No. 2 July/August IALANA NEWS 2012

NGO in consultative status (Category II) with the United Nations Economic and Social Council Member of the Coordinating Committee of The Hague Appeal for Peace 1999 International Association Of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA)

BOARD

Co-Presidents Berlin, 26 July 2012 Judge Christopher Weeramantry, Sri Lanka Peter Weiss, Dear Colleagues, USA Peter Becker, Let me congratulate you on reading the summer edition newsletter of the Secretary, Germany IALANA. Vice Presidents Pasquale Policastro, Poland Kenji Urata, Japan IALANA Newsletter wants to reveal interesting thoughts on a world Phon Van den Biesen, without war and nuclear weapons. This past quarter of the year was very The Netherlands important. IALANA was present at big world wide peace events. First of Carlos Vargas, Costa Rica all, in the beginning of May, there was the NPT Preparatory Conference in Vienna. Another huge event took place in Chicago – the NATO summit Directors th st B.N. Bhagwati, India from 20 – 21 of May. And last, but not least, the Rio plus 20 conference Bev T. Delong, Canada on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro at the end of June. IALANA Mark L. Entin, Russia participated and had something to say. We are grateful for having in the Teresa Freixes, Spain newsletter all the reports, documents and pictures of these events. Stig Gustafsson, Sweden Fredrick Heffermehl, Norway Jo Lau, Italy The newsletter is made completly by contributions from the daily work of Fabio Marcelli, Italy Simon Reeves, the IALANA Affiliates, which we recommend as an interesting and Aotearoa-New Zealand informative read. They provide an overview of active work of the IALANA Nasila Rembe, South Africa of the variety and creativity of the commitment of jurists for peace. Meindart Stelling, The Netherlands Toshinori Yamada, Japan

Treasurer Otto Jäckel, Germany Have a great summer.

Consultant Alyn Ware, Aotearoa-New Zealand With warm regards, UN Liaison

John Burroughs, USA Saul Mendlovitz, USA Peter Becker Reiner Braun Associated Member George Farebrother, U. K.

Executive Director Reiner Braun, Germany

International Coordinator Jenny-Louise Becker, Germany Robin Borrmann, Germany

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Contents

I. Information from the national IALANA affiliates ...... 3 1) Ongoing Public Engagement: The Criminality of Nuclear Weapons - Campaign ...... 3 2) Appeal: ―Nuclear Power Plant and Human Rights - the Nationwide Research and Exchange Conference in Fukushima‖ ...... 6 3) Meeting report: Nuclear Weapons and International Humanitarian Law ...... 7 II. News from the world ...... 10 1) Secret ‗Kill List‘ Proves a Test of Obama‘s Principles and Will ...... 10 2) Breaking the Nuclear Chain ...... 20 3) Parliaments Step up Action for a new approach to achieve a Nuclear Weapons-Free World ...... 21 4) Whistleblowers Are Real Proxies for Sins of the Bush Administration ...... 23 III. Nuclear Weapons ...... 25 1) US Nuclear Weapons Upgrades - Experts Report Massive Cost Increase ...... 25 2) Nuclear Weapons and a Sustainable Future ...... 28 o Recommended Steps for Consideration by the Parties to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference ...... 36 3) NPT Prep.Com from April 30th to May 5th 2012, Vienna: Joint Statement on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament, 2012 NPT PrepCom ...... 37 4) A waste of efforts or not – Stimuli to further struggle for a nuclear (weapon-) free world ...... 39 5) The IAEA and the necessity of reforms after Fukushima ...... 41 IV. NATO Summit ...... 45 1) Chicago Tribune: NATO's hard sell at the summit ...... 45 2) What Is Obama's Position on Afghanistan? Say It Again? ...... 48 3) Statement: Network Free Future Counter Summit for Peace and Economic Justice ... 50 V. RIO+20 Summit for Sustainable Development ...... 52 1) Information from RIO ...... 52 2) Disarmament for Sustainable Development - An international appeal ...... 53

Editorial Team: Reiner Braun, Inga Burmistrovaite, Lucas Wirl

Berlin Schützenstraße 6a 10117 Berlin Germany Phone: (49) 30 2065 4857 Fax: (49) 30 2065 3837 www.ialana.net 2 email: [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Information from the national IALANA affiliates

Ongoing Public Engagement: The Criminality of Nuclear Weapons Campaign

INLAP/World Court Project UK,

February 2012/Updated June 2012

By George Farebrother, Roslyn Cook

According to the Final Statement of the We are on strong ground in arguing that any 2011 IALANA General Assembly, use of nuclear weapons would be criminal. supported in particular by Judge In a recent Symposium, Nuclear Weapons Weeramantry: and International Law: A Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime for The 21st IALANA is uniquely qualified to Century recorded in the Fordham present to policy makers and to the International Law Journal, the authors, general public the one incontrovertible Charles J. Moxley Jr., John Burroughs and argument for the elimination of Jonathan Granoff state: nuclear weapons: their total incompatibility with international … In short, review of the matter humanitarian law, as demonstrated by reveals that the use of nuclear the Vancouver Declaration of weapons would violate IHL and that February 11, 2011. the threat of such use, including under the policy of nuclear deterrence, The Criminality of Nuclear Weapons similarly violates such law. Analysis campaign (CNW), launched by the Institute further reveals that the nuclear for Law and Peace (INLAP) and World weapon states‟ existing obligation to Court Project UK, wants citizens across the bring their policies into compliance world to affirm in their millions that any use with IHL is reinforced by the NPT of nuclear weapons by anyone under any disarmament obligation as spelled out circumstances would not only violate their by the 2010 NPT Review Conference, basic human values; it would also be a war in particular by its declaration of the crime. need to comply with IHL.

The campaign is engaging the general public The authors conclude that: by collecting personal Affirmations from citizens and from groups stating their … it is only a cognitively creative rejection of any use of nuclear weapons. exception to real-world practice that This is firmly based on International can even describe an instance in which Humanitarian Law. We urge readers to visit the use of a nuclear weapon would not our website on www.nuclearweapons- violate IHL. Is it not time that the warcrimes.org to sign up personally and nations and people of the world encourage their own contacts to do the same. demanded that states with nuclear

3 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

weapons bring their practices into It is important that such a Mock Trial would strict compliance with the law? not be seen as a ―peace activist‖ stunt. There must be no foregone conclusion and the At its 2011 General Assembly IALANA charge must be presented fairly. It would be agreed ―to bring its message to bar all the more authentic if the judgement were associations and universities and to law not to be entirely in ―our‖ favour. There students and young lawyers, to carry on the must be equality of arguments with a robust work which it has been pursuing since 1988, defence. The charge must involve putting in to carry to the general public the message of place a crime of consequence. It should deal the total illegality of nuclear weapons, and with a real Chief Executive of a specific to further peace education at all levels.” British company involved in the manufacture of Trident (using a stand-in As a further step towards realising this actor). objective, CNW is planning a Mock Trial of Trident, Britain‘s nuclear weapons system, The objective would be to highlight the in Spring 2013. To this end we have recently catastrophic consequences of any use of a met the international environmental lawyer nuclear weapon. The issues should be Polly Higgins and her Campaign Manager framed to maximize the educational impact concerning the Eradicating Ecocide of the trial, for law students as well as the campaign,http://www.eradicatingecocide.co general public. The event would fit in well m/the-trial , which centred on a Mock Trial with the curriculum in the UK when it of Ecocide in London in September 2011. comes to studying the ICC and IHL, which There is much we can learn from their takes place in the second term in most success in engaging public support and universities. ensuring that the trial represents an authentic and convincing process; the following is a We should apply existing international summary of our thoughts so far. criminal law as it is, and not as we would like it to be. The ICC is a good starting The Mock Trial would take place in a point. The concept of ―criminality‖ is more prestigious location such as the Supreme attractive that that of ―illegality‖, and fits in Court in London. It would last one day and well with current developments. feature prominent lawyers. We are also considering another one a few weeks later in There is a strong legal drive towards Edinburgh. Trident carries particular concentrating on criminality of use derived political salience in Scotland as it is based from the unpredictability of the effects of there against the wishes of a majority due to any nuclear strike. The Swiss paper for the vote in a referendum concerning Scottish 2010 RevCon, Delegitimising Nuclear independence. Janet Fenton of ICAN Weapons, goes some way towards this Scotland is already promoting the CNW http://www.nuclearweapons-warcrimes.org/ campaign there. page3.html and the Mexican proposal to amend the Rome Statute of the ICC is very Materials produced for the Mock Trials clear on this issue (see). could then be made available online so that law students could prepare their own events, Rebecca Johnson (Acronym Institute) optimally coinciding with the needs of their reports: curriculum. Mock Trials could be held worldwide but materials would need to be at the 2012 Vienna NPT Preparatory adaptable to the situation in different Committee on Switzerland presented a joint countries. statement on the ―humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament” sponsored by 16 governments: Austria, Chile, Costa Rica,

4 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Denmark, Holy See, Egypt, Indonesia, environment and food production, which Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, could cause… global famine affecting over a Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, South Africa billion people.” The statement drew and Switzerland. This quoted from the 2010 attention to the resolution adopted in NPT Review Conference, which had November 2011↑ by the Council of expressed its “deep concern at the Delegates of the International Red Cross catastrophic humanitarian consequences of and Red Crescent movement, which had any use of nuclear weapons” and reaffirmed emphasized that “it is difficult to envisage “the need for all states at all times to how any use of nuclear weapons could be comply with applicable international law, compatible with the rules of international including international humanitarian law”. humanitarian law”. The statement insisted It went on to evoke descriptions from the that all NPT parties, “especially the nuclear Red Cross on the “horrendous effects” and weapon States, [should] give increasing “immeasurable suffering” if nuclear attention to their commitment to comply with weapons were ever used, and recent studies international law and international that “even a „limited nuclear exchange‟ – in humanitarian law.” It concluded by calling itself a contradiction in terms – would on states to “intensify their efforts to outlaw provoke… global climate change with nuclear weapons and achieve a world free serious and long-lasting impact on the of nuclear weapons”.

Demonstration against war “Von Deutschland geht Krieg aus“

5 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Appeal: “Nuclear Power Plant and Human Rights - the Nationwide Research and Exchange Conference in Fukushima”

April 8, 2012

By Yaeka Inoue

The accident of In order to achieve this purpose, we must the Fukushima clarify the legal, political and social Daiichi Nuclear responsibility of the TEPCO, who caused Power Plant of the accident, and the Government, who has the Tokyo pushed through a policy of promoting Electric Power nuclear energy as a national policy, as well Company as clarify thoroughly the cause of the (TEPCO) that followed the Great East Japan accident including its background that Earthquake caused various, extensive and brought these tremendous damage of unprecedented damages. quality. In addition to the It polluted mountain, river, sea, and place of recognition of the living in hometown with unseen radiation. It cause and robbed people of their foundation of life and responsibility, we property, and it robbed kids of their need to recover the playgrounds. It destroyed learning spaces of loss (destroyed students. The community was destroyed at communities, and various levels, for example people are lost livelihood, forced to live apart from their family. People learning, culture, play, family, everyday life, ruined their health and have a great deal of and so on). We must demand the full anxiety. These damages are still continuing compensation from the TEPCO and the and even a prospect for solution is not yet Government which enables the victims to seen. retrieve their human rights and dignity invaded by the accident. We need to propose This is the very unprecedentedly grave a definite plan to achieve this purpose and damage we have never experienced before. push the national government and municipal governments to implement the policy. How should we respond to such a situation? The challenge of as much recovery as First, the most important thing is that you possible and complete compensation for understand the actual situation of this these damages is the very contents that damage more precisely and spread it to Japanese constitution guarantees as the people inside and outside the country as a fundamental human rights such as the right common knowledge. to the pursuit of happiness (Art. 13), the right to live in peace (Preamble and Art.25), It is our responsibility to create a society, the right of residence (Art.22 and 25), the where such a man-made disaster that brings right to receive education (Art.26), the right about cruel damage is never repeated, as we to work (Art.27), and the right to own or to experienced this accident. hold property (Art. 29). The Government and municipal governments have an

6 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

obligation to embody these rights and shall natural scientists, social scientists, lawyers, make a maximum effort. journalists, and wide-ranging citizens who support these activities. Additionally, it is necessary to The Noda Administration of the Democratic create a society Party has not explained the cause of the where people do accident of the Fukushima Nuclear Power not depend on Plant. On the contrary, the Government is nuclear energy pushing through the resumption of the instead of operation of the closed nuclear reactors such resuming the as the Oi Plant under the circumstance operation of nuclear power plants. For where additional killer earthquake is likely example, how to treat a nuclear power plant to happen. in Niigata is not only a matter among the local residents but also among the Today, for the first anniversary of the consumers in the Tokyo metropolitan area, accident of the nuclear power plant, we held who enjoy electricity produced at the plant. the ―Nuclear Power Plant and Human Rights Every citizen must bear it in mind. - the Nationwide Research and Exchange Conference‖ here in Fukushima, and made a For the purpose of understanding the actual lot of fruits. Taking these fruits into account, situation and essence of the damage more we have made up our mind again to dedicate precisely, clarifying the cause and ourselves to the activities to restore damage responsibility of the accident, showing a and rights of the sufferers of the Fukushima road map of the damage recovery and Nuclear Power Plant, to stop the re- complete compensation, and spreading far operation of nuclear power plants, and to and wide around the society and carrying prevent another nuclear accident. At the out these matters, it is essential to make same time, we call for the cooperation by wide-ranging partnership and solidarity many citizens in more various fields from beyond our own fields among the sufferers, the bottom of our hearts.

Meeting report: Nuclear Weapons and International Humanitarian Law

By John Burroughs

How does, and how should, international Introducing the topic, humanitarian law (IHL) governing the moderator Dr. John conduct of warfare apply to nuclear Burroughs, LCNP weapons? On April 20, 2012, three highly Executive Director, noted qualified speakers addressed that question in an important recent a well-attended program of the annual development, an meeting of the International Law Section innovative provision of the American Bar Association. The adopted by the 2010 program was organized by Lawyers Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and Review Conference. In the Final Document, Global Security Institute and sponsored by the Conference ―expresses its deep concern the section‘s National Security Committee. at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and reaffirms the need for all 7 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

states at all times to comply with applicable The next speaker, Charles J. Moxley, Jr., a international law, including international mediator and arbitrator, is an adjunct humanitarian law.‖ professor at Fordham University School of The first speaker, Ambassador Libran Law and author of International Law and Cabactulan, the Philippines‘ Permanent Nuclear Weapons in the Post Cold War Representative to the United Nations, served World (Austin & Winfield, 2000). Professor as President of the 2010 NPT Review Moxley concentrated on assessment of the Conference. He said that there is a link lawfulness of use of nuclear weapons under between the NPT and the illegality of rules of IHL as to discrimination, nuclear weapons; the NPT came into proportionality and necessity, and a corollary requirement of controllability, set existence with the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons ―precisely because the forth in the US armed services manuals on weapons‘ destructive force is inherently the law of armed conflict. A 2010 US Army inhuman. The NPT preamble makes this manual states that discrimination ―requires abundantly clear.‖ For the first time in the parties to a conflict to engage only in history of the NPT, the 2010 Final military operations the effects of which Document specifically invoked international distinguish between the civilian population (or individual civilians not taking part in humanitarian law. The provision was placed in the disarmament portion of the hostilities) and combatant forces, directing conclusions and recommendations. In his the application of force solely against the view, ―taken as a whole‖ it is a ―major step‖ latter.‖ Given that the effects of nuclear in reinforcing the legal prohibition of explosions include a huge blast, nuclear weapons and a ―powerful political electromagnetic pulses, and radiation, statement on the nexus between nuclear Professor Moxley asked whether nuclear disarmament and IHL.‖ weapons can possibly meet this standard which calls for controllability of effects. Ambassador Cabactulan also presented the ―The answer,‖ he said, ―seems evident.‖ It is Philippines‘ longstanding views on the also impossible to ensure that a nuclear subject, stating: ―The Philippines strongly attack is limited to the level of violence believes that nuclear weapons are strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve prohibited by customary and conventional legitimate military ends in accordance with IHL. No amount of legal hairsplitting or standards set out in the manuals. operational obfuscation can change the fact that of all the weapons ever conceived by In principle, Professor Moxley said, the the mind of man, nuclear weapons are United States accepts that IHL applies to inherently indiscriminate, far beyond nuclear weapons; this is acknowledged in proportionality, cause unimaginable the manuals and in the US argument to the unnecessary suffering, and are inescapably International Court of Justice in the nuclear harmful to the environment. It is a weapon weapons case. In practice, however, the where the notion of control is meaningless United States does not apply but rather and the idea of military necessity is absurd. ignores the rules. That is so in the Nuclear Nuclear weapons are the apex of man‘s Posture Review, which does not mention genius at finding ways to destroy his fellow IHL, in training, in weapons development human beings. Using that same genius to and possession, and most importantly in come up with hypothetical scenarios where relying on the policy of nuclear deterrence, nuclear weapons would not violate IHL to under which nuclear weapons in large us is simply allowing the exception to lead numbers remain continuously ready for the rule by the nose. But more importantly launch as during the Cold War. Regarding assertion of exceptions should be seen as that policy, Professor Moxley noted that in proving the rule and that rule must find life its 1996 advisory opinion, the International in law either by treaty or court opinion.‖ Court of Justice stated that it is unlawful to 8 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

