ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n352

Internet Message Format | 2000-08-06 | 44KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #352
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest      Monday, August 7 2000      Volume 01 : Number 352




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

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:58:31 -0800
From: Abolition 2000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Democratic and Republican Platforms on NMD

http://www.clw.org/clw/nmdpositions.html
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democratic and Republican Platforms on NMD


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

The Democratic Party platform committee meeting in Cleveland last week
significantly improved the draft platform language on national missile
defense.
In response to lobbying by Rep. Barney Frank, Americans for Democratic
Action and Council for a Livable World, the language was made more neutral
on national missile defense deployment compared to the previous draft
platform.
Instead of a point-blank endorsement of development of a limited national
missile defense system, the new language endorses "the development of the
technology" of a system. It now states that the President's four criteria
should be considered before a deployment decision is made: threat,
technological feasibility, cost, and impact on national security.
NEW LANGUAGE FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM:
"We reject Republican plans to endanger our security with massive
unilateral cuts in our arsenal and to construct an unproven, expensive, and
ill-conceived missile defense system that will plunge us into a new arms
race. Al Gore and the Democratic Party support the development of the
technology for a limited national missile defense system that will be able
to defend the U.S. against a missile attack from proliferant states. A
decision to deploy such a system should be made based on four criteria: the
nature of the threat; the feasibility of the technology; the cost; and the
overall impact on our national security, including arms control. The
Democratic Party places a high value on ensuring that any such system is
compatible with the fundamental rationale of the Anti- Ballistic Missile
Treaty. We also support continued work significantly reducing strategic and
other nuclear weapons, recognizing that the goal is strategic nuclear
stability at progressively lower levels."
OLD DRAFT LANGUAGE:
"Our diplomacy has helped to halt North Korea's push for nuclear weapons.
We are also engaged in continuing negotiation regarding their testing and
export of long-range ballistic missiles. The tight coordination between the
United States, South Korea and Japan is critical to our success, and we
will maintain it as the two Koreas continue the dialogue began at the
recent summit.
Al Gore and the Democratic Party support the development of a limited
national missile defense system that will be able to defend against a
missile attack against the U.S. from North Korea or the Middle East . The
Democratic Party places a high value on ensuring that any such system is
compatible with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We also support
continued work in significantly reducing strategic and other nuclear
weapons, recognizing that the goal is strategic nuclear stability at
progressively lower levels. We reject Republican plans to endanger our
security with massive unilateral cuts in our arsenal and to construct an
unproved, ill-conceived missile defense system that will plunge us into a
new arms race.
===================
Excerpt from the "REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2000: Renewing America's Purpose.
Together."
"Protecting the Fellowship of Freedom from Weapons of Mass Destruction"
The new century will bring new threats, but America - properly led - can
master them. Just as the generations of World War II and the Cold War were
quick to seize the high frontier of science and craft the national defense
America needed, so our country can build on its strengths and defend
against unprecedented perils once again.
Ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction threaten the world's
future. America is currently without defense against these threats. The
administration's failure to guard America's nuclear secrets is allowing
China to modernize its ballistic missile force, thereby increasing the
threat to our country and to our allies. The theft of vital nuclear secrets
by China represents one of the greatest security defeats in the history of
the United States. The next Republican president will protect our nuclear
secrets and aggressively implement a sweeping reorganization of our nuclear
weapons program.
Over two dozen countries have ballistic missiles today. A number of them,
including North Korea, will be capable of striking the United States within
a few years, and with little warning. America is now unable to counter the
rampant proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and
their missile delivery systems around the world.
The response of the current administration has been anachronistic and
politicized. Stuck in the mindset and agreements of the Cold War and immune
to fresh ideas, the administration has not developed a sensible strategy
that responds to the emerging missile threat. They have no adequate plan
for how they will defend America and its allies. Visionary leadership, not
the present delay and prevarication, is urgently needed for America to be
ready for the future. The new Republican president will deploy a national
missile defense for reasons of national security; but he will also do so
because there is a moral imperative involved: The American people deserve
to be protected. It is the president's constitutional obligation.
America must deploy effective missile defenses, based on an evaluation of
the best available options, including sea-based, at the earliest possible
date. These defenses must be designed to protect all 50 states, America's
deployed forces overseas, and our friends and allies in the fellowship of
freedom against missile attacks by outlaw states or accidental launches.
The current administration at first denied the need for a national missile
defense system. Then it endlessly delayed, despite constant concern
expressed by the Republican Congress. Now the administration has become
hopelessly entangled in its commitment to an obsolete treaty signed in 1972
