ftp.xmission.com

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ ftp.xmission.com / 2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar / ftp.xmission.com / pub / lists / abolition-usa / archive / v01.n369 < prev next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 2000-08-30 | 46KB

From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #369 Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest Sender: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk abolition-usa-digest Wednesday, August 30 2000 Volume 01 : Number 369 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 11:04:17 -0400 From: Lisa Ledwidge / IEER <ieer@ieer.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) thank you - --=====================_2678771==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Ellen, I received the tape you made. Thank you very much! Lisa ============================================= Lisa Ledwidge Outreach Coordinator and Editor, Science for Democratic Action Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) 6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 204 Takoma Park, MD 20912 USA (301) 270-5500 fax: (301) 270-3029 http://www.ieer.org ============================================== - --=====================_2678771==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <html> Dear Ellen, I received the tape you made. Thank you very much! Lisa ============================================= Lisa Ledwidge Outreach Coordinator and Editor, Science for Democratic Action Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) 6935 Laurel Ave., Suite 204 Takoma Park, MD 20912 USA (301) 270-5500 fax: (301) 270-3029 <a href="http://www.ieer.org/" eudora="autourl">http://www.ieer.org</a> ==============================================</html> - --=====================_2678771==_.ALT-- - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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, 30 Aug 2000 12:36:00 -0800 From: Abolition 2000 <admin@abolition2000.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) Give for Abolition Dear Abolition 2000 participants =97 ABOLITION 2000 NEEDS YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT NOW =97 AND ON A REGULAR BASIS! In July we sent every Abolition 2000 member group an information-packed mailing about Abolition 2000's recent activities at the NPT Review Conference including our Annual General Meeting, the upcoming Global Citizens=92 Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons in Nagasaki, and other exciting developments. (We even included photos!) With all that important and useful information, perhaps you overlooked the fundraising appeal. No problem, here it is again! IT'S TIME TO GIVE FOR ABOLITION! Now that we have enrolled over 2000 groups in Abolition 2000 and have become the third largest NGO network in the world, we need to ensure that we can continue to develop and become THE most influential movement in the world! To do this we need all kinds of resources, including money. When we established the Abolition 2000 network we asked participating groups to send donations, but did not establish a regular giving scheme. In order to support the next phase of our work we need to be assured of a regular reliable income. (Unfortunately, so far the big foundations don=92t seem to understand the incredible value of our network.) That=92s why we=92re asking EVERY endorsing group to make annual donation to Abolition 2000. Abolition 2000 is made up of all kinds of groups, of all sizes. We=92re asking your group to commit anywhere from 10 to 1000 (US) dollars a year, based on your own financial circumstances. If each endorsing group gives a minimum, Abolition 2000 will have a guaranteed annual income of 20,000 dollars! IMAGINE, if we can rely on our own members to provide the basic resources necessary to sustain Abolition 2000, we can pursue our own agenda without worrying about the priorities of outside funders. PLEASE GIVE AS GENEROUSLY AS YOU CAN. Skip to the end of this message for information about how and where to send your donation. OR, if you need more convincing, read on . . . Just 5 years ago, at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in New York, frustrated by a lack of progress on nuclear disarmament, a small group of determined NGOs got together in the basement of the United Nations to draft a statement that expressed their vision of how to get to a world without nuclear weapons. The Abolition 2000 Statement resonated around the world and launched an unprecedented global movement. Fueled by a common, uncompromising commitment to the prompt and total elimination of nuclear weapons, but with minimal financial resources, the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons has grown into a dynamic network of more than 2000 NGOs and municipalities in 95 countries! With a tiny budget, Abolition 2000 maintains an international =93clearinghouse=94 (at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in California) and = one paid staff person (Coordinator, Carah Ong), who works closely with the Abolition Coordinating Committee and the Global Council, keeps in touch with Regional Contacts the world over, moderates our very active e-mail list serve, maintains our award-winning website, produces inspiring and information-filled monthly updates, fills constant requests for information, and handles a myriad of organizing details. And that=92s just the beginning! PLEASE MAKE AS GENEROUS A CONTRIBUTION AS YOU CAN, but note that this is not a membership fee. Whether you=92re able to give or not, yo= u are a