To: "Bob and Elaine Tiller"
Bob,
New Year's greetings! I hope your wife is getting alone well now.
I hope to see you Thursday. But if not, I'll keep you informed.
Howard
10103.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:33 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-2027-978526742-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: Suzy Pearce
Dear Friends Members of Abolition 2000 ACC, Members of MPI International Steering Committee, And US NGOs; I already sent two E.Mails drawing your kind attention to the looming danger which all of us are going to face very soon as the result of the declared policy of Bush Administration on the question of Ballistic Missile Defense. I also suggested the holding of a meeting of Abolition 2000 ACC together with representatives of US NGO network to lay down a framework of a campaign to halt the deployment of this system In my capacity as a member of Abolition 2000 Global Council I request my friends, members of ACC, to kindly give a clear answer: Do they want to hold such a meeting or organize any other alternative to this suggestion? Yes or No. Do they want to discuss and present ideas on a campaign against BMD? Yes or No. I know that several members of the ACC and others are interested in holding an international governmental conference which will be held after several years if NWSs will agree on holding this conference. I am also interested in convening this conference and we can continue our deliberations on this issue , but there is a looming danger which all of us are facing now. The fact that several NGOs are suggesting and even some are initiating actions against the deployment of BMD testifies to the urgency of this question. MPI has plans to organise meetings in Washington, Moscow and possibly in London this year while Global Network against Weapons &nuclear Power in Space is
10103.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] collecting signatures on a Statement to be sent to the President and the Congress. Such initiatives should be encouraged.
However, in addition to these sporadic and immediate initiatives, we need a robust, comprehensive and flexible campaign which can integrate the diversified and numerous activities. This is particularly because the campaign may continue for a long time and could be implemented in stages. Possibly a group of NGOs can be in charge of following the implementation of the campaign, comprising NGOs which focus their activities on BMD together with three members of US NGOs and two or three ACC members while the rest of the ACC will follow up activities on other nuclear problems. The campaign should be open to all NGOs future initiatives but certain guidelines can be presented and followed to ensure the unity of its process towards the target.
Also, there are several political questions which need clear answers. The Statement of the Global Network against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space used the term Ballistic Missile Defense, referring to both TMD and NMD, whereas some NGOs prefer to confine their campaign to NMD and totally ignore the dangerous consequences of TMD deployment to defend by force the investments and interests of certain powers in various regions. In addition, certain technical devices can be inserted in TMD systems and function as NMD particularly if they will be deployed close to the territories of Russia or China. Another political question related to the possible position of NGOs if Bush Administration will unilaterally endorse a special interpretation of ABM Treaty or both Russia and US will approve a joint interpretation which will allow the deployment of NMD. Shall we stop the campaign or continue our activities to dismantle such a deployment and put an end to the unprecedented arms race which will follow the deployment of NMD and TMD systems? Are we basically against BMD because Russia is threatening to renounce some disarmament agreements once NMD will be deployed or basically because BMD deployment will lead to the strengthening of nuclear deterrence, escalate arms race and further impede more steps towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. (In this connection , we should remember that NGOs once campaigned against the deployment of medium- range missiles deployed by both US and the former Soviet Union until they are obliged to dismantle them.)
The proposed meeting should also discuss practical steps to halt the deployment of BMD: Political solutions can put an end to the so-called threats of the so-called rogue states. (a clear example is the Korean Summit Meetings) Establishment of zones free from weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles in regions where the so-called rogue states are located, mainly the Middle East and North East Asia, will be another effective measure. (astonishingly, it is US, the state which insists on deploying NMD and TMD is the same state, together with its regional allies, which are stubbornly against the establishment of these zones) Steps such as de-alerting and de-locating of all weapons of mass destruction possessed by NWSs and any NNWSs can be taken. Zero Ballistic Missile regime which has been discussed by the Federation of American Scientists will be the best option (some friends including dr. Scheffran and Andrew Lichteman are interested in this project and
10103.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] can join the group which will follow up the implementation of the campaign)
Friends, I am only thinking loudly and surely when you will meet and discuss the matter collectively you will reach wonderful results… Simply, try. Once more, happy new year Bahig Nassar; Coordinator; Arab Coordination Centre of NGOs
To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account you wish to be subscribed to: "abolition- [email protected]"
Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message.
10103.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] From: "Peterson, Tony"
Dear Writers School Participant,
We have received your registration for the Cokesbury-Abingdon Writers School to be held at The United Methodist Publishing House (UMPH), January 24-26, 2001.
Dates and Times. The first session will begin at 8:30 am, Wednesday, January 24. You will need to arrive at UMPH no later than 8:15 am that morning. Someone from the Youth Unit will be at the front security desk to direct you to the training room. The final session will end at noon on Friday, January 26.You may make your travel and lodging arrangements accordingly. You will be given a more complete schedule upon arrival.
Parking. If you drive, you will be permitted to park free of charge in our visitors parking lot adjacent to the UMPH. Entrance to the lot is on Clark Place across the street from the Cokesbury Bookstore.
Meals. A continental breakfast will be served after your arrival each morning. You will be our guests for lunch in the UMPH cafeteria on Wednesday and Thursday. Should you choose to go out for lunch instead, you may do so at your own expense and we ask that you return in time for the afternoon session. You are on your own for the evening meal.
Lodging. You will need to make your own arrangements for lodging. A list of hotels and motels near UMPH is enclosed along with a map of downtown Nashville.
Location. UMPH is located at the corner of Eighth (8th) Avenue, South and Demonbreun Street. We are across the street from the Greyhound Bus Station, two blocks east of the new Nashville Arena (rear entrance), and two blocks south of Broadway at Eighth Avenue South.
10103.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] From Interstate 40, take the Demonbreun Street exit. If you are traveling north, turn right. If you are traveling south, turn left. Turn right on 8th Avenue at the third traffic light. From Interstate 65, exit at Wedgewood west to Eighth Avenue, turn north (toward downtown). We are one block past the fourth traffic light on the left.
CEUs. We are able to offer one Continuing education Unit for your participation in the Writers School. When you arrive, please see Tony Peterson for arrangements.
Writers Questionnaire. We will be sending a copy of our Writers Questionnaire with writing assignments for you to complete before you arrive. Please bring your completed questionnaire and assignments with you for use during the school.
We are excited about the Writers School. We look forward to your participation.
Grace and Peace, Tony Peterson Phone: 615-749-6319 E-mail: [email protected]
<
Walking Distance
ClubHouse Inn & Conference Center 920 Broadway Nashville, TN 37203 615-244-0150 $80.00
Shoneys Inn I-40 and Demonbreun Nashville, TN 37203 615-255-9977 $65.00
Days Inn Downtown Convention Center 711 Union Nashville, TN 37203 615-242-4311 $99.00
**limited rate *corporate rates
10103.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] 10-15 Minute Drive
Days Inn -Vanderbilt/Music Row 1800 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 615-327-0922 **$49.95, January 12 cutoff Give the code: G-0001377 *$69.95 regular corporate rate
Hampton Inn -Vanderbilt 1919 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 615-329-1144 $94.00
Hampton Inn & Suites 2300 Elliston Pl. Nashville, TN 37203 615-320-6060 $109.00
Ramada Limited 303 Interstate Nashville TN 37213 615244-6690 *$62.95 Give the code: United Methodist Writers School
Holiday Inn Select 2613 West End Ave Nashville, TN 37203 615-327-4707 *$84.00 Give the code: UMC
Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\wsletteronlye-mail.doc"
Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\Hampton Innrev.doc"
10103.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] Hotels/Motels Near UMPH
Walking Distance 10-15 Minute Drive Days Inn -Vanderbilt/Music Row ClubHouse Inn & Conference Center 1800 West End Avenue 920 Broadway Nashville, TN 37203 Nashville, TN 37203 615-327-0922 615-244-0150 **$49.95, January 12 cutoff $80.00 Give the code: G-0001377 *$69.95 regular corporate rate Shoneys Inn I-40 and Demonbreun Hampton Inn -Vanderbilt Nashville, TN 37203 1919 West End Avenue 615-255-9977 Nashville, TN 37203 $65.00 615-329-1144 $94.00 Days Inn Downtown Convention Center Hampton Inn & Suites 711 Union 2300 Elliston Pl. Nashville, TN 37203 Nashville, TN 37203 615-242-4311 615-320-6060 $99.00 $109.00
Ramada Limited **limited rate 303 Interstate *corporate rates Nashville TN 37213 615244-6690 *$62.95 Give the code: United Methodist Writers School
Holiday Inn Select 2613 West End Ave Nashville, TN 37203 615-327-4707 *$84.00 Give the code: UMC Dear Writers School Participant,
We have received your registration for the Cokesbury-Abingdon Writers School to be held at The United Methodist Publishing House (UMPH), January 24-26, 2001.
Dates and Times. The first session will begin at 8:30 am, Wednesday, January 24. You will need to arrive at UMPH no later than 8:15 am that morning. Someone from the Youth Unit will be at the front security desk to direct you to the training room. The final session will end at noon on Friday, January 26.You may make your travel and lodging arrangements accordingly. You will be given a more complete schedule upon arrival.
Parking. If you drive, you will be permitted to park free of charge in our visitors parking lot adjacent to the UMPH. Entrance to the lot is on Clark Place across the street from the Cokesbury Bookstore.
Meals. A continental breakfast will be served after your arrival each morning. You will be our guests for lunch in the UMPH cafeteria on Wednesday and Thursday. Should you choose to go out for lunch instead, you may do so at your own expense and we ask that you return in time for the afternoon session. You are on your own for the evening meal.
Lodging. You will need to make your own arrangements for lodging. A list of hotels and motels near UMPH is enclosed along with a map of downtown Nashville.
Location. UMPH is located at the corner of Eighth (8th) Avenue, South and Demonbreun Street. We are across the street from the Greyhound Bus Station, two blocks east of the new Nashville Arena (rear entrance), and two blocks south of Broadway at Eighth Avenue South. From Interstate 40, take the Demonbreun Street exit. If you are traveling north, turn right. If you are traveling south, turn left. Turn right on 8th Avenue at the third traffic light. From Interstate 65, exit at Wedgewood west to Eighth Avenue, turn north (toward downtown). We are one block past the fourth traffic light on the left.
CEUs. We are able to offer one Continuing education Unit for your participation in the Writers School. When you arrive, please see Tony Peterson for arrangements.
Writers Questionnaire. We will be sending a copy of our Writers Questionnaire with writing assignments for you to complete before you arrive. Please bring your completed questionnaire and assignments with you for use during the school.
We are excited about the Writers School. We look forward to your participation.
Grace and Peace, Tony Peterson Phone: 615-749-6319 E-mail: [email protected]
From: Info
Dear Mr. Hallman:
Thank you for your reply.
The performance of the stock market during a particular period or the condition of the economy are not prominent factors in the firm's decision to open a new fund. In similar fashion, the creation of a new fund at a given time is not an indication that a fund will be successful, either immediately or over the long term, although we believe that most mutual funds perform well over time.
Before a new fund can be opened, it must go through an extensive approval process internally. Additionally, new funds are subjected to the review process of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), which largely determines when we can launch a new fund.
T. Rowe Price reserves the right to offer new funds for several reasons. Investors often demand a fund in a certain sector or geographical region of the world. We often open funds to meet investor demand and stay to competitive with similar funds offered by other mutual fund companies. Prior to opening the fund our analysts conduct extensive research on the underlying companies and the region or sector before we consider offering the fund to shareholders.
Long-term growth prospects are another reason that we open new funds. Our investment objective remains the same for our new funds as it is with our older funds: long-term growth. The Global Technology Fund was opened, not for short-term rewards, but instead for disciplined investors who can accept risk in exchange for capital appreciation over time.
On another note, television advertisements, once aired by an investment company must meet strict guidelines as determined by the SEC. Among these guidelines are misrepresentation of the firm, or a particular product or service. There are severe penalties to pay for violators of this requirement and T. Rowe Price certainly would not want to risk its 64-year reputation in this industry by being fined by the SEC. There are disclaimers at the end of all of our mutual fund advertisements, which basically state the following: "Be sure to request the fund's prospectus and read it carefully prior to investing".
Your previous e-mail indicated that you read the prospectus. By reading the prospectus and signing the New Account Form, you are agreeing to the risk associated with the fund. If you are uncomfortable with risk, you may exchange your fund shares for a more conservative investment. Please contact a sales representative at 1-800-541-8460 for more conservative options.
Lastly, please note that the Global Technology Fund does invest in
10103.09.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] technology companies throughout the world. While the classification of this fund is "international", the fund is expected to invest the majority of its assets in the United States. Its expected that U.S. technology companies will be between 40%-70% invested in the Global Technology Fund. Among some of the other countries that will be represented in this fund are Europe and Japan.
I only used the Nasdaq Index as a relative bencemark of why the fund may have performed poorly last year. Since the fund invests in many countries across the world, there is not a clear-cut benchmark.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have questions or need additional assistance, please feel free to contact me again.
Sincerely,
Aaron L. Stansbury, Jr. T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc.
-----Original Message----- Sender=Howard W. Hallman([email protected]); Subject=Re: Comments from Howard Hallman; At 04:37 PM 1/2/01 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Mr. Hallman: >Thank you for expressing to us your concerns on the performance of the T. >Rowe Price Global Technology Fund.... Dear Mr. Stansbury: Thank you for your reply. However, you didn't answer my basic question. Why did T. Rowe Price create a NEW fund when the Nasdaq was in a steady state of fall? Creation of a new fund by a learned company me the impression that this was a good opportunity to invest. Otherwise why start something new. I assumed that "global" in the title meant investments beyond the United States where technology stocks were sound or were rising. From you letter I get the impression that the Global Technology Fund was heavily into U.S. stocks at the time of decline. I know it's "buyer beware", but all your TV ads give the impression that T. Rowe Price is a firm one can trust. Apparently not. Would you, then, please explain why you started this new fund when you did? Thanks, Howard Hallman Howard W. Hallman, Chair Methodists United for Peace with Justice 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected] Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination.
10103.09.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 12:39:38 -0500 To: [email protected] From: Daryl Kimball
TO: Coalition members and friends
RE: Coalition Issue Brief, "End the Test Ban Limbo"
FR: Daryl Kimball, Director Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
The following is the first in a series of Issue Briefs from the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers outlining major nuclear weapons policy decisions facing the new President and the new Congress. This one addresses the topic of nuclear testing and the CTBT.
Sometime this month, ret. Gen. John Shalikashvili, special advisor to President Clinton and Secretary Albright on the Comprehensive Test Ban, is due to complete his final report on the subject.
Thank you.
______
Vol. 5, No. 1, January 2, 2001
President-Elect Bush, Congress Have Responsibility
to Lead on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and the Test Ban Treaty"
AMONG THE MOST urgent responsibilities of President-elect Bush is to take the lead in reducing nuclear dangers worldwide. This will require re-building a bipartisan consensus for a multi-faceted U.S. nuclear non- proliferation policy because, while all sides agree that
10103.10.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] non-proliferation is a priority, there is not enough agreement on what our nation's non-proliferation strategy be. The Bush administration and the Congress owe it to the country to utilize every practical and effective method to stop nuclear proliferation, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
Ten years after the end of the Cold War, the nuclear threat has diminished but it has also changed. While the U.S. and Russia still possess and deploy thousands of nuclear weapons, the number of those weapons is decreasing and relations with Russia are friendlier. However, other states still seek nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation would destabilize relations in already turbulent regions such as Northeast Asia, the Middle East, and South Asia. Further nuclear testing or weapons deployment by India or Pakistan could ignite further conflict and/or allow these states to deploy more sophisticated and dangerous nuclear bombs. It is in our national interest to guard against further nuclear weapons development by these states and to limit nuclear weapons modernization by China and Russia.
Nuclear Testing Policy Limbo:
It will be President-elect Bush's job to avert nuclear testing and nuclear proliferation by other nations. Unfortunately, the new commander-in-chief will inherit a non-proliferation and nuclear testing policy that is in a state of limbo. The U.S. need not conduct nuclear tests to maintain its arsenal. And, according to a policy decision approved in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Cheney, the U.S. has ruled out nuclear testing for new kinds of warheads.
But until the U.S. ratifies the CTBT, it denies itself the benefits of the Treaty's extensive monitoring and on-site inspection provisions and it robs itself of the moral, political, and legal authority necessary to encourage other nations not to test. The Senate's partisan 1999 vote rejecting U.S. CTBT ratification has raised doubts among U.S. allies about the United States' global leadership role on nuclear non-proliferation and has led many to believe that the United States is slipping towards "strategic unilateralism." By itself, the CTBT cannot stop proliferation, but the U.S. cannot effectively fight the spread of nuclear weapons without it.
Re-Build a Consensus on Non-Proliferation:
The razor-thin outcome of the Presidential race and the nearly even balance in the Senate should compel the new Administration and Senate leaders to pursue a more bi-partisan and deliberate approach to national security policy. The CTBT presents the new President with an opportunity to repair the damage from the 1999 Senate vote, rebuild the multilateral
10103.10.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] non-proliferation regime. The Bush team should recognize that there is broad-based support for eventual re-consideration of the CTBT. On the eve of the Treaty's defeat, 62 Senators sought to postpone the vote, but uncompromising Republicans pushed ahead. But many Republican moderates and Democrats want the Senate to reconsider the CTBT. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Joe Lieberman have said "a clear majority of the Senate, have not given up hope of finding common ground in our quest for a sound and secure ban on nuclear testing."
First, Do No Harm:
During the campaign, President-elect Bush supported the existing nuclear test moratorium but opposed the CTBT. Some Bush foreign-policy principals such as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are on record in opposition to the CTBT, while others, like Powell, are on record in support. As the new administration develops its test ban policy, it must be careful not to make an unhealthy situation worse. President-elect Bush must first reassure the American people, the Congress and the international community that he does not intend to resume testing or to develop new types of "low-yield" nuclear weapons, which are still militarily unnecessary and would require testing. He should not rule out CTBT ratification during his term. To do otherwise would create a domestic and international storm of protest and set-off a dangerous action-reaction cycle involving Russia, China, India and Pakistan. U.S. abandonment of the CTBT -- a cornerstone of the 1995 deal between the nuclear "haves" and "have-nots" that led to the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- would likewise wreak havoc on the non-proliferation regime, and strain ties with our allies.
Second, Reconsider CTBT Ratification:
The incoming administration should pledge to carefully review the CTBT and related issues. The forthcoming report from former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Special Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State on the CTBT, General John Shalikashvili, should provide an excellent starting point for further deliberation on how to rebuild a bipartisan consensus on nuclear testing and non-proliferation.
The Bush administration should work with Senate Republicans and Democrats and policy experts respected by both parties to re-evaluate of the current stockpile stewardship strategy and give priority to already proven, cost-effective stockpile surveillance and maintenance activities. It should also direct the laboratories to avoid further nuclear warhead modifications, which are unnecessary and may compromise reliability. The new administration should work to improve nuclear test monitoring capabilities and seek test site transparency measures that would increase confidence that others are not testing. After reviewing the key Treaty related issues and addressing remaining concerns of Senators, the President should consider pursuing Senate reconsideration of the CTBT.
10103.10.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] It may be politically convenient to wait and see on the CTBT, but the new President can ill-afford to ignore, let alone renounce, the United States' decades-long commitment to the Comprehensive Test Ban. Later this year, states that have ratified the CTBT, led by our closest allies, will gather in New York for the second conference on accelerating entry into force of the CTBT. The world will be watching how President-elect Bush meets this challenge.
______
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director
Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505
Washington, DC 20002
(ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970
website <
______
10103.10.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 15:49:34 -0500 Subject: RE: Coalition action cards on de-alerting nuclear weapons From: Tim Barner
RE: Coalition action cards on de-alerting nuclear weapons
January 3, 2001
Dear Howard:
The January coalition action cards on writing to President Bush about De-alerting nuclear weapons are now here at the 20/20 Office downtown just south of Dupont Circle 1828 Jefferson Place, NW.
I have 150 cards for you and I will bring them to tomorrow's briefing at 1:30 unless I hear otherwise. (202-833-2020).
Good news on the cost. We have been shopping for a new printer and the person we used gave us a special intro offer, so the cards cost only 10 cents apiece instead of 15 cents.
We will have some cards left if you have additional uses, keeping in mind the State of the Union letter-writing deadline mentioned in the card.
Tim Barner Program Director
10103.11.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] X-eGroups-Return: [email protected] X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Sender: [email protected] To: [email protected] From: Carah Lynn Ong X-eGroups-Approved-By: [email protected] via email; 4 Jan 2001 19:55:19 -0000 Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:54:18 -0700 Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [sunflower-napf] The Sunflower January 2001 (No. 44) Wireless web technology from Motorola eGroups My Groups | sunflower-napf Main Page
The Sunflower Newsletter No. 44 January 2001
Online monthly newsletter of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
The Sunflower January 2001 (No. 44)
The Sunflower is a monthly e-newsletter providing educational information on nuclear weapons abolition and other issues relating to global security. Back issues are available at Http://www.wagingpeace.org/sf/index.html
I N T H I S I S S U E
COMMEMORATING A PEACE WARRIOR
ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS
NUCLEAR MATTERS
NUCLEAR ENERGY
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT UPDATE
BOOK REVIEWS
NUCLEAR INSANITY
NAPF HAPPENINGS
ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE
RESOURCES EVENTS for the year 2001 are now listed at Http://www.wagingpeace.org
************************************ COMMEMORATING A PEACE WARRIOR ************************************
Peace Warrior Alan Cranston Dies at 86
When Alan Cranston died on the final day of the 20th century, we lost one of the most prominent advocates of a nuclear weapons free world. A warrior for peace, Alan was 86 years old and had lived a full life, but he was still working daily on plans to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons. Alan was the chair of the Global Security Institute, a member of the Steering Committee of the Middle Powers Initiative and a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Advisory Council.
Alan said that his work on nuclear weapons abolition was more satisfying than his years in the US Senate. Alan found fault with today's leaders. At a speech in Santa Barbara, on the occasion of General Lee Butler receiving the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Distinguished Peace Leadership Award, Alan said, "Leaders today are under-creative, over-cautious, distracted by day-to-day demands. Their destinations are determined by polls that change and bounce around from day to day."
Alan leaves a legacy of true leadership based upon convictions to those of us who continue to work daily to rid the world of nuclear arms. We are challenged to complete the unfinished task he worked so hard to achieve.
-David Krieger ***
A memorial celebration of Alan's life will be held on 16 January 2001 at 3:00 PM at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. For more information about the memorial celebration, please call +1 415-561-6686. Contributions to further Alan's work and goals can be made to the Global Security Institute at P.O. Box 475160, San Francisco, California 94147
**************************** ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS ****************************
Goettingen Appeal for the Prevention of a New Arms Race on Earth and in Outer Space
At an International Network for Engineers and Scientists (INES) workshop, held in Goettingen, Germany on 4 November, the following Appeal to the United Nations General Assembly in 2001 was issued: "The deployment of missile defense systems by the USA and the militarization of outer space present a threat to peace and international security and increase the danger of a new arms race on earth and in space.
"In order to prevent a new arms race and to open way for negotiations, we demand a test freeze for ballistic missiles, missile defense systems and space weapons.
"The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 between the USA and Russia is fundamental to international stability. It must be preserved and extended to all nations. Ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons must be disarmed. The development, testing and deployment of weapons in space must be prohibited by a space convention.
"We call for a space free of any weapons and the abolition of nuclear arms."
NATO and National Missile Defense
Despite vehement opposition to deploying a national missile defense system from China, Russia and even some allies, the US is proceeding with a robust research and development plan. In December 2000, the US Department of Defense (DoD) released a "Strategy Report for Europe and NATO" outlining the US vision of NATO's role in NMD. The following is an excerpt from the report:
"The NMD we envisage would reinforce the credibility of US security commitments and the credibility of NATO as a whole. Europe would not be more secure if the United States were less secure from a missile attack by a state of concern. An America that is less vulnerable to ballistic missile attack is more likely to defend Europe and common Western security interests than an America that is more vulnerable. As consultations proceed with our Allies on NMD, we realize that Allies will continue to consider the appropriate role of missile defenses in their respective national security strategies. In keeping with the fundamental principle of the Alliance that the security of its members is indivisible, the United States is open to discussing possible cooperation with Allies on longer-range ballistic missile defense, just as we have with our discussions and cooperation in the area of TMD. As President Clinton said in May 2000, 'every country that is part of a responsible international arms control and nonproliferation regime should have the benefit of this protection.'" (pgs. 54-55, 1 December 2000)
NMD Contract Awarded to Aerospace Corporation
The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) National Missile Defense Joint Program Office announced on 22 December that The Boeing Company, Space & Communications Group, based in Anaheim, California, will be awarded a contract for continuing development of the National Missile Defense (NMD) system. Although no decision has been made as to whether the United States will deploy such a system, President Clinton stated in September 2000 that testing and development should continue until the next administration makes a decision.
The contract, with a potential value of $6 billion for testing and development through January 2007, protects the option for the next administration to deploy the NMD system at the earliest possible date. President-elect George W. Bush has stated that he supports the deployment of such a system. Condoleeza Rice, Bush's National Security Affairs Adviser, has said that ballistic missile defense is critical for the US and it should be possible to overcome the technical problems facing it. Once technical problems are worked out, Rice stated it will only be a question of whether the politics of the program can be managed.
**************** NUCLEAR ENERGY ****************
Japanese Reactor Risks Catastrophe
A recent report released by the UK-based Oxford Research Group and Greenpeace states that the Plutonium Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel produced by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TECO) is tainted. The MOX fuel is produced in Europe and intended for Japanese reactors. The report claims that, if used, the fuel will increase the risks of a catastrophic accident in the Japanese reactors. The report bases its conclusions on claims that MOX fuel standards are low at the Belgonucleaire facility in Belgium and lacking vital quality control checks.
TEPCO intends to load the MOX fuel into the Fukushima-1 unit 3 reactor in April 2001. An additional shipment of plutonium fuel, also produced by Belgonucleaire, left Europe for Japan during the last week of December.
Early in 2000, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), owned by the UK government, admitted that safety data for a similar MOX shipment to Japan in 1999 was falsified. The company is negotiating the return of the shipment to the UK, and it paid the Japanese government $60 million as compensation.
Shaun Burnie, Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner and co-author of the report stated, "The Japanese authorities appear to have learnt nothing from recent nuclear accidents in Japan, and it will be the people of Fukushima and the rest of Japan who will pay the terrible consequences. Whether it is BNFL, Belgonucleaire or Cogema, they have demonstrated over the years that they cannot be trusted." In August 2000, nearly 1,000 Japanese citizens and non-governmental organizations, including Greenpeace Japan and Citizens Nuclear Information Center, launched a court action seeking an injunction against TEPCO to prevent the loading of the plutonium MOX fuel produced by Belgonucleaire. One additional hearing will be held in the Fukushima court in late January before a decision is made. (ENS, 29 December 2000)
Chilean Government and Greenpeace Protest Nuclear Shipment On 28 December, the Chilean government and Greenpeace protested the shipment of French-processed nuclear waste to Japan via Cape Horn because of its potential environmental hazards. The vessel "Pacific Swan" contains 76.8 tons of vitrified spent fuel, a highly radioactive product made of waste material from Japanese nuclear reactors. The ship is expected to arrive in Chile mid-January.
Greenpeace stated that because of protests from the Panamanian and Caribbean governments, the shipping company changed its route. A similar route to transport nuclear waste was last used in 1995 and at that time the Chilean Navy blocked the vessel from entering the country's 200-mile maritime limit. Luis Winter, Director of Foreign Policy for Chile's Foreign Ministry stated, "We have made it known that we are upset about this and we will do everything possible to avoid this kind of transport off our coastline."
A statement released by Greenpeace said that the amount of radioactivity that would be released into the environment if the "Pacific Swan" were to have an accident would be comparable to the 1986 Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine. The Chilean government is working with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to create laws outlining responsibilities for environmental damage caused by accidents involving radioactive material. (ENS, 29 December 2000)
****************** NUCLEAR MATTERS ******************
US Conducts 5th Subcritical Test of 2000
On 14 December, the US conducted its fifth subcritical nuclear test of 2000 at an underground site in Nevada. The test, named Oboe 6, received criticism and protest from antinuclear organizations and activists, who argue that the tests violate the heart and spirit of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. However, the US Department of Energy (DoE) maintains that the tests do not violate the treaty because no critical mass forms and no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction occurs.
Mayor Iccho Itoh of Nagasaki, Japan denounced the subcritical test and stated, "This is a leap in the dark by a big nuclear country. The US continues to conduct nuclear tests while having agreed to a 'clear commitment to the abolishment of nuclear weapons' at the NPT (Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty) review conference this May. I think its nuclear strategy will be denounced internationally." Mayor Itoh also sent an open letter to US President Bill Clinton protesting the test. Mayor Itoh wrote:
"Your country, ignoring protests and demands for suspension from people around the world striving for nuclear disarmament, has pushed forward (with the test). As mayor of the city of Nagasaki, I lodge my vehement and angry protest against this action. I demand that your country immediately desist from justifying subcritical nuclear tests and that you immediately begin multilateral negotiations for the early conclusion of a Comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty in order to achieve the agreement reached by the United States and other nuclear states."
Nakasone Approved US Nuclear Weapons for Japan
According to secret diplomatic records, Former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone gave the US approval in 1970 to bring nuclear weapons into his country. Declassified documents obtained by the Asahi Shimbun newspaper and Japanese scholars uncovered that Nakasone made a remark to allow nuclear weapons to be brought into Japan, despite a constitutional ban on possessing, producing or allowing the introduction of nuclear weapons into the country. The declassified documents record a meeting between Nakasone, then the director-general of the Japanese Defense Agency, and US Defense Secretary Melvin Laird.
Japanese records state that Nakasone told Laird that Japan would not need to develop its own nuclear weapons as long as the US nuclear deterrent was in place. US records also show that Nakasone indicated that Japanese defense policies should incorporate references to the US readiness to provide nuclear protection for Japan, including the introduction of nuclear weapons in Japan. The issue of the US nuclear umbrella is extremely controversial in Japan because of the country's experience with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the constitutional ban on aggressive warfare. (Asahi Shimbun, 20 December 2000)
US Reports on Transatlantic Security Strategies for the 21st Century
The US Department of Defense (DoD) Strategy Report for Europe and NATO was released on 1 December 2000. The report, entitled "Strengthening Transatlantic Security" outlines US plans to prepare itself and Allies, NATO states in particular, to meet challenges in the Translatlantic and global communities in the 21st century. The document underlines that the fundamental point of US strategy is to maintain NATO as the preeminent organization of American engagement in Europe. NATO enlargement is clearly a US objective and the report stresses US support for the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as a means of outreach to potential members. Of notable interest is a reiteration of US reliance on deterrence as a cornerstone of security and a commitment to US nuclear forces remaining in Europe. The document also includes arguments for ballistic missile defenses as a viable means of protection from states of concern. The full report can be downloaded in pdf format at: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/eurostrategy2000.pdf
The following is an excerpt reiterating US reliance on deterrence:
"The United States deters threats and potential threats to its national security, including those from NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) weapons states, by maintaining powerful nuclear and conventional forces. Those who would threaten America or its allies in Europe or elsewhere with NBC weapons should have no doubt that any attack on us would meet an overwhelming and devastating response. DoD also has undertaken a comprehensive program to equip, train, and prepare US forces to prevail in conditions in which an adversary threatens to use or actually uses these weapons against our populations, territories, or military forces. This combination of offensive and defense capabilities both strengthens deterrence and ensures that we will prevail should deterrence fail." (Pgs. 50-51)
************************************ INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT UPDATE ************************************
US Signs Treaty for an International Criminal Court
On the final day of the 20th century, Bill Clinton signed the 1998 Rome Treaty for an International Criminal Court. By doing so, the United States became part of a treaty that will carry on the tradition of Nuremberg to hold leaders accountable for the commission of major crimes under international law such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It was a bold and uncharacteristic act of courage for the President, who defied the US military as well as Senator Jesse Helms in signing the treaty.
The Treaty has been signed by 139 countries and 27 countries have ratified it. The treaty will enter into force once it has been ratified by 60 countries. If Clinton had not signed the treaty by December 31st, the United States would not have been able to participate in the shaping of the future International Criminal Court until it had ratified the treaty, something, according to Senator Helms, that would have to take place over his dead body.
In signing the treaty, President Clinton said, "The United States has a long history of commitment to the principle of accountability, from our involvement in the Nuremberg Tribunals that brought Nazi war criminals to justice, to our leadership in the effort to establish the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Our action today sustains that tradition of moral leadership."
Current Status of the Rome Statute
As of 31 December 2000, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has 139 signatories and 27 ratifications. Iran, Israel and the United States of America signed the Rome Statute of the ICC on 31 December 2000. Austria became the 26th country to ratify the Statute on the 28 December 2000, with Finland ratifying on the 29th of December 2000. Since 28 December 2000, twelve additional countries became signatories to the Rome Statute. A Rome Statute signature and ratification chart as well as country by country ratification status is available at: http://www.iccnow.org/rome/html/ratify.html
For more information on the International Criminal Court, visit:
Official UN website on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court http://www.un.org/law/icc
Coalition for an International Criminal Court http://www.iccnow.org
******************** BOOK REVIEWS ********************
Atomic Fragments, A Daughter's Questions by Mary Palevesky Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
Mary Palevsky's parents both worked on the Manhattan Project. In an effort to understand her parents better, Palevsky interviewed some of the leading atomic scientists still alive in the latter half of the 1990s. She conducted interviews with Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, Philip Morrison, David Hawkins, Robert R. Wilson, Joseph Rotblat, and Herbert York. The interviews contain invaluable first person responses from these leading scientists on their reactions to the use of the bomb and to some of their more famous colleagues, Niels Bohr and J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Palevsky attended a Peace Retreat sponsored by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and La Casa de Maria in 1995 on the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and discussed her ambivalence about her parents' work on the Manhattan Project and her intention to write this book. In her preface, Palevsky describes the book as "a study in memory and meaning, an exploration of the intersection of the personal and public, through life spans and across generations." She continues: "Questions about the moral and ethical implications of the bomb have always been in the background of my life. I write in an attempt to organize and freeze the experience of stepping into a stream that has been flowing through my subconscious for as long as I can remember."
The book is worth reading on two levels. First, for the author's struggle to come to terms with the moral implications of the Nuclear Age, and second for the interviews with scientists who helped create the atomic weapons that give rise to ethical and moral dilemmas that remain with us today.
The State of the World's Children 2000 New York: The United Nations Children's Fund, 2000.
The State of the World's Children 2000 reports on the lives of children at the end of the 20th century. It reports that despite some progress, there is still much to be done to protect children and fulfill our responsibility to them. The report states: "As the 21st century begins, the overwhelming majority of the people in the world who live in poverty are children and women. They are also the overwhelming majority of civilians who are killed and maimed in conflicts. They are the most vulnerable to infection with HIV/AIDS. Their rights, as set forth in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, are violated every day in numbers of such magnitude as to defy counting."
The report is a rich source of information on the effort that is needed to safeguard the rights and even the lives of hundreds of millions of children throughout the world. It is information that is critical for adults to understand and act upon. Did you know that while the world's currency markets exchange $1.5 trillion each day, there are more than 1.2 billion people living on less than $1 per day, including more than 600 million children?
There is a section in the report on how children are affected by war. The costs in lives and health has been significant. "It is also crucial," the report states, "that world leaders, who have been willing to bear the expense of militarization, not shrink from the costs of peace and demobilization."
As Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, states in the Foreword, "There is no trust more sacred than the one the world holds with children. There is no duty more important than ensuring that their rights are respected, that their welfare is protected, that their lives are free from fear and want and that they grow up in peace." The report shows us how far we must travel to fulfill this sacred trust.
The report is available from UNICEF, UNICEF House, 3 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017.
************************* NUCLEAR INSANITY *************************
"If we relieve ourselves of the restrictions of (the ABM) Treaty so that we do not have to do contortions to do what is the quickest, cheapest, most effective way of (providing missile defense)Šthen the United States will be able to do itŠ" Donald Rumsfeld, President-elect George W. Bush's choice for Defense Secretary, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, 1/28/99
"I harken back to the original purpose of such a defense, to start diminishing the value of offensive weapons." General Colin Powell, President-elect George W. Bush's appointment for Secretary of State, offers the rationale for National Missile Defense first given by Ronald Reagan, for whom he worked on the National Security Council.
Nuclear Salvation?
The Skull Valley Band of Goshutes living on a reservation in Utah agreed to turn one square mile of the 17,000 acre reservation into one of the largest nuclear waste dumps in the US. Leon Bear, the Goshute tribal Chairman stated that the project could be the only salvation for his dying tribe. The tribe needs the money as fewer than 30 Goshutes remain on the land where most live in run-down trailers and jobs are virtually non-existent. In exchange for the nuclear waste dump, Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of 8 power companies, has pledged to give the Goshutes a first chance at the forty jobs the site will create and build a cultural center on the reservation to revive the tribe's fading language and crafts. Opponents argue that the project will endanger the lives of those living on the land as well as the wildlife and regional economy.
To the North of the village lies a magnesium plant; to the south, the Army uses land to test equipment for exposure to nerve gas; to the east lies a chemical weapons stockpile and the incinerator to destroy them; to the west is a bombing range and hazardous waste incinerator. This new project will fence-off one square mile of the Skull Valley reservation to house 16-foot-tall concrete and steel casks filled with radioactive rodsæas many as 4,000 of them holding 40,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. Margene Bullcreek, a lifelong resident and opponent of the plan, stated, "We believe in our reservation as Mother Earth, and we're allowing our Mother Earth to be contaminated if we bring this waste onto our reservation." However, Tribal Chairman Bear felt that the project is the only option to keep his tribe alive. (AP, 17 December 2000)
************************* NAPF HAPPENINGS *************************
Winter 2000 Waging Peace Journal Now Available!