with a Soviet Union that no longer exists while it is constrained by its
failure to explore vigorously the technological possibilities. In order to
avoid the need for any significant revisions to the ABM Treaty, the
administration supports an inadequate national missile defense design based
on a single site, instead of a system based on the most effective means
available. Their approach does not defend America's allies, who must be
consulted as U.S. plans are developed. Their concept is a symbolic
political solution designed on a cynical political timetable. It will not
protect America.
We will seek a negotiated change in the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
that will allow the United States to use all technologies and experiments
required to deploy robust missile defenses. Republicans believe that the
administration should not negotiate inadequate modifications to the ABM
Treaty that would leave us with a flawed agreement that ties the hands of
the next president and prevents America from defending itself. The United
States must be able to select the systems that will work best, not those
that answer political expediency, and we must aggressively reinvigorate the
ballistic missile defense technology base necessary to ensure that these
systems succeed. There are today more positive, practical ways to reassure
Russia that missile defenses are a search for common security, not for
unilateral advantage. If Russia refuses to make the necessary changes, a
Republican president will give prompt notice that the United States will
exercise the right guaranteed to us in the treaty to withdraw after six
months. The president has a solemn obligation to protect the American
people and our allies, not to protect arms control agreements signed almost
30 years ago.
Clear thinking about defensive systems must be accompanied by a fresh
strategy for offensive ones too. The Cold War logic that led to the
creation of massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons on both sides is now
outdated and actually enhances the danger of weapons or nuclear material
falling into the hands of America's adversaries. Russia is not the great
enemy. The age of vast hostile armies in the heart of Europe deterred by
the threat of U.S. nuclear response is also past. American security need no
longer depend on the old nuclear balance of terror. It is time to defend
against the threats of today and tomorrow, not yesterday.
It is past time that the United States should reexamine the requirements of
nuclear deterrence. Working with U.S. military leaders and with the
Congress, a Republican president will reevaluate America's nuclear force
posture and pursue the lowest possible number consistent with our national
security. We can safely eliminate thousands more of these horrific weapons.
We should do so. In the Cold War the United States rightfully worried about
the danger of a conventional war in Europe and needed the nuclear
counterweight. That made sense then. It does not make sense now. The
premises of Cold War targeting should no longer dictate the size of the
U.S. nuclear arsenal. The current administration seems not to realize that
this notion, too, is old-think of the worst order. In addition, the United
States should work with other nuclear nations to remove as many weapons as
possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status - another unnecessary vestige
of Cold War confrontation - to reduce the risks of accidental or
unauthorized launch.
In 1991, the United States invited the Soviet Union to join it in removing
tactical nuclear weapons from their arsenals. Huge reductions were achieved
in a matter of months, quickly making the world much safer. Under a
Republican president, Russia will again be invited to do the same with
respect to strategic nuclear weapons. America should be prepared to lead by
example, because it is in our best interest and the best interest of the
world. These measures can begin a new global era of nuclear security and
safety.
Republicans recognize new threats but also new opportunities. With
Republican leadership, the United States has an opportunity to create a
safer world, both to defend against nuclear threats and to reduce nuclear
arsenals and tensions. America can build a robust missile defense, make
dramatic reductions in its nuclear weapons, and defuse confrontation with
Russia. A Republican President will do all these things.
=========
A comprehensive strategy for combating the new dangers posed by weapons of
mass destruction must include a variety of other measures to contain and
prevent the spread of such weapons. We need the cooperation of friends and
allies - and should seek the cooperation of Russia and China - in
developing realistic strategies using political, economic, and military
instruments to deter and defeat the proliferation efforts of others. We
need to address threats from both rogue states and terrorist group -
whether delivered by missile, aircraft, shipping container, or suitcase.
In this context, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is another anachronism
of obsolete strategic thinking. This treaty is not verifiable, not
enforceable, and would not enable the United States to ensure the
reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. It also does not deal with the
real dangers of nuclear proliferation, which are rogue regimes - such as
Iran, Iraq, and North Korea - that seek to hide their dangerous weapons
programs behind weak international treaties. We can fight the spread of
nuclear weapons, but we cannot wish them away with unwise agreements.
Republicans in the Senate reacted accordingly and responsibly in rejecting
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
A new Republican president will renew America's faltering fight against the
contagious spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, as well as
their means of delivery. The weak leadership and neglect of the
administration have allowed America's intelligence capabilities, including
space based systems, to atrophy, resulting in repeated proliferation
surprises such as Iraq's renewed chemical and biological weapons programs,
India's nuclear weapon test, and North Korea's test of a three-stage
ballistic missile. Again in a partnership with the Congress, a new
Republican administration will give the intelligence community the
leadership, resources, and operational latitude it requires.
able World
110 Maryland Avenue NE #409
Washington, DC 20002
[phone]