welcome and valuable member of the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons! THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION!! We look forward to hearing back from you soon. =97 your Abolition 2000 Coordinating Committee: John Burroughs (US); Jacqueline Cabasso, (US); Akira Kawasaki (Japan); David Kreiger (US); Lars Pohlmeier (Germany); Alice Slater (US); Hiro Umebayashi (Japan); Alyn Ware (Aotearoa/New Zealand); Ross Wilcock (Canada); Carah Ong (US/Abolition 2000 Coordinator) P.S. Individual contributions are also welcome! And, if you have any promising fundraising ideas or contacts, please let us know!! Please send your contribution to: Carah Lynn Ong Coordinator, Abolition 2000 PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Rd, Suite 121 Santa Barbara, California 93108 Tel: (805) 965-3443 Fax: (805) 568-0466 or wire transfer*: Montecito Bank and Trust 1000 State Street Santa Barbara, California 93101 Routing # ABA-122234783 Account# 192 036 100 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 121 Santa Barbara, CA 93108 *If you choose to send a donation via wire transfer, please send a message to Carah Ong to inform her of the transfer to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation account for Abolition 2000. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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, 30 Aug 2000 12:41:33 -0800 From: Abolition 2000 <admin@abolition2000.org> Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Campaign before elections? >Any chance of getting Gore to side with you? > >Any chance to get Gore and Bush to at least discuss this issue? > >Here is an essay I have been sending around to friends. > >Lee Brown > > >310 Bonnie Road, Cottage Grove, WI 53527 Phone: 608-839-5753 Email: >LeeBrown807@prodigy.net > >August 24, 2000 > >Abolish All Nuclear Weapons ! > >Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori of Japan, the only country attacked by >nuclear arms, will submit a new resolution bill during his speech at >the U.N. Millennium Summit to be held in New York City from >September 6 to 8. At the U.N. General Assembly every year since 1994 >Japan has submitted resolution bills calling for the abolition of >nuclear arms and all of them have been adopted. (Update, 16 August >2000, from Women's International League for Peace and Freedom). > >Haven't we heard this before? Shouldn't this be a "ho hum" issue >considering that this Spring at the end of the U.N. Conference on >the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) the five nuclear powers (Britain, >China, France, Russia and the United States) agreed for the first >time to the "unequivocal elimination of nuclear arms." ("5 Nuclear >Powers Agree on Stronger Pledge to Scrap Arsenals" by Barbara >Crossette in New York Times, May 22, 2000). > >BUT, Where Does United States Stand? > >In May United States promised to continue supporting the >Non-Proliferation Treaty, BUT U.S. has not paid its assessment to >the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which monitors NPT. By >the end of the month the agency may not be able to meet its payroll. >The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. agencies in Vienna, John B. Ritch, >said, "It makes no sense to spend $60 billion on a future missile >defense while neglecting simple, effective and much cheaper measures >available right now to curtail the threat." ("U.N. Atomic Agency is >Threatened by Financial Crisis" by William Drozdiak in Washington >Post, August 8, 2000, p. A01). > >In May the Clinton Administration promised the "unequivocal >elimination of nuclear arms," BUT in the defense authorization bill >for Fiscal Year 2001 Senators John Warner ( R-VA) and Wayne Allard >(R-CO) inserted a provision to allow development of a new nuclear >weapon, a "mini-nuke" with an explosive yield of less than 5 >kilotons. This "mini-nuke" would be an earth-burrowing nuclear >warhead that could be used in regional wars to destroy underground >bunkers. Such a weapon would undermine the 50-year taboo on using >nuclear weapons in war and, in proving that their new "mini-nuke" >works, the Energy Department would be defying the terms of the >Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)! (August 14, 2000, Council for >a Livable World). > >In May America promised the "unequivocal elimination of nuclear >arms," BUT in the midst of a general election campaign no words >about "abolishing nuclear weapons" are heard from presidential >candidates Bush or Gore except in the fuzziest terms. Neither the >Democratic nor Republican Party Platforms announce their commitment >to "abolishing nuclear weapons" either. > >Jonathan Schell explains the American dilemma: "The current American >policy is to try to stop proliferation while simultaneously >continuing to hold on to its own nuclear arsenal indefinitely. But >these objectives are contradictory....The current policy is a way of >avoiding choice -- a policy without traction in the world as it >really is." Then he sketches a history of nuclear arms control and >the direction U.S. should go. ("The Folly of Arms Control" by >Jonathan Schell in Foreign Affairs, September/October 2000, pp. 22 - >46). > >After reading Schell's article you will appreciate the magnitude of >President Clinton's decision on whether or not to proceed with a >limited national missile defense (NMD). Secretary of Defense Cohen >has postponed his recommendation to the President until early >September. ("Missile defense conclusion delayed" by Associated Press >in Wisconsin State Journal, August 