Abolition 2000 Report Card for 2003
Here There Be Dragons – Nuclear Politics Writ Large in the Unknowne Waters of the Post 9/11 World – Includes Course Corrections for a Nuclear-Free World
Janet Bloomfield and Pamela S. Meidell
United Nations Day
October 24, 2003
In the early days of European exploration and colonization, nautical maps often bore the image of a sea serpent, or the words “Here There Be Dragons,” over those sections that remained unknown to the mapmaker. We have invoked this image for our report this year because day by day we seem to be travelling deeper and deeper into the unknown. Even Hungarian Ambassador to the UN, Laszlo Molnar, speaking to NGOs in Geneva in May as the chair of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting, characterized this year’s proceedings by announcing, “we are entering uncharted waters.”
Some Questions of Orientation
Where are the dragons that the old mapmakers drew on sailing maps at the beginning of the European Age of Exploration and Colonization? They live in the “unknowne” lands, unknown because no one has yet been there to survey the area and report back. We can view those “unknowne” lands as the various futures we may be facing. Many people have put themselves forward as captains of our vessels – primarily the political leaders of the developed world, and more specifically, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states. (Let us hope they are not the Admiral Clowdisley Shovells of our day).[1] But who are our navigators? More importantly, who are the mapmakers? Last but not least, who or what are our dragons?
We don’t have to invoke the image of dragons to inspire fear in people these days. There’s plenty of that to go around in the world we know. Some people would say that today’s “dragons” are terrorists, or religious fundamentalists, or even nuclear weapons themselves. But like many symbols, dragons can be interpreted and understood in various ways. Classically in the West, we have feared dragons and tried to slay them. The Western tradition tells variations on the story of St. George rushing off to kill the dragon; thus liberating the treasure hoards the dragon guards deep in the hearts of mountains.[2] In the traditions of the East, however, dragons are creatures of transformation, literally embodying all the elements of earth, air, fire and water. In the only known map on the planet[3] that spells out the legendary phrase, the dragons appear on the East Coast of Asia. So perhaps it is a different species of dragon that we seek. But whether we envision them as threatening or magnificent or something else altogether, we still need courage to face the dragons of our world, and to set forth for the “unknowne landes.”
Facing Our Current Reality: Its Nuclear Underpinnings
We definitely need courage to face the nuclear reality of our world. Fifty-eight years into the Nuclear Age, we are still discovering the consequences of opening the atom and unleashing the nuclear fire. Do we really need to be reminded of nuclear weapons’ genocidal monstrosity?[4] If the answer is yes, then all we have to do is look at the Trident fleets of the US and UK. They hold the ability to destroy billions of lives with their 22 submarines[5] carrying the equivalent of 21,670 Hiroshima bombs. Ten of these submarines prowl the world’s oceans 24 hours a day, 365 days a year armed and ready to fire… Yet, in the past year, the people of the world have been asked to contemplate the horror of only one country, Iraq, and it’s development of “weapons of mass destruction.” We have been rushed into war over weapons that UN inspectors and the US military occupation of Iraq have failed to locate. Even the term “weapons of mass destruction” blurs the terrible distinctions between deadly chemical and biological weapons and the most terrible weapons of all: nuclear weapons. The hypocrisy of the Blair and Bush governments over weapons of mass destruction, which countries have them, and what they are prepared to do about it, epitomizes the depths to which we have sunk in our political discourse.
Why Should We Care About the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? A Primer
For the past year, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), though largely unmentioned, has provided the context for the debate and action about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The people of the world have watched as the drama of impending war played out on a daily basis in the Security Council of the United Nations. Just what have we been watching? We have been watching nuclear politics writ large on the world stage. Why “nuclear politics writ large?” For one, the permanent members of the Security Council of the UN – the ones with veto power – are none other than the five nuclear weapons powers named in the NPT: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the few international treaties that the US dearly wants to maintain.[6] Although this treaty has barely received the coverage of the Kyoto Protocol, or the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, or the International Criminal Court, the NPT governs the policies related to Iraq and all the nuclear activities that have been scrutinized by the world community for the last year. Because Iraq has signed the treaty, it is required to admit inspectors into the country. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, so successfully obscured from public view, and signed now by more countries than any other treaty (188), also sets the terms for the current debates about Iran and North Korea.
