Det danske Fredsakademi

Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 7. Oktober 2010 / Time Line October 7, 2010

6. Oktober 2010, 8. Oktober 2010

10/07/2010
Afghanistan invaderes 2001.

10/07/2010
Urgent Changes To NATO's Nuclear Policy Are Needed In The Run Up To The Lisbon Summit
By John Scales Avery, Ph.D., Chairman, Danish Pugwash Group and Chairman, Danish Peace Academy
On September 29, 2010, I received the following mailing from Shata Shetty, Researcher to the Top Level Group of UK Parliamentarians for Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation, :

Today a group of 34 senior European politicians, military figures and diplomats have jointly signed a statement calling for urgent changes to NATO nuclear policy in the run up to the Lisbon Summit and for fresh attempts to engage Russia on a range of security issues from non-strategic (or “tactical”) nuclear weapons to ballistic missile defence.

The Group asks NATO to use the development of a new Strategic Concept, a draft of which is expected to be circulated to member governments by the NATO Secretary General within days, to support President Barack Obama’s drive for multilateral nuclear disarmament and to show NATO leadership on the nuclear agenda.

In particular it calls for:

• A further reduction and consolidation of the 200 U.S. non-strategic nuclear weapons stationed in Europe;
• A change to NATO declaratory policy to make it clear that the fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear weapons is only to deter nuclear attack and not to deter a wider range of non-nuclear threats; NATO engagement with Russia on the verifiable reduction and
• consolidation of non-strategic nuclear weapons across the whole of Europe;
• The retention and updating of the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty and for NATO to work for Russia’s return to this treaty regime;
• Use of the NATO-Russia Council to support the search for binding agreements on the future of ballistic missile defence.

The statement also challenges the alliance to conduct a full and inclusive review of NATO nuclear policy in 2011 and to use that review to show leadership on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation while finding new ways to operationalize core NATO concepts like burden-sharing, solidarity and the transatlantic link.

The statement provides added momentum to the debate on the future of NATO in the run up to November’s Lisbon Summit. A copy of the full statement is attached to this email and can also be found at:
http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/nato-nuclear-policy.html.

It is issued only in the names of those who have endorsed it but has emerged from a sub-group of members of the new European Leadership Network (ELN) for Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation. This is an informal network of senior European political, military and diplomatic figures who have come together to address what they see as the world’s growing nuclear dangers. The statement has been endorsed by the following individuals:

1. Michael Ancram, former Shadow Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary in the United Kingdom
2. Egon Bahr, former Federal Minister for Special Affairs of Germany
3. Margaret Beckett, former Foreign Secretary for the United Kingdom
4. Kjell Magne Bondevik, former Prime Minister of Norway
5. Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, former Deputy Prime Minister of the Netherlands
6. Hans van den Broek, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and former European Commissioner for Foreign Relations
7. Des Browne, former Defence Secretary of the United Kingdom
8. Francesco Calogero, former Secretary General (1989-1997) of Pugwash Conferences (1995 Nobel Peace Prize)
9. Menzies Campbell, former leader of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom
10. Willy Claes, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium
11. Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark
12. Hans Dietrich Genscher, former Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor of Germany
13. Juraj Horvath, former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Slovak Parliament, National Council of the Slovak Republic
14. Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman, Munich Security Conference
15. Jan Kavan, former Foreign Minister, former Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech Republic
16. Tom King, former Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom
17. Vladimir Lastuvka, former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee of the Czech Parliament
18. Ruud Lubbers, former Prime Minister of the Netherlands
19. Mogens Lykketoft, former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark
20. Giorgio La Malfa, former Minister for European Affairs of Italy
21. Federica Mogherini, Member of Parliament in Italy
22. Klaus Naumann, General (ret), former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee and former Chief of Defence Germany, Commissioner in the International Commission on Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament
23. Bernard Norlain, General (ret), former commander of the FrenchTactical Air Force and military counselor to the Prime Minister
24. David Owen, former Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom
25. Niels Helveg Petersen, former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark
26. Malcolm Rifkind, former Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom
27. Volker Rühe, former Defence Minister of Germany
28. Jaroslav Šabata, former Minister in the Czech government and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee of the Czech Parliament
29. Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor of Germany
30. Ivo Slaus, former Member of Parliament of Croatia
31. Thorvald Stoltenberg, former Foreign Minister of Norway
32. Richard von Weizsäcker, former President of Germany
33. Kåre Willoch, former Prime Minister of Norway
34. Shirley Williams, former Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords and former Adviser on Nuclear Proliferation to Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the United Kingdom

I think that the distinguished men and women who drafted and signed the statement proposing changes in NATO's policies are to be greatly congratulated; but I think that their recommendations do not go far enough.

According to a 1996 ruling of the International Court of Justice, “the threat and use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international law...” The only possible exception to this general rule might be “an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake”. This ruling must be uppermost in the minds of those who will meet in Lisbon to revise NATO's policies.

Another important issue is the urgent need to make NATO's nuclear policies conform with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At present NATO's policies violate both the spirit and the text of the NPT in several respects.

Today there are an estimated 200 US nuclear weapons still in Europe. The air forces of the nations in which they are based are regularly trained to deliver the US weapons. This “nuclear sharing”, as it is called, violates Articles I and II of the NPT, which forbid the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon states. It has been argued that the NPT would no longer be in force if a crisis arose, but there is nothing in the NPT saying that the treaty would not hold under all circumstances.

Article VI of the NPT requires states possessing nuclear weapon to get rid of them within a reasonable period of time. This article is violated by fact that NATO policy is guided by a Strategic Concept, which visualizes the continued use of nuclear weapons in the forseeable future.

