't fall into these categories.
>
> By the way, the Yeltsin/Clinton monster sign - on letter can now be found on:
> http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd/nuclear/bbletter.html
>
> John Hallam
> Friends of the Earth Sydney,
> 17 Lord street, Newtown, NSW, Australia,
> Fax[phone] ph (61)(2)9517-3903
>
> [e-mail]    http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd
> http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd/nuclear/bbletter.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> GET WHAT YOU DESERVE! A NextCard Platinum VISA: DOUBLE Rewards points,
> NO annual fee & rates as low as 9.9% FIXED APR. Apply online today!
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/606
>
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/y2k-nuclear
> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications


- -
 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 Aug 1999 17:43:17 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) FWD: NUKE-WASTE: Review-Journal "poll" on YM

>Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:05:00 -0400
>Subject: FWD: NUKE-WASTE: Review-Journal "poll" on YM
>To: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>/12/99 3:31 pm
>Original Recipient(s):
>To: WHAUTER@CITIZEN (Wenonah Hauter)
>     APIERSMA@CITIZEN (Auke Piersma)
>Cc: [e-mail] ("NUKE-WASTE")
>
>The Las Vegas Review-Journal is conducting an "unscientific poll" on their
>website regarding nuclear waste in Nevada -- please log in and counteract
>whomever is stuffing this thing, because it is currently running in favor
>of
>YM with over 1400 votes in.
>
>http://www.lvrj.com
>
>It's on the front page.
>
>Thanks
>
>James Quinn
>NUKE-WASTE Moderator
>Citizen Alert, Las Vegas, Nevada
>[e-mail]
>
>**************************************************************************
>   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]
>**************************************************************************
>
>
>Wenonah Hauter
>Director,
>Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project
>202-546-4996, ext.350
>Visit our website: http://www.citizen.org/cmep
>
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 Aug 1999 19:34:35 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) India Nuke Doctrine

From: S. P. Udayakumar <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: India Nuke Doctrine
Date: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 12:47 PM

Communalism Watch and Governance Monitor
August 18, 1999
http://www.saccer.org

[1] Full Text of the "Indian Nuclear Doctrine"
[2] 'Times of India' Editorial
[3] Waging Peace Website
[4] Nuclear Weapons Convention Working Group of Abolition Caucus

::::[1]::::
Date sent:        Wed, 18 Aug 1999 12:49:31 -0500
From:             Donald Clay Johnson <[e-mail]>

In case you haven't heard of it elsehwere but would like to see the
document on India's nuclear policy:

http://www.indianembassy.org/

Specifically the page of

http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/nuclear_doctrine_aug_17_199 9
>.html

::::[2]::::
      Deterrence & Debate

      The Times of India, August 18, 1999

      The draft document on Indian nuclear doctrine prepared by the
      National Security Advisory Board and released for discussion by
      the caretaker government is a coherent and sober text which
      represents well the middle-ground of the nuclear debate in this
      country. Even though the NSAB excluded out-and-out critics of
      the Vajpayee government's decision to test nuclear weapons last
      May, there was considerable heterogeneity in the outlook and
      views of its members on basic issues like no-first-use, minimum
      versus maximalist deterrence, the desirability of adherence to
      the CTBT and the like. That such a group has nevertheless been
      able to come up with a consensual position on the aims and
      objectives of India's nuclear capability, the nature of its
      nuclear forces, the question of credibility and survivability
      and other aspects of doctrine is commendable. Equally worthy of
      approbation is the government's decision to release the draft
      for public debate. Of all the existing nuclear weapon states,
      India is unique for the quantity and quality of the public
      discussion which preceded and followed its decision openly to go
      nuclear. None of the other NWSs conducted anything even remotely
      similar to what India did. China, Russia, the US and Britain
      certainly did not; France had a debate of sorts prior to going
      nuclear but not quite as comprehensive as the one India had. By
      spelling out its doctrine in black and white, India is also
      demonstrating its maturity as a nuclear power. One does not have
      to accept the NSAB's logic in order to recognise that the
      doctrine it has evolved is measured and precise.