The Winter 2000 Waging Peace Journal is now available and features highlights from the "Message of Peace: Hiroshima/Nagasaki Exhibition," held in Santa Barbara, California during September 2000. The issue also contains the winning essay of the 2000 Swackhammer Peace Essay Contest and an "Open Letter to the Next US President" by David Krieger. To order your copy today, please send $5.00 to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at: PMB 121, 187 Coast Village Rd., Suite 1 Santa Barbara, California 93108-2794
Or click here to order your copy on our secure online server http://www.wagingpeace.org/store/journalindex.html
New to wagingpeace.org:
We are at the beginning of a new century and millennium. If there was ever a time for reflection, this should be it. Read a "Millennial Message" by David Krieger. http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/01.01/Krieger-MILLENNIAL-MESSAGE.html
David Krieger's keynote address from the Nagasaki Global Citizens' Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/00.11/krieger-Nagasaki-Speech.html
Carah Ong describes youth collaboration at the Nagasaki Global Citizens' Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/00.11/ong-Peace_and_Security_Begins_Yout h.htm
Michael Coffey reflects on the progress made at recent youth leadership conference http://www.wagingpeace.org/students/notesfromtheroad/makeourworld.html
"We Could Learn from the Skeptics: Response to a New York Times Editorial on National Missile Defense" by David Krieger http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/00.12/krieger-BMDNYTimes.html
"Mr. Bush, The World Doesn't Want to Be American" a letter to President-elect George W. Bush from Mikhail Gorbachev http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/01.01/gorbachev-mr_bush_the_world_doesnt_want_to_be_ American.html
Responses to Frequently asked Questions about nuclear issues http://www.wagingpeace.org/resources/answers.html
Teacher Leah Wells talks about the need for permanent Peace Education Curriculum in schools (You need Windows Media Player) http://www.wagingpeace.org/students/index.html
Our new Calendar of Events highlights upcoming activities and commemorates dates and events in our shared history of the struggle for peace http://www.wagingpeace.org/calendar/events_current.html
If you haven't signed our Appeal yet, we need your support! Visit: http://www.wagingpeace.org/secure/signtheappeal.htm
Need a gift for a peace-minded friend? https://www.sbwh.com/wagingpeace/giftmembership.html
NAPF Communications: How You Can Make a Difference By JP Wilson
As the new Director of Communications at the Foundation, my role in the team effort towards peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons is focused on reaching out to you and the millions of others that want to be informed, engaged and involved. My message to you is that you can make a difference. The more voices, the more impact. The more impact, the more action taken. The more action taken, the further along we are to accomplish a shared goal. How can you help to make a difference? One way is to become involved in our upcoming People For Peace Membership Campaign that will be launched March 1st and run through September 30, 2001. You can make a difference by telling your family, friends, co-workers and fellow students about the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and inviting them to visit our website at http://www.wagingpeace.org. You can make a difference by encouraging people to become members. You can form your own Team For Peace as part of our Membership Campaign. You can make a difference by participating in our Swackhamer Peace Essay Contest or the Barbara Mandingo Kelly Peace Poetry Contest. There are numerous opportunities for you to make a difference thorough the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Contact me at [email protected] for details on HOW YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. You have the power, don't ever forget that!
********************** ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE **********************
National Call-in Days to the White House! The Back from the Brink Campaign and its allied organizations are promoting National Call-in Days to the White House on February 5-6, 2001 to urge President-elect George W. Bush to reduce the danger of accidental nuclear war by working with the Russians to take all nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Call and remind President-elect Bush that the Republican Platform of 2000 stated, "the United States should work with other nuclear nations to remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status, another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation, to reduce the risks of accidental or unauthorized launch." For more information or to order campaign supplies, contact: Esther Pank, Back from the Brink Campaign Tel: +1 202-545-1001 Fax: +1 202-545-1004 Email: [email protected] Http://www.backfromthebrink.org
Uranium Mining Protest in India! There is a mass protest movement developing in India as a result of the government's failure to fulfill the demands of the people to stop uranium mining in Jadugoda, India. From 16-22 December, the JOAR (Jharkhandi Organization Against Radiation) sponsored a hunger strike. On 23 December, the people participated in the movement to stop shipments of uranium nuclear waste being transported by railway throughout the country. The people of JOAR and protesters need YOUR support. Please send a message of solidarity to: Shriprakash Kritika 30 Randhir pd. Street Upper Bazar Ranchi 834001 India Email: [email protected]
Attend a protest vigil! Sponsored by the Global Network Against Weapons and Power in Space, the protest will be held on February 10, in Albuquerque, New Mexico from 12:00 to 3:00 pm during the 18th Annual Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion. For more information, please contact: Bruce Gagnon at P.O. Box 90083, Gainsville, Florida 32607 Email: [email protected] http://www.space4peace.org
**************** RESOURCES ****************
Visit the new and improved website of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at Http://www.wagingpeace.org.
View the exhibit from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Museums online at: Http://www.wagingpeace.org/exhibit/welcome.htm
Take a journey through the Nuclear Age. Visit the Nuclear Files at Http://www.nuclearfiles.org
Martin Auer, renowned Austrian author of children's books has put together a collection of stories for children and young people entitled 'The Strange War: Stories for a Culture of Peace." The book, published by Beltz & Gelberg, Germany in summer 2000, can be read online and can also be downloaded to print at: Http://www.peaceculture.net
Http://www.BetterWorldLinks.org is a unique tool for peace activists and others allowing optimal use of the internet and it may well be the leading web-site of its kind in the world.
Learn about the Christmas Island Nuclear Bomb Tests at: http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/janeresture/christmas_bombs/index.htm
The Nevada Desert Experience (NDE) is sponsoring several spring actions to stop nuclear testing in the Nevada Desert. Learn more about NDE and upcoming events at: http://www.NevadaDesertExperience.org
********** EDITORS ********** Carah Ong David Krieger -- Carah Lynn Ong Research and Publications
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1 Santa Barbara, California 93108-2794 USA
Tel: 805-965-3443 Fax: 805-568-0466 Email: [email protected] Http://www.wagingpeace.org Http://www.nuclearfiles.org Http://www.abolition2000.org
"He aha te nui mea o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." (A Maori Saying)
"What is the most important thing in the world? It is the people, the people, the people."
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [email protected] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 12:12:42 -0500 To: [email protected] From: Daryl Kimball
January 5, 2001
TO: Coalition members and friends
FR: Daryl Kimball, Executive Director
RE: Coalition news release and Shali statement and report on CTBT
Attached below is General Shalikashvili's press statement on his report to the President as well as a fact sheet from General Shali's office summarizing his findings and recommendations.
The full report is now available on-line from
Also, attached below is the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers News Release on General Shalikashvili's report to the president on the CTBT.
Further information on the CTBT are available on the Coalition web site
I expect there will be reaction statements from a handful of Senators later this afternoon.
- DK
**************
COALITION TO REDUCE NUCLEAR DANGERS -- NEWS RELEASE
"Bush, Senate Should Study Report of General Shalikashvili and Reconsider CTBT, Say Experts"
FOR RELEASE: January 5, 2001; CONTACT: Daryl Kimball, 546-0795 x136
(Washington, DC) — An alliance of 16 leading nuclear non-proliferation organizations commended retired General John Shalikashvili's on his report to the President and Secretary, Findings and Recommendations Concerning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and urged the President-elect and the Senate to use it as the starting point for rebuilding a bipartisan consensus on nuclear testing and non-proliferation.
10108.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] "General Shalikashvili's report on the CTBT should serve as the basis for a more balanced, less politicized dialogue on the CTBT and its value to America's national security," said Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers. "By itself, the CTBT cannot stop proliferation, but the U.S. cannot effectively fight the spread of nuclear weapons without it," said Kimball. "The new Senate and the new President owe it to the nation to work together in a bipartisan fashion to undertake a more thoughtful and balanced review of the CTBT," he added.
"We are convinced that with careful study and a thorough exchange of information, broader agreement can be forged on the CTBT so as to allow for U.S. ratification. General Shalikashvili's report provides an excellent basis for further deliberation on how to rebuild the bipartisan American consensus on nuclear arms control and non-proliferation," said Thomas Graham, Jr., President of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security
In his letter to the President accompanying the report, which was released today, General Shalikashvili said: "My discussions over the last ten months have only strengthened my view that the Treaty is a very important part of global non-proliferation efforts and is compatible with keeping a safe, reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent."
Shalikashvili found that "[t]he nation's nuclear arsenal is safe, reliable, and able to meet all stated military requirements. For as far into the future as we can see, the U.S. nuclear deterrent can remain effective under the Test Ban Treaty...." He recommends that the next administration review, prioritize and support the stockpile stewardship program to ensure that the U.S. nuclear arsenal remains safe and reliable without further test explosions. He also calls for sustained support for non-proliferation-related intelligence resources, and an ongoing commitment to improving national and international test monitoring capabilities, as well as test site transparency initiatives to further increase confidence.
"General Shalikashvili's report underscores the importance to U.S. security of early ratification of the CTBT," said Spurgeon Keeny, President of the Arms Control Association. "By outlawing nuclear tests, the CTBT will prevent the development of new, more advanced weapons by nuclear states, and severely constrain the nuclear weapons potential of countries that do not now have such weapons," he added. "Experts agree that the U.S. does not need nuclear test explosions to maintain its arsenal. So, it is clearly in the United States' interest to ratify the Treaty to encourage others to do so and to implement the Treaty's far-reaching verification provisions," Keeny argued.
General Shalikashvili also said "...I have found broad bipartisan support for strengthened U.S. leadership of a comprehensive international response to the dangers posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. ... I hope that the next Administration and the Senate will re-evaluate the Test Ban Treaty as part of a bipartisan effort to forge an integrated non-proliferation strategy for the new century."
"President-elect Bush should recognize that there is broad-based support for the CTBT," said John Isaacs, President of the Council for a Livable World. "Many Democrats and Republican moderates agree with the view of
10108.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) who have said ‘... a clear majority of the Senate, have not given up hope of finding common ground in our quest for a sound and secure ban on nuclear testing.'"
"The new President can ill-afford to ignore, let alone renounce, the United States' decades-long commitment to the comprehensive test ban," noted Isaacs.
General Shalikashvili suggests that uncertainties about the CTBT can be addressed by strengthening the "safeguards" to accompany the Treaty by conducting a thorough review of the effect of the CTBT on U.S. security ten years after ratification. Former Nixon Defense Secretary Melvin Laird, who opposed the CTBT in 1999, has said in July 2000 that with such measures, "...my concern over the indefinite ban on testing could largely be met. I would then agree that being party to a CTBT, by preserving the qualitative advantage of our nuclear arsenal and constraining the further development of advanced nuclear weaponry, would be in the best interest of the United States."
In his report, General Shalikashvili also cautions against attempts by the U.S. to "renegotiate" the CTBT and failure to reconsider the Treaty. He reports that: "A prolonged [test] moratorium would do less damage to U.S. non- proliferation objectives ... than a resumption of testing, but most of the benefits that the Test Ban Treaty can provide would be lessened or lost without ratification."
President-elect George W. Bush campaigned against ratification of the CTBT, but he has stated his support for continuation of the U.S. nuclear test moratorium in place since September 1992. Some of his cabinet appointees, like General Colin Powell, are on record in support of the CTBT, others like Secretary Donald Rumsfeld oppose it.
"Putting partisan politics aside, the political ground truth is that nuclear test explosions are no longer acceptable to the vast majority of states, including all of America's closest allies," observed Christopher Paine, a senior researcher with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C. "The Bush Administration cannot reasonably expect to resume nuclear testing unless it is also prepared to cripple or destroy the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty."
"A hard-headed view of U.S. national security interests recognizes that a U.S.-led return to nuclear testing would be a colossal security policy blunder with unpredictable and potentially lethal consequences," Paine said. "While the technical benefits of nuclear explosions are realistically no longer available to the new Administration, the benefits from U.S. ratification and entry into force of the CTBT are within reach. Our own security interests dictate that President Bush should not allow the previous Senate's thumb-in-the-eye of the international community to be America's last word on the CTBT," he added.
The CTBT was negotiated with U.S. leadership and opened for signature in 1996. To date, the Treaty has been signed by 160 states, including 41 of the 44 states required for entry into force, and ratified by 69, including 30 of the 44 required states. All NATO member states -- except the U.S. -- have ratified the CTBT. In April 2000, the Russian Duma approved
10108.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] ratification of the Treaty. In May 2000, the 180+ states gathered for the NPT Review Conference expressed unanimous support for "... signatures and ratifications, without delay and without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty."
# # #
The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers is a non-partisan alliance of 16 national nuclear non-proliferation organizations dedicated to the pursuit of a practical, step-by-step program to address the threat of nuclear weapons. For further information on the CTBT, see
**************
Office of the Special Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
For Immediate Release: January 5, 2001
Contact: Damien LaVera 202-647-8646
Press Statement by General John M. Shalikashvili (USA, ret.) My Findings and Recommendations to the President on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
In March, the President and the Secretary of State appointed me to conduct a low-key, non-partisan review of issues related to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Today, after ten months of consultations with Senators from both sides of the aisle and with experts holding widely disparate views on the Treaty, I submitted my Findings and Recommendations. My report focuses on four principal concerns about the Treaty: its value to the non-proliferation regime; its verifiability; its impact on the U.S. nuclear deterrent; and its indefinite duration.
In my judgment, most of my recommendations would have broad bipartisan support now and should be implemented without awaiting a decision on Test Ban Treaty ratification. My review of the issues, however, has strengthened my conviction that the Treaty is compatible with keeping a safe, reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent and is an important part of global non-proliferation efforts. I urge the next Administration, working with Congress, to revisit the Treaty in light of my recommendations.
Non-Proliferation: An Enduring National Interest
Preventing nuclear proliferation is an enduring American interest pursued by Presidents and Congresses since 1945. The Senate's October 1999 vote against the Test Ban Treaty raised concerns at home and abroad that the United States might be walking away from its traditional leadership of international non-proliferation efforts. I am confident that this was not the intent of the Senate. In my conversations, I have found broad
10108.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] bipartisan support for strengthened U.S. leadership of a comprehensive international campaign against proliferation. I recommend that the next Administration work closely with Congress and U.S. allies to mount a more integrated response to the dangers posed by the spread of nuclear weapons, that it appoint a Deputy National Security Advisor for Non-Proliferation to oversee policy coordination and implementation, and that it revisit the Test Ban Treaty in the context of the direct and indirect contributions it can make to this policy. Banning nuclear explosions places significant technical constraints on nuclear weapon development, especially of more advanced designs that are higher-yield, more efficient, lighter, and more easily transportable. The Test Ban Treaty is also critical to sustained political support for the non-proliferation regime, particularly because the United States and other nuclear weapon states promised to ban all nuclear tests as part of the bargain that secured the permanent extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1995. All of our allies and Russia have ratified the Test Ban Treaty, but by its own terms, the Treaty cannot enter into force without U.S. ratification. Until we take this step, U.S. leadership of international efforts to block nuclear proliferation will be seriously weakened.
Effective Verification
The United States will always need reliable information about any nuclear test activity that could threaten our security. Just as the Test Ban Treaty should be viewed in the larger non-proliferation context, so too should Test Ban Treaty verification. An explosive nuclear test is the culmination of a long process with observable indicators of a would-be proliferator's intentions. Improved non-proliferation intelligence can enhance our ability to track activities leading up to an explosion, enabling monitors to focus greater attention on small signals from specific locations. To further enhance our ability to detect and deter nuclear testing, I recommend increased focus on non-proliferation-related intelligence; improved remote sensing technologies and analytical capabilities; continued work on confidence-building measures and on-site inspection procedures; and additional steps to increase transparency at known nuclear test sites.
The Test Ban Treaty does not add new monitoring requirements. Instead, it adds new sources of information and creates greater political clout for addressing suspected violations. The International Monitoring System being established for the Treaty is already providing valuable data about events that could otherwise be hard to detect. The Treaty will also provide for challenge inspections of suspicious events. The combination of U.S. monitoring capabilities, the full international verification system, and data from thousands of additional multi-use monitoring stations makes evasion much more difficult than some Treaty critics fear. Indeed, the value of the Treaty's verification system extends well past the range where a monitor has high confidence of detecting, identifying, locating, and attributing a violation, and down into the gray area where a potential evader lacks certainty about the likelihood of discovery.
Maintaining a Safe, Reliable Nuclear Stockpile
10108.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] Stewardship of the nation's nuclear stockpile has changed significantly since the Cold War in ways that decrease the value of nuclear explosive testing. Previous U.S. practice was to develop new nuclear weapons designs, confirm that they worked through various means including explosive testing, and then use newly manufactured weapons to replace weapons of an older design. When the Cold War ended, the United States stopped testing to develop new designs for a very large arsenal and shifted to maintaining a smaller stockpile of well tested, safe, and reliable warhead designs. Today, effective stewardship of the U.S. deterrent does not rely on nuclear explosive testing, but on careful surveillance of stockpiled weapons, deeper scientific understanding of how nuclear weapons work and age, and capabilities to remanufacture warhead components to meet the original specifications.
The U.S. nuclear deterrent is safe, reliable, and effective. Concerns about the future reliability of the stockpile focus far less on the risk of catastrophic failure than on a possible gradual decline in confidence. We can avoid such an erosion in confidence by limiting changes to warheads, remanufacturing aging weapons as needed, improving conditions at the nuclear weapon laboratories and production facilities, setting appropriate budgetary and management priorities, and implementing effective advisory mechanisms. A firm national commitment to stockpile stewardship will help attract and retain outstanding scientists and skilled technicians to keep the U.S nuclear stockpile safe and reliable.
In my judgment, the challenges facing the Stockpile Stewardship Program can continue to be managed and the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent can be maintained indefinitely without nuclear test explosions, as long as future administrations and congresses provide high standards of accountability and sufficient resources. Since the United States could withdraw from the Treaty and conduct a nuclear test if an unanticipated problem made that essential for national security, we can safely gain the security benefits of Test Ban Treaty ratification while strengthening bipartisan support for stockpile stewardship.
Address the Treaty's Duration
Concerns about turning the eight-year-old U.S. testing moratorium into a legally binding ban of indefinite duration stem from uncertainties about future developments related to nuclear proliferation, verification, or stockpile stewardship. Implementing my recommendations would reduce these uncertainties, but they cannot be completely eliminated. As a condition for ratification, I recommend that the Bush Administration consider a joint review by the Administration and the Senate of the Treaty's impact on U.S. national security ten years after ratification. If there are serious problems that cannot be corrected, the President would move to withdraw from the Treaty.
Continue the Test Moratorium
It is important to continue the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium begun in 1992. Other countries will, however, be more likely to sustain their testing moratoriums if the moratoriums are viewed as interim measures pending the Test Ban Treaty's entry into force. Steady progress toward
10108.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] ratification will strengthen U.S. leadership of global non-proliferation efforts. Our continued involvement in building up the International Monitoring System will help keep other countries' support for developing these verification assets. Bipartisan agreement in the United States on the long-term shape and size of the Stockpile Stewardship Program will be more likely with a clear commitment to Test Ban Treaty.
Net Evaluation
The Test Ban Treaty is important to U.S. security because it plays to our strengths: our superior conventional military forces; our wealth of knowledge from over a thousand nuclear tests, more than half the world's total; our advantage in stockpile stewardship capabilities; and our leadership of like-minded nations seeking to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons. Perhaps more than any other nation, the United States would be negatively affected by an erosion of the international consensus on the importance of nuclear non-proliferation, by the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries or terrorist groups, or by a perception that nuclear weapons are instruments that could be readily used in regional conflicts. I hope the incoming Administration, working with Congress, will re-evaluate the Test Ban Treaty in light of these considerations.
View the Report on-line at: http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/ctbtpage/ctbt_report.html
************
Office of the Special Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
For Immediate Release: January 5, 2001 Contact: Damien LaVera 202-647-8646
Summary of Recommendations to the President and the Secretary of State on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Nuclear Weapons, Non-Proliferation, and the Test Ban Treaty
A. Strengthen bipartisan support for U.S. leadership of an integrated non-proliferation strategy.
B. Appoint a Deputy National Security Advisor for Non-Proliferation.
C. Conduct a high-level review of Test Ban Treaty-related issues in light of the Treaty's contributions to an integrated non-proliferation strategy.
D. Continue U.S. moratorium on nuclear tests and build-up of International Monitoring System to watch for nuclear tests worldwide.
Monitoring, Verification, and Foreign Nuclear Programs
10108.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] A. Assign higher funding and intelligence collection priorities to monitoring for nuclear tests and other nuclear weapon activities by other states.
B. Ensure that national intelligence, the international verification regime, and other data are combined in an all-source approach to verification.
C. Accelerate the transition from research to operational use for new verification technologies and analytical techniques.
D. Continue preparations for inspections and confidence-building activities.
E. Increase transparency at known nuclear test sites.
Stewardship of the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile
A. Complete a comprehensive review of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
· Give surveillance, refurbishment, and infrastructure revitalization highest priority and adequate funding.
· Decide about the need for a large-scale plutonium pit remanufacturing facility soon after decision on stockpile size. · Establish a dedicated infrastructure revitalization fund.
B. Place the SSP on a multi-year budget cycle, probably with some increase in funds.
C. Continue steps to improve interagency management of stockpile stewardship matters.
D. Ensure that the performance margins of various weapon types are adequate when conservatively evaluated.
E. Exercise strict control over changes to nuclear weapon designs.
F. Establish a high level external advisory mechanism for the SSP.
Minimizing Uncertainty with a Treaty of Indefinite Duration
A. Commit to conducting an intensive Administration-Senate review of the Test Ban Treaty's net value for national security ten years after U.S. ratification, and at regular intervals thereafter, with the understanding that if grave problems that could not be otherwise addressed, the President would be prepared to withdraw from the Treaty.
______
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
10108.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505 Washington, DC 20002 (ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970 website
10108.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 16:49:24 -0500 To: [email protected] From: Daryl Kimball
January 5, 2001
TO: Coalition members and friends
FR: Daryl Kimball, Executive Director
RE: more on Shalikashvili report on CTBT
Attached below are some reaction statements and news articles on General Shalikashvili's report on the CTBT:
* Statement by the President: General Shalikashvili's Report Concerning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
* Statement by Senator Biden
* BBC news report
* AP news report
The full report is now available on-line from
Further information on the CTBT are available on the Coalition web site
- DK
**************
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______
For Immediate Release January 5, 2001
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John M.
10108.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] Shalikashvili and I met this morning to discuss his report concerning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The report argues persuasively that ratifying the CTBT would increase our national security, and that the security benefits of the Treaty outweigh any perceived disadvantages.
The report's recommendations address concerns raised during the October 1999 Senate debate over CTBT. I urge Congress and the incoming Bush Administration to act on them.
I also hope the Senate will take up the Treaty at an early date as a critical component of a bipartisan non-proliferation policy. CTBT is supported by our friends and allies overseas, and designed to reduce existing nuclear dangers as well as those that might emerge in the future.
I commend General Shalikashvili for his thorough and rigorous report and his continued service to the nation.
30-30-30
*************
FOR RELEASE: Janurary 5, 2001 CONTACT: Norm Kurz, 202-224-8895
Statement of Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) on General John Shalikashvili’s Report to the President on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty
The “Shali Report” offers a much-needed way out of the partisan morass on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. The Bush Administration and Congress can show statesmanship by moving quickly to implement his sound recommendations to improve management of our nuclear weapons, through the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and our ability to detect and identify nuclear weapons tests by other countries.
Democrats and Republicans should unite on these steps, and build a new consensus to achieve the very real benefits to our national security that the Test-Ban Treaty offers.
I call on President-elect Bush to include in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget the funds needed to jump-start the process of repairing our nuclear weapons facilities and improving our nuclear weapons test monitoring capabilities. I call on the 107th Congress to authorize and appropriate those funds, so that the needed work can begin promptly.
During the 1999 debate on the Test-Ban Treaty, concerns were raised by various parties. But the United States must not evade its responsibility to lead the world on nuclear non-proliferation, and ratification of the treaty remains essential to that leadership.
10108.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] Let 2001 be the year in which we take concrete action to address concerns over Stockpile Stewardship and verification, as General Shalikashvili wisely urges. Let us work together to bolster our national security and forge a consensus for ratification of the Treaty.
***************
BBC World Service
Friday, 5 January, 2001, 09:03 GMT
"US general favours anti-nuclear treaty"
Opponents say the treaty would keep the US from developing a new generation of weapons A general appointed by President Bill Clinton to study a major nuclear test ban treaty is to recommend that the United States ratify it.
General John Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the country's highest military council, has concluded that signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) will aid US efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
The US Senate rejected the treaty by a significant margin in October 1999, despite strong pressure from President Clinton to approve it.
President-elect George W Bush campaigned against the treaty, calling it "unenforceable", but his top advisors are divided on the subject.
Powell appoves:
Incoming Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was General Shalikashvili's predecessor as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, favours the treaty, as does much of the country's top brass.
But Donald Rumsfeld, Mr Bush's nominee for Secretary of Defence, objects to the CTBT, which he says would prevent the US from developing the next generation of nuclear weapons.
President Clinton commissioned General Shalikashvili's study after the Senate rejected the treaty. He also announced a unliateral US moratorium on nuclear testing, which remains in place.
The Shalikashvili report concludes that approving the treaty would help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, a major US foreign policy goal.
"While there are risks with this treaty, as with most treaties, the advantages in helping the fight against proliferation outweigh the disadvantages", General Shalikashvili told The New York Times.
Recommendations:
In an effort to bring opponents on board, his report recommends more money for verification measures, greater maintenence of the existing US nuclear
10108.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] arsenal, and joint reviews by the Senate and administration every 10 years to confirm that the treaty is still in US interests.
And it dismisses Mr Bush's fears that the treaty provisions will not be verifiable, saying that Russian or Chinese nuclear tests too small to be detected would not be useful in developing a new generation of weapons.
President Clinton is eager to have the treaty ratified before he leaves office on 20 January.
He signed it in 1996, when it was completed. To date, 160 countries have signed the CTBT and 69 have ratified it, including the UK and France.
Russian ratification:
In an embarrassment for the US, Russia ratified the treaty in April 2000.
It will come into force when the 44 countries with reactors capable of making nuclear weapons have ratified it.
There have been suggestions that as president, Mr Bush may be willing to support the CTBT in exchange for Russian and Chinese concessions on his plan to build an anti-missile defence system.
Opponents of the so-called "Son of Star Wars" anti-missile system - including many of the US's allies - worry that it would breach the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
But Mr Bush is a strong advocate of the programme, and may be willing to shelve his objections to the CTBT if that would clear the way to building the anti-missile system.
***************
"Clinton Gets Nuke Test Ban Report"
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Treaty.html
January 5, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:11 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton suggested Friday that the Senate take up ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty ``at an early date,'' so the United States can better fight the spread of destructive nuclear weapons.
Clinton met for a half-hour with retired Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to receive the review of the comprehensive test ban treaty that Clinton requested after Senate Republicans rejected it in 1999.
10108.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] Mainly, the report laid out a case for the incoming Bush administration that the treaty is vital to U.S. national security. President-elect Bush has opposed the pact as unenforceable. One top Bush adviser, Defense Secretary-designate Donald Rumsfeld, also opposes it, although another, Secretary of State-designate and former Joint Chiefs chairman Colin Powell, supports it.
``It is one of the tools we ought to consider in our toolbox that would help us deal with what, after all, is one of the recognized, important dangers to our nuclear security,'' Shalikashvili said.
The report recommended, among other things, that the president appoint a deputy national security adviser to handle nuclear proliferation issues, and leave in place the U.S. moratorium on nuclear tests. It also suggested that more funding go into efforts to monitor nuclear testing and developing by other countries.
``The security benefits of the treaty outweigh any perceived disadvantages,'' Clinton said. ``I also hope the Senate will take up the treaty at an early date. (The treaty) is supported by our friends and allies overseas, and designed to reduce existing nuclear dangers as well as those that might emerge in the future.''
Shalikashvili said there are three areas in which the United States could take some steps now to strengthen its position under the treaty: stewardship of the nuclear stockpile, verifying nuclear testing elsewhere in the world and developing an ``overarching strategy'' on nuclear weapons development.
``That ought to be done regardless of the eventual outcome of the treaty itself,'' Shalikashvili said. ``Like any other treaty, there are some risks associated with it. The issue is whether we can mitigate to ensure the advantages far outweigh those risks.''
The report also suggested that the Senate and administration review the treaty every 10 years, and that the president be allowed to withdraw from the treaty if that review uncovers ``grave problems that could not be otherwise addressed.''
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was completed in 1996, but it cannot take effect until it has been approved by the United States and 43 other nations that have nuclear research or power reactors.
Britain, France and Russia have signed and ratified the accord. China has signed the agreement, but has yet to ratify it. North Korea has not signed, and India and Pakistan, which have engaged in a nuclear arms race in South Asia, also have not.
The United States signed the treaty Sept. 24, 1996. The Senate rejected its ratification in 1999.
Supporters have argued that U.S. ratification is essential to persuade other nations to accept the treaty.
10108.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] ______
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505 Washington, DC 20002 (ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970 website
10108.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:48:10 -0500 From: "Carroll Houle"
Dear Howard,
I don't know if you got this or not. Maybe Judy Coode has informed you that I will not be able to get to your meetings very often, but am very interested, and would like to know how I can be of help from here at the UN.
Blessings on your for the New Year. Peace, Carroll Houle Received: from brainy1.ie-eg.com by mail.mksisters.org; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 09:56:29 -0500 Received: from internetegypt.com ([194.79.117.87]) by brainy1.ie-eg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20793; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 16:54:00 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 16:49:18 +0200 From: acc
10108.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "pra$psci"@qc1.qc.edu, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
10108.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: CAMPAIGNS – 2001, Christmas Message X-Priority: 2 (High) References: <[email protected]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_FFA49FB6.4C2D4060"
From: Arab Coordination Centre of NGOs Bahig Nassar; Coordinator
MARY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR
Wish Every Success To Your Campaigns: To prevent the deployment of ballistic missile defense (NMD and TMD) For effective reduction of nuclear weapons towards their total abolition ( START) To implement in good faith NWFZ projects, de-alerting and decoupling, and other disarmament steps approved at the 2000 NPT conference. For the US ratification of CTBT. To halt efforts made to produce low yield nukes which will be used against our people..
Urge Your Solidarity And Support: For the alienable rights of the Palestinian people to achieve peace for all Middle East countries.
10108.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] For peaceful settlements of all conflicts in Africa, the Indian sub-continent, the Korean peninsula and Colombia. For strict abidance by norms of international law, the international humanitarian law and conventions on civil, social, economic and human rights.
Hope The success Of Your Efforts: To promote sustainable economic, social and cultural development. To protect environmental and ecological systems. To build up human globalisation and achieve human security for all peoples. ------
Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\Part.001"
10108.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:34 PM] From: "Bob and Elaine Tiller"
Howard,
You won't believe this. It is so ridiculous that it sounds made up, but it's true. I got an intestinal virus last week and was home sick on Wednesday and Thursday! (This was after missing the December meeting because of our lengthy appointment with my wife's oncologist.) Very sorry.
Maybe I will make the next meeting. What is the date and time? And did anything urgent come out of Thursday's meeting?
In the meantime, thanks for all you do to lead the Interfaith Committee. It's an important effort and I appreciate the hard work you put in. By the way, did you know that each of the last two issues of Baptist Peacemaker carried an article by me on nuclear weapons (de-alerting and missile defense)?
As for my wife, we go back to the oncologist tomorrow to find out about radiation, chemotherapy, etc.
Bob
----- Original Message ----- From: Howard W. Hallman
> Bob, > > New Year's greetings! I hope your wife is getting alone well now. > > I hope to see you Thursday. But if not, I'll keep you informed. > > Howard > >
10108.05.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 08:01:30 -0500 To: [email protected] From: Daryl Kimball
January 8, 2001
TO: Coalition members and friends
FR: Daryl Kimball, Executive Director
RE: op-eds and more reaction on Shalikashvili report on CTBT
Attached below are some noteworthy op-eds, reaction statements and news articles on last Friday's report by General Shalikashvili on the CTBT.
It is significant that former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird -- who had joined five other Republican Sec Defs in signing a letter against the CTBT in 1999 -- has joined former Sec Defs Brown and Perry in supporting the CTBT in their NYT op-ed, saying: "There are advantages to the United States in our international relations in ratifying the test ban treaty. The treaty is an important element of the global nonproliferation regime and crucial to American leadership of those efforts."
Please also note that several Senators with leadership positions on national security-related committees will meet with president-elect Bush at his ranch near Waco, TX today. Senator Carl Levin said he would raise the issue of the CTBT in the discussions with Bush.
