1. The Bush administration has removed North Korea from its terror list.  In exchange for its removal, North Korea has agreed to allow nuclear inspects into its facilities to verify compliance with the agreement produced in the six-party talks.

2. World economic markets continue to be turbulent, as demonstrated by the global market selloffs last week, including the largest single-largest day decline for the U.S. stock market since 1987.  In a move intended to address the crisis, most of the world’s major central banks last week announced simultaneous cuts in inertest rates.  But despite the ongoing financial crisis, the United States remained the most competitive country in the world, topping the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index.  The remaining countries in the top 10: Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Singapore, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada, Hong King, and Britain.

3. Concerns over the continued development of Iran’s nuclear program sparked discussions between the U.S. and its allies last week about imposing sanctions on Iran without the support of the United Nations Security Council.   Action by the Security Council seems unlikely given the strength of objections raised by China and Russia.  The proposed sanctions would be imposed on a voluntary basis and would likely target Iran’s petrol imports and refining sector.

4. The tentative settlement of the crisis in Zimbabwe  reached several weeks ago now appears to be in limbo, as the Mugabe government has unilaterally moved to seize control of key positions within the government of national unity.  Mugabe announced his party, the Zimbabwe African National Union, would control several key ministries, including justice, media, home affairs (police), foreign affairs, defense, local government, and finance.  The opposition parties would be given control of relatively less important ministries, including constitutional affairs, energy, health, labor and social welfare.  No word yet on the response from South Africa, which had mediated the original settlement.

5. In local election results last week, Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) performed above most expectations, nearly capturing a majority of seats in two districts, while the ruling National Action Party (PAN) placed third.  The results suggest that Mexico may be in for a political transformation in its next round of mid-term, scheduled for summer 2009.

6. And in a bonus story for this week, Canada may be the first country to experience a political transition due to the current global economic crisis.  When a snap election was called six weeks ago, Stephen Harper’s ruling Progressive Conservative party had been projected to cruise to victory, perhaps even winning a majority in the parliament.  It now appears that Stéphane Dion’s Liberal Party may be positioned to play spoiler.

IPPNW's Submission to the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly

For more than 45 years, physicians have documented and described the horrifying medical and humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons explosions. We have informed political and military leaders that doctors, hospitals, and other medical infrastructure would be so completely overwhelmed in the event of a nuclear war that we would be unable to respond in any meaningful way to relieve the suffering of survivors or to restore health to a devastated world. We have warned that the unique nature of nuclear weapons — their unprecedented destructive power and the radiation they release, causing cancers, birth defects, and genetic disorders across generations — removes any moral justification for their use as weapons of war and requires their abolition.

This ongoing unprecedented threat to all people and the survival and sustainability of our planet is not only continuing but escalating. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission chaired by Dr Hans Blix noted:

“Over the past decade, there has been a serious and dangerous, loss of momentum and direction in disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.”[1]

Numerous authoritative assessments conclude that the risk use of nuclear weapons is growing. One of the most authoritative is the Board of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, including 18 Nobel Laureates. In moving the hands of the Doomsday Clock from 7 to 5 minutes to midnight in January 2007 they stated:

“Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. North Korea’s recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a renewed US emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a larger failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth.”[2]

International lawyers, physicians, scientists, and other civil society experts have offered a roadmap toward a nuclear-weapons-free world in the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention. The model NWC—a comprehensive framework for global nuclear disarmament in all its aspects—has been a working document of the General Assembly since 1997. Support for a convention has been voiced repeatedly by majorities of UN Member States. A First Committee resolution (A/C.1/62/L.36) adopted last year and supported by 127 Member States called for the commencement of "multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination."[3]

We urge the General Assembly to put this resolution into action by engaging in substantive discussion of the Nuclear Weapons Convention during the 63rd session, and by instructing the Conference on Disarmament and the participants in the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to place the Convention at the center of their deliberations from this point on. Such direction from the General Assembly would recall its first resolution, adopted in 1946 and calling for “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction.” This urgent task not only remains unfulfilled more than 60 years later, but, with regard to nuclear weapons, it has barely begun. Nuclear arms control and disarmament proposals continue to be offered in a piecemeal, disconnected fashion while existing arsenals are "modernized" and new arsenals come into existence. Procedural disputes are used as stalling tactics. For every step forward we seem to take two steps back. The Conference on Disarmament, the world's sole multilateral disarmament negotiating body, has not undertaken any substantive negotiations for well over a decade. The First Committee sends dozens of strongly worded resolutions on different aspects of nuclear disarmament to the General Assembly each year, and each year the General Assembly adopts them and moves to the next item on its agenda. NPT Review Conferences and Preparatory Committee sessions are dominated by debates about whether disarmament or non-proliferation should come first, when the Treaty obligates Member States to pursue both simultaneously. Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan made this point eloquently at the conclusion of his term:

"[T]hese two objectives –- disarmament and non-proliferation -– are inextricably linked, and…to achieve progress on either front we must also advance on the other.…It would be much easier to confront proliferators, if the very existence of nuclear weapons were universally acknowledged as dangerous and ultimately illegitimate."[4]

In making that assertion, Secretary-General Annan reiterated the view of the International Court of Justice, which, 10 years earlier, had advised the General Assembly that all states had an obligation, under international law, "to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control."[5] Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Conference on Disarmament this January that "To get back on the path to success, the Conference must rekindle the ambition and sense of common purpose that produced its past accomplishments."[6] The Nuclear Weapons Convention, while its precise terms remain to be negotiated, embodies that common purpose.

Reinforcing and building on the NPT

The NWC cuts through the widely held perception that nuclear disarmament is an improbable dream. It offers a vision of what a nuclear-weapons-free world might look like, showing the steps that could practically lead to nuclear weapons being safely and securely eliminated. The model NWC contains detailed provisions for national implementation and guidelines for verification; establishes an international agency responsible for enforcement and dispute settlement; and indicates procedures for reporting and addressing violations. It is comparable, in these respects, to other treaties banning entire categories of weapons, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Mine Ban Treaty. The model NWC simply applies the lessons of successes in nuclear disarmament with the comprehensive, universal treaty-based approach which has been the logical approach for all the successes towards abolishing other major classes of weapons to date. To assert that a similar approach to nuclear weapons is impractical or counterproductive is inconsistent and disingenuous. A nuclear weapons convention will enable nuclear weapons states to fulfil their legal obligations under the NPT, will bridge the divide between non-proliferation and disarmament, and will address the issue of universality, which has plagued the NPT from the beginning.