threaten use of a weapon which would be of Defense directives and orders; that is unlawful to use. He closed by asking: ―Is it overlooked by military education directives not evident that our policy of deterrence is and uniformed education and classroom unlawful if the actual use would be discussions; and that is nuclear weapons, unlawful?‖ their lawful, and more significantly, their The final speaker, Gary potentially unlawful use.‖ Nor is the Solis, for six years headed question addressed in military law journals. the law of war program at Professor Solis concluded: ―As lawyers we the US Military Academy know what the law is. The absence of at West Point, is currently discussion in Department of Defense orders and instructions and regulations in regard to an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law and a nuclear weapons allows for both tactical and lecturer at George strategic wiggle room.‖ Washington University The Program Co-Chairs were John Law School, and is the author The Law of Harrington, Co-Chair of the National Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Security Committee of the ABA Law in War (Cambridge University Press, International Law Section, and Jonathan 2010). Professor Solis explained that in Granoff, President of the Global Security directives and in training at all levels, the Institute and Co-Chair of the ABA US military takes the law of armed conflict International Law Section Blue Ribbon Task quite seriously. West Point and Annapolis, Force on Nuclear Non-Proliferation. In the two military academies he is familiar opening the program, Mr. Harrington with, stress the law of armed conflict in observed that the discourse in the section instruction generally and now have has largely concerned nuclear arms control dedicated courses on the subject. He said: treaties. IHL, in contrast, applies to all ―What about war crimes like Abu Ghraib, weapons, in all countries; it is a powerful Haditha, Hamdaniya, the Thrill Kills of body of law. Third Stryker Brigade, Staff Sergeant Bales, Responding to the speakers, Mr. Granoff and so on? No law will deter the lawless. said that ―the law seems to be quite clear Actually, it is a wonder there are not more here: You cannot bring nuclear weapons into war crimes than there are. When you send a compliance with the standards of IHL; the million 18 and 19 year olds into a combat two are simply incompatible.‖ However, zone with high powered weapons, it is ―there seems to be collective psychological inevitable that bad things are going to denial‖ that nuclear weapons are being happen. That‘s not cynicism so much as a brandished. But ―some people are awake,‖ recognition of reality. But for every and there are road maps with practical and egregious war crime that you can name, reasonable steps for coming into compliance there are 6, 8, 10, 12 court-martial with the law, both IHL and the ―unequivocal convictions for violations of the law of undertaking‖ under the NPT ―to accomplish armed conflict.‖ the total elimination of nuclear arsenals.‖ However, Professor Solis continued, ―there What is needed is passion and advocacy, and is a glaring anomaly in America‘s admirable lawyers have the necessary skills. ―These resolve to observe and enforce the law of are legal issues,‖ Mr. Granoff said, ―and I war. There is one law of war topic that is not believe that it is our responsibility to take taught; that is not the subject of Department this on.‖

From: http://lcnp.org/events/ABA-2012.htm There you could also find an audio of the session, Summary report and Transcript.

9 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

News from the world

Secret „Kill List‟ Proves a Test of Obama‟s Principles and Will

By Jo Becker and Scott Shane

WASHINGTON — This was the enemy, He had vowed to align the fight against Al served up in the latest chart from the Qaeda with American values; the chart, intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in introducing people whose deaths he might Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots soon be asked to order, underscored just and brief biographies resembled a high what a moral and legal conundrum this school yearbook layout. Several were could be. Americans. Two were teenagers, including a Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who girl who looked even younger than her 17 campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, years. and then insisted on approving every new President Obama, overseeing the regular name on an expanding ―kill list,‖ poring Tuesday counterterrorism meeting of two over terrorist suspects‘ biographies on what dozen security officials in the White House one official calls the macabre ―baseball Situation Room, took a moment to study the cards‖ of an unconventional war. When a faces. It was Jan. 19, 2010, the end of a first rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top year in office punctuated by terrorist plots terrorist arises — but his family is with him and culminating in a brush with catastrophe — it is the president who has reserved to over Detroit on Christmas Day, a reminder himself the final moral calculation. that a successful attack could derail his ―He is determined that he will make these presidency. Yet he faced adversaries without decisions about how far and wide these uniforms, often indistinguishable from the operations will go,‖ said Thomas E. civilians around them. Donilon, his national security adviser. ―His How old are these people?‖ he asked, view is that he‘s responsible for the position according to of the United States in the world.‖ He added, two officials ―He‘s determined to keep the tether pretty present. ―If short.‖ they are Nothing else in Mr. Obama‘s first term has starting to baffled liberal supporters and confounded use conservative critics alike as his aggressive children,‖ he counterterrorism record. His actions have is aid of Al often remained inscrutable, obscured by (Jim Watson / AFP / Getty Images)― Qaeda, ―we are awkward secrecy rules, polarized political moving into a whole different phase.‖ commentary and the president‘s own deep It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama reserve. has placed himself at the helm of a top In interviews with The New York Times, secret ―nominations‖ process to designate three dozen of his current and former terrorists for kill or capture, of which the advisers described Mr. Obama‘s evolution capture part has become largely theoretical. since taking on the role, without precedent 10 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

in presidential history, of personally tested both men‘s commitment to the overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda. principles they have repeatedly said are They describe a paradoxical leader who necessary to defeat the enemy in the long shunned the legislative deal-making required term. Drones have replaced Guantánamo as to close the detention facility at Guantánamo the recruiting tool of choice for militants; in Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action his 2010 guilty plea, Faisal Shahzad, who without hand-wringing. While he was had tried to set off a car bomb in Times adamant about narrowing the fight and Square, justified targeting civilians by improving relations with the Muslim world, telling the judge, ―When the drones hit, they he has followed the metastasizing enemy don‘t see children.‖ into new and dangerous lands. When he Dennis C. Blair, director of national applies his lawyering skills to intelligence until he was fired in May 2010, counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not said that discussions inside the White House constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al of long-term strategy against Al Qaeda were Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an sidelined by the intense focus on strikes. American cleric in Yemen, a decision that ―The steady refrain in the White House was, Mr. Obama told colleagues was ―an easy ‗This is the only game in town‘ — reminded one.‖ me of body counts in Vietnam,‖ said Mr. His first term has seen private warnings Blair, a retired admiral who began his Navy from top officials about a ―Whac-A-Mole‖ service during that war. approach to counterterrorism; the invention Mr. Blair‘s criticism, dismissed by White of a new category of aerial attack following House officials as personal pique, complaints of careless targeting; and nonetheless resonates inside the presidential acquiescence in a formula for government. counting civilian deaths that some officials William M. Daley, Mr. Obama‘s chief of think is skewed to produce low numbers. staff in 2011, said the president and his The administration‘s failure to forge a clear advisers understood that they could not keep detention policy has created the impression adding new names to a kill list, from ever among some members of Congress of a lower on the Qaeda totem pole. What take-no-prisoners policy. And Mr. Obama‘s remains unanswered is how much killing ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron P. will be enough. Munter, has complained to colleagues that ―One guy gets knocked off, and the guy‘s the C.I.A.‘s strikes drive American policy driver, who‘s No. 21, becomes 20?‖ Mr. there, saying ―he didn‘t realize his main job Daley said, describing the internal was to kill people,‖ a colleague said. discussion. ―At what point are you just Beside the president at every step is his filling the bucket with numbers?‖ counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, ‗Maintain My Options‘ who is variously compared by colleagues to a dogged police detective, tracking terrorists A phalanx of retired generals and admirals from his cave like office in the White House stood behind Mr. Obama on the second day basement, or a priest whose blessing has of his presidency, providing martial cover as become indispensable to Mr. Obama, he signed several executive orders to make echoing the president‘s attempt to apply the good on campaign pledges. Brutal ―just war‖ theories of Christian philosophers interrogation techniques were banned, he to a brutal modern conflict. declared. And the prison at Guantánamo Bay would be closed. But the strikes that have eviscerated Al Qaeda — just since April, there have been What the new president did not say was that 14 in Yemen, and 6 in Pakistan — have also the orders contained a few subtle loopholes. They reflected a still unfamiliar Barack 11 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Obama, a realist who, unlike some of his with Guantánamo detainees. The deft fervent supporters, was never carried away insertion of some wiggle words in the by his own rhetoric. Instead, he was already president‘s order showed that the advice was putting his lawyerly mind to carving out the followed. maximum amount of maneuvering room to Some detainees would be transferred to fight terrorism as he saw fit. prisons in other countries, or released, it It was a pattern that would be seen said. Some would be prosecuted — if repeatedly, from his response to Republican ―feasible‖ — in criminal courts. Military complaints that he wanted to read terrorists commissions, which Mr. Obama had their rights, to his acceptance of the C.I.A.‘s criticized, were not mentioned — and thus method for counting civilian casualties in not ruled out. drone strikes. As for those who could not be transferred or The day before the executive orders were tried but were judged too dangerous for issued, the C.I.A.‘s top lawyer, John A. release? Their ―disposition‖ would be Rizzo, had called the White House in a handled by ―lawful means, consistent with panic. The order prohibited the agency from the national security and foreign policy operating detention facilities, closing once interests of the United States and the and for all the secret overseas ―black sites‖ interests of justice.‖ where interrogators had brutalized terrorist A few sharp-eyed observers inside and suspects. outside the government understood what the ―The way this is written, you are going to public did not. Without showing his hand, take us out of the rendition business,‖ Mr. Mr. Obama had preserved three major Rizzo told Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Obama‘s policies — rendition, military commissions White House counsel, referring to the much- and indefinite detention — that have been criticized practice of grabbing a terrorist targets of human rights groups since the suspect abroad and delivering him to another 2001 terrorist attacks. country for interrogation or trial. The But a year later, with Congress trying to problem, Mr. Rizzo explained, was that the force him to try all terrorism suspects using C.I.A. sometimes held such suspects for a revamped military commissions, he day or two while awaiting a flight. The order deployed his legal skills differently — to appeared to outlaw that. preserve trials in civilian courts. Mr. Craig assured him that the new It was shortly after Dec. 25, 2009, following president had no intention of ending a close call in which a Qaeda-trained rendition — only its abuse, which could lead operative named Umar Farouk to American complicity in torture abroad. So Abdulmutallab had boarded a Detroit-bound a new definition of ―detention facility‖ was airliner with a bomb sewn into his inserted, excluding places used to hold underwear. people ―on a short-term, transitory basis.‖ Problem solved — and no messy public Mr. Obama was taking a drubbing from explanation damped Mr. Obama‘s Republicans over the government‘s decision celebration. to read the suspect his rights, a prerequisite for bringing criminal charges against him in ―Pragmatism over ideology,‖ his campaign civilian court. national security team had advised in a memo in March 2008. It was counsel that The president ―seems to think that if he only reinforced the president‘s instincts. gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Even before he was sworn in, Mr. Obama‘s Miranda rights, we won‘t be at war,‖ former advisers had warned him against taking a Vice President Dick Cheney charged. categorical position on what would be done

12 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Sensing vulnerability on both a practical and wanted to decide personally whether to go political level, the president summoned his ahead. attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to the The president‘s directive reinforced the need White House. for caution, counterterrorism officials said, F.B.I. agents had questioned Mr. but did not significantly change the Abdulmutallab for 50 minutes and gained program. In part, that is because ―the valuable intelligence before giving him the protection of innocent life was always a warning. They had relied on a 1984 case critical consideration,‖ said Michael V. called New York v. Quarles, in which the Hayden, the last C.I.A. director under Supreme Court ruled that statements made President George W. Bush. by a suspect in response to urgent public It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a safety questions — the case involved the disputed method for counting civilian location of a gun — could be introduced into casualties that did little to box him in. It in evidence even if the suspect had not been effect counts all military-age males in a advised of the right to remain silent. strike zone as combatants, according to Mr. Obama, who Mr. Holder said misses the several administration officials, unless there legal profession, got into a colloquy with the is explicit intelligence posthumously attorney general. How far, he asked, could proving them innocent. Quarles be stretched? Mr. Holder felt that in Counterterrorism officials insist this terrorism cases, the court would allow approach is one of simple logic: people in an indefinite questioning on a fairly broad area of known terrorist activity, or found range of subjects. with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up Satisfied with the edgy new interpretation, to no good. ―Al Qaeda is an insular, Mr. Obama gave his blessing, Mr. Holder paranoid organization — innocent recalled. neighbours don‘t hitchhike rides in the back ―Barack Obama believes in options: of trucks headed for the border with guns ‗Maintain my options,‘ ― said Jeh C. and bombs,‖ said one official, who Johnson, a campaign adviser and now requested anonymity to speak about what is general counsel of the Defense Department. still a classified program. This counting method may partly explain the „They Must All Be Militants‟ official claims of extraordinarily low That same mind-set would be brought to collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. bear as the president intensified what would Brennan, Mr. Obama‘s trusted adviser, said become a withering campaign to use that not a single noncombatant had been unmanned aircraft to kill Qaeda terrorists. killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent Just days after taking office, the president interview, a senior administration official got word that the first strike under his said that the number of civilians killed in administration had killed a number of drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama innocent Pakistanis. ―The president was very was in the ―single digits‖ — and that sharp on the thing, and said, ‗I want to know independent counts of scores or hundreds of how this happened,‘ ― a top White House civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false adviser recounted. propaganda claims by militants. In response to his concern, the C.I.A. But in interviews, three former senior downsized its munitions for more pinpoint intelligence officials expressed disbelief that strikes. In addition, the president tightened the number could be so low. The C.I.A. standards, aides say: If the agency did not accounting has so troubled some have a ―near certainty‖ that a strike would administration officials outside the agency result in zero civilian deaths, Mr. Obama that they have brought their concerns to the

13 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

White House. One called it ―guilt by through the mechanism by which it will association‖ that has led to ―deceptive‖ happen.‖ estimates of civilian casualties. In fact, both Secretary of State Hillary ―It bothers me when they say there were Rodham Clinton and the attorney general, seven guys, so they must all be militants,‖ Mr. Holder, had warned that the plan to the official said. ―They count the corpses close the Guantánamo prison was in peril, and they‘re not really sure who they are.‖ and they volunteered to fight for it on Capitol Hill, according to officials. But with „A No-Brainer‟ Mr. Obama‘s backing, his chief of staff, About four months into his presidency, as Rahm Emanuel, blocked them, saying health Republicans accused him of reckless naïveté care reform had to go first. on terrorism, Mr. Obama quickly pulled together a speech defending his policies. When the administration floated a plan to Standing before the Constitution at the transfer from Guantánamo to Northern National Archives in Washington, he Virginia two Uighurs, members of a largely mentioned Guantánamo 28 times, repeating Muslim ethnic minority from China who are his campaign pledge to close the prison. considered no threat to the United States, Virginia Republicans led by Representative But it was too late, and his defensive tone Frank R. Wolf denounced the idea. The suggested that Mr. Obama knew it. Though administration backed down. President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican candidate, That show of weakness doomed the effort to close Guantánamo, the same administration had supported closing the Guantánamo prison, Republicans in Congress had official said. ―Lyndon Johnson would have reversed course and discovered they could steamrolled the guy,‖ he said. ―That‘s not use the issue to portray Mr. Obama as soft what happened. It‘s like a boxing match on terrorism. where a cut opens over a guy‘s eye.‖ Walking out of the Archives, the president The Use of Force turned to his national security adviser at the It is the strangest of bureaucratic rituals: time, Gen. James L. Jones, and admitted that Every week or so, more than 100 members he had never devised a plan to persuade of the government‘s sprawling national Congress to shut down the prison. security apparatus gather, by secure video ―We‘re never going to make that mistake teleconference, to pore over terrorist again,‖ Mr. Obama told the retired Marine suspects‘ biographies and recommend to the general. president who should be the next to die. General Jones said the president and his This secret ―nominations‖ process is an aides had assumed that closing the prison invention of the Obama administration, a was ―a no-brainer — the United States will grim debating society that vets the look good around the world.‖ The trouble PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases was, he added, ―nobody asked, ‗O.K., let‘s and life stories of suspected members of Al assume it‘s a good idea, how are you going Qaeda‘s branch in Yemen or its allies in to do this?‘ ― Somalia‘s Shabab militia. It was not only Mr. Obama‘s distaste for The video conferences are run by the Pentagon, which oversees strikes in those legislative backslapping and arm-twisting, but also part of a deeper pattern, said an countries, and participants do not hesitate to administration official who has watched him call out a challenge, pressing for the closely: the president seemed to have ―a evidence behind accusations of ties to Al sense that if he sketches a vision, it will Qaeda. happen — without his really having thought

14 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

―What‘s a Qaeda facilitator?‖ asked one But the control he exercises also appears to participant, illustrating the spirit of the reflect Mr. Obama‘s striking self- exchanges. ―If I open a gate and you drive confidence: he believes, according to several through it, am I a facilitator?‖ Given the people who have worked closely with him, contentious discussions, it can take five or that his own judgment should be brought to six sessions for a name to be approved, and bear on strikes. names go off the list if a suspect no longer Asked what surprised him most about Mr. appears to pose an imminent threat, the Obama, Mr. Donilon, the national security official said. A parallel, more cloistered adviser, answered immediately: ―He‘s a selection process at the C.I.A. focuses president who is quite comfortable with the largely on Pakistan, where that agency use of force on behalf of the United States.‖ conducts strikes. In fact, in a 2007 campaign speech in which The nominations go to the White House, he vowed to pull the United States out of where by his own insistence and guided by Iraq and refocus on Al Qaeda, Mr. Obama Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama must approve any had trumpeted his plan to go after terrorist name. He signs off on every strike in Yemen bases in Pakistan — even if Pakistani and Somalia and also on the more complex leaders objected. His rivals at the time, and risky strikes in Pakistan — about a third including Mitt Romney, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of the total. and Mrs. Clinton, had all pounced on what Aides say Mr. Obama has several reasons they considered a greenhorn‘s campaign for becoming so immersed in lethal bluster. (Mr. Romney said Mr. Obama had counterterrorism operations. A student of become ―Dr. Strangelove.‖) writings on war by Augustine and Thomas In office, however, Mr. Obama has done Aquinas, he believes that he should take exactly what he had promised, coming moral responsibility for such actions. And quickly to rely on the judgment of Mr. he knows that bad strikes can tarnish Brennan. America‘s image and derail diplomacy. Mr. Brennan, a son of Irish immigrants, is a ―He realizes this isn‘t science, this is grizzled 25-year veteran of the C.I.A. whose judgments made off of, most of the time, work as a top agency official during the human intelligence,‖ said Mr. Daley, the brutal interrogations of the Bush former chief of staff. ―The president accepts administration made him a target of fierce as a fact that a certain amount of screw-ups criticism from the left. He had been forced, are going to happen, and to him, that calls under fire, to withdraw his name from for a more judicious process.‖ consideration to lead the C.I.A. under Mr. Obama, becoming counterterrorism chief instead. Some critics of the drone strategy still vilify Mr. Brennan, suggesting that he is the C.I.A.‘s agent in the White House, steering Mr. Obama to a targeted killing strategy. But in office, Mr. Brennan has surprised many former detractors by speaking forcefully for closing Guantánamo and respecting civil liberties.