- -
 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, 3 Aug 2000 11:30:06 -0800
From: Abolition 2000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Point of clarification

The text below is from the Council for a Livable World and is available on
their website at http://www.clw.org/clw/nmdpositions.html

While the language in the Democratic Party Draft Platform may have
improved, the Democrats plan to develop the technology for an NMD system.
This is unacceptable.  We need to be lobbying Democratic delegates to take
a position against development or deployment of such a system.  Development
simply means deployment prolonged.   Also note that the goal of  Democrats
in reducing the nuclear arsenal is simply to reach "nuclear stability at
progressively lower levels," ratther than total elimination of the nuclear
arsenal.   Rather than trying to develop a position similar to the
Republicans on national missile defense, the Democrats should oppose both
the development and deployment of both the NMD and TMD systems and argue
that devolpment and deployment of NMD is a threat to international security
and stability, costly and inefficient, technologically infeasible and will
intiate a new arms race.


Even worse, note the Republican platform, which specifically notes China as
the reason for a ballistic missile shield to protect the US.  While the
platform states, "The new Republican president will deploy a national
missile defense for reasons of national security; but he will also do so
because there is a moral imperative involved: The American people deserve
to be protected. It is the president's constitutional obligation,"  the
only true protection from the threat of nuclear weapons is to eliminate
them.  It would  NOT be in the best interest of US national security to
deploy an NMD system.

