Det danske Fredsakademi

Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 31. maj 2004 / Time Line May 31, 2004

Version 3.0

30. Maj 2004, Juni 2004


05/31/2004
Can We Live With the Bomb?
Lawrence S. WittnerBy: Lawrence S. Wittner
For some time now, it has been clear that nuclear weapons threaten the existence not only of humanity, but of all life on Earth.
Thus, Barack Obama's pledge to work for a nuclear weapons-free world—made during his 2008 presidential campaign and subsequently in public statements—has resonated nicely with supporters of nuclear disarmament and with the general public.
But recent developments have called that commitment into question. The administration's Nuclear Posture Review does not indicate any dramatic departures in the use of nuclear weapons, while its nuclear weapons budget request for the next fiscal year represents a 14 percent increase over this year's counterpart. The most alarming sign that the administration might be preparing for a nuclear weapons-filled future is its proposal to spend $180 billion over the next ten years to upgrade the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex.
From the standpoint of nuclear critics, the best interpretation of such measures—and one that might be accurate—is that they are designed to win support among hawkish Republican senators for the New START Treaty, which will reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. After all, the political argument goes, if Obama is to secure the sixty-seven Senate votes necessary to ratify the treaty, he needs to pick up some Republican support. Of course, these pro-nuclear measures might reflect a quite different scenario, one in which Obama is abandoning yet another political promise.
In this context, we might ask: would abandoning the promise of nuclear abolition be a bad idea?
There are at least five good reasons why it would be:

  1. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, they will be used in war. Nations (and before them, competing territories) have engaged in war for thousands of years, and for these wars they have been tempted to draw upon the most powerful weapons in their arsenals. Today, such weapons are nuclear weapons—some 23,000 of them. Although supporters of these weapons maintain that they deter nuclear war, there is no reason to assume that nuclear deterrence works, or at least works in all cases. This is indicated by the U.S. government's pursuit of national missile defense and its attempts to head off other nations (e.g. Iran) from developing nuclear weapons.
  2. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is inevitable that additional nations will develop them. When some nations maintain large, devastating nuclear arsenals, it is naïve to expect other nations to tamely sit back and accept their non-nuclear status. Over the decades, this situation of military inequality has spurred on nuclear proliferation and, unless nuclear nations divest themselves of their nuclear weapons, it will continue to do so.
  3. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is likely that they will be used by terrorists. Terrorists do not have the production facilities for building or testing nuclear weapons, but they have the possibility of obtaining them, though theft or bribery, from national arsenals. While nuclear weapons exist in national arsenals, obtaining and using them against civilian populations will provide a constant temptation to terrorists.
  4. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is likely that they will be exploded accidentally. Numerous nuclear accidents—from nuclear weapons dropped to mistaken nuclear war alerts—have already occurred, although so far without detonation. In an age of BP oil explosions and other technological disasters, there are limits to how long we can press our luck with nuclear weapons technology.
  5. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, they—and the uranium mining, warhead production, and testing they necessitate—will continue to pollute the earth with radioactive waste for thousands of years. Nuclear waste disposal is already a very significant problem in the United States, and, not surprisingly, no state has yet volunteered to serve as the permanent dumping ground for it.

In short, while nuclear weapons exist, we are living on the brink of an unprecedented catastrophe.
Thus, if we are wise, we should draw back from the brink and address the problem posed by nuclear weapons. If the U.S. government and others are serious about building a nuclear weapons-free world, they should begin negotiations on a nuclear abolition treaty. And, if they are not serious about nuclear abolition, the public should raise enough of a ruckus so that they have no alternative to becoming serious.
If we can't live with the Bomb, we should begin planning to get rid it.
Dr. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford University Press).

05/31/2004
Statement by WILPF Israel on the Free Gaza Flotilla and the events of Monday
We, the women of WILPF, Israel Section, are outraged by the tragic actions of the Israeli navy in the early morning hours of Monday. May 31,2004. Our armed forces hijacked unarmed, civilian vessels in international waters - an act of piracy. They boarded the first one by force, killing 10 passengers and wounding numerous others in the process. All of this was to stop the boats from breaking the illegal Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip.
The Gaza Strip has been under siege by land, sea and air, enforced by the Israeli armed forces since 2006 when the Hamas party gained control in the area through democratic elections. Israel objects to Hamas control, claiming that it is a terrorist organization. After those elections Israel categorically refused to negotiate with the Hamas government, convinced the USA and EU to also boycott Hamas, and imposed the siege hoping in that way to topple Hamas from power. As this tactic did not succeed, Israel embarked on a cruel military bombardment and invasion into the Gaza Strip in December, 2008. In the 22 days of military action against the civilian population 1,420 Gazans were killed,(most of them civilians) 446 of them children, 5,320 people were injured, 1,855 of them children, and approximately 20,000 homes were completely or partially destroyed. Schools, hospitals, the sewage processing plant and the central electric generator were all heavily damaged in the bombardment. Israel's siege of the Gaza Strip has not allowed the population there to rebuild and, at the same time, they suffer severe deprivation - 3/4 of the damage has not been repaired and 60% of the families are dependent on the UN food program in order to eat.
If the aim of Israel's policy was to weaken Hamas and loosen its control, it has failed. And Israel is not alone in its failure; the entire international community is complicit in this policy that is morally appalling and politically self-defeating. There is a need for a comprehensive review and re-examination of the entire issue. Neither Israel nor the international community has taken into consideration that the Hamas leaders have signed on to the comprehensive peace plan, offered first by Saudi Arabia in 2002, and endorsed by the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The time has come to negotiate with Hamas. After the tragic events of May, 31, it is imperative on the international community, especially the USA and the EU, to revamp their policies toward Israel. The Israeli peace camp is active, but we cannot go it alone; we must have the help of our sisters and allies all over the world. We must convince governments that it is in the interests of the entire world to bring about a comprehensive peace for our region. The sooner, the better.

05/31/2004

Top


Gå til Fredsakademiets forside
Tilbage til indholdsfortegnelsen for maj 2004

Send kommentar, email eller søg i Fredsakademiet.dk
Locations of visitors to this page