The entire world should be concerned about all countries, including Iraq, Iran or North Korea, constructing nuclear weapons. However, the country that is complaining the loudest (the US) would do well to remember its own promises under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What are those terms? To disarm and get rid of its nuclear weapons.[7] The original, central agreement of the treaty was brokered between countries that had nuclear weapons (the “nuclear nations” at the time the treaty was negotiated – the US, the UK, Russia, and later France and China) and the countries that did not have nuclear weapons (the “non-nuclear nations”). In the late 1960s, the fear that nuclear weapons would spread beyond the five countries that then had them loomed large in the mind of the world’s people. The world’s governments wanted to limit and eliminate humanity’s capacity for the unimaginable destruction of nuclear holocaust. Therefore, the nuclear nations promised to get rid of their nuclear weapons in exchange for the non-nuclear nations (most of the rest of the world) agreeing not to acquire nuclear weapons. In foreswearing nuclear weapons, the majority of the world’s countries also received the guarantee of access to so-called “peaceful uses” of nuclear technology. Thus were born the three “pillars” of the NPT:
Most of the debate we have all witnessed this past year has concerned non-proliferation and peaceful use. But what about disarmament? Have the nuclear weapons states kept their promises? No, they have not. They have not disarmed. At the end of 2002, the US still retained over 10,000 nuclear weapons; Russia over 8,000, France nearly 350, the UK 200, and China nearly 400.[8]
Every five years since the NPT became law in 1970, countries gather to assess whether or not the treaty obligations are being upheld, the very substance of the issues that have appeared this past year on the front pages of the world’s newspapers. The next review of the treaty will take place in 2005. Earlier this spring [2003], 106 (of the 188) signatory countries, and 37 citizen groups, met in Geneva to prepare for this 2005 meeting. Given the importance of these issues with respect to Iraq, why didn’t we hear more about it? If the world, and the press, had been watching and listening, what would they have seen and heard?
For one thing, they would have heard US Assistant Secretary of State John S. Wolf declare, “...statements must be backed up with political resolve to confront those who undermine nuclear non-proliferation and to take direct action to strengthen the barriers against possible future offenders. There must be serious consequences for those who violate their NPT commitments.”[9] None there doubted that Mr. Wolf was talking about Iran. That the US has pursued this line of thinking and acting can be seen daily in the world’s newspapers.
Meanwhile, Malaysia, speaking for the 116 non-aligned nations who have signed the treaty, argued that Iran is complying with its treaty obligations: it is opening its facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the body charged under the treaty to conduct them. In fact, under the treaty, Iran is required to admit inspectors every year, and so it has. While Iran may be violating the terms of the treaty, at least the world can witness the debate and support the call for more transparency. (Three of the world’s nuclear weapons states – Israel, India, and Pakistan – have not signed the NPT, and therefore no IAEA inspectors will darken the doors of any of their nuclear facilities in the near future). The recent meeting in Geneva put on the table an “additional protocol,” which would require countries without nuclear weapons to submit to more intrusive and frequent inspections of their facilities, known as challenge inspections, at the request of the IAEA. All the while, the nuclear weapons countries need not open any of their facilities for any inspections. And why is that? Because their part of the bargain was to abolish their nuclear weapons.
Are they fulfilling their part? The US says that it is. At the 2000 NPT Review meeting, the US even mounted an elaborate exhibit in the halls of the United Nations to demonstrate to the assembled delegates and citizens how it was complying with Article VI, the nuclear disarmament obligations of the treaty. What was the response? A blizzard of post-it notes by the assembled international community, with mocking rebuttals of US arguments, had to be removed at the end of each day lest the exhibit be completely covered over by the meeting’s end.
So when Mr. Bush says, “the US and its allies will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran,” it would behoove him to remember the US treaty obligations that require the US to get rid of its nuclear weapons. Instead of taking its NPT obligations seriously, the US has implemented an aggressive new foreign and nuclear policy. Under the Bush administration, the US has adopted an updated Nuclear Posture Review articulating a new policy of pre-emptive first use, is developing a new class of nuclear weapons, and is building a new facility[10] to increase by ten times its production of plutonium pits (the heart of a nuclear weapon). This treaty is also in grave danger from the withdrawal of countries like North Korea, and the actions of countries like Iran. Since the meeting in Geneva in May, a number of initiatives and statements have taken place that indicate that the US and the UK have decided that this treaty no longer serves their current purposes and goals. The following developments all show that counter-proliferation and pre-emption are now the operating policies of most of the long-established nuclear weapons states:
The “unequivocal undertaking” to get rid of their nuclear stockpiles, promised by the nuclear weapons states at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, and their assent to the agreements articulated in the 13 Points,[16] ring more hollow with every passing day.
