ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n489

Internet Message Format | 2001-11-25 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #489
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest     Monday, November 26 2001     Volume 01 : Number 489




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

Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 18:12:39 +0000
From: Sally Light <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Abolition 2000 France's new brochure - English version

 Friends,

The following English version of a new, 4-page brochure created by a
coalition of French organizations may be of interest to the
English-speaking members of Abolition 2000 and other peace
networks. For further information., please contact Dominique Lalanne at
<[e-mail]>.

 Sally Light and Dominique Lalanne



_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

ABOLITION 2000

FRANCE




 October 2001

                             WHAT ARMS RACE?



 This autumn is a true turning point.

While the attacks of September 11 in the United States renew our concern
about security, the revived technologies of the American missile defense
and of the French program of  modernizing its nuclear arsenal seem to be
responses from another age.

 This 4-page paper, sent by the French members of the Abolition 2000
network, provides some elements of analysis of the situation.  There is
a great risk that the missile defense that would  ôprotect Americaö
against the outside aggressions of ôrogue statesö will be put into place
if Europeans do not significantly disagree.  In the months to come,
French public opinion will play an important role.  This paper, if
circulated widely, will be a helpful contribution in encouraging
discussion.

In France, the current defense budget marks an increased military
investment (more than six billion francs).   It is the start of an
expansion previewed under the new Legislation of Military
Programming 2003-2008 that will be submitted this autumn to members of
Parliament: new submarines, new missiles, new nuclear warheads, and the
Megajoule Laser for pure fusion research.  This 4-page paper presents
the scale of this program.

The debate about our national security, about the choices of responses
to the conflicts that confront us, is it a debate that we will eternally
avoid?  Do the grave attacks of this autumn shake up our certitudes? Do
we really believe that nuclear arms are an appropriate response in the
modern world?  It is our duty to ask these questions of our fellow
citizens.

  Signatories :

Action des Citoyens pour le DΘsarmement NuclΘaire (CitizensÆ Action for
Nuclear Disarmament)
Maison des associations, 31 rue du Cormier, 17100 Saintes
TΘl : 05 46 74 08 60            e-mail:   [e-mail]

Appel des Cent pour la Paix (Appeal of Century for Peace)
17-19 place de l'Argonne, Paris 75019
TΘl : 01 42 09 23 78        Fax: [phone]         e-mail:
[e-mail]

Association des MΘdecins Franτais pour la PrΘvention de la Guerre
nuclΘaire (Association of French Doctors for the Prevention of Nuclear
War)
5 rue Las Cases, Paris 75007
TΘl: 01 64 32 69 72         Fax: [phone]         e-mail:
[e-mail]

Ligue Internationale des Femmes pour la Paix et la LibertΘ (WomenÆs
IntÆl League for Peace & Freedom)
114 rue de Vaugirard, Paris 75006
TΘl : 01 48 78 39 85       Fax : [phone]        e-mail:
[e-mail]

Mouvement de la Paix (Peace Movement)
139 bd. Victor Hugo, 93400 Saint-Ouen
TΘl : 01 40 12 09 12       Fax : [phone]        e-mail :
[e-mail]

Stop Essais pour l'Abolition des armes nuclΘaires (Stop Testing for
Nuclear Abolition)
114 rue de Vaugirard, 75006 Paris
Tel: [phone]        Fax:  [phone]        e-mail:
[e-mail]


On behalf of:

