ERSPECTIVESP Stay Informed. Get Involved.

http://us.oneworld.net

The Nuclear Weapons Debate

Issue 2, May 2005

1

While international agreements have long minimized the terrible danger posed by nuclear weapons, these agreements are now threatening to unravel. Current debate seems transfixed on the issue of “rogue countries” like Iran and North Korea. Despite concern over possible weapons programs pursued by these states or terrorist networks, does this singular focus of the West mask other more deeply-rooted problems and its own hypocrisy?

Coalitions of non-governmental organizations look at this broader picture as they push for the elimination of these weapons of mass destruction as a moral and legal obligation. As governments meet in New York in May 2005 to take stock of nuclear risks, civil society groups argue that the complacency that has beset this vital issue needs to be overcome.

Phot

o: N

ucle

ar A

ge P

eace

Fou

ndat

ion

2

Table of Contents

Editor’s Letter

In-DepthNuclear Weapons Primer - Non-Proliferation at a CrossroadsThe Work of NGOs - Reviving the Anti-Nuclear MovementStill to Come - Summary of the NPT Conference in NYAdditional Resources - OneWorld News & Other Links

From the FrontlinesMy Future - By Emma Viewpoints - Insights from NGOs

Make a DifferenceGet Involved! - What Can You Do?Speak Up! - What Do You Think?

Thanks to the following OneWorldU.S. partners for their participation!

Editor’s Letter

Dear reader:

Welcome to OneWorld Perspectives! OneWorld’s new series is designed to provide more depth and context to key topics that define today’s interdependent world. OneWorld does not take positions on topics featured, but strives to present the perspectives of a range of different actors, particularly in the non-profit community. We also aim to ensure the prominence of voices traditionally left out of the mainstream discussion--those whose lives are most directly affected by these issues.

OneWorld.net is an on-line community of some 1,600 international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working across a range of peace, human rights, environment and development themes. OneWorld’s content is delivered in 12 languages through 11 regional editions published by OneWorld centers on five continents. Our news services offer readers a fresh perspective on world events and the chance to take action locally and globally on the issues they care about.

The “In-Depth” section of this newsletter provides an overview of the most important aspects of the topic from multiple perspectives. These articles are compiled by OneWorld editors and reviewed by an expert on the topic. For reviewing this issue, our special thanks go to Tom Cardamone. (Currently a consultant on foreign policy issues, Cardamone was Executive Director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation from 2000-2003.) The “From the Frontlines” section offers readers viewpoints from the non-profit community. By featuring the work of NGOs on the selected theme, we aim to strengthen partnerships among them and introduce readers to their important contributions. “Make a Difference” provides readers opportunities to get involved in a meaningful way to create positive change on the issue.

This newsletter is an interactive resource. Your feedback is welcome and encouraged through the “Speak Up!” page on the OneWorld web site. Comments may be directed to useditors@oneworld.net. Due to time and space considerations, we cannot guarantee that every response will be posted. Priority will go, however, to those comments that offer positive insights or first-hand experiences on the selected theme.

Finally, this newsletter does not purport to have the final word on the themes it treats. To do so would require volumes of content, not mere pages. But it does strive to provide a foundation of understanding for readers, as well as opportunities to learn and get involved personally with these issues. We at OneWorld, along with our non-profit partners, hope you find this series useful and inspiring.

Zarrín T. CaldwellEditor, OneWorld Perspectives OneWorld United Stateshttp://us.oneworld.net

3

Click here to receive a free issue of OneWorld Perspectives every 6 weeks!

Nuclear Weapons Primer

“In my view, we have come to a fork in the road: either there must be a demonstrated commitment

to move towards nuclear disarmament, or we should resign ourselves to the fact that other

countries will pursue a more dangerous parity through proliferation.”

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director GeneralInternational Atomic Energy Agency

4 Nov. 2004, Stanford University

When the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) entered into force in 1970, there were high hopes for its ability to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Due to the massive destruction that nuclear weapons were capable of causing, it was universally recognized that there needed to be clear limitations on their development and use.

Despite citizen advocacy for complete and/or partial disarmament—at national and global levels—nation states were reluctant to give up the perceived security advantages of sometimes-extensive national arsenals. Ultimately, many saw fashioning arms-control agreements as the most realistic course of action to ensure global security. Such agreements were increasingly pursued over the second half of the 20th century and proved useful in limiting the nuclear arms race.

Global Progress Although having nuclear weapons of their

own, China, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and the United States wanted to ensure that proliferation of these weapons to other countries did not occur. Meanwhile, many countries that were not in this nuclear club were willing to renounce acquiring nuclear weapons, but still wanted the option of using nuclear energy for “peaceful purposes.” A grand bargain was reached during NPT negotiations in the late 1960s in which

the nuclear states would share nuclear technology and participate in “good faith” negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament while non-nuclear states would forgo developing or acquiring these weapons. The adoption of this treaty was considered a key step forward where arms control was concerned, not least because it offered the hope that nuclear disarmament was within reach. In 1995, the treaty was indefinitely extended by a consensus vote of more than 170 countries and, at the last review conference in 2000, 187 states parties agreed upon 13 practical steps that nuclear weapons states would take toward further disarmament. A review of the treaty occurs every five years and the 7th such conference is taking place in New York in May 2005.

The NPT helped to establish international legal and ethical norms against the acquisition of nuclear weapons and, as such, made it much harder to justify their use. There have also been other advances in the years since 1970. Global rules and institutions have developed that govern nuclear exports and better account for nuclear materials. Most importantly, there have been reductions in nuclear weapons overall. The numbers of countries that have such weapons, or are conducting weapons-related research, have dropped substantially since the 1960s. Argentina, Brazil, Libya, South Africa, and Ukraine, for example, have renounced nuclear weapons ambitions or programs. (See chart on page 6.)