      At the same time, the draft should not be seen as something
      which is cast in stone. As it stands, the document raises
      several problems which need to be fully discussed. The first is
      that of costs. While the NSAB has wisely avoided quantifying the
      credible minimum deterrent, its emphasis on survivability and
      retaliation "even in a case of significant degradation by
      hostile strikes'' means India's arsenal is not going to be
      particularly small. In terms of delivery, the draft advocates a
      triad of aircraft, mobile land-based missiles and "sea-based
      assets'' - presumably submarine-launched missiles - and
      "space-based and other assets...to provide early warning,
      communications, damage/detonation assessment''. When the cost of
      a robust command and control system is also factored in, it is
      clear that the fiscal impact will be far greater than what the
      Vajpayee-led government claimed would be the case after the
      Pokhran II tests. The NSAB's call for "highly effective
      conventional military capabilities'' as a complement to nuclear
      forces will further increase the financial burden. Secondly, the
      NSAB doctrine calls for various security and safety-oriented
      mechanisms but given this country's notorious record of public
      safety, there are bound to be widespread misgivings on this
      account. When the government finds it impossible to prevent even
      routine train accidents, how competent is it to shoulder the
      responsibility of handling "sufficient, survivable and
      operationally prepared'' nuclear forces? The notion of
      "designated successors'' to the Prime Minister in the event of a
      decapitating first strike is also bound to raise constitutional
      and political complications given the fractious nature of
      India's polity. Apart from these questions, many other issues
      will arise following public scrutiny of the document. The scope
      and opportunity given for this discussion will help to validate
      both the draft doctrine and the democratic sovereignty it seeks
      to protect.

::::[3]::::
Date sent:        Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:03:30 +0500 (GMT+0500)
From:             Isa Daudpota <[e-mail]>

Abolition 2000 is a global network of over 1000 citizen groups on six
continents campaigning for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Please visit:
http://www.wagingpeace.org

from where you can go to the Abolition 2000 web page.  There you can
sign the pledge against nuclear weapons.

You can also get to subscribe to a free monthly mag, 'The Sunflower'
- -- produced by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

::::[4]::::
Date sent:        Wed, 18 Aug 1999 20:35:06 +1200
From:             [e-mail]

Summary of recent messages posted to the Abolition 2000 Nuclear
Weapons Convention Working Group.

1. Reminder that countries are invited to make submissions to the
United Nations Secretary General on UN Resolution "Follow-up to the
International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the
Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", which called for negotiations
leading to a nuclear weapons convention.

2. "Security and Survival: The Case for a Nuclear Weapons Convention"
promotion tour in Aotearoa-New Zealand by authors Merav Datan and Alyn
Ware.

Messages can be viewed at www.egroups.com/group/a2000-nwcwg. To join
the working group contact [e-mail].



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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 17:11:30 +1000
From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: [y2k-nuclear] Re: Y2K CAMPAIGN SUGGESTED SHORT/MID TERM ACTION PLAN

At 5:31 AM +1000 19/8/99, Bob Tiller wrote:

Dear Bob,
I agree. i acxtually thought this was covered, and we in Australia for
example are certainly working to get our govt to move on the issue.

Given the conservative not to say right wig nature of this govt, this isn't
going to be easy.

Still the senate resolution of the other day is a start, and e intend to
capitalise on it.