The NPT is already under serious strain. The exception recently granted nuclear trade with India essentially rewards India despite its development of nuclear weapons as a non-party to the NPT, and provides for nuclear cooperation previously restricted to NPT signatories. This adds to the failure of the nuclear weapon states to disarm, and instead to enhance their nuclear arsenals, to erode the incentives for the vast majority of non-nuclear weapons to continue to fulfill their obligations under the Treaty. Other nuclear weapons states outside the NPT can be expected to seek similar exemptions. The only prospect which stands a serious chance of breaking this negative spiral towards nuclear anarchy is serious, widespread commitment to eradication of nuclear weapons, made credible by tangible progress towards this goal.

At the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, the Parties agreed “to pursue systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons.” They went further in 2000, committing themselves to an "unequivocal undertaking" to eliminate nuclear weapons, and endorsing specific benchmarks spelled out in a 13-step action plan. Each of these benchmarks—including entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a ban on the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, reduced operational status, a diminished role for nuclear weapons in security policies, and the continued development of verification capabilities, among others—is an integral part of the Convention, which organizes the many aspects of nuclear disarmament into a coherent whole.

States parties to the Convention would be required to declare all nuclear weapons, nuclear material, nuclear facilities and nuclear weapons delivery vehicles they possess or control, and their locations. The model Convention outlines a series of five phases for elimination: taking nuclear weapons off alert; removing weapons from deployment; removing nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles; disabling the warheads, removing and disfiguring the “pits” where the weapons are stored; and placing the fissile material under international control. Compliance and verification would be assured through declarations and reports from States, routine and unannounced inspections, and a full range of technical monitoring systems.

The NWC does not undermine existing nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regimes—a concern sometimes raised by governments and diplomats. It would complement, enhance and build on all of these. In short, there is no reason not to make this historic transition from a fragmented approach to a comprehensive approach, and there is every reason to do so. In fact the recent history of nuclear proliferation demonstrates unequivocally that any approach which perpetuates a double standard—that nuclear weapons are essential instruments of security in the hands of some nations, and intolerable threats to security in the hands of others, a threat so great as to warrant pre-emptive war—is doomed to failure. Widespread access to nuclear technology and materials ensures that. The only sustainable, practical approach which could gain the support of all nations is one consistent goal—zero nuclear weapons—for all.

New science and the stark consequences of failure

he stakes could not be higher. Increasing knowledge of how to construct nuclear weapons, increasing availability of the materials with which to make a bomb, increasing numbers of people desperate enough to use the bomb, and, most important, a lack of international resolve to ban the bomb and banish it from the arsenals of the world, make the use of nuclear weapons inevitable if we do not act decisively.

As physicians, we are obliged to remind you what that would mean.

The 12.5-kiloton bomb detonated in the air over Hiroshima decimated the city and created ground temperatures that reached about 7,000 degrees Celsius. Of the 76,000 buildings in the city, 92% were destroyed or damaged. There were more than 100,000 deaths and approximately 75,000 injuries among a population of nearly 250,000. Of the 298 physicians in the city, 270 were dead or injured and 1,564 of 1,780 nurses died or were injured.

The 21-kiloton bomb detonated in the air over Nagasaki three days later leveled 6.7 square kilometers (2.6 square miles). There were 75,000 immediate deaths and 75,000 injuries, with destruction of medical facilities and personnel and health consequences for the population of the city that were similar to those of Hiroshima.

A 2002 study published in the British Medical Journal estimated the casualties from a 12.5 kiloton nuclear explosion at ground level near the port area of New York City. The model projected 262,000 people would be killed, including 52,000 immediately and the remainder succumbing to radiation injuries. Caring for survivors would also be difficult, if not impossible, with the loss of 1,000 hospital beds in the blast and another 8,700 available beds in areas of high radiation exposure.[7]

A regional nuclear war in South Asia involving only 100 Hiroshima-sized (15-kt) weapons targeted on megacities would kill 20 million people outright, a number equal to half of all those killed worldwide during the six years of World War II. A nuclear war between the US and Russia, whose leaders persist in maintaining the world's largest nuclear arsenals and have thousands of weapons ready to be launched in a matter of minutes, would kill hundreds of millions and could trigger a nuclear winter. As physicians, we are not comforted by assertions that these weapons are in responsible hands and that such possibilities are not to be feared. It is not the character of their owners but the nature of the weapons which is at issue.

In December 2006, climate scientists who had worked with the late Carl Sagan in the 1980s to document the threat of nuclear winter produced disturbing new research about the climate effects of low-yield, regional nuclear war.[8] Using South Asia as an example, these experts found that even a limited regional nuclear war on the order of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons would result in tens of millions of immediate deaths and unprecedented global climate disruption. Smoke from urban firestorms caused by multiple nuclear explosions would rise into the upper troposphere and, due to atmospheric heating, would subsequently be boosted deep into the stratosphere. The resulting soot cloud would block the sun, leading to significant cooling and reductions in precipitation lasting for more than a decade. Within 10 days following the explosions, there would be a drop in average surface temperature of 1.25° C. Over the following year, a 10% decline in average global rainfall and a large reduction in the Asian summer monsoon would have a significant impact on agricultural production. These effects would persist over many years. The growing season would be shortened by 10 to 20 days in many of the most important grain producing areas in the world, which might completely eliminate crops that have insufficient time to reach maturity.

To make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earth’s protective ozone. A study published in April by the National Academy of Sciences, using a similar nuclear war scenario involving 100 Hiroshima-size bombs, shows ozone losses in excess of 20% globally, 25–45% at midlatitudes, and 50–70% at northern high latitudes persisting for five years, with substantial losses continuing for five additional years.[9] The resulting increases in UV radiation would have serious consequences for human health.

There are currently more than 800 million people in the world who are chronically malnourished. Several hundred million more live in countries that depend on imported grain. Even a modest, sudden decline in agricultural production could trigger significant increases in the prices for basic foods, as well as hoarding on a global scale, making food inaccessible to poor people in much of the world. While it is not possible to estimate the precise extent of the global famine that would follow a regional nuclear war, it seems reasonable to anticipate a total global death toll in the range of one billion from starvation alone. Famine on this scale would also lead to major epidemics of infectious diseases, and would create immense potential for mass population movement, civil conflict, and war.

These findings have significant implications for nuclear weapons policy. They are powerful evidence in the case against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and against the modernization of arsenals in the existing nuclear weapon states. Even more important, they argue for a fundamental reassessment of the role of nuclear weapons in the world. If even a relatively small nuclear war, by Cold War standards—within the capacity of 8 nuclear-armed states—could trigger a global catastrophe, the only viable response is the complete abolition of nuclear weapons.

