From: Karina Wood Subject: (abolition-usa) Action Update on Fail Safe Opportunity Date: 01 Mar 2000 14:45:37 -0500 Dear U.S. Abolitionists: FIVE WEEKS TO ORGANIZE YOUR "FAIL SAFE" EVENTS! As I hope you have heard, there will be a live TV drama re-make of the 1964 nuke war thriller "Fail-Safe," starring George Clooney, on CBS, April 9th at 9pm. MORE STAR POWER We've just heard that Richard Dreyfus will play the U.S. President. A PERFECT MEDIA & ORGANIZING OPPORTUNITY! It's not often that the subject of accidental nuclear war gets onto prime time TV, and with big stars like George Clooney, Richard Dreyfus, and ER's Noah Wiley, "Fail-Safe" is sure to attract millions of viewers. To take full advantage of this rare publicity opportunity, Project Abolition is coordinating home screening parties and larger screening events around the country on April 9 to draw public and media attention to the urgent need for de-alerting, deep cuts, and nuclear abolition. ORGANIZE YOUR OWN EVENT: ORDER A HOUSE PARTY KIT! Nearly 200 House Party kits have already been sent out. Is there one happening in your town? Order your House Party kit today (see below) and make this nationwide action BIG! You can order up to five for free. For more information visit http://www.disarmament.org/george_clooney.htm. NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN Project Abolition is working on an accompanying national media campaign. The message: that although the accidental nuclear strike in "Fail Safe" is fiction, it could easily happen in real life, and the only way to protect against accidental or deliberate nuclear attack is to get rid of all nuclear weapons. You will find local media how-to information in the House Party Kit. CALL-IN DAY APRIL 10 There will be a National Call-In Day to President Clinton the day after the "Fail Safe" broadcast, Monday March 10. Colorful flyers have been made promoting this action. Order flyers for your local group (see below) and distribute at your house party/screening event. GOOD EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE: 60 MINUTES II "MISSILIERS" AVAILABLE ON VIDEO Last month's 60 Minutes II segment on U.S. and Russian missiles, featuring 4 star General Eugene Habiger, is now available on video tape from CBS. To order, call 1-800-934-6937. Cost: $29.95 plus shipping & handling. Takes 4-6 weeks to deliver. HOUSE PARTY KITS and FLYERS available from the Disarmament Clearinghouse at: 1101 14th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 ph: (202) 898-0150 x232 fax: (202) 898-0172 e-mail: disarmament@igc.org. or visit http://www.disarmament.org/george_clooney.htm. or from Project Abolition c/o Fourth Freedom Forum 803 North Main Street Goshen, IN 46526 1-800-233-6786 ext. 21 fax: 219-534-4937 email: kmartin@fourthfreedom.org ----------------- -- Karina H. Wood Field Coordinator, Project Abolition and U.S. Outreach Coordinator, Hague Appeal for Peace 85 John St. Providence, RI 02906 Ph: 401-276-0377 Fax: 401-751-1476 Email: kwood@igc.org For information on Project Abolition: www.fourthfreedom.org For information on the Hague Appeal: www.haguepeace.org GET CONNECTED TO HAP! Join the Hague Appeal for Peace news listserv. To subscribe, send an email message to with the message "subscribe hapnews-list" in the body of the email. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: The Investment in Space--February 2000 Date: 01 Mar 2000 17:01:56 -0500 > > Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:48:59 -0500=20 > From: zia mian=20 > Reply-To: zia@Princeton.EDU=20 > Organization: Princeton University=20 > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I)=20 > X-Accept-Language: en=20 > To: Alice Slater=20 > Subject: The Investment in Space--February 2000=20 > X-Loop-Detect: 1=20 > > http://www.afa.org/magazine/0200investment.html=20 > --=20 > Zia Mian=20 > Center for Energy and Environmental Studies=20 > von Neumann Building=20 > Princeton University=20 > Princeton, NJ 08544-5263=20 > > voice: 609-258-5468=20 > fax: 609-258-3661=20 > email: zia@princeton.edu=20 > > February 2000 Vol. 83, No. 2 > > > > > > > ---------- > > > > > An AFA symposium explores our stake in space and the need to defend it. > > > > > > > The Investment in Space > > > > > > > By Peter Grier > > > > > > Gen. Richard B. Myers > > The nation's military space infrastructure is expensive. Within the Air > Force, no one disputes that point, Gen. Richard B. Myers told the Air= Force > Association's Los Angeles National Symposium on Nov. 19. > > However, it's worth the price, said the Air Force's top space officer.= Take > Operation Allied Force. Without space assets, triumph would have taken longer > and cost more, both in collateral damage and lives of allied service > personnel. > > In Los Angeles, Myers spoke as commander in chief of US Space Command and > North American Aerospace Defense Command and as commander of Air Force= Space > Command. He was confirmed in October to become vice chairman of the Joint > Chiefs of Staff. > > "It is tough to put a price tag on the count of lives that I believe we saved > due to space support in Kosovo. ... There is little question that space= was > vital to the allied victory," said Myers. > > That operational experience aside, the last two years have seen some > difficult times for military space. A string of launch failures has destroyed > payloads worth $3 billion to $4 billion, including a Milstar bird lost= last > April and a National Reconnaissance Office spy satellite that was lost in > August 1998. > > These experiences have raised a difficult issue for Air Force Space= Command: > How should the Air Force mitigate the risks associated with spacelift? > > "The question is, how much risk can we afford to take in the launch= business > today?" said Myers. > > Mention launch insurance and "everyone shudders," the space chief told the > AFA audience. That is because it would cost upward of 30 cents per dollar= of > asset value--for the Air Force, anyway. > > "That is like paying 10 grand to insure a $30,000 car. It is not a very= good > option for us," said Myers. > > Another way of mitigating launch risk would be to plan for it. Buy more > satellites than requirements call for, on the theory that some will be= lost > in launch accidents. > > Or use the Navy's method. The Navy only pays for space assets once they= are > on orbit and functioning-an acquisition strategy that drives purchase= costs > significantly higher. > > "We must have a plan to mitigate the few failures that we know we are= going > to have over time. We can't just present the Air Force with a billion= dollar > bill for Milstar and say, 'Go fund it,' " said Myers. > > The Air Force also needs a plan to defend its space capabilities, said the > space chief. The nation's control of space remains vulnerable, because= space > superiority is simply assumed-unlike air superiority, which is planned= for. > > Several countries already have lasers than can blind optical sensors on US > satellites. Others are working on missile warheads capable of dispensing > satellite-killing shrapnel in Low Earth Orbit. A nuclear detonation at the > right altitude would leave people on Earth unharmed, yet fry every= satellite > in Low Earth Orbit. > > "It is vitally important to protect ground launch and uplink=ADdownlink > components as well," said Myers. "Many of our overseas ground sites are > remote and potentially vulnerable." > > Critical space systems should be able to withstand attacks with little or= no > damage. They should be able to detect and report when they are under siege > and locate and identify the attacking system. Ground controllers need to= be > able to quickly assess attacks and rapidly restore capability if needed. > > Commercial as well as military systems are at risk. Eighty percent of the > spaceborne communications used in the Kosovo campaign traveled on= commercial > systems. > > "Clearly, our reliance on commercial space has created a new center of > gravity that can easily be exploited by our adversaries," said Myers. > > New technology would provide some protection for satellites against= attack. > But it is impossible to upgrade a system that's already on orbit-and new > systems may be a long time coming. > > "The bad news is that our GPS [Global Positioning System] satellites are > lasting longer than predicted. Bad news because we have capability on= orbit > designed for a previous era and not responsive to our current needs," said > Myers. > > At present, 27 GPS satellites are on orbit and another 18 are waiting on= the > ground. Most are older designs. A version that incorporates newer= technology > is not currently scheduled for first launch until 2007. The must-have > capabilities of the newer satellite include a jam-resistant military= signal > called the M-code, two additional civil signals, and a much higher power > level. > > Traditionally, launch schedules have been based on life expectancy, the point > being constellation sustainment rather than maximization of capability.= That > needs to change, said the space chief. > > "We need to rethink our launch and acquisition strategies in order to get the > right capability up there when needed," he said. > > Gen. Michael E. Ryan > > As a nation, the United States has an ever-growing investment and interest in > the medium of space, Gen. Michael E. Ryan, Air Force Chief of Staff, told the > Los Angeles symposium. All told, space represents about a quarter of the > overall US aerospace industry effort, he said. US government spending on > space reached $30 billion last year. Private industry will reach and then > surpass this level early in the 21st century. > > The Air Force represents a large portion of US space efforts. The service > accounts for 90 percent of DoD's dedicated space personnel, 85 percent of its > space budget, and 90 percent of its space infrastructure. > > "Each year," said Ryan, "space systems and space operations account for a > growing share of the Air Force budget. It will continue to grow. That will be > both an opportunity and a challenge for the US Air Force." > > The military implications of increased US involvement with, and reliance > upon, space systems are immense. Space will become a place the nation must be > able to control, as it controls the atmosphere, when need be. That will= not > be easy, and it will not be exact, said the Chief of Staff. > > "As the second half of the 20th century has matured the air realm, the= first > half of the next century will mature the aerospace realm," he said. > > For Air Force purposes, space and air are not separate domains, according= to > the Chief. Instead, they are two parts of the same whole, as closely= related > as oceans and seas. "We should think of the aerospace domain as a seamless > volume from which we provide military capabilities in support of national > security," Ryan told the symposium. "Space is a place, not a mission." > > Breakthroughs achieved during Operation Allied Force demonstrate the progress > already made in integrating space capabilities into the service's overall > structure. > > For the first time, the Air Force was able to almost instantly calculate= the > coordinates needed for GPS=ADguided munitions to hit targets that had been > identified with atmospheric unmanned aerial vehicles. Predator video data was > combined with three-dimensional terrain data from satellites, then beamed > back to the cockpits of aircraft patrolling over Kosovo and Serbia. > > Such efforts required much greater communications capability than was= needed > only a few years ago. Allied Force used five times as much bandwidth as= did > Operation Desert Storm, Ryan noted. The Kosovo effort connected 40= different > locations in 15 countries using a variety of military and civilian lines= and > satellites, and many new ones were established. > > "We worked over 44,000 spectrum requests, some terrestrial, some atmospheric, > some for space systems, and, as you may know, these are very gnarly issues > with our host countries," Ryan told the AFA audience. > > The Air Force is not the only US military service interested in space, but it > is the only one with a full spectrum of aerospace capabilities.= Maintaining > that edge will be expensive. That is why partnerships are so critical,= said > Ryan. > > Partnerships with industry are already a reality. In the Balkans, one > experiment has forward air controllers using commercial satellite= telephone > systems. > > "The first test occurred last December. The forward air controller dialed 911 > Air Force and received an immediate close air support aircraft in his= area," > said the Chief. > > The aerospace domain must be integrated into how the service fights, Ryan > concluded. > > "We are on a journey," he said, "combining and evolving aerospace > competencies into a full-spectrum aerospace force." > > > > Carol A. DiBattiste: The First Three Months > > > > > During her first 100 days as undersecretary of the Air Force, Carol A. > DiBattiste has flown aerobatics in a T-38. She has participated in a > three-ship C-17 low-level airdrop mission and pulled seven and a half g's= in > a two-on-two F-15 air intercept. > > She also got to send a navigation command to a GPS satellite--albeit under > the watchful eyes of a room full of Space Command officers. > > "Hopefully, the millions who use GPS each day didn't know the difference with > me giving the commands, but it was truly awesome and a wonderful= experience > for me to do so," said Undersecretary DiBattiste at an AFA symposium in= Los > Angeles on Nov. 19. > > And while she was getting a taste of all the missions the Air Force performs, > DiBattiste listened-and then listened some more. What she heard was that= the > men and women of the service are excited about what they do--but also= remain > concerned about pay, health care, housing, retirement, and operations and > personnel tempos. > > Pay and retirement changes that take effect in 2000 should help, she said. > The next step is to make similar improvements in the health care system. > > "We are also working fast and furiously to address and to fix our= recruiting > and retention problems, and we need all of your help to do so," she told= the > symposium. > > Back in Washington, her three months on the job have exposed her to the > tremendous pressures on the Air Force budget. She cited four major areas: the > cost of the aging fleet, the need to improve quality-of-life programs, > unexpected personnel and operational costs, and modernization. > > Smaller aspects of modernization can be just as important as big programs > such as the F-22, she said. > > "We must do our best to keep our space launch range infrastructure > modernization program moving forward," she said. "I was told recently when= I > visited Space Command, as an example, that some of the ranges' electronic > patch panels that were used during John Glenn's first spaceflight were= still > in use during his recent flight on the space shuttle." > > Partnering with other agencies and with industry is one way that budget > pressure might be eased, said DiBattiste. Another is simply making the= case > for modernization plans and initiatives. > > What is the requirement? What is the threat? Is it cost effective? > > "The better we can quantitatively answer these kinds of questions, ... the > better we can evolve our aerospace force in the 21st century," the > undersecretary said.