A Legal Regime for Space
Speech delivered by BSG Director Ambassador Robert Grey, Jr., on the panel "Space Commercialization in the Decade Ahead—Economic Risk or Opportunity?" to the Reach to Space conference
George Washington University
November 12, 2007

The United States and the world community are becoming increasingly dependent upon utilizing outer space.  Telecommunications, weather forecasting, and navigation have become substantial sectors of our economy.  These industries generate around $100 billion a year and have been growing at rate of 16% per year over the last decade.  Outer space is crucial to national security as well.  It is vital for military communications, navigation, and intelligence purposes. All of this depends upon unimpeded access to outer space and on a regime to insure that these vital activities can continue without hindrance.

MORE...

The Tide Is Turning
Speech by GSI Program Officer Rhianna Tyson
August 9, 2007

We are here today to demand “No more Hiroshimas! No more Nagasakis!”  The horrors that were experienced that day in 1945 are unimaginable.  The lasting effects of that radioactive mushroom cloud are felt to this day.  No people, anywhere, ever again should have to endure such indiscriminate suffering, and I thank all of you for working so tirelessly to abolish these genocidal, suicidal and ecocidal weapons. 

MORE...

Interview with GSI President Jonathan Granoff
Wellness Radio, with Deepak Chopra
April 21, 2007

I have a very special guest with me in the studio today who actually understands this on a very deep level, he has dedicated his life to the total elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide through a shift in collective consciousness.

My guest is Jonathan Granoff. He is an author, he’s an international peace activist but in a good manner, not an angry peace activist only add anger to the collective consciousness.

MORE...

The New US National Space Policy
Transcript of IRIB interview with GSI President Jonathan Granoff
November 12, 2006

Question: The Bush administration has quietly updated the national space policy for the first time in more than a decade. What is the objective behind this policy?

Answer: The objective behind the policy is to encourage the development of technology in space and to set forth the goals that they have for space development.

MORE...

GSI's Response to the North Korean Nuclear Test
Transcript of IRIB radio interview with GSI President Jonathan Granoff
October 18, 2006

Question: What is your reaction to North Korea's nuclear test? Could it be a clear response to the US preemption policy announced in 2002?

Answer: The government that runs North Korea has really never come out of the mindset of the Korean war. There was probably a period when George Bush Senior removed the nuclear weapons from the Peninsula in the early 1990s that relaxed the tensions a little bit, and then I would say in September of 2005 when it looked that there was progress being made before the United States caused the banking capacity of North Korea to come to a halt. I think that North Korea has responded to being under a continual sense of threat specifically by the Bush doctrine but by an ongoing threat and this quest for a nuclear weapons capacity long predates the Bush administration policy. I think the people running North Korea have always viewed their security as being based on a military model. That's regrettable because if you look at the progress that freedom has brought to the people of the South Korea when their military government was dissolved and they became a free democratic country about twenty years ago, you can see that the potential of the Korean people to live in peace and prosperity is enormous.   

Putting Teeth in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Regime
by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei
March 25, 2006

It is a pleasure for me to deliver the 2006 Karlsruhe Lecture. My wife asked me a few days ago why I was so excited to be visiting a group of distinguished dentists. I told her it was the first time for me to open my mouth in front of dentists and actually be able to speak.

But more seriously, I believe it is important that our common challenges in the search for global security are outlined to dentists - as well as to people from every profession and background. We are one human family, connected as never before, and facing an uncertain future. As one family we will succeed together, to live in peace and dignity, or we will fail together.

This August 6, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing, is a moment of shared lamentation in which more than 300 thousand souls of A-bomb victims and those who remain behind transcend the boundary between life and death to remember that day. It is also a time of inheritance, of awakening, and of commitment, in which we inherit the commitment of the hibakusha to the abolition of nuclear weapons and realization of genuine world peace, awaken to our individual responsibilities, and recommit ourselves to take action. This new commitment, building on the desires of all war victims and the millions around the world who are sharing this moment, is creating a harmony that is enveloping our planet.

Atlanta, GA -- When you hear "Jane Goodall," think of a growing worldwide movement to abolish nuclear weapons. Why? Because, Dr. Goodall believes, all life on earth hangs in the balance. "We humans have put ourselves in a position where on many levels, we can change the environment to suit our own purposes. So we have a real responsibility to use our incredibly complex language to share information, teach children with positive stories, provide hope by helping people understand what they can do to make the world better," she says.

Two decades ago, the world was swept with a wave of hope. Inspired by the popular movements for peace, freedom, democracy and solidarity, the nations of the world worked together to end the cold war. Yet the opportunities opened up by that historic change are slipping away. We are gravely concerned with the resurgent nuclear and conventional arms race, disrespect for international law and the failure of the world’s governments to address adequately the challenges of poverty and environmental degradation. A cult of violence is spreading globally; the opportunity to build a culture of peace, advocated by the United Nations, Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama and other spiritual leaders, is receding.

The Nobel Peace Laureates and Peace Laureate organizations, gathered at their 5th annual Summit in Rome, note with deep concern that we have once more been deprived of the presence and wisdom of our colleague Aung San Suu Kyi. A witness for non-violence and democracy should not be silenced. This is a loss for the whole world.

