Abolition 2000 Europe
https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?blogId=1
Pressure for Scotland to ban Trident: Former Lord Advocate calls on Calman Commission to examine devolved power over nuclear weapons<p>Pressure is mounting to change the devolution settlement so that Scotland has the power to ban Trident nuclear weapons from its soil.<br /><br />Trade unionists, religious leaders and anti-nuclear campaigners have called on the Calman Commission, set up by the Scottish parliament to review devolution, to investigate ways of bringing weapons of mass destruction under Scottish control.<br /><br />They have been backed by one of the country's most senior legal figures, Lord Murray, who argues that the use of such weapons is illegal. Possessing them is "probably" also against international law, says the former Lord Advocate.</p><p>(From: <a href="http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2450042.0.pressure_for_scotland_to_ban_trident.php">The Sunday Herald</a>)</p><br/><br />"This should be incorporated into Scotland's constitutional arrangements," he told the Sunday Herald. "It should be reflected by the Calman Commission."<br /><br />Up to 200 thermonuclear warheads are stored behind barbed wire at the Royal Navy armaments depot at Coulport, on Loch Long. As many as 48 at a time are taken to sea from Faslane eight miles away on Gare Loch by one of four Trident submarines.<br /><br />The Commission on Scottish Devolution, chaired by Glasgow University's chancellor, Sir Kenneth Calman, was established in December 2007 with the backing of Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It comprises 15 members from political parties, trade unions, business and other sectors.<br /><br />Among those who have made submissions to the commission on nuclear weapons is the trade union, Unison. It represents 150,000 public service workers in Scotland.<br /><br />"Ideally Unison would like control over weapons of mass destruction to be devolved, but we do recognise that it will be difficult to separate this from the overall control of defence," said the union's Scottish organiser, Dave Watson.<br /><br />"It is clear from the majority votes of both Scottish MPs and MSPs against the replacement of Trident that this is the view of the Scottish people and their representatives, and we think that the devolution of control over weapons of mass destruction would allow this view to be enacted."<br /><br />In its submission, the Church of Scotland pointed out that Scottish public opinion on nuclear weapons was "significantly different" from that of the UK as a whole. While it may not be possible for Holyrood to take ultimate control of the weapons, the church argued, "the commission may wish to consider how better the structure can reflect distinctive views in different parts of the UK".<br /><br />According to John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, there was a specific clause in the Scotland Act reserving control over weapons of mass destruction to Westminster.<br /><br />"A small change to one line may be all that is needed to give the Scottish parliament the power to prohibit their deployment in Scotland," he said.<br /><br />"A clear majority of Scots want Holyrood to have the power to remove Trident from the Clyde. Sir Kenneth Calman and his team should use their considerable talents to work out how to adjust the devolution settlement so that this popular demand can be satisfied."<br /><br />Scottish CND's submission to the Calman Commission has been supported by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, Cardinal Keith O'Brien.<br /><br />"I hope that the contents of the submission from Scottish CND receive considerable publicity," he said. The Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre, based at St John's Church, Princes Street, argued that Trident was immoral and criminal. "We believe the people of Scotland would be better served if the control of weapons of mass destruction were now devolved to the Scottish parliament," the centre said.<br /><br />The Calman Commission aims to publish its first report before the end of 2008, and a final report in 2009. "The commission has received a large number of submissions covering a range of issues, all of which are given fair consideration," said a commission spokesman.<br /><br />"The commission's process of gathering evidence remains ongoing and it would be premature to say it has reached a definitive view on the issue at this relatively early stage of its work."<br /><br />
https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=273&blogId=1
Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:37:54 -0500Towards a nuclear-weapons free Europe and a nuclear-weapon free world: the case of France<p>Since the 1995 Review Conference of the NPT, France agreed upon the
statement of "nuclear disarmament in good faith" and simultaneously
prepared a total renewal and modernization of its nuclear weapon
arsenal.</p><span lang="EN-GB">Dominique Lalanne, of Abolition 2000-Europe,
and Abolition of Nuclear Weapons/Stop Essais<o /></span>, spoke at the European Social Forum in Malm? on the challenges facing anti-nuclear campaigns in France.<br/><p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 14pt; color: black;">European Social Forum, Malm?, September 19th, 2008 <o /></span></b></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;">Towards a
nuclear-weapons free Europe and a nuclear-weapon free world: the case of <st1><st1>France</st1></st1><o /></span></b></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;">Dominique Lalanne, Abolition 2000-<st1>Europe</st1>, Abolition of Nuclear Weapons/Stop Essais<o /></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;">------------------------<o /></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;">In moving towards a nuclear-weapons
free Europe, the case of <st1><st1>France</st1></st1>
is certainly the most complicated. This is not only because of its arsenal and
its modernisation but also because of its current strategy and its behaviour in
the last two decades.<o /></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;">Following the 1995 Review
Conference of the NPT, <st1><st1>France</st1></st1>
agreed upon the statement of ?nuclear disarmament in good faith? and
simultaneously prepared a total renewal and modernization of its nuclear weapons
arsenal. And at the 2000 Review Conference, <st1><st1>France</st1></st1> confirmed its agreement with
the 13 steps, in total contradiction with its military programme. During the
90?s France decided upon: 1- a programme of new missiles, the M51, able to hit
Beijing, 2- a new submarine, the fourth, each one of these equipped with 96
warheads, 3- a new aircraft, the Rafale, equipped with new nuclear missiles and
4- a programme of research and testing for new nuclear weapons with the
Megajoule Laser and new computing facilities. <st1><st1>France</st1></st1> is not ?in good faith? in
nuclear disarmament issues. That is the first thing to keep in mind.<o /></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><st1><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;">France</span></st1><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;"> signed the NPT in 1992,
when all these new projects had been decided, so no-one in the world made any objection
to <st1><st1>France</st1></st1>?s
participation in a new nuclear arms race. Then in 1995 <st1>France</st1> undertook new nuclear testing in the <st1>Pacific Ocean</st1>, just before signing the CTBT (1996). But
at the Megajoule, the real testing will be performed in the laboratory, contradicting
the principles of the CTBT, with the goal of preparing the next generation of
pure fusion nuclear weapons using a trigger by laser instead of by pits of
uranium or plutonium as is currently done. And now France proposes the FMCT on
fissile material cut-off when it is clear that France itself has more fissile
material than needed available for any new development of a nuclear weapon.
