ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n208

Internet Message Format | 1999-10-28 | 45KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #208
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest     Friday, October 29 1999     Volume 01 : Number 208




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

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:08:46 -0400
From: Alice Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: NAC LETTER FINAL DEADLINE MONDAY MORNING

>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 19:21:05 -0400
>Subject: NAC LETTER FINAL DEADLINE MONDAY MORNING
>X-FC-MachineGenerated: true
>To: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>Dear friends,
>
>The FINAL deadline for organizational signatures has been extended to
>Monday, November 1 at noon New York time (five hours behind GMT). If you
>haven't signed on, please do so as soon as possible. We have well over 100
>signed on from 21 countries, but we need more, especially from
>organizations
>in NATO countries.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Tracy Moavero
>
>
>
>Sign-on Letter to Support the New Agenda and ICJ Resolutions:
>
>Your Excellency,
>
>As citizens=92 organizations working to end the threat of nuclear war, we
>urge
>your government to support two important resolutions which are before the
>United Nations General Assembly First Committee for consideration.
>
>The =93New Agenda=94 resolution reflects our concerns about the urgent need=
 for
>complete nuclear disarmament. The concrete steps in it lay important
>groundwork for moving stalled processes and creating new opportunities for
>progress. Far from hindering any existing efforts, this resolution
>strengthens them by taking them out of isolation and bringing them together
>to create momentum. The sponsors=92 commitment to building consensus is=
 clear
>this year=92s text, which take into consideration concerns raised by some
>delegations when this resolution was considered last year.
>
>We also support the resolution affirming the 1996 advisory opinion of the
>International Court of Justice that there exists a legal obligation to
>pursue and conclude nuclear disarmament negotiations. As the United Nations
>becomes increasingly important in enforcing the rule of law to build and
>keep peace, this resolution strengthens the position of the U.N. in that
>regard. Anything less than a strong affirmative vote would send an
>ambiguous
>message about the respect for international law.
>
>The timing of these resolutions is crucial. We are distressed not only by
>the slow pace of progress toward disarmament, but even more so by
>disturbing
>signs that nuclear arsenals are becoming even more entrenched in the
>security policies of some nations. Failure of the U.N. General Assembly to
>strongly support these resolutions at this time would send a dangerous
>signal to those who are trying to invigorate nuclear weapons programs.
>
>We recognize the vital role of the United Nations in fostering nuclear
>disarmament and see ourselves as partners in those efforts. While the
>undersigned organizations are from many different parts of the globe, we
>are
>working together to build support for these resolutions. NGO
>representatives
>will be using the Internet to send up-to-the-minute updates, allowing
>organizations around the world to closely follow First Committee
>proceedings
>and plan their work accordingly.
>
>We were pleased that the fifty-third session of the General Assembly
>overwhelmingly adopted these resolutions, confirming the broad support =AD
>among both civil society and governments =AD for swift and concerted action
>for complete nuclear disarmament. We await similar and even stronger

>results
>this year.
>
>Nuclear disarmament is often noted as an =93ultimate goal.=94 The time has=
 come
>for that =93ultimate goal=94 to be realized.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>[your organization]
>
>__________________________
>Tracy Moavero
>Peace Action International Office
>866 United Nations Plaza, #4053
>New York NY 10017-1822
>USA
>Tel + 1 212 750 5795
>Fax + 1 212 750 5849
>[e-mail]
>www.peace-action.org
>=20



- -
 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, 28 Oct 1999 22:44:43 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Global Nuclear Disarmament & Economic Conversion Act

Please contact your local Congressperson to support this important bill to
protect the only planet we have.  This is one of the important survival
issue messages being carried by Global Peace Walk2000 from SF to DC to NYC
for UN55th.
http://www.globalpeacenow.org

The full transcript of the press conference, with speeches by Congressional
Co-Sponsors Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and
nuclear
policy experts Dr. Marcus Raskin (Institute for Policy Studies), Mary Olson
(Nuclear Information and Resource Service), Bob Tiller (Physicians for
Social
Responsibility), and John Steinbach (Veterans for Peace), as well as the
text
of the bill HR-2545, can be found at
http://prop1.org/prop1/990730p1.speeches.htm

Summary of HR-2545 is at end of this post.