Moises Saman for The New York Times Harold H. Koh, for instance, as dean of Yale Iraqis listened to Mr. Obama's speech from Cairo in Law School was a leading liberal critic of June 2009, intended to reach out to the Muslim the Bush administration‘s counterterrorism world. (Moises Saman for The New York Times) policies. But since becoming the State

15 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Department‘s top lawyer, Mr. Koh said, he ―We have to be vigilant to avoid a no- has found in Mr. Brennan a principled ally. quarter, or take-no-prisoners policy,‖ said ―If John Brennan is the last guy in the room Mr. Johnson, the Pentagon‘s chief lawyer. with the president, I‘m comfortable, because Trade-Offs Brennan is a person of genuine moral The care that Mr. Obama and his rectitude,‖ Mr. Koh said. ―It‘s as though you counterterrorism chief take in choosing had a priest with extremely strong moral targets, and their reliance on a precision values who was suddenly charged with weapon, the drone, reflect his pledge at the leading a war.‖ outset of his presidency to reject what he The president values Mr. Brennan‘s called the Bush administration‘s ―false experience in assessing intelligence, from choice between our safety and our ideals.‖ his own agency or others, and for the But he has found that war is a messy sobriety with which he approaches lethal business, and his actions show that pursuing operations, other aides say. an enemy unbound by rules has required ―The purpose of these actions is to mitigate moral, legal and practical trade-offs that his threats to U.S. persons‘ lives,‖ Mr. Brennan speeches did not envision. said in an interview. ―It is the option of last One early test involved Baitullah Mehsud, recourse. So the president, and I think all of the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. The case us here, don‘t like the fact that people have was problematic on two fronts, according to to die. And so he wants to make sure that we interviews with both administration and go through a rigorous checklist: The Pakistani sources. infeasibility of capture, the certainty of the intelligence base, the imminence of the The C.I.A. worried that Mr. Mehsud, whose threat, all of these things.‖ group then mainly targeted the Pakistan government, did not meet the Obama Yet the administration‘s very success at administration‘s criteria for targeted killing: killing terrorism suspects has been he was not an imminent threat to the United shadowed by a suspicion: that Mr. Obama States. But Pakistani officials wanted him has avoided the complications of detention dead, and the American drone program by deciding, in effect, to take no prisoners rested on their tacit approval. The issue was alive. While scores of suspects have been resolved after the president and his advisers killed under Mr. Obama, only one has been found that he represented a threat, if not to taken into American custody, and the the homeland, to American personnel in president has balked at adding new prisoners Pakistan. to Guantánamo. Then, in August 2009, the C.I.A. director, ―Their policy is to take out high-value Leon E. Panetta, told Mr. Brennan that the targets, versus capturing high-value targets,‖ agency had Mr. Mehsud in its sights. But said Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, taking out the Pakistani Taliban leader, Mr. the top Republican on the intelligence Panetta warned, did not meet Mr. Obama‘s committee. ―They are not going to advertise standard of ―near certainty‖ of no innocents that, but that‘s what they are doing.‖ being killed. In fact, a strike would certainly Mr. Obama‘s aides deny such a policy, result in such deaths: he was with his wife at arguing that capture is often impossible in his in-laws‘ home. the rugged tribal areas of Pakistan and ―Many times,‖ General Jones said, in similar Yemen and that many terrorist suspects are circumstances, ―at the 11th hour we waved in foreign prisons because of American tips. off a mission simply because the target had Still, senior officials at the Justice people around them and we were able to Department and the Pentagon acknowledge loiter on station until they didn‘t.‖ that they worry about the public perception.

16 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

But not this time. Mr. Obama, through Mr. ―Terror Tuesday‖ meetings, his unspeaking Brennan, told the C.I.A. to take the shot, and presence a visible reminder of what Mr. Mehsud was killed, along with his wife everyone understood: a successful attack and, by some reports, other family members would overwhelm the president‘s other as well, said a senior intelligence official. aspirations and achievements. The attempted bombing of an airliner a few In the most dramatic possible way, the Fort months later, on Dec. 25, stiffened the Hood shootings in November and the president‘s resolve, aides say. It was the attempted Christmas Day bombing had culmination of a series of plots, including shown the new danger from Yemen. Mr. the killing of 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex. Obama, who had rejected the Bush-era by an Army psychiatrist who had embraced concept of a global war on terrorism and had radical Islam. promised to narrow the American focus to Mr. Obama is a good poker player, but he Al Qaeda‘s core, suddenly found himself has a tell when he is angry. His questions directing strikes in another complicated become rapid-fire, said his attorney general, Muslim country. Mr. Holder. ―He‘ll inject the phrase, ‗I just The very first strike under his watch in want to make sure you understand that.‘ ― Yemen, on Dec. 17, 2009, offered a stark And it was clear to everyone, Mr. Holder example of the difficulties of operating in said, that he was simmering about how a 23- what General Jones described as an year-old bomber had penetrated billions of ―embryonic theater that we weren‘t really dollars worth of American security familiar with.‖ measures. It killed not only its intended target, but also When a few officials tentatively offered a two neighboring families, and left behind a defense, noting that the attack had failed trail of cluster bombs that subsequently because the terrorists were forced to rely on killed more innocents. It was hardly the kind a novice bomber and an untested formula of precise operation that Mr. Obama because of stepped-up airport security, Mr. favored. Videos of children‘s bodies and Obama cut them short. angry tribesmen holding up American ―Well, he could have gotten it right and missile parts flooded You Tube, fueling a we‘d all be sitting here with an airplane that ferocious backlash that Yemeni officials blew up and killed over a hundred people,‖ said bolstered Al Qaeda. he said, according to a participant. He asked The sloppy strike shook Mr. Obama and Mr. them to use the close call to imagine in Brennan, officials said, and once again they detail the consequences if the bomb had tried to impose some discipline. detonated. In characteristic fashion, he went In Pakistan, Mr. Obama had approved not around the room, asking each official to only ―personality‖ strikes aimed at named, explain what had gone wrong and what high-value terrorists, but ―signature‖ strikes needed to be done about it. that targeted training camps and suspicious ―After that, as president, it seemed like he compounds in areas controlled by militants. felt in his gut the threat to the United But some State Department officials have States,‖ said Michael E. Leiter, then director complained to the White House that the of the National Counterterrorism Center. criteria used by the C.I.A. for identifying a ―Even John Brennan, someone who was terrorist ―signature‖ were too lax. The joke already a hardened veteran of was that when the C.I.A. sees ―three guys counterterrorism, tightened the straps on his doing jumping jacks,‖ the agency thinks it is rucksack after that.‖ a terrorist training camp, said one senior David Axelrod, the president‘s closest official. Men loading a truck with fertilizer political adviser, began showing up at the

17 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

could be bombmakers — but they might shootings at Fort Hood. Then he had gone also be farmers, skeptics argued. ―operational,‖ plotting with Mr. Now, in the wake of the bad first strike in Abdulmutallab and coaching him to ignite Yemen, Mr. Obama overruled military and his explosives only after the airliner was intelligence commanders who were pushing over the United States. to use signature strikes there as well. That record, and Mr. Awlaki‘s calls for ―We are not going to war with Yemen,‖ he more attacks, presented Mr. Obama with an admonished in one meeting, according to urgent question: Could he order the targeted participants. killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, His guidance was formalized in a memo by in secret and without the benefit of a trial? General Jones, who called it a ―governor, if you will, on the throttle,‖ intended to remind The Justice Department‘s Office of Legal everyone that ―one should not assume that Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying it‘s just O.K. to do these things because we that extraordinary step, asserting that while spot a bad guy somewhere in the world.‖ the Fifth Amendment‘s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by Mr. Obama had drawn a line. But within two internal deliberations in the executive years, he stepped across it. Signature strikes branch. in Pakistan were killing a large number of terrorist suspects, even when C.I.A. analysts Mr. Obama gave his approval, and Mr. were not certain beforehand of their Awlaki was killed in September 2011, along with a fellow propagandist, Samir Khan, an presence. And in Yemen, roiled by the Arab Spring unrest, the Qaeda affiliate was American citizen who was not on the target seizing territory. list but was traveling with him. Today, the Defense Department can target If the president had qualms about this suspects in Yemen whose names they do not momentous step, aides said he did not share know. Officials say the criteria are tighter them. Mr. Obama focused instead on the than those for signature strikes, requiring weight of the evidence showing that the evidence of a threat to the United States, and cleric had joined the enemy and was plotting they have even given them a new name — more terrorist attacks. TADS, for Terrorist Attack Disruption ―This is an easy one,‖ Mr. Daley recalled Strikes. But the details are a closely guarded him saying, though the president warned secret — part of a pattern for a president that in future cases, the evidence might well who came into office promising not be so clear. transparency. In the wake of Mr. Awlaki‘s death, some The Ultimate Test administration officials, including the On that front, perhaps no case would test attorney general, argued that the Justice Mr. Obama‘s principles as starkly as that of Department‘s legal memo should be made Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric public. In 2009, after all, Mr. Obama had and Qaeda propagandist hiding in Yemen, released Bush administration legal opinions who had recently risen to prominence and on interrogation over the vociferous had taunted the president by name in some objections of six former C.I.A. directors. of his online screeds. This time, contemplating his own secrets, he The president ―was very interested in chose to keep the Awlaki opinion secret. obviously trying to understand how a guy ―Once it‘s your pop stand, you look at things like Awlaki developed,‖ said General Jones. a little differently,‖ said Mr. Rizzo, the The cleric‘s fiery sermons had helped C.I.A.‘s former general counsel. inspire a dozen plots, including the

18 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Mr. Hayden, the former C.I.A. director and Laden‘s compound in Pakistan. It now an adviser to Mr. Obama‘s Republican complained that the American president had challenger, Mr. Romney, commended the undermined Al Qaeda‘s support by president‘s aggressive counterterrorism repeatedly declaring that the United States record, which he said had a ―Nixon to was at war not with Islam, but with the China‖ quality. But, he said, ―secrecy has its terrorist network. ―We must be doing a good costs‖ and Mr. Obama should open the job,‖ Mr. Obama told his secretary of state. strike strategy up to public scrutiny. Moreover, Mr. Obama‘s record has not ―This program rests on the personal drawn anything like the sweeping criticism legitimacy of the president, and that‘s not from allies that his predecessor faced. John sustainable,‖ Mr. Hayden said. ―I have lived B. Bellinger III, a top national security the life of someone taking action on the lawyer under the Bush administration, said basis of secret O.L.C. memos, and it ain‘t a that was because Mr. Obama‘s liberal good life. Democracies do not make war on reputation and ―softer packaging‖ have the basis of legal memos locked in a D.O.J. protected him. ―After the global outrage safe.‖ over Guantánamo, it‘s remarkable that the rest of the world has looked the other way Tactics Over Strategy while the Obama administration has In his June 2009 speech in Cairo, aimed at conducted hundreds of drone strikes in resetting relations with the Muslim world, several different countries, including killing Mr. Obama had spoken eloquently of his at least some civilians,‖ said Mr. Bellinger, childhood years in Indonesia, hearing the who supports the strikes. call to prayer ―at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk.‖ By withdrawing from Iraq and preparing to withdraw from Afghanistan, Mr. Obama has ―The United States is not — and never will refocused the fight on Al Qaeda and hugely be — at war with Islam,‖ he declared. reduced the death toll both of American But in the months that followed, some soldiers and Muslim civilians. But in officials felt the urgency of counterterrorism moments of reflection, Mr. Obama may strikes was crowding out consideration of a have reason to wonder about unfinished broader strategy against radicalization. business and unintended consequences. Though Mrs. Clinton strongly supported the His focus on strikes has made it impossible strikes, she complained to colleagues about to forge, for now, the new relationship with the drones-only approach at Situation Room the Muslim world that he had envisioned. meetings, in which discussion would focus Both Pakistan and Yemen are arguably less exclusively on the pros, cons and timing of stable and more hostile to the United States particular strikes. than when Mr. Obama became president. At their weekly lunch, Mrs. Clinton told the Justly or not, drones have become a president she thought there should be more provocative symbol of American power, attention paid to the root causes of running roughshod over national sovereignty radicalization, and Mr. Obama agreed. But it and killing innocents. With China and was September 2011 before he issued an Russia watching, the United States has set executive order setting up a sophisticated, an international precedent for sending interagency war room at the State drones over borders to kill enemies. Department to counter the jihadi narrative on an hour-by-hour basis, posting messages Mr. Blair, the former director of national and video online and providing talking intelligence, said the strike campaign was points to embassies. dangerously seductive. ―It is the politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no Mr. Obama was heartened, aides say, by a U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of letter discovered in the raid on Osama bin 19 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

toughness,‖ he said. ―It plays well reliance on strikes, said Mr. Leiter, the domestically, and it is unpopular only in former head of the National other countries. Any damage it does to the Counterterrorism Center, ―is far from a lurid national interest only shows up over the long fascination with covert action and special term.‖ forces. It‘s much more practical. He‘s the But Mr. Blair‘s dissent puts him in a small president. He faces a post-Abdulmutallab minority of security experts. Mr. Obama‘s situation, where he‘s being told people record has eroded the political perception might attack the United States tomorrow.‖ that Democrats are weak on national ―You can pass a lot of laws,‖ Mr. Leiter security. No one would have imagined four said, ―Those laws are not going to get Bin years ago that his counterterrorism policies Laden dead.‖ would come under far more fierce attack from the American Civil Liberties Union than from Mr. Romney. Aides say that Mr. Obama‘s choices, though, are not surprising. The president‘s

From: The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Breaking the Nuclear Chain

By Susi Snyder

Everyone, people - bringing the experience of actual every single people in how they have been affected by person in the nuclear weapons, uranium mining, nuclear world is exports, nuclear power and nuclear waste; affected by and how they are working to break the the nuclear chain. chain. Whether by cost, contamination or We are putting a human face on the often insecurity the nuclear chain binds us abstract debate on nuclear issues. We are together. And together we can break it. We collecting testimonies of affected people and can reduce risks, reallocate resources and making them available to a broad audience. increase our global security. To do that, we This will reinforce the understanding that we need your help. are all affected, and that we can all act.

The Global Partnership for the Prevention of A large part of this campaign will take place Armed Conflict (GPPAC), IKV Pax Christi on-line on the Peace Portal and Peace Boat are launching ‗Breaking the (www.BreakingtheNuclearChain.org). We Nuclear Chain‘, a campaign to inform, will offer video testimonies, facts and motivate and activate people about this figures about the nuclear chain and more. potential humanitarian disaster. The This is where we need your help. modernization of nuclear weapons, the We want to expand the community of tragedy at Fukushima, the devastation at resistance to the nuclear chain- and Jabiluka- we see the need to address the encourage people to engage with you, where whole nuclear chain. This campaign is about you are. We have developed a short 20 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

questionnaire (below) to help do this. We would like to feature your organisation on What would you do with an extra volunteer the Peace Portal, so we can direct new working with you? How could one or two volunteers, new energy and inspired persons new voices change the discourse on nuclear directly to strengthen your own efforts. We issues where you are? We want to present a will use the questionnaires to develop comprehensive global picture- those organizational profiles for the online affected, by what, and what people can do community of organizations around the about it. We know there is a huge global world that work on issues related to the movement, and we want to show politicians, nuclear chain. In this way we hope not only governments and the world just how many to show all the things that are being done we are. We can break the nuclear chain - but around the world, but also inspire people to we need your help. get involved with these efforts.