Introduction

Saadi, the Persian poet of the 13th century, sang:

The human family is one body with many parts
Creations arising from one unseen essence
Any harm to any part summons an awakening
a dis-ease and a healing response from all parts
You who fail to feel the pain of others cannot be called truly human.

On the Casuarian Coast in the flat mangrove swampland of Indonesian New Guinea, where water and land intermingle with a rhythmic ebb and flow, a tribe of a bout 20,000 people live in harmony with the environment. They call themselves the Asmat, "the people -- the human beings." Everyone else is called Manowe, "the edible ones." They are cannibals.

The Asmat do not organize for total war. Their killing practice is ritualized, limited and controlled. We ignore at our peril the fact that the civilized nations of the world since World War II have spent astronomical fortunes, in excess of ten trillion since the end of the Cold War alone, organizing killing apparatus capable of destroying all life on the planet many times over. Today, conflicts rage in over twenty killing fields driven by religious, ethnic and racial bigotry. In good conscience religions permits these horrors where the vast majority of victims are innocent women and children -- noncombatants.

Coupled with weapons of mass destruction, this modern capacity for organized carnage, if guided by religious bigotry, could easily lead to the unspeakable. This makes us all “edible ones”.

Note: This presentation included slides of peace education in action. Most of the photos and additional information is available from the New Zealand Ministry of Education brochure “Peace Education in Schools”. For a copy contact The Peace Foundation

I am honoured to listen and learn from the wisdom and experience and visions and achievements of the Nobel laureates and others who have spoken over the past two days. I have happily drunk my fill from this fountain of wisdom. I am enriched and inspired and energized by this. I don’t think that that I can add to such wisdom. But what I would like to add are some examples of actions and initiatives to realize some of these visions – to help us move from a divided world to a united world.

International terrorism and nuclear weapons are two areas of the greatest concern to world security at the present time. President George W. Bush said the following about nuclear weapons: “They are the pre-eminent threat to international security.” With this statement I am in full agreement, but this is probably the only Bush saying with which I agree. I certainly do not agree with the way he proposes to deal with the threat. He believes that nuclear weapons should be retained in perpetuity, though only by countries which are friendly to the USA. Thus, he advocates a divided world, just the opposite to what we want to achieve.

G: We are sometimes told that terrorism is the greatest threat in today’s world.
The acts of terrorism, in Beslan, New York, Moscow, Bali and many other places are indeed abominable.

And so many people are killed by this senseless terrorism.

A. Between 2000 and 6000 persons, civilians, are killed every year in international terrorist attacks. And the only attempt we see to deal with the hydra of terrorism is the ”War on terrorism”. This war now goes on in different forms in many parts of the world. And many are killed in that war. For instance, in the ongoing Second war on Chechnya, which is proclaimed to be a war on terrorism, tens of thousands of civilians have been killed. And in Iraq, maybe 100 000. And of these, almost one half of the victims are children.

Dear Friends,

On 11th September, people everywhere were shocked into the realization that we live in a dangerous world. Those who lost loved ones, and the American people, had our sympathy. But how did the American Administration respond? Tragically, very badly. There was no breath of vision, no wisdom, only violence, terror, and war. In spite of millions of people calling for ‘no war,’ British and American Forces rained death and destruction on the people of Afghanistan and then Iraq. Iraq, a country where, when I visited in l999, not only their children, but the whole country, was being destroyed by the effects of the Gulf War, economic sanctions of UN/USA/UK, and the cruelty of a Military dictator. As if their lives were not desperate enough, they were brutally bombed again. These wars were not heroic, courageous, or honorable. They were immoral, illegal, and unnecessary. In time all those involved in the murder of many thousands of Iraqi people ( the latest figure is 100,000 civilians), and Afghans, will want to say they are sorry. Over 1,000 US and many British soldiers, were killed, and untold thousands of US soldiers injured. The Russian war against Chechnya was another example of State terror against a civilian population. This planted seeds of revenge and hatred, and resulted in desperate acts of terrorism, such as those against the children of Beslan. As sure as Spring follows Winter, terrorism follows State Violence and Repression. In spite of this, we are promised ongoing Wars by the United States. I believe that War is State Terrorism by another name, and is itself a threat to humankind. It may well be, only a matter of time, before some Government, or terrorist group, decides to use Nuclear weapons, and that is why Nuclear Proliferation is also a threat.

Before I begin my short remarks I feel I must, as an American, comment on the recent US presidential election. Last year when I spoke to you I talked about the second moment of “hope” we were experiencing in the US. That “hope” was the awakening of a peace and justice movement that, unlike many of its counterparts around the world, had been dormant… and therein lies the good news of the Presidential election.

· More US citizens voted against George Bush than any sitting President in US history.
· First time progressive candidates turned out incumbents in local and state races across the US.
· The record turnout (120 million), regardless of the outcome, meant that we have begun to revive our democracy.
· Voters rejected George Bush’s Iraq policy 75%-25%.

