DOCSLIB.ORG

Bill Robinson

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

To: Bill Robinson <[email protected]> From: "Howard W. Hallman" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Canadian churches and abolition Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: At 12:43 PM 11/16/98 -0500, Bill Robinson wrote: >Dear Howard - > >Project Ploughshares, which is a project of the Canadian Council of >Churches, is considering the feasibility of organizing some kind of >outreach project between Canadian church leaders and church leaders in >other countries on the subject of nuclear abolition.... December 1, 1998 Dear Bill, I've been hanging onto your communication of November 16 about getting the Canadian Council of Churches to reach out to other countries on nuclear abolition. Since my response is somewhat complex, I'm just getting around to replying. Basically it's a good idea. Because the Canadian government is questioning some of the cold war assumptions about nuclear deterrence and has led the way in land mines, it would be useful for Canadian religious bodies to provide similar world leadership within the religious community. As you may recall, I initiated an effort related to the 1998 session of the NPT Preparatory Committee in Geneva that (1) produced a statement to delegates from Dr. Konrad Raiser, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, and Godried Cardinal Danneels, president of Pax Christi International, (2) sponsored a reception for delegates co-hosted by Dr. Raiser and Cardinal Danneels, and (3) developed a presentation to delegates on spiritual and moral values. I'm sending separately the Raiser-Danneels statement with some endorsers. I can send you the presentation to delegates if you want it. As follow up, I developed some ideas on "Mobilizing the Religious Community for Nuclear Abolition." (I'm sending you a copy separately by e-mail.) I suggested that the world religious community should demand that all possessors of nuclear weapons should unconditionally renounce their use and threatened use. I put this into a "Nuclear Abolition Covenant" for nuclear weapon states to sign. I circulated my "mobilizing" proposal to persons who I had been in touch with for the NPT PrepCom, including Dwain Epps at the World Council of Churches. At Doug Roche's suggestion I wrote to Msgr. Darmuid Martin, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace at the Vatican, and also to Archbishop Martino, Holy See delegate to the UN. Dwain Epps assured me that nuclear abolition is on the WCC's active agenda, and the two Catholic leaders sent polite acknowledgements of my ideas. I receive some other favorable replies, but nothing sufficient to make me think I could build lots of support for this particular approach. However, the covenant idea might prove useful for your initiative. Short of such an absolute demand for nuclear abolition, you might consider a matter that is near at hand where you could be quite influential: the future of NATO's nuclear posture. This issue is coming into play because of NATO's nuclear policy review in anticipation of an upcoming 50th anniversary celebration. Therefore, the Canadian Council of Churches might mobilize similar bodies in other NATO nations to demand that NATO cease its commitment to nuclear deterrence and nuclear war-fighting. This would be a no-use policy, going far beyond the call for no-first-use, which some are advocating. (I believe that no-first-use, while a slight improvement, is morally wrong because it retains the right to use nuclear weapons as second strike.) 81112.03.txt[5/3/2017 1:54:19 PM] The statement could state unequivocally that NATO as an alliance should henceforth cease from using nuclear weapons as a deterrent or in potential war situations. Although uclear weapon states as individual entities -- the United States, the United Kingdom, and France -- would not be precluded from pursuing their separate policies on nuclear weapons, the statement could call upon them and other nuclear weapon states to de-alert their arsenals and separate warheads from delivery vehicles. The statement could call for the immediate withdrawal of all nuclear weapons based outside the homeland of nuclear weapon states. That means U.S. nuclear bombs now based in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Greece, and Turkey. It could also call for a nuclear weapons free zone in all of Europe outside the boundaries of the nuclear weapon states. Signers of this statement could include councils of churches and national denominations in all NATO countries. You might also bring in the Conference of European Churches, which included a call for "complete elimination of nuclear arms" in the Final Message of the Second European Ecumenical Assembly that met in Graz, Austria in June 1997. National conferences of Catholic bishops could also be invited to sign. It would be desirable to obtain parallel statements from the World Council of Churches and the Holy See, preferably by Pope John Paul II (for they are unlikely to sign on a group statement.) I think many European church bodies are ready for something like this. Peace activists within religious denominations could be mobilized to bring their leaders into this effort. A NATO-oriented statement would have to be carefully worded so that those who believe NATO should cease to exist would be willing to sign. Also, it might have to finesse (or ignore) the issue of NATO expansion. You might also consider going beyond Europe and North America to gain endorsements from councils of churches in nations that are ordinarily allied with the United States, such as members of the British Commonwealth (especially Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa) and Japan. We got a sprinkling of such signers in a couple of weeks for the Raiser-Danneels statement. Many more are possible, especially if the Canadian Council of Churches approaches its counterparts. A listing of councils of churches is found in World Council of Churches Yearbook. I can offer you some further contacts if you are interested. I can also help in getting support from the National Council of Churches in the U.S. and heads of U.S. denominations. This is a lot of rambling, but I hope that some of my ideas are useful. If I can help further, please get in touch with me. Shalom, Howard 81112.03.txt[5/3/2017 1:54:19 PM] To: Bill Robinson <[email protected]> From: "Howard W. Hallman" <[email protected]> Subject: Raiser-Danneels statement Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: Dear Bill, Here is the Raiser-Danneels statement addressed to delegates of the 1998 session of the NPT Preparatory Committee. Shalom, Howard ### ACT NOW FOR NUCLEAR ABOLITION A Statement Addressed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee The time has come to rid planet Earth of nuclear weapons -- all of them, everywhere. The Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee has a remarkable opportunity at its upcoming meeting to set the course resolutely for the achievement of this goal. Nuclear weapons, whether used or threatened, are grossly evil and morally wrong. As an instrument of mass destruction, nuclear weapons slaughter the innocent and ravage the environment. This was quite apparent in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The same result would probably occur in any further use, and indeed would be worse because of the increased destructive power of modern nuclear weapons. When used as an instrument of deterrence, nuclear weapons hold innocent people hostage for political and military purposes. Therefore, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is morally corrupt. It loses sight of the inviolable connection between means and end by failing to recognize that just ends cannot be achieved through wrongful means. During the past 50 years the production and testing of nuclear weapons has proven grievously harmful to individuals and the environment in the vicinity of mining operations, processing plants, production facilities, and test sites. Numerous locales are burdened with lingering radioactivity and deadly waste products that will take decades to clean up. Some sites may never be restored to safe occupancy. Psalm 24 teaches, "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein." The First Book of Moses, also known as Genesis, indicates that God made Earth available to humankind to till and keep, that is, to use for mutual benefit and to preserve. Because production and use of nuclear weapons causes grave harm to Earth and its inhabitants, we as good stewards of God's Earth have an obligation to rid the world of this perilous threat. Numerous religious bodies have condemned nuclear weapons and have called for their abolition. Thus, the Sixth Assembly of the World Council of Churches in 1983 stated: "We believe that the time has come when the churches must unequivocally declare that the production and deployment as well as the use of nuclear weapons are a crime against humanity and that such activities must be condemned on ethical and theological grounds. Furthermore, we appeal for the institution of a universal covenant to this effect so that nuclear weapons and warfare are delegitimized and condemn as violations of international law." Speaking for the Holy See before the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on October 15, 1997, Archbishop Renato Martino stated: "Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the peace we seek for the 21st 81112.04.txt[5/3/2017 1:54:19 PM] century. They cannot be justified. They deserve condemnation. The preservation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty demands an unequivocal commitment to their abolition....This is a moral challenge, a legal challenge and a political challenge. That multiple-based challenge must be met by the application of our humanity." In principle the nations of Earth agree on the need to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Recommended publications
  • There Has Been No Bulgarian Tradition of Any Long-Standing Resistance to the Communist Regime