From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]> [discussion of HR-2545]
To: Alyn Ware <[e-mail]>;
David Crockett Williams <[e-mail]>
Cc: abolition caucus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal to Abolition 2000. Holmes Norton Bill
Date: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 11:34 PM

At 11:51 AM 10/23/99 -0400, Alyn Ware wrote:

>Dear David,
>
>Thank you for your communication regarding the bill proposed by Eleanor
>Holmes Norton. I believe that Holmes Norton should be supported for this
>initiative. I have distributed the bill in a variety of fora, including to
>representatives arguing against nuclear weapons in the International Court
>of Justice, with the result that it was referred to in the 1995-6 case.

This is a fact.  And your efforts have been greatly appreciated, Alyn.
Fortunately, you are an Australian citizen.  Unfortunately, the support
needed for Norton's bill must come from US citizens.  What is necessary is
for millions of US citizens to insist that their congressional
representatives support Norton's bill.

>However, there are a number of problems with the bill which make it
>difficult to swing in behind with wholehearted support.
>
>1. Requirement to "Refrain from all military operations".
>
>While I am personally a Pacifist and would support this statement, it
>precludes those congresspeople who would support nuclear disarmament but
not
>yet support a pacifist US policy. It also could be inferred to prevent US
>participation in UN peacekeeping operations.

It must be tough to be a Pacifist politician; as a "politician," I imagine,
the "Pacifist" would eventually be forced to speak out of both sides of his
mouth.  (Didn't something like that recently happen to some Greens in
Germany?)

Personally, as a Pacifist, my problem is those congresspeople who might
"support" nuclear disarmament yet would remain militarists.  For one thing,
congresspeople who entertain that dualistic mind set seem to be seriously
out of touch with reality.  Consider the value of nuclear weaponry: simply,
they are the most advanced weapons.  It is axiomatic that the best defense
is a good offense.  It is also axiomatic that the best offense is the most
murderous offense.  Notwithstanding the fact that the US has demonstrated
its' ability to bomb nations into the stone age with conventional weaponry,
to my way of thinking, any congressperson who claims to support the
elimination of nuclear weapons, but wants to continue with a strong
military would be either a bad general, a clever liar, or living in
Fantasyland.  What's the point of having a military that's not capable of
annihilating its' enemies?  I know that if I believed in peace through
strength, or that might makes right, I wouldn't beat my best weapon into
any ploughshare.

As a Pacifist, rather than play patty cake with a bunch of wingnut
congresspeople, I'd prefer to encourage them to change their perspective of
reality.  And isn't that what a grassroots movement is supposed to do;
convince government to change its' perspective of reality?

>2. "This Act shall take effect when the President certifies to the Congress
>that all foreign countries possessing nuclear weapons have established
legal
>requirements comparable to those set forth in section 2 and those
>requirements have taken effect."
>
>The requirement that all foreign countries possessing nuclear weapons must
>"undertake vigorous good faith efforts to eliminate war, armed conflict,
and
>all military operations (from Section 2)" is too stringent and allows the
US
>an easy excuse not to implement the bill, ie if Russia is in armed conflict
>with Chechnya, the US can refuse to implement the ill.

First, point 2 seems to be point 1 in disguise ("support nuclear
disarmament but not yet support a pacifist US policy").

Second, if this section is too stringent to be taken seriously, then what
can be said of the initial promise of the UN Charter: "to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war?"   (Reminds me of the League of Women
Voters' spokeswoman who said that, although her organization and our
organization both support the elimination of nuclear weapons, her
organization couldn't support an initiative which called for the
elimination of the weapons by the year 2000, because they "believe it is a
long term goal.")

Third, Just as Congress was the mechanism which refused to implement the
CTBT, Congress would also be responsible for the implementation of Norton's
bill.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Congress suddenly came to
its' senses and actually implemented Norton's bill, that "bill" would then
become "federal law," in which case, I think, the only way that "the US"
could refuse to abide by its' own federal law would be through a revolution
or military coup.

Fourth, the "vigorous good faith efforts to eliminate war, armed conflict,
and all military operations," is a clause independent of the elimination of
nuclear weapons.  I'm not so naive to think that war didn't long predate
nuclear weapons, nor -- assuming humanity eliminates nuclear weapons before
nuclear weapons eliminate humanity -- that war is unlikely to continue for
a least a short time after nukes are gone.  However, the operative words
are, "vigorous good faith efforts."  It might take awhile before these
vigorous good faith efforts are realized, but it's better to start
somewhere than to start nowhere.