=20 > > Gen. George T. Babbitt > > All the top officials of the Air Force accept that space capability is a= key > to fighting and winning in the decades ahead. That raises another issue, said > Gen. George T. Babbitt, commander of Air Force Materiel Command. How is= the > service going to pay for the space modernization that it needs? > > Further force reductions are not likely to pay for much. More re-engineering, > outsourcing, and privatization won't provide enough money. > > Perhaps the military needs of America can no longer be satisfied by a flat or > declining budget, said Babbitt. > > "I expect the solution is a little bit of all. More topline and continued > cost reduction," said Babbitt. > > One initiative that might help save money is greater use of commercial= space > opportunities, according to the AFMC commander. > > A recent study by Air Force Space Command and AFMC's Space and Missile > Systems Center said that not many opportunities exist in this area.= Babbitt > said he was "surprised and a little disappointed" at this conclusion. He > believes the subject deserves further debate before it can be dismissed. > > Discussions about commercial space typically involve five mission areas,= he > said: launch services, range support, wideband communication, navigation, and > remote sensing. Five obstacles to increased Air Force use of commercial > services are also typically raised, he said. > > The first is that use of commercial firms will establish a level playing > field with adversaries who have access to the same services. That may be true > in regards to navigation, wideband communications, and remote sensing,= said > Babbitt. But access to services does not automatically translate into= combat > capability. > > "It takes a sustained commitment to tactics, doctrine, training, and hardware > to fully exploit these space-based services," said Babbitt. > > The second obstacle is that the military requirements and program approval > process remains too long and arduous for greater use of civilian-provided > services. Also true--but perhaps not insurmountable, according to the AFMC > chief. > > Third, commercial firms often make use of proprietary technology and > nonstandard interfaces and provide little coverage in limited market= areas. > Perhaps there is a way to lure the civilian world into greater > standardization, mused Babbitt. > > "What can be done to encourage commercial operators to comply with common > user interfaces? What additional investments would be required to expand > coverage into areas of military interest?" he asked. > > The fourth obstacle is that industry is interested in commercial operation of > ranges but uninterested in range investments. This reluctance should not > limit the dialogue in what is one of the more promising areas for > commercialization. > > The last roadblock is that US government policy prohibits commercial > investment in the GPS constellation. It also prevents the Air Force from= any > cost recovery from industry for its GPS investment. Yet few space systems > seem better suited for some sort of commercial participation than the= widely > used navigation system, said Babbitt. > > "GPS has created a thriving commercial market, and ... continued Air Force > investment in that constellation diverts resources from systems that will > never have a commercial appeal," said Babbitt. "We need to be sure before= we > rule out commercial options [in this area]." > > Perhaps these obstacles are insurmountable and there truly is little room for > greater involvement by private firms in providing key Air Force services. But > more discussion needs to occur before that conclusion is reached, said the > AFMC head. > > "I don't believe we have sufficiently explored commercial space options,"= he > said. > > Sheila E. Widnall > > One commercial-military space partnership that symposium participants all > described as a promising start was the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle > program. > > EELV is a unique approach, said former Secretary of the Air Force Sheila= E. > Widnall in a panel discussion of challenges facing the space industry. The > Air Force has been able to leverage a fixed investment several times over due > to investments by its commercial partners. > > "The goal of all of that is that the military, the Air Force, the national > payloads should be able to get access to space at fundamentally commercial > prices, and, at the same time, we should be able to get a very vigorous > commercial space industry in the United States. It sounds like a win=ADwin= ," > said Widnall. > > But EELV aside, a number of important military and civilian launches in > recent months have been lose-lose, in the sense that a string of launch > failures has destroyed important payloads intended for both military and > commercial uses. > > Widnall was the chair of Boeing's recent mission assurance review of two > failed Delta III missions. She said that one problem was success. The > reliability of the Delta II lured Boeing into applying some of the same > engineering and oversight procedures to the Delta III, where they did not > work. > > The success of Delta II was due to years of incremental improvements, said > Widnall. But Boeing underestimated the Delta III design challenge. > > "The same kind of processes that were very successful in a mature vehicle,= a > successful vehicle with incremental improvements, are not adequate to deal > with some major changes," she said. "We believe this was a failure of systems > engineering." > > The review's first recommendation to Boeing was that quality must be the > company's highest priority. The group also urged a strengthening of= systems > engineering activities and more engineering oversight. > > "An extremely important issue is to assure that adequate communication exists > between design engineering and manufacturing," said the former civilian= head > of the Air Force. "I think as we looked at some of the recent failures it was > very clear that there was a problem of what I would refer to as ambiguous > technical orders." > > Supplier management is also a big issue, as roughly 60 percent of the EELV is > going to be supplier parts and components. Widnall also said her committee > felt that launch vehicle teams should think explicitly about risk. Someone > needs to consider the risk of failure due to proposed design, engineering, > and manufacturing changes, she said. > > "Finally, I think everybody who is involved in this EELV issue is thinking > very seriously about a first flight that is some sort of a test flight of > perhaps a less-than-critical payload," said Widnall. > > A. Thomas Young > > A. Thomas Young, former president and chief operating officer of Martin > Marietta, was the head of a similar assessment team formed by Lockheed Martin > last May following Titan IV, Athena, and Theater High Altitude Area= Defense > missile failures. > > The first conclusion that this team highlighted, said Young, is that military > space is different from every other aerospace area, even other defense areas. > Oversight is more crucial than anywhere else. > > "One person can make one mistake that can [lead to] a total mission failure," > said Young. > > Second, even when things are going well in the launch business, it is > appropriate to worry. The Lockheed Martin-established group looked not= only > at launch failures but at near-failures as well and came up with a surprising > number of what it termed "diving catches" (where heroic action by one= person > saved a mission) and "escapements" (where problems were caught by normal > review processes-but not when they should have caught them). > > "There were a large number of near-misses, diving catches, and= escapements. > In fact, of particular interest, there were many in the Atlas program,= which > has a record today of 48 consecutive successes," said Young. > > Every one of these semifailures should be treated as if they had caused a > mission crash, urged Young. That means taking more corrective actions than > might otherwise be deemed necessary. > > Mission success, not cost, needs to be the top priority. > > "You can't get to cost by putting cost No. 1. You get to cost and schedule by > putting quality or mission success first," said the former Martin Marietta > chief. > > Loss of experienced engineers has hurt the space business, said both Young > and Widnall. And accountability for mission success needs to be focused, with > both senior management and engineers involved in success-related= oversight. > > "The responsible engineer for a component, a box, a subsystem, a software > package really should have cradle to grave responsibility," said Young. > > > ---------- > Peter Grier, the Washington editor of the Christian Science Monitor, is a > longtime defense correspondent and regular contributor to Air Force Magazine. > His most recent article,= "New > World Coming," appeared in the December 1999 issue. > > > ---------- > Return to Air Force Magazine=20 Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 15 East 26th Street, Room 915 New York, NY 10010 tel: (212) 726-9161 fax: (212) 726-9160 email: aslater@gracelinks.org http://www.gracelinks.org GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination nuclear weapons. =20 - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign Subject: (abolition-usa) NGO sign-on letter calling for forward-looking NPT Review Date: 03 Mar 2000 17:01:10 +1000 Please reply to Hisham Zereffi OR Daryl Kimball . Dear All, What follows is a letter complementary to the 'heads of State' NPT Review letter I have been circulating. If you have signed that one you will want to sign this one. DO NOT REPLY TO ME, BUT AS BELOW AND ABOVE John Hallam WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN-ON NO LATER THAN NOON (Wash. DC time), WEDNESDAY March 15th. Please reply to Hisham Zereffi OR Daryl Kimball . *********************************** =46ebrurary 28, 2000 TO: nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation colleagues =46R: Daryl Kimball (Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers); Arjun Makhijani (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research); Martin Butcher (British American Security Information Council) RE: NGO sign-on letter calling for forward-looking NPT Review Conference Statement REPLY REQUESTED The following is a "Recommendations for Action" letter to governments represented at the upcoming Review Conference on the Treaty on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Weapons (NPT). (See text below or see ) It is intended to help organise NGOs views on the forward-looking portion of the upcoming Conference with a view to the adoption of these ideas by the conference or, at least, by a large majority of parties to the conference. It will be sent to the heads of states and foreign ministers of NPT States Parties, as well as officials from India, Pakistan, and Israel. The recommendations in this letter build upon the 1995 NPT "Principles and Objectives" document and draws upon recommendations contained in the "New Agenda Coalition" resolution of 1999 . The letter is motivated by the fact that this NPT Review Conference will be contentious and may be perceived as a "failure" if agreement is not reached on forward-looking goals for disarmament and non-proliferation. Reaching agreement on this aspect of the Review Conference will require the coordinated efforts of a large number of like-minded states and pressure >from NGOs in each of several important capitals. This letter was originally drafted by Arjun Makhijani (IEER), Daryl Kimball (Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers), and Martin Butcher (BASIC) at the suggestion of participants at a February 1 meeting on the NPT in Washington DC involving several disarmament NGOs. It has benefitted from the comments and suggestions of a number of NGOs. We invite you to join us is adding your organization's name to this letter. WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN-ON NO LATER THAN NOON (Wash. DC time), WEDNESDAY March 15th. Please reply to Hisham Zereffi OR Daryl Kimball . Sincerely yours, Arjun, Daryl, Martin NOTE: This effort is meant to compliment another NGO letter writing effort on the NPT organized by John Hallam of FOE/Sydney through the Abolition 2000 listserve. This letter differs in its specific focus on the importance of a forward-looking "benchmarks and objectives" statement and its recommendations about what that document should include. ******************************** March [XX], 2000 RE: Recommendations for Action at the 2000 NPT Review Conference Dear [Head of State or Government and Foreign Minister], The upcoming Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) represents a critical opportunity to build international resolve to address the threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. We believe this Treaty is a vital cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime and an essential basis of efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons. In 1995, in conjunction with the indefinite extension of the Treaty, States Parties agreed to an important set of Principles and Objectives for Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. While some progress has been achieved, unfortunately, key elements, particularly those relating to Article VI of the treaty, remain unfulfilled and new nuclear dangers have emerged. Consequently, we, the undersigned non-governmental representatives, believe it is vital that States Parties redouble efforts to work together to advance progress toward fulfillment of Article VI of the Treaty. It is particularly important that the upcoming Review Conference produce an objective review of the progress on the Treaty and Treaty commitments over the last five years, and it is essential that consensus be found among States Parties on new Benchmarks and Goals for action over the next five years. Our recommendations draw on the expressed views of many parties to the NPT as well as a broad cross section of civil society around the world. We respectfully urge that the Benchmarks and Objectives include: 1. Reaffirmation of the commitment to full implementation of Article VI of the Treaty, and, in this context, acceptance as authoritative the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning Article VI, adopted unanimously, which states that: =93there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a Conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects Under strict and effective international control=94; 2. Immediate action by the Russian Federation and the United States of America to implement the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) II and conclude and implement START III at an early date. Following the prompt conclusion of START III, the other nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT and other states that may possess nuclear weapons should join in the process of reducing their nuclear arsenals, with the goal of eliminating all nuclear forces; 3. Adoption of policies that diminish the role of nuclear weapons in order to create a stable atmosphere for disarmament and contribute to international confidence and security. In this context the Nuclear Weapon States and all nuclear capable states, whether not they are parties to the NPT, should take early steps to: =B7 eliminate all tactical nuclear weapons from their arsenals, =B7 proceed to the de-alerting and removal of all nuclear warheads from delivery vehicles, =B7 respect the letter and spirit of the Comprhensive Nuclear Test Ban Treat= y (CTBT) by recognizing that it is an instrument of nuclear disarmament as well as non-proliferation in all its aspects, and by ceasing the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and ending the production of new types of nuclear weapons, =B7 refrain from producing any weapons-usable fissile materials for military-purposes pending the conclusion of a ban on their production, put all fissile materials declared to be in excess of military requirements under appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and refrain from producing tritium for military purposes, and, put all fissile materials declared to be in excess of military requirements under appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and, =B7 refrain from actions that will aid or abet missile proliferation; 4. Action by all States, including non-parties to the NPT, to place all commercial and research nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards; 5. The immediate and unconditional signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) by all States, and, pending the entry into force of the Treaty, adherence to its terms by not carrying out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, nor aiding or abetting others to carry out such explosions; 6. The conclusion of legally-binding assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the NPT against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; 7. Progress toward the implementation of existing Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones and the establishment of additional Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones, especially in regions of tension, such as the Middle East; 8. Adherence by States Parties to all obligations under the terms of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; 9. Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament at the Conference on Disarmament. 10. Establishment of appropriate subsidiary bodies to the NPT to address nuclear disarmament. Consensus among States Parties about practical benchmarks toward the fulfillment of Article VI is crucial to the success of the Review Conference. Substantial progress on Article VI goals during the next five years will be crucial to the future of the NPT. Given the particular importance of this Review Conference to global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament efforts, we urge States Parties to send their Foreign Ministers to the opening session of the Conference and their Heads of State or Government to the concluding session. We urge you to adopt the strong and practical set of Benchmarks and Goals that we have suggested above to guide the process of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation over this period. Sincerely, [Initial Grp. of Signers:] Martin Butcher, British American Security Council Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr., US Navy (Ret.) Gordon Clark, Peace Action Tom Collina, Union of Concerned Scientists Ambassador Jonathan Dean, Union of Concerned Scientists Surendra and Sanghimit Gadekar, Anumukkti (Vedchhi, India) Spurgeon Keeny, Arms Control Association Howard W. Hallman, Methodists United for Peace with Justice John Hallam, Friends of the Earth Australia =46elicity Hill, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom United Nations Office Marylia Kelly, Tri-Valley Cares (Livermore, CA) Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Susan Shaer, Women's Action for New Directions David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Allistar Millar, Fourth Freedom Forum Robert K. Musil, Physicians for Social Responsibility (USA) Ambassador Roland Timerbaev, Center for Policy Studies in Russia ____________________________________ Daryl Kimball, Executive Director Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505 Washington, DC 20002 (ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970 website ____________________________________ - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign Subject: (abolition-usa) NGO sign-on letter calling for forward-looking NPT Review Date: 03 Mar 2000 17:01:10 +1000 Please reply to Hisham Zereffi OR Daryl Kimball . Dear All, What follows is a letter complementary to the 'heads of State' NPT Review letter I have been circulating. If you have signed that one you will want to sign this one. DO NOT REPLY TO ME, BUT AS BELOW AND ABOVE John Hallam WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN-ON NO LATER THAN NOON (Wash. DC time), WEDNESDAY March 15th. Please reply to Hisham Zereffi OR Daryl Kimball . *********************************** Februrary 28, 2000 TO: nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation colleagues FR: Daryl Kimball (Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers); Arjun Makhijani (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research); Martin Butcher (British American Security Information Council) RE: NGO sign-on letter calling for forward-looking NPT Review Conference Statement REPLY REQUESTED The following is a "Recommendations for Action" letter to governments represented at the upcoming Review Conference on the Treaty on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Weapons (NPT). (See text below or see ) It is intended to help organise NGOs views on the forward-looking portion of the upcoming Conference with a view to the adoption of these ideas by the conference or, at least, by a large majority of parties to the conference. It will be sent to the heads of states and foreign ministers of NPT States Parties, as well as officials from India, Pakistan, and Israel. The recommendations in this letter build upon the 1995 NPT "Principles and Objectives" document and draws upon recommendations contained in the "New Agenda Coalition" resolution of 1999 . The letter is motivated by the fact that this NPT Review Conference will be contentious and may be perceived as a "failure" if agreement is not reached on forward-looking goals for disarmament and non-proliferation. Reaching agreement on this aspect of the Review Conference will require the coordinated efforts of a large number of like-minded states and pressure >from NGOs in each of several important capitals. This letter was originally drafted by Arjun Makhijani (IEER), Daryl Kimball (Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers), and Martin Butcher (BASIC) at the suggestion of participants at a February 1 meeting on the NPT in Washington DC involving several disarmament NGOs. It has benefitted from the comments and suggestions of a number of NGOs. We invite you to join us is adding your organization's name to this letter. WE ASK THAT YOU SIGN-ON NO LATER THAN NOON (Wash. DC time), WEDNESDAY March 15th. Please reply to Hisham Zereffi OR Daryl Kimball . Sincerely yours, Arjun, Daryl, Martin NOTE: This effort is meant to compliment another NGO letter writing effort on the NPT organized by John Hallam of FOE/Sydney through the Abolition 2000 listserve. This letter differs in its specific focus on the importance of a forward-looking "benchmarks and objectives" statement and its recommendations about what that document should include. ******************************** March [XX], 2000 RE: Recommendations for Action at the 2000 NPT Review Conference Dear [Head of State or Government and Foreign Minister], The upcoming Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) represents a critical opportunity to build international resolve to address the threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. We believe this Treaty is a vital cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime and an essential basis of efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons. In 1995, in conjunction with the indefinite extension of the Treaty, States Parties agreed to an important set of Principles and Objectives for Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. While some progress has been achieved, unfortunately, key elements, particularly those relating to Article VI of the treaty, remain unfulfilled and new nuclear dangers have emerged. Consequently, we, the undersigned non-governmental representatives, believe it is vital that States Parties redouble efforts to work together to advance progress toward fulfillment of Article VI of the Treaty. It is particularly important that the upcoming Review Conference produce an objective review of the progress on the Treaty and Treaty commitments over the last five years, and it is essential that consensus be found among States Parties on new Benchmarks and Goals for action over the next five years. Our recommendations draw on the expressed views of many parties to the NPT as well as a broad cross section of civil society around the world. We respectfully urge that the Benchmarks and Objectives include: 1. Reaffirmation of the commitment to full implementation of Article VI of the Treaty, and, in this context, acceptance as authoritative the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning Article VI, adopted unanimously, which states that: “there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a Conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects Under strict and effective international control”; 2. Immediate action by the Russian Federation and the United States of America to implement the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) II and conclude and implement START III at an early date. Following the prompt conclusion of START III, the other nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT and other states that may possess nuclear weapons should join in the process of reducing their nuclear arsenals, with the goal of eliminating all nuclear forces; 3. Adoption of policies that diminish the role of nuclear weapons in order to create a stable atmosphere for disarmament and contribute to international confidence and security. In this context the Nuclear Weapon States and all nuclear capable states, whether not they are parties to the NPT, should take early steps to: · eliminate all tactical nuclear weapons from their arsenals, · proceed to the de-alerting and removal of all nuclear warheads from delivery vehicles, · respect the letter and spirit of the Comprhensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by recognizing that it is an instrument of nuclear disarmament as well as non-proliferation in all its aspects, and by ceasing the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and ending the production of new types of nuclear weapons, · refrain from producing any weapons-usable fissile materials for military-purposes pending the conclusion of a ban on their production, put all fissile materials declared to be in excess of military requirements under appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and refrain from producing tritium for military purposes, and, put all fissile materials declared to be in excess of military requirements under appropriate International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and, · refrain from actions that will aid or abet missile proliferation; 4. Action by all States, including non-parties to the NPT, to place all commercial and research nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards; 5. The immediate and unconditional signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) by all States, and, pending the entry into force of the Treaty, adherence to its terms by not carrying out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, nor aiding or abetting others to carry out such explosions; 6. The conclusion of legally-binding assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the NPT against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; 7. Progress toward the implementation of existing Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones and the establishment of additional Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones, especially in regions of tension, such as the Middle East; 8. Adherence by States Parties to all obligations under the terms of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; 9. Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament at the Conference on Disarmament. 10. Establishment of appropriate subsidiary bodies to the NPT to address nuclear disarmament. Consensus among States Parties about practical benchmarks toward the fulfillment of Article VI is crucial to the success of the Review Conference. Substantial progress on Article VI goals during the next five years will be crucial to the future of the NPT. Given the particular importance of this Review Conference to global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament efforts, we urge States Parties to send their Foreign Ministers to the opening session of the Conference and their Heads of State or Government to the concluding session. We urge you to adopt the strong and practical set of Benchmarks and Goals that we have suggested above to guide the process of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation over this period. Sincerely, [Initial Grp. of Signers:] Martin Butcher, British American Security Council Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr., US Navy (Ret.) Gordon Clark, Peace Action Tom Collina, Union of Concerned Scientists Ambassador Jonathan Dean, Union of Concerned Scientists Surendra and Sanghimit Gadekar, Anumukkti (Vedchhi, India) Spurgeon Keeny, Arms Control Association Howard W. Hallman, Methodists United for Peace with Justice John Hallam, Friends of the Earth Australia Felicity Hill, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom United Nations Office Marylia Kelly, Tri-Valley Cares (Livermore, CA) Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Susan Shaer, Women's Action for New Directions David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Allistar Millar, Fourth Freedom Forum Robert K. Musil, Physicians for Social Responsibility (USA) Ambassador Roland Timerbaev, Center for Policy Studies in Russia ____________________________________ Daryl Kimball, Executive Director Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505 Washington, DC 20002 (ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970 website ____________________________________ - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Israel's Open Nuclear Policy Debate Date: 03 Mar 2000 14:26:19 -0500 Dear Friends, Thanks to a few brave Members of Israel's parliament, the Knesset, the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal was openly acknowledged for the first time in a Knesset debate last month. If you would like to thank them for their courageous stand, please send an email to those listed below: Issam Makhoul: imakhoul@knesset.gov.il Zahava Gal-On: zgalon@knesset.gov.il Naomi Chazan: nchazan@knesset.gov.il Uri Savir: usavir@knesset.gov.il Dalia Rabin-Pelossof: drabin-p@knesset.gov.il Many thanks. Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 15 East 26th Street, Room 915 New York, NY 10010 tel: (212) 726-9161 fax: (212) 726-9160 email: aslater@gracelinks.org http://www.gracelinks.org GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination nuclear weapons. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Nuclear Madness Date: 04 Mar 2000 17:11:15 -0500 >X-Sender: rbassilakis@pop.snet.net >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) >Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:23:48 -0500 >To: (Recipient list suppressed) >From: Rosemary & Sal / Citizens Awareness Network >Subject: Nuclear Madness >To: aslater@gracelinks.org >X-Loop-Detect: 1 > > >Radioactive water alarms Nye officials > >Today: March 02, 2000 at 11:15:52 PST > >BY MARY MANNING >LAS VEGAS SUN > >Nye County officials are taking a serious look at the radioactive >contamination discovered in a ground-water sample off the Nevada >Test Site and expect to have more results in a week, County >Manager Jerry McKnight said Wednesday. > >"Good science dictates that we verify these initial results," >said Les Bradshaw, manager of the Nye County Department of >Natural Resources and Federal Facilities. > >Nye officials revealed Wednesday that radiation in ground water >has been found outside the Nevada Test Site in amounts 25 times >higher than the federal drinking water standards. > >Increasing their concern is the type of radiation found. Two >types of radioactive particles--alpha, which is found in several >sources including plutonium, and beta, which causes skin >burns--make it harder to pinpoint the source of the nuclear >contamination. > >If the radioactive source came from one of the 928 nuclear >weapons experiments from Cold War activities there, it would be >the first time radiation has been found outside of the Test Site, >which is located 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. > >The Department of Energy's monitoring program has never found >radiation outside of the Rhode Island-sized nuclear proving >grounds. In 1998 DOE scientists discovered plutonium that >traveled on microscopic particles about a mile away from an >underground nuclear bomb crater on the site. > >Sens. Harry Reid and Richard Bryan, both D-Nev., called >Wednesday's announcement another surprise. Reid said he would >discuss the issue with Energy Secretary Bill Richardson today. > >Reid had planned to meet with Richardson about including Test >Site workers in legislation that would compensate those harmed by >exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals. > >The senator said the radiation found in the ground water >indicates why most Nevadans oppose a high-level nuclear >repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. >Yucca is the only site under consideration as a national dumping >ground for 77,000 tons of highly radioactive wastes from >commercial reactors and defense activities. > >"It's really important we accelerate the surveillance and >monitoring at the Test Site," Reid told the Sun. "And it shows >why we're opposed to Yucca Mountain. We need to know more." > >Bryan agreed with Reid. > >"This appears to be part of a growing pattern of radioactive >migration from the Test Site," Bryan said. "More importantly, >this discovery once again raises the credibility question for the >Department of Energy." > >Nye County began its early-warning well network in 1998 with >Department of Energy funds. Each year the county adds more wells >south and west of the Test Site and analyzes test results in labs >independent of the DOE. > >Nye County is officially neutral on Yucca Mountain, McKnight >said. > >"Our position has always been if they have the science, then what >is the argument?" he said. "If the science is not there, then >there is a problem." > >Nye County's preliminary water result has received some criticism >because it was such a surprise, found in a shallow test well 26 >feet deep, McKnight said. Further tests will subtract any >naturally occurring radiation coming from sources such as >surrounding rocks, the sun or cosmic rays. > >The radiation may have been introduced by the drill bit as it >bored the well or from contaminated soils from the surface, he >said. > >"It is technical, but in this case it is critical," McKnight said >of the complicated testing procedure. "If the radiation was in >the water, we have a lot more work to do." > >The preliminary findings by Nye County also make it less likely >that the test result is a mistake, several scientists told the >Sun. > >It is not simple tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen easily >dissolved in water that usually alerts scientists to other >radioactive contamination, said Steve Frishman, technical >coordinator for the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. > >"Now that they know the sample is real, they have to do further >radiation testing," Frishman said. > >The Nevada State Health Division is sampling the well today, >health physicist Larry Franks said. > >"We are going to do a full analysis," Franks said. The state will >look for nuclear bomb traces such as uranium, plutonium, >cesium-137 and tritium, as well as naturally occurring radiation, >he said. > >The DOE confirmed that two of the three types of radiation had >been found in the water sample. While alpha and beta particles >are particularly dangerous if swallowed or inhaled, gamma >particles can enter living tissue unless it is protected with a >lead shield. No gamma source had been measured or identified. > >But the DOE questioned the county's method used to analyze the >water sample. > >If the water was not carefully collected, DOE spokeswoman Nancy >Harkess said, particles of sediment from the well could have >contaminated the sample. > >The U.S. Geological Survey took a water sample from another well >about 2 feet away from Nye County's hole and found no radiation >in the water, Harkess said. > > > >ALL CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2000 LAS VEGAS SUN, INC. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-------------------- > >Where I Stand--Brian Greenspun: An alarming revelation > >Today: March 02, 2000 at 9:53:02 PST > >Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun. > >Ok, what do we do now? > >I am not usually an alarmist. It is not my nature to jump to >conclusions and cry wolf without some very good reason to do so. >That's why I am not screaming from the rooftops about what I read >in the Sun Wednesday night. Calm. I am just trying to stay calm >because this could all be just one big misunderstanding. > >But what if it isn't? What if Mary Manning's report about ground >water contamination in Nye County is right? What if the experts >are correct in their belief that ground water outside the >boundaries of the Nevada Test Site contains radiation that is 25 >times higher than the allowable federal drinking water limit? > >You see what I mean? I don't want to cry out loud but I am not >sure what to do when Nye County's experts tell us that radiation >is now in the ground water which, according to gravity and other >scientific phenomena, will eventually make its way toward the >population and food-growing centers of Nevada. And what then? To >the milk dairies of Southern California? > >This is quite a predicament as you can well imagine. I suppose >the best thing to do is wait. I remember when the Sun reported >about fish in Lake Mead that were, to say the least, deformed. >That led to an investigation of the cause, which led to >uncovering all kinds of ugly things being dumped into Southern >Nevada's drinking water resource. We waited a long time for the >scientists to confirm what everyone knew in their gut. Chemicals >that shouldn't have been allowed to leak into Lake Mead got >there. In the meantime, the bottled water producers have made out >like bandits. > >So, do we increase our orders for bottled water and wait for the >scientists to tell us how radiation that is 25 times greater than >allowable limits got into our ground water? Or do we march on the >Test Site and demand that all records of nuclear testing be >released immediately in the interests of public safety and health >so we can determine if the government has been holding out on us? >Or do we stick our heads deeply into the desert sands and pretend >that whatever is in the water and whatever put it there is too >big for us to deal with and just let our government take care of >fixing the problem? Not! > >The story quoted a Nye County commissioner who said the whole >thing could be a mistake. Or, he said, the radiation could be the >result of natural causes--leaking into the ground water from >Nevada's rock formations. Scientists, he claimed, are trying to >determine whether the radioactivity in the water is natural or >man-made-- like from the Test Site--but he was alerting the >public in the interest of health and safety. > >Great. So, back to my first question. What are we supposed to do >now? > >If the reports are true and the radiation levels are as high as >the experts believe, do we allow our children to continue >drinking the water? Is it safe for the dairy farmers in Nevada to >continue watering their milk cows? Is any of that water making >its way to the alfalfa and hay fields that are grown in Nevada, >and is it used to feed cows in neighboring California and >elsewhere? > >These questions have nothing to do with what is causing the >problem and everything to do with how we react to it. If it is >safe to drink water that is 25 times more polluted by >radioactivity than the federal standards allow, why are the >federal limits so low? Who else in the United States may be >drinking water with similar amounts of nuclear toxins mixed in? >If there are others, what kind of tests are being performed to >make sure they and their offspring are healthy? And if there are >no others, why is it that Nevada is the only place where this >happens? > >You must have noticed that I haven't once blamed the radioactive >water on the Nevada Test Site. The scientists may come to that >conclusion by themselves. What I am thinking about is the >possibility that the water is naturally polluted with the deadly >radioactivity and how much more it may be diminished by possible >leaks from a nuclear waste dump that the government is trying to >force down our throats not far from the Test Site. > >If it is already 25 times worse than it should be; how much more >dangerous will it be if the dumpsite leaks what the government >deems allowable from nuke dump operations? Thirty, 40, 50 times? >At what point should we all just pack up and bug out of this >fabulous place in the sun because the water is so bad that, even >though it is everywhere, there may not be a clean drop to drink? > >So, you see, this is not an easy problem to solve. There are >seemingly no simple answers to this great big mess we have >allowed ourselves to get into, but there is one answer to the >question, "What do we do now?" > >And that is to oppose anyone and everyone who even thinks that >putting a nuclear waste dump in our back yard is a good idea. At >least until they can guarantee that leaks won't occur and >accidents will not happen. If we made a foolish mistake before by >trusting the government apparatchiks with their nuclear games, we >would be deadly fools to do it again. > >Hey, government: Clean up our water. Guarantee our health and >safety. And only then come talk to us about messing it up all >over again. > >Calm. Just stay calm. > > > >ALL CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2000 LAS VEGAS SUN, INC. > Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 15 East 26th Street, Room 915 New York, NY 10010 tel: (212) 726-9161 fax: (212) 726-9160 email: aslater@gracelinks.org http://www.gracelinks.org GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination nuclear weapons. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Nader Campaign Date: 04 Mar 2000 17:13:40 -0500 > > X-Sender: rbassilakis@pop.snet.net > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) > Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:41:21 -0500 > To: (Recipient list suppressed) > From: Rosemary & Sal / Citizens Awareness Network > Subject: Nader Campaign > To: aslater@gracelinks.org > X-Loop-Detect: 1 > > >>>> >> >> Return-Path: >> Delivered-To: grns-ctgreens-news@judi.greens.org >> From: "Paul" >> To: >> Subject: Nader Campaign >> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 17:43:56 -0500 >> Organization: Microsoft Corporation >> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >> Disposition-Notification-To: "Paul" >> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 >> >>> >>> harris LEFT="4" BOTTOM="469" TOP="42"> Article courtesy of the >>> <http://www.ippn.org> size=-1>IPPN >>> >>> >>> >>> A Nader/LaDuke Campaign and Movement-Building >>> >>> By Ted Glick >>> >>> Fundamental, systemic change becomes possible only when large numbers of >>> people, millions, tens of millions, collectively demonstrate that they >>> will not tolerate the old system and are prepared to support something >>> new. The forms of action that this broad mass of people take will vary, >>> but in ways as small as speaking up publicly to neighbors and friends, >>> to more bold actions like civil disobedience or militant direct action, >>> a lesson of history is that the only way substantive, revolutionary >>> change takes place is through the emergence of such a popular >>> movement. >>> >>> We need such a movement in the United States. And as the first year of >>> the new century gets off the ground, there are abundant signs that such >>> a movement may well be in its beginning stages. "The battle in Seattle" >>> is the most significant manifestation of this new reality. It is also >>> seen by the 50,000 people, primarily African Americans, who came together >>> in literally a few weeks to demonstrate in Charleston, South Carolina on >>> the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday weekend against the flying of the >>> confederate flag on top of the capitol building. And it is seen by a >>> number of indications, Seattle being one of them, that students are on >>> the move, from the growth and local victories of United Students Against >>> Sweatshops to the emergence over the past year of SURGE and STARC, two >>> other national student networks, to the thousands of young people who >>> marched to shut down the School of the Americas in Georgia in >>> mid-November. >>> >>> It is within this political context that, as this article is written, a >>> Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke Green Party campaign is beginning to emerge >>> onto the national political scene. >>> >>> This is another hopeful development, one that is badly needed. Without >>> it, we face a year of political rhetoric from the Democrats and >>> Republicans, as well as a likely Patrick Buchanan Reform Party >>> candidacy, that is, at its best, centrist and another dose of false >>> promises, and more often downright reactionary and hostile to >>> pro-justice, environment, human rights, peace and labor positions. If >>> there was no Nader/LaDuke candidacy, there would be NO progressive voice >>> on the national political scene answering their lies and propaganda and, >>> make no mistake about it, that would affect us all. >>> >>> When there is no public expression of our set of politics during one of >>> these every-four-years political games we are subjected to, pro-justice >>> activists feel weaker and more discouraged. They/we tend to soften our >>> positions because we have no standard-bearer who can keep us buoyed up >>> and to whom we can point as an alternative