Where is the ?good faith? in all these facts?<o /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;">But the most difficult problem to
be tackled is <st1><st1>France</st1></st1>?s
official strategy of nuclear deterrence. The doctrine expressed since the
beginning and repeatedly confirmed is that the ?security of the vital interests
of <st1><st1>France</st1></st1>
is based on its nuclear deterrence?. After making such a statement it is clear
for French politicians that no nuclear free world can be discussed. More
seriously, other States could use the same statement in promoting nuclear
weapons for their ?security?, making nuclear proliferation possible and out of
control. For <st1><st1>France</st1></st1>
even a ?first strike on a non-nuclear State? is officially conceivable if
?vital interests? are at stake. The big issue to be tackled is therefore ?security?:
how can we convince French public opinion that ?security? is lower with nuclear
weapons than without them? <span> </span><o /></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;">Actually, <st1>France</st1> is a major actor in the game of
proliferation; selling nuclear reactors to states like <st1><st1>Libya</st1></st1> is a
typical example. Such a reactor will produce 250 kilos of plutonium per year
and less than 10 kilos makes a nuclear bomb possible. Moreover, Areva, the nuclear
firm that acts as seller, is totally controlled by the Commissariat for Atomic
Energy (CEA) who are developing and managing French nuclear weapons. <o /></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;">In <st1><st1>France</st1></st1>, there is also a problem
with public opinion. The answer to the question ?Do you think <st1><st1>France</st1></st1> could
have a military defence without nuclear deterrence?? is NO for 61%. Ironically,
49% think that ?nuclear weapons are useless? and for a ?first nuclear strike
against a non-nuclear State? there is only 16% of positive support. These
numbers were recently published by? the French Ministry of Defence! It means that
French public opinion can possibly be brought to oppose the nuclear doctrine if
a large debate on the subject can be organized. This is the goal of peace
activists in various NGOs working together within the framework of Abolition
2000 <st1>Europe</st1>. <o /></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;"><o> </o></span></p>
<p style="margin-left: 18pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: black;">Basically, on the ?security? issue,
the Mayors for Peace campaign, which focusses on the idea that ?cities are not
targets?, is the appropriate one for Mayors, as they are the first
representative level in charge of ?security? for their citizens. The additional
project of a Convention for the elimination of nuclear weapons, a campaign being
developed concurrently in France, is important because it works to promote the
idea that nuclear disarmament is possible, which is precisely the idea of which
the public opinion is not yet convinced. A lot more work has to be done, in the
hope that pressure by other European States will also contribute to making French
politicians change their minds. <o /></span></p>
https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=274&blogId=1
Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:37:30 -050070 Members of the European Parliament from 19 EU member states launch support for total ban of nuclear weaponsOn Tuesday July 1st 2008 12:00 noon at the EP in Brussels a cross-party
group representing 69 Members of the European Parliament from 19 EU member states launched a "Parliamentary declaration in
support of the Nuclear Weapons Convention". Their support
marked the 40th anniversary of the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
(NPT), and the unfulfilled promise of the official Nuclear Weapon States
to move towards total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.
<br />
<br />The appeal calls for multilateral negotiations to prevent proliferation
and achieve non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament through a Nuclear
<br />Weapons Convention. The parliamentary statement was drafted and agreed
by the cross-party group of Deputy Chairs of the European Parliament
<br />section of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and
Disarmament (PNND): Ms. Ana Gomes (PSE - Portugal) and Mr. Girts
Kristovskis (UEN - Latvia), both vice-chairs of the EP Security and
Defense subcommittee; Ms. Annemie Neyts (ALDE - Belgium); Ms. Angelika
<br />Beer (Greens - ALE - Germany) and Mr. Andre Brie (GUE/NGL - Germany).
<br />
<br /><br /><br/>Amongst the first endorsers we find Ms. Frieda Brepoels and Mr. Raymond
Langendries (PPE-DE, Belgium), both members of the Christian-democratic
political group within the EP. On July 1st already over 69 members of
the EP signed up in support of the NWC, a very encouraging start for the
organizers pledged to mobilize further support for the NWC.
<br />
<br />
Ms. Frieda Brepoels (PPE-De, Belgium) declared during the signing
ceremony: "After 40 years it is also for the US, Russia, China,
Great-Britain and France the highest time to keep their promises and
destroy their entire nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons add nothing to a
better and more secure world. A majority of people all over the world
want a total ban on nuclear weapons. The non proliferation Treaty looses
its credibility if the Heads of Government of those countries refuse to
negotiate. They carry an enormous responsibility for all the following
generations."
<br />
<br />
This support for a Nuclear Weapons Convention has come at the right time
according to Mr. Girts Kristovskis (UEN - Latvia), who will table the
document during a UEN group meeting in Copenhagen this week. As
Vice-Chair of the EP Subcommittee on Security and Defense he stated:
"The inability of states to progress with nuclear disarmament; the long
term freezing of the Treaty of Non-Proliferation and the growing
interest of terrorists to use the possibility of smuggling nuclear
weapons brings civilization ever closer to the nightmare scenario
becoming a reality. Unfortunately, we are rather passive." .
<br />
<br />
During the launch in Brussels Ms. Adriana Bolanos, Charg? d'Affaires of
the Embassy of Costa Rica highlighted the need for the Nuclear Weapons
<br />
Convention. The government of Costa Rica has been taking a leading role
within the United Nations in favor of a convention banning all nuclear
<br />
weapons. Last year Costa Rica submitted the a Model Nuclear Weapons
Convention (NWC) to the Preparatory Committee of the NPT in Vienna (1)
and at the General Assembly of the UN. The Model NWC outlines the legal,
technical and political elements required to achieve the prohibition and
elimination of nuclear weapons under strict international control.