Conclusion: an urgent need for action beyond rhetoric

he Member States of the United Nations set out to achieve a nuclear-weapons-free world in the 20th century, and failed to reach that goal. This failure can be traced back, in part, to the fact that the General Assembly did not insist upon the commencement of negotiations on a timebound schedule. Mayors for Peace, under the leadership of Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, has called for the elimination of all nuclear weapons by 2020—the 75th anniversary of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This goal is achievable if negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention commence no later than the conclusion of the 2010 NPT Review. The General Assembly has an opportunity and a responsibility to provide its disarmament bodies with the Convention roadmap, and to set a timeline for results. Every day of inaction further risks the chance that our collective luck will run out.

We respectfully request the President of the 63rd session and the General Assembly as a whole to take up the Nuclear Weapons Convention as its highest disarmament and non-proliferation priority.

Full Text of Speach [Download PDF]

The nuclear paradox –threat to global security and peace.

Mr. Chairman/Moderator,

Esteemed Colleagues,

Gentlemen of the Press,

Distinguished Ladies and gentlemen.

It gives me pleasure to address you at this august gathering of experts, activists, and peacemakers in a Country renowned for honoring and supporting global peace. Our topic — REDEFINING SECURITY: FROM DOMINANCE TO COOPERATION — is not only timely, but essential. The choice between these two paradigms — one based on unilateralism, force, ideology, and narrowly defined national interests; the other based on diplomacy, a search for consensus, and a respect for international law — has rarely been so manifest or so urgent.

As a Physician, and as the Co-President of a federation of physicians that sees peace and care for the human race as one and the same project, I would like to briefly address some of our challenges and opportunities at this crossroads.

The world breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the Cold War, hoping that the annihilation of mankind in an all-out nuclear war between the US and the former Soviet Union was a fear that we could put to rest. Today, however, we find ourselves once again on the brink of nuclear catastrophe, and we will remain there if we do not take significant steps now toward a world without nuclear weapons.

Despite welcome reductions in their arsenals, the US and Russia still possess more than 20,000 nuclear weapons between them — more than 95% of the world total. There are seven other nuclear weapon states, some in volatile regions of the world. Two of those states — India and Pakistan — have done serious damage to the non-proliferation regime by introducing new arsenals into the world, along with new incentives for others to acquire nuclear weapons. The possibility that terrorist groups may obtain nuclear weapons and use them wantonly is a frightening concern that cannot be addressed effectively without comprehensive ban on the weapons themselves and the materials with which to make them.

We would be making a serious mistake, however, if we accepted the claim of the nuclear weapon states that this is only a proliferation problem, and that the solution is keeping nuclear weapons out of irresponsible hands, through coercive means if necessary. The nuclear weapon states themselves have moved beyond strictly defined concepts of deterrence against other nuclear-armed adversaries. Some of them openly contemplate preemptive attacks —possibly even nuclear attacks — against countries they believe to be developing nuclear weapons or the capacity to build them.

The US, the UK, and a handful of allies embarked on an unending misadventure in Iraq, based on unwarranted claims that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear arsenal. No nuclear weapons were found in Iraq because none existed. The cost of this mistake in human lives has been staggering: hundreds of thousands — perhaps more than a million — Iraqi deaths; almost 4 million refugees and displaced persons; and more than 100,000 casualties (deaths and injuries) among American soldiers. The five-year occupation has only resulted in a heightened capacity for terrorism and political instability in the region, at a cost of anywhere between one and four trillion dollars. As though these lessons had gone completely unlearned, the outgoing Bush administration has raised global anxiety by sending signals that it might take military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons — a possibility that cannot be discounted given Iran’s advanced state of nuclear technology, although the country’s leaders have denied that they are turning those resources towards weapons development.

Recently, a region with a tragic history of conflict and political instability —dating back to the Ottoman Empire and continuing through the Bolshevik revolution and the radical changes brought about by perestroika and glasnost in the 1990s — has erupted in violence again. Without going into a discussion hereabout the causes and claims on either side of the conflict between Russia and Georgia, I only want to point out that in a nuclear-armed world, hostilities that draw nuclear weapons states into confrontations with each other have the potential to escalate into something catastrophic. Peaceful negotiations leading to mutual agreements are urgently needed within this region.

For the past 38 years, since the entry into force of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the nuclear weapon states have avoided their nuclear disarmament obligations under Article VI. Rather, they have striven to maintain a kind of nuclear apartheid — a global security system in which nuclear weapons guarantee the power and status of a few countries, while the vast majority of states must settle for second class citizenship. Israel, India, and Pakistan refused to join the NPT for this very reason, to the detriment of global security.

Just this week, the Nuclear Suppliers Group approved a special waiver that will allow the US to transfer nuclear technology to India, despite the fact that the NSG was created in the aftermath of the 1974 Indian nuclear test to prevent nuclear assistance to countries that were not subject to the safeguards, inspections, and compliance regimes mandated by the NPT.

The dominance paradigm produces the kind of world in which we find ourselves, and offers no solutions for getting out of it — no exit strategy, to use the language of military planners.

IPPNW is a federation of like-minded, non-partisan physicians and health care workers that was formed at the height of the Cold War to address an earlier manifestation of the nuclear threat. Our humble contribution to educating an earlier generation of leaders about the medical consequences of nuclear war was recognized by the UNESCO Peace Education Prize in 1984 and by the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. Since then we’ve grown in both size and mission, with affiliate organizations in 62 countries addressing a range of issues related to peace, security, and health.

Yet our fundamental message — that doctor can offer no meaningful medical response to a nuclear war and that prevention is the only responsible option —has not changed. We know that what happened to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a result of the US atomic bombings is only a foreshadowing of the consequences of a nuclear war using today’s arsenals.

Twenty years ago, we learned that a nuclear war between the US and the former Soviet Union, involving a thousand or more nuclear weapons, would result in nuclear winter and the end of human civilization. During the past year or so, scientists have informed us that even the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized weapons could result in tens of millions of immediate deaths and unprecedented climate disruption, including the precipitation of a global famine.

Mounting concern over the nuclear threat and frustration with gridlocked disarmament discussions in UN committees and other arms control forums, prompted IPPNW to launch the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in 2007. The goal of ICAN is to reawaken public concern about the growing threat posed by nuclear weapons, and to mobilize civil society to demand a nuclear-weapon-free world through the negotiation and adoption of a Nuclear Weapons Convention. We reached such agreements on chemical and biological weapons, on landmines, and, most recently, on cluster munitions. There is no reason, other than political resistance, why we cannot come to agreement around prohibition of nuclear weapons as well.

To do so, however, we must adopt the cooperation paradigm. In the case of the nuclear threat, cooperation must take the form of a courageous and sustained diplomatic effort to create a nuclear-weapons-free world under a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The agreement must be accompanied by good faith actions to implement the Convention and to abide by its terms.

