View previous stories
	Nuclear Hypocrisy by Kate Hudson The Guardian   Sept 2005 (The Guardian)   Attempts by John Bolton, the new US ambassador to the UN, to strip nuclear disarmament out of the draft document for this month"s UN summit, comes as no surprise. It"s just the latest in a series of efforts by the US to change the international framework on non-proliferation. These are part of the US"s increasingly aggressive foreign policy, manifested not only in the illegal war on Iraq but in contempt for international law and multilateral treaty frameworks.   For decades, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation have been linked through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Nuclear weapons states have agreed to get rid of their arsenals, while in return non-nuclear weapons states have committed not to develop nuclear weapons. In recent years the US has sought to sideline or overturn the disarmament requirement, focusing on preventing more countries acquiring nuclear weapons. The US seeks to reinterpret the NPT as legitimising the possession of weapons by existing nuclear states, while using it as the justification for confrontation with states accused of proliferation.   It is not widely understood how strongly other nations feel, both about the need for nuclear disarmament and the hypocrisy of the nuclear states and their attitude of do-what-we-say-not-as-we-do. Many believe this is the type of approach that will lead other countries to proliferate. In Britain pressure for nuclear disarmament is often portrayed as an eccentric activity confined to campaigning organisations; but elsewhere in the world it is viewed not only as a treaty obligation that must be fulfilled but also, literally, as a matter of life and death.   This is ever more apparent as the US embraces the notion of "useable" nuclear weapons and the development of new weapons for use, even against non-nuclear weapons states. These are frightening developments that increase desires internationally for nuclear disarmament.   The nuclear non-proliferation treaty originated in enormous international pressure from the non-nuclear weapons states. It was made stronger in 2000 through efforts by states pressing for movement after 30 years of hollow promises. The world court in 1996 called for nuclear disarmament obligations to be met, as did the UN high level panel.   Britain"s attitude towards nuclear disarmament is shameful and flies in the face of demand for treaty compliance. It has made no progress on disarmament - despite government claims that getting rid of old systems and replacing them with more powerful ones is somehow a form of disarmament.   The Trident system will reach the end of its lifespan in the 2020s and a decision on replacement will have to be taken in this parliament. Reports suggest that a decision to replace it has already been taken, although the government denies this. No parliamentary debate has yet taken place. But what is the likely outcome? In April the prime minister stated: "We"ve got to retain our nuclear deterrent ..." This suggests that a Trident replacement is a foregone conclusion.   But his answer raises questions. Who exactly are we deterring? Of all the threats Britain faces, how many would be addressed by spending more than £15bn on a supposed nuclear deterrent? So should we assume that Tony Blair is living in a past of predictable super-power relationships and has not realised how the world has changed? No, this is clearly not the case.   A look at replacement options reveals his appeal to the familiar deterrent rhetoric as disingenuous in the extreme. The delivery system is likely to be a multi-role submarine which can carry both conventional and nuclear missiles. The warheads may well be a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons for use on the battlefield, or so-called bunker-busters, designed to hit deeply buried facilities.   The consequences of either of these weapons would be catastrophic. Far from wanting to maintain an unusable so-called deterrent, the government is going down the US path - developing new nuclear weapons for potential use.   Britain"s empty phrases in support of the NPT mean nothing when massive building work progresses apace at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, preparing for these new developments. But there is another option for a British government committed to international law and compliance with its treaty obligations, as desired by the vast majority of the international community. There is the option not to replace Trident.   (Kate Hudson, is chair of Britain"s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament)
	Belarus: The last Totalitarian Country in Europe by Vaclav Havel Project Syndicate Czech Republic   September 2005   This country of ten million inhabitants has been for over 11 years ruled by Alexander Lukashenka for whom the governance means extensive abuse of the basic human and citizens’ rights on daily basis, removal and imprisonment of his opponents and journalists and deception of people by mass media under his control.   Last autumn in a bogus referendum Lukashenka had had removed two consecutive terms limit on presidency and thus he had made the first step to prolong his rule beyond 2006 when his current term expires.   Since then for a number of months, largely unnoticed by most media and politicians of the democratic world, the last remains of non-governmental organizations, independent press and political parties that could thwart the plans of Belarus autocrat on prolonging his rule ad infinitum are systematically being liquidated. The information blockade of the country is growing, opportunities for young people to study abroad are being limited, and the last independent daily “Narodnaja Volja” is about to be closed down. Alexander Lukashenka can get away with all of this not only due to unsavoury legacy of totally decimated post-soviet social and societal structures but also due to lack of interest in the fate of Belarus on the part of the democratic countries.   We are, therefore, convinced that it is necessary to make use of every opportunity to break through this wall of lack of interest and inability on the part of the democratic community in order to take a stand against this post-soviet autocrat and his efforts to totally suppress the remains of independent initiatives in Belarus. At the same time it is necessary to continue in developing contacts and cooperation with Belarus’ independent initiatives. European Union that so far has not been able to support efforts aiming at building Belarus based on democratic values should speedily seek such instruments that enable this process. At the same time the EU should fully open its exchange and educational programs for democratically oriented young people of Belarus. The EU should, together with Ukraine, quickly react to the proposal by EU parliamentarians Janusz Onyszkiewicz and Bogdan Klich to enable the people of Belarus an access to non-censored, non-manipulated information through radio and TV broadcasts from neighbouring countries.  We call for creating a common strategy for the EU, USA and all other democratic countries that ought to be interested in the democratisation of Belarus.   (This open letter is signed by the former President of Czech Republic Václav Havel, the former President of Ireland Mary Robinson, French philosopher André Glucksmann, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, former President of Germany Richard von Weizsäcker, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan H.R.H. El Hassan bin Talal, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and former Director General of WTO Mike Moore, President of the Carnegie Corporation of New York Vartan Gregorian, Chairman of the Nippon Foundation Yohei Sasakawa, former President of South Africa Frederik W. de Klerk, U.S. theologian and author Michael Novak and Senator Karel Schwarzenberg of the Czech Republic).
	View more stories