<br />
<br />
Ana Gomes, PSE (Portugal) also Vice-Chair of the EP Subcommittee
Security and Defense declared: "I signed this statement because I think
the time has come to break the impasse in the implementation of NPT,
both in its non-proliferation and in its disarmament aspects. With a new
US administration about to come to power, this is the right moment for
parliamentarians and legislators around the world to add their voices to
the growing campaign for a world without nuclear weapons. We, in the
European Parliament, recognize our responsibility to push the European
nuclear weapons states to make real commitments to the implementation of
Article VI of the NPT - and we think the NWC is a fundamental step
forward in that direction."//
<br />
<br />
Every year since 1996 resolutions in favor of a Nuclear Weapons
Convention have been adopted at the UN General Assembly with large
<br />
majorities, most notably with the support of some States that currently
possess nuclear weapons such as India, Pakistan, China and North Korea.
The refusal of the other NWS and some of their allies to engage in
multilateral negotiations for a total ban of nuclear weapons, as is
required under
<br />
Article VI of the NPT, has plunged the NPT into a deep crisis.
<br />
<br />
Angelica Beer, Greens/EFA Germany, member EP Subcommittee on Security
and Defense added: "Only a serious commitment to disarmament provides
the moral ground for demanding non-proliferation from others"
<br />
<br />
However, there is a new political opportunity to initiate such
negotiations with US Presidential candidates supporting the vision
<br />
of a nuclear weapons free world, the recent establishment by Australia
of an International Commission on Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, and
<br />
the re-invigorating of the Seven Nation Initiative for nuclear
disarmament by the government of Norway.
<br />
<br />
Thus it is time for the European parliament and European countries to
support this bold vision and take action to ensure its enactment,
<br />
prompted by parliamentarians - the democratic voice of the people.
<br />
<br />
This event was part of an international conference in the EP marking the
40th anniversary of the NPT. The events are organized
<br />
by PNND, Mayors for Peace, Abolition 2000 Europe, International
Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War, CNAPD and Greenpeace.
<br />
<br />
Note:
<br />
(1) Costa Rica submission to United Nations and NPT PrepCom
<a href="http://www.2020visioncampaign.org/pages/337/" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.2020visioncampaign.org/pages/337/</a>
<br />
https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=272&blogId=1
Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:34:58 -0500Start worrying and learn to ditch the bomb: It won't be easy, but a world free of nuclear weapons is possible<p>
Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind, David Owen and George Robertson<br />
<br />
During the Cold War nuclear weapons had the perverse effect of making
<br />
the world a relatively stable place. That is no longer the case. <br />
Instead, the world is at the brink of a new and dangerous phase - one
<br />
that combines widespread proliferation with extremism and <br />
geopolitical tension.</p><p>( From: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4237387.ece">The Times</a> ) </p><br/>Some of the terrorist organisations of today would have little <br />
hesitation in using weapons of mass destruction to further their own
<br />
nihilistic agendas. Al-Qaeda and groups linked to it may be trying to
<br />
obtain nuclear material to cause carnage on an unimaginable scale. <br />
Rogue or unstable states may assist, either willingly or unwillingly;
<br />
the more nuclear material in circulation, the greater the risk that <br />
it falls into the wrong hands. And while governments, no matter how <br />
distasteful, are usually capable of being deterred, groups such as <br />
al-Qaeda, are not. Cold War calculations have been replaced by <br />
asymmetrical warfare and suicide missions.<br /><br />
There is a powerful case for a dramatic reduction in the stockpile of
<br />
nuclear weapons. A new historic initiative is needed but it will only
<br />
succeed by working collectively and through multilateral <br />
institutions. Over the past year an influential project has developed
<br />
in the United States, led by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William
<br />
Perry and Sam Nunn, all leading policymakers. They have published two
<br />
articles in The Wall Street Journal describing a vision of a world <br />
free of nuclear weapons and articulating some of the steps that, <br />
cumulatively taken, could help to achieve that end. Senator John <br />
McCain has endorsed that analysis recently. Barack Obama is likely to
<br />
be as sympathetic.<br /><br />
A comparable debate is now needed in this country and across Europe.
<br />
Britain and France, both nuclear powers, are well placed to join in <br />
renewed multilateral efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons
<br />
in existence. The American initiative does not call for unilateral <br />
disarmament; neither do we. Instead, progress can be made only by <br />
working alongside other nations towards a shared goal, using commonly
<br />
agreed procedures and strategies.<br /><br />
The world's stockpiles of nuclear weapons are overwhelmingly <br />
controlled by two nations: the United States and Russia. While <br />
Washington is in possession of about 5,000 deployed warheads, Russia
<br />
is reported to have well over 6,000, making its stockpile the largest
<br />
in the world. It is difficult to understand why either the American <br />
or Russian governments feel that they need such enormous numbers of <br />
nuclear weapons.<br /><br />
Hard-headed Americans, such as Dr Kissinger and Mr Shultz, have <br />
argued that dramatic reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in <br />
these arsenals could be made without risking America's security. It <br />
is indisputable that if serious progress is to be made it must begin
<br />
with these two countries.<br /><br />
The US and Russia should ensure that the Strategic Arms Reduction <br />
Treaty of 1991 continues to provide the basis for co-operation in <br />
reducing the number of nuclear weapons. The treaty's provisions need
<br />
to be extended. Agreement should be reached on the issue of missile <br />
defence. The US proposal to make Poland and the Czech Republic part <br />
of their missile defence shield has upset the Kremlin. It has been a
<br />
divisive issue, but it need not be. Any missile threat to Europe or <br />
the United States would also be a threat to Russia. Furthermore, <br />
Russia and the West share a strong common interest in preventing <br />
proliferation.<br /><br />
Elsewhere, there are numerous stockpiles that lie unaccounted for. In
<br />
the former Soviet Union alone, some claim that there is enough <br />
uranium and plutonium to make a further 40,000 weapons. There have <br />
been reports of nuclear smuggling in the Caucasus and some parts of <br />
Eastern Europe. Security Council Resolution 1540, which obliges <br />
nations to improve the security of stockpiles, allows for the <br />
formation of teams of specialists to be deployed in those countries <br />
that do not possess the necessary infrastructure or experience in <br />
dealing with stockpiles. These specialists should be deployed to <br />
assist both in the monitoring and accounting for of nuclear material
<br />
and in the setting up of domestic controls to prevent security <br />