Inherent WeaknessesIn addition to notable successes, the

NPT agreement suffers from some inherent weaknesses—one of the main ones being that it is not universal. India, Pakistan, and Israel are not parties to the treaty and North Korea pulled out of the treaty in early 2003. All of these countries are suspected of having nuclear weapons programs. India, for its part, does not support the treaty

In Depth

4

Non-Proliferation at a Crossroads

Nuclear Weapons Primer

on the premise that it restricts nuclear weapons to a few countries rather than eliminating them altogether. The discriminatory nature of the NPT—that it offers special privileges to some countries and not others—is often cited as one of its greatest flaws. These double standards inherent in the treaty have caused a significant degree of ill will. The mainstream media often overlooks this key point.

Not surprisingly, countries come to this topic from very different points of view depending on their nuclear status. Those with nuclear weapons, like the U.S., have been primarily concerned about proliferation of these weapons, the non-compliance of certain countries, and the possibilities of nuclear terrorism. Those without these weapons, however, are more concerned about disarmament and have accused the nuclear weapons states of failing to pursue the “good faith” disarmament commitments they pledged under the NPT. A lack of specific time frames for accomplishing disarmament goals has not helped matters.

Nuclear disarmament has in fact occurred—just not as extensively as some have hoped. U.S. State Department documents assert that the U.S. has reduced its nuclear weapons stockpile by

more than 13,000 since 1988. Although it is more difficult to get accurate figures from Russia, it is thought that reductions in stockpiles have been at equivalent or higher amounts during this time. In June 2004, the U.S. Energy Department also announced that “almost half” of the warheads in the current U.S. stockpile (over 10,000) would be retired by 2012 and eventually dismantled.

Critics point out, however, that the United States and Russia together still have some 27,000 nuclear weapons, which account for about 95% of the world’s remaining nuclear arsenal. (See link below to global map.) Although thousands of these weapons are in reserve, they can still be rapidly redeployed. As arms control advocates note, taking weapons out of active service, dismantling them, and actually destroying them are all very different things.

Current Challenges

Media and policy attention—especially in the U.S.—has been focused on countries, like Iran and North Korea, that are thought to be manufacturing nuclear weapons under the guise of peaceful uses of nuclear technology. These states are under pressure to comply with their side of the NPT bargain, including curtailing uranium enrichment programs. (The ability to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium is a key factor in nuclear weapons proliferation.)

Enforcing universal compliance with tighter rules to prevent making fuel for atomic weapons is high on the international agenda, as is keeping dangerous fissile materials out of the hands of terrorist networks. The international community agrees that such weapons falling into the hands of extremist groups could lead to a tragedy of enormous proportions.

In-Depth

5

Phot

o: U

N/D

PI/ M

atsu

shig

e

This photo was taken within minutes of the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945.

Nuclear Weapons Primer

For these reasons, many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) share Bush Administration concerns that there needs to be stricter verification that other countries are complying with their NPT commitments. UN agencies estimate that some 40 countries now have the knowledge and means to produce nuclear weapons. It is also possible for countries to come very close to having nuclear weapons capabilities without explicitly violating the agreement—and to leave the treaty with no particular sanction.

One interim solution is an increased role for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). An Optional Protocol to the NPT would give the IAEA the right to conduct more intrusive inspections of nuclear activities in all countries. Although robust inspections can be effective, there has not been enough international support to give the IAEA the power and resources it needs to conduct them. (At May 2005 this Protocol had only 65 states parties.) A lack of enforcement to reign in violators of the treaty is another serious matter. NGOs point out, however, that empowering the UN to enforce the treaty and punish violators would mitigate this problem.

Most assume that the May 2005 NPT Review Conference will conclude with a watered-down consensus document, but will not deal with tougher issues. The latter includes the basic discriminations in the treaty, the slow pace of disarmament among nuclear weapons states, and these states’ lack of transparency in disclosing information about their own arsenals. Many arms control advocates have blamed the G.W. Bush Administration for undermining the legitimacy of the NPT regime. They assert that, not only has the current U.S. Administration not lived up to prior NPT commitments, but that it continues to request funding for new weapons programs.

Because the U.S. has unilaterally disavowed many commitments made under the NPT process, there is profound mistrust among other countries that it has any real interest in a rule-based international security system.

For an overview of the disarmament movement, see “The Work of NGOs.”

In-Depth

6

������ ��������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������� ��������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������

��� �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��� �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��� �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

The above table is reprinted with permission from Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2005), www.CarnegieEndowment.org

Nuclear Weapons Primer

A good general summary of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

A recent (2004) global map of the status of nuclear weapons can be found at: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/images/npp/nuke.jpg

The “NRDC Nuclear Notebook” is one of the most accurate sources of information available to the public on numbers of nuclear weapons and weapons facilities across countries. It is at: http://www.thebulletin.org/nuclear_weapons_data/

For a comprehensive listing of articles, publications, and government resources on the nuclear weapons debate see “Proliferation News and Resources” at http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/weapons/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3000059

A new book called Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security was published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2005. Reflecting worldwide input and review, a number of policy recommendations are offered. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16593

The full text of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty can be found at: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull462/treaty_nukes.html

For the text of the 13 practical steps negotiated in 2000, go to http://www.nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/2000/0713nptsteps.html

A review of the work at the United Nations on weapons of mass destruction, including a review and status of the NPT, is at http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/

A current list of member state ratifications of the NPT is located at: http://www.acronym.org.uk/npt/parties.htm

For an updated list of signatories and states parties to the Optional Protocol for the NPT, see: http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Safeguards/sg_protocol.html

In April 2005, over 20 arms control experts and policy officials in the U.S. released a statement to call for the strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The full text is at: http://www.armscontrol.org/NPT2005/statement.asp

The Arms Control Association publishes Arms Control Today. Among other articles referenced, it offers a review of a summary of the NPT Review Conference held in 2000 (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_07-08/raufjulaug.asp), and a forecast for the 2005 NPT Review Conference (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_04/duPreez.asp?print).