    There Has Been No Bulgarian Tradition of Any Long-Standing Resistance to the Communist Regime

    There has been no Bulgarian tradition of any long-standing resistance to the communist regime. There was neither any political opposition, nor any other kind of an influential dissident movement. Bulgaria never went through the purgatory of the Hungarian uprising of 1956, or the “Prague spring” of 1968. It is indeed difficult to find any counter arguments whatsoever against the cliché that Bul- garia was the closest satellite of the Soviet Union. The fundamental contradictions within the Union of Democratic Forces (SDS) coalition were present from the very first day of its inception. There were Marxists who were longing for “socialism with a human face”, intellectuals with liberal ideas, social democrats and Christian democrats, conservatives and radical demo- crats, monarchists and republicans. The members of the center-right coalition did not delude themselves about their differences; they rather shared the clear un- derstanding that only a painful compromise could stand some chances against the Goliath of the totalitarian Bulgarian Communist Party (BKP). It was this unani- mous opposition to the communist regime and its legacy that made the coalition possible. But only for a limited period of time. The United Democratic Forces (ODS) government under Prime Minister Ivan Kostov (1997-2001) completed the reformist agenda of anti-communism. At the end of the ODS term of office, Bulgaria was a country with a functioning market economy, stable democracy, and a clearly outlined foreign policy course towards the country’s accession to the European Union and NATO, which was accepted by all significant political formations, the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) included.
  • Chronology of Key Events