The War on Terrorism and the Need to Be Safe
How can we illuminate the obscured relationship of nuclear weapons to today’s pervasive realities? More precisely, how are nuclear weapons and policies related to the Bush Administration’s War on Terrorism? In the days of the Cold War, the world lived in the shadow of two nuclear giants, the United States and the Soviet Union. Ordinary people were expendable and held hostage to nuclear terror. Governments used violence and the imagery of violence to act on people’s imaginations, using people’s worst fears to create a climate of fear to control the political discourse of the world. Today, the terrorists and the Bush administration, fear-mongers both, do the same. The Project for the New American Century, and its supporters, and al-Qaida, and its affiliates, mirror each other in their callous lack of compassion. Terrorists have continued to use the most brutal and cruel means to gain attention and foment violence: car bombs, rocket launchers and – most horrible of all – suicide bombers, now being called homicide bombers because of the civilian death tolls they create. Yet by responding with more violence, the abuse of civil liberties, and the marginalization of dissent, the governments who claim to be fighting a “war on terror” on behalf of their peoples are not addressing the root of the problem: peoples’ need and longing to be safe.
Sadly, two years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, we do not feel more safe. Terrorists and governments, with the collusion of the media, continue to use fear to oppress and repress people. Was it a coincidence that the head of MI5 (British Intelligence Service) made a rare public speech about the threat of a “dirty bomb” in London at the same time that former UK Cabinet Ministers, Robin Cook and Clare Short, were giving evidence to the Select Committee investigating the veracity of the UK government’s claims over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Why were tanks parked outside Heathrow Airport because of an unspecified terrorist threat just before the February 15 demonstration against the war? In the United States, just what events will activate the terrorist alerts “Code Red, Orange, and Yellow” keeping people in a state of constant anxiety? In both the US and the UK, investigations are underway regarding the government’s use of intelligence in the prelude to the war. The emerging common theme is the false or exaggerated nature of the intelligence, often stemming from dubious sources. Uranium from Niger, the ability of the Saddam Hussein regime to unleash weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, the links between Iraq and al-Qaida all have one thing in common: they were used to frighten a reluctant public into supporting a war they didn’t want.
As Madeleine Albright wrote in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs (September/October 2003): “Defeating al-Qaida would not end the problem of proliferation, because al-Qaida is deadly even without nuclear, chemical, and biological arms. But, meanwhile, the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran are driven by nationalism, not terrorism, and must be dealt with primarily on that basis. September 11, the administration’s ‘eureka’ moment, caused it to lump together terrorists and rogue regimes and to come up with a prescription for fighting them – namely, pre-emption – that frightens and divides the world at precisely the moment US security depends on bringing people together.”
Recapturing the Imaginations of the People
What will bring people together? The “unknowne” lands surround us, giving glimpses into our alternative futures. What visions beckon us? Everywhere we turn life seems surreal and out of control. We are overwhelmed with information, much of it peripheral to our concerns. Or so it seems. Michael Moore, in accepting an academy award for his documentary, Bowling for Columbine, said that the world seems more like fiction every day.
To return to reality, we need only remember what thrust us into uncharted waters in the first place: the act of releasing nuclear power and using nuclear weapons. If we face the reality of the destruction, we will remember that holding this vision in front of us is what gave birth to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We wanted to limit and eliminate humanity’s capability for unimaginable destruction. That sober assessment, and the collective action that we took together as a world community, is now in danger of being unraveled by the pre-emptive policies of the Bush administration. The American Heritage Dictionary defines terror as “A policy of violence aiming to achieve or maintain supremacy.” Unbelievably, this administration is using the fear of nuclear terrorist attack to keep its own nuclear weapons and to create new ones.
The undeclared War on Terrorism has planted seeds of fear and destruction around the world and given rise to draconian laws that give the US the right to act with impunity.[17] This “war” unveils an unending and naked struggle for power; but hidden in its ferocity lies the seeds of its antidote. Images of terror show us cascading scenes of destruction and fragmentation, a reality that we experience in our daily lives in less intense ways. How can we recapture our imaginations from this awful nightmare? How can we draw deeply from our collective wisdom and the best of ourselves to chart our path? If we have no maps, how do we find our way? What tools of navigation do we use? We know that without vision the people perish. Without navigators, people perish as well (witness Sir Clowdisley Shovell…). In these uncharted waters, our navigators may be the visionaries and dreamers of our world.