1. "The Test Ban Solution," by John M. Shalikashvili, The Washington Post, January 6, 2001
2. "Ratify, but Review," By HAROLD BROWN, MELVIN R. LAIRD and WILLIAM J. PERRY, The New York Times, January 7, 2001
3. "President Clinton Urges Senate to Ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty," NPR, All Things Considered, January 5, 2001
4. "Bush Urged to Change View on Test Ban Treaty," By Deborah Charlies, Reuters, Updated 4:32 PM ET January 5, 2001
5. floor statement of Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Congressional Record, January 5
6. floor statement of Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Congressional Record, January 5
7. "[SEN.] DORGAN SAYS HE HOPES SHALIKASHVILI REPORT WILL HELP SECURE SENATE PASSAGE FOR COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY," Press Release, January 5, 2001
10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] 8. "FAS: Scientists Support Shalikashvili Recommendations on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," Federation of American Scientists -- Press Release, Jan. 5, 2001
Further information on the Shalikashvili report and the CTBT are available on the Coalition web site
For previous editions of the Coalition's "Nuclear Testing Update," see
- DK
**************
ession_id_FutureTenseContentServer=b2edc40b176f10c8&articleid=A25737-2001Jan 5&pagename=article> 1. The Washington Post, January 6, 2001 "The Test Ban Solution" by John M. Shalikashvili After the Senate voted against the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in October 1999, I was asked to recommend steps to build bipartisan support for U.S. ratification. After nearly a year as a special adviser to the president and the secretary of state, I am impressed by how much common ground can be found through quiet, nonpartisan discussions. There is broad bipartisan agreement that nuclear proliferation ranks among the gravest threats to national security. The test ban treaty is no panacea for this problem, but I believe it can contribute to a comprehensive solution. Banning nuclear explosions places significant technical constraints on nuclear weapon development, especially of advanced designs that are more efficient and easier to deliver. The test ban treaty is also an integral part of the political bargain that the United States made in 1995 to gain permanent extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons requires a web of restraints. If one component is damaged, others will be weakened. Our credibility, our leadership in any nonproliferation effort, and the long-term viability of the non-proliferation treaty itself would be strengthened by our ratification of the test ban treaty, and weakened without it. As a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is my considered view that we should not reverse the policy instituted in 1992 and resume testing new nuclear weapon designs. Given our overwhelming conventional superiority, assigning a broader role to nuclear weapons would cause far more problems than it would solve. My intensive review of the test ban treaty strengthened my earlier judgment 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] that this treaty is compatible with keeping a safe and reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent and is an essential part of an effective nonproliferation strategy. Recommendations I have made would help answer legitimate questions about the treaty's nonproliferation value, its verifiability, its impact on the U.S. nuclear deterrent and its indefinite duration. None of these recommendations requires renegotiating the treaty; all would improve our position under it. Most should have broad bipartisan support. In any event, the recommendations can and should be implemented without delay simply because they are important for our national security in their own right. They are: • That our government adopt a more integrated approach to nonproliferation, appoint a deputy national security adviser for nonproliferation to oversee it, and work more closely with like-minded countries. • That the United States strengthen its capability to detect and deter nuclear testing, as well as its ability to monitor the many steps proliferators must take before they can test a nuclear device. • That we make improvements to the U.S. Stockpile Stewardship Program to minimize any potential risks to the long-term reliability or safety of our nuclear deterrent. Implementing these three recommendations would have the added benefit of mitigating most concerns that have been voiced about the test ban treaty. I urge the new administration and the Senate to reexamine the test ban treaty in light of the contributions it can make to strengthened U.S. leadership of a comprehensive nonproliferation strategy. We do not need nuclear test explosions now, and we do not want others conducting them. We have a wealth of knowledge gained from more than a thousand tests. Our nuclear arsenal is safe, reliable and effective. The president-elect has endorsed continuing the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium. Other countries, however, are more likely to continue their own voluntary test moratoriums if they are considered steps toward a verifiable, legally binding ban, not end-points in themselves. Russia has ratified the test ban treaty, along with 68 other countries. China, which has signed but not yet ratified, as well as India and Pakistan, which have made provisional promises to sign and ratify, are watching to see what the next administration will do. In response to concerns about the test ban treaty's indefinite duration, I am recommending that the Senate and the executive branch conduct a joint review of the treaty's overall impact on national security 10 years after ratification. If serious concerns cannot be resolved, the president would exercise our right to withdraw. High-level reconsideration of the test ban treaty and a sustained interagency effort to work toward ratification would also increase congressional support for other important aspects of U.S. defense policy. For example, a bipartisan commitment to a stronger stockpile stewardship 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] program is more likely if the program remains closely linked to U.S. support for the test ban treaty. Progress on ratification is also important for U.S. leadership of global nonproliferation efforts. All our NATO allies and most of our other security partners have ratified the test ban treaty. They are likely to cooperate more closely with us on other nonproliferation initiatives -- such as tougher safeguards on civilian nuclear programs and tighter controls over exports related to weapons of mass destruction -- if we don't close the door on a nonproliferation tool that they value highly. One thing is clear: A successful U.S. nonproliferation strategy must be based on a broad international consensus. We cannot manage this problem on our own. And that means we must find a way to move forward with the test ban treaty. The writer, a retired Army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. ************** 2. The New York Times, January 7, 2001 "Ratify, but Review" By HAROLD BROWN, MELVIN R. LAIRD and WILLIAM J. PERRY WASHINGTON — Much media attention has been focused on cabinet selections and partisan politics. But it has become clear that any legislative success in the 107th Congress will require a coalition of centrists from both sides of the aisle. Nowhere is bipartisan cooperation more important than in the realm of national security. The new Congress must identify issues on which bipartisan agreement is possible. The spread of weapons of mass destruction is one such issue. Seeking a bipartisan approach to nuclear nonproliferation should be among the principal goals of the next administration and Congress. Historically, nonproliferation measures have enjoyed strong support from both sides of the aisle; we need to reinvigorate that support. A good way to start would be to consider the recommendations in the report issued by Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, special adviser to the president and the secretary of state for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. General Shalikashvili concludes that, with proper programs in place, the treaty will improve United States security and will not, as some have suggested, jeopardize nuclear deterrence. In the debate preceding its October 1999 vote on the test ban treaty, the Senate was presented with compelling but conflicting statements on the nonproliferation benefits of the treaty and questions regarding its impact on the long-term safety and reliability — and hence deterrence value — of our nuclear arsenal. But the truncated debate meant there were no adequate answers given on these issues. 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] As a result, shortly before the vote, 62 senators signed a letter to Senators Trent Lott and Tom Daschle urging that final consideration of the treaty be put off until the next Congress. A clear, bipartisan majority, with a wide range of individual views on ratification, deemed this issue sufficiently important to delay a vote until cooler heads — and more thorough consideration — could prevail. This treaty is too important for the vote of the last Congress to be the final word. Now General Shalikashvili proposes in his report to the president 16 recommendations and reservations that we believe deserve careful consideration by the Bush administration. For example, he urges increased support for nonproliferation- related intelligence resources and improved global test monitoring capabilities. He also proposes a number of steps to improve our nation's ability to maintain our nuclear arsenal without nuclear tests and advocates a renewed commitment to a comprehensive, bipartisan nonproliferation agenda. Most importantly, General Shalikashvili recommends that the new administration propose periodic joint reviews — conducted with the Senate — of the treaty's impact on national security after the pact is put in place. In our view, a periodic review of the treaty is the best way to address the Senate's concerns about whether the safety and reliability of the nuclear arsenal could be assured with absolute certainty beyond 10 years. Such a review could begin nine years after ratification, and could be repeated at regular intervals. The periodic review should allay fears that the treaty may in the long term do harm to American security and that of our allies. If a review cannot give satisfactory assurances that the nuclear arsenal remained safe and reliable, the treaty would be set aside until such assurances can be provided. The fact is that the suspension of nuclear tests instituted by President George Bush and Congress in 1992 will remain in place for many years to come. There are advantages to the United States in our international relations in ratifying the test ban treaty. The treaty is an important element of the global nonproliferation regime and crucial to American leadership of those efforts. The review proposal, coupled with other steps recommended by General Shalikashvili provides appropriate insurance that America can preserve the advantage of our nuclear arsenal while limiting further development of offensive nuclear weaponry. Advancing nuclear nonproliferation is a bipartisan goal worth pursuing. Success in ratifying the test ban treaty would be a first step toward bipartisan cooperation on other crucial matters of national security. Harold Brown was defense secretary from 1977 to 1981; Melvin R. Laird, who was a congressman for nine terms, was defense secretary from 1969 to 1973; William J. Perry was defense secretary from 1994 to 1997. ************** 3. NPR, All Things Considered, January 5, 2001, Friday 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] "PRESIDENT CLINTON URGES SENATE TO RATIFY THE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY" ANCHORS: LINDA WERTHEIMER; NOAH ADAMS REPORTERS: TED CLARK LINDA WERTHEIMER, host: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Linda Wertheimer. NOAH ADAMS, host: And I'm Noah Adams. Today President Clinton again urged the Senate to ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which Republican lawmakers refused to do in 1999. The president based his appeal on the new assessment of the treaty conducted by General John Shalikashvili. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is recommending ratification and suggesting ways to address the concerns of critics. NPR's Ted Clark a the report. TED CLARK reporting: Ratification by the United States would improve prospects for implementing the test ban in the rest of the world. Supporters say the ban would make it harder for non-nuclear countries to acquire the weapons, and make it harder for nuclear powers to modernize their arsenals. Shalikashvili argues that the United States would be more secure if a test ban were implemented. But critics say the treaty would endanger national security. They say confidence in the US nuclear arsenal would erode if the weapons could not be tested periodically. Frank Gaffney was assistant secretary in the Reagan Defense Department, with responsibility for nuclear policy matters. Mr. FRANK GAFFNEY (Former Assistant Defense Secretary, Reagan Administration): At the end of the day, you fundamentally have to use nuclear testing to assure that these complex pieces of equipment, arguably the most complex that man has ever devised, perform as they're supposed to. And that is actually becoming more imperative as our nuclear arsenal ages. CLARK: But defenders of the Test Ban Treaty maintain that testing is not needed to ensure the arsenal's reliability. Spurgeon Keeny is president of the Arms Control Association in Washington, DC. According to Keeny, you can test the non-nuclear components of a weapon without detonating it. The nuclear package in the weapon is highly reliable, Keeny says, and he adds... Mr. SPURGEON KEENY (President, Arms Control Association): By a periodic examination, one can determine whether there have been any aging--adverse aging effects in the weapons. CLARK: Critics says countries without nuclear weapons could acquire them in spite of a test ban because crude weapons can be developed without testing. Keeny concedes that point, but he says... 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] Mr. KEENY: The inability to conduct tests would make it impossible for them to go to more efficient, smaller fission weapons, or to develop thermonuclear weapons. CLARK: But that argument provides scant comfort to Frank Gaffney. Mr. GAFFNEY: There are today clearly programs afoot in every nation we're concerned about to build nuclear weapons. There are lots of opportunities for people to cheat. CLARK: In his report today, Shalikashvili makes several recommendations to ease the concerns of those who oppose the Test Ban Treaty. For example, increased spending to verify that other countries are abiding by the treaty, and greater efforts to make sure the US arsenal remains reliable. He says the Senate and the administration should review the treaty every 10 years to make sure it still serves America's interests. President-elect Bush has spoken out against the Test Ban Treaty, but he favors the current US moratorium on testing. His top security advisers are divided. Colin Powell, nominated as secretary of State, favors the treaty. Donald Rumsfeld, the designated Defense secretary, is opposed. Ted Clark, NPR News, Washington. ************** http://news.excite.com/news/r/010105/16/politics-arms-testing-dc 4. "Bush Urged to Change View on Test Ban Treaty" Updated 4:32 PM ET January 5, 2001 By Deborah Charles WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A report by a highly respected general provided ammunition on Friday for supporters of a global nuclear test ban treaty, who hope the incoming U.S. administration might drop its opposition to the pact. Gen. John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented a report to President Clinton that urged the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Senate rejected in 1999, to the dismay of U.S. allies. Shalikashvili, who spent 10 months conducting a review of the contents of the treaty by interviewing nuclear experts, weapons designers and senators, concluded that ratifying the CTBT would increase national security and the security benefits of the treaty would outweigh disadvantages. "After these many months of looking into those issues, I have reached the same conclusion I reached when I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and that is that this treaty has, in fact, an important part in an overall strategy of dealing with nuclear proliferation," Shalikashvili told reporters. 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] In a written statement, he said the Senate's vote not to ratify the treaty raised concern at home and abroad that the United States might be walking away from its traditional leadership of international nonproliferation efforts. "I am confident that this was not the intent of the Senate," he said. "In my conversations, I have found broad bipartisan support for strengthened U.S. leadership of a comprehensive international campaign against proliferation. "I recommend that the next administration work closely with Congress and U.S. allies to mount a more integrated response to the dangers posed by the spread of nuclear weapons ... and that it revisit the test ban treaty in the context of the direct and indirect contributions it can make to this policy." More than 150 countries have signed the CTBT, but it can come into force only when 44 potentially nuclear-capable countries ratify it. President-elect George W. Bush supports the Senate's decision not to ratify the treaty, and several people named to his Cabinet feel the same way. Condoleezza Rice, Bush's nominee for national security adviser, said the treaty would inhibit the United States in maintaining its own nuclear stockpile and do little to stop the proliferation of such weapons. But Bush's secretary of state-designate, Colin Powell, backed the treaty when he retired as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 1993. NONPROLIFERATION GROUPS APPLAUD REPORT An alliance of 16 leading nuclear nonproliferation organizations applauded Shalikashvili's report and urged Bush and the Senate to use it as the starting point for rebuilding a consensus on nuclear testing and nonproliferation. "General Shalikashvili's report on the CTBT should serve as the basis for a more balanced, less politicized dialogue on the CTBT and its value to America's national security," said Daryl Kimball, director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers. "By itself, the CTBT cannot stop proliferation, but the U.S. cannot effectively fight the spread of nuclear weapons without it," he said. "The new Senate and the new president owe it to the nation to work together in a bipartisan fashion to undertake a more thoughtful and balanced review of the CTBT." Sen. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he would raise the issue when he met Bush on Monday to see if the incoming administration had any interest in resurrecting the test ban pact. "In my judgement, that whole thing would have to be disassembled and reassembled before it could be taken up again," he said. 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] Clinton, who leaves office on Jan. 20, weighed in with his suggestions. "I also hope the Senate will take up the treaty at an early date as a critical component of a bipartisan nonproliferation policy," he said. "CTBT is supported by our friends and allies overseas and designed to reduce existing nuclear dangers as well as those that might emerge in the future." ************** 5. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- (Senate - January 05, 2001) Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on an issue that is important to our national security: the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or CTBT, that would ban all nuclear weapon tests. This is an issue that the new President and the new Senate should think about carefully and deliberately during the 107th Congress. Today General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented a report to President Clinton on his findings and recommendations on the CTBT. President Clinton had asked General Shalikashvili to conduct a comprehensive and independent study of the CTBT after the Senate voted against a resolution of ratification in October of 1999. The CTBT negotiations were completed in 1996, and the United States was the first nation to sign the Treaty. To date, 160 nations have signed it and 69 have ratified it, including all our NATO allies, Japan, South Korea and Russia. However, to enter into force, it must be ratified by 44 specified nations that have nuclear reactors, including the United States. The Treaty would prohibit all nuclear explosive tests. In so doing, it would make it much harder for nations to develop nuclear weapons, thus putting in place an important roadblock to nuclear weapon proliferation. The treaty provides for an expanded and improved international monitoring system that would improve our ability to detect and deter nuclear tests by other nations--but only if we ratify the treaty and it enters into force. Secretary of Defense Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all support ratification of the CTBT, as do four former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including General Shalikashvili and Gen. Colin Powell. When the Senate took up the CTBT in October 1999, it did so in haste and without the traditional bipartisan deliberation we have accorded other arms control treaties. On the eve of the vote, 62 Senators signed a letter urging the Senate leadership to delay that vote and to postpone final consideration of the CTBT until the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, that request, which was made by nearly two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, to delay the vote, was not heeded, and the result was that the resolution of ratification was defeated by a vote of 51-48, with one Senator voting present. Again, General Shalikashvili was asked to review the entire situation, and in conducting his review, he met with a number of Senators from both sides 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] of the aisle to discuss their concerns and their suggestions. He also met with many other experts on this issue, and he visited the nuclear weapons labs. General Shalikashvili's report is a valuable contribution to this important topic. This report, which was just filed today, places the CTBT in the broader context of our nuclear nonproliferation goals and efforts and points out that the CTBT is an important component of this enduring national security priority of nuclear nonproliferation. He concludes that the CTBT remains in our national interest and that the Senate should reconsider the treaty in a bipartisan manner, hopefully with the result that ratification is approved by the Senate. General Shalikashvili's report reviews the major concerns which were expressed about the CTBT during our debate, and it offers recommendations in each of these areas, including ways to improve our monitoring and verification of foreign nuclear testing efforts and ways to improve our nuclear weapons Stockpile Stewardship Program. These recommendations address concerns raised about the CTBT and provide some commonsense and balanced steps to improve our security while bringing the CTBT into force. Specifically, General Shalikashvili's report examines the larger nonproliferation context of the CTBT and concludes that the CTBT has a genuine nonproliferation value for our national security. His report studies the question of monitoring and verification and concludes that the monitoring system under the treaty will significantly enhance U.S. national monitoring capabilities and that cheating will be much harder and less useful than some fear. He evaluates our ability to maintain the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons and determines that we can do so without nuclear testing if we fully support the Stockpile Stewardship Program and manage it prudently. Finally, General Shalikashvili's report looks at the question of whether CTBT should be of indefinite duration and recommends that in addition to the safeguards accompanying the treaty, the Senate and the executive branch should conduct a joint review of the treaty 10 years after ratification and at 10-year intervals thereafter. One of the key points made by General Shalikashvili is that the CTBT is conditioned on a safeguard that will assure our ability to maintain a safe and reliable stockpile. Under safeguard F, the United States would maintain the right and the ability to withdraw from the treaty and to conduct any testing necessary if that were required to certify the safety and reliability of a nuclear weapon type critical to our nuclear deterrent. General Shalikashvili's recommendation on the joint review would strengthen this safeguard by saying that if, after that joint review, grave doubts remained about the treaty's value for our national security, the President would be prepared to withdraw from the treaty. I know General Shalikashvili's report will be considered carefully and seriously by the Senate and by the new administration. I hope we and the new administration will review his report and think through our CTBT position in a deliberate manner, and I will be making this point personally to President-elect Bush next Monday at a meeting in Austin for 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] congressional defense and security leaders. We owe General Shalikashvili a national debt of gratitude for serving our Nation and its security once again. He has taken a great deal of his time since retiring to review the CTBT and to craft recommendations that I hope we will implement. I recommend his report to all Senators and to the new administration, and I hope we will reconsider the treaty in the best bipartisan spirit of the Senate as his report recommends. I ask unanimous consent that General Shalikashvili's letter to the President, accompanying his report, and his introduction and recommendations from the report be printed in the RECORD. ************** 6. THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- (Senate - January 05, 2001) Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John M. Shalikashvili, released his report reviewing the major issues regarding ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which was rejected by the Senate in a vote last fall. His review of the brief debate in the Senate over this critical matter of national security is thorough in its scope and balanced in its recommendations. I urge President Bush and his national security advisory team to review General Shalikashvili's report closely and undertake to address his observations and recommendations immediately. When it comes to the proliferation or improvement of nuclear weapons, time is NOT on our side. The CTBT, when ratified and in force, will discourage non-nuclear weapons states from creating their own nuclear arsenals and prevent current nuclear states from building new capabilities that can endanger American and international security. The hearings held in the Senate last fall, although not nearly as comprehensive as they should have been, did serve to articulate issues of greatest concern to those who are uncertain or opposed to the treaty. Those issues must be addressed head-on in order for the nation to proceed in a bipartisan way regarding further consideration of the Treaty. The international community of nations is watching us closely to see what direction the United States will choose to take. In his report, General Shalikashvili has identified the key controversial issues and calls for specific actions to meet primary concerns before the President and the Senate reconsider the Treaty. President-elect Bush has clearly stated that he seeks to unify the country and is committed to enhancing our national security. Given the divisions in the electorate and in the Congress itself, the challenge of gaining bipartisan support on key legislative matters including defense matters is a daunting one for the new administration. Given the outstanding work of General Shalikashvili in reviewing last year's debate on the CTBT, President-elect Bush has a very important opportunity to pursue bipartisan national security policy by committing to review General Shalikashvili's thoughtful assessment and to undertaking the recommendations he has put forward. As a member of the bipartisan Senate working group that has been 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] examining the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support General Shalikashvili's effort on this critical national security matter. ************** 7. PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 5, 2001 CONTACT: Barry E. Piatt PHONE: 202-224-2551 DORGAN SAYS HE HOPES SHALIKASHVILI REPORT WILL HELP SECURE SENATE PASSAGE FOR COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY (WASHINGTON, D.C.) --- U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) welcomed a new report on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) issued Friday by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) retired General John Shalikashvili, saying it "provides an excellent starting point for building a new bipartisan consensus on nuclear non-proliferation." General Shalikashvili was one of five former JCS chairmen, including Secretary of State designate Colin Powell, and scores of other military leaders who supported passage of the CTBT. After the Senate rejected the treaty in late 1999, General Shalikashvili engaged in a quiet, nonpartisan dialogue with Senators from both sides of the aisle, and with scientists, weapons makers, and others to find ways of resolving the concerns of those who voted against the treaty. AI agree with General Shalikasvili that no one should underestimate the damage that could occur if the United States renounces the Test Ban Treaty, or even waits too long to take the next steps towards ratification,@ Dorgan said Friday. "His recommendations for strengthening the United States position under a nuclear test ban should answer many of the concerns of those who voted against the treaty." Shalikashvili recommends that Congress and the next administration agree to provide adequate funding for the scientific tools and facilities needed to ensure that the U.S. nuclear arsenal remains safe and reliable without testing, and to provide sustained support for intelligence resources and global nuclear test monitoring. The report also recommends strengthening the treaty's "safeguards" by mandating a thorough review of the treaty's impact on U.S. security ten years after U.S. ratification. It says Congress and the executive branch should establish standards to guide decisions about withdrawing from the treaty, which the treaty permits, if the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile could no longer be certified without nuclear testing. "I hope President-elect Bush will heed this report," Dorgan said. "Many Senators voted against the CTBT not because they oppose a test ban in principle, but because they were not convinced that this treaty would work as advertised. By directly addressing the concerns of those who voted against the CTBT, General Shalikasvili has given us a road map so that the U.S. can eventually ratify the treaty with full confidence that it makes 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] America stronger." ************** 8. Federation of American Scientists -- Press Release "FAS: Scientists Support Shalikashvili Recommendations on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty" WASHINGTON, Jan. 5, 2001 The Federation of American Scientists strongly endorses the Findings and Recommendations Concerning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty just presented to the President by General John M. Shalikashvili (USA, Ret.). The treaty plays a key role in containing the spread of nuclear weapons, reducing the risk that other nations will develop the sophisticated weapons designs needed for easy delivery by mobile or multiple warhead missiles, and preventing a new arms race in "third generation" nuclear designs that could only weaken US security. While the treaty by itself provides no guarantee that the proliferation of nuclear weapons will stop, U.S. failure to ratify threatens to unravel the network of international controls that offer the best hope for controlling the spread of nuclear weapons and the risk that they might be used. The work of FAS scientists strongly supports the report's conclusion that the treaty could be adequately verified and that the security and reliability of U.S. weapons can be assured in the absence of nuclear tests. While the treaty is not without risks, we strongly support General Shalikashvili's bottom line: "After examining these issues, I remain convinced that the advantages of the Test Ban Treaty outweigh any disadvantages, and thus that ratification would increase national security." "The report has done a great service by providing a thoughtful and thorough review of issues raised by members of the Senate who had doubts about the treaty and provide the basis for rapid Senate action on ratification of the Test Ban Treaty." said Henry Kelly, FAS President, "The report's recommendations for further strengthening of U.S. verification and stewardship programs should receive strong bipartisan support. U.S. security is clearly strengthened if nuclear weapons play a reduced role in the world. President-elect Bush and members of the Senate must give this report serious attention". --- The scientists who built the first atomic bomb founded the Federation of American Scientists in 1945. FAS addresses public policy issues created by advances in science and technology (see www.fas.org). ______ Daryl Kimball, Executive Director 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505 Washington, DC 20002 (ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970 website 10108.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] To: phil From: "Howard W. Hallman" Phil, As I suggested earlier, I would like to schedule a meeting of the Board of Directors of MUPJ for Friday, March 23. Could we get space at Foundry UMC from 9:00 to 5:00. Shalom, Howard 10108.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] The Washington Post, January 6, 2001 "The Test Ban Solution" by John M. Shalikashvili After the Senate voted against the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in October 1999, I was asked to recommend steps to build bipartisan support for U.S. ratification. After nearly a year as a special adviser to the president and the secretary of state, I am impressed by how much common ground can be found through quiet, nonpartisan discussions. There is broad bipartisan agreement that nuclear proliferation ranks among the gravest threats to national security. The test ban treaty is no panacea for this problem, but I believe it can contribute to a comprehensive solution. Banning nuclear explosions places significant technical constraints on nuclear weapon development, especially of advanced designs that are more efficient and easier to deliver. The test ban treaty is also an integral part of the political bargain that the United States made in 1995 to gain permanent extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons requires a web of restraints. If one component is damaged, others will be weakened. Our credibility, our leadership in any nonproliferation effort, and the long-term viability of the non-proliferation treaty itself would be strengthened by our ratification of the test ban treaty, and weakened without it. As a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is my considered view that we should not reverse the policy instituted in 1992 and resume testing new nuclear weapon designs. Given our overwhelming conventional superiority, assigning a broader role to nuclear weapons would cause far more problems than it would solve. My intensive review of the test ban treaty strengthened my earlier judgment that this treaty is compatible with keeping a safe and reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent and is an essential part of an effective nonproliferation strategy. Recommendations I have made would help answer legitimate questions about the treaty's nonproliferation value, its verifiability, its impact on the U.S. nuclear deterrent and its indefinite duration. None of these recommendations requires renegotiating the treaty; all would improve our position under it. Most should have broad bipartisan support. In any event, the recommendations can and should be implemented without delay simply because they are important for our national security in their own right. They are: • That our government adopt a more integrated approach to nonproliferation, appoint a deputy national security adviser for nonproliferation to oversee it, and work more closely with like-minded countries. • That the United States strengthen its capability to detect and deter nuclear testing, as well as its ability to monitor the many steps proliferators must take before they can test a nuclear device. • That we make improvements to the U.S. Stockpile Stewardship Program to minimize any potential risks to the long-term reliability or safety of our nuclear deterrent. Implementing these three recommendations would have the added benefit of mitigating most concerns that have been voiced about the test ban treaty. I urge the new administration and the Senate to reexamine the test ban treaty in light of the contributions it can make to strengthened U.S. leadership of a comprehensive nonproliferation strategy. We do not need nuclear test explosions now, and we do not want others conducting them. We have a wealth of knowledge gained from more than a thousand tests. Our nuclear arsenal is safe, reliable and effective. The president-elect has endorsed continuing the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium. Other countries, however, are more likely to continue their own voluntary test moratoriums if they are considered steps toward a verifiable, legally binding ban, not end-points in themselves. Russia has ratified the test ban treaty, along with 68 other countries. China, which has signed but not yet ratified, as well as India and Pakistan, which have made provisional promises to sign and ratify, are watching to see what the next administration will do. In response to concerns about the test ban treaty's indefinite duration, I am recommending that the Senate and the executive branch conduct a joint review of the treaty's overall impact on national security 10 years after ratification. If serious concerns cannot be resolved, the president would exercise our right to withdraw. High-level reconsideration of the test ban treaty and a sustained interagency effort to work toward ratification would also increase congressional support for other important aspects of U.S. defense policy. For example, a bipartisan commitment to a stronger stockpile stewardship program is more likely if the program remains closely linked to U.S. support for the test ban treaty. Progress on ratification is also important for U.S. leadership of global nonproliferation efforts. All our NATO allies and most of our other security partners have ratified the test ban treaty. They are likely to cooperate more closely with us on other nonproliferation initiatives -- such as tougher safeguards on civilian nuclear programs and tighter controls over exports related to weapons of mass destruction -- if we don't close the door on a nonproliferation tool that they value highly. One thing is clear: A successful U.S. nonproliferation strategy must be based on a broad international consensus. We cannot manage this problem on our own. And that means we must find a way to move forward with the test ban treaty. The writer, a retired Army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. To: "Bob and Elaine Tiller" At 08:06 PM 1/7/01 -0500, you wrote: >Howard, > >....Maybe I will make the next meeting. What is the date and time? And did >anything urgent come out of Thursday's meeting?.... Bob, The next meeting will be Tuesday, February 13. We will meet on the second Tuesday of each for the rest of the year except August. A separate memo reports on Thursday's meeting. I hope both you and your wife are better. Shalom, Howard 10108.09.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Daryl, Thanks for meeting with the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. We are now proceeding to start a round of Hill visits with staffs of key senators. We are encouraging our grassroots networks around the country to form interfaith delegations to make contact with the senators' home office. With the release of General Shalikashvili's report, I am suggesting that our delegations also ask how the senators' feel about his recommendations. I'll keep you informed on the results. On another subject, you indicated that several documents make up the U.S. nuclear posture. Would you please list those for me and tell me where they are available? If you have any, please share a copy with me. Shalom, Howard 10108.10.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Bruce, Thanks for meeting with the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. We are now proceeding to start a round of Hill visits with staffs of key senators. We are encouraging our grassroots networks around the country to form interfaith delegations to make contact with the senators' home office. We'll keep you and others in the Back from the Brink Campaign informed on the results. Shalom, Howard 10108.11.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] To: hipkins From: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Jim, I received Peace Leaf. It looks good except for one major error. I didn't write the article on "International Nonviolent Peace Force." I was something I received from a source I can't remember and forwarded to you. I do recall now that you made reference to "my article", but I interpreted that to mean the article I supplied you. Do you still have the manuscript that might indicate who the true author is. I would like to get in touch with him, apologize, and indicate that we will make a correction in the next issue. I don't want to add plagiarism to my long list of sins. I definitely want to have a board of directors meeting in Washington on March 25. I'll send out a communication on it shortly. I hope that Char and you are in good health. Shalom, Howard 10108.12.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" To: Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament Dear Colleagues, We had an excellent briefing on Thursday, January 4 with Bruce Blair on de-alerting and Daryl Kimball on strategic arms reduction. Now we are ready to start Hill visits with staff of ten key senators. At our meeting we concluded that we should make use of George W. Bush's May 23, 2000 speech in which he spoke in favor of executive action for de-alerting and strategic arms reduction without prolonged treaty negotiations. (I've previously circulated copies of that speech.) We can ask the senators' staff how the senator feels about this kind of initiatives, whether s/he would support it, what concerns, etc. Since we met General John Shalikashvili has released his report to President Clinton on the CTBT. I am sending his article in the Washington Post of January 8 on his recommendations as an attachment. I propose that we also ask senators' staff on how the senator feels about General Shalikashvili's recommendations. Are you able and willing to join others from the faith committee on these Hill visits? . If so please reply, using the following checklist. We will start with ten senators initially. The delegation might consist of two or three people, so everyone won't have to go to all of them. If you have a good contact and would be willing to arrange the appointment, please indicate. Otherwise, I will take the lead in setting up appointments. Shalom, Howard ## Dear Howard, ____ Yes, I am willing to participate in visits to senatorial staff on nuclear disarmament issues. depending on my time availability. ____ I am willing to join a delegation to any of the senators' staff. ____ I have a contact (marked with a "C" ) for those indicated. I would prefer to go only to certain ones (marked with a "Y"). Senators: Collins (ME) Snowe (ME) Jeffords (VT) Chafee (RI) Specter (PA) Lugar (IN) Hagel (NE) 10108.13.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] Domenici (NM) Smith (OR) Stevens (AK) Signed: 10108.13.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Mary, Here is the attachment I sent with my previous communication. Howard ### The Washington Post, January 6, 2001 "The Test Ban Solution" by John M. Shalikashvili After the Senate voted against the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in October 1999, I was asked to recommend steps to build bipartisan support for U.S. ratification. After nearly a year as a special adviser to the president and the secretary of state, I am impressed by how much common ground can be found through quiet, nonpartisan discussions. There is broad bipartisan agreement that nuclear proliferation ranks among the gravest threats to national security. The test ban treaty is no panacea for this problem, but I believe it can contribute to a comprehensive solution. Banning nuclear explosions places significant technical constraints on nuclear weapon development, especially of advanced designs that are more efficient and easier to deliver. The test ban treaty is also an integral part of the political bargain that the United States made in 1995 to gain permanent extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons requires a web of restraints. If one component is damaged, others will be weakened. Our credibility, our leadership in any nonproliferation effort, and the long-term viability of the non-proliferation treaty itself would be strengthened by our ratification of the test ban treaty, and weakened without it. As a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is my considered view that we should not reverse the policy instituted in 1992 and resume testing new nuclear weapon designs. Given our overwhelming conventional superiority, assigning a broader role to nuclear weapons would cause far more problems than it would solve. My intensive review of the test ban treaty strengthened my earlier judgment that this treaty is compatible with keeping a safe and reliable U.S. 10108.14.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] nuclear deterrent and is an essential part of an effective nonproliferation strategy. Recommendations I have made would help answer legitimate questions about the treaty's nonproliferation value, its verifiability, its impact on the U.S. nuclear deterrent and its indefinite duration. None of these recommendations requires renegotiating the treaty; all would improve our position under it. Most should have broad bipartisan support. In any event, the recommendations can and should be implemented without delay simply because they are important for our national security in their own right. They are: o That our government adopt a more integrated approach to nonproliferation, appoint a deputy national security adviser for nonproliferation to oversee it, and work more closely with like-minded countries. o That the United States strengthen its capability to detect and deter nuclear testing, as well as its ability to monitor the many steps proliferators must take before they can test a nuclear device. o That we make improvements to the U.S. Stockpile Stewardship Program to minimize any potential risks to the long-term reliability or safety of our nuclear deterrent. Implementing these three recommendations would have the added benefit of mitigating most concerns that have been voiced about the test ban treaty. I urge the new administration and the Senate to reexamine the test ban treaty in light of the contributions it can make to strengthened U.S. leadership of a comprehensive nonproliferation strategy. We do not need nuclear test explosions now, and we do not want others conducting them. We have a wealth of knowledge gained from more than a thousand tests. Our nuclear arsenal is safe, reliable and effective. The president-elect has endorsed continuing the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium. Other countries, however, are more likely to continue their own voluntary test moratoriums if they are considered steps toward a verifiable, legally binding ban, not end-points in themselves. Russia has ratified the test ban treaty, along with 68 other countries. China, which has signed but not yet ratified, as well as India and Pakistan, which have made provisional promises to sign and ratify, are watching to see what the next administration will do. In response to concerns about the test ban treaty's indefinite duration, I am recommending that the Senate and the executive branch conduct a joint review of the treaty's overall impact on national security 10 years after ratification. If serious concerns cannot be resolved, the president would exercise our right to withdraw. High-level reconsideration of the test ban treaty and a sustained interagency effort to work toward ratification would also increase congressional support for other important aspects of U.S. defense policy. For example, a bipartisan commitment to a stronger stockpile stewardship program is more likely if the program remains closely linked to U.S. 10108.14.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] support for the test ban treaty. Progress on ratification is also important for U.S. leadership of global nonproliferation efforts. All our NATO allies and most of our other security partners have ratified the test ban treaty. They are likely to cooperate more closely with us on other nonproliferation initiatives -- such as tougher safeguards on civilian nuclear programs and tighter controls over exports related to weapons of mass destruction -- if we don't close the door on a nonproliferation tool that they value highly. One thing is clear: A successful U.S. nonproliferation strategy must be based on a broad international consensus. We cannot manage this problem on our own. And that means we must find a way to move forward with the test ban treaty. The writer, a retired Army general, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997. 10108.14.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:21:35 -0800 (PST) From: Egbert Lawrence "Howard W. Hallman" 10108.15.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] > > Shalom, > Howard > > ## > > Dear Howard, > > _lde___ Yes, I am willing to participate in visits to > senatorial staff on > nuclear disarmament issues. > depending on my time availability. > > _lde___ I am willing to join a delegation to any of > the senators' staff. > > ____ I have a contact (marked with a "C" ) for > those indicated. I would > prefer to go only to certain ones (marked with a > "Y"). > > Senators: > Collins (ME) > Snowe (ME) > Jeffords (VT) My brother and one son live in VT > Chafee (RI) > Specter (PA) > Lugar (IN) > Hagel (NE) > Domenici (NM) > Smith (OR) > Stevens (AK) > > Signed: Larry Egbert (lde=yes) > > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/msword name=10108.08.doc; x-mac-type=42494E41; x-mac-creator=4D535744 ______Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ 10108.15.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:35 PM] From: Rachel Labush Dear Howard, __X__ Yes, I am willing to participate in visits to senatorial staff on nuclear disarmament issues. depending on my time availability. __X_ I am willing to join a delegation to any of the senators' staff. ____ I have a contact (marked with a "C" ) for those indicated. I would prefer to go only to certain ones (marked with a "Y"). Senators: Collins (ME) Snowe (ME) Jeffords (VT) Chafee (RI) Specter (PA) Lugar (IN) Hagel (NE) Domenici (NM) Smith (OR) Stevens (AK) Signed: Rachel Labush, Legislative Assistant Religious Action Center 2027 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202-387-2800 fax: 202-667-9070 [email protected] http://www.rac.org p.s. Other people at the RAC have contacts with these offices, but I have not established any of my own yet. Right now many of my coworkers are on vacation or home sick, but I could use their connections later in the week. 10108.16.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] X-Sender: [email protected] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 10:33:15 -0500 To: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Howard, It was worthwhile for me too. Thanks. What are you going to propose to the key staff members? Let us know your progress. Cheers, Bruce At 10:56 AM 1/8/01 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Bruce, > >Thanks for meeting with the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. >We are now proceeding to start a round of Hill visits with staffs of key >senators. We are encouraging our grassroots networks around the country to >form interfaith delegations to make contact with the senators' home office. > >We'll keep you and others in the Back from the Brink Campaign informed on >the results. > >Shalom, >Howard 10108.17.