To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Relgious leaders survey on nuclear issues Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: C:\My Documents\abolish.292.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

ear Mr. Bash:

I am sending via an attachment the results of our survey of presidential candidates on nuclear disarmament issues, which we released yesterday at a news conference in Washington, D.C.

We regret that you were unable to respond in time to our survey. However, we were able to use information on Vice President Gore's position available on public record.

We are still interested in getting the Vice President's views on three unanswered questions, as follows:

(1) What are your views on the morality of possession, threatened use, and actual use of nuclear weapons?

(2) If elected president, what specifically will you do during your four-year term to fulfill the U.S. commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to join the other nuclear weapon states in "an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals"?

(3) Do see any utility for nuclear weapons in war? If so, please tell us the categories of targets you as commander-in- chief would consider legitimate to strike with nuclear weapons?

The campaign still has almost two months remaining. Therefore, we would appreciate receiving an answer to these questions by Vice President Gore at least by the end of September if not earlier.

Sincerely yours, Howard Hallman

00908.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] To: "David Bone" From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Song suggestions Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Mr. Bone:

The local church I belong to has organized a praise band with singers, guitars, keyboard, drums, and my viola (a surprise but it works well on some of the music). After two years our repertoire covers mainly one-half of the gospel -- love God and personal salvation -- but scarcely deals with the other half -- love your neighbor and social holiness (John Wesley's term or peace with justice in today's language). Our minister, who started the praise band and sings in it, has supplied most of the music, but he is open to a fuller representation of the whole gospel.

I heard and talked with Jim Strathdee at General Conference and bought his songbooks and recordings. I know of some collections of new hymns with peace and justice themes. Many are good, but their regularity of repeated verse doesn't work very well with a praise band.

Would you or somebody else in the Fellowship of United Methodists in Music and Worship Arts be able to suggest songs in "praise-band" style that express a concern for social action, for mercy and justice, for peace and environmental integrity? To the extent feasible it will be useful to know not only titles and composers but also sources in print and on recordings if that information is readily available.

I will greatly appreciate whatever assistance you can provide.

Shalom, Howard Hallman

01121.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] X-Sender: [email protected] Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:03:43 -0400 To: [email protected] From: Felicity Hill Subject: UNGA FIRST COMMITTEE FINAL PRESS RELEASE Cc: [email protected]

Dear All,

Please find below the UN Press Release reporting on the final voting that took place in the General Assembly. It's very long but also very useful in that it lists the countries that voted for, against and abstained on each resolution. You can download it direct from http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2000/20001120.ga9829.doc.html

Note that previous reports of voting referred to the voting in the First Committee - voting by the whole of the General Assembly is in fact the final count.

The Secretary Generals remarks at a recent conference on nuclear weapons and the academy in New York can be found at: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2000/20001120.sgsm7631.doc.html

This will be the last time we use this list which was put together specifically for reporting on the First Committee. Thanks very much to those of you that gave feedback on our efforts.

best wishes

Felicity Hill

20 November 2000

Press Release GA/9829

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS 49 DISARMAMENT, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY TEXTS ON RECOMMENDATION OF ITS FIRST COMMITTEE

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] 20001120

ABM Treaty, Nuclear Proliferation, Small Arms Among Issues Addressed; Also Decides on 2001 Special Session to Review World Children's Summit

The General Assembly this afternoon, acting on the recommendation of its First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), adopted 48 resolutions and one decision on a broad range of disarmament measures, aimed at, among others, the total elimination of nuclear weapons, control of the excessive accumulation of small arms and light weapons, increased transparency and strengthened international security.

The Assembly also adopted, without a vote, a 90-Power resolution by which it decided to convene the special session of the General Assembly for follow-up to the World Summit for Children from 19 to 21 September 2001. It further decided to convene two substantive sessions of the Preparatory Committee for the special session in New York during 2001, one from 29 January to 2 February and the other from 11 to 15 June.

Among the terms of some of the nuclear-related texts adopted this afternoon which required most of the 32 separate recorded votes, were calls to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; strengthen the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty); engage the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons; and take immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risk of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons. The nuclear-weapon States were also urged, as an interim measure, to immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons and to take other concrete measures to further reduce the operational status of their nuclear weapon systems.

According to a new resolution on general and complete disarmament, the Assembly welcomed the consensus adoption on 19 May of the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 1 against (India), with 3 abstentions (Cuba, Israel, Pakistan). (For details of the vote, see Annex IX).

Also today, by a vote of 155 in favour to 1 against (India), with 12 abstentions, the Assembly stressed the central importance of taking practical

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9829 69th Meeting (PM) 20 November 2000

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] steps to implement the NPT, including early signature and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) by all States, as well as a moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other explosions pending its entry into force, according to a resolution entitled "a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons" (Annex XVIII).

Prior to acting on the text, the Assembly adopted operative paragraph 8, which calls upon all States to redouble their efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery, confirming and strengthening, if necessary, their policies not to transfer equipment, materials or technology that could contribute to the proliferation of those weapons. The provision was adopted by a vote of 150 in favour to 2 against (Egypt, Pakistan), with 10 abstentions (Algeria, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Monaco, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates) (Annex XVII).

Under the terms of a text entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda", the Assembly called for: the further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process; measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems; a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used; and, to facilitate the process of their total elimination, the engagement of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The text was adopted by a vote of 154 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 8 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Monaco, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Uzebkistan) (Annex VIII).

Before adopting the draft resolution as a whole, the Assembly took separate votes, on the fifteenth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 16.

The fifteenth preambular paragraph, which welcomes the Final Document of the Sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT, was adopted by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 1 abstention (Cuba) (Annex VI).

It adopted operative paragraph 16 by a vote of 161 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan). That provision notes the agreement of the Sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT that legally binding security assurances by the five nuclear-weapon States to the non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty strengthen the nuclear non- proliferation regime. The Assembly would call upon the Preparatory Committee to make recommendations to the 2005 Review Conference on that issue (Annex VII).

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] The Assembly, stressing the paramount importance of full and strict compliance by the parties with the 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty), called for continued efforts to strengthen it and preserve its integrity and validity, so that it remained a cornerstone in maintaining global strategic stability. The resolution was

General Assembly Plenary - 1b - Press Release GA/9829 69th Meeting (PM) 20 November 2000

adopted by a vote of 88 in favour to 5 against (Albania, Federated States of Micronesia, Honduras, Israel, United States), with 66 abstentions (Annex V).

A resolution on missiles had the Assembly request the Secretary-General to further seek the views of Member States on the issue of missiles in all its aspects and to report to it at its fifty-sixth session. It requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a panel of governmental experts to be established in 2001, to prepare a report for the Assembly's consideration at its next session. The text was adopted by a vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 65 abstentions (Annex IV).

By a vote of 163 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States) , the Assembly adopted a text by which it reaffirmed the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective, in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Annex III).

By a text on nuclear disarmament, adopted by a vote of 109 in favour to 39 against, with 20 abstentions, the Assembly urged the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems. The Assembly also urged them, as an interim measure, to immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons and to take other concrete measures to further reduce the operational status of their nuclear-weapon systems (Annex XX).

Before voting on the text, the Assembly adopted operative paragraph 9, which welcomed the positive outcome of the 2000 Review Conference of the NPT and the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States in the final document to accomplish total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The provision was adopted by a vote of 150 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 15 abstentions (Annex XIX).

Acting on a resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use or threat of

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] nuclear weapons, the Assembly underlined the Court's unanimous conclusion that there exists an obligation to pursue and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. States were called upon to immediately fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 2001 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. The text was adopted by a vote of 119 in favour to 28 against, with 22 abstentions (Annex XXVIII).

Before voting on the text as a whole, a separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 1, which underlined the Court's unanimous conclusion concerning the obligation to conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. The operative paragraph was adopted by a vote of 162 in favour to 4 against (France, Israel, Russian Federation, United States), with 1 abstention (United Kingdom) (Annex XXVII).

General Assembly Plenary - 1c - Press Release GA/9829 69th Meeting (PM) 20 November 2000

By a vote of 109 in favour to 43 against, with 16 abstentions the Assembly reiterated its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations in order to reach agreement on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances (Annex XXIX).

The Assembly reaffirmed the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach acceptable to all had also been pointed out. It appealed to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach and, in particular, on a common formula that could be included in an international instrument of a legally binding character. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 111 in favour to none against, with 54 abstentions (Annex II).

The Assembly called upon signatories to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties, in order to pursue the goals envisaged in such treaties and to promote the nuclear-weapon-free status of the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, to explore and implement further ways and means of cooperation among themselves and their treaty agencies. The resolution, which also called upon all States to support the nuclear disarmament process and work for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, was adopted by a vote of 159 in favour to 4 against (France, Monaco, United Kingdom, United States), with 5 abstentions (Andorra, India, Israel, Russian Federation, Spain) (Annex XII).

Prior to voting on the text, the Assembly first adopted the last three words of operative paragraph 3 of the text, "and South

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Asia", by a vote of 152 in favour to 1 against (India), with 10 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Cyprus, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex X).

The third operative paragraph welcomes the steps taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties, and calls upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia. It adopted the paragraph as a whole by a vote of 155 in favour to 1 against (India), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, Cyprus, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex XI).

The Assembly, considering that the hair-trigger alert of nuclear weapons carried unacceptable risks, would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons, under a text on reducing nuclear danger. It was adopted by a vote of 110 in favour to 45 against, with 14 abstentions (Annex XV).

According to a resolution adopted by a vote of 161 in favour to none against, with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Libya, Mauritius, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania), the Assembly stressed the importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without delay and without conditions to achieve the early entry into force of the CTBT. It urged States to maintain their

General Assembly Plenary - 1d - Press Release GA/9829 69th Meeting (PM) 20 November 2000

moratoriums on nuclear-weapons tests, pending the Treaty's operation, and called upon all States to sign and ratify the Treaty as soon as possible and to refrain from acts that would defeat its object and purpose in the meanwhile (Annex XXXII).

By a vote of 163 in favour, to none against, with 5 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea, United States), the Assembly adopted a text on measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (Annex XIII).

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted two resolutions on other weapons of mass destruction. Under a text on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention), the Assembly called upon all States parties to

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] accelerate negotiations on a protocol to strengthen the Convention, and to redouble their efforts within the Ad Hoc Group to formulate the efficient, cost-effective and practical regime and seek early resolution of the outstanding issues through renewed flexibility.

By the next, on chemical weapons, it urged all States parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) to meet in full and on time their obligations under the Convention and to support the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in its implementation activities.

A resolution on transparency in armaments had the Assembly call upon Member States, with a view to achieving universal participation in the Register of Conventional Arms, to provide the Secretary-General by 31 May annually the requested data and information for the Register, including nil reports if appropriate. The Assembly reaffirmed its decision, with a view to further the Register's development, to keep the scope of and participation in the Register under review. The text was adopted by a vote of 149 in favour to none against, with 16 abstentions (Annex XXV).

Before taking a decision on the draft as a whole, four separate votes were taken on the fifth preambular paragraph, and operative paragraphs 2, 5(b) and 7. The fifth preambular paragraph, adopted by a vote of 149 in favour to 2 against (Egypt, Syria), with 10 abstentions (Algeria, Bahrain, China, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Myanmar, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia) had the Assembly welcome the note by the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development (Annex XXI).

Operative paragraph 2, by which the Assembly endorsed the report of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development and the recommendations contained therein, was adopted by a vote of 147 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria) with 11 abstentions (Annex XXII).

General Assembly Plenary - 1e - Press Release GA/9829 69th Meeting (PM) 20 November 2000

By the terms of operative paragraph 5(b), the Assembly requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2003, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, with a view to a decision at its fifty- eighth session. The Assembly adopted that provision by a vote of 147 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria) with 13 abstentions (Annex XXIII).

Operative paragraph 7, adopted by a vote of 144 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions, had the Assembly invite the

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments (Annex XXIV).

Acting without a vote on another text concerning confidence-building measures -- the activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa -- the Assembly reaffirmed its support for efforts aimed at promoting confidence-building measures at regional and subregional levels in order to ease tensions and conflicts in the subregion and to further peace, stability and sustainable development.

By the terms of a resolution on the 1998 decision of the Conference on Disarmament to establish a committee to negotiate a fissile material cut-off treaty, the Assembly, acting without a vote, urged the Conference to agree on a programme of work which would include the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty with a view to their conclusion within five years.

Under a resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the Assembly reaffirmed the importance of Israel's accession to the NPT and placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, in order to realize the goal of universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East. The text was adopted by a vote of 157 in favour to 3 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States), with 8 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Marshall Islands, Singapore, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago) (Annex XXXI).

Prior to that, by a vote of 158 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Tonga), the Assembly adopted the sixth preambular paragraph, by which it recognized with satisfaction that, in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review, the Conference undertakes to make determined efforts towards achieving universality of the Treaty. Also by that provision, the Assembly called upon those remaining States not party to the Treaty to accede to it and to accept IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities (Annex XXX).

Acting without a vote, the Assembly urged all parties directly concerned with the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East to seriously consider taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of that proposal, and as a means of promoting that objective, invite the countries concerned to adhere to the NPT. It called upon all countries of the region that had not done so, pending the establishment of the zone, to agree to place all their nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards.

General Assembly Plenary - 1f - Press Release GA/9829 69th Meeting

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] (PM) 20 November 2000

Also acting without a vote, the Assembly:

-- welcomed the concrete steps taken by some countries during the past year for the consolidation of the regime of military denuclearization established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco).

-- welcomed the desire of the five States of the Central Asian region to finalize work on the establishment of such a zone and the concrete steps that they had taken to prepare the legal framework for the initiative and the progress that they had achieved;

-- it welcomed the joint statement of the five nuclear-weapon States to provide security assurances to Mongolia in connection with its nuclear-weapon- free status, as a contribution to implementing the relevant General Assembly resolution of 1998;

-- urged the strengthening of relations among the States of South-Eastern Europe on the basis of respect for international law and agreements in accordance with the principle of good-neighbourliness and mutual respect;

-- and expressed its satisfaction at the continuing efforts by Mediterranean countries to contribute actively to the elimination of all causes of tension in the region and to the promotion of just and lasting solutions to the persistent problems of the region through peaceful means.

Under the terms of a text on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels, the Assembly decided to give urgent consideration to the issues involved, and requested the Conference on Disarmament, as a first step, to consider the formulation of principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 163 in favour to 1 against (India), with 1 abstention (Bhutan) (Annex XVI).

Acting without a vote, the Assembly affirmed that global and regional approaches to disarmament complemented each other and should therefore be pursued simultaneously to promote regional and international peace and security. In that context, the Assembly called upon States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence- building measures at the regional and subregional levels.

By a text on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament, adopted by a vote of 97 in favour to 46 against, with 21 abstentions, the Assembly affirmed that scientific and technological progress should be used for the benefit of all mankind to promote the sustainable economic and social development of all States and to safeguard

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] international security, and that international cooperation in the use of science and technology, through the transfer and exchange of technological know-how for peaceful purposes, should be promoted (Annex I).

General Assembly Plenary - 1g - Press Release GA/9829 69th Meeting (PM) 20 November 2000

In the conventional weapons field, a text on implementation of the Convention of the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines an on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) was adopted by a vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions on. Among its terms, the Assembly urged all States that had signed but not ratified the Convention to do so without delay. It renewed its call upon all States to work support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine-awareness programmes, and the removal of anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world (Annex XXVI).

Acting without a vote on texts on conventional weapons, the Assembly: encouraged the setting up, in the African countries of the Saharo-Sahelian subregion, of national commissions against the proliferation of small arms; and called upon all States that had not yet done so to take measures to become parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and its Protocols.

By another consensus text on conventional weapons, the Secretary-General was requested to provide the 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects with information on the magnitude and scope of illicit trafficking in and circulation of small arms and light weapons, measures to combat that phenomenon, and the role of the United Nations in collecting, collating, sharing and disseminating information on the illicit trafficking.

According to a decision on small arms, also adopted without a vote, the Assembly decided to convene the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects from 9 to 20 July 2001 in New York. It also decided to hold the third session of the Preparatory Committee for the Conference from 19 to 30 March in New York.

On related matters of disarmament and international security, the Assembly stressed the particular relevance of the guidelines on conventional arms control/limitation and disarmament, with particular emphasis on consolidation of peace. It noted the report of the Secretary-General on the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures and encouraged

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Member States, as well as regional arrangements and agencies, to support the implementation of recommendations contained therein.

Under other disarmament measures, the Assembly adopted a text by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States). By its terms, the Assembly reaffirmed that international disarmament forums should take fully into account relevant environmental norms in negotiating treaties and agreements on disarmament and arms limitation and that all States should fully contribute to ensuring compliance with such norms in the implementation of treaties and conventions to which they were parties (Annex XIV).

Acting without a vote on other disarmament measures, the Assembly called upon Member States to promote further, at multilateral levels, the consideration

General Assembly Plenary - 1h - Press Release GA/9829 69th Meeting (PM) 20 November 2000

of existing and potential threats in the field of information security, as well as consideration of possible measures to limit the threats emerging in that field; and urged the international community to devote part of the resources made available by the implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements to economic and social development, with a view to reducing the ever widening gap between developed and developing countries.

Also without a vote, the Assembly adopted several resolutions on the disarmament machinery of the United Nations, by which it recognized the importance and high quality of the work of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), and urged the Conference on Disarmament to fulfil its role as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community.

The Assembly, also acting without a vote: stressed the importance of the work of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research; and expressed its appreciation to the Governments of Germany and Japan for inviting the 1999 and 2000 fellows of the United Nations disarmament, fellowship, training and advisory services to study selected activities in the field of disarmament, and to the Government of the United States for organizing specific study programmes in the disarmament field.

Adopting a new resolution on United Nations study on disarmament and non- proliferation education, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to prepare, with the assistance of a group of qualified governmental experts, a study on disarmament and non-proliferation that would, among other things:

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] define contemporary disarmament and non-proliferation education and training; assess the global situation of disarmament and non-proliferation education and training at the primary, secondary, university and post-graduate levels; and examine ways to utilize more fully evolving pedagogical methods to enhance efforts in disarmament education and training at all levels, in the developed and the developing world.

Also acting without a vote, the Assembly reiterated the importance of United Nations activities at the regional level to increase stability and security of Member States, which could be promoted in a substantive manner by the maintenance and revitalization of the three regional centres for peace and disarmament.

In related texts, the Assembly reaffirmed its strong support for the forthcoming operation and further strengthening of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific; reaffirmed its support for the revitalization of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, and emphasized the need to provide it with resources to enable it to strengthen its activities and carry out its programmes; and reiterated its strong support for the role of the Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Also without a vote, the Assembly: reaffirmed the role of the Disarmament Commission as the specialized, deliberative body within the United Nations

General Assembly Plenary - 1i - Press Release GA/9829 69th Meeting (PM) 20 November 2000

multilateral disarmament machinery that allowed for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, leading to the submission of concrete recommendations on those issues; and decided, subject to the emergence of a consensus on its objectives and agenda, to convene the fourth special session of the Assembly devoted to disarmament. In that context, it requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the objectives, agenda and timing of the special session and to report to the Assembly at its next session.

General Assembly Plenary - 3 - Press Release GA/9829 69th Meeting (PM) 20 November 2000

Assembly Work Programme

The General Assembly met this morning to take action on 16 reports of the First Committee (Disarmament and International

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Security). Those reports contain 48 draft resolutions and one draft decision on disarmament and security-related issues.

The Assembly was expected to first take up the report of the Committee on reduction of military budgets (document A/55/551). The report does not contain any draft resolutions.

The Committee's report on development of good-neighbourly relations among Balkan States; maintenance of international security -- good-neighbourliness, stability and development of South-Eastern Europe (document A/55/552) contains one draft resolution. Under the terms of the text the Assembly would urge the strengthening of relations among the States of South-Eastern Europe on the basis of respect for international law and agreements, in accordance with the principle of good-neighbourliness and mutual respect. The Assembly would also urge all States to undertake effective measures against illicit traffic and circulation of small arms, to help programmes aimed at the safe destruction of surplus stocks of small arms and light weapons.

In a related provision, the Assembly would stress the importance of closer cooperation among States in such areas as crime prevention, combating illicit trade of people, drug trafficking and money-laundering. It would call upon all participants in the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe, and all concerned international organizations, to support the efforts of the South-Eastern European States to overcome the negative effects of the Kosovo crisis and other recent crises to enable them to pursue sustainable development and their integration into the European structures.

The Assembly would also call upon all States, the relevant international organizations and competent organs of the United Nations to respect the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty, and the inviolability of international borders to continue to take measures, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, to eliminate threats to international peace and security and to help to prevent conflicts which could lead to the violent disintegration of States.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 31 October by a vote of 150 in favour to none against and no abstentions.

By the terms of a draft resolution contained in the report on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (document A/55/554) the Assembly would call upon Member States to promote further at multilateral levels the consideration of existing and potential threats in the field of information security, as well as consideration of possible measures to limit the threats emerging in that field. It would consider that the purpose of such measures could be served through the examination of relevant international concepts aimed at strengthening the security of

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] global information and telecommunications systems.

The Assembly would invite all Member States to continue to inform the Secretary-General of their views and assessments of the following questions: general appreciation of the issues of information security; definition of the basic notions related to information security, including unauthorized interference with or misuse of information and telecommunications systems and information resources; and the content of the examination of relevant international concepts aimed at strengthening the security of global information and telecommunications systems. The Secretary-General would be asked to submit a report based on replies received from Member States to the next Assembly session.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 30 October without a vote.

The draft resolution contained in the report on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/55/555) would have the Assembly affirm that scientific and technological progress should be used for the benefit of all mankind to promote the sustainable economic and social development of all States and to safeguard international security, and that international cooperation in the use of science and technology through the transfer and exchange of technological know-how for peaceful purposes should be promoted.

In that connection, the Assembly would urge Member States to undertake multilateral negotiations with the participation of all interested States in order to establish universally acceptable, non-discriminatory guidelines for international transfers of dual-use goods and technologies and high technology with military applications.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 27 October by a vote of 91 in favour to 44 against, with 17 abstentions.

By the terms of a draft resolution contained in the report on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East (document A/55/556), the General Assembly would urge all parties directly concerned to consider seriously taking the practical and urgent steps required for the implementation of the proposal to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and, as a means of promoting that objective, invite the countries concerned to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

By further terms of the resolution, the Assembly would call upon all countries of the region that had not done so, pending the establishment of the zone, to agree to place all their nuclear activities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. It would also invite all countries of the region to declare their support for establishing such a zone and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or permit the stationing on their territories, or territories under their control, of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices.

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

According to a draft text contained in the report on conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/55/557), the Assembly would reaffirm the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach acceptable to all had also been pointed out. The Assembly would note with satisfaction that there was no objection in the Conference on Disarmament, in principle, to the idea of an international convention to grant such assures to non-nuclear-weapon States, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach and, in particular, on a common approach acceptable to all had also been pointed out.

The Assembly would appeal to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach and, in particular, on a common formula that could be included in an international instrument of a legally binding character. The Assembly would recommend that further intensive efforts be devoted to the search for such a common approach or formula and that the various alternative approaches, including, in particular, those considered in the Conference, be further explored in order to overcome the difficulties.

It would also recommend that the Conference actively continue intensive negotiations with a view to reaching early agreement and concluding effective international arrangements, taking into account the widespread support for the conclusion of an international convention and giving consideration to any other proposals designed to secure the same objective.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 25 October by a vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 50 abstentions.

A draft resolution contained in the report on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/55/558) would have the General Assembly reaffirm the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective, in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

The Assembly would call upon all States, particularly those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of peaceful use of outer space and prevention of an arms race in outer space. It would call on them to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to existing treaties, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] international cooperation.

By further terms of the draft, the Assembly would emphasize the necessity of further measures, with appropriate and effective provisions for verification, to prevent an arms race in outer space. It would reiterate that the Conference on Disarmament, as the single multilateral disarmament-negotiating forum, has the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 30 October by a vote of 154 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Israel, United States).

The report on General and Complete Disarmament (document A/55/559) contains 25 draft resolutions (A to Y) and one draft decision. (The texts are listed as they are expected to be considered by the Assembly).

Draft resolution A on Missiles would have the General Assembly request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the issue of missiles in all its aspects and to report to the Assembly at its fifty-sixth session. It would also request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a panel of governmental experts to be established in 2001 on the basis of equitable geographical distribution, to prepare a report for the Assembly's consideration at its next session on the issue of missiles in all its aspects.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 31 October by a vote of 90 in favour to none against, with 60 abstentions.

By the terms of draft B on preservation of and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty), the General Assembly, stressing the paramount importance of full and strict compliance with the 1972 Treaty by the parties, would call for continued efforts to strengthen it and to preserve its integrity and validity, so that it remains a cornerstone in maintaining global strategic stability and world peace, and in promoting further strategic nuclear arms reductions. The Assembly would also call for renewed efforts by each of the States parties to preserve and strengthen the Treaty through full and strict compliance.

Further, the Assembly would call upon the Treaty's parties, in accordance with their obligations under the Treaty, to limit the deployment of anti- ballistic missile systems and refrain from the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems for the defence of the territory of their country and not to provide a base for such a defence, and not to transfer to other States or deploy outside their national territory anti-ballistic missile systems or their components limited by the Treaty.

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would urge all Member

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] States to support efforts aimed at stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. It would support further efforts by the international community, towards safeguarding the inviolability and integrity of the Treaty, which is in the strongest interest of the international community.

According to a new operative paragraph 7, the Assembly would welcome the decision taken by the United States on 1 September not to authorize deployment of a national missile defence at this time, and consider that it constitutes a positive step for the preservation of strategic stability and security.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 1 November by a vote of 78 in favour to 3 (Micronesia, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel and the United States) against, with 65 abstentions.

Draft resolution C entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda" would have the Assembly call for the following: the upholding of a moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions pending the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT); applying the principle of irreversibility to nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other related arms control and reduction measures; for the early entry into force and full implementation of Strategic Arms Limitations and Reduction Treaty II (START II) and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible, while preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance with its provisions; and the completion and implementation of the trilateral initiative between the United States, the Russian Federation and the IAEA.

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would call for: steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a way that promoted international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all; further efforts by them to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally; increased transparency with regard to the nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to article VI of NPT Treaty and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress on nuclear disarmament.

The Assembly would also call for the further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process; concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems; a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that those weapons would ever be used; and, to facilitate the process of their total elimination, the engagement, as soon as appropriate, of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons.

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] In a further provision, the Assembly would call for arrangements by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes under the IAEA or other relevant international verification and arrangements for the disposition of such materials for peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remained permanently outside military programmes. It would also call for regular reports, within the framework of the strengthened review process of the NPT, by all States parties on the implementation of article VI of the Treaty and paragraph 4(c) of the 1995 decision entitled "Principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament", and recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996.

Further, it would call on all States not yet party to the NPT to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon States, promptly and without condition, particularly those States that operated unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. It would also call upon those States to bring into force the required comprehensive safeguards agreements, together with additional protocols consistent with the Model Protocol Additional to the Agreement(s) between State(s) and the IAEA for the application of safeguards for ensuring nuclear non-proliferation and to reverse, clearly and urgently, any policies to pursue any nuclear-weapon development or deployment, and to refrain from any action which could undermine regional and international peace and security and the efforts of the international community towards nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation.

It would call upon those States that had not yet done so to conclude full- scope safeguards agreements with the IAEA and to conclude additional protocols to their safeguards agreement on the basis of the Model Protocol approved by the Board of Governors of the Agency on 15 May 1997. The Assembly would agree to pursue the further development of the verification capabilities that would be required to assure compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Also, the Assembly would note that the Sixth NPT Review Conference agreed that legally binding security assurances by the five nuclear-weapon States to the non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty strengthen the nuclear non- proliferation regime, and that it called upon its Preparatory Committee to make recommendations to the 2005 Review Conference on that issue.

The Committee approved the draft resolution as a whole on 1 November by a vote of 146 in favour to 3 against (India, Pakistan, Israel), with 8 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Monaco, Russian Federation, Uzbekistan).

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] [START II and III refers to the Strategic Arms Limitation and Reduction Treaties, by which the Russian Federation and the United States agreed to significantly reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Article VI of the NPT concerns the pursuit of nuclear disarmament negotiations.]

Draft resolution D on the 2000 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference would have the Assembly welcome the consensus adoption on 19 May of the final document of the Review Conference, including in particular the documents entitled "Review of the operation of the Treaty, taking into account the decisions and the resolution adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference" and "Improving the effectiveness of the strengthened review process for the Treaty".

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 25 October by a vote of 141 in favour to 2 against (Cape Verde, India) with 3 abstentions (Cuba, Israel, Pakistan).

By terms of draft resolution E on the United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education the General Assembly would request the Secretary-General to prepare, with the assistance of a group of qualified governmental experts, a study on disarmament and non-proliferation, that would: define contemporary disarmament and non-proliferation education and training; assess the global situation of disarmament and non-proliferation education and training at the primary, secondary, university and post-graduate levels; recommend ways to promote education and training in disarmament and non- proliferation at all levels of formal and informal education; examine ways to utilize more fully evolving pedagogical methods to enhance efforts in disarmament education and training at all levels, in the developed and the developing world; recommend ways that organizations of the United Nations system with special competence in disarmament or education or both can harmonize and coordinate their efforts in disarmament and non-proliferation education; and devise ways to introduce disarmament and non-proliferation education into post- conflict situations as a contribution to peace-building.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 27 October without a vote.

Draft resolution F on assistance to States for curbing illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them would have the General Assembly encourage the setting up, in the countries in the Saharo-Sahelian subregion, of national commissions against the proliferation of small arms, and invite the international community to support as far as possible the smooth functioning of the national commissions where they have been set up.

By further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would welcome the Declaration of a Moratorium on the Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small Arms and Light Weapons in West

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Africa, adopted by the heads of State and government of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) at Abuja on 31 October 1998, and urge the international community to give its support to the implementation of the moratorium. It would also recommend the involvement of organizations and associations of civil society in efforts to combat the proliferation of small arms in the context of the national commissions and their participation in the implementation of the moratorium on the importation, exportation and manufacture of small arms.

It would express its full support for the appeal launched by the Assembly of heads of State and government of the Organization of African Unity at its thirty-fifth session for a coordinated African approach, under the auspices of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), to the problems posed by the illicit proliferation and circulation of and traffic in small arms, bearing in mind the experiences of the various regions. It would also express its full support for the convening of an international conference on the illicit arms trade in all its aspects no later than 2001.

The Assembly would also express its full support for the convening of a United Nations conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects in June/July 2001, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 54/54 J of 15 December 1999.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 1 November without a vote.

By the term of draft resolution G on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures the General Assembly would stress the particular relevance of the guidelines on conventional arms control/limitation and disarmament, with particular emphasis on consolidation of peace. It would take note of the report of the Secretary-General on the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures and encourage Member States, as well as regional arrangements and agencies, to lend their support to the implementation of recommendations contained therein.

By the further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would invite the group of interested States that was formed in New York in March 1998 to continue to analyse lessons learned from previous disarmament and peace-building projects and to promote new practical disarmament measures to consolidate peace, especially as undertaken or designed by affected States themselves.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 27 October without a vote.

Draft H on the implementation of the Convention of the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Convention) would have the Assembly urge all States parties to the Convention to meet in full and on time their obligations under the Convention and to support the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in its implementation activities. The Assembly would stress the importance to the Convention that all possessors of chemical weapons, chemical weapons production facilities or chemical weapons facilities, including previously declared possessor States, should be among the States parties to the Convention, and would welcome progress to that end.

By further terms, the Assembly would stress the importance of the OPCW in verifying compliance with the Convention's provisions, as well as in promoting the timely and efficient accomplishment of all its objectives. It would also stress the vital importance of full and effective implementation of and compliance with all provisions of the Convention.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 25 October without a vote.

By the terms of draft resolution I on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, the Assembly would call upon all States to support the process of disarmament and to work for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons. It would also call upon the States parties and signatories to the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba, in order to pursue the common goals envisaged in those treaties and to promote the nuclear-weapon- free status of the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, to explore and implement further ways and means of cooperation among themselves and their treaty agencies.

By the further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would welcome the vigorous efforts being made among the parties and signatories to promote their common objective, and consider that an international conference of States parties and signatories might be held to support the common goals envisaged in those treaties. It would encourage competent authorities of the treaties to provide assistance to the States parties and signatories to facilitate the accomplishment of those goals.

The Committee approved the draft resolution as a whole on 31 October by a vote of 146 in favour to 4 against (France, Monaco, United Kingdom, United States) with 6 abstentions (Andorra, Federated States of Micronesia, India, Israel, Russian Federation, Spain).

By the terms of draft resolution J on measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, the General Assembly would renew its call on all States to observe strictly the principles and objectives of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and reaffirm the vital necessity of upholding its

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] provisions. The text would also have the Assembly call on States that continued to maintain reservations to the Protocol to withdraw those reservations.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 25 October by a vote of 144 in favour to none against with 4 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Republic of Korea, United States).

Draft resolution K on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control would have the General Assembly reaffirm that international disarmament forums should take fully into account relevant environmental norms in negotiating treaties and agreements on disarmament and arms limitation and that all States should fully contribute to ensuring compliance with such norms in the implementation of treaties and conventions to which they were parties.

The Assembly would also call upon States to adopt unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral measures, so as to contribute to ensuring the application of scientific and technological progress in the framework of international security, disarmament and other related spheres, without detriment to the environment or to its effective contribution to attaining sustainable development.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 27 October by a vote of 149 in favour to none against with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States).

Draft L on the relationship between disarmament and development would have the Assembly urge the international community to devote part of the resources made available by the implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements to economic and social development, with a view to reducing the ever widening gap between developed and developing countries.

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would call upon the high-level Steering Committee on Disarmament and Development to strengthen and enhance its programme of activities. It would invite all Member States to communicate to the Secretary-General, by 15 April, their views and proposals for the implementation of the Action Programme adopted at the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development, as well as any other views and proposals with a view to achieving the goals of the Action Programme, within the framework of current international relations.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 27 October without a vote.

Draft resolution M on the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament would have the General Assembly decide, subject to the emergence of a

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] consensus on its objectives and agenda, to convene the fourth special session of the Assembly devoted to disarmament. It would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the objectives, agenda and timing of the special session and to report to the Assembly at its fifty-sixth session.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

A draft decision on small arms would have the Assembly decide to convene the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects from 9 to 20 July 2001 in New York. The Assembly would decide to hold the third session of the Preparatory Committee for the Conference from 19 to 30 March 2001 in New York. It would also decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its fifty-sixth session.

The Committee approved the draft decision on 31 October without a vote.

According to draft N on reducing nuclear danger, the Assembly, considering that the hair-trigger alert of nuclear weapons carried unacceptable risks, would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons. The Assembly would request the five nuclear-weapon States to undertake measures towards that goal. It would call upon Member States to take the necessary measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the ultimate objective of eliminating nuclear weapons.

The Assembly would request the Secretary-General, within existing resources, to continue to seek input from the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters on information with regard to specific measures that would significantly reduce the risk of nuclear war, including the proposal contained in the Declaration adopted at the United Nations Millennium Summit, for convening an international conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers, and to report thereon to the Assembly at its next session.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 30 October by a vote of 102 in favour to 42 against, with 14 abstentions.

Draft O on regional disarmament would have the Assembly affirm that global and regional approaches to disarmament complemented each other and should, therefore, be pursued simultaneously to promote regional and international peace and security. In that context, the Assembly would call upon States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels.

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] In a related provision, the Assembly would stress that sustained efforts were needed, within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament and under the umbrella of the United Nations, to make progress on the entire range of disarmament issues. It would welcome the initiatives towards disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and security undertaken by some countries at the regional and subregional levels, and support and encourage efforts aimed at promoting confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels in order to ease regional tensions and further disarmament and nuclear non- proliferation measures at those levels.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 1 November without a vote.

According to draft resolution P on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels, the Assembly would decide to give urgent consideration to the issues involved. It would request the Conference on Disarmament, as a first step, to consider the formulation of principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control, and looked forward to a report of the Conference on that subject. It would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of the next Assembly session.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October by a vote of 145 in favour to 1 against (India) and one abstention (Bhutan).

Draft resolution Q on illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons would have the General Assembly request the Secretary-General to continue his broad-based consultations, within available financial resources and with any other assistance provided by States, and to provide the 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects with information on the magnitude and scope of illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, measures to combat illicit trafficking in, and circulation of, small arms and light weapons, and the role of the United Nations therein.

It would also encourage States to promote regional and subregional initiatives and request the Secretary-General and States in a position to do so, to assist States taking such initiatives to address the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons in affected regions. It would encourage States to take appropriate national measures to destroy surplus, confiscated or collected small arms and light weapons, and to provide, on a voluntary basis, information to the Secretary-General on types and quantities of arms destroyed as well as the methods of their destruction.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 25 October without a vote.

By the terms of draft R on a path to total elimination of nuclear weapons the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] achieving the universality of the NPT and call upon States not party to the NPT to accede to it as non-nuclear- weapon States without delay and without conditions.

Under the text, the Assembly would reaffirm the importance for all States parties to the NPT to fulfil their obligations under the Treaty. It would stress the central importance of taking the practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement article VI of the NPT and paragraphs 3 and 4(c) of the 1995 decision on "Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non- Proliferation and Disarmament".

[Article VI concerns the obligations of all parties to the Treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Paragraph 3 of the 1995 Decision on "Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament" refers to the achievement of nuclear disarmament and a reaffirmation by the nuclear-weapon States to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. Paragraph 4(c) refers to the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of the elimination of those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.]

Under the draft, the practical steps towards implementation of those commitments include: early signature and ratification of CTBT by all States, especially by those States whose ratification is required for its entry into force, with a view to its early entry into force before 2003, as well as a moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending its entry into force; and immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament, and their conclusion as early as possible before 2005, of a non-discriminatory, multilateral, and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The Assembly would further call upon States to redouble efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery, confirming and strengthening, if necessary, their policies not to transfer equipment, materials or technology that could contribute to the proliferation of those weapons.

It would call upon all States to maintain the highest possible standards of security, safe custody, effective control and physical protection of all materials that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] The Committee approved the draft resolution as a whole on 1 November by a vote of 144 in favour to 1 against (India) with 12 abstentions.

According to a draft S on Mongolia's international security nuclear- weapon-free status, the Assembly would welcome the joint statement of the five nuclear-weapon States to provide security assurances to Mongolia in connection with its nuclear-weapon-free status, as a contribution to implementing General Assembly resolution 53/77D of 1998. It would request the Security Council to take note of that statement.

At the same time, the Assembly would appeal to the Member States of the Asia-Pacific region to support Mongolia's efforts to join the relevant regional security and economic arrangements. It would endorse and support Mongolia's good-neighbourly and balanced relationship with its neighbours as an important element of strengthening regional peace, security and stability. It would invite Member States to cooperate with Mongolia in taking the necessary measures to consolidate and strengthen its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, the inviolability of its borders, its economic security, ecological balance and its nuclear-weapon-free status, as well as its independent foreign policy.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 25 October without a vote.

Draft T on nuclear disarmament would have the Assembly urge the nuclear- weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems. The Assembly would also urge them, as an interim measure, to immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons and to take other concrete measures to further reduce the operational status of their nuclear weapon systems. It would also urge those States to commence plurilateral negotiations among themselves at an appropriate stage on further deep reductions of nuclear weapons as an effective nuclear disarmament measure.

In a related provision, the Assembly would urge the Conference on Disarmament to agree on a programme of work which included the immediate commencement of negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, with a view to conclusion within five years. The Assembly would also call for the conclusion of an international legal instrument or instruments on adequate security assurances to non-nuclear- weapon States.

By a further term of the text, the Assembly would call upon those States, pending the achievement of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument on the joint undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. It would call on all States to conclude an

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non- use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.

In a related provision, the Assembly would call for the early entry into force and strict observance of the CTBT. It would reiterate its call upon the nuclear-weapon States to undertake the step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat and to carry out effective nuclear disarmament measures with a view to the total elimination of those weapons.

It would reiterate its call upon the Conference to establish, on a priority basis, an ad hoc committee to deal with nuclear disarmament early in 2001 and to commence negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament leading to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. It would call for the convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects at an early date to identify and deal with concrete measures of nuclear disarmament.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 30 October by a vote of 99 in favour to 39 against with 17 abstentions.

According to draft U on transparency in armaments, the Assembly would call upon Member States, with a view to achieving universal participation in the Register of Conventional Arms, to provide the Secretary-General, by 31 May, annually the requested data and information for the Register, including nil reports if appropriate. The Assembly would reaffirm its decision with a view to further the Register's development, to keep the scope of and participation of the Register under review.

Towards that goal, the Assembly would recall its request to Member States to provide the Secretary-General with their views on the Register's continuing operation and its further development, and on transparency measures related to weapons of mass destruction. It would also request the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2003, on the basis of equitable geographical representation, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, with a view to a decision at its fifty-eighth session.

The Committee approved the draft resolution as a whole on 1 November by a vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions.

According to draft V on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention), the Assembly would urge all States that had signed but not ratified the Convention to do so without delay. The Assembly would urge all States parties to provide the

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Secretary-General with complete and timely information, as required in article 7 of the Convention, in order to promote transparency and compliance.

In a further provision, the Assembly would renew its call upon all States and other relevant parties to work together to promote, support and advance the care, rehabilitation and social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine awareness programmes, and the removal of anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world and the assurance of their destruction.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October by a vote of 127 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions.

By the terms of draft resolution W on the establishment of a nuclear- weapon-free zone in Central Asia, the General Assembly would welcome the desire of the five States of the Central Asian region to finalize work on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia and the concrete steps that they had taken to prepare the legal groundwork for the initiative and the progress that they had achieved. It would call upon the five States to continue their dialogue with the five nuclear-weapon States on the establishment of the nuclear-weapon-free zone and request the Secretary-General to continue to provide assistance to the Central Asian States in the elaboration of a treaty on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 25 October without a vote.

By the terms of draft resolution X on the follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the General Assembly would underline the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue, in good faith and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. It would call upon all States to immediately fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 2001 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear-weapon convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.

By further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would request all States to inform the Secretary-General of efforts and measures they take on the implementation of the resolution and nuclear disarmament.

The Committee approved the draft resolution as a whole on 30 October by a vote of 109 in favour to 27 against, with 21 abstentions.

According to draft resolution Y on the 1998 decision of the

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Conference on Disarmament to establish a committee to negotiate a fissile material cut-off treaty, the Assembly would recall that decision and urge the Conference to agree on a programme of work which included the immediate commencement of negotiations on such a treaty.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 1 November without a vote.

The Committee's report on the review and implementation of the Concluding Document of the Twelfth Special Session of the General Assembly (document A/55/560) contains 8 draft resolutions, A to H (The texts are listed as they are expected to be considered by the Assembly).

By the terms of draft resolution A on the United Nations Disarmament Information Programme, the General Assembly would commend the Secretary-General for his efforts to make effective use of the limited resources available to him in disseminating as widely as possible, including by electronic means, information on arms limitation and disarmament to governments, the media, non- governmental organizations (NGOs), educational communities and research institutes, and in carrying out a seminar and conference programme.

By further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would stress the importance of the Programme, as a significant instrument in enabling all Member States to participate fully in the deliberations and negotiations on disarmament in the various United Nations bodies, and in assisting them in complying with treaties and in contributing to agreed mechanisms for transparency. It would note with appreciation the cooperation of the United Nations Department of Public Information and its information centres in pursuit of the Programme's objectives.

It would further recommend that the Programme focus its efforts to inform, to educate and to generate public understanding of the importance of multilateral action and support for it, including action by the United Nations and the Conference on Disarmament, in the field of arms limitation and disarmament. It would also emphasize the importance of contributions to the Voluntary Trust Fund for the United Nations Disarmament Information Programme to sustain a strong outreach programme, and invite all Member States to make contributions to the Fund.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

By the terms of draft resolution B on regional confidence-building measures: activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa the General Assembly would reaffirm its support for efforts aimed at promoting confidence-building measures at regional and subregional levels in order to ease tensions and conflicts in the subregion and to further peace, stability and sustainable development.

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] By further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would welcome the creation of a mechanism for the promotion, maintenance and consolidation of peace and security in Central Africa, to be known as the Council for Peace and Security in Central Africa, by the Summit Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Central African Countries, held at Yaoundé on 25 February 1999, and would request the Secretary-General to give his full support to the effective realization of that mechanism. It would also emphasize the need to make the early-warning mechanism in Central Africa operational and request the Secretary-General to provide it with the assistance necessary for it to function properly.

The Assembly would further request the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to lend all their support to the effective establishment and smooth functioning of the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa. It would also request the Secretary-General to support the establishment of a network of parliamentarians with a view to the creation of a subregional parliament in Central Africa.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

By the terms of draft resolution C on the United Nations disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services, the General Assembly would express its appreciation to the Governments of Germany and Japan for inviting the 1999 and 2000 fellows to study selected activities in the field of disarmament, and to the Government of the United States for organizing specific study programmes in the field of disarmament, thereby contributing to the fulfillment of the overall objectives of the programme.

It would also have the Assembly express its appreciation to the IAEA, the OPCW, the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Organization and the Monterey Institute of International Studies for organizing specific study programmes in the field of disarmament in their respective areas of competence, thereby contributing to the objectives of the programme.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

By the terms of draft resolution D on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, the General Assembly would reaffirm its strong support for the revitalization of the Regional Centre, and emphasize the need to provide it with resources to enable it to strengthen its activities and carry out its programmes. It would appeal to all States and international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions in order to strengthen the programmes and activities of the Centre and facilitate their implementation.

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] The Assembly would also request the Secretary-General to continue to provide all necessary support, within existing resources, to the Centre. It would also request the Secretary-General to facilitate the establishment of close cooperation between the Centre and the Organization of African Unity (OAU), particularly in the area of peace, security and development, and to continue to assist the Director of the Centre in his efforts to stabilize the financial situation of the Centre and revitalize its activities.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

Draft resolution E on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean would have the Assembly reiterate its strong support for the role of the Regional Centre in the promotion of United Nations activities at the regional level to strengthen peace, stability, security and development among its Member States. The Assembly would express its satisfaction with the vast range of activities carried out by the Regional Centre in its last year of work.

By further terms, the Assembly would express its appreciation for the political support and financial contributions to the Regional Centre, which were essential for its continued operation. In that respect, it would appeal to Member States, in particular the States of the Latin American and Caribbean region, and to international governmental and non-governmental organizations and to foundations, to make voluntary contributions to strengthen the Centre, its programme of activities and their implementation.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

By the terms of draft resolution F on the United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament, the General Assembly would reiterate the importance of United Nations activities at the regional level to increase stability and security of Member States, which could be promoted in a substantive manner by the maintenance and revitalisation of the three regional centres for peace and disarmament. It would also reaffirm that, in order to achieve positive results, the centres should carry out dissemination and educational programmes that promote regional peace and security aimed at changing basic attitudes with respect to peace and security and disarmament.

By further terms of the draft, the Assembly would appeal to Member States in each region, international governmental and non-governmental organisations and foundations to make voluntary contributions to the centres in their regions to strengthen their programmes of activities and implementation. It would also request the Secretary-General to provide all necessary support, within existing resources, to the centres in carrying out

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] their programmes of activities.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

According to draft resolution G on a convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons, the Assembly, determined to achieve an international convention banning the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons, leading to their ultimate destruction, would reiterate its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations in order to reach agreement on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. The Assembly would request the Conference to report to it on the results of those negotiations.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 30 October by a vote of 101 in favour to 42 against, with 14 abstentions.

Draft H on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific would have the Assembly reaffirm its strong support for the forthcoming operation and further strengthening of the Regional Centre, and underscore the importance of the Kathmandu process as a powerful vehicle for the development of the practice of region-wide security and disarmament dialogue.

The Assembly would express its appreciation for the continuing political support and financial contributions to the Regional Centre, which were essential for its continued operation. In that connection, it would appeal to Member States, in particular those within the Asia-Pacific region, as well as to international government and non-government organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions, the only resources of the Regional Centre, to strengthen its programme of activities and their implementation.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

The report of the Committee on the implementation of the recommendations and decisions adopted by the General Assembly at its tenth special session (document A/55/561) contains three draft resolutions.

Draft A, on the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, would have the Assembly recognize the importance and high quality of the Institute's work, and reiterate its conviction that it should continue to conduct independent research on problems relating to disarmament and security and to undertake specialized research requiring a high degree of expertise.

The Assembly would request all Member States to consider making financial contributions to the Institute in order to ensure its viability and the quality of its work over the long term. It

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] would recommend that the Secretary-General seek ways to increase the funding of the Institute within existing resources.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

Another draft resolution, B on the report of the Conference on Disarmament, would have the Assembly urge the Conference to fulfil its role as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community, in light of the evolving international situation, with a view to making early substantive progress on priority items on its agenda. In that connection, it would welcome the strong collective interest of the Conference in commencing substantive work as soon as possible during its 2001 session. It would also welcome the decision of the Conference to request its President to conduct, jointly with the incoming President, intensive consultations during the inter-sessional period in order to try to achieve that goal. The Conference would be encouraged to continue the ongoing review of its membership, agenda and methods of work.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

Draft C on the report of the Disarmament Commission would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of further enhancing the dialogue and cooperation among the First Committee, the Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament. It would also reaffirm the role of the Commission as the specialized, deliberative body within the United Nations multilateral disarmament machinery that allowed for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, leading to the submission of concrete recommendations on those issues.

The Assembly would recommend that the Commission, at its 2000 organizational session, adopt the following items for consideration at its 2001 session: ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament; and practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional arms. It would request the Commission to meet for a period not exceeding three weeks during 2001 and to submit a substantive report to the Assembly at its fifty-sixth session.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 26 October without a vote.

The Committee's report on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/55/562) contains one draft text which would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of Israel's accession to the NPT and placement of all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, in realizing the goal of universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East.

The Assembly would call upon that State to accede to the Treaty without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and to place all its unsafeguarded

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region, and as a step towards enhancing peace and security. It would ask the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly at its next session on the implementation of the present resolution.

The Assembly would welcome the conclusions on the Middle East of the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

The Committee approved the draft resolution as a whole on 1 November by a vote of 139 in favour to 3 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States) with 7 abstentions (Australia, Canada, India, Marshall Islands, Singapore, Tonga and Trinidad and Tobago).

The Committee's report on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) (document A/55/563) contains a draft text that would have the Assembly call upon all States that had not yet done so to take all measures to become parties to the Convention and its Protocols as soon as possible, and particularly to amended Protocol II, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to that instrument at an early date. The Assembly would also call upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately adherence to those instruments would be universal.

The Assembly would also call upon States parties to the Convention that had not yet done so, to express their consent to be bound by the protocols annexed to the Convention. It would welcome the convening on 11 to 13 December of the second Annual Conference of States Parties to amended Protocol II, and call upon all such parties to address at that meeting the issue of holding the third annual conference in 2001. It would recall the decision of the States parties to the Convention to convene the next Review Conference no later than 2001 preceded by a Preparatory Committee and recommend that the Review Conference be held in December 2001 in Geneva.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 25 October without a vote.

By the terms of a draft resolution contained in the report of the Committee on the strengthening of security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/55/564), the General Assembly would express its satisfaction at the continuing efforts by Mediterranean countries to contribute actively to the elimination of all causes of tension in the region and to the promotion of just and lasting solutions to the persistent problems of the region through peaceful means, thus ensuring the withdrawal of foreign forces of occupation and respecting the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all the countries and the right of the people to self-determination. It would

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] call for full adherence to the principles of non-interference, non-intervention, non-use of force or threat of use of force and the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, in accordance with the Charter and relevant resolutions of the United Nations.

By further terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would commend the efforts of the Mediterranean countries towards the general objective of turning the region into an area of dialogue, exchange and cooperation, guaranteeing peace, stability and prosperity. The Assembly would recognize that the elimination of the economic and social disparities in levels of development and other obstacles in the Mediterranean area will contribute to enhancing peace, security and cooperation. It would further call upon States of the region that had not yet done so to adhere to all multilaterally negotiated legal instruments related to the field of disarmament and non-proliferation, thus creating the necessary conditions for strengthening peace and security in the region.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 27 October without a vote.

By the terms of a draft resolution contained in the Committee's report on the consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco) (document A/55/565), the Assembly would welcome the concrete steps taken by some countries of the region during the past year for the consolidation of the regime of military denuclearization established by the Treaty.

The Assembly would also urge the countries of the region that had not yet done so to deposit their instruments of ratification of the amendments to the Treaty approved by the General Conference of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean in its resolutions 267 (E-V), 268 (XII) and 290 (E-VII).

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 25 October without a vote.

According to a text contained in the Committee's report on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (document A/55/566), the Assembly would welcome the progress achieved so far in negotiating a verification protocol to strengthen the Convention and reaffirm the decision of the Fourth Review Conference, which urged the conclusion of the negotiations by the Ad Hoc Group as soon as possible before the commencement of the Fifth Review Conference -- to be held in Geneva from 19 November to 7 December -- and submission of its report, which should be adopted by consensus, to the States parties to be considered at a special Conference.

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] In that context, the Assembly would call upon all States parties to accelerate the negotiations, and to redouble their efforts within the Ad Hoc Group to formulate the efficient, cost-effective and practical regime and seek early resolution of the outstanding issues through renewed flexibility in order to complete the protocol, in accordance with the decision of the Fourth Review Conference. The Assembly would note with satisfaction the increase in the number of States parties to the Convention and reaffirm the call on all signatory States to ratify the Convention without delay. It would also call upon those States that had not yet signed the Convention to become parties to it at an early date, thus contributing to universal adherence.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 31 October without a vote.

The Committee's report on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/55/567) contains a draft resolution under which the General Assembly would stress the importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without delay and without conditions, to achieve the early entry into force of the CTBT.

The Assembly would also urge States to maintain their moratoria on nuclear-weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, pending entry into force of the Treaty, and call upon all States that had not signed the Treaty to sign and ratify it as soon as possible and to refrain from acts that would defeat its object and purpose in the meanwhile. It would also call upon States that had signed but not yet ratified the Treaty, in particular those whose ratification is needed for its entry into force, to accelerate their ratification processes.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on 30 October by a vote of 149 in favour to none against, with 7 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritius, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania).

Action on First Committee Reports

RASTISLAV GABRIEL (Slovakia), Rapporteur, introduced the report of the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

The Assembly first took up the reports on development of good-neighbourly relations among Balkan States, and maintenance of international security-good- neighbourliness, stability and development of South-Eastern Europe (documents A/55/552 and A/55/553) and adopted the relevant resolution without a vote.

VLADISLAV MLADENOVIC (Yugoslavia), speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, said that his country was committed to the development of relations with all its neighbours on the basis of genuine good neighbourliness, mutual respect and cooperation which was an important factor in the promotion of peace and overall stability in the region. Now, as a

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] full-fledged member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the stability pact of South East Europe, the country stood ready to bear its share of responsibility in efforts aimed at fulfilling the goals and purposes enshrined in the basic documents of the organizations.

The Assembly next took up the report on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security (document A/55/554), adopting the related resolution without a vote.

Turning to the report on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/55/555), the Assembly adopted a related resolution by a vote of 97 in favour to 46 against, with 21 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I).

The Assembly then considered the report on the establishment of a nuclear- weapon-free zone in the Middle East (document A/55/556), adopting that text without a vote.

Next, the Assembly acted on the text contained in the report on conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/55/557). It adopted the related resolution by a vote of 111 in favour to none against, with 54 abstentions (Annex II).

The report on the prevention of an arms race in outer space contained one resolution (document A/55/558), which was adopted by a vote of 163 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States) (Annex III).

The Assembly then turned to report on general and complete disarmament (document A/55/559 A - Y),which contains 25 resolutions and one decision.

The first, draft A, on missiles, was adopted by a vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 65 abstentions (Annex IV).

The Assembly next acted on draft B on the preservation of and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and adopted it by a vote of 88 in favour to 5 against (Albania, Federated States of Micronesia, Honduras, Israel, United States), with 66 abstentions (Annex V).

Three separate recorded votes were taken on resolution C entitled: "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda." By a vote of 160 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 1 abstention (Cuba), the Assembly adopted preambular paragraph 15. That provision welcomes the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. (Annex VI).

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Next, operative paragraph 16 was adopted by a vote of 161 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan) (Annex VII). That provision notes that the NPT Review Conference had agreed that legally binding security assurances by the five nuclear-weapon States to the non- nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty strengthened the nuclear non- proliferation regime, and that it called upon its Preparatory Committee to make recommendations to the 2005 Review Conference on that issue.

The resolution as a whole was adopted by a vote of 154 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 8 abstentions (Bhutan, France, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Monaco, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) (Annex VIII).

Draft D on the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by a vote of 163 in favour to 1 against (India), with 3 abstentions (Cuba, Israel, Pakistan) (Annex IX).

Drafts E, F, G, H were adopted without a vote. They concern, respectively: the United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education; assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them; consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures; and implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. The Assembly then took up draft I on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/55/559), taking three separate recorded votes.

The Assembly first, adopted the last three words of operative paragraph 3, "and South Asia", by a vote of 152 in favour to 1 against (India), with 10 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Cyprus, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, United States, United Kingdom) (Annex X).

It adopted the third operative paragraph as a whole, which calls upon all States to consider all relevant proposals relating to the conclusion of nuclear- weapon-free zone treaties, including in the Middle East and South Asia. It took that decision by a vote of 155 in favour to 1 against (India), with 9 abstentions (Bhutan, Cyprus, Micronesia Federated States, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex XI).

The resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere was then adopted by a vote of 159 in favour to 4 against (France, Monaco, United Kingdom, United States), with 5 abstentions (Andorra, India, Israel, Russian Federation, Spain) (Annex XII).

Acting on draft J of the report on general and complete disarmament, which concerns measures to uphold the authority of the

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] 1925 Geneva Protocol, the Assembly adopted the text by a vote of 163 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Micronesia Federated States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea, United States) (Annex XIII).

Draft K, on observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements, was next adopted by a vote of 165 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions (France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States) (Annex XIV).

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft L, on the relationship between disarmament and development.

Also acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft M on convening the fourth special session devoted to disarmament.

It adopted a draft decision on small arms, also without a vote.

A text on reducing nuclear danger, draft N, was adopted by a vote of 110 in favour to 45 against, with 14 abstentions (Annex XV).

The Assembly adopted a text on regional disarmament, draft O without a vote.

It next adopted draft P on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels by a vote of 163 in favor to 1 against (India), with 1 abstention (Bhutan) (Annex XVI).

Acting without a vote, it adopted resolution Q on the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons.

By a vote of 150 in favour to 2 against (Egypt, Pakistan), with 10 abstentions (Algeria, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Monaco, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates), the Assembly adopted operative paragraph 8 of draft R on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. That paragraph calls upon all States to redouble their efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, including their delivery means, confirming and strengthening, if necessary, their policies not to transfer equipment, materials or technology that could contribute to the proliferation of those weapons (Annex XVII).

It adopted draft R as a whole by a vote of 155 in favour to 1 against (India), with 12 abstentions (Annex XVIII).

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft S entitled "Mongolia's international security and nuclear-weapon-free status".

Before adopting draft T, entitled "nuclear disarmament" as a whole, the Assembly adopted operative paragraph 9 by a vote of 150 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 15 abstentions. That

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] provision welcomes the positive outcome of the 2000 Review Conference of the States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States and the reaffirmation by the States Parties that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and calls for the full and effective implementation of the steps set out in the Final Document (Annex XIX).

Next, it adopted the resolution on nuclear disarmament as a whole by a vote of 109 in favour to 39 against, with 20 abstentions (Annex XX).

Before adopting a text on transparency in armaments, Draft U, the Assembly took four separate votes, on preambular paragraph 5, operative paragraph 2, operative paragraph 5(b), and operative paragraph 7.

The Assembly adopted preambular paragraph 5, which welcomes the note by the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms and its further development, by a vote of 149 in favour to 2 against (Egypt, Syria), with 10 abstentions (Algeria, Bahrain, China, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia,) (Annex XXI).

Operative paragraph 2, which endorses the report of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, was adopted by a vote of 147 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria), with 11 abstentions (Annex XXII).

It next adopted operative paragraph 5 (b), which requests the Secretary- General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2003, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, with a view to a decision at its fifty-eighth session. The vote was 147 in favour to 3 against (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria), with 13 abstentions (Annex XXIII).

Operative paragraph 7, which invites the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments, was adopted by a vote of 144 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions (Annex XXIV).

The Assembly adopted draft U as a whole by a vote of 149 in favour to none against, with 16 abstentions (Annex XXV).

Draft V on implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, draft V, was adopted by a vote of 143 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex XXVI).

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft W on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia.

