The Sunflower is a monthly e-newsletter providing educational information on nuclear weapons abolition and other issues relating to global security.

Download the complete PDF Version

To receive our free monthly e-newsletter subscribe at http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/subscribe/

• Perspectives
  • Looking Back on 2003
  • Nuclear-Free New Zealand

• Take Action
  • Martin Luther King Jr. Day Observance, 19 January 2004
• Speak Out Against Enola Gay Display at Dulles Airport, Part III – “Hiroshima Never Again”
• Attend NPRI Symposium: Three Minutes to Midnight
• Vanunu Welcome Planned for April 2004

• Proliferation
  • Iran Signs Additional Protocol
• Washington-Pyongyang Deadlock Continues
• Pakistan’s Role in Transferring Nuclear Technology
• US Nuclear Labs Urged to Explore New Nuclear Weapons Concepts

• Foundation News
  • UC "100 letters - 100 Days" Campaign Draws to a Close
  • Youth Outreach Coordinator Goes to World Social Forum in India
  • NAPF Co-Convenes International Law Symposium
  • Foundation Peace Education Consultant Honored with Award
  • Foundation to Sponsor Lecture by Anita Roddick

• Resources
  • Peace: 100 Ideas
  • Arsenal of Hypocrisy: The Space Program and the Military Industrial Complex
  • Destroying World Order: U.S. Imperialism in the Middle East Before and After September 11th
  • How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration
  • Canada and Ballistic Missile Defense
  • The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel
  • Cold Mountain

• Quotable
  • Minoru Nishino, survivor of atomic bombing in Japan and witness to the opening of the Enola Gay exhibit by the Smithsonian Institution
  • Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963
  • Martin Luther King, Jr., 1967

• Support
  • Support NAPF’s Online Action Center

• Subscribe
  • To receive our free monthly e-newsletter subscribe at http://www.wagingpeace.org/subscribe/.

• Team

Editors
Justine Wang
David Krieger

Contributors
Kristen Morrison
Luke Brothers
Michael Coffey

Looking Back on 2003 | Top
By David Krieger

We witnessed the greatest uprising of people ever in the history of the world in protest to war. In cities large and small across the planet, ordinary people took to the streets to try to stop a US-led war against Iraq. In the end, we didn’t succeed, but our effort marked the opening of a new era of global protest against war and violence. […]

We witnessed the government of the United States ignore the people of the world, the poets and the United Nations Security Council and initiate an illegal war against Iraq in violation of the UN Charter, a war that has thus far resulted in the deaths of some 8,000 to 10,000 Iraqi civilians, some 475 US troops and unknown numbers of Iraqi troops. […]

We witnessed US leaders make claims of the imminent threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but after massive searches no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq as of the end of the year. […]

We witnessed North Korea withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, declare itself a nuclear weapon state and offer to give up its nuclear arsenal and ambitions if the United States would agree to a non-aggression pact. At year’s end, despite six nation talks, the US and North Korea continue to threaten each other without coming closer to agreement.

We witnessed Iran deny it had a nuclear weapons program and allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency greater leeway for inspections, and we witnessed Libya admit that it had a nuclear weapons program and allow inspectors of the IAEA to verify that it had ceased. At the same time, the US government made plans for building a new facility to create some 500 plutonium pits each year for new nuclear weapons. […]

We witnessed US government leaders press for and the US Congress support research on more usable nuclear weapons, mini-nukes and “bunker-busters,” and the allocation of funds for shortening of the time necessary to resume nuclear testing. We witnessed the United States move toward deployment of missile defenses and pressure other states to join in this program. […]

We witnessed the world spend nearly a trillion dollars on war and preparations for war, including the United States spending more than $1.1 billion per day on its military, while more than a billion people lived in utter poverty on less than $1 per day.

But despite the wars and preparations for war, the breakdown of international law and the global inequities, we witnessed a resurgence of hope that ultimately people power can and will prevail over imperialism; that peace can and will prevail over the obscene spectacle of war and its preparations; and that human security and dignity can and will prevail over the current state of global inequities. In 2004, there will again be an opportunity for the people of the world to unite in support of peace, international law and the rights of children and people everywhere to have their basic needs fulfilled and to live with dignity.

For full text, go to http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/12/30_krieger_looking-back-2003.htm

Nuclear-Free New Zealand | Top
By Barney Richards, New Zealand Peace Council

In our neck of the woods, Wellington, the Capital City of New Zealand, the City Council, in league with our mayor, sought to have our cherished '"Welcome to Nuclear-Free Wellington'" removed or degraded. The response was swift from local peace groups. A series of meetings took place with Council, and with strong comments from people like former Prime Minister David Lange, architect of our nuclear-free law, the Council has had second thoughts.

The result is that a new sign has been designed: '"Welcome to Wellington - Capital of Nuclear Free New Zealand.'" The Council is also to erect a plaque at the Hiroshima Peace Flame with a history of the work of those activists who helped to bring this about. It will be a great memorial to those who have passed on -- those who worked so hard for a nuclear-free world. Like us, they have not seen a nuclear-free world, but they played a huge part in New Zealand achieving nuclear free status.

The Council decision is a decision for common sense, and a salute to all those demanding the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. It is a real victory for us.

P.S. People power can work!

Martin Luther King Jr. Day Observance, 19 January 2004 | Top

Martin Luther King Jr., was born in Atlanta, Georgia on 15 January 1929. A civil-rights leader and international hero, King is one of the 20th Century’s most visible advocates of non-violence and direct action as methods of social change.

Inspired by Gandhi’s achievements through non-violent resistance, King played a vital role in achieving significant gains for humanity ranging from the desegregation of schools and other public facilities to the acceleration of civil rights as a government priority.

