ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n434

Internet Message Format | 2001-03-27 | 44KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #434
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest      Tuesday, March 27 2001      Volume 01 : Number 434




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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:53:27 -0700
From: Carah Lynn Ong <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Axworthy releases policy alternatives to NMD

>Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 07:21:38 -0800
>Subject: Axworthy releases policy alternatives to NMD
>From: Amanda Gibbs <[e-mail]>
>To: <[e-mail]>
>
>
>
>
>**Please circulate this message to others working on issues of peace and
>global security. **
>
>
>
>Canada needs to take leadership role in examining US missile defence plans:
>Axworthy
>
>The Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues releases policy alternatives
>to NMD
>
>It's time for Canada to take a serious look at the real consequences, for
>global peace and security, should the United States proceed to deploy its
>proposed national missile defence (NMD) system, says Lloyd Axworthy,
>Director and CEO of The Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues at the
>University of British Columbia.
>
>Axworthy, Canada's former foreign minister, today released a report that
>summarizes some of the key findings and recommendations of a February
>conference that gathered experts from around the world, to discuss  the
>impact of NMD on global nuclear policy. The Liu Centre conference report
>recommends a package of policy alternatives to the deployment of NMD. The
>report is available today by visiting: www.liucentre.ubc.ca
>
>*Please circulate this message to others working on issues of peace and
>global security.*
>
>
>
>

- --
Carah Lynn Ong
Coordinator

Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1
Santa Barbara, California  93108-2794  USA

Tel:  [phone]
Fax:  [phone]
Email:  [e-mail]
Http://www.abolition2000.org

Join the Abolition Global Caucus, send a message to
[e-mail]


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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:51:29 -0500
From: David Culp <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) The Dark Side Returns: Frank Gaffney on Bush Nuclear Review

"Critical Mass: Getting the Bush Nuclear Review Right," [by Frank
Gaffney].

Center for Security Policy, Washington, D.C., Publication No.
01-D 20, March 19, 2001.


While the Bush Administration's pending decisions about missile
defense and the size and costs of its effort to rebuild the U.S.
military have been the focus of considerable attention and
debate, a no-less-epochal review is underway--one that has, to
date, received little public consideration.

In the course of last year's campaign, Candidate George W. Bush
expressed a willingness to consider radically and unilaterally
reducing the quantity and the alert status of America's nuclear
forces--contributing to a new post-Cold War posture featuring an
increasing reliance on anti-missile capabilities. As President,
Mr. Bush has asked his Administration to assess the wisdom and
desirability of such initiatives.


Don'ts and Do's

If this study is done in a dispassionate and rigorous way, these
are the sorts of responses he will shortly be receiving:

* Don't Make Unwise Deep Cuts

Extreme care should be exercised over further, deep reductions in
U.S. nuclear weapons. The object of retaining a nuclear arsenal
is, after all, not primarily to have sufficient means to fight an
incalculably destructive war. Rather, it is to prevent one from
happening. The greatest danger of all would be if the United
States were to be seen to have so diminished its deterrent
capabilities as to make the world "safe" for nuclear war.

* Deterrence is not a science but an art.

There is no objectively right or wrong answer as to the number of
nuclear arms the United States "needs" to have; it is a question
of risk. Contrary to the hoary theories of arms control, however,
the risks appear greater when U.S. deterrent power is discounted
than when it is overwhelming. It is, in short, infinitely better
to err on the side of having too much nuclear capability than to
have catalyzed, however unintentionally, circumstances in which
nuclear weapons might wind up being used by having unduly
diminished the credibility of one's deterrent.

This is especially true in an international environment that is
as unpredictable as the present one. We cannot say for certain
Russia's future course, but it seems unlikely that the former
Soviet Union will become more benign in the years immediately
ahead. For the moment, it is unable to afford large nuclear
forces and would like us to agree to mirror-image the deep
reductions economic considerations compel them to make. This
would be a mistake; if the Kremlin reverts to form and marshals
the resources to rebuild its offensive weaponry, negotiated
limits will--as usual--wind up binding us, but not them.