Action des Citoyens pour le DΘsarmement NuclΘaire
Appel des Cent pour la Paix
Appel des Cent/Mouvement de la Paix - Marne
AssemblΘe Internationale des Citoyens pour arrΩter la prolifΘration
des armes
Association Franτaise des Juristes DΘmocrates
Association des MΘdecins Franτais pour la PrΘvention de la Guerre
nuclΘaire
Association Nationale des Cheminots Anciens Combattants
Association RΘpublicaine des Anciens Combattants
Association pour la Protection des Rayonnements Ionisants
Campagne internationale pour la Paix et la DΘmocratie
Choisir la cause des femmes
ComitΘ national d'Education pour le DΘsarmement et la paix
ComitΘ National pour l'IndΘpendance et le DΘveloppement
Convergence Ecologie, SolidaritΘ,
Droit, solidaritΘ
Enseignants pour la Paix
FΘdΘration DΘmocratique Internationale des Femmes
France-AmΘrique Latine
Jeunesse OuvriΦre ChrΘtienne  Jeunesse OuvriΦre ChrΘtienne FΘminine
Jour de la Terre
Ligue Communiste RΘvolutionnaire
Ligue internationale des femmes pour la paix et la LibertΘ
Maison de Vigilance de Taverny
Mouvement de la Jeunesse Communiste,
Mouvement de la Paix
Mouvement de la Paix - Rennes
Mouvement pour une Alternative Non-violente
NATO Alert Network France
Pax Christi France
RΘseau 56 Sortir du NuclΘaire
Stop Essais pour l'Abolition des armes nuclΘaires
Syndicat National de l'Enseignement Secondaire
Union DΘmocratique Bretonne
Union des Femmes Franτaises Femmes Solidaires
Union des Juifs pour la RΘsistance et l'Entraide
Union Nationale des RetraitΘs et Personnes AgΘes
Union Pacifiste de France
(les) Verts
City of Saintes, France
City of Les Gonds, France

___________________________________________________________________



NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IN VARIABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.  AND IS IT A WOODEN SWORD?


From the right to the left, from Pierre Lelouche (RPR) to Paul Quiles
(PS), everyone is demanding a discussion about nuclear deterrence.  We,
NGOs of the Abolition 2000 network, have known well for a long time the
menace of the American national missile defense (NMD), and, indeed,
prior to the sheep-like vote of Parliament on the Legislation of
Military Programming.


The problems of nuclear deterrence

This was born with the declaration of President De Gaulle in November
1959: "Since France might possibly face ruin, from any point in the
world, our Army must have an instant readiness to respond anywhere".
Consequently, deterrence relies on two dogmas and one practical
strategy:
  1)   Only nuclear arms are in charge of defending "France's vital
interests."
  2)   Strategic nuclear forces are to deter the major nuclear powers (a
strategy of "from weakness to
  strength"), and since it's impossible to limit them to gradual
counter-attacks within military or battle
  zones, the targets are exclusively civilian.

In practice, and in keeping with policy, these targets were all situated
in the Soviet Union.  The end of the nuclear arms race between the two
super powers, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the pitiful state of
its nuclear arsenal, has shaken these grand certainties.  Two camps have
formed:  that with the false belief that things have changed to where
one can lower one's guard, and that which has invented another
adversary, the "rogue states" (this term comes from the pen of Deputy
Lecanuet, in proposing the strategy of deterrence of strength to
weakness (or to madness).  This struggle has continued along with its
typical truisms, "one never knows" or "that which always serves."  It
was the Prime Minister who actually, on October 22, 1999, finally
admitted that the "emperor has no clothes" when he said, "Our land,
which has no declared enemy or aggressive designs or hostility toward
anyone, wields a powerful stature in the service of the world's
prosperity and security."  And what does that mean?  Nothing has
changed, deterrence against persons endures as a "deterrence machine"
which keeps going just in case (in case of what?  Who knows?).



AND IS NUCLEAR DETERRENCE OBSOLETE?

 It is the current thesis of the American administration that the
principle of "mutual assured destruction," long considered fundamental
to American nuclear deterrence, is without purpose: "it is over."  But,
given that its hegemonous situation is temporary, and, considering,
moreover, that nuclear proliferation is nearly inescapable, the US wants
to change this into another, new deterrence combining missile defense
and offensive nuclear arms.

 Consequently, the actual number of nuclear warheads is excessive (and,
further, they are inappropriate), and unilaterally violates treaties,
particularly the ABM treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  This
"update" is from President Quiles in a March 28, 2001, interview: "..the
fact is that we know that in reality NMD does not mean  no more
deterrence."

  WHAT ALTERNATIVE SHOULD WE PROPOSE?

