On The Bright Side

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/

May 27, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Draft Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Unveiled

Seven square miles of Hiroshima, shown in August 1945, was smashed and burned by a US bomb 20 times smaller than the smallest H-bomb in today’s US nuclear arsenal.

Forty years ago I started reading legal arguments against nuclear weapons. With an atomic ignoramus in the White House asking “Why can’t we use ‘em?,” Bill Durland, Dave McReynolds, Peter Weiss, Jackie Cabasso, Francis Boyle, John Burroughs and others have been explaining why for decades.

Radiation is “analogous” to gas, and attacks that are analogous to gas warfare are banned by the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol. The 1907 Hague Regulations prohibit the use of poison or poisoned weapons, and radioactive fallout is poisonous to say the least. Indiscriminate destruction was forbidden by the 1945 Geneva Conventions. 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 nuclear weapons cause massacres.

In 1961, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 1653, “Recalling that the use of weapons of mass destruction, causing unnecessary human suffering, was in the past prohibited, as being contrary to the laws of humanity and to the principles of international law, by international declarations and binding agreements …to which the majority of nations are still parties.”

UNGA resolution 1653 in part “Declares that:

a) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is … a direct violation of the Charter of the United Nations;

b) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons would exceed even the scope of war and cause indiscriminate suffering and destruction to [hu]mankind and civilization and, as such, is contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of humanity;

c) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is a war directed not against an enemy or enemies alone but also against [hu]mankind 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;

d) Any State using nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is to be considered as …acting contrary to the laws of humanity and as committing a crime against [hu]mankind and civilization; and

Requests that the Secretary-General to consult the Governments of Member States to ascertain their view on the possibility of convening a special conference for signing a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons for war purposes….”

Member states must have said, “Let’s wait,” as that was 56 years ago. In 1968, the Non-Proliferation Treaty obligated the US and the other signers 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.” Forty-nine years later, “at an early date” sort of sticks in the throat.

In 1996, a global movement pushed the International Court of Justice or World Court to hear arguments from UN Member States on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The Court concluded that “the threat of use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law…” The Court also reminded the world that the Nonproliferation Treaty requires not just good faith negotiations, but that the Members “bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

Finally, the “early date” has arrived, and last March at least 130 countries joined the long-sought-after negotiations for a treaty ban. Then, on May 22, 2017, the “Draft Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” was calmly delivered to the United Nations for consideration this July. Its language is clear, compelling, and a little awe-inspiring.

The preamble says in part:

Deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian 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 Articles declare that “Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:

a) Develop, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;

b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly;

c) Receive the transfer or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly, or indirectly;

d) Use nuclear weapons;

e) Carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion…

There are lengthy sections about verifiable compliance and enforcement, all to be finalized this summer.

Beatrice Fihn, the Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, celebrated the news this way: “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.”

How about a toast!

Draft Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Unveiled

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2016-2017

Contact Us

Donate To Nukewatch

Stay Connected