More information: http://abolition2000.createsend5.com/t/ViewEmail/r/4610CFAFC2C7B65C/92AB3FABE7BB0AE01D419C9787CC9684

Parliaments Step up Action for a new approach to achieve a Nuclear Weapons-Free World: Initiatives in parliaments of Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and Kazakhstan

By Alyn Ware

National campaigns to implement their right to a nuclear against smoking in many weapons-free world. Western countries began This was advanced in the 2010 NPT Review to make headway when Conference agreement that ‗All States they stopped focusing should make special efforts to build the primarily on trying to framework for a nuclear weapons-free convince smokers to give world‘. (See NPT supports framework for up their addiction, and nuclear disarmament). It has also been instead focused more on advanced by the International Red Cross and efforts with non-smokers Red Crescent Movements which adopted a to develop a normative right to smoke-free resolution on the irreconcilability of nuclear environments. This included the weapons with international humanitarian establishment of smoke-free work places, law and called for States to negotiate a restaurants and other public places. global ban on nuclear weapons.

Similarly, the global campaign against In addition, in December 2011, a Summit of nuclear weapons has picked up steam Latin American and Caribbean States recently through a shift in approach from its (CELAC) issued a Communiqué calling for previous emphasis on challenging the the convening of a high–level conference to nuclear weapon states (NWS) towards a identify ways to prohibit the development, greater focus on empowering the non-NWS production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling,

21 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

transfer, use or threat of use, and to stipulate nuclear terrorism is to move towards a their destruction (See Latin American global ban on nuclear weapons and their Leaders say Convene A Summit!) verified elimination as called for in the 2010 Senate and House resolutions on a nuclear In April 2012, the Norwegian Foreign weapons convention. Minister announced to Parliament that Norway would host an inter-governmental On May 30, 2012, a rejuvenated PNND conference in spring 2013 on the Canada, co-chaired by Scott Armstrong humanitarian consequences of nuclear (Conservative, Nova Scotia) and Hélène weapons. And on 1 May 2012, the Middle Laverdière (Liberal Democratic Party, Powers Initiative launched the Framework Quebec) held a cross-party meeting of Forum, a series of meetings of governments parliamentarians to discuss follow-up to the to explore and develop the framework for a resolutions, including possibilities for nuclear weapons-free world. Canada to participate in initiatives by like- minded countries to commence preparatory Parliaments are stepping up their actions to work on a nuclear weapons convention support these initiatives of middle power leading to negotiations. countries to promote and develop a global ban on nuclear weapons. Mexican Senate takes a lead!

Canadian parliament calls for diplomatic In Mexico, a resolution submitted by PNND action for a nuclear weapons convention Co-President Rosario Green to the Senate, and adopted by consensus on 8 March 2012, In 2010, following up on the NPT Review supported the CELAC initiative for a global Conference decision, the Canadian inter-governmental conference to negotiate a parliament adopted resolutions in the Senate nuclear weapons convention (or framework (submitted by Senator Hugh Segal and of agreements), supported measures to adopted on June 2) and in the House of achieve security without nuclear weapons Commons (submitted by Bill Siksay and (including regional nuclear weapon-free adopted on December 7) endorsing the UN zones) and called on all parliaments to Secretary-General‘s Five-Point Plan for support such initiatives. (Also available in nuclear disarmament and encouraging the English.) government of Canada to engage in a global diplomatic initiative for nuclear New Zealand parliament highlights disarmament including negotiations for a humanitarian consequences Nuclear Weapons Convention. The resolutions were promoted by Canadians for On 31 May 2012, the New Zealand a Nuclear Weapons Convention – a group of parliament unanimously adopted a motion over 500 recipients of the Order of Canada – submitted by PNND New Zealand Chair the country‘s highest civil award. Maryan Street commemorating the 25th anniversary of legislation prohibiting On 17 May 2012, PNND nuclear weapons, highlighting the Special Representative catastrophic humanitarian consequences of Senator Romeo Dallaire, any use of nuclear weapons, affirming that delivered a ground- all States have a role to play in creating the breaking speech in the framework for a nuclear weapons-free Senate on Bill S-9 to world, commending Norway for its amend the Criminal Code announcement to hold a high-level to combat nuclear conference on humanitarian consequences of terrorism, noting that the nuclear weapons, and calling on New only security against Zealand government to give its full support

22 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

for the conference (See Hansard: Motions — On 27-30 August 2012, the Kazakhstan Nuclear Disarmament—Global Support and Parliament will host an international Anniversary of New Zealand Nuclear-free conference of parliamentarians to discuss Zone). The adoption of the motion followed parliamentary actions to establish a nuclear a very successful PNND event in the weapons-free world. Timed to coincide with Parliament Banquet hall commemorating the the International Day Against Nuclear Tests 25th anniversary of New Zealand‘s anti- (the anniversary of the closing of the Soviet nuclear legislation (See Nuclear-free NZ nuclear test site in Semipalatinsk, anniversary celebrated, New Zealand Kazakhstan), the conference will highlight Herald, June 1, 2012). the humanitarian consequences of nuclear tests, the development of regional security Kazakhstan parliament to host without nuclear weapons, and the phase-out conference for a nuclear weapons-free of nuclear deterrence. It will include a field world trip to the former Soviet nuclear test site and the Kazakhstan Radiation Research Centre.

From: http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/archives/parliaments-step-up-action.html

Whistleblowers Are Real Proxies for Sins of the Bush Administration

by Jesselyn Radack, National Security & Human Rights Director for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.

Attorney General Eric Holder recently using him as a proxy for Obama in an complained in the wake of his congressional election year. contempt citation – the first ever for an Attorney General – that Republicans are

From WaPo: proxy for Obama. However, Holder has done plenty in his tenure as Attorney In his first interview since Thursday‟s General to upset both sides of the aisle, and vote, Holder said lawmakers have ought to take some responsibility for the used an investigation of a botched actions the Justice Department has taken gun-tracking operation as a way to under his watch. seek retribution against the Justice Department for its policies on a host Obama might have ordered the assassination of issues, including immigration, of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki voting rights and gay marriage. He without charge or trial, but it was Holder's said the chairman of the committee Justice Department that drafted the legal leading the inquiry, Rep. Darrell Issa memo "authorizing" the killing. It is also (R-Calif.), is engaging in political Holder's Justice Department that continually theater as the Justice Department tries asserts absurd secrecy claims to keep the to focus on public safety. memo from the public and the drone program from court oversight. I agree that in the political theater of the contempt citation, Holder is being used as a Under Holder, the Justice Department has

23 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

 endorsed indefinite preventative and the telecommunications companies who detention and targeted assassination received immunity in the FISA of Americans, Amendments Act.

 continued to use the state secrets Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) privilege to shut down lawsuits whistleblower John Kiriakou is a proxy for challenging torture and extraordinary all of the torturers Holder's Justice rendition, and Department declined to prosecute, despite the fact that Kiriakou refused to participate  maintained pro-secrecy positions in in torture and helped expose the CIA's high-profile Freedom of Information torture program. (To support Kiriakou, Act suits. go here or "like" the Defend John K Facebook page). To say nothing of the fact that Holder's Justice Department has waged a war on Holder's gripe about that he is being made a whistleblowers, bringing twice as many proxy would mean more if Holder took Espionage Act prosecutions for alleged some personal responsibility for the actions mishandling of classified information his Justice Department has taken against against so-called "leakers" – who are usually whistleblowers and the accountability whistleblowers – than all past actions his Justice Department has failed to administrations combined. It is the take against wrongdoers. whistleblowers who are the real "proxies" for the sins of the G.W. Bush administration. Meanwhile, three NSA whistleblowers (and GAP clients) who have already been the Under Holder, two of the biggest scandals of targets of federal criminal investigations and the G.W. Bush-era were left completely blown more whistles than I have ever seen, unpunished: torture and warrantless have continued to speak out against NSA's domestic surveillance. (Although, Congress domestic surveillance. Drake, Bill Binney, is partly responsible for the lack of and Kirk Wiebe filed affidavits supporting a accountability for warrantless domestic lawsuit challenging NSA's domestic spying spying, having given the programs: telecommunications companies who gave customers' private data to the government In a motion filed today, the three retroactive immunity in the FISA former intelligence analysts confirm Amendments Act of 2008). that the NSA has, or is in the process of obtaining, the capability to seize Nonetheless, our nation's chief law and store most electronic enforcement agent has chosen only to communications passing through its prosecute whistleblowers, rather than the U.S. intercept centers, such as the perpetrators of torture and warrantless "secret room" at the AT&T facility in surveillance. San Francisco first disclosed by retired AT&T technician Mark Klein The Justice Department made National in early 2006. Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Thomas Drake a proxy for the If only Holder's Justice Department would government officials who authorized and stand up for accountability as bravely as the organized NSA's domestic spying programs whistleblowers.

From: http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/42-2012/2098-whistleblowers-are-real-proxies-for-sins-of-the-bush- administration

24 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Nuclear Weapons

US Nuclear Weapons Upgrades

Experts Report Massive Cost Increase

By Markus Becker, The Spiegel

The cost of modernizing US nuclear Büchel, a village in the Eifel mountains of weapons, including those stationed in western Germany. Should war break out, the Germany, has risen sharply, according to Tornado aircraft belonging to the German estimates. Several independent experts Air Force could immediately be armed with told SPIEGEL ONLINE that the bill for the weapons for sorties under US control. renewing the B61 atomic bomb will rise to $6 billion. The project will also upset But the fact that such a scenario is Russia, they say. considered extremely unlikely has not prevented the US from embarking on an effort to upgrade the stockpile, as it is doing with much of its nuclear arsenal. The Life The B61 is the last remnant of the Cold War Extension Program (LEP) for the B61 -- of in Germany. An estimated 10 to 20 of the which there are between 160 and 200 in atomic bombs are thought to remain in Europe -- is considered to be the most storage at a German Air Force base in difficult and expensive of all. In 2010, the 25 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Department of Energy requested almost $2 point safety and new detonators are billion (€1.6 billion) for the project, to be unproven, immature technologies." spent over four years. Later, the number rose to $4 billion. In short, the project -- should it succeed despite the high costs and technical hurdles - Now, the total is expected to by closer to $6 - is not merely limited to extending the billion, as several experts have reported weapons' lifespans, but would be akin to independently. The first to write of the creating a new weapon altogether. Should exploding costs was Hans Kristensen of the the improved B61 weapons find their way Federation of American Scientists (FAS). back to bases in Europe in 2019 as planned, Other experts are not surprised. "The $6 they "will in essence be a strategic bomb," billion estimate for B61 LEP is consistent FAS expert Kristensen told SPIEGEL with our estimates," wrote executive director ONLINE. "They will be able to hold at risk of the Arms Control Association in targets that the weapons in Europe currently Washington, Daryl Kimball, in an email. cannot hold at risk."

In late April, several senators demanded that Tactical atomic weapons like the B61 are funding be cut to the B61 refurbishment designed to be deployed against enemy program, at least until the National Nuclear soldiers on the battlefield. They tend to by Security Administration (NNSA), which is much less powerful than strategic nuclear responsible for the upgrades, presents a weapons, which can be deployed to detailed timeline and funding plan. That the neutralize an enemy country's nuclear costs for the project are now three times the arsenal or even destroy entire cities. The original estimate is not likely to meet with modernized B61, Kristensen fears, could euphoria in Washington. The NNSA also change from being a tactical weapon to a hinted to SPIEGEL ONLINE that the strategic one. expenses threaten to be higher than anticipated. "We are formally validating The B61 modernization program envisions costs and expect to have something in the modifying four existing bomb models (or coming months," NNSA spokesman Josh "mods") -- the 3, 4, 7 and 10 -- into one, the McConaha said. B61 Mod. 12. An important new feature is a new tailkit with controllable flaps. The new 'Unproven Technologies' system would dramatically increase the bomb's precision. The costs are not the only element of the refurbishment program which has experts Provoking Russia shaking their heads. Many are uncomfortable with the sheer extent of the B61 modernization program. The NNSA wants to revamp old components, install new safety mechanisms and detonators and make improvements to the design all at the same time. Such an all-encompassing renewal effort has never been tried before, says the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Development of the B61 began in 1961. Now four group which is critical of nuclear weapons. variations are to be modified into one. An important new feature is a new tailkit with controllable flaps. The new They also warn that some of the new parts, system would dramatically increase the bomb's precision. including the detonators, are not yet ready for prime time. "You read that right," wrote The new B61-12 will be able to carry four UCS experts Nickolas Roth and Stephen different warheads, which range in strength Young on the group's website. "The multi- from 0.3 to 45 kilotons of TNT. As a

26 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

comparison, the bomb dropped on explosive power and there is less fallout. It's Hiroshima at the end of World War II had a a cleaner nuclear attack." strength of 15 kilotons. "This weapon can do the same amount of damage militarily as the Neuneck also says that the "smaller size and very high-yield weapon attached to the B61- increased accuracy" of the mini-nukes 7," says Kristensen. Götz Neuneck, from the "would make their actual use more likely." Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy, likewise warns of the "drastically A More Credible Threat improved mission capabilities" of the B61. The US government has long sought to In addition to the upgrades, the bombs are develop such miniature atomic weapons. also to be carried by the stealth fighter F-35, Strategic nuclear weapons have long since which is currently in development. The become so powerful that their deployment weapon and the fighter jet are to be perfectly no longer seems likely. As such, they no compatible, such that the F-35 -- also known longer represent much of a threat. Smaller as the Joint Strike Fighter -- will be able to atomic weapons, many politicians and stow two of the bombs in its hold. Such a military leaders believe, would pose more of capability could provoke new trouble with a credible threat because of the increased Russia, which is already unhappy with the likelihood that they would actually be used. planned European missile defense shield. The development of such weapons, "I'll bet there are hardliners in the Kremlin however, has repeatedly failed to overcome who are already now looking at this issue objections from the US Congress. A and saying 'aha, this is another example of majority of congressmen and women believe NATO saying one thing and doing another," their development is simply too dangerous says Kristensen. "There are always irritants. because they would lower the barriers for This is going to be another one." use. In 2005, the administration of US President George W. Bush had to abandon ACA director Kimball agrees. "Deployment plans for the development of such mini- of the B61-12 in Europe would complicate nukes. the effort to bring Russia to the tactical nuclear weapons negotiating table," he says. In the current Nuclear Posture Review, Neuneck also echoes the sentiment. The which guides US nuclear weapons doctrine, B61-12, he says, would greatly impede it states that the military capabilities of the negotiations on the Nuclear Non- warheads are not to be altered. "And that's Proliferation Treaty and would put an end to true" says Kristensen. "But it says nothing efforts to withdraw all atomic weapons from about whether they will improve the Europe. accuracy of this weapon by putting a new tail pin on it." As in the case of the new tail Whereas most concerns are focused on the guidance system on the B61. "There is a B61-12 with the largest warhead, the backdoor to modernization that is being smallest warheads with a strength of just 1.5 actively used." kilotons or even 0.3 kilotons could likewise present considerable dangers. "If you have When it comes to Germany and other increased accuracy, it opens up new European countries, the B61 problem could possibilities for also using the lower yields solve itself. Germany's military, the for missions," says Kristensen. The biggest Bundeswehr, intends to mothball its advantage is less radioactive fallout. "The Tornado fleet in 2020. Its successor, the pressure and the heat from the explosion Eurofighter, will not be able to carry atomic gets closer to ground zero, exactly where it weapons as it is currently designed. has to go off. You don't have to use as much Modification costs would have to be paid by

27 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Germany itself. "Given the current domestic Washington's chief negotiator in 1991, was a policy debates, there would seem to be little key player in initiating talks with the Soviet support for new airplanes," says Neuneck. Union on the START treaty. Instead, the Americans would be more likely to deploy In the end, the high costs of the intercontinental ballistic missiles stationed modernization program could ultimately kill on US soil or atomic weapons based on it. That, at least, is the hope of Richard Burt, submarines. As such, Kristensen demands in a former US ambassador to Germany and a a recently published report, the US should leading member of the Global Zero withdraw all tactical nuclear weapons from initiative. "We seriously doubt whether this Europe no matter what the Russians do. LEP program will be pursued to the end," Burt told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "It might well ACA expert Kimball says it is "tragic that be postponed indefinitely given the reported the B61s based in Europe are irrelevant to cost overrun." NATO's defense." He says their destructive capability is so massive that it makes their An end to the B61, whether for technical or use incredible. "Neither US nor European cost reasons, would be welcome news to taxpayers should be asked to waste more most experts. "US nukes in Europe have no money to upgrade the system." military utility," says Burt, who as

From: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/upgrading-us-nuclear-weapons-more-expensive-than-planned-a- 833586.html

Nuclear Weapons and a Sustainable Future

By David Krieger, a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and has served as its president since 1982. He is a councilor on the World Future Council, chair of the Executive Committee of the International Network of Engineers and Scientist, for Global Responsibility, and a member of the Executive Committee of the Middle Powers Initiative. His most recent book, with Richard Falk, is The Path to Zero: Dialogues on Nuclear Dangers (Paradigm Publishers, 2012).