I am spliting my own time about 50/50 Australian stuff and international
stuff. others are working much more on the Australian local scene.
>Dear John,
>
>Thank you for identifying these elements of a plan.  I support the five steps
>listed, and I will commit PSR to working on items 2 and 3 in the coming weeks.
>
>Some questions arise.  With regard to item 2, are you or others knowledgeable
>about the G8 agenda and also about the content of pre-meeting discussions
>among
>bureaucrats?   With regard to item 4, are some European parliamentarians
>working
>together to shape strategy for debate and vote on the resolution?
>
>I want to suggest two additional steps which I believe can be very valuable:
>
>#6 (Actually an extension of #5)  I believe that people across the globe
>should
>work within their own countries, pressuring their own governments on the
>issue.
>I think we ought to be asking people outside the U.S. and Russia to send
>faxes to
>their own leaders, urging them to publicly support de-alerting.   If the U.S.
>government rarely hears support for de-alerting from its strategic
>partners and
>economic partners, it will not move very quickly.   If, on the other hand, the
>leaders of nations like Ireland, Sweden, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy, South
>Africa, Egypt, Australia and Japan publicly advocated dealerting, the U.S.
>government would have to face the issue seriously.  this should become a major
>political issue in twnety, thirty, forty nations around the globe.  We
>should not
>assume that the only way to get some movement on de-alerting is by
>pressuring the
>top two nuclear weapon states, or even by pressuring the eight states with
>such
>weapons.
>
>#7   I believe that we need to encourage grassroots people to work on the
>media,
>not just in the U.S. but everywhere.  We have gotten some
>letters-to-the-editor
>and op-eds published in the U.S. this year, and others have also.   We
>need much
>more of that.   There are (at least in the U.S.) community newspapers,
>small town
>daily newspapers, radio talk shows, community cable television programs, etc.
>Often it is possible to relate a letter-to-the-editor to an upcoming
>anniverary,
>such as the fall of the Berlin Wall (Nov. 9, 1989) or the first Soviet nuclear
>test (Aug. 29, 1949).
>
>I hope these thoughts are helpful.
>
>Shalom,
>Bob Tiller
>
>
>
>
>FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign wrote:
>
>> Dear Y2K Campaign People,
>>
>> I have been asked what 'the plan' is for the Y2K campaign.
>>
>> I am sure I do not have the entire campaign at my fingetips, and I know
>> there are people who have much more sophisticated and longer range plans
>> than I do.
>>
>> However, the following suggestions seem to have support from a number of
>> quarters and seem to look as if we can do them.
>>
>> There are a vast number of events happening that this does not in any way
>> cover. These are just obvious short/mid term foci for a Y2K campaign.  But
>> I do suggest strongly that these are and should be priorities for effort.
>>
>> The suggested plan is as follows:
>>
>> 1)Continue to gather signatures for the existing B&B monster, and keep
>> faxing it till December.
>> (I am still looking for Congressional signatures and still only have Ed.
>> Markeys. I'd like to correct this situation asap)
>>
>> 2)Start a fax campaign aimed at initially the G8 Y2K meeting in Berlin over
>> sept 21, asking for strategic nukes to be taken off alert.
>>
>> 3)Support for the Markey resolution. This is best coordinated by US groups,
>> not from faraway Australia.
>>
>> A resolution is also happening in the Canadian parliament, from senator
>> Doug Roche. This deserves support.
>>
>> 4)A resolution in the European parliament in September.
>>
>> 5)Further pressure on our own govt back in Oz.
>>
>> I am trying very hard to make sure as many folk as possible committ to
>> participation in the Sept 1 fax campaign. If people can't get up to speed
>> by sept 1, but only a bit later that doesn't matter.
>>
>> I'll be doing a model letter in the next few days.
>>
>> I don't think its a very complicated plan, and others certainly have much
>> more sophisticated planning abilties than I do.
>>
>> However, I think that these are all obvious tasks that we can all focuss on.
>>
>> I would like to formally suggest that abolition caucus members and members
>> of the Y2K list(s) do now focuss as much as possible:
>>
>> 1)On preparing for a global fax campaign starting sept 1, initially
>> focussing on the sept 21 G8 Y2K meeting, and
>>
>> 2)on support for any congressional/parliamentary resolutions that may come
>> up in the US Congress, the European parliament or national parliaments
>> (such as the Canadian one), and
>>
>> 3)finally on getting more preferably really prominent signatories for the
>> letter.
>>
>> I trust this makes sense, and is achievable, and don't at all want to
>> discourage people who are doing other things and arranging events etc that
>> don't fall into these categories.
>>
>> By the way, the Yeltsin/Clinton monster sign - on letter can now be
>>found on:
>> http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd/nuclear/bbletter.html
>>
>> John Hallam
>> Friends of the Earth Sydney,
>> 17 Lord street, Newtown, NSW, Australia,
>> Fax[phone] ph (61)(2)9517-3903
>>
>> [e-mail]    http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd
>> http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd/nuclear/bbletter.html
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> GET WHAT YOU DESERVE! A NextCard Platinum VISA: DOUBLE Rewards points,
>> NO annual fee & rates as low as 9.9% FIXED APR. Apply online today!
>> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/606
>>
>> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/y2k-nuclear
>> http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ebates.com. Earn up to 25% cash back for shopping online at 75 stores
>like Borders, CDNow and Beyond.com. Refer a friend and earn even more!
>http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/690
>
>
>eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/y2k-nuclear
>http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications




- -
 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 Aug 1999 13:08:59 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: A2000 Working Group on Corporate Issues organizes for WTO

>Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 02:00:55 -0400
>Subject: A2000 Working Group on Corporate Issues organizes for WTO
>Priority: non-urgent
>X-FC-MachineGenerated: true
>To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>X-FC-Forwarded-From: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>Friends:
>
>I=92m happy to announce that the Abolition 2000 Working Group on Corporate
>Issues has convened to organize Abolition 2000=92s participation in
>citizen actions during the World Trade Organization=92s ministerial
>meeting in Seattle this fall.
>
>Please mark the week of November 27th =AD December 3rd 1999 to come to
>Seattle and participate in these events.
>
>Forum on the WTO and the Global War System
>    Agenda items:
>        1. WTO and economic globalization.
>        2. Weapons corporations and economic conversion.
>        3. Nuclear weapons and their abolition.
>
>        (Tentatively scheduled for Sunday, November 28th =AD speakers to
>be confirmed).
>
>The forum is being organized by the Pacific Northwest Disarmament
>Coalition (USA) and End the Arms Race (Canada), and is endorsed by the
>Abolition 2000 Working Group on Corporate Issues and the International
>Network on Disarmament and Globalization (to join the NDG=92s list serv,
>send an e-mail to [e-mail] for more information).
>
>Below, I have provided some background information on the WTO, a
>calendar of events in Canada and the USA, website resources, and a list
>of e-mail list serves to receive regular updates.
>
>Hope to see you in Seattle!
>
>Steve Staples
>
>**************
>BACKGROUND
>From November 29th to December 3rd, representatives from the 134 member
>nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) will convene in Seattle to
>discuss world trade and investment to set the ground for a new round of
>international negotiations. In the short time since it was created
>following the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations in 1995, the WTO has
>quickly assumed the position of the most important multilateral
>institution in the world.
>
>The WTO=92s power goes far beyond promoting trade =AD it sets limits on how
>governments may participate within or regulate national economies on
>behalf of their citizens =AD clawing back democracy and development. It
>employs a secretive dispute panel with the power to impose punitive
>trade sanctions on nations who refuse to change their laws to conform
>with the demands of the WTO=92s trade rules.
>
>In many respects, the WTO has marginalized the United Nations and has
>become the main venue for international relations and diplomacy. Nations
>outside the WTO clamour to become members of the club. The rise of
>transnational corporations and their enormous economic and political
>power has put the so-called =93corporate agenda=94 of liberalization,
>deregulation, and privatization at the top of the world agenda.
>Meanwhile the United Nations can only dream of the power and influence
>of the WTO.
>
>The WTO=92s agenda of promoting unfettered capitalism at the expense of a
>government=92s ability to control the economy for the benefit of its
>people contributes to poverty, human rights violations, environmental
>degradation =AD all of the roots causes of war.
>
>The authors of trade and investment agreements understand the social
>destruction resulting from free trade, and so exempt restrictions on
>governments for =93national security=94 reasons, allowing them to spend
>public monies on weapons, armies and internal police forces to protect
>foreign investment from citizen movements which oppose the corporate
>agenda.
>
>The result is the creation of the =93global war system.=94 In the
>industrialized economies of the north, military spending in many
>countries is on the rise again - ten years after the end of the Cold
>War. Billions of tax dollars are slashed from social programs to be
>spent on new weapons, many of which are then sold around the world.
>
>In the emerging economies of the south, corporations demand weak labour
>and environmental standards to extract natural resources or build goods
>destined for northern markets. The economic interests of transnational
>corporations are protected by the technologically advanced militaries of
>their allies in northern governments. And occasionally, cruise missile
>diplomacy is used against a non-conforming nation.
>
>However, citizens=92 organizations and trade unions are resisting the
>attack on the public domain and democracy. Non-governmental
>organizations (NGOs) and organized labour are planning a parallel
>international gathering of people outside the WTO meeting in Seattle.
>This gathering will strengthen the international network of activists