It's assumed that there's a clear response to the significance of "our
vital interests" and of the false and dangerous alternative of the  US'
missile defense. Those who trust our convictions know upon thorough
reflection that the army lies very close to "our vital interests."  If
these interests are our country's hope for survival, then the solution
is national military defense.  In fact, since the Third Republic, this
has never been the case - from 1870 to 1914, someone dissociated from
these vital interests proclaimed: 1- to protect ourselves against
Germany and to regain Alsace-Lorraine, 2- a need of daily military
activities, 3- to wage war in the colonies for the defense of economic
interests and enterprises. The result was Germany's uncontrolled
invasion facing a French army specially trained for guerilla combat.
This disassociation paid a high price in human lives, but our leaders
learned no lesson from this.

In these times, our rulers still dissociate "our vital interests" from
the daily functions of the armies, confident in this "Maginot Line" as
in 1940, but this schizophrenia is a conduit to disaster.  If we still
entrust our vital interests to nuclear deterrence, outside of a unique
strategy, isn't this a reoffense on the road toward disaster?  And if
our vital interests also include our survival, aren't peace and a
society without violence more just?

"To make progress towards disarmament, to build Europe's security and
defense, to consolidate an international system ruled by the standards
of law" are the official goals of France.   Even though underlying these
words there are important differences between the executive branch and
our
NGOs, can't one believe success is possible, since our interests don't
lie outside of those of other peoples, and since we are building another
security based on equal rights for all (under treaties), and on
cooperation without discrimination?

How can conflicts be defused if, behind the scenes, there are weapons of
mass destruction being developed exclusively intended for civilians?  If
France wants to be an example, why doesn't it follow the path of South
Africa, whose prestige and effectiveness in the service of peace
increased greatly after its decision to renounce nuclear weapons?


  Missile Defense

We do not allow mixing our voice with those anti-NMD concerns of
returning quickly to the "good old days" of nuclear deterrence, with the
survival of the planet at stake. We should not allow our anti-NMD
campaign to dissociate from the campaign FOR nuclear abolition.  It's
possible for us to establish our priorities for a unique campaign.  We
must convince the American people, the principle victims of this crazy
project, that those who will be on the missile defense's front line are
civilian targets that are not protected by a "shield" concentrated on
ballistic attack.  At the same time, there is a growing temptation to
use terrorism or miniature nuclear weapons ("mini-nukes") that would
pass under this shield.

We must convince the Americans one by one, that our goal of nuclear
abolition -  and the importance which must be accorded to treaties and
international law - are needed for their protection, security and
safety. We must base all our actions in France on that international
strategy without the loss of our autonomous view on the subject and
without slowing down our push to reject nuclear deterrence, a dying
concept. If the majority of American citizens comprehend that the
peoples of the world are not a threat, that they are their friends, then
Bush's project will be put in danger.


 AND DETERRENCE OF "GRAND PAPA?"


 We must be done with, not even think about, the idea that we don't need
emergency measures now.  We also must take care that while we eradicate
this insanity that's in the minds of our rulers, that a new form of
unspeakable blackmail is not invented.  This is immense and difficult,
but who will carry it out if not our public opinion, and we in service
to it?

  Abraham Behar
  Association of French Doctors for the Prevention of Nuclear War

____________________________________________________________________________




 COMMENTS ON THE LEGISLATION FOR FRENCH MILITARY PROGRAMMING FOR
2003-2008

 A reading of the plan of the legislation for military programming for
2003-2008, adopted at the end of July by the Counsel of Ministers in
accord with the President of the Republic, raises these questions:  ôWhy
do these arms programs exist?  For what missions?  Against what
threats?  In the service of what national security? To build what
international security?  To prevent what conflicts?  To build a lasting
peace with what United Nations?ö

 The responses provided are not satisfactory.

Because we have a different conception about the security of France in
todayÆs world, we reject that ôthe renewal and modernization of nuclear
forces are the principle objectives of the next legislation for military
programming,ö as itÆs written.

 What threats?

 The threats brought up: trafficking, ethnic problems, proliferation,
terrorism - are problems labeled those requiring political choices: to
find a political solution, to ôsimply protectö against their
consequences, to contain them. This is what one will have with nuclear
arms, with ôLeclercö tanks, with missiles without restoring peace
instead of finding a way to prevent potential wars.  It is totally
incoherent to seek to create purely military solutions to these
ideological, cultural, social and political problems.

What international security?

