Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.buyblue.org/ You may have voted blue, but every day you unknowingly help dump millions of dollars into the conservative war chest. By purchasing products and services from companies that donate heavily to conservatives, we have been compromising our own interests as liberals and progressives. --------------- http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: Ongoing Challenges By Michelle Ciarrocca Let's face it, despite President Bush acknowledging nuclear proliferation as the most serious threat facing U.S. security, under the guidance of the Bush Administration the situation has gotten worse, not better. The Bush administration's hands-off approach in dealing with Iran and North Korea to avoid "legitimizing" them has done more harm than good. As Michael Hirsh pointed out in Newsweek, Bush "sought to treat them as Ronald Reagan did the Soviet Union, ostracizing them and pushing for a transition to democracy. But as one official notes, even Reagan eventually did business with the leader of the 'Evil Empire.'" And with the recent nomination of John Bolton as the next ambassador to the United Nations, all talk of repairing relations abroad and pursuing a more diplomatic approach seems like a joke But now, more than ever, is a good time to take stock of the state of nuclear proliferation and the ongoing challenges facing the U.S., and the world. The NPT Review Conference is coming up at the UN in May. The 188 governments which have ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) meet every five years to assess the implementation of the treaty, and much has changed since the 2000 review conference. From North Korea's recent announcement that it has acquired nuclear weapons and its complete abandonment of the NPT to Iran's "noncompliance" and the snail-pace reductions between the U.S. and Russia, there will be no shortage of items to discuss during the upcoming review conference at the United Nations. There are eight countries with declared nuclear weapons: the U.S., Britain, France, China and Russia (all signatories of the NPT), India and Pakistan (both outside of the NPT) and now, North Korea (which walked away from the Treaty). Israel has nuclear weapons, but does not officially acknowledge them. IRAN To this day, despite Tehran's confirmation of an existing underground nuclear facility, Iran maintains its nuclear program is for peaceful means and is not geared towards the production of nuclear weapons. Ali Akbar Salehi, a nuclear affairs adviser to the foreign minister, told the Associated Press, "To protect the safety of equipment against possible danger of aerial attack, a major part of the plant has been constructed underground, especially where thousands of centrifuges need to be located." In line with the neo-conservative elements in the Bush administration, the U.S. has refused to hold direct talks with Tehran, and hard-liners are urging the IAEA to refer the issue to the UN Security Council with the hopes of placing sanctions on Iran. And while it has been widely reported that U.S. forces have been checking out potential targets in Iran, President Bush has said the U.S. is not planning to attack Iran, but has also said all military options are on the table. In recent statements, and in what would be an important policy shift, the Bush administration seems inclined to back European diplomatic initiatives, which would include economic and technological assistance. In an interview with NBC, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said, "I've had further discussions with my European colleagues, and we are designing, I think, an important common strategy with Europe so that Iran knows there is no other way." As George Perkovich from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace notes, "The possibility of U.S. trade and investment offers a most effective way to enhance Iranian decision-making. Instead of imposing sanctions, which have punished Iranians for 24 years, a better strategy would be to demonstrate the benefits of economic cooperation with the U.S." According to a nine-member bipartisan panel tasked with assessing the quality of intelligence concerning the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, data on Iran's weapons programs is inadequate. With the report due out at the end of the month, The New York Times reported that in "an effort to pre-empt any repeat of the experience in Iraq, where prewar American assertions about illicit weapons proved to be mistaken," members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have begun its own review into the quality of intelligence on Iran. Already, on FOX News, Vice President Dick Cheney is touting the report as "one of the most important things that's going forward today." NORTH KOREA Whereas President Bush's "Axis of Evil" label during his 2002 State of the Union address (and other policy changes) led to North Korea kicking UN inspectors out of the country and withdrawing from the NPT, Condi Rice's "outpost of tyranny" tag for North Korea during her confirmation hearing, is ruffling a few feathers. In a recent statement from Kim Jong Il, North Korea's reclusive leader said, "In response to the Bush administration's increasingly hostile policy.. we have manufactured nuclear weapons for self-defense." North Korea has also threatened to resume testing of its long-range missiles, despite a moratorium that's been in place since the Clinton administration, and has said it will not resume six-nation talks. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan dismissed the nuclear declaration as empty rhetoric, and said the U.S. remains committed to the six-party talks and to a peaceful diplomatic resolution with North Korea. But while the Bush administration repeatedly states it has no intention of attacking or invading North Korea, the administration has been reluctant to put forth any new diplomatic solutions - an ongoing point of contention with North Korea. "We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation in the talks for an indefinite period till we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks and there are ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results from the talks," the North Korean Foreign Ministry said. In past talks, North Korea said it would be willing to halt its plutonium program as a first step in dismantling it. But does Pyongyang mean what it says? As Leon Sigal from the Social Science Research Council rightly states, "The surest way to find out is sustained diplomatic give-and-take. Pyongyang isn't asking for much. It wants to exchange 'words for words' and 'action for action.' It wants Washington to commit now to normalize relations and give it written assurances not to attack it, impede its economic development, or overthrow its government." US DOUBLE STANDARDS As Richard Butler, former head of the UN Special Commission to Disarm Iraq, rightly notes, "The Bush Administration has not only refused to adhere to its obligation under the treaty and the additional promise of 2000, but has now embarked on what is anathema under the treaty - the production