I. Guiding principles of ethical economics

Spreading the concept of ethical economics is the need of the hour. The guiding principles of market economics have now got enlarged through concepts like Welfare Economics for which Prof Amartya Sen received the Nobel Prize in Economics and Ecological Economics for which Ms. Wangari Maathai was chosen for the Nobel Peace Prize this year. Ethical Economics is the cornerstone of sustainable development, since it is rooted in the principles of economics, ecology and social and gender equity. Mahatma Gandhi pointed out that for economics to be ethical, it should be based on the principles of Antyodaya (unto the last of Ruskin) when he said “recall the face of the poorest person you have seen, and ask yourself whether the development project you are about to initiate will make any difference in his/her life”, and Sarvodaya (social inclusion; win-win for all; a society characterized by high social synergy and capital). Ethical economics will not be possible without building it on the principles of antyodaya and sarvodaya and hence can be referred to as Gandhian Economics.

I will concentrate on two aspects of the same problem: the threat of terror and the danger of the War on Terror. I speak as a Quaker pacifist and as an American citizen, fully recognizing that terror has been a condition in which many of you have lived your lives and done your work for peace and justice. I must therefore speak carefully and with humility. For the most part, I have known terror only as I have known thunder and lightning–most of the time as a distant rumble, occasionally a near flash which spared me direct injury. I have traveled in countries whose people feared many forms of government repression, from loss of livelihood, to the late night knock on the door, arrest and disappearance. I have lived periods of time in England and Ireland during IRA bombing campaigns, but that only meant an added awareness of security, and trips postponed because of bomb threats on the train line. In spring, 1974 in Santiago, Chile, I listened to victims of the Pinochet government, who lapsed into temporary silence when the maid repeatedly came back into my hotel room to bring fresh towels or do some other unnecessary task. They who were bearing witness, and who gave me documents to carry home with me, knew about terror. At best, I was learning about it secondhand.

"It's difficult enough to think about one's own mortality; it's overwhelming to think about the mortality of the species. And that's what we're talking about." So said Jonathan Granoff '70 on the Public Radio International show Humankind in 2002.

Dear Friends:

I am not an expert on nuclear weapons or global politics, but I do have enough common sense to know two things:

First, nuclear weapons threaten the lives of billions of people. And second, my country will be unable to persuade others not to acquire nuclear weapons while insisting on our right to plan and build new ones.

As a mother it is very clear that one can never change behavior with a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude.

Children see through this and surely nations see through the illogic of my country telling others not to develop weapons of mass destruction while we rely so heavily on them. It is not logical, nor moral.

Universal disarmament is the only sensible course.

Fear continues to govern the vision of many of the world's leaders and they instill it in the people in order to further their own fear-based agendas.

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has spent more than $10 trillion on armaments. The United States alone spends approximately $100 million every day to keep its nuclear arsenal at ready. Other nations squander assets as well. Neither security nor our humanity is enhanced thereby. The nuclear arsenals are on the ready, just as they were at the height of the Cold War. Yet, the entire budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for all the inspections in the whole world last year was less than $90 million, which is less than the United States spends on one weapons system a day.

Disarmament, arms control, is not a new issue. In the Middle Ages, the Pope outlawed the crossbow declaring it to be “hateful to God and unfit for Christians.” However, the crossbow was later overtaken in effectiveness by the English longbow. And both the crossbow and the longbow were then eclipsed by the destructive firepower of the cannon.

But, everything changed in 1945 with the advent of the atomic bomb, for the first time humankind possessed a weapon with which it could destroy itself. Disarmament efforts gradually gained momentum and over time a web of international treaties and agreements was constructed which limited weapons development and inhibited the spread of nuclear weapons as well as chemical and biological weapons. And, there is no question but that these efforts changed the course of history.

Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than any other animal, sharing approximately 99% of their DNA with ours. They are capable of intellectual behaviors once thought unique to us. They use and make tools, can plan for the immediate future, can recognize self, have a sense of humor. They show emotions that are clearly similar to those we call happiness, sadness, anger, fear, despair and so on. They show compassion and altruism on the one hand, brutality and a form of primitive warfare on the other. Anthropology textbooks often refer to chimpanzee behavior as a possible model for the behavior of our Stone Age ancestors. Certainly they help us to understand that there is no sharp line dividing humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. At the same time, just because chimpanzees are so like us, more so than any other species, understanding of their behavior helps us to pinpoint ways in which we are, indeed, unique and may help us to better understand our own behavior.

It is a great honor to be here with you, especially because of the example set by the Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation and its co chairs Congressman Chris Shays and Ed Markey. I would also like to thank the Bipartisan Security Group, and its group of experts like its Chairman Ambassador Thomas Graham, and my friend Jonathan Granoff. I support and applaud your efforts.

A wise person recently pointed out that no one has ever washed a rental car. Why bother if you don’t own it? When people are engaged in a process, they are far more likely to support its outcome. Nations behave the same way.

Photo: Grey, Graham, Granoff, Markey, Gottemoeller, Holum

WASHINGTON, DC--On June 18, the Bipartisan Security Group (BSG) held a Capitol Hill briefing on the central role of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and obtaining their ultimate elimination. Stressing the Treaty's successful track record over the past 30 years, the panel offered recommendations on how to pursue multilateral security post the Iraqi war.

On Saturday, April 12, 2003 the Global Security Institute presented Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi with the 2003 Alan Cranston Peace Award. Following is a transcript of her remarks, as prepared.

"I wish to express my appreciation to the Members of the Board, the supporters and friends of the Global Security Institute.