In 1964, at the age of 35, King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his unyielding efforts. In his address, King spoke of war and nuclear destruction:

"I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of nuclear annihilation... I believe that even amid today's mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow... I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed." Martin Luther King is one of the few social leaders to be honored with a national holiday, and 19 January 2004 presents a powerful tribute to his philosophy and stature. To commemorate Martin Luther King Day, read the following and pass the message onto your family and friends:

• A biography of Martin Luther King; http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/programs/youth-outreach/peace-heroes/king-martinjr.htm
• “I have a Dream” http://www.hpol.org/transcript.php?id=72 delivered on 28 August 1963 at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom;
• TIME Magazine Person of the Year award to Martin Luther King in 1963; http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/stories/1963.html
• Martin Luther King’s Nobel Peace Prize address in 1964; http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1964/king-lecture.html
• “Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution,” http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680331.000_Remaining_Awake.html delivered at the National Cathedral, Washington, D.C., on March, 31 1968;
• Martin Luther King’s quotes on war and peace. http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/warandpeace/wpquotes.htm

For more information on Martin Luther King Observance Day, please log onto http://www.wagingpeace.org.

Speak Out Against Enola Gay Display at Dulles Airport, Part III – “Hiroshima Never Again”| Top

There were four Hibakusha, survivors of the atomic bombings in Japan, present at the protests of the Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum’s opening of the Steven F. Udar-Hazy Center. More than 100 people joined the Hibakusha and protested the museum’s one-sided exhibit of the Enola Gay, a U.S B-29 bomber that dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, killing over 100,000 people. Protestors requested that the Smithsonian detail the historical consequences of the nuclear bombing wrought upon the people of Hiroshima by the Enola Gay. The museum has refused to alter its exhibition.

To learn more, visit http://www.enola-gay.org/. If you want to voice your opinion, contact the Smithsonian Institution Steven F. Udar-Hazy Center: dullescenter@nasm.si.edu

The Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI) will hold a symposium entitled “Three Minutes to Midnight: NPRI Symposium on the Impending Threat of Nuclear War,” in Washington DC from 25- 27 January 2004.

At this landmark symposium, nuclear abolitionists, weapons designers and supporters of nuclear weapons as a deterrent will come together for the first time ever to discuss and debate the role of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. Topic will include:

• Terrorist threats to U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles
• Accidental nuclear exchanges
• Terrorist and hacker intrusions into U.S. and Russian early warning systems
• Stockpile Stewardship Program
• The roles of business, science and the military in the proliferation of nuclear weapons
• Nuclear planning and targeting after the end of the Cold War
• Regional nuclear dangers: Korea, India/Pakistan and Israel
• Re-examination of Nuclear Winter data in light of new targeting and climate information

NPRI's founder and president is Foundation Adviser Dr. Helen Caldicott.
To learn more about this symposium, including a list of speakers and topics,
please visit http://www.3minutestomidnight.org

Mordechai Vanunu, a nuclear technician at Israel's Dimona nuclear installation from 1976 to 1985, was kidnapped while in Europe by Israeli agents. Based on information leaked by Vanunu, experts conclude that Israel may have stockpiled up to 200 nuclear warheads. Vanunu was tried in total secrecy in Israel, convicted of treason and espionage, and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment, much of it in solitary confinement. He is scheduled for release on 22 April 2004 from the Ashkelon Prison, Israel.

A vigil is planned for the time of Vanunu’s release to celebrate his freedom and his commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons from the Middle East and the world. If you would like more information about the delegation to Israel, or would like to organize a vigil in your city,

please contact the US or UK campaign as soon as possible at: freevanunu@mindspring.com or campaign@vanunu.freeserve.co.uk.

Iran Signs Additional Protocol| Top

Tehran has signed the Additional Protocol, which provides the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with increased authority, rights and information on Iran’s nuclear activities, allowing IAEA inspectors unfettered access to the country’s nuclear facilities. Iran’s representative to the IAEA, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Iran would endeavor “to reveal its full transparency and establish the confidence that is needed.”

IAEA Director General ElBaradei who also signed the agreement on 18 December 2003, said it is “an important building block toward establishing confidence that Iran’s program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.”

A US State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, welcomed Iran's decision but also voiced caution. "The signature is only one step towards resolving the remaining open questions about Iran's nuclear program and towards increasing international confidence that [it] will be limited to peaceful activities," he said.

Prior to Iran’s signature, Washington was keen to push the issue to the UN Security Council (UNSC) for sanctions. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said that Tehran’s two decades of clandestine operations involving uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing can only be an attempt to develop nuclear weapons, and warned that further violations of Iran’s commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would go before the UNSC.

“The real issue is now whether the [IAEA] board of governors will remain together in its insistence that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is illegitimate of whether Iranian efforts to split the board through economic incentives and aggressive propaganda will succeed,” Bolton said.

However the signing of the protocol, together with Iran’s recent moves in contacting modern Arab governments and accepting US aid after its earthquake in Bam, have served to warm relations between Tehran and Washington. On 30 December, the US signaled a dramatic shift in its approach towards Iran, indicating willingness to renew its ties with Tehran.

"There are things happening, and therefore we should keep open the possibility of dialogue at an appropriate point in the future," said US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell, however, added that Washington’s willingness to open a dialogue would be dependent on Tehran’s ability to demonstrate good faith by addressing issues of concern to the US, including the belief that Tehran has been working covertly to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran has voluntarily and temporarily suspended its uranium enrichment program, and has consistently denied US accusations of its plans to develop nuclear weapons, insisting that its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes.