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:28:28 -0600 From: "Greg Laszakovits" Dear Howard, __x__ Yes, I am willing to participate in visits to senatorial staff on nuclear disarmament issues. depending on my time availability. ___x_ I am willing to join a delegation to any of the senators' staff. ____ I have a contact (marked with a "C" ) for those indicated. I would prefer to go only to certain ones (marked with a "Y"). Senators: Collins (ME) Snowe (ME) Jeffords (VT) Chafee (RI) Specter (PA) Lugar (IN) Hagel (NE) Domenici (NM) Smith (OR) Stevens (AK) Signed: Greg Laszakovits Greg Laszakovits Director, Church of the Brethren Washington Office 337 North Carolina Avenue Washington, DC 20003 202.546.3202 10108.18.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] To: [email protected], [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Pat and Lisa, I'm glad you suggested that we deal with the nuclear posture review. I've been thinking about doing something but have been reluctant to bring it up with the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament until we digested what we've started in our Senate visits. With your suggestions and encouragement maybe we can take this on. So let me throw out some ideas. You can respond to them and add your own ideas in reply. I'm trying to find out precisely what the "U.S. nuclear posture" is. It apparently includes a presidential policy directive, a Pentagon document, and the Single Integrated Operating Plan (SIOP), designating targets for nuclear weapons. While the latter is secret, Bruce Blair and others have published a general outline of the targeting plan. Although the faith community has no technical competence to deal with details of targeting, we could appropriately comment on the categories of targets. Even more importantly we can legitimate deal with the underlying purpose of nuclear weapons, their use, and threatened use. A Statement For instance, we might develop an interfaith statement on the nuclear posture of the United States and its relationship to nuclear disarmament objectives, as specified by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and implementing documents. We could note that many religious bodies have questioned the morality of nuclear weapons and have called for their elimination. We could append these statements (perhaps excerpts only from the longer ones). We could indicate that during the Cold War there was a strong counter view in the government that nuclear weapons were necessary as a deterrent against Soviet aggression. However, with the Cold War over for more than ten years this rationale has evaporated. Given the fact that numerous military authorities have testified that nuclear weapons have no military utility on the battlefield, their only remaining use is to deter other nuclear weapons. This condition will prevail only as long as other states possess nuclear weapons. We could propose, therefore, that the U.S. nuclear posture statement reaffirm the NPT obligation for nuclear disarmament. This includes the commitment made by the nuclear weapon states in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference (May 2000) and reaffirmed in the United Nations General Assembly in December 2000 to "an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenal." Accordingly, the U.S. nuclear arsenal will presently be considered in transition from (a) full and widespread deployment during the Cold War to (b) complete elimination along with all the nuclear weapons of every other possessor. As a transition measure, the United States commits itself to no first use of nuclear weapons against any adversary under any circumstance. In this transition period the United States will remove from its target list all sites where high numbers of civilian casualties would result from nuclear attack. To enhance nuclear safety and reduce the risk of accidental use of nuclear weapons, the United States will take its total arsenal off high alert and will work with other nuclear weapons states to achieve the same status for their nuclear arsenal. 10108.19.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] The United States will work first with Russia and then the other nuclear weapon states to achieve mutual deactivation of nuclear weapons and then mutual dismantlement, achieved with adequate safeguards and verification. The United States will also work with other nations to develop and implement an international system of fissile material control with international accounting and monitoring. In this manner the nuclear posture statement would be changed from a war-fighting plan to an outline of a course to nuclear disarmament. This may be far too much to ask of the Pentagon and other national security officials, but its what the faith community believes should happen. Therefore, we should state it forcefully. Hearings Another approach would be to hold public hearings on the U.S. nuclear posture around the country and in Washington. Otherwise the public has no opportunity for participation in nuclear posture review. Such hearings might be cosponsored by faith organizations and civic-sector organizations, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, Federation of American Scientists, and others. Hearing officers could include bishops, scientists, physicians, lawyers, and other professionals. A Washington hearing held during a congressional recess might gain coverage by C-SPAN and CNN. Other Ideas I throw these ideas out for your consideration. You will likely have other ideas to suggest. If the three of us can agree on something, we can circulate it to participants in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament and discuss it at our February meeting. Shalom, Howard 10108.19.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] From: "Lisa Wright" Dear Howard, _XX___ Yes, I am willing to participate in visits to senatorial staff on nuclear disarmament issues. depending on my time availability. _XX___ I am willing to join a delegation to any of the senators' staff. ____ I have a contact (marked with a "C" ) for those indicated. I would prefer to go only to certain ones (marked with a "Y"). Senators: Collins (ME) Snowe (ME) Jeffords (VT) Chafee (RI) Specter (PA) Lugar (IN) Hagel (NE) Domenici (NM) Smith (OR) Stevens (AK) Signed: Lisa Wright, NCCC/CWS Washington Office 10108.20.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] X-Lotus-FromDomain: UCC From: [email protected] To: "Howard W. Hallman" Howard, Put me down for visits with Rhode Island, Maine, or Vermont. We have significant presences of UCC churches in these states who are supportive of our position on this. I will need to sit with you or someone to let me know how the de-alerting, CTBT, strategic arms reduction initiatives, and missile defense shield all fit into what we will be saying. Rev. Ron Stief, Minister and Team Leader Justice and Witness Ministries United Church of Christ 110 Maryland Ave., Washington DC 20002 202-543-1557 [email protected] 10108.21.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] From: [email protected] Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:09:47 EST Subject: Re: Board meeting To: [email protected] X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 40 Howard How many people will be involved? Will we want any equipment or food service? (I think we might bring refreshments for gathering and visit the nearby restaurant we've used before for lunch.) P. 10108.22.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" At 03:09 PM 1/8/01 EST, you wrote: >Howard > >How many people will be involved? Will we want any equipment or food >service? (I think we might bring refreshments for gathering and visit the >nearby restaurant we've used before for lunch.) > >P. Phil, As I will communicate in a few days, I would like to add some board members. The United Methodist General Board of Church and Society is having a three day confab on March 24-26 that will involved conference peace with justice coordinators. I would like to get several to come a day early and join our board. At best we will have 10 to 15. Therefore, the Helen Harris Parlor will serve us well if it's available. Going out to lunch is okay. Otherwise, we could bring in a spread for sandwich making. Howard 10108.23.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] From: "Lisa Wright" Howard - I'm off to a meeting in NY for the next two days - I'll take this along to read for thought. Let's not forget the work that went in to the National Cathederal's statement last year either - we may want to build off of some of that energy and educational efforts. Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:15 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Nuclear posture review Dear Pat and Lisa, I'm glad you suggested that we deal with the nuclear posture review. I've been thinking about doing something but have been reluctant to bring it up with the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament until we digested what we've started in our Senate visits. With your suggestions and encouragement maybe we can take this on. So let me throw out some ideas. You can respond to them and add your own ideas in reply. I'm trying to find out precisely what the "U.S. nuclear posture" is. It apparently includes a presidential policy directive, a Pentagon document, and the Single Integrated Operating Plan (SIOP), designating targets for nuclear weapons. While the latter is secret, Bruce Blair and others have published a general outline of the targeting plan. Although the faith community has no technical competence to deal with details of targeting, we could appropriately comment on the categories of targets. Even more importantly we can legitimate deal with the underlying purpose of nuclear weapons, their use, and threatened use. A Statement For instance, we might develop an interfaith statement on the nuclear posture of the United States and its relationship to nuclear disarmament objectives, as specified by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and implementing documents. We could note that many religious bodies have questioned the morality of nuclear weapons and have called for their elimination. We could append these statements (perhaps excerpts only from the longer ones). We could 10108.24.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] indicate that during the Cold War there was a strong counter view in the government that nuclear weapons were necessary as a deterrent against Soviet aggression. However, with the Cold War over for more than ten years this rationale has evaporated. Given the fact that numerous military authorities have testified that nuclear weapons have no military utility on the battlefield, their only remaining use is to deter other nuclear weapons. This condition will prevail only as long as other states possess nuclear weapons. We could propose, therefore, that the U.S. nuclear posture statement reaffirm the NPT obligation for nuclear disarmament. This includes the commitment made by the nuclear weapon states in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference (May 2000) and reaffirmed in the United Nations General Assembly in December 2000 to "an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenal." Accordingly, the U.S. nuclear arsenal will presently be considered in transition from (a) full and widespread deployment during the Cold War to (b) complete elimination along with all the nuclear weapons of every other possessor. As a transition measure, the United States commits itself to no first use of nuclear weapons against any adversary under any circumstance. In this transition period the United States will remove from its target list all sites where high numbers of civilian casualties would result from nuclear attack. To enhance nuclear safety and reduce the risk of accidental use of nuclear weapons, the United States will take its total arsenal off high alert and will work with other nuclear weapons states to achieve the same status for their nuclear arsenal. The United States will work first with Russia and then the other nuclear weapon states to achieve mutual deactivation of nuclear weapons and then mutual dismantlement, achieved with adequate safeguards and verification. The United States will also work with other nations to develop and implement an international system of fissile material control with international accounting and monitoring. In this manner the nuclear posture statement would be changed from a war-fighting plan to an outline of a course to nuclear disarmament. This may be far too much to ask of the Pentagon and other national security officials, but its what the faith community believes should happen. Therefore, we should state it forcefully. Hearings Another approach would be to hold public hearings on the U.S. nuclear posture around the country and in Washington. Otherwise the public has no opportunity for participation in nuclear posture review. Such hearings might be cosponsored by faith organizations and civic-sector organizations, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, Federation of American Scientists, and others. Hearing officers could include bishops, scientists, physicians, lawyers, and other professionals. A Washington hearing held during a congressional recess might gain coverage by C-SPAN 10108.24.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] and CNN. Other Ideas I throw these ideas out for your consideration. You will likely have other ideas to suggest. If the three of us can agree on something, we can circulate it to participants in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament and discuss it at our February meeting. Shalom, Howard 10108.24.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] To: "Carol Green" Dear Carol, Would you be willing to join the Board of Directors of Methodists United for Peace with Justice? As you know, our primary emphasis is upon nuclear disarmament. We are playing an important role in mobilizing Methodists on this issue. Through my leadership role as chair of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament we are making a broader impact. Your knowledge of this issue and your practical grassroots experience would be an asset to our board. We are having our next board meeting on Friday, March 23, 2001 in Washington, D.C. That's the day before the United Methodist Legislative & Public Policy Briefing that you are likely to attend. Beyond that our board is scheduled to meet once a year, but because of travel costs the last couple of years we haven't met. Instead we have conferred by e-mail, regular mail, and telephone. In the future we will continue to rely on e-mail, may try to confer via a telephone conference call, and will get together at opportune times, such as this briefing. With the low budget we operate on, we are unable to pay board travel expenses. In the case of March 23 meeting the UM General Board of Church and Society will be paying your travel expenses for that weekend. Perhaps your conference can pay for your extra night at a hotel. Or we can arrange for host housing in Washington for that night. So I hope you can join our board. But if not, we will continue to work with you on issues of mutual concern. Shalom, Howard 10108.25.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Carol, Would you be willing to join the Board of Directors of Methodists United for Peace with Justice? As you know, our primary emphasis is upon nuclear disarmament. We are playing an important role in mobilizing Methodists on this issue. Through my leadership role as chair of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament we are making a broader impact. Your knowledge of this issue and your practical grassroots experience would be an asset to our board. We are having our next board meeting on Friday, March 23, 2001 in Washington, D.C. That's the day before the United Methodist Legislative & Public Policy Briefing that you are likely to attend. Beyond that our board is scheduled to meet once a year, but because of travel costs the last couple of years we haven't met. Instead we have conferred by e-mail, regular mail, and telephone. In the future we will continue to rely on e-mail, may try to confer via a telephone conference call, and will get together at opportune times, such as this briefing. With the low budget we operate on, we are unable to pay board travel expenses. In the case of March 23 meeting the UM General Board of Church and Society will be paying your travel expenses for that weekend. Perhaps your conference can pay for your extra night at a hotel. Or we can arrange for host housing in Washington for that night. So I hope you can join our board. But if not, we will continue to work with you on issues of mutual concern. Shalom, Howard 10108.26.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] To: "Brenda Hardt" Dear Brenda, Would you be willing to join the Board of Directors of Methodists United for Peace with Justice? As you know, our primary emphasis is upon nuclear disarmament. We are playing an important role in mobilizing Methodists on this issue. Through my leadership role as chair of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament we are making a broader impact. Your knowledge of this issue and your practical grassroots experience would be an asset to our board. We are having our next board meeting on Friday, March 23, 2001 in Washington, D.C. That's the day before the United Methodist Legislative & Public Policy Briefing that you are likely to attend. Beyond that our board is scheduled to meet once a year, but because of travel costs the last couple of years we haven't met. Instead we have conferred by e-mail, regular mail, and telephone. In the future we will continue to rely on e-mail, may try to confer via a telephone conference call, and will get together at opportune times, such as this briefing. With the low budget we operate on, we are unable to pay board travel expenses. In the case of March 23 meeting the UM General Board of Church and Society will be paying your travel expenses for that weekend. Perhaps your conference can pay for your extra night at a hotel. Or we can arrange for host housing in Washington for that night. So I hope you can join our board. But if not, we will continue to work with you on issues of mutual concern. Shalom, Howard 10108.27.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:36 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Adrienne, Would you be willing to join the Board of Directors of Methodists United for Peace with Justice? As you know, our primary emphasis is upon nuclear disarmament. We are playing an important role in mobilizing Methodists on this issue. Through my leadership role as chair of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament we are making a broader impact. Your knowledge of this issue and your practical grassroots experience would be an asset to our board. We are having our next board meeting on Friday, March 23, 2001 in Washington, D.C. That's the day before the United Methodist Legislative & Public Policy Briefing that you are likely to attend. Beyond that our board is scheduled to meet once a year, but because of travel costs the last couple of years we haven't met. Instead we have conferred by e-mail, regular mail, and telephone. In the future we will continue to rely on e-mail, may try to confer via a telephone conference call, and will get together at opportune times, such as this briefing. With the low budget we operate on, we are unable to pay board travel expenses. In the case of March 23 meeting the UM General Board of Church and Society will be paying your travel expenses for that weekend. Perhaps your conference can pay for your extra night at a hotel. Or we can arrange for host housing in Washington for that night. So I hope you can join our board. But if not, we will continue to work with you on issues of mutual concern. Shalom, Howard 10108.28.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] X-Lotus-FromDomain: MCC From: [email protected] To: "Howard W. Hallman" To: "Howard W. Hallman" [ On 01/08/2001 11:02:28 AM, "Howard W. Hallman" To: Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament Dear Colleagues, We had an excellent briefing on Thursday, January 4 with Bruce Blair on de-alerting and Daryl Kimball on strategic arms reduction. Now we are ready to start Hill visits with staff of ten key senators. At our meeting we concluded that we should make use of George W. Bush's May 23, 2000 speech in which he spoke in favor of executive action for de-alerting and strategic arms reduction without prolonged treaty negotiations. (I've previously circulated copies of that speech.) We can ask the senators' staff how the senator feels about this kind of initiatives, whether s/he would support it, what concerns, etc. Since we met General John Shalikashvili has released his report to President Clinton on the CTBT. I am sending his article in the Washington Post of January 8 on his recommendations as an attachment. I propose that we also ask senators' staff on how the senator feels about General Shalikashvili's recommendations. Are you able and willing to join others from the faith committee on these Hill visits? . If so please reply, using the following checklist. We will start with ten senators initially. The delegation might consist of two or three people, so everyone won't have to go to all of them. If you have a good contact and would be willing to arrange the appointment, please indicate. Otherwise, I will take the lead in setting up appointments. Shalom, Howard ## Dear Howard, 10108.29.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] ___X_ Yes, I am willing to participate in visits to senatorial staff on nuclear disarmament issues depending on my time availability. - Daryl Byler ____ I am willing to join a delegation to any of the senators' staff. ____ I have a contact (marked with a "C" ) for those indicated. I would prefer to go only to certain ones (marked with a "Y"). Senators: Collins (ME) Snowe (ME) Jeffords (VT) Chafee (RI) Specter (PA) Lugar (IN) Hagel (NE) Domenici (NM) Smith (OR) Stevens (AK) Signed: Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\10108.081.doc" [ End of Original Text ] 10108.29.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] X-Authentication-Warning: oscar.speakeasy.net: majordom set sender to [email protected] using -f Reply-To: Dear Friends of Back From the Brink, Please forward the following message to your lists. We will send a final reminder after January 21st after the new administration takes office to up-date everyone on the status of the White House Comment line. The number will stay the same, however, the hours may change. That e-mail reminder will include a pop-up file. It’s a good attention-getter to send to those who have not yet become active with the campaign. ************************************************************* Dear Friends of the Brink Campaign. There are only 4 weeks left before the NATIONAL CALL-IN DAYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, February 5-6, 2001 to urge President-elect George W. Bush to reduce the danger of accidental nuclear war by working with the Russians to TAKE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS OFF HAIR-TRIGGER ALERT. The campaign is building rapidly with over 100 national, regional and local organizations participating. If there was ever a time to let a president know we want action on nuclear weapons, it is now and February 5 and 6 are the days to do it. The Campaign has several resources available to promote the Call-In Days among your friends, contacts, members and e-groups. Contact us at the e-mail address above for printed flyers available FREE in bulk, a downloadable flyer in .pdf format; a text announcement available via e-mail, and, after January 21st ,a pop-up e-mail announcement. If everyone contacts just 5 more friends, we can flood the switchboard and make the White House take notice. Thanks for being part of this fast growing movement to take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Let me know how things are going and how I can be of help. *********************************************************************** Esther Pank Back from the Brink Campaign 6856 Eastern Avenue, NW, # 322 10108.30.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] Washington DC 20012 202.545.1001 ph 202.545.1004 fax [email protected] www.backfromthebrink.org 10108.30.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" To: Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament In case you haven't seen it, here's the latest from Back from the Brink for National Call In Day. Please excuse the duplication if you're already received this message. Howard ### >Dear Friends of Back From the Brink, > >Please forward the following message to your lists. >We will send a final reminder after January 21st after the new >administration takes office to up-date everyone on the status of the White >House Comment line. The number will stay the same, however, the hours may >change. That e-mail reminder will include a pop-up file. It’s a good >attention-getter to send to those who have not yet become active with the >campaign. > >************************************************************* >Dear Friends of the Brink Campaign. > >There are only 4 weeks left before the NATIONAL CALL-IN DAYS TO THE WHITE >HOUSE, February 5-6, 2001 to urge President-elect George W. Bush to reduce >the danger of accidental nuclear war by working with the Russians to TAKE >ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS OFF HAIR-TRIGGER ALERT. > >The campaign is building rapidly with over 100 national, regional and local >organizations participating. If there was ever a time to let a president >know we want action on nuclear weapons, it is now and February 5 and 6 are >the days to do it. > >The Campaign has several resources available to promote the Call-In Days >among your friends, contacts, members and e-groups. Contact us at the e-mail >address above for printed flyers available FREE in bulk, a downloadable >flyer in .pdf format; a text announcement available via e-mail, and, after >January 21st ,a pop-up e-mail announcement. > >If everyone contacts just 5 more friends, we can flood the switchboard and >make the White House take notice. > >Thanks for being part of this fast growing movement to take nuclear weapons >off hair-trigger alert. Let me know how things are going and how I can be of >help. 10108.31.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] > >*********************************************************************** > >Esther Pank >Back from the Brink Campaign >6856 Eastern Avenue, NW, # 322 >Washington DC 20012 >202.545.1001 ph >202.545.1004 fax >[email protected] >www.backfromthebrink.org > > 10108.31.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Bob, Would you be willing to join the Board of Directors of Methodists United for Peace with Justice? As you know, our primary emphasis is upon nuclear disarmament. We are playing an important role in mobilizing Methodists on this issue. Through my leadership role as chair of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament we are making a broader impact. Your knowledge of this issue and your practical grassroots experience would be an asset to our board. We are having our next board meeting on Friday, March 23, 2001 in Washington, D.C. That's the day before the United Methodist Legislative & Public Policy Briefing that you are likely to attend. Beyond that our board is scheduled to meet once a year, but because of travel costs the last couple of years we haven't met. Instead we have conferred by e-mail, regular mail, and telephone. In the future we will continue to rely on e-mail, may try to confer via a telephone conference call, and will get together at opportune times, such as this briefing. With the low budget we operate on, we are unable to pay board travel expenses. In the case of March 23 meeting the UM General Board of Church and Society will be paying your travel expenses for that weekend. Perhaps your conference can pay for your extra night at a hotel. Or we can arrange for host housing in Washington for that night. So I hope you can join our board. But if not, we will continue to work with you on issues of mutual concern. Shalom, Howard 10108.32.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Catherine, Here is information on Donald Rumsfeld provided by John Isaacs, president, Council for a Livable World. Howard ### From: John Isaacs Blast From the Past: President-elect Bush Taps Ford's SecDef to Head the Pentagon: Donald Rumsfeld 'A consistent opponent of arms control' President-elect Bush, already surrounded by his father's advisors, reached further back into history with his choice of President Ford's former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to once again head the Pentagon. "Donald Rumsfeld is a dyed-in-the-wool hawk," said John Isaacs, President of the Council for a Livable World, a Washington-based arms control advocacy group. "He's been one of the high priests of national missile defense and a consistent opponent of arms control measures." Rumsfeld is a strong supporter of National Missile Defense who would likely advocate a much expanded version of the Clinton missile defense plan to be based in space, at sea and on land. He was the Chair of the 1998 Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the U.S., which hyped the threat of missile attacks on the United States. He is also a staunch opponent of preserving the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty: "If we relieve ourselves of the restrictions of (the ABM) Treaty so that we do not have to do contortions to do what is the quickest, cheapest, most effective way of (providing missile defense) . . . then the United States will be able to do it…" (News Hour with Jim Lehrer, 1/28/99) "He opposed the 1979 SALT II nuclear arms treaty and testified before Congress that the Chemical Weapons Convention, which former President Bush negotiated and Majority Leader Trent Lott supported, was "ineffective and unverifiable" Isaacs said. "He also opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty." In a 1999 letter to the Senate co-signed by Vice-president-elect Cheney and 10109.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] four other former defense secretaries, Rumsfeld argued that the global ban on nuclear tests "might cause additional nations to seek nuclear weapons." While Secretary of Defense from 1975-77, Rumsfeld consistently pushed for increased military spending. He was a strong supporter of the B-1 bomber, the Trident nuclear submarine, and the MX missile. John Isaacs Council for a Livable World 110 Maryland Avenue, NE - Room 409 Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 543-4100 x.131 www.clw.org 10109.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] From: Rachel Labush Dear Howard, __XX__ Yes, I am willing to participate in visits to senatorial staff on nuclear disarmament issues. depending on my time availability. __XX I am willing to join a delegation to any of the senators' staff. **(Most of our senior staff is out today. I do not yet have contacts personally, but if you would like me to try to use theirs, let me know).** Senators: Collins (ME) Snowe (ME) Jeffords (VT) Chafee (RI) Specter (PA) Lugar (IN) Hagel (NE) Domenici (NM) Smith (OR) Stevens (AK) Signed: Rachel Labush, Legislative Assistant Religious Action Center 2027 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202-387-2800 fax: 202-667-9070 [email protected] http://www.rac.org 10111.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:31:12 +0100 From: "Salpy Eskidjian" Dear Howard, All the best for a blessed 2001. Thank you very much for this and for your commitment. The WCC Executive Committee meeting end of January in Berlin will consider a statement on NATO policy and nuclear disarmament. The ecumenical delegation is still in our plans for 2001 and I just had a good discussion with Ernie Regehr about this. Once things are clear I will let you know. Thanks again and all the best, Salpy Eskidjian Salpy Eskidjian Programme Executive International Relations World Council of Churches, Geneva Tel: +41 22 791 6314 /5 Fax: +41 22 791 6122 e-mail: [email protected] WCC web site: http://www.wcc-coe.org >>> "Howard W. Hallman" Christmas greetings! I hope that you have a great 2001. With the U.S. election finally settled I have available a 17KB analysis of prospects for nuclear disarmament with the Bush Administration, written by John Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World. Guarded optimism. I will send you a copy if you want it. Will the Central Committee be considering a strong reaffirmation for elimination of nuclear weapons at its January meeting? I hope so. I renew my suggestion that you send a delegation to the heads of the nuclear-weapon states. President Bush needs to hear from the international religious community. If you need suggestions on channels of contact, let me know. However, Bob Edgar would probably have better access because of his official position. Shalom, Howard Howard W. Hallman, Chair Methodists United for Peace with Justice 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected] Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of 10111.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination. 10111.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] X-Sender: [email protected] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:09:03 -0500 To: "Howard W. Hallman" At 11:35 AM 1/8/01 -0500, you wrote: Howard: There is no indication unless it is the people who led your group at Kirkridge. I think that is where you said you got it. Sorry, I didn't realize this. Hope we have no major catastrophe on this. Jim >Dear Jim, > >I received Peace Leaf. It looks good except for one major error. I didn't >write the article on "International Nonviolent Peace Force." I was >something I received from a source I can't remember and forwarded to you. >I do recall now that you made reference to "my article", but I interpreted >that to mean the article I supplied you. > >Do you still have the manuscript that might indicate who the true author >is. I would like to get in touch with him, apologize, and indicate that we >will make a correction in the next issue. I don't want to add plagiarism >to my long list of sins. > >I definitely want to have a board of directors meeting in Washington on >March 25. I'll send out a communication on it shortly. > >I hope that Char and you are in good health. > >Shalom, >Howard 10111.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:32:43 -0800 From: Irene M Irving Good morning, Howard! Sorry I wasn't able to send this yesterday. I was oot all day! I think your best contacts for Maine and Vermont would be the following: The Rev. Donald Rudalevege, Portland, ME. (15 Pleasant Ave 04100 ) Tel. 207 - 773 - 4375 FAX 207 - 773 - 11 The Rev. David Purdy, Barrington, RI (305 Sowans Rd. 02806 ) Tel. 401 - 247 - 1819 FAX 401 - 245 - 7117 I am sure they would be able to help. Good Luck! We certainly are working on the same issues. Shalom, Irene 10111.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] From: Robin Ringler Howard, We have reserved room 4 for the following dates for the Committee for Nuclear Disarmament: > 2/13 > 3/13 > 4/10 > 5/8 > 6/12 > 7/10 > Robin 10111.05.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:33:33 -0800 (PST) From: hipkins james Howard: We may be able to attend the meeting. Schedule it and we will tenatively plan to be there. With Char's chemo it sometimes will not be good. So far she is tolderating it very well and it will be three days after her treatment. If everything goes as it is we will be able to be there. If there is any change we will let you know. Jim ______Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ 10111.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:37 PM] From: "Lisa Wright" I can do visits, schedule permitting. Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 1:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Computer mishap To: Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament Dear Colleagues: For some my reason my computer erased all incoming messages for part of the day, Tuesday, January 9. If you happened to contact me, such as accepting assignments to visit senators, please try again. Thanks, Howard Howard W. Hallman, Chair Methodists United for Peace with Justice 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected] Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination. 10111.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:51:50 -0600 From: William & Brenda Hardt Dear Howard: My own e-mail is [email protected]. Please update your "book". I would love to come a day early to Wash DC and attend the next meeting of MUPF and then decide if I could do it justice by joining the board.. Perhaps by then I will know if the conference has accepted my proposal to be a PwJ advocate in the 10-10-10 program. I have read your latest "Peace Leaf" and found it full of challenging and exciting initiatives. Will be in touch further. I am headed to a meeting 150 miles away as I have just been tapped to serve on Board of Managers for School of Christian Mission. Peace, Brenda William & Brenda Hardt wrote: > "Howard W. Hallman" wrote: > > > Dear Brenda, > > > > Would you be willing to join the Board of Directors of Methodists United > > for Peace with Justice? As you know, our primary emphasis is upon nuclear > > disarmament. We are playing an important role in mobilizing Methodists on > > this issue. Through my leadership role as chair of the Interfaith > > Committee for Nuclear Disarmament we are making a broader impact. Your > > knowledge of this issue and your practical grassroots experience would be > > an asset to our board. > > > > We are having our next board meeting on Friday, March 23, 2001 in > > Washington, D.C. That's the day before the United Methodist Legislative & > > Public Policy Briefing that you are likely to attend. Beyond that our > > board is scheduled to meet once a year, but because of travel costs the > > last couple of years we haven't met. Instead we have conferred by e-mail, > > regular mail, and telephone. In the future we will continue to rely on > > e-mail, may try to confer via a telephone conference call, and will get > > together at opportune times, such as this briefing. > > > > With the low budget we operate on, we are unable to pay board travel > > expenses. In the case of March 23 meeting the UM General Board of Church > > and Society will be paying your travel expenses for that weekend. Perhaps > > your conference can pay for your extra night at a hotel. Or we can arrange 10111.08.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] > > for host housing in Washington for that night. > > > > So I hope you can join our board. But if not, we will continue to work > > with you on issues of mutual concern. > > > > Shalom, > > Howard > > > > Howard W. Hallman, Chair > > Methodists United for Peace with Justice > > 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 > > Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected] > > > > Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of > > laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination. 10111.08.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-2098-979069485-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] To: X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-eGroups-From: [email protected] (Laura Rotolo) From: [email protected] Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:40:37 -0500 Subject: [abolition-caucus] Turner- Nunn announcement The original articles are at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33779-2001Jan8.html and http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/08/turner.foundation/index.html The text is below. ======Laura Rótolo, Program Assistant Middle Powers Initiative 727 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139, USA (617) 868-5050 x217 fax: (617) 868-2560 ====== Turner, Nunn Unveil 'Nuclear Threat Initiative' By Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 9, 2001; Page A18 CNN founder Ted Turner and former senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) yesterday formally unveiled plans for a Washington-based nonprofit organization that will focus on safeguarding nuclear weapons and fissile materials in the former Soviet Union. Turner, a media billionaire and philanthropist who has already pledged to donate $1 billion to the United Nations, said he would give $250 million to the so-called Nuclear Threat Initiative over the next five years because nuclear weapons represent "the greatest threat humanity faces" in the short term. "Despite the fact that we are no longer enemies, the U.S. and Russia still maintain nearly 3,000 nuclear weapons each on high alert," Turner said at the National Press Club. "An accidental exchange is not out of the question. In many ways, the threat has become more complex and dangerous." While noting that he personally favors the "complete elimination of all weapons of mass destruction," Turner said the Nuclear Threat Initiative would pursue "pragmatic and effective steps" to reduce the threat. Turner and Nunn will be co-chairmen of the organization. Its 11-member board of directors includes two senators, Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). "I'm just one voice in deciding how the money is distributed," Turner said. Nunn, who will also serve as the organization's chief executive, ran down a long list of possible projects for the new group, from funding nongovernmental organizations to aiding the families of underpaid Russian scientists who formerly produced nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. One immediate focus, Nunn said, would be to help consolidate fissile materials in the former Soviet Union so that they can be properly safeguarded. "There is tremendous vulnerability to theft and terrorism and illegal sales," Nunn said, adding that Russian scientists "are in great demand by terrorist groups, but don't know how to feed their families." Nunn said the organization also could serve as a venture capital fund in the former Soviet Union while contributing several million dollars a year to accelerating U.S. programs for converting weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to commercial uses. "There is a gap between the threat and the response, and we're going to try to help . . . as much as we possibly can," said Nunn, who served as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee before retiring in 1996. "Fifty million dollars a year sounds like an awful lot of money, but in the sea of challenges out there in this arena, this is small potatoes. But I think we can come in where there are niches, and we can be a catalyst." Nunn said the U.S. government clearly can do better on nonproliferation issues, and he challenged President-elect Bush to reexamine America's entire nuclear posture, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which the Senate rejected in 1999. Nunn said the United States has done more than any other government to help safeguard nuclear weapons and fissile materials in the former Soviet Union, calling on America's NATO allies and Japan to do far more. Nunn said two foreign experts in the field have agreed to join the Nuclear Threat Initiative's board -- former Swedish ambassador Rolf Ekeus, who headed the U.N. Special Commission in Iraq from 1991 to 1997, and Andrei Kokoshin, Russia's former first deputy defense minister who now serves in the Russian parliament. Another board member, former deputy secretary of energy Charles Curtis, will serve as the organization's chief operating officer. © 2001 The Washington Post Company ====== Ted Turner, Sam Nunn announce Nuclear Threat Initiative January 8, 2001 Web posted at: 7:22 p.m. EST (0022 GMT) January 8, 2001 Web posted at: 7:22 p.m. EST (0022 GMT) January 8, 2001 Web posted at: 7:22 p.m. EST (0022 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- CNN founder Ted Turner and former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia on Monday announced a private foundation dedicated to lessen the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical and biological -- around the globe. The announcement of the Nuclear Threat Initiative follows a feasibility study that began in July under the direction of Nunn. Turner says his goal is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Nunn says he lauds Turner's goal but doesn't yet see it as feasible. Turner pledged a budget of $50 million per year over the next five years to support the foundation that will be led by Nunn and work in concert with governmental and private efforts internationally. The announcement was made at the National Press Club, where Turner urged media to help the foundation in its efforts to increase awareness and understanding of the scope of the nuclear threat. The issue "seems to have fallen off most people's radar screens..." since the end of the Cold War, Turner said. Yet the United States and former Soviet Union states still have thousands of nuclear weapons on hand and "on high alert," he said. Turner said the threat of intentional nuclear exchange may indeed be diminished from the Cold War era, but the threats posed by security issues and deteriorating control technology have increased, and the possibility of an "accidental exchange is not out of the question." Turner said Nunn's undertaking would be to "take pragmatic and effective steps to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction as comprehensively and urgently as is feasible." Nunn said the emphasis of the foundation will be to "reduce the pressure on the nuclear trigger." He said that in order to reduce nuclear proliferation, the foundation would strive to bring trust and accountability to the process. Turner said he personally advocates the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction as soon as possible. "If fewer is better, then zero is best," he said. Nunn said he respects Turner's goal but doesn't yet see it as feasible "until much greater progress has been made in addressing the current dangers of nuclear use and proliferation, and in transforming the world by building transperancy, trust and new means of verification and security." From CNN.com eGroups Sponsor Click Here! To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account you wish to be subscribed to: "[email protected]" Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message. From: [email protected] Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:04:52 EST Subject: Re: Visits to senate offices: reply requested To: [email protected] X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 Dear Howard, Sorry I cannot get to D.C. to make the visitors to the Senators. I am tied up with the Small Arms PrepCom here in New York at the UN. Good luck and blessings, Carroll Houle, Maryknoll 10112.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] From: "James R. Green" Thanks, Howard, for the invitation. I am deeply honored to be considered for this group and do consider nuclear abolition to be of prime importance. My life is full enough now but maybe when someone else takes the PWJ Coordinator role.....I could concentrate on MUPWJ and Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance (OREPA). Rev. David Jackson is the likely one to go in my stead to the PWJ / GBCS meeting. If he could & would, is it OK to invite him to sit in on your session to get acquainted? We just received our copy of the Peace Leaf from Hipkins. (Sorry to hear of Char's masectomy.) We had already decided to run with the OREPA newsletter this round, so will NOT be inserting the Peace Leaf. I'm connected with 20/20 Vision and am impressed with their organization. Here comes President Bush and Rumsfeld. Maybe our perspective will get more attention in the crossfire. Seeking peace with justice, Carol E. Green ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard W. Hallman" > Dear Carol, > > Would you be willing to join the Board of Directors of Methodists United > for Peace with Justice? As you know, our primary emphasis is upon nuclear > disarmament. We are playing an important role in mobilizing Methodists on > this issue. Through my leadership role as chair of the Interfaith > Committee for Nuclear Disarmament we are making a broader impact. Your > knowledge of this issue and your practical grassroots experience would be > an asset to our board. > > We are having our next board meeting on Friday, March 23, 2001 in > Washington, D.C. That's the day before the United Methodist Legislative & > Public Policy Briefing that you are likely to attend. Beyond that our > board is scheduled to meet once a year, but because of travel costs the > last couple of years we haven't met. Instead we have conferred by e-mail, 10112.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] > regular mail, and telephone. In the future we will continue to rely on > e-mail, may try to confer via a telephone conference call, and will get > together at opportune times, such as this briefing. > > With the low budget we operate on, we are unable to pay board travel > expenses. In the case of March 23 meeting the UM General Board of Church > and Society will be paying your travel expenses for that weekend. Perhaps > your conference can pay for your extra night at a hotel. Or we can arrange > for host housing in Washington for that night. > > So I hope you can join our board. But if not, we will continue to work > with you on issues of mutual concern. > > Shalom, > Howard > > > Howard W. Hallman, Chair > Methodists United for Peace with Justice > 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 > Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected] > > Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of > laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination. > 10112.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] To: "James R. Green" At 10:02 PM 1/11/01 -0500, you wrote: .....Rev. David Jackson is the likely one to go in my stead to the PWJ / GBCS >meeting. If he could & would, is it OK to invite him to sit in on your >session to get acquainted?.... Carol, That's fine with me. We want to broaden our geographic coverage and would welcome some else from the Holston Conference if you cannot serve. Howard 10112.