    Chronology of Key Events

    Chronology of key events 1990 13 July 1990 With a Declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bulgaria accepts the invitation extended by NATO to establish regular diplomatic liaison. Mrs. Lea Cohen, Bulgarian Ambassador to Belgium, is authorized to maintain diplomatic liaison with NATO. 1991 4 April 1991 Establishment of the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria, the first non-governmental Atlantic association outside NATO member states. Since October 1992, the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria has been associated with the Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA), initially as an observer and later as an associate member. 12-14 June 1991 Dr Manfred Wörner pays the first official visit of NATO Secretary General to Bulgaria. 20 December 1991 Bulgaria participates as a co-founding state in the inaugural meeting of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC). 1994 14 February 1994 The President of Bulgaria, Zhelyu Zhelev, signs the Partnership for Peace Framework Document at NATO Headquarters. 25 November 1994 Bulgarian Deputy Foreign Minister Todor Churov visits NATO Headquarters. Bulgaria’s PfP Individual Partnership Program with NATO is formally accepted. 1995 28 September 1995 Bulgaria participates in a meeting at NATO Headquarters for a presentation of the conclusions of the Study on NATO Enlargement to NACC and PfP Cooperation partners. 16 October 1995 Bulgaria accedes to the Status of Forces Agreement between the NATO member states and the PfP countries (ratified by the National Assembly on 5 April 1996). 1996 1996-1998 Bulgaria participates in a number of meetings with NATO within the Intensified Dialogue with interested partners on NATO membership issues. 2-3 May 1996 NATO Secretary General Javier Solana visits Bulgaria.
  • Nation-Building Versus State-Building in the Balkans. Lessons Learned

    Nation-Building Versus State-Building in the Balkans. Lessons Learned

    Nation-building Versus State-building in the Balkans. Lessons Learned Conference organized by the Center for Policy Studies and the Blue Bird "Agenda for Civil Society in South East Europe" Project Central European University, 30 November-1 December 2002 Nation-building Versus State-building in the Balkans. Lessons Learned Conference Report By Tania Gosselin 30 November Welcome Addresses Ben Slay, Director of the Regional Support Center, UNDP, Bratislava Petar Stoyanov, Former President of Bulgaria Ben Slay welcomed all participants and pointed out the continuing relevance of reflection and policy recommendations on the themes of nationalism and ethnic conflicts in the region. Not all conflicts have been entirely resolved yet; peacekeeping and stability forces are still in place in some countries of the Balkans, and their withdrawal could disrupt a fragile balance. The two up-coming enlargements: of Europe and NATO to some of the countries in the region, are seen as inseparable from the stabilization of the Western Balkans by their gradual integration into Europe. This long-term objective, stressed Ben Slay, requires a review of the lessons learned from the developments in the region during the last 10 years. He said that reviewing these lessons is the main task of the conference, A further reason for convening such conference, according to Ben Slay, explains the mix of people invited: academics, journalists, policymakers both from the international community and South-East European countries. It is to try to offer an account of what happened in the Balkans in the last 10 years by looking at the post- Communist world in its entirety: taking its successes and failures as providing a fruitful background for theoretically rich, but also empirically-relevant and policy- oriented explanations.
  • Anti-Communism, Neoliberalisation, Fascism by Bozhin Stiliyanov