IPPNW launched ICAN at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting in Vienna, and worked with a coalition of NGOs to bring the Nuclear Weapons Convention to the attention of delegations at the 2008 PrepCom in Geneva. In 2008 and 2009, ICAN activists will make the case that, along with global warming, nuclear war is the greatest preventable danger facing humankind. IPPNW will promote the Nuclear Weapons Convention both inside and outside the UN, and will focus on specific medical issues, including the climate effects of regional nuclear war, the use of highly enriched uranium in radiopharmaceutical production, and the health impacts of an expanding uranium mining industry.

We believe that together with you — our distinguished Colleagues — and with the voices of civil society around the world, we can influence our governments to make the call for abolition their highest security priority, and work with us to make a world without nuclear weapons a reality.

Thank you for your attention.

Dr. Ime A.John

Co-President, IPPNW

From September 12th to 14th IPPNW Germany held its 3rd Open Congress for a Culture of Peace in the Urania in Berlin. For three days 700 participants and experts were debating to identify paths to recovery and to promote constructive proposals for more peaceful world order. More than 50 experts from all over the world gave lectures, from Ecuador, Kenya, Canada, South Africa or Palestine.

The documentation of the lectures in English language can be found here: [English Docs]

The congress aimed to address the four global threats we are facing at the beginning of the 21st century according to the Oxford Research Group:1

1. Climate change,
2. Competition over resources,
3. Marginalization of the majority of the world, and
4. Global militarization.

In lectures, workshops and discussions the participants and experts analyzed the risks to peace and looked for solutions. With examples of constructive conflict management IPPNW aimed to encourage further actions Several events broached the issue of the marginalization of the majority of the world. Dr. David McCoy addressed in his workshop "Poverty and Health: The Global Health Watch" health inequality and "the poor health of the poor". [Go to Presentation]

Miri Weingarten talked about the limited access for people from Gaza to medical treatment. Her colleagues Dr. Eyad Rajab El Sarraj and Achmad Abu Tawahina could not attend the congress as Israel had denied them the exit from Gaza. This decision illustrated the topic of the workshop "Israel/Palestine: Walls versus Bridges". [Go to Presentation]

The physician and winner of the Alternative Nobel Price Hartmut Graßl gave an impressive and demonstrative lecture on the "Anthropogenic Climate Change" and its risks for human race and biodiversity. He proposed that by 2050 scientists should learn to harness a five thousandth part of the sun to provide energy to -- by then -- 9 billion people. He also cautioned against the decreasing oil resources.

Climate change as a consequence of a regional nuclear war and the resulting famine was brought up by Dr. Ira Helfand. He advocated a Nuclear Weapons Convention in order to prevent a sudden cooling and radioactive contamination of farm land which would be caused by nuclear weapons explosions. [Go to Presentation]

Other workshops dealt also with the risks of global militarization like German military operations in Afghanistan or the militarization of humanitarian aid. Dr. Walter Odhiambo from Kenya held a workshop about firearm injuries. Small weapons violence hits especially poor people from the South and occupies capacities that could better be invested in development and the health system. [See Earlier Post with Kenyan One Bullet Story]

The Congress closed with ideas of how a world led by a Culture of Peace could look like. Mary-Wynne Ashford recalled the power of the civil society. In order to address climate change and prevent war she called for the abolition of nuclear weapons and demanded from people to reduce their own carbon footprints. [Go to Presentation]

Prof. Dr. Dr. Horst-Eberhard Richter stated that only with openness towards other people we can overcome a culture of war. [Go to Presentation]

1. http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/work/gl..

The Party Without Bosses: Lessons On Anti-Capitalism From Guattari And Lula (Semaphore) (Semaphore) is available at Amazon for $9.95. To Order click here
Amazon Product Pages contain a lot of other details on this product as Customer Reviews, Sales Ranking, Special Offers, Alternate products that customers are going for and much more.Want to read these details? click here

Want to get some other Format / Binding / Version? You can search for them from here

Other Products of Interest

• Molecular Revolution in Brazil (Semiotext(e) / Foreign Agents)
• Introduction to Kant's Anthropology (Semiotext(e) / Foreign Agents)
• After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency
• The Porcelain Workshop: For a New Grammar of Politics (Semiotext(e) / Foreign Agents) (Semiotext(e) / Foreign Agents)
• Multitude between Innovation and Negation (Semiotext(e) / Foreign Agents)

That one man I am referring to is, of course, Kim Jong-Il, North Korean rock star and dictator.

It was reported on Thursday that Kim (or Mr. Il, if you will) has within the last month had a stroke which may have left him paralyzed on one side of his body, and prone to spasms. He has not appeared in public since, because a public spasm would, of course, be a tremendous faux pas, especially in front of his throngs of admirers.

But what's more, with Kim out of commission, talks between the U.S. and North Korea about nuclear (or nucular if you're President Bush) disarmament may be indefinitely sidetracked. It's bad enough that Kim already feels his good name is being dragged through the proverbial mud by the U.S. not taking him off the official Nucular Bad Guy list. Now this?

Could Kim's newfound disability imperil one of the most important diplomatic chess matches of our time, thereby putting the path to "World Peace" into a tailspin never to be corrected? Or will North Korea's second-in-command Kim Yong Nam step up and save the day? Just a question.

1. The worldwide economic downturn continued last week.  On Friday, the Japanese government announced a new economic stimulus package.  Analysts are holding out little hope that it will make much of a difference.  In the United Kingdom, Chancellor Alistair Darling conceded that the current crisis will likely be “profound and longlasting.”  He forecasted that it might be the worst economic crisis faced by the United Kingdom in the past 60 years.  Similarly, figures released by the Canadian government last week show that the country is on the brink of recession, with gross domestic product growing by  a mere 0.1% in the second quarter.  All of this suggests that the current economic crisis is global in scope and potentially long in duration.

2. Ongoing political violence in Thailand last week culminated in the closure of three major international airports and blockades of the country’s rail, road, and port infrastructure.   Earlier in the week, protestors had laid siege to state buildings.  The protestors—a loose coalition of business, royalists, and activists under the banner of the People’s Alliance for Democracy—are demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and his government.  So far, the military has refused to become involved in the political crisis.

3. In an interview on Tuesday, Zwelinazima Vavi, leader of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, declared that South Africa would need to radically change its economic policies to avoid the “ticking bomb” of poverty, unemployment and crime.  Vavi is a close ally of Jacob Zuma, the leader of the African National Congress and the person mostly likely to become president of South Africa after Thabo Mbeki’s term expires next year.  Many analysts believe Vavi’s views reflect the policies favored by Zuma.  Many South Africans believe the economic policies pursued by Mbeki have not improved the quality of life for ordinary people.  His complete interview is available through the Financial Times website.