Sources: Global Security Newswire, 1, 19 and 30 December 2003; The Guardian, 18 and 31 December 2003; American Daily, 16 December 2003; Financial Times, 11 December 2003.

Six-way talks arranged between Washington, Pyongyang and its neighboring countries failed to take place in December 2003. “The main problem in preparing for the next round of six-nation talks is the United States’ refusal to make a shift in its policy and its insistence that we disarm ourselves by abandoning our nuclear program first,” said the Korean Central News Agency.

Pyongyang, however, was reported to have agreed to resume six-way talks during early 2004 following a three-day visit by Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, Wang Yi to Pyongyang, on 27 December.

On 8 December, the US together with South Korea and Japan agreed to a broadly worded set of principles to end North Korea’s nuclear program, calling for a ”coordinated” set of steps in which the five nations (China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and US) would offer Pyongyang a security guarantee as it begins a verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear facilities. The agreement, however, did not provide a timetable for energy and economic aid to North Korea, nor did it demand Pyongyang’s return to the NPT. It also did not specifically indicate how North Korea should disassemble its nuclear weapons program or the form that security assurances from the US would take.

North Korea consequently rejected the proposal, and Rodong Sinmun, a state newspaper stated that US “delaying tactics would only result in compelling [North Korea] to steadily increase its nuclear deterrent force.”

On 20 December, Pyongyang condemned Washington’s decisions to increase nuclear weapons research as “a grave challenge to the human cause of peace” and indicated its intention to strengthen its nuclear “deterrent force” to counter US development of newer, smaller nuclear weapons. In early December, South Korea reported fresh activity in North Korea’s main nuclear site at Yongbon, suggesting the facility has restarted following months of inactivity.

Meanwhile, North Korea held talks with the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), regarding the suspension of the construction of a nuclear reactor in Kumho in November 2003. During the meeting on 10 December, Pyongyang insisted that it would not allow KEDO to remove any equipment, facilities, materials or technical documents from the construction site, and demanded compensation for suspension of the project.

Sources: Global Security Newswire, 9, 29 and 30 December 2003; Associated Press, 4, 5 and 20 December 2003; New York Times, 8 and 20 December 2003; BBC News, 9 and 15 December 2003; Financial Times, 11 and 15 December 2003; The Guardian, 8 December 2003.

Following recent speculations on Pakistan’s role in providing Iran and North Korea with crucial technology to enrich uranium for the development of nuclear weapons, Islamabad has detained three of its senior nuclear scientists at its main nuclear facility for questioning. Abdul Qadeer Khan, known as the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, Farooq Mohammed and Yasin Chohan, important participants in Pakistan’s successful nuclear tests, were questioned regarding their connections with Iran’s nuclear program.

Pakistan has consistently denied having a policy to export nuclear expertise to other countries, but Foreign Ministry Spokesman Massod Khan admitted on 23 December 2003 that scientists involved in the technology transfers may have been motivated by “personal ambition or greed.” Khan however insisted that Pakistan “takes the responsibility as a nuclear weapons state very seriously” and insisted that the government had never authorized the transfers.

Pakistan’s role in transferring nuclear technology was also raised by Libya’s decision to disclose its once covert nuclear weapons program, which showed “certain common elements” with the Iranian program and with the pattern of technology leakage from Pakistan to Iran. Investigations have been launched to determine if Pakistani technology has spread to other countries in the Middle East and Asia, but so far evidence involves largely the exchange of scientists with countries including Myanmar, which recently denied the ambition to arm itself with nuclear weapons following speculations of its relationship with North Korea in the Far Eastern Economic Review.

Sources: Reuters, 23 December 2003; New York Times, 23 December, 2003; Associated Press, 22 December 2003; BBC News, 22 and 23 December 2003; The Times, 12 December 2003; Xinhuanet, 17 November 2003.

Following Congress’s decision to repeal a decade-old ban on research into low-yield nuclear weapons in November 2003, Linton Brooks, Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in an interview with Arms Control Today on 2 December 2003, that the administration is not ”thirsting to develop” new nuclear weapons.

However, the Arms Control Association revealed a memo from Brooks dated 5 December 2003, urging directors of Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia national nuclear laboratories to work with the Pentagon on exploring a full range of nuclear weapons concepts, saying, “We should not fail to take advantage of this opportunity to close any gaps that may have opened in the past decade in our understanding of the possible military applications of atomic energy.”

In his message, Brooks encouraged research into nuclear weapons which are capable of destroying chemical and biological caches as well as studies into low-yield nuclear weapons that result in less collateral damage than current nuclear weapons.

On 9 December, Los Alamos laboratory announced that they were missing 10 computer disks containing classified information about other country’s nuclear programs, a further lapse in securing sensitive information at the nuclear weapons facility.

Sources: Arms Control News Update, 15 December 2003; The Guardian, 11 December 2003; Global Security Newswire, 10 December 2003.

Libya Confesses to Covert Nuclear Weapons Program| Top

On 19 December 2003, Libyan leader Muammar Al Qadhafi agreed to “disclose and dismantle” all weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and to “immediately and unconditionally” allow international inspectors into Libya. In a press conference, a senior US official outlined information that Libya provided on its WMD efforts, including nuclear fuel cycle activities intended to support the development of nuclear weapons.

Qadhafi’s announcement came after nine months of secret negotiations with the US and British governments, as well as after successful US-led intelligence efforts in interdicting a shipment of uranium enrichment centrifuge equipment bound for Libya.

In an interview on 23 December, Qadhafi called on other nations to follow Libya’s example, “I believe they should follow the steps of Libya or take an example from Libya so that they prevent tragedy from being inflicted upon their own people.” In doing so, other countries “would tighten the noose around the Israelis so that they would expose their programs and their weapons of mass destruction.”