For its part, China is determined to acquire great power status
and the nuclear arms that it believes are appropriate to such a
state. What is more, virtually every one of Russia and China's
allies--what we call "rogue states" they call "clients"--are bent
on acquiring atomic, if not thermonuclear, capabilities and are
receiving help toward that end from Moscow and/or Beijing.

While the deployment of effective American missile defenses can--
and should--mitigate somewhat the dangers that such trends
represent, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to make further
"deep" reductions below the roughly 3500 U.S. nuclear warheads
America planned to retain under the START II Treaty until such
time as the beneficial effects of such anti-missile deployments
are demonstrated in the diminution of proliferation and related
threats to this country, her allies and interests.

* Don't De-Alert U.S. Nuclear Forces

The folly of unduly cutting the United States' nuclear deterrent
would be greatly exacerbated were the Nation deliberately to
reduce the readiness of whatever strategic forces it decides to
retain. Proponents of "de-alerting" America's strategic missiles
claim this is an appropriate and necessary response to the danger
that Russian weapons might be launched accidentally or without
proper authorization.

This sort of thinking is reckless in the extreme. Effectively
eliminating the United States' capability to respond with nuclear
arms in a credible and prompt manner is unlikely to eliminate the
problem of the Kremlin's "loose nukes"; they are the result of
systemic forces (for example, a decentralized command and control
system, deteriorating conditions and morale in the Russian
military, corruption, etc.), not inadequate technology.

* Don't Underwrite Russian Nuclear Modernization, Hare-brained
U.S. Disarmament Studies

To its credit, the Bush Administration appears to be
reconsidering the enormously expensive programs its predecessor
established in the name of "securing" the Kremlin's nuclear
wherewithal. Rose Gottemoeller, the highly controversial Energy
Department appointee who sought to fund these programs to the
tune of $1.2 billion in Fiscal Year 2002, has called the Bush
team's reported plan to pare them back to "only" $800 million "a
shame." What is, in fact, truly shameful has been the lack of
accountability for these initiatives that has, according to
successive critical reports by the General Accounting Office,
enabled the funds to be used for, among other things, subsidizing
the ongoing Russian nuclear modernization program.

While the Bush Administration is at it, it should call to a halt
one of Ms. Gottemoeller's other undesirable legacies: a
multi-million dollar contract now up for renewal with the
National Academy of Science's notoriously left-wing Committee on
International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) for a study of
how to reduce U.S. nuclear forces to just 200 warheads--a number
comparable to levels Communist China hopes shortly to achieve.
Since this is an outcome that would be wholly incompatible with
the maintenance of a credible U.S. deterrent to say nothing of
common sense, the taxpayer's money should not be wasted on its
further evaluation.

* Do Take Seriously the Need for a Credible Deterrent over the
Long-term

Finally, the Bush nuclear review must address not only the need
for a credible nuclear deterrent today; it must also ensure the
safety, reliability and effectiveness of America's deterrent for
the foreseeable future. This will require several politically
difficult but vital steps--including, a resumption of limited,
underground nuclear testing required both to continue to certify
the existing stockpile and to design, develop and field the next
generation of nuclear weapons upon which the Nation will depend
in the decades to come. The latter could include deep penetrating
warheads capable of holding at risk the underground command posts
that even rogue state regimes are acquiring today and an
anti-missile warhead in case hit-to-kill missile defense
technologies prove unworkable.

The Bottom Line

If President Bush receives and heeds such advice from his
subordinates' nuclear review, chances are that his legacy will be
one of leaving the U.S. military not only better capable of
fighting the Nation's next war, but of preventing it from
happening.

                            - 30 -


Copyright ⌐ 2001 Center for Security Policy

- -
 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, 23 Mar 2001 09:05:35 -0800
From: [e-mail] (marylia)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Imp., New Info on Tri-Valley CAREs' web iste

Dear peace and environmental colleagues:

We are pleased to share some important, new items on our web site with you.
Our web address is http://www.igc.org/tvc. There you will find:

        * SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS RENOUNCE WORK ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS -- Read
all about the new international pledge campaign launched at the annual AAAS
meeting by Tri-Valley CAREs, Los Alamos Study Group, Western States Legal
Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The article is in our
March 2001 CITIZEN'S WATCH. Also new on the web site, under press releases
section, is news of a Livermore Lab scientist who quit to protest the Lab's
nuclear weapons activities. You will find his open letter as a PDF file
below the press release.