"The Institute is a tremendous resource for disarmament and peace throughout the world. Thank you for your leadership for global solutions to global problems.

"To Members of the Board of GSI, thank you for the honor you have bestowed upon me. As a personal friend of Alan Cranston, it is a personal and official privilege to receive the 2003 Alan Cranston Peace Award.

Photo: Nassau Hall, Princeton University

On December 11, 2002 Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School hosted a
Community Forum: "What's Next in Iraq? Is War Inevitable?"

The Panel Discussion was moderated by Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter. Panelists included: Michael Doran, Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Studies; Jonathan Granoff, President of the Global Security Institute; Frank N. von Hippel, Professor of Public and International Affairs; Co-Director, Program on Science and Global Security; Paul R. Krugman, Professor of Economics and International Affairs.

Download the full streaming video of the event (RealPlayer):
- Princeton Iraq Forum

Excellencies, friends and comrades – not in arms of course – but in the cause of disarmament,

I am truly overwhelmed and humbled by the honour you are bestowing on me today. But, more importantly and before you honour me, we are – all of us – honouring the memory of Senator Alan Cranston who worked so tirelessly and tenaciously for nuclear disarmament. I recall my many meetings with him – in Washington while I was Ambassador for my country and later here in New York in my present capacity. Unbowed by age and undaunted by setbacks, Alan Cranston fought courageously for his conviction that the nuclear weapon was, simply, evil and had to be eliminated from our world. Gathering the signatures of former military and political leaders worldwide, lobbying governments and addressing focus groups, he campaigned vigorously till his death. The establishment of an award in his memory by the Global Security Institute he founded and led, keeps alive the idealism and vision, which sparkled in him. It is a huge privilege to be its first recipient.

Presented at the Closing Ceremony of the 2002 Gandhi and King Season for Nonviolence

Cosponsored by: Permanent Mission of Bangladesh to the United Nations, The Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict, The Interfaith Center of New York, and The Association for Global New Thought

Ladies and Gentle Men:

It is with a profound sense of responsibility that I stand to speak to you today on a subject of such urgency that no words are truly adequate. Native American wisdom teaches that every crucial decision must be made in full recognition of its impact on the seventh generation. It is in this light we must look at any nation’s decision regarding the use of nuclear weapons. The threatened use of nuclear weapons by any nation for any purpose at any time in any place holds hostage the future of our children and grandchildren and their children. The actual use of weapons of mass destruction would be an end to life in this world and possibly even worlds yet unknown to us.

[Check against delivery]

Twenty years ago, in 1982, a world commission led by the Swedish diplomat Inga Thorsson published a report on the relationship between disarmament and development. It set out the security options for governments: more money for arms or more money for economic and social development. The world had to make a choice.

In December 2001, the Washington Post reported that some officials in the Bush administration were advocating the development of a new "usable" nuclear weapon or "mini-nuke." Additional news articles in January 2002, said that the Bush administration planned to increase the budget of the Nevada Test Site to prepare it for the resumption of nuclear weapons testing. These news reports prompted Rep. Ed Markey (MA), a leading nonproliferation advocate, to draft a letter to President Bush expressing concern about these proposals.

I begin by congratulating you, Mr. Chairman, upon your election to guide the work of this Committee. Your distinguished career equips you well for the tasks ahead -- a career that, in the disarmament area, features your prominent role in the historic 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as well as your chairmanship of the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters. I also congratulate the other members of the bureau and pledge the fullest support of the Department for Disarmament Affairs (DDA) in all your efforts to make this a productive session.

Mr. President, [Mayor Giuliani,] Distinguished delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen,

On Friday night, the Security Council adopted unanimously a broad resolution aimed at targeting terrorists and those who harbour, aid or support them. That resolution requires Member States to cooperate in a wide range of areas - from suppressing the financing of terrorism to providing early warning, cooperating in criminal investigations, and exchanging information on possible terrorist acts. I applaud the Council for acting so swiftly to enshrine in law the first steps needed to carry this fight forward with new vigour and determination.

TRANSCRIPT

DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL OBJECTIVES

Panel discussion held April 11, 2001 in the United Nations by the NGO Committee on Disarmament, in cooperation with the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs and the UN Department of Public Information.

Panelists:

AMBASSADOR NORMAN WULF, Special Representative for Non Proliferation of the US President, leader of the US delegation at the 2000 NPT Review Conference

VICTOR VASILIEV, Political Counsellor, Mission of the Russian Federation to the UN

MINISTER MARIA ANGELICA ARCE DE JEANNET, Mission of Mexico to the UN

JONATHAN GRANOFF, President, Global Security Institute; Vice President, Lawyers Alliance for World Security (LAWS), Moderator.

The Program of Action on Nuclear Disarmament adopted by consensus at the Sixth Review Conference of the NPT contains thirteen practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article 6 of the Treaty. Ambassador Wulf and Victor already referred to some of the thirteen steps. If you would like to have more precise information on those thirteen steps I invite you to get a postcard published by NGOs supporting nuclear disarmament. This postcard contains the thirteen steps. The steps are a combination of proposals presented by the New Agenda, proposals presented by the five nuclear weapon states, and proposals presented by other delegations. As I mentioned, this is a compromise. The original proposals were more ambitious in some cases. In the end we managed to agree on these thirteen steps. Of course, the next review conference to be held in 2005 will review the implementation of the thirteen steps agreed last year.