The principle of no-first-use of nuclear weapons has been an extremely important safeguard over the years, but it is violated by present NATO policy, which permits the first-use of nuclear weapons in a wide variety of circumstances. This policy must be changed.

Besides changing NATO nuclear policy, a second very important issue is the need to make NATO actions conform with international law under the United Nations Charter.

Article 2 of the UN Charter requires that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

This requirement is somewhat qualified by Article 51, which says that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Memeber of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

Thus, in general, war is illegal under the UN Charter. Self-defence against an armed attack is permitted, but only for a limited time, until the Security Council has had time to act. The United Nations Charter does not permit the threat or use of force in preemptive wars, or to produce regeme changes, or for so-called “democratization”, or for the domination of regions that are rich in oil. NATO must not be a party to the threat or use of force for such illegal purposes, but instead must support the authority of the United Nations Charter, and the fundamental authority of international law.

10/07/2010
The use of base transfers
By Leuren Moret
The US has shared base agreements now with Australia, probably Japan and Israel, and now the UK among other countries. "Base transfers" to other countries with shared bases of nuclear weapons, DU, illegal weapons, experimental exotic weapons can now occur without any notification to Congress (required by law) or a required sign-off by the US President on nuclear weapons being transferred to other countries. Also nuclear weapons under 5 kt are not restricted under the NPT, in fact they are not even part of the NPT. The US has 'dial-a'nukes' now that have variable yields from 0.1 kt to 300 kt. There is no mushroom cloud in mini-nukes characteristic of larger detonation nukes. US political/military officials have announced that mini-nukes will be used "in third world countries". Clinton desperate to get the NPT renewed permanently promised 165 countries that mini-nukes would not be used on signator countries to the renewed NPT. After he said that (to get the countries to sign), the US govt. announced it was a non-binding "negative assurance declaration" and had no legal binding. I think it was the World Court that considered the US govt statement and declared it WAS a binding agreement.
Also Dr. Chris Busby and I are convinced that 4th generation nuclear weapons have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably Yugo, my data and investigation indicates since at least 2002. 3 million people disappeared in one year from Iran and death rates increased catastrophically in 2006-2007. That is 5% of the population in one year that simply disappeared. See attached CIA statistics on Iran. Iran has been cross-contaminated from both Iraq and Afghan, so the US/UK are carrying out a covert nuclear war against Iran - NOT the other way around.
Here is another indicator of shared bases just announced:
Stepped-up integration of Anglo-American military industrial complex
http://www.voltairenet.org/article167146.html
Its pretty clear what is coming our way. Endless wars for the British empire that is bankrupting the US Leuren

10/07/2010
Germany to do away with U.S. nukes?
BUECHEL, Germany, Oct. 7 (UPI) --
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/10/07/Germany-to-do-away-with-US-nukes/UPI-60991286444698/
The German Defense Ministry has denied a newspaper report that it plans to decommission its entire fleet of Tornado jets by 2013, a move that would effectively end a nuclear weapons sharing deal with the United States.
Guarded by U.S. soldiers, an estimated 22 U.S. nuclear weapons are locked away in the bunkers under the Fliegerhorst Buechel, an airbase in Rhineland-Palatinate run by the German Luftwaffe. The B61 thermonuclear bombs, which can be dropped from low-flying jets at high speeds, signify the ultimate nuclear deterrent...

10/07/2010
Contracts for October 07, 2010
NAVY General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Conn., is being awarded a $400,570,075 cost-plus-fixed fee option under contract (N00024-11-C-2111; a continuing contract for N00024-09-C-2101) for design agent, planning yard, engineering and technical support for active nuclear submarines. The continuation efforts provide for drawings and related technical data; design change documentation; logistics technical data; configuration management; hull, mechanical and electrical engineering; submarine safety design review; non-propulsion plant electrical system engineering; propulsion plant engineering; information services; maintenance engineering; refit/availability technical support; on-site support; configuration change program design and installation support; configuration change program material support; submarine technical trade support; training and facility support; RDT&E program support; R&D submarine/submersibles support; miscellaneous special studies; temporary alteration support; modernization of submarine/submersible systems/subsystems; and affordability/cost reduction technical support. Work will be performed in Groton, Conn. (73 percent); Kings Bay, Ga. (11 percent); Bangor, Wash. (8 percent); Quonset, R.I. (6 percent); and Newport, R.I. (2 percent). Work is expected to be completed by October 2011. Contract funds in the amount of $84,119,715 will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

10/07/2010
Gaveboden
Af Holger Terp
Statsministeren har ført en gavebodspolitik, siges det.
Der er ingen i min omgangskreds der har nydt gavn af det i de sidste ti år.
Tværtimod.
Her i Hvidovre har regeringens politik medført lukning af hele tre velfungerende og meget benyttede biblioteker.
Først lukkes biblioteket på Hvidovre Hospital her i sommers og nu har størstedelen af kommunalbestyrelsen vedtaget lukning af to filialer. Det er muligt, at kommunen sparer et par kroner i budgettet ad åre, men hvis borgerne i fremtiden vil benytte sig af bibliotekets mange kulturelle tilbud skal de alle, syge, unge som gamle, bruge tid og penge på at komme på biblioteket. Med andre ord, det er borgerne i Hvidovre, der selv skal betale den såkaldte kommunale besparelse - og hvis de ikke mere orker at drage til biblioteket, bliver de kulturelt fattigere.
Det er en gavebodspolitik der vil noget.
Vi bor snart i et befæstet fattighus, men vi behøver ikke at blive dummere.

10/07/2010

Top