Prior to acting on draft X on follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Assembly adopted operative paragraph 1 by a vote of 162 in favour to 4 against (France, Israel, Russian Federation, United States), with 1 abstention (United Kingdom). That provision underlines once again the unanimous conclusion of the Court that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control (Annex XXVII).

It adopted draft X as a whole by a vote of 119 in favour to 28 against, with 22 abstentions (Annex XXVIII).

Acting without a vote, the Assembly next adopted Draft Y on the decision of the Conference on Disarmament to establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The Assembly next adopted the decision on small arms, contained in the report on general and complete disarmament.

DJAMA MAHAMOUD ALI (Djibouti) said that he had wanted to cast a yes vote on resolution A on missiles, but had pressed the "no" button in error.

J. ENKHSAIKHAN (Mongolia), in explanation of vote after the vote, said that providing nuclear security assurances to nuclear-weapon-free zones had become an integral part of the emerging international non-proliferation regime. When a State was singled out for nuclear assurances, it ought to be complemented by general assurances of non-use of force, unless the intention was otherwise. The resolution called on Member States and relevant United Nations bodies to continue to cooperate with Mongolia in promoting and strengthening the non- nuclear aspects of its security. His country was looking forward to that cooperation.

HIROYUKI YAMAMOTO (Japan), said that the establishment of nuclear-weapon- free zones, when appropriate conditions such as consent of all concerned countries, including nuclear weapon states were satisfied, could contribute to the goal of non-proliferation. His country welcomed the adoption of the resolution on Mongolia's international security and nuclear-weapon-free status by consensus.

Acting without a vote on a report containing eight draft resolutions (document A/55/560), the Assembly adopted the following

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] drafts: draft A on the United Nations Disarmament Information Programme; draft B on activities of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa; draft C on United Nations disarmament, fellowship, training and advisory services: draft D on United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa; draft E on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean; and draft F on United Nations regional centres for peace and disarmament.

Draft G, on a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons was adopted by a vote of 109 in favour to 43 against, with 16 abstentions (Annex XXIX).

Draft H on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific was adopted without a vote.

On the report contained in document A/55/561, the Assembly adopted Drafts A, B and C without a vote on the following items, respectively: twentieth anniversary of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research; report of the Conference on Disarmament; and report of the Disarmament Commission.

Turning to the relevant text contained in the report on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/55/562), the Assembly first adopted the sixth preambular paragraph by a vote of 158 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 5 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Tonga) (Annex XXX).

By the terms of that provision, the Assembly recognized with satisfaction that, in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review, the Conference undertakes to make determined efforts towards the achievement of the goal of universality of the NPT and calls upon those remaining States not party to the Treaty to accede to it, thereby accepting an international legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices and to accept IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities. It also underlines the need for universal adherence to the Treaty and strict compliance by all parties.

The Assembly next adopted the draft as a whole on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East by a vote of 157 in favour to 3 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States), with 8 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, India, Marshall Islands, Singapore, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago) (Annex XXXI).

Acting without a vote, it adopted the draft contained in the report on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (document A/55/563).

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted the text contained in the report on strengthening security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/55/564).

Also without a vote, it adopted the text contained in the report on consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco) (document A/55/565).

It adopted the draft in the report on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (document A/55/566) without a vote.

The draft contained in the report on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (document A/55/567) was adopted by a vote of 161 in favour to none against, with 6 abstentions (Bhutan, India, Libya, Mauritius, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania) (Annex XXXII).

The Assembly then took up a draft resolution on preparations for the special session of the General Assembly for follow-up to the World Summit for Children from 19 to 21 September 2001 (document A/55/34/Rev. 1).

The Assembly was informed that Belize, Burkina Faso, Chile, Eritrea, Liberia, Madagascar and Sri Lanka had joined as co-sponsors of the draft.

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted the draft on the preparations for the special session of the General Assembly for follow-up to the World Summit for Children from 19 to 21 September 2001.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Role of Science and Technology

The draft resolution on the role of science and technology in the context of international security (document A/55/555) was adopted by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 46 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya,

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Samoa, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Gambia, Kiribati, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Tuvalu, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Arrangements on Security Assurances

The draft resolution on the conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (document A/55/557) was adopted by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to none against, with 54 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar,

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against: None.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Gambia, Kiribati, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Suriname, Tuvalu, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX II

ANNEX III

Vote on Prevention of Outer Space Arms Race

The draft resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space (document A/55/558) was adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Gambia, Kiribati, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Suriname, Tuvalu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Missiles

The draft resolution on missiles (document A/55/559-A) was adopted by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 65 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Eritrea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Gambia, Kiribati, Lebanon, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Syria, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on ABM Treaty

The draft resolution on preservation of and Compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) (document A/55/559-B) was adopted by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 5 against, with 66 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Against: Albania, Federated States of Micronesia, Honduras, Israel, United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Gambia, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Palau, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Fifteenth Preambular Paragraph of New Agenda

The fifteenth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda" (document A/55/559-C) was adopted by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 3 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India, Israel, Pakistan.

Abstain: Cuba.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, France, Honduras, Kiribati, Monaco, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Tuvalu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX VI)

ANNEX VII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 16 of New Agenda

Operative paragraph 16 of the draft resolution entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda" (document A/55/559-C) was adopted by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, France, Kiribati, Monaco, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Tuvalu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX VII)

ANNEX VIII

Vote on New Agenda

The draft resolution entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda" (document A/55/559-C) was adopted by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 3 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India, Israel, Pakistan.

Abstain: Bhutan, France, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Monaco, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Honduras, Kiribati, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX VIII)

ANNEX IX

Vote on 2000 NPT Review Conference

The draft resolution on the 2000 NPT Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (document A/55/559-D) was adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 1 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India.

Abstain: Cuba, Israel, Pakistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Kiribati, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Tuvalu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX IX)

ANNEX X

Vote on 'and South Asia' in Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The words "and South Asia" in operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/55/559-I) were adopted by a recorded vote of 152 in favour to 1 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India.

Abstain: Bhutan, Cuba, Cyprus, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, France, Kiribati, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Monaco, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Syria, Tuvalu, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX X)

ANNEX XI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 3 in Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

Operative paragraph 3, as a whole, in the draft resolution on the nuclear- free southern hemisphere (document A/55/559-I) was adopted by a recorded vote of 155 in favour to 1 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga,

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India.

Abstain: Bhutan, Cyprus, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, France, Kiribati, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Monaco, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Tuvalu, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX XI)

ANNEX XII

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The draft resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/55/559-I) was adopted by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 4 against, 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay,

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: France, Monaco, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Andorra, India, Israel, Russian Federation, Spain.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Tuvalu, Yugoslavia,

(END OF ANNEX XII)

ANNEX XIII

Vote on 1925 Geneva Protocol

The draft resolution on measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol (document A/55/559-J) was adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Against: None.

Abstain: Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Kiribati, Nicaragua, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Tuvalu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX XIII)

ANNEX XIV

Vote on Environmental Norms

The draft resolution on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of disarmament and arms control agreements (document A/55/559) was adopted by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to none against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Abstain: France, Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Kiribati, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Tuvalu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX XIV)

ANNEX XV

Vote on Reducing Nuclear Danger

The draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/55/559-N) was adopted by a recorded vote of 110 in favour to 45 against, with 14 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, China, Georgia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Congo, Dominica, Kiribati, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Tuvalu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX XV)

ANNEX XVI

Vote on Regional Conventional Arms Control

The draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/55/559-P) was adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India.

Abstain: Bhutan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Kiribati, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Tuvalu, Viet Nam,

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX XVI)

ANNEX XVII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 8 of Nuclear-Weapon Elimination

Operative paragraph 8 of the draft resolution on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/55/559-R) was adopted by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to 2 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyp

******* ******* ******* ******* Felicity Hill, Director, United Nations Office Women's International League for Peace and Freedom 777 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017, USA

Ph: 1 212 682 1265 Fax: 1 212 286 8211 email: [email protected] web: www.wilpf.int.ch www.reachingcriticalwill.org

******* ******* ******* *******

01123.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:07 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-1786-974978834-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] To: "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: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:03:45 +1300 Reply-To: "Alyn Ware" Subject: [abolition-caucus] Nuclear weapons convention working group Reminder:

Abolition 2000 has a number of working groups to focus on specific aspects of the campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons. One of these is the Nuclear Weapons Convention Working Group. It focuses on the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention and on progress towards international support for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The working group is coordinated by Alyn Ware, Merav Datan and Jurgen Scheffran. The working group hosts a separate email listserve to report and discuss progress.

Please contact me on [email protected] if you would like to join this working group and be added to the listserve.

Recent topics include:

Report on a Nuclear Weapons Convention Promotion Tour across Canada Report on critical issues on the NWC raised at the Nagasaki Assembly

------Alyn Ware Consultant at Large Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy 211 East 43rd Street New York, NY 10017, USA Tel: (1) 212 818 1861 Fax: (1) 212 818 1857 Email: [email protected] Website: www.lcnp.org

Home address 219 Ngatai Rd, Tauranga Aotearoa-New Zealand Phone: (64) 7 576 6750 Fax: (64) 7 576 4577 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" Subject: Organizing to contact key senators Cc: Bcc: icnd X-Attachments: A:\iclt.054.doc; A:\icnd.051.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Colleagues:

Previously I sent you the work program of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, designed to build bipartisan support for de-alerting and strategic arms reduction. (CTBT ratification will be added if Al Gore is elected president). Now I want to discuss how we can move into implementation. At several spots in this communication I ask for response.

Those attending the November 14 meeting agreed that we should initially concentrate on some key senators, make contact with their staffs in Washington, and encourage interfaith groups in their home states to contact the senators and their staffs.

Key Senators

From a legislative viewpoint there is a need to have enough Republican senators to join with Democrats to create a majority in favor of particular actions, such as removal of legislative restrictions on de-alerting and strategic arms reductions. More than a scant majority is desirable, and treaty ratification will require support of 17 or 18 Republicans (depending on election outcome). Based upon suggestions from David Culp and others and my own knowledge, I suggest that we start with the following ten senators:

Northeast moderates: Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), James Jeffords (VT), Lincoln Chafee (RI), and Arlen Specter (PA).

Influentials and Foreign Relations Committee members: Richard Lugar (IN), Chuck Hagel (NE), Pete Domenici (NM), Gordon Smith (OR), and Ted Stevens (AK).

* Do you find this list to be an acceptable beginning? If not, what changes do you suggest?

Contacts in Key States

During the next several weeks we can work together to develop interfaith delegations in Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, and Alaska to get in touch with their senators and staff. Therefore, please respond to the following questions.

* Would you be willing to contact persons from your network in one or more of these states? If so, please indicate which states.

* If you don't have time for such outreach, will you supply names of contacts in these states so that someone else from the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament can make contact? If so, please send me the names, organization, mailing address, telephone, fax, and e-mail.

* Would you be willing to take the lead as principal D.C. contact for particular states? If so, please indicate which state(s).

*Can you suggest someone within particular states who we might ask to be the principal in-state contact and mobilizer?

01127.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:08 PM] It would be desirable to shape up these state-level groups during December so that they can begin making contact with their senators after the first of the year.

Attached is a sample letter to persons in the key states, which you can adapt as you consider appropriate. Please send me any comments you may have on this draft.

Background Information

We will assemble some basic information on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction for use by the faith community in D.C. and in the various states. The Back from the Brink Campaign and the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers have agreed to provide us factual issue papers. We will work with these organizations to develop specific talking points for discussion with senators and their staffs.

In making our contact we will want to be in an inquiry mode rather than engaged in hard-sell advocacy. Talking points might include the following: * Many informed persons recognize the need to diminish the danger of accidental nuclear attack and to continue reducing nuclear weapons from their Cold War level. If Governor Bush wins the presidency, we can quote his May 2000 speech that dealt with this subject (see attachment). * Finding and carrying out the best approach can be a bipartisan undertaking. This is especially needed following the divisive 2000 election. We can point out that historically there has been strong bipartisan support for arms control treaties (limited test ban, NPT, SALT, START, Chemical Weapons Convention). The CTBT was an exception, occurring at time of polarization during the Clinton Administration * Therefore, we are interested in learning the senator's thinking on these issues. What does s/he favor? What does s/he think about executive initiatives to achieve reciprocal national action as compared to treaties? What precautions or conditions does s/he think are necessary for such measures?

Training

It would be useful to have a briefing session for D.C. staff from the faith community on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction and to arrange for a conference call on these subjects for our contacts in the various states. We can draw upon Back from the Brink and the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers for this and can ask 20/20 Vision to help with the conference call.

The D.C. briefing might occur the first week in January so that we can get on with visits to senatorial offices.

* Please let me know when during the week of Tuesday, January 2 to Friday, January 5 you could participate in such a briefing or would not be available.

The conference call with our field contacts might take place the same week. The state delegations could then get in touch with the senator's home state office, talk with staff, and seek an appointment with the senator in January or February.

Adding More Senators

By mid-January we should know how this process is going and then consider whether we should add other senators and their states to our list.

Your Response

I welcome your comments on these ideas and your suggestions to add depth to our work. I look forward to your response to questions raised in this letter.

Shalom,

01127.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:08 PM] Howard

01127.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:08 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Attachments Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Mary,

Here are the attachments of my other communication.

I have two e-mail addresses listed for you: [email protected] and [email protected]. Which one is correct or preferred?

Howard

###

Draft sample letter to contacts in key states. From national organizations participating in Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. Via e-mail or on organizational letterhead.

Dear ______:

Even though we are in the midst of a highly partisan dispute over the presidency, a new president will indeed take office in January, and a new Congress, too. That should be a time for healing, a time to develop bipartisan support for objectives beneficial to all. Among these are steps that reduce the danger of nuclear weapons and move toward their elimination.

With this in mind the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, in which our organization participates, is initiating contact with some key U.S. senators to learn their thinking on a pair of issues: (a) the possibility of taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert and (b) bringing about significant reduction in strategic nuclear weapons, the ones that strike from afar. [If Gore is elected, add CTBT ratification.] They are discussed in attached issue briefs.

We ask you to become partners with us in this endeavor by joining others from the faith community in [name of state] to engage in dialogue with Senator [name]. We would hope that an interfaith delegation would form and get in touch with Senator [name]'s in-state office, talk with staff and request meeting with the senator. We see this as an inquiry to learn his/her thinking rather than hard-sell advocacy. Later we may want to mobilize pressure, but now we want to emphasize dialogue.

Will you join us for this purpose? If so, who else in the [state] faith community should be involved? Do you have an existing coalition or network that can take on this task? If not, would you be willing to take the lead in drawing others together? Or can you suggest someone else who would be a natural for this task? As this develops, other members of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament will share the names of their principal contacts in [state].

We are planning a conference call the first week in January to bring together faith leaders from nine states that will be involved initially. This will provide an opportunity to talk with national experts on de-alerting and strategic nuclear arms reduction. We hope that three or four persons from [state] will participate in this conference call.

If you have questions about this request, please call me at [phone number]. Or you can reach me by e-mail at [e-mail address].

01127.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:08 PM] Sincerely yours,

[Name of signer]

###

Excerpt from statement by Governor George W. Bush New Leadership on National Security Washington, D.C. May 23, 2000

In this speech Governor Bush advocated a vigorous national missile defense. He also spoke of nuclear arms reduction as follows:

"America should rethink the requirements for nuclear deterrence in a new security environment. The premises of Cold War nuclear targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenal. As president, I will ask the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of our nuclear force posture and determine how best to meet our security needs. While the exact number of weapons can come only from such an assessment, I will pursue the lowest possible number consistent with our national security. It should be possible to reduce the number of American nuclear weapons significantly further than what has already been agreed to under START II, without compromising our security in any way. We should not keep weapons that our military planners do not need. These unneeded weapons are the expensive relics of dead conflicts. And they do nothing to make us more secure.

"In addition, the United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status - another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation. Preparation for quick launch - within minutes after warning of an attack - was the rule during the era of superpower rivalry. But today, for two nations at peace, keeping so many weapons on high alert may create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch. So, as president, I will ask for an assessment of what we can safely do to lower the alert status of our forces.

"These changes to our forces should not require years and years of detailed arms control negotiations. There is a precedent that proves the power of leadership. In 1991, the United States invited the Soviet Union to join it in removing tactical nuclear weapons from the arsenal. Huge reductions were achieved in a matter of months, making the world much safer, more quickly.

"Similarly, in the area of strategic nuclear weapons, 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. This would be an act of principled leadership - a chance to seize the moment and begin a new era of nuclear security. A new era of cooperation on proliferation and nuclear safety."

01127.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:08 PM] Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: RE: Request for briefing Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:26:12 -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

It was nice to talk with you. I'm sure we can get great things accomplished working together. Here is the grant request form we spoke about.

-----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 9:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Request for briefing

Esther,

Thanks for your e-mail response. We would like a briefing on de-alerting for the faith community in the second or third week of December or the first week of January. We would also like you to prepare a two-page briefing paper for use not only with Washington staff but also with our grassroots contacts. For the latter I would like to arrange a conference call in early January, perhaps with help from 20/20.

Let's talk about this the week of November 27.

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.

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\Brinkproposalnew.doc"

01127.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:08 PM] Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:23:58 -0800 From: sally lilienthal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Inquiry of grant possibility

Dear Howard, In reply to your email inquiry written on November 15: At this time Ploughshares cannot consider a grant to your Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. As you suggest, at present, our interfaith funds are going to the cathedral project with the specific goal of reaching congregations in the United States through educational packets and follow up calls and meetings. Perhaps you know as well that the project is moving from the cathedral to the Churches Center for Theology and Public Policy at the first of the year with the cathedral's ongoing involvement.

With all good wishes, Sally

"Howard W. Hallman" wrote:

> Dear Sally: > > I'm wondering whether in your 2001 budget there is room to consider support > for the action-oriented Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, which > I chair. Or will your funds for interfaith work continue to go mostly for > the educational activities of the National Cathedral project? If there is > a possibility that you would consider an action project, I would like to > submit a proposal before your next deadline. > > After several exploratory months following defeat of the CTBT, > representatives of faith-based organizations which participated in the > Interfaith Group for the CTBT decided to form the Interfaith Committee for > Nuclear Disarmament with a broader agenda. A list of those now > participating is attached. We already have 50 percent more organizations > than participated in the CTBT campaign, and our list continues to expand. > > At a May 2000 planning meeting the Interfaith Planning Committee decided to > focus our immediate attention on national missile defense. This led to: > · A letter from religious leaders to President Clinton asking him not to > deploy the CTBT. The Friends Committee on National Legislation provided > the leadership for this letter. > · A postcard alert developed in cooperation with 20/20 Vision and with 28 > faith organizations as cosponsors. More than 40,000 cards were > distributed, and some organizations sent the message by e-mail to many more. > In addition, we considered election issues and developed: > · A set of questions on nuclear disarmament issues addressed to > congressional candidates and distributed by a number of organizations to > their grassroots constituents. > > Separately I worked with Pax Christi USA to produce a letter to > presidential candidates, signed by 48 religious leaders from various > denominations and regions of the country, asking ten questions on nuclear

01127.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:08 PM] > disarmament issues. We reported the candidates' responses at a news > conference featuring United Methodist Bishop C. Dale White and Catholic > Bishop Thomas Gumbleton. Both faith-based and civil-sector organizations > distributed the responses to their members. This effort was financed by > 501(c)(4) funds. > > In October I participated in a meeting of European, Canadian, and U.S. > church representatives plus staff of the World Council of Churches and Pax > Christi International, held in Brussels, Belgium. The purpose was to > develop a common approach to dealing with NATO's current review of its > nuclear posture. The outcome was a decision to send a delegation to > several key non-nuclear NATO states and urge them to work for a reduced > role of nuclear weapons. As follow up I am urging the World Council of > Churches, Pax Christi International, and hopefully the Holy See to send a > delegation of religious leaders from different continents to the heads of > the nuclear-weapon states and urge them to fulfill their NPT commitment to > an "unequivocal undertaking to eliminate their nuclear arsenals". If this > occurs, we will get a delegation of U.S. religious leaders to call upon the > president of the United States with the same message. > > Now that the election is over the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear > Disarmament has developed the attached work program for the next eight > months. We will concentrate on building bipartisan support for de-alerting > and strategic arms reduction outside the START process. If Al Gore is > elected president, we will add the CTBT to the list of active issues. We > will also stand ready to deal with "mini-nukes" and NMD when they come up. > In practice we will concentrate particularly on 15 to 20 Republican > senators to urge them to join Democrats in a bipartisan approach. We will > encourage and assist our interfaith grassroots networks in their home > states to be in touch with the key senators on these issues. We will > produce educational material and send out action alerts when the issues > come into a legislative focus, such as in defense authorization legislation > (which has some obstacles that need removing). > > If you would consider financial support for this interfaith action program > on nuclear disarmament, I would like to submit an application for a grant > to support the leadership role I play in this endeavor. If generous > multi-foundation support becomes available, our second funding priority is > for a field coordinator to pull together our grassroots activities. > > Please advise me whether it would be appropriate to submit a complete > application. > > With best regards, > Howard > > ------> Name: icnd.049.doc > icnd.049.doc Type: Download File (application/msword) > Encoding: base64 > > Name: icnd.050.doc > icnd.050.doc Type: Download File (application/msword) > Encoding: base64

01127.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:08 PM] 01127.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:08 PM] Back From the Brink Grassroots Project

Grants Available For PUBLIC EDUCATION ON DE-ALERTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Goal of Project: Elevate the demand for de-alerting with Congress, the press and public.

The Project: Back From the Brink will facilitate grassroots organizing in 2000, and 2001, focusing on the need to take US and Russian nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. We will provide organizing grants in priority districts. (See below.)

Organizing Suggestions.

1. Organize for the “National Call-In Day” to the new President—for De-alerting and Deep Reductions of Nuclear Arsenals (February 5-6-tentative dates); 2. Participate in national postcard campaign and send messages to Congressional delegation through 2001; 3. Reach out to community civil and religious organizations with “De-alerting Endorsements”; 4. Arrange in-district meetings with congressional delegation to promote concept of de- alerting; 5. Arrange editorial board meetings, generate letters-to-the-editor at key times; 6. Sponsor a Brink speaker, train speakers to go to community meetings.

Resources Available:

1. Back From the Brink will provide grants of $500 to $1000--larger for statewide efforts--to groups organizing public education activities. Priority will be given to areas with armed service committee members or other relevant leadership positions.

2. Back From the Brink will provide speakers in as many locations as possible; 3. Back From the Brink will provide resource materials (video, fact sheets, posters, etc.).

Funding proposals (or questions) for public education projects should be forwarded to:

Ira Shorr Back From the Brink 6856 Eastern Avenue, Washington, DC 20012 e.mail: [email protected] PH: 202-545-1001 FAX: 202-545-1004 10/27/2000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-1807-975369746-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Sender: "Ann Hallan Lakhdhir" <@smtp.snet.net> (Unverified) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en]C-gatewaynet (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: Abolition Caucus From: Ann Hallan Lakhdhir Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:06:26 -0500 Subject: [abolition-caucus] UN General Assembly disarmament resolutions

The General Assembly on November 20, 2000 adopted 49 disarmament and international security resolutions:

A/RES/55/27, adopted without a vote: Maintenance of international security in South-Eastern Europe

A/RES/55/28, adopted without a vote: Developments in the field of information & telecommunications

A/RES/55/29, (97-46-21): Role of Science and Technology. Japan, Russia abstained. US, UK, France voted no

A/RES/55/30, adopted without a vote: Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East

A/RES/55/31, (111-0-54): Conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons Japan voted yes. US, UK, France, Russia abstained

A/RES/55/32, (160-0-3): Prevention of an arms race in outer space. Abstaining: US, Israel, Micronesia

A/RES/55/33A, (97-0-65): Missiles (The Iranian res calling for an expert study). China, India, Pakistan voted yes. Japan, US, UK, Sweden, Canada abstained

A/RES/55/33B, (88-5-66): Preservation of and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of ABMs Russia, China voted yes. US, Israel voted no. Japan, Canada, Sweden abstained

A/RES/55/33C, (154-3-8): Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda. The New Agenda Coalition resolution. (There were separate votes on two of the paragraphs). On the resolution as a whole, France and Russia abstained, India, Pakistan & Israel voted no.

A/RES/55/33D, (161-1-3): 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. India voted no,

01128.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] Pakistan, Israel and Cuba abstained.

A/RES/55/33E, adopted without a vote: UN study on disarmament and non-proliferation education

A/RES/55/33F, adopted without a vote: Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them

A/RES/55/33G, adopted without a vote: Consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures

A/RES/55/33H, adopted without a vote: Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction

A/RES/55/33I, (159-4-5): Nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas. there was a separate vote on op.para.3 with India the only no, the US, UK, Pakistan abstaining. On the res as a whole, France, the US, UK and Monaco voted no Andorra, India, Israel, Russia, Spain abstained

A/RES/55/33J, (163-0-5): Measures to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Israel, Rep of Korea, US, Micronesia, Marshall Isl. abstained

A/RES/55/33K, (165-0-4): Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control. France, Israel, UK and US abstained

A/RES/55/33L, adopted without a vote: Relationship between disarmament and development

A/RES/55/33M, adopted without a vote: Convening of the 4th special session of the GA devoted to disarmament

A/RES/55/33N, (110-45-14): Reducing nuclear danger. US, UK, France, US, UK, France, Canada, Sweden, Russia voted no on this Indian res. Japan Argentina, Brazil, Israel abstained

A/RES/55/33O, adopted without a vote: Regional disarmament

A/RES/55/33P, (163-1-1): Conventional arms control at the regional and sub regional levels. India voted no, Bhutan abstained.

A/RES/55/33Q, adopted without a vote: Illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons

A/RES/55/33R, (155-1-12): A path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, sponsored by Japan. there was a separate vote on op.para.8, which India opposed. Vote on the res as a whole: India voted no, Bhutan, China, Cuba, Dem Rep of Korea, Egypt, France, Israel, Mauritius, Monaco, Myanmar, Pakistan and Russia abstained.

A/RES/55/33S, adopted without a vote: Mongolia's intern'l security &

01128.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] nuclear-weapon-free status

A/RES/55/33T, (109-39-20): Nuclear disarmament. The NAM resolution introduced by Myanmar. The US, UK, France, voted no. Russia, Japan abstained.

A/RES/55/33U, (149-0-16): Transparency in armaments. three op paras were voted on. Vote on the res as a whole: Algeria, Bahrain, China, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, UAE abstained.

A/RES/55/33V, (143-0-22): Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (the Ottawa Convention). Russia, US, China, other non-signers abstained.

A/RES/55/33W, adopted without a vote: Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia

A/RES/55/33X, (119-28-22): Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. There was a vote on op para 1 with the US, France, Israel voting no. On the res as a whole the US, France, Israel, Russia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain voted no. Canada, Japan, Finland, Australia abstained.

A/RES/55/33Y, adopted without a vote: Conference on Disarmament decision of 11 Aug. 1998 to establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons

A/RES/55/34A, adopted without a vote: UN Disarmament Information Programme

A/RES/55/34B, adopted without a vote: Regional confidence-building measures: UN Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa activities

A/RES/55/34C, adopted without a vote: UN disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services

A/RES/55/34D, adopted without a vote: UN regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa

A/RES/55/34E, adopted without a vote: UN Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean

A/RES/55/34F, adopted without a vote: UN regional centres for peace and disarmament

A/RES/55/34G, (109-43-16): Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons, sponsored by India. Voting against: US, UK, Canada, France, Sweden, Abstaining: China, Russia, Japan, Israel.

01128.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] A/RES/55/34H, adopted without a vote: UN Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia & the Pacific

A/RES/55/35A, adopted without a vote: 20th anniversary of UNIDIR

A/RES/55/35B, adopted without a vote: Report of the Conference on Disarmament

A/RES/55/35C, adopted without a vote: Report of the Disarmament Commission

A/RES/55/36, (157-3-8): The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. There was a vote on the 6th preamb para with India & Israel voting no. On the res as a whole, the US, Israel and Micronesia voted no. Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, India, the Marshall Islands, Singapore, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago abstained.

A/RES/55/37, adopted without a vote: Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects.

A/RES/55/38, adopted without a vote: Strengthening of security & cooperation in the Mediterranean region

A/RES/55/39, adopted without a vote: Consolidation of the regime established by the Treaty of Tlatelolco

A/RES/55/40, adopted without a vote: Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction

A/RES/55/41, (161-0-6): Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Abstaining were Bhutan, India, Libya, Mauritius, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania.

You will find a full listing of the votes of countries in a November 20 press release on the UN web site: www.un.org, and the texts of the resolutions - with the First Committee resolution numbers, which eventually will be converted - on the www.reachingcriticalwill.org web site.

Ann Hallan Lakhdhir, NGO Committee on Disarmament at the UN

------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~> eGroups eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/91925/_/975369746/ ------_->

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.

01128.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] 01128.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] From: Rachel Labush To: "'[email protected]'" Subject: Final version of religious leaders' sign-on letter against the fe deral death penalty Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:44:40 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

Dear Religious Leaders,

Thank you to all who signed on to the religious leaders' letter to President Clinton supporting an executive moratorium on federal executions. Over the past few weeks, legal developments necessitated changes in the letter. You were contacted at different times, so I am sending you the final draft now just to make sure you have it. We removed mention of David Paul Hammer from the letter because he no longer has an execution date. Without an execution date, he is in the position of many other federal prisoners on death row, working their way through their appeals. An executive moratorium, as called for in the letter, could potentially save all of their lives. Juan Garza is now the only prisoner who currently has an execution date, and the only one mentioned by name in the letter.

If you have any questions about this version of the letter, please contact me, Rachel Labush, at 202-387-2800 x15, [email protected], or fax #202-265-8882. I have appended a list of signatories current as of 8:30 p.m. today. If you already signed on to the letter and we do not hear from you by 9:00 a.m. Friday morning, we will assume that you accept the changes. If you have not signed on yet, please consider doing so, and let me know by 9:00 a.m Friday, December 1. It is fine for you to sign this letter if you have already signed a similar one, such as the letter from civil rights leaders.

Thanks,

Rachel

Rachel Labush, Legislative Assistant Religious Action Center 2027 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202-387-2800 fax: 202-265-8882 [email protected] http://www.rac.org

November 27, 2000

The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Clinton:

01128.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] On the eve of your departure from office, the nation is on the eve of the first federal execution in nearly forty years. We write to urge you to declare an executive moratorium on federal executions and to grant clemency to Juan Raul Garza. The United States should not carry out this death sentence at a time when the nation questions the reliability and fairness of capital punishment.

The overwhelming majority of communities of faith are united in their opposition to the death penalty. We address you as members of religious organizations that minister daily to the profound suffering caused when a life is taken by an act of violence. However, we are called upon to guard the sanctity of every life. We also give comfort to the children and other loved ones of the condemned when the government carries out an execution. Alternatives to capital punishment, including life in prison without the possibility of release, will both protect society and ensure that justice is done.

In the past year, calls by the faith community to support a moratorium on executions have been joined by a diverse chorus of voices, including those of respected members of all three branches of government, public figures across the political spectrum, local and state governing bodies, civil rights leaders, professional associations and grass roots organizations. At no time since the death penalty was halted in 1972, have Americans, individually and collectively, expressed such grave reservations about capital punishment.

Concerns over the continued imposition of the death penalty involve not only issues of wrongful convictions, incompetent counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, but also the inadequacy of judicial review, the unequal treatment of the poor and people of color, and geographic disparities. The public and policymakers are facing the unpleasant reality that capital punishment is most often reserved for those at the margins of society. Until recently, the focus of criticism was largely on state capital punishment systems. Now, however, serious questions regarding the fairness of the administration of the federal death penalty are squarely before you.

We commend your forthright decision in August to grant Mr. Garza a reprieve until December 12, 2000, so that he would have the opportunity to seek clemency under new federal guidelines. Shortly before you ordered the reprieve, you spoke of your concern about the "disturbing racial composition" of federal death row and about evidence that a handful of federal districts have accounted for more than half of the cases in which federal capital prosecution has been sought. When the Department of Justice released a survey of the federal death penalty in September, White House spokesperson Jake Siewart confirmed your view that "these numbers are troubling," and that more information must be gathered to determine "more about how the system works and what's behind those numbers," including "why minorities in some geographic districts are disproportionately represented." We believe that even Americans who support capital punishment will agree that no federal execution should proceed until these questions are answered and the nation is assured that the federal death penalty is neither biased nor arbitrary in its application.

01128.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] During your remarks at the Democratic National Convention, you spoke with admiration and appreciation of President Carter's enduring contribution to advancing human rights around the globe. Our Ambassador to France, Felix Rohatyn, has written that the continued imposition of the death penalty "casts a shadow" on our country's image as the flagship of freedom and democracy. And, President Carter and Mrs. Carter have now urged you to grant clemency to Mr. Garza and expressed their support for a moratorium on federal executions. We are confident that your decision to declare a moratorium - an act of courage and leadership -- would be respected by the nation and by our allies.

In closing, there is strong evidence that Americans are troubled that capital punishment is not administered equitably or impartially, and there is now growing support for a moratorium on executions. To execute Mr. Garza at a time of such ferment and debate is to act precipitously. A declaration of an executive moratorium and a grant of clemency for Mr. Garza will acknowledge the legitimacy of the reservations that are on the minds and in the hearts of so many and assure the country that an investigation into questions surrounding the federal death penalty will continue until satisfactory answers are found.

We urge you to embrace this legacy.

Sincerely,

C. Naseer Ahmad, Human Rights Committee, Ahmaddiyya Movement of Islam

Herbert Blinder, Director of the Washington Ethical Action Office, American Ethical Union

Rev. Dr. Joan Baum Campbell

Pat Clark, American Friends Service Committee National Representative for Criminal Justice

Joseph P. Daoust, S.J., President, Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley

Rev. Michael J. Dodd, Director, Columban Fathers Justice and Peace Office

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, President, International Fellowship of Christians and Jews

Rev. Elizabeth Ekdale, St. Marks Lutheran Church, San Francisco

Rabbi Jerome Epstein, President of United Synagogues of Conservative Judaism

Father Joe Fahy

Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, General Secretary of the Reformed Church in America

Joseph K. Grieboski, President, Institute on Religion and Public Policy, Inc.

01128.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] Howard Hallman, Chairman of Methodists United for Peace with Justice

The Rev. Dr. Richard L. Hamm, General Minister and President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada

Susannah Heschel, Eli Black Professor of Jewish Studies,Dartmouth College

R. Burke Johnson, President, Moravian Church-Northern Province

Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church U.S.A.

Rabbi Charles Kroloff, President, Central Conference of American Rabbis

Archbishop Nicholas Lambrou, Archbishop-Primate, Autocephalous Holy Eastern Orthodox Church, Archdiocese of the Americas

Senior Bishop Nathaniel Lindsey, CEO Christian Methodist Episcopal Church

James C. McCloskey, Founder & Director, Centurion Ministries, Incorporated

William McKinney, President, Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley CA

Frank McNeirney, National Coordinator, Catholics Against Capital Punishment

Dr. Randolph Nugent, General Secretary, General Board of Global Ministries, The United Methodist Church

Sister Helen Prejean

John D. Paarlberg, Minister for Social Witness and Worship, Reformed Church in America

Jean Rabenold, Unitarian Universalists Against the Death Penalty

Rev. Judy Mills Reimer, Executive Director, Church of the Brethren, General Board

Rev. Dr. Robert H. Roberts, Interim General Secretary, American Baptist Churches U.S.A.

Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Rev. Melodee Smith, Clergy Coalition to End Executions

Rev. Laird J. Stuart, Calvary Presbyterian Church, San Francisco

Rt. Rev. William E. Swing, Bishop of California, Episcopal Church

Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President, United Church of Christ

Bishop James C. Timlin, Diocese of Scranton

01128.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] Rev. Jim Wallis, Editor-in Chief, Sojourners

Rev. Ashlee Wiest-Laird, Associate Pastor, Seattle First Baptist Church

Dr. and Mrs. Charles B. Wilson

Dr. James E. Winkler, General Secretary, General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church

Harmon L. Wray, Executive Director, Restorative Justice Ministries, The United Methodist Church

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President, Union of American Hebrew Congregations

01128.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] X-Lotus-FromDomain: MCC From: [email protected] To: "Howard W. Hallman" Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:34:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Organizing to contact key senators

To: "Howard W. Hallman" From: J. Daryl Byler Date: 11/28/2000 11:32:31 AM Subj: Re: Organizing to contact key senators

Hi Howard:

The list of Senate contacts looks good to me. I'm happy to send a hotline to Mennonites in these states once in-state contact persons are identified.

Warm regards, Daryl Byler

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\iclt.054.doc"

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\icnd.051.doc"

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. [ End of Original Text ]

01128.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] X-Sender: [email protected] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:28:25 -0500 To: "Howard W. Hallman" From: Episcopal Peace Fellowship Subject: Re: Attachments

It's the same address actually. The way we list it now is the peacenet one.

Thanks for the messages.

mary At 10:47 AM 11/27/00 -0500, you wrote: >Mary, > >Here are the attachments of my other communication. > >I have two e-mail addresses listed for you: [email protected] and >[email protected]. Which one is correct or preferred?

01129.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] To: mupjbd From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Possible board meeting on March 23 Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

To: Board of Directors

I am thinking of calling a meeting of the Board of Directors for Friday, March 23, 2001 in Washington, D.C. This is the day before a three-day conference that the UM General Board of Church and Society is having for conference officers, such as peace with justice coordinators, church and society chairs, and some others. By meeting on that Friday we may be able to get several peace with justice coordinators to become members of our board. Is this date acceptable? At least mark it on your calendar for later final confirmation.

My main activity these days is with the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, which I chair. With a new president (to be finalized some time) and a new Congress coming on the scene following this year's highly divisive election, we want to develop bipartisan support for nuclear disarmament issues, especially de-alerting and strategic arms reduction. Therefore, we want to get interfaith groups in a number key states to begin dialogue with their senators to encourage them to take leadership in a bipartisan manner. Initially we will focus on ten Republicans, five Northeast moderates: Collins (ME), Snowe (ME), Jeffords (VT), Chafee (RI), and Specter (PA). and five influential senators and Foreign Relations Committee members: Lugar (IN), Hagel (NE), Domenici (NM), Smith (OR), and Stevens (AK).

We don't have any board members in those states, but on the next round we might add Warner (VA), Dewine (OH), and Voinovich (OH). Also, we might add board members from some of the key states.

If you have suggestions for others to add to our board, please let me know.

Shalom, Howard

P.S. Phil, could we get a room at Foundry on March 23? Schuyler, please send me your new mailing address, phone and fax numbers.

01129.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1904 21:52:50 -0800 From: Don Whitmore <[email protected]> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Possible board meeting on March 23

Nice to hear from you. I'm marking the date. For you info, I'm building a new web site: abolishnukes.com. You might want to check it out. Keep up your good work. Take care, Don

"Howard W. Hallman" wrote:

> To: Board of Directors > > I am thinking of calling a meeting of the Board of Directors for Friday, > March 23, 2001 in Washington, D.C. This is the day before a three-day > conference that the UM General Board of Church and Society is having for > conference officers, such as peace with justice coordinators, church and > society chairs, and some others. By meeting on that Friday we may be able > to get several peace with justice coordinators to become members of our > board. Is this date acceptable? At least mark it on your calendar for > later final confirmation. > > My main activity these days is with the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear > Disarmament, which I chair. With a new president (to be finalized some > time) and a new Congress coming on the scene following this year's highly > divisive election, we want to develop bipartisan support for nuclear > disarmament issues, especially de-alerting and strategic arms reduction. > Therefore, we want to get interfaith groups in a number key states to begin > dialogue with their senators to encourage them to take leadership in a > bipartisan manner. Initially we will focus on ten Republicans, five > Northeast moderates: Collins (ME), Snowe (ME), Jeffords (VT), Chafee (RI), > and Specter (PA). and five influential senators and Foreign Relations > Committee members: Lugar (IN), Hagel (NE), Domenici (NM), Smith (OR), and > Stevens (AK). > > We don't have any board members in those states, but on the next round we > might add Warner (VA), Dewine (OH), and Voinovich (OH). Also, we might add > board members from some of the key states. > > If you have suggestions for others to add to our board, please let me know. > > Shalom, > Howard > > P.S. Phil, could we get a room at Foundry on March 23? > Schuyler, please send me your new mailing address, phone and fax numbers. > 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] >

01129.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] > Methodists United for Peace with Justice is a membership association of > laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination.

01129.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:19:53 -0500 Subject: January GR teleconference From: Tim Barner To: Howard Hallman

Howard:

When I was talking with Ira Schorr today, I suddenly realized that we did not close the loop after our Nov 21 phone call and my conversation with Jim.

Jim agreed that 20/20 Vision would sponsor/co-sponsor/fund a January call as per the specs you and I discussed.

My notes from our conversation are below. Please let me know if I missed key points and let's talk about the date if this plan should go forward.

Coolfont for Monday Lobby is on Jan 9-10 evenings and 20/20 has a teleconference on de-alerting scheduled for Tuesday, January 16.

Tim

******************

11/21 Conversation with Howard Hallman

The Interfaith WG on Nuclear Disarmament is planning to sponsor visits with Senatorial offices in early 2001 on de-alerting nuclear weapons and making deeper cuts in the NW arsenal.

Howard is looking for a partner like 20/20 to sponsor a January teleconference preparation for these grassroots faith groups prior to their visits.

Attendance expected: 30-40 on early January call out of 60-100 activists

Will 2020 serve as a cosponsor/partner and pay for the call?

Estimate of 40 X .14/min unassisted (no operator) X 60 minutes = $336.00

10 Senators/states as focus: Maine - 2 VT RI PA AK ­ Stevens NM ­ Domenici OR ­ Gordon Smith ? ?

01129.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\icnd.050.doc; A:\icnd.049.doc; A:\iclt.053.doc; A:\iclt.054.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Gary,

Even though the presidential election hasn't been resolved, we know that a new Congress will be installed in January and a new president will be inaugurated. The need to achieve nuclear disarmament will remain on the agenda. Therefore, the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, which I chair, is preparing for grassroots and Washington-based advocacy to influence public policy decisions on this matter.

Would your office or some other unit of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship be interested in being part of this effort?

The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament is a coalition of more than 30 faith-based organizations, including denominational offices, religious peace fellowships, and other unofficial religious associations. The current contact list is attached. The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament serves as a catalyst for cooperative action on nuclear disarmament issues. It doesn't issue statements in its own name and doesn't even have a letterhead, but it sometimes facilitates sign-on letters to public officials. Each participating organization decides whether to sign such letters and whether to get involved in specific activities developed by the Interfaith Committee.

The work program for the next eight months is attached. We will focus on influencing Congress and the new presidential administration on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction, adding CTBT ratification if Al Gore is elected president (he'll send the treaty to the Senate again, George W. Bush won't). We are going to start by initiating dialogue with some key senators on these issues (see attachments).

We would be pleased to add you to our contact list. You can choose your depth of participation, ranging from just being kept informed to getting fully involved in particular activities. You can send a representative to monthly meetings in Washington or rely on e-mail communication to keep you informed of our activities.

Please call me at 301 896-0013 if you would like to discuss this further.

Shalom, Howard

01130.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\icnd.050.doc; A:\icnd.049.doc; A:\iclt.053.doc; A:\iclt.054.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Glen,

Even though the presidential election hasn't been resolved, we know that a new Congress will be installed in January and a new president will be inaugurated. The need to achieve nuclear disarmament will remain on the agenda. Therefore, the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, which I chair, is preparing for grassroots and Washington-based advocacy to influence public policy decisions on this matter.

Would the Lutheran Peace Fellowship be interested in being part of this effort?

The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament is a coalition of more than 30 faith-based organizations, including denominational offices, religious peace fellowships, and other unofficial religious associations. The current contact list is attached. The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament serves as a catalyst for cooperative action on nuclear disarmament issues. It doesn't issue statements in its own name and doesn't even have a letterhead, but it sometimes facilitates sign-on letters to public officials. Each participating organization decides whether to sign such letters and whether to get involved in specific activities developed by the Interfaith Committee.

The work program for the next eight months is attached. We will focus on influencing Congress and the new presidential administration on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction, adding CTBT ratification if Al Gore is elected president (he'll send the treaty to the Senate again, George W. Bush won't). We are going to start by initiating dialogue with some key senators on these issues (see attachments).

We would be pleased to add you to our contact list. You can choose your depth of participation, ranging from just being kept informed to getting fully involved in particular activities. You can send a representative to monthly meetings in Washington or rely on e-mail communication to keep you informed of our activities.

Please call me at 301 896-0013 if you would like to discuss this further.

Shalom, Howard

01130.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\icnd.050.doc; A:\icnd.049.doc; A:\iclt.053.doc; A:\iclt.054.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Rev. Caldwell:

Even though the presidential election hasn't been resolved, we know that a new Congress will be installed in January and a new president will be inaugurated. The need to achieve nuclear disarmament will remain on the agenda. Therefore, the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, which I chair, is preparing for grassroots and Washington-based advocacy to influence public policy decisions on this matter.

Would the Church of God Peace Fellowship be interested in being part of this effort?

The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament is a coalition of more than 30 faith-based organizations, including denominational offices, religious peace fellowships, and other unofficial religious associations. The current contact list is attached. The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament serves as a catalyst for cooperative action on nuclear disarmament issues. It doesn't issue statements in its own name and doesn't even have a letterhead, but it sometimes facilitates sign-on letters to public officials. Each participating organization decides whether to sign such letters and whether to get involved in specific activities developed by the Interfaith Committee.

The work program for the next eight months is attached. We will focus on influencing Congress and the new presidential administration on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction, adding CTBT ratification if Al Gore is elected president (he'll send the treaty to the Senate again, George W. Bush won't). We are going to start by initiating dialogue with some key senators on these issues (see attachments).

We would be pleased to add you to our contact list. You can choose your depth of participation, ranging from just being kept informed to getting fully involved in particular activities. You can send a representative to monthly meetings in Washington or rely on e-mail communication to keep you informed of our activities.

Please call me at 301 896-0013 if you would like to discuss this further.

Shalom, Howard W. Hallman

01130.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\icnd.050.doc; A:\icnd.049.doc; A:\iclt.053.doc; A:\iclt.054.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Arthur,

Even though the presidential election hasn't been resolved, we know that a new Congress will be installed in January and a new president will be inaugurated. The need to achieve nuclear disarmament will remain on the agenda. Therefore, the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, which I chair, is preparing for grassroots and Washington-based advocacy to influence public policy decisions on this matter.

Would the Shalom Center be interested in being part of this effort?

The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament is a coalition of more than 30 faith-based organizations, including denominational offices, religious peace fellowships, and other unofficial religious associations. The current contact list is attached. The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament serves as a catalyst for cooperative action on nuclear disarmament issues. It doesn't issue statements in its own name and doesn't even have a letterhead, but it sometimes facilitates sign-on letters to public officials. Each participating organization decides whether to sign such letters and whether to get involved in specific activities developed by the Interfaith Committee.

The work program for the next eight months is attached. We will focus on influencing Congress and the new presidential administration on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction, adding CTBT ratification if Al Gore is elected president (he'll send the treaty to the Senate again, George W. Bush won't). We are going to start by initiating dialogue with some key senators on these issues (see attachments).

We would be pleased to add you to our contact list. You can choose your depth of participation, ranging from just being kept informed to getting fully involved in particular activities. You can send a representative to monthly meetings in Washington or rely on e-mail communication to keep you informed of our activities.

Even if you don't want to be regularly involved, would you help us make contact with Senator Specter to urge him to take leadership in developing bipartisan support for nuclear disarmament matters?

Please call me at 301 896-0013 if you would like to discuss this further.

Shalom, Howard

01130.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:44:48 -0500 From: "Gary Baldridge" To: Subject: Re: Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament

Thanks, Howard. I've referred yours to two staff members, one of whom will be in contact within the next few weeks. Count us in.

01130.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:09 PM] To: Tim Barner From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: January GR teleconference Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Tim,

I'm glad you got the go ahead to work with the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament on a teleconference call in early January with contacts in nine states. It is likely to be the third week in December before we get a time and date pinned down.

To complete your notes of our conversation, here is the complete list of states and senators: Maine - Collins, Snowe Vermont - Jeffords Rhode Island - Chafee Pennsylvania - Specter Indiana - Lugar Nebraska - Hagel New Mexico - Domenici Oregon - Smith Alaska - Stevens

Thanks for your cooperation, Howard

01130.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] From: Kathy Guthrie To: 'Howard' Subject: Catching up Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:53:37 -0500 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)

Howard, I'm sorry I didn't call you this week. I was just in the office for 3 days, and tomorrow I'm off to Lawrence, KS for my yearly family get-together, just in time for the Lawrence Christmas parade.

I will call you next week, but until then, I find your list of senators to be in concert with the work FCNL is planning to do. We have some specific plans for work in the area, with David Culp, and I will be happy to talk with you about what our plans are and where those may intersect with your proposed work for the coalition.

In the meantime, have a good weekend. I'll say hello to Lawrence for you.

Thanks for your work. Kathy

Kathy Guthrie Field Program Secretary Friends Committee on National Legislation 245 Second Street NE Washington, DC 20002 202-547-6000 (phone) 202-547-6019 (fax) www.fcnl.org

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\Catching up"

01201.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Briefing material Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Daryl,

I will appreciate receiving the material you have available so that I can craft a briefing paper on strategic arms reduction for use by the faith community in Washington and in some key states. We're getting a de-alerting briefing paper from Back from the Brink.

After checking with a number of faith groups in Washington I have set the time for a briefing on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction for Thursday, January 4, 2001 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. Bruce Blair has agreed to participate. I realize that this was a day when you would not be available, but there were other conflicts earlier in the week. Can you suggest someone else from a CNRD organization we might ask to deal with strategic arms reduction?

Shalom, Howard

01201.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Fwd: First Committee overview Cc: Bcc: icnd X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Colleagues:

>Carroll Houle of the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns asked that the following message be forwarded to participants in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament.

Howard

>>From: Disarmtimes >>Subject: First Committee overview >> >>UN Affirms NPT and New Agenda for Nuclear Disarmament, Takes action on >>conventional arms >> >>The United Nations General AssemblyÆs First Committee (Disarmament and >>International Security) concluded with a strong affirmation of the 2000 >>NPT Review Conference final document. The unequivocal undertaking toward >>the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, with specific practical >>measures, was confirmed through a variety of resolutions, while >>preservation of and compliance with the ABM Treaty was generally seen as a >>priority. Other weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons free zones, >>and regional disarmament were also reviewed. On the conventional side, >>illicit trade in small arms and light weapons was debated widely, and a >>review of the UN Register of Conventional Arms (of seven large weapons >>systems) was concluded. >> >>The UNGA First Committee >> >>The General Assembly (GA) meets in New York from September to December >>every year, primarily through six parallel committees: >> >>- First Committee (Disarmament and International Security >>- Second Committee (Economic and Financial) >>- Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) >>- Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) >>- Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) >>- Sixth Committee (Legal) >> >>The committees debate and vote on resolutions, which are then voted upon >>in the full GA. The voting does not generally vary much between the >>committees and the GA, although the GA votes tend to have broader >>participation since smaller statesÆ delegations cannot attend all six >>committees simultaneously. The resolutions vary from expressions of >>international opinion to decisions on action, such as a UN conference, a >>Secretary-GeneralÆs report, or the presentation of a legal question to the

01201.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] >>International Court of Justice. Many resolutions resurface each year as >>regular reminders of international political opinion; some arise in >>reaction to crises. GA resolutions do not have the weight or means of >>enforcement of Security Council resolutions, yet they serve a range of >>purposes. >> >>Within the codes of UN diplomacy, international politics are acted out and >>deals are made, with decisions taking place in state capitals. In >>international law, GA resolutions serve as evidence. As an example of the >>sensitivity and attention to words, a standard resolution ôwelcomingö the >>NPT review outcome was debated on the grounds that protocol would dictate >>simply ônotingö it. In the end, the NPT remained welcome. >> >>This year the First Committee acted on a total of 50 draft resolutions, >>including 18 nuclear-weapons related resolutions, three on other weapons >>of mass destruction, one on prevention of an arms race in outer space, >>five on conventional weapons, and three on regional disarmament and security. > >>Nuclear Weapons and NMD >> >>The resolution ôTowards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new >>agendaö was initiated by the seven-member New Agenda Coalition (also known >>as the New Agenda Group, or NAG: Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New >>Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden) which had played a crucial role in the >>success of the 2000 NPT Review. (See PSR Activist Update, August 2000.) >>This year the New Agenda resolution was sponsored by a total of over 60 >>states. (Sponsoring a resolution, as opposed to merely voting yes, is an >>additional show of support and often though not necessarily involves >>taking part in negotiating the text). >> >>The New Agenda resolution built on the success of the 2000 NPT Review >>final document by ôtaking into consideration the unequivocal undertakingö >>of the nuclear weapon states to the total elimination of their nuclear >>arsenals and reiterating the practical steps for ôsystematic and >>progressive efforts to implement article VIö of the NPT. These steps >>include entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty >>(CTBT), continuation of bilateral reductions through the START process, >>unilateral reductions by the nuclear weapon states, increased >>transparency, further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, reducing >>the operation status of nuclear weapons systems (i.e., de-alerting), a ban >>on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, and a >>diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies. The resolution >>passed with a vote of 146 in favor (including the US, the UK, and China), >>to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 8 abstentions (including >>France and Russia). >> >>A second resolution welcoming the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review, ôA path >>to the total elimination of nuclear weaponsö co-sponsored by Japan and >>Australia, passed with 144 in favor to 1 against (India), with 12 >>abstentions. This resolution also tracked the final document of the 2000 >>NPT Review, but added target dates for CTBT entry into force (before 2003) >>and the conclusion of fissile material cutoff treaty negotiations (2005). >>Japan and Australia, as two non-nuclear and non-NATO US allies, do not >>fully share the New Agenda perspective but do seek to present themselves

01201.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] >>as advocates of nuclear disarmament and as a bridge between the nuclear >>weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states. >> >>Conventional Disarmament and Other Topics >> >>A UN conference on illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons in all >>its aspects was set for July 2001, with preparatory committee meetings in >>January and March, all three in New York. The modalities of >>non-governmental participation are still under debate. The UN Register of >>Conventional Weapons, aiming at promoting transparency in armaments, was >>reviewed with attention to effectiveness, participation, and improvement. >>The seven existing categories of large conventional weapons systems >>(battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, >>combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, and missiles and missile >>launchers) have in the past been challenged by states calling for >>inclusion of weapons of mass destruction as well as states criticizing the >>exclusion of small arms and light weapons. These questions were addressed, >>formally and informally, or referred back to the General Assembly. >> >>Additional First Committee resolutions covered Middle East Nuclear >>Proliferation, nuclear-weapon-free zones, including promotion of a >>nuclear-weapon-free Southern Hemisphere, confidence-building measures, >>disarmament machinery, and related matters of disarmament and >>international security and international security. Many passed by consensus. >> >>The value of First Committee and subsequent GA resolutions depends in >>large part on how they are used. Some produce substantive or lasting >>outcomes, such as a special UN session or a study, while others are >>expressions of international opinion. As reflections of countriesÆ >>positions on key disarmament and security matters, these can serve as a >>basis for support of or challenge to these positions. The voting in the >>First Committee and GA are taken seriously within national capitals, and a >>great deal of review, debate, and negotiation precedes the votes. >>Disarmament advocates can therefore bolster their efforts by familiarizing >>themselves with these resolutions and with the voting record of their >>government. The texts of the resolutions usually provide excellent talking >>points for lobbying efforts. >> >>The texts of last yearÆs GA resolutions can be found at >>www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r54.htm. This yearÆs First Committee >>resolutions, voting records, and relevant texts (including country >>statements) can be found at www.reachingcriticalwill.org. UN press >>releases on disarmament for the year 2000 are available at >>www.un.org/Depts/dda/press.htm. >> >>*************** >>Merav Datan >>Physicians for Social Responsibility & International Physicians for the >>Prevention of Nuclear War (PSR/IPPNW - UN Office) >>777 UN Plaza, Suite 6M >>New York, NY 10017 USA >>Tel: 1-646-865-1883 >>Fax: 1-646-865-1884 >>www.ippnw.org

01201.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] >>www.psr.org > >

01201.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:54:37 -0500 To: [email protected] From: Daryl Kimball Subject: ISSUE BRIEF: Drell on Stewardship Under the CTBT

COALITION TO REDUCE NUCLEAR DANGERS ISSUE BRIEF

Vol.4, No. 20, December 1, 2000

"Dr. Sidney Drell on Stockpile Stewardship Under the CTBT:

'It Is Adequate to the Task'"

DESPITE OVERWHELMING and authoritative evidence that the United States' nuclear weapons arsenal remains safe and reliable, some staunch critics of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty are recklessly recommending that the next president "renounce" the CTBT. Citing outdated anecdotes and vague statements of "uncertainty" from a handful of bomb designers, the pro-testers suggest that the nation return to a Cold War-era nuclear testing policy.

The new administration and the new Congress would be wise to avoid such a course of action, which would create a domestic and international storm of protest and set-off a dangerous global action-reaction cycle. Rather, America's vital national security interests demand — and the American people support — maintaining the test ban and pursuing a deliberate and in-depth reconsideration of the CTBT and related issues, including the ability to maintain the existing nuclear arsenal in the absence of nuclear test explosions.

The following Issue Brief is an effort to sort out fact from fiction on stockpile stewardship under a test ban. It is based on the November 2000 essay "Stockpile Stewardship," by Dr. Sidney D. Drell, as published in the Lawyers Alliance for World Security (LAWS) White Paper on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Dr. Drell is one of the nation's most respected authorities on nuclear weapons maintenance. Since 1960, Dr. Drell has been active as an advisor to the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government on national security and defense technical issues. He is currently Professor of Theoretical Physics (Emeritus) at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and the Non-Proliferation Advisory Panel.

The complete edition of the LAWS White Paper is at

01201.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] <

______

STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP

by Sidney D. Drell

THE END of end of the Cold War has signaled a dramatic change in the U.S. nuclear weapons program. The continuous cycle of developing, testing, and deploying new nuclear weapons has ended. As announced by President George Bush in 1992, the United States does not need to develop new nuclear warhead designs for deployment. It was this decision that opened the possibility of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The United States now relies on an expanded program of stockpile stewardship to ensure that:

* the enduring arsenal remains reliable, effective and safe into the indefinite future without nuclear explosive testing;

* it maintains competence in nuclear weapons; and

* it retains the technical capability and manufacturing infrastructure in order to respond, as required for U.S. security, to changed strategic circumstances.

In order to make a net assessment of the impact of the CTBT on U.S. national security it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the benefits and risks to the U.S. ability to meet the requirements of the Treaty and still maintain an effective deterrent under a test ban. ... Three important facts define the starting point:

1. Today the nuclear weapons that are designated to remain in the enduring stockpile are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, effective, safe, and reliable. Confidence in today's stockpile is based on understanding gained from almost 50 years of stockpile surveillance, and the experience and analyses of more than 1,000 nuclear tests, including more than 150 nuclear tests of modern weapons types over the past 25-30 years.

2. The overwhelming majority of U.S. nuclear tests during the Cold War were devoted to developing for deployment new and more advanced warheads

01201.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] and weapons systems. Only a very small percentage, well under 10% of the 150-200 underground nuclear explosive tests of modern weapons from 1972 to the end of testing in 1992 by the U.S., were stockpile confidence tests; i.e., tests conducted on currently deployed weapons to confirm confidence in them. That is well less than 1 test per year for the whole arsenal of many thousands of weapons.

3. The CTBT in no way limits most of the testing and analysis work that goes on in connection with maintaining the U.S. deterrent. This includes testing the performance of the warhead, including the high explosives that initiate the implosion in the primary leading up to the ignition of the fission stage itself. Flight tests of the missiles and their guidance systems will continue. All of the approximately 6,000 parts of the nuclear warhead, other than the nuclear package, will continue to be tested under the SSP as they have been for more than 40 years. Statistically significant numbers of such experiments have been carried out and provide meaningful measures of high confidence in the U.S. systems. Functional testing of the non-nuclear components of a nuclear warhead and flight-testing of the weapons system are not - and will not be - restricted by a CTBT.

Overall, the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) is a very sophisticated and technically challenging endeavor. The United States is getting data not heretofore available. And with the two device labs, Livermore and Los Alamos, peer-reviewing each other's work in the newly established dual revalidation program, there is no room for slack. (This is the best argument to keep both labs active in weapons work). This will tell the lab scientists if, when, and what has to be done to refurbish or manufacture warheads as needed. They will be able to identify and evaluate means of extending the lifetimes of the warheads in the enduring stockpile beyond previous experience, and thereby determine the required capacity of the remanufacturing infrastructure relative to the total numbers of warheads the United States plans to retain in its force structure (see Figure 2). Most importantly, the SSP will enable scientists to hear whatever warning bells may ring signaling evidence of deterioration due to aging, no matter how unanticipated, and enable them to make the necessary fixes in a timely fashion.