On 27 December, Libyan Foreign Minister Mohamed Abderrhmane Chalgam announced that “Libya will cooperate and deal with (the IAEA) with complete transparency,” indicating Tripoli’s intention to sign the Additional Protocol, allowing IAEA inspectors unrestricted access to all its nuclear sites.

Despite American and British plans to assist the inspections by sending a team of technical experts to Libya in January 2004, the IAEA maintained that it alone would be responsible for dismantling Libya’s nuclear program.

The IAEA’s initial inspection of Libyan nuclear sites on 28 December has indicated that it has breached the NPT. “There were some imports and some activities they should have reported,” said ElBaradei. After visiting four nuclear sites near Tripoli, ElBaradei said Libya’s nuclear weapons program was not in an advanced stage of development, as they do not possess highly enriched uranium or the facilities to produce it.

ElBaradei indicated that his "gut feeling" was that Libya was about three to seven years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Tripoli’s nuclear equipment and technology is suspected to have originated from a number of countries, and Iran and Pakistan have been listed among the suspected sources.

The disclosure of Libya’s covert nuclear program points to the inadequacy of current international inspections to detect low-level nuclear weapons programs. IAEA inspectors have consistently visited Libya for inspections and failed to detect any clandestine activity. In response, ElBaradei has called for new export controls on the types of equipment discovered during the Libyan inspections, including centrifuges and equipment for purifying uranium.

Sources: Global Security Newswire, 29, 30 and 31 December 2003; BBC News, 21 December 2003.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has urged Israel to surrender its alleged nuclear weapons in order to further peace in the Middle East. In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, ElBaradei stated that nuclear weapons were not “an incentive for security” and called on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Israel has never confirmed or denied itself as a nuclear power but is largely thought to possess some 200 nuclear warheads, thus providing an incentive for the region’s countries to develop weapons of mass destruction to counter its arsenal. “I see a lot of frustration in the Middle East due to Israel’s sitting on nuclear weapons or [its] nuclear weapons capability, while other parties in the Middle East are committed to the NPT,” said ElBaradei.

Following Libya’s decision to renounce its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, Arab states and Iran have urged Israel to follow suit. On 22 December, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Algeria and Iran have all renewed their longstanding calls for Israel to abandon their nuclear weapons program. According to Senior Defense Analyst for Jane’s Consultancy Group, Charles Heyman, Israel is finding it “increasingly difficult” to justify its arsenal, in the face of a “clever” Arab campaign and a reduced strategic threat following recent developments in Iraq, Iran and Libya.

On 29 December, Syria pushed for a Security Council resolution to enable a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East, and urged the Council to take steps to require Israel to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. Nine votes were needed to pass the resolution and only six of 15 council members spoke in support of the resolution. The draft resolution would involve the Security Council “in adopting a global approach to countering the spread of all weapons of mass destruction in countries of the Middle East without exception.” The resolution also urges countries in the region to sign and ratify the NPT and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Sources: Salt Lake Tribune, 30 December 2003; Agence France Presse, 22 December 2003; BBC, 12 December 2003.

On the 50th anniversary of former President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reiterated the call for greater multilateral control over nuclear fuel cycle activities in order to prevent nations from obtaining weapon-grade material to develop nuclear bombs. In an interview on 8 December 2003, ElBaradei said that nuclear weaponry posed more of a danger presently than it did during the arms race between the US and the former Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Further suggestions from ElBaradei included an Additional Protocol to the NPT restricting the right of states to sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle as well as a new “proliferation-free” fuel cycle that would produce waste unfit for reprocessing for weapons use.

ElBaradei also discussed the possibility of “[looking] into disarmament itself with a timetable.” He added, “I would like to see the way we perceive nuclear weapons as the way we perceive slavery or genocide, as taboo. Are we going to be able to say we will never see an act of genocide? Probably not. But we have come a long way in controlling slavery and genocide.”

In his “Atoms for Peace” speech, Eisenhower argued that the best way to address global nuclear threats was to persuade countries to commit to using atomic technology for purely peaceful purposes. According to ElBaradei, “The vision is still as valid today as it was 50 years ago. We’re working diligently to rid ourselves of the destructive force of nuclear weaponry.” He added, “But we are not there yet. ‘Atoms for Peace’ is still a work in progress. We need to do better.”

Sources: Global Security Newswire, 9 December 2003; Associated Press, 8 December 2003.

Kazakhstan’s experience in disarming itself of nuclear weapons can serve as a model for other countries such as Iran. Following a symposium between Kazakh and US officials on 16 December 2003, a panel of officials and experts examined Kazakhstan’s efforts during the 1990s in ridding itself of one of the world’ largest nuclear arsenals.

Inheriting more than 1,000 nuclear warheads (greater than the combined arsenals of China, France and UK) from the fall of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan was able to disarm itself through US assistance in weapons dismantlement, transference of nuclear warheads back to Russia, as well as the ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Noting the increasing threats of terrorists in obtaining and using nuclear weapons, Kazakh Ambassador to the US Kanat Saudabayev urged the international community to “follow our example” in disarming weapons of mass destruction. This call was echoed by former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), who praised Kazakhstan as “a model of what we must see in the 21st century.”

Source: Global Security Newsire, 17 December 2003.

Sweden announced it would fund a new Non-Proliferation Commission to be headed by former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. Stockholm has agreed to provide the Commission with almost $2 million until it releases its findings in 2005, and according to Swedish Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds, “I am convinced that the Commission, under the capable leadership of Hans Blix, can help inject new energy in the global efforts against weapons of mass destruction.” She added,
“The existence of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons represents a serious threat to international peace and security and new initiatives are needed in the efforts for disarmament and non-proliferation.”