    Anti-Communism, Neoliberalisation, Fascism by Bozhin Stiliyanov

    Post-Socialist Blues Within Real Existing Capitalism: Anti-Communism, Neoliberalisation, Fascism by Bozhin Stiliyanov Traykov A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology University of Alberta © Bozhin Stiliyanov Traykov, 2020 Abstract This project draws on Alex William’s (2020) contribution to Gramscian studies with the concept of complex hegemony as an emergent, dynamic and fragile process of acquiring power in socio- political economic systems. It examines anti-communism as an ideological element of neoliberal complex hegemony in Bulgaria. By employing a Gramcian politico-historical analysis I explore examples of material and discursive ideological practices of anti-communism. I show that in Bulgaria, anti-communism strives to operate as hegemonic, common-sensual ideology through legislative acts, production of historiography, cultural and educational texts, and newly invented traditions. The project examines the process of rehabilitation of fascist figures and rise of extreme nationalism, together with discrediting of the anti-fascist struggle and demonizing of the welfare state within the totalitarian framework of anti-communism. Historians Enzo Traverso (2016, 2019), Domenico Losurdo (2011) and Ishay Landa (2010, 2016) have traced the undemocratic roots of economic liberalism and its (now silenced) support of fascism against the “Bolshevik threat.” They have shown that, whether enunciated by fascist regimes or by (neo)liberal intellectuals, anti-communism is deeply undemocratic and shares deep mass-phobic disdain for political organizing of the majority. In this dissertation I argue that, in Bulgaria, anti- communism has not only opened the ideological space for extreme right and fascist politics, it has demoralized left political organizing by attacking any attempts for a politics of socio- economic justice as tyrannical.
  • Bum Dope, Blowback, and the Bomb: the Effect of Bad Information on Policy-Maker Beliefs and Crisis Stability

    Bum Dope, Blowback, and the Bomb: the Effect of Bad Information on Policy-Maker Beliefs and Crisis Stability

    Chapter 8 Bum Dope, Blowback, and the Bomb: The Effect of Bad Information on Policy-Maker Beliefs and Crisis Stability Jeffrey Lewis How might bad information affect crisis stability? We like to imag- ine that elites—military offi cials, politicians, and experts—will be immune to the kind of rumor, disinformation, and propaganda with which the internet is awash. This chapter explores that notion, with a nod to political scientist Stephen Van Evera’s notion of blowback—the idea that propaganda can, in fact, warp elite perceptions. Van Evera was concerned about psychological blurring between rhetoric and sin- cere belief while others, like Jack Snyder, another expert on interna- tional relations, emphasized the risk that policy makers might become trapped by political rhetoric.1 This chapter is principally concerned with this idea: that bad infor- mation, even deliberate disinformation knowingly planted by some cyn- ical elites, might “blow back” (or echo) through a wider range of elites and worsen a nuclear crisis. It examines two contemporary case studies of bad information, both of which help illustrate how such informa- tion—to use George P. Shultz’s colorful phrase, “bum dope”—could undermine crisis stability.2 I conclude that the same pathologies seen in online discourse could undermine stability, even in a serious crisis involving nuclear weapons. In short, policy makers tend to engage in public rhetoric that, in turn, shapes their own thinking. Often such statements are propagandistic in their initial formulation. But as they become part of the public dis- course, policy makers tend to believe them. This carries additional risk HH7667-Trinkunas.indb7667-Trinkunas.indb 115959 11/17/20/17/20 88:49:49 AAMM 160 JEFFREY LEWIS in an era of social media.
  • Bulgarian Democracy's Organization Weapon: Political Parties And

    Bulgarian Democracy's Organization Weapon: Political Parties And

    An improbable success story in the Balkans Bulgarian Democracy’s Organizational Weapon M. Steven Fish and Robin S. Brooks ne of the most remarkable—and least Muslims, and relations between the two groups in celebrated and understood—political stories Bulgaria were much worse during the Soviet era than Oof the postcommunist region is the relative those between the two groups in Yugoslavia. In short, success of democratization in Bulgaria. Not only has Bulgaria did not enter the postcommunist era as a democratization taken place but democracy has taken leading candidate for robust democratization. Yet hold. Bulgaria has avoided the slide toward democracy came nonetheless, and it appears to be authoritarianism that occurred in Russia, Ukraine, holding, perhaps even deepening. Belarus, Albania, Armenia, and all the countries of After the beginning of the regime change Central Asia in the second half of the 1990s. at the end of the 1980s, Bulgaria did develop one Explaining Bulgaria’s experience is difficult. Most of noteworthy asset: an array of reasonably strong polit- the usual explanations for success do not work. ical parties. Like Romania and Mongolia, arguably Bulgaria does not have a hardy democratic tradition. the postcommunist region’s two other pleasant The brand of Sovietism practiced in Bulgaria was surprises in the realm of democratization, Bulgaria similar to that found in the USSR. Dissent was dealt has had a relatively high rate of popular participation with harshly. In contrast with Hungary or Poland, no in parties. Seven percent of voting-age Bulgarians, 12 substantial political or economic liberalization percent of Romanians, and 20 percent of Mongolians occurred during the 1970s or 1980s.
  • 2018 Sartorius Christopher Ma