4. The North Korean government announced on Tuesday that it would suspend the processing of disabling its nuclear facilities and was considering reactivating the Yongbyon reactor.  The announcement, which North Korea maintains is a response to the failure of the United States to make good on promises made during the six party talks, raises new concerns about the effectiveness of the talks and the progress made there.  On Thursday, South Korea announced that it would drop the label “main enemy” when referring to North Korea in its biannual defense white paper.  According to Major Seo Young-suk, the decision to drop the term “does not mean that we have changed our stance.  North Korea is still a substantial and present threat.”

5. In a report issued Thursday, the World Health Organization (WHO) condemned health inequalities between rich and poor around the world, describing them as “unfair, unjust, and avoidable.”  According to the WHO “a toxic combination of bad policies, economics, and policies [was] killing people on a grand scale.”  The complete report, entitled Social Determinants of Health, is available through the WHO website.

Japan remembered the 63rd anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki today with a call to the world powers for nuclear disarmament.

About 30,000 of Nagasaki's population died instantly, and 70,000 more perished within months of the atomic bombing on August 9, 1945. The annually updated official death toll from radiation illness caused by the bomb, codenamed "Fat Man" after Winston Churchill, reached 145,984 this year.

"The United States and Russia must take the lead in striving to abolish nuclear weapons," Nagasaki mayor said at the solemn ceremony.

"These two countries ... should begin implementing broad reductions of nuclear weapons instead of deepening their conflict over, among others, the introduction of a missile-defence system in Europe."

The mayor also asked China, Britain and France to reduce their nuclear arms, but did not mention Israel.

Would anyone trust Fukuda with their dead grandmother?

Unperturbed by the Chinese poisonous gyoza scandal, Japan PM Fukuda laid a wreath for the Nagasaki victims at the ceremony. He said: "I vow to lead the international community for permanent peace." But would anyone trust Fukuda with their dead grandmother?

Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda offers a wreath for the atomic bomb victims in Nagasaki, western Japan, during a ceremony commemorating the 63rd anniversary of the city's atomic bomb blast, August 9, 2008. REUTERS/Kyodo. Image may be subject to copyright.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday that Iran will seek "common ground" with the United States and five other world powers that have proposed incentives for Tehran to freeze its nuclear enrichment program.

NBC News, which interviewed Ahmadinejad in Iran, also said the leader of the world's fourth-largest crude oil producer believes the oil market is overvalued in part because of manipulation.

Speaking less than a week before a deadline for Iran's reply to the incentives package, Ahmadinejad told the U.S. television network that progress toward agreement with the West would depend on the sincerity of a shift in the U.S. approach to Tehran.

Western officials said after a meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator in Geneva on July 19 that Tehran had two weeks to reply to an offer of a halt to new steps toward more U.N. sanctions if Iran froze the expansion of its nuclear program. That would give Iran until Saturday to reply.

"They submitted a package and we responded by submitting our own package," Ahmadinejad said through an interpreter in an excerpt of the NBC interview aired on Monday.

"It's very natural. In the first steps, we are going to negotiate over the common ground as they exist inside the two packages. If the two parties succeed in agreeing over the common ground, that will help us to work on our differences as well, to reach an agreement."

U.S. State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos called Ahmedinejad's comments "rhetoric and more rhetoric" and saying the State Department wanted a definitive response from Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, the West's designated negotiator.

"We are waiting for a definitive statement, Gallegos said. "We have stated clearly that it should come through the normal channel, which is Jalili to Solana, and the clock on the two weeks is ticking."

NBC also said Ahmadinejad denied Iran was working to produce a bomb, paraphrasing him as saying nuclear weapons are outdated.

Iran has so far ruled out a freeze to start preliminary talks or suspension of enrichment to start formal negotiations on the incentives package proposed by the six powers -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

In a policy shift, a U.S. diplomat attended the Geneva talks, which Iran has characterized as a success for Iran.

On Monday, Ahmadinejad told NBC: "The main question here is whether this approach is a continuation of the old approach or is it a totally new approach.

"If this is the continuation of the old process, the Iranian people need to defend their right, its interests as well," he said. "But if the approach changes, we will be facing a new situation and the response by the Iranian people will be a positive one."

The United States has warned Iran that it will face more sanctions if it fails to meet the deadline. Washington has not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails.

Asked if Iran would agree to suspend uranium enrichment in order to gain international acceptance, Ahmadinejad said Iran already enjoys "very good economic and cultural relations with countries around the world."

"For the continuation of our lives and for progress, we do not need the services, if I can use the word, of a few countries," he said.

Ahmadinejad announced during the weekend that Iran had more than 5,000 active centrifuges for enriching uranium, which suggested a rapid expansion of the nuclear work that the West suspects is aimed at making bombs.

Earlier this month, Iran rattled international markets by test-firing a series of missiles.

(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed)

(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Bill Trott)

At that time I remembered downloading his speech, and comparing it with others including Al Sharpton, John Kerry, John Edwards and Al Gore. Even then, he had shown remarkable talent in rhetoric in an evangelical, inspiring, rabble-rousing, exhortation sort of way...

Since then, I must confess that I have become one of the religiously-converted hordes of Obama-manic fans.

His historical perspective as one who was born into a mixed-race marriage, forms the basis of his contention that for the American dream, his was one of unimaginable "improbable hope." And he has been declaiming this point relentlessly to inspire legions of people who hanker for change, betterment and hope. "This is our moment," exhorts Obama.

I watched him during his recent Berlin address ( 25 July, 2008 ). Undoubtedly, although he admitted wryly that he did not look like any of his predecessors before him (he being the first African American or man of colour), he stood shoulder to shoulder with the best and the exceptionally brilliant--200,000 Berliners were on hand to experience his charismatic aura, and to cheer him on.

Obama is certainly captivating and personable. He is without doubt a great orator who effuses with goose-pimpling inspiring rhetoric, but at the same time enunciating many bold expansive ideas which I hope he will be able to implement once he becomes the President.

It is true that many of his rally-calls border on generalities rather than specifics, as some have criticised, but in this world of nebulous moral confusion, 'them-and-us' American exceptionalism and tired battle-weary politics, it is refreshing to have someone like him to continue to offer us hope!

Most importantly, he comes across as a supremely confident statesman, one who is not shy of confronting controversies head-on, one who dares to admit his nation's faults--warts and all, while acknowledging that he still loved America very much, that he can still hope to evoke and provoke change, a rallying-cry to remake the world even...