Scientists will always welcome more quality data, but the question is what is necessary, not what makes the job easier or what is merely useful. It was the unanimous conclusion of independent classified technical studies

supported by the government - performed by JASON with four leading designers of the present U.S. arsenal among the participants, and with the cooperation of DOE's weapons labs - that low-yield underground nuclear

explosions have little to contribute, and nothing essential, relative to what U.S. scientists are presently learning from a multi-faceted, well supported stewardship program.

01201.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] There are qualified people who disagree with that conclusion, and the most serious arguments come in the following forms:

* Without testing, the cadre of U.S. nuclear weapons scientists will inevitably lose competence;

* The U.S. is already losing confidence in its deterrent because of the lack of testing since 1992; and

* The U.S. has in the past found by testing that weapons already deployed in the stockpile had to be withdrawn and refurbished or redesigned because of problems that developed and were only detected subsequently, some on the basis of test explosions.

Clearly these questions have to be better addressed by the political process than they have been to date before a consensus for the CTBT can be established. As regards the first concern about retaining competence, based on my own long-term experience as a scientist and deputy director of a major national lab (SLAC - Stanford Linear Accelerator Center), my extensive interactions and long familiarity with the programs and scientists at the weapons labs, and work on the Chiles Commission on Maintaining Nuclear Weapons Expertise, I am confident that a strong science-based SSP that challenges the scientists to develop a deeper understanding of what goes on during an explosion, that trains them with solid grounding and mentoring based on past experience, and that also provides them with advanced diagnostic and computer tools, will challenge, attract, and sustain top notch weapons scientists at Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Labs.

As far as losing confidence in the U.S. deterrent, today I actually have more confidence in the long-term credibility of our stockpile than was possible five years ago. This conclusion is based upon what has been learned from the SSP over the last five years, and the on-going formal reviews that require the laboratory directors to certify annually, to the President, the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of Defense, that U.S. weapons are meeting stated military requirements.

The data being derived from the SSP, as described earlier, is far more important for understanding the enduring arsenal, and maintaining confidence in its performance, than continued underground, very low-yield testing. The United States now knows much more, based on real data, about how Pu, high explosives, and other weapon components age. With such knowledge we can extend the anticipated lifetimes of the warheads for a good many more years than was formerly possible, perhaps to lifetimes of 50 years or longer. The challenge to DOE and the management of the national labs is to make the necessary priority choices to insure that the United States can meet the key requirement of stockpile maintenance and stewardship. This calls for balancing the manufacturing,

01201.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] revalidation and R&D aspects.

There have been several allegations that in the past the United States found that some of its weapons introduced into the stockpile had subsequently developed problems and were withdrawn. The 1995 JASON study on Nuclear Testing, including the four weapons designers mentioned previously, analyzed the facts on this carefully. The unclassified summary of a classified comprehensive technical study concluded that:

"For the weapon types planned to remain in the enduring stockpile we find that the device problems which occurred in the past, and which either relied on, or required, nuclear yield tests to resolve, were primarily the result of incomplete or inadequate design activities. In part, these were due to the more limited knowledge and computational capabilities of a decade, or more, ago. We are persuaded that those problems have been corrected and that the weapon types in the enduring stockpile are safe and reliable in the context of explicit military requirements."

The issue of warhead safety was thoroughly reviewed in 1990 at the request of Congress by a committee that I chaired, working with Drs. Johnnie Foster and Charlie Townes. Our report found that the enduring stockpile meets the rigorous safety criteria. Questions raised then have since been addressed. There are no remaining safety issues.

To conclude, neither science nor scientists can guarantee that things will not change in the future - either politically or due to technical surprises - as U.S. weapons get older. Therefore the U.S. remanufacturing and

refurbishing program must be maintained to meet potential requirements and enable the nation to be prepared to respond promptly as needed. ...[I]t is important to bear in mind that, relative to other countries, the U.S. SSP

is the most advanced one in existence. With unsurpassed diagnostic/simulation tools and capabilities, it affords the United States an important advantage in managing and maintaining confidence in the enduring stockpile. It is adequate to the task!

###

The Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers is an alliance of 17 nuclear non-proliferation and arms control organizations committed to a practical, step-by-step program of action to reduce nuclear dangers. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of every member organization. For further information on the CTBT and other

01201.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] important nuclear weapons issues, see the Coaliton's Web Site <

______

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 <

______

01201.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] X-Sender: [email protected] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 13:06:02 -0500 To: "Howard Hallman" From: Episcopal Peace Fellowship Subject: Organizing to contact key senators

Howard,

I'm able to contact active EPF folks in Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Oregon.

As usual we're no use on Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico or Alaska.

I don't see any principal mobilizers in our bunch and I can't be DC contact.

Let me know if other states get added, please, so I can study out the lay of the land. I hope I'll be able to get letters out to the initial bunch before the end of next week.

Mary Miller, EPF

01201.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:29:17 -0500 To: "Howard W. Hallman" From: Daryl Kimball Subject: Re: Briefing material

Howard,

Here's what I have. Hope it helps.

- DK

*********

- FOR INTERNAL PURPOSES ONLY: DO NOT CIRCULATE -

Overview: Deep Cuts and De-alerting in 2001 Stephen Young, November 2000

Prospects for deep cuts in remain complicated by U.S. discussions on national missile defenses, with the Clinton Administration linking agreement on START III to modifications to the ABM Treaty. Entry-into-force of START II is now held up by the need for U.S. ratification of protocols to the treaty; START III talks have not formally begun due to differences over NMD.

While Russia has called for a START III agreement that cuts levels to 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons a side, the United States has clung to the 1997 Helsinki framework agreement level of 2,000-2,500. In Congress earlier this year the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that they could not support reductions below the 2,000-2,500 level unless further review showed it to be in U.S. security interests. The new Nuclear Posture Review will consider force levels.

A Gore Administration could continue the Clinton pursuit of a "grand bargain" where START II and III are linked to modifications of the ABM Treaty. Gore has said he would consider withdrawing from the ABM Treaty if the threat justified such a move. Bush has said he will withdraw from the ABM Treaty if Russia did not quickly agree to modify it.

During his campaign, Bush explicitly called for consideration of and possible reductions in both the number of strategic nuclear weapons and their alert levels. Following in the footsteps of his father, who made deep cuts in tactical weapons, George W. Bush proposed unilateral cuts in U.S. nuclear forces; in the heat of the campaign Gore opposed such cuts as potentially destabilizing. Gore called instead for negotiated bilateral cuts.

Before Bush could undertake any such step, he would have to overcome opposition from the Republican majority in Congress. The Senate this year passed created a waiver that would have allowed deep cuts and de-alerting after a nuclear posture review, but it was deleted in Conference Committee.

01201.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] Thus, under current law, cuts below START I levels or moves to reduce the combat status of existing arsenals are strictly forbidden.

The Nuclear Posture Review, as mandated by Congress, will look at both policy and posture issues, including arms control objectives. It will examine "levels and composition of the nuclear delivery systems that will be required for implementing the United States national and military strategy, including any plans for replacing or modifying existing systems" (emphasis added). It is scheduled to be completed in December 2001.

Suggested Goal on Deep Cuts and De-Alerting: Support entry-into-force of START II and rapid agreement on START III at lower levels or unilateral, parallel and reciprocal cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear force levels. Promote support for deeper cuts and de-alerting in the Nuclear Posture Review. Seek to lift or amend the Congressional restriction mandating START I force levels.

************

Overview: The CTBT and Nuclear Testing in 2001

D. Kimball, November 2000

In the year since the October 1999 Senate vote, the CTBT has been on the back-burner in the U.S., though there may be new opportunities to build support for CTBT reconsideration and approval in 2001. The next president will be faced with the challenge of maintaining the U.S. arsenal without conducting nuclear test explosions and monitoring for and working to avert nuclear tests by other nations. Bush has stated his support for the existing moratorium but non-support for the Treaty. Gore has said he would pursue Senate Treaty approval. Regardless of who is elected, the next Administration will likely conduct a review of nuclear testing policy, including an evaluation of the stockpile stewardship program, possible new nuclear weapons requirements, and verification and monitoring assets.

In the Senate, several senators (including a bipartisan group convened by Senator Hagel and Lieberman) have indicated that do not believe the October 1999 vote was the last word on the Treaty. The November election has led to a net increase of 4 to 5 Senate CTBT supporters for a solid base of support of 53 or 54. At the same time, there are threats to the existing test moratorium. Some die-hard CTBT opponents are arguing for new research and development on new types of nuclear weapons. Laboratory scientists are trying to raise concerns about difficulties certifying warheads without testing and in the absence of some proposed stockpile stewardship projects. Either could lead to calls for the resumption of testing.

Over the past year, the President's Special Advisor, former Chairman of the JCS, John Shalikashvili, has met with dozens of Senators and found that there is support for further consideration of the CTBT among many on both sides of the aisle. His report, which is expected to recommend Treaty reconsideration and ratification, is due to be released sometime next month. Other reports on the CTBT will also soon be released, including

01201.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] reports from: the NAS; the Jason group; the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (which will raise unhelpful questions about evasion scenarios); the Foster Panel (on the weapons complex infrastructure); and, by July, a report on defeating hardened and buried targets ("mini-nukes").

Our first task will be to capitalize on the Shali report and other reports and point to support from Republican and Democratic Senators and key opinion leaders for the new President and the Senate leadership to work together in a bipartisan fashion to undertake a more thoughtful and balanced review of the Treaty, beginning with committee hearings on key issues. We must also remind the new Administration that the Senate's failure to ratify the CTBT puts the United States in a test ban policy "limbo" that does not benefit U.S. security. Until the U.S. ratifies the CTBT, it denies itself the benefits of the Treaty's extensive nuclear test monitoring and on-site inspection provisions, and it denies the U.S. the moral and legal authority to encourage other nations not to conduct nuclear weapon test explosions.

Despite the Senate's October 1999 vote, there has been modest progress toward entry into force with 14 additional ratifications and 6 additional signatories. All NATO member states except for the U.S. have ratified. In April, the Russian Duma approved ratification. In May, the NPT Review Conference expressed unanimous support for early CTBT entry into force. We must also try to reinforce these as well as new efforts by CTBT states parties to secure additional ratifications in the run-up to the next Article XIV Conference on CTBT Entry Into Force, which will take place in September 2001 in New York.

Suggested Goal on CTBT: Encourage the new Administration and the new Senate to reconsider the CTBT in the next Congress. If Gore is elected, he will likely pursue Senate reconsideration at some time. Bush is elected, it will be very challenging to put the CTBT back on the Senate's agenda. In either case, securing the support of moderate Republicans for reconsideration of the Treaty will be essential.

*******************

— FOR INTERNAL PURPOSES ONLY: DO NOT CIRCULATE —

Overview: National Missile Defense in 2001 Stephen Young, November 2000

While the outcome of the presidential election may have an enormous impact on the rhetoric and attention devoted to national missile defense (NMD), it is far less certain whether it will dramatically change any of the technical and scheduling questions on the issue in 2001. If George Bush ultimately wins, he is likely to speak more boldly about pushing ahead with NMD, but it will be extremely difficult to increase the pace of deployment of any system - the Clinton ground-based limited system proposal or some alternative - because the technology is simply not ready.

This does not mean Bush is completely hog-tied. He could undertake unwise

01201.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] and precipitous political steps, most particulary withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. Alternatively, he could seize on a unilateral interpretation of the regime that would allow NMD construction to begin while maintaining U.S. adherence to the Treaty. Such interpretations were developed but not employed by the Clinton Administration, and theoretically would allow construction of the radar site to proceed up until the rails are laid for the radar. If the time frame is simply pushed back one full year - which seems likely given the rigors of the construction schedule - that would imply a March 2003 "violation" of the Treaty, and a October 2002 withdrawal deadline.

If a more reasoned interpretation of the ABM Treaty is maintained, that would imply a schedule parallel to this year's, pushed back 12 months. If Bush or Gore decides to move ahead with the Clinton system, that could mean pouring concrete for the Shemya radar in May 2002, and a November 2001 deadline for both withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and initialing contracts to begin the construction.

In any case, either candidate is likely to spend the early months of his presidency evaluating options and alternatives. Given the technical difficulties and design challenges of the Clinton proposal, Bush or Gore is likely to look closely at alternative systems, including the AEGIS sea-based proposal touted by many in Congress or boost-phase proposals. However, it will be difficult to speed up deployment dates for any of these systems significantly. The Pentagon continues to maintain that the ground-based Clinton proposal is by far the closest to deployment, and will remain that way for some time.

If Gore wins, the issue could gradually recede from the headlines, particulary if relations with North Korea continue to improve. However, Republicans in Congress are unlikely to drop the issue; whether Democrats will speak up in opposition is unclear. Up until the failure of the third intercept test, Democrats kept largely quiet on the issue, indicating either fear of being undercut by Clinton, or genuine movement toward at least tacit support for the system. If the international political situation improves and technical challenges continue, it is possible stronger Democratic opposition to NMD could re-emerge.

A small note: the Pentagon has not formally stated that the original 2005 goal for initial NMD deployment is impossible. The schedule-driving radar construction was meant to be completed by 2004, to allow a year for testing. If testing is cut out, the Pentagon could still endeavor to field a minimal system by 2005. If the next intercept test - now likely in February 2001 - succeeds, it is possible Bush could attempt to push ahead with early deployment. Such a schedule would be high risk and, even the Pentagon admits, unlikely to be met, but that does not rule out the option entirely.

Suggested Goal on NMD: Oppose any move toward deployment of national missile defense on the basis of four established criteria, while supporting diplomatic and political alternatives to address the real and/or perceived long-range missile threats to the United States.

***********

01201.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] PROPOSED OUTLINE OF 2001 WORKPLAN FOR THE COALITION TO REDUCE NUCLEAR DANGERS (Draft, November 2000)

Attached below is a proposed outline of priorities/activities. It is based on the Coalition founding statement, recent conversations and meetings among Coalition member groups, and expectations about what either a Gore or Bush Administration might bring. It will serve to guide the work of the Coalition staff and inform our upcoming grant proposals for funding renewal from key foundations.

I. Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers Objectives and Strategies for 2000

The Coalition will concentrate the majority of time, energy and effort to the policy debates on:

on national missile defense; strategic nuclear weapons reductions, including de-alerting and the nuclear posture review; and maintaining support for a non-testing policy and supporting the re-consideration of the CTBT by the U.S. Senate.

A. National Missile Defenses

1. Prevent any move toward deployment of NMD by building greater understanding among national security decision-makers of the shortcomings and potential negative consequences of a decision to deploy national ballistic missile defenses.

2. As an alternative to active national missile defenses, support the pursuit of diplomatic and political alternatives to address real and/or perceived missile threats

In 2000, the Coalition helped to achieve our goal of postpone the decision to deploy an NMD system into the next administration and to work to prevent the withdrawal of the United States from the 1972 ABM Treaty. Our message should continue to focus on the fact that the missile defenses are too costly, they are not capable of defending against incoming missiles, and the overall national and international security consequences outweigh the benefits of deployment of such systems. In addition, we should support and promote efforts to address real and perceived ballistic missile threats through diplomacy and missile control and elimination.

Working with Coalition member organizations and allies through our working groups, we should develop have developed a set of focus group-tested messages we will use to reach this goal. To do so, the Coalition will work to focus its efforts on:

winning the support of major opinion leaders for our position; publicizing the deep concern of major U.S. allies about the international diplomatic and military consequences of a decision to deploy; and demonstrating that proposed NMD systems are not an effective defense

01201.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] against the threat of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons attack; raising awareness of the need and opportunities to prevent the emergence of ballistic missile threats through diplomacy and arms control.

B. Deep Cuts in U.S./Russian Arsenals

1. Broaden public and policy-maker understanding of the ongoing risk of accidental or unauthorized nuclear missile launch posed by the current U.S. and Russian "launch on warning" policies; and encourage policy-maker support for deeper cuts in U.S. and Russian arsenals through the START process and/or unilateral reciprocal reductions. If Bush is elected President, significant opportunities may open up to achieve unilateral U.S. strategic reductions and de-alerting. If Gore is elected, new strategies for advancing START III talks and implementing START II must be pursued. In either case, the support of the House and Senate are important and existing and/or future restrictions on the President's ability to pursue nuclear risk reduction measures must be overcome.

2. Encourage a fundamental re-examination of U.S. nuclear weapons policy that de-legitimize the role of nuclear weapons in post-Cold War security doctrine. By the fall of 2001, the Executive Branch must complete a revised Nuclear Posture Review, which will profoundly influence U.S. policy on strategic reductions, new weapon systems, and NMD.

3. Educate the public and policy-makers on the value of expanding the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici programto secure, dismantle and destroy Soviet-era weapons of mass destruction and achievement of greater transparency and security in existing nuclear stockpiles.

C. The CTBT and Nuclear Testing

1. Encourage the new Administration and the new Senate to reconsider the CTBT in the next Congress. If Gore is elected, he will likely pursue Senate reconsideration at some time. Bush is elected, it will be very challenging to put the CTBT back on the Senate's agenda. In either case, securing the support of moderate Republicans for reconsideration of the Treaty — as General Shalikashvili's report will recommend — will be essential.

2. Educate policy-makers about the consequences of the Senate's failure to ratify the CTBT and the need to maintain the United States existing policy not to conduct further nuclear test explosions and assist in the funding and construction of the CTBTO's International Monitoring System to ensure compliance. A useful tool in this effort will be to focus national and international attention on the importance of securing addition CTBT ratifications prior to the next Article XIV Conference in September 2001.

3. Continue to conduct outreach to pro-CTBT constituencies, focusing on organizations that can influence Congressional CTBT skeptics.

II. Project Activities

(1) Schedule and coordinate of regular meetings with senior Executive

01201.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] Branch leaders, Congressional members and staff, and foreign government officials.

Over the course of the year, the Coalition will focus its efforts on a key group of approximately 50 of the most influential Senators and Representatives and their staff to provide them with information and analysis on critical nuclear weapons policy issues.

(2) Convene meetings of the Directors of Coalition organizations and issue-specific working groups to develop common strategies, share new information, and to undertake activities on the year 2000 priority issues. The Coalition-convened meetings are designed to provide a forum for leading arms control and disarmament organizations and nuclear security specialists to share information and plan collaborative projects and activities on aimed at influencing nuclear risk reduction policies.

(3) Pursue an energetic press campaign focused on the national missile defense issue to provide the national and international press with information and to promote the Coalition's analysis and recommendations on breaking developments and proposals. These media-oriented efforts will include:

regular broadcast faxes of Coalition Issue Briefs and News Releases to over 500 contacts — The Issue Briefs are intended to provide these audiences with concise and accurate information and analysis on key nuclear policy issue and augment Coalition members' ability to respond quickly to fast breaking developments. press briefings involving key Coalition experts and decision-makers on key topics; placement of opinion pieces by Coalition members; placement of Coalition members on talk radio programs when the opportunity arises; supporting news media projects by Coalition member groups; arranging meetings between Coalition issue experts and key reporters and editors; distribution of Editorial Advisories to newspaper editorial board page editors.

(4) Produce and distribute resources and publications that support the common policy agenda and activities of Coalition member groups and others. Under consideration for 2001 are:

briefing book on the status of CTBT entry into force in preparation for the September 2001 Article XIV Conference on Entry Into Force; updated briefing book on National Missile Defense (to follow-up Pushing the Limits); brochure outlining the case for the Coalition's program of action for reducing nuclear dangers.

(5) In addition, the Coalition publishes its Issue Briefs and reports, as will as other NGO analysis, primary source documents, and statements, on the Coalition's Worldwide Web Site . The Coalition will complete a Web Site redesign by January 2001 to improve navigation and outreach.

01201.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] (6) Distribute regular electronic mail updates and information on national missile defense, nuclear testing, and other priority nuclear risk reduction issues to members and "friends" of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers. The Coalition's extensive electronic mail network helps to provide rapid communication among U.S. non-governmental organizations and experts and to maintain close working relationships with international organizations and arms control advocates.

(7) Maintain and regularly update and distribute an annotated bulletin of events, decisions, hearings, meetings, and reports that have a bearing on Coalition issues of concern.

(8) Regularly summarize and distribute updates on the status of major legislation and government reports that have a bearing on Coalition issues of concern.

(8) Solicit and document support from key constituencies and opinion-leaders for achieving further nuclear arms reductions; reconsidering the CTBT; and not taking any precipitous action leading to the deployment of national missile defenses. Networking and outreach efforts will include outreach to national religious denominations, business organizations and labor associations, scientific and military experts, and other national security opinion leaders.

(9) If and when necessary, commission and publicize the results of public opinion surveys and focus groups to help communicate the broad public support for the Coalition's program of action to reduce nuclear dangers and to increase the effectiveness of the Coalition's communications strategies.

At 09:51 AM 12/1/00 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Daryl, > >I will appreciate receiving the material you have available so that I can >craft a briefing paper on strategic arms reduction for use by the faith >community in Washington and in some key states. We're getting a >de-alerting briefing paper from Back from the Brink. > >After checking with a number of faith groups in Washington I have set the >time for a briefing on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction for >Thursday, January 4, 2001 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. Bruce Blair has agreed to >participate. I realize that this was a day when you would not be >available, but there were other conflicts earlier in the week. Can you >suggest someone else from a CNRD organization we might ask to deal with >strategic arms reduction? > >Shalom, >Howard > >Howard W. Hallman, Chair >Methodists United for Peace with Justice

01201.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] >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. > ______

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 ______

01201.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] From: [email protected] Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 23:50:30 EST Subject: Re: Organizing to contact key senators To: [email protected] X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 115

Dear Howard:

Thanks for your call the other day. I tried getting back to you, but couldn't get through. I have been totally swamped these days organizing an ecumenical delegation to Jerusalem. I will be gone now from December 4 to 14. I hope we can talk soon after I return.

peace,

Mark

Prayer Vigil for Middle East Peace

Mark B. Brown International Affairs and Human Rights Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs Washington, DC

01202.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] From: Hal Hartley To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: RE: Song suggestions Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:58:01 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

Dear Howard,

Just wanted you to know that I did receive your email and am checking with some of the musicians we use for further suggestions. I hope to have some additional information for you soon.

Shalom, Hal

Harold V. Hartley III Director of Student Ministries General Board of Higher Education and Ministry The United Methodist Church P.O. Box 340007 Nashville, TN 37203-0007 Voice: 615/340-7415 Fax: 615/340-7379 mailto:[email protected] http://www.umsm.org

-----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 2:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Song suggestions

Dear Hal,

I have been in touch with you in the past about gaining young adult participation on our Board of Directors. Now I have a query of a different nature.

The local church I belong to has organized a praise band with singers, guitars, keyboard, drums, and my viola (a surprise but it works well on some of the music). After two years our repertoire covers mainly one-half of the gospel -- love God and personal salvation -- but scarcely deals with the other half -- love your neighbor and social holiness (John Wesley's term or peace with justice in today's language). Our minister, who started the praise band and sings in it, has supplied most of the music, but he is open to a fuller representation of the whole gospel.

I heard and talked with Jim Strathdee at General Conference and bought his songbooks and recordings. I know of some collections of new hymns with peace and justice themes. Many are good, but their regularity of repeated verse doesn't work very well with a praise band.

01204.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] Because you work with youth, perhaps you could suggest songs in "praise-band" style that express a concern for social action, for mercy and justice, for peace and environmental integrity. Or maybe you could refer me to someone else who would have suggestions. To the extent feasible it will be useful to know not only titles and composers but also sources in print and on recordings if that information is readily available.

I will greatly appreciate whatever assistance you can provide.

Shalom, 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.

01204.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:10 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-1833-975869889-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [de] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: Abolition Caucus , Global Network List From: Regina Hagen Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 19:57:37 +0100 Subject: [abolition-caucus] Re: DoD Releases Strategy Report for Europe and NATO

Thought that this might interest you. In Peace Regina

[email protected] schrieb:

= N E W S R E L E A S E = = OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE = (PUBLIC AFFAIRS) = WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301 = = PLEASE NOTE DATE ======

No. 718-00 (703)695-0192(media) IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 1, 2000 (703)697-5737(public/industry) DOD RELEASES STRATEGY REPORT FOR EUROPE AND NATO Franklin D. Kramer, assistant secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, today announced the publication of Strengthening Transatlantic Security: A U.S. Strategy for the 21st Century. The report, commonly referred to as the "European Strategy Report," explains how the United States, working closely with its allies, can best prepare itself to meet the challenges of European and global security in the coming years.

The report highlights the key elements of U.S. strategy, which include enhancing the defense capabilities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); adapting the multiple existing international structures (and, where necessary, creating new ones) to build security and prevent conflict; and paying special attention to certain key regions adjacent to NATO.

To implement this strategy, the United States is enhancing NATO's Partnership for Peace; furthering a gradual, deliberate, and transparent process of NATO enlargement; building cooperative relationships with the

01204.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] Russian Federation and Ukraine; maintaining close bilateral relationships with our allies; and working cooperatively with allies and partners to enhance security beyond NATO's borders. In addition, the report describes U.S. strategy to establish a close, cooperative, coherent and transparent relationship between NATO and the European Union.

In the preface to the report, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen writes, "This report is intended to offer a clear vision of U.S. policy goals in building transatlantic cooperation as a continuing force for freedom. Working with the Congress and our allies, we will vigorously pursue this comprehensive agenda to strengthen our international security in the years ahead."

The report also highlights the critical and multifaceted role of the approximately 100,000 U.S. troops in Europe in achieving U.S. security objectives in Europe and neighboring regions.

The report is on line at http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/eurostrategy2000.pdf -END-

-- Subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/subscribe.html -- News releases on the web: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/releases.html -- Department of Defense home page: http://www.defenselink.mil/ -- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/DailySummary.html

-- ************************** Regina Hagen Darmstaedter Friedensforum Teichhausstrasse 46 D-64287 Darmstadt Germany Tel. [49] (6151) 47 114 Fax [49] (6151) 47 105

------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~> eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/91925/_/975869890/ ------_->

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.

01204.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Data correction Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Brian,

I have a couple of corrections for the Hallman family calendar that Ed Brueggemann sent out.

March 8. Correct spelling is Carlee Bengtson Hallman - 72

June 25. Our wedding date: Howard Hallman and Carlee Bengtson - 46

Not July 25.

Thanks for being the keeper of the Hallman records.

Howard

01204.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: A prospect Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Ron,

Today I received a call from a Sarah Lowen, who is looking for a Methodist church in Bethesda. It came on my Methodists United for Peace with Justice line, as happens from time to time because people don't look for "United Methodist". She grew up as a Methodist, her husband is from some other denomination, they have a six month old baby and a two year old, who they want to get baptized. She is interested in a church with outreach activities. I told her about BUMC in detail and also a few positive things about North Bethesda UMC and Concord-St. Andrew.

I gave her your name and number, so she may call you. If you want to reach her, her number is 301 365-5245. I don't have an address.

Shalom, Howard

01204.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] From: "Mary Gundermann" To: Subject: Contacts in New York City Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:55:44 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200

Hi.

My name is Mary Gundermann and I’m a member of a Nuclear Disarmament Task Force located at All Souls Unitarian Universalist church in New York City. The chair of the task force, Guy Quinlan, has asked me to e-mail you and find out if you have any contacts in New York City that we could get in touch with. We’re seeking to link up with others in the area and possibly join together in educational and/or advocacy events.

My e-mail address is [email protected]. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

X-eGroups-Return: [email protected] X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Sender: [email protected] (Unverified) To: [email protected] From: Abolition 2000 X-eGroups-Approved-By: [email protected] via email; 5 Dec 2000 00:02:36 -0000 Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:13:15 -0800 Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [sunflower-napf] The Sunflower December 2000 (No. 43)

------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~> eGroups eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/405343/_/975974565/ ------_->

The Sunflower Newsletter No. 43 December 2000

Online monthly newsletter of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

The Sunflower December 2000 (No. 43)

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

ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

NUCLEAR MATTERS

NUCLEAR ENERGY

INTERNATIONAL NGO ACTIVITIES

BOOK REVIEWS

NUCLEAR INSANITY

NAPF HAPPENINGS

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] RESOURCES

EVENTS for the year 2001 are now listed at Http://www.wagingpeace.org

*********************************************** ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS ***********************************************

Exclusive: International Perspectives on Ballistic Missile Defense

On 1 September, President Clinton left the decision on whether or not to deploy a National Missile Defense for the next administration. The multi-billion dollar project continues, however, with on-going research and under various incarnations. Featured exclusively on the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's website are opinions from around the world about the US resolve to deploy such a system despite admonitions from various countries that the consequences of deployment would include the initiation of a new arms race and a decrease global security. The international perspectives are available at: Http://www.wagingpeace.org/resources/index.html

A Star Wars Defense Could Spread Radioactive Poison Worldwide By Dean Babst*

There has been much in the news lately about whether the US should try to build an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system, sometimes referred to as a Star Wars defense. If an anti-ballistic missile could be built that could blast nuclear warheads in flight into dust, how would we protect ourselves from the plutonium dust drifting down over the Earth?

A blasted nuclear warhead could produce two billion plutonium particles, each big enough to give a person fatal lung cancer. Plutonium is the deadliest substance known. A typical nuclear weapon contains more than four pounds of plutonium. In small particles, plutonium is invisible. It is also odorless, tasteless and can remain radioactive for thousands of years. Where it lands in the world would depend upon the direction of the winds and rain following the explosion. It could drift for thousands of miles, polluting a vast area.

Before spending billions of dollars trying to see if such a Star War defense can blast nuclear warheads in Space, it is essential to assess how self-destructive such a defense would be.

*To contact Dean Babst, please send a plain-text email to: .

********************** NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT **********************

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] New Agenda Resolution Adopted by General Assembly

On 20 November, the draft resolutions of the United Nations First Committee, the Committee on Disarmament and Security, came before the General Assembly. The New Agenda Resolution, which underlines "the fundamental significance of the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are committed under Article VI of the Treaty," was adopted 154 to 3, with 8 abstentions. The official UN resolution number is 55/33C. The full text of the Resolution is available at: Http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/documents/newagenda-needfornuclearfreeworld.htm

**************** NUCLEAR ENERGY ****************

Chernobyl Reactor Forced to Shut Down

On 27 November, power line failures forced the last operating reactor at Chernobyl to be shut down. The reactor was due to be shut down permanently on 15 December and Energy Sector officials stated that there would be no point in turning it back on before that date. The reactor has been providing about 5 percent of the Ukraine's electricity demands and is being closed because Western states have pledged to fund other sources of power. The cold weather brought havoc to the Ukranian national power grid and left millions without electricity. Another reactor in the South Ukraine power station was also forced to shut down when engineers found a leak in a steam generator. (ENN, 28 November 2000)

Japan to Restart Nuclear Reactor

On 24 November, Japan's Atomic Energy Commission decided to restart the experimental Monju fast-breeder reactor as soon as possible. The reactor was shut down in 1995 after an accident in which several tons of sodium leaked from its cooling system. The government defended its nuclear policy as vital to achieve long-term energy self-sufficiency. Plans to restart the reactor come amid shaky public trust, especially after the nuclear industry's history of mishaps, cover-ups and accidents. (AP, 24 November 2000)

UNEP Official Rejects Nuclear Option for Global Warming

On 21 November, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme rejected proposals to accept nuclear energy as a means to slow global warming. Through the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement created to address climate change, the nuclear industry hopes to get credit for something it cannot deliver: clean, environmentally friendly, non-polluting energy production. The

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] nuclear industry argued its position at the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Climate Change Convention, which was held at The Hague, Netherlands from 13-24 November.

Language in the Kyoto Protocol will allow developed nations to build nuclear reactors in other countries and receive "pollution credits" if the new power plants lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. However, the country receiving the credit does not have to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions. This worldwide pollution credits trading scheme is called a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Despite the fact that countries such as Japan, Russia and the US have poor nuclear technology records and a history of sacrificing democratic principles for nuclear industry profit, they are among the nations eligible for CDM credits.

Although the United Nations Environment Programme is not an official participant in the Hague talks, it could play an important role in how projects are carried out. (ENN, 21 November 2000)

****************** NUCLEAR MATTERS ******************

Mordechai Vanunu

In a recent letter, Sam Day, coordinator of the US Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu, writes, "Current [Israeli] Prime Minister Ehud Barak, seeking to shore up his right-wing support, hinted for months that Vanunu could never be safely set free because of the state secrets locked in his brain. But, bowing to world-wide pressure, his government has now set an official release date, albeit one that is intolerably distant." That date is April 22, 2004, a date just five months short of completion of Vanunu's 18 year sentence. Day requests that individuals "ask President Clinton and his successor to urge Israel to free Mordechai Vanunu immediately and unconditionally on humanitarian grounds."

Issam Makhoul, a member of the Knesset, in a speech in London on November 18th, stated, "Vanunu is an anti-nuclear prisoner of conscience, with a multi-faceted outlook on issues of peace and democracy. In Israel, including within the security establishment, it is known that Vanunu was not a spy, that he did not threaten Israel's security. They have been punishing him and mistreating him for 14 years simply because he destroyed their concept. More than harming state security, he harmed policy security, exposing to the whole world Israel's policy, which is dangerous both to its own citizens and to the world, the policy of nuclear ambiguity and deterrence."

You can email President Clinton at . You can write to Vanunu at Ashkelon Prison, Ashkelon, Israel. For information on the US Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu, write to Sam Day, 2206 Fox

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] Avenue, Madison, WI 53711.

Russia Completes Series of Subcritical Tests

During the last week of November, Russia completed a series of subcritical tests at the Arctic Novaya Zemlya archipelago. The Foreign Ministry reported on 3 November that the tests were successful and radiation levels were normal in the testing area. The Russian government has stated that subcritical tests or "hydrodynamic experiments" are necessary to ensure the safety of the country's nuclear arsenal and theoretically are not accompanied by radioactive emissions.

The controversial "hydrodynamic experiments" are detonated underground using explosives and fissile material, but they are not considered a full nuclear weapons test because no nuclear chain reaction occurs. Although not a full nuclear weapons test, subcritical testing violates the heart and spirit of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which Russia ratified on 30 June 2000. Russian officials first confirmed they had a subcritical nuclear weapons testing program in 1997 and a total of 5 subcriticals were conducted in 1998 and 7 in 1999. Because they are not prohibited under the CTBT, subcritical tests allow countries like the US and Russia to continue research and development on new nuclear weapons. Further information on the history of Russia's nuclear tests is available at Http://www.bellona.no. (AP, 4 November 2000)

Nuclear Weapons-Usable Materials Consolidated at Russian Site

On 17 November, the US Department of Energy (DoE), reported that 10 metric tons of weapons-usable nuclear materials, which is enough to make at least 500 nuclear bombs, was secured at a storage facility in Siberia. The weapons-usable material was moved from three separate locations to a central site at Novosibirsk Chemical Concentration Plant as part of a joint US-Russia effort to prevent proliferation to and theft by terrorists.

Launched in 1993, the US-Russian Material Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A) is meant to reduce risks by consolidating weapons-usable materials into fewer buildings and convert highly-enriched uranium into forms that can not be used in nuclear weapons. The Novosibirsk Chemical Concentration Plant contains comprehensive nuclear material and accounting systems to protect hundreds of metric tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium against theft. The DoE announced that security upgrades are underway for 750 metric tons of the estimated 960 metric tons of nuclear materials requiring security. (Johnson's Russia List, message #4641, 18 November 2000)

**************************** INTERNATIONAL NGO ACTIVITIES ****************************

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] Protesters Call for Removal of British Sub

On 25 November, thousands of protesters assembled in the streets of La Linea, Spain calling for the removal of the HMS Tireless from neighboring Gibraltar. Organizers of the protest reported that more than 15,000 people were present to demand the deportation of the British nuclear-powered submarine, which has been stranded in Gibraltar since May. British authorities recalled the entire fleet of 12 nuclear-powered submarines in October after a fault was discovered in the cooling system of the HMS Tireless. In early November, the European Commission called upon Britain to release information on the Tireless, which the government states does not pose a safety risk. (Reuters, 25 November 2000)

Caribbean Nations Oppose Transportation of Japanese Spent Fuel

After the release of reports in early November of the possibility of Japan and France renewing reprocessing contracts, ministers of Caribbean nations expressed their concerns over the incidental economic damage that would be incurred by the transportation of nuclear materials through the Caribbean Sea. According to newspaper reports, the first Japanese/Carribean meeting of ministers was held in Tokyo on 8 November 2000. At a dinner held by Foreign Minister Kono on 7 November, Caribbean ministers repeatedly expressed concerns that the transportation of Japanese spent fuel through the Caribbean Sea to Europe could damage tourism. Minister Kono reassured the ministers of the safety of the transportation, but failed to address the issue of perceived damage that can be caused even if no accident were to occur. Caribbean ministers said that just the mere fact that a ship with radioactive materials is passing the Caribbean could keep tourists from visiting the area, and they demanded that such transportation plans be canceled. (Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, 10 November 2000, Http://cnic.jca.apc.org)

10,000 Gather at the School of the Americas

The US Army's School of the Americas (SOA) has trained over 60,000 Latin American military personnel in skills including psychological operations, military intelligence, and counterinsurgency operations. Hundreds of SOA graduates have been among the worst human rights violators in our hemisphere, including those responsible for the execution of six Jesuit priests in El Salvador, the rape and murder of four US church women, the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, and the massacre of over 900 civilians at El Mozote. Many critics view it as a "School of Assassins." In a public relations effort to stem its critics, the Army will officially close the school on December 15th, but will be reopening a clone on January 17, 2001 that will be called The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

Recently, both Colombia and Chiapas, Mexico have been

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] targeted for massive US military aid and counterinsurgency training. Colombia has more SOA graduates (10,000) than any other nation. Paramilitaries, in collaboration with the Colombian and Mexican militaries, are now cited for the vast majority of human rights abuses in these conflicts.

Over 10,000 people from all over the Americas gathered at the gates of Ft. Benning, Georgia on 19 November to demand the closure of the SOA. More than 3,600 protesters risked arrest by crossing onto the base in a massive act of civil disobedience. Of those who risked arrest, some 2,100 were arrested and processed. They included clergy, students, veterans and grandparents. The growing opposition to the SOA includes more than 150 US bishops, including 15 Archbishops and over 140 Latin American bishops who have called for its closure. Luis Eduardo Guerra, a Colombian peace activist whose community has repeatedly been targeted by paramilitaries and who was a featured speaker at the vigil stated, "We know the names of the generals and the high-ranking officers implicated in these killings, and nothing has been done. We know that the officers who trained the paramilitaries were trained at the School of the Americas." (School of the Americas Watch, 19 November 2000, Http://www.soawatch.org)

Russian Chapter of Greenpeace Fights Nuclear Referendum Ruling

On 30 November, the Russian chapter of Greenpeace vowed to lead a fight against the decision made by the Central Election Commission to reject more than half a million signatures on a petition calling for a referendum that would ban the import of nuclear waste into the country. The Russian election authorities argued that they would not accept the petition because many of the signatures were not authentic. In a statement released to the media, Greenpeace responded, "Hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens, whose signatures were not deemed to be genuine, are gathering to defend their right to express their will." Signers plan to appeal to local courts as well as the Russian Supreme Court to challenge the decision.

The referendum was issued in response to the Kremlin's plans to merge the Russian forestry, ecological and mining agencies and plans by Minatom, Russia's atomic energy agency, to import radioactive waste from other countries in exchange for monetary compensation. More than 2,490,000 signatures were reportedly gathered by environmentalists to pass the referendum which would guarantee that environmental and forestry agencies would remain independent and forbid the import of nuclear waste for storage and treatment. (ENN, 30 November 2000)

Dogwood Initiative 2001

The people of Hiroshima are committed to working with people around the world to eliminate the nuclear peril, war and all forms of violence, poverty and starvation, human rights abuses and environmental degradation. The Dogwood Initiative 2001 is an

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] exchange of trees between the people of America and Hiroshima. The city of Hiroshima is asking American friends to send Dogwood tree seeds or seedlings to Hiroshima to plant a total of 2001 trees along the banks of Kyobashi River and in schoolyards throughout Hiroshima. In return, the city of Hiroshima will send Camphor Laurel seeds (Chinese bottle tree), the official tree of Hiroshima. The exchange portion of the campaign will run from 1 August 2000 to 31 December 2001.

The initiative will commemorate the end of the year 2000 and the "century of war" as well as commemorating the 50th anniversary of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. After the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945, some people said that nothing would grow in the city for 75 years, but the trees that grew the following spring gave the people of Hiroshima hope and courage to live on. Hiroshima understands that the seeds of hope lie in reconciliation and is asking to renew a promise of friendship between the US and Japan by exchanging seeds to create a promenade of peace and reconciliation, a living monument to US-Japan relations along the Kyobashi River.

Please send Dogwood seeds and seedlings to: Dogwood Initiative 2001 Ryokka Suishin-bu, Toshi Keikaku-kyoku Hiroshima-shi Shiyakusho 1-6-34 Kokutaiji-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-8586, Japan Fax: +81 82 504 2309 Email: [email protected]

******************** BOOK REVIEWS ********************

No Te Parau Tia, No Te Parau Mau, No Te Tiamaraa--For justice, truth and independence

No Te Parau Tia, No Te Parau Mau, No Te Tiamaraa - For justice, truth and independence is a report of the 8th Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) Conference. In September 1999, over 120 participants from around the Pacific gathered on the shores of Matavai Bay in Arue, Tahiti, Te Ao Maohi (French Polynesia) for the 8th Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) Conference. This book contains all the speeches, presentations and resolutions from the NFIP Conference, on the issues of environment, sustainable human development, demilitarization, decolonization, human rights and good governance.

Contents include: 1. The struggle of the Maohi people for self-determination and independence in a nuclear-free country (Oscar Temaru, James Salmon, Marie Therese Danielsson, Gabriel Tetiarahi, Emile Vernaudon, Charlie Ching, Jacques Ihorai) 2. The struggle for self-determination and independence in the Pacific (Carlyle Corbin on the UN Decolonisation Committee, Hjalmar Dahl on the UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples, and papers on West Papua, Guam, Timor Lorosae, Rapanui, Kanaky, Bougainville, Ka

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] Pae'aina and more). 3. Conserving the environment for our children (Clark Peteru on intellectual property rights, with papers on climate change, biodiversity and nuclear issues) 4. The new arms race in the Pacific (bases, missile testing, internal militarization and the legacies of French nuclear testing) 5. Human rights and good governance (papers on Tonga, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Te Ao Maohi, with a special panel on health and human rights) 6. Globalization and its impact on Pacific peoples (Fata Koroseta To'o on the WTO, Fei Tevi on the ACP-EU Convention, and papers on globalization and indigenous peoples) 7. NFIP Conference resolutions

Order your copy of No Te Parau Tia, No Te Parau Mau, No Te Tiamaraa - For justice, truth and independence from: Pacific Concerns Resource Centre 83 Amy Street, Toorak, Private Mail Bag, Suva, FIJI Phone: (679) 304649 Fax: (679) 304755 Email: [email protected] Web: Http://www.pcrc.org.fj US$10 (includes postage) A4 size, 172 pages, with photos ISBN 982-9018-02-4

************************* NUCLEAR INSANITY *************************

DoE Underestimates Plutonium Contamination

The US Department of Energy (DoE) reported in October that the amount of plutonium and other man-made radioactive elements released into the soil or buried in unsafe containers during the first four decades of nuclear weapons production is 10 times larger than it had estimated. Since 1987, the DoE has stated that more than 97 percent of radioactive waste was locked up in "retrievable" storage and would be deposited into a deep burial repository. They also claimed that only three percent was poured into the dirt or buried. Using a standard measure of radioactivity, DoE officials now say there is 10 times the amount of those wastes in the soil, leaving underground water supplies extremely vulnerable. The actual amount of material that has leaked into the soil at dump sites around the country remains unknown. However, if the radioactive elements concentrate and contaminate the food chain, they can cause cancer, even if ingested in small amounts. (New York Times, 21 October 2000)

FBI Hunts in Landfill for Lost Secrets

Searching for tapes on which former nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee downloaded restricted information, the Federal Bureau of

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] Investigation (FBI), began a search on 29 November using a bulldozer and floodlights to scour a snow-covered Los Alamos landfill. An Albuquerque TV station reported that FBI agents were looking for tapes Lee allegedly threw in the trash at the lab. The search is expected to last for several weeks. (AP, 29 November 2000)

************************* NAPF HAPPENINGS *************************

Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

Recent signers of the Foundation's Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity include Walter Cronkite, former news anchorman and eminent journalist; Minoru Hataguchi, Director of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum; Mordechai Vanunu, prisoner of conscience; and Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia. Chouinard writes, "Security for mankind can only come from having a livable home for all mankind and living things. To put the earth at risk by 'nuclear cowboys' is insanity. To quote David Brower: 'There's no business to be done on a dead planet.'" You can read and sign the Appeal at Http://www.wagingpeace.org/endthenuclearweaponsthreat.html

Nagasaki Global Citizens' Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

From 17-20 November, a Global Citizens' Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons was held in Nagasaki, Japan. The Assembly had several unique features in that it was the last anti-nuclear NGO conference of the 20th century and was held in the last city bombed by an atomic weapon. Anti-nuclear non-governmental organization (NGO) leaders from around the world joined world citizens to generate a new vision for the 21st century based on activities and experiences of the past. At the conclusion of the Assembly, the Nagasaki Appeal was adopted. An excerpt from the Appeal reads:

"During our conference, we have learned from the stories of many who have suffered from the nuclear age: the hibakusha and downwinders from Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Semipalatinsk, Nevada, and Moruroa; Chernobyl and Tokaimura. The world's citizens must now be mobilized to form a potent global movement, and it is this force that will compel governments to fulfill their promises. All sectors of the global community must be involved including women, youth, workers, religious communities and indigenous peoples."

The full text of the Nagasaki Appeal is available at: Http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/documents/nagasaki-appeal11-00.html

David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, was the keynote speaker at the opening Plenary Session. A full text of David's opening remarks can be accessed at: Http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/00.11/krieger-Nagasaki-Speech.html

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] Abolition 2000 also held a Review and Strategy Meeting prior to the conference and Abolition 2000 activities were also introduced and discussed during the formal plenary and workshop sessions. Carah Ong, Coordinator for Abolition 2000, was the keynote speaker at the Youth Forum held at Shiroyama Elementary School, which was just 1500 meters from the hypocenter of the atomic bombing in 1945. A report from Carah is available at: Http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/00.11/ong-Peace_and_Security_Begins_Youth.htm

New Advisor

The Foundation is pleased to welcome Lloyd Axworthy as the newest member to its Advisory Council. Axworthy, until recently the Foreign Minister of Canada, is the Director of the Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues at the University of British Columbia. Axworthy joins Arshbishop Desmond Tutu, Queen Noor, Harrison Ford and other distinguised leaders on the Council. For a full list of Foundation Advisors, please visit: Http://www.wagingpeace.org/about/boards/advisory.htm

********************** ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE **********************

Dogwood Initiative 2001 Hiroshima understands that the seeds of hope lie in reconciliation and is asking to renew a promise of friendship between the US and Japan by exchanging seeds to create a promenade of peace and reconciliation, a living monument to US-Japan relations along the Kyobashi River. Please send Dogwood seeds and seedlings to: Dogwood Initiative 2001 Ryokka Suishin-bu, Toshi Keikaku-kyoku Hiroshima-shi Shiyakusho 1-6-34 Kokutaiji-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-8586, Japan Fax: +81 82 504 2309 Email: [email protected]

Urge President Clinton to Sign the International Criminal Court Treaty!

On 17 July 1998, the Statute for the International Criminal Court was adopted in Rome by 120 nations voting "yes" and only seven nations voting "no". The US delegation was one of the nations voting against the treaty, along with China, Iraq, Libya, Qatar and Yemen. Just three months prior, President Clinton stood before a group of Rwandan genocide survivors and stated, "[W]e must make it clear to all those who would commit such acts in the future that they too must answer for their acts, and they will... Internationally, as we meet here, talks are underway at the United Nations to establish a permanent international criminal court...And the United States will work to see that it is created."

President Clinton rescinded his vow to the Rwandan genocide survivors when the US delegation voted against the ICC in Rome. The ICC Statute states that after 31 December 2000, the treaty will no longer be open for signature, only accession. This means that the US

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] would have to sign and ratify the treaty simultaneously in order for the US to become party to the Court.

Write a letter to President Clinton urging him to sign the Rome Statute before the deadline on 31 December 2000 as his presidential legacy. Send a copy of your letter to each of your Senators to demonstrate your support for this issue. Please mail your letter to: President Bill Clinton, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500 or you may also call the White House switchboard at +1 (202) 456-1414

Write a Letter to Mordechai Vanunu! Send a letter of solidarity to Vanunu at Ashkelon Prison, Ashkelon, Israel. For information on the US Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu, write to Sam Day, 2206 Fox Avenue, Madison, WI 53711

Call for Papers! A primary activity of the International Association of University Presidents (IAUP)/UN Commission on Disarmament Education, Conflict Resolution and Peace is to promote the peace welfare and security of humankind through education. In compliance with the stated goals of the Commission, an international conference on Building the Future Today -- World Peace is being conducted at Universidad La Salle in Mexico City, Mexico, 1-4 April 2001. Sessions on Justice and Human Rights, Sustainable Development, Disarmament Education and Non-Violent Education will be held. Papers on these topics are being solicited. If you wish to present a paper, please send a 50-100 world abstract no later than 1 February 2001 to: L. Eudora Pettigrew, Chair IAUP/UN Commission on Disarmament Education, Conflict Resolution and Peace Holy Family College Grant and Frankford Avenues Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19114-2094 Tel: +1 215-637-7700 ext. 3222 Fax: +1 215-637-3787 Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

**************** 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

The Los Alamos Study Group recently released a press statement entitled, "Los Alamos Weapons Budget Reaches All-time High, Exceeds 3-Year Manhattan Project Total for Site." For more information, please contact Greg Mello at the Los Alamos Study Group at . The full report and charts can be accessed at:

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] http://www.lasg.org/press/budgetpress.htm

Got a minute? Play the DontBlowIt flash game and see what kind of future we're creating for our children. Http://www.DontBlowIt.org/kflash

John Dyer has published his reasearch findings of the alleged illegal disposal of a nuclear reactor cell by the Royal Dutch Shell Group in 1968 on-line at Http://www.nuclearcrimes.com

The US Department of Defense (DoD) Strategy Report for Europe and NATO is now available online at: Http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/eurostrategy2000.pdf

********** EDITORS ********** Carah Ong David Krieger

-- Carah Lynn Ong Director of Research and Publications Nuclear Age Peace Foundation PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Rd, Suite 121 Santa Barbara, California 93108

Tel: +1 805-965-3443 Fax: +1 805-568-0466 Email: [email protected] URLs: Http://www.wagingpeace.org Http://www.abolition2000.org Http://www.nuclearfiles.org

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [email protected]

01205.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] From: [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Nuclear disarmament Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:30:51 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

The Nuclear disarmament Task Force at All Souls Unitarian Church in New York is trying to form a local interfaith group in support of nuclear abolition. We would greatly appreciate any suggestions as to individuals or congretations we should contact.

Guy Quinlan [email protected] Tel: (212) 878-8219 Fax: (212) 878-8375

*******

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.

01205.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] From: Robin Ringler To: "'[email protected]'" Subject: conf. room Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:17:02 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

Hi Howard!

Conf. room 3 is available on Thurs. Jan. 4 from 1-3 p.m.

Robin

01205.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] To: Robin Ringler From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: conf. room Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: <619BD1E95646D311B69D0008C79FE32D2E1F32@CHURCH2> References:

At 11:17 AM 12/5/00 -0500, you wrote: >Hi Howard! > >Conf. room 3 is available on Thurs. Jan. 4 from 1-3 p.m. > >Robin >

Thanks, Robin.

Howard

01205.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Material for Chris Wing Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\icnd.050.doc; A:\icnd.049.doc; A:\iclt.053.doc; C:\My Documents\icnd.030.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Ms. Pendleton:

I am sending as attachment four documents that form the background for the telephone conversation I will have with Chris Wing on Thursday, December 7 at 2:30 p.m. They relate to the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, which I chair and for which we are seeking financial support. They are:

(1) A list of faith-based organizations participating in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. We will continue to add participants.

(2) The work program for November 2000 to June 2001, indicating our priorities for action.

(3) A memo about organizing in nine states to encourage grassroots contact with key senators.

(4) The "asking" budget for the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament with items listed in order of priority.

I will elaborate on these documents in my phone conversation and describe more fully where we are and where we are going.

Shalom, Howard Hallman

01205.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: "howard hollman" Subject: Brink talking points Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:49:32 -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

Here are some talking points and a sheet on what experts are saying. Note the statement by George W. Bush--this statement can be used when talking with Republican members of congress. I am also attaching a copy of the FCNL Religious Sign ON Letter which will be circulated to the organizations to which your committee belong as soon as the national religious leaders have signed. It think it might be a good idea for your committee to see the letter and see what is being done by FCNL/Brink so far.This letter is going to be used by all the secular groups with whom we work when they go to their local churches also.

If you need anything else, let me know. Thanks for all you're doing. I know your involvement and the work of your community will really help make a difference. Ira can be available for the phone conference to answer content type questions. Just let us know when it is.

Peace, Esther ******************************** 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]

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\TALKING POINTS.doc"

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\Experts Agree.doc"

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\FCNL RELIGIOUS LETTER.doc"

01205.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 12:47:32 -0800 From: "Pendleton, Marion" Subject: RE: Material for Chris Wing To: "'Howard W. Hallman'" X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

Thank you, I will pass this to Chris

-----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Material for Chris Wing

Dear Ms. Pendleton:

I am sending as attachment four documents that form the background for the telephone conversation I will have with Chris Wing on Thursday, December 7 at 2:30 p.m. They relate to the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, which I chair and for which we are seeking financial support. They are:

(1) A list of faith-based organizations participating in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. We will continue to add participants.

(2) The work program for November 2000 to June 2001, indicating our priorities for action.

(3) A memo about organizing in nine states to encourage grassroots contact with key senators.

(4) The "asking" budget for the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament with items listed in order of priority.

I will elaborate on these documents in my phone conversation and describe more fully where we are and where we are going.

Shalom, Howard Hallman

01205.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] X-Sender: [email protected] Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 17:49:12 -0800 To: [email protected], [email protected] From: Abolition 2000 Subject: (abolition-usa) US Report Transatlantic Security Strategies for the 21st Century Sender: [email protected] Reply-To: [email protected]

US Report 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 to 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 (see section below on NATO and US Nuclear Forces). The document also includes arguments for ballistic missile defenses as a viable means of protection from states of concern (see below). Below are excerpts from sections of interest to those working in nuclear weapons abolition. The full report can be downloaded in pdf format at: Http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/eurostrategy2000.pdf

US, NATO and Globalization

"In this era of globalization, America and Europe have common interests in dealing with security challenges on the periphery of the European continent and beyond that can have important ramifications for democracy and prosperity within our transatlantic community. Globalization and the information revolution bring enormous benefits to the transatlantic community, including its security structures, but they also increase its vulnerabilities. They facilitate efforts by potential adversaries-both hostile states and increasingly sophisticated terrorists-to develop or acquire nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons and the means to deliver them. Humanitarian disasters beyond Europe can have an important impact on transatlantic interest and require joint US-European responses." (Pg. 3)

European Cooperation

"The defense of North America remains inextricably tied to the defense of Europe. The United States tried and failed to isolate itself from the devastating wars in Europe during the 20th century, which were fought with weapons that are markedly primitive by today's standards. We could not isolate ourselves at all from the catastrophic effects of an attack against Europe in the 21st century,

01205.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] especially if it involved weapons of mass destruction (WMD)... "The United States seeks to prevent the proliferation of NBC weapons and the means to deliver them, since such proliferation directly threatens our security and that of our Allies... "The US military presence in Europe plays a critical role in protecting our economic interests, as well as facilitating US military deployments for both crisis and non-crisis missions to assist allies and friends in neighboring regions." (Pgs 7-8)

"Secretary Cohen also reiterated that, in the face of NATO's conventional military superiority, hostile states are looking to NBC weapons and increasingly long-range and accurate ballistic and cruise missiles to offset that superiority. NATO, therefore, needs to develop and field the capabilities, doctrine and plans to deal effectively with these growing threats." (Pg. 14)

Defense Budgets

"As we encourage our Allies to improve their defense capabilities, we are also taking important steps to improve our own capabilities and reform our national policies to facilitate the sharing of technology... "Over-all, the United States has embarked on its largest sustained increase in defense spending in 15 years. "We have provided commanders and staffs with policy, strategy, and doctrinal guidelines for the planning and execution of joint and multi-national military operations in NBC environments. The guidelines effect not only passive defense capabilities, such as medical capabilities, but also active defense and counterforce capabilities to enable US military forces to survive, fight, and win in NBC-contaminated environments. "In addition, the United Kingdom, Canada and others have announced increases in defense spending, in real terms, over the next several years-the first such increases since the end of the Cold War. Still, many Allies have indicated that their current plans are to implement fully a disappointingly small number of Force Goals. Moreover, some Allies are headed in the wrong direction, either seriously considering or carrying out real reductions in defense spending. This trend will have to be reversed." (Pgs. 16-17)

NATO and Russia

"The transatlantic community cannot be truly secure if its enormous nuclear-armed neighbor, with its rich human and natural resources, withdraws behind a new curtain of hostility and authoritarian rule or collapses economically." (Pg. 33)

The US Strategy toward the Russian Federation: "First, we seek to minimize Russian perceptions of the United States and NATO as potential threats to Russia's national security... "Second, we seek to expand programs of practical cooperation with the Russian Federation on security-related issues... "Third, when Russia's actions or policies raise serious concerns about its commitment to values important to the

01205.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] transatlantic and wider international communities, we will not remain silent."

"In the bilateral arena, the US commitment to stabilizing reductions in each side's strategic nuclear forces testifies to our desire not to return to the dangerous nuclear competition of the Cold War era. These reductions will be accompanied by nuclear-related confidence building measures (for example, the recent agreement to establish a joint US-Russian center in Moscow to exchange information on ballistic missile launches) that demonstrate our desire to work with Russia to avoid possible misunderstandings. High-level consultations between American and Russian defense and military officials also serve as a primary vehicle to improve each side's understanding of the other's military doctrines and policies...

"For example, under the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative, the United States is enhancing and enlarging existing programs that over the past eight years have helped the Russians to: deactivate thousands of nuclear warheads; destroy hundreds of missiles, bombers and ballistic missile submarines; improve security of nuclear weapons and materials at dozens of sites; prevent the proliferation of biological weapons and associated capabilities; begin safe destruction of the world's largest stocks of chemical weapons; and provide opportunities and inducements for thousands of former Soviet weapons scientists to participate in peaceful commercial and research activities.

"As part of our strategy, we seek to improve our ability to cooperate with Russia in crisis response operations by arranging joint US-Russian exercises and by cooperating with Russia on theater missile defense technologies...