        * THE PLEDGE -- An easily downloadable PDF version of the
"Scientists' and Engineers' Pledge to Renounce Weapons of Mass Destruction"
is also on our web site. ** If you are a scientist or engineer (or
student), please sign on. ** If you are part of an organization, please
contact us about becoming a co-sponsor of the pledge!

        * "GREEN SCISSORS 2001" -- A national study of polluter pork names
the National Ignition Facility as a "choice cut" for the coming year. Read
all about Tri-Valley CAREs and CALPIRG's release of the report at Livermore
Lab. It's in the March CITIZEN'S WATCH.

        * GOOD FRIDAY ACTION AT LIVERMORE LAB -- April 13 beginning at 6:45
AM. Check our MARCH NEWSLETTER for an article and other information.

        * LEGAL UPDATES -- Our MARCH 2001 CITIZEN'S WATCH has the latest on
our (1) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, (2) California
Environmental Quality Act lawsuit, and (3) Federal Advisory Committee Act
lawsuit and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction against the National
Ignition Facility's "Rebaseline" Committee. (Note: Our February 2001
newsletter explains this key legal action under FACA in detail. Our
November 2000 edition gives you the background on the FOIA cases.)

        * MEET THE NEW SECRETARY OF ENERGY. Wonder about Spencer Abraham's
record? Wonder no more. It's in our MARCH NEWSLETTER.

        * RUSSIAN ACTIVISTS ask for help to prevent the importation of
nuclear waste. We have initiated a sign-on letter, drafted by our Russian
colleagues, and we have over 45 signatures to date. Your group has until
close of business March 14 to sign on. Please look in our MARCH CITIZEN'S
WATCH -- and act now.

        * CHECK IT OUT. There is a calendar section in our latest
newsletter and succinct, topical "Print Bites" in our February edition. The
FEBRUARY CITIZEN'S WATCH also introduces you to a new Tri-Valley CAREs'
staff member, Inga Olson.

VISIT our web site and get acquainted! No shirt or shoes required! Enjoy!

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!

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

Working for peace, justice and a healthy environment since 1983, Tri-Valley
CAREs has been a member of the nation-wide Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability in the U.S. since 1989, and is a co-founding member of the
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 "[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, 23 Mar 2001 16:23:56 -0700
From: Carah Lynn Ong <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) For Immediate Release

- --============_-1226732658==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

MEDIA RELEASE

EXPERTS FIND DANGERS IN
US MISSILE DEFENSE PLANS

Moving Beyond Missile Defense, a joint project of the International
Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP)
and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, held its first international
workshop in Santa Barbara, California,  March 19-21, 2001.  It was
the first in a series of workshops that will take place in several
different international regions, including Northeast Asia, Europe,
South Asia and the Middle East.
For three days, 17 experts in science, technology and security
gathered to discuss the technological and geopolitical problems as
well as the negative impacts of missile defenses on international
security.
Participants of the Moving Beyond Missile Defense conference argued
that deployment of a U.S. missile defense system could provoke new
arms races, including in outer space.
Experts from Russia, Germany, Egypt, India, Israel, China, Pakistan,
Japan and the U.S. provided regional perspectives on missile defenses
and offered alternatives.  "There is great concern among Europeans
about these plans," said Juergen Scheffran, a senior researcher with
the Interdisciplinary Research Group in Science Technology and
Security at the Technical University in Darmastadt, Germany.  "And
not only among Europeans, but also Chinese and Russians.  They fear
that the United States is adding to its nuclear weapon capabilities."
Russian and Chinese leaders, as well as most allies in Europe, have
decried the planned system as the start of new nuclear arms races.
Missile defense opponents also contend that such a system would
violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed by the U.S.
and the former Soviet Union, which prohibits national missile
defenses.