One of my pet issues on nuclear disarmament received a rare attention boost in his Berlin speech, and gives global citizens the hope that one day our children and our chidren's children can live free from the spectre of nuclear arms and war, forever:

"This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons."

In many ways, the American story is one which is singular and unmatchable in history, even as it continues to metamorphose today. Barack Obama must represent the newest incarnation of an evolving mindset of progressive enlightened Americans.

The many contradictions: the self-serving politics, the gross excesses of mass consumerism, pop culture, the entrepreneurial energies and innovative productivity are quintessential of the American experience. Yet despite it all, it has always put on the forefront, the inalienable and ineradicable right of the individual.

Most importantly, there is always that indisputable possibility for political change that is inbuilt into its rigidly upheld Constitution. Every American demands and acknowledges this right, and would fiercely fight to keep this flame alight.

It is true that the USA is also replete with its occasional gridlock politics of the executive, i.e. the President, the Senate and the Congress, but these partisan vested interests are tempered and safeguarded by a truly independent Judiciary (the Supreme Court). America allows an unprecedented capacity to question itself, to reinvent itself.

It is true that often enough, America tends to overreach itself and its influence, much to the dismay and anger of the watching world. Yet, its near sole superpower status means that it must continue to engage itself in the affairs of other nations.

Sometimes, America's interference is rejected outright especially when these strike too close to the loutish antics and extremes of some autocratic and despotic regimes.

At other times, the world angrily demands that a cautious and isolationist America engages more rapidly and responsibly to prevent further genocidal collapse and catastrophic abuse of humanity, especially of the marginalised and dispossessed minorities such as in Bosnia, Darfur, Liberia, etc.

Some are very grudgingly accepted, but most times American brazenness is rejected because of jingoistic claims of national sovereignty and independence. Sadly, Malaysia has even now sounded such 'nationalistic' clarion calls to stop the US of A from interfering with our laws, our interpretation of it or worse, how we choose to enact these for overtly political purposes... See Malaysiakini's Gov't demands US stop 'interfering'

As the world's sole-surviving (but certainly not flawless) Leviathan, it has an unenviable task to make some sense of this truly multifarious world of precariously perched balance of good and evil: to curb mankind's dalliance with widely disparate and fissiparous destinies, and to temper and deter our insuppressibly innate tribalism and brutishness...

Notwithstanding this, I remain hopeful that our political leadership can rise above itself amidst such a quagmire of floundering and directionless political uncertainty.

At this current juncture of political stalemate, can any Malaysian truly feel optimistic that good and truth will prevail over so much mucky political dissimulations, prevarications, propaganda and outright lies?

Will heart-warming unalloyed ideas and durable ideals once again emerge to uplift the Malaysian spirit to wonder again with hope, and to rekindle that daring to dream for change for the better?

Will we ever be so lucky to see another Malaysian leader of calibre to lead us out of this horrendous mess, with even half the vision and charisma of Obama?

Will this be 'our moment', soon?

I can dream, can't I?

“I know my country has not perfected itself. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."

“People of Berlin, and people of the world, the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.”

This will play directly into the hands of those who say that the US will be insecure and weaker under his leadership.

Britain Fylingdales, Early Warning Radar Station, Yorkshire

Menwith Hill, Satellite Communication and Relay Station, Yorkshire

Greenland Thule Air Base, Early Warning Radar Station

Australia Pine Gap, Satellite Communication and Relay Station, near Alice Springs

The US is also proposing the following sites:

Czech Republic Early Warning Radar Station, Trokavec

Poland Interceptor Missile Base, Gorsko

We may possibly believe naively that the system may prevent us from being reduced to our component atoms but unfortunately the system only provides a missile defence shield for the US homeland, but hey its good to know no one is going to mess up the Rocky Mountain range, that would be a shame.
The positioning of US bases in and around Europe, simply makes Europe more of a target and it prompts Russia to develop bigger, better missiles in order to get around the defence shield, aim its missiles at European targets and stick sites such as Menwith Hill and Flyingdales on its first strike list. If indeed they are not already on there.
We have to really ask ourselves exactly how we'd be feeling if Russia started chatting with our immediate neighbours and establishing spying posts in Iceland, France and Norway. Or how the US might feel if Russia had bases in Mexico and Canada because establising US bases in the Czech Republic and Poland is really no different from such an inverted scenario. We have of course the threat of Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons program but no clear intelligence reports which state that the delivery system could threaten the US or for that matter Europe. In fact the question has to be asked why exactly would the Iranians attack Europe? Okay, Britain is a moot point but the establishment of bases in Poland and the Czech Republic is an interesting one, would the Iranians develop long range delivery systems in order to threaten US bases or is it that age old Poland v Iran problem rearing its ugly head again?
Iran has some question marks hovering over it, its governments intentions toward Israel have not been the most stunning displays of diplomacy and tact but one has to question the policy of deterrent that most of us seem to accept as the main argument for the retention of nuclear weapons by 'civilized' nations. Israel posseses its own nuclear deterrent which although shrouded in mystery is, according to reliable sources, quite sizable and more than enough to reduce Iran, and a good percentage of its population to so much radioactive dust. This is the concept of MAD except between Israel and Iran its not so much MAD as UAD, Unilaterally assured destruction. Or could it simply be that we are now saying that deterrent is not enough? Or could it be that the US is happily encroaching upon Russia in order to extend its hegemony in Europe and to establish supremecy over its old rival?
The polls seem to support the conclusion of whoever organises them, CND and its affiliates would stress that most people don't want missile defence or indeed nuclear weapons, whilst the government would be more inclined to suggest that people do, mainly because they have been scared shitless by the repeated warnings that we are all going to be blown up by a chlorine bomb or a dirty bomb (as opposed to a nice clean one) and the idea that one of these 'savage' middle east nations might get its dirty muslim hands on a nuclear weapon just fills the average citizen on the street with dread, better out nukes and we better defend ourselves. So no xenophobic, race/religion based mistrust and hatred going on there. Incidentally we worry about Muslim states because of their alleged fanaticism and religious fervour but it is interesting to note that Pakistan is a nuclear power and despite being involved in a continued military stand off in Kashmir with the Hindu state of India, as well as internal civil unrest and democratic upheaval has refrained from scorching the earth with nuclear fire.
The case for nuclear weapons is usually brought down to the concept of making yourself more trouble than you are worth, such as is the case with the UK, its desire to play with the big boys and its sizable, submarine based, nuclear arsenal which allows it to stand alongside the school bully, point fingers and laugh. Rarely if ever do we consider the feelings of Middle Eastern nations in response to the aggression from the West, next time you have a spare five minutes, sit down and take a look at an Atlas and just establish exactly where Afghanistan and Iraq are in relation to Iran. Then in your head put yourself in charge of Iran and ponder what you'd be thinking. Iran is a country that has suffered from US and UK meddling over the past century, it is now surrounded by coalition forces who attacked both its immediate neighbours without so much as declaring war on them. Now throw in the fact that most people do not like backing down, especially to people who have (in their eyes) played their nation like a game of Risk and you begin to understand why Iran might be trying to develop a limited nuclear arsenal. Just as the UK retains a nuclear deterrent on the basis that 'We don't want to use it and sure if you attack us we'll probably all die but you'll suffer terribly too, you don't want that do you? Good neither do we' (taken from the Ladybird guide to nuclear politics) Iran's desire to possess a nuclear weapon is most likely based along the same lines of reasoning.
Nuclear arms are a point of confused debate, and the possession of nuclear as a moral issue is fraught with problems. If we accept that someone has the right to possess nuclear arms then who does not? The West, and by that I mean the US, the UK, France and Israel, who make up the Western nuclear states clearly believe they have the right to possess nuclear arms and clearly, the UK, the US and Israel at least, do not believe that Iran has the right to possess nuclear arms.
In a terrified world its easy to sell the concept of armament, both of conventional and mass destructive weaponry, its difficult to see the guy on the other side fighting for much the same reason as yourself and in this conflict the only justification you can only ever give yourself is that you are right and your enemy is wrong and that your survival is more important than his. From military build up we are led to the idea that instead of letting your opponent get a punch in it is best to shut him down before he has even moved and in this world of pre-emptive strategy where on earth can any of us hope that we can trust one another or reach a balanced compromise. It can be done, the SALT I and SALT II treaties are proof that ideologically opposed superpowers can compromise and reduce their offensive capabilities, that diplomacy can win through if we sit down and talk to one another. The moral hypocrisy of determining that others cannot possess a weapon whilst we do is never going to lead to equal, bilateral discussions it can only lead to resentment, bitterness, hegemony and aggression. Should Iran have nuclear weapons? No they shouldn't. Should we? No we shouldn't. Should anyone? No.
The only way we justify our possession of such monstrous weapons is because we think we're the right people to own them and it may just be a simple case that there is no one in this world that can justifiably possess nuclear weapons or the exact opposite applies and everyone can. 