"In the final analysis, our ability to work with Russia to reduce Cold War arsenals, prevent the proliferation of WMD, and ease the transformation of its political, economic and social institutions toward more democratic and free market practices will depend heavily on decisions made by Russia." (Pg. 33-36)

NATO and US Nuclear Forces

"In addition to its formidable conventional capabilities to respond to any aggression directed against NATO, the United States maintains non-strategic nuclear weapons, under highly secure conditions, at storage sites in several NATO countries. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States, in consultation with its Allies, has dramatically reduced the numbers and types of US non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe. For example, all nuclear artillery and ground-launched short-range nuclear missiles have been eliminated. Together with Allies, we also have modified the readiness criteria for forces with a nuclear role and terminated standing peacetime nuclear contingency plans. The fundamental purpose of US nuclear forces based in Europe is-and will remain-to preserve peace and prevent coercion. They pro-vide an essential political and military link between the

01205.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] European and North American members of the Alliance, as well as linkage to US strategic nuclear systems. They make the risks of aggression against NATO incalculable and unacceptable in a way that conventional forces alone cannot. The participation of non-nuclear Allies in NATO's nuclear posture demonstrates Alliance solidarity, determination, and willing-ness to share the risks and responsibilities of collective defense. The circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated by NATO are extremely remote, but prudent security planning dictates that we maintain an appropriate mix of conventional and nuclear capabilities for the foreseeable future." 15 The UK and France maintain independent nuclear forces. Like the United States, they have reduced the size of their respective nuclear forces since the end of the Cold War. (Pgs. 47-48)

Deterrence

"The United States deters threats and potential threats to its national security, including those from NBC 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 actu-ally 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)

Ballistic Missile Defense Theater Missile Defense "As part of broader efforts to enhance the security of the United States, Allied and coalition forces against ballistic missile strikes and to complement our counterproliferation strategy, the United States is pursuing opportunities for TMD cooperation with NATO Partners. The objectives of United States cooperative efforts are to provide effective missile defense for coalition forces in both Article 5 and non-Article 5 operations against short to medium range missiles. In its Strategic Concept, NATO reaffirmed the risk posed by the proliferation of NBC weapons and ballistic missiles, and the Alliance reached general agreement on the framework for addressing these threats. As part of NATO's DCI, Allies agreed to develop Alliance forces that can respond with active and passive defenses from NBC attack. Allies further agreed that TMD is necessary for NATO's deployed forces. "Several Allies currently field or will shortly acquire lower tier TMD systems. For example, Germany and the Netherlands both field the PAC-2 missile and naval forces of several Allies are considering cooperation with the United States to field maritime missile defenses. An important development in the operational TMD area was the creation in December 1999 of a trilateral US-German-Dutch Extended Air Defense Task Force. The Alliance is undertaking a

01205.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] feasibility analysis for a layered defense architecture. As the ballistic missile threat to Europe evolves in the direction of longer ranges, the Alliance will need to consider further measures of defense incorporating upper-tier TMD and/or a defense against longer-range missiles." (Pg. 53)

National Missile Defense "Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea do not need long-range missiles to intimidate their neighbors; they already have shorter-range missiles to do so. Instead, they want long-range missiles to coerce and threaten more distant countries in North America and Europe. They presumably believe that even a small number of missiles, against which we have no defense, could be enough to inhibit US actions in support of our Allies or coalition partners in a crisis. "Based on our assessment of these trends, the United States has concluded that we must counter this threat before one of these states attempts to blackmail the United States from protecting its interests, including commitments to our Allies in Europe and elsewhere. Thus, the United States is developing a NMD system that would protect all 50 states from a limited attack of a few to a few tens of warheads. "NATO's Strategic Concept recognizes that "(t)he Alliance's defense posture against the risks and potential threats of the proliferation of (nuclear, biological, and chemical) weapons and their means of delivery must continue to be improved, including through work on missiles de-fenses." As the US. NMD effort progresses, we need to continue close consultations with our Allies on relevant policy and technical issues. "Although Moscow argues to the contrary, the limited NMD system the United States is developing would not threaten the Russian strategic deterrent, which could overwhelm our defense even if Russian strategic forces were much lower than levels foreseen under existing US-Russian strategic arms reduction agreements. Moreover, the US proposal to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty include measures of cooperation and transparency that would give Russia confidence that the NMD system was not being expanded beyond its limited scale. China has a more modest nuclear force than Russia, but has a multi-faceted nuclear modernization program that predates NMD. Our NMD system is not designed to neutralize China's strategic capabilities. NMD is a complement to our policies of deterrence and prevention, not a substitute. We will continue to rely on diplomacy, arms control and traditional deterrence-the credible threat of an overwhelming and devastating response-to dissuade states of concern from attacking or coercing their neighbors or anyone else.17 But today, when a state of concern might attempt to coerce the United States or it Allies, it is not prudent to rely exclusively on deterrence by overwhelming response, especially when we have the option of a limited, but effective defense. "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 ballis-tic missile attack is more likely to defend

01205.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] 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 fun-damental 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 inter-national arms control and nonproliferation regime should have the benefit of this protection." "In September 2000, President Clinton announced that while NMD was sufficiently promising and affordable to justify continued develop-ment and testing, there was not sufficient information about the techni-cal and operational effectiveness of the entire NMD system to move forward with deployment. In making this decision, he considered the threat, the cost, technical feasibility and the impact on our national security of proceeding with NMD. The President's decision will provide flexibility to a new administration and will preserve the option to deploy a national missile defense system in the 2006-2007 time frame." 17 Similarly, the independent British and French nuclear deterrents would not be undermined by the NMD capabilities allowed under the US proposal to modify the ABM Treaty. (Pgs. 54-55) --

Carah Lynn Ong Coordinator, Abolition 2000

"He aha te nui mea o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata" (A Maori saying)

Translation: "What is the most important thing in the world? It is the people, the people, the people."

PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Rd, Suite 121 Santa Barbara, California 93108 Tel: (805) 965-3443 Fax: (805) 568-0466 email: [email protected] URL: http://www.abolition2000.org

- 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.

01205.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:11 PM] Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:30:32 -0500 From: Kerri Wright Platais X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: Howard Hallman , Jo Allen Subject: [Fwd: Minutes of the Outreach Committee Meeting on November 8, 2000]

Hi there,

I've added your email addresses to my list now, and here are the minutes I sent out just today for the Outreach Meeting of last month.

Thanks and see you soon!

kerri X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:19:07 -0500 From: Kerri Wright Platais X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dwight Smith , Tony Andrews , Pat Beverly , Jerry Muys , Jeanne North , Ron and Holly Foster Subject: Minutes of the Outreach Committee Meeting on November 8, 2000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------A8BCF2D2CA26D7D4F995DC5D"

Hi gang,

Please find attached as text the minutes from our last meeting.  I wanted you all to have time to give Dwight feedback prior to the Holiday blitz! :)

Take care and see you all at church,

Kerri

Minutes of the Meeting of the Outreach Committee

The Outreach Committee of BUMC met on November 8, 2000.  The meeting was chaired by Dwight Smith.  The following people were in attendance:  Jeanne and Haven North, Jerry Muys, Kerri Platais, Howard Hallman, Tony Andrews, Sue Wells, Marie Bourgeois and Reverend Ron.  The meeting covered the following topics:

Budget Report

 Dwight presented both the Operating Budget and Special Outreach Budget (Building for the Future – BFF) authorized commitments.  He said that the Operating Budget had authorized commitments for US$ 8,450 and had actually paid US$ 6,629.  The general consensus of the group was to raise this request for next year, and discussion ensued as to how much, and in what proportions.

 Tony suggested that we aim to aggressively increase Outreach’s Operating Budget each year and proposed the following numbers for FY2001:

01206.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM]
 
 US$ 6,000 for local expenses
 US$ 2,000 for national expenses
 US$ 4,000 for international expenses

 This would bring the budget up to US$ 12,000.  Marie suggested that we have a core meeting to discuss the gross numbers now, and another meeting to discuss the itemized expenses.  Tony and Sue seconded this, and Dwight agreed to get back to the Committee before our next meeting with specific topics/areas to be included in FY2001.

Resurrection Prayer Worship Center of the United Methodist Church, Brandywine, MD.

The issue of how much and whether to assist the Resurrection Prayer Worship Center in Brandywine was discussed at length.  Bishop Forrest Stith had requested that each church within the conference contribute to helping the congregation out of a debt situation that was brought on through a split in leadership of the church.  In a letter to the conference, Bishop Stith said that the original debt of US$ 6 million had been reduced to US$ 4.8 and that the remainder would be paid as one-third from the RPWC congregation, one-third from income generating programs and rentals of the building complex in Brandywine, and one-third through the support of BWC churches and the UMC.

BUMC’s portion (as ten percent of the goal, assigned to each church) would be US$ 6,000.  Reverend Ron suggested that US$ 4,000 of this could come from money committed to the Building Bridges program, that had not been spent.  He also planned to hold a special offering in January and hoped to raise an additional US$ 500 to US$ 1,000.

Tony expressed concern that what was needed was both a short-term and long-term plan for the Brandywine church, and hoped that “one time giving” would not create a false sense of security for the church in dealing with it’s overall debt.  Ron responded that what was needed was a financial “shot in the arm” for the congregation, and that the Bishop and the conference had assumed responsibility, as well as a keen awareness as to what would have to take place in the longer run.  Ron asked that the Committee look upon this as part of its’ justice ministry to help a fellow church in need.  Jeanne said it would be likened to more of an emergency gift.

Sue proposed that up to US$ 6,000 (after the congregational gift) be given from the Outreach Fund.  This motioned was passed, and Tony abstained (due to his concern over short-term vs. long-term financial planning).

Uzumba Orphan Trust

 In follow-up to the discussion in September, Jeanne requested funding for the Uzumba Orphan Trust, an orphanage in Zimbabwe caring for 1,500 orphans who had lost their parents to AIDS.  The program is supported by the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR), and the United Nations.  A total of 45 caregivers work with the families to assess the needs of each family and offer emotional, educational, financial and material support.

 Jeanne requested US$ 2,000 from next year’s budget to support this program and the Committee agreed.

Additional Areas for Potential Support

 Additional areas for requested support included:

 Distribution of Flu shot money:  Reverend Ron said that US$ 1,000 was made from the flu shot program and was donated to the church.  He asked if the money could go to support a health care missionary

01206.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] from his old church, and the Committee agreed.

 VIM 2001 – North Carolina Conference Disaster Recovery Ministries: A paper was distributed by Ron and Dwight that detailed the Dinner Kits and Kitchen and Bedding Packs still needed for the North Carolina flood survivors.  This will be included in the larger list Dwight will put together.

 Children’s Defense Fund (CDF):  Howard asked that we think about giving to the CDF on a more formal basis and support their work

 Global Mission Partner Congregation:  Ron suggested that BUMC make it a goal to become a “Global Mission Partner Congregation” in the coming year.  To do so, BUMC could add to its mission program the support for an indigenous missionary through the GBGM.

Christmas Card Donations

 Jeanne said that she and Haven would start a Christmas card drive as a fund-raiser for Outreach and would distribute information to the congregation on this soon.

Conclusion

 Dwight would take the Committee’s request for an increased budget in 2001 to the Church Council and would then get a list together for distribution prior to the next meeting for specific programs and coverage.  Kerri asked if we could do much of the dialogue and work prior to the next meeting on e-mail, providing Sue would get a copy to submit her ideas in writing to Dwight.

Date of the Next Meeting

 The Outreach Committee would next meet in January.

 Adjournment

 The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

               &nbs p;                               Submitted by:  Kerri Wright Platais
               &nbs p;                                 & nbsp;               &nb sp;   Outreach Minute Taker
 

01206.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 10:14:45 -0500 From: "Roger H. Strait" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-DIAL (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: [email protected] Subject: Zion Newsletter

Thank you for your note concerning the newsletter. There are two reasons it continues to be sent to you. The first is that Howard is still listed as a member of the church. If that is not correct, or if he wishes to have a letter of transfer please advise me in writing.

The other reason is we have been sending copies to former pastors presuning they may have an interest in things related to former appointments. If you feel it is no longer necessary we will honor that request.

Folks here have good memories of your minstry among them. I am enjoying the ministry here even though it is involving more of my time every year. Will be three-quarter time starting January 1, 2001, but have said if any more than that is required they will need to look for a full-time minister.

Have a blessed Christmas.

Rev. Roger Strait

01206.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] To: "Roger H. Strait" From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Zion Newsletter Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> References:

Roger,

I transferred my membership from Zion to Araby UMC when Carlee was assigned there. Subsequently I have transferred to Bethesda UMC in Bethesda. Please remove my name from the Zion roster.

Carlee has enjoyed hearing about Zion people and happenings, but now she has moved on to other things. That's why she would like to cease receiving the newsletter.

Shalom, Howard

01206.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Strategic arms reduction Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\abolish.313.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Spurgeon,

After the first of the year persons from the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament are going to get in touch with key senators and their staffs, starting with 10 moderate Republicans, to urge bipartisan support for nuclear arms reduction. As background, I have written the attached piece on strategic arms reduction.

Did I get it right? Or are there errors or misinterpretation that I should correct.

Howard

01206.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Background piece Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\abolish.313.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Daryl,

Attached is what I've written on strategic arms reduction. It will be used as background information for persons in the faith community getting in touch with senators on this issue.

Did I get it right? Or are there errors or misinterpretation that I should correct.

Howard

01206.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Background paper, briefing session Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\abolish.313.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Daryl,

Thanks for your comments on my background piece on Strategic Arms Reduction. A revision is attached.

We are having a briefing on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction for persons from the faith community on Thursday, January 4, 2001 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in Conference Room 3 at the Methodist Building, 100 Maryland Avenue, NE. We settled on that date because of preference of a number of our group. Bruce Blair will speak on de-alerting. You told me that you wouldn't be available that day to handle strategic arms reduction. However, if your schedule permits, we would be please to have you. If not, let me know so that I can line up somebody else.

Shalom, Howard

01206.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 14:09:01 -0500 To: "Howard W. Hallman" From: Daryl Kimball Subject: Re: Background piece

Howard:

This looks very good. I would just add a couple of things. It is important to note that Bush's support for unilateral cuts/dealerting is coupled with his pledge to deploy a layered national missile defense and is meant to sweeten the that bitter pill. In other words, he will not likely attempt something bold on strategic reductions/dealerting without attempting something bold on NMD. Also, Gore has responded to Bush's May 23 unilateral cuts overture by saying he doesn't think it is a good idea and that the US and Russia should pursue bilateral, verifiable cuts through treaties. See our issue brief for some more details.

Also, please think about adding a line or two about the CTBT. It will come up in one way or another, for better or worse.

Otherwise your background paper is very good.

Remind me again when your meeting is and I will try to make it there.

Best,

Daryl

At 11:51 AM 12/6/00 -0500, you wrote: >Daryl, > >Attached is what I've written on strategic arms reduction. It will be used >as background information for persons in the faith community getting in >touch with senators on this issue. > >Did I get it right? Or are there errors or misinterpretation that I should >correct. > >Howard > > >Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\abolish.313.doc" > >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

01206.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] >laity and clergy. It has no affiliation with any Methodist denomination. ______

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 ______

01206.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Talking points Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\abolish.312.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Esther,

I have taken the liberty of editing the talking points you provided me. Partly typographical, partly wording here and there. My version is attached. I hope it is acceptable to you.

I couldn't print the quotations. Apparently too many font and other aspects for my computer and printer.

Let me confirm in writing that we will be expecting Bruce Blair to participate in a briefing on de-alerting for persons from the faith community on Thursday, January 4, 2001 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in Conference Room 3 at the Methodist Building, 100 Maryland Avenue, NE. We will also have a presenter on strategic weapons reduction. You may want to have handouts on de-alerting.

Thanks for you help.

Howard

01207.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: RE: Talking points Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 01:13:48 -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

Thanks, Howard, I will run the changed Talking Points past Ira just to make sure they are ok. Attached is another version of the experts w/o our logo. That may make it easier to download.

I have called CDI to confirm Bruce. As soon as I have the confirmation, I'll e-mail yo. Again, thanks for all your work on this briefing. Esther

-----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 12:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Talking points

Esther,

I have taken the liberty of editing the talking points you provided me. Partly typographical, partly wording here and there. My version is attached. I hope it is acceptable to you.

I couldn't print the quotations. Apparently too many font and other aspects for my computer and printer.

Let me confirm in writing that we will be expecting Bruce Blair to participate in a briefing on de-alerting for persons from the faith community on Thursday, January 4, 2001 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in Conference Room 3 at the Methodist Building, 100 Maryland Avenue, NE. We will also have a presenter on strategic weapons reduction. You may want to have handouts on de-alerting.

Thanks for you help.

Howard

01207.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: RE: Talking points Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 01:13:48 -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

Thanks, Howard, I will run the changed Talking Points past Ira just to make sure they are ok. Attached is another version of the experts w/o our logo. That may make it easier to download.

I have called CDI to confirm Bruce. As soon as I have the confirmation, I'll e-mail yo. Again, thanks for all your work on this briefing. Esther

-----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 12:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Talking points

Esther,

I have taken the liberty of editing the talking points you provided me. Partly typographical, partly wording here and there. My version is attached. I hope it is acceptable to you.

I couldn't print the quotations. Apparently too many font and other aspects for my computer and printer.

Let me confirm in writing that we will be expecting Bruce Blair to participate in a briefing on de-alerting for persons from the faith community on Thursday, January 4, 2001 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in Conference Room 3 at the Methodist Building, 100 Maryland Avenue, NE. We will also have a presenter on strategic weapons reduction. You may want to have handouts on de-alerting.

Thanks for you help.

Howard

01207.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] X-Sender: [email protected] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:20:51 -0500 To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Brief material, meeting schedule

Dear Colleagues:

I want to remind you of the next meeting of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, scheduled for Monday, December 18 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the conference room of the National Council of Churches, 110 Maryland Avenue, NE, Washington, D.C.

In addition we have scheduled a briefing session on "De-alerting and Strategic Arms Reduction" to prepare for making contact with senators and their staffs in the next Congress. It will take place on Thursday, January 4, 2001 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the Methodist Building, Conference Room 3, 100 Maryland Avenue, NE, Washington, D.C. Presenters will include Bruce Blair, president of Center for Defense Information and foremost authority on de-alerting, and someone from an arms control/disarmament organization to discuss strategic arms reduction. I hope you can attend.

I now have briefing pieces on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction to provide our grassroots contacts who will be talking with senators and their staffs. They are attached.

Also attached is a first draft of a set of questions for senators to provide our grassroots. Please give me your comments. I'm also sending it to several in the civil-sector community for their review. I hope to have it finalized by next Monday or Tuesday.

Shalom, Howard

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\abolish.3121.doc"

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\abolish.313.doc"

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\abolish.3224.doc"

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.

01207.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] From: Baltazar Pinguel To: "'[email protected]'" Subject: RE: Brief material, meeting schedule Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:35:13 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

Hi Howard,

I am attending this meeting. Can you direct me how to get to the National Council of Churches building from the Union Station? I am coming from Philadelphia by Amtrak.

-----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Brief material, meeting schedule

Dear Colleagues:

I want to remind you of the next meeting of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, scheduled for Monday, December 18 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the conference room of the National Council of Churches, 110 Maryland Avenue, NE, Washington, D.C.

In addition we have scheduled a briefing session on "De-alerting and Strategic Arms Reduction" to prepare for making contact with senators and their staffs in the next Congress. It will take place on Thursday, January 4, 2001 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the Methodist Building, Conference Room 3, 100 Maryland Avenue, NE, Washington, D.C. Presenters will include Bruce Blair, president of Center for Defense Information and foremost authority on de-alerting, and someone from an arms control/disarmament organization to discuss strategic arms reduction. I hope you can attend.

I now have briefing pieces on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction to provide our grassroots contacts who will be talking with senators and their staffs. They are attached.

Also attached is a first draft of a set of questions for senators to provide our grassroots. Please give me your comments. I'm also sending it to several in the civil-sector community for their review. I hope to have it finalized by next Monday or Tuesday.

Shalom, Howard

01207.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: RE: Questions for senators Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 04:22:40 -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

Howard, I don't think that now is the time to be encouraging your grassroots to meet with their Senators on de-alerting. We are working with many gorups to do this, however it is really important what impression those maknig the first contact make and that they be well grounded in the issue. Certainly the Talknig Points do not provide nearly enough information to hold a coherent breifing with senate staff. We are not sure, either, if we want them talking to staff in the context of other related issues. Until a strategic decision has been made on how we want the issue approached we would urge you to hold off on this at least until we have held the briefing on Jan 4 and until we can send them the timeline and other material.

By the way, I could not download the questions. Can you send it as a word document? Esther

-----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:34 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Questions for senators

Dear Friends:

Attached is my first draft of some questions for faith-based grassroots to use in talking with senators and their staffs on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction. They will also have a background piece on strategic arms reducation and talking points on de-alerting.

I don't want to overwhelm them with too many questions. I will be interested in your comments.

Thanks, Howard

01207.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:12 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Attachments Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Mary,

Here are the attachments. I hope it doesn't overload

Howard

###

Back From the Brink A Campaign to Take Nuclear Weapons Off Hair-Trigger Alert

TALKING POINTS ON DE-ALERTING

Introduction: The threat of nuclear war is still with us, though the Cold War ended ten years ago.

· The United States and Russia have 4,500 nuclear weapons aimed at each other -- the equivalent of 100,000 Hiroshima bombs -- on hair-trigger alert, ready to launch within minutes.

· The danger of an accidental launch of a nuclear weapon has increased dramatically in the last six years.

· The reason is that the Russian early warning and command-in-control systems are deteriorating, increasing the likelihood of an accident or an unintended launch.

· The United States has had its own difficulty with nuclear missile silos -- with a fire that occurred December 1, 2000 in North Dakota.

· The Russian nuclear arsenal remains the only significant threat today to the survival of the United States.

· A Russian nuclear warhead can reach an American city 25 minutes after launch, creating almost unimaginable damage.

· Russia is far more dependent on its nuclear weapons than the United States because it cannot afford to maintain its conventional forces, which are more expensive than its nuclear arsenal.

· And the Russians feel defensive. The expansion of NATO right to its borders, the wars in Kosovo and Chechnya, and U.S. plans for a missile defense have added to Russian fears of attack or encirclement.

· In fact, Russian military leaders are so worried about an attack and a warning-systems failure that they have shortened their "launch" decision-making process to six minutes.

· Accordingly, there is a growing concern on the part of U.S. lawmakers and military officials that high-alert status is a dangerous posture.

01207.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] · The de-alerting of our nuclear weapons -- by removing warheads from missiles and storing them separately or by locking their triggers -- is a way of increasing the time it would take to launch a nuclear weapon.

· While our arms control treaties aim to decrease the size of our mutual nuclear arsenals, we must also address the readiness of our nuclear arsenals. And both efforts must go forward simultaneously.

· The de-alerting of all, or even a portion, of U.S. and Russian high-alert weapons would reduce dangers immediately.

· It would also set the stage for further reductions in nuclear arsenals by signaling confidence.

· Congressional approval isn't required to de-alert our nuclear weapons: it can be done by presidential initiative. Presidents George Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev did it in 1991.

· What is needed to de-alert is public pressure, especially on the new president during his first 100 days in office.

These talking points were developed in cooperation with Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR).

For further information, consult www.backfromthebrink.org; www.psr.org; www.cdi.org.

December 2000

###

Achieving Strategic Arms Reduction Background Information

The reduction of strategic nuclear weapons will be an important issue with the next presidential administration and the next two Congresses. Results will depend upon achieving substantial bipartisan support. Here is some background information on this topic.

The Arsenal

Military experts make a distinction between strategic and tactical (or non-strategic) nuclear weapons. Strategic weapons are designed to attack an adversary's homeland from afar. They included submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICMBs), and bombs carried on long-range bombers. Tactical weapons are intended primarily for battlefield use or to attack military installations from short- to mid-range.

The Center for Defense Information estimates the global nuclear arsenal to be as follows:

Country Strategic Non-strategic Total United States 7,300 4,700-11,700 12,000-19,000 Russia 6,000 6,000-13,000 12,000-19,000 France 482 0 482 China 290 120 410 United Kingdom 100 100 200

In addition, Israel possesses 100 or more nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan have tested nuclear weapons and may have built some. For more details, consult www.cdi.org.

Treaties

Over the years the United States and the Soviet Union, now Russia, have entered into treaties to limit and reduce

01207.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] the number of nuclear weapons. In the United States this has been a bipartisan process, sometimes led by a Republican president, at other times by a Democratic president and with broad support in Congress. In 1987 President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty (INF) to eliminate an entire class of weapons. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty by a vote of 93 to 5. In 1991 the Bush Administration negotiated the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), and the Senate gave its approval, 93 to 6. Under START I the United States and Russia agreed to a reduction in deployed strategic nuclear warheads to about 8,500 for the United States and about 6,500 for Russia

The Bush Administration followed through with START II, signed in January 1993. The treaty requires each side to cut its deployed strategic forces to 3,000-3,500 warheads and bans deployment of land-based missiles with more than one warhead. The U.S. Senate ratified START II in January 1996 by a vote of 87 to 4. The Russian Duma ratified the treaty in April 2000 by a vote of 288 to 131. Russian approval was contingent on U.S. ratification of a 1997 protocol that extends the time period for the completion of START II reductions from 2003 to 2007 and some Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty related agreements. The Clinton Administration didn't submit the protocol and ABM agreements to the Senate because they have become intertwined with the debate on deployment of national missile defense (NMD).

At a 1997 meeting in Helsinki President Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed to negotiate a START III agreement that would further reduce the nuclear arsenal to 2,000 to 2,500 strategic warheads on each side. Subsequently the new Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has proposed a level of 1,500. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, however, doesn't support this lower level because of the targeting needs of the current U.S. nuclear posture. Moreover, the Clinton Administration wants to link START III with changes in the ABM treaty to permit limited national missile defense, but Russia is reluctant to accept ABM modifications. Consequently START III negotiations haven't commenced.

Reciprocal Initiatives

Another approach to strategic arms reduction is through executive initiative by one side with reciprocal response by the other. President George Bush used this approach in September 1991 when he ordered a stand-down of U.S strategic bombers and removal and storage of their nuclear bombs. He also ended alert status for strategic missiles destined for elimination by START I: 450 silo-based rockets and missiles on 10 submarines. Soviet President Gorbachev responded by ordering deactivation of more than 500 land-based rockets and six strategic submarines, by placing strategic bombers in a low level of readiness, and by putting rail-based missiles in garrison. In the next several months both nations withdrew large numbers of tactical nuclear warheads deployed with their armies and navies and placed them in central storage depots.

During the 2000 presidential campaign Governor George W. Bush cited the 1991 experience and indicated that the United States should lead by example to reduce strategic nuclear weapons significantly below the START II level and to remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status. He coupled this proposal with advocacy of layered national missile defense. Vice President Al Gore expressed a preference for further reductions achieved through a bilateral, verifiable treaty with Russia, that is, START III, rather than through reciprocal initiatives. He didn't offer his views on de-alerting.

Other Considerations

Both presidential candidates conditioned their proposed actions for strategic nuclear reductions on a thorough review of U.S. nuclear policy. This process occurs periodically, and Congress has mandated that the next nuclear posture review be completed by December 2001. This will include a review of targeting, number and types of nuclear weapons required, and arms control objectives.

Meanwhile Congress through language in the Defense Authorization Act has prohibited deactivation of strategic nuclear weapons below the START I level until START II final ratification is completed. There are also restrictions on reducing the alert status of the nuclear arsenal. These restrictions would have to be removed before the kind of

01207.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] initiatives proposed by Governor Bush could take place.

Further information on this subject is available from the Arms Control Association (www.armscontrol.org), Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org), and the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers (www.clw.org/coalition). The latter has linkages to other sites.

December 7, 2000 Prepared by Methodists United for Peace with Justice

###

Questions for U.S. Senators on De-alerting and Strategic Arms Reduction

In 2001 it is expected that de-alerting the nuclear arsenal and strategic arms reduction will be on the agenda of the new president and the 107th Congress. Therefore, persons from faith-based organizations around the country are encouraged to get in touch with their senators, to explore their thinking on these issues, and to encourage bipartisan action. This can start as an inquiry rather that strong advocacy of a particular position.

The following questions are offered as a point of departure for conversation with senators and their staffs. They are written as if speaking directly to the senator, but they can be rephrased to say "what is the senator's thinking on .....?", etc. Separate material on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction is available as background for the questions.

De-alerting. With the cold war over for ten years many retired generals and admirals, former civilian national security officials, scientists, physicians and other professionals, and religious organizations are calling for substantial reduction in nuclear weapons. Some are advocating complete elimination. Many believe that a desirable first step would be to take strategic nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.

· What do you think of this idea? · During the recent presidential election campaign Governor [President-elect?] George W. Bush spoke favorably of his father's experience in 1991when he took bombers off alert and also land- and submarine based missiles scheduled for elimination under START I, then Soviet President Gorbachev reciprocated with similar action. Do you believe that there should be similar executive initiative for de-alerting in 2001? · What concerns do you have? What safeguards would be necessary? · Would you be willing to be a public advocate of de-alerting?

Strategic arms reduction. During the last 20 years the United States has entered into arms reduction treaties with Russia (formerly with the Soviet Union) initiated by Republican presidents and ratified by the U.S. Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. They include the INF Treaty, START I, and START II. Senate ratification of a START II protocol is pending before the treaty can go into effect. At Helsinki in 1997 President Clinton and President Yeltsin agreed to seek a START III agreement for further reductions, but formal negotiations never began.

· Do you favor ratification of the START II protocol and some pending ABM-related agreements? · What do you think about negotiating a START III agreement to achieve further strategic arms reduction? · During the presidential campaign George W. Bush suggested that rather than engaging in prolonged treaty negotiations, substantial strategic arms reduction could occur by United States taking the lead in cutting out excessive forces with the expectation that Russia would follow. What do you think of this approach? · Would you be willing to talk with your Senate colleagues and speak out publicly in favor of further strategic arms reductions?

National missile defense. Although the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament isn't stressing national missile defense (NMD) in this round of conversations with senators, the topic is likely to come up. By and large the faith community is opposed to deployment of national missile defense, as expressed in a letter to President Clinton last summer. Many of the senators we will be talking to are on record in favor of national missile defense. Furthermore, strategic arms reduction is partly tied to NMD because the Clinton Administration has asked Russia to accept changes in

01207.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] the Anti-Ballistic Missile (AMB) Treaty to permit the United States to deploy a limited missile defense. So far Russia has not agreed, and this has held up START III negotiations.

At the moment we don't need to press our opposition to NMD on the senators. If the topic comes up, we can make our position clear and indicated that this is a matter where we will respectfully disagree with NMD advocates.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The faith community worked hard in 1998-99 to build support for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Al Gore favors ratification. George W. Bush has said that he would continue the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing but opposes CTBT ratification. If Bush is president, the CTBT won't be in play this year, but the treaty may come up in conversations with senators. If so, you can inquire what it would take to achieve enough Senate support to achieve ratification.

01207.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Questions for senators Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\abolish.314.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Friends:

Attached is my first draft of some questions for faith-based grassroots to use in talking with senators and their staffs on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction. They will also have a background piece on strategic arms reducation and talking points on de-alerting.

I don't want to overwhelm them with too many questions. I will be interested in your comments.

Thanks, Howard

01207.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Meeting schedule, background material Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\abolish.312.doc; A:\abolish.313.doc; A:\abolish.314.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Colleagues:

I want to remind you of the next meeting of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, scheduled for Monday, December 18 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the conference room of the National Council of Churches, 110 Maryland Avenue, NE, Washington, D.C.

In addition we have scheduled a briefing session on "De-alerting and Strategic Arms Reduction" to prepare for making contact with senators and their staffs in the next Congress. It will take place on Thursday, January 4, 2001 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the Methodist Building, Conference Room 3, 100 Maryland Avenue, NE, Washington, D.C. Presenters will include Bruce Blair, president of Center for Defense Information and foremost authority on de-alerting, and someone from an arms control/disarmament organization to discuss strategic arms reduction. I hope you can attend.

I now have briefing pieces on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction to provide our grassroots contacts who will be talking with senators and their staffs. They are attached.

Also attached is a first draft of a set of questions for senators to provide our grassroots. Please give me your comments. I'm also sending it to several in the civil-sector community for their review. I hope to have it finalized by next Monday or Tuesday.

Shalom, Howard

01207.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Brief material, meeting schedule Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> References:

At 04:35 PM 12/7/00 EST, you wrote: >Howard -- >If Larry Egbert didn't give you his new email address, would you mail the >email below (w/attachment) to him directly? Add his email to your list, and >keep mine on, too. Thanks >Theresa >Larry Egbert's email address: [email protected]

Theresa,

Thanks for the reminder. Larry gave me his e-mail address, but I hadn't entered it yet. You will both be on the list.

Howard

01207.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] From: [email protected] Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:35:11 EST Subject: Re: Brief material, meeting schedule To: [email protected] X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 107

Howard -- If Larry Egbert didn't give you his new email address, would you mail the email below (w/attachment) to him directly? Add his email to your list, and keep mine on, too. Thanks Theresa Larry Egbert's email address: [email protected]

***************** In a message dated 12/7/00 3:26:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

<< Subj: Brief material, meeting schedule Date: 12/7/00 3:26:21 PM Eastern Standard Time From: [email protected] (Howard W. Hallman) To: [email protected]

File: Briefmat.zip (15615 bytes) DL Time (32000 bps): < 1 minute

Dear Colleagues:

I want to remind you of the next meeting of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, scheduled for Monday, December 18 from 1:00 to 2:30 >>

01207.11.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Questions for senators Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\abolish.314.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Esther,

I thought I sent the draft of questions for senators as a word document. I'll try again also send it as text.

Howard

### Draft Questions for U.S. Senators on De-alerting and Strategic Arms Reduction

In 2001 it is expected that de-alerting the nuclear arsenal and strategic arms reduction will be on the agenda of the new president and the 107th Congress. Therefore, persons from faith-based organizations around the country are encouraged to get in touch with their senators, to explore their thinking on these issues, and to encourage bipartisan action. This can start as an inquiry rather that strong advocacy of a particular position.

The following questions are offered as a point of departure for conversation with senators and their staffs. They are written as if speaking directly to the senator, but they can be rephrased to say "what is the senator's thinking on .....?", etc. Separate material on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction is available as background for the questions.

De-alerting. With the cold war over for ten years many retired generals and admirals, former civilian national security officials, scientists, physicians and other professionals, and religious organizations are calling for substantial reduction in nuclear weapons. Some are advocating complete elimination. Many believe that a desirable first step would be to take strategic nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.

· What do you think of this idea? · During the recent presidential election campaign Governor [President-elect?] George W. Bush spoke favorably of his father's experience in 1991when he took bombers off alert and also land- and submarine based missiles scheduled for elimination under START I, then Soviet President Gorbachev reciprocated with similar action. Do you believe that there should be similar executive initiative for de-alerting in 2001? · What concerns do you have? What safeguards would be necessary? · Would you be willing to be a public advocate of de-alerting?

Strategic arms reduction. During the last 20 years the United States has entered into arms reduction treaties with Russia (formerly with the Soviet Union) initiated by Republican presidents and ratified by the U.S. Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. They include the INF Treaty, START I, and START II. Senate ratification of a START II protocol is pending before the treaty can go into effect. At Helsinki in 1997 President Clinton and President Yeltsin agreed to seek a START III agreement for further reductions, but formal negotiations never began.

· Do you favor ratification of the START II protocol and some pending ABM-related agreements? · What do you think about negotiating a START III agreement to achieve further strategic arms reduction? · During the presidential campaign George W. Bush suggested that rather than engaging in prolonged treaty negotiations, substantial strategic arms reduction could occur by United States taking the lead in cutting out excessive forces with the expectation that Russia would follow. What do you think of this approach?

01208.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] · Would you be willing to talk with your Senate colleagues and speak out publicly in favor of further strategic arms reductions?

National missile defense. Although the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament isn't stressing national missile defense (NMD) in this round of conversations with senators, the topic is likely to come up. By and large the faith community is opposed to deployment of national missile defense, as expressed in a letter to President Clinton last summer. Many of the senators we will be talking to are on record in favor of national missile defense. Furthermore, strategic arms reduction is partly tied to NMD because the Clinton Administration has asked Russia to accept changes in the Anti-Ballistic Missile (AMB) Treaty to permit the United States to deploy a limited missile defense. So far Russia has not agreed, and this has held up START III negotiations.

At the moment we don't need to press our opposition to NMD on the senators. If the topic comes up, we can make our position clear and indicated that this is a matter where we will respectfully disagree with NMD advocates.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The faith community worked hard in 1998-99 to build support for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Al Gore favors ratification. George W. Bush has said that he would continue the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing but opposes CTBT ratification. If Bush is president, the CTBT won't be in play this year, but the treaty may come up in conversations with senators. If so, you can inquire what it would take to achieve enough Senate support to achieve ratification.

01208.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: RE: Questions for senators Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 00:29:26 -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

Thanks for re-sending the question. Again, though, I would like to ask that we tak a little more time to develop this question. We feel the questions needs to be refined so as not to link de-alerting with abolition in particular. Ira would like to meet with you early next to work together to form a question that works for both of us. I'll call about this shortly to see when a good time would be. Esther

-----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 9:23 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Questions for senators

Esther,

I thought I sent the draft of questions for senators as a word document. I'll try again also send it as text.

Howard

### Draft Questions for U.S. Senators on De-alerting and Strategic Arms Reduction

In 2001 it is expected that de-alerting the nuclear arsenal and strategic arms reduction will be on the agenda of the new president and the 107th Congress. Therefore, persons from faith-based organizations around the country are encouraged to get in touch with their senators, to explore their thinking on these issues, and to encourage bipartisan action. This can start as an inquiry rather that strong advocacy of a particular position.

The following questions are offered as a point of departure for conversation with senators and their staffs. They are written as if speaking directly to the senator, but they can be rephrased to say "what is the senator's thinking on .....?", etc. Separate material on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction is available as background for the questions.

De-alerting. With the cold war over for ten years many retired generals and admirals, former civilian national security officials, scientists,

01208.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] physicians and other professionals, and religious organizations are calling for substantial reduction in nuclear weapons. Some are advocating complete elimination. Many believe that a desirable first step would be to take strategic nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.

· What do you think of this idea? · During the recent presidential election campaign Governor [President-elect?] George W. Bush spoke favorably of his father's experience in 1991when he took bombers off alert and also land- and submarine based missiles scheduled for elimination under START I, then Soviet President Gorbachev reciprocated with similar action. Do you believe that there should be similar executive initiative for de-alerting in 2001? · What concerns do you have? What safeguards would be necessary? · Would you be willing to be a public advocate of de-alerting?

Strategic arms reduction. During the last 20 years the United States has entered into arms reduction treaties with Russia (formerly with the Soviet Union) initiated by Republican presidents and ratified by the U.S. Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. They include the INF Treaty, START I, and START II. Senate ratification of a START II protocol is pending before the treaty can go into effect. At Helsinki in 1997 President Clinton and President Yeltsin agreed to seek a START III agreement for further reductions, but formal negotiations never began.

· Do you favor ratification of the START II protocol and some pending ABM-related agreements? · What do you think about negotiating a START III agreement to achieve further strategic arms reduction? · During the presidential campaign George W. Bush suggested that rather than engaging in prolonged treaty negotiations, substantial strategic arms reduction could occur by United States taking the lead in cutting out excessive forces with the expectation that Russia would follow. What do you think of this approach? · Would you be willing to talk with your Senate colleagues and speak out publicly in favor of further strategic arms reductions?

National missile defense. Although the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament isn't stressing national missile defense (NMD) in this round of conversations with senators, the topic is likely to come up. By and large the faith community is opposed to deployment of national missile defense, as expressed in a letter to President Clinton last summer. Many of the senators we will be talking to are on record in favor of national missile defense. Furthermore, strategic arms reduction is partly tied to NMD because the Clinton Administration has asked Russia to accept changes in the Anti-Ballistic Missile (AMB) Treaty to permit the United States to deploy a limited missile defense. So far Russia has not agreed, and this has held up START III negotiations.

At the moment we don't need to press our opposition to NMD on the senators. If the topic comes up, we can make our position clear and indicated that this is a matter where we will respectfully disagree with NMD advocates.

01208.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The faith community worked hard in 1998-99 to build support for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Al Gore favors ratification. George W. Bush has said that he would continue the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing but opposes CTBT ratification. If Bush is president, the CTBT won't be in play this year, but the treaty may come up in conversations with senators. If so, you can inquire what it would take to achieve enough Senate support to achieve ratification.

01208.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] From: [email protected] Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:25:24 EST Subject: New Baby To: [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] X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 117

Ed & I are the proud grandparents of Hudson Parrish Churchill, born December 8th at 7:50 a.m. Hudson weighed 10 lbs. 10 oz. and is 22 inches long. He has dark hair and is doing well. Paul and Elisha Churchill are the happy parents. Henry (3) is now a big brother! More later Ernestene

01208.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "david culp" , , , , , , , , , , , , , "deedie runkel" , , , "anne gallivan" Subject: Brink National Call-In Days resources Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 03:34:50 -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

The Back from the Brink Campaign and its allied organizations are promoting National Call-In Days to the White House, February 5-6, 2001 to urge the President to reduce the danger of accidental nuclear war by working with the Russians to take all nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.

The Campaign has flyers in either pdf or text form, attached to this message, for grassroots organizing efforts. They are also available in bulk—FREE-- by contacting the campaign via e-mail. We also have ad slicks for insertion in national or local newsletters.

In addition, we are working with 2020 Vision, who will be contacting national organizations to sign-on and distribute a "coalition" January Grassroots Action postcard to generate letters to the new President. As you all know,this type of postcard was very effective in helping to stop the NMD and mini-nukes. We encourage you to sign-on with 2020 Vision and to be part of this nationally coordinated effort.

Peace, Esther ************************ 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]

01208.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\Call-Inflyertext.doc"

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\Callin3.pdf"

01208.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] Auto-Submitted: auto-replied Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:13:13 -0700 To: Carlee Hallman Subject: Inquiry Received by One Health Plan (KMM1148452C0KM) From: BPO Inquiry Reply-To: BPO Inquiry X-Mailer: Kana 4.0

Thank you for contacting One Health Plan. This is an automated acknowledgement verifying that we received your message.

We received your email regarding 'Claim Information' on Friday, December 8 at 2:12 PM MST.

All messages are personally read and addressed.

The case number for your inquiry is 757395.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

One Health Plan

01208.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 17:41:58 -0800 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Your Order with Amazon.com (#107-1427316-1974958) Cc: Sender: [email protected] X-Amazon-ORDER-Sender: [email protected] X-Amazon-ORDER-Sender-IP: [165.247.98.177] X-Amazon-ORDER-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 01:41:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Amazon-ORDER-Recipient: [email protected]

01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] Thanks for your order, Howard W. Hallman! If you ordered several items to be delivered to the same address, we might send them in separate boxes to ensure quicker service. But don't worry: you won't be charged any extra shipping fees. Thanks again for shopping with us. Amazon.com Customer Service Manage Your Account: Did you know you can view and edit your orders online? Click on Your Account to: 01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] Track order status Combine orders Change payment options Edit shipping address Cancel unshipped items Change gift messaging do much more... Purchasing Information: Your purchase reads as follows: E-mail Address:  [email protected] 01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] Billing Address:    Howard W. Hallman 6508 Wilmett Road Bethesda, MD 20817 USA 301 897-3668 01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] Subtotal:   $ 48.00 Shipping & Handling:            $ 4.48   ------ Total Before Tax:   $ 52.48 Tax:   $ 0.00   ------ Purchase Total:   $ 52.48 01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM]   Order Summary: Order #1: (Order #107-1427316-1974958) Howard W. Hallman 6508 Wilmett Road Bethesda, MD 20817 USA Shipping method: Standard Shipping Shipping preference: Ship when all items are available. 01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] 1 "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" American Heritage Dictionaries(Editor), Joseph P. Pickett(Introduction); Hardcover; @ $48.00 each Usually available in 24 hours 01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] You can make changes to any unshipped orders in Your Account. If you've explored the links on that page but still need to get in touch with us about your order, e-mail us at [email protected]. Thanks again for shopping at Amazon.com! Amazon.com Earth's Biggest Selection Some Ideas for Your Next Visit: 01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] The Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style by Paul W. Lovinger Our Price: $32.00 The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots by Calvert Watkins(Editor), Benjamin W., IV Fortson Our Price: $22.40 01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] See All Your Recommendations  Prefer not to receive HTML Mail? Click here 01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] 01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM]   Our customers and editors have chosen! Check out the results.   Send an Amazon.com gift certificate with one of our free e-cards.   And see what magic it brings. 01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/wishlist/ref=cs_ae_ad4">Click here for details.

 

 

01210.01).txt[5/8/2017 3:57:13 PM] Reply-To: "levee" From: "levee" To: "Sharmaine Allen" , "Peggy Eastman" , "Pat Gill" , "Janet Camp" , "Freeman Walker Jr." , "Dottie and Joe Zetts" , "Carlee L. Hallman" , "Barbara Hemming" Subject: Greetings! Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:19:36 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3

Dear Fellow Writers,

I hope you all have a blessed Christmas and new year.

Our meeting schedule will go on as usual, according to a vote taken at our last meeting.

Next meeting is Monday, December 18 and then we'll meet again January 15, both at 7:30 p.m. Meeting place will be my house: 140 New Mark Esplanade, Rockville.

Several of you have asked for an up-to-date roster, so here you are:

CHRISTIAN WRITERS LEAGUE (Affiliated with Capital Christian Writers) Membership List, December 1, 2000

Camp, Janet (301/279-2930) 311 Great Falls Rd. Rockville, MD 20850 [email protected]

Peggy Eastman (301/656-0789) 3409 Bradley Lane Chevy Chase, MD 20815-3261 [email protected]

Hallman, Carlee (301/897-3668) 6508 Wilmett Road Bethesda, MD 20817 [email protected]

Pat Gill (301/309-2024) 10706 Cloverbrooke Dr. Potomac, MD 20854 [email protected]

01210.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] Hemming, Barbara (301/549-4137) 4204 Sugar Pine Court Burtonsville, MD 20866 [email protected]

LeVee, Luella Nash (301/294-3396) 140 New Mark Esplanade Rockville, MD 20850 [email protected]

Freeman Walker (703/671-5129) 3701 S. George Mason Drive Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected]

Dorothy (Dottie) Zetts (301/762-6792) 121 Ritchie Parkway Rockville, MD 20852 [email protected]

Love in Christ,

Luella LeVee Phone: 301/294-3396

01210.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:51:50 -0700 To: Carlee Hallman Subject: Re: Claim Information (KMM1153531C0KM) From: BPO Inquiry Reply-To: BPO Inquiry X-Mailer: Kana 4.0

Dear Rev. Hallaman

Thank you for using our e-mail service.

Unfortunately, the claims you are inquiring about have not been received. Please re-submit these claims to Great West Life PO Box 11111 Ft. Scott KS 66701.

Please feel free to contact us at www.OneHealthPlan.com or call us at 1-800-ONE-8081 if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Tisha O. Customer Service Representative ONE Northeast

***** The Original Message Text Follows *****

There are outstanding dental claims for my husband, Howard W. Hallman, ID# 512207823. Submitted June 19, 2000 for dental service received 4-13-99, $459; 8-19-99, $40; 3-9-00, $68. Submitted 11-1-00 for services received 9-11-00, $78; 9-23-00, $180. Please pay these claims. Thanks, Rev. Carlee Hallaman ********************************************* Case ID:757395 ********************************************* ^^ONENE^^

01210.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Directions Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Baltazar,

I'm glad you will be attending the meeting of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament on Monday, December 18 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. It will take place in the conference room of the National Council of Churches, 110 Maryland Avenue, NE in Washington, D.C.

110 Maryland, NE is across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court Building. From Union Station go south on 1st Street, NE (note: NE, not NW). Walk between the Russell and Dirksen Senate Office Buildings. Turn left on Maryland Avenue, NE to 110. Entry code is 108.

I look forward to meeting you then. I'll be sending out the agenda later in the week.

Shalom, Howard

01211.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:23:55 -0800 Subject: 2004 From: Edward Brueggemann To: Howard Hallman

Dear Howard:

Thank you for your letter of the 4th, the registration for the 2001 family reunion and the suggestion that you host 2004.

It is still early to tell how many will come to NC. mary reserved only 20 rooms on the asssumption that some will want to stay in B and Bs and quaint Inns. Looks like most, like you and us, will stay at the Confort Inn.

As to 2004 it is not real clear how that gets decided. I think DC is a grat idea. I have not had the impression that, for the most part, people stay away because of room costs. What if, in our next mailing, we inquired about peoples reaction to the possibility?

LuAnn joins me in wishing you and Carlee an happy holiday.

Ed Brueggemann

01211.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] To: [email protected], [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Contacts in New York Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Friends,

I'm glad to hear that you are trying to bring faith groups together in New York to work on nuclear disarmament issues. Let me suggest a few contacts.

Riverside Church, Temple of Understanding, Cathedral of St. John the Divine. You probably already know people there.

For Catholic contacts, get in touch with Rose Marie Pace of Pax Christi Metro NY at 212 420-0250; e-mail: [email protected].

For United Methodist contacts, you might talk with the conference peace with justice coordinator, Rev. Richard E. Edwards, 40 Washington Street, Hempstead, NY 11550-4029; home phone, 516 485-6363; e-mail: [email protected]. The Washington Square United Methodist Church had an active peace ministry under its former pastor, Rev. Schuyler Rhodes. I don't know whether this has continued.

For the Episcopal Church, get in touch with Rev. Brian Grieves, Peace and Justice Office at national headquarters: 212 922-5207; e-mail: [email protected].

Organizations participating in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, which I chair, may have some other contacts if you need them, but I hope that this suffices as a start.

Please keep me informed as your work continues.

Shalom, Howard Hallman

01211.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: "howard hollman" Subject: Brink two-pager Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:20:22 -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

Here is the two-pager that also includes some of the quotes from "Experts." Hope thisis what you were looking for. Esther ********************************

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]

01211.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] To: From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Brink two-pager Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

At 12:20 AM 12/12/00 -0500, you wrote: >Here is the two-pager that also includes some of the quotes from "Experts." >Hope thisis what you were looking for. >Esther >********************************

Esther,

There was nothiing attached to your message.

Incidentally, my name is spelled with an "a": Hallman.

Shalom, Howard

01211.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: "howard halliman" Subject: Brink two-pager Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:50:54 -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

Hi Howard, There is some difficulty attaching the twopager, so I am including it in the body of this message. Hope this works this time. Esther

BACK FROM THE BRINK: A CAMPAIGN To Take Nuclear Weapons Off Hair-Trigger Alert

Think the threat of nuclear war is a thing of the past? Think again. The U.S. and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert—the equivalent of 100,000 Hiroshima bombs ready to go off in minutes. In a time of crisis or perceived attack, decision makers on both sides have little time to decide whether to launch a massive nuclear strike. A single miscalculation or computer error could lead to nuclear war. The serious deterioration of Russia’s radar and early warning systems only increases the danger. The risk is just too great to take. It’s time for the U.S. and Russia to work together to take their arsenals off hair-trigger alert.

THE PROBLEM: NUCLEAR MISSILES ON HYUPER-ALERT The cold hard truth of the post-Cold War world is that the U.S. and Russia are still courting nuclear disaster. Both countries still maintain thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert—poised to be launched at a moment’s notice. This means that in a time of crisis or perceived attack, decision-makers on both sides have just minutes to decide whether to fire their nuclear missiles Three minutes after receive the order to fire the missiles are launched. One mistake would be catastrophic. A benign blip on a radar screen could turn into nuclear Armageddon. There have been numerous false alarms over the years. IN 1995 Russia mistakenly identified a scientific rocket as a nuclear missile moving toward Moscow. The Russians came within minutes of launching their nuclear missiles at U.S., cities. Since then the continued deterioration of Russian nuclear systems only increases the danger. The U.S. and Russia are like two gunfighters, each staring down the barrel of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. Each has a finger tensed on the trigger, ready to shoot at the first sign that the other one is firing. Both will die if the weapons go off. Keeping thousands of nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert is an accident waiting to happen. The chance of a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia, starting my mistake or miscalculation, is simply too great to take.

THE SOLUTION: DE-ALERTING

01212.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] It’s time for the U.S. and Russia to move together to end the threat of accidental nuclear war, by taking their nuclear arsenals off hair-trigger alert. De-alerting means lengthening the time needed to launch nuclear missiles. It would provide a critical margin of safety so nuclear war could not start by computer mistake or human error. There is a precedent for de-alerting nuclear missiles. In 1991, President Bush, counseled by his advisor, General George Lee Butler, de-alerted some 500 American nuclear weapons. President Gorbachev reciprocated by de-alerting Soviet nuclear weapons. Taking weapons off the hair-trigger can be done in a number of ways. General Butler, recommends separating nuclear warheads from their missiles: “The risk of accidental launch would evaporate in an environment in which warheads and missiles were de-mated and preferably widely separated in location)” General Lee Butler, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Jan/Feb/2000. By de-alerting their nuclear arsenals the U.S. and Russia will create a standard of safety that would make it taboo for any country to place their nuclear weapons on a hair-trigger status. The U.S. and Russia would send a signal to the world that they were serious about reducing the nuclear threat. The world would move back from the brink.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Join with places of worship across the country to send a message to the President during the NATIONAL CALL-IN DAYS to the White House, Monday and Tuesday February 5 & 6, 2001. Tell the President: “I urge you to reduce the danger of accidental nuclear war by working with the Russians to get all nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.” Call the White House 202-456-1414, or write The President, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20500. To down load a flyer to send to members of your congregation and friends, go to http:www.backfromthebrink.net/callin.pdf

Experts -- On Taking Nuclear Weapons Off Hair-Trigger Alert “American and Russian nuclear missiles are still maintained in a hair-trigger alert status, susceptible to being launched in a spur-of-the-moment crisis or even by accident.” Jimmy Carter, Washington Post, February 23, 2000

“For two nations at peace, keeping so many weapons on high alert may create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch.” George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, May 23, 2000

“The risk of accidental launch would evaporate in an environment in which warheads and missiles were de-mated and preferably widely separated in location.” Gen. George Lee Butler, Commander of all U.S. strategic nuclear forces, 1992-1994, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Jan/Feb 2000

“… De-alerting would create a judicious delay in the capacity for launch in order to assure more reliable control over nuclear weapons, to reduce daily nuclear tensions, and to strengthen mutual confidence in each other’s nuclear intentions.” Sam Nunn (D-GA), former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Bruce G. Blair, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies at Brookings, and

01212.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] author of Global Zero Alert for Nuclear Forces, “From Nuclear Deterrence to Mutual Safety,” Washington Post, June 22, 1997

“No one can guarantee the reliability of our control systems… Russia might soon reach the threshold beyond which its rockets and nuclear systems cannot be controlled.” Russian Defense Minister Igor Rodionov, 1997

“As we seriously review stockpile size, we should also consider stepping back from the nuclear brink by de-alerting…” Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Chairman of Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, November 1997

“…The President should immediately stand down weapons in excess of START III levels from their hair-trigger alert. Warheads should be physically separated from delivery vehicles. Our national security will not be endangered by leaders having two days, rather than two minutes, to make life-and-death decisions about nuclear war… We should seriously explore the possibility of the United States and Russia standing down all forces from hair-trigger alert.” Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) on November 17th, 1998 at Council for Foreign Relations

“[The world] may still be near the brink [of nuclear war], despite the end of the Cold War and the dismantling of thousands of warheads, because people and the machines that control Russia’s nuclear arsenal are being neglected. Like the rest of the armed forces, the soldiers in the Strategic Nuclear Forces are largely unpaid, unfed and unhappy. The delicate computer networks at the heart of the nuclear force are not being maintained properly, and the safeguards that prevent accidental or unauthorized launches are fraying.” Time Magazine, May 19, 1997

“The United States should make it the most urgent national public health priority to seek a permanent, verified agreement with Russia to take all nuclear missiles off high alert and remove the capability of a rapid launch.” The New England Journal of Medicine, April 30, 1998

“… de-alerting all nuclear weapons will essentially eliminate the risk of large-scale accidental nuclear war, and greatly reduce the risk of war by miscalculation.” Arjun Makhijani, President, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) in “De-alerting: A First Step,” October 1998

Back from the Brink: A Campaign To Take Nuclear Weapons Off Hair-Trigger Alert Phone: (202) 545-1001 Fax: (202) 545-1004, 6856 Eastern Avenue, #322 Washington D.C. 20012 On the web: www.backfromthebrink.org E-mail: [email protected] *********************************** Esther Pank Back from the Brink Campaign

01212.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] 6856 Eastern Avenue, NW, # 322 Washington DC 20012 202.545.1001 ph 202.545.1004 fax [email protected]

01212.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] BACK FROM THE BRINK: A CAMPAIGN To Take Nuclear Weapons Off Hair-Trigger Alert

Think the threat of nuclear war is a thing of the past? Think again. The U.S. and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert—the equivalent of 100,000 Hiroshima bombs ready to go off in minutes. In a time of crisis or perceived attack, decision makers on both sides have little time to decide whether to launch a massive nuclear strike. A single miscalculation or computer error could lead to nuclear war. The serious deterioration of Russia’s radar and early warning systems only increases the danger. The risk is just too great to take. It’s time for the U.S. and Russia to work together to take their arsenals off hair-trigger alert.

THE PROBLEM: NUCLEAR MISSILES ON HYUPER-ALERT The cold hard truth of the post-Cold War world is that the U.S. and Russia are still courting nuclear disaster. Both countries still maintain thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert—poised to be launched at a moment’s notice. This means that in a time of crisis or perceived attack, decision-makers on both sides have just minutes to decide whether to fire their nuclear missiles Three minutes after receive the order to fire the missiles are launched. One mistake would be catastrophic. A benign blip on a radar screen could turn into nuclear Armageddon. There have been numerous false alarms over the years. IN 1995 Russia mistakenly identified a scientific rocket as a nuclear missile moving toward Moscow. The Russians came within minutes of launching their nuclear missiles at U.S., cities. Since then the continued deterioration of Russian nuclear systems only increases the danger. The U.S. and Russia are like two gunfighters, each staring down the barrel of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. Each has a finger tensed on the trigger, ready to shoot at the first sign that the other one is firing. Both will die if the weapons go off. Keeping thousands of nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert is an accident waiting to happen. The chance of a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia, starting my mistake or miscalculation, is simply too great to take.

THE SOLUTION: DE-ALERTING It’s time for the U.S. and Russia to move together to end the threat of accidental nuclear war, by taking their nuclear arsenals off hair-trigger alert. De-alerting means lengthening the time needed to launch nuclear missiles. It would provide a critical margin of safety so nuclear war could not start by computer mistake or human error. There is a precedent for de-alerting nuclear missiles. In 1991, President Bush, counseled by his advisor, General George Lee Butler, de-alerted some 500 American nuclear weapons. President Gorbachev reciprocated by de-alerting Soviet nuclear weapons. Taking weapons off the hair-trigger can be done in a number of ways. General Butler, recommends separating nuclear warheads from their missiles: “The risk of accidental launch would evaporate in an environment in which warheads and missiles were de-mated and preferably widely separated in location)” General Lee Butler, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Jan/Feb/2000. By de-alerting their nuclear arsenals the U.S. and Russia will create a standard of safety that would make it taboo for any country to place their nuclear weapons on a hair-trigger status. The U.S. and Russia would send a signal to the world that they were serious about reducing the nuclear threat. The world would move back from the brink.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Join with places of worship across the country to send a message to the President during the NATIONAL CALL-IN DAYS to the White House, Monday and Tuesday February 5 & 6, 2001. Tell the President: “I urge you to reduce the danger of accidental nuclear war by working with the Russians to get all nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.” Call the White House 202-456-1414, or write The President, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20500. To down load a flyer to send to members of your congregation and friends, go to http:www.backfromthebrink.net/callin.pdf

Experts -- On Taking Nuclear Weapons Off Hair-Trigger Alert “American and Russian nuclear missiles are still maintained in a hair-trigger alert status, susceptible to being launched in a spur-of-the-moment crisis or even by accident.” Jimmy Carter, Washington Post, February 23, 2000

“For two nations at peace, keeping so many weapons on high alert may create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch.” George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, May 23, 2000

“The risk of accidental launch would evaporate in an environment in which warheads and missiles were de-mated and preferably widely separated in location.” Gen. George Lee Butler, Commander of all U.S. strategic nuclear forces, 1992-1994, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Jan/Feb 2000

“… De-alerting would create a judicious delay in the capacity for launch in order to assure more reliable control over nuclear weapons, to reduce daily nuclear tensions, and to strengthen mutual confidence in each other’s nuclear intentions.” Sam Nunn (D-GA), former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Bruce G. Blair, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies at Brookings, and author of Global Zero Alert for Nuclear Forces, “From Nuclear Deterrence to Mutual Safety,” Washington Post, June 22, 1997 “No one can guarantee the reliability of our control systems… Russia might soon reach the threshold beyond which its rockets and nuclear systems cannot be controlled.” Russian Defense Minister Igor Rodionov, 1997

“As we seriously review stockpile size, we should also consider stepping back from the nuclear brink by de-alerting…” Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), Chairman of Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, November 1997

“…The President should immediately stand down weapons in excess of START III levels from their hair-trigger alert. Warheads should be physically separated from delivery vehicles. Our national security will not be endangered by leaders having two days, rather than two minutes, to make life-and-death decisions about nuclear war… We should seriously explore the possibility of the United States and Russia standing down all forces from hair-trigger alert.” Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) on November 17th, 1998 at Council for Foreign Relations

“[The world] may still be near the brink [of nuclear war], despite the end of the Cold War and the dismantling of thousands of warheads, because people and the machines that control Russia’s nuclear arsenal are being neglected. Like the rest of the armed forces, the soldiers in the Strategic Nuclear Forces are largely unpaid, unfed and unhappy. The delicate computer networks at the heart of the nuclear force are not being maintained properly, and the safeguards that prevent accidental or unauthorized launches are fraying.” Time Magazine, May 19, 1997

“The United States should make it the most urgent national public health priority to seek a permanent, verified agreement with Russia to take all nuclear missiles off high alert and remove the capability of a rapid launch.” The New England Journal of Medicine, April 30, 1998

“… de-alerting all nuclear weapons will essentially eliminate the risk of large-scale accidental nuclear war, and greatly reduce the risk of war by miscalculation.” Arjun Makhijani, President, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) in “De-alerting: A First Step,” October 1998

Back from the Brink: A Campaign To Take Nuclear Weapons Off Hair-Trigger Alert Phone: (202) 545-1001 Fax: (202) 545-1004, 6856 Eastern Avenue, #322 Washington D.C. 20012 On the web: www.backfromthebrink.org E-mail: [email protected] From: "Mary Gundermann" To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Contacts in New York Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:09:09 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200

Dear Howard,

Your response was fortuitous as there's a meeting this week, 12/13, at All Souls. Thank you. I'll keep you posted.