>and organizations working to promote peace, human rights, workers=92
>rights, and sustainable development.
>
>***********
>CALENDAR
>
>Thursday, November 11, 1999
>
>Student and Youth Teach-in This youth event is organized by a coalition
>of youth groups in Vancouver, including Check Your Head, the Canadian
>Federation of Students, and several student unions. The WTO as it
>affects public education, labour and food security will be the main
>agenda topics.
>
>Call Kevin Millsip, Check Your Head [phone]
>
>***
>
>Friday and Saturday, November 12th & 13th, 1999
>
>Vancouver Teach In on the WTO Organized by the Common Front on the WTO
>(Council of Canadians, CLC, Sierra Club, Polaris Inst., West Coast
>Environmental Law), and Trading Strategies.
>
>1000 people will participate in this event, and learn about the WTO=92s
>impact on culture, the environment, community development, livelihoods,
>agriculture, public services, and investment. International speakers and
>workshops.
>
>Contact Steven Staples [phone]
>
>***
>
>Saturday, November 27, 1999
>
>Teach-in by IFG (International Forum on Globalization)  This Teach-in
>will focus on the problems of globalization and a broad range of issues
>affected by the WTO.  Panels of speakers will address the current failed
>economic model and the institutions and agreements that drive it.
>
>Speakers: Maude Barlow (Council of Canadians), Edward Goldsmith (The
>Ecologist), Vandana Shiva (Third World Network), Lori Wallach (Public
>Citizen Global Trade Watch) and many more!
>
>2,500 Seat Benaroya Seattle Symphony Hall, Downtown Seattle
>
>Call [phone] or check www.ifg.org
>
>***
>
>Sunday, November 28th, 1999
>
>The WTO and the Global War System. A forum on globalization and
>disarmament, including weapons corporations, nuclear weapons, and the
>military-corporate complex. Organized by the Pacific Northwest
>Disarmament Coalition (USA), End the Arms Race (Canada) and endorsed by
>the Abolition 2000 Corporate Issues working group and the International
>Network on Disarmament and Globalization. (Date and speakers to be
>confirmed)
>
>Contact: International Network on Disarmament and Globalization,
>[e-mail]
>
>***
>
>November 29th =AD December 2nd, 1999
>
>A series of forums organized by Public Citizen and the Citizens Trade
>Coalition (USA): Monday: Health and the Environment, plus TRIPS 1
>Tuesday: Labor, Labor Rights, Living Standards, Human Rights
>Wednesday: Women and Development, Democracy and Sovereignty plus No
>Patent on Life
>Thursday: Food and Agriculture Events: to be announced
>
>Contact Phone: [phone]. Fax: [phone]
>
>***
>
>November 30th =AD December 3rd, 1999
>
>Official WTO Ministerial Meeting at the Seattle Trade and Convention
>Centre.
>
>***
>
>Tuesday, November 30th, 1999
>
>Rally of the Millenium on the WTO -- arm and arm to the Convention
>Center.   Other events to be announced
>
>***
>
>Tuesday, November 30th, 1999 (evening following the Seattle Rally)
>
>BC Federation of Labour WTO Educational event. Labour and community
>activists will join together at the opening of the BC Fed=92s annual
>policy convention at the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre.
>
>***
>
>WTO RESOURCES
>
>Seattle Citizen Committee on the WTO Ministerial
>http://www.seattlewto.org
>
>A Citizen's Guide to the World Trade Organization  - Everything You Need
>to Know to Fight for Fair Trade - July 20, 1999 (you will need Adobe
>Acrobat Reader 4.0 to view this page)
>http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/gattwto/wto-book.pdf
>
>The World Trade Organization: A Guide for Environmentalists (March 1999)
>http://www.wcel.org/wcelpub/1999/12757.html
>
>Government of British Columbia's site on the World Trade Organization
>http://www.ei.gov.bc.ca/Trade&Export/FTAA-WTO/Default.htm
>
>International Forum on Globalization
>http://www.ifg.org/events.html
>
>End the Arms Race's Arms Trade and Globalization Campaign (Peacewire)
>http://www.peacewire.org/campaigns/content.html
>
>World Trade Organization
>http://www.wto.org
>
>Seattle WTO Host Committee (Chaired by the CEOs of Boeing and Microsoft)
>
>http://www.wtoseattle.org
>
>****************
>
>E-MAIL LISTS
>
>The Road to Seattle
>An excellent archive of previous postings to this list serv.
>http://www.newsbulletin.org/bulletins/getcurrentbulletin.cfm?bulletin_id=3D=
67&
>sid=3D To subscribe, send an email to mailto:[e-mail]. In the
>body of the message type: subscribe road_to_seattle
>
>WTO Citizen Organizing Committee
>The website for citizens groups organizing for Seattle.
>http://www.seattlewto.org To subscribe to the Citizens Host Committee
>list serv, send an email with the words Subscribe WTO-HOST" (plus your
>email address) to [e-mail]
> =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 Aug 1999 13:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: [e-mail] (marylia)
Subject: (abolition-usa) New DOE weapons megastrategy