8, 2000, p. 2A and "Cohen Delays >His Finding on Building Missile Radar" by Steven Lee Myers in New >York Times, August 8, 2000). > >Where Does Russia Stand? > >Igor Ivanov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, >makes the Russian position very clear in "The Missile-Defense >Mistake" (pp. 15 - 20 in Foreign Affairs, September/October 2000). >The Russians are serious about wanting to end the nuclear arms race >with measured reductions of nuclear weapons. While the phrase >"abolish all nuclear weapons" does not appear in the article, Ivanov >indicates that before the United States proposed building the NMD >Russia had assumed that they had joined the U.S. in a process which >would achieve that goal. > >At the Summit between President Clinton and President Putin in June, >the two leaders signed agreements putting in force initiatives begun >by Clinton and former Russian President Boris Yeltsin: To reduce >weapons-grade plutonium stockpiles by 34 tons each; and to set up a >joint center in Moscow to monitor missile launches. Though the issue >of a proposed limited NMD -- and the changes in the 1972 >Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) that would be required to >accommodate it -- was a top issue on the agenda there was no change >in the Russian stance. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott told >reporters, "President Putin made absolutely clear to President >Clinton that Russia continues to oppose changes to the ABM Treaty >that the U.S. has proposed since last September." ("Clinton and >Putin Sign Agreement on Plutonium Disposal" by the Associated Press >in New York Times, June 4, 2000). > >On August 3rd President Putin reiterated promises to fulfill the >START II arms reduction treaty and pushed for a START III treaty >that would further cut Russian and U.S. Nuclear weapons >stockpiles... to 2,000 or 2,500 warheads each. Still, Russia has >threatened to scrap all arms agreements if the U.S. proceeds with >proposals to deploy a new NMD. ("Putin Urges a START III Arms Pact" >by the Associated Press in New York Times, August 3, 2000). > >Last week top U.S. and Russian arms negotiators were meeting in >Geneva. The talks were aimed at improving safeguards against the >accidental launch of a nuclear war and writing a new treaty to >reduce long-range nuclear weapons. Russia -- with the backing of >China and even U.S. allies -- is strongly opposed to any change in >the ABM treaty on the grounds that it could undermine international >arms-control treaties and spark a new arms race. ("U.S., Russian >Arms Negotiators Meet" by the Associated Press in New York Times, >August 16, 2000). > >Russia's economic situation is a factor in their desire for ending >the nuclear arms race. While commenting on the tragedy of the 118 >crew members who died aboard the Russian submarine Kursk, the August >22nd Wisconsin State Journal Editorial stated: > >"Perhaps the Russian people themselves, bankrupted by years of >excessive military spending, also will demand to know why nuclear >attack submarines remain a Kremlin priority in the post-Cold War >world. The sinking of the Kursk gives the Russian people a chance to >test their own democracy. If anything good can come from the loss of >118 sailors, may it be more civilian control over a Russian military >that insists on fighting a lost war." (WSJ, August 22, 2000, p.7A) > >Where Do the American People Stand? > >Why don't the American people join with the rest of the world >community in recognizing the necessity of eliminating nuclear >weapons? (See "Elimination of nuclear weapons is a worldwide >necessity" by John M. LaForge in The Capital Times, August 3, 2000, >p. 15A). > >Why have we invested so much in perfecting and stockpiling nuclear >weapons that have not been used in 55 years? Weapons too dangerous >to use because if a few nuclear weapons exploded they could bring on >a devasting global Nuclear Winter! A major exchange of nuclear >weapons would bring a Nuclear Holocaust ending life on earth as we >know it! > >Besides, the nuclear arms race has already cost U.S. citizens a great deal - > >in money: five-decade-plus bill of $5.5 trillion in 1996 >dollars...even today, U.S. spends > >more than $35 billion a year on the nuclear weapons enterprise. > >("Nine minutes to midnight" and "Check Please!" by Mike Moore in The Bulletin > >of the Atomic Scientists, September/October, 1998, pp. 4,5 and 34,35). > >in personnel: Neighbors living near the 20 nuclear weapons research >labs, processing > >plants and assembly facilities suffer from cancers resulting from releases of > >uranium, tritium and other radioactive materials from the plants. These people > >have lobbied for lifetime medical testing. In May the Department of Energy > >asked Congress for permission to give a minimum of $100,000 to weapons plant > >workers who developed radiation-related cancers. Plant neighbors hope the move > >bodes well for their efforts. ("Nuke Plant Neighbors Seek Help" by the > >Associated Press in New York Times, May 8, 2000). > >Congress continued discussion of how to compensate every radiation- > >exposed, cancer-stricken nuclear weapons factory worker, living and dead. > >For lawmakers, it meant decisions both financial and moral: What's a fair > >payment for a shortened life or ruined health? What should determine who > >gets paid and who doesn't? ("Congress Wrestles With Compensation" by > >the Associated Press in New York Times, May 12, 2000). > >In June the Senate agreed that nuclear weapons plant workers made >ill by on-the-job exposure to radiation, silica