Carah Ong


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

Democratic and Republican Platforms on NMD


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

The Democratic Party platform committee meeting in Cleveland last week
significantly improved the draft platform language on national missile
defense.
In response to lobbying by Rep. Barney Frank, Americans for Democratic
Action and Council for a Livable World, the language was made more neutral
on national missile defense deployment compared to the previous draft
platform.
Instead of a point-blank endorsement of development of a limited national
missile defense system, the new language endorses "the development of the
technology" of a system. It now states that the President's four criteria
should be considered before a deployment decision is made: threat,
technological feasibility, cost, and impact on national security.
NEW LANGUAGE FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM:
"We reject Republican plans to endanger our security with massive
unilateral cuts in our arsenal and to construct an unproven, expensive, and
ill-conceived missile defense system that will plunge us into a new arms
race. Al Gore and the Democratic Party support the development of the
technology for a limited national missile defense system that will be able
to defend the U.S. against a missile attack from proliferant states. A
decision to deploy such a system should be made based on four criteria: the
nature of the threat; the feasibility of the technology; the cost; and the
overall impact on our national security, including arms control. The
Democratic Party places a high value on ensuring that any such system is
compatible with the fundamental rationale of the Anti- Ballistic Missile
Treaty. We also support continued work significantly reducing strategic and
other nuclear weapons, recognizing that the goal is strategic nuclear
stability at progressively lower levels."
OLD DRAFT LANGUAGE:
"Our diplomacy has helped to halt North Korea's push for nuclear weapons.
We are also engaged in continuing negotiation regarding their testing and
export of long-range ballistic missiles. The tight coordination between the
United States, South Korea and Japan is critical to our success, and we
will maintain it as the two Koreas continue the dialogue began at the
recent summit.
Al Gore and the Democratic Party support the development of a limited
national missile defense system that will be able to defend against a
missile attack against the U.S. from North Korea or the Middle East . The
Democratic Party places a high value on ensuring that any such system is
compatible with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We also support
continued work in significantly reducing strategic and other nuclear
weapons, recognizing that the goal is strategic nuclear stability at
progressively lower levels. We reject Republican plans to endanger our
security with massive unilateral cuts in our arsenal and to construct an
unproved, ill-conceived missile defense system that will plunge us into a
new arms race.
===================
Excerpt from the "REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2000: Renewing America's Purpose.
Together."
"Protecting the Fellowship of Freedom from Weapons of Mass Destruction"
The new century will bring new threats, but America - properly led - can
master them. Just as the generations of World War II and the Cold War were
quick to seize the high frontier of science and craft the national defense
America needed, so our country can build on its strengths and defend
against unprecedented perils once again.
Ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction threaten the world's
future. America is currently without defense against these threats. The
administration's failure to guard America's nuclear secrets is allowing
China to modernize its ballistic missile force, thereby increasing the
threat to our country and to our allies. The theft of vital nuclear secrets
by China represents one of the greatest security defeats in the history of
the United States. The next Republican president will protect our nuclear
secrets and aggressively implement a sweeping reorganization of our nuclear
weapons program.
Over two dozen countries have ballistic missiles today. A number of them,
including North Korea, will be capable of striking the United States within
a few years, and with little warning. America is now unable to counter the
rampant proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and
their missile delivery systems around the world.
The response of the current administration has been anachronistic and
politicized. Stuck in the mindset and agreements of the Cold War and immune
to fresh ideas, the administration has not developed a sensible strategy
that responds to the emerging missile threat. They have no adequate plan
for how they will defend America and its allies. Visionary leadership, not
the present delay and prevarication, is urgently needed for America to be
ready for the future. The new Republican president will deploy a national
missile defense for reasons of national security; but he will also do so
because there is a moral imperative involved: The American people deserve
to be protected. It is the president's constitutional obligation.
America must deploy effective missile defenses, based on an evaluation of
the best available options, including sea-based, at the earliest possible
date. These defenses must be designed to protect all 50 states, America's
deployed forces overseas, and our friends and allies in the fellowship of
freedom against missile attacks by outlaw states or accidental launches.
The current administration at first denied the need for a national missile
defense system. Then it endlessly delayed, despite constant concern
expressed by the Republican Congress. Now the administration has become
hopelessly entangled in its commitment to an obsolete treaty signed in 1972
with a Soviet Union that no longer exists while it is constrained by its
failure to explore vigorously the technological possibilities. In order to
avoid the need for any significant revisions to the ABM Treaty, the
