March / April 2002 No 229 Online Contents:
|
International Treaties and Peacemaking |
On February 16th, Abolition 2000, Medact and Christian CND organised a day-school
on 'Treaties'. It was held in the LSE, and was well-attended by members of various
NGOs. Yours truly went for Pax Christi, and chaired an afternoon session. Unfortunately
I missed the opening bit, thanks to the vagaries of Connex trains.
It was an excellent day, and people will have learnt a lot. In the morning
there were choices to be made among the various treaties to be studied. I arrived
during the session on the ABM treaty and Nuclear Missile Defence, conducted
by Mark Bromley of BASIC, but I missed most of it. Then we had a talk by Dan
Plesch, who created BASIC, but is now a research fellow at the Royal United
Services Institute (RUSI). Dan's old campaigning style seems not to have been
affected by his move into RUSI 'respectability'. His theme was 'Nuclear Anarchy',
and the message was that the Bush Administration is essentially anarchistic
on nuclear weapons (as it is on hand guns). The UK, on the other hand, believes
in the international rule of law. After all, the EU and the UN exist only through
law. But Britain must not go too far in opposing the USA for fear of being regarded
as an unreliable ally. The trick is to uphold the rule of law by hanging on
to the Non-Proliferation Treaty framework, since this is a success story involving
virtually everybody (except Israel, India and Pakistan). However, since September
11th 2001 we've moved into a 'global civil ('guerrilla') war' which cannot be
won militarily. Global governance is needed to control not only weaponry but
multi-nationals too. The INF and CFE treaties, which helped to end the cold
war by actually destroying large numbers of weapons, ought to be models for
global disarmament.
In the afternoon, I went to the session on the NPT with Rebecca Johnson, director
of the Acronym Institute. She is (among other things) an excellent classroom
teacher, who expounded a complex subject with clarity. She explained the fundamental
bargains of the Non-Proliferation Treaty: between those who supported the peaceful
uses of nuclear power and those who wanted nuclear disarmament; between those
who wanted to stop nuclear proliferation (USA and USSR) and those who wanted
actual disarmament; and between those wanted a time-bound treaty of 25 yrs.
from the date of entry into force (1970) and those who wanted it made permanent.
At the 1995 Review Conference the treaty was indeed made permanent, following
agreement by the nuclear weapons states to a Comprehensive Test Ban. Certain
'principles and objectives' for nuclear disarmament were also accepted by all,
including determined efforts to reduce nuclear weaponry with the ultimate goal
of complete elimination. The key point to insist upon with the UK government
now was to obtain an 'unequivocal undertaking' on nuclear disarmament, and to
make nuclear reductions irreversible.
Next, I chaired a round-table discussion with Dominique Lalanne, a French particle
physicist who is also a nuclear disarmament campaigner, Roland Krueger of the
Nuclear Policy Group at NATO in Brussels, and Counsellor Yushupov of the Russian
embassy in London. This unusual combination of viewpoints was very illuminating.
Lalanne emphasised the extent of France's commitment to new missiles and submarines,
contrary to the imperatives for disarmament. Krueger admitted that NATO's policy
was in apparent conflict with Article 6 of the NPT, but insisted on NATO's acceptance
of many of the measures outlined in the 2000 NPT Review. Yushupov said that
renouncing the ABM treaty was a big mistake, but that Russia wanted a new framework
to reduce warheads to 1500 or even fewer, with such reductions being verifiable,
ratifiable and irreversible. Mere handshakes between heads of state were not
enough.
The day ended with a talk by Merav Datan, of Physicians for Social Responsibility
and of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. She had come
over from New York, and spoke on the 'Model Nuclear Weapons Convention' which
has been drawn up using ideas from several existing treaties.
All in all, a good day and well-worth going to.
Brian Wicker
|
Our Grief is not a Cry for War |
This is the message that comes from a newly formed group in the United States,
Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. Two members of the group, Ryan Amundson and
Kelly Campbell, who lost their brother/brother-in-law at the Pentagon on 11th
September, were in London recently to speak of their work and hopes for the
future. They were guests of the Iraqi sanctions campaigning group Voices in
the Wilderness.
|
Ryan spoke of his disquiet in the days following his brother`s death
when families of victims were offered revenge as a source of comfort by
a Congressman who visited them in New York. For Ryan and his family, it
was important to find ways of making connections between their grief and
that of other families around the world, including Afghanistan and Iraq.
Kelly recently took part in a trip to Afghanistan with other bereaved
relatives, as she put it, to visit some of the other victims of September
11th.
While in Kabul they visited families whose homes had been destroyed and
who had lost family members and neighbours in bombing raids. She described
a six-year-old boy who has not walked or spoken since his home was bombed.
She spoke of meeting a 25-year-old widow who lost her mother and seven
other family members. Another woman, who had lost her husband and five
children, attempted to take a letter of to the American Embassy, asking
if the American Government would help her as she had been left with nothing.
She was sent away as a beggar. While Kelly and the others were in Kabul
they organised a press gathering for the handing in of several claim letters
to the Embassy from people who had lost everything. |
Walk for Healing and Peace, USA
Photo Dave Robinson |
It was a privilege to listen to these two young people. They had been criticised
and abused by some in their own country yet what they seek is healing and peace
for themselves and all those around the world who are victims of violence. Pax
Christi members who may want to know more about the work of this new group can
find them on www.peacefultomorrows.org
Useful resource:
"War on terrorism" - is there an alternative?" A
free information and action pack produced by the Oxford Research Group and
Quaker Peace & Social Witness. Available from QPSW 020 7663 1067
Recent Issues
January/February 2002: No 228
November/December 2001: No 227
September/October 2001: No 226
July/August 2001: No 225
Mar/Apr 2001: No 224
Jan/Feb 2001: No 223
Nov/Dec 2000 No 222
July/August 2000: No 220