Late Night Thoughts on NPT Prep Com

By Gunnar Westberg, M.D.

I will not summarize the conference; this has been done very well by John Loretz.

After a conference which has not been a big success – which a PrepCom can never be - I tend to ruminate on the question: How to do it better next time. And in this case, even more the next next time, the NPT Review Conference in New York April 26 to May 21 2010, the event when the treaty shall be re-evaluated and the direction to a world free of nuclear weapons shall be decided.

For us, I see three most important tasks up till then: To make the Nuclear Weapons Convention a centrepiece of the NPT process; to promote some of the ideas of the “Gang of Four”; to make the 13 steps from the NPT Rev in 2000 practical reality.

We should decide during the fall 2008 how to make our priorities.

NWC and the Blue Book “Securing our Survival”. We have tried to make the convention recognized with relatively little success. Few diplomats have read it, most have not even looked into it. Up until the next NPT PrepCom May 4-14 2009 in New York it should be a priority to get as many diplomats and their advisers as possible to read at least parts of the book. We shall also ask them to offer their criticism of the content and to tell us why “it won’t work”. Maybe the critics are right: The time has not come. If so, when? And why?

Probably we will find that the NWC is the right tool and the time is right. If so, we should concentrate on getting it discussed as much as possible within the U.N. and at the NPT PrepCom.

The “Gang of Four” proposals (anyone found a better name yet?). The four Grey Eminences have now received the support of a large majority of the still living former Secretaries of State, National Security Advisers and Secretaries of defense. And the support from Barack Obama. Indeed remarkable, considering they are explicitly demanding that for the security of the USA all nuclear weapons shall be abolished. They have also got an organization to work for them, the Nuclear Threat Initiative and with that the support of Ted Turner. They are spreading the message world wide. Great!

We shall be shouting our Hurrahs, but keep our fingers crossed. This idea may have arrived too late. Ten years ago Russia would probably have agreed, today this is more uncertain. Put yourself in the place of the Russian generals: “In a world without nuclear weapons the USA will reign supreme. If the US demands access to our Russian oil, gas and minerals on their conditions and at their price, how can we stop them? The Red Army is in disarray, the only weapons we can trust are nukes”. I am concerned that Russia will make heavy demands requesting both a decrease in the US non-nuclear forces and serious commitments and non-aggression treaties. Will the new US administration see how important the issue is and accept compromises?

Let’s hope, and support. Every peace group will do the same. But the basic flaw in the approach of these statesmen is obvious: They speak primarily for the security of the US. We speak for the security of the world.

The Thirteen steps from NPT Review 2000 are what the diplomats in the Non-nuclear weapon states are likely to go for. Here are many chances to build alliances and try different approaches. IPPNW should not devote too much energy to the details, that is not our strength. We should keep reminding the nuclear weapon states of their solemn pledges to work for a nuclear weapons free world. A CTBT, a Fissile material treaty is just a tool, a condition to be met, on that road.

In the fall of 2008 we should agree on our strategy for NPT Rev 2010. We should make plans to meet with Foreign Office diplomats in many countries, before both the 2009 Prep and 2010 NPT Rev, with a concise agenda and plans for follow up. We need the support from the Central Office to encourage and keep track of these activities.

Gunnar Westberg

A Treaty to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

By Lawrence S. Wittner

Although few people are aware of it, there has been considerable progress over the past decade toward a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons.

For many years, there had been a substantial gap between the pledges to eliminate nuclear weapons made by the signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 and the reality of their behaviour.

To remedy this situation, in 1996 the New York-based Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy - the U.S. affiliate of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms - began to coordinate the drafting of a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention. Formulated along the lines of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force in 1997, this model nuclear convention was designed to serve as an international treaty that prohibits and eliminates nuclear weapons.

Although the late 1990s proved a difficult time for nuclear arms control and disarmament measures, the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, joined by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the International Network of Engineers Against Proliferation, continued its efforts. Consequently, in 2007, these organizations released a new model treaty, revised to reflect changes in world conditions, as well as an explanatory book, Securing Our Survival.

In 1997, like its predecessor, this updated convention for nuclear abolition was circulated within the United Nations, this time at the request of Costa Rica and Malaysia. In addition, it was presented at a number of international conclaves, including a March 2008 meeting of non-nuclear governments in Dublin, sponsored by the Middle Powers Initiative and by the government of Ireland.