Mayors for Peace: “Never Again!”
As we go to press [Oct. 2003], the Mayor of Hiroshima, Tadatoshi Akiba, is in New Delhi, calling on President Pervez Musharref of Pakistan and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India to meet on the “neutral” ground of Hiroshima to see for themselves the consequences of nuclear weapons use.[18] He is making good on his call to action, issued in April in Geneva, and again in Hiroshima on August 6, to the leaders of all nuclear weapons states to come to Hiroshima to confront the reality of nuclear war. His call is an invitation to all – citizens, institutions, and governments – to take action to make real the cry of the hibakusha:[19] “Never again!” His statement to the assembled crowds in August remains imperative:
“This year again, summer’s heat reminds us of the blazing hell fire that swept over this very spot fifty-eight years ago. The world without nuclear weapons and beyond war that our hibakusha have sought for so long appears to be slipping deeper into a thick cover of dark clouds that they fear at any minute could become mushroom clouds spilling black rain.
The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the central international agreement guiding the elimination of nuclear weapons, is on the verge of collapse. The chief cause is U.S. nuclear policy that, by openly declaring the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear first strike and calling for resumed research into mini-nukes and other so-called “useable nuclear weapons,” appears to worship nuclear weapons as God.
… The aging hibakusha are calling for U.S. President George Bush to visit Hiroshima. We all support that call and hereby demand that President Bush, Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea, and the leaders of all nuclearweapon states come to Hiroshima and confront the reality of nuclear war.
At the same time, Hiroshima calls on politicians, religious professionals, academics, writers, journalists, teachers, artists, athletes, and other leaders with influence. We must establish a climate that immediately confronts even casual comments that appear to approve of nuclear weapons or war. To prevent war and to abolish the absolute evil of nuclear weapons, we must pray, speak, and act to that effect in our daily lives.”
Walking Away from Nuclear Weapons
Another courageous visionary, Sir Joseph Rotblat, turned his back on nuclear weapons at the very beginning of the Nuclear Age, the only scientist to walk away from the Manhattan Project. When he spoke to diplomats and citizens in Geneva during the NPT Preparatory Committee meeting, he laid out a different way of looking at fear and our desire to be safe. He reminded us that we are all “primarily human beings anxious to provide security for our near and dear ones.” He said he felt sorry for all of us attending the NPT meeting – “You have a Herculean task,” he said, “but you must do it. We can’t afford a polarized world.” He also expressed his hope that a force will arise within the US itself to reject the policies of a highjacked administration. He reminded us that a rich and powerful nation can be compassionate instead of greedy, generous instead of jealous, can use persuasion rather than force, and equity rather than oppression. He expressed his belief that the American people would not accept a “fundamentally immoral nuclear policy.” When a member of the official US delegation agreed with Sir Rotblat, Rotblat replied, “You are now going in the opposite direction.” Fifty-eight years ago, Joseph Rotblat changed his direction. He had the conscience and intelligence and heart to make a radical course correction, and walk away from nuclear arms.
Construction Not Destruction
The poison fires breathed by the dragons of nuclear devastation still burn in our world. Inside of us lie the dragons of self-destruction, while across the planet, dragons of nuclear destruction roam the landscape. How can we, like Joseph Rotblat, walk away? How do we re-orient our resources toward positive and creative construction, instead of destruction? To take a current example, just look at Iraq. Images of car bombs and smoke fill our news broadcasts daily. But looking further back from today’s headlines, even further back than the Gulf War and the regime of Saddam Hussein, we find images of beauty and imagination, literal images of construction, not destruction. In 1957, the great architect Frank Lloyd Wright, then in his early 90s, went to Baghdad at the invitation of King Faisal to design a new civic center.[20] What he created may be a navigation tool for the uncharted waters of our post-9/11 world. Since childhood, Wright had been beguiled by the stories of the Arabian Nights, and he allowed them to shape his designs. He drew, too, on the splendor and historical greatness of the renowned Baghdad built in the 8th century by Caliph Abbassid al-Mansur. Once in Baghdad, Wright did not limit himself to the civic center: he was so inspired that he completed a plan for rebuilding the entire city.
“[This project] is a great opportunity [to] demonstrate that we’re not destructive but constructive where the original forces that built the civilizations of the world are concerned.”
