April 2002

Writing in the March 10, 2002 edition of the Los Angeles Times, defense analyst William Arkin revealed the leaked contents of the Bush Jr. administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that it had just transmitted to Congress on January 8. The Bush Jr. administration has ordered the Pentagon to draw up war plans for the first-use of nuclear weapons against seven states: the so-called “axis of evil”: Iran, Iraq, and North Korea; Libya and Syria; Russia and China, which are nuclear armed. This component of the Bush Jr. NPR incorporates the Clinton administration’s 1997 nuclear war-fighting plans against so-called “rogue states” set forth in Presidential Decision Directive 60. These warmed-over nuclear war plans targeting these five non-nuclear states expressly violate the so-called “negative security assurances” given by the United States as an express condition for the renewal and indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by all of its non-nuclear...

This is a follow-up to PressInfo 148 and 149. Militarisation versus de-militarisation Weapons and ammunition have poured into the Middle East conflict for decades. Those who have earned a profit on the arms exports have argued that it contributed to some kind of balance and to “security” and “stability”. What if we finally used the Middle East tragedy to stop this kind of (self)deception? What if a huge peace-keeping mission had been flown in long ago and, in a no-nonsense manner, had disarmed all sides, set up a security regime together with them and created a Zone of Peace? What if we finally began to look at weapons and other violent means as a major problem (together with the deep-rooted conflicts, of course)? True, we may despair when we see people use weapons and kill each other. But what if we also condemned those private and state interests that profited...

Since the devastating carnage of World War II, a war that left some 50 million people dead, far-sighted individuals have worked for a world in which the force of law will prevail over the law of force. The first step toward realizing this vision was the establishment of the Nuremberg Tribunals to hold leaders of the Axis powers to account for crimes committed under international law. This unprecedented step on the part of the Allied powers was led by the United States. The American Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson, who became the US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, argued in his opening statement: “We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do justice.” Following the trials, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Principles of Nuremberg, principles of individual accountability that were meant to serve...

LONDON – It is all too easy both to understate and to overstate the results of the first round of the French general election. To overstate is to forget that Jean-Marie Le Pen achieved back in 1995 14% of the vote as against his present 16.86%, hardly a mammoth increase. He is still far behind the electoral pull of his Austrian counterpart Jorg Haider and the peripheral position of his National Front party gives it no chance of being a critical element in supporting a government, as does its Danish counterpart the Peoples Party. Yet again is all too easy to understate the significance of his victory over Lionel Jospin. Le Pen is part of a marked trend in European politics. Admittedly Haider seems to be losing support but in many countries rightist candidates with an anti-immigrant tone and policies that underline tough law and order themes are still gaining ground....

This is a follow-up to PressInfo 148. We continue the peace-making analysis with these dimensions: The peace process Negotiation as the only method There has been an emphasis on “getting them to the table”, on negotiations and compromise. When not knowing what to do, call a conference! What if the emphasis had been on dialogues with each party first, based on active listening to their stories, fears and hopes? In other words, deep understanding first, and the development of a minimum of trust and mutual respect. After that there would be talks/conversations and more confidence. And finally, some kinds of negotiations shaped around the core issues as defined by the parties rather than a negotiation agenda set up by external governments that seek simultaneously to promote their own interests in the region? What if the principle of compromise had been scrapped and we had recognised that no side should be...

LONDON – On September 17th President George Bush declared that the capture or death of Osama bin Laden was his prime objective. “I want justice”, he said, “There’s an old poster out West I recall that said, ‘Wanted Dead or Alive.'” He also said that the purpose of going to war in Afghanistan was to “smoke him out”. Almost to the day, seven months later, a new video tape of bin Laden surfaces on the screens of al-Jazeera tv station seemingly suggesting he is still alive. Washington appears almost insouciant. Meanwhile, Afghanistan has been intensively bombed. But no one bothers much to cast aspersions on the reports that more innocent civilians, including many more children, died than they did in the destruction of the World Trade Centre. For sure an odious regime was pushed aside and one that harboured bin Laden, but bin Laden had never been short of hiding...

Watching the horrors on the West Bank and Colin Powell’s predictable “peace” mission failure, I ask myself at least 3 questions: b) How much longer shall it be possible to use methods of conflict “management” that have proven disastrous and contrary to international law in virtually all cases since the end of the Cold War, not the least in the Balkans and, latest, in Afghanistan? How much longer will it be possible to avoid the question: does the U.S., the self-appointed mediator, have the required professional skills, altruistic motives and impartiality required to serve as a genuine mediator? c) Can we learn something constructive from the tragic escalation of violence in the Middle East? In short, I think we need to explore the what ifs. What if all parties had addressed the conflict in a different manner and used another, professional paradigm during the last few decades? Israel’s government uses...

For the project INSTEAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS By the Swedish Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (SLMK) in cooperation with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) Ten years after the so-called end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons are still with us. There is the BMD, the risk of diversion of fissile materials, the fear of nuclearisation of terrorism. The weapons and their means of delivery have become ever more sophisticated. Through base systems, sub-marines, aircraft carriers, the global reach of militarism has intensified. Still, in proportion to the increasing threat all this represents to humankind’s survival as well as to democracy and global development, public debate with visions of a nuclear-free is desperately feeble. Advocates of a nuclear-free world, face immensely powerful governments and military-industrial-scientific structures. We also face the arrogance of power of the roughly 600 individuals (presidents, prime ministers, defence ministers, chiefs of...

LONDON – As Israeli tanks roam at will through Palestinian territory, it is apparent to all but the most blinded that the ability of Yasser Arafat and his people to regain the initiative has never been more circumscribed. No one doubts the power of the Palestinian militants to inflict enormous pain on Israeli civilians. No one should minimise the sheer fear that runs through everyday Israeli family life. Indeed, no one should be surprised if tens of thousands of young highly educated families pack up their bags and join other Israelis in the modern day diasporas of places like the San Francisco Bay area where some 30,000 of them have already built new – and safer – lives. And no one should feign surprise if, among battle hardened veterans of previous Israeli campaigns, the number of peaceniks begins to grow. But the truth is however large the peace movement or...

TFF does not work with the larger Middle East and the Israel-Palestine conflict inside it. But the situation in spring 2002 is so serious that we feel we cannot ignore it on our website. We want to help disseminate information and assist our visitors in understanding and taking action for peace. What you find below – a work in progress by the day – is by no means systematic, comprehensive or impartial. But it offers access to perspectives often left out in mainstream media coverage, including nonviolent options and possible longterm solutions. We will post links, analyses and articles as we find them. So come back soon and read more. Local peace organisations Ariga The Courage to Refuse. Combatants’ letters Neve Shalom-Wahat al-Salam, Oasis of Peace Peace – A Mid-East Dialogue Group Peace Now Yesh Gvul. Supports soldiers who refuse B’Tselem Dor Shalom An Entire Generation Demands Peace Givat Haviva...

What I’m concerned about are those people – of whom I think there are still pretty many – who say: “Yes, war would be terrible. Yes, the Iraqi people have suffered enough. Yes, we ought to do something else. But what can be done instead of war?” I shall address the little nagging feeling: what if this “bad guy” over there actually presents us, in five years or so, with a fait accompli, and he has some weapons with which he can threaten us? It doesn’t matter whether I think he wants to or will be able to, or not. Intellectuals have a duty to also the legitimate concerns of citizens. In addition, let me emphasise that it is never enough to say ‘No to war.! We must also be constructive and answer the question: If not war, then what? We must do so, because there is a problem and...

Bush-Blair must be Indicted for War Crimes by the ICC By Christian P. Scherrer Professor at Hiroshima Peace Institute (HPI) of Hiroshima City University, JapanHead, ECORHPI April 9, 2002 In these hours the Iraqi people become victims of superpower aggression. How could that be justified? In the USA the governments and media propaganda machinery made Saddam the scapegoat for 9-11. We know that this is a big lie. The US government lies when talking of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. There is not a shred of evidence; the Bath party has traditionally tried to uproot Islamist tendencies. Any operational link with al-Qaeda is due to ideological and political incompatibility to be excluded. The US government also maintained that Saddam Hussein possesses what the UN inspectors did not find, but what US-UK stockpile and might even use in case of failing to achieve Iraq’s surrender: weapons of mass destruction. Abuse...