Regards,

Mary G [email protected] 718.544.0969 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Howard W. Hallman" To: ; Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 10:20 AM Subject: Contacts in New York

> Dear Friends, > > I'm glad to hear that you are trying to bring faith groups together in New > York to work on nuclear disarmament issues. Let me suggest a few contacts. > > Riverside Church, Temple of Understanding, Cathedral of St. John the > Divine. You probably already know people there. > > For Catholic contacts, get in touch with Rose Marie Pace of Pax Christi > Metro NY at 212 420-0250; e-mail: [email protected]. > > For United Methodist contacts, you might talk with the conference peace > with justice coordinator, Rev. Richard E. Edwards, 40 Washington Street, > Hempstead, NY 11550-4029; home phone, 516 485-6363; e-mail: > [email protected]. The Washington Square United Methodist Church had > an active peace ministry under its former pastor, Rev. Schuyler Rhodes. I > don't know whether this has continued. > > For the Episcopal Church, get in touch with Rev. Brian Grieves, Peace and > Justice Office at national headquarters: 212 922-5207; e-mail: > [email protected]. > > Organizations participating in the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear > Disarmament, which I chair, may have some other contacts if you need them, > but I hope that this suffices as a start. > > Please keep me informed as your work continues.

01212.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] > > Shalom, > 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.

01212.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] To: Edward Brueggemann From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: 2004 Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

At 09:23 AM 12/11/00 -0800, you wrote: >Dear Howard:

....As to 2004 it is not real clear how that gets decided. I think DC is a grat >idea. I have not had the impression that, for the most part, people stay >away because of room costs. What if, in our next mailing, we inquired about >peoples reaction to the possibility?....

Ed,

My impression is that decisions are made by consensus at one reunion for the location of the next one. I recall that when you issued your invitation in Austin, somebody else was prepared to invite but yielded to you. In a sense it's the turn of the Herbert Hallman family to take responsibility, but I don't want to be unduly competitive.

Let me gather some more information after the first of the year and then let you include it in one your mailings. Or if you have an e-mail list, I could send something you could forward.

Christmas greetings to all of you,

Howard

01212.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] To: "Rev. Ron" From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Casa del Pueblo Cc: [email protected] Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Ron,

Yesterday, December 11, I met with Dr. Hal Recinos, pastor of Casa del Pueblo and a professor at Wesley Theological Seminary, to discuss how Bethesda UMC might have a more continuous relationship with Casa del Pueblo. Today I followed this up with a telephone conversation with Marta Fioriti, volunteer coordinator, and a student at Wesley (she knows Adam Kirby). Several possibilities emerged from these conversations.

1. They would welcome a work crew (or two) on January 15, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday. If this is okay with you (leaving the Resurrection Prayer and Worship Center for another occasion), I'll talk with George Patrick and suggest that he get in touch with Marta for specifics. They have enough projects for a BUMC youth crew to go the same day if they're interested. You might mention this to Adam.

2. Marta is sending (a) a wish list of supplies and equipment they need and (b) a request for $1,200 for special project support. The latter would be drawn from our Building for the Future allocation. This request will be addressed to Dwight Smith, chair of the Outreach Committee.

3. They still need computers. Apparently they never followed through on the lead to NIH surplus that Harold Seifried gave them. I'll talk with Harold to see if that source is still available. If so, Hal Recinos will assure that there is follow through.

4. They need books for their library used by the after school program, grades 5 to 12, and also for younger ages in their day care program. Because our youth collect books for the rummage sale and bazaar, they might have an interest. It would need to be books tailored to their needs, not merely all the leftovers.

5. They need arts and craft supplies for the day care program. Also, large indoor equipment (slide, sandbox, etc.). I suggested to Carlee that one month of Sunday School collection might go for the supplies. She's considering it.

6. They are looking for a soccer coach.

7. They can use volunteers for tutoring math and English during the year and for their summer program. For the latter they need people and vans to help with field trips.

8. They have a music group that plays Latino jazz (Recinos plays his flute with them). Going beyond my authority, I asked whether they might want to do a guest appearance at our early service. He says they might. You might even get a package deal if you wanted him to preach some time. It's possible that the Praise Band might be willing to reciprocate. This would help make it a two-way relationship.

In total this list is more than we can undertake, but there are several things we can do.

Shalom, Howard

01212.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] From: [email protected] Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:57:14 EST Subject: Re: Casa del Pueblo To: [email protected] X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 I like what I see! There are lots of positive possibilities here, none of which I am opposed to. Go ahead with the plans for MLK Day with George, if you like and we'll begin promoting that as soon as we have something definite. I am very open to having their musical group come out for the early service (and maybe they could stay and do a special number for the second service, too!) and the possibility of him preaching here. I'd love to see the PB reciprocate. Maybe we could do a pulpit exchange where we swap preachers and musicians but on different Sundays? Thanks for starting the conversation!

Be God's, Ron User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:50:55 -0500 Subject: Re: January GR teleconference From: Tim Barner To: "Howard W. Hallman"

Howard:

At a meeting on The Hill yesterday someone mentioned that your group is meeting Monday rather than Tuesday next week (I had Dec 19 because it was set at the last meeting). Do you want/expect me to be there? I can't find that I received an e-mail on this.

Take care. Do let me know when you have the January date set.

Tim

Howard W. Hallman11/30/00 10:49 [email protected]

> Tim, > > I'm glad you got the go ahead to work with the Interfaith Committee for > Nuclear Disarmament on a teleconference call in early January with contacts > in nine states. It is likely to be the third week in December before we > get a time and date pinned down. > > To complete your notes of our conversation, here is the complete list of > states and senators: > Maine - Collins, Snowe > Vermont - Jeffords > Rhode Island - Chafee > Pennsylvania - Specter > Indiana - Lugar > Nebraska - Hagel > New Mexico - Domenici > Oregon - Smith > Alaska - Stevens > > Thanks for your cooperation, > 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. >

01213.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] 01213.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] To: Tim Barner From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: January GR teleconference Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References: <[email protected]>

At 01:50 PM 12/13/00 -0500, you wrote: >Howard: > >At a meeting on The Hill yesterday someone mentioned that your group is >meeting Monday rather than Tuesday next week (I had Dec 19 because it was >set at the last meeting). Do you want/expect me to be there? I can't find >that I received an e-mail on this....

Tim,

We found out that WISC was having a staff retreat on December 19, so we changed the date to the 18th, same time and place: 1:00 to 2:30 at National Council of Churches. I guess I neglected to contact our advisors. I hope you can come.

Regarding the conference call, we won't be ready the first week in January. We may try for the third week if that is a possibility with you.

We're having our own briefing on Thursday, January 4 with Bruce Blair and an arms reduction expert (to be finalized. It's from 1:00 to 2:30 in the Methodist Building, Conference Room 3, if you want to attend.

Shalom, Howard

01213.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:14 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Outreach to state contacts Cc: Bcc: icnd X-Attachments: A:\iclt.054.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Colleagues:

It looks as if the presidential contest is over -- barring some unexpected happening. It is time to move ahead with our effort to build bipartisan support for nuclear disarmament measures, such as de-alerting and strategic arms reduction. Because George W. Bush spoke during the presidential campaign in favor of taking initiative on these endeavors, the task may be easier that if Al Gore had been elected president. But on some issues we are interested in, such as CTBT ratification and halting national missile defense, the task will be harder with Bush in the White House.

So far 16 denominational offices and peace fellowships have indicated a willingness to get in touch with key contacts in the nine states we have selected for our initial effort. I hope others will also join in. To refresh your memory, the senators and states are Collins and Snowe (ME), Jefforts (VT), Chafee (RI), Specter (PA), Lugar (IN), Hagel (NE), Domenici (NM), Smith (OR), and Stevens (AK). Our intent is to set the stage for formation of interfaith delegations in those states in January so that they can get in touch with their senators.

Therefore, I urge you to make your initial contact with the key people in these states in the next week, or soon after the first of the year. Attached is a sample letter which you can adapt to suit your needs. Or write a fresh version that you are comfortable with.

Previously I sent you background briefs on strategic arms reduction and de-alerting. On the latter issue we also have printed material from Back from the Brink Campaign, which I an supply you. I'm inclined to put aside for now the sample questions for the senators that I circulated a few days ago until we can work on them further.

If you do reach out, please let me know so that I can keep track of the participating organizations and the states they are working in. I will try to facilitate putting together interfaith delegations in those states.

Please call me or reply by e-mail if you have any questions.

Shalom, Howard

01213.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] From: Kathy Guthrie To: "'Howard W. Hallman'" Subject: RE: Outreach to state contacts Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:51:47 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)

Howard, As I mentioned to you last week, FCNL will work with the interfaith community on issues as they arise in the legislative calendar. For instance, we will work on the de-alerting campaign in January in preparation for the call-in day in early February. We may also focus on some confirmation hearings, by contacting specific senators, requesting that they ask questions on issues.

I will not be able to attend the meeting next Monday. I'm on vacation then.

Have a nice holiday. Kathy

-----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 1:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Outreach to state contacts

Dear Colleagues:

It looks as if the presidential contest is over -- barring some unexpected happening. It is time to move ahead with our effort to build bipartisan support for nuclear disarmament measures, such as de-alerting and strategic arms reduction. Because George W. Bush spoke during the presidential campaign in favor of taking initiative on these endeavors, the task may be easier that if Al Gore had been elected president. But on some issues we are interested in, such as CTBT ratification and halting national missile defense, the task will be harder with Bush in the White House.

So far 16 denominational offices and peace fellowships have indicated a willingness to get in touch with key contacts in the nine states we have selected for our initial effort. I hope others will also join in. To refresh your memory, the senators and states are Collins and Snowe (ME), Jefforts (VT), Chafee (RI), Specter (PA), Lugar (IN), Hagel (NE), Domenici (NM), Smith (OR), and Stevens (AK). Our intent is to set the stage for formation of interfaith delegations in those states in January so that they can get in touch with their senators.

Therefore, I urge you to make your initial contact with the key people in these states in the next week, or soon after the first of the year. Attached is a sample letter which you can adapt to suit your needs. Or write a fresh version that you are comfortable with.

Previously I sent you background briefs on strategic arms reduction and de-alerting. On the latter issue we also have printed material from Back

01213.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] from the Brink Campaign, which I an supply you. I'm inclined to put aside for now the sample questions for the senators that I circulated a few days ago until we can work on them further.

If you do reach out, please let me know so that I can keep track of the participating organizations and the states they are working in. I will try to facilitate putting together interfaith delegations in those states.

Please call me or reply by e-mail if you have any questions.

Shalom, Howard

01213.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] X-Sender: [email protected] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:23:55 -0500 To: [email protected] From: Stephen Young Subject: NMD-START Update 12/13/00: Looking Ahead to 2001

December 13, 2000

To: NMD-START interested parties Fm: Stephen Young

Re: NMD-START Update: Looking Ahead to 2001

With George Bush apparently the next president, it is time to consider what he can (and can’t) do, what he should (and shouldn’t) do, and what he is likely (and unlikely) to do on national missile defense.

Bush will be under strong pressure from conservative members of Congress and right-wing think tanks to give immediate notification of the U.S. intent to withdraw from the ABM Treaty or, even more severely, to declare the Treaty null and void. He has pledged to seek Russian agreement to modify the Treaty, but only to allow a few months for negotiations to succeed before he would withdraw from Treaty.

In one possible scenario, he would follow precisely the same time frame as President Clinton faced this year, with a decision on whether to proceed with construction of the Clinton system radar and on whether to withdraw from the ABM Treaty coming in November 2001. Alternatively, Bush could unilaterally assert a more liberal interpretation that would allow construction to begin without requiring Treaty withdrawal as early.

A number of new resources have appeared recently that provide interesting reading on NMD. The latest issue of “Disarmament Forum,” published by UNIDIR, focuses on national missile defense. Entitled “NMD: Jumping the Gun?” it includes a description of the Clinton proposal by John Pike, et al, and a forward-looking piece by Daryl Kimball and me. It is available on the web at: < http://www.unog.ch/unidir/e-df1-1.htm >.

Also newly available is a special issue of Physics Today that looks at physics and national security. It includes a piece by Lisbeth Gronlund, George N. Lewis, and David C. Wright entitled “The Continuing Debate on National Missile Defenses,” (Physics Today, December 2000 Volume 53, Number 12) which is available at: < http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-53/iss-12/p36.html >.

From the other side, the Heritage Foundation released some publications from its new “Mandate for Leadership” transition project, including one on national missile defense. Entitled “Priorities for the President: Defending America from Missile Attack,” the brief report by Baker Spring recommends immediate commencement of a global ballistic missile defense system that integrates current theater-level programs, the Clinton ground-based system, and new sea-based components that are still in the early design phase.

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] While calling for cooperation with Russia and NATO allies, the program would surely endanger U.S. relations with those countries. As of yet, the publication is not available on the Heritage website.

On the North Korea front, President Clinton is now apparently again considering taking a trip to Pyongyang in the waning days of his Administration. In recent days, the United Kingdom has opened diplomatic ties with the once entirely isolated country.

Finally, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is chairing a new panel to examine U.S. space policy and its implications from national security. I do not know when the panel is expected to release its results, or who is on the panel. Below (item #5) is a wire story about former U.S. military commanders who reportedly oppose a U.S.-Russian launch notification regime.

1. “Countdown To Collision,” Washington Post Magazine, 12/10/00

A detailed and interesting story on the NMD testing program, well worth reading.

2. “Russia, Bush And The Arms Race,” W Post, Op-Ed, 12/11/00

Describes a dangerous path before George Bush, the option of pushing ahead with missile defenses at all costs.

3. "US seeks Moscow missile agreement," BBC News, 12/12/00

US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton ws in Moscow for futher meetings on nuclear disarmament.

4. “Minister attacks US missile project,” The Guardian (UK), 12/12/00

U.K. Deputy Foreign Secretary Peter Hain continues to argue forcefully against U.S. NMD plans.

5. “Former U.S. Military Commanders Oppose U.S.-Russian Launch Notification Agreement,” Agence France Presse, 12/12/00

6. “Update 2-Britain, North Korea Open Diplomatic Ties,” Reuters, 12/12/00

+++++

1. “Countdown To Collision,” Washington Post Magazine, 12/10/00

The National Missile Defense system was supposed to be the solution. But the latest test raised more questions than it answered.

By Bradley Graham

The countdown was proceeding toward the most expensive 30 minutes in the military testing business.

In the middle of the Pacific, on a fly speck of an island in the Kwajalein

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] Atoll, a team of contractors and military officers had gathered in a windowless concrete control center to fire off one of the most complex weapons systems ever proposed. Back at an Air Force base a few hours' drive northwest of Los Angeles, another crew had gathered to launch a dummy warhead, complete with decoy, out over the ocean. Nearly 22 minutes later, the Kwajalein team would fire a rocket propelling a "kill vehicle" -- a 120-pound package of sensors, computers and thrusters designed to home in on the warhead and pulverize it with the sheer force of a high-speed collision.

After weeks of rehearsals and readiness reviews, the top testers in the national missile defense program thought they had uncovered and fixed every conceivable thing that could go wrong. And after mixed results in two previous tests, they were more confident that this time they would succeed.

Like the others, this test drew on the efforts of nearly 600 people; it involved the biggest names in the defense industry; and it would cost about $90 million. The Pentagon's chief weapons tester had flown out from Washington to be in the control room. Other senior defense officials, including the head of the agency that was developing the weapon, were watching a video feed at the Pentagon. U.S. authorities had taken extra security measures, beefing up a force on Kwajalein and running air sweeps over the surrounding lagoon.

About two hours before liftoff, a security camera trained on the kill vehicle picked something up: a fiberglass skiff racing across the lagoon. Inside the control room, incredulous officials stopped their preparations to watch on a giant video monitor. The skiff hit the beach; a man and a woman got out; they started walking up a road toward the launching pad. They carried a banner reading, "Stop Star Wars, Greenpeace."

Two program supervisors bolted from the control room and gave chase in a golf cart, overtaking the protesters short of their target.

In the aftermath of that test, conducted July 8, the security lapse represented by the Greenpeace invasion went largely unpublicized and unexplained. But then, there was so much else to explain -- most notably, why the kill vehicle never got close to its target, and what that failure would mean to the development of a national missile defense system.

No one had ever said hitting a missile with a missile would be easy. In fact, ever since the Clinton administration embarked early last year on a revised program to try to build such a weapon by 2005, military and scientific experts had warned that the Pentagon was taking on a mission impossible. The technology wasn't advanced enough, they said; the architecture was ill-conceived; the timetable was much too compressed.

But Republican legislators had championed the project, convinced that more money and greater political commitment would overcome the technical challenges. Then a North Korean missile launch in August 1998 had startled U.S. officials with the suggestion that the threat of attack from hostile Third World states was closer to reality than American intelligence agencies had predicted. Finally, President Clinton put forward a tentative deployment plan and funding for it. The hope had been that by last summer, initial tests would have yielded two or three successes, demonstrating that

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] a new defensive system was within reach.

Instead, the tests intensified debate over the feasibility, cost and diplomatic ramifications of deploying weapons to guard against long-range missile attack.

Similar debates have erupted twice before, in the late 1960s and the 1980s, when the U.S. military's principal anxiety was a massive Soviet attack. Under President Richard Nixon, the government actually decided to deploy a missile defense system, called Safeguard. But the number of proposed interceptor sites got whittled down to just one, in North Dakota, to protect nuclear missile silos; that site operated for only five months before shutting down in early 1976 because of cost and reliability problems. The 1980s debate centered on President Ronald Reagan's proposal for a phalanx of space-based interceptors -- the proposal derisively nicknamed "Star Wars" -- which died of its own weight. The technology wasn't there, and even if it had been, the sheer scale of such a project would have made it prohibitively expensive.

Now, the perceived threat is different. It comes less from Russia than from North Korea, or Iran, or some other potentially hostile Third World country. These nations, once labeled "rogues" by the State Department but now more diplomatically known as "states of concern," may soon have missiles capable of reaching the United States, although they won't have nearly as many as the Soviet Union did. The current view within the U.S. defense establishment is that an attack would therefore consist of relatively few warheads, rather than the waves that had been envisioned coming from the Soviet Union.

At the same time, the sensors and computers used to discriminate warheads from decoys in space have advanced considerably. The idea of using a ground-launched interceptor to shoot an enemy missile out of the sky seems more achievable than it was just a decade or so ago.

These circumstances brought the Clinton administration around, in its final two years in office, to taking the idea of missile defense more seriously and acceding to long-standing Republican pressure. Under the architecture proposed by the administration last year, the first deployment phase would include 100 kill vehicles based near Fairbanks, Alaska, plus a high-resolution X-band radar on the Aleutian island of Shemya to provide precise detection and tracking capabilities, combined with a handful of upgraded early-warning radars spread across the United States, Greenland and Britain. A second phase foresees about 250 interceptors and more radars, plus a new satellite system for warning and tracking.

All these components, while under development separately for much of the 1990s, remain unproven as an integrated system in real-life conditions. And so the Pentagon scheduled 19 intercept tests through 2005. In the first, in October 1999, the kill vehicle scored a hit, discriminating between a warhead and a Mylar balloon decoy. In the second, last January, the kill vehicle's cooling system malfunctioned and it missed its target by about 200 feet. Because of various delays, and renewed skepticism in some quarters, the stakes were growing as July 8 approached.

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] The Pentagon had hoped that the program's future would not rest on a single test. In fact, one of the truisms in the defense-acquisitions business is never to let a program get into such a position. Originally, plans called for four flight tests by last summer. But the testing schedule slipped, while political considerations kept the Clinton administration locked into a self-imposed deadline for making a deployment decision this year. So, with only one hit and one miss going into the summer, Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, head of the Pentagon agency responsible for developing the antimissile weapon, took to referring despairingly to the July test as a "binary event": If it succeeded, President Clinton would be more likely to authorize preparations to build the radar on Shemya, and if it failed, he likely would not, which in effect would postpone deployment at least until 2006.

After it failed, Clinton effectively dropped the 2005 deployment deadline. Expressing doubts about the technical feasibility of the Pentagon's approach, he announced in September that he was deferring a decision on the program's future to his successor. The president concluded that taking a chance on the system was not worth rupturing relations with Russia, China or NATO governments, all of which had warned against a unilateral U.S. move to erect an antimissile shield and alter the strategic nuclear balance of the past half-century.

Clinton's action hardly buried the project -- it merely postponed the day of political reckoning. During the campaign for the presidency, both Vice President Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush expressed interest in pursuing the issue if elected. With Republicans nominally in control of Congress, there may be continuing pressure on the White House to deploy some kind of antimissile system.

But the testing process itself also is likely now to receive a new hard look. The tightly controlled nature of the tests has given rise to allegations in the scientific community of rigging or dumbing down to increase chances of success. Even the Defense Department's chief weapons tester, Philip Coyle, contends that the first three intercept tests have revealed little about the ultimate viability of the planned system. Similar critiques have come from outside review groups, including one requested by the Pentagon and another by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Still, the two generals overseeing the program, Kadish and Army Maj. Gen. Willie Nance, insist that the early tests have been about as difficult as they should be at this stage. The basic purpose, they say, has been simply to demonstrate the principle of using a missile to obliterate another missile, not the complete operational effectiveness of this "hit-to-kill" technology. Achieving intercept even under these limited and controlled circumstances, the generals argue, has been no small feat.

Frustrated by what they regard as unrealistic expectations about the testing effort so far, Kadish and Nance granted me unusual access to July's test in the Pacific, starting a week before the launch. Normally, the island is off-limits to journalists during tests, because it is so small and housing is so limited and the testers want to avoid distractions. They granted me an exception because I'm researching a book on missile defense.

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] From the outside, the run-up to the launch appeared routine, with no glitches. But from inside, the preflight planning looked considerably more frenetic and fretful. Even after all the rehearsals and readiness reviews, after the energetic engagement of all those hundreds of technicians, mission controllers, range safety authorities and other contractors, there still were surprises. And the landing of a pair of banner-carrying protesters was not the last of them.

The Marshall Islands consist of a double chain of 34 atolls that poke out of the Pacific between Hawaii and Guam. One link in that chain is the Kwajalein Atoll, which consists of about 100 small islands and forms the world's largest lagoon -- a crescent loop of coral reef enclosing 1,100 square miles. The largest of those 100 islands, also named Kwajalein, is half a mile wide and three miles long. An island-hopping flight from Honolulu takes more than seven hours.

American forces wrested control of the islands from Japan during World War II, and since then the United States has stationed some of its most advanced radar installations on various Marshall Island outcroppings and taken advantage of the chain's isolation to test nuclear missiles and various antimissile systems. On Kwajalein, an old hulking missile control structure stands as a reminder of earlier missile defense programs, with names like Nike/Zeus, Sentinel/Safeguard, HOE and ERIS.

The Marshall Islands have been self-governing since 1979, but the United States has Kwajalein under lease. The island has, in fact, become a distant American outpost, replete with paved roads, TV sports and a general store dubbed Macy's. Over the years, armies of defense contractors have come and gone, pushing the island's population to more than 5,000 at times. Today, about 2,500 live there, all but a few dozen of them civilians working for the Army or for defense contractors and often housed with their families. For a test, the population can swell by several hundred more.

Early last summer, launch crews began returning to Kwajalein with a rebuilt kill vehicle for the July launch. Nearly half a year had passed since the previous test; the January failure prompted a three-month delay as review boards pored over what went wrong. Investigators determined that some kind of obstruction -- ice or debris -- had choked the flow of the krypton gas that is used, along with nitrogen gas, to cool the infrared sensors that serve as the kill vehicle's eyes. To avoid another plumbing problem, Raytheon Co., which produces the kill vehicle, replaced pipes and valves, modified fittings and revised assembly procedures.

On June 3, a day after the vehicle was filled with krypton and nitrogen gases, measurements revealed another leak.

This time, it was nitrogen. Raytheon officials were incredulous; so were their Pentagon clients. Compounding matters, Raytheon's crew couldn't pinpoint the source of the leak. Without knowing the location or shape of the leak hole, officials could not determine the chances that moisture might be seeping into the system -- moisture that might freeze and obstruct the flow of gas in flight.

Concern about the leak continued to shadow launch preparations when, on

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] July 2, senior test managers gathered for a review in Building 1009, a plain, one-story office structure beside the Kwajalein runway that serves as local headquarters for the national missile defense group. With six days to go, they were reviewing all the problems that had surfaced in preparation for this test.

Leading the team was Nance. Unassuming and soft-spoken, the two-star general had earned his reputation as one of the Army's most skilled acquisitions officers by showing an energetic attention to detail and ability to manage complexity. "He even can remember the serial numbers of parts," said one awestruck aide. A believer in the hands-on approach, Nance tended to spend much more of his time visiting contractors and their production facilities than in his Washington office.

Apart from a handful of colonels, each responsible for a specific part of the system, most of the contingent on Kwajalein under Nance's command was civilian. In 1998, the Pentagon had contracted with Boeing Co. to bring together the system's main components -- radars, kill vehicle, booster and battle management computers. The subcontractors included Raytheon on radars and the kill vehicle, TRW on the battle management network and Lockheed Martin on the booster (for the early tests at least, while other firms are designing a new booster for the final system).

The top civilian manager was John Peller, the Boeing team leader. A tall, lanky aerospace engineer with long experience in the Minuteman missile and space shuttle programs, Peller had worked tirelessly on molding what had been a piecemeal Pentagon research and development effort into a single major acquisitions program. But Kadish and Nance were holding him and Boeing ultimately responsible for some of the delays, notably in the new booster design, which was a year behind schedule, and in the delivery of a computer simulation system for running ground tests.

Several dozen problems had arisen in recent weeks, and each one had been written up in a test incident report. Before the launch could proceed, each TIR needed to be certified as resolved or inconsequential. Only a few appeared to be of any lingering significance to test officials. Most of them involved software glitches that were being addressed. Even the nitrogen leak seemed less menacing than it had in June. Based on various structural analyses, Raytheon officials had assured Nance and Peller that the probability of the leak worsening in flight was minuscule.

"The chance of any of these things happening is one in a million," said Dan Testerman, Boeing's deputy director for test evaluation, as the review droned on to cover the most esoteric of issues. But Nance wanted no irregularity left unexamined. A new problem had emerged that very morning, when a Lockheed Martin crew working on the booster discovered a loose power cable on the nozzle control unit.

The cable would have to be replaced, but the spare was in Hawaii. And the Air National Guard C-141 plane that ferries cargo to Kwajalein several times a week had broken down. That night, Nance asked the pilots of a surveillance plane that was in Kwajalein just for the test to spend the next day fetching the spare.

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] Another day, another review: On July 3, the launch team traveled by large catamaran to Meck Island, over on the eastern rim of the lagoon. Meck is just large enough to host a launch site on a man-made hill at one end, a small dock and short runway at the other, and, in the middle, an aging, five-story, windowless concrete structure that houses a control room and support offices. The building was erected for tests of the Safeguard system in the 1970s, when a computer would occupy an entire room and bear gold-plated circuit boards.

Nance began the review by noting the particular importance of this test, an implicit reference to the decision President Clinton would be making. As the review proceeded, he invited comment from anyone who wished to offer a thought. This open approach was typical of Nance, to the mild annoyance of some associates, because it sometimes resulted in uninformed comments and meandering meetings. But the general did not want to overlook anything that could help the mission.

Between mid-morning and late afternoon, the review covered everything from the condition of the kill vehicle to the weather forecast for launch day. One new problem intruded: A critical communications facility for sending target information to the interceptor while in flight had suffered a power outage during maintenance the night before. The facility, known as IFICS, was making its debut with this test.

A troubleshooting team that morning had concluded that the outage was caused by humid air passing through open panels in the small IFICS facility and blowing across hot computer equipment. Nance ordered that greater care be taken during maintenance; from now on, he instructed, no one would touch anything without a procedure.

Nance had been wrestling with how to get the best handle on all the issues that had come up and their status ahead of launch. Now, he directed staff members to devise charts that would lay out all the critical test events, so they could spot potential glitches in the sequence in which they could emerge. Will the target launch? Will the radars pick it up? Will the interceptor fire? Will the kill vehicle identify the mock warhead and intercept it?

"What we're trying to get to," he explained to his team, "is whether we have any weak links with single-point failures" -- failures that would be caused by any element that lacked a backup or was of overwhelming significance in itself.

On the walk back to the pier for the return catamaran ride to Kwajalein, Peller mused that just scoring a hit was hard enough, but these early tests were even more demanding. There were data to be collected and test-range safety to be maintained. And in real life, the United States would be able to fire a salvo of interceptors against an incoming warhead; in these tests, only one interceptor was being shot. "Testing," Peller lamented, "is actually a lot harder than operating a system."

Senior test team members spent the next day, July 4, compiling the charts that Nance had ordered. The general would use them later in the week in a final video-conference briefing to high-level Pentagon officials. That

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] night, Boeing hosted a beachside party with free-flowing margaritas and a view of fireworks shot from a barge.

With three days to go, it was time for the final full-scale simulation. Tradition called for corporate team photos on the launch hill in front of the interceptor. The photo shoot went smoothly, but sorting out another tradition -- the positioning of corporate decals on the booster -- wasn't so easy. There just wasn't room enough for all dozen or so decals to go on the missile's "front" side, the one that faces the cameras on launch day. Nance regarded the decal-placement decision as one of the most politically sensitive he had to make. He appointed a group to make a recommendation, then issued his verdict: Put Boeing, TRW, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin on the front, and post the others on the back.

Despite the glitches that had popped up, Nance and Peller were giving this intercept test better odds than they had the first two. Peller put the chances of success at greater than 50-50. Nance pegged them at about 80 percent. But the simulation that day turned out to be more eventful than expected.

About 15 minutes before target launch, a fire alarm went off in the building housing the control room on Meck Island. A 240-amp circuit breaker had burned out, apparently from old age, causing an air compressor to shut down. This in turn allowed humid air to waft into the ductwork and trip the alarm. "A 25-cent circuit breaker is threatening to foil a $100 million flight test," said Jim Ussery, a Pentagon test analyst.

With less than five minutes to go, a new problem arose. Range safety officials declared a "red" condition, halting the countdown, because a UHF transmitter used to send a destruct signal in the event of a misfire had gone down due to a faulty amplifier. Finally, the simulation was run.

With team members in the seats they would occupy on launch day, computers generated mock launches of the target and the interceptor. Mission directors recited in-flight progress reports as if the events were real. A video screen at the front of the control room showed the trajectories of the simulated vehicles converging and, ultimately, colliding.

In a video conference call with the Pentagon on July 6, Nance and Peller briefed Kadish and the Defense Department's head of defense research and engineering, Hans Mark. Nance and Peller knew it was Mark who needed the most convincing. Mark was especially proud of his own record -- more than 30 spacecraft launches over 40 years, including 14 NASA space shuttle flights, and no failures.

An inveterate memo writer, Mark had kept some of his Defense Department colleagues abreast of his concerns about the national missile defense program. Just before the January flight test, he had issued a memo critical of Nance and Peller for appearing overly confident -- "too slick." As the July launch approached, Mark had worried particularly about the nitrogen leak.

During the briefing, Raytheon provided assurances that the leak was under control and likely would pose no threat to the flight. Peller showed the charts listing the critical functions, from launch to intercept, that had

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] to go right for the test to succeed. About 30 potential problems were cited, along with what had been done to address them. Most were given a "low probability" of occurring in flight.

Mark asked what "low probability" meant. About one chance in 100, Peller replied.

Using a standard probability equation, Mark quickly calculated an overall probability of success of about 70 percent. "If you were selling lottery tickets, I'd buy one," he cracked.

But buying a lottery ticket and recommending an important launch were two different things for Mark. He still had reservations about proceeding with the test, although Nance and Peller came away from the briefing with the impression that Mark had no objection to launching on July 8. Mark knew that the probability calculation he had done was very sensitive to the guesses that were made about the probability of each event occurring, and people had widely different estimates in some cases. He could not put his finger on any single item that would warrant scrubbing the July 8 launch date.

Weeks later, he would say he had continued to worry about the many little anomalies that had cropped up. "You can do all the calculations you want, but you have to depend on your gut," Mark explained. "It can't all be calculation. It has to be to some extent a feeling about whether something might go wrong. I canceled shuttle flights for no good reason other than I didn't feel right that day about a flight." He knew it was all too common in the testing business for judgments to be clouded by an eagerness to get on with any given test. Testers had a term for it: "They had launch fever," Mark said. "I've seen that. And you know what should happen when you have launch fever? You stop, you don't launch. Never mind the calculations."

But that retrospective assessment struck Nance and other senior program officials as gratuitous. In post-flight interviews, they disputed the notion of having been in the grip of any fever. They felt they had been as thorough, deliberate and extensive in their pre-flight checks as they knew how to be.

Even Mark was blindsided by the outcome. During the July 6 review, Mark along with everyone else had glossed over one chart that officials would later wish they had questioned. "Will the kill vehicle separate from the payload launch vehicle?" it read across the top. Only two words appeared on the page below: "No issues."

The Safeguard missile program conducted 165 flight tests, the Polaris program 125 tests, and the Minuteman program 101 tests. The national missile defense program has scheduled only 19 intercept trials so far. Of course, rocket science has progressed in the past three or four decades, allowing contractors to accomplish much more in a single test. And ground tests and computer simulations have come to play a bigger role in verifying a new system's readiness. Little wonder, too, given the sky-high price of a flight test.

Hit or miss, each test of the national missile defense system now burns about $90 million, according to the latest figures from the Ballistic

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] Missile Defense Organization. The kill vehicle itself costs $24.1 million. The booster -- a refurbished Minuteman rocket -- runs $11.4 million. What BMDO refers to as "checkout, execution and post-test analysis" of the mated booster and kill vehicle totals $17 million. The target missile, which includes a mock warhead and decoy packed in a dispersing container, or "bus," comes to $19.1 million. There also are rental charges for use of Kwajalein and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California ($3.2 million) and payments for "radar and battle management support" ($9.6 million). Finally, $4.7 million goes for "system-level planning, analysis and reporting," which covers preflight mission scenarios and post-flight studies.

Given the price, what goes into a test counts for even more than it used to.

Which is where Phil Coyle comes in. Studious and methodical, Coyle has served as the Pentagon's director of operational testing and evaluation for six years, assessing the adequacy of test programs. No stranger to missile defense since his days as test director at the Nevada Test Site in the early 1970s and an associate director at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in the 1980s, he has emerged as an influential counterpoint to those in the Pentagon pushing for an early-deployment decision. In recent months he has pointedly argued that there is insufficient information to make any judgment about the system's operational readiness, and he contends the testing program itself is flawed.

Coyle was the only senior Pentagon civilian to make the two-day journey from Washington to Kwajalein for the July test. Two weeks earlier, he had sent a memo to Jacques Gansler, the Pentagon's top acquisitions official, saying the test, while the "most significant" so far, contained "significant limitations to operational realism."

Coyle was particularly critical of the use of a large Mylar balloon as the decoy. He described it as "not especially stressing" to the kill vehicle and "not a true decoy" since it could, in fact, help rather than confuse the interceptor by alerting it to the presence of the real target nearby. This happened during the October test, when the kill vehicle got off course and fixed on the balloon at first, without seeing the dummy warhead. Coyle said continued use of the balloon "only invites further criticism from the academic community." Because the kill vehicle had already demonstrated that it could tell a warhead from a balloon in the first test, he observed, it was time for "progressively more challenging countermeasures."

He noted that all major components of the system were still represented in the test by surrogates or prototypes, and the final versions would in some cases differ significantly from these stand-ins. The ultimate booster, for instance, would travel several times faster -- and shake more violently -- than the refurbished Minuteman missile being used to power the kill vehicle into space in these early intercept tests. Moreover, Coyle pointed out that the test was using the same flight geometry each time -- the familiar Vandenberg-Kwajalein scenario. He wanted launches from more operationally representative locations -- out of Alaska, for instance -- and intercepts at higher altitudes and involving multiple interceptors.

Coyle knew, of course, that early developmental tests were often limited and somewhat artificial. This test program had never been structured to

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] produce operationally realistic test results this early. But that was Coyle's basic point: Even if they succeeded, these tests could not realistically support a deployment decision now.

Coyle had written the memo out of concern that some Pentagon and White House officials didn't fully understand the significance of the tests. He considered it quite unfortunate that the Pentagon had scheduled what it was calling a "deployment readiness review" last summer. It was too early, he thought, to make any assessment of deployment readiness, let alone for the president to make any deployment decision.

At the same time, Coyle thought the tests already had demonstrated considerable progress. They had shown that many of the system's core elements, which weren't even available a decade ago -- such as the kill vehicle's infrared sensors or the battle management computers that process data from the sensors and produce a target map for the interceptor -- were working. What remained in question for Coyle was whether these elements could work reliably in an integrated system.

Also troubling Coyle -- and scientific critics outside the Pentagon -- was whether the proposed system could ever adequately discriminate between warheads and decoys. Pentagon officials had insisted that their discrimination technologies -- in the kill vehicle and the ground-based X-band radar -- would be capable of picking out the right targets by measuring subtle differences in heat, motion and other physical characteristics among objects in space. But the technical wizardry supporting this assertion is classified, and officials had declined to get very specific in public.

Coyle had come to Kwajalein to get better, more precise answers to some questions. "You just get a different story from the guys here than you do in Washington about the way the system is supposed to work," he explained, standing in the control room on launch day. "I don't mean anyone has been trying to mislead us. It's just that they don't have the same detailed information at their fingertips."

Nance welcomed Coyle's presence. The general was troubled by the persistent doubts that Coyle and outside critics had continued to raise about the value of the tests, and looked forward to the opportunity to dispel them. Part of the problem, he felt, was that people were expecting too much too soon. "The first problem is, we're being graded against what the expectation would be for an end-of-the-development cycle, full-operational test," Nance said in an interview later. "This system will go through that, but not until 2004 and 2005. We're not there yet. We're still in the front part of the test program. Our objective is to learn as much as possible about the elements of the system, then move to the next phase and add a little more rigor."

He couldn't disagree with Coyle's argument that the initial tests were not operationally representative. They weren't supposed to be. But he took deep offense at suggestions by others that the tests had been simplified to ensure success. "My disappointment is that we don't put the test in its right context," Nance said. "The message that you get in the media is that this is a rigged test. It's not. We may know where the target is going to

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] launch from and what is in the target array, but it's pretty damn hard to rig a test to ensure we're going to intercept when the test range is nearly 5,000 miles long and the speed is greater than 15,000 mph and we're trying to hit something as small as this target."

On July 8, people started moving into position very early. The launch wasn't scheduled until 2 p.m. local time, but the first ferry to Meck left at 4:30 a.m. The next -- and last -- left two hours later.

Pre-launch rituals abounded: After arriving on Meck, Nance held to his custom of walking up to the launch site and looking around. The mission control director took his customary launch-day bike ride along a lagoon-side path to the ferry. A Boeing flight test manager rubbed the heads of some guys who worked on the battle management system. A Lockheed Martin marketing specialist kissed the kill vehicle. A Raytheon manager swallowed a few Tums. An adviser to Nance skipped breakfast altogether. Jerry Cornell, Boeing's Kwajalein site manager, brought a palm-size stone engraved with an Indian thunderbird image and a knife that had belonged to J.B. Coleman, a sergeant in the 2nd Texas Cavalry during the Civil War. "He went through several battles -- Antietam, Gettysburg -- and died of old age in 1910," said Cornell, who has had the knife for 22 years. "He kind of represents the soldier, the user."

Then there were the team shirts. The kill vehicle crowd wore white with blue trim; the battle management team showed up in green with white stripes; the X-band radar group favored black; the Lockheed Martin booster contingent had bright blue shirts with an island motif of billowy clouds and palm trees. As for the Boeing group, it went loudly against convention -- and superstition -- by donning bold red shirts. "Historically, red has been a no-no on the range," said Jim Hill, the Meck site manager. "Red means stop, abort. On Kwajalein, it used to be that if anyone wore a red shirt on mission day, he'd not be allowed in the building and would have to go home to change it. Maybe Boeing is trying to do a reverse on us." The Boeing test official responsible for shirt acquisition said red was the only color sufficiently stocked at the Boeing Co. store in Huntsville, Ala.

By mid-morning, about four hours before launch, everyone was settling in for the wait when Vandenberg reported a voltage drop in a battery on the target missile. The battery powered a transponder used to track the container that carries the warhead and decoy. Vandenberg officials quickly determined that the battery still had enough voltage to do the mission, but they decided, without consulting Nance, and to his later annoyance, to recharge it anyway. The action delayed the flight two hours.

The countdown resumed just past noon. Shortly before 2 p.m., the security camera picked up the Greenpeace protesters' skiff. Despite warnings that Greenpeace would try to disrupt the launch, and reports of protest activity in California, no one had anticipated an assault on Meck. Upon getting word of approaching intruders, the handful of blue-suited civilian guards on Meck fanned out to check the shoreline instead of rushing up the hill to protect the missile. The launch site was unfenced.

So there the activists were, closing in on the interceptor, their path unblocked.

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] Army Col. Earl Sutton, Nance's test director, dashed out of the control room. Michael Bright, wearing a lei with his palm-trees-and-billowy-clouds shirt -- he was Lockheed's manager for the booster -- ran after him. They were the ones who commandeered the golf cart and caught up with the protesters about 100 feet shy of the launching pad.

"You need to stop right there," Bright recalled saying afterward. They stopped. Sutton was uncertain of his powers of arrest. His basic aim was to avoid a struggle. The protesters -- James Roof of Missoula, Mont., and Meike Huelsman of Hamburg, Germany -- refused to move at first, saying they wanted to exercise their right to protest. But eventually they were escorted peaceably down the hill, where they were held until after the launch and turned over to Marshallese authorities. They spent nearly three days in jail, then were released and fined $100 each for trespassing.

At the Pentagon, Kadish intently watched the Greenpeace intrusion on a video feed. In the Meck control room, it did not go unnoted that if it had not been for the delay caused by Vandenberg's battery problem, the protesters would have thwarted the launch. They had appeared on Meck at precisely the original start time of the test. "This," Bright announced to the control room, "is probably the only time when a battery problem saved the mission."

At 2:18 p.m., the countdown resumed with two hours remaining. Nance opened a fortune cookie that the battle management computer team had given him earlier in the day. The fortune read, "Time is a wise counsel."

At 4:18, the target missile lifted off from Vandenberg. The second and third stages ignited, then burned out on schedule. Four minutes into the flight, Vandenberg reported "trajectory nominal," meaning on course. The dummy warhead was confirmed deployed about two minutes after that.

Nance peered at the large video screen at the front of the control room, which traced the target's trajectory over the Pacific. A mission control checklist was on the table in front of him, showing the minute-by-minute callouts for a normal test run.

About eight minutes into the flight, right on schedule, a radar in Hawaii reported picking up the target. But a confirmation that the balloon decoy had deployed did not come.

About 14 minutes in, the unit that monitors the target data being relayed to the interceptor advised, "You will not see large decoy in the target object map." In other words, the balloon wouldn't be in play in this test. It had failed to inflate.

About 18 minutes in, word came that Altair, one of the giant range radars, had reported "a non-nominal complex, a few extra pieces." Evidently, some debris had broken loose from the container that carried the dummy warhead and decoy into space; so even without the balloon, the kill vehicle would be encountering more than just the dummy warhead.

About 20 minutes in, attention switched to conditions on the launch pad at

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] Meck. Safety radars were reported "green," meaning ready to track the interceptor. Then came a general alert: "All stations, stand by for terminal count. For go for launch. We are armed."

The 15-second mark was called out, then the final 10-9-8-7 . . .

The Meck control room began to rumble slightly, and a muffled roar penetrated the concrete walls. A few hundred yards away, the interceptor's booster was firing, shooting off into partly cloudy skies. Bright's hopes soared with the rocket. Nance jabbed his fist into the air, and applause burst out around him.

"Sensor cooldown commanded," intoned the voice of mission control, indicating coolant gases had begun to flow around the infrared sensors, preparing them for their space hunt.

Bright stood in his customary spot in a back corner of the control room. From there he could observe the rush of data streaming into computer consoles. He also could overhear the chatter of technicians monitoring the interceptor's performance.

After about two minutes, the talk suddenly turned worrisome. Transmissions from the missile had become "noisy" with static interference.

"Where's the cover eject?" someone called out anxiously. "We didn't get cover eject." The cover -- a giant aluminum clamshell-like device -- protects the infrared sensors on the kill vehicle until reaching space. Nor did a signal arrive confirming that the booster's second stage had stopped burning. This signal was necessary before the kill vehicle could separate from the booster and home in on the target.

"We're not going to separate," someone blurted.

Three-and-a-half minutes into the flight, the mission control network crackled with word again from Altair, confirming the technician's gloomy forecast. "Altair reports no separation of KV from PLV" -- the kill vehicle was still attached to the payload launch vehicle. Instead of maneuvering toward its target, it would likely tumble back toward Earth.

The control room fell silent. An overwhelming sense of failure struck Bright, a huge deflation, like the air rushing out of a balloon. Second-guesses were streaming into his mind. What had gone wrong? Where did we make mistakes? What more could we have done? He just shook his head and walked away.

Nance folded his arms across his chest and stared at the screen, which still showed the target and the kill vehicle arcing toward each other. Perhaps Altair's report was a miscall, Nance thought at first. What if Altair had been fooled, its view obscured because the kill vehicle had separated and somehow gotten behind the booster? Or perhaps the electronic signal that the kill vehicle must receive from the booster before cutting itself loose had been delayed and would still come through? Or maybe the connector between the kill vehicle and booster had been jammed and the kill vehicle would muscle free on its own when its thrusters fired?

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] For the next five minutes, as a wall-mounted digital clock clicked down to the scheduled moment of intercept, many in the control room simply sat silently, their eyes on the tracking picture. But it was clear that the flight had flopped. No one heard the reports normally broadcast on the mission control network when the kill vehicle closes in on a target. A telemetry indicator on the video screen that signals "valid" when the kill vehicle separates never switched on.

Finally, Nance swiveled around in his chair to address the room. "You've got to take this in context," the general said. "This is the most complex mission that the Defense Department has had since the Manhattan Project or some early strategic system programs, and it is not going to come without flight-test failures. Our job is to evaluate the results of this, learn from what happened today and apply it to the next tests. You've got to remember that our mission hasn't changed. Our mission is to design and develop -- and test -- a capability to defend the nation against ballistic missile attack. And it doesn't change tomorrow just because of this test."

Staff members, as if welcoming any activity to stave off depression, quickly turned to reviewing the telemetry still pouring in from flight monitors.

In the weeks that followed, the most likely culprit was judged to be a defective part in the booster's avionics processor, a 10-year-old device with an excellent track record. Some missiles have backup processors; this one didn't. Some senior defense officials wondered whether more attention should have been paid to checking the booster.

Advocates of the system took heart that the malfunction occurred during the routine procedure of launching a payload, not in the much more innovative technology required to knock down a warhead. Moreover, several important elements of the missile defense system had functioned as planned, including the IFICS link and a prototype of the X-band radar designed to help the interceptor find the target.

A week after the president's decision to delay construction of the Shemya radar, Kadish appeared before the national security subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Reform. "In general, there are basically two ways to look at the program to date, and they could be termed the glass-half-full and the glass-half-empty views," he said. "My assessment at the moment is that it is half full. I say this because we have made remarkable and substantial technical progress despite two high-profile test failures."

But given all the controversy generated by the effort so far, the new administration is expected to spend some time now reconsidering just what missile defense design, if any, the United States ought to be pursuing. Should the interceptors be based on land, as the Clinton administration proposed, or fired from ships at sea, as some Republicans have urged? Instead of hitting enemy missiles in their "midcourse phase," as currently planned, is it feasible to go after them earlier, while they still are ascending in their "boost phase"? And anyway, with both North Korea and Iran showing signs of moderation, what's the rush to build a shield?

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] Even if the decision ends up being to stick with the current approach, missile defense officials recognize the need for some changes. Reflecting concerns about lagging development, the Pentagon prompted Boeing to shake up its management team. Peller was removed as program manager after the July test, and so were several of his deputies. Kadish and Nance, meanwhile, have begun considering ways of overhauling the testing program to add the kinds of targets, decoys and flight geometries that some critics have advocated. Among the proposed changes is a testing approach that would "fly through failure" -- meaning no delay in test flights should flops occur. But such a plan would cost more money.

Missile defense officials worry as well about keeping up morale while the future remains in question. And with some reason.

Boarding the first commercial flight out of Kwajalein after the July test, many launch team members looked weary and sounded glum. They reached Honolulu at 3 a.m., only to find a shortage of taxis at the airport. One Raytheon employee cracked, "I can't help but think that if the test had succeeded, there'd be limos here waiting for us."

+++++

2. “Russia, Bush And The Arms Race,” W Post, Op-Ed, 12/11/00

By Jim Hoagland

National security and foreign policy have dominated George W. Bush's tentative preparations to move into the White House. The global view of Bush II is taking shape in Austin even as legal challenges echo across Florida.

This is partly a matter of necessity. By showcasing Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as his almost-certain choices for secretary of state and national security adviser now, Bush informs the rest of the world that there will be no delay, no early vacuum of power, in his administration.

This course is only prudent, as another Bush might say. But it is also personal. The Texas governor intends to make his mark in foreign affairs as well as education, even though he talked much more about the latter during the presidential campaign.

If he does prevail in Florida and is sworn in on Jan. 20, Bush will bring with him to the White House the beginnings of a strategic dialogue with Russia that will center on missile defense and deep cuts in each nation's nuclear arsenals.

The dialogue started tentatively in April when Rice arranged for Bush to meet Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov in Washington. The two men said little about their talk afterward to avoid entangling it in the U.S. campaign. But its key points have become known as Moscow shapes its approach to Bush II. The conversation began convivially with Bush speaking a few sentences in Spanish to the Russian diplomat, who was long posted in Madrid.

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] Bush quickly moved on to deliver a blunt assessment to Ivanov: The United States would soon build a national missile defense to protect its territory from rogue states or accidental launches. This was a political fact of life that Russia and other nations had to absorb.

The system might be built faster and more robustly if he became president, Bush hinted. But it would happen in any event. Congress would mandate it. The sense left by Bush's careful words was that this could mean U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which Moscow, Beijing and other capitals describe as the foundation of international arms control.

This assessment deepened Russian concern about Bush's public campaign declarations suggesting that the era of formal arms control agreements to reduce nuclear arsenals may be over.

The Republican nominee emphasized instead the possibility of unilateral reductions by each nation. This would leave the United States free to develop a defensive shield and adapt offensive forces to it. It might also lessen international pressure on the United States to match nuclear reductions Russia must make for budgetary reasons.

Neither outcome is desirable for Russia. On Nov. 13, President Vladimir Putin issued a public declaration emphasizing the importance of the ABM treaty and Russia's willingness to proceed quickly with the next administration on new arms control talks to limit each nation to fewer than 1,500 warheads.

Ivanov then dispatched his top U.S. expert, Georgy Mamedov, to Washington for a final round of talks with Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott on strategic stability.

But Mamedov's main message was intended for the next administration, be it Gore or Bush. The message, according to a senior Russian official, was an appeal "to keep talking. Don't create an artificial pause. Don't abandon channels that have worked. Explore seriously the proposals we are making, as seriously as we explored the proposals for national missile defense" that the Clintonites put forward.

Moscow and Washington could not agree on modifications to the ABM treaty that would have permitted deployment of a limited missile defense, and Clinton left that decision for his successor. Russia clearly fears that Bush will move quickly toward a unilateralist nuclear strategy.

"We are prepared to work together or in parallel," the official said. The formulation was intended to open the door for talks with the Bush team on nuclear reductions that could be coordinated (rather than formally negotiated) and jointly verified. "The important first step is to engage."

Arms control remains an important component of Russian-U.S. relations, he added: "It is still a central issue. If you believe the other side is up to destroying or blackmailing you, you cannot work together. Arms control is about good governance, and about saving money."

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] As Americans emerge from their absorption with Florida circuit courts and county canvassing boards, they will find the world waiting to get back to business. Russia's hope is that it will be business as usual on arms control. But even Moscow recognizes that a new day is dawning on the old theories of the nuclear balance of terror.

+++++

4. "US seeks Moscow missile agreement," BBC News, 12/11/00

By BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus

The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton, meets his Russian counterpart, General Anatoli Kvashnin, in Moscow on Tuesday.

High on the agenda will be the strategic relationship between their two countries, an important issue for the next US president, whoever it is.

General Shelton will be trying to clarify the rather contradictory signals coming from Moscow on Washington's plans to develop anti-missile defences.

He will also be renewing efforts to improve ties between the two armed forces.

Such efforts have languished amid resentment in the aftermath of the Kosovo war and continuing suspicions in the Russian military about opening up to their Cold War enemy.

Testing the waters

George W. Bush has strongly signalled his desire to press ahead with a missile defence system as quickly as possible.

This approach would inevitably require the US to break the anti-ballistic missile - or ABM - treaty limiting such systems.

Even Al Gore is committed to continuing research for such a programme.

General Shelton's trip will provide an opportunity to test the waters in Moscow, though it is not entirely clear to Washington who is articulating Russia's current policy.

The military approach tends to be firm adherence to the ABM treaty's guidelines with no room for compromise.

This was the view expounded by the Russian Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev to his Nato hosts in Brussels last week.

The waiting game

But through a variety of back-channels the Russians have been told by the Americans that missile defence will go ahead.

And both President Vladimir Putin and the head of Russia's strategic rocket

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] forces General Vladimir Yakovlev have seemingly signalled some flexibility on the issue, especially if an accompanying deal can be struck to achieve dramatic reductions in nuclear warhead numbers.

It is safe to say, the Russians are likely to wait until a new US administration is in place before laying their cards on the table.

+++++

5. “Minister attacks US missile project,” The Guardian (UK), 12/12/00

Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton-Taylor Tuesday December 12, 2000

A huge debate is under way within the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence over American plans for a national missile defence system. Foreign Office minister Peter Hain has submitted a strongly worded memo to the foreign secretary, Robin Cook, expressing outright opposition to the NMD programme.

"He has gone back to his CND days," said one of Mr Hain's supporter inside government, pleased to see him go back to his roots. The minister, unlike many other Labour colleagues, has retained his membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Mr Cook, who is more cautious and will be reluctant to end up at odds with Downing Street, has yet to reply.

At the MoD, the government's top military advisers have also privately expressed serious concern about the American plan.

The US president, Bill Clinton, is leaving to his successor the decision on whether to go ahead with the controversial £20bn missile programme intended to protect America from countries it regards as maverick, such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya.

During his election campaign, George W Bush pledged to deploy the missile system as soon as possible. While also in favour of the NMD system, his Democrat rival, Al Gore, was keen to wait until the technology had proved itself.

Mr Hain, in an echo of his younger days as a left-wing campaigner, argued in the minute that British participation in the missile programme risked a rerun of the Greenham Common demonstrations against Cruise missiles throughout the 1980s.

As part of the programme, the US wants to upgrade the early-warning system at Fylingdales on the Yorkshire moors. In the second stage of the project, it wants to build a 14-storey radar station, a project that could provide the focus for demonstrations.

Mr Hain is reflecting a feeling within the Foreign Office that the scale of the building has not yet been realised and that, as well as attracting peace campaigners, the site will become a hot issue at local level, with those living in the area likely to lodge objections.

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] Mr Hain is also concerned about the technological effectiveness of the missile umbrella: NMD tests so far have ended in failure.

On the bigger stage, the Foreign Office is more sceptical than Washington about dangers posed by the countries once labelled by the US as "rogue" states but now described as "states of concern". Unlike the US, Britain does not want to treat them as pariah states. It has re-established diplomatic relations with Iran and Libya and is looking at re-opening an embassy in North Korea.

Furthermore, the £20bn system would, in practice, be put in place for protection against one state, Iraq, and therefore the scale of the project is regarded as over the top.

If the US pushes ahead, it risks damaging relations with Russia and China, which are both opposed to NMD. France and Germany also object to the system.

A Foreign Office spokesman yesterday stuck to the official line: that it was too premature for Britain to take a stance.

He said: "We do not expect the US to site elements of NMD in the UK before next year and even that will depend on decisions taken by the next US administration."

He added that Britain welcomed the US commitment to consult widely before reaching a conclusion.

But scepticism about the system was expressed by a senior military source who said: "It will be very expensive and the question remains about whether it will work."

MoD officials admit that the issue is extraordinarily sensitive, at home and abroad.

"We've always shared risks," said a senior British military adviser, echoing concerns expressed by other European allies about the security implications of the US project for transatlantic relations. "The US has not thought it through," the source added. Russia is also maintaining a strong line against NMD. The American programme would mean amending or abandoning the 1972 anti-ballistic missiles treaty, which Moscow insists is a cornerstone of international nuclear stability.

Igor Sergeyev, the Russian defence minister, raised the issue in talks with Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, in London last week.

+++++

7. “Former U.S. Military Commanders Oppose U.S.-Russian Launch Notification Agreement,” Agence France Presse, 12/12/00

WASHINGTON, Dec 12, 2000 -- (Agence France Presse) A group of retired U.S. military commanders protested Monday a proposed U.S.-Russian agreement on prior notification of ballistic missile launches, saying it would likely

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] impede development of U.S. "space power."

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Russian Foreign Minister were expected to sign the pre-launch notification memorandum of understanding later this week in Brussels, the group said.

There was no immediate comment from the State Department.

The proposed launch notification regime is part of a broader initiative to reduce the risk that a misunderstood launch could lead to an accidental nuclear exchange. The two countries also have been discussing setting up a joint missile launch early warning center in Moscow.

But in an open letter to President Bill Clinton, 19 former military commanders said prior notification of missile and space launches would run counter to ensuring unimpeded U.S. access to space.

"Operational security and counter-intelligence considerations, as well as 21st century military doctrines calling for routine and expeditious space launch capabilities, strongly argue against our assuming such obligations," they said.

Urging the administration to give force to a "space power policy," the former officers said the United States needed "the legal latitude to do so."

"Insofar as the new MOU (memorandum of understanding) would deny the United States such latitude, it is incompatible with our long-term national security and economic interests and should be treated accordingly," the letter said.

It also urged development of cheaper launch capabilities, arguing that U.S. ability to exploit space has been constrained by "our reliance upon enormously expensive, time-consuming and labor intensive launch systems and facilities." ((c) 2000 Agence France Presse)

+++++

8. “Britain, North Korea Open Diplomatic Ties,” Reuters, 12/12/00

LONDON, Dec 12 (Reuters) - Britain opened diplomatic relations with North Korea on Tuesday for the first time since the hardline communist state was created more than 50 years ago.

The Foreign Office said engagement not estrangement was the best policy towards the Stalinist country of 22 million people, until recently branded the pariah of the West for its isolationism and aggressive nuclear proliferation policies.

"This allows us to engage with North Korea on issues of human rights and those related to non-proliferation," a Foreign Office spokesman said after a memorandum of understanding between the two governments was signed in London.

Britain follows Italy, Australia and Canada in establishing official links

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] with Pyongyang, and its decision came after consulting Europe, the United States, Japan and South Korea.

Washington is edging towards engagement after Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's trip to Pyongyang in October, but it has yet to abandon an ambitious programme to protect itself and allies from "rogue" nuclear missiles including from North Korea.

British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook made particular reference to the United States in his statement:

"I have welcomed the continuation of dialogue between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in particular the DPRK's confirmation of its moratorium on missile launches."

North Korea sent shudders through the region when it test-fired a Taepodong missile in August 1998. The third stage of the missile fell in the sea beyond Japan.

NORTH KOREAN LEADER NEEDS CASH, BUT CAUTIOUS

North Korea's "great leader" Kim Jong-il brought his impoverished country out of its Cold War shell this summer with a landmark summit with South Korean President Kim Dae-jung.

Seoul welcomed Britain's move, which reinforces its policy towards the unpredictable northern neighbour -- to draw it out of isolation while preventing a collapse of the military regime.

"South Korea hopes that it (Tuesday's signing) will contribute towards the relaxation of tension and improve the conditions for peace and security on the Korean peninsular," said Choi Sung-hong, South Korea's ambassador in London.

Political analysts said the establishment of diplomatic ties was a good thing for stability on the peninsula, strategically placed between Russia, Japan and China.

But they warned that the situation remained volatile.

The United States, which has 37,000 troops posted in South Korea, is technically still at war with the North following the 1950-53 Korean War. The border between the two Koreas is the most heavily guarded in the world.

And while Kim Jong-il may be keen to forge ties with rich countries to open up aid for his cash-starved and economically backward country, he remains cautious.

"This is still a very suspicious and independent-minded country which is wary and prickly of the outside world," said one London-based expert.

Britain said its decision to open ties with Pyongyang were political rather than economic, with little prospect of major trade flows opening between the two states in the near future.

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] +++++

Stephen Young, Deputy Director Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers (202) 546-0795, x102

01214.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] X-Lotus-FromDomain: GBOD From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:33:08 -0600 Subject: music

Howard, I'm not ignoring you . . .but working on some music info. I'm asking around . . .

Good question! Glad you asked!

Angela Gay Kinkead

01214.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Interfaith activities on nuclear disarmament Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: A:\abolish.312.doc; A:\abolish.313.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Rev. McKiernan-Allen:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Carol Cosby of the Disciples Peace Fellowship. As she may have mentioned to you, the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, which I chair, is focusing on two issues likely to come up with the new presidential administration and the new Congress: (a) taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert and (b) bringing about significant reduction in strategic nuclear weapons, the ones that strike from afar. During the election campaign President-elect George W. Bush indicated that he wanted to deal with these issues. We want to build bipartisan support for positive action.