Fifth, and perhaps most important, nothing is written in stone here.  The
wording of Norton's bill in its' present incarnation is not the same as the
wording contained in the voter initiative which "forced" (Norton's word)
her to introduce the bill in the first place.  Presently Norton's bill is
still in committee (with enough grassroots support it could easily get out
of committee), so debate on the bill has yet to even begin.  If debate ever
begins, the wording could be fine tuned.  On the other hand, if debate
never begins on this or some other measure to eliminate nuclear weapons, to
imagine that the weapons might ever be eliminated seems merely a pipe dream.

>The process implied here is also problematic. According to this clause, the
>US shall wait until all other nuclear weapon states have dismantled their
>nuclear weapons before they begin the process. Other countries will not
>agree to this. They will only agree to simultaneous dismantling.

Hmmm.  This is one respect in which the wording of the original initiative
differs from the wording of Norton's bill.  As a Pacifist, I'd be in favor
of unilateral disarmament.  As a realist, I know from experience that most
US citizens aren't Pacifists, therefore the initiative would never even
have gotten on the ballot had it called for unilateral disarmament.  The
initiative called for the US to eliminate nuclear weapons if the
now-defunct Commonwealth of Independent States agreed to eliminate its'
weapons.  Norton took it a step further by substituting "all other nuclear
weapon states."

>In order to achieve nuclear disarmament, the US cannot take a unilateral
>position and then expect others to jump to their bidding.

Of course not.   But I don't think Norton figures it will work that way.
What Norton's bill, should it become law, would do is to put the US in a
position of being legally bound to dispose of its' nuclear capability if
the others do the same.

>The process will
>require negotiations between states in order to achieve an agreement on
>universal non-use of nuclear weapons and an agreed process for the
eliminati
>on of nuclear weapons which can be verified, ie a nuclear weapons
>convention.

Well, sure, the process will require negotiations between states in order
to achieve an agreement, but, to my mind anyway, the US is the toughest nut
to crack.  Again, Norton's bill is directed at the US.  Since I'm not a US
citizen, I don't think I can reasonably be accused of jingoism when I say,
realistically, like it or not, the US is truly a "world leader."  My
problem is that it seems to be leading in the wrong direction.  The US has
led the way in the development of these devices, and is the only nation
ever to have used them against human beings.  It appears self-evident that,
if there is ever to be any reversal in the process, the US is pivotal.

>This is why the Markey resolution, while only a resolution, is
>much more realistic in what it calls for.

I think you mean the Woolsey resolution (H.Res. 82), which calls for "the
Model Nuclear Weapons Convention as a discussion document intended to
further negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament."  Unless I'm
mistaken, Markey's two resolutions dealing with nuclear weapons (H.Res. 74
and 177) deal with Stockpile Stewardship and Y2K respectively.
Unfortunately, Markey's resolutions, which refer to the CTBT, probably need
to be reintroduced with slightly different wording.

"Only a resolution," is significant, because there's a big difference
between a "bill" and a "resolution."  A bill makes a law, and, in nations
under the rule of law, a law is significant.  In reality, a resolution is
little more than a feel good placebo.

As far as "realistic" is concerned, whether Woolsey's resolution is more or
less "realistic" than Norton's bill would seem to depend on one's
definition of the term.  If "realistic" is defined as, "getting something
passed in congress easily," then Woolsey's resolution would most likely be
more realistic than Norton's bill.   However, if the definition is,
"getting something passed in congress which will have some practical
effect," then, I believe, Norton's bill is the more realistic approach.

In fact, Woolsey is co-sponsoring Norton's bill.  In her speech at the
press conference when Norton introduced the bill this time, Woolsey stated
that her resolution would work in conjunction with Norton's bill.

>The Markey resolution is backed up
>by the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention, which outlines the legal,
political
>and technical considerations required for the elimination of nuclear
>weapons.

I guess the main reason that I think Woolsey's resolution could work in
conjunction with Norton's bill, while, in practical terms, it is pretty
unrealistic without Norton's bill is that; perhaps even more surely than
that other nations won't jump to the bidding of the US, the US is not going
to jump to the bidding of the UN.  Believe it or not, there are
multi-millions of US citizens who actually believe that the UN is a satanic
plot.  There are many more multi-millions, including many members of
Congress, who just believe that the UN is bad for US interests. Certainly
the UN can hold a convention and demand that the US scrap its' nukes, but
how is the UN going to enforce its' demand?  Shucks, they can't even force
the US to pay its' dues.