Although the Western nuclear weapons states and Russia have opposed a nuclear abolition treaty, the idea has begun to gain traction. The Wall Street Journal op-eds by George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn have once again placed nuclear abolition on the political agenda. Speaking in February 2008, the U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Sergio Duarte, condemned the great powers’ “refusal to negotiate or discuss even the outlines of a nuclear-weapons convention” as “contrary to the cause of disarmament. ” Opinion surveys have reported widespread popular support for nuclear abolition in numerous nations-including the United States, where about 70 percent of respondents back the signing of an international treaty to reduce and eliminate all nuclear weapons.

Of course, it’s only fair to ask if there really exists the political will to bring such a treaty to fruition. Although Barack Obama has endorsed the goal of nuclear abolition, neither of his current opponents for the U.S. presidency has followed his example or seems likely to do so. John McCain is a thoroughgoing hawk, while Hillary Clinton-though publicly supporting some degree of nuclear weapons reduction-has recently issued the kind of “massive retaliation” threats unheard of since the days of John Foster Dulles.

Furthermore, the American public is remarkably ignorant of nuclear realities. Writing in the Foreword to a recent book, Nuclear Disorder or Cooperative Security, published by the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, the Western States Legal Foundation, and the Reaching Critical Will project of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (www.wmdreport.org), Zia Mian, a Princeton physicist, points to a number of disturbing facts about contemporary U.S. public opinion. For example, more Americans (55%) mistakenly believe that Iran has nuclear weapons than know that Britain (52%), India (51%), Israel (48%), and France (38%) actually have these weapons.

Although the United States possesses over 5,700 operationally deployed nuclear warheads, more than half of U.S. respondents to an opinion survey thought that the number was 200 weapons or fewer. Thus, even though most Americans have displayed a healthy distaste for nuclear weapons and nuclear war, their ability to separate fact from fiction might well be questioned when it comes to nuclear issues.

Fortunately, there are many organisations working to better educate the public on nuclear dangers. In addition to the groups already mentioned, these include Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Federation of American Scientists, Faithful Security, and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. And important knowledge can also be gleaned from that venerable source of nuclear expertise, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

But there remains a considerable distance to go before a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons becomes international law.

The History News Network: www.hnn.us/articles/49891.html

Dr. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book, co-edited with Glen H. Stassen, is Peace Action: Past, Present, and Future (Paradigm Publishers).

IPPNW, ICAN bring abolition message to NPT PrepCom

By John Loretz

When nuclear weapon states give themselves credit for dismantling aging and outdated strategic weapons, while maintaining silence about their investments in programs to build 21st century arsenals, what are non-nuclear-weapon states to think?

Do non-nuclear -weapon states have an obligation to uphold their end of the bargain under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), whether or not the nuclear-weapon states ever make good on their own commitments?

Can global expansion of the nuclear energy industry take place without jeopardizing the entire non-proliferation regime?

When will the promise of the NPT be fulfilled through the negotiation and adoption of a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) to abolish the only weapons capable of destroying humanity?

These questions [see answers below], among others, were raised loudly by IPPNW and representatives of more than 60 other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who participated in the second Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2010 NPT Review Conference in Geneva.

More than a dozen doctors, medical students, and staff guaranteed a strong IPPNW presence at the PrepCom, promoting the Convention among diplomats and other NGOs, attending ICAN workshops, organizing a “Nuclear Weapon Free – My Cuppa Tea” event, and taking part in a simulation game to negotiate an NWC. Former co-president Gunnar Westberg presented an IPPNW paper on the climate effects of regional nuclear war, during a formal NGO session in the PrepCom assembly hall.

Unlike the failed 2005 Review and the 2007 PrepCom, where procedural wrangling effectively prevented substantive discussion, many state delegations openly pressed the nuclear weapon states to make deeper, faster, and more permanent cuts in their arsenals, while insisting that the non-proliferation terms of the Treaty (Articles I and II) must go hand-in-hand with disarmament (Article VI).

The not-so-hidden agenda of nuclear energy supplier states—led most aggressively by Russia and the US—to use the Treaty as a staging ground for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and the development of multinational uranium enrichment centers was even more apparent at this PrepCom than it was a year ago in Vienna. The beleaguered US-India nuclear technology deal, which seriously undermines the non-proliferation goals of the NPT, became a focal point of across-the-board NGO opposition to the so-called peaceful uses of nuclear energy enshrined in Article IV.

Nevertheless, this was a PrepCom that ended without substantive decisions or official recommendations. Any hopes for a positive outcome in 2010 now hinge on the decisions made at the 2009 PrepCom in New York.

Click here to download a full PrepCom report, including the text of Dr. Westberg’s presentation

[ANSWER KEY: 1) What else can they think? The nuclear weapon states are far from compliance with Article VI. 2) Yes. But can anyone wonder why they are losing patience with the double standard? 3) No. 4) As soon as civil society demands it loudly and effectively enough.]

