On The Bright Side

October 18, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Democracy Breaks Out at the UN as 122 Nations Vote to Ban the Bomb

We are witnessing a striking global shift in how the world views nuclear weapons

By Alice Slater

On July 7, 2017, at a UN Conference mandated by the UN General Assembly to negotiate a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons—the only weapons of mass destruction yet to be banned—122 nations completed the job after three weeks, accompanied by a celebratory outburst of cheers, tears, and applause among hundreds of activists, government delegates, and experts, as well as survivors of the lethal nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and witnesses to the devastating, toxic nuclear-test explosions in the Pacific. The new treaty outlaws any prohibited activities related to nuclear weapons, including use, threat to use, development, testing, production, manufacturing, acquiring, possession, stockpiling, transferring, receiving, stationing, installation, and deployment of nuclear weapons. It also bans states from lending assistance, which includes such prohibited acts as financing for their development and manufacture, engaging in military preparations and planning, and permitting the transit of nuclear weapons through territorial water or airspace.

We are witnessing a striking shift in how the world views nuclear weapons. The change has transformed public conversation about nuclear weapons, from the same old talk about national “security” and its reliance on “nuclear deterrence,” to the widely publicized evidence of the catastrophic health and environmental consequences of their use. A series of compelling presentations of the devastating effects of nuclear weapons detonations, organized by enlightened governments and civil society’s International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, was inspired by a stunning statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross addressing the human consequences of nuclear war.

At meetings hosted by Norway, Mexico, and Austria, overwhelming evidence demonstrated the disastrous devastation threatening humanity from the nuclear weapons chain—from uranium mining and milling, to weapons production, testing, and use—whether deliberately or by accident or negligence. This newly appreciated understanding—exposing the terrifying havoc that would be inflicted on our planet—gave impetus for this moment when governments and civil society fulfilled a negotiating mandate for a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.

Perhaps the most significant addition to the treaty, after a draft treaty from an earlier week of talks in March was submitted to the states by the expert and determined president of the conference, Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gómez of Costa Rica, was amending the prohibition not to use nuclear weapons by adding the words “or threaten to use,” driving a stake through the heart of the beloved “deterrence” doctrine of the nuclear-weapons states, which are holding the whole world hostage to their perceived “security” needs, threatening the earth with radioactive annihilation in their MAD scheme for “Mutually Assured Destruction.” The ban also creates a path for nuclear-armed states to join the treaty, requiring verifiable, time-bound, transparent elimination of all nuclear-weapons programs or irreversible conversion of all nuclear-weapons related facilities.

The negotiations were boycotted by all nine nuclear-weapons states and US allies under the so-called nuclear “umbrella” in NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. The Netherlands was the only NATO member present, its parliament having required its attendance in response to public pressure, and was the only “no” vote. Last summer, after a UN Working Group recommended that the General Assembly resolve to establish the ban-treaty negotiations, the United States pressured its NATO allies, arguing that “the effects of a ban could be wide-ranging and degrade enduring security relationships.” Upon the adoption of the ban treaty, the United States, United Kingdom, and France issued a statement that “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it” as it “does not address the security concerns that continue to make nuclear deterrence necessary” and will create “even more divisions at a time…of growing threats, including those from the DPRK’s ongoing proliferation efforts.” Ironically, North Korea was the only nuclear power to vote for the ban treaty, last October, when the UN’s First Committee for Disarmament forwarded a resolution for ban-treaty negotiations to the General Assembly.

Yet the absence of the nuclear weapons states contributed to a more democratic process, with fruitful interchanges between experts and witnesses from civil society who were present and engaged through much of the proceedings instead of being outside locked doors, as is usual when the nuclear powers are negotiating their endless, step-by-step process that has only resulted in leaner, meaner, constantly modernized, re-designed, and refurbished nuclear weapons. Obama, before he left office was planning to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years for two new bomb factories, new warheads, and new delivery systems.

The Ban Treaty affirms the states’ determination to realize the purpose of the UN Charter and reminds us that the very first resolution of the UN in 1946 called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. With no state holding veto power, and no hidebound rules of consensus—that have stalled all progress on nuclear abolition and additional initiatives for world peace in other UN and treaty bodies—this negotiation was a gift from the UN General Assembly, which democratically requires states to be represented in negotiations with an equal vote and doesn’t require consensus to come to a decision.

Despite the recalcitrance of the nuclear terror-mongers, we know that previous treaties banning weapons have changed international norms and stigmatized the weapons leading to policy revisions even in states that never signed those treaties.