I hope these comments are helpful.

Peace through Reason,
Thomas
____________________________________________________________

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

- ---------

106th CONGRESS CONGRESS
1ST SESSION                  H.R. 2545

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Armed Services and International Relations Committees on July 16, 1999

A BILL

To provide for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion
     in accordance with District of Columbia Initiative Measure
     Number 37 of 1993

1        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2  tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3  SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4        This Act may be cited as the "Nuclear Disarmament
5  and Economic Conversion Act of 1999".

6 SEC 2. REQUIREMENT FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND
7              ECONOMIC CONVERSION.

8         The United States Government shall----
1              (1) disable and dismantle all its nuclear weap-
2       ons and refrain from replacing them at any time
3       with any weapons of! mass destruction;
4              (2) redirect resources that are currently being
5       used for nuclear weapons programs to use
6                     (A) in converting all nuclear weapons in
7                dustry employees, processes, plants, and pro-
8                   grams smoothly to constructive, ecologically
9                   beneficial peacetime activities during the 3
10                 years following the effective date of this Act,
11                and
12                      (B) in addressing human and infrastruc-
13                ture needs such as housing, health care, edu-
14                cation, agriculture, and enviromnental restora-
15                tion;
16              (3) undertake vigorous good faith efforts to
17      eliminate war, armed conflict, and all military oper-
18      ations; and
19               (4) actively promote policies to induce all other
20      countries to join in these commitments for world
21      peace and security.
22  SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
23       This Act shall take effect when the President certifies
24  to the Congress that all foreign countries possessing nu-
25  clear weapons have established legal requirements com-
1  parable to those set forth in section 2 and those require-
2  ments have taken effect.


______________________________________________________________________

If you have any questions about the bill or event, please contact Ellen
Thomas,


PROPOSITION ONE COMMITTEE
PO BOX 27217, WASHINGTON, DC 20038 USA
202-462-0757-- (voice)  |  202-265-5389 -- (fax)
[e-mail] -- (e-mail)  |  http://prop1.org -- (World-Wide-Web)


- -
 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, 29 Oct 1999 06:47:28 -0400
From: Ellen Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) US Campaign, Re: Urgent Ward Valley alert! and Wall of Denial

Re two urgent action items:  Save Ward Valley, and Wall of Denial

1) It's disturbing to see the Ward Valley success so quickly being
undermined.  Those feds don't give up.  I called the Department of Interior
number in D.C.--[phone]--as soon as I read the Save Ward Valley
message; there's an all-night answering machine.  It helps to have an
article or other document to refer to/read from when talking.

2) The Wall of Denial is going up this week (November 2-9) -- if Ward
Valley folks will send us a flier to post or paint on the wall, we'll draw
people's attention to it.  Proposition One will be "hosting" the Wall on
November 4th, so anyone else who can't be at the Wall and have a no-nukes
flier to post, send it as an attachment, and we'll print and paste it up on
the Wall.

Ellen Thomas


PROPOSITION ONE COMMITTEE
P.O. Box 27217, Washington, DC 20038 USA
202-462-0757 (phone) | 202-265-5389 (fax)
http://prop1.org | [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: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:39:33 -0400
From: Alice Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Action Alert-Belarus Doctor arrested

Dear Friends,
Please write letters as requested to protest the treatment of a pathologist=
 in Belarus who has been arrested because he is reporting on devastating=
 radiation effects from Chernobyl.  Alice Slater