"We think the way to go forward on this question of threat from other
countries is to pursue diplomatic means and find ways of actually
banning these missiles, globally." Said M.V. Ramana, a research
associate at the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at
Princeton University.  "The U.S., Russia and China will also have to
cut back their arsenals if they expect other countries to do the
same."

David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, said
that "the Moving Beyond Missile Defense project aims to present
alternatives to missile defense that would not undermine
international stability and security."

"It's very good to have people from all over the world cooperating in
this," observed Regina Hagen , Coordinator of the International
Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation at the
organization's headquarters in Germany.

The conclusions and recommendations from the Santa Barbara workshop
will be utilized by an International Study Group to further explore
alternatives to missile defenses and in a series of international
regional meetings over the next three years.  They will also be made
available to government policy makers and non-governmental
organizations working in the arena of global security.

Participants in the workshop reached the following preliminary findings:

o  Ballistic missile defense (BMD) cannot provide security.  Missile
defenses can be easily overcome by simple countermeasures, including
low-technology decoys.  Such systems will create instability because
they will provoke other countries, in particular Russia and China, to
strengthen and build up their offensive capabilities.

o  Deployment of ballistic missile defenses will undermine
long-standing arms control agreements, including the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I and II).
BMD will prevent further international efforts for non-proliferation,
arms control and disarmament.

o  US efforts to deploy missile defenses are perceived by other
countries to create increased offensive and war-fighting capabilities.

o  Ballistic missile defenses will provoke rather than prevent the
proliferation of ballistic missiles, contributing to regional
conflicts and arms races.

o  Ballistic missile defenses do not provide a solution to the risks
of the Nuclear Age, but rather multiply the uncertainties,
complexities and instabilities of nuclear deterrence.

o  The deployment of missile defenses and the militarization of outer
space are inextricably linked.  The weaponization of space must be
prohibited.

We therefore recommend:

o   The best alternative to ballistic missile defense is the complete
abolition of nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction, and
the international control and disarmament of ballistic missiles and
other delivery systems.  An international missile control regime
should be established with practical steps such as improved
information exchange on missiles and missile launches, a missile test
ban and missile free zones.

o  The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which prohibits the US and
Russia from developing and deploying a national missile defense, must
be preserved until a more comprehensive international framework can
be established.

o  The weaponization of outer space should be prevented by an
international agreement.

o  Cooperation among all states should be supported and the
demonization of particular countries and their peoples should be
opposed.  In particular, diplomatic efforts with countries such as
Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Libya should continue.

o  Security must be fundamentally redefined from the military
dimensions of national interests to the fulfillment of human and
environmental needs.

    Video clips and articles are available on the Nuclear Age
Peace Foundation's website at www.wagingpeace.org.

X    X    X
- --
Carah Lynn Ong
Research and Publications

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1
Santa Barbara, California  93108-2794  USA

Tel:  [phone]
Fax:  [phone]
Email:  [e-mail]
Http://www.wagingpeace.org
Http://www.nuclearfiles.org
Http://www.abolition2000.org

"He aha te nui mea o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."  (A
Maori Saying)

