Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 9. Oktober 2004 / Time Line October 9, 2004
Version 3.510/09/2004
Undskyldning for Irak?
Af Jan Øberg, fil.dr., TFF direktør
Under Folketingets åbningsdebat krævede Mogens
Lykketoft (S) at statsministeren skal sige undskyld for at han tog
fejl vedrørende Irak og at grundlaget for krigen ikke holdt.
Når amerikanerne selv siger det, så tør vi - og
FE - skam også at indrømme det, der har stået
klart i årevis. Det er 8 år siden inspektørerne
meddelte at 95-98% af alt hvad Saddam have var fundet og
destrueret.
Forholdet mellem Saddams militærudgifter og USAs plus
Englands var 1:332 - ifølge CIAs egen hjemmeside. Så
nogen trussel var han heller ikke.
Der er således ikke tale om en fejltagelse. Det er en bevidst
politik, der er ført hvis grundlag var helt igennem
konstrueret, ikke fejlagtigt. Colin Powells over 70 minutter lange
indlæg i Sikkerhedsråd forud for krigen var ét
stort teaterstykke med dårlige rekvisiter. Ingen med det
mindste kendskab til efterretningsvæsen og -teknologi kan
have troet ham.
Nogen i Danmark må have vidst at der ikke var tale om
fejltagelser. Nogen må have vidst at man ønskede en
krig og derefter konstruerede "grundlaget". Det område
vestlige beslutningstagere vidste mest om vedrørende Irak
var, paradoksalt nok, formodentlig det militære. Nogen
må have vist at vor øvrige viden om Irak var så
ringe, at der overhovedet ikke kunne bygges et grundlag for en
så vigtig beslutning.
Lykketoft skyder helt ved siden af. Hvis oppositionen mener at
denne krig kan rettes op ved sådan bare at sige undskyld,
så har den endnu ikke forstået krigens internationale
konsekvenser og menneskeligt grufulde dimensioner.
"Fejltagelsen" har et sådan omfang at det burde motivere et
krav om tilbagetrækning af de danske tropper og/eller
regeringens afgang.
Til TV-Avisen siger Mogens Lykketoft direkte at der skal siges
undskyld til den danske befolkning. Men hvad har danskerne lidt i
sammenligning med irakerne? Det kan givetvis blive
nødvendigt en dag for statsministeren at sige undskyld til
dræbte danskeres pårørende. Men det er ikke
dét Lykketoft taler om.
Hvor længe skal vi se på billederne og høre
rapporterne uden at forstå? Hvor længe skal vi vente
på at nogen viser det irakiske folk medmenneskelighed og
lægger en politik derefter?
10/09/2004
54th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs
Bridging a Divided World Through International Cooperation and
Disarmament
Statement of the Pugwash Council
9 October 2004, Seoul, Korea
The Pugwash Council, meeting during the 54th Pugwash Conference
held in Seoul, Korea from 5-8 October 2004,, expresses its grave
concern that the international community faces a critical turning
point in the threat to global security posed by nuclear
weapons.
The potential collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and
the weakening of the taboos in place since 1945 on the use of
nuclear weapons, coupled with the very real dangers of a terrorist
group manufacturing and detonating a nuclear explosive device,
combine to produce a recipe for unmitigated disaster.
Regarding the non-proliferation regime, the upcoming Third Review
Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty – being held in
the spring of 2005 – faces daunting challenges. The original
nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France and China) have not
lived up to their obligations under Article VI of the NPT to move
decisively toward the irreversible elimination of their nuclear
arsenals. Such inaction invites charges of hypocrisy when these
same countries seek to deny access to nuclear technologies to
non-nuclear weapons states, or – in the case of the United
States – threaten and carry out military pre-emption to
prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by other countries.
On the Korean peninsula – the site of this year’s
Pugwash Conference – stability and the relaxation of tension
is undermined by continued hostility between the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the United States and
by the continued crisis over the nuclear program of the DPRK. The
DPRK’s withdrawal from the NPT in early 2003 poses a serious
challenge to the non-proliferation regime and must be solved
through multilateral negotiation and cooperation as soon as
possible.