    2018 Sartorius Christopher Ma

    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE WARNING INTELLIGENCE IN NUCLEAR CRISIS MANAGEMENT: AVOIDING CATASTROPHIC MISCALCULATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By CHRISTOPHER M. SARTORIUS Norman, OK 2018 WARNING INTELLIGENCE IN NUCLEAR CRISIS MANAGMENT: AVOIDING CATASTROPHIC MISCALCULATION A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BY ___________________________ Dr. Ronald K. Gaddie, Chair ___________________________ Dr. Colin M. Barry ___________________________ Dr. Deven E. Carlson ___________________________ Dr. Jorge L. Mendoza ___________________________ Dr. Shad B. Satterthwaite © Copyright by CHRISTOPHER M. SARTORIUS 2018 All Rights Reserved. This dissertation is dedicated to my family and all intelligence professionals, military and civilian, past and present, who have dedicated their lives to protecting our great nation and our allies. Acknowledgements Working on this doctoral dissertation has been both a joy and a challenge. This work would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of countless individuals. At the most personal level, I would like to thank my wife, Fulvia, for her support over the past three years of this doctoral program and for her care and love over the past 25 years. I wish to thank my son, Konrad, for providing inspiration, much needed breaks in my work routine, and for sharing lunch together at the OU cafeteria followed by our fun table tennis matches. I also would like to thank my parents, Tim and Wanda Sartorius, for instilling in me the value of a great education. I would also like to thank Dr. Shad Satterthwaite, always friendly, open, and upbeat for enthusiastically encouraging me to pursue a doctoral degree at OU and Dr.
  • President Clinton's Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign

    President Clinton's Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign

    President Clinton’s Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign Leaders, Representatives, and Dignitaries from January 23, 1993 thru January 19, 20011∗ 1993 Telephone call with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, January 23, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel, January 23, 1993, White House Telephone call with President Leonid Kravchuk of Ukraine, January 26, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, January 29, 1993, White House Telephone call with Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel of Turkey, February 1, 1993, White House Meeting with Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel of Germany, February 4, 1993, White House Meeting with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada, February 5, 1993, White House Meeting with President Turgut Ozal of Turkey, February 8, 1993, White House Telephone call with President Stanislav Shushkevich of Belarus, February 9, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, February 10, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with Prime Minister John Major of the United Kingdom, February 10, 1993, White House Telephone call with Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany, February 10, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, February 10, 1993, White House 1∗ Meetings that were only photo or ceremonial events are not included in this list. Meeting with Foreign Minister Michio Watanabe of Japan, February 11, 1993,
  • The Origins of Nunn-Lugar and Cooperative Threat Reduction

    The Origins of Nunn-Lugar and Cooperative Threat Reduction

    CASE STUDY SERIES 3 The Origins of Nunn-Lugar and Cooperative Threat Reduction Paul I. Bernstein and Jason D. Wood Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction National Defense University Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction National Defense University DR. JOHN F. REICHART Director DR. W. SETH CARUS Deputy Director, Distinguished Research Fellow Since its inception in 1994, the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD Center) has been at the forefront of research on the implications of weapons of mass destruction for U.S. security. Originally focusing on threats to the military, the WMD Center now also applies its expertise and body of research to the challenges of homeland security. The center’s mandate includes research, education, and outreach. Research focuses on understanding the security challenges posed by WMD and on fashioning effective responses thereto. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has designated the center as the focal point for WMD education in the joint professional military education system. Education programs, including its courses on countering WMD and consequence management, enhance awareness in the next generation of military and civilian leaders of the WMD threat as it relates to defense and homeland security policy, programs, technology, and operations. As a part of its broad outreach efforts, the WMD Center hosts annual symposia on key issues bringing together leaders and experts from the government and private sectors. Visit the center online at www.ndu.edu/WMDCenter/. Cover: Russian and Ukraine defense ministers and U.S. Defense Secretary William J. Perry plant sunflowers on site of dismantled missile silo in Pervomaysk, Ukraine, June 1996.
  • E:\PUBPAP\PAP APPA Txed01 Psn: Txed01 Appendix a / Administration of William J