Therefore, we are encouraging the formation of state-level, interfaith delegations to talk with key U.S. senators and their staffs about de-alerting and strategic arms reduction. Senator Lugar is at the top of the list because of his knowledge and leadership on matters of nuclear weapons. Denominational offices and religious peace fellowships are now identifying key contacts in Indiana so that they might join others in communicating with Senator Lugar and his staff.

We're looking for some one who could help pull an interfaith delegation together and seek an appointment with Senator Lugar, or if he isn't available, with his staff in Indiana. Would you be able to assist us in this task? We would be able to supply names from other denominations. (You may know some of them already). Attached are two items of background material, and we are developing a list of questions that might be posed to the senator. In mid-January we will have telephone conference call in which a couple of national experts will discuss de-alerting and strategic arms reduction with the principal contacts in nine states.

These activities will take place in January when we are beyond the holiday season. Please let me know whether you can help us as requested. Call me at 301 896-0013 or reply by e-mail at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Shalom, Howard Hallman

01214.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:11:27 -0500 From: Kathy Crandall Organization: Alliance for Nuclear Accountability X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: Tim Barner CC: Daryl Kimball , Stephen Young , Kathy Guthrie , Lisa IEER , Kimberly Robson , Joan Wade , Ann Gallivan , Jenny Smith , Tom Collina , Esther Pank , Sara Bradbury , Gillian Gilhool , Kimberly Roberts , Alistair Millar , Paul Sullivan , WILPF , Ira Shorr , Martin Butcher , Jim Bridgman , Stephanie Broughton , John Spykerman , Peace Links office , David Adelman , Howard Hallman , Chuck Ferguson , Dan Koslofsky , Lynn Erskine , Anna Smiles , Charlotte Baker , Jim Wyerman Subject: Re: Sign-On for January Action Card on De-Alerting NWs

Tim - Thank you for this opportunity. We're still considering whether ANA wants to endorse this card. I think that many member ANA organizations will find the card useful. I wonder if you would consider a small language change. I am concerned that we not convey that de-alerting measures would eliminate the risks - even accidental risks- of nuclear weapons. Therefore, my suggestion is: CHANGE: "It is time to stand down nuclear weapons, meaning that more procedures would be put in place to eliminate the threat of an accidental nuclear disaster once and for all"

TO "It is time to stand down nuclear weapons. De-alerting measures would put more procedures in place to greatly reduce the threat of an accidental nuclear disaster."

Tim Barner wrote: > > December 13, 2000 > > Dear Colleague: > > We invite your organization to join in a January joint grassroots > action postcard asking for letters to President Bush requesting that > he take US nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert as a priority for

01215.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] > his first 100 days in office. If you are not familiar with the 20/20 > Vision post card format, I can fax one to you. > > The purpose of the card is to create a flood of letters to the > President between inauguration and the State of the Union Address and > supplement/complement the telephone calls generated on the Feb 5-6 > national call-in days. > > [Some of you already received an e-mail about this last week from > Esther Pank of the BACK From the BRINK Campaign.] > > The card also carries a request to participate in the Feb 5-6 national > call-in day to the White House on de-alerting. > > We invite your organization to participate in two ways: > > 1) Add your name to the list of organizations that will appear in a > box on the card under the heading Endorsed By: > > 2) Tell us how many post cards (8.5 X 5.5 inches) you can distribute > to your own members. > > Cards will cost 15 cents apiece. The BACK From the BRINK Campaign is > enabling organizations with a limited budget to obtain up to 500 cards > at no cost. Tell us if you feel you are in this category. > > The cards will be available for your mailing any time after January 2 > -- hopefully by January 15 -- and take a 33 cent stamp. > > If you have not already talked to either Esther Pank at the Brink > Campaign or to me, please e-mail back or call (202-833-2020 X 13) with > a response by Monday Noon (12/18) to have your organization's name > appear on the card version appearing in the 20/20 Vision January > newsletter. If you do not receive this e-mail in time, please call > during that week to see if we can add still add your name. > > The card text is below. > > Sincerely, > > Tim Barner > > ******************** > > (400wds- Revised 12/13/00) > > We Still Live with the Threat of Nuclear War: > > Ask the President to Take Nukes off Hyper-Alert! > > While public safety advocates call for trigger locks on handguns to > avoid accidental firing, nuclear weapons, the world¹s "big guns," > remain on hair-trigger alert. >

01215.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] > Wake up, America! Even though the Cold War is over and school kids no > longer practice "duck and cover" drills, the U.S. and Russia maintain > thousands of nuclear weapons ready to fire in only THREE minutes. > Each side has about 2,500 warheads on hair-trigger alert‹a combined > firepower that¹s equivalent to 100,000 Hiroshima bombs. > > The world is in more danger than ever of an accidental launch, in part > because Russia¹s economic woes have led to the severe deterioration of > their early warning network. Two-thirds of Russia¹s ground-based > radar and satellites are inactive or failing, making it harder for > them to distinguish a real threat from friendly ventures in the sky. > > It is time to stand down nuclear weapons, meaning that more procedures > would be put in place to eliminate the threat of an accidental nuclear > disaster once and for all. De-alerting means lengthening the time > needed to launch an attack. It would provide a critical margin of > safety so a war cannot be started by human or computer error. > > In 1991, President Bush took 500 nuclear weapons off high alert‹a move > reciprocated by Russia under President Gorbachev. Similarly, > President-elect George W. Bush pledged during his campaign to take > more weapons off the hair-trigger. General George Lee Butler, > Commander of all U.S. strategic forces from 1992-1994, has suggested > the best way to do this is by taking warheads off the missiles and > keeping them in geographically separate places. > > If U.S. and Russian leaders were to take their nuclear weapons off > hair-trigger alert, it would send the message to all nations of the > world that they are serious about reducing the nuclear threat. > > In this season of peace and looking forward to a better future, please > urge the President to lead the way by reducing the threat of nuclear > war. > > ACTIONS: Write a letter to President Bush after his inauguration and > before his State of the Union Address in February. Ask him to fulfill > his pledge to take more nuclear weapons off the hair-trigger and to > make this a priority for his first hundred days in office. > > Write: The President of the United States of America > 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue > Washington, DC 20500 > > Call: On February 5-6, join the national call-in days to the White > House by calling (202) 456-1414 and saying to the President, "I urge > you to reduce the danger of accidental nuclear war by working with > Russia to get all nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert." > > Endorsed by: LISTING IN BOX > > For more of these action postcards, contact 20/20 Vision at (202) > 833-2020. Please share this action with a friend or a local group. > > For additional information, contact the BACK from the BRINK campaign

01215.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] > at (202) 545-1001 or e-mail brinkprogram@backfrom thebrink.net

-- Kathy Crandall Interim Program Director Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 1801 18th Street NW, #9-2 Washington DC 20009 TEL: (202) 833 4668 FAX: (202) 234 9536 E-MAIL: [email protected] http://www.ananuclear.org

01215.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] To: "Tony Peterson" From: "Carlee L. Hallman" Subject: Writers' school Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Please send me information about the writers' school scheduled for January 24-26 in Nashville.

Thanks, Carlee L. Hallman

6508 Wilmett Road Bethesda, MD 20817 Phone: 301 897-3668 Fax: 301 896-0013 E-mail: [email protected]

01215.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:15 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Agenda for December 18 meeting Cc: Bcc: icnd, advisors X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Colleagues,

Here is the proposed agenda for the meeting of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, scheduled for Monday, December 18 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. at the National Council of Churches conference room, 110 Maryland Avenue, NE, Washington, DC (building access is #108),

Agenda

1. Introductions 2. Election aftermath (brief) 3. Outreach to key senators a. State contacts b. In D.C. 4. Approach new administration (see suggestions in separate e-mail) 5. De-alerting initiatives a. 20/20 postcard b. Back from the Brink national call-in day 6. Next meetings a. Briefing on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction Thursday, January 4, 2001, 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. Methodists Building, 100 Maryland Avenue, NE, Conference Room 3 b. Regular meeting of Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament To be scheduled

I look forward to seeing you at the meeting. If you can't attend and have any comments to share, please get in touch with me.

Shalom, Howard

01215.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Approaching the Bush Administration Cc: Bcc: icnd, advisors X-Attachments: C:\My Documents\abolish.315.doc; In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Colleagues:

For the meeting of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament on December 18, I want to offer some ideas on how we might approach the incoming Bush Administration on matters of our concern. We can start making contact with the transition team but may not get meetings until after inauguration.

A. Seek appointments with 1. Dr. Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor, or top associate 2. Top assistant to Secretary of State Colin Powell 3. White House religious liaison officer (when appointed)

B. Purposes 1. Establish cooperative relationships 2. Present position of faith community on key issues.

C. Background material to present 1. Denominational statements on nuclear disarmament 2. Sign-on letters on key issues a. To senators on CTBT, May 1998 b. To President Clinton on national missile defense, June 1999 c. To President-elect Bush on de-alerting, January 2001

D. Focus of discussion 1. Primarily on areas of agreement (see attached excerpts from Bush speech) a. De-alerting b. Strategic arms reduction 2. In between: nuclear weapons testing and development a. Continue testing moratorium (Bush supports) b. Express concern about sub-critical testing and development of mini-nukes c. CTBT ratification (Bush opposes) 3. Mention area of disagreement: national missile defense 4. Inquire about intent to fulfill NPT obligation of "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals".

If you can't attend the December 18 meeting and want to offer your comments on these suggestions, please get in touch with me.

Shalom, Howard

01215.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] To: [email protected] Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:53:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Interfaith activities on nuclear disarmament X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 From: Linda J McKiernan-Allen

Dear Rev. (or Dr.?) Hallman,

Thank you for your note, concerning possible connection to the Interfaith action for nuclear disarmament.

I'd be glad to join in the effort. However, I come without any background on the issue, and will be starting from a position of real ignorance. I am willing to learn. I will read (starting with the materials you attached to your message), and will be glad to listen. I do know some other Indianapolis people of faith and good will who are much more prepared to make a stand on this issue, and who are more politically active and astute. . .and who might be interested in some formal action.

And I would be willing to make contacts with others, whom you send to me, to see about connecting with Senator Lugar and/or his staff. I doubt that can take place before mid-January, but am certainly willing to see what can be done.

I will encourage our Disciples Peace Fellowship to actively support what the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament is doing. Our current moderator, Joel Heim, has been very active (including his PhD disseratation) in raising awareness about nuclear arms and I'm confident will help us with information or particular Disciples' insights, although he lives and works in Wisconsin.

Shalom,

Linda McKiernan-Allen

______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.

01215.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:13:30 -0800 Subject: for Howard only From: Edward Brueggemann To: Jeanette Hallman , Edgar Hallman , Brian Hallman , Gordon Hallman , Jim Brueggemann , John Brueggemann , Debby Guarino , David Sanborn , Howard Anderson , Terri McQueen , Howard Hallman , Don Knudson

Everyone but Howard Hallman can ignore this. This seemed an easy way to send to you the Email addresses I have. Still building the list. More later. edb

01215.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] From: David Culp To: "'Howard W. Hallman'" Subject: RE: Approaching the Bush Administration Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:46:20 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)

Howard --

Unfortunately I won't be able to attend your meeting on Monday. However, I have a few thoughts about your outline.

You have "CTBT ratification" under "In between". It should be under "Area of disagreement".

I see little point in mentioning national missile defense or the CTBT with administration officials, as I think there is no flexibility in their position on these two issues. It only detracts from the areas where there might be agreement. Similarly, I think the NPT obligation won't be taken seriously by Bush administration officials.

You might also want to focus on trying to get some questions asked of relevant nominees for Defense and State Department positions. The first hearings will probably be the week of January 22. I would see if there are people in your group who have personal relationships with the staff of members on the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees. I would start there.

Ira Shorr is trying the same strategy on de-alerting.

FCNL will be trying to get Sen. Lugar to ask about ratification of the START II protocol.

Over and out,

David

01215.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.3 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:12:57 -0500 From: "Catherine Gordon" To: Subject: Re: Approaching the Bush Administration

Howard,

I wanted to let you know that I won't be able to attend the meeting on Monday due to a staff meeting.

But, I am working on our outlook piece for global security issues in the year 2001. I was wondering if you had any material I could use regarding what has happened this year in congress and what we should be looking forward to in the coming year. If you do not, it would be great if you could recommend someone who did.

Regards, Catherine

Catherine Gordon Associate for International Issues Washington Office Presbyterian Church (USA)

>>> "Howard W. Hallman" 12/15/00 10:34AM >>> Dear Colleagues:

For the meeting of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament on December 18, I want to offer some ideas on how we might approach the incoming Bush Administration on matters of our concern. We can start making contact with the transition team but may not get meetings until after inauguration.

A. Seek appointments with 1. Dr. Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor, or top associate 2. Top assistant to Secretary of State Colin Powell 3. White House religious liaison officer (when appointed)

B. Purposes 1. Establish cooperative relationships 2. Present position of faith community on key issues.

C. Background material to present 1. Denominational statements on nuclear disarmament 2. Sign-on letters on key issues a. To senators on CTBT, May 1998 b. To President Clinton on national missile defense, June 1999 c. To President-elect Bush on de-alerting, January 2001

D. Focus of discussion

01215.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] 1. Primarily on areas of agreement (see attached excerpts from Bush speech) a. De-alerting b. Strategic arms reduction 2. In between: nuclear weapons testing and development a. Continue testing moratorium (Bush supports) b. Express concern about sub-critical testing and development of mini-nukes c. CTBT ratification (Bush opposes) 3. Mention area of disagreement: national missile defense 4. Inquire about intent to fulfill NPT obligation of "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals".

If you can't attend the December 18 meeting and want to offer your comments on these suggestions, please get in touch with me.

Shalom, Howard

01215.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:02:21 -0800 (PST) From: "Tiffany L. Heath" Subject: Dec. 18th mtg. To: [email protected]

Hi Howard,

I will not be able to attend the meeting scheduled at 1 p.m.

CWU is still commited to working on this project, so I would like to set up a seperate time to work on the iniatives of the group and also how CWU can work on the issue of the arms race as a seperate agency.

I apologize for the last minute notice. My phone number is 202-544-8747.

Thank you.

Blessings,

Tiffany Heath Interim Legislative Director Church Women United Washington D.C. office

______Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/

01215.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: "brink orgs" Subject: Brink National Call-In Days Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:33:24 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal

Dear Back From the Brink supporter,

Would you please forward this announcement to your e-lists and encourage them to participate in this national action. It would be helpful if those who plan on ordering flyers from the campaign can let us know as soon as possible so we can meet all orders and deadlines.

Thanks, Esther Pank for the Back From the Brink Campaign ****************************************************************

The Back from the Brink Campaign and its allied organizations are promoting 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.

We can remind the 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 risks of accidental or unauthorized launch.”

We are calling on President-elect George W. Bush to take concrete actions to honor this platform pledge within his first 100 days in office and we want to flood the White House with phone calls to 202-456-1414.

The Campaign has several resources available to promote the Call-In Days: printed flyers available FREE in bulk or downloadable flyers in .pdf format; a text announcement available via e-mail, along with ideas on how to mobilize your organizations, friends and community to take part in this important day. Contact [email protected] or call 202-545-1001 for more information, to order your supplies, and to let us know how you are participating. Thanks.

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]

01215.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] Reply-To: From: "Brink Campaign" To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: RE: Approaching the Bush Administration Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:08:55 -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

Howard, If you are going to use sign-on letters, you might want to check in with Kathy Guthrie about the national religious sign-on letter currently being circulated by FCNL on de-alerting. We will be using it in our campaign. Hope to see you Monday. Esther

-----Original Message----- From: Howard W. Hallman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Approaching the Bush Administration

Dear Colleagues:

For the meeting of the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament on December 18, I want to offer some ideas on how we might approach the incoming Bush Administration on matters of our concern. We can start making contact with the transition team but may not get meetings until after inauguration.

A. Seek appointments with 1. Dr. Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor, or top associate 2. Top assistant to Secretary of State Colin Powell 3. White House religious liaison officer (when appointed)

B. Purposes 1. Establish cooperative relationships 2. Present position of faith community on key issues.

C. Background material to present 1. Denominational statements on nuclear disarmament 2. Sign-on letters on key issues a. To senators on CTBT, May 1998 b. To President Clinton on national missile defense, June 1999 c. To President-elect Bush on de-alerting, January 2001

D. Focus of discussion 1. Primarily on areas of agreement (see attached excerpts from Bush speech) a. De-alerting b. Strategic arms reduction 2. In between: nuclear weapons testing and development

01215.11.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] a. Continue testing moratorium (Bush supports) b. Express concern about sub-critical testing and development of mini-nukes c. CTBT ratification (Bush opposes) 3. Mention area of disagreement: national missile defense 4. Inquire about intent to fulfill NPT obligation of "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals".

If you can't attend the December 18 meeting and want to offer your comments on these suggestions, please get in touch with me.

Shalom, Howard

01215.11.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] Responses: Kathy Crandall (ANA), Martin Butcher (PSR), Kathy Guthrie (FCNL), Anna Smiles (Peacelinks), Alise Frye (Taxpayers for Common Sense), Jim Bridgman (Peace Action & Peace Action Education Fund), Kimberly Robson (WAND), Daryl Kimball (CRND), Esther Pank (Back from the Brink), Tim Barner (20/20 Vision)

NWWG Survey - 2000

Priorities were selected based on what members thought NWWG should be focused on in 2001.

NWWG PRIORITIES

_1.60_ Defense & Nuclear Policy Missile Defense _1.80_ Nuclear Weapons Budget _1.89_ Nuclear Posture Review _1.89_

_1.90_ Disarmament and Arms Control De-Alerting _1.50_ START II implementation _2.33_ Deep-Cuts _3.00_ START III negotiation _3.13_ Abolition _4.38_

_2.40_ Development and Testing New Weapons (mini-nukes) _1.56_ CTBT _2.11_ Stockpile Stewardship _2.25_

_4.00_ Weapons Complex Issues Weapons Production Issues _1.57_ Compensation _2.17_ Complex Clean-up _2.17_

_4.67_ Energy & Fissile Materials Disposition Reprocessing _2.17_ Nuclear Waste _2.00_ MOX _1.83_

WHAT ELSE DO WE DO?

Abolition 2000 _3_ Disarm. Clearinghouse _5_ ANA _4_ Project Abolition _3_ CRND _4_ NGO Cmte on Disarm. _3_ Cmte on Nuclear Policy _1_ Back from the Brink _7_ OTHER: National Coalition for Peace and Justice (1) MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS’ PRIORITIES This list indicates where NWWG member organizations’ staff time and resources will be focused in 2001.

20/20 Vision 1. Abolishing or limiting NMD; 2. De-alerting; 3. Legislation permitting the President to go to START II reduction levels and beyond

ANA will focus on issues related to the DOE nuclear weapons complex, including nuclear weapons research testing, nuclear weapons production, nuclear waste, nuclear materials management, disposition and cleanup policies, and health impacts to workers and communities. We will be following the budget closely. We will also participate in de-alerting campaign efforts. There are some NWWG priorities from this past year that we do not and will not work on, including Abolition and Missile Defense.

Back from the Brink De-alerting, in the context of the Nuclear Posture Review. Legislation may be tied to Start II and III.

CRND These are not in rank order & may shift depending on outcome of Presidential race: *Nuclear testing/stewardship issues, *Deep-cuts/De-alerting, *National Missile Defense

FCNL De-alerting, new weapons such as mini-nukes, nuclear arsenal reduction

Peace Action/Peace Action Education Fund Probably - Star Wars, De-Alerting, New Nukes, Iraq Sanctions, Weapon sales to Colombia

Peacelinks De-alerting, Deep buts, NMD and CTBT, Development – mini-nukes etc.

PSR New Weapons, Health Issues and Weapons Complex, Stockpile Stewardship, De-Alerting, Nuclear Posture Review

Taxpayers for Common Sense 1. National Missile Defense - testing and keeping the project in R&D; 2. Nuclear Reductions - Implementing START II and negotiating START III; 3. Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC); And always overarching budget and spending issues

WAND Last year (2000), we focused on 1. military spending; 2. nuclear waste; 3. missile defense. We have not yet set our priorities for 2001.

THE TOUGH QUESTIONS

1. What would YOU like to get out of NWWG meetings (i.e. Why do we have these meetings anyway?!) Coordinate grassroots actions (call-in days, postcard campaigns, sign-on letters, etc.) (5) · Carrying out more targeted, joint legislative activity (3) · More lobbying and Congressional interaction (briefings for Hill staff, NW Policy Updates, drops, etc.) · Information sharing, issue updates, reports from other groups/organizations · Opportunity to discuss, prioritize and coordinate projects. ·

2. What do you think were the top three specific accomplishments this year? The Clinton decision not to deploy NMD* (5) · Mini-Nukes Postcards, mini-nukes in general* (6) · Post Card campaign and other coordinated grassroots activities on Missile Defense* (2) · Getting 100+ co-sponsors on the Markey resolution on de-alerting* · Cutting back the number of NWWG meetings · Mobilizing votes and Congressional letter-signers on Kerrey amendment to authorize presidents to make · START II reductions NOTE: Issues with * had separate meetings associated with them

3. What do you think were the biggest problems with NWWG this year? There is substantial overlap with other working groups and campaigns, mainly Back from the Brink, · Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers and Mini-nukes Working group; NWWG seems to be spent largely reporting on activities from those other meetings. (3) Lack of preparation (2); too often information is relayed in oral form without written backup (i.e. · handouts). Low participation (attendance and commitment); lack of energy · Unwillingness to engage as NWWG on issues. · Not enough coordinated activity, like the mini-nuke card which shows what we can achieve. · Poor use of time at meetings. · Frustration with Congress ·

4. What suggestions do you have for improving NWWG (How should we structure the working group next year? What should we change? etc.) BIG PICTURE NWWG needs to think seriously about what role it serves in the broader community, keeping in mind what · other projects, campaigns, and coalitions do. To me this means it should focus on what and how grassroots groups can do to influence nuclear policy for the better with special focus on weapons complex issues. It can also be a useful forum to share info about activities, events, hearings, and key legislation. I would suggest more structure and a substantive work plan for the group that is focused on · achieving realistic goals. This plan should take into account the individual strengths of each organization and attempt to pull it all together to achieve decided upon goals. Schedule 3 grassroots actions related to Congressional work (ex. de-alerting call-in) and then plan · meetings around those specific actions Identify who will take the lead on coordinating actions, relaying FYI information to o members Improve relationships/contact with Congressional staff: · o plan to occasionally invite key staff people to our meetings o plan hill briefings on particular topics. o more consistently produce Nuclear Weapons Policy Updates.

NUTS & BOLTS Better preparation by chairs (getting the agenda out before the meeting, more effort to ensure · participation) Better preparation by participants · o “Less idle speculation and more commitment to concrete work” o Bring handouts, not just and oral report Change the meeting schedule and duration: · o Shorter meetings (perhaps 1 hour) o more frequent meetings o have our meetings tied to the Congressional schedule (so that we would not necessarily meet when Congress was not in session, but during the budget process we might meet once a week, rather than every other week.) More concise agenda that avoids repetition of discussions in other meetings · Identify point people on specific issues to save the rest of us some time · A half-day strategy session to really think organizational things through · Maintain the rotating chair concept (2) · Restructuring NWWG

The Rationale

The strengths of NWWG are primarily our ability to work cooperatively on grassroots actions for specific issues and the information sharing that occurs at meetings. However, members are frustrated because of overlap with other meetings, many of which are meetings of issue-based groups that felt that they didn’t want to waste the time of NWWG to strategize on issues that not everyone was involved with. This proposed restructuring tries to capitalize on NWWG’s strengths while addressing the problems.

The BIG Plan

· Schedule three or four specific, issue-based grassroots actions throughout the year. These actions would be loosely based on what we expect to see in the future Congressional year. Actions would be multi-faceted, so instead of simply having a de-alerting o call-in day in February, we also plan to… issue a Nuclear Weapons Policy Update, schedule lobbying visits, place Op-Eds, etc. (for example) NWWG meetings would be scheduled around those events with changing frequency as · needed (ex: every three weeks, 3 months prior to the action and then every week, one month prior to action). A person or team would then be responsible for sending out an agenda adequately · before the meeting, leading the meeting, reporting at Monday Lobby, etc. Not to lose the information-sharing aspect of NWWG that many people liked, the · agendas could be structures to allow for 20-30 minutes at the beginning of the agenda for reporting on other issues. This would allow some folks to leave after the reporting or arrive late for the grassroots planning.

EXAMPLE (Completely Hypothetical – Don’t get mad if you see your name!)

DATE ISSUE WHO RESPONSIBLE?

February De-alerting Esther Pank & Tim Barner

May Secret Sites Kathy Crandall & Martin Butcher

September Defense Authorization David Culp & Kimberly Robson

NWWG Restructuring Plan – DRAFT December 6, 2000 Page 1 NWWG Restructuring Plan – DRAFT December 6, 2000 Page 2 To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Room request Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Robin,

The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to meet the second Tuesday of each month in 2001, starting with Tuesday, February 13. Would we be able to reserve a conference room in the Methodist Building for the whole year's schedule? That would consist of February 13, March 13, April 10, May 8, June 12, July 10, (skip August), September 11, October 9, November 13, December 11.

I like Room 3, but with the size of attendance we have been having, Room 4 (board room) is large enough unless we get a sizable increase. I don't necessarily want to tie up the larger room if the smaller one suffices.

Thanks for your help. And happy holiday to you and your family.

Howard

01219.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:58:46 -0500 To: [email protected] From: Daryl Kimball Subject: N-Testing Update: Bush nominees' views; other news

December 19, 2000

TO: Coalition members and friends

FR: Daryl Kimball

RE: N-Testing Update -- Bush nominees on CTBT; miscellaneous developments

While the Bush victory has clearly diminished prospects for U.S. ratification of the CTBT, the new Bush administration will likely face a number of difficult nuclear testing policy choices as well as pressure to ratify the CTBT from U.S. allies and others. Some of the policy decisions include: How does Mr. Bush propose to persuade other states, like China and India, not to test and improve their arsenals without U.S. approval of the CTBT? How will the Bush administration respond to the expected calls from U.S. allies and others to support the CTBT? Will Bush, as he said he would during the campaign, reaffirm the existing nuclear test moratorium? Will Bush leave the door open to the possibility of CTBT ratification during his term, especially if there is bi-partisan support for doing so? Will the Bush administration try to prioritize and reign-in the stockpile stewardship program, or will he give the laboratories even greater latitude and money and for what purpose?

The cabinet-level appointments by President-elect Bush over the next few days and weeks will likely have a strong influence on the future direction of U.S. nuclear weapons research, development and testing policy. Just as important will be the appointments for sub-cabinet positions at State, DoD, Energy, the NSC, CIA and elsewhere.

COLIN POWELL With the nomination of Colin Powell for Secretary of State, there will be at least one major Bush administration official who is on record in support of CTBT ratification. In January of 1998, Powell joined General Shalikashvili and two other former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in stating support for ratification of the Treaty under the six original "safeguards" proposed by President Clinton. Their statement is available from . Powell was also chairman of the JCS when President Clinton first decided in mid-1993 to extend the nuclear test moratorium and seek the CTBT. While Powell's current views on the CTBT are not clear, it is not likely that he will champion the cause of U.S. ratification of the Treaty but he may simply help moderate any pro-testing tendencies that might emerge among the Bush foreign and military policy team.

CONDOLEEZA RICE On the other hand, Bush's appointee for the post of National Security

01219.018.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] Advisor, Condoleeza Rice, is on record opposing the CTBT. She does support the existing moratorium. In a January/February article in Foreign Affairs magazine titled "Promoting the National Interest," Rice said:

"Since 1992, the United States has refrained unilaterally from testing nuclear weapons. It is an example to the rest of the world yet does not tie its own hands "in perpetuity" if testing becomes necessary again. But in pursuit of a "norm" against the acquisition of nuclear weapons, the United States signed a treaty that was not verifiable, did not deal with the threat of the the development of nuclear weapons by rogue states, and threatened the reliability of the nuclear stockpile. Legitimate congressional concerns about the substance of the treaty were ignored during negotiations...."

One can only hope that these comments were intended to create a distinction between Gore and Bush during the election and that Rice might see things differently once she is the Old Executive Office Building.

DAN COATS It is expected that former Dan Quayle staffer and Indiana Senator Dan Coats will be nominated to become the Secretary of Defense. In 1992, Coats voted against a nuclear testing moratorium legislation, in 1995, he voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Jon Kyl for low-yield hydronuclear weapon test explosions, and in 1996 he voted for a Kyl-Reid amendment that would have allowed the President to conduct additional tests -- of any kind or for any purpose -- after September 30, 1996, unless disapproved by a joint resolution of Congress.

DICK CHENEY Former Defense Secretary and now Vice-President Elect Cheney is on record opposing the CTBT (see his October 1999 letter and NGO rebuttal ) but was part of a July 1992 Bush administration modification of U.S. nuclear testing policy that U.S. nuclear tests "henceforth be for the safety and reliability of our deterrent forces," rather than for development of new nuclear weapons. That policy shift was part of the Bush team's failed attempt to slow momentum for Congressional legislation to impose a temporary halt to U.S. testing, set strict limitations on the number and purposes of further tests, and require action toward negotiations on a permanent comprehensive ban. This past Bush administration policy shift could make it politically more difficult for the current Bush administration to justify the development and possible testing of new nuclear weapon types.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

In other developments, the United States conducted yet another subcritical experiment at the Nevada Test Site and the international community is anxiously looking to Washington, DC for clues about the direction of Bush administration policy on these and other important security matters. And, as the last story attached below suggests, there are plenty of people ready to bear witness at the Nevada Test Site if and when the need arises.

- DK

01219.018.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] NOTE: The attached articles are for educational purposes only. For previous editions of the Coalition's "Nuclear Testing Update," see

******************

IN THIS UPDATE:

STATUS OF CTBT RATIFICATIONS

1. "CTBTO hopes U.S. Govt. will ratify treaty," The Hindu, December 2, 2000

2. "India, Pakistan Remain US Concern," AP, Tuesday, December 19 4:34 AM ET

NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

3. "Scientists consider new breed of nuke," The New Mexican, December 9, 2000

AT THE TEST SITES

4. "Subcritical Experiment Conducted Successfully at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nevada Test Site," DOE Nevada News Release, December 14, 2000

5. "Test site a magnet for anti-nuclear demonstrations," Las Vegas Review Journal, 12/19/00

*************

1. The Hindu, Sunday, December 03, 2000

CTBTO hopes U.S. Govt. will ratify treaty

By George Chakko

VIENNA, DEC. 2. At the conclusion of its Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) meeting held here recently, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) expressed hope that the next U.S. Government would take up the CTBT ratification issue and see it through. The present U.S. Government has assured CTBTO its full contribution for the year 2001. CTBTO is busy completing its International Monitoring System (IMS) and continues in its efforts to persuade the remaining 14 States of the Article XIV States, including India, to sign and ratify.

The Mexican Ambassador, Ms. Olga Pellicer, the current PrepCom chairperson, told the press that while ratification by the remaining States in Article XIV list of 44 States would bring greater pressure on the U.S. to ratify earlier, CTBTO was making all efforts through powerful member-States of the E.U. and Japan. Persuasion, it is hoped, will help U.S. Republican Senators and disarmament officials to ratify soon. When asked about the 39 per cent fund cut by the U.S. Senate for non-proliferation and CTBTO, as announced in the State Department Report of August this year, Dr. Wolfgang Hoffmann, CTBTO chief, said the

01219.018.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] CTBTO had not been affected so far. On the contrary, the U.S. had paid in full for the year 2000 and promised its full assessed contribution of 25 per cent of the CTBTO's budget for 2001. Over 95 per cent of CTBTO's budget had already been paid by member-States, something even established U.N. agencies can hardly dream of.

France, Mexico and Japan are trying to persuade U.S. Senators towards the old bipartisan joint approach on the CTBT. To remove all doubts on the CTBT's effectiveness, a report by an Independent Commission comprised of international specialists on the Verifiability of CTBT, was released here by the London-based NGO - VERTIC (Verification Research, Training and Information Centre). The report warned, ``Any State contemplating a decoupled test would face a verification gauntlet.'' It reaches the conclusion that the expanded global verification capabilities ``constitute a complex and constantly evolving verification gauntlet, which any potential violator will have to confront - together they will serve as a powerful deterrent.'' The experts also recommended that the global community should encourage an ``open exchange of data between the IMS and the global scientific community''.

A question was raised on the legality of China's alleged plans, as reported by Telegraph's Beijing correspondent, to use nuclear explosions to bore a huge canal through the gigantic Himalayan rocks on the pre-Brahmaputra part of the river after year 2006. China wants to divert huge water quantities from Tibetan Himalayas to arid areas of mainland China. The idea is to construct the world's biggest hydroelectric-irrigation project generating 38 million kilowatts electricity. It seems Russia had used such explosions in the past before signing the CTBT, causing environmental damages. The US had desisted doing it for environmental reasons.

***************

2. "India, Pakistan Remain US Concern," AP, Tuesday, December 19 4:34 AM ET

By ASHOK SHARMA, Associated Press Writer

NEW DELHI, India (AP) - A year ago, George W. Bush (news - web sites) couldn't name the leader of India or Pakistan when faced with a reporter's pop quiz during the campaign.

Now the two countries, whose bitter rivalry over disputed Kashmir resounds worldwide because both have tested nuclear weapons, are wondering what a Bush presidency will mean for the subcontinent.

Indian leaders, charmed last March when Democrat Bill Clinton became the first U.S. president to visit the country in more than 20 years, are hoping a year of unprecedented warmth in relations will continue under Bush despite U.S. concerns about nuclear arms.

Pakistani officials, meanwhile, hope a Republican administration will be more sympathetic. But the country, run by a military chief after a bloodless coup in 1999, is at odds with Washington over its nuclear effort

01219.018.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] and over neighboring Afghanistan's Taliban militia.

The hostile relationship between India and Pakistan, who have fought three wars since 1947, is likely remain a major U.S. foreign policy concern.

Under Clinton, Washington has pushed both countries to sign a global treaty banning nuclear tests. The United States has signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty but not ratified it, and Bush backs the Senate's rejection of the pact - a position that has won him praise from both India and Pakistan.

``We expect the U.S. will reduce pressure on Pakistan regarding the signing of the CTBT because Republicans themselves are not in favor of this treaty,'' said Shireen Mazari, director of the Pakistan's government-run Institute of Strategic Studies.

Neither Pakistan nor India has signed the treaty, but each has committed to a moratorium on nuclear testing until it comes into force. U.S. sanctions imposed on India after its 1998 tests remain in place.

India's Cold War ties to the Soviet Union turned Pakistan into Washington's natural ally, but that has changed since the Soviet collapse and the United States has grown much closer to India.

Clinton exchanged visits this year with Indian Prime Minister Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and economic relations between the world's most powerful democracy and the world's most populous democracy have been improving.

Indian officials are cautiously optimistic that ties will strengthen under Bush, whose father was president from 1988-92. During the campaign, the younger Bush spoke to Vajpayee on the phone and said in a speech that the new century would see India's arrival as a force in the world.

``I don't see any basic change in the U.S. policy toward India,'' said former Indian foreign secretary Mani Dixit. ``India's relations with the United States were all right during his father's presidency.''

In Pakistan, military chief Gen. Pervez Musharraf said last week that he hoped for friendly ties.

``Under the Republicans we don't expect U.S.-Pakistan relations to deteriorate as they did under the Democrats,'' Mazari said. ``We expect a shift in nuance.''

But the think tank director said Pakistan should distance itself from the United States because the two countries have opposing interests in the region, particularly on China and Afghanistan.

The United States has accused China of helping Pakistan develop its missile and nuclear technology. Pakistan has close ties with Afghanistan's Taliban, which Washington accuses of harboring terrorists.

***************

01219.018.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] 3. "Scientists consider new breed of nuke"

By KRISTEN DAVENPORT/ The New Mexican12/9/2000

Some U.S. military officials, nuclear scientists and members of Congress say the United States must soon develop a new kind of low-yield nuclear weapon - a mini-nuke that could burrow into the earth to blow up an underground bunker filled with chemical or biological weapons.

Despite a federal law that forbids development of mini-nukes, Los Alamos National Laboratory weapons chief Stephen Younger released a paper this summer saying he thinks the nation will need precise, low-yield weapons and should consider building them.

It appears some senators agree. They might push for a change to the 1994 federal law that prohibits the design and manufacture of mini-nukes.

But for now Congress has agreed to authorize $6 million for a study by the Energy and Defense departments of the feasibility of using low-yield weapons to attack hardened and buried targets.

The Defense Authorization Act, passed in October, says the study must be completed by next July.

It's not clear whether Younger or other LANL weapons managers will be involved with that study. But if the United States decided to build mini-nukes, experts say it's likely they would be partially built in Los Alamos because the lab is capable of producing nuclear pits - the fissioning cores of nuclear bombs.

Some peace activists are worried that recent developments indicate a shifting attitude in Congress and the U.S. government toward another arms race.

"It's not a huge change in policy, but it is a shift," said Greg Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group, a lab watchdog. "It gives newfound legitimacy to this effort."

Mello said it's likely any report that emerges next summer will say the United States needs the low-yield weapons, "and then they can use this report in the future so they can keep going."

The case for mini-nukes

The military has documented well its need for a mini-nuke, or conventional low-yield, earth-penetrating weapon.

And Defense Department planning documents released to a California anti-nuclear group, the Western States Legal Foundation, last month indicate that the military is eager for lab scientists to study low-yield weapons against buried targets and is planning tests of how weapons behave in underground tunnels.

Although the United States has about 5,000 high-yield nuclear weapons in

01219.018.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] its stockpile - plenty to deter aggression from major nuclear powers such as China or Russia - military experts worry that rogue nations such as Iraq aren't threatened by those bombs because it's so unlikely they would be used.

But a mini-nuke - which is expected to cause less collateral damage, fewer fatalities and reduced radioactive fallout - might present more of a threat. While its explosive power would not be nearly as strong as most of the nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile, it could be more precisely targeted to an enemy bunker or facility.

Technically, a mini-nuke is a nuclear bomb that carries about 100 tons of explosive power. According to a 1991 article in the military journal Strategic Review, the United States had plans for a 10-ton "micronuke" and a 1,000-ton "tiny nuke." By comparison, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 13,000 tons.

Weapons now in the nuclear stockpile are all larger than 5,000 tons; the 1994 Congressional prohibition covered any weapon that exploded at less than 5,000 tons.

However, even a 10-ton micronuke would pack a punch 10 times bigger than the largest non-nuclear bombs dropped by the United States during the Persian Gulf War.

The weapons community began thinking about low-yield weapons directed at underground targets - or at above-ground targets where low collateral damage and fallout was desirable - after the Persian Gulf War ended with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein still in power. LANL abandoned Project "Plywood" (PLYWD, or Precision Low-Yield Weapon Development), when Congress forbade the Department of Energy to do any work on low-yield weapons. According to LANL spokesman Jim Danneskiold, the lab "is not working right now on any low-yield weapons."

A new nuclear bomb has not been built in the United States since the 1980s, and no nuclear testing has been done in about a decade. But the government spends about $4.5 billion a year maintaining the nuclear stockpile and building facilities to simulate nuclear blasts to replace live nuclear testing.

Sam Cohen, one of the scientists who designed the original neutron bomb - a low-yield nuclear weapon - said the United States desperately needs the mini-nukes in its stockpile and thinks American lives would have been spared if mini-nukes had been used in the Korean and Vietnam wars, as well as the Persian Gulf War.

But he doesn't think the United States will ever use one of the weapons.

"In that sense, it's a colossal waste of taxpayer money" to even study the issue, Cohen said.

An aide for Sen. Wayne Allard, R.-Colo., who spoke on condition he not be identified by name said the senators pushing for a study of low-yield weapons only want the Energy Department to be more free to talk with the military about its needs.

01219.018.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] Allard was one of the sponsors of the original legislation asking for a repeal of the 1994 ban on low-yield nuclear weapons. He voted in favor of spending $6 million for a study on the topic.

"People have been saying this will lead to a new weapon," the Allard aide explained. "But this is just allowing them to talk about low-yield weapons ... even conventional ones. We could do a study on building a rainforest in Washington, D.C., and that doesn't mean you're going to get a rainforest there."

Another arms race?

Others say the push for low-yield weapons is a sign that the United States isn't taking its treaty obligations seriously and indicates a deep need for a national discussion on nuclear policy.

Those who oppose mini-nukes argue that by agreeing to new nuclear weapons, the United States is violating disarmament treaties and could provoke other nations into another arms race.

"The military clearly is thinking about this," said Andy Lichterman, program director for Western States Legal Foundation. "I would say that the ban on mini-nuke development is under attack, and there's a danger that the (new law) authorizing this study will be taken as a license to work on new nuclear weapons."

Mello said the nuclear-weapons labs push for mini-nukes and other weapons projects simply because they have no defined mission since nuclear weapons are worthless.

"They need a raison d'etre," Mello said. "This is about their long-term legitimacy problem."

William Arkin, a disarmament advocate and columnist on military issues for The Washington Post, says hype over mini-nukes is - more than anything - a distraction from real nuclear issues that politicians and others want to avoid, such as the lack of a solid U.S. nuclear policy.

During the presidential campaign, Texas Gov. George W. Bush indicated that if he were elected, the government would review its nuclear posture. "And nothing is going to happen until that review is done," Arkin said.

"The Clinton administration has failed to determine what our nuclear policy should be," Arkin said, adding that until a new administration reviews the nation's nuclear posture, talk about mini-nukes is "nothing but agitation."

Arkin thinks a Bush administration - with Gen. Colin Powell as the likely secretary of state - would be more likely to advocate reductions in nuclear weapons and have more commitment to global-disarmament policies.

"In some cases, we should expect Bush will take more action regarding some of these irritating nuclear issues than a Gore camp ever would," he said.

01219.018.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] Arkin said the Air Force and Navy need other weapons more than they need earth-penetrating mini-nukes.

In fact, the military already has some conventional weapons that can penetrate many feet of earth. The effort is toward bombs that are more precise or bombs that can burrow deeper.

The push for mini-nukes among nuclear scientists such as Younger is self-serving, he said.

"We can't have nuclear testing, we're losing scientists, and it would be a good morale booster (to be working on something new)," Arkin said. "Don't underestimate that factor. ... A new warhead is a new welfare project (for nuclear scientists)."

But LANL's Younger, who declined to be interviewed, has said his paper advocating low-yield weapons is simply an effort to get people talking about U.S. nuclear policy and what weapons will be needed in the future.

"Now is the time to re-examine the role and composition of our nuclear forces," Younger wrote. "New technologies take at least a decade to move from the concept stage to the point where we can rely on them for our nation's defense."

***************

4. "Subcritical Experiment Conducted Successfully at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nevada Test Site"

News Media Contact: Derek S. Scammell, 702-295-3521; David Schwoegler, 925-422-6900

For Immediate Release: December 14, 2000

http://www.nv.doe.gov/news%26pubs/newsreleases/nr121400.htm

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory conducted Oboe 6 at 3:28 p.m. (PST) today, at the Nevada Test Site.

Data from monitoring instruments confirmed that the experiment was subcritical, that is, no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction occurred.

Oboe 6 is the sixth in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Oboe series of subcritical experiments. The experiments are designed to answer questions about ejecta and spall associated with plutonium.

Subcritical experiments are scientific experiments to obtain technical information in support of the Department of Energy’s program to maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile without underground nuclear testing.

*************

5. "Test site a magnet for anti-nuclear demonstrations," Las Vegas Review

01219.018.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] Journal, 12/19/00

Protests continue at the Nevada Test Site, but they have dwindled in numbers and intensity over the years

By KEITH ROGERS

From large-scale anti-nuclear actions by the American Peace Test in the 1980s to this year's smaller rallies by the Shundahai Network and the Nevada Desert Experience, the Nevada Test Site has always been a target of demonstrators.

On New Year's Eve, some 450 protesters gathered outside the Mercury entrance to the test site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, to participate in the Nevada Desert Experience's "Millennium 2000 -- Walking the Ways of Peace."

Actor Martin Sheen, as he has in the past, joined the group's candlelight march a few hours after one leader of the religious-based group, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, declared, "We're protesting the continuing maintenance of nuclear weapons."

As recently as last week, the Shundahai Network -- an international anti-nuclear group based in Southern Nevada -- condemned the Department of Energy for conducting a subcritical nuclear experiment at the test site. Government officials maintain these small-scale experiments are allowed under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

But the Shundahai activists, inspired by Western Shoshone spiritual leader Corbin Harney, released a statement that said, "It is with blatant disrespect that the DOE continues to violate our Mother Earth as well as disregard the Treaty of Ruby Valley."

Nearly 50 years after the first atomic bomb lit up the sky over the test site, Western Shoshones maintain they never relinquished the land.

Western Shoshone leaders say their claim to the land is supported by the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty that was forged between their nation and the United States. The treaty ended violent disputes by allowing the tribe to retain its ancestral land, Newe Sogobia, the so-called, "place for the people of Mother Earth," while the U.S. government gained access to this land which included what is now the test site.

To settle the ownership issue that simmered for a century, the government allocated the Western Shoshone $26 million in 1973 for the land, but the national council has never accepted it. The money, and interest, estimated to be $105 million in 1998, sits untapped in an Interior Department trust account.

Department of Energy records show American Peace Test demonstrations at the test site took hold in 1986. At first only a few dozen people participated, resulting in only a few arrests for civil disobedience. The largest protest that year, from May 31 through June 2, drew 775 participants and resulted in 154 arrests.

01219.018.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] In 1987, the protests were attracting thousands of demonstrators and arrest tallies mounted in the hundreds.

From 1986 through April 1994, government records document 536 American Peace Test demonstrations at the test site involving 37,488 participants and 15,740 arrests.

The arrests usually were for trespassing or blocking roads. Sometimes, to avoid multiple arrests, test site and Nye County authorities would cite the trespassers, drive them 140 miles northwest to Tonopah, then release them.

The largest American Peace Test demonstration occurred from March 12 through March 20, 1988, when the Energy Department counted between 7,300 and 8,800 participants and 2,067 arrests. The group, established in 1985, disbanded in 1994 after tax-deductible contributions dwindled from $100,000 during the peak years of the 1980s to $15,000 in 1993.

______

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 ______

01219.018.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:24:03 -0500 From: William J Price Subject: Two "old" men, with you in celebarting your leadership1 Sender: William J Price To: Howard Hallman , Robert Pettigrew

Dear Howard ,

Bob has a medical problem that keeps him home today. I'm backed up through running a stop sign -- miraculously I'm ok -- but without transportation till January 5th PLEASE KEEP US BOTH INFORMED OF FURTHER MEETINGS . Love Bill

01219.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] X-Sender: jdi@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:21:06 -0500 To: [email protected] From: John Isaacs Subject: ARMS CONTROL IN THE NEW BUSH ADMINISTRATION: CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM

ARMS CONTROL IN THE NEW BUSH ADMINISTRATION: CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM

A COUNCIL FOR A LIVABLE WORLD ANALYSIS

The election of George W. Bush as President presents new opportunities as well as major hurdles to significant progress on arms control issues.

An examination of statements made by President-elect Bush during his campaign provides a basis for cautious optimism for significant nuclear weapons reductions. The major barrier to these achievements is not likely to be the Russians, Congress or "states of concern" such as Iran or North Korea but rather national missile defense.

======CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM ON NUCLEAR REDUCTIONS ======For starters, it is useful to remember that Republican Presidents tend to be more successful than Democrats in overcoming Congressional opposition and Russian disagreements. In his four years in office, President George Bush signed the START I and II nuclear reduction treaties, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Conventional Forces in Europe agreement, and announced the unilateral elimination of deployed ground-based short-range nuclear weapons and the destruction of 1,650 naval-based nuclear weapons.

Congress went along with all these steps with few objections.

While Republicans in Congress placed significant hurdles in the path of President Clinton over the past four years, those objections are likely to fade with a Republican in the White House.

Second, the nominees for the top national security policy positions are Republican mainstream conservatives rather than hard-edged ideologues. People like Colin Powell, Condelezza Rice and Dan Coats are no liberals, but they are also not hard- liners. Moreover, Vice President-elect Dick Cheney was Defense Secretary when President Bush secured his major arms control accomplishments.

Third, George W. Bush proposed during his campaign significant reductions below START II levels of 3,500 strategic weapons, and has suggested that he — like his father — is willing to reduce nuclear weapons unilaterally. He called unneeded nuclear weapons "relics of dead conflicts":

"As president, I will ask the secretary of defense to conduct an assessment of our nuclear force posture and determine how best to meet our

01219.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] security needs. While the exact number of weapons can come only from such an assessment, I will pursue the lowest possible number consistent with our national security. It should be possible to reduce the number of American nuclear weapons significantly further than what has been already agreed to under START II without comp/romising our security in any way. We should not keep weapons that our military planners do not need. These unneeded weapons are the expensive relics of dead conflicts, and they do nothing to make us more secure."(National Press Club press conference, May 23, 2000)

President-elect Bush committed to no specific number and pledged to consult with the Joint Chiefs. However, the clear direction of his remarks suggest that significant reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal can be accomplished during the next four years, either unilaterally or through a negotiated agreement with Russia.

======DE-ALERTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS ======President-elect Bush also stated his intention to unilaterally de-alert hundreds, possibly thousands, of nuclear weapons:

"In addition, the United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high alert, high-trigger status, another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation. Preparation for quick launch within minutes after a warning of an attack was the rule during the era of superpower rivalry. But today, for two nations at peace, keeping so many weapons on high alert may create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch. So as president, I will ask for an assessment of what we can safely do to lower the alert status of our forces. These changes to our forces should not require years and years of detailed arms control negotiations." (National Press Club press conference, May 23, 2000)

This is a significant development considering that the Clinton Administration largely ignored the issue. The elder Bush Administration did remove some weapons from high- alert status, and Russia reciprocated.

It is important to note that the annual Defense Authorization bill contains language prohibiting unilateral nuclear weapons reductions and de-alerting until START II is implemented. While Congress blocked efforts to remove the language during the Clinton Administration, it may prove more pliable when Bush enters office.

Another factor to consider: the Pentagon will review nuclear weapons issues as part of a nuclear posture review (NPR) due before the end of 2001.

======COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION (NUNN-LUGAR) ======President-elect Bush has indicated he may increase funding for programs to help the former Soviet Republics dismantle nuclear weapons and deal with nuclear materials:

"The next president must press for an accurate inventory of all this

01219.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] material. And we must do more. I'll ask the Congress to increase substantially our assistance to dismantle as many of Russia's weapons as possible, as quickly as possible." (Speech at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, November 19, 1999)

======THE MAJOR HURDLE: STAR WARS ======President-elect George Bush is firmly within the Republican orthodoxy that advocates a comprehensive missile defense system including land, sea and/or space based interceptors:

"At the earliest possible date, my administration will deploy anti-ballistic missile systems, both theater and national, to guard against attack and blackmail."(Speech at Citadel, September 23, 1999)

He has been clear in calling for a system that will be national in scope and is willing to share this technology with allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East:

"Our missile defense must be designed to protect all 50 states and our friends and allies and deployed forces overseas from missile attacks by rogue nations or accidental launches. A missile defense system should not only defend our country, it should defend our allies with whom I will consult as we develop our plans." (National Press Club press conference, May 23, 2000)

He also advocated widespread theater missile defense systems:

"We must show American power and purpose in strong support for our Asian friends and allies – for democratic South Korea across the Yellow Sea... for democratic Japan and the Philippines across the China seas ... for democratic Australia and Thailand. This means keeping our pledge to deter aggression against the Republic of Korea, and strengthening security ties with Japan. This means expanding theater missile defenses among our allies." (Speech at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, November, 19, 1999)

Bush believes that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is an "artifact" of the Cold War, and is willing to abandon the treaty if an agreement cannot be reached with Russia:

"To make this possible, we will offer Russia the necessary amendments to the anti-ballistic missile treaty – an artifact of Cold War confrontation. Both sides know that we live in a different world from 1972, when that treaty was signed. If Russia refuses the changes we propose, we will give prompt notice, under the provisions of the treaty, that we can no longer be a party to it." (Speech at Citadel, September 23, 1999)

If Bush follows the spirit of these proposals and the recommendations of right-wing allies at the Heritage Foundation, early in his Administration he may commit to national missile deployment and abandon the ABM Treaty. Such actions will jeopardize the chance of working with Russia and China toward deep nuclear reductions. In fact, Russia has indicated that it may reverse planned nuclear reductions that are being forced for economic

01219.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] reasons (deploying more than one warhead per missile, for example). It may also end its cooperation to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials. China may well accelerate the expansion and modernization of its limited nuclear forces in response to Bush actions on missile defense.

The September 1999 National Intelligence Council Report, "Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through 2015" confirmed this assessment:

"We assess that countries developing missiles also will respond to US theater and national missile defenses by deploying larger forces, penetration aids, and countermeasures. Russia and China each have developed numerous countermeasures and probably will sell some related technologies."

An August 10, 2000 New York Times article on the classified portion of a new National Intelligence Estimate predicted that:

"China would expand its relatively small arsenal of roughly 20 long-range nuclear missiles . . . up to 200 warheads by 2015, prompting India and Pakistan to respond with their own buildups."

Rather than move quickly on national missile defense, it is plausible that the new Administration will take a considerable period of time to weigh options and consult with allies. Republicans are split between those who would proceed with the Clinton land- based missile plan and expand from there and those that would junk the Clinton program and start over with new deployment concepts.

The tight election is another reason that the Administration may avoid precipitous action.

======COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY ======It is not likely that there will be early action on U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. President-elect Bush expressed his opposition to the treaty, claiming it is unverifiable and will damage non-proliferation efforts.

"The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty does not stop proliferation, especially to renegade regimes. It is not verifiable. It is not enforceable. And it would stop us from ensuring the safety and reliability of our nation's deterrent, should the need arise. On these crucial matters, it offers only words and false hopes and high intentions – with no guarantees whatever. We can fight the spread of nuclear weapons, but we cannot wish them away with unwise treaties." (Speech at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, November, 19, 1999)

On the other hand, he has endorsed the continuation of the U.S. moratorium on nuclear weapons testing:

"In the hard work of halting proliferation, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is not the answer. I've said that our nation should continue its moratorium on testing." (Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, November 19,

01219.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] 1999)

If Bush changes his position on the test ban treaty in response to pressure from allies or concern about the treaty being a crucial element of American non-proliferation policy, he almost surely could sway the additional 13 to 15 Republican Senators' votes needed to win a two-thirds majority. Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell has endorsed the treaty.

======DEFENSE SPENDING ======President-elect Bush is committed to higher military spending, although the exact amount is unclear. While the Bush campaign officially announced a proposal to increase defense spending by $45 billion over the next decade, Bush advisers repeatedly claimed that the number could be even higher depending on the recommendations of a forthcoming review of U.S. armed forces.

In a September 1999 speech at the Citadel, Governor Bush provided some insight into his plans. Specifically addressing quality of life concerns he stated:

"My first budget will go further – adding a billion dollars in salary increases. We also will provide targeted bonuses for those with special skills. Two-thirds of military family housing units are now substandard, and they must be renovated."

At the same time, it is significant that Bush has proposed "skipping" a generation of weapons production:

"We will modernize some existing weapons and equipment, necessary for current tasks. But our relative peace allows us to do this selectively. The real goal is to move beyond marginal improvements – to replace existing programs with new technologies and strategies. To use this window of opportunity to skip a generation of technology. This will require spending more – and spending more wisely." (Speech at Citidel September 23, 1999)

The concept of "skipping" a generation of weapons development was trumpeted years ago by the late Representative Les Aspin (D-WI). Bush's endorsement suggests that some weapons under development will be on the chopping block. The Bush administration will be faced with a decision regarding $350 billion worth of tactical aircraft encompassing three programs; the Navy's F/A 18 E/F, the Air Force's F-22 Raptor and the multi-service Joint Strike Fighter.

Two comments by Bush advisers indicate that Bush may be willing to make difficult decisions concerning tactical aircraft. On September 27, 2000, Richard Armitage, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Bush Administration and a former Ambassador to the Independent States of the Soviet Union, told Defense Daily:

"George Bush has said if he is fortunate enough to be elected president, he is going to look at our whole military situation, including the tactical air account. He's noted that the 3,000 number seems a bit much."

01219.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] Dov Zakheim, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy during the Reagan administration and an adviser to George W. Bush, told the November 2, 2000, Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

"There is no pre-commitment to add anything or cut anything, but it's certainly clear there aren't enough resources to meet all the tactical aircraft programs. . . something has to give."

It is also useful to note that when he was Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney terminated or tried to kill the A-12 aircraft, the Seawolf submarine, the V-22 Osprey, the Midgetman missile and the MX rail garrison, and trimmed the B-2 program from 75 to 20.

Bush even addressed pork:

"I will confront the Congress when it uses the defense budget as a source of pork or patronage."

No president has ever seriously challenged Pentagon pork and, if Bush is committed, he could be a powerful ally to Sen. McCain.

======CONCLUSION ======The next four years may prove surprisingly productive toward reducing nuclear weapons, removing nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert and restructuring the military. However, these plans could all wind up the ash heap of history if the incoming Administration rushes forward with a massive national missile defense. Furthermore, outright abandonment of the ABM treaty, opposition to the test ban treaty and refusal to support the United Nations could put the U.S. on the dangerous path toward isolationism.

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

01219.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] To: John Isaacs From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: ARMS CONTROL IN THE NEW BUSH ADMINISTRATION: CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20001218122106.00812100@[63.106.26.66]> References:

At 12:21 PM 12/18/00 -0500, you wrote: >ARMS CONTROL IN THE NEW BUSH ADMINISTRATION: >CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM....

John,

Thanks for your analysis. If it's all right with you, I'd like to share it with the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament.

Howard

01219.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:16 PM] X-Sender: jdi@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:59:14 -0500 To: "Howard W. Hallman" From: John Isaacs Subject: Re: ARMS CONTROL IN THE NEW BUSH ADMINISTRATION: CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM

Absolutely share it. John

At 04:48 PM 12/18/2000 -0500, you wrote: >At 12:21 PM 12/18/00 -0500, you wrote: >>ARMS CONTROL IN THE NEW BUSH ADMINISTRATION: >>CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM.... > >John, > >Thanks for your analysis. If it's all right with you, I'd like to share it >with the Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament. > >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. >

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

01219.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:27:40 -0500 Subject: Re: Sign-On for January Action Card on De-Alerting Nuclear Weapons From: Tim Barner To: Howard Hallman

URGENT - DEADLINE IS NOON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21 ! Re: Sign-On for January Action Card on De-Alerting Nuclear Weapons

December 18, 2000

Dear Colleague:

We invite your faith group to join in a January coalition (faith and secular) grassroots action postcard asking for letters to President Bush requesting that he take US nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert as a priority for his first 100 days in office. If you are not familiar with the 20/20 Vision post card format, I can fax one to you.

The purpose of the card is to create a flood of letters to the President between inauguration and the State of the Union Address and supplement/complement the telephone calls generated on the Feb 5-6 national call-in days.

[Some of you may have already received an e-mail about this matter from the BACK From the BRINK Campaign (Esther Pank).]

The card also carries a request to participate in the Feb 5-6 national call-in day to the White House on de-alerting.

We invite your organization to participate in two ways:

1) Add your name to the list of organizations that will appear in a box on the card under the heading Endorsed By:

2) Tell us how many post cards (8.5 X 5.5 inches) you can distribute to your own members.

Cards will cost 15 cents apiece. The BACK From the BRINK Campaign is enabling organizations with a limited budget to obtain up to 500 cards at no cost. Tell us if you feel you are in this category.

The cards will be available for your mailing any time after January 2 -- hopefully by January 15 -- and take a 33 cent stamp.

If you have not already talked to either Esther Pank at the Brink Campaign or to me, please e-mail back or call (202-833-2020 X 13) with a response as early as possible in the week of December18 to have your organization's name appear on the card.

The card text is below.

01219.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] Sincerely,

Tim Barner Program Director 20/20 Vision

01219.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Sign-On for January Action Card on De-Alerting Nuclear Weapons Cc: Bcc: icnd X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Colleagues:

I call to your attention the opportunity to sign-on to a postcard on de-alerting nuclear weapons and to order cards from 20/20 vision.