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] From: "Paul Lansu" To: "'Austria (E-mail 2)'" , "'Czech Republic'" , "'Dekkers Anton'" , "Dell'Olio Antonio (E-mail 2)" , "Dell'Olio Antonio (E-mail)" , "'Denmark'" , "'Flanders'" , "'Gaffney Pat'" , "'Germany'" , "'Hungary'" , "'Ireland'" , "Italy (E-mail)" , "Mens Arie PCNederland (E-mail)" , "'Messerschmidt Anette'" , "Molnar Peter (E-mail)" , "Molnar Tomas and Ludo (E-mail)" , "'Netherlands'" , "'Poland (E-mail 2)'" , "'Puerto Rico'" , "'Rassmussen Peter'" , "Renato Stefani (E-mail)" , "Ryzenko Jakub (E-mail)" , "'Saco Margarida'" , "'Small Nancy'" , "'United Kingdom'" , "'USA'" , "'Van Hecken Jef'" , "'AEFJN (E-mail)'" , "'Atwood David (E-mail)'" , "Basic UK (E-mail)" , "Basic US (E-mail)" , "'Beyers Jan (E-mail)'" , "'Camilleri Joseph Prof (E-mail)'" , "'Comiskey Joan Vince (E-mail)'" , "'Cordaro Tom (E-mail)'" , "Coughlan John (E-mail 2)" , "'De Vrieze Franklin (E-mail)'" , "'Delahaye Jos (E-mail)'" , "Hallman W. Howard (E-mail)" , "'Hally Cyril (E-mail)'" , "Heidegger Klaus (E-mail)" , "'IANSA Coordinator'" , "IPB International Peace Bureau G (E-mail)" , "'Isis Europe (E-mail)'" , "'Kerremans Bart (E-mail)'" , "'Lafouasse Michel (E-mail)'" , "Malsch Ineke (E-mail)" , "'Meeusen Frank (E-mail)'" , "'Mellon Christian (E-mail)'" , "'Morvan Guy (E-mail)'" , "'Pagnucco Ronald (E-mail)'" , "'Robinson Dave (E-mail)'" , "Rothbauer Holger (E-mail 2)" , "'Rothbauer Holger (E-mail)'" , "'Schennink Ben (E-mail)'" , "'Schneckenleitner Meinrad (E-mail)'" , "'Theunis Bart (E-mail)'" , "'Van Kemseke Peter (E-mail)'" , "'Wakim David (E-mail)'" , "'Wicker Brian (E-mail)'" , "Yasutomi Atsushi (E-mail)" , , "Arab Educational Institute (E-mail 2)" , "Arab Educational Institute (E-mail)" , "Budhdev Karishma AEI (E-mail)" , "Center for Peace, Non-violence and Human Rights Osijek (E-mail)" , , , , "Gielen Annemarie (E-mail)" , "Interchurch Partnership \"Apostolic City - Nevskaya Perspective\" (E-mail)" , , , , , , , , , , "Jordan Pancras (E-mail)" , "Sydney (E-mail 2)" , "Sydney (E-mail)" , , , , , "'Henry Michael (E-mail)'" CC: "'Coughlan John'" , "'Dennis Marie Marie'" , "'Froehlich Herbert'" , "'Luena Olive D.'" , "Maly Vaclav Mgr (E-mail)" , "'McTernan Oliver'" , "'Patriarch Sabbah Michel'" , "'Saldanha Virginia'" , "Saldanha Virginia (E-mail 2)" , "Saldanha Virginia (E-mail 3)" , "'Villanueva Cesar'" , "'Werleigh Claudette'" Subject: Call and Statement on Nuclear Disarmament Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:21:26 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: High X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: [email protected] X-Return-Path: [email protected] To all National Sections and Associated Groups To all Affiliated Organisations To the members of the Commission for Security, Demilitarisation and Arms Trade Ref.: 107PLE Brussels, 15 January 2001 Dear friends, Pax Christi International has been working and preparing a Call and Statement on Nuclear Disarmament. It took more than one year to prepare this project. All partners within our international Pax Christi network have had the change to contribute to this text. It is our aim to stimulate the debate on nuclear disarmament both within the Catholic Church (and the World Council of Churches) and within the International Community. This could strengthen the position of the Holy See on disarmament. Therefore, members of the hierarchy, presidents of national sections and all bishops members of Pax Christi International will be asked to give their agreement and name to the call/statement. This text contains two parts: a background briefing and a statement. It is suggested that the statement should be signed. Msgr. Michel Sabbah, President of Pax Christi International, already gave his name to the statement. All three former International Presidents[1] have also been invited to co-sign. Pax Christi International will approach Dr Konrad Raiser, the Secretary General of the World Council of Churches, to co-sign the statement as well. We would like to ask all of you to approach your presidents and bishops inviting them to co-sign the statement. Deadline is 31 March 2001. In April 2001, on the occasion of the meeting of our Executive Committee, we will be able to make this initiative public. We hope that we/you will able to make this initiative known to public, Churches and governments. We intend to have the statement available in English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese and German. We hope to have a good list of names. We thank you for your collaboration. With kind regards, Etienne De Jonghe International Secretary Ref.: SD.04.E.00 New Challenges on Nuclear Disarmament Agenda A Call and Statement on Nuclear Disarmament I. Background Briefing Pax Christi International stresses the need of the International Community and the Churches to insist once again on the continuing threat of nuclear weapons. We are at a very critical moment of new challenges to the international disarmament agenda. Statements alone will not be enough. Pax Christi International appeals to public opinion to raise its voice in the debate. Like Pax Christi International, numerous religious bodies have a long history of addressing nuclear weapons issues. Many have condemned nuclear weapons and called for their abolition. In their joint statement to the NPT Review PrepCom of April 1998, Cardinal Danneels, President of Pax Christi International, and Dr. Konrad Raiser, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, stated: “Nuclear weapons, whether used or threatened, are grossly evil and therefore morally wrong. As an instrument of mass destruction, nuclear weapons slaughter the innocent and ravage the environment.” In May 2000 at the conclusion of the Review Conference of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the major nuclear powers made an important new commitment. They promised to make “an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” True, a commitment to nuclear abolition was and is one of the obligations of the NPT itself (Art. VI); but the nuclear weapons states never took it seriously. Time and again the Holy See asked for an “unequivocal commitment” during interventions in the United Nations. Today, the window of opportunity for moves towards the elimination of nuclear weapons seems to be open again. However, there is still no concrete timeframe for the total abolition of nuclear weapons. The need for abolition exists because of a real possibility that nuclear weapons could be used in anger for the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with disastrous results for the whole of humanity. In recent years, we have witnessed policies by several states to extend the role for nuclear weapons in their security policies. India and Pakistan are the most prominent examples. The USA and the Russian Federation too are modernizing and extending the role of nuclear weapons. Public opinion takes little notice of the problem. This is due in part to the mistaken belief that with the end of the cold war nuclear weapons no longer pose serious dangers. However, the window of opportunity may be closed again if political leaders are not pressed by public opinion “to accomplish the total elimination” soon. Notwithstanding their proclaimed commitment to the nuclear disarmament required of them by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Nuclear Weapons States still insist that their own security depends on retaining nuclear weapons while at the same time insisting that the security of other states depends on their renunciation of exactly the same weapons. The incoherence of this position is obvious and must be rectified before it is too late. Some Special Dangers The Churches and other religious organisations can play an important role in informing public opinion of some of the dangers that confront our common security: 1. The likely further proliferation of nuclear weapons following the example of India and Pakistan, where there is a danger of nuclear weapons being used inadvertently or by miscalculation over (for example) the Kashmir dispute. 2. The danger of a nuclear strike elsewhere in the world by chance, accident or inadvertence. 3. The refusal of Cuba, Israel, India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT and to place their nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, or to accede to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 4. The refusal of North Korea to preserve and make available to the IAEA all information on its nuclear material, as it is obliged to do as a party to the NPT and its safeguard agreement with IAEA. 5. The presence, especially in Europe, of many tactical nuclear weapons. 6. The failure of the USA to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and to rule out the extension of the role of nuclear weapons deter attacks by other weapons of mass-destruction and attacks by terrorist groups and so-called “rogue states,” or “states of concern.” 7. The announcement by Russia of its intention to increase its reliance on nuclear weapons in response to its conventional military weakness and its sense of encirclement due to the expansion of NATO; and by China because of the alleged threat of Theatre Missile Defences in South East Asia. 8. The fact that the deployment of nuclear weapons provides a strong rationale for the development and proliferation of all kinds of weaponry, especially biological and chemical weapons, often thought of as the mass-destruction weapons “of the poor and the weak.” 9. US plans for “National Missile Defence,” a provocative and destabilising concept which threatens very serious damage to the arms control and disarmament efforts of other states. II. The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons - A Statement by Pax Christi International We call upon all states to put urgent negotiation of a nuclear disarmament convention at the top of the international agenda. We welcome the overwhelming support given to the “New Agenda Resolution” in the United Nations General Assembly in November 2000, including that of most (though regrettably not all) of the states which possess nuclear weapons. We see nuclear weapons abolition as a major component in the process of re-examining our traditional ideas about security and war. Our ultimate vision is of a peace built on common security based on justice and reconciliation. It is for all of us to work for the elimination of war, the priority of non-violence and the establishment of a global culture of peace. The Holy See has summarised the measures that need to be pursued at the present time; measures largely agreed by the expert opinion-makers: ”It should be an immediate objective of the international community to eliminate non-strategic nuclear weapons, de-alert weapons by removing warheads from delivery vehicles, establish a legally binding negative security assurance regime, and secure from the Nuclear Weapons States a pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.” Negotiations do not have to start from scratch. A detailed scheme for nuclear abolition has been prepared and is lodged with the United Nations. We welcome the recent vote at the United Nations affirming the need of a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally binding instrument or a framework encompassing a mutually reinforcing set of instruments for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free world, although we are disappointed that the New Agenda Resolution’s adopted text has weakened the sense of urgency present in the earlier drafts. Certain immediate steps should be taken which would move us closer to abolition. We urge: 1. Russia and the USA to make rapid progress towards Start III with lower limits than those envisaged at Helsinki. 2. The smaller Nuclear Weapons states to promote multilateral disarmament negotiations for the purpose of reducing nuclear arsenals in order to make progress towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The UK and France should take a lead here, by abandoning talk of relying on nuclear weapons for national security, promoting a no first use treaty among the Nuclear Weapons States, and announcing their intention not to replace their current arsenals at any time in the future. 3. All states to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and to promote its early entry into force. 4. The removal of nuclear weapons from the territory of all non-nuclear European states. 5. Nuclear weapons everywhere to be taken off alert, including removing warheads from all land-based missiles and placing them in secure internationally monitored storage. 6. A no first use pledge to be given by all nuclear weapon states, as a confidence building measure. 7. The establishment of nuclear weapon free zones where they do not yet exist, such as in the Middle East, Central Europe and South Asia. + Msgr. Michel Sabbah Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem President of Pax Christi International List of Signatures: [1] Bishop Luigi Bettazzi (1978 – 1985), Cardinal Franz König (1985 – 1990), and Cardinal Godfried Danneels (1990 – 1999) Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\image001.wmz" Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\image002.gif" Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\image003.gif" Pax Christi International International Secretariat Secrétariat International Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\oledata.mso" Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\SD04E00.doc" Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\107PLE.doc" From: "Paul Lansu" To: "'France (E-mail)'" , "Luxembourg (E-mail)" , "'Portugal'" , "'Roussel Luc'" , "'Saco Margarida'" , "'Switzerland (E-mail)'" , "'Wallonie Bruxelles'" , "'de França de Oliveira Maria Luisa'" , "'Monsengwo Msgr'" , "'Morvan Guy'" , "'Werleigh Claudette'" , "'AEFJN (E-mail)'" , "'Atwood David (E-mail)'" , "Basic UK (E-mail)" , "Basic US (E-mail)" , "'Beyers Jan (E-mail)'" , "'Camilleri Joseph Prof (E-mail)'" , "'Comiskey Joan Vince (E-mail)'" , "'Cordaro Tom (E-mail)'" , "Coughlan John (E-mail 2)" , "'De Vrieze Franklin (E-mail)'" , "'Delahaye Jos (E-mail)'" , "Dell'Olio Antonio (E-mail 2)" , "Dell'Olio Antonio (E-mail)" , "'Gaffney Pat (E-mail)'" , "Hallman W. Howard (E-mail)" , "'Hally Cyril (E-mail)'" , "Heidegger Klaus (E-mail)" , "'IANSA Coordinator'" , "IPB International Peace Bureau G (E-mail)" , "'Ireland (E-mail)'" , "'Isis Europe (E-mail)'" , "'Kerremans Bart (E-mail)'" , "'Lafouasse Michel (E-mail)'" , "Malsch Ineke (E-mail)" , "'Meeusen Frank (E-mail)'" , "'Mellon Christian (E-mail)'" , "'Pagnucco Ronald (E-mail)'" , "'Robinson Dave (E-mail)'" , "Rothbauer Holger (E-mail 2)" , "'Rothbauer Holger (E-mail)'" , "Ryzenko Jakub (E-mail)" , "'Schennink Ben (E-mail)'" , "'Schneckenleitner Meinrad (E-mail)'" , "'Theunis Bart (E-mail)'" , "'Van Hecken Jef (E-mail)'" , "'Van Kemseke Peter (E-mail)'" , "'Wakim David (E-mail)'" , "'Wicker Brian (E-mail)'" , "Yasutomi Atsushi (E-mail)" CC: "CPT Brazil National (E-mail)" , "Tutela Legal San Salvador (E-mail)" Subject: Appel et une déclaration sur le Désarmement nucléaire Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:25:39 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: [email protected] X-Return-Path: [email protected] Aux sections nationales et groupes associés Aux organisations affiliées Aux membres de la Commission Sécurité, Démilitarisation et Commerce des armes. Réf.: 107PLF Bruxelles, le 15 janvier 2001 Chers amis, Pendant plus d’un an Pax Christi International a travaillé et préparé Un appel et une déclaration sur le Désarmement nucléaire. Tous les partenaires du réseau international de Pax Christi ont eu la possibilité de contribuer à ce texte. Nous voulons stimuler le débat sur le désarmement nucléaire tant au sein de l’Eglise catholique (et du Conseil Œcuménique des Eglises) que dans la Communauté Internationale. Ce débat pourrait aider à renforcer la position du Saint Siège concernant le désarmement. A cette fin nous voudrions inviter les membres de la hiérarchie, les présidents des sections nationales et tous les membres de Pax Christi International à donner leur accord et leur nom à l’appel/déclaration. Le texte se compose de deux parties : un bref historique et une déclaration. La déclaration devrait être signée. Mgr. Michel Sabbah, Président de Pax Christi International, a déjà donné son nom. Les trois Présidents Internationaux précédents[i] ont également été invités à signer. Pax Christi International prendra contact avec le Dr Konrad Raiser, Secrétaire général du Conseil Œcuménique des Eglises, pour demander sa signature. Nous voudrions vous demander de prendre contact avec votre président et avec vos évêques afin de les inviter à co-signer la déclaration. Date limite : 31 mars 2001. En avril 2001, à l’occasion de la réunion du Comité Directeur, nous pourrions publier l’initiative.. Nous comptons sur votre aide pour atteindre le public en général, les Eglises et les gouvernements. La déclaration sera disponible en français, anglais, espagnol, néerlandais, portugais et allemand. Nous espérons arriver à une longue liste de noms. Merci pour votre collaboration. Salutations amicales, Etienne De Jonghe Secrétaire International Réf.: SD.04.F.00 Déclaration sur le Désarmement Nucléaire I. Rétroactes Pax Christi international souligne la nécessité pour la Communauté Internationale et pour les Eglises de mettre l’accent sur la menace persistante que constituent les armes nucléaires. Dans le processus de désarmement international, nous nous trouvons à un moment très critique en raison de nouveaux défis à relever. Les déclarations à elles seules ne seront pas suffisantes. Pax Christi international en appelle à l'opinion publique pour que celle-ci fasse entendre dans le débat. Comme pour Pax Christi international, de nombreuses institutions religieuses ont depuis longtemps abordé la question des armes nucléaires. Nombreuses sont celles qui ont condamné ces armes et en ont réclamé l’abolition. Dans leur déclaration commune d'avril 1998 adressée au Comité Préparatoire de Revision du Traité de Non-Prolifération Nucléaire (TNP), le Cardinal Danneels, Président de Pax Christi International, et le Secrétaire Général du Conseil Oecuménique des Eglises, le Dr Konrad Raiser, ont affirmé « que les armes nucléaires, qu'on les utilise ou qu'on en brandisse la menace, sont radicalement mauvaises et donc moralement condamnables. Comme instrument de destruction de masse, elles fauchent l'innocent et ravagent l'environnement. » En mai 2000 à l’issue de la Conférence de Révision du TNP de 1968, les principales puissances nucléaires ont pris un nouvel engagement important. Elles ont promis « d'entreprendre des actions sans équivoque pour réaliser l’élimination complète de leurs arsenaux nucléaires. » En réalité, l'engagement d'éliminer l’armement nucléaire était et est une des obligations du TNP lui-même (art. VI), mais les Puissances nucléaires n’ont jamais pris cette obligation au sérieux. Maintes et maintes fois, à l’occasion de ses interventions aux Nations Unies, le Saint-Siège a rappelé « cet engagement sans équivoque ». Aujourd’hui, semble se présenter à nouveau l’occasion de réaliser des progrès dans l'élimination de l’armement nucléaire. Cependant, il n'existe encore aucun calendrier précis pour cette complète abolition. Il y a cependant nécessité de le faire parce que se présente pour la première fois depuis Hiroshima et Nagasaki, un risque réel que des armes nucléaires soient, dans un accès de colère, utilisées avec des résultats désastreux pour l'Humanité tout entière. Ces dernières années, nous avons observé plusieurs Etats adopter une politique consistant à intégrer l’armement nucléaire dans leur stratégie de sécurité. L'Inde et le Pakistan en sont les exemples les plus remarquables. Les Etats-Unis et la Fédération Russe également sont en train de moderniser leur armement nucléaire et d’en renforcer le rôle. L'opinion publique prête peu d'attention à ce problème. Ceci est dû en partie à la croyance erronée qu'avec la fin de la Guerre Froide les armes nucléaires ne présentent plus de dangers sérieux. Cependant, la lucarne actuellement ouverte dans les perspectives d’abolition pourrait se refermer si les Dirigeants Politiques ne sont pas pressés par leur opinion publique « de réaliser rapidement l'élimination totale ». Malgré l'engagement de désarmement nucléaire qu'ils ont solennellement pris, et qui est au demeurant exigé d'elles par le Traité de Non-Prolifération Nucléaire, les Puissances Nucléaires insistent toujours sur le fait que leur propre sécurité dépend du maintien de l’armement nucléaire tandis qu'en même temps elles proclament que la sécurité des autres Etats dépend précisément de leur renonciation à ce même armement. L'incohérence de cette position est évidente et doit être rectifiée avant qu'il soit trop tard. De quelques dangers particuliers Les Eglises et d’autres Organisations religieuses peuvent jouer un rôle important dans la sensibilisation de l’opinion publique à certains dangers mettant en péril la sécurité commune. La poursuite probable de la prolifération des armes nucléaires, à l'exemple de l'Inde et du Pakistan où apparaît le risque que les armes nucléaires soient employées, par inadvertance ou par erreur de calcul, à l'occasion du conflit du Cachemire (par example); Le danger d'une frappe nucléaire ailleurs dans le monde, à la suite d’un hasard, d’un accident ou d’une inadvertance ; Le refus de Cuba, d'Israël, de l'Inde et du Pakistan de souscrire au TNP et de placer leurs installations nucléaires entièrement sous le contrôle de l'AIEA (Agence Internationale pour l'Energie Atomique), ou de souscrire au Traité d’Interdiction Totale des Essais Nucléaires ; Le refus de la Corée du Nord de conserver et de mettre à la disposition de l'AIEA toutes les informations sur son matériel nucléaire, comme elle est obligée de le faire comme partie au TNP et à son avenant de contrôle conclu avec l'AIEA ; La présence, particulièrement en Europe, de beaucoup d'armes nucléaires tactiques ; Le refus des Etats-Unis de ratifier le Traité d'Interdiction Totale des Essais Nucléaires et de renoncer à la mission impartie à l’armement nucléaire pour dissuader toutes agressions au moyen d'autres armes de destruction massive et des attaques menées par des groupes terroristes ou par des Etats qualifiés de "voyous", potentiellement agresseurs ; L'annonce par la Russie de son intention d’augmenter sa dépendance vis-à-vis de l’armement nucléaire, en raison d’une part de sa faiblesse militaire conventionnelle et de l’autre de la conviction qu’elle a de se trouver encerclée du fait de l'expansion de l'OTAN ; et pareillement par la Chine en raison de la prétendue menace constituée par le système de Missiles Tactiques déployé en Asie du Sud-Est ; Le fait que le déploiement d’armes nucléaires donne une réelle justification au développement et à la prolifération d’autres formes d’armement, particulièrement chimique et biologique, traditionnellement qualifié « d’armes du pauvre et du faible » ; Les plans américains de « Bouclier Nucléaire anti-Missiles », constituant un concept déstabilisant et provocateur menaçant gravement le contrôle des armements et les efforts de désarmement des autres Etats. II. L’Elimination de l’Armement Nucléaire – Une prise de position de Pax Christi International Nous en appelons à tous les Etats pour qu’ils placent à la première place de leurs priorités internationales des négociations urgentes en vue d’une Convention sur le Désarmement Nucléaire. Nous saluons le soutien inconditionnel accordé à « la Résolution sur un nouveau Timing » par l’Assemblée Générale de l’ONU en novembre 2000, et par la plupart (malheureusement pas par tous) des Etats possédant de l’armement nucléaire. Nous considérons l’abolition de l’armement nucléaire comme une composante capitale dans l’idée que nous nous faisons traditionnellement des concepts de guerre et de sécurité. La vision ultime que nous avons de la paix, est que celle-ci doit être bâtie sur des bases de commune sécurité, de justice et de réconciliation. C’est un devoir pour chacun d’entre nous de lutter pour éradiquer la guerre, pour donner la priorité à la non-violence et à construire une culture globale de paix. Le Saint-Siège a récapitulé les actions qui doivent être entreprises en ce moment, mesures qui ont l’accord de la plupart des leaders d’opinion, spécialistes en la matière : « Ce devrait être un objectif immédiat de la Communauté Internationale d'éliminer les armes nucléaires non-stratégiques, de désactiver les armes en enlevant les ogives des missiles-porteurs, d'instaurer un système garanti de sécurité négative légalement obligatoire, et d'obtenir des Etats nucléaires un engagement de ne pas être les premiers à utiliser les armes nucléaires. » Les négociations ne doivent pas commencer à zéro. Un projet détaillé pour l'abolition nucléaire a été préparé et a été remis aux Nations Unies. Nous saluons le vote récent de l’ONU proclamant la nécessité d’une Convention universelle, négociée multilatéralement et juridiquement contraignante ou à tout le moins un cadre général comportant un jeu d’instruments juridiques liés les uns aux autres visant à l’instauration d’un monde délivré de l’arme nucléaire, bien que nous soyons déçus par l’affaiblissement de la notion d’urgence dans la Résolution de Nouveau Timing par rapport à d’autres projets antérieurs. Voici, à entreprendre immédiatement, certaines des étapes qui nous rapprocheraient de l'abolition nucléaire. Nous réclamons: Des Etats-Unis et de la Russie qu’ils réalisent des progrès rapides dans le processus de START III avec des limites inférieures à celles qui avaient été envisagées à Helsinki. Des petites Puissances Nucléaires qu’elles favorisent des négociations de désarmement multilatérales dans le but de réduire les arsenaux nucléaires de manière à progresser vers l'élimination globale des armes nucléaires. Le Royaume-Uni et la France devraient prendre les devants, en abandonnant les pourparlers portant sur le recours à l’arme nucléaire pour des raisons de sécurité nationale, en favorisant un Traité par lequel les Puissances Nucléaires renonceraient au premier usage de cette arme, et en annonçant leur intention de renoncer à remplacer leur arsenal nucléaire actuel. De tous les Etats qu’ils ratifient le Traité d’Interdiction des Essais Nucléaires, et qu’ils favorisent sa rapide entrée en vigueur ; L’enlèvement de toute arme nucléaire actuellement entreposée dans un Etat non-nucléaire ; La désactivation partout des armes nucléaires, comportant l’enlèvement des ogives sur les missiles opérationnels, et leur stockage dans des endroits sûrs, contrôlés internationalement ; Un engagement de ne pas en faire usage le premier, à prendre par toutes les Puissances Nucléaires, comme mesure destinée à restaurer la confiance ; La création de zones dénucléarisées, là où elles n’existent pas encore présentes, comme au Moyen-Orient, en Europe Centrale et en Asie du Sud. + Mgr. Michel Sabbah Patriarche latin de Jérusalem Président de Pax Christi International Signataires : [i] Mgr Luigi Bettazzi (1978 1985), Cardinal Franz König (1985 – 1990) et Cardinal Godfried Danneels (1990 – 1999) Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\image0011.wmz" Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\image0021.gif" Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\image0031.gif" Pax Christi International International Secretariat Secrétariat International Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\oledata1.mso" Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\107PLF.doc" Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\SD04F00.doc" To all National Sections and Associated Groups To all Affiliated Organisations To the members of the Commission for Security, Demilitarisation and Arms Trade Ref.: 107PLE Brussels, 15 January 2001 Dear friends, Pax Christi International has been working and preparing a Call and Statement on Nuclear Disarmament. It took more than one year to prepare this project. All partners within our international Pax Christi network have had the change to contribute to this text. It is our aim to stimulate the debate on nuclear disarmament both within the Catholic Church (and the World Council of Churches) and within the International Community. This could strengthen the position of the Holy See on disarmament. Therefore, members of the hierarchy, presidents of national sections and all bishops members of Pax Christi International will be asked to give their agreement and name to the call/statement. This text contains two parts: a background briefing and a statement. It is suggested that the statement should be signed. Msgr. Michel Sabbah, President of Pax Christi International, already gave his name to the statement. All three former International Presidents1 have also been invited to co-sign. Pax Christi International will approach Dr Konrad Raiser, the Secretary General of the World Council of Churches, to co-sign the statement as well. We would like to ask all of you to approach your presidents and bishops inviting them to co-sign the statement. Deadline is 31 March 2001. In April 2001, on the occasion of the meeting of our Executive Committee, we will be able to make this initiative public. We hope that we/you will able to make this initiative known to public, Churches and governments. We intend to have the statement available in English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese and German. We hope to have a good list of names. We thank you for your collaboration. With kind regards, Etienne De Jonghe International Secretary 1 Bishop Luigi Bettazzi (1978 – 1985), Cardinal Franz König (1985 – 1990), and Cardinal Godfried Danneels (1990 – 1999) New Challenges on Nuclear Disarmament Agenda A Call and Statement on Nuclear Disarmament I. Background Briefing Pax Christi International stresses the need of the International Community and the Churches to insist once again on the continuing threat of nuclear weapons. We are at a very critical moment of new challenges to the international disarmament agenda. Statements alone will not be enough. Pax Christi International appeals to public opinion to raise its voice in the debate. Like Pax Christi International, numerous religious bodies have a long history of addressing nuclear weapons issues. Many have condemned nuclear weapons and called for their abolition. In their joint statement to the NPT Review PrepCom of April 1998, Cardinal Danneels, President of Pax Christi International, and Dr. Konrad Raiser, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, stated: “Nuclear weapons, whether used or threatened, are grossly evil and therefore morally wrong. As an instrument of mass destruction, nuclear weapons slaughter the innocent and ravage the environment.” In May 2000 at the conclusion of the Review Conference of the 1968 Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the major nuclear powers made an important new commitment. They promised to make “an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” True, a commitment to nuclear abolition was and is one of the obligations of the NPT itself (Art. VI); but the nuclear weapons states never took it seriously. Time and again the Holy See asked for an “unequivocal commitment” during interventions in the United Nations. Today, the window of opportunity for moves towards the elimination of nuclear weapons seems to be open again. However, there is still no concrete timeframe for the total abolition of nuclear weapons. The need for abolition exists because of a real possibility that nuclear weapons could be used in anger for the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with disastrous results for the whole of humanity. In recent years, we have witnessed policies by several states to extend the role for nuclear weapons in their security policies. India and Pakistan are the most prominent examples. The USA and the Russian Federation too are modernizing and extending the role of nuclear weapons. Public opinion takes little notice of the problem. This is due in part to the mistaken belief that with the end of the cold war nuclear weapons no longer pose serious dangers. However, the window of opportunity may be closed again if political leaders are not pressed by public opinion “to accomplish the total elimination” soon. Notwithstanding their proclaimed commitment to the nuclear disarmament required of them by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Nuclear Weapons States still insist that their own security depends on retaining nuclear weapons while at the same time insisting that the security of other states depends on their renunciation of exactly the same weapons. The incoherence of this position is obvious and must be rectified before it is too late. Some Special Dangers The Churches and other religious organisations can play an important role in informing public opinion of some of the dangers that confront our common security: 1. The likely further proliferation of nuclear weapons following the example of India and Pakistan, where there is a danger of nuclear weapons being used inadvertently or by miscalculation over (for example) the Kashmir dispute. 2. The danger of a nuclear strike elsewhere in the world by chance, accident or inadvertence. 3. The refusal of Cuba, Israel, India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT and to place their nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, or to accede to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 4. The refusal of North Korea to preserve and make available to the IAEA all information on its nuclear material, as it is obliged to do as a party to the NPT and its safeguard agreement with IAEA. 5. The presence, especially in Europe, of many tactical nuclear weapons. 6. The failure of the USA to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and to rule out the extension of the role of nuclear weapons deter attacks by other weapons of mass- destruction and attacks by terrorist groups and so-called “rogue states,” or “states of concern.” 7. The announcement by Russia of its intention to increase its reliance on nuclear weapons in response to its conventional military weakness and its sense of encirclement due to the expansion of NATO; and by China because of the alleged threat of Theatre Missile Defences in South East Asia. 8. The fact that the deployment of nuclear weapons provides a strong rationale for the development and proliferation of all kinds of weaponry, especially biological and chemical weapons, often thought of as the mass-destruction weapons “of the poor and the weak.” 9. US plans for “National Missile Defence,” a provocative and destabilising concept which threatens very serious damage to the arms control and disarmament efforts of other states. II. The Elimination of Nuclear Weapons - A Statement by Pax Christi International We call upon all states to put urgent negotiation of a nuclear disarmament convention at the top of the international agenda. We welcome the overwhelming support given to the “New Agenda Resolution” in the United Nations General Assembly in November 2000, including that of most (though regrettably not all) of the states which possess nuclear weapons. We see nuclear weapons abolition as a major component in the process of re-examining our traditional ideas about security and war. Our ultimate vision is of a peace built on common security based on justice and reconciliation. It is for all of us to work for the elimination of war, the priority of non-violence and the establishment of a global culture of peace. The Holy See has summarised the measures that need to be pursued at the present time; measures largely agreed by the expert opinion-makers: ”It should be an immediate objective of the international community to eliminate non- strategic nuclear weapons, de-alert weapons by removing warheads from delivery vehicles, establish a legally binding negative security assurance regime, and secure from the Nuclear Weapons States a pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.” Negotiations do not have to start from scratch. A detailed scheme for nuclear abolition has been prepared and is lodged with the United Nations. We welcome the recent vote at the United Nations affirming the need of a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally binding instrument or a framework encompassing a mutually reinforcing set of instruments for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free world, although we are disappointed that the New Agenda Resolution’s adopted text has weakened the sense of urgency present in the earlier drafts. Certain immediate steps should be taken which would move us closer to abolition. We urge: 1. Russia and the USA to make rapid progress towards Start III with lower limits than those envisaged at Helsinki. 2. The smaller Nuclear Weapons states to promote multilateral disarmament negotiations for the purpose of reducing nuclear arsenals in order to make progress towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The UK and France should take a lead here, by abandoning talk of relying on nuclear weapons for national security, promoting a no first use treaty among the Nuclear Weapons States, and announcing their intention not to replace their current arsenals at any time in the future. 3. All states to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and to promote its early entry into force. 4. The removal of nuclear weapons from the territory of all non-nuclear European states. 5. Nuclear weapons everywhere to be taken off alert, including removing warheads from all land-based missiles and placing them in secure internationally monitored storage. 6. A no first use pledge to be given by all nuclear weapon states, as a confidence building measure. 7. The establishment of nuclear weapon free zones where they do not yet exist, such as in the Middle East, Central Europe and South Asia. + Msgr. Michel Sabbah Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem President of Pax Christi International List of Signatures: To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Larry, I have two Wednesday appointments set up with senators' defense aides: Wednesday, January 17, 1:00 p.m.with Ken Meyers in Senator Lugar's office, 306 Hart. Wednesday, January 24, 10:00 a.m. with Lori Schultz-Heim in Senator Jeffords' office, 728 Hart. Could you go to either? Howard 10112.08.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Lisa, Here are the appointments with senators' staff that I have lined up so far. Can you go to one or more? If so, please call me at 301 896-0013 or respond by e-mail. I'll give more details for the ones you can go to. Wed, Jan. 17, 1:00 p.m. Lugar Thurs, Jan. 18, 2:00 p.m., Snowe Fri. Jan. 19, 2:00 p.m., Chafee Mon, Jan. 22, 2:00 p.m., Collins Wed, Jan. 14, 10:00 a.m., Jeffords Howard 10112.09.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-2149-979339141-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] X-eGroups-From: WILPF This email is to update you on WILPF's RCW project. Please feel free to send feedback. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org In the next week all documents from the 2000 NPT RevCon will be on line: the verbatim records, as well as conference and main committee papers. These will be available on this link late next week: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/NPTDocuments/NPT_docs_index.html You will recall that point 4 reads: The necessity of establishing in the Conference on Disarmament an appropriate subsidiary body with a mandate to deal with nuclear disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament is urged to agree on a programme of work which includes the immediate establishment of such a body. WILPF will place all CD speeches and documents on line as we did for the First Committee of the UNGA. We hope this simple information 10113.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] provision will provide the raw materials many NGOs need to work effectively on the national level, supplementing the analysis of the Acronym Institute. We will send a very short weekly email to indicate the availability of documents. The list will be primarily made up of NGOs in the 66 countries of the CD, and more widely. Please indicate your interest by return email. We will also soon have 3 postcard and poster designs ready for distribution. One long poster will feature 13 sturdy bright sunflowers rooted in the 13 points of the NPT Action Plan, another features a big retro 50's bus containing diverse happy people with 13 pieces of luggage on top of the bus containing 13 points of the NPT action plan, written on side of bus: Disarmament, Get On the Bus. Yet another is a group of people dragging a bull by the horns into a field of sunflowers, Disarmament, We are Taking the Bull by the Horns, which will feature as many of the public opinion polls that can fit. We hope to distribute these far and wide to brighten your offices and homes and to assist in your public education work. Best wishes Felicity 10113.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:03:55 -0800 (PST) From: Egbert Lawrence --- "Howard W. Hallman" ______Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ 10113.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] From: "Lisa Wright" Howard, my schedule wasn't as free as I thought next week! I can make the meeting on Friday with Chafee, no problem, and if you get to a point where you don't have others, I might be able to make the meeting on the 18th with Snowe. Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 3:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Senate visits Lisa, Here are the appointments with senators' staff that I have lined up so far. Can you go to one or more? If so, please call me at 301 896-0013 or respond by e-mail. I'll give more details for the ones you can go to. Wed, Jan. 17, 1:00 p.m. Lugar Thurs, Jan. 18, 2:00 p.m., Snowe Fri. Jan. 19, 2:00 p.m., Chafee Mon, Jan. 22, 2:00 p.m., Collins Wed, Jan. 14, 10:00 a.m., Jeffords Howard Howard W. Hallman, Chair Methodists United for Peace with Justice 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected] Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination. 10113.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] To: mupjbd From: "Howard W. Hallman" January 13, 2001 To: Board of Directors There will be a meeting of the Board of Directors of Methodists United for Peace with Justice on Friday, March 23, 2001 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. It will be held at Foundry United Methodist Church, 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. Although we are unable to pay travel expenses of board members, we can offer host housing in the Washington area. Please let me know whether you can attend and whether you need host housing or assistance in making a hotel reservation. Board Membership Among other items of business we will consider selection of additional board members. The current board consists of Camille Anders, Rev. Joy Arthur, Kathleen Brown, Joan Chapin, Rev. Bruce Edwards, Howard Hallman, Sherman Harris, Charlotte Hipkins, Rev. James Hipkins, Rev. John Mecartney, Phillip Miller, Rev. Schuyler Rhodes, Harris Tay, and Donald Whitmore. Tay attended two years ago as a youth representative, but we've lost track of him. Because United Methodist conference peace with justice coordinators will be attending a meeting called by the UM General Board of Church and Society for March 24-26, I have taken the liberty of inviting five of them to join the board: Carol Green from Tennessee, Carol Windrum from Nebraska, Brenda Hardt from Texas, Adrienne Fong from California, and Robert Hughes from Washington. I wanted to reach them before they locked in travel plans. So far, Carol Green has declined but suggested the Holston Conference delegate to the GNCS meeting, Rev. David Jackson; I told her to invite him. Brenda Hardt will participate on March 23 and then decide whether to join. I haven't heard from the others yet. Up to mid-February we could invite your suggestions to join us in March. Otherwise, bring your nominations to the meeting. National Advisory Committee I believe that we need to reconstitute the National Advisory Committee. The way we are now functioning, their main role is to appear on our letterhead to help provide legitimacy. We don't communicate with them for advice. In recent years we haven't even contacted them annually to ask if they want to continue serving, as required by our bylaws. I would like to make a fresh start, perhaps retain a few but replace many of them. I want your advice on this and your suggestions for National Advisory Committee membership. The present membership consists of Betty Bumpers, Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell, Bishop Judith Craig, Richard Deats, Dr. Robert Edgar, Dr. Alan Geyer, Geraldine Heilman, Edward Helm, Bishop J. Clinton Hoggard, Bishop Leontine T.C. Kelly, Bishop Hae-Jong Kim, Dr. W. Astor Kerk, Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, Bishop Roy Sano, Rev. Peter Sun, Bishop Frederick H. Talbot, Rev. Spencer Turnipseed, Rev. Dr. J. Philip Wogaman, Bishop Joseph H. Yeakel. Other Matters 10113.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] I will communicate with you on other matters before the board meeting. If you have ideas to share, please send them to me to distribute Or, you can reply to all on the e-mail list, and I'll send copies to members who don't have e-mail. I look forward to seeing you in March. Shalom, Howard 10113.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] To: phil From: "Howard W. Hallman" Phil, I need more stamps. Please provide me a check for $68 (200 X $.34) Thanks, Howard 10113.08.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:38 PM] To: "Char Hipkins" Char, I hope your health is progressing satisfactorily. We are carrying Camille Anders on our Board of Directors list even though we never got her to a meeting. Is she still interested? If so, can you provide me an address. Thanks, Howard 10113.09.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] From: "Bob and Elaine Tiller" I myself probably will not be participating in any of these visits. I guess you had some conversations with Ken Sehested about trying to get BPFNA members involved. He has the last word on BPFNA's involvement. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Howard W. Hallman > To: Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament > > Dear Colleagues, > > We had an excellent briefing on Thursday, January 4 with Bruce Blair on > de-alerting and Daryl Kimball on strategic arms reduction. Now we are > ready to start Hill visits with staff of ten key senators. > > At our meeting we concluded that we should make use of George W. Bush's May > 23, 2000 speech in which he spoke in favor of executive action for > de-alerting and strategic arms reduction without prolonged treaty > negotiations. (I've previously circulated copies of that speech.) We can > ask the senators' staff how the senator feels about this kind of > initiatives, whether s/he would support it, what concerns, etc. > > Since we met General John Shalikashvili has released his report to > President Clinton on the CTBT. I am sending his article in the Washington > Post of January 8 on his recommendations as an attachment. I propose that > we also ask senators' staff on how the senator feels about General > Shalikashvili's recommendations. > > Are you able and willing to join others from the faith committee on these > Hill visits? . If so please reply, using the following checklist. We > will start with ten senators initially. The delegation might consist of > two or three people, so everyone won't have to go to all of them. If you > have a good contact and would be willing to arrange the appointment, please > indicate. Otherwise, I will take the lead in setting up appointments. > > Shalom, 10116.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] > Howard > > ## > > Dear Howard, > > ____ Yes, I am willing to participate in visits to senatorial staff on > nuclear disarmament issues. > depending on my time availability. > > ____ I am willing to join a delegation to any of the senators' staff. > > ____ I have a contact (marked with a "C" ) for those indicated. I would > prefer to go only to certain ones (marked with a "Y"). > > Senators: > Collins (ME) > Snowe (ME) > Jeffords (VT) > Chafee (RI) > Specter (PA) > Lugar (IN) > Hagel (NE) > Domenici (NM) > Smith (OR) > Stevens (AK) > > Signed: > > > 10116.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] From: "Bob and Elaine Tiller" Yes, I am finally getting over my respiratory ailment. I have been struggling with it for a long time, five or six weeks. On the other hand, the intestinal flu went away quickly. My wife will begin radiation treatment for her cancer in a few days. I will be in Africa on a Bread for the World trip on February 13. Maybe I can make the March meeting. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Howard W. Hallman > At 08:06 PM 1/7/01 -0500, you wrote: > >Howard, > > > >....Maybe I will make the next meeting. What is the date and time? And did > >anything urgent come out of Thursday's meeting?.... > > Bob, > > The next meeting will be Tuesday, February 13. We will meet on the second > Tuesday of each for the rest of the year except August. A separate memo > reports on Thursday's meeting. > > I hope both you and your wife are better. > > Shalom, > Howard > > > 10116.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] X-Sender: [email protected] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:21:58 -0800 To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: Jackie Cabasso http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=nukes.0114 Monday Jan 15, 2001 Mini-nuke tests go virtual By Michael Stoll Of the Examiner Staff Sometime around 2008, physicists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory plan to spark a fusion reaction in a large dome, using the world's most powerful laser array to heat a BB-sized pellet to 100 million degrees -- hotter than the core of the sun. This will be no academic exercise: the data could lead them someday to a source of clean and plentiful power. But it will also demonstrate what happens the instant a thermonuclear bomb ignites, which the Department of Defense hopes will aid the design of miniature, ground-penetrating nuclear weapons that can take out an underground bunker without also killing everyone for miles around. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden beware: America is looking at ways to make small-scale nuclear "smart bombs" practical. One hurdle for our military had been the end of testing. The United States has not exploded a nuclear bomb since 1992, and the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signed by United States and 159 other countries, would, if ratified, prohibit nuclear testing forever. So government scientists are trying to show, through elaborate physics experiments and computer simulations, that new weapons and new uses for old weapons will work. As long as those bombs do not actually exist, the military can avoid running afoul of the test ban or Congressional prohibitions on building "low-yield" nuclear warheads. Anti-nuclear activists angrily object, saying that smaller nuclear weapons would be more likely to be used in battle. But defense officials justify this line of research by saying they need a new generation of weapons to maintain a technical edge over rogue nations and terrorists. Though the experiments at the half-finished $3.9 billion National Ignition Facility at Livermore will be the most ambitious, they are just a small part of this effort. Similar research is happening right now at more than a dozen other national labs, as computer programmers and technicians piece together an elaborate model of the damage hypothetical new munitions 10116.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] could do to tunnels, buried command-and-control centers and other so-called "hard targets." The Livermore lab, 35 miles east of San Francisco, is also home to the world's fastest supercomputer, IBM's ASCI White, which can produce 12 trillion calculations per second and will be used to simulate three-dimensional models of nuclear explosions of any size. At the Nevada Test Site, where 928 nuclear bombs were exploded above and below ground over 41 years, scientists are carving tunnels into the desert to test nuclear shock patterns using high-yield conventional explosives. And at Arnold Air Force Base in Tennessee they use the Decade Radiation Test Facility to expose bomb parts to levels of x-rays found only in a nuclear blast. All this research is being done in the name of the Science-Based Stockpile-Stewardship program, the $5.1 billion-per-year Department of Energy effort to ensure that the U.S. nuclear weapons remains "safe, secure and reliable." Proponents of the program say its goal is merely to make sure existing weapons work and are refurbished when they age. But internal Defense Department documents, released to the Western States Legal Foundation, an Oakland-based anti-nuclear group, show that the military's view of future uses of the program includes the creation of new weapons systems. "Precision engagement requires development of more discriminate weapons that have the lethality needed to hold difficult-to-kill targets at risk with minimized collateral effects," defense officials wrote in the Defense Technology Area Plan, dated February 2000. Testifying before Congress this fall in hearings on funding for the Stockpile Stewardship program, Brig. Gen. Thomas F. Gioconda, acting deputy administrator for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the Department of Energy has so far dismantled 12,000 nuclear weapons. And he insisted that Army and Navy are not creating any new weapons, nor have they done so for 11 years. In 1994, Congress specifically prohibited research and development on low-yield nuclear weapons, which produce a blast of five kilotons or less -- about a third the power of the bomb that devastated Hiroshima in 1945. But another senior defense official familiar with nuclear strategy said part of stockpile stewardship is the ability to design new weapons quickly if the United States were to change policy and authorize low-yield weapons development. "It's really a 'what-if,'" the defense official said on the condition his name not be used. "We'd be prepared to have the answer, if and only if we were given permission in the future to proceed on such a course. They're only concepts and we don't have any permission to ask the Department of Energy to build new weapons." Andrew Lichterman, a researcher at Western States, said that while this research does not seem to violate any law, it treads close to the line that Congress drew in 1994. He also said it undercuts efforts to achieve a 10116.