"What is the most important thing in the world?  It is the people,
the people, the people."
- --============_-1226732658==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
 --></style><title>For Immediate Release</title></head><body>
<div align="center"><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1"
color="#000000"><b>MEDIA RELEASE</b></font></div>
<div align="center"><font face="Times New Roman"
color="#000000"><u><br></u></font></div>
<div align="center"><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1"
color="#000000"><b>EXPERTS FIND DANGERS IN</b></font></div>
<div align="center"><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1"
color="#000000"><b>US MISSILE DEFENSE PLANS</b></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1"
color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><i>Moving Beyond
Missile Defense</i>, a joint project of the International Network of
Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) and the
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, held its first international workshop in
Santa Barbara, California,  March 19-21, 2001.  It was the
first in a series of workshops that will take place in several
different international regions, including Northeast Asia, Europe,
South Asia and the Middle East.<br>
For three days, 17 experts in science, technology and security
gathered to discuss the technological and geopolitical problems as
well as the negative impacts of missile defenses on international
security.<br>
Participants of the<i> Moving Beyond Missile Defense</i> conference
argued that deployment of a U.S. missile defense system could provoke
new arms races, including in outer space.<br>
Experts from Russia, Germany, Egypt, India, Israel, China, Pakistan,
Japan and the U.S. provided regional perspectives on missile defenses
and offered alternatives.  "There is great concern among
Europeans about these plans," said Juergen Scheffran, a senior
researcher with the Interdisciplinary Research Group in Science
Technology and Security at the Technical University in Darmastadt,
Germany.  "And not only among Europeans, but also Chinese
and Russians.  They fear that the United States is adding to its
nuclear weapon capabilities."</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Russian and Chinese
leaders, as well as most allies in Europe, have decried the planned
system as the start of new nuclear arms races.  Missile defense
opponents also contend that such a system would violate the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed by the U.S. and the former
Soviet Union, which prohibits national missile defenses.</font><br>
</div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">"We think the
way to go forward on this question of threat from other countries is
to pursue diplomatic means and find ways of actually banning these
missiles, globally." Said M.V. Ramana, a research associate at
the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Princeton
University.  "The U.S., Russia and China will also have to
cut back their arsenals if they expect other countries to do the
same."<br>
<br>
David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, said
that "the<i> Moving Beyond Missile Defense</i> project aims to
present alternatives to missile defense that would not undermine
international stability and security."<br>
<br>
"It's very good to have people from all over the world
cooperating in this," observed Regina Hagen , Coordinator of the
International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against
Proliferation at the organization's headquarters in Germany.<br>
<br>
The conclusions and recommendations from the Santa Barbara workshop
will be utilized by an International Study Group to further explore
alternatives to missile defenses and in a series of international
regional meetings over the next three years.  They will also be
made available to government policy makers and non-governmental
organizations working in the arena of global security.<br>
<br>
Participants in the workshop reached the following preliminary
findings:<br>
<br>
o  Ballistic missile defense (BMD) cannot provide security.
Missile defenses can be easily overcome by simple countermeasures,
including low-technology decoys.  Such systems will create
instability because they will provoke other countries, in particular
Russia and China, to strengthen and build up their offensive
capabilities. <br>
<br>
o  Deployment of ballistic missile defenses will undermine
long-standing arms control agreements, including the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START I and II).  BMD will
prevent further international efforts for non-proliferation, arms
control and disarmament. <br>
<br>
o  US efforts to deploy missile defenses are perceived by other
countries to create increased offensive and war-fighting
capabilities.<br>
<br>
o  Ballistic missile defenses will provoke rather than prevent
the proliferation of ballistic missiles, contributing to regional
conflicts and arms races.</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><br>
o  Ballistic missile defenses do not provide a solution to the
risks of the Nuclear Age, but rather multiply the uncertainties,
complexities and instabilities of nuclear
deterrence.   </font><br>
</div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">o  The
deployment of missile defenses and the militarization of outer space
are inextricably linked.  The weaponization of space must be
prohibited. </font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1" color="#000000"><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">We therefore
recommend: <br>
<br>
o   The best alternative to ballistic missile defense is the
complete abolition of nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass
destruction, and the international control and disarmament of
ballistic missiles and other delivery systems.  An international
missile control regime should be established with practical steps such
as improved information exchange on missiles and missile launches, a
missile test ban and missile free zones.<br>
<br>
o  The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which prohibits the US
and Russia from developing and deploying a national missile defense,
must be preserved until a more comprehensive international framework
can be established.<br>
<br>
o  The weaponization of outer space should be prevented by an
international agreement.<br>
<br>
o  Cooperation among all states should be supported and the
demonization of particular countries and their peoples should be
opposed.  In particular, diplomatic efforts with countries such
as Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Libya should continue.<br>
<br>
o  Security must be fundamentally redefined from the military
dimensions of national interests to the fulfillment of human and
environmental needs.<br>
<br>
<x-tab>        </x-tab>Video clips
and articles are available on the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's
website at<u> www.wagingpeace.org</u>.</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"></font></div>
<div align="center"><font face="Times New Roman" size="+1"
color="#000000">X    X    X</font></div>