The official U.S. position on meeting non-proliferation challenges and the NPT Review Conference is at http://www.state.gov/t/np/rls/rm/43638.htm; similarly, President Bush’s statement on the NPT from March 2005 is at: http://www.state.gov/t/np/rls/rm/43348.htm

An editorial by former President Carter in the Washington Post in March 2005 suggests ways for the U.S. to save the non-proliferation treaty. http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/03/28_carter_saving-nonproliferation.htm

In-Depth

7

Related Links and Article Sources

The Work of NGOs

In-Depth

8

Reviving the Anti-Nuclear Movement

After WWII, the threat of nuclear devastation compelled vast numbers of people to join a fledgling arms control movement. Citizens

worldwide challenged the assertion made by governments that peace was only possible through nuclear strength. While the anti-nuclear movement

has subsided compared to these early days, the threat is no less real.

The anti-nuclear crusade (1950s through 1980s) was among the biggest mass movements in modern history. It was stronger in some countries than in others, in part because regional priorities were different. Because of the enormous threat posed to humanity by an escalating nuclear arms race, however, it had the power to mobilize a diversity of institutions, including professional associations, religious bodies, and political groups. Some commentators asserted that the vast proliferation of nuclear weapons in Russia and the United States during the 1970s and 1980s was only stopped because the display of American military strength caused the Russians to retreat. Other historians note that it was not the influence of Western hawks, but a powerful disarmament campaign, that impelled a change of course. In short, the arms race was very unpopular with the general public in both countries.

With the threat of nuclear weapons seeming to subside after the Cold War, however, so did popular pressure. At the beginning of the 21st century, this public pressure was further assuaged by what appeared to be very vigorous efforts to dismantle stockpiles, especially in Russia. The signing of the Moscow Treaty early in G.W. Bush’s first term was hailed as one of these successes. This treaty called on both Russia and the United States to reduce strategic nuclear warheads to a number not exceeding 1700-2200 by December 31, 2012. On its face, the treaty called for “operationally deployed strategic warheads” to be reduced by some two-thirds. That is, up to 66%

of all long-range weapons ready for launch (i.e. not in storage) must be removed from service. But arms control advocates advised reading the fine print; the treaty did not require the actual destruction of warheads, set no schedule for reductions, included only one specific category of weapons, and did not include mechanisms for monitoring compliance, they noted.

NGO StrategiesSome NGOs have accepted that complete

disarmament is not likely in the near term so, instead, have advocated a series of interim steps to ensure the credibility of international agreements on nuclear weapons. A prestigious group of arms control organizations, under the umbrella of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Arms Control Association, for example, have advocated several policy prescriptions. These include support for the Additional Protocol to the NPT, which would give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the right to conduct more intrusive, short-term inspections of nuclear facilities.

Recommendations also include actions to increase the difficulties of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT; see article on “The Nuclear Weapons Debate.”) The group also calls for more effective international controls on a country’s ability to enrich uranium and process plutonium, both of which can lead to nuclear weapons development.

The enormous threat posed to humanity by an escalating nuclear arms race had the power to mobilize a diversity of

institutions.

The Work of NGOs

In-Depth

9

Many groups and coalitions, including the above, are also calling for an end to nuclear testing via adherence to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)—a treaty, adopted in 1996, which the U.S. Senate did not ratify. Other NGOs, like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, have called for timeframes to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. NGOs also differ on nuclear technology’s non-weapons uses, including generating energy for homes and industry. Some NGOs are agnostic on the matter, while others, like Greenpeace, lobby against nuclear power altogether.

Despite these different approaches, garnering citizen support remains a priority for all NGOs involved with this issue. Lobbying the U.S. Congress and raising citizen awareness are important activities of a cross-section of NGOs. Environment, peace and justice, development, and human rights groups all have some stake in the nuclear debate—a defining concern for humanity as a whole. As such, this issue has the power to draw together broad coalitions of organizations and individuals.

Among these coalitions is International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which is a non-partisan, global

federation of national medical organizations in 58 countries. The IPPNW’s Campaign for a Nuclear-Weapons-Free Century is meant to create a renewed sense of urgency on global disarmament and work for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

Another NGO coalition called “Abolition Now” has asked individuals and citizen groups to support the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an “Emergency Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons.” Over 100 mayors or their representatives came to New York City in May to share popular demands for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Thousands of protestors joined them in an anti-nuclear march in the same city on 1 May. While the May 2005 NPT Review Conference in New York has provided a unique opportunity to draw public and media attention to this vital issue, another important anniversary will take place on August 6 and 9, 2005. These dates mark the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States, and events are already being planning to remember the victims and call for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

U.S. Positions CritiquedAs UN member states debate how to move

forward, citizens groups are concerned about the potential unraveling of hard-won international agreements on nuclear non-proliferation. In the U.S., the intransigence of the G.W. Bush Administration on nuclear weapons policies is especially troubling to most NGOs working on this issue. Despite some opposition in the U.S. Congress, the Administration continues to request funding for new types of nuclear weapons. Among these is something called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (or “bunker buster”), which is intended to strike deeply buried targets. Other nations and arms control advocates point out that for the U.S. to tell other countries not to develop nuclear weapons, but to seek to develop more of their own destroys the legitimacy of the disarmament regime.