The Ban Treaty requires 50 states to sign and ratify it before it enters into force, and will be open for signature September 20 when heads of state meet in New York for the UN General Assembly’s opening session. Campaigners will be working to gather the necessary ratifications and, now that nuclear weapons are unlawful and banned, to shame those NATO states which keep US nuclear weapons on their territory (Belgium, Germany , Turkey, Netherlands, Italy), and to pressure other alliance states which hypocritically condemn nuclear weapons but participate in nuclear-war planning. In the nuclear-weapons states, there can be divestment campaigns from institutions that support the development and manufacture of nuclear weapons now that they have been prohibited and declared unlawful. See www.dontbankonthebomb.com

To keep the momentum going in this burgeoning movement to ban the bomb, check out www.icanw.org. For a more detailed roadmap of what lies ahead, see Zia Mian’s take on future possibilities in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

— Alice Slater is the New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and serves on the Coordinating Committee of World Beyond War. She wrote this piece for The Nation.

September 12, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“Top German politicians want US nuclear weapons out” — Did anti-nuclear actions propel issue into national elections?

By John LaForge

German Green Party Bundestag Deputy (Member of Congress) Tabea Rössner said of a recent protest action that got deep into a nuclear weapons base, “If peace activists are in the inner security area of the Tactical Air Force squadron, Luftwaffe, Büchel, then that can mean only one thing: The security concept is more than bumbling.”

A series of anti-nuclear weapons actions between March and August at Air Base Büchel in Germany brought widespread media attention to the 20 US nuclear weapons still deployed there. Surprising demands for the bombs’ removal soon came from high-ranking political leaders including Germany’s foreign minister. A timeline of events between July 12 and 18, involving a Nukewatch-organized delegation of 11 US peace activists, shows how the work may have moved the officials to speak out.

July 12 — Upon its arrival, four members of the US group held a press conference in Frankfurt accompanied by Marion Küpker, international coordinator for DFG-VK — Germany’s oldest anti-war group — and organizer of the 5-month peace camp. News of the unprecedented US group was reported in the daily Frankfurt Journal (“Activists from the US land in Frankfurt: Campaign against US nuclear weapons”), the online magazine FOCUS (“Nuclear fighters receive support from the US”) and picked up around the country.

July 15 — Headlines like “Today in Büchel: Action day against nuclear weapons,” and “Konstantin Wecker sings for the peace,” was news across southwest Germany when the well-known singer-songwriter drew about 400 to his performance near base’s main gates. The US delegates all spoke briefly to the gathering through interpreters.

July 17 — Five activists including four from the US snuck deep into the air base at night, clipping four chain-link fences, and climbed to the top of a large weapons bunker. The five went undetected on base for over two hours, before they themselves alerted guards. Detained by military and civilian police, the group was released around 3 a.m. without charges, and none have been leveled.

July 26 — News of the “go-in” action reaching a bunker was reported widely. The daily Rhein-Zeitung’s headline used Nukewatch’s moniker: “‘Prison Gang’ Inspects Büchel Air Force Base — Peace movement claims five activists succeeded in penetrating the inner security area.” (The reference was to seven of the US delegates who have served a combined total of 36 years in jail and prison for anti-war actions.

July 28 — Journalists asked experts and military officials in Berlin whether the go-in group got near the US nuclear bombs. Air Force headquarters in Berlin assured the press that “security had been maintained,” and this news went nation-wide. Yet the information center of the Air Force in Berlin did acknowledge the breach of security. One paper reported, “The Luftwaffe confirmed that on the night of 18 July, five persons were in the military security area of the airport, where they illegally gained access by cutting fences with cutting tools, RZ reported,” referring to the regional daily Rhein-Zeitung. Another widely reported story quoted, “Military expert [Otfried] Nassauer: ‘Prison Gang’ was probably not in the sensitive area of the Büchel airfield.”

July 29 — The daily paper of Nuremberg, Eslayer Nachrichlen, with a circulation of 300,000, interviewed four of the US delegates and its article was headlined: “At night on the atom bunker” — Joint protest of peace activists from the region and the USA.”

August 7 — Public criticism of lax security at Büchel went national when the Green Party Bundestag Deputy (Member of Congress) Tabea Rössner openly lambasted the base for not stopping the fence-cutting action. Rössner’s call for an investigation prompted the headline: “Is Air Base Büchel just as safe as an amusement park?”