administration supports an inadequate national missile defense design based
on a single site, instead of a system based on the most effective means
available. Their approach does not defend America's allies, who must be
consulted as U.S. plans are developed. Their concept is a symbolic
political solution designed on a cynical political timetable. It will not
protect America.
We will seek a negotiated change in the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
that will allow the United States to use all technologies and experiments
required to deploy robust missile defenses. Republicans believe that the
administration should not negotiate inadequate modifications to the ABM
Treaty that would leave us with a flawed agreement that ties the hands of
the next president and prevents America from defending itself. The United
States must be able to select the systems that will work best, not those
that answer political expediency, and we must aggressively reinvigorate the
ballistic missile defense technology base necessary to ensure that these
systems succeed. There are today more positive, practical ways to reassure
Russia that missile defenses are a search for common security, not for
unilateral advantage. If Russia refuses to make the necessary changes, a
Republican president will give prompt notice that the United States will
exercise the right guaranteed to us in the treaty to withdraw after six
months. The president has a solemn obligation to protect the American
people and our allies, not to protect arms control agreements signed almost
30 years ago.
Clear thinking about defensive systems must be accompanied by a fresh
strategy for offensive ones too. The Cold War logic that led to the
creation of massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons on both sides is now
outdated and actually enhances the danger of weapons or nuclear material
falling into the hands of America's adversaries. Russia is not the great
enemy. The age of vast hostile armies in the heart of Europe deterred by
the threat of U.S. nuclear response is also past. American security need no
longer depend on the old nuclear balance of terror. It is time to defend
against the threats of today and tomorrow, not yesterday.
It is past time that the United States should reexamine the requirements of
nuclear deterrence. Working with U.S. military leaders and with the
Congress, a Republican president will reevaluate America's nuclear force
posture and pursue the lowest possible number consistent with our national
security. We can safely eliminate thousands more of these horrific weapons.
We should do so. In the Cold War the United States rightfully worried about
the danger of a conventional war in Europe and needed the nuclear
counterweight. That made sense then. It does not make sense now. The
premises of Cold War targeting should no longer dictate the size of the
U.S. nuclear arsenal. The current administration seems not to realize that
this notion, too, is old-think of the worst order. In addition, the United
States should work with other nuclear nations to remove as many weapons as
possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status - another unnecessary vestige
of Cold War confrontation - to reduce the risks of accidental or
unauthorized launch.
In 1991, the United States invited the Soviet Union to join it in removing
tactical nuclear weapons from their arsenals. Huge reductions were achieved
in a matter of months, quickly making the world much safer. Under a
Republican president, Russia will again be invited to do the same with
respect to strategic nuclear weapons. America should be prepared to lead by
example, because it is in our best interest and the best interest of the
world. These measures can begin a new global era of nuclear security and
safety.
Republicans recognize new threats but also new opportunities. With
Republican leadership, the United States has an opportunity to create a
safer world, both to defend against nuclear threats and to reduce nuclear
arsenals and tensions. America can build a robust missile defense, make
dramatic reductions in its nuclear weapons, and defuse confrontation with
Russia. A Republican President will do all these things.
=========
A comprehensive strategy for combating the new dangers posed by weapons of
mass destruction must include a variety of other measures to contain and
prevent the spread of such weapons. We need the cooperation of friends and
allies - and should seek the cooperation of Russia and China - in
developing realistic strategies using political, economic, and military
instruments to deter and defeat the proliferation efforts of others. We
need to address threats from both rogue states and terrorist group -
whether delivered by missile, aircraft, shipping container, or suitcase.
In this context, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is another anachronism
of obsolete strategic thinking. This treaty is not verifiable, not
enforceable, and would not enable the United States to ensure the
reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. It also does not deal with the
real dangers of nuclear proliferation, which are rogue regimes - such as
Iran, Iraq, and North Korea - that seek to hide their dangerous weapons
programs behind weak international treaties. We can fight the spread of
nuclear weapons, but we cannot wish them away with unwise agreements.
Republicans in the Senate reacted accordingly and responsibly in rejecting
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
A new Republican president will renew America's faltering fight against the
contagious spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, as well as
their means of delivery. The weak leadership and neglect of the
administration have allowed America's intelligence capabilities, including
space based systems, to atrophy, resulting in repeated proliferation
surprises such as Iraq's renewed chemical and biological weapons programs,
India's nuclear weapon test, and North Korea's test of a three-stage
ballistic missile. Again in a partnership with the Congress, a new
Republican administration will give the intelligence community the
leadership, resources, and operational latitude it requires.