Incidentally, I'll advertise as best I can, there is a blockade being held by CND on the 27th of October at Aldermaston, my apologies to the relevant people, principle can be a tough thing to see through.

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

Some of you have no doubt heard that this is the 50th anniversary of the creation of the ubiquitous peace symbol.

All the stories I've read about it state clearly that the origin of the peace symbol is in the semaphor letters for N and D, meaning, 'Nuclear Disarmament'.

=

However, there are alternative explanations out there which may be of interest given the occultist, National Socialist roots of the current regime in the White House. The Elder Germanic runes, which are often used in divination, contain the rune Algiz:

Algiz: (Z or -R: Elk, protection.) Protection, a shield. The protective urge to shelter oneself or others. Defense, warding off of evil, shield, guardian. Connection with the gods, awakening, higher life. It can be used to channel energies appropriately. Follow your instincts. Keep hold of success or maintain a position won or earned. Algiz Reversed: or Merkstave: Hidden danger, consumption by divine forces, loss of divine link. Taboo, warning, turning away, that which repels.

The Nazis were known to invoke the runes. The Symbol for the SS, for example, was comprised of two images of Sowilho, the sun rune, which has its meaning described as "Success, goals achieved, honor. The life-force, health. A time when power will be available to you for positive changes in your life, victory, health, and success."

Sowilo: (S: The sun.) Success, goals achieved, honor. The life-force, health. A time when power will be available to you for positive changes in your life, victory, health, and success. Contact between the higher self and the unconscious. Wholeness, power, elemental force, sword of flame, cleansing fire. Sowilo Merkstave (Sowilo cannot be reversed, but may lie in opposition): False goals, bad counsel, false success, gullibility, loss of goals. Destruction, retribution, justice, casting down of vanity. Wrath of god.

The variant of the name used in National Socialist Germany was 'Sig'. The usage would appear to be one of sympathetic magic.

I discovered that I'm not the first by any means to make the connection. The John Birch Society has an article on the subject here.
http://www.jbs.org/node/2050

One of the most important things in the article, which restates much of the foregoing, is that the purported inventor of the peace symbol wasn't alone in his adoption, but had some important contacts. Bertrand Russell was a prominent member of the Pugwash group, which campaigned for disarmament:

At least some, and possibly all, of this was known to those who created the modern peace symbol. Philosopher Bertrand Russell, who played a role in its adoption, was notorious for his socialist political beliefs and his anti-Christian bias. He was also thoroughly versed in ancient history and symbolism. Eric Austin was another member of the group that adopted the peace symbol in 1958. Austin campaigned for the symbol and wrote a pamphlet entitled The Campaign Emblem describing the symbol. Writing in the journal Peace Review in 1998, University of Bradford scholar Andrew Rigby noted that, at the time the peace symbol was being created, Austin "was reading a book on the runes, the ancient signs of the Norse world. He discovered that: in past ages the central motif of the current nuclear disarmament symbol, the 'bent cross,' had symbolized the death of man."

We may recall Bertrand Russell fondly for his statement on public education that "Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/010408_mass.htm

Russell was quite an interesting figure. He campaigned vigorously against Hitler and was in fact kicked out of Trinity College for his pacifist activities as a youth. As an adult, he associated with Jiddu Krishnamurti, who had been regarded by the Theosophists as some sort of Messiah before his abrupt break with the religion, whichmay have had something to do with Charles Leadbeater's tendencies towards pederasty. Russell's parents were early advocates of birth control and moved in the circles of the peerage. Russell's tutor as a child was the biologist Douglas Spalding, who created the psychological theory of IMPRINTING, which is described as

"any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_%28psychology%29

this obviously has implications for social education and youth culture. It bears more research.

George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn have little in their distinguished careers that would point to a strong advocacy of nuclear disarmament. On the contrary, their preoccupation as public servants was to maintain US nuclear deterrence against its Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union. They dismissed the goal of nuclear disarmament as fantasy.

And yet today, these same veterans of the Cold War are arguing forcefully for putting nuclear disarmament back on the inter-national agenda. In two important articles they wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year and in January this year, they call for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands by strengthening non-proliferation and technology denial regimes and eventually end their threat to the world through their total elimination.

More:

Of interest:

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany

They Loved Each Other's Politics

Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939. By Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Metropolitan Books, 2006. 242 pgs.

Critics of Roosevelt's New Deal often liken it to fascism. Roosevelt's numerous defenders dismiss this charge as reactionary propaganda; but as Wolfgang Schivelbusch makes clear, it is perfectly true. Moreover, it was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal's supporters as well as its opponents.