The only thoughts concerned with international security in the document
presenting the legislation are those raised to support France
ôelaborating and consolidating the legal instruments indispensable to
control proliferation, by superiority and by arms reduction conforming
with the objectives of general and complete disarmament.ö

The second reference is the reminder that ôFrance is particularly
attached to enforcing the Charter of the United Nations and to
respecting the authority of the Security Counsel, guaranteeing peace and
international security.ö  These reminders are totally insufficient. What
is the value attached to ôlegal
instrumentsö next to ôthe renewal and modernization of nuclear forces
are the principle objectives of the next legislation for military
programmingö?

What is the value of the UN that Lionel Jospin proclaimed in his speech
in Rio de Janeiro when he said that it is the institution better adapted
for a globalized world that seeks permanently resolute action for his
reform - broadening and democratization of the Security Counsel, a
better role for the General Assembly, a place for the NGOs?  In the same
manner, to promote the central role of the UN does not assume the
cessation of delegitimization with the growing number of interventions
of non-multilateral structures like the G7, ôcontact groups,ö etc.

 Militarization for what security?

In fact, the main characteristic of the military programming legislation
is that all the large arms programs, nuclear or conventional, created
before the fall of the Berlin Wall, are now at almost half their
previous budgets.  The programs come out of the evolution of European
defense, the interventions of the Balkans, and are outmoded ôdinosaursö
that thus are given by this labyrinthine system 525 billion French
francs(80 billion euros) in six years, the equivalent of the previous
legislation (528 billion) and representing a small reduction from the
legislations of the years 1985-1990.

We need to see that France is in the process of completely renewing its
nuclear arsenal, not only maintaining its current level, but also
improving it.  ôThe primary, new part of this legislation is a renewed
 interest in promoting nuclear power,ö writes J.D. Merchet in the July
1, 2001 edition of  ôLiberation.ö

The nuclear programs are not at just a ôstrictly enoughö level as the
legislation proclaims, because today, ôstrictly enoughö refers to the
new crisis in international security. Faced with this, ôstrictly enoughö
deviates from mere stockpiling of weapons, and indirectly discourages
respect for disarmament treaties and non-proliferation treaties.
Lateral  ômodernizations,ö ôstuckö with enforcing Article VI of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, are the ingredients that would renew inciting
other statesÆ desires to jump into the nuclear arena.

How and when would one use atomic arms against threats today?  Did not
Minister Vedrine explain to the Americans at a meeting of NATO that the
NMD project is ineffective against terrorists carrying an atomic bomb or
chemical weapon in a suitcase?  The tragic attack in New York is a cruel
confirmation of that.  Is it not the same for French nuclear arms?

Even more serious, the legislation envisages the same direction of the
American so-called missile ôdefense,ö by announcing that ôFrance is
preparing by the year 2010 a new capacity to protect selected sites by
means of deploying an outside theater of operations, opposing ballistic
missiles.ö  Now, all the experts say that the missile defense projects
known as ôtheater are a forerunner or a ôTrojan Horseö of the American
global programs.

Time for Something New!

The legislation does not break with the old ways of military security.
It is not consistent with certain speeches on the prevention of
conflicts, such as real peace seeking, or on the place and role of the
UN, pledged by Lionel Jospin or Jacques Chirac.  The main fault of this
legislation is that it does not concretely advance the concept of a way
to put into place global security for France and Europe in todayÆs
world, for the prevention of conflicts, to integrate efforts favoring
peaceful cooperation, and helping sustainable development.  We do not
want to accept military programming legislation that does not also
discuss and define a true politic of global security, prevention of
conflicts, actions to control the sale of arms, and the reassertion of
the value of the UN.

 Daniel Durand
 National Secretary of the Peace Movement





- -
 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, 20 Nov 2001 07:45:52 +0000
From: Sally Light <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Slightly revised version of French A2000 brochure.

 Friends,

Yesterday, we posted the following English translation of a new, 4-page
brochure created by a coalition of French organizations which may be
of interest to the English-speaking members of Abolition 2000 and other
peace networks. Here is a slightly revised version.  For further
information,
please contact Dominique Lalanne at <[e-mail]>.

 Sally Light and Dominique Lalanne



_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

ABOLITION 2000

FRANCE




 October 2001

                             WHAT ARMS RACE?