Phot

o: R

eyna

ers/

Gre

enpe

ace

©

Nuclear dangers are an immediate concern to those who live near nuclear facilities.

The Work of NGOs

In-Depth

10

NGOs further claim that the U.S. government is not held accountable for its actions, despite its expecting such accountability from other countries, and that it is reneging on disarmament commitments made at the last NPT review conference in 2000, although those agreements were forged by a previous administration. The Clinton and G.W. Bush Administrations have clearly had different approaches to multilateral agreements. Regardless of the politics, a “do-as-I-say, but not-as-I-do” policy remains understandably hard for other countries to take seriously.

Larger Security ChallengesAt a time when it seems that popular pressure

has not yet crystallized around new nuclear dangers, it remains important for NGOs to strategize together and coordinate efforts. Some commentators have also suggested that these groups may need to look at the more difficult political security challenges to be overcome before elimination of nuclear arsenals becomes possible.

As Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) noted in remarks to a non-proliferation conference in June 2004, “Against [a] backdrop of insecurity and instability, it should come as no surprise to witness a continued interest, particularly in regions of tension, in the acquisition of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.” In this environment, ElBaradei calls for a “much needed discussion on non-proliferation and security.” He also notes that shifting global resources from armaments ($900 billion/year) to development assistance ($60 billion/year) would better address social ills and, thus, pre-empt many security threats.

Encouraging investments in education and meeting social needs over investments in weapons

and military solutions tends to be a common refrain of NGOs. Different sectors of civil society have a certain meeting of minds on this approach. For these reasons, fostering an expanded public dialogue on the larger picture of what ‘global security’ means is perhaps where NGOs can make the most vital contribution.

For more information on the nuclear weapons debate, see “Nuclear Weapons Primer.”

Phot

o: P

hilip

Weg

ener

An anti-nuclear rally took place in New York City on 1 May 2005. Among other events, a human peace symbol was formed in Central Park. Several thousand protesters at this rally called for nuclear powers to disarm.

Click here to receive a free issue of OneWorld Perspectives every 6 weeks!

The Work of NGOs

Reaching Critical Will is a coalition of NGOs all over the world working on nuclear disarmament. Their web site on the NPT has working papers, shadow reports, and a listing of NGO campaigns. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/nptindex1.html

The Greenpeace web site has a section devoted to ending the nuclear threat at:http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

More information on the IPPNW campaign cited above can be found at: http://www.ippnw.org/NukePhysiciansCampaign.html

An NGO strategy summit held in October 2002 looked at ways that disarmament NGOs might increase their effectiveness. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/social/summit/main_themes.html

For a copy of ElBaradei’s remarks noted above, see: http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0411/041104.htm

Another NGO initiative is one run by student leaders at the University of California. The UC Nuclear Free Campaign is an on-going, state-wide campaign to educate students on nuclear dangers and policy and to work toward the de-militarization of the university system. http://www.ucnuclearfree.org/

In-Depth

11

Related Links and Article Sources

Information on the history of the citizens’ movement in this article is drawn from work done by Lawrence Wittner at the State University of New York at Albany. For summaries and reviews, see: http://hnn.us/articles/1797.html andhttp://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v20n3p27.htm

Senator Joseph Biden offers a critique of the Moscow Treaty in the Washington Post in May 2002 at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A18129-2002May27&notFound=true

The Union of Concerned Scientists provides an analysis of the Moscow Treaty and a review of U.S. Senate ratification in March 2003. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=1134

For an article in Foreign Affairs on the threats posed by nuclear terrorism see: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050101fareviewessay84114c/jon-b-wolfsthal/the-next-nuclear-wave.html

The Campaign to Strengthen the NPT (www.npt2005.org) is a joint project designed to collect and disseminate to the public, journalists, and policymakers the latest and best information about the NPT, the challenges it faces, and leading proposals to advance nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. The campaign is a joint effort led by the Arms Control Association and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

For an extensive list of NGOs working on arms control and non-proliferation, see: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=808

Additional Resources

In-Depth

12

OneWorld Articles on the Nuclear Debate

For OneWorld’s full coverage on nuclear arms see: http://us.oneworld.net/article/archive/2311/

Citizens for Global Solutions has a helpful fact sheet on the NPT, with a particular focus on the U.S., India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, and North Korea at: http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalsolutions.org%2Fprograms%2Fpeace_security%2Ffacts_reports%2Fnpt.html

Week one of the NPT review conference ends in deadlock while U.N. officials and disarmament advocates warn that nuclear weapons are spreading and could spin regional conflicts out of control. http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/110906/1/

Retired U.S. newscaster Walter Cronkite faults the news media for largely ignoring the U.S. role in evading responsibility for the growing nuclear threat. http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wagingpeace.org%2Farticles%2F2005%2F05%2F05_cronkite_reviving-nuclear-disarmament.htm

UN agency reports on Iran have produced no recent evidence of development of nuclear weapons and recommends that the U.S. join the European strategy of diplomatic engagement. http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.europaworld.org%2Fweek212%2Fnonew18205.htm

The Cold War may have ended, but its relics remain scattered across the European continent in the form of U.S. nuclear weapons—nearly 500 of them, according to a recent report released by the Natural Resources Defense Council. http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrdc.org%2Fmedia%2FpressReleases%2F050209.asp

A global network of over 2,000 organizations has called on all nations to come to May’s NPT summit with a plan for phasing out all nuclear weapons by 2020. http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gracelinks.org%2Fpress%2Fdocs%2FForeignMinistry_0105.html

The director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency offers a seven-point plan to be taken up at May’s nuclear non-proliferation summit in New York. http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wagingpeace.org%2Farticles%2F2005%2F02%2F02_elbaradei_seven-steps-security.htm