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] viable non-proliferation treaty, which calls on existing nuclear powers to de-emphasize, and eventually eliminate, nuclear weapons. "The broad representation to the U.S. public of the Stockpile Stewardship program is that it is merely to maintain the existing stockpile as we move toward their elimination," Lichterman said. "This is the clearest and most specific evidence we have found that they are using this program to make nuclear weapons more usable." The Defense Technology Area Plan, an annual internal policy review, became restricted as of three years ago. Lichterman filed a request with the Defense Department through the Freedom of Information Act last July. The documents also discuss other weapons, such as the B61-11 gravity bomb, which has been modified to work as a ground penetrator. The senior defense official said that was permitted because it was not a "new" weapon. "The nuclear part of the B61 was unchanged," the official said. "So the fact that we put a new case on an existing weapon, I don't consider that a new weapon. I think it's permissible to create a capability with an existing weapon." Pentagon critics say this contradicts public statements about what Stockpile Stewardship is all about. "If we were just maintaining the existing stockpile until such time as we could eliminate nuclear weapons pursuant to an international agreement, would we need the current Stockpile Stewardship program?" said Christopher Paine, who has researched the program for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The answer is no. We would want something that is far smaller and simpler. It was sold to a cadre of Democrats and liberals who supported the test ban as an essential ingredient of the U.S. capability to maintain weapons under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The truth is the stockpile program is the capacity to maintain weapons -- and a lot more." Greg Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group in Santa Fe, N.M., said the Department of Energy is misleading the public about the work of the program. "There is definitely active deception going on with respect to Congress and ordinary folks and employees," he said. "The lab people know what to do to sell their bombs. They've adopted an industrial paradigm, and they have an industrial culture that searches for new niches for nuclear bombs." The Department of Energy, which runs the National Laboratories and builds nuclear weapons for the military, says it has no plans to build new bombs anytime soon. "We are not developing any new nuclear weapons," said Floyd Thomas, a spokesman for the department's National Nuclear Security Administration. "If somebody's up in some other agency thinking of new weapons, we wouldn't know about it." Some scientists, while sympathizing with activists' political 10116.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] complaints, dismiss their attacks on experimental and computational modeling of nuclear explosions. Wolfgang Panofsky, the retired director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in Palo Alto, said that even though he and other physicists are opposed to producing low-yield nuclear bombs, he sees nothing wrong with basic research short of designing new weapons for production. Raymond Jeanloz, a professor of Earth and planetary science at the University of California at Berkeley and a Stockpile Stewardship consultant for the Energy Department, said the program is also necessary to train a new generation of nuclear scientists. In the next 10 years, most government physicists with experience in nuclear testing and design will retire, so a large part of nuclear weapons research is meant to keep that nuclear know-how alive. U.S. scientists must practice their skills, he said, lest they forget how to maintain and build new weapons systems in a time of need. "If we as a nation have nuclear weapons, the scariest thing would be to let the weapons decay and the expertise of the people who are handling them decay," he said. Yet he questions whether secrecy about the research is the best policy for the long term. "This is a fact of our country and we have to keep examining this," Jeanloz said. "We are participants as taxpayers. The worst thing would be for the public to forget that we have nuclear weapons." - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[email protected]" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. 10116.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] To: [email protected] Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:12:40 +0000 Subject: Visits to Offices of Senators X-Mailer: Juno 4.0.11 From: [email protected] Dear Howard, Bill Price, World Peacemakers has asked me to stand in for him at subject. With no connections, any would serve as well as another, so put me in where you need another "warm body". To fit my schedule a choice or two will help. Bob Pettigrew 703/442-9887 e address above. ____ Yes, I am willing to participate in visits to senatorial staff on nuclear disarmament issues. depending on my time availability. ____ I am willing to join a delegation to any of the senators' staff. ____ I have a contact (marked with a "C" ) for those indicated. I would prefer to go only to certain ones (marked with a "Y"). Senators: Collins (ME) Snowe (ME) Jeffords (VT) Chafee (RI) Specter (PA) Lugar (IN) Hagel (NE) Domenici (NM) Smith (OR) Stevens (AK) Signed: ______GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. 10117.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-2186-979696621-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Sender: [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: Carah Lynn Ong Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:41:31 -0700 Subject: [abolition-caucus] Abolition 2000 Grassroots Newsletter January 2001 Vol. III Number 1 Abolition 2000 Grassroots Newsletter January 2001 Vol. III Number 1 ********************* IN THIS EDITION ********************* I. Articles II. Abolition 2000 Organizations in the Year 2000 III. Announcements IV. Calendar Events V. Resources ************* ARTICLES ************* Nuclear Disarmament Days in France For the first time in France, French organizations who are members of the international network "Abolition 2000" have planned Nuclear Disarmament Days that will be held in Saintes on 4-6 May 2000. Action of the citizens for nuclear disarmament (ACDN) is organizing the activities in Saintes. These days are supported by the town council of Saintes which is, at the moment, the first and only French town member of "Abolition 2000". During the Nuclear Disarmament Days, there will be many informational meetings, to think about and discuss nuclear abolition. Also, there will be shows and public demonstrations including the lighting of 2000 candles for nuclear disarmament. On Saturday morning there will be a round-table discussion on the abolitionist movement. Several well-known anti-nuclear activists from the US, including Sally Light, Executive Director of the Nevada Desert Experience, will participate and present information in regards to the growing global movement for nuclear weapons abolition. If you would like to participate in the Nuclear Disarmament Days on 4-6 May 2000 or if you would like more information, please send an email to ACDN France at: US Plans for New, Warfighting Uses of Nuclear Weapons Revealed The Western States Legal Foundation, based in Oakland, California, obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act revealing that the US is conducting research to make nuclear weapons more useable against a variety of targets. According to the US Department of Defense's (DoD) "Defense Science and Technology and Strategy and Plans," dated February 2000, the US is actively pursuing research to develop lowyield nuclear weapons effective against underground targets. A stated goal for 2001 is to "Demonstrate the effectiveness of nuclear weapons capabilities in defeating deep structures using precise, lowyield attacks by HE [High Explosives] simulation." Andrew Lichterman, WSLF Program Director, explained: "These plans make clear that the US Stockpile Stewardship’ program, portrayed to the public as designed solely to preserve the existing stockpile, is part of a continuing effort to expand the role of nuclear weapons in warfare." One of the projects the DoD plans is to "conduct laser/fireball test in National Ignition Facility (NIF) to improve understanding intunnel airblast." The NIF is also slated to be used for "nuclear effects xray testing." Now under construction at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, the NIF has been criticized for its multibillion dollar price tag and questionable scientific merit. Lichterman concluded: "The opportunity to escape the constant threat of nuclear destruction, which arrived with the end of the Cold War, is slipping away. The US is preparing to continue the nuclear arms race into the 21st century. It's time for a real national debate on these issues before it is too late." The US committed itself to "a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons will ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination," at the 2000 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. Citations and additional details from the DoD's "Defense Science and Technology Strategy and Plans" are available from Western States Legal Foundation on request. For more information, please contact: Andrew Lichterman [email protected] Jackie Cabasso [email protected] Western States Legal Foundation +1(510) 839-5877 ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< NMD Protests Continue at Menwith Hill On the evening of Wednesday 10 January 2001 Lindis Percy and Anni Rainbow, Co-coordinators of the Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases(CAAB), quietly obstructed traffic going in and out of NSA Menwith Hill for approximately two hours. Lindis held an American Stars and Stripes flag bearing the words 'STOP STAR WARS' and walked backwards and forwards across the Main Entrance. She was warned that she would be arrested for Obstruction of the Highway under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 if she continued. However, she was not arrested. Anni spent some time trying to get past Ministry of Defense (MoD) guards at the entrance barrier in an attempt to convey the message to the US military. She was warned that if she continued she would be arrested under Section 68, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 for the offence of Aggrevated Trespass (on instruction from 'higher up'). She also was not arrested. On this occasion neither Lindis nor Anni were arrested although charges have been brought against them previously for similar actions. A MoD police officer agreed that Anni was in breach of the Military Land Act Bylaws but although the Bylaws were in force he refused to arrest her for the admitted breach. The action was part of CAAB's continuing campaign of protest against the US National Missile Defense (NMD) system. A formal request from the US Government to the UK Government for the use of NSA Menwith Hill (and Fylingdales) for NMD is expected. The new Spaced Based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellite dishes and radomes at NSA Menwith Hill are crucial to NMD. On Saturday 20 January, the day George W Bush is to be inaugurated as the next US President, CAAB will protest peacefully again at NSA Menwith Hill from 10am - 2pm. If you are interested in participating or would like to send a message of solidarity, please contact: Lindis Percy and Anni Rainbow CAMPAIGN FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF AMERICAN BASES (CAAB) 8 Park Row, Otley, West Yorkshire, LS21 1HQ, England, U.K. Tel/fax no: +44 (0)1943 466405 0R +44 (0)1482 702033 email: [email protected] Website: http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/caab/ ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< Stop Star Wars in its Tracks On September 1, 2000, President Clinton the left the decision on whether or not to deploy a National Missile Defense (NMD) for the next administration. Leading up to his decision, President Clinton concluded that the operational effectiveness and confidence in the technology were not sufficient enough to make such a decision. President Clinton also took into account the legal and political ramifications of NMD deployment but was unable to conclude whether or not NMD enhanced overall US security. However, despite vehement opposition to deploying a NMD system from China, Russia and even some allies, President Clinton ordered the Pentagon to proceed with a robust research and development plan. With George W. Bush as the next US President, the new administration is preparing to fast track the national missile defense (NMD) system currently being tested and developed. Bush is prepared to spend $120 billion or more on a fatally flawed system. His plans are being driven by Vice President Dick Cheney and nominated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Bush announced at a meeting with congressional leaders in Austin, Texas on 8 January 2001 that strengthening the military is one of his top priorities and NMD is one of his three principle campaign commitments. General Colin Powell, Bush's choice for Secretary of State, is also a supporter of missile defense will have the responsibility of selling NMD plans to US allies. All of Bush's team envisions a much bigger system than the previous administration had proposed. The deployment of an NMD system will no doubt have negative security consequences, both in the US and internationally. Here are some action ideas that individuals everywhere can do to Stop Star Wars in its Tracks! 1. If you are a US citizen, call or write to your elected representatives and tell them not to support the Bush Administration's NMD plans. In your letter request an end to BMD funding and an end to the nuclearization and weaponization of outer space. US Congressional Switchboard: +1 (202) 224-3121 2. If you are not a US citizen, call or write your head of government and urge them to tell Bush to halt plans to deploy a NMD system. 3. Visit http://www.space4peace.org learn more about international actions to stop NMD and the nuclearization of Outer Space 4. View international perspectives on US ballistic missile defense plans on the Foundation's website http://www.wagingpeace.org/resources/index.html 5. Join the international fax campaign to say no to Star Wars. Visit the Abolition 2000 website to view sample letters to send to Bush and the incoming administration. ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< Gensuikyo Calls for International Ban on Depleted Uranium On 13 January 2001, Gensuikyo sent two letters, one addressed to the governments of the US, UK and the NATO Headquarters at the UN and another addressed to the Japanese government calling for a thorough investigation and international ban on depleted uranium (DU) weapons. DU shells were massively used by US forces during the Gulf War in 1991, and a high incidence of radiation diseases occurs among not only Iraqi residents but also US military personnel who took part in the war operation. Nevertheless, the US and its allies again used DU weapons in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and then in Kosovo. Additionally, the US has sold a large number of DU weapons to allied countries, encouraging them to use these weapons. DU weapons, although they are not considered weapons of mass destruction like nuclear weapons, are known to cause serious, anti-human radiation effects both directly and through environmental contamination. The letter from Gensuikyo called upon NATO countries, the US and UK in particular, to realize their responsibility to halt the use of DU weapons. In the second letter, Gensuikyo urged the Japanese government: 1. "To make a thorough investigation on the bringing, deployment and/or actual use in military practices of DU weapons by the US forces in Japan and release its outcome, and 2. To urge the US Administration to stop once for all the deployment or use of DU weapons; and to demand that it should remove all DU weapons from Japan, if already brought in at all." For more information about Gensuikyo or for a copy of the letters, please contact: Japan Council against A & H Bombs (Japan Gensuikyo) Email: [email protected] 6-19-23 Shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0004 Japan Tel: 81-3-3436-3205 Fax: 81-3-3431-8781 http://www.twics.com/~antiatom/ ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< Greenpeace Action at NATO to Stop Star Wars On 14 December 2000, Greenpeace called on all NATO countries to oppose the proposed US national missile defense (NMD) system while protesting outside NATO headquarters where foreign ministers were meeting to review arms control and disarmament policy. To highlight worldwide concern that the NMD missile system will re-ignite a nuclear arms race, activists from the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, France, Luxembourg, Canada, Belgium and the United States formed a human chain across the main entrance to the NATO headquarters. The activists also unfurled a banner reading "Stop Star Wars" and featuring the US flag and a montage of missiles and radiation symbols. After more than two hours on the scene, 39 activists were arrested and remain in custody. Greenpeace expressed concern that in her opening statement to the foreign ministers’ US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright suggested the United States would continue to lobby NATO to accept the Star Wars program and Russia to amend the ABM Treaty so that the program could proceed. Greenpeace expressed further concern that President-elect George W. Bush wants an even larger "Star Wars" missile system than the one that was under consideration by the Clinton administration. Greenpeace noted that the threat of an even larger Star Wars program increased the need for NATO countries to voice political opposition and withhold material support. A key criteria set by the Clinton Administration to determine if Star Wars could be approved was that it must be supported by America's European allies. Already opposition from a number of countries, including France, Germany, Russia and China has been voiced. The United Kingdom and Denmark could play a special role in stopping the Star Wars program. Without two key radar installations, one at Fylingdales in the United Kingdom, and the other in Greenland (whose foreign policy is controlled by Denmark), the Star Wars program cannot proceed. Greenpeace singled out the two NATO members and called on them to "stop beating around the Bush" and reject the radar installation plans. For more information, please contact: Butch Turk, Greenpeace campaigner, [email protected] William Peden +1 202-285-9130 Mary MacNutt +1 202-255-9560. To view photos from the protest, visit: http://www.greenpeace.org/library/picturedesk.html *********************** ANNOUNCEMENTS *********************** International Star Wars Postcard Campaign The Yorkshire Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has initiated a postcard campaign throughout the United Kingdom urging George W. Bush to back away from Star Wars. One side of their card has a photo of a Star Wars protest at Fylingdales (the US radar facility in the UK). Groups all over the world are urged to create similar postcards to Bush for distribution in your nation. Not only would this effort help to flood the White House with messages from all over the world, but it would also help to focus attention on the issue in your country as the cards are distributed. (Please let us know if you decide to join this effort from overseas.) The Global Network has produced such a postcard for distribution throughout the US. The cards contain a "Ban War in Space" photo message on one side and a written message to Bush on the other. Bulk postcard orders can be made as follows (prices include postage): * 25 cards $3.00 * 60 cards $7.00 * 120 cards $12.50 * 240 cards $25.00 * more Negotiable Send your order, along with check made out to GN, to address below: Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 90083 Gainesville, Fl. 32607 (352) 337-9274 http://www.space4peace.org [email protected] ********** EVENTS ********** 2001 February 10 A protest vigil, sponsored by the Global Network Against Weapons and Power in Space, will be held in Albuquerque, New Mexico from 12:00 to 3:00 pm during the 18th Annual Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion. For more information, please contact Bruce Gagnon at P.O. Box 90083, Gainsville, Florida 32607 or by email at 5-6 The Back from the Brink Campaign and its allied organizations are promoting NATIONAL CALL-IN DAYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, to urge President-elect George W. Bush to reduce the danger of accidental nuclear war by working with the Russians to TAKE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS OFF HAIR-TRIGGER ALERT. Email 22-25 The American College of Preventive Medicine is sponsoring a Case Study in Environmental Medicine on the "Public Health Implications of Exposure to Radiation from Nuclear Weapons Production and Testing" at its upcoming annual meeting in Miami, FL (Feb. 22-25). Information on the session and on ACPM's meeting, Preventive Medicine 2001: Science and Systems for Health, can be accessed at http://www.PreventiveMedicine2001.org 28 Lenten Desert Experience at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, a day of prayer and action, contact: Nevada Desert Experience (NDE), Tel: +1 (702) 646-4814, or visit: Http://www.NevadaDesertExperience.org March 16-18 National Space Organizing Conference and Protest in Huntsville, Alabama sponsored by the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. For more information, please contact Bruce Gagnon at P.O. Box 90083, Gainsville, Florida 32607 or by email at 2-4 Lenten Desert Experience at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, a weekend retreat and action, contact: Nevada Desert Experience (NDE), Tel: +1 (702) 646-4814, or visit: Http://www.NevadaDesertExperience.org April 6-13 Lenten Desert Experience at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, Desert Peace Walk and Action, 65 miles in 5 days, includes Desert Seder meal and Nuclear Stations of the Cross, contact: Nevada Desert Experience (NDE), Tel: +1 (702) 646-4814, or visit: Http://www.NevadaDesertExperience.org May 4-6 International Conference and Membership Meeting of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, hosted by the Yorkshire Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. For more information, please contact Bruce Gagnon at P.O. Box 90083, Gainsville, Florida 32607 or by email at *************** RESOURCES *************** WEB oAbolition 2000 Global Network Visit the website and find out why Abolition 2000 was ranked "Number 4 Watchdog Organization on the Internet" by InfoSeek/Go.com and "One of the best informational sites on the internet" by Encyclopedia Britannica. The website has recently been updated. If you have any suggestions for improvement or comments, please send to Carah Ong at [email protected] URL: Http://www.abolition2000.org All documents from the 2000 NPT RevCon will be coming soon to the Reaching Critical Will website, a project of WILPF International. The verbatim records, as well as conference and main committee papers can be accessed at: http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/NPTDocuments/NPT_docs_index.html The latest edition of Disarmament Diplomacy (No. 52, November 2000) is now available online at http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd52.htm. Excerpts from "Buddha weeps in Jadugoda" http://www.jca.apc.org/~hiroko/jadugoda/jadugoda-j.html Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) has made the entire text of the final report of International MOX Assessment (IMA) available from its web-site. "Comprehensive Social Impact Assessment on MOX Use in Light Water Reactors"(1997), the Final report of IMA, is available free of charge as a PDF (2.0 MB) file at: http://www.cnic.or.jp/english/topics/plutonium/ima/ Paper vesion of this report is also avialable at: http://www.cnic.or.jp/english/books/ "Better World Links" http://www.betterworldlinks.org Janet Bloomfield and Pamela Meidell issued the year 2000 "Annual Progress Toward a Nuclear Free World" on United Nations Day in October, announcing an abysmal total grade of 20 out of a possible 120 points. The report card tracks progress on Abolition 2000's eleven points. On many key issues, namely ceasing to produce and deploy new nuclear weapons, ratification of a Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, prohibitions on new nuclear research and testing in the laboratory, countries were given a 0 out of 10 grade. You can download the Report Card at http://www.abolition2000.org/reports/reportcard2000.html or email Pamela Meidell at Atomic Mirror to request a PDF file [email protected] "Plutonium for everybody," a new report that will answer every question you have about plutonium in a clear and easy to understand manner, is now available from NVMP, the Dutch affiliate of IPPNW. The report is available at: Http://www.antenna.nl/nvmp Or contact Hans van Iterson at NVMP at [email protected] Http://www.antenna.nl/nvmp On 3 November 2000 IPPNW-Netherlands, Parliamentarians for Global Action and PENN-Netherlands, organized an important meeting called 'Non-Proliferation Treaty and NATO nuclear policy'. The meeting focused on the paradox between the NPT-promises and the current role of nuclear arms within NATO/the "paragraph 32" process. The report of this seminar is now on-line for your information! http://www.antenna.nl/nvmp/nptnato5.htm ********** EDITOR ********** Carah Ong -- Carah Lynn Ong Coordinator Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1 Santa Barbara, California 93108-2794 USA Tel: 805-965-3443 Fax: 805-568-0466 Email: [email protected] Http://www.abolition2000.org Join the Abolition Global Caucus, send a message to [email protected] eGroups Sponsor Click Here! To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account you wish to be subscribed to: "[email protected]" Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message. To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Ron, I have lined up two appointments for next week with defense aides of two New England senators to talk about de- alerting and strategic arms reduction. Could either you or Pat Conover join a couple of others from the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament to talk with them? The appointments are 2:00 p.m., Monday, January 22 with Sam Patton in the office of Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 24 with Lori Schultz-Heim in the office of Senator Jim Jeffords (R-VT). I hope this message reaches you in Cleveland and that you can respond by e-mail or telephone (301 896-0013). Shalom, Howard 10117.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] To: [email protected], [email protected] From: "Carlee L. Hallman" Dear Larry and Gregg: Here is some background material for our conversation today with Ken Meyers from Senator Lugar's staff. The appointment is for 1:00 p.m. in Room 306, Hart Senate Office Building. Let's meet about ten minutes before that time in the hallway outside Senate Lugar's office. Below are some questions for us to raise. We may also want to discuss the Nunn-Lugar program that provides assistance to Russia for Cooperative Threat Reduction. Attached are several background pieces on de-alerting, START, George W. Bush's campaign speech, and General Shalikashvili's report on the CTBT. Shalom, Howard ### Questions for Senate Defense Aides on Nuclear Disarmament Issues Participants in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament are conducting visits with defense aides of senators to get a feel of the senators' thinking on several nuclear disarmament issues. The intent is to establish a relationship and get information. Although we may make our views known, the visit is not meant to push for specific action or commitment. De-alerting and Strategic Arms Reduction Last May in a speech at the National Press Club President-elect George W. Bush offered his ideas on nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear arms reduction. He said: "It should be possible to reduce the number of nuclear weapons significantly further than what has already been agreed to under START II without compromising our security in any way." "In addition, the United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status." "These changes to our forces should not require years and years of detailed arms negotiation." He cited the 1991 experience when his father took action on de-alerting and deactivating certain nuclear weapons and Soviet President Gorbachev reciprocated. "We should invite the Russian government to accept the new vision I have outlined and act on it. But the United States should be prepared to lead by example because it is in our best interest and the best interest of the world." What does Senator ______think of these ideas of President-elect Bush? Shalikashvili Report What does Senator _____ think of ideas presented in the report of General John Shalikashvili on the Comprehensive 10117.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)? Specifically, General Shalikashvili suggested: * That the Senate should reexamine the treaty and ratify it. * That the Senate and the executive branch conduct a joint review of the treaty's overall impact on national security 10 years after ratification. * That our government adopt a more integrated approach to nonproliferation and appoint a deput national security adviser for nonproliferation. * That the United States strengthen its capability to detect and deter nuclear testing. Would Senator _____ likely to be receptive to reconsideration of the CTBT and General Shalikashvili's other recommendations? National Missile Defense We do not intend to bring up national missile defense. However, if the senator's aide brings up the subject, we can express our concern and provide a copy of the religious leaders' letter to President Clinton on the subject. 10117.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] To: [email protected], conoverp@ucc,org From: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Lisa and Pat, I have made a further attempt to outline the major points for the U.S. nuclear posture, which faith groups might promote. It is attached. I will be interested in receiving your comments on this draft and also your own ideas on what we might do. Shalom, Howard 10117.05.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] ======5. "Rumsfeld Wants Review Of Threat-Reduction Spending" Defense Week - January 16, 2001 - By John M. Donnelly and George Lobsenz George W. Bush's pick for defense secretary says Russia shouldn't ask for money to help it dismantle nuclear weapons at the same time that it's building new ones. In a written response to a Senate Armed Services Committee query in advance of his confirmation hearing last Thursday, Donald Rumsfeld called for a review of spending on the Cooperative Threat Reduction, or CTR, program, which has helped former Soviet states dismantle their nuclear warheads, missiles and nuclear materials. The U.S. government spends about $700 million a year on this and similar efforts. Rumsfeld said the program has benefitted U.S. national security, then added: "But we need to be aware of the fact that Russia, in particular, claims to lack the financial resources to eliminate weapons of mass destruction but continues to invest scarce resources in the development of newer more sophisticated ICBMs and other weapons. "We would not want the U.S. investment in the CTR program to become the means by which Russia frees up resources to finance its military modernization programs," he said. "A review of ongoing CTR projects and their respective national security benefits would be appropriate." In September, Russia tested a new road-mobile ICBM called Topol-M, or SS-27; Moscow is also developing a new Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. Rumsfeld's yellow light about spending on nuclear material in Russia came as the Pentagon and Energy Department sent up red flags about the threat. Rumsfeld's comment came one day after a bipartisan panel said in a report to the secretary of energy that uncontrolled nuclear weapons material in the former Soviet Union is "the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today." The panel said solving the problem will cost $30 billion. The same day, a new Pentagon report said nuclear warheads in Russia number "well under 25,000" (11,000 fewer than in 1992), including 5,870 operational strategic warheads. Still, Moscow's strategic nuclear stockpile is expected to dwindle to 1,000 or so lower because of Russia's inability to pay the arsenal's high cost of upkeep. Lower threshold Russia's threshold for using nuclear weapons is lower than it once was, due to Moscow's inability to rely on its degrading conventional forces, the report said. The Pentagon also said that "current resource shortages have subjected the nuclear storage system to new stresses for which it was not designed. Indeed, warhead reductions have had the collateral effect of increasing near- to mid-term fissile material storage requirements, pending the long-term elimination of relevant weapons-usable fissile materials." The Energy Department-chartered panel was led by former White House counsel Lloyd Cutler and former Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.). It said the president, Congress and Russian leaders need to develop an accelerated safeguards plan, because U.S. efforts aren't adequate. While praising the Energy and Defense Departments and Russian officials for progress on improving Russian materials safeguards, the panel also said "the existing scope and management of the U.S. programs addressing this threat leaves an unacceptable risk of failure and the potential for catastrophic consequences." The $30 billion program they recommend would be carried out over the next eight to 10 years, with the hope that Europe and Japan would kick in assistance and Russia would largely take over security efforts after that. Specifically, the Baker-Cutler proposal calls for: *$11 billion for securing Russian high-enriched uranium, or HEU, including $4 billion to buy more Russian HEU (adding to the ongoing U.S. purchase of 500 metric tons) and $7 billion to accelerate "downblending" of remaining HEU to low-enriched uranium. *$9 billion for securing Russian plutonium, including $3 billion to buy 100 metric tons of plutonium—in addition to the 34 metric tons now slated for disposal under existing U.S.-Russian efforts. *$5 billion to consolidate and improve storage of nuclear materials, including enhanced accounting systems. *$3 billion to close surplus weapons facilities and convert them to civilian use; re-employ weapons scientists; and replace plutonium-producing power reactors. *$2 billion to assure transparency of Russia nuclear weapons programs and verify progress. Dollar debate In addition to Rumsfeld's concerns about Russia spending money on new missiles, other key Republican lawmakers in recent years have questioned DOE's management control of the nonproliferation programs, with some critics charging that too much U.S. funding was going to program overhead at DOE laboratories— or lining the pockets of cash-strapped Russian officials. As a result of those concerns, some DOE programs have been cut back or placed under spending restrictions, and the $30 billion proposal probably won't get a warm reception on the Hill. On the other hand, Baker and Cutler argued: "The national security benefits to U.S. citizens from securing and/or neutralizing the equivalent of more than 80,000 nuclear weapons and potential nuclear weapons would constitute the highest return on investment in any current U.S. national security and defense program." The panel expressed concern about recent Russian sales of dual-use nuclear and missile technology to Iran. The panel said continued Russian sales to Iran could derail further progress on nonproliferation. To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Gregg, Our appointments for tomorrow, Thursday, January 18 are: 1:00 Mike Coulter, office of Senator Hagel, 346 Russell 2:00 Tom Vecchiolla, office of Senator Snowe, 250 Russell I'll see you then. Howard 10117.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:02:55 -0600 From: brenda hardt X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: PeaceWithJustice Ministry Message Subject: PEACEwithJUSTICE eLETTER - January 2001 * * * PwJ e-Letter * * * A service of the TX Conf. PeaceWith Justice Program. Send this on to friends; subscription info below * * * * * * * * * * * * * January 17, 2001* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace." Ephesians 6:15 (NRSV) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Contents: D E C A D E F O R PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD (2001-2010) Appeal by all the Nobel Peace Laureates --- 75,000,000 have signed the appeal. new! L E N T E N S T U D Y G U I D E The Death Penalty in Texas, from TEXAS IMPACT! new! B U L L E T I N I N S E R T on Campaign Finance Reform, from TEXAS IMPACT! Methodists United For Peace & Justice asks all of us to participate in BACK FROM THE BRINK White House C A L L - I N Feb. 5 & 6 EVENT: "Peacemaking In A Violent Society" is the theme of the TEXAS CONFERENCE OF CHURCHES 32nd Annual Assembly, Feb. 19-20,2001 ------News: D E C A D E F O R PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD (2001-2010) Materials are being prepared. A community-wide committee has begun work in Houston to involve leaders, citizens and faith groups to take respons-ability for this global effort to change hearts and minds toward nonviolence. YOU can sign the Appeal! YOU can lift children out of our present " culture of violence". YOU can become a MESSENGER OF PEACE. http://www.nobelweb.org What a good time for you to become a local church PEACE ADVOCATE..... for you to ask your church to become a PEACE WITH JUSTICE COVENANT CONGREGATION! .... for you to join the Peace With Justice Advocacy Network of the United Methodist Church. Call or e-mail Brenda Hardt at 979-830-0136 or [email protected] to find out about these programs of the United Methodist Church. Family booklets on how to implement the PLEDGE OF NONVIOLENCE are ready to send to you! Martin Luther King, Jr. said "It is not enough to say, 'We must not wage war.' It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not mearely on the eradication of war but on the affirmation of peace." ______ L E N T E N S T U D Y G U I D E on the Death Penalty order from Texas Impact at 512/472-3903 or [email protected] Background: Texas executes more people than any other state in the U.S. On average, Texas juries condemn someone to death about once a week. Increasingly, Christian denominations and other mainstream religions are calling for abolition of the death penalty in the U.S.. Religious calls for abolition identify capital punishment as inconsistent with Judeo-Christian beliefs and values. But some religious scholars support capital punishment. They point to accounts of executions in both the Hebrew and Greek testaments, and argue that death is a just punishment for taking another person's life. About the Guide: Texas Impact has developed a new study guide, The Death Penalty in Texas, for Sunday school classes and other religious study groups. The study guide explores Judeo-Christian positions on the death penalty, inviting students to consider the death penalty in the contexts of justice, sin and grace, and human fraility. The Death Penalty in Texas presents up-to-the-minute facts about capital punishment as it exists in Texas, combined with theological background and thought-provoking discussion questions. The study guide features the contributions of top-notch Texas theologians, Christian educators, and criminal justice experts. The Death Penalty in Texas comes as a package of materials ready for your group to use with no further preparation. The package includes 10 copies (or as many as you request) of the 4-page discussion guide, as well as the indispensable leader's resource packet. The packet is full of supplemental background materials and tools for getting involved in the public policy debate at the local or state level. The leader's packet features detailed, concrete instructions for pursuing a local moratorium resolution, one of the most effective steps congregations can take to make their voices heard. The Death Penalty in Texas is the first unit of Texas Impact's 5-part series Texas Faith Looks at Texas Justice. Each unit in the series examines an aspect of Texas' criminal justice system. The other units include: indigent defense crime prevention and restorative justice hate crimes and racial profiling criminal justice spending and the call for prison construction Order: The entire series will be available for Lent, 2001, and would make an ideal focus for a Lenten study. Texas Impact suggests that study groups consider a $35 donation for the entire 5-part series, or a $15 donation for the death penalty unit alone. Your order will be shipped free of charge. Many good materials are at www.texasimpact.com ______new! B U L L E T I N I N S E R T on Campaign Finance Reform from TEXAS IMPACT! Download the insert from http://www.texasimpact.com Join the "Million Mouse March" for state campaign reform. Click your mouse on www.hadenough.net. The United Methodist Church joins many other denominations in statements supporting Campaign Finance Reform. Ours states: "Citizens foresake participation in the political process because they believe policies are shaped by money from special interests--not by national interest or the needs of the people. Campaign financing goes to the heart of the ethical and moral life of our nation. Establish a system of public campaign financing that would take government away from special interests and return it to the people. Work within states to build support for measures that would end the flood of special interest monies to political campaigns and restore integrity to decision-making in Congress." Related resolutions: Campaign Finance Reform in the U.S., P.502; Against Political Mudslinging, p.493, Book of Resolutions, UMC. ______ Back From The Brink National Call-in Days to the White House, Feb. 5-6 to urge President George W. Bush to reduce the danger of accidental nuclear war by working with the Russians to TAKE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS OFF HAIR-TRIGGER ALERT. We want to remind the new President that the Republican Platform of 2000 stated "...the United States should work with other nuclear nations to remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status-- another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation--to reduce the risk of accidental or unauthorized launch." We call on Pres. Bush to take concrete actions to honor this pledge. HELP flood the White House with calls (202/ 456-1414) or write: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC 20500 Saying to the President: "I urge you to reduce the danger of accidental nuclear war by working with Russia to take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert." For more information: www.backfromtheBrink.org www.2020vision.org The United Methodist Church has adopted wording thus: ... that the manufacture, sale, and deployment of armaments must be reduced and controlled; and that the production, possession, or use of nuclear weapons be condemned.... ______ Announcement for church newsletters Texas Conference of Churches 32nd Annual Assembly "P E A C E M A K I N G IN A V I O L E N T S O C I E T Y" featuring guest speakers Bishop Emeritus Leroy T. Matthiesen and Rev. Ann E. Helmke, animating director of the peaceCENTER in San Antonio. F E B R U A R Y 19-20, 2001 Austin, Texas Deadline for registration is Jan. 21. $90. Please call 512/451-0991 or [email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SUBSCRIBE or UNsubscribe to the semi- MONTHLY e - L E T T E R from the PEACEwithJUSTICE TEAM of the Texas Conference UMC. Contact 979-830-0136 or e-mail [email protected], write "subscribe" or "Unsubscribe" in the subject line; give your name, church or phone & e-mail address. X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-2199-979753273-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] To: "Angie Zelter" , "Rhonda Zabinsky" , "WONG, Felicity (APU, ENV)" , "Lisa Westberg" , "Peter Weiss" , "Fergus Watt" , "Gary Ware" , "Annette Ware" , "Colleen Walters" , "Jillian Walshe" , "Pete Waack" , "Susan Vancil" , "Melanie Tuscia" , "Kim Tay" , "Stephanie Sohnius" , "Penelope Simons" , "Flic Shooter" , "Emily Severance" , "Nitha Sekaran" , "Sharmila Sekarajasekaran" , "Sayuri" <[email protected]>, "Laura Rotolo" , "Fanny Rodriguez" , "Lydia Robertson" , "Ben Roberts" , "Jenny Ritchie" , "Sharon Riggle" , "Chava Peters" , "Scott Pasternack" , "Paula" , "Anna Parker" , "Bill Pace" , "Larry Otway" , "Sinead O'Rourke" , "Ciaron O'Reilly" , "Naomi Onaga" , "Terence O'Brien" , "Claire Mortimer" , "Kia Miller" , "Stephanie McKee" , "Maura Marvão" , "Martin Dunkerton" , "NIc Maclellan" , "Jarrod Lynn" , "Maire Leadbeater" , "Laura Lee" , "Kent Lebsock" , "Henrietta Langran" , "Mari Kushibuchi" , "Mitsuru Kurosawa" , "Ilona Klimova" , "Dan Kinch" , "Brian Kerkvliet" , "Ben Keith" , "Rebecca Johnson" , "Rodger Jack" , "Irene Hinkle" , "Colin Hewens" , "Peter Herby" , "Thomas Henquet" , "Greg Havas" , "Becky Hare" , "Niclas HällströmdHL2bQ==" , "Isabel Hallett" , "Nicky Hager" , "Stephanie Gude (PBI Canada)" , "Greenpeace NZ" , "Alla Green" , "Ilmi Granoff" , "lisa grandelli" , "Jozef Goldblat" , "Maria Elena Giorcelli" , "Ion Georgescu" , "Gabriela Fried" , "Jeff Evans" , "Peter Ellis" , "Scilla Elworthy" , "Paul Hoffman" , "Jon Van Dyke" , "Nick Dunlop" , "Martin Dunkerton" , "Jean Dreze" , "Jonathan Dean" , "Joe Davies" , "Duncan Currie" , "Phon van den Biesen" , "Ian Anderson" , "Bob Boehm" , "Alice Slater" , "Alyn Ware" , "Anabel Dwyer" , "Anne Marie Corominas" , "David Krieger" , "Elizabeth Shafer" , "Glenn Alcalay" , "Jim Wurst" , "John Burroughs" , "Jonathan Granoff" , "Merav Datan" , "Richard Falk" , "Roger Clark" , "Saul Mendlovitz" , "Joshua Cooper" , "Madeleine Coffen-Smout" , "Mimi Christoff" , "Naomi Cervin" , "Dawn Brownrout" , "Claudia Adriazola Brandt" , "Barefoot Boogie" , "Gloria Bletter" , "Jessie Boanas-Dewes" , "Tina Bell" , "Barbara Bedont" , "Miranda Bain" , "Rachel Armstrong" , "Colin Archer" , "PBI PC listserve" , "Fiona Walters" , "Monica Blagescu" , "Robert Hejzak" , "Rosie Aubrey" , "Robin Beattie" , "Paul Mason" , "Peace Boat (Paul)" , "Nathalie Labonte" , "Aya Igarashi" , "Morse Flores" , "Robert Zolna" , "Juan Fe Muniz" , "Karen Cuddihey" , "Bel Mari" , "Daniel Vincent" , "Arthur Muhl" , "Bruna Nota" , "Bahig Nassar" , "Douglas Roche" , "Felicity Hill" , "Fernando de Souza Barros" , "Hiro Umebayashi" , "Jennifer Simons" , "Karel Koster" , "Katie Dewes" , "Lisa von Trapp" , "Maj Britt Theorin" , "Michael Christ" , "Ron McCoy" , "Sen. Alan Cranston" , "Suzy Pearce" , "Xanthe Hall" , "Winnie Romeril" , "Tracy Moavero" , "Stephen Kent" , "Shazia Rafi" , "Savannah" , "sandra gebbeken" , "Roger Smith" , "Robin Glassman" , "Randy Rydell" , "Pat Holtz" , "Olu Arowolo" , "Nya Gregor Fleron" , "Nancy Kogel" , "Myrna Pena" , "Mandy Jacobsen" , "Karen Charman" , "Julianne and Pauline" , "Judith Halek" , "John Berman" , "Jim Morgan" , "Jilsarah" , "Jill Sternberg" , "jaime weiss" , "Izumi Sakamoto" , "Humberto Brown" , "Herren Pascal" , "Greg Ruggiero" , "Gouri" , "Florence Martin (UNATET)" , "Diana Cohn" , "David McReynolds" , "constancio" , "Colby Lowe" , "Ann Hallan Lakhdhir" , "Andrea Sperling" , "Aimie" , "Adam (Boogie)" , "Rob Boogert >" , "Kim Lofgren" , "Betty A Reardon" , "Bhaskar Menon" , "Bill Smirnow" , "Charles Scheiner" , "Cora Weiss" , "Florence Martin" , "Gail Rowan" , "John Miller" , "Karen Foley" , "Matt Moore" , "Stephanie Fraser" , "Tonya Frichner" , "Kevin Glover" , "Treasa Dunworth" , "Simon Reeves" , "Prue Taylor" , "Philip Recordon" , "Klaus Bosselmann" , "Jane Doherty" , "Alan Webb" , "Wendy John" , "stephanie mills" , "Rod Alley" , "Richard Northey" , "Ra Savage" , "Philip Alpers" , "peter watson" , "Nandor Tanczos" , "Michael Szabo" , "Laurie Salas" , "Kent Mcintosh" , "John Urlich" , "Joan Macdonald" , "Jim Holdom" , "Jillian Savage" , "Ian Prior" , "Guy Wilson-Roberts" , "Gerry Coates" , "Gareth Farr" , "Edwina PMA" , "Diane Yates" , "Chris Palmer" , "Cherrywood Travel" , "Carol Ann Bradford" , "Bob White" , "abolition caucus" X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Alyn Ware" Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:36:35 +1300 Reply-To: "Alyn Ware" Subject: [abolition-caucus] Address change Dear Friends, Please note my new address and correct email address below. Yours Alyn Ware ------Alyn Ware Apartment 9b126 The TerraceWellingtonAotearoa-New ZealandPhone: (64) 4 499 3443 Email: [email protected] Consultant at LargeLawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy 211 East 43rd Street, #1204 New York, NY 10017, USA Tel: (1) 212 818 1861 Fax: (1) 212 818 1857 Website: www.lcnp.org eGroups Sponsor To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account you wish to be subscribed to: "[email protected]" Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message. X-Sender: [email protected] Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:05:29 -0700 To: [email protected], [email protected] From: Carah Lynn Ong Subject: (abolition-usa) Abolition 2000 Website Sender: [email protected] Reply-To: [email protected] New on the Abolition 2000 Website! Say NO to Star Wars! HELP WANTED: Outreach and Development Coordinator, Abolition 2000 Network Jadugoda Protest January 2001 Grassroots Newsletter Visit Http://www.abolition2000.org or click on the links above and find out why Abolition 2000 has been named the Number 4 Watchdog Organization on the Internet by Infoseek/Go.com -- Carah Lynn Ong Coordinator Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1 Santa Barbara, California 93108-2794 USA Tel: 805-965-3443 Fax: 805-568-0466 Email: [email protected] Http://www.abolition2000.org Join the Abolition Global Caucus, send a message to [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Dear Lisa and Daryl: Here is some background material for our conversation John Seggerman from Senator Lincoln Chafee's staff. The appointment is for 2:00 p.m. in Room 505, Dirksen Senate Office Building. Let's meet about ten minutes before that time in the hallway outside Senate Chafee's office. Below are some questions for us to raise. Attached are several background pieces on de-alerting, START, George W. Bush's campaign speech, and General Shalikashvili's report on the CTBT. Shalom, Howard ### Questions for Senate Defense Aides on Nuclear Disarmament Issues Participants in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament are conducting visits with defense aides of senators to get a feel of the senators' thinking on several nuclear disarmament issues. The intent is to establish a relationship and get information. Although we may make our views known, the visit is not meant to push for specific action or commitment. De-alerting and Strategic Arms Reduction Last May in a speech at the National Press Club President-elect George W. Bush offered his ideas on nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear arms reduction. He said: "It should be possible to reduce the number of nuclear weapons significantly further than what has already been agreed to under START II without compromising our security in any way." "In addition, the United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status." "These changes to our forces should not require years and years of detailed arms negotiation." He cited the 1991 experience when his father took action on de-alerting and deactivating certain nuclear weapons and Soviet President Gorbachev reciprocated. "We should invite the Russian government to accept the new vision I have outlined and act on it. But the United States should be prepared to lead by example because it is in our best interest and the best interest of the world." What does Senator ______think of these ideas of President-elect Bush? Shalikashvili Report What does Senator _____ think of ideas presented in the report of General John Shalikashvili on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)? Specifically, General Shalikashvili suggested: 10118.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] * That the Senate should reexamine the treaty and ratify it. * That the Senate and the executive branch conduct a joint review of the treaty's overall impact on national security 10 years after ratification. * That our government adopt a more integrated approach to nonproliferation and appoint a deputy national security adviser for nonproliferation. * That the United States strengthen its capability to detect and deter nuclear testing. Would Senator _____ likely to be receptive to reconsideration of the CTBT and General Shalikashvili's other recommendations? National Missile Defense We do not intend to bring up national missile defense. However, if the senator's aide brings up the subject, we can express our concern and provide a copy of the religious leaders' letter to President Clinton on the subject. 10118.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:43:13 -0500 To: [email protected] From: Daryl Kimball VOL. 5, NO. 2, January 18, 2001
Key Issues for the Nuclear Posture Review"
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH will be responsible for finishing, by the end of 2001, a re-examination of the role of U.S. nuclear forces in the post-Cold War world. This review, if it is to be done properly, will require the U.S. foreign and security policy establishment to face a host of complex issues brought about by the tectonic shifts in the international security landscape over the past decade.
The Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization Act, mandates that: "In order to clarify United States nuclear deterrence policy and strategy for the near term, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture of the United States for the next 5 to 10 years."