breaches. Transparency in these matters is vital and Britain can, and
<br />
should, play a role in providing experts who can fulfil this important
role.<br /><br />
The Non-Proliferation Treaty, for 40 years the foundation of counter-
<br />
proliferation efforts, in in need of an overhaul. The provisions on <br />
monitoring compliance need to be strengthened. The monitoring <br />
provisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Additional <br />
Protocol, which require a state to provide access to any location <br />
where nuclear material may be present, should be accepted by all the
<br />
nations that have signed up to the NPT. These requirements, if <br />
implemented, would have the effect of strengthening the ability of <br />
the IAEA to provide assurances about both declared nuclear material <br />
and undeclared activities. At a time when a number of countries, <br />
including Iran and Syria, may be developing a nuclear weapons <br />
programme under the guise of civilian purposes, the ability to<br />
be clear about all aspects of any programme is crucial.<br /><br />
Bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into effect would, <br />
similarly, represent strong progress in the battle to reduce the <br />
nuclear threat. The treaty would ban the testing of nuclear weapons,
<br />
ensuring that the development of new generations of weapons ceases. <br />
However, it will only come into force once the remaining nine states
<br />
who have not yet ratified it do so. Britain, working through Nato and
<br />
the EU, must continue to encourage those remaining states that have <br />
not yet agreed to the Treaty - India, Pakistan, Egypt, China, <br />
Indonesia, North Korea, Israel, Iran and the United States - to ratify
it.<br /><br />
A modern non-proliferation regime will require mechanisms to provide
<br />
those nations wishing to develop a civilian nuclear capability with <br />
the assistance and co-operation of those<br />
states that possess advanced expertise and that are able to provide <br />
nuclear fuel, spent-fuel management assistance, enriched uranium and
<br />
technical assistance. But, in<br />
return, proper verification procedures must be in place and access <br />
for the IAEA must not be impeded.<br /><br />
Achieving real progress in reducing the nuclear weapons threat will <br />
impose obligations on all nuclear powers not just the US and Russia.
<br />
The UK has reduced its nuclear weapons capability significantly over
<br />
the past 20 years. It disposed of its freefall and tactical nuclear <br />
weapons and has achieved a big reduction of the number of warheads <br />
used by the Trident system to the minimum believed to be compatible <br />
with the retention of a nuclear deterrent. If we are able to enter <br />
into a period of significant multilateral disarmament Britain, along
<br />
with France and other existing nuclear powers, will need to consider
<br />
what further contribution it might be able to make to help to achieve
<br />
the common objective.<br /><br />
Substantial progress towards a dramatic reduction in the world's <br />
nuclear weapons is possible. The ultimate aspiration should be to <br />
have a world free of nuclear weapons. It will take time, but with <br />
political will and improvements in monitoring, the goal is <br />
achievable. We must act before it is too late, and we can begin by <br />
supporting the campaign in America for a non-nuclear weapons
world.<br /><br />
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Lord Hurd of Westwell and Lord Owen are all <br />
former foreign secretaries; Lord Robertson of Port Ellen is a former
<br />
Nato secretary-general
https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=271&blogId=1
Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:28:42 -0500WITHDRAWAL OF US NUKES WELCOMED; BUT CND WARNS AGAINST US MISSILE DEFENCE DEVELOPMENTSCND today welcomed the news that 110 US tactical nuclear weapons had
been withdrawn from Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk. The report by Hans
Kristensen, one of the foremost nuclear researchers with the Federation
of American Scientists, concludes that there are now no US nuclear
weapons in Britain ? for the first time since 1954.<br />
<br />
However, CND cautioned against the installation at Lakenheath of
interceptor missiles as part of the US Missile Defence system, which
could potentially replace one historical arms race with another, with
Europe again at the centre. Tony Blair asked the US to consider Britain
as a possible launching pad for US missile interceptors in February
2007.<br /><br/>Kristensen also suggested the findings in the US Air Force Blue Ribbon Review that ?most sites? currently used for deploying US nuclear weapons in Europe did not meet Department of Defense security requirements would lead to further ?consolidation? of the weapons in Europe.<br /><br />The removal of the weapons from Lakenheath comes after many years of mass campaigning across Europe, against the deployment of US nuclear weapons on the continent. US nuclear weapons were withdrawn from Greece in 2001, and the Belgian Senate passed a resolution in April 2005 calling for the withdrawal of all US nuclear weapons in Europe. Only last week as a result of the Blue Ribbon Review, the German Social Democrats called for the withdrawal of US atomic weapons from German military bases.<br /><br />Kate Hudson, Chair of CND, said:<br />?The news that these bombs have been withdrawn from Lakenheath is extremely welcome. We would like official confirmation from the government that this has happened and believe an open admission will be a confidence-boosting measure for future disarmament initiatives.<br /><br />However, withdrawal of the tactical nuclear weapons from Lakenheath should not now give way to the installation of interceptor missiles for the US Missile Defence system, a proposal Tony Blair put to the US in February last year. To withdraw the Cold War weapons but still pursue US Missile Defence would be to replace one historical arms race with another, with Europe again at the centre.?<br /><br />
https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=270&blogId=1
Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:12:14 -05001st July 2008, International Conference 40th anniversary NPT at the European Parliament, Brussels<p><span lang="EN-GB">1st July 2008</span> International Conference marking 40th anniversary NPT
at the European Parliament, Brussels</p>
<p>
</p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="MsoBodyText">"<b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 14pt;"><span></span>NUCLEAR ARSENAL IN THE EU AND ITS SECURITY</span></b>"</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://abolition2000europe.org/register.php">Register</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Organisers:<br />
EP section of PNND (Parliamentarians for
Nuclear Non-proliferation and<span>
</span>Disarmament), Belgian PNND, Mayors for Peace, Abolition 2000 Europe,
Abolition 2000 Belgium, International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War,<span> </span>Greenpeace and CNAPD</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
Please find here more details of the "<a href="https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=269&blogId=1">Parliamentary endorsement of the Nuclear Weapons
Convention</a>". </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">H.E. the Ambassador of Costa Rica has been invited as a guest. Costa
Rica submitted the Nuclear Weapons Convention at the UN General Assembly