A news article from The Hindu reviews progress made by India and Pakistan on nuclear talks. http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hindu.com%2Fthehindu%2Fholnus%2F000200412160301.htm

In December 2004, the U.S. Congress dealt a major setback to the Bush Administration’s ambitions for building new weapons.http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/98452/1/

In June 2004, U.S. officials presented a two-phase proposal in which North Korea would receive fuel oil if it agrees to freeze and dismantle its nuclear programs. http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armscontrol.org%2Fact%2F2004_07-08%2FNKtalks.asp

A OneWorld report from South Asia reviews the increasing amounts of money being spent by the developing world on defense.http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/88386/1/

In this briefing note, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation suggests how the U.S. and other nations can and must exert greater control over the “nuclear underground.”http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/81726/1/

Additional Resources

Pakistan’s most widely circulated English-language newspaper reports on the deadlock at the NPT conference after week one. http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/09/top11.htm

The UN General Assembly adopted a treaty in April 2005 on nuclear terrorism.http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13962&Cr=terror&Cr1=

The American Society of International Law published an article in February 2005 on the legal issues surrounding U.S. research on new nuclear weapons. http://www.asil.org/insights/2005/02/insight050217.html

For a good archive of recent news stories dealing with nuclear non-proliferation, see: http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/archives/nuclear-weapons.htm#nucle

The Arms Control Association has fact sheets on nuclear non-proliferation at the following:http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/#Nuclear.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s “Nuclear Files Project” is a website devoted to the history of the Nuclear Age. It provides background information, analysis and access to primary documents. http://www.nuclearfiles.org/index.html

The Federation of American Scientists is the oldest organization dedicated to ending the worldwide arms race and avoiding the use of nuclear weapons for any purpose. The portion of their web site on nuclear weapons has recent reports on nuclear weapons in the 21st century. http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

The Institute for Science and International Security is a non-profit, non-partisan institution dedicated to informing the public about science

and policy issues affecting international security. Among other goals, they attempt to bring greater transparency to nuclear activities worldwide: http://www.isis-online.org/

The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) began in January 2001 with a mission to reduce the risk of use, and preventing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. http://www.nti.org/

The International Security Studies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies provides a variety of research papers dealing with nuclear weapons: http://www.csis.org/isp/index.htm

The Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California provides information and analysis to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction. http://cns.miis.edu/

For a summary of the events and reports released in the lead-up to the NPT Review Conference, check out the site of the British American Security Information Council at: http://www.basicint.org/update/NPT050329.htm

In-Depth

13

Additional News & Organization Links

A nuclear weapons test in 1951. Photo: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

My Future

From the Frontlines

14

Student Essay

America Must Lead the World in Nuclear Disarmament by Emma Thompsell

Mr. President, senators and the American people: I am speaking today to urge you all to make a firm commitment to nuclear disarmament. I speak on behalf of the youth of the world and for the children and generations to come.

Mr. President, I am 16. You were 16 in 1962. That was the year when the world held its breath. You must have felt then something of the fear felt around the globe as the world teetered on the brink of annihilation as President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khrushchev locked horns over the Cuban Missile crisis. Perhaps like many others you would have gone to bed genuinely uncertain whether or not you would live until tomorrow. Somehow the moment of maximum danger passed and people breathed again. But is the relative peace that we in the Western world enjoy today really any less fragile?

The current nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan increases a thousand times over the dangers in that part of the world. But this is by no means the only nuclear tension. The world is a much riskier place with nuclear weapons. It is up to America, as the world’s most powerful nation, to show that its political and military pre-eminence is matched by moral leadership. America must lead the world in nuclear disarmament.

There are at least three main reasons why nuclear disarmament is essential. First, we should do this. The use, or threat of use, of nuclear arms is immoral. Secondly, we’d better do this. It is crazy to fill the world with nuclear material that can fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states. Thirdly, we promised we would. Existing obligations must be fulfilled. Let me say more about each of these points.

Firstly, nuclear weapons are immoral because they are weapons of mass murder. They do not distinguish between armed forces and civilians. It is immoral for the security of any country to be based on the threat of global annihilation. In a world of scarce resources it is immoral to have nuclear weapons at such great economic cost especially when, even in the U.S., one in six children live in poverty. As Eisenhower once said, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Every year the U.S. spends tens of billions of dollars on nuclear weapons, and dealing with nuclear waste generated by these weapons. In comparison, just $5.6 billion could educate every child in the world. And what does all this money buy? Because it is generally unthinkable to use nuclear weapons, all we have bought is a false sense of security and a false sense of national pride –like an adolescent boy who gets himself a gun to look tough–and to feel big. America does not need a gun to look big.

My Future

Secondly, the elimination of nuclear arms would reduce the likelihood of other less responsible nations developing nuclear weapons. The Cold War era also showed that a nuclear arms race creates and exacerbates rivalries and hostilities. If those states with nuclear capabilities claim that their nuclear weapons are defensive, it is only reasonable that rogue states with less powerful supplies of conventional weapons would want nuclear arsenals.

During the Cold War, there was an argument that nuclear weapons could increase our security as the threat of “mutually assured destruction” would deter any attack. Whatever merits this argument held in the past have now passed. The threat today is not a foreign invader, it is the terrorist. A nuclear arsenal is useless against terrorists. The elimination of nuclear weapons would also destroy the threat of terrorist networks gaining nuclear capabilities. Nuclear weapons and production sites are vulnerable. For example, Russia lost substantial amounts of nuclear materials after the breakdown of the Soviet Union. The risks of maintaining nuclear arms are simply not balanced by any increase in security from possessing these weapons.