| Top of Page| Who We Are| Search| Send Us E-Mail| Contribute |

Council for a Livable World
110 Maryland Avenue NE #409
Washington, DC 20002
[phone]



- -
 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, 03 Aug 2000 17:51:35 -0400
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Censored Alert

>Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 17:31:06 -0400
>Subject: Censored Alert
>X-FC-MachineGenerated: true
>To: [e-mail]
>X-FC-Forwarded-From: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])
>
>
>>>An Invitation to Direct Action:
>>>Confront the Corporate Media in the Streets of San Francisco
>>>
>>>Join us in protesting the National Association of Broadcasters convention
>>>September 20-23, 2000
>>>
>>>Help make history when media activists from all over North America
>>converge
>>>on the National Association of Broadcasters' radio convention.
>>>
>>>>From Seattle and D.C. to Philadelphia and Los Angeles, people are
>>>mobilizing for social justice. Mark your calendars for the next
>>>historic confrontation -- four days in San Francisco beginning
>>>September 20.
>>>
>>>The National Association of Broadcasters is the WTO of the
>>>broadcasting industry. It spends millions of dollars every year
>>>lobbying to keep the airwaves out of the hands of the public.
>>>We can thank the NAB and the media giants that it represents for:
>>>
>>>*Putting out the trash that we call commercial radio and TV.
>>>
>>>*Stereotyping youth, people of color, and working class people.
>>>
>>>*Censoring and misrepresenting the issues that we care about-from
>>>homelessness and immigrant rights to the environment and labor.
>>>
>>>* Pushing for legislation like the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
>>>which legalized media monopolies, creating The Gap and Starbucks
>>>of the airwaves.
>>>
>>>* Engineering the giveaway of billions of public dollars by
>>>handing over the digital TV spectrum to the corporate media.
>>>
>>>* Fighting tooth-and-nail against grassroots media efforts like
>>>low-power radio that would bring hundreds of new voices and
>>>perspectives to the airwaves.
>>>
>>>See you in San Francisco! Bring your microradio transmitters, your
>>>dancing shoes, and your militant nonviolent attitude. Join Media
>>Alliance,
>>>Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Project Censored, Ella Baker Center
>>>for Human Rights, Micropower Radio Coalition, Global Exchange, Direct
>>>Action Network, Prometheus Radio Project, Civil Rights Forum on
>>Communication
>>>Policy, Rainforest Action Network, and many other organizations in
>>protest!
>>>
>>>DON'T MOURN THE MEDIA MONOPOLY -- ORGANIZE!
>>>
>>>Contact: Media Alliance * www.mediademocracynow.org * [e-mail],
>>>814 Mission St., Suite 205, San Francisco, CA 94103, [phone]
>
>*---------------------------------------------------------------*
>* Project Censored Online http://www.projectcensored.org *
>*     Come and join our listserv for Censored Story updates     *
>*---------------------------------------------------------------*
>

- -
 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, 04 Aug 2000 09:52:13 -0400
From: Hisham Zerriffi <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) New Book: Why Nations Forgo Nuclear Weapons

Power versus Prudence

Why Nations Forgo Nuclear Weapons
T.V. Paul


With the end of the Cold War, nuclear non-proliferation has emerged as a=20
central issue in international security relations. While most existing=20
works on nuclear proliferation deal with the question of nuclear=20
acquisition, T.V. Paul explains why some states have decided to forswear=20
nuclear weapons even when they have the technological capability or=20
potential capability to develop them, and why some states already in=20
possession of nuclear arms choose to dismantle them.

In Power versus Prudence Paul develops a prudential-realist model, arguing=
=20
that a nation's national nuclear choices depend on specific regional=20
security contexts: the non-great power states most likely to forgo nuclear=
=20
weapons are those in zones of low and moderate conflict, while nations=20
likely to acquire such capability tend to be in zones of high conflict and=
=20
engaged in protracted conflicts and enduring rivalries. He demonstrates=20
that the choice to forbear acquiring nuclear weapons is also a function of=
=20
the extent of security interdependence that states experience with other=20
states, both allies and adversaries. He applies the comparative case study=
=20
method to pairs of states with similar characteristics - Germany/Japan,=20
Canada/Australia, Sweden/Switzerland, Argentina/Brazil - in addition to=20
analysing the nuclear choices of South Africa, Ukraine, South Korea,=20
India, Pakistan, and Israel. Paul concludes by questioning some of the=20
prevailing supply side approaches to non-proliferation, offering an=20
explication of the security variable by linking nuclear proliferation with=
=20
protracted conflicts and enduring rivalries.