Frank Lloyd Wright, writing about his Baghdad project[21]
Wright’s drawings, though never built, remain a powerful vision. According to Mina Marefat, Rockefeller Fellow in Islamic Studies at the Library of Congress’s Kluge Center: “The significance of the Frank Lloyd Wright drawings is that they show such profound respect for the very cultural heritage to which the West is supposed to be hostile… The prospect of a Baghdad rebuilt to mirror that greatness could be a profoundly inspiring and healing vision.”[22] In the mire of violence, suspicion, and chaos that is today’s Iraq, Frank Lloyd Wright’s vision is a clarion call to chart another path.
In our efforts to abolish nuclear weapons, we are drawing new designs, new maps for the world we want to inhabit. Not even our visionary navigators know what lies beyond those places marked: Here There Be Dragons. Guided by Frank Lloyd Wright’s drawings to unleash our own imaginations, allying ourselves with Joseph Rotblat’s hope that a force will arise within the US to reject the policies of a highjacked administration, we can take up the actions proclaimed by Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba wherever we are. Discovering and illuminating these unknown lands and waters together, we will bring about the nuclear-free world that we all long for, a world of hope, not fear, for future generations.
“…the proper path for human civilization is illumined by the spirit of reconciliation born of the hibakusha’s determination that ‘no one else should ever suffer as we did.’”
from Mayor of Hiroshima, Tadatoshi Akiba’s August 6 [2003] speech
“And your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”
Acts 2:17
“In dreams begin responsibilities.”
William Butler Yeats
“… a rich and powerful nation can be compassionate instead of greedy, generous instead of jealous, can use persuasion rather than force, and equity rather than oppression.”
Sir Joseph Rotblat, 1995 Nobel Peace Laureate, giving the Linus Pauling Memorial lecture in May 2003, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland
Course Corrections for a Nuclear-Free World
“In multilateral [forums] there is no discussion, let alone negotiations, on nuclear weapons. They are present on many bilateral agendas. Just open a newspaper. There one finds articles on the potential threat of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program … of a decade ago; on North Korea’s nuclear aspirations; on Iran as a possible nuclear threat. But there is next to nothing on the real, existing arsenals of the eight nuclear weapons states.”
Former Mexican Ambassador to the UN Miguel Marin Bosch, speaking at the 53rd Pugwash Conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in July 2003, noting the lack of progress in all areas of arms control and disarmament
We agree with Señor Miguel Marin Bosch. The nuclear weapons states themselves are the big problem. As expressed in the original Abolition 2000 statement, “A world free of nuclear weapons is a shared aspiration of humanity. This goal cannot be achieved in a non-proliferation regime that authorizes the possession of nuclear weapons by a small group of states.” Yet, in 2003, this nuclear apartheid is more abiding than ever.
How close are we to a nuclearfree world? In the year 2003, not very. Yet, every October on United Nations Day, we persist in reviewing the year and producing a report that tries to answer just that question. From 1996 to 2001, we used the criteria set out in the Abolition 2000 Founding Statement and its accompanying Moorea Declaration.[23] In 2002, we recognized that the world’s governments had taken up much of this agenda with the 13 points agreed at the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference of 2000. But they left out some important parameters. As in 2002, so as not to lose these helpful measurements, we identify the six missing points and offer an assessment relating to them for 2003.
“Immediately make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.”
#2 of the Abolition 2000 Statement
Sadly, more overt and covert threats to use nuclear weapons have been delivered in the last twelve months than at any time since the beginning of the Nuclear Age in 1945. As the Bush administration deepens its aggressive nuclear posture, the UK and NATO are expected to follow suit. British Secretary of State for Defense Geoff Hoon (MP) has already indicated that, like the US, the UK reserves “the right to use appropriate proportionate responses which might… in extreme circumstances include the use of nuclear weapons.”[24]
Recommendation: Bring the pre-emptive, first-use doctrine of the new US nuclear policy to the International Court of Justice under the terms of its landmark 1996 Advisory Opinion on the threat or use of nuclear weapons.[25]
“Subject all weapons-usable radioactive materials and nuclear facilities in all states to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards, and establish a public international registry of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.”
#6 of the Abolition 2000 Statement
World concerns and controversy about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq could have given birth to a widespread recognition that essential to everyone’s security is full and equal transparency by all states with respect to their nuclear materials and facilities. Unfortunately, the endemic secrecy of the nuclear weapons states still prevents something as simple as a comprehensive international inventory of nuclear materials. The double standard between the established nuclear weapons states and those aspiring to become nuclear weapons states becomes more and more glaring.