in December 2007</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" /><br/><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 14pt;">Conference Room PHS<span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;"> 5B001</span></span></b>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;"></span>9.00
Introduction:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Girts Kristovskis, Member European
Parliament UEN & Vice-chair SEDE (Latvia)<br />
Dr. Rebecca Johnson, Executive Director, The Acronym Institute for Disarmament
Diplomacy<span> </span>(UK).</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 6pt;"><br />
</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">9:30 French and British nuclear policies and EU- security:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Glyn Ford, Member European
Parliament PSE (UK)<br />
Robert Ranquet, Deputy Director, Policy and Strategic Affairs, Ministry of
Defence (F)<br />
Pierre Villard, President Mouvement de la Paix (F)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 6pt;"><br />
</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">10.30 Coffee break. </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 6pt;"><br />
</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">11.00 US nuclear weapons in EU:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Annemie Neyts, Member European
Parliament ALDE<span> </span>(Belgium)<br />Spokesperson NATO (tbc).<br />
Theo Kelchtermans, Mayor Peer on whose territory US nuclear weapons are
deployed<span> </span>(B)<br />
Professor David Webb, Vice-Chair Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (UK)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 6pt;"><br />
</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">12.00 Signing ceremony in support of Nuclear Weapons
Convention with photo-opportunity<o /></span></b><br /><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">by Members European Parliament <br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 6pt;"><br />
</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">14.00: NATO preventive strike strategy.</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Ana Gomes, Member European Parliament PES & Vice-chair SEDE (Portugal)<br />Spokesperson NATO (tbc)<br />
Martin Butcher, Initiator Open Letter Congress<span>
</span>(UK) <o /></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">15.00:
Modernisation of Russian nuclear arsenals and responds to NMD project:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Andre Brie (Germany) Member European
Parliament GUE.<br />
Dmitry Rogozin, Russian ambassador to NATO (tbc)<br />
Jan Tamas, spokesperson Europe for Peace (CZ).</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 6pt;"><br />
</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">16.00 Coffee break<o /></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">16.15
Towards Nuclear Disarmament:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Caroline Lucas, Member European
Parliament Greens<span> </span>(UK)<br />
Akiba Tadatoshi, Mayor Hiroshima & President Mayors for Peace (video
message).<br />
Patrik Vankrunkelsven, Senator & Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision. (B)<o /></span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;">17.15
Closing remarks:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt;"><br />
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Angelika Beer, Member European
Parliament Greens, Co-chair PNND (Germany)<o /></span></p>
<p align="baseline" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-align: center;"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9pt;">Conference language is English <span> </span>***<span>
</span>Info: 0495-28 02 59<span> </span></span></b></p><p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-align: center;"><img src="https://abolition2000europe.org/logos.jpg" /></p>
<p>See also: <a href="https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=265&blogId=1">Round table on Nuclear Weapons Convention at the EP, 30th June</a></p>
https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=261&blogId=1
Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:16:16 -0500MEP Endorsement of the Nuclear Weapon Convention<p>The following Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have agreed to sign the "Endorsement of the Nuclear Weapon Convention" on 1st July 2008, to mark the 40th anniversary of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.</p><p>We are well underway and here are the countries where we have initial
support. Support in Belgium and Luxembourg is already significant.</p><p><a href="https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=269"></a></p><p><a href="https://abolition2000europe.org/resserver.php?blogId=1&resource=Support+declaration+NWC.pdf">Text of the endorsement</a></p><p><a href="https://abolition2000europe.org/gallery/NPT_ALP.pdf">Briefing on the Nuclear Weapons Convention</a></p><br/><p>
</p>
<p><img vspace="0" hspace="0" border="0" align="left" src="http://www.friedabrepoels.be/uploads/f2.jpg" />
Ms. Frieda Brepoels, PPE-De, Belgium:</p>
<p>"After 40 years it is also for the US, Russia, China,
Great-Britain and France the highest time to keep their promises and
destroy their entire nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons add nothing to a
better and more secure world. A majority of people all over the world
want a total ban on nuclear weapons. The non proliferation Treaty looses
its credibility if the Heads of Government of those countries refuse to
negotiate. They carry an enormous responsibility for all the following
generations."</p>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p> </p>
<p><img vspace="0" hspace="0" border="0" align="left" src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:jhi_bqLoAiGQvM:http://www.partido-socialista.net/pspe/cms/imagens/deputados/DEP410675e16ddde.jpg" />Ana Gomes, PSE (Portugal) and
Vice-Chair EP Subcommittee Security and Defense:</p>
<p>"I signed this statement because I think the time has come to break the
<br />
impasse in the implementation of NPT, both in its non-proliferation and
<br />
in its disarmament aspects. With a new US administration about to come
<br />
to power, this is the right moment for parliamentarians and legislators
<br />
around the world to add their voices to the growing campaign for a world
<br />
without nuclear weapons. We, in the European Parliament, recognize our
<br />
responsibility to push the European nuclear weapons states to make real
<br />
commitments to the implementation of Article VI of the NPT - and we
<br />
think the NWC is a fundamental step forward in that direction."
</p>
<p> </p>
<p><img vspace="0" hspace="0" border="0" align="left" src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:6K7XZjx1zmbM2M:http://www.europarl.de/system/galleries/abgeordnete_6te/download_beer_angelika.jpg" />Angelica Beer, Greens/EFA Germany, member EP Subcommittee on Security
and Defence: </p>
<p>"Only a serious commitment to disarmament provides the moral
ground for demanding non-proliferation from others"</p>
<p>Frieda Brepoels, Belgium PPE -DE:</p>
<p>"After 40 years it is also for the US, Russia, China, Great-Britain and
France the highest time to keep their promises and destroy their entire
nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons add nothing to a better and more secure
world. A majority of people all over the world want a total ban on
nuclear weapons. The non proliferation Treaty looses its credibility if
the Heads of Government of those countries refuse to negotiate. They
carry an enormous responsibility for all the following generations."