Accounts of Rössner’s statement, circulated widely on social media, reported, “The Greens demanded information about the safety situation at Büchel air base. The reason is an action by activists who entered the inner security area of the airbase.” Rössner’s statement said in part, “The federal government must fully explain the incident. If peace activists are in the inner security area of the Tactical Air Force squadron, Luftwaffe, Büchel, then that can mean only one thing: The security concept is more than bumbling.”

“This is not a trifle,” Rössner said, “even if those responsible would try to downplay the incident. It is more than frightening that at a time of significantly increased terror, the safety measures of such a site fall below the level of a theme park.”

August 22 — The US H-bombs then burst into the national election campaign when Martin Schulz, the head of the Social Democrat Party (SDP) and candidate for Chancellor in this month’s elections, unexpectedly called for the ouster of the US nuclear weapons. Reuters, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, Politico and major German media reported, “German rival of Chancellor [Angela] Merkel vows to remove US nuclear weapons from the country,” “Searching for another point of difference, Schulz pledged on Aug. 22 to have US nuclear weapons withdrawn from German territory if, against the odds, he defeats Merkel,” and “Germany’s Schulz says he would demand US withdraw nuclear arms.” Schulz in a campaign stump speech said, “As chancellor, I’d push for the ejection of nuclear weapons stored in Germany.”

August 29 — Conservative politicians and editors attacked Schulz as uninformed or naive, but the criticism was short-lived when Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel made a surprise endorsement of Schulz’s proposal. At a press conference with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Washington, Gabrial joined Schulz’s call for withdrawal of the US weapons. The foreign minister’s surprise announcement included his blunt admission that, “I agreed with Mr. Schulz’s point that we need to get rid of the nuclear weapons that are in our country.” The news startled media around the world, which reported: “Foreign Minister joins call to withdraw US nukes from Germany,” and “German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has supported Social Democrat (SPD) leader Martin Schulz’s pledge that he will push for the removal of US nuclear warheads from Germany if elected Chancellor.”

Sept. 5 — The Left Party introduced a motion to “Refuse rearmament and withdraw nuclear weapons from Germany.” Endorsed by deputy leader Jan Korte, the motion calls for immediate negotiations with the United States to remove its nuclear weapons from Germany, and condemns NATO’s demand that member states increase military spending. The motion was partially supported by the Green party, which said in a statement, “The Greens are for a nuclear weapon-free Germany and Europe.”

The International Business Times and the Financial Tribune online declared on Aug. 31, “Top German Politicians Want US Nuclear Weapons Out.” The papers noted that “Germany’s top diplomat has backed the suggestion of SPD leader and Chancellor hopeful Martin Schulz, who has pledged to rid his country of US nukes.”

To help the German’s win permanent elimination of the US nukes, the movement here has to generate enough push-back to cancel Congress’s plan to replace instead of retire the US H-bombs in Europe. Nixing the replacement plan would save at least $12 billion.

June 27, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Legal Evolution: World Welcomes Draft Treaty Ban on Nuclear Weapons

By John LaForge

Summer Quarterly 2017

The United Nations General Assembly, New York, New York.

Last March, over 130 countries joined in long-sought after negotiations for a global treaty ban on nuclear weapons, successfully fending off coercive efforts by the United States and other nuclear-armed states to de-fund and derail the campaign. On May 22, 2017, the language of a “Draft Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons,” was delivered to the United Nations for final negotiations taking place from June 15 to July 7 in New York.

Notwithstanding a president who opposes the treaty and who may know less about nuclear weapons than most highschoolers, the vast majority of the world’s people welcome the draft treaty.

Last summer, Donald Trump famously asked, “If we have ‘em [nuclear weapons], why can’t we use ‘em?” although tens of thousands of citizens, along with generals, legal experts, governments, churches, religious leaders and UN resolutions have for decades been explaining exactly why.

At the National Press Club on Feb. 2, 1998, General George Butler, a former commander of US Strategic Air Command, authoritatively answered Mr. Trump: “The likely consequences of nuclear weapons have no politically, militarily or morally acceptable justification.”

Gen. Butler’s famously startling speech was informed by countless books, articles, archives and studies. His experience and reflection led him to say about H-bombs that, “The unbounded wantonness of their effects … transcend time and space, poisoning the earth and deforming its inhabitants for generation upon generation. They leave us wholly without defense, expunge all hope for meaningful survival. They hold in their sway not just the fate of nations but the very meaning of civilization.” The same year, Gen. Butler joined 60 other retired generals and admirals calling for nuclear weapons abolition.