The question, however, is how President Bush will ensure that the mandated review takes a full and fundamental examination of the myriad issues involved. If the exercise is to be more than simply an excuse to put into place policy objectives already decided - as was the case with the last Nuclear Posture Review in 1994 under President Bill Clinton - both the scope of the review and the process for accomplishing it must be as open as possible. In other words, President Bush must undertake not just a posture review, but a policy review.
______
Congressionally-Mandated Elements of Nuclear Posture Review
(FY 2001 Nat. Def. Auth. Act)
10118.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] 1. The role of nuclear forces in U.S. military strategy, planning, and programming;
2. The policy requirements and objectives for the U.S. to maintain a safe, reliable, and credible nuclear deterrence posture;
3. The relationship among U.S. nuclear deterrence policy, targeting strategy, and arms control objectives;
4. The levels and composition of the nuclear delivery systems that will be required for implementing the U.S. national and military strategy, including any plans for replacing or modifying existing systems;
5. The nuclear weapons complex that will be required for implementing the U.S. national and military strategy, including any plans to modernize or modify the complex;
6. The active and inactive nuclear weapons stockpile that will be required for implementing the U.S. national and military strategy, including any plans for replacing or modifying warheads.
______
"We have not had a meaningful Policy Review since 1982. Posture flows from policy, not vice versa," Gen. (Ret.) Lee Butler, former commander of U.S. Strategic Command, wrote in August in response to questions from the British American Security Information Council.
The problem is that the mismatch between today's foreign and security policy agenda and the Cold War-based nuclear doctrine is becoming increasingly apparent, not only to U.S. policy-makers but also to the international community.
For example, the United State has promised countries forsaking nuclear weapons that they will not be targeted by U.S. nuclear warheads. Yet classified presidential guidance (PDD 60) reportedly leaves open the possibility of retaliation — or even a first strike — against a threat or attack by chemical/biological weapons. U.S. Air Force doctrine based on this guidance states, "Because the United States lacks the ability for an in-kind response to chemical and biological weapons, it must maintain a credible nuclear deterrent against all forms of WMD."
Clinton administration officials explained this apparent inconsistency by touting the virtues of having an "ambiguous" nuclear doctrine. However, this sort of "don't ask, don't tell" nuclear doctrine only serves to legitimize the role of nuclear weapons and increase the incentives of other states to retain and/or acquire the own nuclear weapons capabilities.
10118.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] Another anachronistic and outdated aspect of nuclear policy is the Presidential guidance that underlies the Pentagon's strategic war plan — known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). Today, the SIOP consists of a very long and redundant list of targets in Russia and a shorter list of targets in China that Pentagon planners say the United States needs to be able to destroy in order to meet the latest presidential guidance on nuclear war planning (PDD 60 of 1997). Current plans also call for maintaining thousands of these weapons on hair-trigger status, which creates, in the words of George W. Bush, "unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch."
As the Center for Defense Information and the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers reported last year (see Issue Brief Vol.4 No.7 <
During the campaign, President Bush called unneeded nuclear weapons "expensive relics of dead conflicts." If President Bush is to make good on his May 23, 2000 campaign pledge to "reduce the number of American nuclear weapons significantly further than ... START II," and to "lower the alert status" of those forces, it will be necessary for his administration to undertake a fundamental and meaningful overhaul of these outdated, Cold War-era military plans and policies.
______
U.S., Russian and Chinese Strategic Nuclear Arsenals, January 2000
ICBM Warheads SLBM Warheads Bmbr. Warheads Total Str. All Warheads
U.S. 2,000 3,456 1,750 ~7,200 ~10,500
Russia 3,540 1,576 790 ~6,000 ~20,000
10118.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] China 20 0 0 ~20 ~410
______
Toward a More Rational Policy:
Given the complexity of the debate and the likelihood of political controversy, what should actually happen in the review to make it worthwhile and beneficial to U.S. and international security? First, the review must be conducted by an interagency-body, not just the Defense and Energy departments. The National Security Council should lead the effort. Just as importantly, the nuclear weapons policy debate must be a public one. Outside experts from Congress and non-governmental organizations should be consulted on a bi-partisan basis.
A broad-based approach is required because nuclear weapons policy cannot be decided in a vacuum. It must be considered as part and parcel of overarching U.S. foreign and security policy. That means fundamental questions must be raised. Who is the arsenal aimed at, and what does that say about its current and future composition? What are the security and foreign policy benefits, risks, and costs? Do the current nuclear weapons attack options and target lists make sense in today's security environment? What do the regional commanders and the Joint Chiefs believe they need from a nuclear arsenal today, and in the future? To help answer these questions, input from the military — not just the politicized Defense Department — is necessary.
Second, the Nuclear Posture Review should take into consideration issues and findings associated with the Quadrennial Defense Review because strategic nuclear policy and conventional defense policy cannot be easily divided. In fact, one crucial factor in re-considering nuclear targeting requirements is the vast improvement over the past decade in the range, stealth, and accuracy of conventional strike weapons. Further, spending priorities also must be examined. Is the some $25 billion per year spent on nuclear weapons justified, or should some of that spending be shifted to conventional defense needs?
Third, the review take into account the U.S. commitment to pursuing nuclear disarmament under the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The U.S. government reiterated and enhanced its commitment in May 2000, by signing up to practical measures aimed at incremental implementation and agreeing to "an unequivocal undertaking by the Nuclear-Weapons States to accomplish the total elimination of this nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament."
The review should compare U.S. commitments under the NPT process in detail, with current and planned policy, doctrine, and posture and align them. In particular, the Nuclear Posture Review should give serious
10118.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] consideration to the following initiatives, which are backed by a number of leading nuclear weapons experts:
* a declaration that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter the use of nuclear weapons against the United States or its allies;
* replacement of rigid, outdated targeting plans with procedures to promptly develop a response tailored to any situation the United States may face;
* deep, verifiable reductions of the deployed and reserve U.S. nuclear arsenal to well below 1,000 warheads, possibly retaining a few hundred submarine-based warheads as a survivable force;
* removal of all U.S. nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert status; and
* withdrawal of all U.S. tactical nuclear weapons from Europe.
Today's schizophrenic policy is neither sustainable on the world stage, nor acceptable to any side of the domestic political equation. Quite simply, U.S. nuclear policy is broken. If it is to be fixed, the new president must be willing to face the fundamental questions — the who, what, how, where, and why of nuclear weapons. And he must be prepared to defend his answers to the American public and the rest of the world.
This Issue Brief is based upon the essay, "Get a policy, please," from the January/February issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by Theresa Hitchens, Research Director of the British American Security Information Council (202-347-8340). The Coalition is a non-partisan alliance of 17 of the nation's leading non-proliferation organizations working for a practical, step-by-step program to reduce the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of every Coalition member. For further information, see the Coalition's Web Site <
______
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director
Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
10118.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505
Washington, DC 20002
(ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970
website <
______
10118.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:39 PM] X-Sender: jdi@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:49:04 -0500 To: [email protected] From: John Isaacs
Council for a Livable World January 19, 2001
Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell Rumsfeld in his own words Excerpts from his January 17, 2001 testimony before Senate Foreign Relations Committee
======Favors National Missile Defense ======"As you know, President-elect Bush has made it quite clear that he is committed to deploying an effective ballistic missile defense, using the best technology available at the earliest date possible. And we will be developing a plan for the way ahead, including, as was noted, looking at the diplomatic ramifications of such a missile defense program . . . While we design this complete strategic framework and decide these very important issues on missile defense, there will be time to consult with our allies and our friends, to explain to them what we have in mind, why we think it is for the benefit of mankind to move in this direction. We will let the Chinese and the Russians know that it is not directed at them, but at other nations that we have less confidence in and their ability to act in rational ways. I understand that this will be a difficult discussion, but it is a discussion that we must move forward on, because we are committed to missile defense."
======If the technology is ready and the threat is real, rapid deployment ======"I'd say we should move forward as rapidly as possible with the technology, and if we have -- when a system is ready to be deployed, I am sure that a prudent president at that time -- and I am quite confident it will be President George W. Bush who will make a judgment at that time as to the nature of the threat. And if the threat is there and the threat is real, I am absolutely confident he will move forward with deployment."
======Will consult extensively with allies on missile defense ======"Absolutely, Senator. And I've already begun to do so. I've had meetings this week with people who have been in town for inauguration activities from other countries, and I've had some very, very healthy discussions with some of our European allies again already. And I expect to be spending a lot of my time on this issue, conveying to our allies the progress of our technology, conveying to our allies the
10118.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] threat as it develops or doesn't develop, and making sure they understand that it's part of a total picture that, at the end of the day, will benefit the world and benefit them as well."
======ABM Treaty no longer relevant ======"We believe that the ABM Treaty in its current form is probably no longer relevant to our new strategic framework, and we hope to persuade the Russians of the need to move beyond the ABM Treaty . . . It may be necessary, ultimately, to walk out of the ABM Treaty and abrogate our responsibilities. I don't think we're there yet. I think we've got a long way to go and we have a lot of conversations to have with the Russians over this. But the point I was making is that the framework that that treaty was designed for was a framework that really isn't relevant now."
======Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty flawed; no ratification "next session" ======"We also need to review our approach to curbing proliferation. As you know, we will not be asking for the Congress to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in this next session. We are mindful of the work that was done by President Clinton's special adviser and my colleague General Shalikashvili. We will examine that work, but we believe that there are still flaws with the treaty as it was voted down in the 1999. But nevertheless, we will continue to examine the elements of that treaty as part of our overall strategic review. General Shalikashvili gave us some good ideas with respect to the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which we will be pursuing."
======No resumption of nuclear testing ======"President-elect Bush has indicated he has no intention of resuming testing as part of our efforts. We do not see any need for such testing in the foreseeable future."
======NATO still important ======"We believe strongly in NATO, that great alliance across the Atlantic Ocean. It is the bedrock of our relationship with Europe. It is sacrosanct. Weaken NATO and you weaken Europe, which weakens America. The value of NATO can be seen by the fact that, 10 years after the Cold War, nations are still seeking to join the alliance, not to leave it. The alliance is as relevant to the future as it was to the past. It did not threaten Russia in the past, and it does not threaten Russia in the future."
======NATO expansion will continue ======"If we believe the enlargement of NATO should continue, for example -- and
10118.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] we do believe that -- we should not fear that Russia will object. We will do it because it is in our interest and because freedom-loving people wish to be part of NATO. Instead, we should deal with Russia's objections and find a way to address them. NATO is not aimed at Russia; NATO is aimed at the peace of Europe, and Russia is European, after all."
======NATO expansion could include Baltic states ======"The president-elect is committed to NATO enlargement and, as you know, there are nine nations that are now standing in queue requesting admission at the summit in 2002. In our NATO meetings later this spring and into the summer, we will have to decide what set of standards we're going to use for admission; some variation of the standards we used in the last round or whatever? But it's something all of the NATO members will have to come into agreement on and I look forward to those discussions. Whether it should be all nine of them, one or more of the nine of them, is something we have not yet reached a decision point on. And, of course, that will be part of the discussion and part of the creation of the standards, and some idea of who will be able to meet those standards. I think I have to say, in all candor, that for three of them, the Baltic states, there will be quite a bit of discussion about the Russian reaction to that. And we will listen to that and will take it into account, but at the end of the day I think we have to do what we think is right for the nations as a region and for NATO."
======China a competitor, not strategic partner ======"A strategic partner China is not, but neither is China our inevitable and implacable foe. China is a competitor, a potential regional rival, but also a trading partner willing to cooperate in areas where our strategic interests overlap. China is all of these things, but China is not an enemy. And our challenge is to keep it that way by enmeshing them in the rule of law, by exposing them to the powerful forces of a free enterprise system and democracy, so they can see that this is the proper direction in which to move."
======Will abide with agreed framework with North Korean, but review policy ======"Secretary Albright has made me very well-aware of the status of our recent discussions with the North Koreans, so we are mindful of all the work that has been done, and we will use that work as we review our overall policy on the peninsula. In the meantime, we will abide and agree to the commitments made under the agreed framework, provided that North Korea does the same."
======Even if North Korea changes, still need missile defense ======"I think if we could move North Korea in that direction and make it an iron-clad, verifiable agreement about which there is no question, not only what they are doing, but what they are helping others do, that certainly would be factored in to any calculation one would make about the threat.
10118.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] But there are still other nations that are moving in this direction, particularly Iran. And until Iraq comes into compliance and we could be assured of what they are able to do, I would say at this point we should continue to move ahead as aggressively as possible."
======India important priority ======"India has to be a high priority for foreign policy activities of the United States of America. During the Cold War period, and even when I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, didn't have to think much about India. They were somewhere else, trapped in another kind of world to us. But now it's all opened up, and it is the soon-to-be-largest country by population on the face of the Earth, and it is a powerful country and it is a nuclear-armed country. And so I think we have to engage more broadly with India. We have to do what we can to constrain their nuclear program at this time. We have to help them with economic development, so they can handle this increased population."
======UN "a great organization" ======` "I hope now to work with the committee to make sure we remove all the remaining problems we have with our UN relationship. I have seen what the UN can do over the years. It's a great organization; it is deserving of our support. It has represented our interests and the interests of freedom-loving people around the world. And I look forward to an early meeting with Secretary General Kofi Annan to let him know of our desire to work very closely with the United Nations."
======Increased funding for non-proliferation crucial ======Sen. Biden. "Would you just give me your general sense of what -- I'm not asking you to sign on to $30 billion, but how urgent is this issue [non-proliferation programs outlined in the Baker-Cutler report]?" Powell: "I think that they're right on. A huge inventory of weapons and other material that is excess to any conceivable needs they might have in the future, left over from decommissioning all those theater nuclear weapons of years ago and weapon systems that are now excess and far above the START I and now the START II limits. So I agree with them entirely. But as you noted, I cannot buy into a specific number at this point."
John Isaacs Council for a Livable World 110 Maryland Avenue, NE - Room 409 Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 543-4100 x.131 www.clw.org
10118.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:30:29 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Lentner
As announced in Vol X, issue 1 of the "Montgomery County Senior Sports Association Newsletter", page 11, Jan 5, 2001 issue, a single registration form will be used this year for the subject Leagues.
The new form can be used for EITHER the Super Senior Monday League, OR the Tues/Thurs 60+ Men's Daytime League, OR to register to play in both leagues. Opportunities to volunteer to manage a team in either, or both leagues, are available on the form.
For your convenience, a copy of the new registration form is contained in the attachment to this message. The attachment is in "Microsoft Word" format.
Print the attachment, enter the requested information on the form, and mail it with your check for the correct amount made payable to "MCSSA" to the addresses listed at the bottom of the form.
The REGISTRATION DEADLINE for the Spring/Summer 2001 season is:
MARCH 23, 2001.
-- Keith J. Lentner [email protected]
Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\REG.doc"
10118.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] REGISTRATION FORM FOR SUPER SENIOR (70+ MEN/60+ WOMEN) AND TUES/THUR 60+ MEN’S LEAGUE
This year, one form will take care of both leagues. Please indicate which league(s) you desire to participate in and enclose the proper amount as indicated below. Make check payable to MCSSA
I want to play in the Super Senior League ($40.00) Yes Ÿ No Ÿ...... ……$______
I want to play in the Tues/Thur League ($50.00) Yes Ÿ No Ÿ...... $______
Include mandatory $ 5.00 for MCSSA membership (Pay only once for entire year)...... $____5.00____
Optional: Donation to the MCSSA ...... $______
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE...... $______
Name:______Phone #______
Address:______
City:______State____Zip______Date of birth______
E-mail address______Emergency contact______Phone#______
Would you like to be considered to manage a team in either league: (SUPER SENIOR LEAGUE) Yes Ÿ
(TUES/THUR LEAGUE) Yes Ÿ
Mail above form with a check for TOTAL AMOUNT DUE made out to MCSSA to: MCSSA - 4809 Listra Road - Rockville MD 20853 Deadline: March 23 , 2001 X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:43:13 -0500 To: [email protected] From: Daryl Kimball
VOL. 5, NO. 2, January 18, 2001
Key Issues for the Nuclear Posture Review"
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH will be responsible for finishing, by the end of 2001, a re-examination of the role of U.S. nuclear forces in the post-Cold War world. This review, if it is to be done properly, will require the U.S. foreign and security policy establishment to face a host of complex issues brought about by the tectonic shifts in the international security landscape over the past decade.
The Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization Act, mandates that: "In order to clarify United States nuclear deterrence policy and strategy for the near term, the Secretary of Defense shall conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture of the United States for the next 5 to 10 years."
The question, however, is how President Bush will ensure that the mandated review takes a full and fundamental examination of the myriad issues involved. If the exercise is to be more than simply an excuse to put into place policy objectives already decided - as was the case with the last Nuclear Posture Review in 1994 under President Bill Clinton - both the scope of the review and the process for accomplishing it must be as open as possible. In other words, President Bush must undertake not just a posture review, but a policy review.
______
Congressionally-Mandated Elements of Nuclear Posture Review
(FY 2001 Nat. Def. Auth. Act)
10122.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] 1. The role of nuclear forces in U.S. military strategy, planning, and programming;
2. The policy requirements and objectives for the U.S. to maintain a safe, reliable, and credible nuclear deterrence posture;
3. The relationship among U.S. nuclear deterrence policy, targeting strategy, and arms control objectives;
4. The levels and composition of the nuclear delivery systems that will be required for implementing the U.S. national and military strategy, including any plans for replacing or modifying existing systems;
5. The nuclear weapons complex that will be required for implementing the U.S. national and military strategy, including any plans to modernize or modify the complex;
6. The active and inactive nuclear weapons stockpile that will be required for implementing the U.S. national and military strategy, including any plans for replacing or modifying warheads.
______
"We have not had a meaningful Policy Review since 1982. Posture flows from policy, not vice versa," Gen. (Ret.) Lee Butler, former commander of U.S. Strategic Command, wrote in August in response to questions from the British American Security Information Council.
The problem is that the mismatch between today's foreign and security policy agenda and the Cold War-based nuclear doctrine is becoming increasingly apparent, not only to U.S. policy-makers but also to the international community.
For example, the United State has promised countries forsaking nuclear weapons that they will not be targeted by U.S. nuclear warheads. Yet classified presidential guidance (PDD 60) reportedly leaves open the possibility of retaliation — or even a first strike — against a threat or attack by chemical/biological weapons. U.S. Air Force doctrine based on this guidance states, "Because the United States lacks the ability for an in-kind response to chemical and biological weapons, it must maintain a credible nuclear deterrent against all forms of WMD."
Clinton administration officials explained this apparent inconsistency by touting the virtues of having an "ambiguous" nuclear doctrine. However, this sort of "don't ask, don't tell" nuclear doctrine only serves to legitimize the role of nuclear weapons and increase the incentives of other states to retain and/or acquire the own nuclear weapons capabilities.
10122.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] Another anachronistic and outdated aspect of nuclear policy is the Presidential guidance that underlies the Pentagon's strategic war plan — known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). Today, the SIOP consists of a very long and redundant list of targets in Russia and a shorter list of targets in China that Pentagon planners say the United States needs to be able to destroy in order to meet the latest presidential guidance on nuclear war planning (PDD 60 of 1997). Current plans also call for maintaining thousands of these weapons on hair-trigger status, which creates, in the words of George W. Bush, "unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch."
As the Center for Defense Information and the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers reported last year (see Issue Brief Vol.4 No.7 <
During the campaign, President Bush called unneeded nuclear weapons "expensive relics of dead conflicts." If President Bush is to make good on his May 23, 2000 campaign pledge to "reduce the number of American nuclear weapons significantly further than ... START II," and to "lower the alert status" of those forces, it will be necessary for his administration to undertake a fundamental and meaningful overhaul of these outdated, Cold War-era military plans and policies.
______
U.S., Russian and Chinese Strategic Nuclear Arsenals, January 2000
ICBM Warheads SLBM Warheads Bmbr. Warheads Total Str. All Warheads
U.S. 2,000 3,456 1,750 ~7,200 ~10,500
Russia 3,540 1,576 790 ~6,000 ~20,000
10122.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] China 20 0 0 ~20 ~410
______
Toward a More Rational Policy:
Given the complexity of the debate and the likelihood of political controversy, what should actually happen in the review to make it worthwhile and beneficial to U.S. and international security? First, the review must be conducted by an interagency-body, not just the Defense and Energy departments. The National Security Council should lead the effort. Just as importantly, the nuclear weapons policy debate must be a public one. Outside experts from Congress and non-governmental organizations should be consulted on a bi-partisan basis.
A broad-based approach is required because nuclear weapons policy cannot be decided in a vacuum. It must be considered as part and parcel of overarching U.S. foreign and security policy. That means fundamental questions must be raised. Who is the arsenal aimed at, and what does that say about its current and future composition? What are the security and foreign policy benefits, risks, and costs? Do the current nuclear weapons attack options and target lists make sense in today's security environment? What do the regional commanders and the Joint Chiefs believe they need from a nuclear arsenal today, and in the future? To help answer these questions, input from the military — not just the politicized Defense Department — is necessary.
Second, the Nuclear Posture Review should take into consideration issues and findings associated with the Quadrennial Defense Review because strategic nuclear policy and conventional defense policy cannot be easily divided. In fact, one crucial factor in re-considering nuclear targeting requirements is the vast improvement over the past decade in the range, stealth, and accuracy of conventional strike weapons. Further, spending priorities also must be examined. Is the some $25 billion per year spent on nuclear weapons justified, or should some of that spending be shifted to conventional defense needs?
Third, the review take into account the U.S. commitment to pursuing nuclear disarmament under the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The U.S. government reiterated and enhanced its commitment in May 2000, by signing up to practical measures aimed at incremental implementation and agreeing to "an unequivocal undertaking by the Nuclear-Weapons States to accomplish the total elimination of this nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament."
The review should compare U.S. commitments under the NPT process in detail, with current and planned policy, doctrine, and posture and align them. In particular, the Nuclear Posture Review should give serious
10122.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] consideration to the following initiatives, which are backed by a number of leading nuclear weapons experts:
* a declaration that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter the use of nuclear weapons against the United States or its allies;
* replacement of rigid, outdated targeting plans with procedures to promptly develop a response tailored to any situation the United States may face;
* deep, verifiable reductions of the deployed and reserve U.S. nuclear arsenal to well below 1,000 warheads, possibly retaining a few hundred submarine-based warheads as a survivable force;
* removal of all U.S. nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert status; and
* withdrawal of all U.S. tactical nuclear weapons from Europe.
Today's schizophrenic policy is neither sustainable on the world stage, nor acceptable to any side of the domestic political equation. Quite simply, U.S. nuclear policy is broken. If it is to be fixed, the new president must be willing to face the fundamental questions — the who, what, how, where, and why of nuclear weapons. And he must be prepared to defend his answers to the American public and the rest of the world.
This Issue Brief is based upon the essay, "Get a policy, please," from the January/February issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by Theresa Hitchens, Research Director of the British American Security Information Council (202-347-8340). The Coalition is a non-partisan alliance of 17 of the nation's leading non-proliferation organizations working for a practical, step-by-step program to reduce the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of every Coalition member. For further information, see the Coalition's Web Site <
______
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director
Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers
10122.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505
Washington, DC 20002
(ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970
website <
______
10122.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:10:39 -0500 To: [email protected] From: Daryl Kimball
January 18, 2001
TO: Coalition members and friends
FR: Daryl Kimball
RE: Powell remarks on CTBT and brief analysis, 1/17
At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relation Committee yesterday, Sec. of State-designate Colin Powell addressed the issue of the CTBT in his opening statement. In those remarks (see excerpt, below) Powell referred to "flaws" in the Treaty and said (not suprisingly) that the Bush administration is not immediately interested in pursuing Senate advice and consent of the CTBT before the end of 2002. However, he seemed to leave the door open to possible future ratification and he was prudent enough to reaffirm support for continuation of the existing U.S. nuclear test moratorium.
Powell did not explain, nor was he asked what the Treaty's "flaws" are and how his statment squares with his very straighforward January 1998 statement of support for the CTBT (see
Last week, Secretary of Defense-designate Donald Rumsfeld reiterated his previously stated concerns about maintaining the arsenal without test explosions and CTBT verification and said he would study the Shalikashvili report.
For CTBT supporters this is a delicate time. While it will continue to be important to press the case for prompt U.S. ratification of the CTBT, to maintain a deliberate, balanced discussion of the merits of the Treaty, and ultimately to address "concerns" of Senators not yet convinced about the CTBT, the style and substance of these efforts is all important. For instance, support for additional funds for the DOE's already costly Stockpile Stewardship Program -- ostensibly to improve the labs ability to maintain the arsenal without testing -- will not necessarily translate into a better program, more lab or Senate support for the CTBT, or more effective U.S. non-proliferation policies. Rather, it will be important for CTBT supporters to remind policy-makers that core stockpile stewardship missions can be fulfilled using less costly, already proven technologies and that some laboratory activities -- such as unecessary warhead modifications -- should be avoided because they can decrease warhead reliability over time.
In addition, it will be important to make the case -- as General Shalikashvili did in his report on the CTBT -- that "a prolonged moratorium
10122.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] would do less damage to U.S. non-proliferation objectives and diplomatic standing than would a resumption of nuclear testing, but most of the benefits that the Test Ban Treaty can provide would be lessened or lost without ratification."
All in all, the Powell statement indicates that the Bush administration will review U.S. nuclear testing policy in all of its aspects but is unlikely, barring developments and pressure otherwise, to be friendly to the CTBT in the very near future.
The decades-long campaign for a permanent end to nuclear test explosions and nuclear arms competition goes on ....
- DK
NOTE: Further information on the CTBT is available on the Coalition web site
**************
Excerpt from Opening Remarks of General Colin Powell, Secretary of State-designate, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Confirmation Hearing, January 17, 2001 (UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT)
"We also need to review our approach to curbing proliferation. As you know, we will not be asking the Congress to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in its next session. We are mindful of the work that was done by President Clinton's Special Advisor and my colleague General Shalikashvili. We will examine that work, but we believe that there are still flaws with the Treaty as it was voted down in 1999."
"General Shalikashvili gave us some good ideas with respect to the stockpile stewardship program, which we will be pursuing, and at the same time President-elect Bush has indicated he has no intention of resuming testing as part of our efforts. We do not see any such need for such testing in the foreseeable future."
______
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers 110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 505 Washington, DC 20002 (ph) 202-546-0795 x136 (fax) 202-546-7970 website
10122.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:22:27 -0600 From: brenda hardt
Friends: There will be another networking meeting of the EVERY CHURCH A PEACE CHURCH?, an iniative which encourages a life of active nonviolence, based on the teachings of Jesus. To find out more, please go to the site http//:members.xoom.com/churchpeace/ or email John K. Stoner at [email protected]
Please tell your friends to check this out! Churches and individuals everywhere need to decide if they will be a peace church. Materials for discussion are being created.
If you know people of faith & peace in the Chicago area, tell them about this networking meeting. Let Mr. John K. Stoner know of your interest by e-mailing him.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *EVERY CHURCH A PEACE CHURCH Networking Meeting ** PLACE: First Church of the Brethren, 425 South Central Park, Chicago, IL (773) 533-4273
TIME: Friday, February 23, 2001,1:00 pm -- Saturday, Feb. 24, 12:00 noon A light meal will be served Friday evening.
REGISTRATION: $10 May be paid at the door, but please send your name earlier for the meal count. All are welcome. To Register: Phone 717 859-1958 (John Stoner) email: [email protected]
PURPOSE: To share information and generate discussion about Every Church A Peace Church, a venture to mobilize mainline and evangelical churches, churches of color, peace fellowships, and seminaries for nonviolent action around the belief that the church could turn the world toward peace if every congregations lived and taught as Jesus lived and taught.
PROGRAM: The program will be highly interactive, with ample discussion and question and answer time.
PROGRAM RESOURCE PEOPLE: Dr. C.T. Vivian of Atlanta, Georgia. The New School of Social Research named C.T. Vivian "spiritual leader, apostle of social justice, strategist of the
10122.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] Nonviolent Civil Rights Movement - for decades he has been in the vanguard of the nonviolent struggle for racial equality in America", and conferred an honorary doctorate. Dr Vivian is best known as the executive staff and National Director of Affiliates for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as they passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Bill and organized the March on Washington. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) shows him as activist and analyst in Eyes on the Prize, The Peoples Century, and The Healing Ministry of the Rev. C.T. Vivian. The Committee is pleased to have such an inspiring leader to help lead our program.
David Jehnsen, Galena Ohio, social change activist, organizer and educator in adult Education for democracy with emphasis on projects and systems related to nonviolence and social responsibility. His experience with nonviolence began at an early age in the Church of the Brethren and was stimulated by exposure to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s leadership of the nonviolent civil rights campaigns. Founder (1978) and chair of the Institute for Human Rights and Responsibilities. He and Bernard LaFayette, Jr. co-authored THE LEADERS MANUAL: A STRUCTURED GUIDE AND INTRODUCTION TO KINGIAN NONVIOLENCE, and THE COMMUNITY LEADER'S WORKBOOK. 740 965- 5118
John Stoner, Akron, Pennsylvania, Coordinator, New Call to Peacemaking, pastor, writer, activist, gardener, parent, and grandparent. Originator of Every Church A Peace Church vision. 717 859-1958
Others to be added.
All in attendance will be resource persons as they share their perspectives. Please share this invitation far and wide by email, snail mail, phone and word of mouth.
10122.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:58:32 -0500 From: Christine Kucia
Dear all:
It was agreed in today's Coalition meeting that groups working on NMD as it pertains to the Western allies should meet separately to discuss current and future work. BASIC could host this meeting on Monday, 29 January, 2-3:30pm; or Tuesday, 6 February, 9:30-11am (both dates are in advance of the next scheduled NMD Working Group meeting).
The discussion will focus on the status of current efforts in Europe (grassroots campaigns, media coverage, publications, and networking); find areas not yet covered by present work; and figure out how to plug the holes or collaborate more to advance awareness of NMD concerns in Europe.
Please email or call me by close of business Tuesday with your preference (or alternative availability) for this meeting.
Thanks,
Christine Kucia
*******************
Christine Kucia Analyst British American Security Information Council (BASIC) 1012 14th St., NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 USA Phone: +1 202 347 8340 ext. 103 Fax: +1 202 347 4688 Website: http://www.basicint.org
10122.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] To: Christine Kucia
At 04:58 PM 1/19/01 -0500, you wrote: >Dear all: > >It was agreed in today's Coalition meeting that groups working on NMD as >it pertains to the Western allies should meet separately to discuss >current and future work. BASIC could host this meeting on Monday, 29 >January, 2-3:30pm; or Tuesday, 6 February, 9:30-11am (both dates are in >advance of the next scheduled NMD Working Group meeting).....
Christine,
The 29th would be better for me, but I probably can make the 6th.
Howard
10122.05.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-2241-979971036-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf To: [email protected], [email protected], Abolition USA
Apologies if you received this already-- there were some difficulties with the first posting.
We are pleased to announce the new Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF) web site, which can be found at www.wslfweb.org.
A few highlights:
-The documents library, which has a number of recent WSLF publications available as acrobat pdf files.
-Our web links page, which we hope will provide a useful starting point for internet research on nuclear weapons and related issues.
-Our New Document Finds page, which has links to documents which we have obtained via the Freedom of Information Act when those are available in electronic form, plus links to government documents available on the Internet which have not received much public notice and which may be of interest to activists. Available in Acrobat pdf format is the February 2000 U.S. Department of Defense "Defense Science and Technology Plans," recently obtained by the Freedom of Information Act.
-Our Organizing for Abolition page, which includes links to:
--The Abolition 2000 Northern California Region page, which provides information about meetings and other activities of the regional network. Its address is http://www.wslfweb.org/abolition/ncal.htm.
--The new US Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons web site, which can be found at http://www.wslfweb.org/abolition/uscamp.htm. The US Campaign, part of the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons, was initiated at a meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in October 1999. WSLF is the interim clearinghouse for the US Campaign.
Our apologies if you receive several postings of this notice, it is being sent to several lists with some overlap in membership.
Andrew Lichterman Program Director
10122.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] Western States Legal Foundation 1504 Franklin St. Suite 202 Oakland, CA 94612 USA
phone: +1 (510) 839-5877 fax: +1 (510) 839-5397 web site: www.wslfweb.org
-- Andrew Lichterman Program Director Western States Legal Foundation 1504 Franklin St. Suite 202 Oakland, CA 94612 USA
phone: +1 (510) 839-5877 fax: +1 (510) 839-5397 e-mail: [email protected]
To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account you wish to be subscribed to: "abolition- [email protected]"
Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the message.
10122.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] From: "Paul Lansu"
Dear friends,
Sr Mary Evelyn Jegen, SND, forwarded to me a very interesting article on
10122.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] (European) security and disarmament. Please look at the text at the mentioned webpage bellow.
Kind regards,
Paul Lansu
-----Original Message----- From: Mary Evelyn Jegen [mailto:Mary Evelyn Jegen] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 9:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: A tip - read this article
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Mary Evelyn Jegen () on Friday, January 19, 2001 at 21:32:19 ------
Text: A tip - read this article here: http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/2001/pf112_PeacefulEurope.html.
Message: Paul, I want you to see this just in case you are not aware of it. Do you know the group?
Submit: Send
------
10122.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] From: Rachel Labush
Dear Howard, I am planning on attending the lobbying visit with Senator Domenici this afternoon but feel a bit underprepared. You had mentioned that you would send some background material, but I'm not sure in what form (e-mail, real mail). I have a basic understanding of the issues and I know that this is mostly a meeting to ask about his views on disarmament - is that good enough? How many people are going to be there this afternoon? I want to be prepared to make this visit as productive as possible
Thanks, Rachel
10122.08.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] To: [email protected], [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
To: Catherine Gordon and Rachel LaBush
Thank you for your willingness to join me this afternoon for a conversation with Elizabeth Turpin from Senator Domenici's staff. The appointment is for 3:00 p.m in Room 328, Hart Senate Office Building. Let's meet about ten minutes before that time in the hallway outside Senate Domenici's office.
Below are some questions for us to raise. Attached are several background pieces on de-alerting, START, George W. Bush's campaign speech, and General Shalikashvili's report on the CTBT.
Shalom, Howard
###
Questions for Senate Defense Aides on Nuclear Disarmament Issues
Participants in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament are conducting visits with defense aides of senators to get a feel of the senators' thinking on several nuclear disarmament issues. The intent is to establish a relationship and get information. Although we may make our views known, the visit is not meant to push for specific action or commitment.
De-alerting and Strategic Arms Reduction
Last May in a speech at the National Press Club President-elect George W. Bush offered his ideas on nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear arms reduction. He said:
"It should be possible to reduce the number of nuclear weapons significantly further than what has already been agreed to under START II without compromising our security in any way."
"In addition, the United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status."
"These changes to our forces should not require years and years of detailed arms negotiation." He cited the 1991 experience when his father took action on de-alerting and deactivating certain nuclear weapons and Soviet President Gorbachev reciprocated.
"We should invite the Russian government to accept the new vision I have outlined and act on it. But the United States should be prepared to lead by example because it is in our best interest and the best interest of the world."
What does Senator ______think of these ideas of President-elect Bush?
Shalikashvili Report
What does Senator _____ think of ideas presented in the report of General John Shalikashvili on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)? Specifically, General Shalikashvili suggested:
10122.09.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] * That the Senate should reexamine the treaty and ratify it. * That the Senate and the executive branch conduct a joint review of the treaty's overall impact on national security 10 years after ratification. * That our government adopt a more integrated approach to nonproliferation and appoint a deputy national security adviser for nonproliferation. * That the United States strengthen its capability to detect and deter nuclear testing. Would Senator _____ likely to be receptive to reconsideration of the CTBT and General Shalikashvili's other recommendations?
National Missile Defense
We do not intend to bring up national missile defense. However, if the senator's aide brings up the subject, we can express our concern and provide a copy of the religious leaders' letter to President Clinton on the subject.
10122.09.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:40 PM] To: [email protected], [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
Dear Ron and Pat,
I know you're just back in town from a week in Cleveland. But on fairly short notice could one of you join with me and another faith representative in a visit to the office of two New England senators to talk with their defense aides on nuclear disarmament issues.
The appointments are are 2:00 p.m. today, Monday, January 22 with Sam Patton in the office of Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 24 with Lori Schultz-Heim in the office of Senator Jim Jeffords (R-VT). If so, please call me at 301 896-0013 or e-mail a reply.
Below is an outline of some of the questions we might ask. Attached are several background pieces.
Shalom, Howard
###
Questions for Senate Defense Aides on Nuclear Disarmament Issues
Participants in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament are conducting visits with defense aides of senators to get a feel of the senators' thinking on several nuclear disarmament issues. The intent is to establish a relationship and get information. Although we may make our views known, the visit is not meant to push for specific action or commitment.
De-alerting and Strategic Arms Reduction
Last May in a speech at the National Press Club President-elect George W. Bush offered his ideas on nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear arms reduction. He said:
"It should be possible to reduce the number of nuclear weapons significantly further than what has already been agreed to under START II without compromising our security in any way."
"In addition, the United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status."
"These changes to our forces should not require years and years of detailed arms negotiation." He cited the 1991 experience when his father took action on de-alerting and deactivating certain nuclear weapons and Soviet President Gorbachev reciprocated.
"We should invite the Russian government to accept the new vision I have outlined and act on it. But the United States should be prepared to lead by example because it is in our best interest and the best interest of the world."
What does Senator ______think of these ideas of President-elect Bush?
10122.10.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] Shalikashvili Report
What does Senator _____ think of ideas presented in the report of General John Shalikashvili on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)? Specifically, General Shalikashvili suggested: * That the Senate should reexamine the treaty and ratify it. * That the Senate and the executive branch conduct a joint review of the treaty's overall impact on national security 10 years after ratification. * That our government adopt a more integrated approach to nonproliferation and appoint a deputy national security adviser for nonproliferation. * That the United States strengthen its capability to detect and deter nuclear testing. Would Senator _____ likely to be receptive to reconsideration of the CTBT and General Shalikashvili's other recommendations?
National Missile Defense
We do not intend to bring up national missile defense. However, if the senator's aide brings up the subject, we can express our concern and provide a copy of the religious leaders' letter to President Clinton on the subject.
10122.10.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] X-Lotus-FromDomain: UCC From: [email protected] To: "Howard W. Hallman"
Hi Howard, Schedule me for the appointment with the aide to Jeffords office for Wednesday, Jan 24. at 10 am. Thanks for your work on this. Let me know what I need to refer to, either by email or by dropping off a packet. Should I wear my clergy collar? Ron Stief
"Howard W. Hallman"
To: Ron Stief/UCC cc:
Subject: Appointments with Senate aides
Dear Ron,
I have lined up two appointments for next week with defense aides of two New England senators to talk about de-alerting and strategic arms reduction. Could either you or Pat Conover join a couple of others from the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament to talk with them?
The appointments are 2:00 p.m., Monday, January 22 with Sam Patton in the office of Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 24 with Lori Schultz-Heim in the office of Senator Jim Jeffords (R-VT).
I hope this message reaches you in Cleveland and that you can respond by e-mail or telephone (301 896-0013).
Shalom, Howard
Howard W. Hallman, Chair Methodists United for Peace with Justice 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected]
Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of
10122.11.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination.