Howard Halalman

>User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:27:40 -0500 >Subject: Re: Sign-On for January Action Card on De-Alerting Nuclear Weapons >From: Tim Barner >To: Howard Hallman > >URGENT - DEADLINE IS NOON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21 >! >Re: Sign-On for January Action Card on De-Alerting Nuclear Weapons > >December 18, 2000 > >Dear Colleague: > >We invite your faith group to join in a January coalition (faith and >secular) grassroots action postcard asking for letters to President Bush >requesting that he take US nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert as a >priority for his first 100 days in office. If you are not familiar with the >20/20 Vision post card format, I can fax one to you. > >The purpose of the card is to create a flood of letters to the President >between inauguration and the State of the Union Address and >supplement/complement the telephone calls generated on the Feb 5-6 national >call-in days. > >[Some of you may have already received an e-mail about this matter from the >BACK From the BRINK Campaign (Esther Pank).] > >The card also carries a request to participate in the Feb 5-6 national >call-in day to the White House on de-alerting. > >We invite your organization to participate in two ways: > >1) Add your name to the list of organizations that will appear in a box on >the card under the heading Endorsed By: > >2) Tell us how many post cards (8.5 X 5.5 inches) you can distribute to your

01219.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] >own members. > >Cards will cost 15 cents apiece. The BACK From the BRINK Campaign is >enabling organizations with a limited budget to obtain up to 500 cards at no >cost. Tell us if you feel you are in this category. > >The cards will be available for your mailing any time after January 2 -- >hopefully by January 15 -- and take a 33 cent stamp. > >If you have not already talked to either Esther Pank at the Brink Campaign >or to me, please e-mail back or call (202-833-2020 X 13) with a response as >early as possible in the week of December18 to have your organization's name >appear on the card. > >The card text is below. > >Sincerely, > >Tim Barner >Program Director >20/20 Vision > >

01219.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: ARMS CONTROL IN THE NEW BUSH ADMINISTRATION: CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM Cc: Bcc: icnd X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Colleagues,

You may be interested in this analysis of the new Bush Administration by John Isaacs, president, Council for a Livable World.

Howard

>X-Sender: jdi@[63.106.26.66] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:21:06 -0500 >To: [email protected] >From: John Isaacs >Subject: ARMS CONTROL IN THE NEW BUSH ADMINISTRATION: CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM > >ARMS CONTROL IN THE NEW BUSH ADMINISTRATION: >CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM > > A COUNCIL FOR A LIVABLE WORLD ANALYSIS > > >The election of George W. Bush as President presents new opportunities as >well as major hurdles to significant progress on arms control issues. > >An examination of statements made by President-elect Bush during his >campaign provides a basis for cautious optimism for significant nuclear >weapons reductions. The major barrier to these achievements is not likely >to be the Russians, Congress or "states of concern" such as Iran or North >Korea but rather national missile defense. > >======>CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM ON NUCLEAR REDUCTIONS >======>For starters, it is useful to remember that Republican Presidents tend to >be more successful than Democrats in overcoming Congressional opposition >and Russian disagreements. In his four years in office, President George >Bush signed the START I and II nuclear reduction treaties, the Chemical >Weapons Convention, the Conventional Forces in Europe agreement, and >announced the unilateral elimination of deployed ground-based short-range >nuclear weapons and the destruction of 1,650 naval-based nuclear weapons. > >Congress went along with all these steps with few objections. > >While Republicans in Congress placed significant hurdles in the path of >President Clinton over the past four years, those objections are likely to

01219.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] >fade with a Republican in the White House. > >Second, the nominees for the top national security policy positions are >Republican mainstream conservatives rather than hard-edged ideologues. >People like Colin Powell, Condelezza Rice and Dan Coats are no liberals, >but they are also not hard- liners. Moreover, Vice President-elect Dick >Cheney was Defense Secretary when President Bush secured his major arms >control accomplishments. > >Third, George W. Bush proposed during his campaign significant reductions >below START II levels of 3,500 strategic weapons, and has suggested that he >— like his father — is willing to reduce nuclear weapons unilaterally. He >called unneeded nuclear weapons "relics of dead conflicts": > > "As president, I will ask the secretary of defense to conduct an >assessment of our nuclear force posture and determine how best to meet our >security needs. While the exact number of weapons can come only from such >an assessment, I will pursue the lowest possible number consistent with our >national security. It should be possible to reduce the number of American >nuclear weapons > significantly further than what has been already agreed to under START II >without comp/romising our security in any way. We should not keep weapons >that our military planners do not need. These unneeded weapons are the >expensive relics of dead conflicts, and they do nothing to make us more >secure."(National Press Club press conference, May 23, 2000) > >President-elect Bush committed to no specific number and pledged to consult >with the Joint Chiefs. However, the clear direction of his remarks suggest >that significant reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal can be accomplished >during the next four years, either unilaterally or through a negotiated >agreement with Russia. > >======>DE-ALERTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS >======>President-elect Bush also stated his intention to unilaterally de-alert >hundreds, possibly thousands, of nuclear weapons: > > "In addition, the United States should remove as many weapons as possible >from high alert, high-trigger status, another unnecessary vestige of Cold >War confrontation. Preparation for quick launch within minutes after a >warning of an attack was the rule during the era of superpower rivalry. But >today, for two nations at peace, keeping so many weapons on high alert may >create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch. So as >president, I will ask for an assessment of what we can safely do to lower >the alert status of our forces. These changes to our forces should not >require years and years of detailed arms control negotiations." (National >Press Club press conference, May 23, 2000) > >This is a significant development considering that the Clinton >Administration largely ignored the issue. The elder Bush Administration >did remove some weapons from high- alert status, and Russia reciprocated. > >It is important to note that the annual Defense Authorization bill contains

01219.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] >language prohibiting unilateral nuclear weapons reductions and de-alerting >until START II is implemented. While Congress blocked efforts to remove >the language during the Clinton Administration, it may prove more pliable >when Bush enters office. > >Another factor to consider: the Pentagon will review nuclear weapons issues >as part of a nuclear posture review (NPR) due before the end of 2001. > >======>COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION (NUNN-LUGAR) >======>President-elect Bush has indicated he may increase funding for programs to >help the former Soviet Republics dismantle nuclear weapons and deal with >nuclear materials: > > "The next president must press for an accurate inventory of all this >material. And we must do more. I'll ask the Congress to increase >substantially our assistance to dismantle as many of Russia's weapons as >possible, as quickly as possible." (Speech at Ronald Reagan Presidential >Library, November 19, 1999) > >======>THE MAJOR HURDLE: STAR WARS >======>President-elect George Bush is firmly within the Republican orthodoxy that >advocates a comprehensive missile defense system including land, sea and/or >space based interceptors: > > "At the earliest possible date, my administration will deploy >anti-ballistic missile systems, both theater and national, to guard against >attack and blackmail."(Speech at Citadel, September 23, 1999) > >He has been clear in calling for a system that will be national in scope >and is willing to share this technology with allies in Europe, Asia, and >the Middle East: > > "Our missile defense must be designed to protect all 50 states and our >friends and allies and deployed forces overseas from missile attacks by >rogue nations or accidental launches. A missile defense system should not >only defend our country, it should defend our allies with whom I will >consult as we develop our plans." (National Press Club press conference, >May 23, 2000) > >He also advocated widespread theater missile defense systems: > > "We must show American power and purpose in strong support for our Asian >friends and allies – for democratic South Korea across the Yellow Sea... >for democratic Japan and the Philippines across the China seas ... for >democratic Australia and Thailand. This means keeping our pledge to deter >aggression against the Republic of Korea, and strengthening security ties >with Japan. This means expanding theater missile defenses among our >allies." (Speech at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, November, 19, 1999) > >Bush believes that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is an "artifact" of

01219.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] >the Cold War, and is willing to abandon the treaty if an agreement cannot >be reached with Russia: > > "To make this possible, we will offer Russia the necessary amendments to >the anti-ballistic missile treaty – an artifact of Cold War confrontation. >Both sides know that we live in a different world from 1972, when that >treaty was signed. If Russia refuses the changes we propose, we will give >prompt notice, under the provisions of the treaty, that we can no longer be >a party to it." (Speech at Citadel, September 23, 1999) > >If Bush follows the spirit of these proposals and the recommendations of >right-wing allies at the Heritage Foundation, early in his Administration >he may commit to national missile deployment and abandon the ABM Treaty. >Such actions will jeopardize the chance of working with Russia and China >toward deep nuclear reductions. In fact, Russia has indicated that it may >reverse planned nuclear reductions that are being forced for economic >reasons (deploying more than one warhead per missile, for example). It may >also end its cooperation to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and >materials. China may well accelerate the expansion and modernization of >its limited nuclear forces in response to Bush actions on missile defense. > >The September 1999 National Intelligence Council Report, "Foreign Missile >Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Through >2015" confirmed this assessment: > > "We assess that countries developing missiles also will respond to US >theater and national missile defenses by deploying larger forces, >penetration aids, and countermeasures. Russia and China each have developed >numerous countermeasures and probably will sell some related technologies." > >An August 10, 2000 New York Times article on the classified portion of a >new National Intelligence Estimate predicted that: > > "China would expand its relatively small arsenal of roughly 20 long-range >nuclear missiles . . . up to 200 warheads by 2015, prompting India and >Pakistan to respond with their own buildups." > >Rather than move quickly on national missile defense, it is plausible that >the new Administration will take a considerable period of time to weigh >options and consult with allies. Republicans are split between those who >would proceed with the Clinton land- based missile plan and expand from >there and those that would junk the Clinton program and start over with new >deployment concepts. > >The tight election is another reason that the Administration may avoid >precipitous action. > >======>COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY >======>It is not likely that there will be early action on U.S. ratification of >the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. President-elect Bush expressed his >opposition to the treaty, claiming it is unverifiable and will damage >non-proliferation efforts.

01219.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] > > "The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty does not stop proliferation, especially >to renegade regimes. It is not verifiable. It is not enforceable. And it >would stop us from ensuring the safety and reliability of our nation's >deterrent, should the need arise. On these crucial matters, it offers only >words and false hopes and high intentions – with no guarantees whatever. We >can fight the spread of nuclear weapons, but we cannot wish them away with >unwise treaties." (Speech at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, November, >19, 1999) > >On the other hand, he has endorsed the continuation of the U.S. moratorium >on nuclear weapons testing: > > "In the hard work of halting proliferation, the Comprehensive Test Ban >Treaty is not the answer. I've said that our nation should continue its >moratorium on testing." (Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, November 19, >1999) > >If Bush changes his position on the test ban treaty in response to pressure >from allies or concern about the treaty being a crucial element of American >non-proliferation policy, he almost surely could sway the additional 13 to >15 Republican Senators' votes needed to win a two-thirds majority. >Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell has endorsed the treaty. > >======>DEFENSE SPENDING >======>President-elect Bush is committed to higher military spending, although the >exact amount is unclear. While the Bush campaign officially announced a >proposal to increase defense spending by $45 billion over the next decade, >Bush advisers repeatedly claimed that the number could be even higher >depending on the recommendations of a forthcoming review of U.S. armed >forces. > >In a September 1999 speech at the Citadel, Governor Bush provided some >insight into his plans. Specifically addressing quality of life concerns >he stated: > > "My first budget will go further – adding a billion dollars in salary >increases. We also will provide targeted bonuses for those with special >skills. Two-thirds of military family housing units are now substandard, >and they must be renovated." > >At the same time, it is significant that Bush has proposed "skipping" a >generation of weapons production: > > "We will modernize some existing weapons and equipment, necessary for >current tasks. But our relative peace allows us to do this selectively. The >real goal is to move beyond marginal improvements – to replace existing >programs with new technologies and strategies. To use this window of >opportunity to skip a generation of technology. This will require spending >more – and spending more wisely." (Speech at Citidel September 23, 1999) > >The concept of "skipping" a generation of weapons development was trumpeted

01219.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] >years ago by the late Representative Les Aspin (D-WI). Bush's endorsement >suggests that some weapons under development will be on the chopping block. >The Bush administration will be faced with a decision regarding $350 >billion worth of tactical aircraft encompassing three programs; the Navy's >F/A 18 E/F, the Air Force's F-22 Raptor and the multi-service Joint Strike >Fighter. > >Two comments by Bush advisers indicate that Bush may be willing to make >difficult decisions concerning tactical aircraft. On September 27, 2000, >Richard Armitage, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Bush >Administration and a former Ambassador to the Independent States of the >Soviet Union, told Defense Daily: > > "George Bush has said if he is fortunate enough to be elected president, >he is going to look at our whole military situation, including the tactical >air account. He's noted that the 3,000 number seems a bit much." > >Dov Zakheim, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy during the Reagan >administration and an adviser to George W. Bush, told the November 2, 2000, >Fort Worth Star-Telegram: > > "There is no pre-commitment to add anything or cut anything, but it's >certainly clear there aren't enough resources to meet all the tactical >aircraft programs. . . something has to give." > >It is also useful to note that when he was Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney >terminated or tried to kill the A-12 aircraft, the Seawolf submarine, the >V-22 Osprey, the Midgetman missile and the MX rail garrison, and trimmed >the B-2 program from 75 to 20. > >Bush even addressed pork: > > "I will confront the Congress when it uses the defense budget as a source >of pork or patronage." > >No president has ever seriously challenged Pentagon pork and, if Bush is >committed, he could be a powerful ally to Sen. McCain. > >======>CONCLUSION >======>The next four years may prove surprisingly productive toward reducing >nuclear weapons, removing nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert and >restructuring the military. However, these plans could all wind up the ash >heap of history if the incoming Administration rushes forward with a >massive national missile defense. Furthermore, outright abandonment of the >ABM treaty, opposition to the test ban treaty and refusal to support the >United Nations could put the U.S. on the dangerous path toward isolationism. > > > > > >

01219.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] > > >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 >

01219.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Room request Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Robin,

The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to meet the second Tuesday of each month in 2001, starting with Tuesday, February 13. Would we be able to reserve a conference room in the Methodist Building for the whole year's schedule? That would consist of February 13, March 13, April 10, May 8, June 12, July 10, (skip August), September 11, October 9, November 13, December 11.

I like Room 3, but with the size of attendance we have been having, Room 4 (board room) is large enough unless we get a sizable increase. I don't necessarily want to tie up the larger room if the smaller one suffices.

Thanks for your help. And happy holiday to you and your family.

Howard

01219.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-1927-977175901-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Sender: [email protected] To: [email protected] From: Abolition 2000 Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:57:11 -0800 Subject: [abolition-caucus] Abolition 2000 Grassroots Newsletter

Abolition 2000 Grassroots Newsletter December 2000 Vol. II Number 8

********************* IN THIS EDITION ********************* I. Articles II. Abolition 2000 Organizations in the Year 2000 III. Announcements IV. Calendar Events V. Resources

************* ARTICLES *************

Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace formed in India

On 13 November, the landmark National Convention for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, held in New Delhi, India, announced the formation of a Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. The broad-based Coalition is the culmination of two and half years of grassroots protest across all of India against the Pokharan-II nuclear tests conducted in May 1998. It emerges as the result of a growing and sustained campaign for the complete abolition of nuclear weapons worldwide, and South Asia in particular.

The three day convention was sponsored by 110 organizations and brought together more than 600 delegates from India, Pakistan, Northeast and Southeast Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace gives India's peace movement an organized national presence and profile for the first time ever. The Convention elected a 40- member Coordination Committee and adopted a Charter for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. The Charter outlines the Indian peace movement's opposition to nuclear weapons and rejects the reliance on nuclear weapons for security. The Charter demands a complete roll-back of India's and Pakistan's nuclear weapons and missile programs. It also calls for the cessation of all testing and fissile material acquisition and concrete steps for global nuclear disarmament.

01219.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] For more information or a copy of the Charter, please contact: c/o Delhi Science Forum B-1, 2nd Floor, LSC.J Block Saket, New Delhi - 110017 India Tel: +91-11-6524324 Email: [email protected]

><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><><

Nagasaki Global Citizens' Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

From 17-20 November, a Global Citizens' Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons was held in Nagasaki, Japan. The Assembly had several unique features in that it was the last anti-nuclear NGO conference of the 20th century and was held in the last city bombed by an atomic weapon. Anti-nuclear non-governmental organization (NGO) leaders from around the world joined world citizens to generate a new vision for the 21st century based on activities and experiences of the past. At the conclusion of the Assembly, the Nagasaki Appeal was adopted. An excerpt from the Appeal reads:

"During our conference, we have learned from the stories of many who have suffered from the nuclear age: the hibakusha and downwinders from Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Semipalatinsk, Nevada, and Moruroa; Chernobyl and Tokaimura. The world's citizens must now be mobilized to form a potent global movement, and it is this force that will compel governments to fulfill their promises. All sectors of the global community must be involved including women, youth, workers, religious communities and indigenous peoples."

The full text of the Nagasaki Appeal is available at: Http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/documents/nagasaki-appeal11-00.html

Abolition 2000 also held a Review and Strategy Meeting prior to the conference and Abolition 2000 activities were also introduced and discussed during the formal plenary and workshop sessions. Notes from the Abolition 2000 meetings and follow-up will be mailed out to member organizations in January. An electronic version will also be available on the website in mid-January.

For more information about the Assembly in Japanese or English, please visit: http://www3.ocn.ne.jp/~gca.naga/

><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><><

Conference in Japan Urges End to Anti-Missile Defenses

On 30 November, the World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP) called on world leaders to halt the development of ballistic missile defense systems being developed by the US. A statement was released by a newly formed WCRP Standing Commission on Disarmament

01219.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] and Security, which met during the week in Kyoto. The WCRP also released plans to strengthen conflict prevention and peace initiatives.

Twenty-three representatives from religious and disarmament organizations from 14 countries attended the two-day meeting. Members of the commission stated that the use of nuclear weapons contradicts their shared moral and spiritual beliefs, and they should be eliminated. In particular, the commission voiced concern over the development of missile defense systems that would require renewed testing of nuclear weapons and intensify resistance to further reductions in existing nuclear arsenals.

The commission stated that missile defense legitimizes nuclear weapons as an important factor in international relations, and it reaffirmed the importance of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It also called on world leaders to realize their commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons. (4 December 2000, The Yomiuri Shimbun)

><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><><

Protest at NSA Menwith Hill, UK

On 13 December Anni Rainbow and Lindis Percy, Co-Coordinators of the Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (CAAB) quietly prevented American cars from coming out of NSA Menwith Hill by standing in front of them and refusing to move. They carried the "Stars and Stripes" with "STOP STAR WARS" written on it and a placard which read, "George W Bush? Oh dear!"

Rainbow and Percy were at MHS to witness and protest at the role of NMD at Menwith Hill and the pending "election" of George W Bush as the 43rd US President.

Both were arrested and charged with "obstruction of the highway" at the Main Entrance to the base by the Ministry of Defense Police who act for the Americans at MHS. A permanent injunction was brought by the Secretary of State for Defense in 1996 and prevents Percy from entering MHS.

Rainbow and Percy believe it is even more important than ever before to speak up and protest American plans to deploy an National Missile Defense (NMD) program, especially in light of Bush's "election." NMD cannot function without the formal consent of the UK government. Both MHS and Flyingdales bases are crucial in the proposed NMD program.

CAAB will continue to organize a variety of peaceful actions at MHS and Flyingdales. The UK government is apparently anxious about the possible rekindling of "grass-roots activity" (The Guardian 12 December 2000). And they should be!

Contact: Lindis Percy and Anni Rainbow

01219.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] CAMPAIGN FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF AMERICAN BASES (CAAB) 8 Park Row, Otley, West Yorkshire, LS21 1HQ, England, UK Tel/fax no: +44 (0)1943 466405 0R +44 (0)1482 702033 email: [email protected] Website: http://www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/caab/

><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><><

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) is sponsoring a hunger strike. On 23 December, the people participating in the movement plan to stop shipments of uranium nuclear waste being shipped 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]

*********************** ANNOUNCEMENTS ***********************

December 2000

Dear Abolition 2000 Global Network Members and Friends,

As the new millennium rapidly approaches, I am writing to request your urgent support of the Abolition 2000 Global Network and its efforts to achieve a nuclear free future. This year, we reached our goal of 2000 member organizations and municipalities and Abolition 2000 is now the third largest NGO network in the world. In order to continue developing our influence throughout the world, Abolition 2000 needs your help and that of all the other major groups in the network.

As an active member of Abolition 2000, I am writing to urge you to make a generous gift to support the Network. With a donation from each endorsing member, Abolition 2000 could rely on its own members to provide the basic resources necessary to sustain its critically important work.

Please give as generously as you can. Make your check payable to Abolition 2000 and return it in care of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. I thank you for all of your work for abolition, and also for responding to the important financial challenge we are facing.

01219.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] My best wishes to you in our common work for a more just, secure, and nuclear weapons-free world.

Sincerely,

Carah Ong Coordinator PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1 Santa Barbara, California USA 93108-2794 Email: [email protected] Http://www.abolition2000.org

><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><><

7 November 2000

Dear Colleague:

The Arcata (CA) Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Commission is currently engaged in an outreach and coalition-building mission. The Arcata City Council would like to establish and maintain contact with other nuclear weapon free zones across the world, and with other advocacy groups whose mission is to abolish nuclear weapons. Perhaps by building coalitions among us we can become more effective in our efforts to promote nuclear disarmament from the municipal and grass roots level.

Although polls indicate that a large majority of Americans favor the total abolition of nuclear weapons, we are currently witnessing bipartisan political support for a national Missile Defense System that will inevitably signal the start of a new international nuclear arms race.

We invite you to look at our web site (http://www.arcatacityhall.org/nukefree/index.html) and request that you contact us, so that we may work together on the goal of influencing national nuclear policy from the municipal level. We will soon be posting on our website a revised list of nuclear weapons contractors, free for downloading, so that municipalities may more effectively monitor those corporations.

We hope that you will respond to this outreach attempt by writing us at: Arcata Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Commission, P. O. Box 4444, Arcata, CA 95518. Please share with us your ideas and projects, so that we may work together for a nuclear weapons-free world.

Thank you,

Connie Stewart Mayor of Arcata, California, US

><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><>< ><><

01219.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] Dear Friends

I am writing from the Women Building Peace campaign which was launched in May 1999 by International Alert and over 100 NGO's. The campaign has five themes:

1. to include women in peace negotiations as decision makers 2. put women at the heart of reconstruction and reconciliation 3. strengthen the rights and protection of refugee and displaced women 4. end impunity for crimes committed against women and ensure redress 5. give women and women's organizations the support and resources they need to build peace

The campaign aims to raise global awareness of women's experiences and perspectives of peace and conflict, and to help women better realize their potential as peace-builders from the village to the international level. It seeks to influence and affect the implementation of global policies and international standards on peace, security and development to ensure that gender perspectives are integrated and women's needs are met. During October 2000 we engaged in a series of activities including working with a coalition of US based NGOs to ensure that UN SC Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security was adopted.

International Alert believes that women and women's groups specifically play a critical role in the peacebuilding process and that their work should be highlighted and strengthened and should be supported as widely as possible by all actors in the international community. To further raise awareness of women's peacebuilding activities and to celebrate their achievements in this field we launched the first ever Millennium Peace Prize for women.

We are currently collecting 250,000 signatures to present to Kofi Annan on International Women's Day 2001, to strengthen public awareness of the importance of women and their peacebuilding role and to encourage the international community to adhere to the pledges they made at the Beijing Conference in 1995.

As the campaign is being taken forward by thousands of organizations and individuals from around the world it would be fantastic if you would consider circulating the petition amongst your organization or if perhaps it may be possible to have an insert in any publication or newsletter you may have - any help you can give us with this would be extremely appreciated.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have need further information or have any suggestions about possible ways of working together.

Many Thanks and Best Wishes,

Bethan Cobley International Alert

01219.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] Email: [email protected] Http:// www.international-alert.org/women

********** EVENTS **********

2001 January

26-29 Remember Operation Ranger-50th Anniversary of nuclear bombing at the Nevada Test Site. For more information, please contact Charles Hilfenhaus of the Alliance of Atomic Veterans at or call Marc Page of Nevada Desert Experience at +1 702 646 4814

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 for more information.

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,

01219.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] 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

*Abolition 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

The latest edition of Disarmament Diplomacy is now available on the website of the Acronym Institute at: Http://www.acronym.org.uk

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

01219.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] 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

VIDEO

BUDDHA WEEPS IN JADUGODA, duration 55 min. format Beta PAL, English subtitle. For more information about the film, please contact: Shriprakash Kritika 30 Randhir pd street upper bazar Ranchi 834001 India ph + 91(0) 651 317461 [email protected]

2001 CALENDARS

Housmans Peace Diary & World Peace Directory 2001

The Housmans Peace Diary & World Peace Directory is produced as a non-profit service to campaigning groups and activists around the world; the 2001 edition is now published.

The attractively-produced Housmans Peace Diary for the year 2001 includes a feature on the UN's International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence. Its pocket format combines a week-to-a-view Appointments section with the uniquely authoritative World Peace Directory. The Appointments section includes a new selection of thoroughly-researched anniversary dates, and a quote or campaigning note each week.

The World Peace Directory is fully re-compiled and lists 2000 organizations in over 150 countries working for Peace and Conflict Resolution, for the Environment, and for Human Rights. Web and e-mail addresses are included, in addition to post, phone and fax details, as well as a key to each organization's areas of concern. This is the most comprehensive and up-to-date directory of its kind published anywhere in the world. The 2001 Peace Diary (printed on recycled paper) is on sale in selected bookshops in many countries at stlg5.95 or equivalent*. It is also available direct from Housmans [see Note 1 below].

ISBN: 0 85283 255 9 ISSN: 0957-0136 48th Edition

Cat Lovers Against the Bomb 2001 is now available from the Nebraskans for Peace. The calendar is a cat odyssey throughout the coming year, filled with thought-provoking quotations, catchy slogans, and important daily information on cat history and peace activities. To order, send US$7.95 + $1.25 postage each to: CLAB-PN P.O. Box 83466 Lincoln, Nebraska 68501

01219.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] Tel: +1 402-475-4620 Email: [email protected]

BOOKS

Stories of Victories for Peace: Inspiration, Encouragement and Empowerment

"Peace is possible" contains frank, lively, short and readable personal accounts from 32 authors - most of them new articles, written for this book by men and women who were at the center of the action, Dalai Lama, Gorbachev, Jody Williams, Scilla Elworthy, Joseph Rotblat, Daniel Ellsberg, Howard Zinn, Nelson Mandela, Richard Falk, Mordechai Vanunu, Joanna Macy, Howard Zinn Š.. Together they offer a wide panorama of the efforts that create hope for a safe and peaceful world order.

"Peace is Possible", just published by the PB with the support of UNESCO, is a great gift to yourself and everyyone concerned with saving this marvellous green planet of ours.

More information - how to order: "Peace is possible" is easy to order at Http://www.ipb.org or use this direct link: http://home.c2i.net/norpeace/peaceispossible.html Price US$20 (US$ 15 for IPB members and low income. Also bulk rates).

Available already in 4 languages: Bangla, English, Finnish, Norwegian. Forthcoming: Hindi and Marathi.

********** EDITOR **********

Carah Ong --

Carah Lynn Ong Coordinator, Abolition 2000 PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1 Santa Barbara CA 93108

Phone (805) 965 3443 FAX(805) 568 0466 Email: [email protected] Website http://www.abolition2000.org

Join the Abolition-Global Caucus listserv to receive regular updates about the Abolition movement. The caucus provides an international forum for conversation on nuclear-related issues. Important articles and information relating to nuclear issues are also circulated to keep interested individuals and activists informed about nuclear issues.

To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, please do one of the following:

1. Send a message to the list moderator at [email protected]

01219.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] 2. Visit the Abolition-caucus website at: Http://www.egroups.com/list/abolition-caucus/ and submit a membership form.

3. Visit the Abolition 2000 website and submit a membership form.

4. Send an e-mail to: [email protected] (leave the subject line and body of the message blank).

To post a message to the Abolition Global Caucus, send your message to:

[email protected]

To subscribe to the Abolition-USA listerve, send a message (with no subject) to: [email protected] In the body of the message, write: "subscribe abolition-usa" (do not include quotation marks)

To post a message to the Abolition-USA list, mail your message to: [email protected]

------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~> eGroups eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/91925/_/977175901/ ------_->

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.

01219.10.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:35:52 +0800 From: Ken Sehested Reply-To: [email protected] Organization: Baptist Peace Fellowship X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Sign-On for January Action Card on De-Alerting NuclearWeapons

Howard,

With much regret, I need to tell you I'm swamped and won't be able to participate in this 20/20 action or help with your project of targeted attention to particular Senators.

We've had several minor crises in our office (staff out, money problems), trying to finish editing a new book, death and serious illnesses in our extended family, holiday travel coming up; and my wife and I are trying to get ready for a month's intensive Spanish language training in Mexico beginning in mid-January.

I'm in over my head.

I'm ready for a little Christmas. (Or, at least I'm hoping to get ready!)

Ken Sehested

"Howard W. Hallman" wrote:

> Dear Colleagues: > > I call to your attention the opportunity to sign-on to a postcard on > de-alerting nuclear weapons and to order cards from 20/20 vision. > > Howard Halalman > > >User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 > >Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:27:40 -0500 > >Subject: Re: Sign-On for January Action Card on De-Alerting Nuclear Weapons > >From: Tim Barner > >To: Howard Hallman > > > >URGENT - DEADLINE IS NOON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21 > >! > >Re: Sign-On for January Action Card on De-Alerting Nuclear Weapons > > > >December 18, 2000 > > > >Dear Colleague: > > > >We invite your faith group to join in a January coalition (faith and > >secular) grassroots action postcard asking for letters to President Bush > >requesting that he take US nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert as a

01219.11.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] > >priority for his first 100 days in office. If you are not familiar with the > >20/20 Vision post card format, I can fax one to you. > > > >The purpose of the card is to create a flood of letters to the President > >between inauguration and the State of the Union Address and > >supplement/complement the telephone calls generated on the Feb 5-6 national > >call-in days. > > > >[Some of you may have already received an e-mail about this matter from the > >BACK From the BRINK Campaign (Esther Pank).] > > > >The card also carries a request to participate in the Feb 5-6 national > >call-in day to the White House on de-alerting. > > > >We invite your organization to participate in two ways: > > > >1) Add your name to the list of organizations that will appear in a box on > >the card under the heading Endorsed By: > > > >2) Tell us how many post cards (8.5 X 5.5 inches) you can distribute to your > >own members. > > > >Cards will cost 15 cents apiece. The BACK From the BRINK Campaign is > >enabling organizations with a limited budget to obtain up to 500 cards at no > >cost. Tell us if you feel you are in this category. > > > >The cards will be available for your mailing any time after January 2 -- > >hopefully by January 15 -- and take a 33 cent stamp. > > > >If you have not already talked to either Esther Pank at the Brink Campaign > >or to me, please e-mail back or call (202-833-2020 X 13) with a response as > >early as possible in the week of December18 to have your organization's name > >appear on the card. > > > >The card text is below. > > > >Sincerely, > > > >Tim Barner > >Program Director > >20/20 Vision > > > > > 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.

-- Ken Sehested Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America

01219.11.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] 4800 Wedgewood Drive, Charlotte, NC 28210 704/521-6051 CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE at www.bpfna.org

01219.11.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] From: "James O. Watkins, Jr." To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Agenda for December 18 meeting Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:05:28 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200

Hi Howard,

You have probably wondered what has happened to me - I became part of the faculty of Columbia Seminary in August and have, as you can imagine, had to make adjustments. Thank you for your efforts - keep me in the loop - perhaps there will be a seminary tie in. JimWatkins

----- Original Message ----- From: Howard W. Hallman To: Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:31 AM Subject: Agenda for December 18 meeting

> Dear Colleagues, > > Here is the proposed agenda for the meeting of the Interfaith Committee for > Nuclear Disarmament, scheduled for Monday, December 18 from 1:00 to 2:30 > p.m. at the National Council of Churches conference room, 110 Maryland > Avenue, NE, Washington, DC (building access is #108), > > Agenda > > 1. Introductions > 2. Election aftermath (brief) > 3. Outreach to key senators > a. State contacts > b. In D.C. > 4. Approach new administration (see suggestions in separate e-mail) > 5. De-alerting initiatives > a. 20/20 postcard > b. Back from the Brink national call-in day > 6. Next meetings > a. Briefing on de-alerting and strategic arms reduction > Thursday, January 4, 2001, 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. > Methodists Building, 100 Maryland Avenue, NE, Conference Room 3 > b. Regular meeting of Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament > To be scheduled > > I look forward to seeing you at the meeting. If you can't attend and have > any comments to share, please get in touch with me. >

01219.14.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] > 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.

01219.14.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-1915-977061105-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: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: acc Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:48:21 +0200 Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [abolition-caucus] Urgent campaigns are needed

Dear Friends; In October 10, David Krieger sent an E-mail carrying a report on Nuclear Weapons Abolition at the beginning of the 21st Century. He presented his suggestions mainly on the basis of US nuclear policy. In my reply to his report I agreed with his proposals but suggested at the same time additional ideas after concisely reviewing the current US policy on nuclear weapons. Now, a new US Administration is in power after many quarrels and disputes on Florida votes counting. Therefore, I think it will be very advisable if we start reviewing our campaign agenda and identify our priorities in the light of the expected policies of the new Administration. It goes without saying that the US nuclear weapon policies are international and global, affecting all peoples and countries. Consequently , responses to these policies should be at the same time part and parcel of Abolition 2000 current campaigns. In my opinion, the following are the urgent issues which can be identified for the current campaigns to influence the policies of the new Administration: US ratification of CTBT and continuation of START process, prevention of US missile defense (NMD and TMD) and halting all efforts by US to produce low yield nukes which will be practically used.

Unless, we shall succeed in achieving the targets of these campaigns, US reliance on nuclear weapons will be much more entrenched and other NWSs will follow suit, and consequently, the slogan raised to conclude a nuclear weapon convention will be null and void. Friends; Possibly, holding a meeting of Abolition 2000 ACC together with representatives of US network is necessary to discuss the appropriate international campaigns which will effectively influence the polices of the new Administration. Best regards. Bahig Nasar Coordinator; Arab Coordination Centre of NGOs

01219.15.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] ------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~> eGroups eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/91925/_/977061105/ ------_->

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.

01219.15.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:33:46 -0500 From: William J Price Subject: World Peacemakers Rep at Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament Sender: William J Price To: Howard Hallman , Robert Pettigrew

Dear Howard,

Rev. Robert Pettigrew will be representing us at this vital organization which you are leading so energetically and wisely. Bob has been at a faithful and wise part-time member of the World Peacemakers Staff for a decade and a half. In this role he has travelled extensively building a partnership with the religious peace movement in Great Britain, giving special attention to nuclear disarmament, Before joining our Staff he was with the Episcopal Church Washington lobbying office, so he knows both ends of the important challenge you are through ICND. Your Partner Bill

______

PS I pray that the appointments George W. has just announced yesterday and today will miracuously be used to new open avenues in which ICND can indeed be the Salt of the Earth. Bob ,Howard has been collecting very usefull info on NMD which I can send you later including George W,'s May 23, 2000 speech . .

01219.16.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:17 PM] From: [email protected] Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:32:28 EST Subject: Payments To: [email protected] X-Mailer: Unknown sub 107

I'm sending you small payments to Cokesbury and Jahn's Printing later this morning. I took these invoices from the mailbox yesterday.

Phil

01219.17.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: National Call-in Day on De-alerting Cc: Bcc: icnd X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Colleagues:

Esther Pank of the Back from the Brink Campaign has asked me to forward the following message to you about National Call-in Day, scheduled for February 5-6. If you want any of the material she mentions, please get in touch with her directly.

Shalom, Howard

###

The Back from the Brink Campaign and its allied organizations are promoting 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.

We can remind the 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 risks of accidental or unauthorized launch."

We are calling on President-elect George W. Bush to take concrete actions to honor this platform pledge within his first 100 days in office and we want to flood the White House with phone calls to 202-456-1414.

The Campaign has several resources available to promote the Call-In Days: printed flyers available FREE in bulk or downloadable flyers in .pdf format; a text announcement available via e-mail, along with ideas on how to mobilize your organizations, friends and community to take part in this important day. Contact [email protected] or call 202-545-1001 for more information, to order your supplies, and to let us know how you are participating. Thanks.

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]

01220.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] 01220.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-1941-977327419-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] X-Corel-MessageType: EMail From: Delong Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:48:40 -0700 Subject: [abolition-caucus] Putin visits Canada: NMD, NPT (etc) discussed

Friends, Prime Minister Putin visited Canada this week. The joint statement issued can be found at: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/english/geo/europe/russia-sphere-declaration-e.html

I've set out the first 6 paragraphs of the Statement below dealing with START, CTBT, ABM, Outer Space, NPT, and MOX. ....For the list of other topics covered, see the very long list below! Bev Delong, Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON COOPERATION IN THE SPHERE OF STRATEGIC STABILITY

The Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the Russian Federation confirm their commitment to strengthening strategic stability and international security as one of today’s most important priorities.

In this regard, Canada takes note of the Statement of the President of the Russian Federation on nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and strategic stability of November 13, 2000. Canada and the Russian Federation agree that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is a cornerstone of strategic stability and an important foundation for international efforts on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The two countries hope for the earliest entry into force and full implementation of the START II Treaty. They also hope for conclusion of a START III Treaty as soon as possible, including far-reaching reductions in strategic offensive weapons while preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty.

The Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the Russian Federation are committed to exploring concrete new bilateral and multilateral approaches to limiting the proliferation of missiles and missile technologies. In this context, Canada and the Russian Federation will continue together with other countries to work on proposals for confidence-building measures and normative instruments developed by the member-states of the Missile Technology Control Regime as well as the Russian proposal for a global control system over non-proliferation of missiles and missile technologies.

01220.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] In the interests of strengthening global strategic stability and the non-proliferation regime, Canada and the Russian Federation will continue close cooperation on preventing an arms race in outer space, including interaction in the preparation and holding in Moscow in the spring of 2001 of an international conference on the non-weaponization of outer-space, as well as efforts at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to re-establish an appropriate Ad Hoc Committee. A round table of experts of the two countries will be held in January 2001 in order to compare the views of both sides in this sphere.

Canada and the Russian Federation welcome the successful outcome of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference earlier this year, confirm their full support for its Final Document and pledge maximum efforts to carry out its commitments for concrete action at an early date. In this regard, they will work resolutely for the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and will strengthen their efforts to re-initiate negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

Canada and the Russian Federation are also ready to widen discussions, particularly within the framework of the IAEA, on the issues associated with the initiative of the Russian President on the energy requirements of sustainable development, global ecological revitalization and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Canada and the Russian Federation reaffirm their shared commitment to the non-proliferation and elimination of weapons of mass destruction and reaffirm their full support for export control arrangements aimed at achieving these goals. They agree on the need to move quickly towards the implementation of the Russian Federation/USA agreement on plutonium dispositioning. In this regard they stress the importance of ongoing work to achieve the goal set by the G8 to develop, by the time of the Genoa Summit of the G8, an international financing plan for plutonium management and disposition based on a detailed project plan and a multilateral framework to coordinate this cooperation. Canada and the Russian Federation reaffirm the commitment made at the 1996 Moscow Summit to safety first in the use of nuclear power and achievement of high safety standards world wide, as well as their commitment to the Nuclear Safety Convention.

[The statement also deals with the Chemical Weapons Convention, CFE, the Open Skies Treaty, the need to enhance the effectiveness of the UN and its Security Council, NATO Russia dialogue, the OSCE, small arms and light weapons, Anti-Personnel Mines, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the multiple threats to human security, UN Convention Against Organized Crime, the illicit trade in rough diamonds, the establishment by Canada of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Middle East settlement, the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe to promote democracy, security and prosperity]

© Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 2000.

01220.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] All rights reserved.

------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~> eGroups eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/91925/_/977327419/ ------_->

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.

01220.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] To: [email protected], beverley@#erols.com, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:07:12 -0500 Subject: Fw: Proposed Outreach Budgets for 2001 X-Mailer: Juno 4.0.5 From: Dwight O Smith

------Forwarded message ------From: Dwight O Smith To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:49:19 -0500 Subject: Proposed Outreach Budgets for 2001 Message-ID: <[email protected]>

Proposed Outreach Operating and Special (BFF) Budgets for 2001 are listed below. These are just preliminary line item ideas subject to your comments and suggested changes. I would like to get our requested budgets to the BUMC Treasurer prior to the end of the year so please Email your comments to me by Wednesday, December 27,2000. Proposed 2001 Outreach budgets are as follows:

PROPOSED 2001 OPERATING BUDGET 2000 2001 Authorized Proposed LOCAL Commitment Budget ______Bethesda Interfaith Housing Coalition $ 250 $ 300 Bethesda Help 250 300 Community Ministry 2,500 2,500 Christ House 250 300 Summer Camps 250 500 Casa del Pueblo UMC 250 300 Bethesda Cares 1,800 1,800 ______$ 5,550 $ 6,000

NATIONAL ______VIM-North Carolina Flood Recovery $ 600 Red Bird Mission $ 800 1,000 Childrens Defense Fund 400

______

$ 800 $ 2,000

INTERNATIONAL ______

01220.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] Hoovers' Salary $ 1,500 $ 2,000 Sue Porter 1,000 Africa University-Zimbabwe 400 Bishop's Appeal 600 600 ______$ 2,100 4,000

TOTAL $ 8,450 $ 12,000

SPECIAL OUTREACH (BFF) BUDGET

Accum.2000 Proposed Project Commitment Additional ______Building Bridges Youth Ministry $ 8,000 Hispanic Ministries 10,000 $ 3,000

Casa del Pueblo 3,300 1,000 Baltimore Hispanic Ministry 3,400 1,000 Bethesda Hispanic Ministry 3,300 1,000 Conference new church support 7,800 (Release lien on BUMC) Community Ministry of Mont. County 3,000 2,000 (Lon Dring Advocacy Program) Local outreach 900 900 Youth work camp 400 400 Vacation Bible School 500 500 International Outreach-Africa 5,000 4,000 Africa University Books 2,000 Dendera Advanced (A) Level School 2,000 UMCOR Support for Mozambic 1,000 1,000 AIDS Orphanage-Zimbabwe 2,000 Washington West District Zimbabwe Partnership 1,000 Volunteers In Mission (VIM) 2,000 2,000 Baltimore-Washington Conference Endowment Fund 5,000 One Great Hour of Sharing 1,000 Petrov Research Institute of Oncology 500 Methodists United for Peace with Justice 500 * Resurrection Prayer Worship Center, Brandywine 6,000 ______TOTAL $ 43,700 $ 17,900

* $4000 from Building Bridges 2000 Budget transferred to 2001 Budget.

Please note that my Email address has been changed to: [email protected]

Dwight Smith

01220.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] 01220.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] To: Dwight O Smith , [email protected], beverley@#erols.com, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Fw: Proposed Outreach Budgets for 2001 Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> References:

At 12:07 PM 12/20/00 -0500, Dwight O Smith wrote: > >Proposed Outreach Operating and Special (BFF) Budgets for 2001 are listed >below.....

Dwight,

I recall, and my meeting notes indicate, that there was a willingness to make an annual contribution to Methodists United for Peace with Justice as part of national giving. No amount was specified, but I suggested $200 or $250. Hoewever, that didn't appear in Kerri's minutes. Do whatever you think is appropriate.

Howard

01220.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] From: "Peterson, Tony" To: [email protected] Subject: Writers School Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:58:20 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

Dear Ms. Hallman,

Thanks for your interest in the Cokesbury/Abingdon Writers School. The information you need is below. Note that the registration deadline is December 20 (but we can be flexible until December 27). A registration form is included at the end of this e-mail. You can print it out and either mail or fax it to us. If you have further questions, feel free to call or e-mail me.

Tony Peterson [email protected] Phone: 615-749-6319 FAX: 615-749-6061

The United Methodist Publishing House is sponsoring a Writers School for freelancers who wish to write for youth or adults. January 24-26, 2001 in Nashville, Tennessee.

Interested?

You'll learn about: * Christian faith development and how Christian resources can promote spiritual growth * How to write to engage youth and adults in active learning * Working with editors to achieve common goals * Creating high-impact resources that make a difference in the lives of youth and adults * Covering all the bases to please editors and to produce excellent resources * The variety of writing requiredÛfrom class sessions to online media to small groups

Learn to write for:

* Bible Studies * Leader & Teacher Resources * Bible study student books * Christian Life Study Books * Small Group Resources

$99.00 fee includes registration, Writers School Notebook, and copy of 7 Ways of Teaching the Bible to Adults by Barbara Bruce

For registration, print out, fill out, and send back the form below. Or Contact Dee Brooks by phone 615/749-6098

01220.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] or E-mail: [email protected]

Registration Deadline: DECEMBER 20, 2000

Fax to: 615/749-6061 or Mail to: Dee Brooks The United Methodist Publishing House 201 8th Ave. S. Nashville, TN 37202

Our Guest Trainers:

Michael Nolan has written many curriculum resources as well as award-winning projects beyond the church. He will share his first-hand, working knowledge and experience as a writer and creative thinker.

Nan Duerling, an experienced writer and editor, will work especially with writers of adult resources.

What you need to know: How Much? $99 gets you the training plus all program materials (a nifty notebook with tons of resources, a copy of the newly published book, 7 Ways of Teaching the Bible to Adults, by Barbara Bruce) and two lunches. When you register, you will receive a listing of nearby hotels and motels. You'll be responsible for most meals, your transportation, and lodging. (Call us if you have special needs or concerns.)

Where? When? Sessions will be held at The United Methodist Publishing House. We'll meet from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday and end at noon on Friday. Learn by day; explore Music City by night!

And How! To register, mail, fax, e-mail or call! See the form below. The registration deadline is December 20, 2000. If you have registration questions, call Dee at 6l5-749-6098.

Then What? No guarantee, but upon completing the Writers School, you may be asked to become a writer or editor on one of our current or emerging projects.

Other Questions ? Call Tony at 615-749-6319.

Writers School Graduates Speak! "I returned to work feeling recharged, affirmed, and prepared to do God's will in a new area of ministry."

"The [Writers School] notebook is valuable for using at home as well as for using in the workshop."

"Mike Nolan was inspiring!"

01220.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] "My passion for writing and working with youth has been heightened. I have an understanding of what mistakes I've been making in my writing and how to make it better."

"The blueberry muffins we had at break were great!"

"I was inspired by the fellowship with others who share the gift and passion of writing."

REGISTRATION FORM

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ZIP

PHONE ( )

FAX ( )

E-MAIL

_____YES! $99.00 Registration check enclosed (payable to The United Methodist Publishing House). Please send information and Writer's Questionnaire. I'm interested in this Resource Track:

Youth Adult (circle one) _____ I'm also interested in the Contract Editors Session. _____ I can't make it to the January 2001 Writers School, but I want to participate in the future. Keep me on the mailing list!

Register by Fax, Mail, or E-mail

Dee Brooks United Methodist Publishing House P.O. Box 801 Nashville, Tennessee 37202-0801

E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: (615) 749-6061

Deadline: DECEMBER20, 2000

01220.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] 01220.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] To: "Peterson, Tony" From: "Carlee L. Hallman" Subject: Re: Writers School Cc: "Dee Brooks" Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> References:

At 11:58 AM 12/19/00 -0600, you wrote: >Dear Ms. Hallman, > >Thanks for your interest in the Cokesbury/Abingdon Writers School. The >information you need is below. Note that the registration deadline is >December 20 (but we can be flexible until December 27)....

Dear Mr. Peterson:

Yes, I would like to register for the writers school. I have filled out the registration form below and will mail a check under separate cover.

Carlee Hallman

>REGISTRATION FORM > > >NAME Rev. Carlee L. Hallman > >ADDRESS 6508 Wilmett Road > >CITY Bethesda > >STATE Maryland ZIP 20817 > >PHONE (301) 897-3668 > >FAX (301) 896-0013 > >E-MAIL [email protected] > $99.00 Registration check sent under separate cover.

Please send information and Writer's Questionnaire.

>I'm interested in this Resource Track: > Adult > ) >_yes_ I'm also interested in the Contract Editors Session. >

01220.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] From: "Peterson, Tony" To: "Carlee L. Hallman" Subject: RE: Writers School Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:09:21 -0600 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

Thanks!

> ------> From: Carlee L. Hallman > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 1:09 PM > To: Peterson, Tony > Cc: Dee Brooks > Subject: Re: Writers School > > At 11:58 AM 12/19/00 -0600, you wrote: > >Dear Ms. Hallman, > > > >Thanks for your interest in the Cokesbury/Abingdon Writers School. The > >information you need is below. Note that the registration deadline is > >December 20 (but we can be flexible until December 27).... > > Dear Mr. Peterson: > > Yes, I would like to register for the writers school. I have filled out > the registration form below and will mail a check under separate cover. > > Carlee Hallman > > > >REGISTRATION FORM > > > > > >NAME Rev. Carlee L. Hallman > > > >ADDRESS 6508 Wilmett Road > > > >CITY Bethesda > > > >STATE Maryland ZIP 20817 > > > >PHONE (301) 897-3668 > > > >FAX (301) 896-0013 > > > >E-MAIL [email protected] > > > $99.00 Registration check sent under separate cover. > > Please send information and Writer's Questionnaire. > > >I'm interested in this Resource Track: > > Adult

01221.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] > > > ) > >_yes_ I'm also interested in the Contract Editors Session. > > >

01221.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] Subject: Re: Request for further consideration Date: Wed, 20 Dec 00 14:34:50 -0500 x-sender: [email protected] x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: towncrk To: "Howard W. Hallman"

Dear Mr. Hallman,

Thank you for sharing the work plan for the upcoming year. Unfortunately, I do not see any opportunity for Town Creek to be of assistance at this time. Perhaps later next year you can send us an update on work and we can discuss a possible proposal at that time.

Happy Holidays.

Chris Shelton

Sincerely yours,

Christine B. Shelton Executive Director Town Creek Foundation P. O. Box 159 Oxford, Maryland 21654 410-226-5315 [email protected]

01221.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] From: [email protected] Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:53:19 EST Subject: Nuclear Disarmament To: [email protected] X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 109

Howard,

Thanks for your part in this important issue!

I am sure that there are a number of contacts that can be made to find and/or create a network in Pennsylvania.

I am certainly not in a position to head this up. But, I am supportive of the effort and would be glad to be a part of it to the extent that my time and energy permit.

I will let you know what I find out.

Larry Coleman Peace with Justice Coordinator Central Pennsylvania Conference of the United Methodist Church

01221.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:18 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-1950-977396693-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: Rob Green Cc: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign , Jo Vallentine , Janet Bloomfield , [email protected], Akira Kawasaki , [email protected], Jackie Cabasso , Felicity Hill , [email protected], "Daryl Kimball Stephen Young" , [email protected], Roger Herried , [email protected], Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space , Regina Hagen , Dave Webb , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: acc Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:58:14 +0200 Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [abolition-caucus] Oncemore:Urgent campaigns needed

Dear Friends, When I sent an E-Mail, Decembre 17, under the title “Urgent Campaigns Needed” I did not refer to the discussions now underway on the possibility of convening an appropriate international governmental Conference on nuclear weapons. My intention has been to avoid any misunderstanding that I am against such discussions. I am for thinking and rethinking and continue to think about the appropriate international governmental Conference which may be accepted by US and other NWSs and possibly will be held three or four years in the future. But my concern has been over a looming danger which we should challenge and make every effort , today and not tomorrow, to prevent. Already Bush had informed us that he favored a more ambitious anti- missile defense system than the one proposed by Clinton and he promised to deploy his more robust system “at the earliest possible date”. His chosen Secretary of State, Powell, has said that the Bush Administration would make NMD an essential part of US strategic policy. In addition many of Bush advisers and entourage are among those who oppose ratification of CTBT and are making special efforts to produce mini-nukes which will be used in many regions to defend US investments and interests particularly in the South. These dangers should prompt NGOs to identify the appropriate tactics and strategy to defeat them and immediately act accordingly. With this in mind, I suggest in my E-Mail of Decembre 17 the launching of the following campaigns: prevention of NMD and TMD, ratification of CTBT and continuation of START process, and halting all efforts made to produce low yield nuclear weapons. Unless we shall succeed to achieve the targets of these campaigns

01221.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] US reliance on nuclear weapons will be very much entrenched and other NWSs will be obliged to follow suit. Consequently, more difficulties will impede the holding of the international governmental Conference. I also suggested the holding of an urgent meeting of Abolition 2000 ACC together with representatives of US NGOs network to discuss and suggest to other NGOs ways and means to ensure the success of these international campaigns (tactics and strategy). It goes without saying that the proposed meeting can suggest other priorities and that other NGOs can initiate its own activities but a collective discussion is very much needed (already Middle Power Initiative will hold meetings in Washington, Moscow and possibly London with the participation of NGOs together with the representatives of governments , and the question of Bush nuclear policy will be high on the agenda. Of vital importance is to integrate this initiative with other actions within an international campaign and according to a plan which should take in consideration various possibilities including the possible deployment of US NMD TMD or the possible US and Russia’s agreement on a certain interpretation of ABM Treaty which will allow such a deployment. We should remember that the deployment of Purshing and other medium-range missiles by US and the former Soviet Union had prompted NGOs to continue their courageous struggle until both countries dismantled them) In regard to the question of the international governmental Conference I am inclined to agree with Rob Green opinion who said, “following the success of the 2000 NPT review, there seems to be a consensus that such a Conference …. Should be pursued if the NPT process does not deliver on the undertakings of 2000”.In the mean time we shall think and rethink and continue thinking in order to reach an agreement on this issue. One point should be emphasized in this context: activities must be continuously undertaken for the implementation of what had been approved by all parties to NPT at the review conference. In the light of these practical activities (including the implementation of our program of actions to influence the policy of the Bush Administration) we shall be able to take the correct decision. Best regards. Bahig Nassar; Coordinator; Arab Coordination Centre of NGOs .

------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~> Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details: http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/0/_/91925/_/977396693/ ------_->

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.

01221.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-1946-977378795-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Authentication-Warning: new-smtp1.ihug.com.au: Host p9-max9.syd.ihug.com.au [203.173.156.201] claimed to be [203.173.132.103] X-Sender: [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: Rob Green , Jackie Cabasso , Felicity Hill , [email protected], Daryl Kimball , Stephen Young , [email protected], Roger Herried , [email protected], "Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space" , Regina Hagen , "Dave Webb" , Harsh Kapoor , [email protected], , From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 17:04:35 +1100 Subject: [abolition-caucus] Memo to Abolition Caucus, GC - Three Demands to Bush

MEMO TO ABOLITION CAUCUS, GC, GLOBENET.

THREE VITAL DEMANDS --NO NMD --DEEP CUTS --DE-ALERTING

John Hallam Friends of the Earth Sydney, 17 Lord Street, Newtown, NSW, Australia, 2042 Fax (61)(2)9517-3902 ph (61)(2)9517-3903 [email protected] http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd

Dear All,

It seems to me, based in part on the media items and other bits and peices that cross my hard-disc in mind- numbing volume, that there are three absolutely vital demands that can be made of the Bush administration.

One is negative - No NMD.

The other two are positives, and they are things that Bush himself has said in the past he was interested in doing.

They are 'deep cuts' (either unilateral or vis START-II and III) in warhead numbers, and reductions in alert status.

01221.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] (Again, I do not wish to be caught in whether this is de-alerting as originally proposed by the Canberra Commission or less ambitious proposals to remove warheads from launch on warning status. Anything that reduces alert status is helpful).

I am very much aware that there are many other proposals floating around, including a proposal for an international conference, for which I have expressed support.

I note that there may be certain problems with that proposal. That is a pity, but there may be a variety of ways it can still take place.

However this is intended to bypass all that.

DEEP CUTS/START-II and III Every resolution passed by international bodies (Notably the NPT Review, and the NAC Resolution at the last UNGA as well as the Aust/Japan resolution), has stressed the importance of the implementation of START-II and the negotiation of START-III.

Putin has on a number of occasions, offered to negotiate a low START-III warhead total. He may be propelled by economics, but that is not the point: if Putin is really prepared to go for low START-III numbers, the US should take up the offer.

DE-ALERTING De-Alerting is an objective that really has planetary survival standing behind it.

I am certainly convinced that as long as large numbers of weapons are on launch on warning status, there will always be a possibility, small but finite, of fatal miscalculation.

It is often spoken of as if an 'accidental launch' would be of only one warhead, but really, accidental launch as such is not the problem. The problem is not of accidental launch, but of not-at-all accidental massive retaliation, based on a 'use them or lose them' philosopy, - to a supposed launch by the other side that has not in fact taken place.

Such a launch would not be of a single warhead, but would likely be of 2-3,000 warheads.

The probability of this catastrophe is reduced significantly, but not eliminated, by recent developments in the creation of a joint data centre in Moscow.

But as long as a slight but finite probability of catastrophe exists every year, if the number of years is extended indefinitely, the probability becomes unity.

If missiles are removed from launch on warning status, it becomes difficult to see how an accidental apocalypse can actually occur.

01221.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] Bush indicated in his election campaign that he would consider de-alerting. He should be reminded that its a vitally important goal.

De-Alerting, or unspecificed reductions in alert status has also been included in resolutions in UNGA..

NO-NMD

'No NMD' is easy - if NMD happens, the other two objectives are off the agenda. Russia and even more so China, will proceed to increase rather than decrease, warhead levels, and there will be no de-alerting.

I appreciate that there a number of other very important goals, and while I feel that we should prioritise these ones, I am in no way suggesting that these goals are not important.

I am suggesting that if we write letters for example, that include just three points, these should be the ones we highlight.

I can certainly think of a number of other important points that absolutely must not be lost sight of.

These include the Stockpile Stewardship program, and the way in which it undermines the committments the US has undertaken to the 'total and unequivocal' elimination of its nuclear arsenal. Related to that would be to urge the government to sign the CTBT.

In the context of the issue at its starkest and ugliest however,

--START II and III determine, (Unless there are unilateral cuts), how many warheads there will actually be. Should catastrophe actually happen, due to a faulty microchip somewhere, and a bit of political tension someplace else, these negotiations will determine whether we have nuclear winter or nuclear autumn, and how much of human and other life survives.

--Alert status is largely if not fully, going to determine the probability of apocalypse by miscalculation.

--NMD deployment renders progress on these moot, at best.

That then, is the basis for picking out START-II and III/'Deep Cuts', De-Alerting, and NMD as utterly central and suggesting that, without prejudice to other important campaigns, that these be highlighted.

I wish everyone a happy christmas,

John Hallam

------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~> Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups

01221.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] Click here for more details: http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/0/_/91925/_/977378795/ ------_->

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.

01221.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: De-alerting call in day Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: National Call-in Day on De-alerting Cc: Bcc: icnd X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Colleagues:

Esther Pank of the Back from the Brink Campaign has asked me to forward the following message to you about National Call-in Day, scheduled for February 5-6. If you want any of the material she mentions, please get in touch with her directly.

Shalom, Howard

###

The Back from the Brink Campaign and its allied organizations are promoting 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.

We can remind the 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 risks of accidental or unauthorized launch."

We are calling on President-elect George W. Bush to take concrete actions to honor this platform pledge within his first 100 days in office and we want to flood the White House with phone calls to 202-456-1414.

The Campaign has several resources available to promote the Call-In Days: printed flyers available FREE in bulk or downloadable flyers in .pdf format; a text announcement available via e-mail, along with ideas on how to mobilize your organizations, friends and community to take part in this important day. Contact [email protected] or call 202-545-1001 for more information, to order your supplies, and to let us know how you are participating. Thanks.

Esther Pank

01221.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] Back from the Brink Campaign 6856 Eastern Avenue, NW, # 322 Washington DC 20012 202.545.1001 ph 202.545.1004 fax [email protected]

01221.06.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] To: [email protected], [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Nuclear disarmament and Bush administration Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Dwain and Salpy,

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

01221.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Bush administration and nuclear disarmament Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

Dear Dwain and Salpy,

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

01221.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-1951-977409565-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) To: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: Rob Green , Jackie Cabasso , Felicity Hill , [email protected], Stephen Young , [email protected], Roger Herried , [email protected], "Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space" , Regina Hagen , "Dave Webb" , Harsh Kapoor , [email protected], , From: Daryl Kimball Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:42:22 -0500 Subject: [abolition-caucus] Re: Hallam Memo to Abolition Caucus

December 21

Colleagues:

While I have not seen Bruce Gagnon's message or perhaps those of others in connection with this email chain, I think I agree with the sentiment that we have time to prepare a more thoughtful series of actions and communications. Before anyone circulates a letter for hundreds of sign-ons, it would be worthwhile consulting more widely with others before acting on a specific strategy/message.

In the case of John Hallam's letter, I think the message in needs to be adjusted. I also think it not very effective to ship off a letter to the will-be administration, at least not now. If anything, what needs to be done now is for NGOs to communicate to their concern/opposition to missile defense and support for action to reduce and eliminate the nuclear threat to their own gov'ts. The Aussies, for instance, are ready to speak with the new Bush people when they are in office about Australia's security and non-proliferation priorities. The new Bush administration, in my estimation, doesn't care if NGOs from outside the US are bothered by something they want to do. I say that not to dismiss NGOs outside the US in any way, but I simply mean to underscore the fact that what U.S. government leaders (esp. Republicans) will pay more attention to is if the gov'ts of US allies express the same concerns that we have. If we are serious about winning, I think that's where the energy has to be focused.

So a letter may be somewhat worthwhile, but it is not the most effect strategy for effecting change and, if it is to be pursued, I think it

01221.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] should be carefully and thoughfully drafted with input from a number of key people. Until then, the most useful and do-able immediate action might be to get some op-ed and letters to the editor in the papers around the globe.