Power versus Prudence will be of interest to students of international=20
relations, policy-makers, policy analysts, and the informed public=20
concerned with the questions of nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, and=20
disarmament.

"Power versus Prudence makes a valuable and timely contribution to the=20
debates surrounding nuclear proliferation and arms control. The work is=20
cogent, original, and theoretically sound. Paul succeeds brilliantly at=20
proving his initial hypotheses."
Albert Legault, Institut Qu=E9becois des hautes =E9tudes internationales,=20
Universit=E9 Laval.

"A significant contribution to the field. The author makes a convincing=20
case. This is a refreshing approach to an issue that has been previously=20
explored by scholars but not in this manner. Paul argues his point=20
persuasively."
David Haglund, Centre for International Relations, Queen's University, and=
=20
author of Security, Strategy and the Global Economics of Defence Production.

"An able, nuanced, and richly informed analysis of a much underconsidered=20
puzzle: why, despite decades of predictions to the contrary, have so few=20
countries chosen to acquire nuclear weapons?"
John Mueller, professor of political science at Ohio State University, and=
=20
author of Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War, and Quiet=20
Cataclysm: Reflections on the Recent Transformation of World Politics.

T.V. Paul is professor of political science at McGill University. He has=20
published several books and numerous articles on international security=20
and the politics of nuclear weapons, including Asymmetric Conflicts: War=20
Initiation by Weaker Powers, The Absolute Weapon Revisited: Nuclear Arms=20
and the Emerging International Order, and International Order and the=20
Future of World Politics.


Foreign Policy, Security, and Strategic Studies


Subject categories:
FOREIGN / INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
PUBLIC POLICY

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
Published July 2000 228 pp 6 x 9
Paper ISBN 0-7735-2087-2 $27.95 US price $22.95
Cloth ISBN 0-7735-2086-4 $60.00

To order this book:
Customers in Canada may call toll-free:
1-800-387-0141 (ON and QC excluding Northwestern ON)
1-800-387-0172 (all other provinces and Northwestern ON)
or by e-mail using a credit card (Visa or Mastercard, including expiry=20
date): [e-mail]
To order by mail or fax please consult ordering information for Canada.
Customers in the US can order by e-mail (Visa or Mastercard, including=20
expiry date): [e-mail] or Pubnet@2021862. To order by mail or=
=20
fax please consult ordering information for the US. Please note that=20
prices are in US dollars when ordering from the US.

Customers in the rest of the world should consult our ordering information.

  =20
*****************************************************************
Hisham Zerriffi                               =20
Senior Scientist   =20
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
6935 Laurel Ave. Suite 204, Takoma Park, MD  20912   =20
Phone: [phone]       Fax:   [phone] =20
E-mail: [e-mail]    Web:    http://www.ieer.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: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 01:07:22 PDT
From: "Abolition2000 Pacific Region" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [none]

FYI
thank you.

Richard Salvador
Honolulu, Hawaii
#

http://pidp.ewc.hawaii.edu/PIReport/2000/August/08-07-22.htm


PACIFIC ISLANDS REPORT

Pacific Islands Development Program/East-West Center
Center for Pacific Islands Studies/University of Hawaiæi at Manoa


                GREENPEACE PACIFIC
                Suva, Fiji Islands


NEWS RELEASE
August 6, 2000

                U.S. GOVERNMENT æTOXIC CRIMINAL'
                PACIFIC ISLANDS USED AS DUMPING GROUND,
                SAYS GREENPEACE


SAIPAN, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands---Greenpeace has
declared the United States government a toxic criminal for using the Pacific
as a dumping ground for its poisons.

Greenpeace and Tanapag villagers have re-fenced and sign- posted piles of
contaminated soil left after previous attempts by the U.S. Department of
Defense to clean up the village in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands failed. They then demonstrated outside the office of the U.S.
Attorney General's representative in Saipan and lodged a letter asking for
an investigation into the conclusions reached in a recent report of CNMI
Attorney General's office.