Hailing the establishment of the Commission on 17 December 2003, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “The Commission faces a task of the utmost importance - providing proposals on how to make progress in non-proliferation and disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, and on how to minimize the risk of these weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.”

Sources: UN Press Release, 17 December 2003; Global Security Newswire, 15 December 2003.

Russia's Missile Ambitions | Top

On 17 December, Russian Chief of Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel General Nikolai Solovtsov, announced that Moscow’s most powerful long-range nuclear R-36 missiles “will serve Russia for another 10-15 years.” Known in the West as SS-18 Satan, these missiles are capable of deploying 10 individually guided nuclear warheads at targets more than 6,800 miles away. Despite most of the missiles being past their designated lifetime and being scheduled to be scrapped this decade, Moscow is pressing ahead with plans to maintain some 150 SS-18s on duty until 2016-2020.

SS-18 and SS-19 missiles have formed the core of Russian strategic forces since Soviet times, and an unidentified Russian general staff officer was quoted saying that several dozens of brand new SS-19 missiles in their stockpile will enter into service in 2010 and will remain on duty until 2030.

On 21 December 2003, Russia deployed six Topol-M missiles after a two year break caused by funding shortages. Described as the “most advanced state-of-the-art missile in the world,” Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov referred to the missiles as “21st Century Weapon[s]” that “can ensure and guarantee our sovereignty and security and make any attempts to put military pressure on Russia absolutely senseless.”

The US administration has confirmed that Moscow’s new deployment does not violate any strategic weapons treaties, and is regarded as a continuation of Russian program started in 1998. US military analysts have compared the Topol-M missile, known as SS-27 in West, with the American Minuteman III, the older of the two land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in the US arsenal.

The Topol-M missile is capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away; it lifts off faster than its predecessors and maneuvers in a way that is more difficult to stop and intercept. Currently deployed in silos, a mobile version to be mounted on an off-road vehicle is due to be operational in 2004. The Topol-M missile is presently equipped with single nuclear warheads, but plans are underway to equip each missile with three individually targeted warheads.

Defense Minister Ivanov also announced Russia’s plans to continue modernizing all components of its nuclear forces. In 2004, Moscow will commence design work on a next generation of heavy nuclear missiles to enter into service in 2009. The missiles will be capable of deploying 10 nuclear warheads, and compared to Topol-M’s combat payload of 1.32 tons, these missiles will have a total payload of up to 4.4 tons.

However, Topol-M's chief designer, Yuri Solomonov, warned that the current severe funding shortage will put Moscow’s ambitious plans in jeopardy. The budget is anticipated to be halved, and if not revised, 2004 or 2005 will be the last year that Russia will be able to research and develop high-tech weapons systems for the military. Solomonov added that such problems will be exacerbated as Moscow seeks to extend the lifetime of its Soviet-era missiles (80% of which are due for renewal) in efforts to maintain nuclear parity with the US.

Sources: Associated Press, 17 and 22 December 2003.

December 2003 witnessed significant developments to the US missile defense system as more nations have committed themselves to the military program (see below). Together with the Bush administration’s authorization of $9.1 billion for ballistic missile defense through the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2004, the US is intent on advancing its missile defense project.

The Bush administration is anticipated to deploy 15 missile defense interceptors (yet to be tested) in Alaska and California before the 2004 presidential elections, and plans to eventually station 100 interceptors at these locations.

Australia to Participate
In a significant political move on 4 December 2003, Australia Prime Minister John Howard has announced plans “in principle” to participate in the US missile defense program. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer announced that the system would prevent “rogue” states from acquiring missile technology, but gave little indication of possible costs or how Australia would participate. It is widely believed that pressure from Australia’s aerospace defense industry to win government contracts was key in influencing Howard’s decision to participate in the US military project.

Downer has described Australia’s decision as adding “another layer of intimacy” to the US-Australian relationship. While strengthening military ties with the US, this move could, however, risk damaging Australia’s relations with its Asian neighbors, undermining security and stability in the region. According to Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda, “News about the missile defense program could trigger an arms race … Such programs like missile defense system do not help prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

Australia’s participation in the US program is expected to include a variety of roles such as research and development and missile launch detection through ship or ground-based sensors. The materialization of a “joint” US-Australian ballistic missile identification system for a US Space Based Infra Red Satellite System (SBIRS) to provide early warning of ballistic missile launches from countries such as North Korea and China could lead to the upgrading of the US satellite spy base currently in Pine Gap. Australia is also likely to purchase US Aegis destroyer systems and become involved in Theatre Missile Defense to counter threats from the Far East.

Japan to Purchase Two-Stage System
On 19 December 2003, Japan announced its decision to join the US in developing its missile defense system in order to protect itself from the threat of North Korean attacks. “Ballistic Missile Defense meets [Japan’s] exclusively defense-orientated policy as the only effective method to counter attacks by ballistic missiles,” said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda.

According to the British American Security Information Council (BASIC), Japan intends to purchase a two stage system. The first stage will consist of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) equipment, which would be fitted to Japan’s four existing high-tech Aegis destroyers in 2004. The second stage will consist of Patriot PAC-3 missiles, upgrading the Pac-2 system that the Japan system already possesses.

Canada in Limbo
The decisions by Australia and Japan have increased pressure on Canada to follow suit, especially when new Prime Minister Paul Martin’s objective to develop closer ties with the US could be achieved through Canadian participation in US missile defense efforts. President Bush is due to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin during the "Summit of the Americas" on 12-13 January 2004. Missile defense is expected to be on the agenda.