Thirdly, America should honor its existing agreements. In the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT), opened for signature in 1968, the non-nuclear nations promised that they would not gain nuclear weapons. In return, the states with nuclear weapons agreed 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….” States parties further agreed in 1995 to continue the treaty indefinitely with the nuclear weapons states agreeing to “a determined pursuit… of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons ….” If the U.S. ignores these

commitments, we demonstrate to the world contempt for international treaties. How then can we expect other states to observe international law? Similarly, how can America lecture others on possessing “weapons of mass destruction” when we are a world leader in stockpiling them?

Mr. President, senators, citizens. I hope that in these few minutes I have convinced you that it is our moral and legal duty, as well as in our best interest, to rid the world of nuclear weapons. But why should America take the lead? The U.S. and Russia have more nuclear weapons than any other country. Therefore, it is up to these countries to lead in disarmament. Russia has already signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, while Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, has called for disarmament talks to resume as soon as possible. The time has come for the United States to take up the baton of disarmament. It is an historic opportunity. With the Cold War ended, nuclear weapons are obsolete. If America acts, the world will follow.

What I propose is not an impossible dream. Already, treaties signed by southern hemisphere states have been successful in keeping the Global South nuclear free. We can dare-we must dare -to imagine a world where the threat of nuclear destruction is lifted, where children can go to bed knowing that there will be a world for them to wake up to.

[This essay is adapted from the winning essay of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2004 Swackhamer Peace Essay Contest. For the full text of this essay, with references and footnotes, go to:http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/programs/awards-&-contests/swack-contest/2004-winners.htm]

From the Frontlines

15

Viewpoints

From the Frontlines

16

American Friends Service Committee

Reports about the dangers of nuclear weapons proliferation increasingly dominate the daily news. We are barraged with press reports on the dangers of nuclear weapons falling into “irresponsible hands,” warned that we need to face “the North Korean challenge,” and told that it is time for “military rumblings on Iran.”

Unaware of the sixty-year history of U.S.

use and threatened use of nuclear weapons, the media is easily manipulated. Blinded by the media’s focus on so-called “rogue states,” and the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of non-state terrorists, few in the U.S. are aware of the world’s growing anger over U.S. double standards and hypocrisy. These are among the primary forces driving nuclear weapons proliferation and which threaten to derail the May 2005 7th Review Conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The NPT was one of the seminal bargains of the 20th century. Non-nuclear weapons states foreswore developing and obtaining nuclear weapons in exchange for the nuclear powers agreeing in Article VI to negotiate the complete elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The UN General Assembly and the World Court have both called for the nuclear powers to adhere to their commitments. At the last NPT Review Conference in 2000, under pressure from the non-nuclear nations, the nuclear powers agreed to take 13 “practical steps” toward implementing Article VI. Among these were ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, halting production of weapons-grade nuclear materials, and more.

The U.S. has since refused to ratify the CTBT, abrogated the ABM, and continues to develop new nuclear weapons. The G.W. Bush Administration has demanded that diplomacy focus on tightening provisions to prevent proliferation, while giving

short shrift to global expectations that the U.S. and other nuclear powers be held accountable.

Continued U.S. pursuit of nuclear superiority will spawn further nuclear proliferation. Since 1945, every U.S. president—with the possible exception of Gerald Ford—has prepared and/or threatened to initiate nuclear war. The response was that Russia, China, France, Israel, India, and Pakistan went nuclear, as North Korea and Iran may be doing. No nation will long tolerate an unjust imbalance of power.

The world community is struggling to prevent the collapse of the non-proliferation regime and the nuclear anarchy that is likely to follow. One of the most constructive ideas comes from Mexico, which has urged building on the model of the Land Mines Treaty. Under this option, nations advocating nuclear weapons free zones and other willing states would negotiate a nuclear weapons abolition treaty, leaving nuclear weapons states who fail to join them in moral isolation.

We cannot rely on governments to ensure human survival. People’s power, practiced in the streets, in the halls of Congress, and in our communities, halted nuclear weapons testing and its deadly fallout. The Nuclear Freeze movement of the 1980s forced President Reagan to engage in arms control negotiations which led to the end of the Cold War. Humanity faces a stark choice: abolition or proliferation and nuclear holocaust. There is no “third way.” The fate of the earth lies in what each of us chooses to do.

Dr. Joseph Gerson, Director of ProgramsAmerican Friends Service Committee www.afsc.org

Viewpoints

From the Frontlines

16

Viewpoints

commitments to be made by the nuclear weapons states. Among others, these include calls for the nuclear weapons states to commit to total nuclear disarmament and good faith negotiations; to a timeframe; to no first use; to a verifiable ban on fissile materials; and to better accounting, transparency and reporting. With some 440 nuclear reactors in 31 countries, the Foundation also calls upon all states currently capable of producing highly enriched uranium and plutonium to commit, among others, to a global ban on spent fuel reprocessing; to bring nuclear facilities under strict international control; and to highly restrict the trade of all nuclear materials and technology.

The global community is at a fork in the road where nuclear weapons are concerned. Negotiated and verifiable solutions to the proliferation issues the world faces today can be achieved, but not without the nuclear weapons states demonstrating the political will to meet their own obligations. The less nuclear weapons there are in the world, and the tighter the international controls on them, the fewer possibilities will exist for proliferation. Alternatively, the more extensive the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the more difficult it will be to successfully eliminate nuclear arsenals.

The world’s citizens face serious nuclear

dangers. This critical issue for global security cannot be left solely in the hands of governments. Ultimately, it is up to the citizens in the nuclear weapons states, particularly in the U.S., to hold their governments accountable and to urge elected officials and decision makers to establish policies that will reduce and eliminate the nuclear threat.