That report stated:

"The Environmental Protection Agency, through Region 9's Pacific Insular
Office Area programs, and the Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu, Hawaiæi has
endangered the health, safety and welfare of the people of the Commonwealth
through what may be characterized as either gross negligence or
environmentally criminal actions contrary to federal law and their own
policies.

"The activities by Greenpeace and local villagers aim to remind nearby
residents about the dangers of the contamination," said Greenpeace Pacific
toxics campaigner, Maureen Penjueli. "However, they are also symbolic, as it
took action from the community itself to signpost the cemetery adequately in
local languages."

The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) announced recently that yet another
attempt to clean up the toxic PCB mess in Tanapag would begin shortly. While
Greenpeace welcomed the announcement, there are serious questions remaining
about details of the proposal and the lack of sensitivity shown by the USACE
to the concerns Tanapag villagers.

"We have concerns about reports of groundwater contamination and other
issues raised in the CNMI Attorney General's report. The plans we've seen
make no comment on how grave sites will be treated, whether there will be
tests of dust created when the site is remediated, or many other community
concerns," said Tanapag villager Mike Evangelista.

"It has taken the U.S. military over 12 years to get around to finally
addressing the contamination issue in Tanapag. This would have been illegal
and unacceptable on mainland USA," Penjueli said. "Yet the same double
standard exists in other parts of the world such as the Philippines, Guam
and Japan, where communities are still living with PCB contamination of
military origin."

Chemicals such as PCBs are known as persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
[2]. An international treaty to eliminate POPs is currently being negotiated
by more than 100 countries.

"Unfortunately, the U.S. government is demonstrating the same contempt for
the health and safety of the peoples of the world in the POPs negotiations
as it is to the peoples of Tanapag. Instead the leadership is coming from
Europe and developing nations, who want to eliminate POPs such as PCBs,"
said Luscombe. "The US seems content to sit back and maintain its reputation
as a toxic criminal."

Notes:

[1] Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are highly toxic chemical compounds
whose production has been banned worldwide. (Only one production capacity in
Russia remains.) PCBs are listed as one of the "dirty dozen" persistent
organic pollutants (POPs) by the United Nations Environment Program for
global elimination in an international treaty presently being negotiated by
over 100 governments. Incineration of the PCB waste will give rise to dioxin
and other toxic emissions. There are still vast amounts of PCBs in use in
transformers and other electrical equipment. The Greenpeace report
"Alternative Detoxification Technologies for Persistent Organic Pollutant
Stockpiles" outlines technical criteria for treatment of PCBs and other
POPs. The report can be obtained on the web from

http://www.greenpeace.org/~toxics/reports/alttech2.pdf
or
http://www.who.int/ifcs/isg3/d98-17b.htm.

[2] POPs are a group of chemicals that are particularly resistant to natural
breakdown and are therefore extremely stable and long-lived. Once released
into the environment, many POPs persist for years, even decades. Many POPs
are also highly toxic and build up (bioaccumulate) in the fatty tissues such
as body lipids and organs of animals and humans. POPs end up in our food
chain. In fact, the main route for human exposure is through food. These
three properties - persistent, toxic and bioaccumulative - make them,
arguably, the most problematic chemicals to which natural systems can be
exposed. POPs include end products such as pesticides (eg DDT) and
industrial chemicals (e.g. PCBs), as well as by- products from industrial
and production processes such as dioxins. The treaty negotiations take place
under auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and will
include an initial list of 12 POPs that are of primary concern for action.

The Rainbow Warrior is in Saipan for public education work on PCBs until the
end of the week. Greenpeace is campaigning for a toxics free future, and the
work to eliminate PCBs is part of this. The Rainbow Warrior is renowned in
the Pacific, especially for her participation in protests against French
nuclear testing in French Polynesia. This is the first time she has visited
CNMI. She will be open to the public on Saturday from 10:00 a.m. û 3:00 p.m.
at Charlie Dock.

For more information contact:
Maureen Penjueli, Toxics Campaigner in Saipan on 235 6025 room 504 or mobile
287 9995
Samantha Magick, Media Officer in Saipan on 235 6025 room 504 or mobile 287
9997












________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


- -
 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 #352
***********************************

-
 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.