A Latin American Proposal for Peace and Against Nuclear Holocaust
Prepared by the Latin American Circle for International Studies (LACIS) and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Mexico (NAPFM)
October 2004

The number of countries able to produce nuclear weapons now reaches around 40. The most recent members of the club are India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Others, whose respective histories in this regard are surrounded by the veil of secrecy and good doses of clandestine operations, include Israel, Iraq, Iran, Libya, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina, and Brazil. In addition, there are those that are currently considering the possibility of joining the group, such as Japan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. An environment of uncertainty and volatility with regard to global security precipitate such decisions, even if for diverse circumstances some nations - such as Iraq and Libya - have had to suspend their activities in this respect, due to economic considerations and external pressures.

International terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda have tried to obtain nuclear weapons and perhaps already have some. The basic knowledge on how to manufacture an atomic bomb has spread indiscriminately, even in easy to access manuals, and the necessary components for such weapons often lack adequate monitoring. Al-Qaeda, for example, thanks to the efforts of the great master of global terrorism, Osama bin Laden, managed to obtain technical assistance from the Pakistani nuclear program. Its participation in the high-level drug trade represents a constant access to fresh funds, even though Bin Laden's personal fortune continues to be in the 10's of millions; thus, the elite squadrons of Al-Qaeda have the resources to develop nuclear arms and to acquire missiles or other devices that can be deployed against specific targets.

The construction of a rudimentary atomic bomb by many trained scientists and engineers is feasible. The hypothetical individual would need to acquire enough uranium, but it would not have to be of the highly enriched type, in the case of a rather primitive, but not less murderous, bomb. An imaginative, highly motivated person, could cause truly catastrophic damage with a nuclear bomb of this nature.

At the same time, the new US nuclear doctrine announced by President George W. Bush that proclaims Washington's right to launch preventive attacks, even with nuclear weapons, against countries considered hostile that have or could have arsenals of this nature, as well as other weapons of mass destruction, has caused an inevitable response on the part of those who, quite rightfully, feel that their security is threatened. Russia and China have also begun to modernize their nuclear arsenals, in response to the US deployment of missile defenses. This qualitative modernization is a form of vertical proliferation that is in opposition to nations' commitments to nuclear disarmament, according to Article Six of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (known internationally as NPT).

The collapse of the non-proliferation system is evident. Nuclear proliferation continues despite the existence of a series of international agreements designed to prevent it. The illegal traffic in nuclear arms, the violations of the treaties, and the contempt with which the United States has been acting, particularly during the administrations of Bush Sr., Ronald Reagan, and Bush Jr., have combined to make the non-proliferation system of little value and irrelevant.

The International Atomic Energy Agency feels that the NPT is obsolete because, in fact, it has already experienced a generalized collapse. Based on this reality, a rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons can be predicted among nations, transnational terrorist groups, organized crime, and individuals whose motivation is ideological, religious or simply mercenary. This will occur unless a new non proliferation system that is well structured, solid and obligatory, replaces the one that was gradually destroyed by the hegemonic ambitions of the US government and that of several of its most well known allies.

Tadatoshi Akiba, mayor of the martyred city of Hiroshima and president of Mayors for Peace, an organization that represent more than 600 cities with hundreds of millions of inhabitants, declared that "we are against the idea that some one could, for any reason that he considers legitimate, unleash a nuclear holocaust. we are against the idea that trillions of dollars should be spent on total nuclear destruction while billions of people live in the worst conditions of poverty that place their very lives in danger. "Our immediate target is nuclear weapons, but our long term goal is a new world order. (in which) no one should kill or be killed to defend the wealth or ego of their master. in which we do not see ourselves surrounded by enemies, murderers, thieves against whom we have to defend ourselves, but rather sisters and brothers in whom we can depend for our security, our survival, and our well-being."

The truth is, that "nuclear terror has ruled our lives since 1945. As the types, numbers, delivery methods, and owners of nuclear weapons have proliferated, the terror has deepened. The terror is deeply buried, because it is so painful. For two or three generations now, we have been living on the edge of eco-catastrophe, the possibility of ending all life on earth with a manmade nuclear winter." This idea, advanced by Dr. Carol Wolman, the eminent US psychiatrist, human rights activist, and a brave fighter against nuclear weapons, has taken on new relevance.

On June 3, 2004, the Bush administration announced the submission to Congress of a classified plan for the future size of the US nuclear arsenal. The bottom line is that in 2012 the United States likely will have some 6,000 warheads. We frequently hear the word balance referred to the nuclear weapons and arsenals, but it is used subjectively: those who are ahead feel that there is a balance. If all parties in a system agreed that there was an objective balance and each had only peaceful motives, there would be no arms races. In addition, the real arms race is one of quality, not quantity.