In the Middle East, Israel’s policy of opacity concerning its
nuclear weapons program, while meant to avoid embarrassing
NPT-parties in the region, does provide arguments to those who
advocate nuclear weapons programs in other countries. Israeli
policy also provides a justification to those in other countries
who oppose the chemical and biological weapons conventions,
resulting in a net decrease, in our judgment, of Israel’s
security. There are also grave uncertainties and concerns with
Iran’s nuclear intentions that need to be resolved through
transparent fulfillment with IAEA obligations. In this volatile
region in the world, bold steps are needed to support the proposals
for a WMD-free zone in the Middle East as well as such initiatives
as the Arab Plan and the Geneva Accord that can bring about
effective regional security.
In South Asia, India and Pakistan continue to face each other with
nuclear arsenals. Although significant progress has been made in
improving relations between the two, there remains the very real
possibility of the resumption of open hostility and conflict.
More broadly, the entire framework of nuclear weapons disarmament
is in danger of being swept away. Strategic arms control between
the US and Russia is moribund, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT) has not entered into force, and serious negotiations have
not even started on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) to
eliminate production of weapons-grade Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)
and plutonium. Moreover, too little is being done to control and
dispose of existing stockpiles of HEU that run the risk of falling
into the hands of terrorist groups. No attention is being paid to
large numbers of tactical nuclear weapons that continue to exist in
great numbers with no military rationale whatsoever, while the
deployment of weapons in space moves closer to reality. Adding fuel
to this nuclear fire is the fact that the Bush administration in
the US has increased the role of nuclear weapons in US national
security policy by its renewed interest in nuclear war-fighting
strategies, in possibly developing new nuclear weapons, and in a
possible resumption of nuclear testing.
At the same time as little progress is made toward the twin
objectives of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation,
the phenomenon of international terrorism continues to cast a
spectre over the international community. The US-led military
presence in Iraq has become a source of continued instability and
loss of life and a focus for international terrorists. We hope for
an early mitigation of this violence and believe that a major step
in this direction would be the transfer of authority to a
democratically-elected (under UN supervision) and effective Iraqi
government. This government should then be provided with all
necessary military support by the international community in order
to re-establish democratic law and order in Iraq.
At the 54th Pugwash Conference in Seoul, all of these themes were
touched on by such speakers as Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director
General of the International Atomic Energy Agency; Dr. Hussain
Al-Shahristani of Iraq, who was imprisoned by Saddam Hussein for
refusing to work on nuclear weapons, and by Nobel Peace Prize
Laureautes Kim Dae-Jung, former President of South Korea, and Dr.
Joseph Rotblat, co-founder and past President of the Pugwash
Conferences.
These speakers and others stressed the need to reduce the tensions
that undermine global security, whether between nuclear and
non-nuclear states, or between those who act unilaterally and those
committed to a multilateral international legal order, or between
those who continue to rely on the primacy of nuclear weapons for
security and those who would reduce the insecurities that stimulate
interest in nuclear weapons in the first place. In particular, Dr.
Hussain al-Shahristani spoke eloquently from his own experience of
the moral imperative of scientists not to work on nuclear weapons
and other instruments of indiscriminate destruction.
Time is running out if a nuclear catastrophe is to be averted.
Political solutions are urgently needed to resolve those conflicts
that either spawn international terrorism, or increase the risk of
nuclear weapons use, or both. Global security must be based on
international institutions and the rule of law rather than on
unilateral action and an excessive reliance on military force.
In looking ahead to the 2005 NPT Review Conference, the Pugwash
Council calls on national governments, multilateral institutions,
and international NGOs to lead the international community away
from a misplaced reliance on nuclear weapons and the catastrophic
dangers that await us if clear progress is not made to decisively
reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons.
10/09/2004
Pentagon contracts hit taxpayers
Pentagon spending is a prime target for frustrated taxpayers who
believe the federal government is squandering their hard-earned
money. That bull's-eye looms especially large in light of a recent
study showing that more than 40 percent of the Pentagon's $900
billion in prime contracts since 1998 have been awarded without
competitive bidding.
In perusing more than 2.2 million contract records, the nonprofit
Center for Public Integrity found that competitive bidding
at the Pentagon happens less often than generally imagined.
The study showed that top 10 defense contractors received $209
billion, or 58 percent, of the no-bid contracts. No surprise there
because the same firms spent $414.6 million lobbying the
government, plus another $35.7 million in campaign contributions,
writes San Diego Union-Tribune.
 |
 |