or beryllium would >receive medical benefits and at least $200,000 apiece. ("Senate To >Compensate Nuke Workers" > >by Associated Press in New York Times, June 8, 2000). The neighbors of > >nuclear weapons plants were not mentioned. > >in environmental damage: The Energy Department says it will cost >between $168 billion > >and $212 billion to clean up the environmental damage from U.S. >nuclear weapons > >program. ("Nuclear Cleanup Costs Rise" in New York Times, April 20, 2000). > >However, the nuclear cleanup costs continue to rise. One of the sites at > >Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington State experiences >complications -- like > >underground storage tanks leaking. ("Energy Department Cancels Nuclear Waste > >Cleanup Contract" by Matthew L. Wald in New York Times, May 9, 2000). > >A federal judge may oversee the cleanup of some of the Hanford >nuclear reservation's most dangerous nuclear wastes under an >agreement reached by Gov. > >Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. Richardson had just fired the > >company whose cost estimates for the work rose from $6.9 billion to $15.2 > >billion. ("Agreement Reached on Hanford Cleanup" by Associated Press in > >New York Times, May 10, 2000). > >In 1947, some 145 people were relocated from their homes on a Marshall > >Island atoll so the U.S. military could blow it to pieces. When the >people returned > >to Enewetak Atoll in 1980, they found that some of their land had >been vaporized > >by 43 nuclear blasts....Twenty years later, a claims tribunal has awarded $341 > >million to compensate the survivors and descendants for lasting damage to them > >and their once-lush homeland." ("Marshall Islanders Awarded $341M" by > >Associated Press in New York Times, May 9, 2000). > >This year the forest fires in the western states have raised questions: "The > >fires that consumed nearly 50,000 acres of northern New Mexico, including > >parts of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, have raised new concerns over the > >buildup of nuclear and hazardous waste stored at the laboratory." This brought > >attention to the need to get to the job of cleaning up nuclear waste all over > >the country. ("Fire Renews Safety Concern Over Los Alamos Lab Waste" by > >Michael Janofsky in New York Times, May 20, 2000). > >Because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, United States may also need > >to help fund environmental cleanup in Russia. In May Representative Sam > >Gejdenson (D-CT) on the International Relations Committee called >attention to the > >grave threat looming over Northern Europe: "Twenty-one thousand spent fuel > >assemblies from Russian submarines are lying exposed near Andreeyeva Bay and > >nearly 60 decrepit nuclear submarines are languishng in northwest Russia." By > >voice vote the House passed a bill requiring the Secretary of State >to study the > >environmental threat of the decaying submarines and proliferation threats to > >the national security of U.S. ("House Wants Say on N. Korea Nukes" by > >Associated Press in New York Times, May 15, 2000). > > > > > > > >What Will the American People Do? > >Now the Pentagon is pushing the testing and construction of the >National Missile Defense (NMD) system. On July 9 the third test of >the NMD failed, bringing more questions about the feasibility of it >ever working. ("Strategy Misfire: Missile Failure Carries Political >Cost" by Michael R. Gordon in New York Times, July 9, 2000). > >The Senate Republicans want the NMD regardless. By a vote of 52 to >48 they defeated a proposal by Senator Durbin (D-IL) to require more >stringent and thorough testing of a proposed NMD. ("Senate Rejects >Move for Tougher Testing of Antimissile System" by Reuters in New >York Times, July 14, 2000 > >Do the American people want to invest billions of dollars more in >the NMD which may never work, but will surely revive the nuclear >arms race? Will the American people ignore this window of >opportunity to abolish nuclear weapons? Or will we demand that our >national leaders join the world community in putting an end to the >nuclear arms race? > >To paraphrase the August 22nd Wisconsin State Journal's editorial: > >Perhaps the American people themselves, not-yet-bankrupted by years > >of excessive nuclear weapons spending, also will demand to know why > >continuing the nuclear arms race remains a Pentagon priority in the >post-Cold War > >world. Considering the NMD vs. abolishing nuclear weapons gives the American > >people a chance to test their own democracy. If anything good can come of this > >debate, may it be more civilian control over an American military >that insists on > >fighting a war already won. > >Lee Brown > > - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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, 30 Aug 2000 18:31:27 -0700 (PDT) From: marylia@earthlink.net (marylia) Subject: (abolition-usa) New NIF letter on TVC web Dear peace and environmental advocates: One of our Tri-Valley CAREs members has just posted talking points and a sample letter that you can use in creating YOUR NOTE to your Senators. The sample letter urges your Senators to rein in spending on the National Ignition Facility. We invite you to visit our web site at http://www.igc.org/tvc. There you will easily find the sample letter in our "NIF Boondoggle" section, right on the front page of our site. Download the sample letter, personalize it with any talking points or thoughts you may have, and send it to your Senators. The Senate is scheduled to take up the question of NIF funding when they return from the Labor Day recess on Tuesday, September 5. Please act TODAY. If you are unsure of who your Senators are -- we have a link right on our sample letter so you can find out. Send me a copy of your letter at marylia@earthlink.net if you can. Thanks muchly. Your letter now could make a huge difference. Peace, Marylia 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! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - 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 Abolition 2000 global network for the elimination of nuclear weapons, the U.S. Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Back From the Brink campaign to get nuclear weapons taken off hair-trigger alert. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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, 31 Aug 2000 14:40:04 +1000 From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign <nonukes@foesyd.org.au> Subject: (abolition-usa) Time to Act on NMD/Star Wars is Now -Write Clinton, Blair, Danish Govt PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT ACT ON IT Dear Nuclear Abolition People, For some days there have been contradictory rumours that the US government is poised to make a decision on NMD any moment, that it may make a decision tomorrow, that it may do it next week, and now we read in the NYT that it is very much divided over the issue of whether pouring concrete at Shemya will constitute a technical violation of the ABM treaty and even if it does not, if it will be a diplomatic catastrophe. That we are moving toward a decision point of some kind is without doubt. However there does seem to be an increasing body of thought that with the NMD program in its current state, taking steps that are going to absolutely get up the left nostril of everyone from Russia and China to the US's NATO allies will be a silly thing to do. Clinton and Cohen in particular need to hear loud and clear a message that there are lots of people out there in the public, as well as in NGOs, that think that NMD is a really dumb idea, and that taking steps that will set back the global disarmament agenda possibly by decades, may re- ignite the nuclear arms race, and may result in the abandonment even of existing arms control agreements is just plain stupid. A democrat senator remarked a few weeks back something like this: 'If we start pouring concrete at Shemya we may as well pour it into our own heads'. The US government and the presidential candidates, the Danish government (whose consent to the use of Thule for NMD is essential), the UK government, (whose consent to the use of Fylingdales is essential and who carry a lot of diplomatic weight as a strong US ally), the German government (who have already stated strong opposition to NMD), the French government (who have already stated strong opposition to NMD), all need to hear from you that you oppose NMD. The US government in particular needs to hear it now. The day before Yesterday we heard that the Danish government had been swamped by emails and faxes saying 'NO' to NMD. Rumours (which I passed on) that the Danish PMs email had crashed and that the fax machine had been jammed turned out to have been an exaggeration by a Danish journalist, but they did recieve enough to spike media attention - enough to make a difference. CAN WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE NOT ONLY IN DENMARK BUT IN THE US, AND ELSEWHERE? I believe that we can. But to do it, as many people as possible need to write to the US, UK, French, and German governments saying a big 'NO' to NMD. To make that easy I have repeated the sample letters below to the Danish, US, UK, German and french governments.. You are encouraged to shorten and customise these letters and faxthem (preferably handwritten not typed) to Clinton, Bush, Gore, Cohen, Blair, Chirac, Schroeder etc. DO IT NOW AND PASS THIS APPEAL ON TO ANYONE ELSE THAT MIGHT SEND A FAX OR AN EMAIL. IF YOU ARE AN ORGANISATION AND HAVEN'T YET SIGNED THE MONSTER NMD/STAR WARS LETTER POSTED IN PREVIOUS EMAILS, BUT WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT IT SAYS, SIGN IT NOW. (BUT WRITE ANYWAY ALSO) The relevant fax numbers for Denmark, US, UK, Germany, and France are below. Go for it. 1)Sample Letter to Prime Minister of Denmark 2) Sample Letter to Clinton, Cohen, Bush, Gore 3) Sample letter to Tony Blair 4) Sample letter to Schroeder 5)Sample Letter to President Chirac or France 6)30 Aug NYT Item on NMD 1)Sample Letter to Prime Minister of Denmark Mr Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Prime Minister Fax no. : + 45 33 11 16 65 stm@stm.dk Dear Mr. Prime Minister, Re: The US NMD star war project, the Thule radar station. Considering the immeasurable very dangerous consequences of the US NMD arms race project I / we hereby urgently request that you respect the will of the people of Greenland and refuse allowance for expansion and use of the Thule radar station for this purpose. Respectfully, 2) Sample letter to Clinton, Bush, Gore PRESIDENT CLINTON, 1-202-456-2461 1-202-456-6218 DEFENCE SECRETARY WILLIAM COHEN 1-703-695-1149 SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT 1-202-647-6047 GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 1-512-637-8800 AL GORE, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 1-202-456-2461 Dear President Clinton, Defence Secy William Cohen, Madeleine Albright, and Presidential candidates, In the light of reports that a decision by you on National Missile Defence (NMD) may be imminent, I am writing to urge you not to proceed with proposals