Mexico believes that the commitments made at the 2000 conference could be fulfilled through, inter alia, the following concrete actions. All these actions are related to the thirteen practical steps.

First of all, the second conference on ways and means to facilitate the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) will be held in New York next September, from 25-27 September, and chaired by Mexico, probably by the Foreign Affairs Minister. This Conference should provide a framework for the early entry into force of this treaty.

Second, the establishment in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) of ad hoc committees on nuclear disarmament and fissile material. So far it has not been possible to establish these two committees, as well as other committees because there is no agreement on the program of work in the CD. The main reason there is no agreement is because of the political positions taken by the United States, China and the Russian Federation regarding the preservation of the ABM treaty and the possibility of developing a national missile defense. This is what has obstructed an agreement in the CD. And the CD is the only negotiating body for disarmament. The CTBT was negotiated by the CD and once this review of US policy is completed we hope intensive consultations among the key governments could help the CD to start its work.

Another concrete action should be the continuation of the START process through additional bilateral reductions of nuclear weapons to be agreed by the US and the Russian Federation.

A fourth action could be unilateral and bilateral initiatives by the five nuclear weapon states in accordance with the unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. So far there have been bilateral agreements reached between the US and the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom is an example of the unilateral reduction of some of its nuclear weapons. Of course at the same time they have modernized the existing ones. The position of the New Agenda Group is that France, the United Kingdom and China should join the US and the Russian Federation in the process of global nuclear disarmament.

A fifth action could be the observance of the principle of the irreversibility of nuclear disarmament measures. Ambassador Wulf has already mentioned this. And finally, the conclusion of arrangements by all nuclear weapon states to place fissile material no longer required for military purposes under IAEA verification to ensure that fissile material will not be used again for the production of nuclear weapons.

After the 2000 NPT Conference the New Agenda group presented a resolution in the First Committee of the General Assembly last October. That resolution was adopted by 153 votes in favor, 3 votes against, mainly the three states that are not parties to the NPT (India, Pakistan and Israel) and 8 abstentions. The resolution reflected to a great extent the substantive outcome of the 2000 Review Conference, mainly the 13 steps contained in the Program of Action. The broad support for the resolution underlined the need for action to achieve a world free from nuclear weapons with the participation of all member states.

I would like to mention that the New Agenda Group presented a resolution for the first time in 1998. It was also adopted by a large majority, but with a good number of abstentions and votes against, and the same happened in 1999. But in 2000, after the successful outcome of the NPT Conference, the resolution only got 3 votes against, and 8 abstentions. Right now the New Agenda Group is in the process of consulting because this year we will again present a resolution for the consideration of the General Assembly. We hope that the broad support expressed last year will be continued again this year. Thank you.

JONATHAN GRANOFF: Thank you very much. I believe the NGO that produced the post card with the 13 steps is WILPF, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and their web site is www.reachingcriticalwill.org. The postcard would be available through them. I would now like to open the floor for some questions and comments. Do any of the panelists have any comments?

AMBASSADOR WULF: I would just like to pick up on a comment that Angelica made that there is more to the Final Document than just the 13 steps. And it is important to underscore that, because there is a tendency to focus on Article 6, and ignore the rest of the NPT. I think it is clear to all that nuclear disarmament cannot succeed if nuclear non-proliferation fails. It is very important that the totality of the NPT continues to be observed. This means that nuclear weapon states, such as the United States and Russia, have a continuing obligation to provide assistance to non-nuclear states through Article 4, not necessarily in terms of providing nuclear power plants. There are certainly many peaceful uses of the atom that have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. They have to do with nuclear medicine, hydrology, agriculture, etc. Those provisions also have to be observed. And a basic point: when a country, such as Iraq, or North Korea, who are parties to the NPT, violate that treaty, we also have to take those violations seriously. The closer we get to universality, and we are now within four countries of having every country in the world as a party to this treaty, the more important compliance becomes, because a treaty that is not observed obviously is not a treaty that will last over time.

CHARLIE PETERSON, Philadelphia Friends Meeting: I have a question for Ambassador Wulf, and perhaps others. You spoke about the possibility of other nations that may want to have nuclear weapons. What is the kind of enforcement action that is possible?

AMBASSADOR WULF: Enforcement is obviously one of the key issues. In the case of North Korea what happened was the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) detected something was wrong, and asked to do further inspections to clarify what the problem was. North Korea refused to allow it and the IAEA Board of Governors then referred the issue to the Security Council. The Security Council urged North Korea to comply, and all states to work with North Korea to see if there could not be a resolution. That in turn led to the Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea.

In the case of Iraq, the violation only became known once the inspectors went into Iraq following the Gulf War. While there had been evidence to suggest that Iraq might be cheating on its NPT obligations even before the Gulf War, there was no proof. When the inspectors went in following the Gulf War, the proof was clearly there and the Security Council, in Resolution 707, found Iraq to be in violation and urged them to comply. But since there was already an enforcement mechanism in place with respect to Iraq, based on the overarching resolution after the Gulf War, that was viewed as adequate to address that malfeasance by Iraq.