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 04:25:49 -0400
>Subject: Re: FSB search  Joshua Handler in Moscow=20
>Priority: non-urgent
>X-FC-MachineGenerated: true
>To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],=
 [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>----- INCOMING EMAIL FROM PAUL SWANN: -----
>
>X-eGroups-Return:
>y2k-nuclear-return-813-rhoffman=[e-mail]
>>:::
>Mailing-List: contact [e-mail]
>X-Mailing-List: [e-mail]
>X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/y2k-nuclear/
>>:::
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>Delivered-To: [e-mail]
>>:::
>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>>:
>Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:11:31 +0000
>To: [e-mail]
>From: Paul Swann <[e-mail]>
>Subject: [y2k-nuclear] Prof Yuri.I. Bandazhevsky
>>:
>
>Solange Fernex  <[e-mail]>, President of WILPF France,
>has forwarded the following to me...
>
>---------
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>Prof Yuri.I. Bandazhevsky was the Rector of the Gomel State Medical
>Institute, Gomel, Belarus. He is a pathologist, his wife a pediatrician,
>and he has published extensively on the health effects of Chernobyl
>"Clinical and experimental aspects of the effect of incorporated
>radionuclides upon the organism (Gomel 1995), "Structural and functional
>effects of radioisotopes incorporated by the organism" (Gomel 1997), always
>in Belarus. His work is absolutely outstanding, supported by animal
>experiments.
>
>We were however unable to invite him to speak in western official
>congresses, which is a great pity. We proposed him for the M=B8nster=
 Congress
>on Low Level Radiation in November 1998, and he was refused with no clear
>explanation, other than "there are already too many speakers", although we
>had proposed him several months in advance. At the same congress in
>M=B8nster,
>Prof. V. Nesterenko, also from Minsk, was denied to speak, even in the
>discussion,  despite the fact that he was present due to the help of a NGO,
>and very much qualified to intervene.
>

>This reflects the shroud of secret held in the West over possible
>testimonies on behalf of the victims of Chernobyl
>
>We hear today from Belarus and the Swiss Italian Television, that Prof
>Bandazhevsky has been arrested mid-July, and held in isolation. No trial
>has
>been announced for the moment.
>
>His state of health is very bad according to our sources.
>
>It is said that a student has denounced himself for "having given Prof
>Bandazhevsky money to registrate in the State Medical Institute". Sources
>consider this to absolutely ridiculous, in view of the lack of money of
>students.
>
>Sources believe this may have happened because Prof. Bandazhevsky
>criticized
>the use made of funding of 17 million of roubles of official Chernobyl
>help,
>only 10% being usefully used, 90% having been used for other purposes.
>
>Others believe it could have something to do with his efforts to publicize
>the real state of health of the Chernobyl victims. While in Minsk, we
>visited in person his Institute of Pathology and saw a collection of about
>15 - 20 heavily deformed fetuses and stillborns, he had just the day before
>shown to a Parliamentary Committee on Chernobyl. According to him, they
>were
>collected in 2 weeks only, whereas in a Western Universities there would be
>as many in one year or more.
>
>Please help.
>
>Please express  your concern to the Embassy of Belarus in your capital, to
>Amnesty International (Barbara Lochbihle, others), the Chernobyl
>organizations in your country, the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group in
>Belarus, care of OSCE in Vienna : ([e-mail]), the ODIHR
>([e-mail]), maybe the Ambassador of Russia in Washington
>Dr. Y. Schchterbak, to tell them the arrest of Prof. Bandazhevsky, your
>desire to receive news from him, what are the conditions of his detention,
>how is his health, what are the charges against him, did he see a lawyer,
>etc etc
>For more details, write to Vladimir Tschertschov : mailto:[e-mail]
>
>Thank you very much
>Professor Michel Fernex, University of Basle, PSR/IPPNW Switzerland
>Ms. Solange Fernex, President, WILPF France
>=20


- -
 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, 29 Oct 1999 11:16:59 -0400
From: Alice Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: REAL ALERT!!!! WASTE BILL MOVING!!!!

>Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 10:43:17 -0400
>Subject: REAL ALERT!!!! WASTE BILL MOVING!!!!
>Priority: non-urgent
>X-FC-MachineGenerated: true
>To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>Please call your Senators TODAY!!   (switchboard #202-224-3121)
>
>The Senate Cloakroom says that S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is
>scheduled to come to the floor today!  We are hoping for a last minute
>reprieve, but for now the bill is moving and we need to make calls!
>
>
>CALL YOUR SENATOR!  VOTE NO ON CLOTURE< VOTE NO ON THE BILL!
>
>BAD for PUBLIC HEALTH
>* S. 1287 takes the authority for setting radiation standards away from
>EPA, the agency charged with protecting public health and the environment,
>and gives it to NRC, which mostly protects the nuclear industry.  This is
>unacceptable!
>
>* S. 1287 requires a radiation standard that is twice as lenient as EPA's
>already weak standard, and allows 1 excess cancer death in 1,000 people
>exposed to radiation.  This is thousands of times more lenient than
>standards for most industrial hazards like PCBs, which only allow 1 in a
>million excess cancers.
>
>* The maximum release of radiation from Yucca Mountain will be at the
>300,000 year time frame, but S. 1287 mandates that the standard is only set
>for 10,000 years.
>
>TRANSPORTATION SPREADS THE RISK
>* S. 1287 will launch the largest nuclear waste shipping program in
>history.  It will transport nuclear waste to a "backup storage" location if
>Yucca mountain  does not open on schedule.  Tens of thousands of irradiated
>nuclear fuel will travel through 43 states over 30 years.  Accidents will
>happen!
>
>REPROCESSING MEANS MORE PLUTONIUM
>* S. 1287 includes a new provision that sets up an office to research new
>reprocessing technologies.  This is DIRECTLY counter to our US
>non-proliferation policy.  More reprocessing means more plutonium -- more
>for bombs, more to contaminate our environment.  Accelerator Transmutation
>of Waste, also included in this section, is just a fancy name for  a
>breeder reactor//reprocessing program.  It doesn't solve any problems, it
>creates more!
>
>CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW!  URGE HIM/HER TO OPPOSE S. 1287!
>
>
>(note: Today, Senator Lott is likely to file a cloture motion to cut off
>the filibuster on S. 1287.  So we need Senators to vote against cloture,
>and failing that, to vote against the bill)
>
>For more information contact ANA at 202-833-4668.
>
>
>
>
>Maureen Eldredge
>Program Director
>Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
>
>Ph: 202-833-4668
>Fax: [phone]
>email: [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: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:13:21 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) US Plan: Nuclear Disarmament Globally, Proposition One  PEACE2K

[Summary of US Plan at end.  Ask for all US Congresspeople's support]

"...World Court Opinion was most significant..."

Global Peace Walk2000 was initiated in Fall 1998 in response to the call to
the Nuclear Abolition Coalition by Proposition One for such a
transcontinental peacewalk to begin the new millennium by uniting all
survival issue messages and activists behind this goal of global nuclear
abolition and in support of the prayer for "Global Peace Now!" as a
universal human resolve.   This call was accepted by Rev. Yusen Yamato who
initiated the Global Peace Walk project with its walk from New York to San
Francisco for the United Nations 50th anniversary in 1995.  Rev. Yamato, a
Zen Buddhist Monk from Japan living in San Francisco for over 20years, has
agreed to conduct Global Peace Walk2000 in support of this call from the
American Nuclear Abolition acitivists and in respect of the efforts of
Proposition One and its initiators' 19year ongoing night and day, winter and
summer, antinuclear peace park vigil across Pennsylvania Avenue from The
White House.   We hope you will support these projects and check our
continually updating website for how you can participate and help with this
great New Millennium Peace Project at http://www.globalpeacenow.org


From: Peace through Reason <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: My sincere apology
Date: Friday, October 29, 1999 11:16 AM

Dear Nuclear Abolition Workers,

Although my wife, Ellen, is an occasional contributor, I personally, had
refrained from posting anything to this group for at least a year, maybe
two.  Several days ago I broke my cyber silence to reply to Alyn Ware's
comments on a "Proposal to Build a Grassroots Movement to Pressure the U.S.
Political System for Nuclear Weapons Abolition."  Central to this proposal
was Eleanor Holmes Norton's Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act
(H.R. 2545)

Initially, I submitted this proposal to the October, 1998 Abolition 2000
conference in Chicago in response to an open invitation from David
Cortwright for "concrete proposals that can take various political forms:
legislative vehicles, platforms for presidential candidates, and
propositions for ballot support and petitioning."  As I understand it, the
main topic at the October meeting was whether or not to change the name of
Abolition 2000, so there was no time for discussing any "concrete
proposals."

The proposal was re-submitted to the January, 1999 Abolition 2000
conference.  Again, or so I've been told, was primarily about the name
change, and, again, there was no time to consider "concrete proposals."
Earlier this month Ellen was able to attend the recent conference in Ann
Arbor, where she circulated the exact same proposal, slightly updated to
reflect changes on the political scene since the original submission.
Unfortunately, Ellen tells me, although several individuals expressed
interest in the idea, the group as a whole hadn't time to give it any
serious consideration.