Perscriptions for Survival - 9/25 thru 9/27

How worried are you about the fate of our planet? Climate change, wars, toxins in the environment threaten our health and the health of generations to come. Nuclear weapons, the ultimate catastrophe, are still with us. This conference will help you learn about the connections between health and the environment and look for potential solutions. We will examine the health effects of human rights violations, climate change, chemical waste, war, energy and resource depletion, economic policies, the ‘built environment’ and ‘greening’ of hospitals. Many of these issues have major consequences for basic human health and even survival hence the title: “Prescriptions for Survival”.

Objectives and specific outcomes:

1. To offer reliable, unbiased, user-friendly information such that participants can appreciate the interconnections between major issues of environment and militarism and their effects on health.
2. To support medical residents/students/fellows, our future physician leaders, and give them the tools they will need to communicate this knowledge to the broader public.
3. To promote land-use planning and ‘built environments’ that support active, healthy lifestyles and improve community and environmental health.
4. To renew public outrage that nuclear weapons are not only the ultimate weapon of war, but also can cause unfathomable environmental effects. Medical students are planning a “Target X” and soup kitchen campaign to coincide with this conference as a public awareness tool.
5. To reconnect the larger medical community to the fact that nuclear weapons are a public health concern and hence draw attention to ways of nuclear war prevention.
6. To recognize that climate change, sometimes described as a ‘threat multiplier’, is also a public health concern and look at ways of mitigating and adapting to these impacts.
7. To produce, as a result of the conference activities, some ‘prescriptions for survival’ for future use, which will be in the form of a conference report summarizing the key learnings.
8. To inspire and inform doctors and medical students to be more involved in their local communities and in the global village.

Contact Information
Andrea Levy, Physicians for Global Survival (Canada) national office
208-145 Spruce St., Ottawa, ON., K1R 6P1,
Phone: (613) 233-1982 Fax (613) 233-9028 Email: pgsadmin@web.ca
Nancy Covington, Halifax
Phone: (902) 479-3953 Email: nancy.covington@ns.sympatico.ca
Conference Web Site
Physicians for Global Survival (Canada) http://www.pgs.ca/

Nuclear “Famine” Workshop

Nuclear “Famine” Workshop – Lead by Dr. Ira Helfand, PSR USA

There are two objectives for the workshop: 1) Show the draft slideshow for critique and input and 2) Present several areas for additional research.

Dr. Helfand presented the purpose of the workshop and asked that people provide feedback on the slideshow and the research agenda. The goal is to make changes to the powerpoint presentation and then make it available for affiliates to use in educating about the issue. A special point should be made that this research could be an important piece of the ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) campaign as the research shows that even a regional, limited nuclear exchange could kill over a billion people from agricultural disruption and essentially end life as we know it!

Regarding the research part, the climate effects of the research have been well established and are considered quite rigorous. It is important to know that the original work by Robock and Toon (and others) about Nuclear Winter was well studied in the 1980s. This new work included 2 separate models which now takes into account more levels of the atmosphere and the oceans in the models. The work presented here in the workshop was confirmed in the two different simulations. There are six other models which have yet to be run, and if anyone has access to these models, it would be good to confirm the results with them, too.  The health effects of Ira’s paper are more speculative and although based on historical experience, are harder to work out. It is in this area that we hope we can further the research to strengthen the paper for eventual publication in a journal like Lancet.

Nuclear weapons obvious inflict serious harm to those directly targeted. The bomb at Hiroshima, although relatively small, killed 150,000 people. It represents only a miniscule portion of the current nuclear arsenals. The heat and explosive effects are well known, but nuclear detonations have important other effects which are distributed more widely. There are two main atmospheric consequences. The burning of cities produces a lot of smoke and this absorbs sunlight. The explosion also kicks up a lot of dust which reflects sunlight: Both of which serve to dim the light and cool the ground temperatures.

The research being presented here is based primarily on work done by Toon and Robock which simulated an exchange of 100 of Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons between India and Pakistan. This was chosen as it represents a probably scenario between two adversaries that have recently fought wars.

In the research, which also recognized the immediate deaths of hundreds of millions of Indians and Pakistan, the climate effects were dramatic. There would be an immediate drop in surface temperatures of 1.5 deg C over days and this effect would be severe for 2-3 years and continue for about a decade. This is the largest amount of cooling ever recorded. The overall warming which has occurred in the last 100 years has only been .75 deg C. The cooling projected by this scenario would bring the average temperature to a point below even the mini-ice age around 1400.