<div>-- <br>
Carah Lynn Ong<br>
Research and Publications<br>
<br>
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation<br>
PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1<br>
Santa Barbara, California  93108-2794  USA<br>
<br>
Tel:  [phone]<br>
Fax:  [phone]<br>
Email:  [e-mail]<br>
Http://www.wagingpeace.org<br>
Http://www.nuclearfiles.org<br>
Http://www.abolition2000.org<br>
<br>
"He aha te nui mea o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he
tangata."  (A Maori Saying)<br>
<br>
"What is the most important thing in the world?  It is the
people, the people, the people."</div>
</body>
</html>
- --============_-1226732658==_ma============--

- -
 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: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:37:15 -0700
From: Carah Lynn Ong <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Greenpeace International Founder Dies in Car Crash

Greenpeace International Founder Dies in Car Crash
AMSTERDAM, The Netherlands, March 23, 2001 (ENS) - One of the most
influential figures in the environmental movement, the man widely credited
with the first campaign to save whales and to end French nuclear testing,
David McTaggart died in a head on car crash near his home in Umbria, Italy,
this morning.
When news reached Greenpeace International headquarters in Amsterdam this
morning, tributes were quick to follow from leaders of the group he helped
to found.
"We are all deeply shocked by this news," said interim International
Executive Director Gerd Leipold. "Greenpeace would not be what it is today
without his amazing force behind it."
"Greenpeace would be unthinkable without his force of personality. He built
up the organization into the international pressure group it is today,
opening offices in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, when no one
believed it possible.
"Not only is he a great loss to Greenpeace, but also to the environmental
movement worldwide," added Leipold.
"David had an amazing life, he shook the world," said Peter Tabuns,
executive director of Greenpeace Canada. "He fought to protect all of us
from the nuclear threat - no one did more."
In a testimonial to McTaggart, Greenpeace described the 68 year old as
"relentless," "controversial," and "a thorn in the side of entire
governments and corporations."
"He bears sole credit for unifying a group of internally warring hippies
into an international environmental force, and the lion's share of the
credit for Greenpeace's successful campaigns to preserve Antarctica from oil
exploitation and to halt commercial whaling," it continued.
"He stood as a living example of the difference an individual can make, from
his defiance of a nuclear weapons blast from the deck of his tiny and
beloved sailing ship, Vega, to his steadfast refusal to accept that any odds
were too great, or that any challenge was too big.
"He had the guts to make saving the planet his personal mission, the
charisma to inspire others to that task, and the strategic savvy to make you
think he just might pull it off.
"The world will never see another one of him."
Born in Vancouver, Canada in 1932, McTaggart ran a successful construction
business for 20 years before sailing into a new life of environmental action
that began in the South Pacific in 1971.
So outraged was McTaggart at the French government's decision to cordon off
international waters in order to conduct nuclear testing, he renamed his
12.6 meter sailing craft "Greenpeace III" and sailed to the zone surrounding
Muroroa Atoll.
Dropping anchor downwind from the planned blast, McTaggart forced the French
government to halt its test. A French Navy vessel rammed "Greenpeace III"
but McTaggart repaired his boat and returned a year later.
On that occasion he was beaten by French military personnel, with the
incident captured on camera by a crewmate. The photos helped McTaggart win
part of a lengthy court case against the French in 1974, the same year, the
French government announced that it would end its atmospheric nuclear
testing program.
In 1977, McTaggart began organizing support throughout Europe for
Greenpeace, by then established in more than a dozen countries. In 1979 he
united factions of the organization under his chairmanship as Greenpeace
International.
Between 1975 and 1991, McTaggart led Greenpeace campaigns to save the
whales, stop the dumping of nuclear waste in the ocean, block the production
of toxic wastes, end nuclear testing, and protect the Antarctic continent
from oil and mineral exploitation.
He published numerous articles and two books. Awards for his contributions
to environmentalism worldwide include the Onassis Award, The Kreisky Prize,
and the United Nations Environmental Programme's Global 500 Award.
In September 1991, McTaggart retired from active chairmanship of Greenpeace
International to a farm in Italy, where he raised organic olive oil and
continued to work on whaling and other issues through his own foundation.
"He pushed the organization hard, and the organization pushed back hard,"
said a Greenpeace International statement.
"Some of his closest colleagues will still describe him as a cold hearted
bastard, and when David retired from active leadership of the organization
in 1991, there were those who breathed a sigh of relief.
"Many believed the organization had outgrown his leadership, and that the
skills of a ragtag pirate leader were simply no longer a match to an
organization that had grown so large so fast.
"But one thing Greenpeace will never outgrow was David's extraordinary
spirit."
Another driver was killed in this morning's accident, and a female passenger
injured.