 This autumn is a true turning point.

While the attacks of September 11 in the United States renew our concern
about security, the revived technologies of the American missile defense
and of the French program of  modernizing its nuclear arsenal seem to be
responses from another age.

 This 4-page paper, sent by the French members of the Abolition 2000
network, provides some elements of analysis of the situation.  There is
a great risk that the missile defense that would  ôprotect Americaö
against the outside aggressions of ôrogue statesö will be put into place
if Europeans do not significantly disagree.  In the months to come,
French public opinion will play an important role.  This paper, if
circulated widely, will be a helpful contribution in encouraging
discussion.

In France, the current defense budget marks an increased military
investment (more than six billion francs).   It is the start of an
expansion previewed under the new Legislation of Military
Programming 2003-2008 that will be submitted this autumn to members of
Parliament: new submarines, new missiles, new nuclear warheads, and the
Megajoule Laser for pure fusion research.  This 4-page paper presents
the scale of this program.

The debate about our national security, about the choices of responses
to the conflicts that confront us, is it a debate that we will eternally
avoid?  Do the grave attacks of this autumn shake up our certitudes? Do
we really believe that nuclear arms are an appropriate response in the
modern world?  It is our duty to ask these questions of our fellow
citizens.

  Signatories :

Action des Citoyens pour le DΘsarmement NuclΘaire (CitizensÆ Action for
Nuclear Disarmament)
Maison des associations, 31 rue du Cormier, 17100 Saintes
TΘl : 05 46 74 08 60            e-mail:   [e-mail]

Appel des Cent pour la Paix (Appeal of Century for Peace)
17-19 place de l'Argonne, Paris 75019
TΘl : 01 42 09 23 78        Fax: [phone]         e-mail:
[e-mail]

Association des MΘdecins Franτais pour la PrΘvention de la Guerre
nuclΘaire (Association of French Doctors for the Prevention of Nuclear
War)
5 rue Las Cases, Paris 75007
TΘl: 01 64 32 69 72         Fax: [phone]         e-mail:
[e-mail]

Ligue Internationale des Femmes pour la Paix et la LibertΘ (WomenÆs
IntÆl League for Peace & Freedom)
114 rue de Vaugirard, Paris 75006
TΘl : 01 48 78 39 85       Fax : [phone]        e-mail:
[e-mail]

Mouvement de la Paix (Peace Movement)
139 bd. Victor Hugo, 93400 Saint-Ouen
TΘl : 01 40 12 09 12       Fax : [phone]        e-mail :
[e-mail]

Stop Essais pour l'Abolition des armes nuclΘaires (Stop Testing for
Nuclear Abolition)
114 rue de Vaugirard, 75006 Paris
Tel: [phone]        Fax:  [phone]        e-mail:
[e-mail]


On behalf of:

Action des Citoyens pour le DΘsarmement NuclΘaire
Appel des Cent pour la Paix
Appel des Cent/Mouvement de la Paix - Marne
AssemblΘe Internationale des Citoyens pour arrΩter la prolifΘration
des armes
Association Franτaise des Juristes DΘmocrates
Association des MΘdecins Franτais pour la PrΘvention de la Guerre
nuclΘaire
Association Nationale des Cheminots Anciens Combattants
Association RΘpublicaine des Anciens Combattants
Association pour la Protection des Rayonnements Ionisants
Campagne internationale pour la Paix et la DΘmocratie
Choisir la cause des femmes
ComitΘ national d'Education pour le DΘsarmement et la paix
ComitΘ National pour l'IndΘpendance et le DΘveloppement
Convergence Ecologie, SolidaritΘ,
Droit, solidaritΘ
Enseignants pour la Paix
FΘdΘration DΘmocratique Internationale des Femmes
France-AmΘrique Latine
Jeunesse OuvriΦre ChrΘtienne  Jeunesse OuvriΦre ChrΘtienne FΘminine
Jour de la Terre
Ligue Communiste RΘvolutionnaire
Ligue internationale des femmes pour la paix et la LibertΘ
Maison de Vigilance de Taverny
Mouvement de la Jeunesse Communiste,
Mouvement de la Paix
Mouvement de la Paix - Rennes
Mouvement pour une Alternative Non-violente
NATO Alert Network France
Pax Christi France
RΘseau 56 Sortir du NuclΘaire
Stop Essais pour l'Abolition des armes nuclΘaires
Syndicat National de l'Enseignement Secondaire
Union DΘmocratique Bretonne
Union des Femmes Franτaises Femmes Solidaires
Union des Juifs pour la RΘsistance et l'Entraide
Union Nationale des RetraitΘs et Personnes AgΘes
Union Pacifiste de France
(les) Verts
City of Saintes, France
City of Les Gonds, France