to two-party, >>> corporate-business-as-usual. The "settling phenomenon," settling for >>> lesser-of-two-evils Democrats even as we know they're untrustworthy and not >>> a part of our movement, takes hold of far too many of us. Our organizing >>> is more difficult. And positive, independent political movement, such as >>> what we now see emerging, is set back. >>> >>> >>> >>> We need a strong, forthright and broadly-based Nader/LaDuke campaign! >>> And it looks as if one could be developing. There are indications that >>> sectors of the labor movement, particularly the Labor Party to whom >>> Ralph Nader has spoken at 1996 and 1998 conventions, are interested in >>> this campaign. Jim Hightower, one of the most well-known and respected >>> progressive Democrats around, and someone who has also been close to the >>> national leadership of both the Labor Party and the New Party, has >>> spoken positively about a Nader campaign and will be speaking at the >>> Greens nominating convention in Colorado in June. The Progressive >>> Populist, a national bi-weekly newspaper out of Texas which carries a >>> number of regular columns by progressive independents and progressive >>> Democrats, called upon Nader to run in a recent editorial. And the >>> Greens generally, despite persistent divisions, seem to be significantly >>> in agreement and are already hard at work in support of a Nader/LaDuke >>> campaign. All of these developments, taken together, are concrete signs >>> that we can expect to see a very different campaign this year than what >>> we saw in 1996. >>> >>> Can Nader get 5% of the vote so that, come 2004, the Greens and their >>> allies would have millions of dollars, potentially as much as $10 >>> million, for a 2004 convention and presidential campaign. (Imagine such >>> a thing, and what could be done with it!) In 1996, spending less than >>> $5,000 and running pretty much of a non-campaign, Nader got a little >>> less than 2% of the vote in the 23 states where he was on the ballot. If >>> he gets on the ballot in 45 or so states this time, a realistic >>> objective; if he and LaDuke campaign seriously, as all indications are >>> they will; if the campaign is not just Greens but one taken up by many >>> activists from the broader progressive movement, including Labor Party >>> and some New Party activists; and, finally, if the Nader/LaDuke message, >>> while centered on the anti-corporate, pro-labor, consumer rights and >>> environmental issues Nader is most familiar and comfortable with, also >>> addresses the broader range of progressive issues so as to bring in and >>> hold the allegiance of activists of color, feminists, lesbian/gay >>> activists, peace activists and others--well, then we're really cooking, >>> and 5% of the vote is by no means out of the question. >>> >>> Keep in mind what the playing field is looking like: Al Gore, George >>> W.Bush and Patrick Buchanan. And even if McCain or Bradley get their >>> respective party's nomination, well, so what? Despite some of the current >>> election year rhetoric, neither is substantially different on most >>> issues from Gore and Bush. However things shake out, there's a huge >>> political vacuum there. Al Gore is the likely "leftist" in that motley >>> crew, and with Bush or McCain and Buchanan attacking him from the right, >>> it is unlikely that this "profile in accommodation" will give more than >>> a relative handful of rhetorical nods to progressive positions, as he is >>> doing somewhat more of during the primaries against Bradley. There will >>> be literally millions upon millions of discouraged voters who can be >>> reached by a Nader/LaDuke campaign! >>> >>> >>> >>> Potential Obstacles >>> >>> What stands in the way of such an historic development? >>> >>> One is the internal divisions within the Greens. The Greens face a >>> challenge: will they rise above, get beyond debilitating internal fights >>> and find common ground and a common way of work over the course of this >>> year? This is not to be pollyannish. There are differences within the >>> Greens over strategy, tactics and program; there always are within just >>> about any organization, particularly national organizations. Also, there >>> are always personality conflicts and issues over who should be in >>> leadership. But these inevitable differences and disagreements can be, >>> and have to be, addressed differently than the way they are within the >>> institutions of the dominant culture. Instead of competitiveness and >>> jockeying for power, there need to be good faith efforts on both sides >>> of a disagreement to look for the "common ground." Or, if it is clear >>> that the disagreements are too deep, decisions can be made as to how the >>> disagreements can be put aside until later so that the necessary and >>> essential work can proceed as productively as possible. I hope, and I'm >>> cautiously optimistic, that the Greens have matured enough since 1996 so >>> that the year 2000 Nader/LaDuke campaign will bear witness to an >>> emerging, if still fragile, unity in action. >>> >>> Many pro-justice activists are concerned about whether Nader will be >>> up-front and forthright in support of issues such as a woman's right to >>> choose, affirmative action, opposition to police brutality, the rights of >>> lesbians and gay people and the need to reduce the military budget. >>> These are issues that the broad progressive movement is in agreement on, >>> but in 1996 Nader either didn't address them or, in the case of >>> lesbian/gay rights, made at least one statement which indicated a fairly >>> serious lack of appreciation for the oppression faced by those with >>> non-heterosexual, emotional/sexual orientations. >>> >>> There's a much deeper issue here. Some progressive activists believe >>> that we need to build a "class-based" movement which de-emphasizes the >>> "social issues" and instead focuses on issues like living wage jobs, the >>> environment, tax reform and health care, because these are issues that >>> cut across lines of race, nationality, culture, gender, sexuality, etc. >>> and therefore can bring together the broadest range of people. There is >>> truth to this position, but the fact is that a movement that calls >>> itself progressive, that is about the transformation of society in >>> fundamental ways, has to "do the right thing" even if it risks >>> temporarily losing support from those who are with us on the broader, >>> class issues. We have to be consistent in our opposition to injustice, >>> oppression and discrimination. If not, we are building a movement on >>> sand, and it will eventually break apart as the storms of corporate >>> opposition look for any weakness they can exploit to undercut and destroy >>> our threat to their continued misrule. >>> >>> There is a relatively recent example from our history of the political >>> power of such an approach: the Rainbow movement of 1983-1988. That >>> movement, under the leadership of Jesse Jackson, consciously brought >>> together all of the different pieces of the progressive movement and >>> explicitly articulated their issues, from gay rights to the rights of >>> farmers to labor issues to those of people of color. It did this within >>> an overall framework which emphasized our common oppression at the hands >>> of corporate power. This approach generated almost 7 million votes for >>> Jackson during the 1988 Democratic Party primaries, and polls at the >>> time indicated that if Jackson had gone on to run as an independent in >>> the fall, he would have gotten in the neighborhood of 15% of the vote. >>> >>> >>> This makes what may well happen as the Nader/LaDuke campaign gets off >>> the ground even more sad, since there are indications that some of those >>> Rainbow leaders may be working to undercut support for Nader. >>> >>> This is the third, primary obstacle that I see to this campaign: the >>> efforts of certain "progressive leaders" who are tied to the Democratic >>> Party to keep it from happening. This is and will be the case for >>> "progressive leaders" from labor, from the civil rights movement and >>> from other groups that are still unwilling to break from the lesser-evil >>> orthodoxy. Some of this may be relatively honest, a reflection of a >>> political dynamic with deep, deep roots within our winner-take-all, >>> big-money-dominated system. Some of it will be much more underhanded. >>> >>> We can't get discouraged by these inevitable attacks. In many ways they >>> are a sign that we are finally becoming a force that cannot be ignored. >>> We need to deal with them in the same way we would deal with tender >>> young shoots of new plants emerging from a garden in the spring that are >>> threatened by cold spells, animals or birds: remember what those shoots >>> can become, develop plans for how to keep them growing and take >>> appropriate action. This new movement of the 21st century that we are >>> seeing develop in front of our eyes is too important to be sidetracked. >>> We are talking about history here. Let's all do our best to give of the >>> best within us so that the year 2000 is remembered as the turning point >>> for the struggling, besieged, abused and downtrodden people of this >>> country and this world, and its air, land, water, plant and animal life. >>> History is calling. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ted Glick is the National Coordinator of the Independent Progressive >>> Politics Network, although these are his individual views only. >>> >>> >>> >>> Return to size=-1>Third Party Watch size=-1> >> >> Return to size=-1>Znet > > > > > Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 15 East 26th Street, Room 915 New York, NY 10010 tel: (212) 726-9161 fax: (212) 726-9160 email: aslater@gracelinks.org http://www.gracelinks.org GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination nuclear weapons. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: radioactive waste in SantaFe and Colorado Date: 05 Mar 2000 12:44:35 -0800 > This is a lengthy document but please read #2 on page 4. "The City of >Sante Fe New Mexico is currently being sued by NRC for trying to regulate >radioactive discharge into the sewers. NRC claims that radioactive >discharge will not be regulated by USEPA, cities or the states." > If this is accurate, EPA has no intention to regulate radioactive >discharges to sewers and NRC is suing to force sewer plants to take >radioactive discharges. > There is something fishy here. The GAO report said the extent of >radioactive contamination at POTWs was not known. EPA granted anonymity >to POTW's in order to gain their cooperation in assessing the extent of >contamination. Now NRC is suing to force POTWs to accept radioactive >discharges. Is this whole process nuts? How would it ever be possible to >do a FOIA request to determine what POTWs are receiving? > This can be another talking point for Alan Rubin. "There has never >been a documented case of radioactive material in soil being documented as >coming from sludge." It just appears when airplanes fly over and detect it >at the sewer plants. > next item-Colorado >- > >> USEPA, Region 8 >> Project Manager Rocky Flats >> Tim Rehder >> >> Dear Tim, >> >> The upcoming vegetation burn planned by the Department of Energy for the >buffer >> zone at Rocky Flats Superfund Site at the end of March must be better >evaluated as >> to the appropriateness; due to the close proximity to major cities and >communities >> that now surround this facility. This proposed D.O.E. plan generates many >> unanswered questions, and most importantly has NOT been demonstrated on any >> Superfund Site nationwide. Also, the public is concerned about the DOE >> contractor, Kaiser Hill's recent statement at their presentation to the >Citizens >> Advisory Board on March 2, that "this will be a great opportunity for >> experiments". Rocky Flats is a USEPA documented contaminated site of >concern and >> the clean-up is still being debated. Sierra Club is concerned. Members >of the >> SC asked that DOE provide for an extension on the Environmental Assessment >> completed for this vegetation management plan and were turned down. The >> information distributed by the DOE and Kaiser Hill is conflicting, and >the publics >> notification in case of a "burn out of control", i.e. emergency >notification, has >> not been prepared by the DOE for the surrounding communities. The DOE. >and USEPA >> should have provided more public input and involvement in preparation for >this >> annual event; especially in light of the fact presented at the Citizens >Advisory >> Board meeting 3-2-00, there will be future burns in what DOE claims ARE >> contaminated areas. To date the public has not been provided the >Colorado Air >> Quality Permit for this burn, formal assurances from USEPA, a CDPHE >public meeting >> for this application as requested by Sierra Club, no copy of the actual >Forest >> Service burn plan, and no emergency preparedness plan for the local >communities. >> This vegetation/fuel load and soil burn is scheduled for the end of March >and >> beginning of April according to the Environmental Assessment. The DOE now >> suggests from the CAB meeting that window for the burn may change >through to May. >> Information must be consistent and available as essential tools to >educate and >> provide assurances to the public for their health and safety. These >assurances >> have not been provided. >> >> Your recent reply by e-mail suggested that I may not understand Global >fallout. I >> am very aware of nuclear fallout and Colorado's proximity to the Nevada >test site; >> and did not make an uneducated comment. My interest in making reference to >> Savannah River was to compare contamination issues. My homework is the >result of >> reviewing D.O.E. analysis and test results; not their assumptions. The >Colorado >> reference to fallout used by D.O.E., USEPA and CDPHE of .04 pci/g is for >> background plutonium in the soil for Colorado from the 1970's. The recent >> plutonium background numbers for Colorado reported by the Citizen Monitoring >> results, 1996, show Platteville, Lafayette, and Genesee averaging >approximately >> .015 pci/g. These numbers reflect background, 1996. Information regarding >> background test results by the DOE and USEPA should be provided to the >public >> >> The public understands fallout to be contamination from global fallout and >> emissions from daily operations, fires, accidents, past waste disposal >migration >> etc. The Savannah River location I mentioned is one of the largest nuclear >> complex's in the country with plutonium background from global fallout and >> emissions from daily operations, accidents/upset conditions that report >> measurements of plutonium background of only .0018 pci/g. Compare this >figure to >> the reported .04pci/g by the D.O.E. for Colorado plutonium background; these >> measurements are of considerable interest to residents in Colorado. The >upcoming >> discussion/presentation from the agencies at the March 23 Soil Action >Committee >> meeting will be important. The group will discuss an interim standard for >> contamination on the buffer zone at Rocky Flats; which will impact the >current >> Colorado standard for plutonium in the soil; and perhaps set another SAFE >standard >> to build homes and recreation on or near Rocky Flats. Many look forward >to this >> meeting. Your input and comments in advance of this meeting would be >> appreciated. >> >> Your state in one of your e-mails that you "believe" that there is no >> contamination in the area targeted for the prescribe burn. The USEPA's >claim there >> is no contamination, and the DOE's claim there is no KNOWN contamination is >> misleading. Positive results were presented by DOE in their presentation >at the >> CAB in the area of the prescribed burn. How they came to these >conclusions is >> most important (sampling protocol - depth into the soil- analysis for dust >> resuspension which will determine if plutonium concentrates in dust just >above >> the soil; other DOE locations have used portable vacuum cleaners to pick up >> plutonium in resuspension! Not penetrate the soil to10cm then average the >> sample). The fact that plutonium was found above background by the DOE >should >> indicate to USEPA that, yes, plutonium is present. Would you please >provide >> documentation that you have read that assisted you and supports your >statement >> that you "believe" that there is no contamination; especially in light of >the >> positive readings that were presented at the recent CAB meeting. After >the CAB >> meeting I spoke with DOE and Kaiser Hill . representatives. They were >unable to >> refer to the document that supported their tests results illustrated on >their >> maps. In addition, DOE provided a large comprehensive map of the sites >tested for >> plutonium, and there were a few samples taken from the north area >targeted for the >> prescribed burn, and no samples on the south side. DOE presenters after the >> meeting presented overheads that were more specific to test results, and >noted >> that had no explanation as to why no sampling was taken from the south >side. The >> colorful maps that were presented for the entire buffer zone by DOE at >the meeting >> should have references. DOE presented incomplete information on the >> characterization of the site; and had no answers as to why the Environmental >> Assessment indicates that the annual burns will include the entire buffer >zone! >> >> Test results for plutonium, americium, uranium, and other radionuclides >as well >> as contaminates of concern such as arsenic, lead, beryllium have been >inadequately >> presented to the public for evaluation. Soil, fuel load (25 years of dead >> vegetation), and vegetation uptake information has NOT been adequately >tested. >> The Environmental Assessment authored by DOE indicated that there was >vegetation >> uptake found as high as 28 pci/g. The DOE presenter at the CAB meeting >indicated >> that a factor of .034 x the soil levels will give you the level of >radioactive >> uptake into the vegetation. How contaminated is the vegetation at the >903 paid >> location? DOE stated they are just now testing the fuel load. The combined >> plutonium inventory from soil, vegetation, and fuel load has not been >assessed as >> to the risk to the public. >> >> What is your reaction to the statement by Kaiser Hill that they will >conduct in >> their words, "experiments" during and after the burn. They referred to >these >> experiments and studies 3 times. They presented vague information on >what the >> studies will include. Resuspension of radioactive soil particles was >presented in >> their overheads to the governor's aid, Allard's aid and others on the >tourof the >> actual site. What about the cumulative inventory of plutonium on the >vegetation >> of the leaves as well as uptake from the roots, the ash that will be >present in >> the soil, and the winds that will resuspend the ash into the nearby >communities. >> Was this ash considered in the "Hypothetical, Risk Assessment for Worst Case >> Scenario" on the controlled burn location for the future completed by Kaiser >> Hill? The public has not been presented this document for review. >Certainly >> there will be no tall stacks to disperse the airborne sub micron >particulates that >> will be present in the smoke and gases. Include in this discussion the >> possibility of surface water impacts to the major bodies of water used for >> drinking water, and ground water impacts from the potential leaching of >the ash. >> >> The public would appreciate facts that support your statement that there >is NO >> contamination at the site in the area of the present prescribed burn, and >that the >> public should not be concerned; please help distribute documented facts and >> sources from USEPA literature for them to refer to in helping them >understand this >> issue. Also, if you wouldn't mind, please help with a response to the >following >> specific questions and document requests: >> >> 1. Please provide the current radioactive "background" information that >USEPA has >> collected before the CAB meeting March 23; this would be helpful when the >Rocky >> Flats Soil Action Committee presents the new proposed interim standard for >> plutonium of 35 pci/g. What is USEPA's position on this new figure as >compared to >> the standard proposed at 1,429 pci/g for plutonium at Rocky Flats? >> Certainly a discussion of the Colorado State Standard of .9 pci/g should be >> mentioned. Offsite contamination found at the site of the Haystack Fire >reveals >> Colorado is not adhering to their own standard of .9 for plutonium in the >soil. >> The following levels were taken by CDPHE: >> >> Sampling Location Period Plutonium >> >> soil near haystack fire 5-30-91 3.97 plus or minus .09 >> hay from the haystack 5-30-91 .010 plus or minus .002 >> hay ash from haystack 5-30-91 .144 plus or minus .029 >> boots & bunker etc. 5-30-91 1.14 plus or minus .10 >> trouser wipes >> (West Adams County FD) >> Boots & bunkers >> trouser wipes >> (Westminster Fire Dept.) 5-30-91 .19 plus or minus .03 >> >> Same as Above Same as above Uranium >> .91 >+/- .03 >> 1.48 >+/-.27 >> 1.00 >+/- .06 >> 1.14 >+/-.05 >> >1.15+/-.03 >> >> Dr. Ed Martell was involved in the Colorado discussions for setting the >state soil >> standard. He determined that the initial standard discussed of .2 pci/g >would be >> more protective. >> >> 2. Please explain why it took ten years to get the NPDES permit from the >DOE and >> what was holding it back? I've been told that the DOE/NRC will not have >their >> radioactive discharges permitted. The City of Sante Fe New Mexico is >currently >> being sued by NRC for trying to regulate radioactive discharge into the >sewers. >> NRC claims that radioactive discharge will not be regulated by USEPA, >cities or >> the states. >> >> 3. Why will there be no split samples taken by the Colorado Department of >Health >> during the burn? CDPHE, Arch Crouse stated roughly that they have only 1 >monitor >> on the north, l south, 1 east and 2 west for particulate monitoring. He >said >> these will not be used for the burn. They have no funding for this >proposal. >> >> 4. Why has there been no prescribed burn anywhere else in the United >States on a >> Superfund site if weed management is the targeted issue? Weeds grow >everywhere! >> Why have we not targeted prescribed burns throughout Colorado or for >other federal >> Superfund sites in Colorado? DOE said the only federal facility they have >> burned vegetation at is Savannah River on 30,000 acres. Doesn't this >location >> have miles of buffer that separate the public from the prescribed burns >areas? >> Was the USEPA involved in this prescribed burn? Would you please provide >USEPA >> information and test results from these prescribed burns. DOE has not >shared this >> with the public. Also, the Environmental Assessment presents maps of the >future >> burns in contaminated areas. What is the USEPA position on this future >plan? >> >> 5. You implied at the CAB meeting that the Air Quality Control Division >of the >> Colorado Department of Health would have to permit the "contaminated" >portions of >> the Rocky Flats site differently than the "non-contaminated" areas? >CDPHE issues >> an agricultural open burn permit. The Colorado regulations for open >burns do not >> include in the application requirements and reference for air toxics of >concern >> i.e. plutonium, americium, arsenic, lead, beryllium etc. They regulate >the six >> criteria pollutants i.e. particulates, carbon monoxide, etc. NOTE: >Kaiser Hill >> said in their recent onsite tour for the Governors office, Allards aid >etc., that >> the Colorado Department of Health had issued an open burn air permit. As >of the >> evening of the CAB 3-2-00 the permit had not been issued. It had been >canceled >> and a new application submitted by DOE. The Forest Service cannot >complete their >> burn plan for the public's review due to this lack of air permit. What is >USEPA's >> position on this lack of information required for burn permits, and the >lack of >> permits and plans available for review so near the target date? >> >> 6. There has been no Smoke Plume modeling study presented to the public. > Kaiser >> Hill stated that there is no such thing as prevailing winds; that this >plume may >> go in many directions. Why has no smoke plume and or air modeling study >been >> presented to the public from a Major Air Pollution Source? Will this >annual burn >> be required to be reported in the Colorado State Implementation Plan? >> >> 7. Notification to the public is of great concern to the surrounding >> communities. The plan presented at the CAB indicates that the PA system >will be >> used for the employees on site. Since wind conditions, etc. are >important factor >> in monitoring during the burn, the plan for the general public is >inadequate. How >> will prompt notification be given to the public, i.e. children on the >> playgrounds, if there is a problem from an out of control burn into the most >> contaminated areas? DOE states that they have completed a "worst case >scenario" >> for the most contaminated area, the 903 pad. This has NOT been made >available for >> the public's preview. >> Please include this document to me. >> >> >> 8. The City of Westmister is opposed to this burn. They requested at >the CAB >> meeting the DOE use a 1/4 acre burn area to experiment with first, >instead of the >> entire 500 acres. Did you agree with DOE's reasoning that this was not >> practicable? >> >> 9. The Environmental Assessment states that there has never been a >prescribed >> burn at the Rocky Flats facility. Yet, the Colorado Air Quality Control >Division >> recently informed Sierra Club that there have been prescribed burns in >the past. >> They have issued permits and confirm these burns. They have requested >that Sierra >> Club file a Freedom of Information request to get this information. >CDPHE also >> was recently informed by Kaiser Hill that NESHAPS for air quality state >that 10 >> millirem is an acceptable exposure for nearby residents. Does the Air >Quality burn >> permit mention this? This is not required. A CAB member at the meeting >stated >> that there could be a possible exposure of 15 millirem during the burn >according >> to D.O.E. literature. I have not reviewed this information. >> >> 10. Dr. Harvey Nichols from CU presented very pressing concerns >regarding the >> monitoring equipment and hot spots that have been determined to be in the >vicinity >> of the proposed burn. He states: >> a. There has been no independent testing of the areas in question; >> b. High volume air samplers at or close to ground level are not adequate >to record >> airborne particulate contaminants such as plutonium; >> c. Deposition of burned material on one or more of the surrounding >communities due >> to the size and duration of the fire will result. >> >> >> Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to your participation to >educate >> the public on this most urgent of issues confronting the Rocky Flats >communities. >> My address for receiving documents requested is: >> >> 6654 S. Buffalo Dr. >> Littleton, Colorado 80120 >> >> Joan Seeman >> Sierra Club >> Hazardous Waste Committee Chair >> Rocky Mt. Chapter >> >> Rehder.Timothy@epamail.epa.gov wrote: >> >> > The new npdes permit for Rocky Flats is goes out for public comment >Monday. >> > There was an announcement in the classifieds of today's Denver Post >(see Legal >> > Notices). > - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign Subject: (abolition-usa) Reaffirm Committment to NPT says UN Secy General Date: 06 Mar 2000 17:04:27 +1000 This statement was first downloaded by Felicity at WILPF. I'm not sure how many people on Abolition have seen it, so downloaded it again from the UN website. I'm sure that we would all add to the Secy General's remarks 'Article VI'. John Hallam 3 March 2000 Press Release SG/SM/7323 DC/2686 SECRETARY-GENERAL, ON ANNIVERSARY OF NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY, URGES PARTIES TO REAFFIRM COMMITMENT AT UPCOMING REVIEW CONFERENCE 20000303 The following statement was issued today by the Spokesman for Secretary- General Kofi Annan: Thirty years ago, on 5 March 1970, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) entered into force. The event was acclaimed then as the most important international agreement in the field of disarmament since the start of the nuclear age and a major success for the cause of peace. The Treaty has since become and remains the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. Its membership has steadily grown to 187 States parties today. On the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the NPT's entry into force, the Secretary-General would like to stress that in order to achieve the ultimate objective of a world free of nuclear weapons, the international community should immediately start taking new and effective measures to achieve the inherently linked goals of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Efforts to seek the elimination of all nuclear weapons must remain a high priority. The Secretary-General hopes that all parties to the NTP will rededicate themselves to unceasing efforts to implement all of their obligations under the Treaty. The forthcoming 2000 NPT Review Conference (24 April to 19 May) would be an excellent opportunity for all parties to reaffirm their commitment to the Treaty. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign Subject: (abolition-usa) Oh No! Not Another ' Write to your Government'! - NPT Letters to Date: 06 Mar 2000 18:18:23 +1000 (Sorry for duplicate copies caused by double- posting.) PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR GOVT. RE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW SAMPLE LETTER FOR EVERYONE TO SEND TO PRESIDENTS/PRIME MINISTERS/FOREIGN MINISTERS (This is for you or your organisation to send to your foreign minister, and president or prime minister, and/or to presidents Putin and Clinton.) (Please email/forward these 2 sample letters to everyone you know - and do please actually send these letters to your foreign minister or prime minister or president) If you have already done it, congratulations. This is posted for those who have not yet done it. If you haven't done it and you think the nuke weapons states ought to fulfil their legal obligation to get rid of nuclear weapons, do please do it. I'll be posting reminders asking you to do it over the next few weeks. Dear All who get these two sample letters, The two sample letters below are a call for action consistent with the Abolition statement, and with current NGO demands for the upcoming review conference of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. They basically ask the nuclear weapons states to fulfil their obligations under Article VI of the NPT, to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, and they ask everyone else to press the nuclear weapons states to do just that. I am posting these appeals to write to your government re the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in the hope that you will actually do just that! If you want to change anything that's just fine, just do it, if you think the letters are better phrased some other way then thats great. But basically I am hoping that as many people as possible will write something like this to your head of state or prime minister or foreign minister, and that you will pass this message on to others who will do the same. If you are an organisation and especially if you have already signed the 'Heads of State' letter that I posted some time ago, you may also want to sign the letter to be found on the following URL: On 24 April-19May this year, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) will go before its first review conference after being indefinitely extended in 1995. As the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty covers every nation in the world with the exception of Israel, India and Pakistan (all of whom have nuclear weapons), the NPT Review Conference, which will be held at the UN in New York will be one of the most important diplomatic events (if not THE most important diplomatic event) of the year. It has implications for the safety of the whole planet. Article VI of the NPT which has been in force since 1970, obliges the nuclear weapons states to negotiate away their nuclear arsenals yesterday. The International Court of Justice in 1996, in a unanimous advisory opinion, said that there exists an obligation, under article VI, to negotiate away the nuclear arsenals of the nuclear weapons powers. However, the opposite is what is happening. As the Nuclear Nonproiferation treaty is in effect a deal whereby the nuke weapons states agree to eliminate their nuclear arsenals in return for the non- nuclear weapons states agreeing not to attempt to obtain nuclear weapons, the failure of the nuclear weapons states to honour their part of the deal means that the non-nuclear weapons states may start to withdraw from their part of the deal as india, Israel and Pakistan in effect already have done. You are therefore strongly urged to write to your foreign minister, and Prime Minister and/or Head of State, (whoever is the relevant decision- maker) urging them to press the nuclear weapons states to keep their side of the NPT 'Bargain' and fulfil the requirements of Article VI, or if you live in a nuclear weapons state, ask them to fulfil their Article VI NPT obligations immediately. These two letters, one to all heads of state/prime ministers/foreign ministers and one specifically to Russian President Putin, foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, and copied to Clinton, are to give you an idea what to write. Please don't follow them slavishly. If you are an individual, I'd urge you to write HANDWRITTEN. Copied letters get thrown away. Handwritten gets read. If you are an organisation, please put this on your own letterhead and CUSTOMISE IT. These letters are deliberately too long. You may want to shorten them. If you are in a non- english speaking country do please translate it and make any changes you feel necessary when you translate it. The NPT Review Conference is literally an event of global signficance, so ask your head of state/foreign minister/prime minister to attend the NPT Review in person. Do please write. The fate of the world as a whole will quite literally depend on the deliberations of the diplomats, foreign ministers, and heads of state in the review conference in New York. A shorter letter (very short) is available on: Http://www.abolition2000.org. Fax numbers of heads of state, foreign ministers, and UN Missions are also available on that URL. Another URL that has the fax numbers of heads of state, foreign ministers and UN missions and also has lots of information on the NPT Review is: Http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org TEXT OF GENERAL SAMPLE LETTER AND SAMPLE LETTER TO PUTIN AND IVANOV FOLLOWS RE: NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE APRIL 24-MAY 19 2000 - GETTING RID OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO: PRESIDENT, PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN MINISTER, Your Excellency, [0r] Dear President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, I am writing to urge [your/our] government to take a strong position at the upcoming Review Conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in New York April 24 to May 19, 2000, and to urge [your/our] head of state or of government to attend this meeting. It is vital that the governments of all nations do their utmost to pressure the nuclear weapons states, especially the US and Russia, to do more to fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the NPT, and negotiate their nuclear weapons stockpiles down to zero. The International Court of Justice reaffirmed in 1996, in a unanimous advisory opinion that this is indeed a legal obligation. The nuclear weapons states are currently making very little movement toward fulfilling this obligation. Instead there have been many developments in the opposite direction. The US Senate has failed to ratify the CTBT,(Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) and the US is contemplating the deployment of a Ballistic Missile Defence System in violation of the 1972 ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) treaty. Talks between the US and Russia to make cuts in nuclear weapons are stalled, as is implementation of START II. Russia has changed its previous policy of 'no first use' of nuclear weapons to one that mirrors those of the western states, and its Duma has refused to ratify START-II. Both the US and Russia continue to conduct 'subcritical' nuclear tests. China is modernizing its nuclear arsenal, and India and Pakistan have openly tested nuclear weapons. Israel, in spite of a recent debate in the Knessett, refuses to acknowledge its nuclear capabilities but may have as many as 400 weapons. On the other hand, the non nuclear weapons states with a few notable exceptions, have adhered to their side of the bargain, while the NPT has become nearly universal. A successful outcome at the coming NPT Review Conference, would explicitly commit parties under Article VI to the elimination of nuclear weapons at an early date, and a global regime banning nuclear weapons, and would outline the process for that to occur. It is important that your government and every government, use its position to push the nuclear weapon states and particularly the US and Russia, to fulfill Article VI during the coming review conference. A key preliminary step in this direction that would reduce the danger of purely accidental war, and improve the climate for further steps, would be the abandonment of 'launch on warning' postures. This should be followed by reduction of alert status of warheads, and the verifiable physical removal of warheads from delivery vehicles. It is especially vital that [your/our] [head of government/head of state] be present at the proceedings of this review conference. The decisions taken at the coming NPT Review conference will literally determine the fate of the world. Only by the authority lent by the presence of heads of State or of Government can decisions be taken that will have the end result of ridding the world of nuclear weapons and fulfilling the mandate of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty over the last thirty years. Signed...etc. SAMPLE LETTER FOR EVERYONE TO SEND TO PRESIDENT PUTIN AND FOREIGN MINISTER IGOR IVANOV. RE: NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE APRIL 24-MAY 19 2000 - GETTING RID OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO: PRESIDENT PUTIN +7-095-205-4330, FOREIGN MINISTER IVANOV +7-095-244-3276, +7-095-244-2203 RUSSIAS UNITED NATIONS AMBASSADOR + 1 212 628 0252 cc PRESIDENT CLINTON +1-202-456-2461 Dear President Putin and Foreign Minister Ivanov, I am writing to urge Russia's government to fulfill its obligations under Article VI of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. It is vital that we negotiate their nuclear weapons stockpiles down to zero sooner rather than later. The International Court of Justice reaffirmed in 1996, in a unanimous judgment, that this is indeed a legal obligation. It is now vital that the Russia and the US fulfill their clear obligations under Article VI of the nonproliferation treaty. While arms reductions have occurred since the 1980s, this process of reduction has now stalled and may be going into reverse. The US and Russia are both signed on to a treaty, article VI of which demands that you negotiate to eliminate your nuclear arsenals. The binding nature of Article VI was reaffirmed by the 1996 unanimous advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Russia and the US together, as well as China, the UK and France cannot forever refuse to fulfill their clear legal obligations under the NPT while expecting that other countries will continue to fulfill theirs. The credibility of the NPT will disappear if the nuclear weapon states - yourselves - do not fulfill your obligations. The eventual result of that is likely to be much wider acquisition of nuclear weapons, with a vastly increased likelihood of nuclear war. While Russia may have been given reasons to distrust US and NATO intentions, the stakes in getting rid of nuclear weapons are literally ultimate. No political goal no matter how central it may seem to the interests of either Russia or the US can justify the possible destruction of human civilisation and life worldwide. Public opinion in both your countries is strongly in favor of negotiating to eliminate nuclear weapons. Global public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of this and indeed demands it, as do the overwhelming majority of governments. A successful outcome at the coming NPT Review Conference, would explicitly commit parties under Article VI to the elimination of nuclear weapons at an early date, and a global regime banning nuclear weapons, and would outline the process for that to occur. In this context, it is especially vital that the Russian and US Presidents be present at the proceedings of the NPT Review Conference, and be ready to negotiate to eliminate your nuclear arsenals as you are obliged to do under Article VI. The decisions taken at the coming NPT Review conference will literally determine the fate of the world. Only by the authority lent by the presence of heads of State or of Government can decisions be taken that will have the end result of ridding the world of nuclear weapons and fulfilling the mandate of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty over the last thirty years. Signed...etc. John Hallam Friends of the Earth Sydney, 17 Lord Street, Newtown, NSW, Australia, 2042 Fax (61)(2)9517-3902 ph (61)(2)9517-3903 nonukes@foesyd.org.au http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Subject: (abolition-usa) Emergency Nuclear Free Zone Alert Date: 06 Mar 2000 11:45:55 -0800 >Return-Path: >Delivered-To: napf@silcom.com >Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:01:36 -0800 (PST) >X-Sender: windmill@tsoft.net >To: freezone@nuclearfree.org >From: "." >Subject: EMERGENCY NUCLEAR FREE ZONE ALERT >Sender: windmill@tsoft.net > >EMERGENCY NUCLEAR FREE ZONE ALERT ----- >You may not be aware that a year ago the Berkeley City Council drastically >weakened the Nuclear Free Zone law. There is a proposal coming before the >City Council to reinstate and strengthen this law. IT IS VITAL THAT DIANE >WOOLLEY, A SWING VOTE, BE CONTACTED. It's also important to call the Mayor, >Dona Spring and, if you live in Berkeley, your own City Council Member. The >City Clerk can tell you the name of your Council Member. The details and >additional contact information is provided below: > >NUCLEAR FREE ZONE ALERT >An occasional newsletter about Berkeley's Nuclear Free Zone >No. 2 > > 1998 CITY COUNCIL ACTION VIRTUALLY REPEALS > ENFORCEABILITY OF NUCLEAR FREE ZONE LAW > >IN 1997 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) announced they would >build DARHT, a device vital for designing new nuclear weapons. Berkeley >responded by enforcing its Nuclear Free law three times in a six month >period (organizing a forum attended by hundreds, passing a resolution >opposing DARHT, and sending a formal request that U.C. and LBNL cease and >desist all nuclear weapons work, including the DARHT project). It is illegal >for the City Council to alter the voter created Nuclear Free law, but eight >months after citizens seeking to enforce the nuclear free law delayed >approval of a U.C. contract (the Nuclear Free law prohibits Berkeley from >contracting with entities doing nuclear weapons work, unless there is no >reasonable, cost effective, alternative) the City Council passed a "blanket >waiver" that weakened the law by ending citizen commission review of >proposals to waive the law, thus making enforcement of the nuclear free law >virtually impossible. In the one year period since the blanket waiver passed >not a single effort to enforce its nuclear free law has occurred - it's as >if the Nuclear Free law has been repealed! > > CONTACT COUNCIL NOW TO REVIVE CITIZEN REVIEW AND REINSTATE ENFORCEMENT OF >NUCLEAR FREE ZONE LAW > >IN JANUARY, 2000 the Peace & Justice Commission unanimously recommended >that the City Council reinstate the policy of having citizen commissions >review proposals to waive the Nuclear Free law. But passage of the Peace and >Justice proposal is uncertain. Linda Maio is likely vote against it. Vice >Mayor Maudelle Shirek, Margaret Breland, and Kriss Worthington are likely >to support it. Ask Council Members Woolley, Spring and the Mayor to support >the Peace and Justice recommendation. Mayor Shirely Dean (510) 644-6484 >dean@ci.berkeley.ca.us > >Green Party Council Member Dona Spring (510) 644-6266 >spring@ci.berkeley.ca.us >In the past Dona Spring has led efforts to oppose DARHT and enforce the >Nuclear Free law, but in 1998 she agreed to compromises that weakened the >law. She has said she will vote for the Peace and Justice Commission >recommendation, ask her to resist pressure to weaken it. > >Council Member Diane. Woolley is a swing vote - (510) 644-6294 >woolley@ci.berkeley.ca.us >Woolley distinguished herself by abstaining from the vote to weaken the >nuclear free law. Ask her to vote for the Peace and Justice recommendation. > >Or write the Mayor & Council Members at: 1900 Addision St., Berkeley, Ca. >94704. > >Although the cold war is behind us, the Nuclear Free law is still important. >If India and Pakistan had signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty they >could not have conducted nuclear weapons tests. India justifies refusing to >sign the treaty because the test ban does not prohibit nuclear weapons >states from using advanced technologies like DARHT to maintain and develop >nuclear weapons. The treaty is thus viewed as a ploy by nuclear weapons >states, instead of a sincere first step toward nuclear disarmament. By >discouraging