Recommendation: Begin immediate work on, and complete, an international inventory of nuclear materials, possibly under the auspices of the IAEA, or other international body with a mandate for such work. Increase the budgets of the IAEA and other bodies charged with monitoring and reporting on the activities of states with nuclear facilities in line with the increased tasks being placed upon them. We call on all states to sign the additional protocols to the NPT, most especially the five nuclear weapons states as defined in the treaty, sometimes known as the P5.[26]
“Create additional Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZ) such as those established by the treaties of Tlatelolco and Rarotonga.”
#8 of the Abolition 2000 Statement
Progress has been slow on the finalization of the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (CANWFZ) covering the countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. This zone will cover the crucial area of Central Asia that has played such a pivotal part in the “Great Game” of imperial and superpower ambitions for centuries. We welcome and support the efforts of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean[27] for the convening of an International Conference of the Parties to Nuclear Weapons Free Zones.
Recommendation: Central Asian states urgently finalize the CANWFZ treaty and the nuclear weapons states then sign the protocols. In addition, all nuclear weapons states sign the protocols for the existing NWFZ treaties; all relevant states sign and ratify the NWFZ pertaining to their region. Continue the efforts, led by Brazil and New Zealand, for a Southern Hemisphere Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, linking most of the current zones and extending them to include the marine environment. Create new NWFZs in the Middle East, South Asia, Northeast Asia, and Central Europe as well as Central Asia.
“Establish an international energy agency to promote and support the development of sustainable and environmentally safe energy sources.”
#10 of the Abolition 2000 Statement
The French nuclear industry was at risk during this summer’s record heat in Europe, ironically from that same heat source the nuclear-dependent states[28] refuse to invest in: the sun. Sadly, US imperial policies continue to support resource-prospecting and resource-extracting expeditions in the geographies of limited fossil fuels and natural gas such as Iraq, parts of Africa, Central Asia, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, the California coastline, and other areas of the American West.
Recommendation: Immediately make renewable energy a top priority and increase investment in renewable energy across the board. Government investment at international, regional, national and local levels, tax breaks for users, and more assertive marketing would all help to reach the “tipping point” where renewables become the energy source of choice. Nuclear power is still being promoted as an answer to global warming. Its huge cost, plus its proliferation and environmental risks, far outweigh any benefits. It should be phased out.
The wisdom of such a choice, and the folly of continuing to choose nuclear energy, became starkly apparent in August when British Nuclear Fuels announced that Sellafield’s Thorp reprocessing operation will be closed by 2010. Paul Brown reported in The Guardian on August 26, 2003, that, “the £1.8bn works, which opened only nine years ago, and once hailed as the savior (sic) of the British nuclear industry with its promise of producing limitless electricity throughout the 21st century,” will become a nuclear waste disposal company. “The days of reprocessing spent fuel to produce plutonium and uranium for potential reuse are numbered.”
This is the most significant announcement of the year for those who wish to see an end to nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Reality has bitten the heart of the nuclear enterprise with the recognition that the production of plutonium and uranium is a literal dead end.
“Create mechanisms to ensure the participation of citizens and NGOs in planning and monitoring the process of nuclear weapons abolition.”
#11 of the Abolition 2000 Statement
On February 15, 2003, the world witnessed the most extraordinary manifestation of people power in history. Showing active citizenship at its most dramatic, over 10 million people demonstrated worldwide for peace. The impulse that led to this outbreak shows a deep desire for democratic participation that cannot be contained by our current systems of governance. Open accountable dialogue between citizens and decision-makers is essential for the health of our body politic.
Recommendation: Increase citizen involvement in the nuclear decision- making process by requiring all states to include NGO representatives in their delegations to future NPT Preparatory Committee Meetings and Review Conferences. Bring the issue of nuclear abolition to other regional and international arenas, including bilateral talks between the nuclear weapons states. Continue to develop mechanisms to make the nuclear weapons states more accountable to their treaty obligations and to their citizens. Encourage basic nuclear knowledge and awareness, plus deeper understanding of the nuclear issue and its connections to other global concerns by supporting disarmament and non-proliferation education for every age group.