</p>
<p> </p>
<p><img vspace="0" hspace="0" border="0" align="left" src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:cRtDjnlUlDDe8M:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Girts_Valdis_Kristovskis.jpg/588px-Girts_Valdis_Kristovskis.jpg" />Mr. Girts Kristovskis, UEN Latvia, Vice-Chair of the EP
Subcommittee on Security and Defense: </p>
<p>"The inability of states
to progress with nuclear disarmament; the long term freezing of the
Treaty of Non-Proliferation and the growing interest of terrorists to
use the possibility of smuggling nuclear weapons brings civilization
ever closer to the nightmare scenario becoming a reality. Unfortunately,
we are rather passive."</p>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p> </p>
<p>First Signatories:</p>
<p>Deputy chairs EP PNND section:
</p>
<p>
Ms. Annemie Neyts (ALDE - Belgium)
<br />
Mr. Andre Brie (GUE/NGL - Germany)
<br />
Ms. Angelika Beer (Greens - EFA - Germany)
<br />
Mr. Girts Kristovskis (UEN - Latvia).
<br />
Ms. Ana Gomes (PSE - Portugal)
<br />
<br />
First co-signers on June 27th (alphabetical per country)</p>
<p>
Ms. Evelin Lichentenberger (Greens/EFA, Austria)
<br />
Mr. Johannes Voggenhuber (Greens/EFA, Austria)
<br />
Ms. Frieda Brepoels (PPE -DE, Belgium)
<br />
Mr. Ivo Belet (PPE-DE, Belgium)
<br />
Mr. Jean-Luc Dehaene (PPE-DE, Belgium)
<br />
Mr. Raymond Langendries (PPE-DE, Belgium)
<br />
Mr. Philippe Busquin (PSE, Belgium)
<br />
Ms. Anne Van Lancker (PSE - Belgium)
<br />
Mr. El Khadrahoui Sa?d (PSE - Belgium)
<br />
Mr. Dirk Sterckx (ALDE, Belgium)
<br />
Mr. Johan Van Hecke (ALDE - Belgium)
<br />
Mr. Pierre Jonckheer (Greens/EFA, Belgium)
<br />
Mr. Bart Staes (Greens/EFA, Belgium)
<br />
Ms. Muriela Baeva (ALDE - Bulgaria)
<br />
Mr. Marios Matsakis (ALDE, Cyprus)
<br />
Ms. Zuzana Roithova (PPE-DE, Czech Republic)
<br />
Mr. Jir(? Ma?t?lka (GUE/NGL, Czech Republic)
<br />
Mr. Johannes Lebech (ALDE, Denmark
<br />
Ms. Margrete Auken (Greens/EFA, Denmark)
<br />
Mr. Michel Rocard (PSE, France)
<br />
Mr. Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL, France)
<br />
Ms. Helene Flautre (Greens/EFA, France)
<br />
Mr. Alain Lipietz (Greens/EFA, France)
<br />
Mr. Jean-Luc Bennahmias (Greens/EFA, France)
<br />
Mr. Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Greens/EFA, France)
<br />
Ms. Sirpa Pietkainen (PPE-DE, Finland)
<br />
Ms. Riitta Myller (PSE, Finland)
<br />
Mr. Frithjof Schmidt (Greens/EFA, Germany)
<br />
Ms. Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL, Germany)
<br />
Mr. Tobias Pflueger (GUE/NGL, Germany)
<br />
Ms. Sahra Wagenknecht (GUE/NGL, Germany)
<br />
Ms. Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL, Germany)
<br />
Mr. Dimitrios Papadimoulis (GUE/NGL, Greece)
<br />
Mr. Jim Higgins (PPE-DE, Ireland)
<br />
Ms. Marian Harkin (ALDE, Ireland)
<br />
Mr. Eoin Ryan (UEN, Ireland)
<br />
Mr. Liam Aylward (UEN, Ireland)
<br />
Mr. Mario Mauro (PPE-DE, Italy)
<br />
Mr. Giusto Catania (GUE/NGL, Italy)
<br />
Mr. Giulietto Chiesa (PSE, Italy)
<br />
Ms. Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE - Italy)
<br />
Mr. Guido Sacconi (PSE - Italy)
<br />
Mr. Sepp Kusstatscher (Greens/EFA, Italy)
<br />
Mr. Vincenzo Aita (GUE/NGL - Italy)
<br />
Mr. Vittorio Agnoletto (GUE/NGL, Italy)
<br />
Mr. Umberto Guidoni (GUE/NGL, Italy)
<br />
Ms. Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL - Italy)
<br />
Ms. Erna Hennicot-Schoepges (PPE-DE, Luxembourg)
<br />
Ms. Lydie Polfer (ALDE - Luxembourg)
<br />
Mr. Claude Turmes (Greens/EFA, Luxembourg)
<br />
Mr. Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL - The Netherlands)
<br />
Ms. Elisa Ferreira (PSE, Portugal)
<br />
Mr. David Dragos Florin (PPE - DE - Romania)
<br />
Ms. Renate Weber (ALDE, Romania)
<br />
Mr. Emilio Menendez Del Valle (PSE, Spain)
<br />
Mr. Raul Romeva (Greens/EFA, Spain)
<br />
Mr. Carl Schlyter (Greens/EFA, Sweden)
<br />
Mr. Jens Holm (GUE/NGL, Sweden)
<br />
Mr. David Martin (PSE, UK)
<br />
Mr. Glyn Ford (PSE, UK)
<br />
Ms. Fiona Hall, ALDE - UK)
<br />
Baroness Sarah Ludford (ALDE, UK)
<br />
Ms. Jean Lambert (Greens/EFA - UK)
<br />
Ms. Caroline Lucas (Greens/EFA, UK)
<br />
Mr. Alyn Smith (Greens/EFA, UK)
<br />
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can find contact details of all MEPs on <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert.do?language=EN">the website of the European parliament</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<hr />
<p>
</p>
<p>DRAFT Letter:</p>
<p>Dear Member of the European Parliament,
<br />
<br />
We invite you to co-sign the attached "Parliamentary endorsement of the
Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC)".