In addition to the cooling, there is a marked reduction in the effective growing season and precipitation around the planet. There are reductions in precipitation of 20-50% in many of the key growing regions of the world. The growing season would be reduced from 10-40 days in the same areas. Other effects reducing consumable agricultural production include decreased light, increased UV radiation due to ozone depletion, and increase toxins and radiation.

These effects parallel the effects of naturally occurring cooling events such as the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland in 1783 which caused widespread famine in China and India, and the Tambora eruption in 1815 which produced “the year without a summer” in 1816.

Both of these occurred in much less populated times and with distribution of smoke and ash which were lower in the atmosphere and which washed out more quickly than that anticipated by the limited nuclear war scenario discussed here.

The agriculture effects of these examples are widespread and lead to famine. However, this is not just due to a decrease in production but also the accessibility of food due to hoarding, prices, etc. Work by Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize winning economist, on the Great Famine of Bengal  clearly outlines this issue. Increased fuel prices would also decrease the availability of fertilizer, pesticides and tractors, further reducing agricultural yields.

The world is currently very dependent on grain production. We are currently at the lowest point of grain reserves for a long time. There are 800 million people which are currently undernourished with daily intake of below 1800-2200 calories (minimum daily requirement).  Another 200 million are borderline. It is not unreasonable to assume that these marginal people would not survive the drastic effects of this limited, regional nuclear war.

This would lead to massive epidemics of disease, wars over resources, etc. killing many more people.

Reaffirming the point made earlier… this means that there are many countries (not just the US and Russia) which have sufficient nuclear weapons to create a global climate catastrophe and the deaths of billions of people. This is a strong argument for complete abolition of nuclear weapons.

The discussion that followed the presentation raised several questions:

1. How do we get this issue into the minds of decision makers? A recommendation was the creation of a 4-6 minute DVD which can be shared. Also inclusion with ICAN materials.
2. Is this a realistic military scenario? Evidence from Pakistan in 1991 was that they were ready to launch all of their nuclear weapons in bombers. Do we need more evidence of the relevance of the scenario described here?
3. Slides are too complicated. This was especially true for the general public, but even some for the physicians. Many slides also need more titling and less smaller text or lots of numbers (e.g., the millimeters of precipitation slide).
4. A participant who was a medical doctor and PhD in Agriculture made some additional comments. This included that the oral presentation in the workshop did not include two other effects: decreased light and genetic effects of radiation (which would generally decrease crop production). However, most of the conclusions seemed reasonable.
5. What is different about these scenarios from the oil fires and volcanoes? I think this was answered above, but the main difference is the height at which the smoke and dust rise. This greatly extends the duration and scope of the effects.
6. Will we be considered as jumping on the climate bandwagon? Ira noted that these conclusions are similar to those widely accepted in the 80s by Sagan, et. al.
7. Does location of the simulation matter? Yes, particularly whether northern or southern hemisphere. This was in South Asia, but the effects quickly become global. We have an animated GIF file which can be used but involves larger number of weapons.
8. The medical system is already overburdened. Wouldn’t this overwhelm the system in a similar manner to the local systems described in our “bombing run” scenarios? Yes, and this is another good point to make.
9. Will these shocking pictures lead to further denial from our audience? Will we get caught in arguing about numbers rather than on substance of the research? This is important to be on the watch for.
10. Need a concise description of the results, similar to an “elevator speech” that can be used to talk to people quickly about.

Ira thanked all the participants for their contributions and promised to take their advice into account and provided an updated PowerPoint presentation with notes attached.

[Support This Work]

Reflections on meeting the President and the Prime Minister of India

It is indeed a sign of the high respect paid to IPPNW by Indian officials that delegations were invited to meet both the President and the Prime Minister of India.

 Meeting with President of India Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil. 

Dr. L.S. Chawla, President of Indian Doctors for Peace and Development introduced us to President Patil at her residence on March 8, and we were also joined by our Co-President Ime John of Nigeria, IPPNW Board Chair Bjorn Hilt of Norway, Tilman Ruff and Ruth Mitchell of Australia, Bob Gould of the United States, Inga Blum of Germany, and IPPNW Executive Director Michael Christ.

The President of India has a mostly symbolic function as an embodiment of the greatness and spirit of the country. 