While Ellen was in Ann Arbor, I sent a copy of the proposal to David
Williams via private e-mail.   Unbeknownst to me, on October 8th David
forwarded my private e-mail -- very poorly formatted -- to this group.  On
October 23rd Alyn Ware posted some thoughtful comments concerning the
proposal to this list.  On October 27th I responded, point by point, to
Alyn's comments, and posted my response before Ellen had read it.  After
reading it, Ellen was very disappointed by my comment, "rather than play
patty cake with a bunch of wingnut congresspeople, I'd prefer to encourage
them to change their perspective of reality."  This disturbed her for two
reasons.  First, because of her deep respect for Alyn, she was concerned
that he might take it personally.  Second, because of the nature of this
group, she felt that any valid points I may have made might have been
summarily ignored simply because my comment could have been construed as
rudeness.

First, because Alyn has apparently dropped the debate, I fear Ellen might
be correct in thinking that I've insulted him.  Therefore, I apologize to
Alyn if he took my comment personally.  I certainly did not intend to
insult him, nor did I intend to imply that he was playing patty cake.  To
the best of my knowledge (with the exception of Adam Phillips, Anabel
Dwyer, and Alan and Odile Haber, Bob Tiller, Fran Tepliz, and Mary Olsen,
another apology if I overlooked anyone), Alyn is the only person on this
list who has ever done anything substantial to support this particular idea
for disarmament and conversion.  Additionally, other than Peter Weiss, Alyn
is the only person who has had the common decency to even bother to address
the idea in writing.  Finally, Alyn was instrumental in the most, in my
opinion, practical accomplishment in the history of nuclear disarmament.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but if I am I welcome correction.

I begin from the premise that the three most significant accomplishments of
the anti-nuclear weapons movement have been:

1.  The World Court Opinion
2.  The Nuclear Freeze
3.  NPT, ABM and CTBT

In my opinion the World Court Opinion was most significant, because it has
actually had a practical effect: two activists were acquitted of criminal
charges in Scotland after citing it in their case.  While it's true that
many of my dearest friends have unsuccessfully cited the World Court
Opinion as part of necessity defenses in this country, the fact that it was
successfully used in Scotland proves that it has some practical value.
Parenthetically, of the three most significant accomplishments, the World
Court Opinion probably consumed the least amount of resources and energy.

The Nuclear Freeze Campaign indirectly led to the death of one of the most
noble souls I've ever met.  After a full and adventurous life, Norman Mayer
retired to the Seychelles Islands, which he considered to be paradise.  One
night, as he sat on the beach enjoying the sunset, Norman decided that life
had blessed him, but he hadn't given enough of himself to his fellow
beings.  After considering how he might best apply the remainder of his
life to benefiting humanity, Norman determined that he would devote himself
to the abolition of nuclear weapons.  Norman returned to the US in 1978,
went to Florida, began saving money, and seeking others who were also
interested in abolishing nuclear weapons.  Norman found a small group at
around the time the Freeze Movement began gathering momentum.  His entire
group opted to put their energy into the Freeze.  Norman was disappointed.
"The combined arsenals of the US and USSR are equal to a TNT equivalent of
2 tons for every man, woman and child on the face of the planet," he
argued.  "It's madness to 'freeze' it at that level.  The only solution is
to abolish the weapons."  Norman sank most of the money he'd saved into a
large truck, which he drove to the Washington Monument, bluffed that it was
full of explosives, demanded that the news media make the abolition of
nuclear weapons its "Number One Priority," and, on December 8, 1982, was
shot to death by police snipers, thus proving his point that when you
threaten violence, you invite violence.  The Freeze scrambled to
disassociate itself from Norman.

History shows that many, many well intentioned people put a great deal of
effort into the Freeze Campaign.  The Campaign resulted in successfully
creating a resolution, and engendering organizations which consolidated,
and, under a different name, still exist to this day.  When the Freeze
provided something for people to do, many people joined.  Unfortunately,
after the Freeze reached a "successful" conclusion, the movement went into
hibernation.  Practically, the Freeze neither froze the growth of nuclear
arsenals, nor impeded the development and deployment of more advanced
weapons.

NPT, ABM and CTBT consumed a great deal of resources and energy from the
anti-nuclear weapons community.  Critics pointed out that the Japanese were
negotiating a treaty when they bombed Pearl Harbor, that the US has
violated every treaty it ever made with the indigenous peoples, and argued
that, in practical terms, treaties are worthless.  Anybody who still
believes that the CTBT was a success should call Trent Lott's office.
Anybody who thinks the ABM will be anything more than a memory by next
summer need only examine US plans to deploy ABM systems and Russian
responses to those plans, or talk to Bruce Gagnon about space based nukes.
Anyone who thinks the NPT has helped slow the proliferation of nuclear
weapons probably hasn't heard about what India and Pakistan have been up to
lately.