For our part, the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers groups have been working for the last couple of weeks on revising our overall mission statement and developing our own set of US arms control/disarmament NGO strategies and goals for 2001. I will be happy to share them with you and others when they are final, which will be the first week of January.

Best,

DK

At 05:04 PM 12/21/00 +1100, FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign wrote: >MEMO TO ABOLITION CAUCUS, GC, GLOBENET. > >THREE VITAL DEMANDS >--NO NMD >--DEEP CUTS >--DE-ALERTING > >John Hallam >Friends of the Earth Sydney, >17 Lord Street, Newtown, NSW, Australia, 2042 >Fax (61)(2)9517-3902 ph (61)(2)9517-3903 >[email protected] >http://homepages.tig.com.au/~foesyd > > >Dear All, > >It seems to me, based in part on the media items and other bits and peices >that cross my hard-disc in mind- numbing volume, that there are three >absolutely vital demands that can be made of the Bush administration. > >One is negative - No NMD. > >The other two are positives, and they are things that Bush himself has said >in the past he was interested in doing. > >They are 'deep cuts' (either unilateral or vis START-II and III) in warhead >numbers, and reductions in alert status. > >(Again, I do not wish to be caught in whether this is de-alerting as >originally proposed by the Canberra Commission or less ambitious proposals >to remove warheads from launch on warning status. Anything that reduces >alert status is helpful). > >I am very much aware that there are many other proposals floating around,

01221.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] >including a proposal for an international conference, for which I have >expressed support. > >I note that there may be certain problems with that proposal. >That is a pity, but there may be a variety of ways it can still take place. > >However this is intended to bypass all that. > >DEEP CUTS/START-II and III >Every resolution passed by international bodies (Notably the NPT Review, >and the NAC Resolution at the last UNGA as well as the Aust/Japan >resolution), has stressed the importance of the implementation of START-II >and the negotiation of START-III. > >Putin has on a number of occasions, offered to negotiate a low START-III >warhead total. He may be propelled by economics, but that is not the point: >if Putin is really prepared to go for low START-III numbers, the US should >take up the offer. > > >DE-ALERTING >De-Alerting is an objective that really has planetary survival standing >behind it. > >I am certainly convinced that as long as large numbers of weapons are on >launch on warning status, there will always be a possibility, small but >finite, of fatal miscalculation. > >It is often spoken of as if an 'accidental launch' would be of only one >warhead, but really, accidental launch as such is not the problem. The >problem is not of accidental launch, but of not-at-all accidental massive >retaliation, based on a 'use them or lose them' philosopy, - to a supposed >launch by the other side that has not in fact taken place. > >Such a launch would not be of a single warhead, but would likely be of >2-3,000 warheads. > >The probability of this catastrophe is reduced significantly, but not >eliminated, by recent developments in the creation of a joint data centre >in Moscow. > >But as long as a slight but finite probability of catastrophe exists every >year, if the number of years is extended indefinitely, the probability >becomes unity. > >If missiles are removed from launch on warning status, it becomes difficult >to see how an accidental apocalypse can actually occur. > >Bush indicated in his election campaign that he would consider de-alerting. >He should be reminded that its a vitally important goal. > >De-Alerting, or unspecificed reductions in alert status has also been >included in resolutions in UNGA.. >

01221.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] > >NO-NMD > >'No NMD' is easy - if NMD happens, the other two objectives are off the >agenda. Russia and even more so China, will proceed to increase rather than >decrease, warhead levels, and there will be no de-alerting. > >I appreciate that there a number of other very important goals, and while >I feel that we should prioritise these ones, I am in no way suggesting that >these goals are not important. > >I am suggesting that if we write letters for example, that include just >three points, these should be the ones we highlight. > >I can certainly think of a number of other important points that absolutely >must not be lost sight of. > >These include the Stockpile Stewardship program, and the way in which it >undermines the committments the US has undertaken to the 'total and >unequivocal' elimination of its nuclear arsenal. Related to that would be >to urge the government to sign the CTBT. > >In the context of the issue at its starkest and ugliest however, > >--START II and III determine, (Unless there are unilateral cuts), how many >warheads there will actually be. Should catastrophe actually happen, due >to a faulty microchip somewhere, and a bit of political tension someplace >else, these negotiations will determine whether we have nuclear winter or >nuclear autumn, and how much of human and other life survives. > >--Alert status is largely if not fully, going to determine the probability >of apocalypse by miscalculation. > >--NMD deployment renders progress on these moot, at best. > >That then, is the basis for picking out START-II and III/'Deep Cuts', >De-Alerting, and NMD as utterly central and suggesting that, without >prejudice to other important campaigns, that these be highlighted. > >I wish everyone a happy christmas, > >John Hallam > > > > >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. > > ______

01221.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 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 ______

------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~> Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details: http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/0/_/91925/_/977409566/ ------_->

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.

01221.09.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-1973-977852096-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] Organization: Coalition for Peace Action X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: ASlater Cc: [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] From: Coalition for Peace Action Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:37:24 -0500 Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [abolition-caucus] Handbook for Doing Non-Partisan Candidate Briefings

We have just completed a handbook on doing non-partisan briefings for candidates for federal office in the U.S. This was based on doing seven such briefings here in New Jersey in the U.S. Senate Primary and in two congressional district races during the 2000 election cycle. We found the experience to be highly successful at getting the personal attention of candidates to issues of international peace and gun violence prevention.

The cover sheet and guidelines are attached. If you would like the full handbook, contact our office as indicated below. The materials will also soon be posted on our web site http://www.peacecoalition.org

The Rev. Robert Moore Executive Director Peace Action Education Fund 40 Witherspoon St. Princeton, NJ 08542 Phone (609)924-5022 Fax (609)924-3052 [email protected] ------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~>

01226.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details: http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/0/_/91925/_/977852096/ ------_->

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.

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\Cover sheet--Candidate briefing handbook.doc"

Attachment Converted: "C:\Program Files\Internet\download\Guidelines for doing Non-Partisan Candidate Briefings.doc"

01226.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] HANDBOOK FOR CONDUCTING NON-PARTISAN CANDIDATE BRIEFINGS (First draft 12/6/00)

The materials following are intended to guide, assist, and inspire groups that work on issues of gun violence prevention and international peace to undertake non-partisan candidate briefings as a way to pro-actively assert these issues in electoral campaigns. This handbook is based on the experience of the Princeton, NJ-based Peace Action Education Fund in conducting seven such briefings for major party candidates in New Jersey for the US Senate Primary and in two Congressional Districts for the general election between December 1999 and July 2000.

The goals of the briefings were: · To gain personal access to each candidate, and to inform them directly of facts on our issues as well as responding to any questions or concerns they had about them. · To begin a positive relationship and ongoing communication with each candidate, and with their appropriate issues staff, that could be carried through the election, and, if the candidate won, into their time as an elected representative.

· To lay the groundwork for a follow-up questionnaire which would be the basis for a Peace Voter Guide that was published in each of these races.

I’m happy to say that each of these goals was met. We found these briefings to be both successful in themselves, and highly valuable to our ongoing work. We were pleasantly surprised at how many candidates gave us access, meeting with us for up to two hours. The candidates were also quite receptive to meeting at a time and place that was convenient to our delegation, rather than primarily just to them.

We certainly were a more visible organization and movement to the candidates as a result of these briefings. I think it’s also fair to say that a number of the candidates learned a great deal from the briefings. Even if they knew about some of the issues we raised, much of what we shared was new or additional information to them. This was particularly true for candidates who were seeking to move from a local or state elected office to a federal one, and to candidates who had never held office before.

We also found that our goal of establishing ongoing communications was met. We were undoubtedly more effective at getting responses to our questionnaire as a result of first conducting the non-partisan briefings. We established ongoing communication with the issues staff of several campaigns. And we received attention to our issues that might not otherwise have been offered.

There were even several “fringe benefits” to conducting the briefings that we had not anticipated. In one case, at the end of a briefing, a candidate proposed that we sponsor a debate on these issues between him and his opponent during the general election campaign. In another case, we were able to cite the fact that we had several top physicists brief the candidate on Star Wars, but that his position still hadn’t changed, as a reason we had to generate phone calls and public pressure on him to make such a change. In a third case, a candidate who had originally opposed cutting military spending in answer to a questionnaire changed her position to supporting targeted cuts following our briefing.

We encourage you to incorporate such briefings into your organizing. Feel free to contact our office to find out more about our experience. Finally, let me express our gratitude to the Ploughshares Fund for generously supporting the production and distribution of this handbook, both in this hard copy version and on our web site.

The Rev. Robert Moore, Executive Director Peace Action Education Fund

For more information, contact:

Peace Action Education Fund 40 Witherspoon Street Princeton, NJ 08542 (609)924-5022 Phone (609)924-3052 Fax [email protected] www.peacecoalition.org GUIDELINES FOR ORGANIZING NON-PARTISAN CANDIDATE BRIEFINGS ON PEACE AND GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION ISSUES

Below are guidelines for organizing non-partisan candidate briefings developed by the Princeton, NJ based Peace Action Education Fund (PAEF). They are based on having conducted seven such briefings for major party candidates in the June, 2000 New Jersey Senate Primary and in two New Jersey congressional districts (CD 12 and CD 3) before the November 12, 2000 general election. Further information is available from PAEF, 40 Witherspoon St., Princeton, NJ 08542; telephone (609)924-5022; fax (609)924-3052; email [email protected].

· Begin early. Our single most important learning in organizing these briefings was that by requesting the briefings early, we got much better access to the candidates than we anticipated. For example, we requested briefing sessions with the six major party candidates in the June, 2000 New Jersey Primary for the open Senate seat in November 1999. The briefings took place in December, 1999 and January 2000. This was a time when the candidates were looking for recognition and allies, were mostly little known, and had fewer things on their campaign calendars. As a result, five of the six candidates were successfully scheduled.

· Do polite, prompt and courteous telephone and fax follow-up. We didn’t just let the letters requesting the briefings sit there for months. We followed up the November 22, 1999 letter (sample in packet) with phone calls in early December 1999. For a number of campaigns, we had to re-fax materials, sometimes to a new campaign address (things are often in flux that early in a campaign). But by persistent, courteous follow-up, we succeeded in arranging briefings for 5 of 6 major party candidates.

· Use your most credible non-partisan experts, as well as prestigious leaders, in the briefings. This is a fairly obvious point, but we sometimes tend to rely too heavily on “activists” to make our case. In our case, we had three faculty members from Princeton University, a retired Episcopal Bishop, the state’s most prominent gun control leader, two former Republican candidates, and a former Peace Corps volunteer (who has first hand experience on landmines). See full list enclosed.

· Organize your agenda well. Our delegation met ahead of time to decide who would cover each issue, and how much time they had. We made sure to use our most credible experts early, and to give them adequate time. One person coordinated the meeting, and made sure we kept to schedule. We began with one-hour briefings, and found they ran closer to 90 minutes. We left the last 20 minutes for dialogue/questions with the candidates, which gave us a good feel for where they were coming from, and how they received our information.

· Give a packet of fact sheets, articles by your experts, and background to the candidate during the briefing. A sample of most of the materials in our packet is included. We handed the candidate the specific items as that issue was discussed. It buttressed the “expert” credentials of our delegation that a number of the articles were by them and were in prestigious publications like the Washington Post, Scientific American, and Center for Defense Information. We also gave them materials that were written or endorsed by former military officials, e.g. the call to ban landmines published as an ad in the New York Times that had former top generals and admirals as signers.

· Affirm areas of agreement, rather than focussing too heavily on disagreements. Several of the Republican candidates we briefed were actually anxious to be seen as favoring gun violence prevention measures. As we affirmed this common ground, we found they became more receptive to our input on international peace issues.

· Follow up the meeting with a candidate questionnaire. We didn’t try to fill out the questionnaire with the candidate during the briefing, since we wanted that to remain strictly informational. But we told the candidates that we would follow up with our candidate questionnaire (of course, the latter was under the auspices of our advocacy arm, the Coalition for Peace Action, so we could use the responses in the Peace Voter Campaign). This gave the candidate time to digest our materials before they had to indicate their initial position on our issues. · Find out the appropriate issues staff contact person. We found that with several of the candidates, there was considerable dialogue that was initiated by our briefing. Their issues staff would call with questions (particularly after they got our questionnaire). This is like developing a relationship with staff of our elected officials, since they are the most trusted and knowledgeable advisors to the candidate as they make policy decisions. From: [email protected] Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:07:54 EST Subject: New Email Address To: [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] X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 107

As a result of a new computer that came with a year's free AOL, I will no longer be on CompuServe. The new address is:

[email protected]

It might help me build a new address book if those who care send back a message.

Thanks

Phil Miller

01228.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] From: [email protected] To: [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] Cc: [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: Contact information and thank you for NR/DI Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:00:18 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

To Dean Baxter and All Other Dear Colleagues,

As many of you know...it is not a rumor. The Nuclear Reduction/Disarmament Initiative, which exploded its way into the Cathedral's life, will soon move to a new home.

On January 1, 2001 the NR/DI officially becomes a part of the Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy, at Wesley Theological Seminary (DC). I will go with the project and continue to act as project manager. Washington National Cathedral, Global Security Institute, and Alistair Millar (of the Fourth Freedom Forum) will also continue to work with the NR/DI, supporting the work of the Center.

The Churches' Center is a national, ecumenical research center, drawing upon the theological resources of the churches and other sources of expertise; it is simultaneously commited to the interfaith character of this project. The Reverend Barbara Green, Executive Director, is a Presbyterian minister with years of experience as an arms control lobbyist, and other foreign policy issues, on Capitol Hill. As we prepare for our move to the Center, we are also in the midst of seeking funding to support our work for another year.

Our effort to mobilize people of faith around nuclear weapons concerns, via clergy, is moving full speed ahead. Over the past five months, our team has supervised the distribution of educational packets to thousands of clergy around the country. We are still in the distribution process, and have begun an intensive effort to follow-up with clergy, and offer them encouragement and support. In the very near future, we will also offer a videotape, free-of-charge, to supplement the print materials.

This project has been a great challenge and presented many obstacles along the way. Despite these obstacles, the NR/DI has continued to grow and is now working its way across the nation -- delivering a message that is crucial to world peace.

On behalf of the Initiative, I thank all of you for your assistance, guidance, and patience. The success, experienced so far, would not have been possible without you.

As a newcomer to the Cathedral, I especially appreciate your efforts to make me feel welcome and supported through many relocations and transitions on the Cathedral's grounds.

My last day of work at WNC will be January 3. Wesley Theological Seminary and The Churches' Center will help me move my belongings that day.

The Cathedral will continue to host our project's Web site (www.cathedral.org/cathedral/nuclear), and Craig Stapert will continue to manage it. However, in the very near future, the NR/DI will get a new domain name within that site. I will keep you posted. For now, I will retain my Cathedral e-mail address. In the near future, after I get settled in at the Center, I will provide you with my new e-mail address. If you need to reach me, or refer calls or mail to me, here is my contact information:

Wendy Starman Project Manager Nuclear Reduction/Disarmament Initiative The Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy 4500 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016-5690 FAX: 202-885-8605 Phone: 202-885-8684

I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with all of you.

Happy New Year!

Sincerely,

Wendy Starman X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-2001-978305937-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Sender: [email protected] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: David Morgan Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:36:29 -0800 Subject: [abolition-caucus] A Calendar of N-weapon related tests

31 December 2000 David Morgan Vancouver

Dear Fellow Nuclear Abolitionists:

Below is a calendar of N-tests since 1995. Note that 2000 was a record year with six sub-critical tests, including a Russian series.

Good luck to us all in carrying on our work of abolishing nuclear weapons and maintaining "vehement and angry protests" against them, in the words of the Mayor of Nagasaki, below.

David Morgan ********** A Calendar of Nuclear Weapon Related Tests

*** France Tests 5 September 1995 underground test, Mururoa 1. U.S. Subcritical Test 2 July 1997, “Rebound,” Los Alamos 2. U.S. Subcritical Test 18 Sept 1997, “Holog,” Livermore 3. U.S. Subcritical Test 25 March 1998, “Stagecoach,” ***India Tests 11 May 1998 3 underground tests ***India Tests 13 May 1998 2 underground tests ***Pakistan Tests 28 May 1998 5 undergound tests 4. U.S. Subcritical Test 26 September 1998, “Bagpipe,” Nevada 5. U.S. Subcritical Test 11 October 1998, “Cimarron,” 6. U.S. Subcritical Test 9 February 1999, “Clarinet,” 7. U.S. Subcritical Test 27 September 1999, “Oboe” 8. U.S. Subcritical Test 10 October 1999, “Oboe” 2 9. U.S. Subcritical Test 6 February 2000, “Oboe 3,” 10. U.S. Subcritical Test 22 March 2000, “Thoroughbred,” Nevada Lyner facility 11. U.S. Subcritical Test 9 April 2000, “Oboe 4” 12 U.S. Subcritical Test 18 August 2000, Oboe 5 ***Russian Subcritical Test 4 November 2000 Novaya Zemlya 13. U.S. Subcritical Test 14 December 2000 Oboe 6, Nevada *****

Nagasaki Mayor Itcho Ito on Friday denounced the United States for carrying out its 13th subcritical

10102.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] nuclear test Thursday 14 December.

"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", Ito told reporters.

Ito said he plans to visit the US embassy in Tokyo, together with Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, by the end of the month to urge Washington to abolish all forms of nuclear weapons in the early 21st century. Later in the day, Ito sent an open letter to US President Bill Clinton, protesting the test. Ito 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", he wrote.

On Thursday, the US conducted the test at an underground site in Nevada, the fifth this year, following one on 18 August. The US conducted its first subcritical test in July 1997.

Antinuclear groups criticize the tests as running counter to the spirit of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on nuclear weapons. But the US Energy Department said the tests do not violate the treaty because no critical mass is formed and therefore no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction occurs.

******************************************* * David Morgan, National President, * * Veterans Against Nuclear Armes (VANA) * * 240 Holyrood Road, North Vancouver, BC * * V7N 2R5, Canada Tel:(604)985-7147 * * Fax: (604)985-1260 * *******************************************

------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~> With US & International rates as low as 3.9c a minute from Net2Phone Direct Plus Up to 1500 FREE minutes; you can call everyone on your list!

10102.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] http://click.egroups.com/1/10924/0/_/91925/_/978305937/ ------_->

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.

10102.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-2004-978355009-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: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Rob Green , Jackie Cabasso , Felicity Hill , [email protected], Daryl Kimball , Ak Malten , Ellen Thomas , [email protected], Roger Herried , [email protected], Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space , Regina Hagen , Dave Webb , Harsh Kapoor , "S. P. Udayakumar" , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Gouri Sadhwani - HAP , [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] From: acc Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 15:12:47 +0200 Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [abolition-caucus] A NEW YEAR APPEAL

From: "Bahig Nassar" Coordinator, Arab Coordination center of NGOs

10102.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:19 PM] A NEW YEAR APPEAL For Peace in the Middle East

On the first of January 2001 we wish you a Happy New Year. On this occasion and in the context of your activities for peace, security and disarmament we urge you to extend your support for the efforts maid to achieve just peace and equal security for ALL countries in the Middle East, an urgent matter which requires: Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem and respect for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in compliance with the norms of international law and UN Charter and relevant Resolutions. Also, Middle East transformation into a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles, including the US- made Arrow Missile Defense system deployed in Israel, will be a vital step to achieve this end. Your actions in this regard is very much needed due to the current development in the region. They are part and parcel of your campaigns for a world free from nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, offensive and defensive, and for the elimination of the root causes of wars. Arab Coordination Centre of NGOs; Bahg Nassar; Coordinator January the first, 2001

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.

10102.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:19 PM] From: [email protected] Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 14:39:47 EST Subject: MUPJ To: [email protected] X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 40

I picked up a bill from Back Home Printing for $228. There also a notice from Cokesbury about our Newscope subscription expiring but I seem to recall that we recently wrote them a check to renew. I'll check that out before writing a new heck.

Also picked up two membership contributions as follows:

Barbara Herjanic $100 Mary/Fred Fraser $15

I'll deposit the checks tomorrow and send you the membership forms.

There is some other stuff in the mailbox waiting for you to pick up. When at Foundry, introduce yourself to Bonnie's replacement, Joe Arnold.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Phil

10102.03.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:19 PM] To: [email protected] From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: MUPJ Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> References:

At 02:39 PM 1/1/01 EST, you wrote: >I picked up a bill from Back Home Printing for $228. There also a notice >from Cokesbury about our Newscope subscription expiring but I seem to recall >that we recently wrote them a check to renew. I'll check that out before >writing a new heck.....

New Year'a Greetings, Phil.

Yes, we paid the Newscope bill. Today I'm mailing the phone bill.

So, it's back to business. We have a challenge with the Bush Administration.

Howard

10102.04.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] X-Sender: jdi@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:47:17 -0500 To: [email protected] From: John Isaacs Subject: Statement on Donald Rumsfeld

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 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.

"The choice of Rumsfeld adds another forceful personality with hard-line positions to President-elect Bush's national security team," Isaacs said. "Potential disagreements within the Republican Party and the Congress over whether to kill the Clinton national missile defense plan and start over, and whether to withdraw U.S. troops from Bosnia and Kosovo abound; it will be interesting to see how -- or if -- Bush will resolve them."

10102.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] Other critical decisions facing the new Defense Secretary:

* How to prepare for our armed forces for the security challenges of the next decades; * Which Cold War weapons to terminate; * How to convince Congress to close unneeded bases and end pork practices; * How to reconcile increased military budgets with the new Administration's huge tax cut; * How to avoid alienating U.S. allies, particularly in Europe, over national missile defense, troops in the former Yugoslavia and the proposed European defense force.

# # #

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

10102.05.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] From: "Surratt, Doris" To: zz Social Equity Panel Subject: Panel Meeting - Hold the Date!! Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:17:10 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) The joint meeting of the Standing Panels on Executive Organization and Management (EOM) and Social Equity is scheduled for Friday, January 12, 2001, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm in the Academy's main conference room at 1120 G Street, NW, Washington, DC. Those unable to attend in person may participate via teleconference. Details to follow.

Best wishes for a prosperous and joyful New Year!!

Doris Surratt [email protected] PH: 202-347-3190

X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-1992-978105248-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] X-Sender: dkimball@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) To: [email protected] From: Daryl Kimball Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:01:56 -0500 Subject: [abolition-caucus] NMD/START Update: Rumsfeld at DoD w/NMD high on agenda

December 29, 2000

TO: Coalition members and friends

FR: Daryl Kimball, Director

RE: NMD/START Update -- Rumsfeld named to be DoD Secretary; NMD schedule problems; N. Korea diplomacy

With the selection of Donald Rumsfeld to be the next Defense Secretary, George W. Bush has, in the words of The New York Times reporter Steven Meyers, "... signaled that the politically and diplomatically divisive goal of building a shield against nuclear missiles will be at the core of the new administration's national security agenda." Whether, the Bush team can decide on a system architecture, prove that it works under real world conditions, gain the support of allies and avoid adverse reactions from Russia and China, and whether the percieved missile threat increases or decreases is another question. (See article below.)

Rumsfeld has not been friendly to arms control and disarmament. In his first go-round as defense secretary, he supported acquistion of major new strategic nuclear weapons systems. In the late 1970s, he opposed the SALT II agreement. More recently, he testified against the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, and in 1999, he signed a letter against ratification of the CTBT. He was the Chair of the 1998 Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the U.S., which helped raise fears of new and imminent missile threats.

He is, like George W. Bush, dismissive of the value of the ABM Treaty. In an interview with IntellectualCapital.com from 9/3/2000, he was asked: "Some people say that any missile-defense system would break the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty .... What's your opinion on that?" Rumsfeld replied: "Well, it is a treaty that was signed 25 years ago in a country that doesn't exist at a time when the technologies had not evolved to the point where they are today. It seems to me that it is past time to review ... a treaty that inhibits the development of capabilities to dissuade their use really ought to be reviewed and changed."

In a 1/12/1999 interview on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Rumsfeld was asked: "...how do you respond to [the argument] that NMD shouldn't be

10102.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] developed because it won't work?" Rumsfeld replied, in part, by saying: "If we relieve ourselves of the restrictions of that treaty [i.e. ABM Treaty] so that we do not have to do contortions to do what is the quickest, cheapest, most effective way of doing this, and organize to do it in an effective way, that the United States will be able to do it."

See for further biographical information on Rumsfeld.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION NMD CHOICES

In addition to sorting out which of several possible "robust" missile defense architectures they may wish to pursue, the Bush national security team of Cheney-Powell-Rumsfeld-Rice are due to make other decisions with great bearing on whether or not the U.S. begins actual deployment of an NMD system. These include:

* FY 2001 and 2002 NMD Funding -- the Bush administration may restore the FY 2001 funding for construction of the Shemya Island radar that President Clinton decided to withold based on his September 1 decision not to move forward with NMD. If they do not restore this funding for FY 2001 (which would allow construction of the radar to begin as soon as the weather clears), they may request it for FY 2001. The Bush administration may also seek to increase near and long-term R&D for various technologies that would support NMD technologies and architectures under consideration.

* Deployment Decisions on Limited Ground-Based System -- the Bush administration may decide to move forward on the "limited" ground-based system with an initial site in Alaska as part of a wider array of NMD assets, or it may scrap that approach in favor of others. The Bush administration has until the late summer (September-October) of 2001 to make a decision on the ground-based system and radar in Alaska in order to initiate construction there by 2002, though it could make a decision sooner.

* Testing Criteria -- a key stumbling block for the NMD program to date is that it has not met the Pentagon's own testing requirements. Rumsfeld and the Bush administration may decide to lower or weaken the testing standards.

* Deployment Criteria -- the Bush administration may adopt, modify, or abandon the four NMD deployment criteria established by President Clinton: evaluation of the missile threat; operational effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and the effect on arms control objectives, including progress in negotiating any amendments to the ABM Treaty that may be required to accommodate a possible NMD deployment.

Many NMD proponents claim that the only criteria that has not been met is to demonstrate the "feasibility" of NMD. Secretary of State-designee Powell implied that the Bush administration criterial would be broader, in his December 17 comments to reporters: "We have been pursuing the technology. I'm quite confident that when a secretary of defense is named, that person will go into the Pentagon and make a full assessment of the state of technology -- Where are we? What can we accomplish? -- and structure a plan

10102.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] that is consistent with the approach that then-Governor Bush gave in Washington early this year. So we're going to go forward. We have to spend time discussing it with our allies, discussing it with other nations in the world that possess strategic offensive weapons and don't yet understand our thinking with respect to national missile defense."

* ABM Treaty legal issues -- it is possible that some in the Bush administration may seek use legal sleight-of-hand to argue -- as some of the strongest NMD proponents falsely claim -- that the ABM Treaty no longer exists and that the U.S. can unilaterally move forward with its NMD program. Such an approach would likely foment major domestic and international criticism.

* Approach to Talks with the Russia, Allies, China -- the overarching and perhaps most immediate issue is how the Bush administration will try to convince Russia to modify the ABM Treaty and if it cannot, whether, when and how it might seek to withdraw from the ABM Treaty against formidable international and domestic opposition. Russia continues to state its opposition to NMD without Russian acquiescence.

Also, the Bush team must consider how it might approach the stalled START II situation and possible talks on START III. Most indicators suggest that the Bush administration will try to convince U.S. allies that NMD is necessary for the U.S. and for them. To try to demonstrate to Russia and the allies the United States' good intentions, the Bush team might offer unilateral reductions in U.S. strategic forces.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

In other developments, President Clinton has decided not to visit North Korea to try to finalize an agreement on a verifiable and lasting freeze on that country's missile program. Also, even as Boeing is granted another contract as the lead system integrator for the NMD program, the Pentagon director of operational test and evaluation has found that Boeing's primary simulation program for the NMD system has been "seriously delayed to date, and model fidelity [has been] significantly lower that what had been planned."

- DK

***********

IN THIS UPDATE:

1. "Choice Of Rumsfeld Creates Solid Team For Missile Shield," The New York Times, December 29, 2000, By Steven Lee Myers

2. "Moscow Warns Against Missile Shield," Washington Post, December 28, 2000

3. "Clinton Won't Go to North Korea," By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, December 28, 2000

4. "Coyle Says Delays Continue To Impede NMD Simulation Progress," Inside Missile Defense, December 27, 2000

10102.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] 5. "Pentagon Agency Announces Large Missile Defense Award--Seven year contract subject to future reviews," USIA, December 28, 2000

NOTE: The attached articles are for educational purposes only. For previous editions of the Coalition's "NMD/START Update," see

***********

1. "Choice Of Rumsfeld Creates Solid Team For Missile Shield," The New York Times, December 29, 2000, Pg. 1

By Steven Lee Myers

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28 — For more than two years, one man more than any other has driven the debate over whether to build a national missile defense: Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Now, in choosing Mr. Rumsfeld to be his secretary of defense, President-elect George W. Bush has signaled that the politically and diplomatically divisive goal of building a shield against nuclear missiles will be at the core of the new administration's national security agenda.

In 1998, Mr. Rumsfeld, the former Republican congressman, former ambassador to NATO and former secretary of defense, oversaw a commission that concluded that "rogue" nations could threaten the United States with ballistic missiles sooner than analysts had predicted.

Conservatives who supported a missile shield hailed the findings as refreshingly candid and worrisome. Liberals who supported arms control criticized them as too focused on potential threats and not on the diplomatic and financial obstacles to building a missile shield.

Either way, the commission's report — and a provocative North Korean missile test a month later — led the Clinton administration to propose its own limited version of a national missile defense. What turned out to be one of the most influential documents in modern American military planning bears Mr. Rumsfeld's name.

"The Rumsfeld Report was the main reason the debate was gradually turned around and the administration turned around," said Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican of Arizona and an ardent advocate of a missile defense.

In his campaign for president, Mr. Bush advocated building a more expansive defensive system than the one President Clinton proposed and, last summer, deferred. Mr. Rumsfeld offered little detail, except to say he would not rule out defenses based on the ground, as Mr. Clinton proposed, or at sea and in space.

Today, Mr. Bush was no more specific, saying only that he would expect Mr. Rumsfeld to work closely with his budget director "to make sure that the missile defense receives the priority we think it must receive in future

10102.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] Pentagon budgets."

Still, it is clear that Mr. Bush's selection of Mr. Rumsfeld completes a national security team — including the next vice president, Dick Cheney, and the next secretary of state, Gen. Colin L. Powell — that shares the dream of building the sort of shield against nuclear missiles that President Ronald Reagan envisioned.

When his selection was announced on Dec. 16, General Powell made the case forcefully, calling a defensive shield "an essential part" of the nation's security. Mr. Bush himself referred to Mr. Rumsfeld's prominence on the issue of missile defense, citing his work as chairman of the commission, to which Congressional Republicans had appointed him.

"In picking Don Rumsfeld, we'll have a person who is thoughtful and considerate and wise on the subject of missile defense," Mr. Bush said.

Mr. Rumsfeld's report, released in an unclassified form in July 1998, was striking in its contradiction of previous analyses by the nation's intelligence agencies, which had concluded that no new nation could strike the United States with ballistic missiles for at least a decade.

Instead, the commission warned that countries like North Korea, Iran and Iraq could develop a missile "with little or no warning" — and essentially at any moment.

Since the report became public, North Korea, in particular, has undergone significant changes. Its once hermitic leader, Kim Jong Il, had been negotiating with the Clinton administration to halt its production of long-range missiles, though the White House announced today that progress had not been enough to warrant a presidential trip to North Korea to seal a deal.

Mr. Rumsfeld did not address North Korea today, but his remarks indicated that his assessment of the threat of a ballistic missile attack on America had not changed.

"There is no question but that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems for them is extensive across the world," he said.

Mr. Bush's proposals for a missile defense will face the same hurdles as President Clinton's. And since Mr. Bush's would go further, they may be more contentious, especially in Russia and China, which view missile defenses as destabilizing.

President Clinton decided against moving ahead with a limited system that began with 100 interceptors after failing to persuade the Russians to amend the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.

Although Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld have not advocated abandoning the treaty, they have suggested that they will not be bound by its prohibition on developing a missile defense. Other Republicans have called for its abolition, which even the nation's staunchest European allies oppose.

10102.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, an arms control advocacy group, said the new administration would have to prove that a shield against missiles was feasible. Despite spending $4.8 billion this year, the Pentagon has had tests of a limited system fail.

"It's not only technically difficult and expensive," Mr. Kimball said. "It's a political hot potato. This is going to be much more difficult than they think."

***********

2. "Moscow Warns Against Missile Shield," Washington Post, December 28, 2000

MOSCOW – Russia would respond to any unilateral move by the incoming U.S. administration to deploy a national missile defense shield without Kremlin acquiescence, the head of the nuclear missile force said.

"I am afraid that if that happens, then positive initiatives will, unfortunately, be lost," the Interfax news agency quoted Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev as saying. "Then we will simply be forced to speak in a different tone of voice," Yakovlev said.

His comments appeared to be a direct response to assertions by Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell, who has voiced support for a national missile defense. Outgoing President Clinton deferred a decision on deployment of the missile shield, saying his successor should make the choice. Moscow has steadfastly refused to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which bans such systems.

--Reuters

***********

3. "Clinton Won't Go to North Korea," By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, December 28, 2000

Filed at 1:21 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton will not travel to North Korea before the end of his term, leaving further progress in establishing an accord with the communist nation to his successor, George W. Bush.

``I believe the next administration will be able to consummate this agreement,'' Clinton said. ``I expect visits back and forth. I think a lot of things will happen'' that will ``make the world a better place.''

Clinton said at a news conference that there is not enough time left in his presidency -- just three weeks -- to prepare and execute the trip ``in an appropriate manner.''

The United States has been seeking an agreement to curb North Korean missile production and development.

10102.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] In an earlier statement, the president explained that there would have to be progress toward an agreement ``that advances our national interest'' before he made such a trip, and there was not enough time for that.

The president insisted he had made a ``lot of progress'' with North Korea. ``I expect the next administration to build on it,'' he said.

``In the days I have remaining, I didn't have the time to put the trip together and execute it in the proper way,'' Clinton said.

The North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, invited Clinton in October and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright traveled to the communist nation for talks with Kim.

The president said Kim ``put forward a serious proposal concerning his missile program. Since then, we have discussed with North Korea proposals to eliminate its missile export program as well as to halt further missile development.''

Clinton said engagement with North Korea, in coordination with South Korea and Japan, ``holds great promise and that the United States should continue to build on the progress we have made.''

He also praised the engagement policy of South Korea's president, Kim Dae Jung.

Clinton said he told Bush ``that further progress could be made and that it might just have to be something that was done when he became president.''

***********

4. "Coyle Says Delays Continue To Impede NMD Simulation Progress," Inside Missile Defense, December 27, 2000

Philip Coyle, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation, told Inside Missile Defense this week that the primary simulation program for the National Missile defense system has been "seriously delayed to date, and model fidelity [has been] significantly lower that what had been planned."

Coyle was responding in writing to questions posed by IMD concerning the current build of Boeing's simulation tool, called the Lead Systems Integrator Integration Distributed Simulation (LIDS).

LIDS, built by Boeing, is a high-fidelity, system-level digital simulation of the NMD system designed to use data derived from NMD integrated flight tests and integrated ground tests to validate NMD system performance. The Defense Department chose Boeing as the lead systems integrator on the NMD project in April 1998 to oversee the continued development and integration of the system.

"LIDS Build 4.0 is the most recent example," said Coyle. "We are concerned that LIDS may not be moving fast enough down the road to improvement. The process required to validate LIDS probably will require the acquisition of

10102.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] test data over a long period of time. In the absence of that validation, much weight will have to placed on the actual flight test data to support early acquisition decisions."

Boeing developed LIDS while it was competing for the LSI contract and later decided to retain the system as its primary NMD simulation tool (IMD, Feb. 10, 1999, p9).

It operates LIDS hardware suites at its Anaheim, CA, facility and at the Joint National Test Facility at Schriever AFB, CO. Additionally, LIDS nodes are located at Boeing's Jetplex facility in Huntsville, AL, LSI offices in Arlington, VA, and at Raytheon's Bedford, MA, site. (IMD, Nov. 1, 2000, p1).

The current build of Boeing's simulation tool is capable of representing only a less robust 20-interceptor version of the land-based system, which the Defense Department originally envisioned for the inaugural NMD configuration (IMD, Nov. 1, 2000, p1). Boeing told Inside Missile Defense earlier this year that it expects to deliver the next LIDS version, build 5, in September 2001.

Coyle told IMD that he would prefer that the Operational Test Agency community had its own NMD simulation tool and did not have to be dependant on LIDS.

"However," he noted, "the timely development of such a model for NMD would entail duplication in detail of much of the system design and engineering effort. . . . Developing another assessment tool would also require a significant duplication of effort and investment of resources, that would, in the end, produce a simulation with very similar objective capabilities."

"NMD is not a traditional acquisition," he said, "and [it] will require extraordinary measures by all agencies involved in its acquisition, development and test and evaluation."

Coyle did acknowledge that LIDS Build 5 would resolve some shortcomings of Build 4 and should be a general improvement in some areas.

"Planned improvements include:

* Software usability will be greatly increased by the inclusion of a Graphic User Interface (GUI).

* The ability to handle all engagement categories (Categories 1, 2 & 3) will be added.

* The fidelity of all element models will be increased."

IMD also questioned Coyle on whether LIDS would be able to adequately support the next NMD milestone Review -- the Defense Acquisition Board radar review.

"Since the NMD program is being restructured, we are not sure what the next milestone review will specifically address," said Coyle. "Given the limitations of the current LIDS Build, however, it's contribution to

10102.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] decision making in FY2001 is likely to be modest," he added.

Coyle specifically mentioned two other simulation tools that are being used to assess potential performance of the NMD, and stated that "numerous other models and simulations are being leveraged to investigate performance of NMD at the element level."

"In additional to LIDS and NMDSim, SENTRY and [Launch To Impact Simulation model) are the principal computer tools being used to assess potential NMD system performance. SENTRY is a proprietary Boeing model that focuses on sensor coverage. It is used to perform engagement planning and supports NMDSim," Coyle said.

LISIM, developed by Raytheon, is used to "predict EKV performance up to and including the end-game portion of the intercept."

As IMD has reported in the past, Coyle is not alone in his concern over LIDS. An independent panel of retired military officers and civil servants, led by retired Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Larry Welch, highlighted LIDS as an area of concern in the NMD program a little more than a year ago (IMD, Nov. 17, 1999, p1). More recently, in June of this year, the panel again expressed concern over LIDS. The group continues to monitor LIDS and advise the Pentagon's NMD office (IMD, July 12, p1).

-- Jeff Bennett

*************

5. "Pentagon Agency Announces Large Missile Defense Award--Seven year contract subject to future reviews," USIA, December 28, 2000

The Defense Department's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization Issued a large contract to Boeing December 22 to continue development of the National Missile Defense (NMD) system for work beginning in January and running for seven more years.

Financial obligations in future fiscal years will be subject to review by the incoming Bush administration.

A Defense Department news release says the United States has not yet made a decision to deploy an NMD system and the new contract "does not change the current NMD system architecture or any previously planned system elements."

This award is designed to maintain the pace of the NMD test program and prevent interruption of any planned test activities.

Following is the text of the release (a billion refers to a thousand million)

(begin text)

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE CONTRACT AWARDED

The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's (BMDO) National Missile

10102.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] Defense Joint Program Office announced today that The Boeing Company, Space & Communications Group, Anaheim, California will be awarded a cost-plus-award-fee contract for continuing development of the National Missile Defense (NMD) system. The performance period is January 1, 2001, through September 30, 2007, with work performed by Boeing and its major subcontractors, primarily in Huntsville, Alabama; Tucson, Arizona; Sudbury and Bedford, Massachusetts; and Colorado Springs, Colorado.

The contract award announced today exercises certain options under the original contract and provides a flexible contract structure to accommodate the President's September 1, 2000, decision on continuing development and testing of the NMD system while deferring a deployment decision to the next administration.

This contract (with a potential value of $6 billion) protects the option for the next administration to deploy the NMD system at the earliest possible date, and restricts obligation of funding to funds available to the NMD program in fiscal 2001. Subsequent year obligations will be subject to review and approval by the Department of Defense and the next administration. No decision has been made to deploy a NMD system, and this contract award does not change the current NMD system architecture or any previously planned system elements.

The contract has a full potential value of $13 billion, if all future options are exercised. In April 1998, Boeing was selected as the Lead System Integrator (LSI), or prime contractor, for the NMD system.

The initial contract awarded to Boeing in 1998 will expire in April 2001, and does not reflect present-day NMD program requirements relating to initial deployment, countermeasures mitigation and the need for an improved test program. Award of the contract today ensures continuity of the development and test program, and eliminates the potential for interruption of planned test activities.

The award of the contract announced today is a normal acquisition procedure designed to keep the NMD development and testing program on track. It provides continuity and a disciplined business approach until the new administration decides on its NMD program direction.

Based upon several recommendations received by both internal and external experts, the new contract provides the framework for potential enhanced test and evaluation via an expanded test program infrastructure and the implementation of a more extensive countermeasures mitigation program. All future program elements are, of course, subject to discussion by the new administration.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

______

Daryl Kimball, Executive Director

10102.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 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 ______

------eGroups Sponsor ------~-~> Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details: http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/0/_/91925/_/978105248/ ------_->

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.

10102.07.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] From: [email protected] Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:40:51 EST Subject: (no subject) To: [email protected] X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 109

Ot;

Howard Hallman Chair Methodists United for Peace with Justice 1500 16th st., N.W. Washington D.C. 20036-4479

Howard,

As you see below, I have made several contacts in response to your hard copy letter regarding a Pennsylvania response to advocating for nuclear disarmament.

Since I do not represent any particular authority on this beyond being Peace with Justice Coordinator for the Central PA. Conference of the United Methodis Church and have limited time, I am wondering if these contacts are ones you could best respond to or if I need to continue to work to find a way to develop an interdenominational network for Pennsylvania for this effort. That is, a communication from you to these persons may surface someone who wants to take that on . . . perhaps under the mantle of the coalition. What do you think?

Respectfully

Larry Coleman [email protected] 4237 Kota Ave. Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/657-1238 FAX: 717/657-2784

Subj: FW: Nuclear Disarmament Date: 12/29/00 10:18:56 AM Eastern Standard Time From: [email protected] (Joy Kaufmann) Reply-to: [email protected] To: [email protected]

Dear Larry,

As you can see below, Gary Harke passed this item along to me, as well as the hard copy you sent him. I would suggest the following:

1) in central PA, a good contact is Dr. Jim Jones, a retired physician and founder of the local chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility. He also was

10102.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] instrumental in having the Front Street Peace Park put in place. Jim knows just about everybody in the area with an interest in this topic. His number is (717) 774-2315.

2) in western PA a good place to start would be with the staff of the Thomas Merton Center. The number is (412) 361-3022 and the address is 5125 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15224, e-mail is [email protected] The folks also have really good connections within the Roman Catholic communities, as you might imagine.

Hope these two leads help. Blessed New Year to you and yours.

Joy K.

----Original Message----- From: Gary Harke Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 9:02 AM To: Joy Kaufmann Subject: FW: Nuclear Disarmament

Any suggestions for Larry?

Gary L. Harke, executive director Pennsylvania Council of Churches 900 South Arlington Avenue, Suite 100 Harrisburg, PA 17109-5089 telephone 717.545.4761 fax 717.545.4765 <> <>

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Nuclear Disarmament

Gary,

I copy below a letter I sent to some of my colleagues in response to Howard Hallman, Chair of the Methodist United for Peace with Justice request for help in setting up a network in Pennsylvania to work on the issue of nuclear disarmament.

I will FAX the full letter to you including background information. The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament may have already communicated with you. If so, sorry for this redundancy.

10102.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] What I am looking for is the assistance of your office in identifying some contacts I could make to help identify if such a network exists in Pennsylvania and/or contacts to be made to create such an interfaith network.

Thanks for any help you and or your office can give.

Larry Coleman Acting here as Peace with Justice Coordinator Central Pennsylvania Conference The United Methodist Church

10102.08.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] From Daryl Kimball, 1-02-01

With the selection of Donald Rumsfeld to be the next Defense Secretary, George W. Bush has, in the words of The New York Times reporter Steven Meyers, "... signaled that the politically and diplomatically divisive goal of building a shield against nuclear missiles will be at the core of the new administration's national security agenda." Whether, the Bush team can decide on a system architecture, prove that it works under real world conditions, gain the support of allies and avoid adverse reactions from Russia and China, and whether the percieved missile threat increases or decreases is another question. (See article below.)

Rumsfeld has not been friendly to arms control and disarmament. In his first go-round as defense secretary, he supported acquistion of major new strategic nuclear weapons systems. In the late 1970s, he opposed the SALT II agreement. More recently, he testified against the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, and in 1999, he signed a letter against ratification of the CTBT. He was the Chair of the 1998 Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the U.S., which helped raise fears of new and imminent missile threats.

He is, like George W. Bush, dismissive of the value of the ABM Treaty. In an interview with IntellectualCapital.com from 9/3/2000, he was asked: "Some people say that any missile-defense system would break the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty .... What's your opinion on that?" Rumsfeld replied: "Well, it is a treaty that was signed 25 years ago in a country that doesn't exist at a time when the technologies had not evolved to the point where they are today. It seems to me that it is past time to review ... a treaty that inhibits the development of capabilities to dissuade their use really ought to be reviewed and changed."

In a 1/12/1999 interview on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Rumsfeld was asked: "...how do you respond to [the argument] that NMD shouldn't be developed because it won't work?" Rumsfeld replied, in part, by saying: "If we relieve ourselves of the restrictions of that treaty [i.e. ABM Treaty] so that we do not have to do contortions to do what is the quickest, cheapest, most effective way of doing this, and organize to do it in an effective way, that the United States will be able to do it."

See for further biographical information on Rumsfeld. X-Sender: [email protected] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 09:42:04 -0500 To: "Howard W. Hallman" From: Episcopal Peace Fellowship Subject: Re: Meeting on Thurday, January 4

Howard,

I can't come to the Thursday session - I hope you'll post notes from it. Happy New Year! mary

At 09:20 AM 1/2/01 -0500, you wrote: >Dear Colleagues, > >New Year's Greetings! A challenging year it will be for the cause of >nuclear disarmament. > >The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament will start the year with a >meeting on Thursday, January 4 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the Methodist >Building, Conference Room 3, >100 Maryland Avenue, N.E. It will be a briefing session on de-alerting >and strategic arms reduction, led by Bruce Blair, president, Center for >Defense Information, and Daryl Kimball, executive director, Coalition to >Reduce Nuclear Dangers. These are the two issues for which we can hope for >positive action by the incoming Bush Administration. They are the issues >we will be emphasizing in visits to senators in D.C. and in their home >states. Therefore, I hope that as many as possible will attend. Interns >will be welcomed. > >The appointment of Donald Rumsfield as secretary of defense reinforces the >view that national missile defense (NMD) will be a top priority for the >incoming Bush Administration. Rumsfield chaired a 1998 commission that >hyped the threat of nuclear attacks on the United States. He opposes >preserving the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. He opposed the 1979 >Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II), the Chemical Weapons Convention >in 1997, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1999. As >secretary of defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfield supported the >B-1 bomber, the Trident nuclear submarine, and the MX missile. > >Compared to Rumsfield, Secretary of State-designee Colin Powell is more >supportive of nuclear arms reduction. When he was chair of the Joint >Chiefs of Staff, he told a Harvard University commencement audience that he >hoped to see the time when the number of nuclear weapons is down to zero. >He supported the CTBT. But he will support the Bush Administration on >national missile defense. > >Vice President-elect Dick Cheney opposed CTBT ratification and strongly >supports NMD. But as secretary of defense in the first Bush Administration >he exercised restraint on some aspects of the military's desire for new >weapons system. He supported START I and START II, which the Bush >Administration negotiated.

10102.1.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] > >Presumably these new national security leaders will support the policy >articulated by George W. Bush last May in which he advocated a combination >of vigorous NMD and executive initiatives on de-alerting and strategic arms >reduction. We want to build strong support for the latter while continuing >our opposition to the latter. Thursday's briefing will help us prepare for >this task. > >I hope to see you 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. >

10102.1.txt[5/8/2017 3:57:19 PM] X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:04:04 -0500 From: "Carroll Houle" To: Subject: Fwd: CAMPAIGNS * 2001, Christmas Message

Howard Hallman

Dear Howard,

In case you are not on his list...I found this interesting. blessings of health and peace in the new year. carroll houle m.m. 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 Reply-To: [email protected] X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: Disarmtimes , [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],

10102.11.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 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],

10102.11.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 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="=_035865ED.F392FFA4"

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.

10102.11.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 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"

10102.11.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] From: [email protected] Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 12:07:52 EST Subject: Lugar meeting To: [email protected] X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 84

Howard,

First, let me apologize for not contacting you sooner. But I was delighted to hear of your effort.

Let me also tell you a bit about myself.

I was trained for the ministry in the conservative branch of the Christian Church, taught school and college for a number of years, then joined the Journal Gazette here in Fort Wayne as a editorial writer, then served as page editor for more than 20 years. I retired in August and now write, consult and continue to advocate for the issues that were at the heart of my writing on the editorial pages.

I left the Christian Church many years ago, attended the Church of the Brethren for some time and for the past 20 years have been active as a Unitarian. In fact, just after my retirement, I considered seeking ordination as a Unitarian outreach minister. I decided against that as the extra stuff was going to interfere with other, longstanding obligations.

Sen. Lugar I know well. And he knows me. Last year, he and Sen. Evan Bayh nominated me for the Pulitzer Prize for my writing on behalf of the mentally ill. Lugar and I have always enjoyed each other and our sparing. Needless to say, we disagree about many things but share a mutual respect.

On the matter of nuclear weapons, I'm by no means an expert. I did persuade our City Council here to endorse the freeze back in the 1980s and have written about reducing the risk of nuclear war countless times. Moreover, I have strong doubts about the missile defense program the new president is pushing. Those in the peace movement who know me and my work best are Ken Brown at Manchester College and Bill Durland, who is now in Colorado. (Bill and I team-taught peace studies back in the 1970s here and I helped start a peace studies program at Indiana-Purdue University at Fort Wayne, which is still going under Professor Richard Johnson's direction.)

All that said, I thought you should know something about me and my interests. I would welcome the opportunity to join your group in a meeting with Lugar.

Larry Hayes

10102.13.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] X-Sender: jdi@[63.106.26.66] X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 12:25:52 -0500 To: [email protected] From: John Isaacs Subject: 2001 schedule: Congress, politics, national security

2001 CONGRESSIONAL, POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY SCHEDULE

JANUARY January 3 107th Congress convenes - 12:00 Noon swearing in January 5 Joint session of Congress to count electoral ballots January 15 Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday January 20 Presidential inauguration Late January Deadline for Congressional Budget Office Report "Budget and Economic Outlook" Late January National Missile Defense intercept test scheduled for late Jan/Feb.

FEBRUARY February 5 Probable date for President to submit annual budget to Congress February 6 Israeli election for prime minister February 16-26 Congressional President's Day recess February 19 Presidents' Day holiday

MARCH March 1 Deadline for Energy Secretary's report on non-proliferation programs in Russia March 31 Deadline for Comptroller General report on the National Ignition Facility

APRIL April 6-23 Congressional Easter Recess April 7 First night of Passover April 8 Palm Sunday April 15 Easter April 15 Deadline for Pentagon report on long-range plan for nuclear forces April 28 Deadline for report on the effect of U.S. overseas troop deployments on readiness

MAY May 25-June 4 Congressional Memorial Day recess May 28 Memorial Day May 31 Deadline for "militarily significant benchmarks" from President to allow U.S. forces to withdraw from Kosovo.

JUNE June 29-July 9 Congressional Independence Day recess

JULY July 4 Independence Day

10102.14.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] AUGUST August 3-Sept. 4 Congressional Summer recess

SEPTEMBER September 3 Labor Day September 4 Congress reconvenes from summer recess September 17 Rosh Hashana begins at sundown September 26 Yom Kippur begins at sundown

OCTOBER October 1 Fiscal Year 2001 begins October 5 Tentative congressional adjournment day October 8 Columbus Day

NOVEMBER November 6 Election Day for governor in Virginia and New Jersey and numerous mayors November 11 Veterans' Day November 22 Thanksgiving

DECEMBER December Deadline for Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review December Deadline for Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review December 9 First night of Hanukkah December 25 Christmas

N.B. All deadlines and due dates for Congress and the Administration should be considered flexible; both branches of government frequently act later than scheduled.

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

10102.14.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] From: Info To: "'[email protected]'" Subject: Re: Comments from Howard Hallman Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:37:56 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

Dear Mr. Hallman: Thank you for expressing to us your concerns on the performance of the T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund. Year 2000 was the worst year for the Nasdaq Index in its history and the Dow also had one of its worst years in recent memory. While the fund does not attempt to replicate the performance of the Nasdaq Index, many of the underlying companies in the fund are found in the index. The technology sector as well as the stock market as a whole performed poorly last year. Technology stocks, international stocks, and blue chip stocks had lackluster performances. Poor performances for stock mutual funds were not just a T. Rowe Price problem in 2000, however. The mutual funds of many companies also struggled, which was mostly a result of the market as a whole. Investors fears arose at the end of March 2000, due to the overwhelming gains experienced in the last several years, mostly in the technology sector. Many investors guessed right and moved some of the funds that had done so well the last several years into more conservative mutual funds. Many of the conservative funds that were purchased were attractively priced, so there was more upside potential. Investors feared that many of the stocks that had very high share prices were overvalued. The funds that many decided to invest in for bargain prices this year include many that were completely out of favor the last several years, such as value funds, small cap funds, and the financial sector funds. The fears of many turned out to be good for the stock market as a whole, as the economy was previously being driven by the technology sector. Therefore, investors sought to diversify their portfolios with more balance. This translates into a more balanced economy in the long run, with growth being experienced in all sectors. Below, please find an example of funds that represent the sectors above. Remember, these sectors were almost, or in some cases, completely out of favor the last several years. The example shows the funds total return for all of 1999 and the total return for 2000. Financial Services Fund 1999: 1.70% 2000: 36.76% Health Sciences Fund 1999: 7.97% 2000: 52.19% Small-Cap Value Fund 1999: 1.19% 2000: 19.77 The purpose of the illustration was not to show you the best performing funds for 2000, or to give you investment advice. Rather, I wanted you to see that mutual funds often move in and out of favor. In other words, the funds that have good returns one year are not guaranteed to have good returns the next. Conversely, the funds that do poorly one year may do outstanding the next.

10102.15.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] It is easier to keep this all in perspective if you invest for the long term. It is hard to judge a fund's performance in 3 months, 6 months, or even 1 year. The true value of most mutual funds that invest in stocks is 10 years or more. With a longer time horizon, the good years generally outweigh the bad. Investors in stock funds compromise a higher degree of risk to experience potentially superior returns over time. 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----- [email protected]; Subject=Comments from Howard Hallman; Name: Howard Hallman E-mail: [email protected] Date: 01-02-2001 Time: 14:54:32 Address: 6508 Wilmett Road, , Bethesda, MD 20817 Message: Mr. Charles A. Morris, Manager Global Technology Fund Dear Mr. Morris: What's happening with the Global Technology Fund you are managing? When you ann ounced its creation in September I was ready to get out of the Spectrum Income F und, which wasn't doing well. I'm not a highly sophisticated investor. I figur ed that if the smart people at T. Rowe Price thought it was a good time to open the Global Technology Fund, maybe I should shift the funds there. So I did: $15 ,979.61 on September 29. Since then my investment has lost 25 percent of its va lue in three months. I know your brochure mentioned there were risks and uncert ainty. But this much loss? It leaves me highly disappointed and with a feeling of being misled by T. Rowe Price. What's gone wrong? Sincerely yours, Howard W. Hallman Account #1018366903-1

10102.15.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] To: Info From: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Comments from Howard Hallman Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: In-Reply-To: References:

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

10102.16.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1413460-2019-978479701-mupj=igc.apc.org@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: [email protected] X-Apparently-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) From: "Martin Auer" Mailing-List: list [email protected]; contact [email protected] Delivered-To: mailing list [email protected] List-Unsubscribe: Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 18:53:16 +0100 Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: [abolition-caucus] Materials for peace education downloadable free of charge at http://www.peaceculture.net.

Materials for peace education downloadable free of charge at http://www.peaceculture.net.

Martin Auer, renowned Austrian author of children's books has put together a collection of stories for children and young people named "The Strange War – Stories for a Culture of Peace". The book that has been published by Beltz & Gelberg, Germany, in summer 2000 can be read online and can also be downloaded for printing at http://www.peaceculture.net. Translators from – so far – eight different countries have volunteered to translate the stories. Complete versions are available at the moment in English (thanks do Kim Martin Metzger from Mexico), Russian (thanks to Dmitriy Chursinov from Voronesh) and Danish (thanks to Hendrik Grøn from Copenhagen) and of course in German. The Chinese (Zhixin He), French (Christian Lassalle) and Estonian (Tiina Tuul) versions are well under way and parts can already be read online. Some stories can also be read in Serbian, Dutch and Japanese. "It is not enough to tell children that war is a bad thing and peace is much nicer", says Auer. "They want and need to know more: Why do people fight wars? Has war existed always? How did it come into the world? Is war something that just cannot be avoided? Maybe because human nature just is aggressive and murderous? Is it possible that a war 'breaks out' even if the majority of people want peace? Who is responsible for the keeping of peace? Governments? The Soldiers? Everybody? - In these stories I have tried to tackle philosophical, economical, anthropological and political questions without oversimplifying them and still in such a way that children can understand. I hope that peace education workers all over the world will be able to use those stories in their work. This is why I use the Internet to distribute them free of charge. I am very grateful to the translators who are doing a wonderful job and without whom this would not be possible. I am also grateful to my publishers for treating the copyright issues in a flexible and not purely businesslike way." The printout with an illustration by German artist Verena Ballhaus can be folded into a neat booklet. Distribution for

10103.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] educational purposes is free. Volunteers for translations into more languages are welcome.

For more of Martin Auer's works see http://www.martinauer.net. For a biography and a list of published works and awards see http://www.t0.or.at/~lyrikmaschine/author.htm.

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.

10103.01.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:20 PM] From: "Bob and Elaine Tiller" To: "Howard W. Hallman" Subject: Re: Meeting on Thurday, January 4 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:48:42 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

Howard,

I will try to make the meeting this Thursday, but I am not sure. Lots of stuff happening at my office.

I am very sorry that I missed the meeting on December 18th. Things were equiet at my office in that period, and I had fully intended to be there. However, my wife was diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma a few days earlier, and we had an appointment with an oncologist that morning. The appointment ran on much longer than expected, as we asked a lot of questions, and then she had to go for more tests, so I was unable to get to the meeting. Very sorry.

Bob

----- Original Message ----- From: Howard W. Hallman To: Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 9:20 AM Subject: Meeting on Thurday, January 4

> Dear Colleagues, > > New Year's Greetings! A challenging year it will be for the cause of > nuclear disarmament. > > The Interfaith Committee for Nuclear Disarmament will start the year with a > meeting on Thursday, January 4 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the Methodist > Building, Conference Room 3, > 100 Maryland Avenue, N.E. It will be a briefing session on de-alerting > and strategic arms reduction, led by Bruce Blair, president, Center for > Defense Information, and Daryl Kimball, executive director, Coalition to > Reduce Nuclear Dangers. These are the two issues for which we can hope for > positive action by the incoming Bush Administration. They are the issues > we will be emphasizing in visits to senators in D.C. and in their home > states. Therefore, I hope that as many as possible will attend. Interns > will be welcomed. > > The appointment of Donald Rumsfield as secretary of defense reinforces the > view that national missile defense (NMD) will be a top priority for the > incoming Bush Administration. Rumsfield chaired a 1998 commission that

10103.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:21 PM] > hyped the threat of nuclear attacks on the United States. He opposes > preserving the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. He opposed the 1979 > Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II), the Chemical Weapons Convention > in 1997, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1999. As > secretary of defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfield supported the > B-1 bomber, the Trident nuclear submarine, and the MX missile. > > Compared to Rumsfield, Secretary of State-designee Colin Powell is more > supportive of nuclear arms reduction. When he was chair of the Joint > Chiefs of Staff, he told a Harvard University commencement audience that he > hoped to see the time when the number of nuclear weapons is down to zero. > He supported the CTBT. But he will support the Bush Administration on > national missile defense. > > Vice President-elect Dick Cheney opposed CTBT ratification and strongly > supports NMD. But as secretary of defense in the first Bush Administration > he exercised restraint on some aspects of the military's desire for new > weapons system. He supported START I and START II, which the Bush > Administration negotiated. > > Presumably these new national security leaders will support the policy > articulated by George W. Bush last May in which he advocated a combination > of vigorous NMD and executive initiatives on de-alerting and strategic arms > reduction. We want to build strong support for the latter while continuing > our opposition to the latter. Thursday's briefing will help us prepare for > this task. > > I hope to see you 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. >

10103.02.txt[5/8/2017 3:58:21 PM]