for an NMD system. Missile defence schemes respond to a nonexistent or exaggerated threat, are not the solution to real threats, make the rest of the US's security environment less safe, sabotage nuclear disarmament efforts to which the US is legally committed along with the rest of the world, and show contempt for the opinions of US allies and the rest of the world. At the recent NPT Review Conference, the US together with 187 other countries, signed a final declaration that commits it to an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of its nuclear arsenal. Plans to deploy a missile defence system threaten that vital goal, to which the US is legally committed. At the very same conference, the UN Secretary General, and representatives of Russia, China, the UK, France, Sweden, the European community, the New Agenda Coalition and the Non- aligned movement have all expressed strongly that they believe the ABM treaty is the cornerstone of global strategic stability. They do not think it should be modified to allow a missile defence system, still less abrogated unilaterally. On your recent European trip, leaders of Europe and Russia have made the same point. America simply cannot ignore the strongly repeated opinion of the whole world, that the ABM treaty should not be modified to permit BMD. Since that time, the NMD system has failed a test, and 50 US nobel laureates have asked for it not to proceed. There are serious doubts as to whether this system can work at all, or as to whether any missile defence system can ever work. The problems posed even by relatively simple decoys may well be technically insoluble. Instead of pursuing missile defence, it is vital that the US focus on real solutions to global strategic security. The highest priorities have to be the elimination of as many warheads as possible under any START-III agreement with Russia, and the removal of strategic missile forces from high alert status. I urge you not to deploy NMD, and not to modify or withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Yours Sincerely, Signed [your name] 3)SAMPLE LETTER TO TONY BLAIR, ROBIN COOK TO: PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR +44-171-925-0918 blairt@parliament.uk, FOREIGN MINISTER ROBIN COOK +44-171-829-2417 +44-171-270-2833 Dear Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Minister Robin Cook, I am writing to you to urge your government to take a strong stand against US plans to build a ballistic missile defence system, and to maintain and strengthen the ABM treaty. The attitude of your government will be crucial in any US decision. A decision of some kind by the US now appears to be coming soon. At the recent Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York, the UN secretary general, the governments of Russia, China, France, and the UK, the Non-Aligned movement, the New Agenda Coalition, and the European Union all expressed strong support for the maintenance and strengthening of the ABM treaty. This cannot be interpreted to mean modifying it to allow a ballistic missile defence system. The missile defence systems currently under discussion in the US seek to protect the US (but not Europe) against a threat that either does not exist at all, or for which missile defence is a completely inappropriate response. In addition the options proposed in the US may in fact not work at all, while causing those countries with whom the US is legally obliged under the final declaration of the NPT Review Conference to seek to negotiate the elimination of its nuclear arsenal, to abandon arms control measures altogether. The very discussion by the US of missile defence options is itself destabilizing and puts progress toward the global goals of elimination of nuclear arsenals in doubt. We/I urge you to put to the US government in the very strongest terms that it should no longer contemplate missile defence options, and to make it clear that the UK will not in any way cooperate with such options. Facilities located in the UK must not be permitted to be used for NMD related purposes. Your government has said it wants to maintain and strengthen the ABM treaty. It must follow on from this good beginning by making it clear that it is absolutely opposed to BMD. The US government should instead be strongly urged to accept the very lowest warhead numbers on offer from Russia and to stand down its nuclear weapons systems from 'launch on warning' status. Signed.....etc. 4) SAMPLE LETTER TO GERHARDT SCHROEDER, JOSCHKA FISCHER, ATTN GERMAN CHANCELLOR GERHARDT SCHROEDER +49-228-56-2357, +49-30-4000-2357. GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER JOSCHKA FISCHER, +49-228-168-6662, +49-1888-171-928, +49-228-173-402, +49-30-201-861-924, RE: BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE AND THE ABM TREATY Dear Chancellor Schroeder and Foreign Minister Fischer, I am writing to express my support of the position you have taken with respect to US plans to deploy a ballistic missile defence system and to modify, or possibly to abrogate, the ABM treaty in order to allow the deployment of this system. I note that you have already made clear to US President Clinton your strong disapproval of any such moves. I urge you to continue in your opposition to this highly destabilizing scheme. Ballistic missile defence in the form in which the US now seeks to deploy it, (either national missile defence or theater missile defence), a) Seeks to defend against a threat that either does not exist or which if it exists, will strike in ways that missile defence systems cannot affect. b)Is likely to