Bold Action Is Needed A consequence of failure of the nuclear weapon states to initiate negotiations for a The current two-tier structure of nuclear Nuclear Weapons Convention in a timely way ―haves‖ and ―have-nots,‖ as set forth in the could be a boycott of the 2015 NPT Review Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Conference by non-nuclear weapon states and Weapons (NPT), must be brought to an end. the convening instead of an alternative The way this can be done most effectively is conference to prepare and begin negotiations by negotiating a Nuclear Weapons Convention for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. This for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and would be a bold way of sending a strong transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. It message to the nuclear weapon states that is time for the non-nuclear weapon states to enough is enough and it is past time for serious demonstrate that there will be serious action on their nuclear disarmament consequences if the nuclear weapon states obligations. Absent such action, a sustainable continue to avoid their obligations under the future remains in jeopardy, and humanity is at NPT to pursue good faith negotiations for risk of nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, complete nuclear disarmament. nuclear war and nuclear famine. 28 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

A Sustainable Future Over 95 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world are in the US and Russian arsenals. A sustainable world is a necessity for the people of the future who are not yet here to The International Court of Justice, in its 1996 speak and act for themselves. It is the Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat responsibility of those of us now living to or use of nuclear weapons, reached the speak for them and to do what we can to pass sobering conclusion: ―The destructive power this planet on intact to the generations that of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in follow us. either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire Sustainability requires protecting the Earth and ecosystem of the planet.‖2 Nuclear weapons its biodiversity. It requires assuring the are the ultimate tools of mass annihilation. availability and quality of the air and water. It requires food production for an increasing In a world where chemical and biological population, which depends upon protection of weapons, land mines, cluster bombs and the oceans and land from pollutants and dumdum bullets are outlawed, how can nuclear protecting the topsoil of the Earth for weapons retain any legitimacy? They cannot. agriculture. It requires reducing greenhouse The International Court of Justice 1996 gases to limit climate change, which is Advisory Opinion confirms this. In accord determined by our energy choices. Our with this authoritative opinion, any threat or collective efforts for or against sustainability use of nuclear weapons that would violate reflect what we value and who we are. international humanitarian law – including those uses for which they are currently In our cultures of war, we have developed vast deployed – would be illegal under international arsenals of nuclear weapons that are law.3 antithetical to the sustainability of the planet. A war fought with these weapons would not Land-Bases Missiles only destroy civilization, it could foreclose the future for humans and most other forms of The US and Russia continue to deploy launch- complex life. In addition to addressing the ready, land-based inter-continental ballistic many significant environmental challenges missiles (ICBMs) in fixed silos as part of a confronting humanity, in the Nuclear Age we triad of nuclear delivery vehicles that also are challenged to control and then eliminate includes bombers and submarine launched our most powerful and dangerous weapons missiles. In a time of crisis, either before or before they eliminate us. after armed conflict breaks out, these high-alert ICBMs create impetus to initiate a first strike. Nuclear Weapons In other words, during such a period of high tension, land based missiles may be the Nuclear weapons are terror devices that kill, opposite of a deterrent to nuclear war. There is maim and poison indiscriminately – men, incentive to ―use them or lose them‖ before women, children and the environment. they can be destroyed in their silos by a first- Because of this, they lack utility for military strike attack by the other side.4 purposes. Yet, there are still nearly 20,000 of these weapons in the arsenals of nine countries, five of which are parties to the Non- Proliferation Treaty and bound by its Article 2 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, VI obligation to pursue good faith negotiations United Nations General Assembly, A/51/218, 15 October 1 for nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. 1996, p. 17. 3 Ibid., p. 37. 4 For a fuller discussion of the dangers of land-based, 1 These five countries are: United States, Russia, nuclear-armed missiles, see David Krieger and Daniel United Kingdom, France and China, the permanent members Ellsberg, ―For nuclear security beyond Seoul, eradicate land of the United Nations Security Council. based ‗doomsday‘ missiles,‖ Christian Science 29 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Land-based missiles should be immediately years following a nuclear exchange hundreds removed from launch-ready status and of millions of people could die of starvation.8 ultimately dismantled, in conjunction with No First Use pledges. Elimination of high-alert, The atomic bombs detonated in the India- launch-ready nuclear forces would foreclose Pakistan scenario would have less than one the option of launch on warning. Elimination percent of the explosive power in the currently would also preclude the possibility of either deployed operational nuclear arsenals of the the US or Russia initiating an accidental US and Russia. The new scientific research nuclear war based upon false warning of makes it quite clear that a war fought with attack, as well as greatly reducing the existing arsenals of strategic nuclear weapons likelihood of unauthorized or accidental launch would leave the Earth essentially uninhabitable of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.5 for humans. Tens of millions of tons of smoke would block the majority of sunlight from Nuclear Famine reaching the surface of our planet; daily minimum temperatures would be below Recent peer-reviewed studies by prominent freezing for one to three years in central North atmospheric scientists at leading American America and Eurasia; and growing seasons universities predict that the detonation of only would be eliminated for many years.9 These a tiny fraction of currently deployed nuclear deadly long-term changes to global climate arsenals would cause catastrophic changes in and the environment would kill most humans global climate and massive destruction of and possibly lead to our extinction. Earth‘s protective ozone layer. Scientists modeled a hypothetical war between India and US and Russian nuclear war plans still contain Pakistan, in which each side detonates 50 nuclear strike options with hundreds of Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons on the other preplanned targets, which include cities and side‘s cities. The resulting nuclear firestorms urban areas in each other‘s countries.10 Any would lead to the formation of a global failure of deterrence has the potential to lead to stratospheric smoke layer that would last for the quick-launch of high-alert nuclear forces 10 years.6 targeted at US and Russian cities. It is possible that a first-strike attack by either the US or The smoke would block warming sunlight and Russia that targeted sites in or near the other quickly produce the coldest average surface side‘s cities could result in the stratospheric temperatures experienced in the Northern smoke that would create a nuclear famine Hemisphere during the last 1,000 years. causing the selfdestruction of the attacking Prolonged cold would bring decreased country, even without a retaliatory attack. The precipitation and would significantly shorten prospects of nuclear famine, which are growing seasons, with subsequent declines in inherent in nuclear war, make the use of 7 crop yields. Medical experts predict that in the nuclear weapons both suicidal and omnicidal.

8 Ira Hefland, MD, ―An Assessment of the Extent of Projected Global Famine Resulting from Limited, Regional Nuclear War,‖ International Physicians for the Prevention of Monitor, March 27, 2012, Nuclear War and Physicians for Social Responsibility, 2007, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0327/F http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/an-assessment-of-the-extent.pdf or-nuclear-security-beyond-Seoul-eradicate-land-based- 9 Owen B. Toon, Alan Robock and Richard doomsday-missiles Turco, ―Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War,‖ 5 Steven Starr, ―Launch-Ready Nuclear Weapons: A Physics Today, Vol. 61, No. 12, December 2008, pp. 37- threat to All Nations and Peoples,‖ Nuclear Age Peace 42. Foundation, August 2011, 10 Hans Kristensen, ―Obama and the Nuclear War http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/pdfs/2011_06_24_starr.p Plan,‖ Federation of American Scientists Brief, February df. 6 Alan Robock and Owen B. Toon, ―Local Nuclear 2010, War, Global Suffering,‖ Scientific American, January 2010, http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/publications1/W pp. 74-81. arPlanIssueBrief2010.pdf 7 Ibid. 30 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Is A Nuclear War Likely? nuclear weapons provides no protection against an attack. While a nuclear war is not likely, it is possible and could occur by accident, miscalculation or 2. It assumes rational leaders, but design. Just as the large-scale radiation there can be irrational or paranoid releases from the accident at the Fukushima leaders on any side of a conflict. Dai-ichi nuclear power plant seemed unlikely until they occurred, the possibility of nuclear 3. Threatening or committing mass war also may seem unlikely until deterrence murder with nuclear weapons is fails and it occurs. Nuclear deterrence requires illegal and criminal. It violates the constant maintenance of clear fundamental legal precepts of communications and rational behavior on all domestic and international law, sides and in all circumstances. threatening the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people. One thing we know about humans is that we are fallible. We are not capable of perfection 4. It is deeply immoral for the same and we cannot eliminate human error reasons it is illegal: it threatens altogether no matter how diligently we try. indiscriminate and grossly Human fallibility and nuclear weapons are a disproportionate death and highly volatile mix. Our best hope of destruction. preventing the use of nuclear weapons is to abolish them. That is the challenge that now 5. It diverts human and economic confronts us. resources desperately needed to meet basic human needs around the The question for us is: How can these most world. Globally, approximately terrible weapons of mass destruction be $100 billion is spent annually on eliminated most expeditiously and securely? nuclear forces. Planning for and implementing the abolition of nuclear weapons must be done carefully with 6. It has no effect against non-state all necessary precautions, but time is of the extremists, who govern no territory essence. One important way to accelerate this or population. process is to challenge the central justification for retaining or acquiring a nuclear arsenal – 7. It is vulnerable to cyber attack, the theory of nuclear deterrence. sabotage, and human or technical error, which could result in a The Santa Barbara Declaration nuclear strike.

In 2011, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 8. It sets an example for additional hosted a meeting in Santa Barbara on ―The countries to pursue nuclear Dangers of Nuclear Deterrence‖ to examine weapons for their own nuclear flaws in nuclear deterrence theory. A product deterrent force.12 of this meeting was the Santa Barbara Declaration, which called for rejecting nuclear The Declaration concludes by calling for deterrence.11 The Declaration lists eight major replacing the doctrine of nuclear deterrence problems with nuclear deterrence: with a concerted effort to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the elimination of all 1. Its power to protect is a dangerous nuclear weapons: fabrication. The threat or use of Nuclear deterrence is discriminatory, anti-democratic and unsustainable. This 11 ―The Santa Barbara Declaration: Reject Nuclear Deterrence, An Urgent Call to Action,‖ February 17, 2011, http://www.wagingpeace.org/goto/declaration. 12 Ibid. 31 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

doctrine must be discredited and replaced interests‖ in 2003 and proceeded to test nuclear with an urgent commitment to achieve devices in 2006 and 2009. global nuclear disarmament. We must change the discourse by speaking truth to Although the nuclear weapon states have power and speaking truth to each other. reduced their nuclear arsenals, they also continue to modernize them. The vast majority Before another nuclear weapon is used, of the weapons are in the arsenals of the US nuclear deterrence must be replaced by and Russia. The remaining weapons are in the humane, legal and moral security arsenals of the UK, France, China, Israel, strategies. We call upon people India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel, India everywhere to join us in demanding that and Pakistan remain outside the NPT, and the nuclear weapon states and their allies North Korea, as previously mentioned, has reject nuclear deterrence and negotiate withdrawn from the treaty. without delay a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, The most expeditious way forward to irreversible and transparent elimination accomplishing the good faith negotiations of all nuclear weapons.13 required by the NPT would be for the five NPT nuclear weapon states to join with the other From the NPT to A Nuclear Weapons nations of the world, including the four non- Convention NPT nuclear weapon states, to begin negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons The Non-Proliferation Treaty calls in Article Convention. Such a Convention would need to VI for the pursuit of good faith negotiations to be fully multilateral and binding upon all 14 achieve nuclear disarmament. In interpreting states, nuclear and non-nuclear, in the this article of the NPT, the International Court international community. There could not be of Justice (ICJ) stated in its 1996 Advisory hold-out states as there have been with the Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of NPT. The implementation of a Nuclear nuclear weapons: Weapons Convention should be done in phases to build confidence in verification systems and There exists an obligation to pursue in procedures. Reductions in nuclear arsenals good faith and bring to a conclusion should be done in a way that is irreversible. negotiations leading to nuclear The Convention should also have procedures disarmament in all its aspects under strict 15 for transparency, but these must be balanced and effective international control. against the need for states to maintain their security during and following the disarmament It has been more than 40 years since the NPT process. entered into force. The non-nuclear weapon states that are parties to the treaty have kept Moving Forward their part of the bargain and not developed or otherwise acquired nuclear weapons. The For the NPT Review Conference in 2010, the exception is North Korea, which withdrew Nuclear Age Peace Foundation prepared and from the treaty under Article X in its ―supreme distributed a Briefing Booklet, Nuclear Non- Proliferation and Disarmament: Shifting the 16 Mindset. In this Briefing Booklet, we 13 Ibid. recommended a number of steps for 14 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear consideration by the parties to the NPT. These Weapons, entered into force on March 5, 1970. The full text of the treaty may be found at http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2010/npttext.shtml. 16 15 David Krieger, ―Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Disarmament: Shifting the Mindset,‖ Nuclear Age Peace Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear Foundation, 2010, weapons, United Nations General Assembly, op. cit., p. http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/publications/npt _2010.pdf 32 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

are shown in Appendix A. We also proposed provide a starting point for negotiation of a five priority steps and introduced these Nuclear Weapons Convention. priorities in this way: 2. Nuclear Threat Reduction. All There is much that needs to be done to signatory nuclear weapon states achieve a nuclear weapon-free world. It should reduce the role of nuclear is possible to debate endlessly about weapons in their security policies which steps are most essential. What is by taking all nuclear forces off most needed, and foundational to any list high-alert status, pledging No of serious actions, is the political will to First Use of nuclear weapons achieve a world without nuclear against other nuclear weapon weapons. That political will must be states and No Use against non- rooted in a strong multilateral nuclear weapon states. commitment to go to zero nuclear weapons. Such political will would The Cold War has been over for more than 20 reflect new ways of thinking, away from years. There is no reason for a country to the approach that seeks advantage for one maintain its nuclear arsenal on high-alert or country at the expense of risking launch-on-warning status. Doing so opens the catastrophe. Having said this, however, door to inadvertent nuclear weapons use by the requisite political will is best accident or miscalculation. Similarly, there is expressed not only in words but also in no reason for a country to continue to threaten actions.17 First Use of nuclear weapons. If all nuclear weapon states agreed to No First Use, there The five priority steps are: would be no use. Also, non-nuclear weapon states should demand that they receive full 1. Preparation for Nuclear guarantees from the nuclear weapon states that Disarmament. Each signatory there will be no use under any circumstances nuclear weapon state should against them. provide an accurate public accounting of its nuclear arsenal, 3. International Controls on conduct a public environmental Nuclear Proliferation. All and human assessment of its enriched uranium and potential use, and devise and make reprocessed plutonium – public a roadmap for going to zero military and civilian – and their nuclear weapons. production facilities (including all uranium enrichment and An accurate public accounting of its nuclear plutonium separation arsenal by each nuclear weapon state would be technology) should be placed a valuable preliminary step to negotiating the under strict and effective elimination of all nuclear weapons. A public international safeguards. environmental and human impact statement of the use of a country‘s nuclear arsenal would Highly enriched uranium and reprocessed demonstrate its self-awareness of the dangers plutonium are the principal materials that can posed by nuclear weapons and would shed be used for the production of nuclear weapons. light for the public on those dangers. Preparing The facilities that produce and process such and making public a roadmap for going to zero materials should be placed under strict and nuclear weapons would show that a country effective international safeguards, assuring that was grappling with the process of reducing and these materials are not diverted for weapons eliminating its nuclear arsenal and would use. This should be a major responsibility of the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. 17 Ibid. 33 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

4. Reconsideration of Article IV. from the non-nuclear weapon states in order All signatory states should for them to act now to fulfill their Article VI review Article IV of the NPT, obligations. promoting the ―inalienable right‖ to nuclear energy for Leadership Timing and Consequences peaceful purposes, in light of the nuclear proliferation Which countries will lead? Which countries problems posed by nuclear will initiate negotiations for a Nuclear electricity generation. Weapons Convention? Should there be consequences for failing to commence Article IV of the NPT needs to be reviewed in negotiations and to complete them within a light of Article VI obligations for complete reasonable timeframe? nuclear disarmament. The questions to be posed are: How will the widespread use of Leadership could come from the three nuclear power affect the obligation of the countries that initiated the negotiations for the nuclear weapon states to achieve complete NPT – the US, UK and Russia (formerly the nuclear disarmament? With widespread use of Soviet Union). The US led the way into the nuclear energy, will complete nuclear Nuclear Age and remains the only country to disarmament be possible? have used nuclear weapons in warfare. In his Prague speech in April 2009, President Obama 5. Commence Negotiations on a said, ―I state clearly and with conviction Nuclear Weapons Convention. America's commitment to seek the peace and All signatory states should comply security of a world without nuclear with Article VI of the NPT, weapons.‖1919 He also spoke, somewhat reinforced and clarified by the 1996 ambiguously, about the US having a moral World Court Advisory Opinion, by responsibility to act to allow people to live free commencing negotiations in good of fear in the 21st century: ―… as a nuclear faith on a Nuclear Weapons power, as the only nuclear power to have used Convention for the phased, a nuclear weapon, the United States has a verifiable, irreversible and moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed transparent elimination of nuclear in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we weapons, and complete these can start it.‖20 negotiations by the year 2015.18 If leadership does not come from the US, UK The International Court of Justice found that or Russia, then it must come from elsewhere. there is not only an obligation to pursue good There must now be a movement to initiate faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament in these negotiations before the next NPT Review all its aspects, but to complete the negotiations. Conference in 2015, which will be held 70 More than 40 years have passed, and these years after the onset of the Nuclear Age, 45 negotiations have not yet begun. We urge that years after the entry into force of the NPT, and these negotiations commence immediately, 20 years after the parties agreed in 1995 to an show tangible progress by the 2015 NPT indefinite extension of the treaty. The 2015 Review Conference and be completed by the NPT Review Conference will be held just five 2020 NPT Review Conference. The nuclear years prior to the 2020 NPT Review weapon states need pressure and incentives Conference that will mark the 50th anniversary of the NPT‘s entry into force.