UK Ministry of Defense Expresses “Strong Interest”
Meanwhile, a Defense White Paper released by the Ministry of Defense in the UK indicated the government’s “growing interest” in missile defense technology. Released on 11 December 2003, the White Paper confirms the UK’s intention to “continue to examine, with our NATO allies,” the strategic issues relating missile defense in order to “inform future political and policy decisions.”

The 2003 White Paper indicates the UK’s ” strong interest in international fora considering how the capability may be met by an alliance” and particular interest in the current NATO feasibility study on Active Layered Ballistic Missile Defense capability.

Sources: Agence France-Presse, 19 December 2003; Global Security Newswire, 5 December 2003; Reuters, 4 December 2003; Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space Press Release, 4 December 2003; British American Security Information Council Missile Defense Update, December 2003.

In a recent Space and Missile Defense Symposium, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld spoke of space and missile defense as “core war fighting competencies” in the US defense strategy. Rumsfeld added that space is “fundamental to modern warfare” and that unrestricted access to space is “a vital US interest.”

The Pentagon and aerospace corporations are currently developing anti-satellite weapons, space-based laser weapons and a host of other new technologies that will enable US “control and domination” of space and earth.

According to Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, “We are now witnessing the creation of a new arms race that could ultimately carry warfare into the heavens. The US plan for star wars is dangerous, destabilizing and enormously expensive.”

Sources: Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space Press Release, 4 December 2003; British American Security Information Council Missile Defense Update, December 2003.

Brazil Urged to Sign Additional Protocol | Top

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has urged Brazil to sign the Additional Protocol to its nuclear safeguard agreement. On 30 December 2003, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said “The IAEA encourages Brazil, as it does all countries with sophisticated nuclear fuel cycles, to sign and bring into force the Additional Protocol, to provide the agency with the additional authority it requires in order to provide the necessary peaceful use assurances.”

Despite Brazil’s intentions to produce enriched uranium by mid 2004, a Brazilian official stated on 28 December that Brazil does not intend to sign the Additional Protocol which would allow the IAEA to more intrusive inspections of its nuclear facilities. In its statement, Brazil reaffirmed the “peaceful objectives” of its nuclear program, and its commitment to safeguard agreements signed with Argentina and the IAEA, as well as its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“All we’ve got are a couple itty-bitty reactors,” said Roberto Amal, Brazilian Minister of Science and Technology.

Brazil is the sixth largest country in uranium reserves but currently imports enriched uranium from Europe to power its nuclear plants. According to the Brazilian government, plans for enriching uranium will enable Brazil to produce 60 percent of its uranium needs by 2010 and it expects to be completely self sufficient by 2014. Brazil is expected to produce enough enriched uranium to fuel its Angra1 and 2 nuclear plants as well as an anticipated third plant in 2014, thus producing enough surplus for export.

Non-proliferation experts have highlighted the dangers of Brazil’s uranium enrichment program in posing a threat to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. James Goodby, former chief US negotiator for Cooperative Threat Reduction under the Clinton administration and Kenneth Weisbrode, Councilor of the Atlantic Council of the United States, warned that “The program will give Brazil a basis for making nuclear weapons on short notice. Similar programs in Libya, Iraq, Iran and North Korea have rightly been seen as either direct or indirect threats to international peace and security.”

Sources: Associated Press, 31 December 2003; Global Security Newswire, 29 and 31 December, 2003.

The US consistently voted against resolutions concerning nuclear disarmament at the UN Security Council on 8 December 2003.

The US was the only country to vote against a resolution that aims to bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force, and was one of two countries to vote against a resolution entitled “A Path to the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons” – which calls for compliance with the program for transparent, verified and irreversible reduction and elimination of nuclear forces agreed by all states participating in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2000.

The US, along with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Israel were the only countries to abstain from the resolution entitled “Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space”, which calls for negotiations to prevent the weaponization of space. The resolution received a vote of 174-0.

Sources: The Nation, 12 December 2003; “The Shameful US Record in 2003” by John Burroughs, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, 9 December 2003.

Missing Nuclear Materials Raise Threats of Nuclear Terrorism | Top

On 28 December 2003, 19.1 kg of plutonium were reported missing from the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria, England. A spokesman for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, the company that manages the Sellafield plant, said the figures for “unaccounted for” plutonium were normal as “it is impossible to measure absolutely exactly that amount of material going into the plant and the amount coming out because of the huge amount of material that is put through it each year.”

However, Dr Frank Barnaby, a nuclear consultant and a former director of the Stockholm International Research Institute said, “In reprocessing, a small amount of material is bound to be lost in the process, but 19 kg is a very significant amount of plutonium.” He added, “If a terrorist group were to claim that it had stolen 5 kg of plutonium from Sellafield, the authorities could not say with any certainty that they had not taken it. It’s a very unsatisfactory situation indeed. This amount of material could be made into five or six nuclear weapons.”

The possibility of terrorists obtaining nuclear materials and using it to make dirty bombs is a main concern of the Bush Administration, and US Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham has made preventing a dirty bomb threat a high priority.

The illicit trafficking in dangerous radiological sources has been abundant in the South Eastern flank of Europe, where states around the Black Sea and the Caucasus have long served as crossroads linking Europe, the Middle East and Asia. In May 2003, Georgian police caught a man in Tbilisi for smuggling radioactive materials out of the country into Turkey or Iran. In December 2003, dozens of rockets filled with dirty bombs were reported missing in a breakaway region in Moldova. Oazu Nantoi, a political analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies in Chisinay, said that 24 ready-to-use and 14 dismantled dirty bomb warheads went missing from a storage depot near the Trans-Dniester Tiraspol military airport.