___________________________________________________________________



NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IN VARIABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.  AND IS IT A WOODEN SWORD?


From the right to the left, from Pierre Lelouche (RPR) to Paul Quiles
(PS), everyone is demanding a discussion about nuclear deterrence.  We,
NGOs of the Abolition 2000 network, have known well for a long time the
menace of the American national missile defense (NMD), and, indeed,
prior to the sheep-like vote of Parliament on the Legislation of
Military Programming.


The problems of nuclear deterrence

This was born with the declaration of President De Gaulle in November
1959: "Since France might possibly face ruin, from any point in the
world, our Army must have an instant readiness to respond anywhere".
Consequently, deterrence relies on two dogmas and one practical
strategy:
  1)   Only nuclear arms are in charge of defending "France's vital
interests."
  2)   Strategic nuclear forces are to deter the major nuclear powers (a
strategy of "from weakness to
  strength"), and since it's impossible to limit them to gradual
counter-attacks within military or battle
  zones, the targets are exclusively civilian.

In practice, and in keeping with policy, these targets were all situated
in the Soviet Union.  The end of the nuclear arms race between the two
super powers, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the pitiful state of
its nuclear arsenal, has shaken these grand certainties.  Two camps have
formed:  that with the false belief that things have changed to where
one can lower one's guard, and that which has invented another
adversary, the "rogue states" (this term comes from the pen of Deputy
Lecanuet, in proposing the strategy of deterrence of strength to
weakness (or to madness).  This struggle has continued along with its
typical truisms, "one never knows" or "that which always serves."  It
was the Prime Minister who actually, on October 22, 1999, finally
admitted that the "emperor has no clothes" when he said, "Our land,
which has no declared enemy or aggressive designs or hostility toward
anyone, wields a powerful stature in the service of the world's
prosperity and security."  And what does that mean?  Nothing has
changed, deterrence against persons endures as a "deterrence machine"
which keeps going just in case (in case of what?  Who knows?).



AND IS NUCLEAR DETERRENCE OBSOLETE?

 It is the current thesis of the American administration that the
principle of "mutual assured destruction," long considered fundamental
to American nuclear deterrence, is without purpose: "it is over."  But,
given that its hegemonous situation is temporary, and, considering,
moreover, that nuclear proliferation is nearly inescapable, the US wants
to change this into another, new deterrence combining missile defense
and offensive nuclear arms.

 Consequently, the actual number of nuclear warheads is excessive (and,
further, they are inappropriate), and unilaterally violates treaties,
particularly the ABM treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  This
"update" is from President Quiles in a March 28, 2001, interview: "..the
fact is that we know that in reality NMD does not mean  no more
deterrence."

  WHAT ALTERNATIVE SHOULD WE PROPOSE?

It's assumed that there's a clear response to the significance of "our
vital interests" and of the false and dangerous alternative of the  US'
missile defense. Those who trust our convictions know upon thorough
reflection that the army lies very close to "our vital interests."  If
these interests are our country's hope for survival, then the solution
is national military defense.  In fact, since the Third Republic, this
has never been the case - from 1870 to 1914, someone dissociated from
these vital interests proclaimed: 1- to protect ourselves against
Germany and to regain Alsace-Lorraine, 2- a need of daily military
activities, 3- to wage war in the colonies for the defense of economic
interests and enterprises. The result was Germany's uncontrolled
invasion facing a French army specially trained for guerilla combat.
This disassociation paid a high price in human lives, but our leaders
learned no lesson from this.