- -
 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: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 07:22:47 -0500
From: Ellen Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Virus Alert!!! (Don't open "Trojan.exe"!!!)

"Ronald McCoy" <[e-mail]> has been sending the "Trojan" virus (by
mistake?) -- DON'T OPEN, and DELETE FROM YOUR ATTACHMENTS DIRECTORY!!!!
Somehow we ended up with 45 versions of this file!

Here's information about getting rid of "Navidad.exe":

http://www.pchell.com/virus/navidad.shtml

http://www.cai.com/virusinfo/encyclopedia/descriptions/navidad.htm

Here's an article about it:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/11/10/navidad/index.html



Ellen Thomas
Proposition One Committee
PO Box 27217, Washington DC 20038
202-462-0757 -- fax [phone]
[e-mail]  --  http://prop1.org

                 ***

      BAN ALL RADIOACTIVE BOMBS
* depleted uranium, fission, neutron *

Online Petition! - http://www.PetitionOnline.com/prop1/petition.html
Write Letter to Congress - http://prop1.org/prop1/letter.htm
Depleted uranium keeps on killing! - http://[e-mail]/2000/du/dulv.htm
NucNews -
http://prop1.org/nucnews/briefslv.htm


- -
 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: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:39:15 -0800
From: "M.W. Stowell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Ill Uranium Miners Left Waiting as Payments for Exposure Lapse

Ill Uranium Miners Left Waiting as Payments for Exposure Lapse


By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

A decade-old program to provide compensation payments to uranium
miners and people who lived downwind from nuclear test sites in
Nevada is broke.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/27/politics/27URAN.html?ex=986735015&ei=1&en=6cba1199755902ee


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:34:20 -0500
From: ASlater <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: SIGN PETITION TO OPPOSE NUKE POWER AS SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SOURCE

>Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:43:12 -0500
>Subject: SIGN PETITION TO OPPOSE NUKE POWER AS SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SOURCE
>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]
>From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>
>
>  Please dissemenate this to other lists, NGOs & individuals and ask them
>to
>do likewise. SIGN OUR PETITION AT: www.antenna.nl/wise/csd
>
>
>
>
>
>Nukes Sustainable? No Way!
>
>From 16-27 April 2001 the United Nations Commission on Sustainable
>Development (CSD) will hold its Ninth Session (CSD 9) in New York. The
>Commission was established in 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of the Rio
>Earth Summit held that year. One of CSD's tasks is to elaborate policy
>guidance and options for future activities to follow up the Rio Earth
>Summit
>and achieve sustainable development.
>
>Energy is one of the issues on the agenda for CSD 9. As the Commission puts
>it: 'The challenge is how to meet the growing demand for energy while
>mitigating the impact of energy supply and use on the environment and thus
>guarantee the long term quality of our habitat'
>
>However, it seems that the Commission is of the opinion that nuclear energy
>could be part of a sustainable future. As we all know, nuclear energy
>involves enormous pollution, throughout its production cycle from uranium
>mining and enrichment, through the operation of nuclear power plants to the
>disposal of radioactive waste.
>Nuclear energy is definitely not sustainable, and the UN Commission on
>Sustainable Development should be the last to pretend that it is.
>Any indications of support for nuclear technologies by the Commission on
>Sustainable Development will be used by the nuclear industry to create an
>image of itself being clean, safe, and a legitimate tool to combat climate
>change.
>
>Wise Amsterdam therefore urges all organisations active in development,
>environmental, disarmament and human rights issues to sign the petition
>addressing CSD. The petition demands that Commission ensures that any
>indications of support for nuclear energy are excluded from CSD debates,
>exhibitions and other activities.
>SIGN OUR PETITION AT: www.antenna.nl/wise/csd
>
>Petition Against the Support of Nuclear Technologies
>
>TO THE CHAIR AND MEMBER STATES OF
>THE U.N. COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
>
>
>Dear Sirs and Madams,
>
>We, the undersigned NGOs, active in environment, development, disarmament
>and human rights issues, express our deepest regret and extreme concern
>that
>nuclear energy has been included in the draft agenda of the ninth session
>of
>the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development, and that this dangerous and
>unsustainable technology might, in effect, be given a fresh start by the
>actions of the CSD.
>
>We consider any focus which seems to validate nuclear energy to be against
>both the spirit of Agenda 21 and the mandate of the CSD. Moreover, it is
>contrary to the interests of developing countries which require
>sustainable,
>mostly decentralized, low-cost energy systems, adapted both to their needs
>and the availability of their capital, labor, and natural resources.
>Nuclear
>power will not fulfill those requirements.
>
>Nuclear power is not a clean, safe or sustainable energy source. Worldwide,
>nuclear power has been plagued by high cost, erratic performance, endemic
>technical problems, the risk of catastrophic accidents, and environmental
>problems such as routine radiation releases, radioactive waste management
>and the high cost of decommissioning.
>
>However, financially-pressed nuclear vendors are eyeing the developing
>world
>as a 'last gasp' market for their products, and are stepping up their
>lobbying efforts at U.N. conferences, including the Climate Change
>negotiations and the CSD.
>Over the past decade in most countries the overwhelming momentum of energy
>policy has moved towards phasing out, or not developing nuclear energy in
>the first place. Virtually all countries agreed in November at The Hague,
>during the discussions on the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change
>(FCCC), not to include nuclear energy in projects of the Clean Development
>Mechanism (CDM) that will be established under the Kyoto Protocol.
>
>At their last meeting, the governments of the G8 stated their commitment to
>"encourage and facilitate investment in the development and use of
>sustainable energy, underpinned by enabling domestic environments, (which)
>will assist in mitigating the problems of climate change and air pollution.
>To this end, the increased use of renewable energy sources in particular
>will improve the quality of life, especially in developing countries."
>
>Non-G8 countries are taking similar positions. Turkey cancelled plans for a
>nuclear plant at Akkuyu, with its Prime Minister stating that, "the world
>is
>abandoning nuclear power." The countries of AOSIS (the Alliance of Small
>Island States) have "reaffirmed (their) position that nuclear energy should
>not be included in the CDM". (Apia, August 2000). And, a group of twelve
>Latin American nations made clear, in discussions on the Convention, that
>they "do not accept the use of nuclear power as an energy source
>alternative
>in project-based activities." (FCCC/SB/2000/4, 1 August, 2000)
>
>Therefore, we urge you to preserve the integrity of the CSD process by
>ensuring that any indications of support for non-sustainable energy
>technologies, particularly nuclear energy, are excluded from CSD 9 debates,
>exhibitions and other activities. The CSD should focus on promoting clean,
>secure and sustainable forms of energy for the welfare of present and
>future
>generations, as per the aim of Agenda 21.
>
>To sign on, go to: http:// www.antenna.nl/wise/csd/
>Thanks!
>
>Further distribution among your networks in encouraged!
>The petition is also available in french, spanish, german, italian and
>dutch.
>
>
>
>Nuclear power sustainable? No way! Sign our petition at
>http://www.antenna.nl/wise/csd/
>================================================================ World
>Information Service on Energy - WISE Amsterdam PO Box 59636 Tel:
>[phone] LC Amsterdam Fax: [phone] The Netherlands Email:
>[e-mail] (Visitors: Ketelhuisplein 43)
>http://www.antenna.nl/wise
>=================================================
>

- -
 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 #434
***********************************

-
 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.