Hi peace and environmental advocates:

Here is a press release and fact sheet we put out this morning, so it is
about 3 pages long -- unformatted, below. While Livermore Lab is
highlighted in the news release, the proposed changes, as you will see,
greatly affect Los Alamos Lab, Sandia Lab-NM, and the Nevada Test Site.
Further, these proposed changes will impact both our local environments
(California, New Mexico and Nevada) and global nuclear weapons policy. Some
bits and pieces of this DOE plan have appeared in various local newspapers,
but the outlines of the plan's scope are just becoming evident. And, what
is written in the DOE materials referenced in our news release raise many,
many additional questions. Read on...

for further information
Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley CAREs [phone]
Mike Veiluva, Western States Legal Foundation [phone]

for immediate release, Thursday, August 19, 1999

Secret Energy Dept. Plan Will Move More Plutonium to Livermore Lab;
Proposal to Expand Nuclear Weapons Activities Will Endanger Bay Area and
Chill Global Disarmament, Say Analysts

LIVERMORE -- The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is poised to make major
changes in its nuclear weapons program and move more plutonium work to the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, charge Bay Area
nuclear policy analysts who have obtained heretofore unpublished materials
used by DOE to brief high-level Clinton administration officials on the
plan. (The DOE "vugraphs" used for this presentation are available on
request.)

"These changes will have far-reaching, negative consequences for Bay Area
public health and safety, for national efforts to reign in the escalating
nuclear weapons budget and for international nuclear non-proliferation and
disarmament goals," said Marylia Kelley, executive director of the
Livermore-based organization, Tri-Valley CAREs, which obtained the briefing
papers from the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The DOE proposal means more plutonium "pits" (bomb cores) in Livermore. DOE
will give Livermore Lab plutonium pit work now performed at its more-remote
Los Alamos Lab in New Mexico. This will include moving nuclear weapons to
Livermore for plutonium pit surveillance. Moreover, the workload for the
W80 submarine and air launched cruise missiles is slated to move to
Livermore Lab from Los Alamos. This, too, will mean more plutonium pits at
Livermore Lab. (More information is contained in the fact sheet that
follows.)

"This plan has gone forward in secret, and the public has been
inappropriately excluded from any knowledge or decision-making role,"
Kelley stated. Earlier this year, DOE and Livermore Lab hosted a public
meeting at which officials testified that no major changes were
contemplated to the Lab's operations over the next 5 years. On that basis,
DOE and Livermore Lab decided on March 10, 1999 not to conduct a new
site-wide environmental review. "Put simply, we were lied to. We are
demanding an environmental review and full public hearings," insisted
Kelley.

"In a democracy, we should not have nor should we tolerate nuclear weapons
projects being built, augmented and operated in the dark. Look at what has
happened at other DOE facilities, such as Paducah and Portsmouth, where the
workers and the public were misled for years and the result was plutonium
contamination," Kelley pointed out.

"DOE's proposal is an outrage," fumed Jackie Cabasso, executive director of
the Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland. Cabasso explained: "As the
U.S. decreases the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the DOE should
also be dismantling its nuclear weapons infrastructure. This plan moves in
exactly the opposite direction. It enhances U.S. nuclear capability."

"Further, it is hypocritical of the U.S. to build up its nuclear weapons
design and development capabilities at a time when the Clinton
administration is telling other nations to forego such activities. This
plan demonstrates the worst aspects of a 'do as I say and not as I do'
proliferation policy. This will be noticed by other nations, some of whom
will use it to justify their own pursuit of new weapons capabilities. The
end result of this plan will be to increase nuclear proliferation dangers
worldwide," Cabasso summed up.

                                Fact sheet outlining changes planned by DOE,
                                along with some analysis and a few
pertinent questions

1.              DOE will "move promptly" the responsibility and workload
for the W80 nuclear warhead from Los Alamos Lab in Mew Mexico to Livermore
Lab in California. This will mark the first time that responsibility for a
weapon designed by one lab has been shifted to another, and the Los Alamos
Lab's stockpile systems manager, Luis Salazar, recently quit that position
in protest of the pending move. The W80 warhead has both submarine and air
launched cruise missile versions.

Livermore Lab will "upgrade" the W80 warhead, according to the DOE. This
will involve more plutonium "pit"  (core) work at Livermore, among other
things. The briefing materials reveal what appear to be changes in the
warhead that go far, far beyond any maintenance procedures that may be
necessary to preserve the existing weapon's "safety" or "reliability" while
it remains in the arsenal.

The DOE materials include notes on the development of brand new electronic
"microsystems" that will become "an integral part of the W80 surety
upgrade." Another notation says that DOE will "build and support the future
hydrodynamics radiography infrastructure" to meet W80 upgrade
"requirements." This means more test shots
with high explosives and surrogate pits using uranium and/or plutonium 242.
Some of those shots will take place at Los Alamos, though some future shots
are likely to take place at Livermore as well.

The DOE reveals that it will conduct additional underground "subcritical"
nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site to support the W80 "surety upgrade."
Finally, the DOE materials disclose that the W80 "surety upgrade" will
"require primary recertification in 03/04... 05 timeframe." The primary is
the bomb's initial atomic blast, and a subcritical nuclear test is one that
stops short of creating a sustained nuclear chain reaction.

In addition to unresolved environment, safety and health issues, the W80
"surety upgrade" poses serious questions about the DOE assertion it is not
currently designing new nuclear weapons. The abovementioned electronics
changes (most likely involving arming, firing and fusing), the additional
hydrodynamic and subcritical tests, plus the requirement for a
recertification of the warhead core's performance characteristics mean that
a considerable amount of "tweaking" of the existing W80 at Livermore Lab is
planned by the weapons designers. From the DOE materials presented, there
is not enough detail to determine whether the W80 will be enhanced with new
military features or capabilities when the weapons designers are finished,
but it is worth noting that the B61 was converted into an earth-penetrator
via an "upgrade" recently. From the information that DOE does present, the
amount of "tweaking" and the scope of changes to be done to the W80 appear
to be somewhat greater than what it took to "upgrade" the B61 to give it
its new, earth-penetrating capability.

The extent of the W80  "upgrade," its technical justification (or the
technical justification for moving the workload), its potential
environmental, health and safety impacts and its overall cost (including
microsystems development, testing and plutonium pit recertification) are
missing form the DOE materials.

2.               DOE will "move promptly" the plutonium pit surveillance
mission and workload from Los Alamos Lab to Livermore. DOE expressly says
one of the aims is to give Livermore Lab more plutonium. This means pits
from weapons in addition to those of the W80 discussed above will come to
Livermore. Livermore Lab already has about 880 pounds of plutonium.
Livermore Lab also has a history of accidents, spills, leaks and plutonium
safety violations, and its plutonium facility was recently shut down on the
recommendation of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. It is just
now "restarting." Livermore Lab is in a highly-populated area, with over 6
million people within a fifty-mile radius. And, Livermore Lab is in an area
riddled with earthquake faults and jolted by frequent tremors. Further, the
DOE notation suggests that some or all of the destructive surveillance
workload for each of the weapon types in the U.S. arsenal will come to
Livermore Lab. This would mean nuclear weapons coming into Livermore to be
taken apart and "destructively tested."