Originally the intention was that the President should speak at our Inaugural Session. However, the cost of the security around such an arrangement would have been extremely high and the organizers opted for the vice president whose presence required less extensive security.The presidential residence building is enormous. The opulence and magnificence of the rooms and of the guards contrasted with the unpretentious appearance of the President, an elderly Mother of India, a seemingly frail, almost Gandhi-thin woman whom we met. Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil  assumed office as the 12th president of India July 25 2007. She was trained as a lawyer. She was in her early years an excellent table tennis player.During our about 20 minutes of audience with the President Dr Chawla talked about our organisation.  In our presentation we recalled India’s proud tradition of work for international nuclear disarmament. If the USA, when the new administration comes into power, takes action for nuclear disarmament, what would India do? We expressed the hope that India would in cooperation with its neighbors Pakistan and China act for regional nuclear disarmament. After all, we had seen the bust of Mahatma Gandhi in the anteroom. We expected great initiatives from India.The President voiced great appreciation of our movement and said that our work was really for the benefit of all of us. ”All mankind is one family, isn’t that so” said the President. Our question was, as was to be expected, not answered directly.Ruth Mitchell from Australia  congratulated India to its victory over Australia in cricket recently which the President gratefully appreciated.We gave the President a “guidebook” for the path to nuclear disarmament “Draft Model Nuclear Convention” in the hope that this would show that nuclear disarmament is a real possibility. After the meeting we where shown the great beautiful garden behind the palace.        

 Meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

  

On the 10th, we met with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Dr. Chawla again made the introductions of Ime John, Ruth Mitchell, Bob Gould and Inga Blum. This time we were joined by former Canadian Senator Douglas Roche, the Chair of the Middle Powers Initiative, and IPPNW Program Director John Loretz.

The Prime minister of a country of more than one billion inhabitants is of course very busy. It is all the more remarkable  that he set aside more than one quarter of an hour for our delegation. Dr Chawla opened by introducing IPPNW, our history and our Nobel Peace Award.  The PM seemed to be well informed about this. During the meeting he repeatedly expressed his sincere appreciation of our work which he saw as being in line with the work of the India Gov’t. We then described recent developments which give us a hope that initiatives for  nuclear weapons abolition would be taken by USA soon. How would India act if USA and Russia began sincere negotiations for nuclear abolition, aiming for Zero? May we expect that India calls on its neighbors China and Pakistan for possible regional nuclear disarmament? Or would India, in the tradition of Rajiv Gandhi, take any other bold initiatives for nuclear abolition?Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that he had repeated and updated the Rajiv Gandhi plan in his speech in the UN General Assembly two years ago. However, nuclear disarmament would have to be a global process. There was no place for a local, bilateral or regional initiative. China in particular would not be interested, China compares itself with the US, not with India.Senator Douglas Roche tried, using his diplomatic experience, to reformulate the question in several ways. However, the response was clear and unwavering:  We are not to expect any initiative from India other  than cooperation in a global disarmament process. “But how long would India wait? Until the US and Russia came down to the same number of nuclear weapons as India?” This was a rather academic question said the PM. We gave our host a copy of the Model Nuclear Convention and some other documents. He promised to study the convention (and his aides started immediately, we saw) and again expressed his appreciation of our work. The tenor of the discussion was polite and friendly.From the meeting with the President we got what we hoped for: Respect and recognition. Personally I was somewhat disappointed by the meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He was well informed of recent developments in USA and UK which opened an opportunity for initiatives for nuclear disarmament. He had no intention to take any initiative to use that opportunity. This is likely to be a result of his problems of balancing the domestic political forces. We did not discuss the US-India Nuclear Deal as we knew that there we would have no chance of making any impact, only cause irritation and decreasing our chances for future meetings.

Gunnar Westberg, IPPNW Outgoing Co-President

[Support This Work]

ICAN Update

Global support for ICAN keeps on growing

The World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA) has become an official supporter of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), and has launched “Students for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World” to encourage global youth involvement in nuclear disarmament issues. WFUNA joins the UK’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), Mayors for Peace, Abolition 2000, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), the Nobel Women’s Initiative, and the Mouvement de la Paix in France as global ICAN partners.

ICAN’s roving ambassador Bill Williams visited the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, and France in the closing months of 2007, promoting the campaign among national peace and disarmament organizations. Dr. Williams spoke in St. Gallen to physicians and medical students from all over Switzerland, where the IPPNW affiliate has recently launched a campaign to make Europe nuclear weapons free. In Copenhagen he shared a platform with Mayors For Peace Chair Tadatoshi Akiba and IPPNW Board member Caecilie Buhmann at the ICAN launch in Denmark, where they spoke to an audience of more than 800 high school students.

For news and updates on ICAN activities, and to download campaign materials and other abolition resources, visit www.icanw.org. [Help Make This Work Possible]