Sources: Sunday Herald, 28 December 2003; Associated Press, 9 and 19 December 2003.

Following President Bush’s call for a UN resolution to control nuclear, chemical and biological weapons at the annual ministerial meeting of the UN General in September, US Ambassador John Negraponte presented a draft resolution to the four other permanent members of the UN Security Council on 16 December.

Aimed at preventing terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, the draft resolution expresses grave concerns that terrorists “are seeking to acquire, traffic in, or use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons,” and requires all countries to adopt and enforce laws “to prohibit any non-state actor from the manufacture, acquisition, possession, development, transport or use” of such weapons and missiles.

Russia and the UK have already issued their draft versions of the resolution, which provided the Security Council with the authority to issue sanctions to UN members that fail to comply. The US draft does not include such a provision, as according to UN diplomats, US officials are concerned with assigning the Security Council with too large of a role in monitoring illicit trade.

Sources: UN Wire, 17 December 2003; Washington Post, 1 December 2003.

Bush's “Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative”| Top

On 19- 21 November 2003, the US hosted a ministerial meeting of 14 nations at which Washington proposed a global research and development effort in promoting its hydrogen energy plan entitled International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE). If harnessed through renewable energy sources, hydrogen has the potential to serve as a clean fuel. But Bush’s plan proposes to use hydrogen as a source of energy based on fossil fuels and nuclear sources. The plan has left environmentalists steaming, denouncing it as a “dirty energy plan.”

Buried under the allure of Bush’s so-called clean hydrogen proposal is a “nuclear hydrogen initiative.” President Bush's Fiscal Year 2004 Energy Bill allocates $1.2 billion for a co-generation nuclear and hydrogen reactor in Idaho revealing a commitment to fostering hydrogen fuel in a counterproductive and polluting manner.

Using hydrogen as a fuel is an attractive idea as the only byproduct during the energy cycle is water. In order to release energy from hydrogen, it must first be extracted from a hydrogen source, such as water, fossil fuels or nuclear energy. President Bush’s nuclear hydrogen initiative plans to use nuclear energy, a nonrenewable source of hydrogen. "If the hydrogen does not come from renewable sources, then it is simply not worth doing, environmentally or economically." says John Heywood, director of Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan Automotive Lab.

Using existing technology, hydrogen can easily and cleanly be extracted from water. Electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines is used to split the water's hydrogen atoms from its oxygen atoms. The hydrogen is then recombined with oxygen in fuel cells, where it releases electrons that drive an electric motor and generate electricity.

In efforts to prioritize renewable sources of energy while resisting the US’s “black” hydrogen agenda, eight of the United States’ principal environmental, consumer and public policy organizations have joined together in the Green Hydrogen Coalition.

"Getting hydrogen from dirty or unsafe sources makes no sense. It's like trying to lose weight by jogging to McDonalds," said Dan Becker, director, Sierra Club Global Warming and Energy Program.

Sources: Solaraccess.com, 10 December, 2003; Nuclear Policy Research Institute, 10 December, 2003; Public Citizen Press Release, 18 November 2003.

UC “100 letters 100 Days Campaign” Draws to a Close | Top

The UC Nuclear Free campaign 100 Letters 100 Days is drawing to a close. The campaign asks members of the UC community, specifically students, faculty, staff, and alumni, to voice opposition to the University of California’s role in the development of nuclear weapons. Since beginning his term as President of the University of California, Robert Dynes has received a series of original and compelling letters that request transparency and accountability as well as public forums and the end of UC’s involvement in the development of nuclear weapons. You can read a letter to President Dynes written by Julia Butterfly Hill at: http://www.circleoflife.org/action/jb_nuclear_free_ltr.htm .

Dynes’ most common response has been to deflect responsibility, “…I would like to point out, however, that the scope and direction of research carried out at the Livermore and Los Alamos laboratories are determined in Washington, not here at the University. And that situation will remain whether or not the University continues as the contractor. You may wish, therefore, to also communicate your views about nuclear weapons and foreign and defense policies directly to your congressional representatives….”

Michael Coffey, the Foundation’s Youth Outreach Coordinator, travels to Mumbai, India, 16-21 January, 2004 to attend the World Social Forum (WSF). Michael has raised the level of his involvement since the 2003 WSF in Porte Alegre, Brazil. In Mumbai, he will speak on panels in both the International Youth Camp and the main venue. Workshop partners include Tri-Valley CAREs, Educators for Social Responsibility, Abolition 2000, World Peace Council, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, and numerous other innovative NGOs.

Michael Coffey is also due to give the keynote address at the 8th Annual Student Leadership Conference at the University of California at Santa Barbara on the links between local and global activism.

NAPF Co-Convenes International Law Symposium | Top

On 5-6 December 2003, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament Studies convened a symposium entitled “Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: The Challenge of Prevention and Enforcement,” enabling constructive dialogue among academics and leaders of civil society organizations about the role of the United Nations in enforcing measures to protect civilians from genocide and other gross violations of human rights.

Keynote speaker Lloyd Axworthy, Director and CEO of the Liu Institute for Global Studies at the University of British Columbia and former Foreign Minister of Canada (1995-2000), was joined by Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University and Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and a range of panelists with varying backgrounds in peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. The resulting discussions were constructive and cutting edge as the participants shared their ideas on how to engage the UN in facing the challenges posed by humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect civilians from avoidable catastrophe.

A report on the speeches and the working sessions of the symposium is available on our website at http://www.wagingpeace.org.