There are no other cases in which a country has been found to have violated the NPT, although there are clearly countries whose activity, for instance their purchases, seem inconsistent with the peaceful program. The US works actively with other supplier countries to ensure that no one supplies equipment to those countries if that would lead them to have a nuclear weapons capability. But there is no short easy answer. The NPT, unlike the CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention) does not have enforcement mechanisms written into it. Clearly what was contemplated, and certainly what has taken place, is that the enforcement has been taken via the UN Security Council.

ED AGUILAR, Philadelphia LAWS and Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities: I want to follow up on what Ambassador Wulf mentioned the Korean Agreed Framework. For several years there have been negotiations between the two Koreas and the United States and I believe China has been helpful at various times. Pursuant to the Framework agreement, there seems to have been quite a bit of progress made last year, but this year these negotiations have been stopped with no current plan to resume. Could you comment on that, and on what can be done to pursue the Agreed Framework?

AMBASSADOR WULF: As far as the Bush Administration is concerned, we are back to the refrain, I am reviewing the situation. But Secretary Powell has made clear that the United States will observe the Agreed Framework and we will try to take actions to further the objectives of the agreed framework. How that will take place is still being examined. We will be meeting with South Korea and Japan. This is a three way effort joined in by other countries as well. The European Union makes a significant contribution, Australia and several other countries as well. But the three big players, in terms of money and politics, are South Korea, Japan and the US.

I do not know how it is going to unfold. Certainly there were some promises made by the North Korean government to the previous Administration in the area of missile transfers. There is concern whether all those provisions are being met, and verification of that. With respect to the Agreed Framework itself, the IAEA is maintaining a continuous presence at the North Korean nuclear facility. The construction of the light water reactors, a portion of the Agreed Framework, has gone very slowly indeed. Rounding up the money, arranging the financing and working through all the political problems has taken a lot longer than either side expected. So it is behind schedule, but it is going forward. My own personal expectation, but obviously I cannot speak for the Administration, is that we will continue to implement the agreed framework with the normal ups and downs that we experienced during the Clinton Administration. I expect we will continue to have those during the Bush Administration as well.

WILFRED GREY, UNA-UK: What factors most influenced the thinking behind the "unequivocal elimination of nuclear weapons?" The increasing number of generals who are saying that strategically and tactically the use of nuclear weapons is absurd? The World Court ruling? The fear that the NPT would unravel if they did not make the commitment? Revulsion against the use of nuclear weapons?

AMBASSADOR WULF: You ask a good question. I am not sure I have a good answer for you. I cannot get into the heads of the decision-makers who made the decision. I worked very closely with the Pentagon prior to the NPT to get the authority for us to engage in the negotiation as we did. None of the factors that you mentioned were the key factor. I would think the key factor is and remains the international security environment. Let me underscore that by reading a quotation from Colin Powell at his confirmation hearing. He was asked a question about Senator Cranston’s views with respect to nuclear disarmament.

Secretary Powell said "his dedication to a world without nuclear weapons was known to all of us. And even though we disagreed on how to get there and what the world required right now, we both had the same goal in mind, and that was at some point in the future we should see a world where there were no nuclear weapons, there was no need for any, there was no need for missile defense, there was no need for strategic offensive forces, that mankind had moved beyond that. I hope that day is reached in our lifetime, but until then I also think that we have to remain strong and guard our interests."

I cite that quote particularly because of the last sentence, because I think that summarizes at least how Colin Powell looks at the issue, and I would daresay how the Pentagon looks at the issues. The strategic environment has to allow for reductions in the weapons to the point that you suggest.

Clearly if one takes the premise, and I think that premise is probably supportable, that the United States has superiority in conventional weaponry, one would think a world without nuclear weapons would be a world in which the United States would remain in a key position. Therefore one could clearly argue that we could see a situation in which the United States would favor a world without nuclear weapons.

My own view is that one of the key components of a world without nuclear weapons is the verification component. I guess one can concede the situation in which cheating on a Chemical Weapons Convention, for example, would not be considered strategically ruinous, but I am not sure you could reach the same conclusion on a nuclear abolition treaty. How many weapons, one, two, three, before you really had a strategically unstable situation? My own personal view is that concern about cheating that makes it difficult for me to see how we can get totally to zero. I am not saying we should not continue working toward that goal, but I do think, for me at least, that makes it very difficult to see how you are going to get there any time soon.

VICTOR VASILIEV: In my lifetime I have happened to live in two countries, and to work in two foreign ministries. One was the Soviet Union and another one is Russia. In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union we maintained a policy of general and complete nuclear disarmament. In practice, while propagating this idea of nuclear disarmament, as you are aware, the Soviet Union was building up its nuclear arsenal in thousands.

Now Russia maintains a different position, which is criticized by some countries and some people. It is close to that of the United States and other western nuclear states and is known as nuclear deterrence. But under this strategy we moved to a much greater reduction from very high ceilings to a lower level. I think from the pragmatic point of view the second trend is more favorable than the first one. Sometimes it is better to do something than to say it. We live in a very complicated world, and of course I would like to be a very good friend with Ambassador Wulf and with all of you here in this hall, but when you open the front page of the NY Times you see so many other stories, unfriendly in nature I should say. That is why we have to take into consideration all factors when we approach the issue of disarmament, including nuclear disarmament.