So, dear friends, unless I'm wrong, and please correct me if I'm mistaken,
notwithstanding our heartfelt efforts, objectively speaking I'm afraid that
we really don't have much reason to pat ourselves on the back.  In other
words, OUR movement seems dead in the water.

Judging from David Cortwright's 1998 invitation, he might even agree with
me, otherwise why would he be soliciting suggestions for strategies and
tactics?

In closing, I can't help but wonder, if we are dead in the water, and we're
looking for some engine to get us going, why can't we find time to
patiently discuss good faith proposals?

Peace through Reason,

Thomas

____________________________________________________________

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

The full transcript of the press conference, with speeches by Congressional
Co-Sponsors Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and
nuclear
policy experts Dr. Marcus Raskin (Institute for Policy Studies), Mary Olson
(Nuclear Information and Resource Service), Bob Tiller (Physicians for
Social
Responsibility), and John Steinbach (Veterans for Peace), as well as the
text
of the bill HR-2545, can be found at
http://prop1.org/prop1/990730p1.speeches.htm

106th CONGRESS CONGRESS
1ST SESSION                  H.R. 2545

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Armed Services and International Relations Committees on July 16, 1999

A BILL

To provide for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion
     in accordance with District of Columbia Initiative Measure
     Number 37 of 1993

1        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2  tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3  SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4        This Act may be cited as the "Nuclear Disarmament
5  and Economic Conversion Act of 1999".

6 SEC 2. REQUIREMENT FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND
7              ECONOMIC CONVERSION.

8         The United States Government shall----
1              (1) disable and dismantle all its nuclear weap-
2       ons and refrain from replacing them at any time
3       with any weapons of! mass destruction;
4              (2) redirect resources that are currently being
5       used for nuclear weapons programs to use
6                     (A) in converting all nuclear weapons in
7                dustry employees, processes, plants, and pro-
8                   grams smoothly to constructive, ecologically
9                   beneficial peacetime activities during the 3
10                 years following the effective date of this Act,
11                and
12                      (B) in addressing human and infrastruc-
13                ture needs such as housing, health care, edu-
14                cation, agriculture, and enviromnental restora-
15                tion;
16              (3) undertake vigorous good faith efforts to
17      eliminate war, armed conflict, and all military oper-
18      ations; and
19               (4) actively promote policies to induce all other
20      countries to join in these commitments for world
21      peace and security.
22  SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
23       This Act shall take effect when the President certifies
24  to the Congress that all foreign countries possessing nu-
25  clear weapons have established legal requirements com-
1  parable to those set forth in section 2 and those require-
2  ments have taken effect.


______________________________________________________________________

If you have any questions about the bill or event, please contact Ellen
Thomas,


PROPOSITION ONE COMMITTEE
PO BOX 27217, WASHINGTON, DC 20038 USA
202-462-0757-- (voice)  |  202-265-5389 -- (fax)
[e-mail] -- (e-mail)  |  http://prop1.org -- (World-Wide-Web)


Global Peace Walk2000 was initiated in Fall 1998 in response to the call to
the Nuclear Abolition Coalition by Proposition One for such a
transcontinental peacewalk to begin the new millennium by uniting all
survival issue messages and activists behind this goal of global nuclear
abolition and in support of the prayer for "Global Peace Now!" as a
universal human resolve.   This call was accepted by Rev. Yusen Yamato who
initiated the Global Peace Walk project with its walk from New York to San
Francisco for the United Nations 50th anniversary in 1995.  Rev. Yamato, a
Zen Buddhist Monk from Japan living in San Francisco for over 20years has
agreed to conduct Global Peace Walk2000 in support of this call from the
American Nuclear Abolition acitivists and in respect of the efforts of
Proposition One and its initiators' 19year ongoing night and day, winter and
summer, antinuclear peace park vigil across Pennsylvania Avenue from The
White House.   We hope you will support these projects and check our
continually updated website for how you can participate and help with this
great New Millennium Peace Project at http://www.globalpeacenow.org

Thank you very much,

David Crockett Williams [e-mail]
Global Emergency Alert Response
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000



- -
 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 #208
***********************************

-
 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.