Leah Wells, NAPF’s Peace Education Consultant was recently honored with the National Peace Corps Association’s Global TeachNet program’s 2003 Peace Educator Award. The reviewers had the following to say about her nomination:

“This is an outstanding example of what Peace Education can become when done by someone as committed to it as this nominee seems to be.”

On February 17th, Body Shop founder and new Foundation Board member Anita Roddick will present the Foundation’s 3rd Annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future. The annual lecture is being presented at the University of California at Santa Barbara and is titled “Kindness as a Key to Humanity’s Future.” The lecture will be held from 8:00 to 9:30 p.m. in the Corwin Pavilion. It is free and open to the public.

For more information, please contact Chris Pizzinat at: cpizzinat@napf.org.

Peace: 100 Ideas | Top

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation president David Krieger and Joshua C. Chen of Chen Design Associates have published a new book entitled Peace: 100 Ideas. The book provides 100 simple ideas to promote peace, along with a great design for each idea.

Visit this website to learn more about the book and to place an order: http://www.peace100ideas.com/

The Global Network against Weapons & Nuclear Power and Space has released a one-hour documentary, Arsenal of Hypocrisy, that discusses the issues surrounding the installation of weapons in space. Included in the video are interviews with Noam Chomsky and Edgar Mitchell, Astronaut from Apollo 14.

To learn more about the video or to place an order, visit http://www.space4peace.org.

Destroying World Order: U.S. Imperialism in the Middle East Before and After September 11th

Destroying World Order by Francis A. Boyle discusses the special relationship between the United States and the many nations of the Middle East. Boyle describes the circumstances that led to the alliance between the U.S. and Saddam’s Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Also evaluated in detail is U.S. conduct during the 1990 Gulf War, the war against Afghanistan and the war against Iraq as it relates to the U.S. constitution and the laws of war. Destroying World Order will soon be available at bookstores around the world.

How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration

Nation Books is publishing William Hartung’s examination of the cherished relationship between the White House and U.S. defense contractors. Since the Pentagon is due to announce in January the dollar amounts for all its contracts in 2003, this book promises to stir up conversation about the growing influence in the US capitol of the military industrial complex.

To learn more, or to order the book, please see Nation Books at: http://www.nationbooks.org/book.mhtml?t=hartung

Canada and Ballistic Missile Defense
The Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament Studies at the Liu Institute for Global Studies, University of British Columbia has commissioned this report and will distribute it to all members of the Canadian Parliament. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defense examines the discussion between the United States and Canada on a mid-course interception ballistic missile defense system, based on Canadian territory. An example of the findings: “Even the pursuit of the severely limited and uncertain protection promised by Washington's current BMD efforts is making us and the world less secure inasmuch as it exacerbates nuclear proliferation pressures….”

The full text can be read at the Project Ploughshares website:
http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMDLiureport.pdf

Managing the Atom has released The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel a report by Matthew Bunn, Steve Fetter, John P. Holdren, and Bob van der Zwann of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The report analyzes proliferation concerns, the economic costs of reprocessing spent fuel and the costs of direct disposal and finds that direct disposal of spent nuclear is the most economically favorable near- term solution to the buildup of nuclear wastes.

The full text of the report can be found at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs website: http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=book&item_id=351

Cold Mountain, starring Nicole Kidman and Jude Law, is a strong anti-war film that takes place during the Civil War in the United States. One is left with a feeling of revulsion against war and what it does to ordinary people, both soldiers and civilians. As in nearly all wars, young men are eager to fight at the outset, not realizing the murderous reality of what they will soon be facing. The viewer discovers that war is not glorious although there are those who glory in it, that it can be bitter for loved ones left behind and that it takes an unusually strong core of decency in a young soldier not to be turned into a cruel and broken person.

For information on other anti-war movies, go to http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/peace-&-war/index.htm .

• "Can you please explain why the pilot would put his mother's name on such a plane?"
  - Minoru Nishino, survivor of atomic bombing in Japan and witness to the opening of the Enola Gay exhibit by the Smithsonian Institution.

• “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”
  - Martin Luther King, J., from chapter seven of his book “Strength to Love”, originally published in 1963.

• “Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows…. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means.”
  - Martin Luther King, Jr., speech delivered in Los Angeles titled “The Casualties of the War in Vietnam” on 25 February, 1967.

The events of the past few years have significantly increased the likelihood of weapons of mass destruction being used - a scenario that would have catastrophic consequences for all of us. Terrorism, technology, geopolitical ambitions, and policies of preemptive war together form an incendiary mix that calls upon each one of us to take a more active role in securing the future of our planet.

As such, the Foundation will increase its efforts to promote informed consent and participatory democracy on issues involving nuclear policy, providing you and millions of others with effective tools for voicing your opinions to our elected officials.

To do so, we are substantially upgrading our online Action Center to offer visitors to our website the opportunity to address their elected leaders on the critical issues that we track daily. The Action Center will highlight advocacy campaigns pursuing greater sanity in US and global nuclear policies. Suggested letters will be provided that visitors can edit and send on to their elected officials.

This new advocacy tool will allow the Foundation to be a more effective national and international force for peace and will open the door to greater democracy in the critical decisions facing our country and the world.

You can help us achieve this goal by making a tax-deductible gift to support the significant improvement of our online Action Center.

Please help us give a greater voice to the millions of citizens who want to participate in decisions about our common future. Your generosity and support are very much appreciated.

For more information on how to make a tax-deductible gift, please log on to https://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/donate/year-end-appeal/index_secure.htm
or contact Chris Pizzinat on 805.965.3443 or cpizzinat@napf.org

Editors
Justine Wang
David Krieger

Contributors
Kristen Morrison
Luke Brothers
Michael Coffey