Coming to your question of unequivocal commitment. I don’t think that Russia or the United States or any other nuclear country rejected this approach. We still maintain, yes, we are for the total elimination of nuclear weapons as the final goal and as a part of general and complete disarmament under effective international control. Ambassador Wulf in his previous presentation mentioned that we should approach the 2000 Review document as a complex document which has various factors. He also mentioned this is a balance and I agree with him. The unequivocal commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons is part of this comprehensive approach. As far as Russia is concerned we are trying to fulfill our obligations leading to this goal. While achieving this goal we are taking a step-by-step approach.

You referred to the ruling of the International Court of Justice. I don’t think it is up to the Court to decide at what time and how nuclear weapons should be eliminated. It is a broader process which involves many factors. What is good and what is positive is that we are striving towards this goal.

MARIA ANGELICA ARCE DE JEANNET: I think that many of the States Parties of the NPT have shown flexibility and political will at the 2000 Review Conference because we were aware that we could not afford a failure once again. After the addition of two nuclear weapon states, India and Pakistan, it was very clear that the international regime established by the NPT was jeopardized by the nuclear tests conducted by these two Asian countries. There was an obligation to engage in very serious negotiations and to reach an agreement. It is true that the 13 steps are not the only part of the Final Document, but it is the primary goal of the Final Document. The New Agenda Group pursued in the negotiations the inclusion of this unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon states. As it was mentioned, it is an explicit commitment, because we already had the same commitment contained in the wording of Article VI.

It was not easy to reach this agreement, because the 13 steps are a package. All the 13 steps are very closely interrelated. The approval of the five nuclear weapon states to the unequivocal undertaking was obtained only after they got some language in the 13 steps. For one nuclear weapon state it was extremely important to have a linkage with general and complete disarmament. That means that in the process of disarmament we should have not only nuclear disarmament but also conventional disarmament. For another nuclear weapon state it was very important to have a reference to strategic stability. We have different language. We have the principle of undiminished security for all. Another nuclear weapon state was not in a position to accept a time frame for this unequivocal undertaking. But as a representative of one of the non nuclear weapon states who participated very actively in the negotiations, I want to stress that the five nuclear weapon states showed enough flexibility to conclude this agreement, and this must be recognized by all States Parties, because we could have had the same situation that we had in 1995, in 1990 and in 1985 where we couldn’t agree on a final substantive document. Last year we really got that Final Document.

Now the challenge is how to implement those commitments. We should recognize that the international situation right now is not the best to allow some of the nuclear weapon states to proceed with concrete actions. Nevertheless, the non nuclear weapon states have an obligation to continue pushing for these additional concrete steps in the field of nuclear disarmament.

JONATHAN GRANOFF: I noted that Secretary Powell referred to Senator Cranston, who was my mentor in this subject. I am his successor as the President of the Global Security Institute. I would like to express public appreciation for his clarity and years of leadership and inspiration. The key difference between his perspective and Secretary Powell’s goes to the issue of interests, guarding our interests. Senator Cranston defined our interests in three capacities. One was morality. He felt very strongly that the continued threat to use nuclear weapons on hundreds of millions of innocent people as a means of obtaining security was intrinsically unworthy of civilization. That was the term that he used. He also expressed the issue of stability. He thought that the continued reliance of very strong states on nuclear weapons for their security would be a stimulant for other states to try and develop nuclear arsenals. He argued that the interest being guarded included stability, and that the elimination of nuclear weapons would increase stability.

The third was one of moral coherence, and consistency. If one state is going to say to other states, you should not have them, that state should also move to eliminate them. So those were the interests that he articulated in distinction to Secretary Powell’s interests. I have not heard clearly articulated by Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China or the United States what the prevailing national interests are that justify the continued reliance on nuclear weapons. We are not ideological or practical enemies any longer. I just don’t think anybody really believes that the United States has some aspiration to take over Russia or that Russia has imperial ambitions to take over and threaten the United States any longer. So what are the Russian interests presently that are so overriding that necessitate reliance on nuclear weapons? And Ambassador Wulf, what are the interests presently of the United States that are so pressing that we need to keep nuclear weapons? What are the present arguments to keep these weapons that we have to overcome?

GRANOFF: We are privileged to have with us today Theodore C. Sorensen who was one of the key participants in helping to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

For eleven years, Mr. Sorensen served as a key policy advisor, legal counsel and speechwriter to John F. Kennedy. He was involved in the civil-rights initiatives that came with President Kennedy, the decision to go to the moon, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

JONATHAN GRANOFF: We are privileged to have with us Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala who is the Under Secretary General of the United Nations with the special charge of Disarmament Affairs.

Why is the movie Thirteen Days an important movie?

AMBASSADOR JAYANTHA DHANAPALA: Memories are very short. This is a crisis that took place almost 40 years ago. There are a number of generations that have very little knowledge of the critical period we passed through in 1962. We almost had a nuclear holocaust, an Armageddon. Many people do not understand this until they actually see the film, which is a remarkable historical reconstruction.

Jonathan Granoff (JG): We have the privilege of speaking with Ambassador Richard Butler. Why is Thirteen Days an important movie for the people to see?