developing countries from signing the test ban treaty, DARHT, >and related technologies, may be indirectly responsible the outbreak of the >India-Pakistan nuclear arms race. > > >TO HELP PLEASE CALL: (510) 594-4088 or e-mail us at freezone@nuclearfree.org >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- >For more information visit Nuclear Free Berkeley - the web page: > >WWW.NUCLEARFREE.ORG > > >NUCLEAR FREE ZONE ALERT, by the publisher of KPFA Chronicles, was created >to educate people about, and encourage enforcement of, the Nuclear Free >Berkeley Act. Letters and donations can be sent to: >Nuclear Free Berkeley, P.O. Box 851, Berkeley, Ca 94701 > > > > - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Subject: (abolition-usa) Countdown to the NPT Date: 06 Mar 2000 18:13:30 -0800 6 March 2000 Dear Friends and Activists, With only 49 more days until the 2000 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, momemtum in support of the Abolition 2000 Global Network and for nuclear abolition is building. There are now 1479 organizational endorsements of the Abolition 2000 Statement and 241 Municipal endorsements, for a total of 1720 endorsers. We only need 280 more endorsers to reach our goal of 2000, which means that we nead to receive aproximately SIX NEW endorsements, EVERYDAY, for the next 49 DAYS. WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT! It is critical to reach our goal of 2000 endorsers by the time of the 2000 NPT Review Conference (24 April-19 May). Please make a comittment to enroll AT LEAST one new organization or municipality this week. With YOUR help, we will achieve our goal! Thank you for your continued support. I look forward to hearing from you. In Peace and Solidarity, Carah Carah Lynn Ong Coordinator, Abolition 2000 1187 Coast Village Road PMB 121, Suite 1 Santa Barbara CA 93108 Phone (805) 965 3443 FAX(805) 568 0466 Email: A2000@silcom.com Website http://www.abolition2000.org Join the Abolition-USA or Abolition-Global Caucus list serve to regularly receive updates about the Abolition movement. Both caucus' also provide a forum for conversation on nuclear-related issues as well as they are used to post important articles and information pertaining to nuclear abolition. To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, please do one of the following: 1. Send a message to the list moderator at A2000@silcom.com 2. Visit the Abolition-caucus website at: Http://www.egroups.com/list/abolition-caucus/ and submit a membership form. 3. Visit the Abolition 2000 website and submit a membership form. 4. Send an e-mail to: abolition-caucus-subscribe@egroups.com (leave the subject line and body of the message blank). To post a message to the Abolition Global Caucus, send your message to: abolition-caucus@egroups.com To subscribe to the Abolition-USA listerve, send a message (with no subject) to: abolition-usa-request@lists.xmission.com In the body of the message, write: "subscribe abolition-usa" (do not include quotation marks) To post a message to the Abolition-USA list, mail your message to: abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: marylia@earthlink.net (marylia) Subject: (abolition-usa) DOE budget analysis on TVC web site/New! Date: 06 Mar 2000 20:11:49 -0800 (PST) Dear peace and environmental colleagues: Tri-Valley CAREs has a new report on its web site that will likely be of interest -- and of great use -- to you. "THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET REQUEST FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACTIVITIES," is an analysis done for Tri-Valley CAREs by Dr. Robert Civiak. (From 1988 to 1999, Bob served as Program Examiner in the federal Office of Management and Budget, where the DOE budget was within the scope of his responsibilities.) The report is concise, readable and "chock full" of valuable information on the nuclear weapons activities proposed in the budget request that went to Congress on February 7, 2000. For example: (1) Did you know that only 10% of the DOE budget request is directly tied to evaluation and maintenance of the existing arsenal? Check out our report and learn what the other 90% will buy! (2) Did you know that the DOE budget request contains 17 separate "campaigns" that are largely activities to improve or expand capabilities? Check out the 6 U.S. weapons types for which the budget requests "improvement" monies! (3) Did you know that the fiscal year 2001 cost for the National Ignition Facility is hidden in various categories throughout the DOE budget request? Check out the box at the end of our report to see how the NIF funding adds up! Our web site is at http://igc.org/tvc. Happy reading. Peace, Marylia Marylia Kelley Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94550 - is our web site, please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax Working for peace, justice and a healthy environment since 1983, Tri-Valley CAREs has been a member of the nation-wide Alliance for Nuclear Accountability in the U.S. since 1989, and is a co-founding member of the international Abolition 2000 network for the elimination of nuclear weapons. - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Abolition2000 Pacific Region" Subject: (abolition-usa) Hawaii's Jim Albertini solidarity for a Nuclear-Free University!! Date: 06 Mar 2000 23:37:04 PST Dear Abolitionists, Aloha and Greetings from Hawai'i! Here's Jim Albertini for you!! We can use all of the inspiration from those who preceeded us, and appreciate the solidarity! Jim swam out into the Pacific Ocean to confront a US nuclear-armed warship and spent 3 years in prison for it! During a time of cynicism, we young ones need folks lik Jim Albertini and M.Vanunu to guide us with their examples. Richard Salvador Honolulu, Hawai`i ---- Dear Richard and UH peacemakers, I applaud your work for a Nuclear-free University of Hawaii and extend my solidarity as one sentenced to three years in U.S. federal prison for a nonviolent swiming protest of a nuclear armed warship entering Hawaii County's Nuclear-free zone in 1984. Hawaii County was the first municipality in the U.S. to pass a law declaring itself a nuclear-free zone in 1981. Unfortunately, then county council chair (now mayor) Steven Yamashiro, and the council majority, did not have the courage to stand up in support of the law. They bent to the pressure of the military. To UH students, I say, BE STRONG. STAND FIRM IN DECLARING UH A NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE. With gratitude and aloha, Jim Jim Albertini P.O. Box AB Ola`a (Kurtistown), Hawaii 96760 808-966-7622 email ja@interpac.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: polisci-l@hawaii.edu, kanakamaoliallies-l@hawaii.edu, Military Affairs Reporter Mike Gordon , Honolulu Star Bulletin , Honolulu Weekly Note: The University of Hawaii Graduate Student Organization (GSO) will be considering passage of a Nuclear Free University of Hawaii Resolution next week. See text of the Resolution below. The GSO meeting will be held on Friday, March 10, 2000, from 1-3pm, at UH-Manoa Campus Center Building, Room CC220. Come and support this resolution. Mahalo. Aloha, FYI: It has become critical for all communities throughout Hawaii, the Pacific, and around the world to take a stand on nuclear weapons and to take steps toward influencing State and National Governments including countries to begin seriously addressing the "nuclear crisis," as former US President Jimmy Carter described the current state of nuclear proliferation in a February 23, 2000 op-ed piece in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-02/23/008l-022300-idx.html). Unfortunately, as President Carter writes, "U.S. policy has had a good deal to do with creating it." As a consequence, there have been "a disturbing pattern of provocative [nuclear] developments" (see a brief list of these in President Carter's op-ed piece). These have been allowed to happen largely because of uninformed publics and because of the failure of the media to focus on them as critical areas of concern for domestic and world peace. However, national and international leaders can be "inspired to act wisely and courageously by an informed public," as Carter adds. There is an urgent need for the public, in the USA and around the world, to educate peoples, advocate for and lobby their leaders to speak out on these issues in preparation for the 5-year Review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, taking place April 24 - May 19, 2000 at the United Nations. (Please visit the website of Abolition 2000 http://www.abolition2000.org, for more information.) The University of Hawaii community and the entire Hawaiian population should proudly commend President C. Mamo Kim and her colleagues in the Graduate Student Organization for taking this initiative to pass the following Nuclear-Free Zone Resolution and for taking a leadership role in educating peoples in Hawaii, the United States and the world in calling for nuclear disarmament as a step toward world peace. Please come to the GSO meeting to support the passage of this Resolution. Thank you very much. Richard Salvador Pacific Abolition 2000 Pacific Islands Association of NGOs ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: Annalisa Guevarra Delacruz /snip/ Richard, Our next GSO meeting will be next Friday from 1-3, at CC220. I think it would be good to introduce this resolution yourself. You could send a copy of this to the gso-l with a forward, mentioning your intention to have the GSO pass it in assembly. /snip/ At the assembly, deliver hard copies which read as follows: GRADUATE STUDENT ORGANIZATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I AT MANOA 2445 Campus Road, Hemenway 212 GRADUATE STUDENT ORGANIZATION RESOLUTION 02-00 URGING THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AND CALLING UPON THE GOVERNMENTS OF ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATES TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS IMMEDIATELY ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONVENTION TO PROHIBIT AND ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS EARLY IN THIS NEW CENTURY, AND TO COMPLETE THESE NEGOTIATIONS BY THE YEAR 2000 Whereas the billions of dollars spent on nuclear weapons each year could be reallocated to help fund educational programs and other social needs; Whereas the research and development of nuclear weapons, which has involved many of our universities, fosters a culture of secrecy which is in direct opposition to the principles of democracy; Whereas the intellectual resources currently devoted to the development and maintenance of our nuclear arsenals could be far more productively used for research into environmentally sound technologies; Whereas the International Court of Justice ruled unanimously in July 1996, "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control"; Whereas retired U.S. General Lee Butler, once responsible for all U.S. strategic nuclear forces, has called nuclear weapons "inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, militarily inefficient, and morally indefensible"; Whereas the residual effects of nuclear warfare would have a lasting impact on present and future generations, posing a constant threat to the health and peace of mind of the world's citizens; Whereas it is in the direct interest of young people to support the sustainability of life on this planet in order that they may have a healthy place to live in which to pursue their dreams and aspirations; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the GRADUATE STUDENT ORGANIZATION of the University of Hawai'i at Manoa declares itself a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone and supports the further development of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones throughout the world; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the GSO calls for all nuclear weapons to be taken off alert status; for all nuclear warheads to be separated from their delivery vehicles; and for the nuclear weapons states to agree to unconditional no first use of these weapons; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the GSO calls upon the governments of all nuclear weapons states to begin negotiations immediately on a Nuclear Weapons Convention to prohibit and eliminate all nuclear weapons early in this new century, and to complete these negotiations by the year 2000; BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be distributed to the Board of Regents of the University of Hawai'i, President and Chancellor of Manoa Kenneth P. Mortimer, Vice-President of Student Affairs Doris Ching, the U.S. Congressional Delegation, the President of the U.S., and the local media; ROLL CALL GSO RESOLUTION 02-00 Ayes: Nays: Abstentions: ADOPTED BY THE 1999-2000 GSO ASSEMBLY ON FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 2000. Prepared by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation for the Abolition 2000 Global Campaign and introduced by Richard Salvador, Ph.D. candidate, Political Science, University of Hawai'i at Manoa. C. Mamo Kim Kalawaia Moore GSO President GSO Secretary Richard, I'll send a copy of this memo to Anna and ask her to type it up for you and make about 15 hardcopies. anna: Please remind the gso list to come to the next meeting, time date, place, etc. thanks. Mamo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Subject: (abolition-usa) Keep the Momentum going Date: 07 Mar 2000 20:57:26 -0800 Dear Friends and Activists, Let's keep the momentum going! These organizations have endorsed the Abolition 2000 Statement this week: Post Pessimits, A-Bolo Graz/Austria Bangladesh People's Solidarity Center, Sao Miguel/Portugal International Informatization Academy, Cape Coast/Ghana Brotherhood Link, Cantoments/Ghana The Millennium Visioneer, Madina/Ghana Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, Poulsbo/Washington Saffron Waldon Green Party, Waldon/UK This bring the total number of endorsers to Carah Lynn Ong Coordinator, Abolition 2000 1187 Coast Village Road PMB 121, Suite 1 Santa Barbara CA 93108 Phone (805) 965 3443 FAX(805) 568 0466 Email: A2000@silcom.com Website http://www.abolition2000.org Join the Abolition-USA or Abolition-Global Caucus list serve to regularly receive updates about the Abolition movement. Both caucus' also provide a forum for conversation on nuclear-related issues as well as they are used to post important articles and information pertaining to nuclear abolition. To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, please do one of the following: 1. Send a message to the list moderator at A2000@silcom.com 2. Visit the Abolition-caucus website at: Http://www.egroups.com/list/abolition-caucus/ and submit a membership form. 3. Visit the Abolition 2000 website and submit a membership form. 4. Send an e-mail to: abolition-caucus-subscribe@egroups.com (leave the subject line and body of the message blank). To post a message to the Abolition Global Caucus, send your message to: abolition-caucus@egroups.com To subscribe to the Abolition-USA listerve, send a message (with no subject) to: abolition-usa-request@lists.xmission.com In the body of the message, write: "subscribe abolition-usa" (do not include quotation marks) To post a message to the Abolition-USA list, mail your message to: abolition-usa@lists.xmission.com - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------