That plutonium work at Livermore Lab will increase is stated. However, the
extent of the increase and any analysis of the attendant risks are missing.
So is the cost estimate for the moving, modifying, designing and
manufacturing of equipment etc. at Livermore Lab, whose current plutonium
facility and capabilities have been configured differently than at the
"donor" location, Technical Area 55 (TA55) in Los Alamos.

3.              DOE will use the space at TA55, newly created by moving
plutonium pit surveillance to Livermore Lab, for increasing its Appaloosa
program. Appaloosa is the code name for a new hydrodynamic test program
wherein, essentially, high-explosives and surrogate pits (including with
plutonium 242) are set off above ground inside tanks. Environmental
impacts, cost and need are all missing from the DOE materials.

4.              DOE will consolidate hydrodymamic testing at Los Alamos
Lab, and will open up a new "national program office" there. However,
Clinton administration officials have been told by DOE that Livermore Lab
will still build and keep its new hydrodynamic test facility. Therefore,
any fiscal savings DOE may claim is attached to this consolidation is
suspect.

5.              DOE will build a huge new 50 GeV [gigaelectron volt] proton
accelerator at Los Alamos Lab to "get neutrons out of proton collisions."
The existing LANCE facility at Los Alamos would become merely an injector
beamline for the new mega-machine, according to DOE. The mission goal or
any technical justification for the project are missing from the DOE
materials. So is its price tag.

6.              DOE will conduct additional underground subcritical nuclear
tests for the W80 and W88. The W88 is the submarine launched warhead on the
Trident D-5 missile, currently being extensively "upgraded" by Los Alamos
Lab. The DOE briefing materials specify that additional subcritical shots
will involve "weapon relevant shapes." There is no discussion of
proliferation impacts, cost or environmental effects -- or of whether U.S.
national security will be improved or degraded by "upgrading" these
weapons.

7.              DOE will move ATLAS and Pegasus from Los Alamos Lab to
Nevada. ATLAS is a new fusion facility being constructed at Los Alamos.
Pegasus is an older machine. Again, technical justification, skill base
questions, cost issues, etc. are missing from the DOE materials.

8.              DOE will use ATLAS and Pegasus to help develop the
technology that will allow for "explosively driven pulse power for future
SNM [special nuclear material - i.e. plutonium] experiments in U1A." The
U1A facility is the underground complex of tunnels and rooms where
subcritical nuclear experiments are now detonated. Underground explosively
driven pulse power experiments on plutonium would be a new type of
experiment; one which may have implications for the development of new
generations of weapons. The DOE briefing materials do not offer any
rationale for these tests. Nor are their costs, environmental impacts,
potential weapons application or related proliferation risks mentioned.

9.              DOE will build a new "infrastructure for weapons
microsystem components ...MESA" at Sandia Lab in New Mexico. This
capability will "support future AF&F (arming, firing and fusing) needs."
The only weapon type specifically mentioned as justifying the need for this
new capability is the W80 "surety upgrade." MESA is reportedly a several
hundred million dollar project. And, while DOE's materials don't discuss
it, Sandia Lab has publicly stated that it could become the production
center for new weapons electronics as well as the design center in the
future, if DOE so desires.

These are big moves. Collectively, they ratchet up U.S. nuclear weapons
capabilities. Nowhere has DOE put this plan before the public, justified
the changes or analyzed their myriad negative consequences -- at least not
in any publicly-available, independently-reviewed forum.

The DOE has completed a Stockpile Stewardship & Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement. It stands silent on this plan. Moreover,
some of the siting elements in the SSM PEIS actually ran contrary to this
latest DOE scheme. OMB is on record stating that DOE must undertake a
revision of the SSM PEIS before moving forward. DOE, however, went forward
to request initial monies from Congress to begin.

- -- end --


Marylia Kelley
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94550

<http://www.igc.org/tvc/> - is our web site, please visit us there!

[phone] - is our phone
[phone] - is our fax

Working for peace, justice and a healthy environment since 1983, Tri-Valley
CAREs has been a member of the nation-wide Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability in the U.S. since 1989, and is a co-founding member of the
international Abolition 2000 network for the elimination of 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 #168
***********************************

-
 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.