Richard Butler (RB): Jonathan, there have been two occasions which reveal the full power and horror of nuclear weapons: The first occasion was the dropping of the atom bombs over Japan in 1945. The second was the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Thirteen Days depicts the most dramatic instance in which nuclear weapons were almost used. We were very fortunate, in a number of ways, that President Kennedy and the team around him saw us through that great danger. The movie is a truly significant representation of a danger that has not gone away.

Q: I am a consultant from the United Nations. Do you think that the situation today has changed, and that we have reached a comfort zone with these weapons whereby they may be used?

SORENSEN: That’s a very good question. I think that Washington D.C. and Moscow learned a very real lesson in 1962. There is no experience like gazing down a nuclear gun barrel at the other side and seeing them gazing back to make one recognize that there has to be some other way to resolve disputes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mrs. Boxer (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein) introduced the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Relative to the death of Alan Cranston, former United States Senator or the State of California.

Mr. President, this past weekend, our nation lost one of its finest public servants with the passing of former California Senator Alan Cranston.

Senator Cranston served California well, and our hearts and thoughts go to his son Kim and the rest of his family at this difficult time.

Senator Cranston holds the distinction of being the only Democrat in our State's history to win four terms to the United States Senate, serving 24 years.

We come together today from various religions in the common conviction that God acts and speaks into human history. This is the character of the revealed religions we represent. Our faith is rooted in God’s self-revelation, not human autosuggestion. It’s not like the signs that read, "Made in Texas by Texans." If there is any validity to our faiths at all, it is because we are responding to a light that we did not invent or create.

ARMS CONTROL

Mr. DORGAN. Today, in the Washington Post, there was a story headlined `U.S. Arms Policy is Criticized at the United Nations.' The occasion of the criticism comes at the beginning of the conference to review the status of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which opened yesterday at the United Nations in New York. This conference occurs once every 5 years. It is a conference on the status of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I would like to read the first paragraph of the story in the Washington Post because it is really quite a sad day when our country is described in the following way:

The threat posed by nuclear weapons – the issue that brings us together – surpasses in a way all others.

Many issues are important.

But if we blow ourselves up in a nuclear holocaust, no other issue will matter.

Friends, we are all privileged to share in honoring Senator Alan Cranston tonight. He is an inspiration to anyone who values public service.

After Alan graduated from Stanford, he became a foreign correspondent for the International News Service. He quickly noticed while in Europe, the grave danger of fascism and published a version of Mein Kampf to alert Americans. Hitler sued him for copyright infringement.

Since 1981 Lawyers Alliance for World Security has been a nonpartisan organization of professionals concerned with promoting the rule of law and the control and elimination of threats posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Averell Harriman became US Ambassador to the Soviet Union under President Franklin Roosevelt. As one of America’s great statesmen he was a resolute voice for the control of weapons through law. The Averell Harriman Award is presented to those who strive in that tradition. Previous recipients include the Chemical Manufacturers Association for its support of the Convention banning chemical weapons, and Ambassador Richard Butler for his work promoting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The following is a transcript of a CBS 60 Minutes II segment entitled "The Missiliers." Produced by George Crile, it contains an extensive interview between Dan Rather and General Eugene Habiger (Ret.), former Commander-in-chief of all U.S. nuclear forces.

The show first aired on CBS on Tuesday, Feb 8, 2000.

Similar segements have appeared several times on CBS 60 Minutes II and on CNN's Democracy In America series.

A few weeks ago, I returned to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see once again the effect of atomic bombing. It was a profound experience to speak to some of the survivors and see the museum displays of the horror and suffering. It is a visit I recommend to every politician, certainly those legislators who do not understand the calamitous results from the use of even one such bomb.

The following dialogue between General Lee Butler, Commander-in-Chief of the US Strategic Command until 1994 and Richard Butler, former Executive Chairman of the Canberra Commission on the elimination of nuclear weapons was moderated by former Senator, Alan Cranston. General Lee Butler, with his experience and agonies over the risks of nuclear warfare and accidents, raised the flag for International Nuclear Disarmament both on moral and technical grounds. The dialogue was sponsored by the Nuclear Weapon Elimination Initiative during the 1998 State of the World Forum in San Francisco.

Thank you, and good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Dorene and I are honored by your presence and gratified by your welcome. Although we are now proud residents of Nebraska -- note the obligatory display of home team colors -- Dorene and I feel very much at home in this city. I see many familiar faces in this audience, which makes the moment all the more special.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I must say at the outset that this is a singular moment in my life after 37 years in uniform. I am honored to join you, to share the stage with such a distinguished group, and most particularly to stand next to the gentleman on my left (President Gorbachev). At the same time, I must say in all candor that this represents a very conscious departure from a decision I made upon retiring, not to speak publicly on national security matters. When I became a private citizen and a businessman two and one-half years ago, it was my intention to close the journal of my military career and never to reopen it. I amend that resolution with considerable reluctance. My decision to step back into public life is prompted by an inner voice I cannot still, a concern I cannot quiet. I am compelled by a growing alarm, born of my former responsibilities, and a deepening dismay as a citizen of this planet, with respect to the course of events governing the role of nuclear weapons in the aftermath of the Cold War.