be wholly ineffective because of the problem posed by relatively simple decoys, and at the same time will be seen as threatening by those with whom the US is legally obliged to negotiate for the elimination of nuclear arsenals. Missile defence therefore acts to sabotage vital arms control efforts. c) National missile defence as currently proposed by the US administration, in no way helps the security position of US allies, who are thus likely to be exposed to whatever threat NMD seeks to counter - if that threat is real. (d) These proposals make more difficult, and may reverse, nuclear disarmament efforts, decreasing the security of the whole world while violating US obligations under the NPT. I urge you to make the most vigorous representations to the US government not to decrease global security by proceeding with plans for NMD/BMD or TMD,or weakening the ABM treaty, but rather to increase global security by accepting the lowest of the warhead totals on offer by Russia in START-III negotiations, and by standing down nuclear missiles from 'launch on warning' status. (Signed) etc 5) SAMPLE LETTER TO GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE PRESIDENT JACQUES CHIRAC +33-147-42-2465 PRIME MINISTER LIONEL JOSPIN +33-142-34-2677 MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS +33-1-4317-5203 33-1-45-51-60-12 Dear President Chirac, Prime Minister Jospin, and Minister for Foreign Affairs Hubert Vedrine, I am writing to you to urge you to express strongly your support for the 1972 ABM treaty, and your opposition to the US proposal to deploy a ballistic missile defence scheme. The US seems now to be poised to make a decision that could have profound negative consequences for nuclear arms control for many years. I am happy to see that at the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review conference, France expressed strongly its support for the ABM treaty and opposition to ballistic missile defence, and that France has continued to forcefully express its opposition to this ill-considered scheme since that time. I urge you to continue doing this. I urge you to make the most vigorous representations to the US not to decrease global security by proceeding with plans for missile defence, or weakening the ABM treaty. I ask you to instead urge the US to increase global security by accepting the lowest of the warhead totals on offer by Russia in START-III negotiations, and by standing down nuclear missiles from 'launch on warning' status. (Signed) http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/083000missile-defense.html ================================== August 30, 2000 New York Times - - Washington Split Deepens in Debate Over Missile Plan By Steven Lee Myers WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 -- The Pentagon and the State Department are sharply divided over how far work on a limited national missile defense system could proceed before the United States would be required to give formal notice that it was violating a crucial arms control treaty with Russia. Officials in the Pentagon and State Department said that disagreement within the administration was a primary reason for Defense Secretary William S. Cohen's delay in making a recommendation to President Clinton this month on the project. The debate has focused on the point at which construction of the missile system, which involves elaborate radar installations, would violate the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, which lies at the heart of the arms controls built up over the cold war. The Russians have steadfastly refused any changes in the pact to permit elaborate new radar installations, fearing that they would lead to a larger system that would undermine Russia's strategic nuclear force. Officials from both agencies said Mr. Cohen was wrong when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that administration lawyers had reached a consensus. Mr. Cohen said then that there was agreement that building a crucial radar station in Alaska could continue until 2002 before the United States would violate the treaty. That represents just one of three interpretations drafted by administration lawyers, the officials said. But senior policy makers at the State Department and the National Security Council are strongly opposed, the officials added. The opponents contend that this interpretation would be overly aggressive and unilateral, and would surely anger the Russians and European allies. A Pentagon spokesman, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, said Mr. Cohen and his aides declined to discuss his Senate testimony. Mr. Cohen is the administration's leading advocate of building missile defenses. Aides to President Clinton declined to discuss the internal debate but confirmed that officials were considering several options and that Mr. Cohen's statement last month did not reflect a consensus view. "It is true that there are a number of options available to the president," said P. J. Crowley, a spokesman for the National Security Council. The question of when the United States would violate the treaty is a pivotal one that Mr. Clinton has to answer before approving even limited steps to begin building a radar station on Shemya Island at the western edge of the Aleutians. The Russians would surely object to the United States and its allies. Mr. Cohen is now widely expected to make a recommendation to Mr. Clinton in a few weeks on how to proceed. But the officials said the legal questions could delay a decision to move ahead further. The division is so sharp that Mr. Clinton