<br />
<br />
The parliamentary statement was agreed by the cross-party group of
Deputy Chairs of the European Parliament section of Parliamentarians for
Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND):
<br />
<br />
Ms. Ana Gomes (PSE - Portugal)
<br />
Mr. Andre Brie (GUE/NGL - Germany)
<br />
Ms. Angelika Beer (Greens - ALE - Germany)
<br />
Ms. Annemie Neyts (ALDE - Belgium)
<br />
Mr. Girts Kristovskis (UEN - Latvia).
<br />
<br />
If you agree, please print, sign and fax the statement today to
+32-57-23 92 76 (Attn. Mr. DHuyvetter). This Parliamentary statement in
support of the NWC will be released on Tuesday July 1st at 12 noon
during a press event at the European Parliament to mark the 40th
anniversary of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We hope you could
join us for the photo opportunity. Please let us know if you can join so
we inform the press of your presence. The venue will be either Place
Luxembourg or an inside venue depending on the weather. We'll inform you
of the exact place.
<br />
<br />
Time has come for the NPT Article VI commitment to be honored by the
Nuclear Weapons States. 40 years have passed since the NPT was signed.
With your support we'll make another step towards a world free of
nuclear weapons.
<br />
<br />
This event is part of an international conference in the EP co-organized
by PNND, Mayors for Peace, Abolition 2000, IPPNW, CNAPD and Greenpeace.
<br />
<br />
Sincerely,
<br />
<br />
(your name and organisation)
<br />
</p>
<p />
https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=269&blogId=1
Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:08:16 -0500Politicians Urge Removal of US Nuclear Weapons From GermanyPoliticians in Germany are calling for the US to remove nuclear
arms stored in Germany after a report pointed to safety deficits
at US atomic weapon sites in Europe.
<br />
<br />Social Democrat and opposition politicians in Germany have called for
the withdrawal of US atomic weapons from German military bases after a
US Air Force investigation concluded that "most sites" used for
deploying nuclear weapons in Europe do not meet US Department of Defense
minimum security requirements.
<br />
<br />
( From: <a href="http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3431145,00.html">Deutsche Welle</a> )<br/>"Atomic weapons in Germany are a holdover from the Cold War. They must
go,? Guido Westerwelle, leader of the opposition Free Democrat Party,
told the <i class="moz-txt-slash"><span class="moz-txt-tag"></span>Berliner Zeitung<span class="moz-txt-tag"></span></i>.
<br />
<br />'No security with atomic weapons'<br />
<br />
Germany should quickly look for a solution, together with the USA, he
said, adding that such a withdrawal could also be the impetus for a new
round of disarmament in Europe.
<br />
<br />
Green Party head Juergen Trittin also called for the removal of nuclear
weapons, saying that German Chancellor Angela Merkel should reject
Germany's role in a nuclear partnership.
<br />
<br />
Gregor Gysi, party leader of The Left, told the paper that if the
current government was strong enough, it would ?immediately demand the
US to withdraw -- and preferably destroy -- the atomic weapons.?
<br />
<br />
This would make Germany more secure, he said, adding that the report
shows that ?with atomic weapons, there is no security.?
<br />
<br />Merkel's party favors nuclear defense<br />
<br />
SPD foreign affairs expert Niels Annen said the withdrawal would be a
huge step toward nuclear disarmament.
<br />
<br />
But members of Merkel's ruling coalition party, the Christian Democratic
Union/Christian Socialist Union, want to maintain their strategy of
nuclear threat.
<br />
<br />
Of course, the weapons should be stored according to the highest
security standards, the CDU foreign affairs spokesman Eckart von Klaeden
told the <i class="moz-txt-slash"><span class="moz-txt-tag"></span>Berliner Zeitung<span class="moz-txt-tag"></span></i>.
<br />
<br />
"But we cannot do without them, as long as there are nuclear weapons in
the world,? he said. ?They protect us, too."
<br />
<br />
Nuclear weaponry has to be part of German security policy, continued von
Klaeden. ?We have to protect ourselves against being taken hostage
someday from a country like Iran," he said.
<br />
<br />
Report on 'nuclear security problem'
<br />
<br />
A summary of the report was released in February, but declassified
details obtained by the Federation of American Scientists revealed "a
much bigger nuclear security problem in Europe" than was previously
known, the group wrote on its Web site.
<br />
<br />
As a consequence, the US military plans to withdraw its nuclear
custodial unit from one base and possibly consolidate remaining sites
into fewer bases.
<br />
<br />
The European bases in question are places where nuclear weapons are
stored for possible use by the host country's own aircraft.
<br />
<br />
US nuclear weapons are stored in underground vaults at bases in Belgium,
Germany, Holland, Italy, Turkey and the United Kingdom, the federation
said, mostly at US Air Force bases. Belgium, Germany, Holland and Italy
each have nuclear weapons at one of their national air bases.
<br />
<br />
<b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag"></span>Losing track of warheads<span class="moz-txt-tag"></span></b><br />
<br />
The weapons at each of the national bases are under control of the US
Air Force in peacetime but would, upon receipt of proper authority from
the US National Command Authority, be handed over to the national Air
Force at the base in a war for delivery by the host nation's own
aircraft, the federation wrote.
<br />
<br />
The review was carried out after the US Air Force lost track of six
nuclear warheads for more than a day last year as they were flown across
the US. The Federation of American Scientists is pushing for release of
details of the report.
<br />
<br />
The review found that "host nation security at overseas nuclear-capable
units varies from country to country in terms of personnel, facilities,
and equipment," the federation quoted the report as saying.
<br />
<br />
There were security lapses in "support buildings, fencing, lighting, and
security systems," the report found.
https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=268&blogId=1
Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:50:17 -0500Are US Nukes in Europe Secure?<p>Are US Nukes in Europe Secure?
<br />
<br />
Weapons grade material from B-61 thermonuclear bombs could be removed
and turned into a crude nuclear device.