18 In 2010, the Foundation called for the immediate commencement of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention and their completion by 2015. As yet, these 19 Barack Obama, ―Remarks of Barack Obama,‖ negotiations have not commenced. At this point, we are calling Hradcany Square, Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009, for commencement of negotiations by 2015, but with more http://prague.usembassy.gov/obama.html. serious consequences for failure to do so. 20 Ibid. 34 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

The non-nuclear weapon states should be nuclear arsenals could leave the Earth prepared to impose some consequences if uninhabitable for humans. negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention have not begun by 2015. One Leading atmospheric scientists, who warn of consequence that would demonstrate their the utterly catastrophic effects nuclear war seriousness would be for non-nuclear weapon would have upon global climate and the states to boycott the 2015 NPT Review environment, argue, ―The combination of Conference and those thereafter unless good nuclear proliferation, political instability a faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament urban demographics may constitute one of the have begun. Combined with their boycott greatest dangers to the stability of society since could be an alternative meeting of states to the dawn of humans. Only abolition of nuclear prepare for and begin negotiations for a weapons will prevent a potential Nuclear Weapons Convention. nightmare.‖23 The scientists call for immediate reductions in US and Russian The year 2020 will mark the 75th anniversary arsenals to a few hundred nuclear weapons to of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ―reduce the possibility of nuclear winter The Mayors for Peace in their 2020 Vision encourage the rest of the world to continue to Campaign have called for the abolition of work toward the goal of elimination.‖ nuclear weapons by 2020.21 The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation supports their proposal and It is necessary to ensure that nuclear weapons believes that, with good faith negotiations, it will not be used again as instruments of war, could be accomplished; or, at a minimum, the risking the destruction of civilization, nuclear nuclear weapon states, both parties to the NPT famine and the extinction of most or all and those outside the treaty framework, could humans and other forms of complex life. be well on their way to achieving this goal. Exposing the dangers of launch-on-warning Global Zero, another civil society initiative, nuclear policies and the dysfunctional and has set a somewhat longer timeframe of 2030 counterproductive nature of nuclear deterrence for the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons.22 theory is essential for awakening policy negotiations for complete nuclear makers and the public to the imperative goal of disarmament. achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a goal that demands boldness by all who Conclusion seek a sustainable future for humanity and the planet. The non-nuclear weapon states that are Nuclear war would preclude a sustainable parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty have future. It would destroy the global both the right and the responsibility to assert environment, leading to the extinction of many leadership in assuring that the nuclear weapon forms of plant and animal life. Complex forms states fulfil their obligations for good faith of life, such as humans, would be particularly negotiations. at risk. A nuclear war fought with existing

21 Information on the Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign can be found at http://www.2020visioncampaign.org/. 22 Global Zero Action Plan, February 2010, http://static.globalzero.org/files/docs/GZAP_6.0.pdf 23 Robock and Toon, op. cit., p. 81. 35 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

APPENDIX A

Recommended Steps for Consideration by the Parties to the 2010 Non - Proliferation Treaty Review Conference

A successful 2010 NPT Review Conference of nuclear weapons, and complete these will require reclaiming the progress made in negotiations by the year 2015. The the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences. opening session of these negotiations To do this, the parties to the treaty should could be held in Hiroshima, the first reaffirm their commitment to both nuclear city to have suffered nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament by devastation. The final session of these agreeing to take the following actions: negotiations could be held in Nagasaki, the second and, hopefully, last city to Reduce the Role of Nuclear Weapons in have suffered atomic devastation. Military Policy  Reallocate the funds spent on nuclear  Take nuclear weapons off high-alert weapons to meeting the United Nations status, and end policies of launch on Millennium Development Goals, warning. including ending poverty and hunger and providing basic preventive health  Pledge No First Use of nuclear care and primary education to all of the weapons against other nuclear weapon world‘s children. states. Arms Control Measures  Pledge No Use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states.  Complete ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Nuclear Disarmament (CTBT) so that it can enter into force.

 Provide an accurate public accounting  Negotiate a Fissile Material Cut off by each nuclear weapon state of its Treaty (FMCT) to assure international nuclear arsenal, conduct a public control of all nuclear weapons environmental and human assessment materials. of its potential use, and devise and make public a roadmap for going to  Negotiate Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones zero nuclear weapons. in the Arctic, Central Europe, the Middle East and Northeast Asia, and  Negotiate major reductions by the US complete a Southern Hemisphere and Russia of their nuclear arsenals to Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone. below 500 nuclear weapons each, deployed and reserve, by the year 2015.  Negotiate a ban on space weaponization.  Commence negotiations by all states party to the NPT, as required by the  Negotiate limits leading to a ban on treaty, for nuclear disarmament, long-range missiles. specifically, for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable,  Negotiate limits on the deployment of irreversible and transparent elimination missile defence systems.

36 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Preventing Proliferation Nuclear Power

 Place all enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium – military and  Conduct a global assessment by a civilian – and their production facilities United Nations Commission of Experts (including all uranium enrichment and of the impact of the expansion of plutonium separation technology) nuclear power generation on nuclear under strict and effective international non-proliferation and disarmament safeguards. efforts.

 Achieve universal adherence to the  Review Article IV of the NPT by all Additional Protocol, strengthening the signatory states in light of the safeguards agreement with the proliferation problems posed by International Atomic Energy Agency, nuclear electricity generation. by countries party to the NPT.  Create an international fund in support  Peacefully resolve the existing of the International Renewable Energy proliferation issues with North Korea Agency‘s plans to help developing and Iran. countries to use alternate sustainable energy forms rather than nuclear  Take all necessary steps to assure that energy. nuclear weapons are not obtained or used by non-state extremist groups.

From: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/pdfs/2012_05_01_npt_briefing.pdf

NPT Prep.Com from April 30 th to May 5th 2012, Vienna Joint Statement on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament, 2012 NPT PrepCom

Subject(s): nuclear disarmament by Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Holy See, Egypt,  Building Security Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines,  Nuclear Weapons Abolition South Africa, Switzerland

Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Holy Mr Chair, See, Egypt, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, I am taking the floor on behalf of [Austria, Philippines, South Africa, Switzerland Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Holy See, Egypt, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, 2 May 2012 New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, Switzerland]. Our countries First Session of the Preparatory Committee welcome that the 2010 NPT Review for the 2015 Review Conference of the Conference expressed its “deep concern at Parties to the Treaty on the Non- the catastrophic humanitarian consequences Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Joint of any use of nuclear weapons” and Statement on the humanitarian dimension of reaffirmed “the need for all states at all

37 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

times to comply with applicable international law, including international Nuclear weapons have the destructive humanitarian law”. capacity to pose a threat to the survival of humanity and as long as they continue to Mr Chair, exist the threat to humanity will remain. This, coupled with the perceived Serious concerns related to humanitarian political value and prestige attached to these dimensions of nuclear weapons have been weapons, are further factors that encourage voiced repeatedly. When the horrific proliferation and non-compliance with consequences of their use became apparent international obligations. Moreover, it is of in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the International great concern that, even after the end of the Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) took a cold war, the threat of nuclear annihilation clear position calling for the abolition of remains part of the 21st century international these weapons of ―extermination‖. security environment.

The sheer horror of use of nuclear weapons The utility of these instruments of mass in 1945 was later reflected in the NPT‘s destruction to confront traditional security Preamble, which makes reference to the challenges has been questioned by many ―devastation that would be visited upon all States as well as civil society experts. mankind by a nuclear war and the Moreover, nuclear weapons are useless in consequent need to make every effort to addressing current challenges such as avert the danger of such a war and to take poverty, health, climate change, terrorism or measures to safeguard the security of transnational crime. It seems at least peoples‖. questionable to use vast financial resources each year for maintaining, modernizing and If such weapons were tobe used again, be it expanding nuclear arsenals in times of intentionally or accidentally, immense decreasing funds available for social humanitarian consequences would be welfare, health care or education. The choice unavoidable. In addition to the immediate should be clear. fatalities, survivors of the horrendous effects of a nuclear explosion would endure Mr Chair, immeasurable suffering. International organisations providing emergency relief In addition to the grave humanitarian would be unable to fulfill their mandates, as concerns, the use of nuclear weapons also the ICRC has already concluded. Studies raises important legal issues. Nuclear have shown that the radiation released by even a single nuclear weapon affects populations, agriculture and natural resources over a very wide area and constitutes a threat for future generations. Further studies conclude that even a ―limited nuclear exchange‖ – in itself a contradiction in terms – would provoke a global climate change with serious and long-lasting impact on the environment and food production, which could cause a global famine affecting over a billion people. weapons are unique because of their destructive capacity and because of their Mr Chair, uncontrollable effects in space and time. All rules of international humanitarian law apply fully to nuclear weapons; those rules notably

38 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

include the rules of distinction, adopted a Resolution emphasizing not only proportionality and precaution, as well as the the incalculable human suffering resulting prohibition to cause superfluous injury or from any use of nuclear weapons but also unnecessary suffering and the prohibition to stressing that it is difficult to envisage how cause widespread, severe and long-term any use of nuclear weapons could be damage to the environment. Recently, the compatible with the rules of international humanitarian law. Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement Mr Chair,

Thoughts on the 1 st NPT Prep.Com from April 30 th to May 5th 2012 in Vienna: A waste of efforts or not – Stimuli to further struggle for a nuclear (weapon-) free world

By Reiner Braun, Executive Director of IALANA

Thoughts on the interpretation: program in case of Iran is being suspected and speculatively communicated (also as a Certainly, it is too early to review and threat of war). evaluate the conference thoroughly and in all its diversity. Nevertheless, a first impression The second train would be the disarmament can be given - a claim to completeness movement, and its engines are the cannot, however. negotiations for a drastic reduction, respectively a convention on nuclear Two colliding trains left a mark on the NPT- weapons. This train is fuelled by a large Conference. One express train would be the majority of the states of the earth, as well as group of countries possessing nuclear by the civil society, respectively the peace weapons. They do anything in their power to movement. Both trains are hurtling into each retain their status. They are disarming only other, and by that threatening to destroy the in the sense of scrapping already sorted-out NPT regime – the regime that is dedicated to nuclear weapons under the pretext of ―arms preventing the proliferation of nuclear control‖, while at the same time weapons. uninhibitedly and extensively modernizing nuclear weapons; in the case of NATO, even To prevent this, and above all to push amplifying its nuclear capacities in form of a forward the nuclear disarmament to zero Missile Defence System. This short (Nuclear Weapons Convention), the assessment of the development in the field of committed forces behind the peace nuclear weapons applies to the five official movement, as well as many states (like in nuclear powers as well as to the unofficial the Middle Power Initiative [MPI]) are powers like India, Pakistan, Israel and North trying to find an access to, or a preparation Korea. An effective nuclear weapon‘s for this access to negotiations for an

39 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

extensive nuclear disarmament right down to Defence Program. US nuclear weapons zero. For this purpose, interesting proposals remain in Europe. have been made. New types of coalitions of states are supporting this idea. Two Events of the movements and of civil conferences on nuclear weapons and society humanitarian law, prepared by the Norwegian government and the MPI, in With diverse events the forces committed to cooperation with the German Foreign disarmament and their organizations tried to Ministry shall help. Some scepticism influence the Prep.Com. The presentation remains – because of the nuclear powers, but was coined by highly qualified contributions also because of the still predominant to nuclear disarmament. At the official NGO endorsement of civil use by the international presentation for the governmental congress community of states. delegates the threats of nuclear weapons and the necessity of a comprehensive The discomfort of many states regarding disarmament were strongly being pointed nuclear armament (especially the armament out. If those events which are immensely of the five official nuclear powers) was reasonable in terms of self-understanding, being made clear, especially the annoyance and discourse of the peace movement and the civil society, and which are essential for networking, are really having an influence on the ―grand politics‖ of the really ―important and powerful‖, is a rhetorical question – the author regards this somewhat sceptically, however. Nobody can hope for effects in the short term.

Meeting on the role of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) after years of nuclear whitewashing was expressed. The Prep.Com was characterised Atomic energy, its international agency, by a mostly hidden, and in many cases not IAEA, with its ambiguous reputation as clearly formulated ―No‖ to content oneself ―promoter of atomic energy‖ and as with further postponements and empty watchdog for disarmament, were discussed promises, respectively with minor matters themes in a meeting, realized by IPB, INES and peripheral issues – this atmosphere and IALANA during the NPT-Conference in mirrors the mood of the people committed to Vienna. Also, proposals to a reform of IAEO peace, as well as more and more were being presented. governments. For the first time the proposal to boycott the NPT Conference 2015 was An overview of this meeting and the reform articulated. paper follows:

It is clear and foreseeable that the real decisions regarding nuclear issues are being resolved elsewhere – including at the NATO The incendiary never is the fireman: Summit in Chicago. Admittedly, the new Regarding the role of the IAEA NATO strategy contains a ―hard-won‖ On the 3rd of May on the periphery of the verbal confession to nuclear disarmament NPT-Conference IALANA, IPPNW, INES but in its core it is a continuation of a and IPB organised a much-noticed comprehensive policy towards nuclear international conference on the role of IAEA armament of NATO, including the option of and the urgently necessary modifications of first strike, and supplemented by the Missile the agency (reform of IAEA). 40 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

The incendiary (statutory promotion and basis of equity of all states. Furthermore, he advertising for the use of the so-called civil stressed that the NPT regime has to be usage) simply cannot at the same time be in developed further into a Nuclear Weapons charge of controlling civil risks and military Convention. application – according to Wolfgang Renneberg, security expert and long-term Iouli Andreev from Russia, and first leader at the Department of the liquidator after the Chernobyl incident, and Environment. Toshinoro Yamadat from Japan portrayed the nuclear catastrophes of Chernobyl and ―We need a cancellation of the statutory Fukushima with impressive words and promotion within IAEA statutes, so that this images, and emphasized the downplaying agency can solely be responsible for the and dishonourable role of IAEA. Both handling of the diverse consequences of the speakers agreed: ―The IAEA is part of the disastrous usage of nuclear energy catastrophe, and not of the solution.‖ (including the disposal problem)‖, demanded Otto Jäckel, chairperson at IALANA. In a Unanimously it was agreed upon a statement Peter Weish, scientist from ―supervision‖ of IAEA through the civil Austria, took a stand for a profound reform society and the peace movement. From now of the IAEA, which has to integrate on a counter summit, or an accompanying contributions of the civil society, and calls event to the annual meeting of IAEO shall for a division of the organisation into a civil take place. part and a part for disarmament. A further cooperation of the international Tillman Ruf, from the Australian IPPNW, organizations was agreed upon. stressed that IAEO‘s acting as watchdog for Jackie Cabasso of the US organization Legal WHO, and muzzling any critical reports has Foundation characterised the conference as to stop. ―Sugar-coated reports that actually very interesting and abundant in facts, and as are contradicting official facts have to stop an event that corresponds to a breaking of as well.‖ decades-long taboos. This was a climax in the NPT Review Conference, which was Wolfgang Liebert demanded that nuclear actually characterised by verbal ―lip disarmament and abolishment of all nuclear services‖ of the nuclear powers without weapons is a necessity to prevent actual consequences. proliferation of nuclear weapons and to perform serious international control on a Reiner Braun (Executive Director IALANA)

Theses on the IAEA reform The IAEA and the necessity of reforms after Fukushima

By Peter Weish

The nuclear age:Shortly after the discovery production were constructed. The first bomb of nuclear fission, in 1942, the ―Manhattan was tested on the 16th of July, 1945. On Project‖ was undertaken, under military August 6th, 1945, a uranium bomb was guidance by the US government. In Oak launched on Hiroshima, three days later a Ridge, Tennessee, a uranium enrichment plutonium bomb on Nagasaki. The facility was established and in Hanford, consequences were terrifying the world, and Washington, reactors for plutonium started a menacing nuclear arms race.