10122.11.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
At 10:44 PM 1/18/01 -0500, you wrote: > > >Hi Howard, >Schedule me for the appointment with the aide to Jeffords office for >Wednesday, Jan 24. at 10 am. Thanks for your work on this. Let me know >what I need to refer to, either by email or by dropping off a packet. >Should I wear my clergy collar? >Ron Stief
Ron,
I sent some material as an enclosure this morning. If you didn't get it, let me know. I believe that clergy collar is optional with Lori Schultz-Heim, but your office colleagues can advise you further. Let's meet in the hall a few minutes early to review our presentation. See you then.
Howard
10122.12.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] X-Authentication-Warning: oscar.speakeasy.net: majordom set sender to [email protected] using -f Reply-To:
Good afternoon Back From the Brink supporters and friends,
The next message you receive from the campaign will be the promised flash file announcing the Call-In Days. There are a couple of things to know about the file:
Some of you, especially those with web site e-mail like hotmail or juno, will receive the file but not be able to see the animation. Go to http:www.backfromthebrink.net/call.html.
You can forward the file like any other e-mail. If you want to remove the forwarding message before you send the flash file to your contacts, click forward, highlight the forwarding message and Brink address and delete them. Be careful not to delete the flash file itself. It will then go out as a message from you. Be sure to add a new subject line. You can also send it out with that message intact just by forwarding it to you list.
To promote the flash file you can place a Call-In Days icon on the front page of your website which will link your site directly to the flash file. Contact [email protected] and ask to be linked.
The White House Comment line is not yet staffed. Their operator assures me that it will be operating by the end of the week. I’ll keep you informed.
ADDITIONAL ORGANIZING INFORMATION
We have a major Celebrity who will lend his name to the Call-In Day. Any guesses?
Many groups are leafleting at movie theaters showing Thirteen Days with Kevin Costner. Some are making flyers from the 2020 Vision card. If you don ’t have that card, contact Tim Barner at 202-833-2020.
The Campaign has a sample letter-to-the-editor linking Back from the Brink with Thirteen Days. Just think—Kennedy had thirteen days to make a decision to launch a nuclear weapon, President Bush has 8 minutes.
Attached is a list of national, regional and local organizations and contacts who are actively promoting the Call In Days. If you want to link up
10122.13.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] with any of them, contact the Brink Campaign at [email protected].
The Brink Campaign will have a Sample Press Release ready by next week.
There are a few flyers left if you have not yet sent them to your members. We can send them 2-day priority. Send an e-mail with the quantities you can use.
Thanks for all your efforts. This is shaping up to be a great action. We’ll be in touch.
For further information call Esther at 202-545-1001, or email to [email protected]. ********************************************* Esther Pank Back from the Brink Campaign 6856 Eastern Avenue, NW, # 322 Washington DC 20012 202.545.1001 ph 202.545.1004 fax [email protected] www.backfromthebrink.org
Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\those involved in flyers_sent.xls"
10122.13.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] X-Authentication-Warning: oscar.speakeasy.net: majordom set sender to [email protected] using -f Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: Subject: National CAll-In Days - February 5-6, 2001.htm Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:22:54 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: [email protected]
If you cannot view the animation part of this message, go to http://www.backfromthebrink.net/call/html
National Call-In Days: February 5-6, 2001
During his Presidential campaign, George W. Bush said that having thousands of US and Russian nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, “may create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch.”
One false alarm could turn into nuclear war. Tell President Bush he should work with the Russians to get all nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.
Ask your friends to participate in these National Call-In Days to the White House. Your efforts can help prevent nuclear war!
Please forward this message to all your friends, contacts, and organizations.
Sponsored by Back From the Brink, A Campaign to Take All Nuclear Weapons off Hair Trigger Alert - http://www.backfromthebrink.org
Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\ATT00003.txt" From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Nuclear disarmament Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:18:24 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Dear Reverend Hallman,
Thank you very much for the suggestions about New York area contact persons. In your note you mention that you chair the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. Would it be possible to send us some information about that organization? It sounds like something we would very much like to support.
Shalom,
Guy Quinlan Chair, Nuclear Disarmament Task Force All Souls Unitarian Church 340 East 80th St., #12D New York, NY 10021] Tel: 212-878-8219 (w), 212-861-2950 (h) Fax: 212-878-8375 email: [email protected]
*******
This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person.
For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer to any Clifford Chance office.
10122.15.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.3 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:27:05 -0500 From: "Catherine Gordon"
Howard,
I just went to meet you all at the Hart building but got stuck in the line. I was hoping you all might still be waiting but didn't get there till 3:10. I wasn't sure whether it would be better to go in late or not at all. I apologize for not being able to make it.
I have a question for you regarding a different matter. I am writing an article on defense spending and the budget and was wondering if you had any material on that or could point me in the right direction.
Regards, Catherine
>>> "Howard W. Hallman"
Thank you for your willingness to join me this afternoon for a conversation with Elizabeth Turpin from Senator Domenici's staff. The appointment is for 3:00 p.m in Room 328, Hart Senate Office Building. Let's meet about ten minutes before that time in the hallway outside Senate Domenici's office.
Below are some questions for us to raise. Attached are several background pieces on de-alerting, START, George W. Bush's campaign speech, and General Shalikashvili's report on the CTBT.
Shalom, Howard
###
Questions for Senate Defense Aides on Nuclear Disarmament Issues
Participants in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament are conducting visits with defense aides of senators to get a feel of the senators' thinking on several nuclear disarmament issues. The intent is to establish a relationship and get information. Although we may make our views known, the visit is not meant to push for specific action or commitment.
De-alerting and Strategic Arms Reduction
10122.16.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] Last May in a speech at the National Press Club President-elect George W. Bush offered his ideas on nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear arms reduction. He said:
"It should be possible to reduce the number of nuclear weapons significantly further than what has already been agreed to under START II without compromising our security in any way."
"In addition, the United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status."
"These changes to our forces should not require years and years of detailed arms negotiation." He cited the 1991 experience when his father took action on de-alerting and deactivating certain nuclear weapons and Soviet President Gorbachev reciprocated.
"We should invite the Russian government to accept the new vision I have outlined and act on it. But the United States should be prepared to lead by example because it is in our best interest and the best interest of the world."
What does Senator ______think of these ideas of President-elect Bush?
Shalikashvili Report
What does Senator _____ think of ideas presented in the report of General John Shalikashvili on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)? Specifically, General Shalikashvili suggested: * That the Senate should reexamine the treaty and ratify it. * That the Senate and the executive branch conduct a joint review of the treaty's overall impact on national security 10 years after ratification. * That our government adopt a more integrated approach to nonproliferation and appoint a deputy national security adviser for nonproliferation. * That the United States strengthen its capability to detect and deter nuclear testing. Would Senator _____ likely to be receptive to reconsideration of the CTBT and General Shalikashvili's other recommendations?
National Missile Defense
We do not intend to bring up national missile defense. However, if the senator's aide brings up the subject, we can express our concern and provide a copy of the religious leaders' letter to President Clinton on the subject.
10122.16.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] To: "Catherine Gordon"
At 03:27 PM 1/22/01 -0500, you wrote:
I am writing an article on defense spending and the budget and was wondering if you had anymaterial on that or could point me in the right direction.
###
Catherine,
Among the contacts for budget information are the following:
Center for Defense Information, Chris Hellman, 202 332-0600, x. 103
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 202 331-7990
Citizens for a Responsible Budget, Scott Nathanson, 202 543-4100, x. 135
Taxpayers for Common Sense, 202 546-8500; Ralph DeGennaro (x. 102) or Alise Fry (x. 104)
I hope this helps.
Howard
10122.17.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Colleagues:
I am looking for one or two persons to join me on Thursday morning, January 25 for the following appointments to talk about nuclear disarmament issues:
10:00 a.m. Karen Rogers, office of Senator Specter, 711 Hart 11:00 a.m. Lori Schultz-Heim, office of Senator Jeffords, 728 Hart
Please e-mail or call me at 301 896-0013 if you are willing to do this.
Thanks, Howard To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
Dear Colleagues:
I am looking for one or two persons to join me on Thursday morning, January 25 for the following appointments to talk about nuclear disarmament issues:
10:00 a.m. Karen Rogers, office of Senator Specter, 711 Hart 11:00 a.m. Lori Schultz-Heim, office of Senator Jeffords, 728 Hart
Please e-mail or call me at 301 896-0013 if you are willing to do this.
Thanks, Howard
10123.02.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] To: [email protected], "Larry Egbert"
Larry,
Lori Schultz-Heim of Senator Jefford's office has cancelled our appointment for Wednesday morning because she has to go out of town.
Howard
10123.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
Ron,
Lori Schultz-Heim on Senator Jefford's staff has cancelled our appointment for Wednesday morning because she has to go out of town. She has rescheduled it for 11:00 a.m., Thursday, January 25 at same place, 728 Hart Senate Office Building. Can you go then?
Howard
10123.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] X-Lotus-FromDomain: UCC From: [email protected] To: "Howard W. Hallman"
Yes, I will be there on Thursday at 11:00 in front of Jeffords' office. Ron
"Howard W. Hallman"
To: Ron Stief/UCC cc:
Subject: Appointment postponed
Ron,
Lori Schultz-Heim on Senator Jefford's staff has cancelled our appointment for Wednesday morning because she has to go out of town. She has rescheduled it for 11:00 a.m., Thursday, January 25 at same place, 728 Hart Senate Office Building. Can you go then?
Howard
Howard W. Hallman, Chair Methodists United for Peace with Justice 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected]
Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination.
10123.05.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] X-Lotus-FromDomain: UCC From: [email protected] To: "Howard W. Hallman"
Howard, Since I am doing the 11:00 visit, if you need someone, I can do the 10:00 with Specter's office as well. Please confirm.
Ron Stief
10123.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
At 02:06 PM 1/23/01 -0500, you wrote: > > >Howard, >Since I am doing the 11:00 visit, if you need someone, I can do the 10:00 >with Specter's office as well. Please confirm. > >Ron Stief
Ron,
I accept your offer. You've got a strong membership in Pennsylvania as well as Vermont. I'll meet you outside Specter's office at 9:50 a.m., Thursday, January 25,
Howard
10123.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] From: Robin Ringler
Hi Howard!
Thanks for trying to FAX the card to me. It did not come out - the text if not readable. So, if you really are going to be on the Hill Thursday, if you have an extra copy or two you could give me, that would be great!
Thanks very much, Robin
10123.08.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:41 PM] From: David Culp
To: Monday Lobby Participants
Attached is the revised Monday Lobby phonebook. If there are corrections, please let Lydia Miles ([email protected]) or myself know. I will also distribute copies of the phonebook at our regular meeting next Monday.
I am looking for chairs for February, March, June, September, and October. If you would like to co-chair one of those months, send me an e-mail.
Thanks,
David Culp, Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) 245 Second Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002-5795 Phone: (202) 547-6000, ext. 146 Fax: (202) 547-6019 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.fcnl.org
Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\Monday Lobby Phonebook, 1-01.rtf"
10124.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] Monday Lobby Phonebook January 2001
Please inform Lydia Milnes, Friends Committee on National Legislation, [email protected], of changes.
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability Jim Bridgman jcbridgman Kathy Crandall kathycrandall 1801 18th Street, N.W., Suite 9-2 Washington, D.C. 20009 Tel: (202) 833-4668 Fax: (202) 234-9536 E-mail: (see name above)@earthlink.net Website: www.ananuclear.org
American Friends Service Committee Jim Matlack 1822 R Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 Tel: (202) 483-3341 Fax: (202) 232-3197 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.afsc.org
Americans for Democratic Action Darryl Fagin 1625 K Street, N.W., Suite 210 Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: (202) 785-5980 Fax: (202) 785-5969 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.adaction.org
Back from the Brink Esther Pank [email protected] Ira Shorr [email protected] 6856 Eastern Avenue, N.W., Suite 322 Washington, D.C. 20012 Tel: (202) 545-1001 Fax: (202) 545-1004 Website: www.backfromthebrink.org
British American Security Information Council Theresa Hitchens thitchens Christine Kucia ckucia Nilu Majd [email protected] Kathleen Miller kmiller Dan Plesch dplesch 1012 14th Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 347-8340 Fax: (202) 347-4688 E-mail: (see name above)@basicint.org Website: www.basicint.org
Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities David Crosson 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 615 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 483-0900 Fax: (202) 483-9330 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.businessleaders.org
Campaign for U.N. Reform Don Kraus 420 7th Street, S.E., Suite C Washington, D.C. 20003 Tel: (202) 546-3956 Fax: (202) 546-8703 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cunr.org
Center for Defense Information Marcus Corbin -5282 mcorbin Chris Hellman -5285 chellman Rachel Stohl -5283 rstohl 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 332-0600 or (202) 797-(above) Fax: (202) 462-4559 E-mail: (see name above)@cdi.org Website: www.cdi.org
Center for International Policy Clarissa Kayosa mwaampa Paul Olweny polwney 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: (202) 232-3317 Fax: (202) 232-3440 E-mail: (see name above)@ciponline.org Website: www.us.net/cip/
Church of the Brethren Washington Office Cary Jossart Greg Laszakovits 337 North Carolina Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 Tel: (202) 546-3202 Fax: (202) 544-5852 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.brethren.org/genbd/washofc/
Church Women United Ann Delorey 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Suite 108 Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 544-8747 Fax: (202) 544-9133 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.churchwomen.org
Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers Daryl Kimball x136 dkimball Stacie Robinson x137 srobinson 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Suite 505 Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 546-0795 Fax: (202) 546-5142 E-mail: (see name above)@clw.org Website: www.crnd.org
Council for a Livable World John Isaacs x131 jdi Suzy Kerr x115 skerr Dan Koslofsky x125 dan 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Suite 409 Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 543-4100 Fax: (202) 543-6297 E-mail: (see name above)@clw.org Website: www.clw.org
Council for a Livable World Education Fund Lynn Erskine x100 lerskine Erik Floden x110 efloden 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Suite 201 Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 546-0795 Fax: (202) 546-5142 E-mail: (see name above)@clw.org Website: www.clw.org/ef/
D.C. Green Party Jenefer Ellingston 641 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 546-0940 Fax: (202) 546-0431 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.dcgreenparty.org
Disarmament Clearinghouse 1101 14th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 898-0150 Fax: (202) 898-0172 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.disarmament.org
East Timor Action Network and Indonesia Human Rights Network Lynn Fredriksson ihrn Karen Orenstein karen 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 Tel: (202) 544-6911 Fax: (202) 544-6118 E-mail: (see name above)@etan.org Website: www.etan.org
Federation of American Scientists Pamina Firchow -5220 firchow Tamar Gabelnick -1018 tamarg 307 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 546-3300 or (202) 675-(above) Fax: (202) 675-1010 E-mail: (see name above)@fas.org Website: www.fas.org
Fourth Freedom Forum Alistair Millar 11 Dupont Circle, NW, Ninth Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 393-5201 Fax: (202) 393-5202 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.fourthfreedom.org
Friends Committee on National Legislation David Culp x146 david Kathy Guthrie x144 kathy Ned Stowe x117 ned Catherine Stratton Treadway x120 catherine Joe Volk x119 joe 245 Second Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002-5795 Tel: (202) 547-6000 Fax: (202) 547-6019 E-mail: (see name above)@fcnl.org Website: www.fcnl.org
Fund for New Priorities in America Robert Vandivier 122 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 543-1231 Fax: (202) 543-5193 E-mail: [email protected]
Greenpeace 702 H Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: (202) 462.1177 Fax: (202) 462-4507 Website: www.greenpeaceusa.org
Lawyers Alliance for World Security and Committee for National Security Scott Cantor 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 802 Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: (202) 745-2450 Fax: (202) 667-0444 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.lawscns.org
Mennonite Central Committee Daryl Byler 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Suite 502 Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 544-6564 Fax: (202) 544-2820 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.mcc.org
Methodists United for Peace with Justice Howard Hallman 1500 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel/Fax: (301) 896-0013 E-mail: [email protected]
National Council of Churches/Church World Service Heather Nolen heathern Lisa Wright lisaw 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Suite 108 Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 544-2350 Fax: (202) 543-1297 E-mail: (see name above)@ncccusa.org Website: www.ncccusa.org
National Security News Service Jeff Moag x18 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1310 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 466-4310 Fax: (202) 466-4344 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.publicedcenter.org/nsns.html
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby Anne Curtis x25 acurtis Lisa Hixon x13 lhixon 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Suite 460 Washington, D.C. 20003 Tel: (202) 547-5556 Fax: (202) 547-5510 E-mail: (see name above)@networklobby.org Website: www.networklobby.org
Peace Action/Peace Action Education Fund Gordon Clark x3007 gclark Tracy Moavero x3004 tmoavero 1819 H Street, N.W., Suite 420-425 Washington, D.C. 20006-3603 Tel: (202) 862-9740 Fax: (202) 862-9762 E-mail: (see name above)@peace-action.org Website: www.peace-action.org
Peace Links Charolett Baker x14 [email protected] Anna Smiles x20 [email protected] 666 11th Street, N.W. Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: (202) 783-7030 Fax: (202) 783-7040 Website: www.peacelinks.org
Physicians for Social Responsibility Martin Butcher x220 mbutcher Anne Gallivan x222 agallivan Kimberly Roberts x212 kroberts Jaya Tiwari x232 jtiwari 1101 14th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 898-0150 Fax: (202) 898-0172 E-mail: (see name above)@psr.org Website: www.psr.org
Presbyterian Church (USA) Catherine Gordon 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Suite 104 Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 543-1126 Fax: (202) 543-7755 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.pcusa.org
Project On Government Oversight Eric Miller Seth Morris [email protected] 666 11th Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: (202) 347-1122 Fax: (202) 347-1116 Website: www.pogo.org Student Pugwash USA Sandy Ionno Butcher sionno Susan Veres sveres 815 15th Street, N.W., Suite 814 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 393-6555 Fax: (202) 393-6550 E-mail: (see name above)@spusa.org Website: www.spusa.org/pugwash/
Taxpayers for Common Sense Alise Frye x104 651 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 Tel: (202) 546-8500 Fax: (202) 546-8511 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.taxpayer.net
TechRocks Laura Kriv 2100 L Street, N.W., Suite 210 Washington, D.C. 20037 Tel: (202) 785-1204 Fax: (202) 785-5341 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.techrocks.org and DontBlowIt.org
20/20 Vision Tim Barner x13 timb James Wyerman x19 jwyerman 1828 Jefferson Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 833-2020 Fax: (202) 833-5307 E-mail: (see name above)@2020vision.org Website: www.2020vision.org
Religious Action Center Union of American Hebrew Congregations Rachel Labush 2027 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 387-2800 Fax: (202) 667-9070 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.rj.org/rac/
Union of Concerned Scientists Tom Zamora Collina x109 tcollina Stephen Young x112 syoung 1707 H Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: (202) 223-6133 Fax: (202) 223-6162 E-mail: (see name above)@ucsusa.org Website: www.ucsusa.org
United Church of Christ Office for Church in Society Ron Stief 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Suite 207 Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 543-1517 Fax: (202) 543-5994 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.ucc.org
Veterans for Peace Ellen Barfield 733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 928 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 347-6780 Fax: (202) 347-6781 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.veteransforpeace.org
Women Strike for Peace Edith Villastrigo Women Strike for Peace 1111 University Boulevard West, Apt. 1005 Silver Spring, Maryland 20902 Tel/Fax: (301) 593-6948 E-mail: c/o Cedar Dvorin, [email protected]
Women's Action for New Directions and Women Legislators' Lobby Kimberly Robson (WAND) wand Ann Ober (WILL) will 110 Maryland Avenue, Suite 205 Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 543-8505 Fax: (202) 675-6469 E-mail: (see above)@wand.org Website: www.wand.org
Women's International League for Peace & Freedom Gillian Gilhool 110 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel: (202) 546-6727 Fax: (202) 544-9613 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.wilpf.org
World Federalist Association Heather Hamilton x107 hbhamilton Chuck Woolery x 103 chuck 420 7th Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 Tel: (202) 546-3950 Fax: (202) 546-3749 E-mail: (see name above)@wfa.org Website: www.wfa.org
Out-of Town Organizations
National Priorities Project Greg Speeter 17 New South Street, Suite 301 Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Tel: (413) 584-9556 Fax: (413) 586-9647 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.natprior.org
Saferworld Peter J. Davies 711 Ladd Road Bronx, New York 10471 Tel/Fax: (718) 549-1726 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.saferworld.co.uk
US Campaign to Ban Landmines Gina Coplon-Newfield x228 c/o Physicians for Human Rights 100 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Tel: (617) 695-0041 Fax: (617) 695-0307 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.banminesusa.org
World Policy Institute Frida Berriga x112 BerrigaF Michelle Ciarrocca x107 CiarrM01 Bill Hartung x106 Hartung 66 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor New York, New York 10011 Tel: (212) 229-5808 Fax: (212) 229-5579 E-mail: (see name above)@newschool.edu Website: www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms To: David Culp
At 04:13 PM 1/23/01 -0500, you wrote: >To: Monday Lobby Participants > > >Attached is the revised Monday Lobby phonebook....
David,
The entry for me is correct. I won't be at Monday Lobby on Monday. Would you or Lydia please mail me a copy of the new addition. The format never seems to come out right when I try to down load it.
Thanks for this favor and to FNCL for keeping the directory up to date.
Howard
10124.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:19:20 -0500 From: Christine Kucia
The NMD and Western allies meeting will be held Monday, 29 January, 2-3:30pm in BASIC's office (see listing below for address). Please RSVP to me with your acceptance by Friday, 25 January.
To help keep the discussion focused, I am drafting an agenda to be distributed via email on Friday; feel free to contact me about topics that the meeting might address. The agenda is shaping around three main areas:
1. Reporting on current efforts in Europe -- with local activists, mulitlateral orgs, and state governments. Includes: *Grassroots campaigns *Media coverage *Publications *Network-building
2. What's not covered by our present work?
3. Ways to close the gaps in information disemination, and how to collaborate more to advance awareness of NMD concerns in Europe.
Hope to see you on Monday. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or suggestions.
Christine
*******************
Christine Kucia Analyst British American Security Information Council (BASIC) 1012 14th St., NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 USA Phone: +1 202 347 8340 ext. 103 Fax: +1 202 347 4688 Website: http://www.basicint.org
10124.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] To: Christine Kucia
At 05:19 PM 1/23/01 -0500, you wrote: >The NMD and Western allies meeting will be held Monday, 29 January, >2-3:30pm in BASIC's office (see listing below for address). Please RSVP >to me with your acceptance by Friday, 25 January.
I'll be there.
Howard Hallman
.
10124.05.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
You have us twice on the e-mail list for Newscope. Once is enough. Thanks.
Howard Hallman
10124.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] From: "Hooper, Eula Mae"
You asked us twice to renew your subscription to Newscope via e-mail. You have paid for Newscope via e-mail twice. We show a remittance of $15.00 on 11/29/00 under the account for Methodist United for Peace with Justice. We also show a billing on 11/18/00 on your account for $15.00 for an e-mail subscription to you. This charge was paid on 12/27/00. We can do one of the following: (1) We can extend your subscription for another year. If you choose this option, please let us know where the subscription is to remain. The account on which the subscription is retained is the person or organization that will receive the renewal notice. (2) We can cancel one of the subscriptions and refund the $15.00 that was charged to the account or credit the $15.00 to that account. Please let us know where you wish the subscription to remain. Thank you for letting us know that you were receiving duplicates. When they are on two different accounts, the only way we would know would be if your tell us. So thanks again. Sincerely,
Eula Mae Hooper Subscription Services
> -----Original Message----- > From: Rebeck, Victoria > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:09 AM > To: Hooper, Eula Mae > Subject: FW: e-mail subscription > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Howard W. Hallman [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: e-mail subscription > > You have us twice on the e-mail list for Newscope. Once is enough. > Thanks. > > Howard Hallman > Howard W. Hallman, Chair > Methodists United for Peace with Justice > 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 > Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected] > > Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of > laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination.
10124.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] To: "Hooper, Eula Mae"
At 09:24 AM 1/24/01 -0600, you wrote: >You asked us twice to renew your subscription to Newscope via e-mail. You >have paid for Newscope via e-mail twice. We show a remittance of $15.00 on >11/29/00 under the account for Methodist United for Peace with Justice. We >also show a billing on 11/18/00 on your account for $15.00 for an e-mail >subscription to you. This charge was paid on 12/27/00. We can do one of >the following: >(1) We can extend your subscription for another year. If you choose this >option, please let us know where the subscription is to remain. The account >on which the subscription is retained is the person or organization that >will receive the renewal notice.....
Please use this option. The subscription should be for Methodits United for Peace with Justice, of which I am chair. The e-mail address is [email protected]. The U.S. mail address is 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Thanks for working this out.
Howard Hallman
101224.08.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:43 PM] From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Nuclear disarmament Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:18:24 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Dear Reverend Hallman,
Thank you very much for the suggestions about New York area contact persons. In your note you mention that you chair the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. Would it be possible to send us some information about that organization? It sounds like something we would very much like to support.
Shalom,
Guy Quinlan Chair, Nuclear Disarmament Task Force All Souls Unitarian Church 340 East 80th St., #12D New York, NY 10021] Tel: 212-878-8219 (w), 212-861-2950 (h) Fax: 212-878-8375 email: [email protected]
*******
This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person.
For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer to any Clifford Chance office.
10124.09.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
At 07:18 PM 1/22/01 -0000, you wrote: > >>Dear Reverend Hallman, > >Thank you very much for the suggestions about New York area contact persons. >In your note you mention that you chair the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear >Disarmament. Would it be possible to send us some information about that >organization? It sounds like something we would very much like to support....
To:Guy Quinlan:
The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament is a coalition of 35 denominational offices and religious associations working together on nuclear disarmament issues. We focus our attention on Congress and the Executive Branch. Through our various organizations we do direct lobbying in Washington and encourage grassroots action by our membership. We meet monthly in Washington and have occasional e-mail communication.
Participants tend to be national organizations but local organizations are not excluded if they want to be involved. If you are, I can add your name to our e-mail list, which is the primary means of communication. Call me if you have any questions.
Shalom, Howard Hallman
10124.10.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] To: "Adrienne Fong"
Adrienne,
I understand your time pressures, especially if you're not going to be able to attend the P/J Coordinators meeting in Washington in March. I'll be at the legislative briefing. I hope I meet Dr. Judy Newton there.
Shalom, Howard
10124.11.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] From: "Adrienne Fong"
Dear Howard, Please accept my apology for not responding sooner than now. Thank you for the invitation to join the Board of Directors of Methodist United for Peace. YOUR WORK IS CRUCIAL AT THIS TIME- especially with the new administration - but perhaps they will be more up front with what they are doing?? Right now TIME is a big issue for me. My Dad had a stroke in December and that has take nearly all of my time outside of my regular job. I am having a hard time keeping up with being a PwJ Coord. for the conference at this time. I don't think that I have a whole lot of knowledge on the nuclear issue - I always rely on people like you, Jackie Cabasso, Marylia Kelley etc. For right now I am going to have to decline to be on the Board of Directors. I consider it a honnor to be asked by you! Primarily I just don't think that I have the time to do an adequate job. FYI, the CA-NV Conference is going to have a PwJ Educator name Dr. Judy Newton - who is a missionary in Japan. One of her main interest is the nuclear weapons issue. She is planning to be in Washington for the legislative briefing. Will you be at the legislative briefing? Hope to see you then! For PEACE, Adrienne
-----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman
>Dear Adrienne, > >Would you be willing to join the Board of Directors of Methodists United >for Peace with Justice? As you know, our primary emphasis is upon nuclear >disarmament. We are playing an important role in mobilizing Methodists on >this issue. Through my leadership role as chair of the Interfaith >Committee for Nuclear Disarmament we are making a broader impact. Your >knowledge of this issue and your practical grassroots experience would be >an asset to our board. > >We are having our next board meeting on Friday, March 23, 2001 in >Washington, D.C. That's the day before the United Methodist Legislative & >Public Policy Briefing that you are likely to attend. Beyond that our >board is scheduled to meet once a year, but because of travel costs the
10124.12.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] >last couple of years we haven't met. Instead we have conferred by e-mail, >regular mail, and telephone. In the future we will continue to rely on >e-mail, may try to confer via a telephone conference call, and will get >together at opportune times, such as this briefing. > >With the low budget we operate on, we are unable to pay board travel >expenses. In the case of March 23 meeting the UM General Board of Church >and Society will be paying your travel expenses for that weekend. Perhaps >your conference can pay for your extra night at a hotel. Or we can arrange >for host housing in Washington for that night. > >So I hope you can join our board. But if not, we will continue to work >with you on issues of mutual concern. > >Shalom, >Howard > > >Howard W. Hallman, Chair >Methodists United for Peace with Justice >1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 >Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected] > >Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of >laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination. >
10124.12.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] From: David Culp
> Would you or Lydia please mail me a copy of the new addition. The > format never seems to come out right when I try to down load it.
Sorry, I'm not willing to take on mailing out the Monday Lobby phonebook. If you have Windows, on the Start button, go to Programs, then Accessories, then WordPad. If you want to print it out, out would have to format the page length.
Over and out,
David
10124.13.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:42:42 -0600 From: "Greg Laszakovits"
Howard,
I would like to go on those visits, especially Spector, but it won't fit in my schedule.
On another note, I'm getting inquiries from a couple of state contacts who are curious about the timing of their visits to state offices with the larger delegation. When will this happen? The inquiries are coming out of Indiana and PA.
Greg
Greg Laszakovits Director, Church of the Brethren Washington Office 337 North Carolina Avenue Washington, DC 20003 202.546.3202
>>> "Howard W. Hallman"
I am looking for one or two persons to join me on Thursday morning, January 25 for the following appointments to talk about nuclear disarmament issues:
10:00 a.m. Karen Rogers, office of Senator Specter, 711 Hart 11:00 a.m. Lori Schultz-Heim, office of Senator Jeffords, 728 Hart
Please e-mail or call me at 301 896-0013 if you are willing to do this.
Thanks, Howard
Howard W. Hallman, Chair Methodists United for Peace with Justice 1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected]
Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination.
10124.14t.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Nuclear Disarmament Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:50:34 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Thank you for the information about the Interfaith Committee. I would very much like to be added to your e-mail list.
Guy C. Quinlan [email protected]
*******
This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person.
For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer to any Clifford Chance office.
10124.15.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] To: "Greg Laszakovits"
At 08:42 AM 1/23/01 -0600, you wrote: >Howard,
....I'm getting inquiries from a couple of state contacts who are curious about the timing of their visits to state offices with the larger delegation. When will this happen? The inquiries are coming out of Indiana and PA.... > >Greg
Greg,
I'm getting back to this after getting absorbed with the Senate staff visits. Also, I have been waiting for Lisa Wright to have time to contact state councils of churches. This week I have been making calls to Pennsylvania, Indiana, Nebraska, and Oregon for starters. I hope this will come to fruition next week. Thanks for your patience.
Howard
10124.16.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
Pat,
Attached is an outline of some points that might be considered related to the nuclear posture review. Perhaps these could be developed and incorporated into a report or statement from faith organizations. What do you think?
Howard
10124.17.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:42 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
Allistair,
Following up our conversation the other day, I'm wondering if there might be some type of report or statement signed by a number of civil-sector and faith-based organizations that takes a realistic look at nuclear threats and most appropriate responses. I believe that this would show NMD to be of relative minor importance and very low cost effectiveness.
The threats to the United States include (1) the existing nuclear arsenals of Russia and China, (2) unsecured fissile material that might get in the wrong hands, (3) efforts by a few nations to develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, (4) attempts by terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons, and (5) nuclear attack on the U.S. by terrorists or hostile nation, delivered by (a) smuggling in, (b) boat in harbor or off shore, (c) cruise missile from intermediate distance, or (d) long-range missile attack.
Appropriate responses include (1) de-alerting arsenals of nuclear-weapon states, (2) arms reduction measures, such as those specified in Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, (3) Nunn-Lugar activities, (4) comprehensive approach to global fissile material control, (5) restrictions on missile technology, (6) diplomacy and economic assistance to remove dangers from North Korea and other nations, (7) keep track of terrorists groups, (8) deal with causes of terrorism, (9) develop safeguards against close-in attacks, and (10) national missile defense.
These are quick lists and could be refined and developed. Some of the remedies are underway, others would have to be initiated or augmented. A total examination of threats and remedies should reveal (1) what a bad bargain NMD is (I didn't deal with bad side effects, such as responses of Russia and China) and (2) the need to do more about some of the other remedies.
I'll be interested in your thoughts.
Howard
10124.18.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:43 PM] From: "Adrienne Fong" To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Wed. Eve. Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:52:25 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Howard, For clarification, right now I plan to be in Washington for the legislative briefing. Adrienne X-Lotus-FromDomain: UCC From: [email protected] To: "Howard W. Hallman"
Dear Howard,
You present some interesting information in the "Proposed Nuclear Posture..." document you sent to me. However, I find it lacking in several respects.
The form is muddy in the sense that you have 10 numbered points some of which are history and some of which are proposed changes. I suggest a rewrite with a distinct introduction section, written in paragraph style, which puts forward the same information but also discusses the START process and the de facto build down including U.S. expenditures to help the Russians reduce their arsenal. The introduction also needs a summary of the existing threat and its distribution by delivery system. We need to focus on the reduced existing threat and convince people we don't have to be so afraid of Russia and China in particular.
We need to say something about the threat from the "rogue" nations because the Pentagon is pushing that threat as a justification for star wars and that is in the news.
In the proposed changes section, it seems a distraction to me to mention the "no first use" issue. Without a lot of context that will firghten or upset people or remind them they don't know a lot and might feel uncomfortable making that judgement. Point number 8 about dealerting needs to be developed since it is a centerpoint of the Back from the Brink campaign. In fact, the Proposed Nuclear Posture name suggests to me that perhaps our next communication to the grass roots ought to focus specifically on the dealerting agenda and not raise the rest of the context.
The part about chemical and biological weapons felt very distracting in this context. Our goal is not to respond to the worst case scenarios of our opponents but to make the positive case for our position with easiest possible read. We can handle such issues in a second round of communication, as needed.
At some point we need to create the faith context and inspiration for this effort before going to religious grass roots.
Shalom, Pat
10125.01.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:43 PM] Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:25:34 -0500 From: Carol Blythe and Rick Goodman
Howard -- I have had computer problems and am finally back online. I missed the Jan meeting.
Is there another one scheduled? (this is for the interfaith committee on nuclear disarmament).
Thanks --
Carol Blythe
PS I don't have any contacts with the senators you listed, but will check with Alliance of Baptists and BPFNA
10125.03.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:43 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
Carol,
The next meeting of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament is scheduled for Tuesday, February 13 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. at the Methodist Building, 100 Maryland Avenue, NE. In 2001 we will meet at this time on the second Tuesday of every month except in August.
Howard
10125.04.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:43 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman"
Lisa,
Here's are Pat Conover's comments on my draft outline. I would be interested in learning what you think.
Howard
>From: [email protected] >To: "Howard W. Hallman"
10125.05.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:43 PM] >The part about chemical and biological weapons felt very distracting in >this context. Our goal is not to respond to the worst case scenarios of >our opponents but to make the positive case for our position with easiest >possible read. We can handle such issues in a second round of >communication, as needed. > >At some point we need to create the faith context and inspiration for this >effort before going to religious grass roots. > >Shalom, Pat > > >
10125.05.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:43 PM] Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:15:38 -0800 (PST) From: Egbert Lawrence
Howard, Got your message. No problem. I can go some other time. Wednesdays are very easy for me but other days will work, e.g. Monday or Thursday afternoons. Let me know. Otherwise, I will see you at the next meeting. PEACE! Larry --- "Howard W. Hallman"
______Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
10125.06.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:43 PM] Reply-To: "Alistair Millar"
Howard:
Thank you for your note. You have outlined the threat and outlined some adequate responses that are clearly in line with the beliefs and goals of the arms control and disarmament community's fundamental thinking. Some of the responses to key threats you mention, however, are vague (such as how to respond to terrorist threats). I believe that the terrorist threat is the most compelling and should be given more focus as a way of underlining the deficiencies and ridiculousness of NMD. Spurgeon raised a good point on the terrorist factor in his recent article in Inside Missile Defense:
" if one posits that the possibility that a rogue state, which might have one or two nuclear war weapons, could build a missile capable of reaching the United States warrants deployment of a robust NMD, does it not follow that there should be a comparable US air defense system? And if this is so, should the United States also ban foreign shipping from its coastal cities and securely seal its notoriously porous borders? And does the new administration really propose to offer this same all-inclusive protection to all our friends and allies?"
Also if you look at the Rumsfeld comfirmation hearing testimony you will see that some senators are already concerned about this point. For example, Sen. Levin noted that "Even if we're willing to take those adverse effects because we think that the positives outweigh the negatives, e atill left with the fact that there are other means of delivery beside missiles. Trucks and ships which are cheaper, more reliable, have return address."
Rumsfeld could not give a cohernet answer. What is driving the sale of NMD by politicians and military officails to the public? It is all about protecting America. Little else. If we can make the argument that resources are being squandered on a problem that is not urgent and far less likely than other emerging and existing problems; if we can recruit and effectively place experts on the threat to make the case to the media and the politicians and back it up with the cost argument; if we can mobilise the religious and general grass roots community behind the arguments that NMD is a double waste of money and a hinderence to US security because it fails to address threats that in fact creates new ones, I think it will be difficult for the new administration move so quickly on deployment. This might be part of an imeadtiate term strategy to get an ally in the Senate (Biden would be one to go for) to push the new administration to at least adopt on the record as many -- idealy all! -- of the four
10125.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:43 PM] criteria for deployment that Clinton outlined.
What do you think.
Alistair -----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman
>Allistair, > >Following up our conversation the other day, I'm wondering if there might >be some type of report or statement signed by a number of civil-sector and >faith-based organizations that takes a realistic look at nuclear threats >and most appropriate responses. I believe that this would show NMD to be >of relative minor importance and very low cost effectiveness. > >The threats to the United States include (1) the existing nuclear arsenals >of Russia and China, (2) unsecured fissile material that might get in the >wrong hands, (3) efforts by a few nations to develop nuclear weapons and >long-range missiles, (4) attempts by terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons, >and (5) nuclear attack on the U.S. by terrorists or hostile nation, >delivered by (a) smuggling in, (b) boat in harbor or off shore, (c) cruise >missile from intermediate distance, or (d) long-range missile attack. > >Appropriate responses include (1) de-alerting arsenals of nuclear-weapon >states, (2) arms reduction measures, such as those specified in Final >Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, (3) Nunn-Lugar activities, (4) >comprehensive approach to global fissile material control, (5) restrictions >on missile technology, (6) diplomacy and economic assistance to remove >dangers from North Korea and other nations, (7) keep track of terrorists >groups, (8) deal with causes of terrorism, (9) develop safeguards against >close-in attacks, and (10) national missile defense. > >These are quick lists and could be refined and developed. Some of the >remedies are underway, others would have to be initiated or augmented. A >total examination of threats and remedies should reveal (1) what a bad >bargain NMD is (I didn't deal with bad side effects, such as responses of >Russia and China) and (2) the need to do more about some of the other >remedies. > >I'll be interested in your thoughts. > >Howard > >Howard W. Hallman, Chair >Methodists United for Peace with Justice >1500 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 >Phone/fax: 301 896-0013; e-mail: [email protected] > >Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of
10125.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:43 PM] >laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination. >
10125.07.txt[5/8/2017 5:01:43 PM]