</p>
<p>Thursday, Jun. 19, 2008 By EBEN HARRELL</p>
<p>European air force bases that store U.S. nuclear bombs are failing to
meet basic security requirements to safeguard the weapons, according to
a report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
<br />
<br />
The U.S. keeps an estimated 350 thermonuclear bombs in six NATO
countries. In four of those - Belgium, Germany, Italy and the
Netherlands - the weapons are stored at the host nation's air bases,
where they are guarded by specially trained U.S. military personnel.
<br />
<br />
( From: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1816035,00.html">Time</a> )
<br />
( View complete report: <a href="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/usaf/BRR-2008.pdf">www.fas.org </a>, 3MB, .pdf )</p><br/><br />
But according to an internal U.S. Air Force report, the sites are
falling short of Department of Defense requirements, with fencing and
security systems in need of repair, thin rotations that often lead to
staffing shortages, and responsibilities falling to inadequately trained
foreign security personnel.
<br />
<br />
The report, titled "The Blue Ribbon Review of Nuclear Weapons Policies
and Procedures," caused a stir in February after a summary of its
findings identified an overall slip in nuclear weapons safety that
allowed a B-52 bomber to carry six live nuclear warheads across the U.S.
last year. The report led U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates to force
the resignations of the Air Force's top civilian and military leaders
earlier this month.
<br />
<br />
But the full text of the document, obtained by Hans Kristensen of the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and posted on his blog, shows
the extent to which U.S. Air Force inspectors worry about the safety of
weapons in Europe.
<br />
<br />
While it deemed the teams guarding U.S. weapons as well trained, the
report found "inconsistencies in personnel, facilities and equipment
provided to the security mission by the host nation." In particular, it
said that areas in need of repair at several of the sites include
"support buildings, fencing, lighting and security systems."
<br />
<br />
"In some cases," the report said, "conscripts, whose total active duty
commitment is nine months, provide security manpower, while other
locations have the challenge of working with unionized security personnel."
<br />
<br />
The report concluded: "A consistently noted theme throughout the visits
was that most sites require significant additional resources to meet DoD
security requirements."
<br />
<br />
A Belgian Defense Ministry spokesman, Commander Olivier S?verin, denied
that security was lax at the Kleine Brogel Air Base in northeastern
Belgium, where the FAS estimates the U.S. keeps 20 bombs. "We have
professionalized the guards in all our installations," he said. "These
are not conscripts but professional soldiers. Not only that, but
everyone is trained specifically for security at air bases. The proof is
that there have been no major incidents at our installations."
<br />
Locks on the B-61 thermonuclear gravity bomb ? which is up to 10 times
more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb ? prevent it from being detonated
if stolen, experts say. But its weapons-grade material could be removed
and turned into a dirty bomb, or even a crude nuclear device.
<br />
<br />
To avoid such a nightmare scenario, the report recommended that American
nuclear assets in Europe be "consolidated," which analysts interpret as
a recommendation to move the bombs to NATO bases under "U.S. wings,"
meaning American bases in Europe. But such a move would undermine a
"burden-sharing" agreement that has been at the heart of NATO military
policy since its inception.
<br />
<br />
Although technically owned by the U.S., nuclear bombs stored at NATO
bases are designed to be delivered by planes from the host country. That
arrangement can be politically uncomfortable: when Belgian Defense
Minister Pieter De Crem admitted for the first time in January that the
country even housed U.S. weapons, the revelation caused a national
controversy, with opposition MPs demanding ? in vain ? for them to be
removed immediately. In 2001, when the Greek air force ordered a new
fighter jet, it chose a model that could not carry the B-61, forcing the
U.S. to withdraw its weapons.
<br />
<br />
In Brussels, a NATO official said there is no alliance-wide policy on
weapons security: "Security arrangements for U.S. nuclear weapons are
made bilaterally between the U.S. and the host country. Any improvements
that would be deemed necessary should be discussed between those two
governments and not in a NATO context."
<br />
<br />
Whether European countries undertake such discussions or not, the 38th
Munitions Maintenance Group, which overseas the billeted U.S. weapons,
is already under scrutiny from its own command in the wake of the
report. According to the website of Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany,
General Roger A. Brady, Commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, recently
visited Belgium's Kleine Brogel Air Base and Volkel Air Base in the
Netherlands. "I have no questions about our security," he was quoted as
saying in Belgium. "I have concerns because of our mission, and I have
concerns because it's human beings doing it. We're still the best Air
Force in the world, but there's always room for improvement."
<br />
<br />
? With reporting by Leo Cendrowicz/Brussels
https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=267&blogId=1
Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:14:57 -0500Round table at the European Parliament, 30th June 2008: Representatives of NGOs and EU States discuss the Nuclear Weapons Convention<p>Monday, June 30th, 7:00pm-10:00pm
<br />
At the EU Parliament, <b>Room A1G-2</b>
</p><p><a href="https://abolition2000europe.org/register.php">Registration form</a></p><p>See also: <a href="https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=261&blogId=1">Conference in EP to mark 40 Years NPT, 1st July</a></p><br/><p>
<br />
<br />
Chair: Dominique Lalanne, Co-ordinator of Abolition 2000 Europe
<br />
<br />
Panel :
<br />
<br />
Carl Hartzell, Counsellor for Weapon of Mass Destruction and Political
Military Group, Sweden Representation to the EU
<br />
<br />
H.E. Bobby MacDonagh, Ambassador of Ireland, Permanent Representative to the
EU, (TBC)
<br />
<br />
Dr Rebecca E. Johnson, Executive Director, The Acronym Institute for
Disarmament Diplomacy<br /><br />
Dr Xanthe Hall, IPPNW Germany, Middle Powers Initiative<br /><br />Jean-Marie Collin, Observatoire des Armements, Independant consultant<br />
<br />
<br />
Subject: The EU policy on nuclear weapons is subject to debate. Some
States voted for the Nuclear Weapon Convention at the UN General
Assembly last December (Ireland, Sweden, Austria, Malta) while most of
other States voted against it.
<br />
<br />
For NGOs the time has come to understand the reasons for the disarmament
deadlock. Finding a common basis for breaking the deadlock requires
closer cooperation between States and civil society. This meeting
attempts to open up discussion on these issues.
</p>
https://abolition2000europe.org/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=265&blogId=1
Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:58:10 -0500