The world has been told time and again that weapons serve to deter enemies and avoid war, that if we want peace, we should prepare for war. So weapons are there not to be used? This is a lie. Deterrence theory assumes a willingness to use weapons: if the other side knows that I will under no circumstance ever use my arsenals, he is not deterred. So every single weapon is there to be used if/when deemed necessary.

The fact is that the West has been expansive and projected its military, political and military power around the world. It is not Iraq or Serbia , Iran or North Korea , or other designated 'rogue states' that have attacked the West. Ultimately, what is at stake is humankind's survival in an ever more turbulent, fast-changing world system.

There is no evidence that the world is a safer place because of the last fifty years of armament. Peace movements in a broad sense have alerted people worldwide, but no strategies exist to undermine militarism everywhere it rears its ugly head. And in its indirect and direct consequences it is as ugly as, say, Nazism, Stalinism and ethnic cleansing. Weapons kill people, even when not fired.

We need a new kind of discussion about what defense, security and peace could be. We need a worldwide, nonviolent confrontation with the elites who operate outside every democratic order, often in collusion with intelligence services. We need to discuss how psychological warfare is targeted on millions of citizens to make them fearful of the world and thus receptive to new deadly, expensive arsenals. We must say, loud and clear, that the truth is the opposite: that today's security is a major threat to us all, to 'we, the peoples...'

Our goals must be:

• To abolish war as an accepted social institution, precisely as we have done with slavery, cannibalism, child labor, rape, genocide, etc.;
• To provide survival, security and protection without causing an arms race and threatening other societies;
• To deal with conflicts and create peace by peaceful means, in accordance with the UN norm;
• To permanently secure the existence of the Earth and humankind, never put it at risk;
• To enable present and future generations to live in a world where the norms of the UN Charter are implemented, and
• To preserve pluralism in all aspects of life, unity in diversity, respect for life.

The following is a summary of some action proposals that we feel should be simultaneously implemented.

• Reach an agreement on a regional accord to transform to Near East into a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone. For many years now, Israel has had nuclear weapons. It is not conceivable, therefore, that pressure be brought to bear exclusively for the disarmament of some countries while others are allowed to obtain or maintain weapons of massive destruction. The position that should be put forward must be regional in scope, through an overall agreement whereby Israel renounces its nuclear weapons, all countries sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention, all nations allow inspections on the part of the International Atomic Energy Agency and other United Nations officials, and all agree to declare the Near East as a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone that encompasses nuclear, chemical, and bacteriological material.
• Secure a commitment on the part of the nuclear powers to significantly reduce their arsenals. According to Article 26 of the United Nations Charter, the countries that are permanent members of the Security Council have the responsibility to draft plans for the establishment of a system for arms regulation, with the minimum amount of economic and human resources channeled toward weapons. The United States and Russia should agree to eliminate the vast majority of the nuclear weapons in their arsenals (90% of the almost 16,000 nuclear warheads that they possess in the short term), moving beyond the joint declaration signed in Helsinki in March 1997. The rest of the Security Council members (the United Kingdom , China , and France) could also commit to significant reductions in their current capacity (more than 900 warheads). Finally, India and Pakistan could agree to the need to begin the elimination of their nuclear arsenals and to not divert resources that are urgently needed for their development.
• Submit the crimes of terrorism tied to September 11, 2001, March 11, 2004, and all similar, to the jurisdiction of an international tribunal. The militarist focus placed on the fight against terrorism, far from reducing the risks of its extension, plants the seeds that will allow such acts to multiply in the future, from the moment in which vengeance and restricting liberties replace justice as an instrument in the fight against this phenomenon.
• Revitalize the United Nations without a double-standard policy. It is inadmissible for some Security Council resolutions to be so decisive as to legitimize military interventions, while many others can be systematically violated without anything occurring. Since 1968, Israel has failed to comply with 32 resolutions on the status of Jerusalem, the situation in Lebanon, IAEA nuclear weapons control, deportations, or conditions in the occupied territories; Turkey has ignored 24 resolutions just on the situation in Cyprus; Morocco, 16 resolutions on the Sahara, and, to a lesser degree, Croatia, Indonesia, Sudan, India, and Pakistan at some moment have turned a blind eye to the text of some resolution.

If none of the above proposals are implemented because some powerful states have chosen war, double-standard policies, have set bad examples, employed unilateralism addictions, the right to conquest, and show disdain for the planet's basic necessities, the only additional proposal that would be necessary to raise at this time would be for a direct and universal boycott of the products that come from those countries. If on a political level it is not possible to activate diplomacies of peace, then the people must make use of the dissuasive instrument of a commercial boycott toward those who have made the intransigent defense of their economic interests the norm of universal behavior, for their own profit and for the misfortune of all others.