Carah Ong, Advocacy and Research Director Nuclear Age Peace Foundationwww.wagingpeace.org

From the Frontlines

17

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

The five nuclear weapons states recognized under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States) have long tried to maintain exclusivity in their possession of nuclear weapons. Over time, this stance has enhanced the perception that nuclear weapons are a source of power and prestige. The continued possession of nuclear weapons by these states has demonstrated that even the most economically and militarily powerful nations rely upon nuclear weapons for security.

In order to counter the perceived power of nu-clear weapons states, acquiring such weapons has become the goal of a number of other countries and extremist groups. The rapid spread of infor-mation, the increased ability to access it, as well as growing scientific expertise and technical capac-ity has made it easier than ever before to build a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, it has become easier to obtain fissile material from hundreds of poorly guarded nuclear sites throughout the world. Despite these new and uncertain developments, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the non-proliferation and disarmament regimes in general are under threat of unraveling.

At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the parties to the treaty adopted by consensus a final document that contained 13 practical steps for nu-clear disarmament. Among others, this document called on nuclear weapons states to take steps to achieve nuclear disarmament, including the dismantling and destruction of weapons. Because these states have shown little inclination to meet their commitments, it sets a dangerous precedent for further proliferation by other states.

In a new briefing booklet entitled “Back to Ba-sics: Reviving Nuclear Disarmament in the Non-Proliferation Regime,” the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation calls for eight interlinking

ViewpointsFrom the Frontlines

17

Viewpoints

From the Frontlines

18

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Whatever the outcome at the 2005 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in May 2005, the United States will still need to take drastic action to shore up the crisis of confidence in the treaty. For over thirty-five years, the NPT has ensured that the numbers of states that possess nuclear weapons are limited to a handful. Today, there is less confidence that this is the case.

The United States is the mainstay of the NPT, and its support for the treaty is integral to its continued relevance. Unfortunately, the G.W. Bush Administration has not taken the necessary lead to ensure that this vital treaty, often referred to as a cornerstone of U.S. security, remains viable. In emphasizing independent efforts that sometimes run contrary to the spirit of the treaty, the U.S. has missed a golden opportunity to strengthen the NPT. Instead of using the time leading up to the review conference to ensure a substantive outcome, President Bush has focused on violations by states pursuing nuclear weapons.

The U.S. government has also been keen to avoid taking the blame for failure. However, its efforts to develop new nuclear weapons, as well as to revitalize its current arsenal, has sent the message to non-nuclear weapons states that the U.S. has no serious intention of honoring its disarmament commitments under the treaty. In this situation, other non-nuclear states also have little incentive to honor their own commitments not to develop nuclear weapons.

The NPT regime has received a series of body blows beginning with the 1991 discovery that Iraq was only months away from making a nuclear bomb. Then there is the case of North Korea, which has withdrawn from the NPT, but has the capability to make, and has possibly begun making, nuclear weapons. A further area of concern is the nuclear black market run by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, which operated for

years without being detected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). With these developments, non-weapon state members are increasingly unconvinced that they are being protected.

This is not to say that the treaty is without value. Historically, the treaty has been an important bulwark against nuclear proliferation, and the IAEA proved its merit with its correct assessment that Iraq had not reconstituted its nuclear program, even if the Bush Administration did not accept this view.

Although the NPT is in grave danger, there is still opportunity to preserve the regime in the aftermath of the review conference. A solution for the North Korean problem would help to at least temporarily ensure the treaty’s survival. The United States must contrive a negotiating position that will bring the North Koreans into detailed negotiations, whether in the six-power framework or bilaterally.

In the longer term, the United States needs to make it clear that it is serious about its commitment to reduce its nuclear arsenal by abandoning plans to develop new nuclear weapons and to resume nuclear testing. Active U.S. support for the NPT, both during the conference and, as importantly, beyond, can help reinvigorate this embattled treaty.

Guy Stevens, Chief Operating OfficerCenter for Arms Control and Non-Proliferationwww.armscontrolcenter.org

Viewpoints

From the Frontlines

18

Global Resource Action Center for the Environment

In the early 1990s, the world breathed a sigh of relief when the constant threat of a nuclear world war, instigated by the brinksmanship of the U.S. and Russian superpowers, diminished. It took almost a decade after the Cold War, however, for public sentiment to realize that the threat of a bi-polar nuclear conflagration was giving way to a murkier, scarier future with an increasing number of states either seeking or developing their own nuclear weapons programs. Additionally, failed states seem willing and capable of unleashing weapons of mass destruction.

As a good barometer of changes in public attitudes, a March 2005 poll by the Associated Press found that 52 percent of Americans now think that a nuclear attack by one country against another is somewhat or very likely in the next 5 years. A similar 53 percent think a nuclear attack by terrorists is likely over the same period. The same poll found that two-thirds of Americans say that no nation should have nuclear weapons.

Despite public sentiment opposing the development and/or use of nuclear weapons, global nonproliferation cannot succeed when countries like the U.S. use the threat of proliferation to manipulate public fear, while modernizing its own nuclear arsenal and asserting the right to use nuclear weapons preemptively. For example, in a March 15, 2005 memo titled “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations,” the U.S. Joint Chiefs provided guidelines for allowing regional commanders to request approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against perceived threats of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies. With such threats being made, it would be no surprise for other countries to follow suit.

During May 2005, world leaders have been meeting at the United Nations to discuss the future of the ailing Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Should this conference end in stalemate, a

broad coalition of non-governmental organizations is expected to promote an international gathering to settle on an abolition process outside of the NPT framework. A similar process initiated by the Canadian government at an international conference in Ottawa (the so-called “Ottawa process”) resulted in a global treaty banning landmines that has since been signed by 122 nations. There are promising developments that such an “extra-NPT” process may bear fruit with respect to nuclear weapons.