may be forced to choose among conflicting advice, if he decides to move ahead at all. "This is really squishy business," a senior military officer said. "Smart lawyers can disagree." Under the Pentagon timetable, the first contracts for the Alaska radar work, as well as a site for the missile interceptors, would have to be awarded this year so that work can begin next spring and a working system can be in place within the administration's goal of 2005. Intelligence officials have warned that the United States could face a threat from some countries, including North Korea, by then. There is universal agreement that building the radar site would amount to a treaty violation. The administration had hoped to negotiate amendments with the Russians that would permit the limited system now being developed, but Moscow has refused. Officials had previously said Mr. Clinton would decide this summer on deploying a system. But with the Russians objecting and even the allies expressing concern, the officials have signaled that Mr. Clinton simply planned to decide whether to move ahead with an initial development. He would leave a final decision to deploy -- and break the treaty -- to the next administration, whether that of the Democratic nominee, Al Gore, or the Republican, George W. Bush, who has advocated a much more encompassing system. That is why the legal interpretations have become so important, because each interpretation sets a different moment when Mr. Clinton must, as the treaty requires, give the Russians six months' notice of American intent to withdraw from the antimissile restrictions. At the White House request, State Department and Pentagon lawyers have drafted the three interpretations of the treaty that, in their view, would let some work begin without breaking the treaty. In his appearance before the Armed Services Committee on July 25 and at a news conference the next day, Mr. Cohen said that the administration's lawyers had reached a consensus that the United States would not violate the treaty until workers had laid rails to support the Shemya radar, a move scheduled for 2002. Mr. Cohen emphasized that Mr. Clinton had not yet made a decision. But at the news conference he added, "There is a consensus that until such time as the construction is under way that would lay the rail, so to speak, for the actual radar being deployed there, that would not constitute a breach." Defense and administration officials said Mr. Cohen, the lone Republican in the cabinet was expressing his support for the most liberal interpretation of the treaty. That view, the officials said, is being challenged by senior aides to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, including the under secretary of state for arms control, John D. Holum, who is the chief arms control negotiator. "You have to have an aggressive interpretation of the treaty to argue that the rails are the point at which you would be in violation," a senior administration official said. All the lawyers' interpretations would overturn a legal understanding dating from the Reagan administration that even the most minimal steps to build parts of a missile defense, including pouring concrete, would breach the treaty. For years in the 80's, Reagan aides insisted that a half-built radar station near Krasnoyarsk in Siberia violated the treaty and eventually forced the Russians to halt work there. The second interpretation holds that the United States would be in violation at the point workers begin pouring concrete, which is scheduled to begin in May. Given the fact that the treaty requires either the United States or the Russians to give six months' notice of an intent to build, Mr. Clinton would have to then notify the Russians by December, just as his second term ends. Officials have said Mr. Clinton is loath to be the president who brings an end to the ABM Treaty, which has been strongly supported by arms control advocates since it was negotiated in the Nixon administration. The third interpretation argues that a violation would not occur until the concrete foundation for the radar site is complete. That is expected later next year or even in 2002, depending on weather and other potential delays. That would leave the decision on breaking the treaty to the next president. The senior administration official said the question was proving especially difficult, because the treaty does not specify what exactly would amount to a violation. "There is some room for legal interpretation," the official said. "But I think it's fair to say that not all of the options are equally defensible." Opponents of the proposal said moving ahead -- while arguing that the first steps toward a missile defense would not be a violation -- would amount to a diplomatic disaster. The Pentagon schedule has increasingly been called into question because of test failures and delays in building a booster rocket for the missile interceptors. "If the technology isn't there, you don't have much of a choice," one official said. "If you can foresee that the system won't be ready until 2006 or 2007, why would you push it now?" - - Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company John Hallam Friends of the Earth Sydney, 17 Lord Street, Newtown, NSW, Australia, 2042 Fax (61)(2)9517-3902 ph (61)(2)9517-3903 nonukes@foesyd.org.au http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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 #369 *********************************** - To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" 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.