When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he received from Congress an extraordinary delegation of powers to cope with the Depression. "The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this 'delegation of powers,' Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson on February 28, 1933."(p.18)

The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip." (p.190)

Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He "told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual." (pp.19-20) A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.

Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt's Looking Forward. He found "reminiscent of fascism. . .the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace's New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture's program similar to his own corporativism. (pp.23-24)

Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. "'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.'"(p.31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest. . .most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious."(p.32, quoting Tugwell)

Why did these contemporaries sees an affinity between Roosevelt and the two leading European dictators, while most people today view them as polar opposites? People read history backwards: they project the fierce antagonisms of World War II, when America battled the Axis, to an earlier period. At the time, what impressed many observers, including as we have seen the principal actors themselves, was a new style of leadership common to America, Germany, and Italy.

Once more we must avoid a common misconception. Because of the ruthless crimes of Hitler and his Italian ally, it is mistakenly assumed that the dictators were for the most part hated and feared by the people they ruled. Quite the contrary, they were in those pre-war years the objects of considerable adulation. A Leader who embodied the spirit of the people had superseded the old bureaucratic apparatus of government. "While Hitler's and Roosevelt's nearly simultaneous ascension to power highlighted fundamental differences. . . contemporary observers noted that they shared an extraordinary ability to touch the soul of the people. Their speeches were personal, almost intimate. Both in their own way gave their audiences the impression that they were addressing not the crowd, but each listener as an individual." (p.54)

But does not Schivelbusch's thesis fall before an obvious objection? No doubt Roosevelt, Hitler, and Mussolini were charismatic leaders; and all of them rejected laissez-faire in favor of the new gospel of a state-managed economy. But Roosevelt preserved civil liberties, while the dictators did not.

Schivelbusch does not deny the manifest differences between Roosevelt and the other Leaders; but even if the New Deal was a "soft fascism", the elements of compulsion were not lacking. The "Blue Eagle" campaign of the National Recovery Administration serves as his principal example. Businessmen who complied with the standards of the NRA received a poster that they could display prominently in their businesses. Though compliance was supposed to be voluntary, the head of the program, General Hugh Johnson, did not shrink from appealing to illegal mass boycotts to ensure the desired results. "'The public,' he [Johnson] added, 'simply cannot tolerate non-compliance with their plan.' In a fine example of doublespeak, the argument maintained that cooperation with the president was completely voluntary but that exceptions would not be tolerated because the will of the people was behind FDR. As one historian [Andrew Wolvin] put it, the Blue Eagle campaign was 'based on voluntary cooperation, but those who did not comply were to be forced into participation.'"(p.92) Schivelbusch compares this use of mass psychology to the heavy psychological pressure used in Germany to force contributions to the Winter Relief Fund.

Both the New Deal and European fascism were marked by what Wilhelm Röpke aptly termed the "cult of the colossal." The Tennessee Valley Authority was far more than a measure to bring electrical power to rural areas. It symbolized the power of government planning and the war on private business: "The TVA was the concrete-and-steel realization of the regulatory authority at the heart of the New Deal. In this sense, the massive dams in the Tennessee Valley were monuments to the New Deal, just as the New Cities in the Pontine Marshes were monuments to Fascism. . .But beyond that, TVA propaganda was also directed against an internal enemy: the capitalist excesses that had led to the Depression. . ."(pp.160, 162)

This outstanding study is all the more remarkable in that Schivelbusch displays little acquaintance with economics. Mises and Hayek are absent from his pages, and he grasps the significance of architecture much more than the errors of Keynes. Nevertheless, he has an instinct for the essential. He concludes the book by recalling John T. Flynn's great pamphlet of 1944, As We Go Marching.

Flynn, comparing the New Deal with fascism, foresaw a problem that still faces us today. "But willingly or unwillingly, Flynn argued, the New Deal had put itself into the position of needing a state of permanent crisis or, indeed, permanent war to justify its social interventions. 'It is born in crisis, lives on crises, and cannot survive the era of crisis'. . .Hitler's story is the same.'. . .Flynn's prognosis for the regime of his enemy Roosevelt sounds more apt today than when he made it in 1944. . .'We must have enemies, ' he wrote in As We Go Marching, "They will become an economic necessity for us.'" (pp.186, 191)

And that my loyal and obviously time wealthy friends is that.
Now I'm not going to get into the issue of missile defence right now, but I don't agree with it and I have particular reasons for not agreeing with it. Of course I may be right or I may be wrong but the central issues here are democracy, representation and debate.
The decision to include sites such as Menwith Hill into the NMD system of the United States was announced without any discussion in Parliament and as far as I'm concerned is an exceptionally undemocratic decision. A decision called after Parliamentary consultation would not exactly be direct democracy in action but it would  be an improvement on simple executive decision.
The issue of representation is that my feelings on this matter will not be upheld in Parliament and that there is little that I can do to affect this.
Linked to this Mr Mates has not refuted any of my points, which I'm sure he could, thereby not continuing the debate, thereby failing to convince me and in all truth ignoring me as politely as it is possible to do so.
I respect a persons right to hold their opinion, it would appear so does he, but his job is to represent his constituents or use his better judgement to argue his case.
He won't and he didn't.
Leaving me feeling rather hollow, but at least I tried huh?
Incidentally for information on Missile Defence feel free to peruse the info on the CND website.

Auguri per Tutti!

circolare dicembre 2007

From Steven Staples @ Ceasefire.ca:

November 22, 2007

Dear friend,

Canada’s voting record at the UN on crucial anti-nuclear weapons resolutions indicates an alarming shift away from Canada’s traditional role as a supporter of disarmament.

Yesterday, the Toronto Star published [an article] written by Anthony Salloum, program director of the Rideau Institute (Ceasefire.ca’s parent).

Anthony outlines what happened at the UN and why we should be concerned about the direction the government is heading.

If you have not done so already, please send your letter to Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, urging the government to support nuclear disarmament.

Best wishes,

Dear Minister Bernier,

I write to express my concern that Canada recently abstained from voting on an important resolution at the United Nations calling on Nuclear Weapons States to lower the operating status of nuclear weapons. Fortunately, that resolution passed even without Canadian support.

I urge you to redouble Canada’s efforts towards nuclear disarmament, by supporting global initiatives that aim to lessen the risk of nuclear use, such as working to develop a treaty prohibiting these dangerous weapons.

With 27,000 nuclear weapons still remaining on the planet, Canada must not relent in working towards a safer, nuclear-free world.

I await your reply.

Your name here

h/t Alison @ Creekside.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers