|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Nukes |
|
China Upstages US At Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conference |
Current rating: 0 |
by Heather Wokusch
(No verified email address) |
14 Sep 2003
|
|
|
China was the undisputed star of last week's Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT - http://www.ctbto.org) conference in Vienna, leaving Uncle Sam hiding in the wings.
The US has always been somewhat impatient with international non-proliferation agreements. Despite a 1992 self-imposed moratorium, in the past six years the United States has conducted 19 nuclear tests, dismissing them as sub-critical and therefore acceptable.
But the Bush administration has upped the nuclear ante considerably. It plans another sub-critical nuclear test for 2004, and has authorized the nation's weapons labs to resume full-on nuclear testing (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/4530780.htm) with as little as six-months' notice.
And that's bad news for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The UN-sponsored organization was set up in 1996 to ban nuclear-test explosions and to establish a corresponding global monitoring system. But there's a catch - the treaty can't go into effect until all 44 of the nuclear-capable countries that joined in 1996 have ratified it, a prospect looking increasingly unlikely as holdouts point to US intransigence as justification for their own burgeoning nuclear weapons programs.
Take Iran, which as one of the original signatories, permitted five monitoring stations to be built on its soil. In January 2002, soon after the US began withholding funds from the CTBT's on-site inspection program, Iran began withholding monitoring data from the international community, thus rendering its stations useless.
With America pulling back from the CTBT, other countries have been expected to join Iran in withdrawing their support as well. According to Daryl Kimball of the US-based arms Control Association, "The US is risking that possibility, and that may indeed be what the US wants."
After all, Armageddon is big business stateside. The US budget for nuclear-weapon activities in fiscal 2004 tops $6 billion (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_03/nuclearweapons_mar03.asp), over half a billion more than in 2003. Expenditures for nuclear-test readiness alone surged by 39% in the same period, and in a major policy shift, the Bush administration is poised to seek Congressional authorization for "usable" nuclear weapons.
So expectations have been understandably low for the CTBT, which to enter into force must be ratified by the "dirty dozen" holdouts (including the US, Iran, China, North Korea and Israel, among others) from the original group of 44 nuclear-capable signatories. Many predicted the recent conference would produce little more than platitudes and hand-wringing.
Then in walked China.
Rumors had circulated that Beijing may be making a major announcement at the conference. Its diplomatic flurry in hosting recent six-way talks over North Korea's nuclear program suggested a newfound sense of urgency in confronting proliferation, so when China's Ambassador Yan Zhang assumed the podium, the room fell silent.
Zhang began by issuing China's strong support for the CTBT. With a veiled reference to North Korea, he cited "the absence of a sense of security" as a strong motivation for non-proliferation, and then discreetly railed against the US and other countries that have withdrawn CTBT funding by demanding every member state pay "in full and in time."
In a jab at the Bush administration's pre-emptive strike policy, Zhang went on to say members should "unconditionally undertake not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states." He concluded by reaffirming the Chinese government's strong commitment to completing the "ratification procedure ... by an early date."
The impact was profound: cameras flashed and pens raced even though Zhang had not specifically committed to anything new.
Meanwhile, the US observer to the CTBT conference was unavailable for comment because the person had failed to even identify him/herself to anyone.
The upshot: China came off as a responsible, upstanding world citizen and the US came off as a detached oaf.
Not that the Bush administration minds. Its isolationist policies were laid out quite clearly in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR - http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_04/nprapril02.asp), a classified Pentagon document leaked in January 2002. The review recommends beefing up the nation's nuclear weapons program as a way of providing "credible military options to deter a wide range of threats," and goes on to list contingencies in which a US nuclear strike would be justified; examples include "an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbors, a North Korean attack on South Korea, or a military confrontation (with China) over the status of Taiwan."
Pyongyang's response to the NPR was predictable: "Now that the nuclear lunatics are in office in the White House, we are compelled to examine all agreements with the U.S." North Korea then struck down the 1994 Agreed Framework commitment to end its nuclear program.
North Korea admitted to having a secret nuclear weapons program last October, then kicked out UN monitors, and started reprocessing spent fuel rods, a critical component of nuclear weapons. And at the conclusion of recent 6-way talks in Beijing, Pyongyang said it might conduct a nuclear test as early as this month since the US had refused to sign a non-aggression pact.
But it was exactly this nuclear tit-for-tat escalation that the CTBT was set up to discourage.
Admittedly, China has hardly been a non-proliferation role model in the past; its nuclear and missile sales to Iran, Syria, Pakistan and others were dangerous and irresponsible. But Beijing's apparent newfound commitment to end the nuclear arms race can be applauded, and if China actually does ratify the CTBT, pressure will increase on other holdouts to follow suit.
Hopefully, Uncle Sam won't still be hiding in the wings.
Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer. She can be reached via www.heatherwokusch.com |
Comments
|
Usable Nukes? |
by Kevin Martin and Carrie Benzschawel
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Sep 2003
|
Ronald Reagan, nobody's idea of a dove when he took office, came to understand the insanity of the nuclear arms race and stated, "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought."
Yet right now, the Bush Administration is hypocritically pushing for new, more "usable" nuclear weapons. The US invaded and conquered Iraq on "intelligence" about an imminent Iraqi threat of weapons of mass destruction that looks more and more like a big lie every day. President Bush wags his finger at other countries, demanding they end their pursuit of nuclear weapons while the US maintains an arsenal of over 10,000 nuclear warheads and is seeking new types and uses for nuclear weapons.
This "do as we say, not as we do" non-proliferation policy is impossible to reconcile with America's core values and is doomed to failure.
In just a few days, the U.S. Senate will vote on an issue of great importance - the funding and development of Bush's new nukes. The senate's decision could put this country on a perilous road -- a decision to build a new breed of nuclear weapons would likely spark a new global arms race. North Korea and Iran are on the edge of going nuclear, and our government's support of new nuclear weapons could push them over that edge, with other countries to follow.
We've been down this path before. It led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cold War, bomb shelters, the Cuban Missile Crisis, massive instances of thyroid cancer from nuclear testing, widespread fear, and global power structures based on countries' relative ability to unleash apocalypse. At the core of it, this is an issue of survival.
In the next few days, the Senate will take up the issue of funding for a modified nuclear weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, or nuclear bunker buster. This bomb is intended for use against bunkers buried deep within the earth. However, most independent experts say the weapon would not burrow as far underground as advertised and that conventional weapons can do the job if needed.
Funding for a new generation of smaller, low-yield nuclear weapons intended for actual use on the battlefield will also be addressed as part of what's called "advanced concepts." The administration wants to build these new nukes despite the fact that our existing nuclear arsenal is capable of destroying the world a few times over. Proponents of these new types of smaller nuclear weapons like to portray them as precise, surgical, more "usable", with less radioactive fallout and "collateral damage" than the weapons in our current arsenal.
However, the prestigious, non-partisan Federation of American Scientists concluded that the use of low-yield nuclear weapons in urban areas would cause "enormous numbers of civilian casualties".
Furthermore, the Administration seeks funding for a new plutonium production facility to make plutonium pits for new nuclear warheads, and wants to decrease the time necessary to ready the Nevada nuclear test site for full-scale nuclear weapons test explosions, which the US has not conducted since 1992. Observers in Washington fear the president, if re-elected, will seek to resume full-scale nuclear testing, which would surely provoke worldwide outrage such as France experienced when it briefly resumed nuclear testing in the mid-1990s.
Opposition to Bush's plans comes from many quarters, not just peace activists. The independent National Security Advisory Group, consisting of veterans of the national security establishment and chaired by former Secretary of Defense William Perry, issued a report in July advising against these new programs and new nuclear weapons development in general, and advocating further reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
In the words of activist Joanna Macy, we sorely need "a massive outbreak of sanity in this country". Thankfully, there are many Members of Congress who agree. In a rare rebuke to the Bush Administration's national security policies, the House of Representatives stood against the President's request by cutting most of the funding for these new nuclear weapons two months ago. A few principled Senators will offer amendments for similar cuts to these programs in the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.
America's credibility in the international community, particularly on the issue of weapons of mass destruction and ending proliferation, is low enough already. If the Senate doesn't stop Bush's reckless push for new nuclear weapons programs, we will reap a whirlwind with grave consequences.