    E:\PUBPAP\PAP APPA Txed01 Psn: Txed01 Appendix a / Administration of William J

    Appendix AÐDigest of Other White House Announcements The following list includes the President's public sched- distinguished Americans at a White House ceremony ule and other items of general interest announced by on January 15. the Office of the Press Secretary and not included elsewhere in this book. January 9 In the morning, the President met with local com- January 1 munity leaders at the Embassy Suites Hotel in In the afternoon, the President and Hillary and McAllen. He then traveled to Mission, TX, and later Chelsea Clinton traveled from Hilton Head, SC, to returned to McAllen. St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, for a vacation. In the afternoon, the President traveled to Browns- ville, TX, and later to Houston, TX. In the evening, January 4 he returned to Washington, DC. The President returned to Washington, DC. The President announced his intention to appoint January 5 Andrew P. Scalzi as U.S. Commissioner on the Inter- The White House announced that the President national Pacific Halibut Commission. invited President Petar Stoyanov of Bulgaria for a January 10 working visit to Washington on February 10. The White House announced that the President In the evening, the President and Hillary Clinton will meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu attended a wedding reception for Deputy Assistant of Israel in Washington on January 20, and that he to the President and Deputy Director of Legislative will meet with Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Pales- Affairs Susan Brophy and Ambassador to Portugal tinian Authority in Washington on January 22. Gerry McGowan at the Cosmos Club.
  • Finding a Diplomatic Solution to the North Korean Crisis

    Finding a Diplomatic Solution to the North Korean Crisis

    CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM Finding a Diplomatic Solution to the North Korean Crisis March 2-4, 2018 Stanford, California Copyright @ 2018 by The Aspen Institute The Aspen Institute 2300 N Street Northwest Washington, DC 20037 Published in the United States of America in 2018 by The Aspen Institute All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Pub # 18/006 Finding a Diplomatic Solution to the North Korean Crisis March 2-4, 2018 The Aspen Institute Congressional Program Table of Contents Rapporteur’s Summary Elliot Serbin ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Finding a Diplomatic Solution to the North Korean Crisis: Historical Context ......................................... 13 Kathleen Stephens What We Really Know About North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons, And What We Don’t Yet Know for Sure .................................................................................................... 17 Siegfried Hecker DPRK National Strategic Considerations, Objectives ............................................................................... 21 Sue Mi Terry Former Defense Secretary William Perry on why we didn't go to war with North Korea ........................................................................................... 37 Barbara Demick Sanctions on North Korea ........................................................................................................................... 39 Marcus Noland The Price of War With
  • Nuclear Risk Reduction: a Framework for Analysis

    Nuclear Risk Reduction: a Framework for Analysis

    NUCLEAR RISK REDUCTION A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS Wilfred Wan ABOUT THE AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Wilfred Wan is a researcher at UNIDIR. He Support from UNIDIR core funders has published on topics such as nuclear provides the foundation for all of the proliferation, sanctions, and the global Institute’s activities. This research area of non-proliferation regime. Recently, he was the Weapons of Mass Destruction and the author of Nuclear Risk Reduction: The Other Strategic Weapons Programme is State of Ideas, published in 2019 by UNIDIR, supported by the Governments of Australia, as well as Regional Pathways to Nuclear Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland. Nonproliferation, published in 2018 by the University of Georgia Press. Wan was UNIDIR’s Renata Dwan, John Borrie, Pavel previously a Japan Society for the Podvig, Daniel Porras, James Revill, Promotion of Science–United Nations Augusta Cohen, and Roberta Abdanur all University (UNU) Postdoctoral Fellow with provided invaluable advice, support, and the UNU Centre for Policy Research. He assistance on this paper. The author would holds a PhD in political science from the also like to acknowledge in particular Lewis University of California, Irvine. Dunn and Ankit Panda for their inputs. ABOUT UNIDIR NOTE The United Nations Institute for The designations employed and the Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)—an presentation of the material in this autonomous institute within the United publication do not imply the expression of Nations—conducts research on any opinion whatsoever on the part of the disarmament and security. UNIDIR is based Secretariat of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, the centre for concerning the legal status of any country, bilateral and multilateral disarmament and territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or non-proliferation negotiations, and home concerning the delimitation of its frontiers of the Conference on Disarmament.