In these times, our rulers still dissociate "our vital interests" from
the daily functions of the armies, confident in this "Maginot Line" as
in 1940, but this schizophrenia is a conduit to disaster.  If we still
entrust our vital interests to nuclear deterrence, outside of a unique
strategy, isn't this a reoffense on the road toward disaster?  And if
our vital interests also include our survival, aren't peace and a
society without violence more just?

"To make progress towards disarmament, to build Europe's security and
defense, to consolidate an international system ruled by the standards
of law" are the official goals of France.   Even though underlying these
words there are important differences between the executive branch and
our
NGOs, can't one believe success is possible, since our interests don't
lie outside of those of other peoples, and since we are building another
security based on equal rights for all (under treaties), and on
cooperation without discrimination?

How can conflicts be defused if, behind the scenes, there are weapons of
mass destruction being developed exclusively intended for civilians?  If
France wants to be an example, why doesn't it follow the path of South
Africa, whose prestige and effectiveness in the service of peace
increased greatly after its decision to renounce nuclear weapons?


  Missile Defense

We do not allow mixing our voice with those anti-NMD concerns of
returning quickly to the "good old days" of nuclear deterrence, with the
survival of the planet at stake. We should not allow our anti-NMD
campaign to dissociate from the campaign FOR nuclear abolition.  It's
possible for us to establish our priorities for a unique campaign.  We
must convince the American people, the principle victims of this crazy
project, that those who will be on the missile defense's front line are
civilian targets that are not protected by a "shield" concentrated on
ballistic attack.  At the same time, there is a growing temptation to
use terrorism or miniature nuclear weapons ("mini-nukes") that would
pass under this shield.

We must convince the Americans one by one, that our goal of nuclear
abolition -  and the importance which must be accorded to treaties and
international law - are needed for their protection, security and
safety. We must base all our actions in France on that international
strategy without the loss of our autonomous view on the subject and
without slowing down our push to reject nuclear deterrence, a dying
concept. If the majority of American citizens comprehend that the
peoples of the world are not a threat, that they are their friends, then
Bush's project will be put in danger.


 BACK TO THE DARK AGES?


 We must be done with, not even think about, the idea that we don't need
emergency measures now.  We also must take care that while we eradicate
this insanity that's in the minds of our rulers, that a new form of
unspeakable blackmail is not invented.  This is immense and difficult,
but who will carry it out if not our public opinion, and we in service
to it?

  Abraham Behar
  Association of French Doctors for the Prevention of Nuclear War

____________________________________________________________________________




 COMMENTS ON THE LEGISLATION FOR FRENCH MILITARY PROGRAMMING FOR
2003-2008

 A reading of the plan of the legislation for military programming for
2003-2008, adopted at the end of July by the Counsel of Ministers in
accord with the President of the Republic, raises these questions:  ôWhy
do these arms programs exist?  For what missions?  Against what
threats?  In the service of what national security? To build what
international security?  To prevent what conflicts?  To build a lasting
peace with what United Nations?ö

 The responses provided are not satisfactory.

Because we have a different conception about the security of France in
todayÆs world, we reject that ôthe renewal and modernization of nuclear
forces are the principle objectives of the next legislation for military
programming,ö as itÆs written.

 What threats?

 The threats brought up: trafficking, ethnic problems, proliferation,
terrorism - are problems labeled those requiring political choices: to
find a political solution, to ôsimply protectö against their
consequences, to contain them. This is what one will have with nuclear
arms, with ôLeclercö tanks, with missiles without restoring peace
instead of finding a way to prevent potential wars.  It is totally
incoherent to seek to create purely military solutions to these
ideological, cultural, social and political problems.

What international security?

The only thoughts concerned with international security in the document
presenting the legislation are those raised to support France
ôelaborating and consolidating the legal instruments indispensable to
control proliferation, by superiority and by arms reduction conforming
with the objectives of general and complete disarmament.ö

The second reference is the reminder that ôFrance is particularly
attached to enforcing the Charter of the United Nations and to
respecting the authority of the Security Counsel, guaranteeing peace and
international security.ö  These reminders are totally insufficient. What
is the value attached to ôlegal
instrumentsö next to ôthe renewal and modernization of nuclear forces
are the principle objectives of the next legislation for military
programmingö?