41 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Atoms for peace Wissenschaft und die gefährdete Welt – Eine Wissenschaftssoziologie der Atomphysik‖ In 1953, President Eisenhower spoke before Beck, München 1964, S.283) the UN General Assembly and announced the so-called ―peaceful use‖ of atomic „Atoms for Peace“ energy: ―…this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon for the The UN Conference „Atoms for Peace― in benefit of all mankind.‖ 1995 was a one-sided propaganda event for civil utilization of nuclear energy. In order to evade concern from the outset, Nobel Price laureate H. J. Muller was not allowed to hold his speech about „How radiation changes the genetic constitution―. A nuclear euphoria was created elaborately, whereas. Disney's film „Our friend, the atom― which described the „blessings― of nuclear energy pretty much one-sidedly, was shown for many years at public schools. A car fuelled not by gas but by a uranium pill was fancied by many. It was said that electricity would become „too cheap to meter―. The hope, that Motives for the “Atoms for Peace” the material of the last atomic bomb would Program: be utilized in a „peaceful― reactor, proved to be an illusion. The „Ploughshare Program – On the one hand, after the shock from the Atomic Bombs for peaceful use― made a nuclear bombings the USA were interested major contribution to start up nuclear in demonstrating to the world that atomic programs under the guise of „peaceful― energy has its benefits. On the other hand, bombs (like in India). there was great interest in economically turning to account the immense investments The foundation of IAEA made in developing atomic energy, and in creating labour for thousands of specialists. In December of 1954, the UN General The answer to why many scientists and Assembly passed the resolution for „Atoms technicians were in favour of civil nuclear for Peace―. In 1957, the International technology is described by sociologist Atomic Energy Agency was founded. Friedrich Wagner: ―If researchers who in According to its regulations, the goals of general reject any nuclear armament still IAEA are: „...to accelerate and enlarge the welcome the construction and expansion of contribution of atomic energy to peace, peaceful nuclear energy usage, than they are health and prosperity throughout the world. not only driven by the professional concern It shall ensure, so far it is able, that of endangering their research by a assistance provided by it … is not used in relinquishment of such a development but such a way as to further any military also by the illusion of banning the ―curse‖ of purpose.― nuclear arms through the ―blessings‖ of the nuclear industry. The urge to research, As early as then, it was clear that the civil progressive thinking, and the need of self- and military nuclear industry are inseparably discharge unite in the compulsion to interconnected. The Acheson-Lilienthal legitimize the unleashing of atomic energy report (1946) explained clearly that a through its civil use, after its military use – division is not possible. Civil programs can nuclear armament – evades a control always easily be directed towards production of more visibly.‖ (Friedrich Wagner ―Die atomic bombs. Even high-profiled experts

42 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

like the scientific manager of the Manhattan The dual role of IAEA consists of widening Project, Robert Oppenheimer, expressed this and supporting the civil utilization of atomic clearly. Nobel Price laureate Hannes Alfvén technology, and of preventing its military appropriately characterised the military and utilization effectively. This is a contradiction the civil atomic industry as „Siamese twins―. since the promotion of worldwide mass The promotion of civil nuclear programs production of plutonium prevents a reliable was therefore an obstacle to the control of control of fissionable material. fissionable material to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. In 1957, at the time of The members not only consist of states but the foundation of IAEA, most member states also of NGOs; nevertheless, only organisations closely linked to the nuclear industry. The IAEA is therefore a highest- ranking international organisation devoted to nuclear propaganda and immune to critical voices within.

The mutual agreement of IAEA and WHO, dating from May 28th, 1959, is an oppressive contract for the World Health Organisation since questions that concern both organisations can only be resolved consensually. This blockade has prevented scientifically serious investigations of the consequences for human health (e.g. after evinced their intention to profit from the the catastrophe of Chernobyl), and instead „peaceful― use of nuclear energy. Since then brought belittling misinformation upon the a lot has changed, though. The complete highest international and official spheres. control of fissionable material achieved by For millions of affected persons this means a IAEA, and the civil usage of nuclear energy disregard of the right of recognition of was proven a failure: The promise of a safe, damages to health as consequence of clean, cheap and inexhaustible energy source radiation and disregard of accrued financial proved to be a deception. Contrary to the compensation. propaganda of the nuclear industry, nuclear energy is not a reasonable alternative to Concrete recommendations to create an reducing CO2 emission. The uranium international emergency group under reserves are not inexhaustible. Actually, the guidance of IAEA, and with the expertise of atomic industry contributes to aggravation of the diverse experiences of the clearing work the waste disposal problem for which no after the Chernobyl catastrophe, and satisfactory solution is in sight. In addition equipped with the necessary capacities were to this problem, we are confronted with not considered by the IAEA. The Fukushima exorbitant costs and a lack of liability for catastrophe clearly demonstrates that this damages and harms. was a failure.

The role of IAEA in the context of the The majority of IAEA member states does catastrophes of Chernobyl and (recently) of not follow the intention to enter into the civil Fukushima, is highly deserving criticism. nuclear industry but instead some members have decided upon exiting this process. That for it is necessary to critically question Therefore it is high time to expose the the not anymore appropriate activities of this problems of the anachronistic IAEA statutes organisation, which is closely linked to the and to work out reform proposals. UN, and to propose necessary changes.

43 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Objectives of the health consequences of atomic industry. At the same time a The present IAEA that practises one-sided revaluation of WHO is necessary. nuclear propaganda, belittles the consequences of radiation, and prevents  Annulation of the passage that gives serious investigations, and therefore cannot every nation the right to construct fulfil their controlling function, has to and use civil nuclear facilities – and become an organisation that promotes and through that threatening accompanies the exit of civil and military transboundary neighbouring states. nuclear industry, and mitigates the inherited waste of the atomic age.  To enable this, the composition of the members has to be changed Reform proposals fundamentally: Either the lobbying organisations have to be banned from  The promotion of nuclear energy has atomic industry, or a balance has to to be crossed out the statutes, and be created through including critical instead the control function of IAEA NGOs free of industrial obligations. has to be improved.  A possible solution for IAEA could  Breakup the contract between IAEA be outsourcing of control functions, and WHO, which has disabled a like seen at USAEC, which once critical investigation and presentation  united promotion and control of Austrian representatives at IAEA shall nuclear energy, and was divided into announce this conference at the next General DOE and NRC. Assembly of IAEA, and shall win allies for this undertaking in advance.  Transparency when deploying experts to IAEA. Reasonable doubt of an easy implementation of such a reform shall not hinder this  Creating a emergency group for Austrian proposal but, in contrary, cases of nuclear catastrophes. demonstrate the necessity of such an initiative.  Developing an objective dialogue of risks instead of the security rhetoric As representative for the civil society, we of today. announce to accompany annual conferences of IAEA critically and with own side-events, Demand to the Austrian government: and to help create a critical public in order to raise awareness for those necessary reforms. To call for a conference with involvement of We expect active support of the Austrian many member states to discuss and work out government. concrete ways of implementation.

44 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

NATO Summit

Chicago Tribune: NATO's hard sell at the summit

May 16, 2012

By Michael Lynn and Roxane Assaf, Michael Lynn is a board member of the Chicago chapter of Peace Action, and Roxane Assaf is the outreach coordinator for the group's Chicago affiliate

In 1949, shortly after the Soviet Union Now, more than six decades later, as the 28- exploded its first nuclear weapon, the United country alliance gathers in Chicago for its States and 11 Western European nations summit, the Afghan war and U.S. military formed NATO. The organization's original spending in general are due for some goals were the deterrence of Soviet increased scrutiny. President Barack aggression against the war-ravaged nations Obama's recently announced joint agreement of Western Europe and containing Soviet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai calls influence within the boundaries of its into serious question Obama's intention to already existing Eastern bloc. withdraw all U.S. combat troops from

45 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Afghanistan by 2014 and the Cold War as the globe's only remaining administration's promise to be the most superpower. With the ideological struggle of transparent in American history — ironic, the Cold War a thing of the past, thoughts since the proposed agreement bypasses turned to a future with less need for Congress entirely. expensive military alliances, such as NATO. It was the era when all were wondering how If there is no accountability to Congress, the the so-called peace dividend would be spent. will of the American people is being ignored. A recent New York Times poll A funny thing happened on the way to that shows that nearly 7 out of 10 Americans (69 bright and happy future. NATO did not percent) believe the U.S. should not be at wither away, but grew steadily. It war in Afghanistan. Opposition to the war reimagined and re-missioned itself, poised to cuts across ideological divides, with 68 confront what it termed "complex new risks percent of Democrats saying the war was to Euro-Atlantic peace and stability." It going somewhat or very badly and 60 might not have been clear at the time exactly percent of Republicans agreeing. Strikingly, what those risks were, but the military a plurality (40 percent) of Republicans bureaucracy seemed sure they existed. asserted that the U.S. should exit Afghanistan earlier than 2014. A recent Notwithstanding NATO's intervention in the Christian Science Monitor poll showed that former Yugoslavia in 1995, its central 63 percent of U.S. respondents rejected the mission remained vaguely defined until after Obama-Karzai deal, while only 33 percent Sept. 11, when it became a partner-in-arms approved. to then-President George W. Bush's "global war on terror." The terrorist attacks led to With such overwhelming public opposition, the first invocation of Article 5 of the NATO it is no surprise that 39 peace and justice treaty, which states that an attack on any groups nationwide have formed the Network member state will be treated as an attack on for a NATO-Free Future and will host a all. "Counter-Summit for Peace and Economic Justice" prior to the NATO affair. Within a month, NATO But activists and street protesters are not the was involved only ones voicing discontent. The in the U.S.-led unpopularity of the war is shared in other attack on NATO nations, and some governments are Afghanistan. listening. Five member states have The attack completed or announced withdrawal plans: was defined Canada in 2011, Poland in 2012, the United as an attempt Kingdom by 2015, France is set to leave by to effect the end of the year, and Australia is about to regime announce its own acceleration of troop change, withdrawal. Yet on NATO's agenda in dismantle al- Chicago is an attempt to shore up flagging Qaidaand, in support from allies as well as selling them particular, capture or kill Osama bin Laden. on the new agreement. Fast-forward to the present day. Bin Laden Is there still a need for NATO? With the is dead. The CIA estimates fewer than 100 collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, al-Qaida members remain in Afghanistan. NATO's original raison d'etre disappeared. The Taliban no longer rules that nation. Yet With Europe rebuilt, the threat from a the U.S. and its NATO allies remain greatly diminished Russia was no longer embroiled in a stalemated quagmire that is credible. The U.S. had emerged from the arguably the longest war in U.S. history. The 46 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

war in Afghanistan has taken the lives of authorization of continued military alliance nearly 2,000 U.S. military personnel and with a sovereign foreign nation — is not a untold thousands of Afghan civilians. At the treaty and therefore not in need of time of this writing, the economic costs ratification by the Senate. One wonders totaled a staggering $527 billion.Nobel which country is the established democracy. Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has

estimated the total long-term costs of the As Chicago closes schools and imposes Iraq and Afghan wars at $4 trillion. For draconian cuts on agencies crucial to the perspective, that is roughly 28 percent of city's most vulnerable, our national leaders U.S. gross domestic product, the total of all will be arguing for increased military economic activity in the country each year. spending, which already consumes more than half of the discretionary budget of the Details of the U.S.-Afghan Status of Forces U.S. government. It should be a hard sell. Agreement to stay in Afghanistan are supposed to be worked out in the next year, Does anyone truly believe that spending potentially committing tens of thousands of those funds fighting an unwinnable war and troops and billions of tax dollars through killing innocent Afghan civilians in drone 2024 with little congressional oversight. attacks is making anyone anywhere more While President Karzai stressed that the secure? Clearly the American people do not agreement would need to be approved by the believe so. It's time for their government to Afghan parliament, the White House has listen to them. maintained that the agreement — despite its

47 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

What Is Obama's Position on Afghanistan? Say It Again?

16th May 2012

By Tom Hayden

The Iraq War, Barack in 2014, the Obama improved his year of the hawkish credentials troop by promising to track withdrawal down Osama bin deadline. He Laden, expand drone seeks $3.5-6 attacks, and escalate billion each the American troop of the next numbers in two years to Afghanistan. Three build up the years later, bin Laden Afghan is dead, the drones armed inflame Pakistan forces, plus opinion and complicate a peace settlement, a Western commitment to funding and 33,000 American troops are scheduled for at least another decade, an to pull out by the end of 2012 with "steady impossible expectation. withdrawals" to continue after. Sixty-eight thousand U.S. troops will remain in  According to Pentagon evaluations, Afghanistan by this year's end, with the those troops are unable to function deadline for withdrawing most of them by independently, though insurgent December 2014. infiltrators are skilled at shooting NATO allies. (Twenty percent of By the numbers, Afghanistan has already NATO fatalities have occurred this directly cost taxpayers $528.8 billion, and year, according to The New York the Obama request for Afghanistan this Times). fiscal year is $107 billion. That does not include the hidden, indirect costs -- accrual  Foreign aid to Afghanistan equals its such as long-term Social Security, disability, entire gross national product and, and medical care for veterans, etc. -- partly according to the World Bank, spurred by an order last year from the Ninth "cannot be sustained." Circuit Court of Appeal, which will add hundreds of billions, if not trillions to the  "Intractable Graft by Elite Afghans" ultimate financial impact of the wars in Iraq makes reform out of reach. and Afghanistan. Earlier this year, the Taliban indicated The president's internal political calculation through intermediaries a willingness to hold in 2008 was that he could never pull out of dialogue with the West, in Qatar, but Afghanistan without killing Al Qaeda's top demanded the release of several detainees leadership and building a firewall against a now in Guantanamo, possibly in exchange Taliban return to power. While perhaps for an American POW, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. correct politically, this has led to an Afghan Those discussions are in trouble, partly quagmire shaken by severe contradictions. because of Republican opposition to releasing U.S.-held Taliban combatants. As  Hamid Karzai remains an unpopular, a result, the Obama administration's hope for unreliable president whose term ends progress in negotiations has hit the skids. 48 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Despite these insuperable obstacles, Obama without building permanent bases or will try mightily at the Chicago NATO patrolling Afghan cities and summit to indicate that the Afghanistan war mountains. The U.S., however, will is winding down, aware that an implosion is use Afghan military "facilities" on a possible as Karzai trembles, millionaire short-term basis. Afghans flee the country, and the Afghan forces flounder. The Republicans will blame  Obama is offering a "negotiated Obama for "losing" Afghanistan while peace" with the Taliban, as long as trying to avoid any recommendations of they "break with Al Qaeda, renounce their own. violence, and abide by Afghan laws." This is a retreat from the original Obama's latest Afghanistan speech indicates U.S. demand that the Taliban and where he is headed in a situation clearly out other insurgents abide by the Afghan of control: Constitution. This opens the possibilities of a new power-sharing  He has narrowed the mission to an arrangement of some kind. obtainable one, "to make sure that al- Qaeda could never again use this  Obama's offer to Pakistan that they country [Afghanistan] to launch be an "equal partner" in the attacks against us." negotiated outcome suggests that Pakistan's interests and alliances in  In Chicago, NATO will announce Afghanistan will be respected, thus the "goal" of Afghan forces to be "in ending the rationale for drone strikes the lead for combat" by next year. over Pakistan. NATO, however, will fight alongside them when needed."  Obama's statement, "we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to  Current troop reductions will stabilize," can be interpreted as only continue on a "firm timeline" and "at rhetoric, or a veiled indication that a steady pace," with Afghans the Afghan elite will have only a becoming "fully responsible for the "decent interval" before being security of their country" by replaced, the same offer Henry December 2014. Kissinger proposed for South Vietnam before it collapsed in 1975.  The U.S. will continue to focus on counter-terrorism and training, If this seems much too muddled a process, it is because it is being rushed for the Chicago summit and is beyond US control in any event.

But if Obama campaigns on ending the Iraq War and "winding down" Afghanistan, it will only accelerate the march to the exits. No one wants to be the last American soldier to die, or the last Western country to suffer casualties, in an unwinnable, unaffordable war that Americans do not much care about.

49 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Statement Network Free Future Counter Summit for Peace and Economic Justice Chicago, Illinois, USA

May 18 & 19, 2012

A New Global Peace and Justice Movement is Rising

The NATO-Free Future gathering in Chicago coincides with a rising global movement against war, militarism, inequality and poverty. We represent the pro-peace and justice majority, the global 99%.

We heed the wisdom of Dr.Martin Luther King Jr.‘s call to challenge the ―triple evils‖ of poverty, racial inequality and militarism.

The rising global peace and justice movement works from the premise that poverty, inequality and militarism are forms of violence that constitute an endless cycle that can and must be broken for the survival of humanity. Each feeds off the other, and all and poses a major obstacle to addressing the must be challenged. world‘s most pressing problems.

These ―triple evils‖ are embodied in the NATO, never an entirely defensive alliance, NATO military alliance and its relationship to has invaded countries distant from its the actions of many of the wealthiest members such as Afghanistan and Libya to countries. We are convinced that to overcome disastrous effect, has expanded to Russia‘s these evils we must oppose wars, embrace borders, provoking prospects for a new peace, and demand that the drive for empire nuclear arms race, and is reaching even be replaced by an understanding of our global further afield to Africa, east Asia and the interdependence and a flowering of genuine Pacific. Since the United States is the main democracy. And that democracy, in turn will NATO force, Latin America also is threatened foster greater inclusion, equity and justice for by the alliance. NATO‘s continued reliance all. on nuclear weapons threatens the future of humanity and the ecosphere. We will pursue an alternative vision of a more peaceful world, which is inextricably linked to Supersized military budgets and wars along economic, social and environmental justice. with G8 policies of austerity, funneling of wealth and resources to the 1%, and Militarism sustains and enforces unjust privatization and downgrading of public national and international economic systems services drive increased unemployment and shrink critical human services.

50 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

For example, the decade of NATO‘s war on We envision a world where systemic Afghanistan has cost the U.S. alone $530 inequalities are addressed to promote equity billion, money that could and should have and full inclusion of communities of color and funded the salaries of school teachers and immigrants. firefighters, paid healthcare costs for children, adults and veterans, or funded the conversion A future is possible where youth are prized of tens of millions of homes to solar and wind and their rights and access to free and energy. unmilitarized education respected and supported as an investment in the nation‘s future.

We work to build a civilization where nonviolent struggle for peace and justice has created security, the world‘s resources are equitably shared and all enjoy prosperity.