In India, a new Congress government is revising the Rajiv Gandhi plan for nuclear disarmament. If India were to take the lead on a “Delhi process,” there are indications that Pakistan would be willing to explore ways out of a nuclear arms race. Both countries have agreed in principle to a nuclear weapons free zone in South Asia.

While a future free of nuclear weapons may seem a distant goal, it is achievable with the dedication of thoughtful citizens. On May 1st, in a massive demonstration of popular sentiment, thousands of people from around the world joined the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to demand that negotiations begin on a treaty to phase-out all nuclear weapons by the year 2020. If popular will could be brought to bear on international political agendas, complete nuclear abolition could be achieved in our lifetime.

Chris Cooper, Public Relations DirectorGRACE (Global Resource Action Center for the Environment)http://www.gracelinks.org/

Viewpoints From the Frontlines

19

ViewpointsFrom the Frontlines

19

Get Involved!

Make a Difference!

20

What Can You Do?

Get Involved with OneWorld Partners Working on Nuclear Non-Proliferation &

Disarmament!

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has a campaign on nuclear issues for U.S. citizens called Turn the Tide. The site gives American citizens the power to chart a new course for U.S. nuclear policy by taking action to encourage elected officials to establish policies that will reduce and eliminate the nuclear threat. http://www.chartinganewcourse.org/

Are you a teacher or student looking for resources? The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has produced a student handbook called A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste: A Guide to the Demilitarization of America’s Youth & Students. The guide includes information on how students can oppose a culture of militarism and offers organizing tools and success stories. The main youth page offers a series of exercises that aim to draw the next generation into the discussion about nuclear weapons. http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/programs/youth-outreach/index.htm

A coalition of arms control groups has established the “Abolition Now!” campaign; their web site includes a list of 10 things that you can do to support the call for nuclear abolition. http://www.abolitionnow.org/tenthings.html

Looking for something different to do on the weekend? Join a Citizens Weapons Inspection Team! The Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) has a project devoted to nuclear abolition, including how you can get involved in opposing nuclear waste, nuclear power, and nuclear weapons. More information is at: http://www.gracelinks.org/

The mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are organizing a “Mayors for Peace Emergency Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons” and are enrolling Mayors all over the world to join the call for the total elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020. Find out how you can enroll your Mayor in this campaign. http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/sunflower/2005/04_sunflower.htm#3a

August 6 and 9, 2005 mark the 60th anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States. Get information on August rallies in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Tennessee. Or, organize a candlelight vigil at your own city hall! Check out the details at http://www.abolitionnow.org/augustactions.html

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization that seeks the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons as a significant tool of U.S. national security policy. Besides in-depth research on legislation related to nuclear weapons, the Center provides concise and usable material to Members of Congress and their staff, and provides them with access to policy

experts. To donate to this work, see: https://donations.clw.org/cacnp.asp

The lobbying arm of the Center for Arms Control is a group called the Council for a Livable World, a political lobby that endorses political candidates. Halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction is one of their key goals. Get more information at: http://www.clw.org

Greenpeace is an international OneWorld partner that works to abolish nuclear weapons and advocates against nuclear power, reprocessing, and waste dumping. Check out the “Get Involved” part of their web site to become a Cyberactivist, or join their Action Forum. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

Support Greenpeace and get a complimentary set of “Whose Got Nukes” playing cards—an educational resource on the number of nuclear weapons globally. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/if-you-ve-got-nuclear-weapons

The American Friends Service Committee has programs in Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, California, Pennsylvania, and Vermont that address nuclear weapons. Among others, activities include peace education and conflict resolution programs. If you live in these states, check out: http://www.afsc.org/issues/program.php?id=365

This black stone monolith marks the hypo-center of the atomic bomb that destroyed Nagasaki. At 11:02 a.m., August 9, 1945 “Fat Man” exploded 500 meters above this spot.

Phot

o: N

ucle

ar A

ge P

eace

Fou

ndai

ton

The “Get Involved” section of OneWorld’s website offers myriad opportunities to make a difference on important global

issues, including nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

http://us.oneworld.net/article/archive/2331/

Click here to receive a free issue of OneWorld Perspectives

every 6 weeks!

Get Involved! Make a Difference!

21

Speak Up!Make a Difference!

22

What Do You Think?

OneWorld U.S. thanks you for your time, interest, and commitment!

Your feedback is welcome and encouraged! Comments may be directed to: useditors@oneworld.net. After review, we will post selected comments to the “Speak

Up” page on OneWorld Perspectives. Due to time and space considerations, we cannot guarantee that every response will be posted, but priority will be given to those

comments that offer insightful viewpoints on the nuclear weapons debate.

Here's some “food for thought” on the role of nuclear weapons in our world:

Would a failure of the NPT conference be disas-trous, unfortunate, or not matter?

Do you think that nuclear disarmament and further non-proliferation of nuclear weapons have to be related? Or, can one happen without the other?

Who is really to blame for the impasse over nuclear weapons, “rogue countries”, or the nuclear weapons states themselves?

Do you think countries are cooperating enough to better monitor and control the spread of nuclear weapons?

Is complete disarmament possible? If not, what interim steps might make a difference?

How can public pressure on this issue make a stronger impact? And, what can NGOs do to be more effective?

Can progress on eliminating nuclear weapons be made when the double standards inherent in inter-national treaties on this topic still exist?

Do nearly 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world make you feel more secure? If not, how do you define global security?

United Nations Headquarters in New York is the site of the 7th Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which takes place in May 2005

Phot

o:U

nite

d N

atio

ns/D

PI