What is the value of the UN that Lionel Jospin proclaimed in his speech
in Rio de Janeiro when he said that it is the institution better adapted
for a globalized world that seeks permanently resolute action for his
reform - broadening and democratization of the Security Counsel, a
better role for the General Assembly, a place for the NGOs?  In the same
manner, to promote the central role of the UN does not assume the
cessation of delegitimization with the growing number of interventions
of non-multilateral structures like the G7, ôcontact groups,ö etc.

 Militarization for what security?

In fact, the main characteristic of the military programming legislation
is that all the large arms programs, nuclear or conventional, created
before the fall of the Berlin Wall, are now at almost half their
previous budgets.  The programs come out of the evolution of European
defense, the interventions of the Balkans, and are outmoded ôdinosaursö
that thus are given by this labyrinthine system 525 billion French
francs(80 billion euros) in six years, the equivalent of the previous
legislation (528 billion) and representing a small reduction from the
legislations of the years 1985-1990.

We need to see that France is in the process of completely renewing its
nuclear arsenal, not only maintaining its current level, but also
improving it.  ôThe primary, new part of this legislation is a renewed
 interest in promoting nuclear power,ö writes J.D. Merchet in the July
1, 2001 edition of  ôLiberation.ö

The nuclear programs are not at just a ôstrictly enoughö level as the
legislation proclaims, because today, ôstrictly enoughö refers to the
new crisis in international security. Faced with this, ôstrictly enoughö
deviates from mere stockpiling of weapons, and indirectly discourages
respect for disarmament treaties and non-proliferation treaties.
Lateral  ômodernizations,ö ôstuckö with enforcing Article VI of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, are the ingredients that would renew inciting
other statesÆ desires to jump into the nuclear arena.

How and when would one use atomic arms against threats today?  Did not
Minister Vedrine explain to the Americans at a meeting of NATO that the
NMD project is ineffective against terrorists carrying an atomic bomb or
chemical weapon in a suitcase?  The tragic attack in New York is a cruel
confirmation of that.  Is it not the same for French nuclear arms?

Even more serious, the legislation envisages the same direction of the
American so-called missile ôdefense,ö by announcing that ôFrance is
preparing by the year 2010 a new capacity to protect selected sites by
means of deploying an outside theater of operations, opposing ballistic
missiles.ö  Now, all the experts say that the missile defense projects
known as ôtheater are a forerunner or a ôTrojan Horseö of the American
global programs.

Time for Something New!

The legislation does not break with the old ways of military security.
It is not consistent with certain speeches on the prevention of
conflicts, such as real peace seeking, or on the place and role of the
UN, pledged by Lionel Jospin or Jacques Chirac.  The main fault of this
legislation is that it does not concretely advance the concept of a way
to put into place global security for France and Europe in todayÆs
world, for the prevention of conflicts, to integrate efforts favoring
peaceful cooperation, and helping sustainable development.  We do not
want to accept military programming legislation that does not also
discuss and define a true politic of global security, prevention of
conflicts, actions to control the sale of arms, and the reassertion of
the value of the UN.

 Daniel Durand
 National Secretary of the Peace Movement





- -
 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 Nov 2001 13:22:17 -0400
From: Patricia Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) DU

Who can answer this student's questions?

Patricia Watson, editor, Peacework

>Status:  U
>From: "Alex" <[e-mail]>
>To: <[e-mail]>
>Subject: DU
>Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:10:35 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
>
>    I am curious as to why the United States Military  insists on using DU
>in the battlefield.  It seems to me that these weapons  must be incredibly
>effective or the government would have stopped using  them.  Is there a
>viable military alternative to DU? If so, how effective  in comparison to
>DU would the alternative be? On a side note, it seems that  DU would only
>be dispersed in the battlefields of Iraq.  Do the people of  Iraq frequent
>these battlefields, for this seems to be the only logical  explination of
>how they get these diseases?  How much uranium does it take  to cause
>these kind of casualties/malformations?  Is there a  certain exposure
>time/level that needs to be attained before  these problems will occur? Is
>DU always 60% as radioactive as naturally  occuring uranium or is this
>just the "high" estimate?     Thanks so very much,   Alex King Student
>



- -
 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 #489
***********************************

-
 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.