What the military retirees have pointedly left unsaid about nuclear weapons is that their use is illegal according to their own Service Manuals. International law scholars have argued at length, some successfully, that together the manuals and the law of nations make any use of H-bombs a crime. Experts including Peter Weiss, Richard Falk, Ann Fagan Ginger, Francis Boyle, John Burroughs, and Matthew Lippman, etc., movement attorneys like Anabel Dwyer, Bill Durland, Bill Quigley, John Bachman, and Kary Love, etc., thousands of legal rights advocates from former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark and England’s George Delf, to life-long war resister Dave McReynolds, and hundreds of plowshares disarmament activists from Carl Kabat to Angie Zelter, have all made the case.

The language of the new Draft Convention is comprehensive, compelling and even awe-inspiring. It includes the legally unprecedented acknowledgement that women and girls are more seriously harmed by radiation than the rest of the population. The draft’s Preamble says in part:

“Deeply concerned about the catastrophic consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons and the consequent need to make every effort to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances,

“Cognizant that the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons transcend national borders, pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and for the health of future generations, and of the disproportionate impact of ionizing radiation on maternal health and on girls, …”

“Affirming that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control…”

The ban negotiations build on a long history of international treaty development that has challenged the legitimacy of nuclear weapon effects for decades without explicitly outlawing them by name.

In 1907, the Hague Regulations banned the use of poison. Radioactive fallout is poisonous to say the least. Because attacks that are “analogous to gas” warfare are banned by the 1925 Geneva Protocol, nuclear war’s effects, and consequencly any use of them, can be considered illegal. The 1945 Nuremberg Charter, written by US judges, outlaws “planning and preparation” of massacres—a monumental change in treaty law, since it implicates nuclear war planners before their weapons cause mass destruction. Indiscriminate destruction is explicitly forbidden by the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

In 1961, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 1653, “Recalling that the use of weapons of mass destruction, causing unnecessary human suffering, was in the past prohibited…” This early UN resolution declared in part:

“The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is … a direct violation of the Charter of the United Nations; … would exceed even the scope of war and cause indiscriminate suffering and destruction … and, as such, is contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of humanity; …. is a war directed not against an enemy or enemies alone but also against mankind [sic] in general, since the peoples of the world not involved in such a war will be subjected to all the evils generated by the use of such weapons; [and] Any State using nuclear and thermonuclear weapons is to be considered as … acting contrary to the laws of humanity and as committing a crime against mankind and civilization…”

In 1996, the UN’s International Court of Justice, or World Court heard arguments from UN Member States on whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons was legal. The judges concluded that “the threat of use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law…” The World Court also reminded the world that the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires treaty signers to “bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

The United Sates ratified the NPT which obligates signatories to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” [Emphasis added] Forty-nine years later, “an early date” has finally arrived.

New Treaty Would Ban Nuclear Weapons by Name

The Articles in the new draft treaty declare in part:

“Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to: Develop, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons … directly, or indirectly; Receive the transfer or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly, or indirectly; Use nuclear weapons;” or test nuclear weapons.

There are eight pages of detailed rules regarding Obligations, Declarations, Safeguards, Implementation, Costs, Amendments, Disputes, Universality, Duration, Ratification, and Reservations. Dozens of contested issues remain.

Beatrice Fihn, Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, celebrated the progress. “The release of a draft treaty to ban nuclear weapons is a milestone in the decades-long effort to ban these indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction because of their inhumane and catastrophic impacts. Once adopted, the treaty will constitute an important step toward their eventual elimination,” she said.

How about a toast!

May 29, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“Prison Gang” Peace Delegation to Join International Call for Ouster of US Nuclear Weapons from Germany

For the first time in a long-standing campaign to remove US nuclear weapons from Germany, a delegation of US peace activists will participate in protests at the Büchel Air Base, July 12 to 18, demanding the withdrawal of the 20 remaining US H-bombs still deployed there. Notable among the 11-person delegation are seven participants who have served a combined total of 36 years in US jails and prisons for protest actions taken against nuclear weapons programs and the war system.

The delegation of eleven US activists* — from Wisconsin, California, Washington-DC, Virginia, Minnesota, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Maryland — has been brought together by Nukewatch and will join the coalition of 50 German peace and justice groups and organizations converging on the air base.

An international banner displayed at the Nukewatch office.

This past March 26, activists in Germany launched a 20-week-long series of nonviolent protests to rid Büchel of the US B61 nuclear-armed gravity bombs. The actions continue through August 9, the anniversary of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945. The US delegation will join the International Week, July 12 to 18, along with peace activists from Belgium, The Netherlands, and France, as well as Germany.