The U.S. needs a new foreign policy based on international cooperation, support for human rights and democracy, and serious leadership toward wiping the scourge of weapons of mass destruction off the face of the Earth. The Senate can take an important step in the right direction by saying "no" to usable nukes. This vote could tip the balance toward a new arms race or toward an outbreak of sanity.
Kevin Martin is Executive Director of Peace Action, the nation's largest peace and disarmament organization with over 91,000 members. Carrie Benzschawel is Program Associate for Peace Action Education Fund.
http://www.peace-action.org/ |
|
Senate OKs Bush's Nuclear Ambitions |
by Nick Anderson
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Sep 2003
|
WASHINGTON - The Senate on Tuesday approved Bush administration plans to research new battlefield uses for nuclear weapons and improve the United States' capacity to make and test them.
The 53-41 vote to retain funding for the plan, powered by the administration's Republican allies, set up an unusual intraparty fight on Capitol Hill. The GOP-led House voted overwhelmingly in July for legislation that would strip at least $16 million from Bush's nuclear weapons initiatives.
The Senate debate Tuesday centered on whether the administration would be building nuclear bombs anytime soon. Democrats say things are moving rapidly in that direction; Republicans insist the administration's moves are only prudent planning.
The vote came before lawmakers approved a $27.9 billion bill funding the Energy Department and other government programs in the fiscal year that begins next month.
"There's nothing in this bill that produces a single new nuclear weapon," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., whose state is home to critical weapons installations.
But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., insisted otherwise. "This is the beginning," she said. "This money will go to field a new generation of nuclear weapons. We should not do this."
She had proposed an amendment to remove from the energy bill $15 million for research on an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon and $6 million for research on other "advanced concepts," including low-yield bombs.
Federal law for the past decade has prohibited research on such bombs, which carry an explosive force of 5 kilotons or less. But Congress, at the administration's urging, appears to be on the verge of repealing that prohibition. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945 had an estimated yield of 12.5 kilotons.
Feinstein said the research would open the door to a new arms race among nations that see the United States as a superpower seeking to expand its nuclear capabilities. Domenici derided what he called an effort to "put blinders" on U.S. scientists.
The amendment sponsored by Feinstein and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., also would have blocked administration efforts to reduce the amount of time it would need to resume nuclear testing at an underground site in Nevada. Currently, the site requires up to three years before any test could be conducted. The administration wants to cut that timetable in half, even though officials said there were no plans to end a testing moratorium that has been in place since 1992.
The California Democrat also sought to delay long-range plans for the construction of a facility to produce plutonium "pits" -- trigger-like devices that are a key component in modern thermonuclear bombs. Currently, the United States has a limited capacity for building pits at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The administration says it merely wants to match the pit-production capacity of the world's other nuclear powers; critics reply that a new facility is not needed unless the nation wants to embark on a new weapons-building program.
Five Democrats joined 48 Republicans in voting to table, or kill, Feinstein's amendment. They were Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Zell Miller of Georgia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, whose state is a candidate for the new pit-production site.
Backing the amendment were 39 Democrats, Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and independent Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont. All four Senate Democrats who are running for president in 2004 missed the vote: Sens. Bob Graham of Florida, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina. So did Republican Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon and Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois.
The outcome was a victory for the administration. In a statement issued before the vote, the White House said its weapons-related initiatives would "help lay the foundation for transforming the nation's Cold War-era nuclear stockpile into a modern deterrent suited for the 21st century."
The administration had strongly criticized the House bill in July, but refrained at the time from issuing a veto threat. A Republican spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee said the nuclear weapons issue is likely to complicate negotiations over a final Energy Department spending bill.
How Did Your Senators Vote?
Roll Call 349: To prohibit the use of funds for Department of Energy activities relating to the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Advanced Weapons Concepts, modification of the readiness posture of the Nevada Test Site, and the Modern Pit Facility, and to make the amount of funds made available by the prohibition for debt reduction
Yea 53
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Nay 41
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting 6
Edwards (D-NC)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Graham (D-FL)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Smith (R-OR)
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
http://www.bayarea.com |
|