In the near term, we will press for the withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces, including military contractors, from Afghanistan now, not a dozen years hence, and will work to prevent new wars. Militarism bolsters corporate globalization in a drive to control natural resources, land and We demand the abolition of all nuclear markets, and subverts democracy and human weapons. We demand an end to NATO‘s rights. It drives migration of workers in search ―nuclear sharing,‖ whereby U.S. nuclear of a better life. It generates huge profits weapons are stationed in ostensibly non- selling weapons to all sides. nuclear countries, as an important step toward the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Another world -- a great change of course, is necessary. We support the United Nations We will join with the many movements in our Charter‘s call on all nations to resolve respective countries and internationally - for international conflicts based on dialogue, workers rights, immigrants rights, women‘s diplomacy and international law, and ―to rights and the right to peace - to build a promote the establishment and maintenance of politically empowered rising tide for peace international peace and security with the least and justice. diversion for armaments of the world's human We will support the campaign to move the and economic resources.‖ money from wars and weapons to fund human We insist that all foreign military forces and needs and guarantee environmental justice. their weapons be returned to their nations of We will build a truly global movement for origin and the bases turned over to the host peace and justice. countries. We call for national economic and In 1966, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, tax policies to be reoriented to ensure ―There is nothing more tragic than to sleep sustainable economic development and the through a revolution.‖ Join the new global environmental health of the people, not the peace and justice movement. privileges and power of a relative few.

51 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

RIO+20 Summit for Sustainable Development

Information from RIO

June 20th 2012

Today the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20, started. Among others, global sustainable development in form of Green Economy will be on the agenda of the Heads of State. The question of sustainability is closely linked to the question of global justice and to peaceful coexistence of the people. The annual military spending of 1,7 trillion US dollars hinders the struggle for global justice and against poverty, malnutrition and hunger, and the underdevelopment of broad parts of the world.

We, a group of civil society organizations, are pointing out these shortcomings at and around the UN Con-ference in Rio.

Introducing the project „BreadTank“

In an demonstrative act on June 19th in the Favela Santa Marta in Rio, a symbolic tank out of bread was presented to the public. The mayor of Santa

Marta said: ―Words have been said enough, sustainability cannot be an empty word anymore but actions need to be conducted. Disarmament must be the number one priority.―

―Without disarmament there is no sustainability and justice. Therefore the reduction of the excessi- ve military spending must be part of the agenda at the Rio+20 conference―, said Reiner Braun, Excecut-ive Director of IALANA.

After the presentation of the ―BreadTank― small fire arms, the deadliest conventional weapons, were destroyed.

In the picture to the right, Reiner Braun de-stroys a revolver with a hammer.

The „BreadTank― will be marching at the demonstration at the Global Day of Action and will be placed in front of the UN conference location.

52 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

International Appeal “Disarmament for Sustainable Development“

The signatories of this appeal demand that the governments wholeheartedly address the neglected issues of disarmament, and resolve upon a global plan for disarmament at the Rio-Summit. The freed-up financial means should be used for social, economic and ecological programs in all countries. With the help of the signatures of great persona-lilies from the civil society, the economy, politics and science – among them many Nobel Peace Prize Laureates – we want to use this appeal to make clear that the people suffering under war and hunger are united with one voice against the continuation of the present system that is humanly, ecologically and economically destructive.

The international appeal will be presented to a high official of the United Nations on Thursday, June 21st.

Picture above: Extract of the flyer/poster of the international appeal „Disarmament for Sustainable Development― which is being spread in Rio.

The international appeal can be viewed and signed at http://www.inesglobal.com/Disarmament-for-Sustainable- Development.phtm

Side Events at the official conference and the People„s Summit

At the official conference three side events are being conducted on ―Disarmament for Development―, ―The future of food―, and ―Food, agriculture and conflicts – challenges for peace‖.

At the People‗s Summit IPB and INES are among the only civil society organizations addressing militarization and the question of peace as a precondition for sustainability and justice.

Disarmament for Sustainable Development An international appeal

In 1992 the United Nations Conference on of 1987, sustainable development, a term that Environment and Development (the Earth was at once accepted internationally as ―the Summit) connected the challenges concerning challenge of the decade‖. However, the related environmental threats and development around challenges of peace and disarmament were the world. It named this connection, following excluded. the Brundtland Report ―Our common future‖

53 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

Disarmament for Development – today‟s The signatories of this Appeal demand that challenge the governments of the world seriously address this neglected issue, and agree on a In 2010 global military spending amounted to global plan for disarmament at the Rio $1630 billion – despite the fact that 1 billion Summit in June 2012. The freed-up funds people suffer from hunger, even more do not should be used for social, economic and have access to safe water or adequate health ecological programmes in all countries. care and education, and even in the developed Starting in 2013, military spending should be world millions are without work. The cut back substantially, that is, by a minimum Millennium Development Goals cannot be of 10 percent per annum. The aim is to launch realized while the world squanders its wealth a dynamic towards sustainable development, on militarism. which could start by establishing an internationally-managed Fund with a capital of Today‘s climatic and environmental conditions more than $150 billion. exacerbate this imbalance. Ecological disasters pile up; the loss of biodiversity and the This plan for ―Disarmament for Sustainable destruction of the eco-system are increasing Development‖ should be announced in the dramatically. In addition, the current economic final document of the Rio Summit and should crisis has made the world‘s governments be realized step-by-step under the direction of reduce spending on critical human needs and the United Nations. is once again hitting the weakest the hardest. Without disarmament, there will be no However, apparently unlimited financial adequate development; without development, resources seem to be available for military jets, there will be no justice, equality and peace. tanks, ships, bombs, missiles, landmines and We must give sustainability a chance. nuclear weapons. The technological developments in the armaments field are Initiated by Better World Links, International Peace becoming more and more sophisticated and Bureau (IPB), International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES), Foreign murderous. Policy in Focus (FPIF), Mayors for Peace, VivaRio, World Future Council (WFC), and world without wars How to reverse this process is the challenge of and violence. today.

Signatories as of June 19:

Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Abouleish (Right Livelihood Laureate 2003, Egypt), Swami Agnivesh (Right Livelihood Laureate 2004, India), Martin Almada (Right Livelihood Laureate 2002, Paraguay), Patrus Ananias (Former Mayor of Belo Horizonte, Brazil) Colin Archer (Secretary- General International Peace Bureau, GB/Switzerland), Dr. Oscar Arias (Former President of Costa Rica, Nobel Peace Laureate 1987, Costa Rica), John Scales Avery (Chair Denmark Pugwash Group, Denmark), Haroon Aziz (South African Water and Sanitation Academy, South Africa), Maude Barlow (Right Livelihood Laureate 2005, Canada), Prof. Dr. Ulrich Bartosch (Federation of German Scientists (VDW), Germany), Dipal Chandra Barua (Co-Founder Grameen Bank, Bangladesh), Susan Bazilli (Director International Women's Rights Project, Canada), Dr. Peter Becker (Co-Chair IALANA, Germany), Rosalie Bertell (Right Livelihood Laureate 1986, USA), Ela Ramesh Bhatt (Right Livelihood Laureate 1984, India), Andras Biro (Right Livelihood Laureate 1995, Hungary), Heinrich Bleicher-Nagelsmann (Vice-President UNI-MEI Global Union for Media, Germany), Councillor Elaine Boyes (Lord Mayor Manchester, Vice-President Mayors for Peace, GB), Ludo De Brabander (Vrede vzw, Belgium), Reiner Braun (Executive Director IALANA, Germany), Ingeborg Breines (Co-President International Peace Bureau, Norway), Frank Bsirske (Chair ver.di Trade Union, Germany), Adele Buckley (Past Chair Canadian Pugwash, Canada), Carmel Budiardjo (Right Livelihood Laureate 1995, GB), Jackie Cabasso (Executive Director Western States Legal Foundation, North America Coordinator Mayors for Peace, USA), Prof. Dr. Ana Maria Cetto (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico), Rubem César Fernandes (Executive Director VivaRio, Brazil) Prof. Dr. Noam Chomsky (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA), Michael Christ (Executive Director IPPNW, USA), Tony Clarke (Right Livelihood Laureate 2005, Canada), Michel Cibot (Delegate AFCDRP, Mayors for Peace, France), Mike Cooley (Right Livelihood Laureate 1981, Ireland), Claudine Cordillot (Mayor of Villejuif, Mayors for Peace, France), Frank Cownie (Mayor of Des Moines, Mayors for Peace, USA), Shan Cretin (General Secretary American Friends Service Committee, USA), Peter J. Croll (Director Bonn International Center for Conversion, Germany), Prof. Dr. Paul Crutzen (Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1995, Germany/Netherlands), Danube Circle (Right Livelihood Laureate 1985, Hungary), Jayantha Dhanapala (Former UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Former Ambassador Sri Lanka), Marie Dennis (Co-President Pax Christi International, USA), Bishop Kevin Dowling (Co-President Pax Christi International, South Africa), Pol Heanna D'Huyvetter (International Development Director Mayors for Peace, Brazil), Sergio de Queiroz Duarte (H. E. Ambassador, former UN High Representative on Disarmament Affairs, Brazil), Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Dürr (Right Livelihood Laureate 54 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS APRIL 2012

1987, Germany), Bernard Duterme (Director CETRI, Belgium), Shirin Ebadi (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2003, Iran), Dr. Margrit Eichler (Director Science for Peace, Canada), Dr. Scilla Elworthy (Founder Oxford Research Group, GB), Prof. Dr. Gerhard Ertl (Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2007, Germany), Adolfo Peres Esquivel (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1980, Argentina), Anwar Fazal (Right Livelihood Laureate 1982, Malaysia), John Feffer (Co-Director FIPF, USA), Andrew Feinstein (Author and Politician, South Africa / GB), Ann Feltham (Campaign Against Arms Trade, GB), Daniel Fontaine (Mayor of Aubagne, President of AFCDRP, France) Sonia Fraquet (President Peuples Des Forets Primaires, France), Nikolai Fuchs (President Nexus Foundation, Switzerland), Prof. Dr. Johan Galtung (Right Livelihood Laureate 1987, Norway), Danièle Garcia (Mayor of Auriol, Mayors for Peace, France), Hans Ulrich Gerber (President International Fellowship of Reconciliation, Switzerland), Dr. Joseph Gerson (American Friends Service Committee, USA), Prof. Dr. Hartmut Graßl (Former Director Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Germany), Prof. Dr. Owen Greene (University Bradford, GB), Monika Griefahn (Co-Founder Greenpeace, Germany), Karen Hallberg (Pugwash, Argentina), Cinthia Heanna (2020 Vision Campaigner Mayors for Peace, World Future Council, Brazil), Prof. Dr. Hans Herren (Millennium Institute, USA), Prof. Dr. Dudley Herschbach (Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1986, USA), Dr. Angelika Hilbeck (ETH Zürich/VDW, Switzerland), Christine Hoffmann (Secretary-General Pax Christi Germany, Germany), José Ramos Horta (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1996, East Timor), Dr. Kate Hudson (Chair Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, GB), Prof. Dr. John Hume (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1998, Northern Ireland), Prof. Dr. Tim Hunt (Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology/Medicine 2001, GB), S.M. Mohamed Idris (President Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia), Otto Jäckel (Chair IALANA Germany, Germany), Garry Jacobs (Chair Board of Trustees World Academy of Art & Science, GB), Bianca Jagger (Right Livelihood Laureate 2004, Nicaragua), Khder Kareem (Mayor Halabja, Vice- President Mayors for Peace, Iraq), Rev. Jules Renzano Kasunzu (Umoja As One, Kenya), Steve Killelea (Chair Institute for Economics & Peace, Australia), Ivan Knez (Mayor Biograd na Moru, Vice-President Mayors for Peace, Croatia), Prof. Dr. Walter Kohn (Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1998, USA), Dr. Maritta Koch-Weser (Founder and President Earth3000, Germany), Prof. Dr. Roger David Kornberg (Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 2006, USA), Prof. Dr. Gyorgy Koteles (Hungarian Peace Association, Hungary), Erwin Kräutler (Right Livelihood Laureate 2010, Austria), Dr. David Krieger (Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, USA), Prof. Dr. Harry Kroto (Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1996, GB), Katarina Kruhonja (Right Livelihood Laureate 1998, Croatia), Ida Kuklina (Right Livelihood Laureate 1996, Russia), Laurence Kwark (Secretary General Pax Romana ICMICA/MIIC, Switzerland), Dr. Andrey Laletin (Chair Siberian Forests, Russia), Yasmeen Lari (Heritage Foundation, Pakistan), Babatunde B. Lee (International Peace Comission AFRICA, Ivory Coast), Steve Leeper (Chair Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, Japan), Prof. Dr. Jean Marie Lehn (Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1987, France), Birsel Lemke (Right Livelihood Laureate 2000, Turkey), Prof. Dr. Stefan Luby (Vice-President European Academy of Sciences and Arts, Austria), Helen Mack (President Myrna Mack Foundation, Guatemala), Tomas Magnusson (Co-President International Peace Bureau, Sweden), Dr. Mairead Corrigan Maguire (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1976, Northern Ireland), Catherine Margate (Mayor of Malakoff, Vice-President Mayors for Peace, France), Alice Tepper Marlin (President Social Accountability International, USA), Prof. Dr. Ruchama Marton (President PHR-I Tel Aviv, Israel), Adriana Matalonga (Earth Peolpes, Mexico), Kazumi Matsui (Mayor Hiroshima, President Mayors for Peace, Japan), Shahid M. Minhas (University Gujrat, Pakistan), Prof. Dr. Raul Montenegro (Right Livelihood Award Laureate 2004, Argentina), Miguel Valencia Mulkay (Earth Peoples, Mexico), Jean Paul Nanfack (Vice-Mayor Fongo Tongo, Executive Member Mayors for Peace, Cameroon), Helena Norberg-Hodge (President International Society for Ecology and Culture, Sweden), Abdiwahid Osman Nur (General Director Peace Route Somalia, Somalia), Elijah O.S. Odihiambo (Kenya Ministry of State for Defence, Kenya), Juan Pablo Orrego (Right Livelihood Laureate 1998, Chile), Prof. Dr. Luis de la Peña (Former President Mexican Physical Society, Mexico), Daniel Gil Perez (University Valencia, Spain), Prof. Dr. Valery Petrosyan (Member Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Russia), Prof. Dr. John C. Polanyi (Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 1986, USA), Prof. Dr. Pasquale Policastro (University Szczecin, Poland), Alfredo Quarto (Executive Director Mangrove Action Project, USA), Paul Quiles (former Minister of Defense, Mayor of Cordes sur Ciel, Mayors for Peace, France), Dr. Vithal Rajan (Former Exec. Director RLA Foundation, Trustee AME India Foundation, India), P.K. Ravindran (President KSSP, India), Fernando Rendon (International Poetry Festival of Medellín, Colombia), Kaisa Savolainen (Former Director Education Division, UNESCO, France), Monty Schadel (Executive Director German Peace Society- United War Resisters, Germany), Camilla Schippa (Director Institute for Economics & Peace, Australia), Mohammad Ali Shah (Chairperson Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan), Dhirendra Sharma (Centre for Rigoberta Menchu Tum (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1992, Guatemala), Archbishop Desmond Mpilo Tutu (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1984, South Africa), Dr. Nizam Uddin (University Central Florida, USA), Jakob von Uexkull (Founder Right Livelihood Award, Sweden/Germany), Shrikrishna Upadhyay (Executive Chair SAPPROS, Nepal), Prof. Dr. Judit Vasarhelyi (Right Livelihood Laureate 1985, Hungary), Dr. Pablo de la Vega (Plataforma Interamericana De Derechos Humanos Democracia Y Desarrollo, Ecuador), Thore Vestby (Mayor Frogn, Mayors for Peace, Norway), Pierre Villard (President Mouvement de la Paix, France), Prof. Dr. Judi Wakhungu (Executive Director African Centre for Technology Studies, Kenya), Dr. Paul Walker (Global Green/Green Cross, USA), Alyn Ware (Right Livelihood Laureate 2009, New Zealand), Prof. Dr. Dave Webb (Chair Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, GB), Stephan Weil (Lord Mayor Hannover, Vice- President Mayors for Peace, Germany), Chico Whitaker (Right Livelihood Laureate 2006, Brazil), Annette Willi (International Peace Bureau, Switzerland), Betty Williams (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1976, Northern Ireland), Jody Williams (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 1997, USA), Lucas Wirl (Progam Director INES, Germany), Alla Yaroshinskaya (Right Livelihood Laureate 1992, Ukraine), Kohinoor Yeasmin (TARANGO, Bangladesh), Prof. Federico Mayor Zaragoza (Chair Foundation for Culture of Peace, Spain), Angie Zelter (Right Livelihood Laureate 2001, GB) Science Policy Research, India), Dr. Vandana Shiva (Right Livelihood Laureate 1993, India), Sonia Silber (The Washington Peace Center, USA), Susil Sirivardana (Right Livelihood Laureate with PIDA 1982, Sri Lanka), Prof. Dr. Joseph Stachel (Biographer of Albert Einstein, USA), Prof. Dr. Jack Steinberger (Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics 1988, Switzerland), Dr. Hanumappa Sudarshan (Right Livelihood Laureate 1994, India), Dr. Mark Suh (Chair South-Korean Pugwash Group, South- Korea/Germany), Prof. Dr. Ivo Šlaus (World Academy of Art & Science, Croatia), Vappu Taipale (Co–President IPPNW, Finland), Prof. Dr. Koichi Tanaka (Nobel Prize Laureate in Chemistry 2002, Japan), Vesna Teršelič (Right Livelihood Laureate 1998, Croatia), Ulrich Thone (Chair Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft, Member Education International, Germany), Aaron Tovish (International Director 2020 Vision Campaign, Mayors for Peace, Austria), Daniel Tsakem (Mayor Fongo-Tongo, Cameroon, Executive Members Mayors for Peace)

55