“The world wants nuclear weapons abolished,” said US delegate Bonnie Urfer, a long-time peace activist and former staffer with the nuclear watchdog group Nukewatch, in Wisconsin. “To waste billions of dollars replacing the B61s when they should be scrapped is criminal considering how many millions are in need famine relief, emergency shelter, and safe drinking water,” Urfer said. Urfer has spent 6 and 1/2 years incarcerated for a string of misdemeanor-level protests she calls “civil resistance” against war, nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

The US delegation and the German public is particularly concerned that the US is planning to produce 480 new hydrogen bombs — the so-called “B61-12”— to replace the 180 B61 bombs now deployed in five European NATO countries including the 20 at Büchel. Production is not expected to start before 2022.

“Our united resistance will stop the new, illegal nuclear bombs nobody needs,” said Marion Küpker, a disarmament campaigner and organizer with DFG-VK, Germany’s oldest peace organization, this year celebrating its 125th anniversary. “We want Germany to be nuclear weapons free,” Küpker said.

Under a scheme known as “nuclear sharing,” Germany, Italy, Belgium, Turkey, and The Netherlands still deploy and conduct NATO nuclear war maneuvers using the US H-bombs, although all six states are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Articles I and II of the NPT explicitly prohibit nuclear weapons from being either transferred to or accepted from other countries. The US is the only country in the world that arms other countries with its nuclear weapons. (China may lease a nuclear-powered submarine but not nuclear weapons from Russia.)

Although the planned B61 replacement bomb is a completely new weapon, the Pentagon calls the program “modernization” in order to skirt the NPT’s prohibitions. The new bomb is being touted as the first ever “smart” or precision nuclear weapon, built to be guided by satellites, and aimed with a new tailfin attachment, making it unprecedented. New nuclear weapons are unlawful under the NPT, and President Barak Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review required that “upgrades” to the Pentagon’s current H-bombs must not have “new capabilities.” Overall cost of the new bomb, which is not yet in production, is estimated to be up to $12 billion.

German Parliament resolved to evict US H-bombs

The March 26 start date of “Twenty Weeks for Twenty Bombs” is significant for Germans. First, on March 26, 2010, Germany’s Bundestag voted overwhelmingly — across all parties — to have the government work to remove the US weapons from German territory. In 2008, US and NATO officials claim that “deterrence” makes retaining the B61 important in Europe, but the US European Command said that there would be “no military downside to the unilateral withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Europe.”

Second, on March 27 this year the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York launched formal negotiations for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. The UNGA will convene a second session, June 15 to July 7, to produce a binding “convention” banning any production, possession, deployment, or use of nuclear weapons, in accordance with Article 6 of the NPT. (Similar treaty bans prohibit poison and gas weapons, land mines, and cluster bombs.) A formal Draft Treaty was unveiled May 22 in Geneva. Nuclear-armed countries led by the United States tried unsuccessfully to derail the negotiations and boycotted the first round. Germany’s government under Angela Merkel joined the boycott in spite of broad public support for nuclear disarmament.

A huge majority of the German public supports both the UN treaty ban and the ouster of US nuclear weapons from its territory. According to a poll commissioned by the German chapter of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and published in March 2016, a staggering 93% want nuclear weapons banned. Some 85% agreed that the US weapons should be withdrawn from Germany, and 88% said they oppose US plans to replace the current H-bombs with the new B61-12.

*The United States delegation includes: Steve Baggarly, Norfolk, VA; Kathy Boylan, Washington, DC; Zara Brown, Minneapolis, MN; Susan Crane, Redwood City, CA; Ralph Hutchison, and Carmella Cole, both of Knoxville, TN; Sr. Carol Gilbert and Sr. Ardeth Platte, both of Baltimore, MD; Leona Morgan, Albuquerque, NM; and Bonnie Urfer and John LaForge, both of Luck, WI.

For more information, contact John LaForge: nukewatch1@lakeland.ws; 715-472-4185; or Marion Küpker (Germany) mariongaaa@gmx.de +49 (0)172 771 32 66.

*Detailed information about the US delegation to Büchel:

https://buechel-atombombenfrei.jimdo.com/international/u-s-biographies-in-english-2017/

“Top German politicians want US nuclear weapons out” — Did anti-nuclear actions propel issue into national elections?

“Prison Gang” Peace Delegation to Join International Call for Ouster of US Nuclear Weapons from Germany

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Stay Connected