of a new generation of nuclear weapons ... It beggars belief that the Administration appears to believe it can succeed in restraining Iran while it proceeds to violate its obligations." The administration's 2006 Department of Energy budget is proof enough of the priorities within the Bush administration. According to the Center for Defense Information, the overall DOE budget decreased by 2%, yet funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration rose by $233 million. The good news is that funding for nuclear nonproliferation portion increased by 15.1%, the bulk of which will go to eliminating weapons-grade plutonium production in Russia. There was also an increase in funding to the Global Threat Reduction Initiative ($93.8 million in 2005, $98 million in 2006) - these funds are for cases like Libya where nonproliferation and dismantlement funding is urgently required. On the down side, funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or "bunker buster" which was successfully cancelled in the 2005 budget, has reappeared in the 2006 budget at $4 million. The Bush administration plans to spend $26 million over the next two years to complete a study on the bunker buster. And additional funding of $7.68 million was requested to enhance testing and weapons production capabilities. SEE LINK BELOW Another sticking point in negotiations over nuclear proliferation is U.S. policy towards Israel. Administration officials rarely acknowledge Israel's nuclear weapons and the affect that has on the region. Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud Faisal told Newsweek, "Iran is always mentioned but no one mentions Israel, which has [nuclear] weapons already." He went on to note, "We wish the international community would enforce the movement to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone," an issue which Arab countries have said will be discussed at the upcoming NPT review conference. It's time to face the reality that nuclear weapons are ill suited to defend the U.S. against the most pressing and likely threats - terrorists. Furthermore, if the U.S. insists on maintaining the nuclear arsenal of the past and creating new nuclear weapons for the future, other countries will certainly presume this is the only path to follow. The fact is we can't have it both ways, the double standard of "do as I say, not as I do" must stop. With the increasing costs of the war in Iraq, one of the most compelling arguments for a change in U.S. nuclear policy may come down to funding and potential trade-offs within the Defense Department. "We spend over $6.5 billion a year baby-sitting an arsenal of nuclear weapons," says David Hobson (OH-R) who sits on the House Appropriations Committee and led the campaign to slash funding for new nuclear weapons in last years budget. He continues, "That's a lot of money in the current environment, when we don't have enough money for armor for kids on the ground in Iraq ... And we spend less than $500 million a year helping to secure weapons-grade nuclear material overseas to make sure it is not stolen and smuggled into our country." The upcoming NPT review conference provides the perfect opportunity to put all of these issues on the table, and more importantly, to come up with viable, practical solutions. While the NPT itself provides a commitment to nuclear disarmament from its signatories, a new report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has provided a more comprehensive approach for all nations. The report calls for a tougher international policy to deter the spread of nuclear weapons, and puts new demands on declared and undeclared nuclear states alike. The study recommendations include: state that withdraw from the NPT should be barred from legally using nuclear assets, NPT members should suspend nuclear cooperation with countries not certified by the UN as complying with non-proliferation obligations, the five declared nuclear powers must disavow development of new nuclear weapons and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and India, Pakistan and Israel should accept all nonproliferation obligations accepted by the five declared nuclear states. LINK BELOW TAKE ACTION - from Peace Action Contact your members of Congress: No Means NO on new Nukes! Like a petulant teen who is told that he cannot use the car and then tries to sneak the keys off the hook when the adults aren't looking, George Bush is trying to get our tax dollars to build new nuclear weapons. Last fall, Congressional Republicans and Democrats came together to eliminate all money for new nuclear weapons. It's rare in Washington these days for politicians from both sides of the aisle to come together, putting aside partisan politics, to do what's right for the country and the world. However, both Republican and Democrats found (after being reminded by people like us) that the Bush policy of planning to build new nuclear weapons, after starting a war in the name of stopping nuclear proliferation, so hypocritical that they came together to put an end to Bush's dangerous folly. However, Bush does not understand that No means NO. In the 2006 Federal Budget that Bush submitted in February, Bush has tried to pull a fast one and restore the funds for new nukes. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) is leading the effort to maintain the bipartisan momentum towards common sense that the House built last fall. Congress needs to hear from you. Tell your representatives to tell the President, "No means NO on new nukes!" Please take action by using our direct email connection to your congressional representative. Go to: http://hq.demaction.org RESOURCES: Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2005. Nuclear Arms Control: The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, from the Congressional Research Service, January 21, 2005. Overview of FY 2006 Department of Energy Request, from the Center for Defense Information, February 23, 2005. BOLTON John Bolton as UN Ambassador?, Village Voice, Ward Harkavy, March 8, 2005. Bush Appoints Right-Wing Extremist to UN Post, Interpress News Service, Jim Lobe, March 7, 2005. ______________ The Arms Trade Resource Center was established in 1993 to engage in public education and policy advocacy aimed at promoting restraint in the international arms trade. _____________________________ Note: This message comes from the peace-justice-news e-mail mailing list of articles and commentaries about peace and social justice issues, activism, etc. If you do not regularly receive mailings from this list or have received this message as a forward from someone else and would like to be added to the list, send a blank e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or you can visit: http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news Go to that same web address to view the list's archives or to unsubscribe. E-mail accounts that become full, inactive or out of order for more than a few days will be deleted from this list. FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the information in this e-mail is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law.