“Colonized and indigenous peoples have, in the large part, borne the brunt of … nuclear devastation. … [Therefore], indigenous and colonized peoples must be central… in decisions relating to the nuclear weapons cycle and especially in the abolition of nuclear weapons in all aspects. The inalienable right to self-determination, sovereignty and independence is crucial in allowing all peoples of the world to join in the common struggle to rid the planet forever of nuclear weapons.”
Excerpt from The Moorea Declaration of 1997
In using the term “decolonization” here, we remember the admonition of Gabriel Tetiarahi, our Maohi colleague in French-occupied Polynesia, to “Decolonize your minds!” We assert that the planet has been colonized by the nuclear enterprise and those responsible for it, since nuclear activities were undertaken in secret and therefore without consultation and the consent of the people. Since the beginning of the Nuclear Age, the nuclear weapons states have tested their weapons on indigenous and colonized land. Although Russia, China, and France have closed their test sites, they have not provided for the restoration of the land or its peoples. The US and Britain still retain use of the US nuclear test site in Nevada. The traditional guardians of that land, the Western Shoshone, have recently filed suit to confirm title in over 60 million acres of land and to determine royalties from use of the land, estimated to exceed $100 billion.[29]
Recommendation: Nuclear abolitionists must continue to deepen their understanding of the structures at work in the nuclear enterprise, as articulated by our indigenous partners. These partners are our teachers in decolonizing our minds. Their intimate experience has kept them awake to colonization and its implications for centuries, and to nuclear colonization since the dawn of the Nuclear Age. With them, we agree that decolonization and denuclearization must go hand in hand.
We recommend the following specific measures: Return Frenchoccupied Polynesia to the United Nations decolonization list. Add New Mexico to the decolonization list. Hold the nuclear weapons states, and other responsible parties, legally accountable for the human and environmental consequences of usurping land and resources for nuclear enterprises. Honor the sovereignty of indigenous peoples, and uphold treaties made with them. Support the efforts of local, affected, and indigenous peoples to restore the natural balance of their environments, and to preserve knowledge about nuclear materials for future generations. Decolonize our own minds and hearts.
A Matter of Time
Unless a breakthrough takes place soon in disarmament, we will face an acceleration of aggressive nuclear postures and an increase in the number of states acquiring nuclear weapons. The consequences will be disastrous for all of us. What can be done to concentrate minds and generate political will? Setting a deadline helped to create the momentum for a successful conclusion to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty negotiations in 1996. Time is not on our side with regard to the development and spread of nuclear weapons. By setting deadlines for the implementation of the 13 Points[30] agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, time could become our ally.
“Now a last surge of grief
at the fear of the unknown...
Let’s write our names on running water And see who can disappear first.”
Glenn Kangan Webb
Acknowledgements
With this 2003 edition of our annual report, Here There Be Dragons, we set sail into uncharted waters. The world is moving so quickly that our maps go out of date before they’re printed (even on the world wide web), our navigational tools are highly honed and technical but cannot prevent human error, and thus we seek navigators with lightning skills and creative flexibility. We dedicate this report to those navigators who have revealed themselves: all those who acted to prevent war in Iraq, the women of Code Pink, and the Poets Against the War, all of whom used imagination, creativity, and wit to resist the use of unilateral and preemptive violence. We have historical guides, too, who have particularly inspired us this year: the visionaries of the Polynesian Voyaging Society, who reclaimed and brought into the modern era, time-honored but nearly lost human skills for navigating the vast unknown waters of the Pacific. No slaves to longitude or time, they used the stars, their keen senses of observation, and the very hulls of their canoes to voyage through thousands of miles of moving territory to their island destinations. We look to them as literal and figurative guides for our current challenges.
Great thanks to many colleagues who journeyed with us through the many versions of this report, helping us to clarify our thoughts and our direction: Cathy Ludden and Eric Rothenberg, Laszlo Molnar, John Burroughs, Robin and Richard Bloomfield, Carol Naughton, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, Carmen Ramirez, and the intensivistas in the California Redwood Forest. The responsibility for the final form and content remains, of course, with us, the authors.
Production of Here There Be Dragons was made possible with financial support from the EarthWays Foundation, the Threshold Foundation, and the Ted Dunn Fund of the Institute for Law and Peace. Thank you! Previous report cards for 1996-2002, tracking annual progress toward a nuclear-free world, can be seen under “annual reports” on the Abolition 2000 website at www.abolition2000.org/reports/.
© 2003 The Atomic Mirror.
|
 
|
