From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #41 Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest Sender: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk abolition-usa-digest Friday, November 20 1998 Volume 01 : Number 041 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:45:18 -0500 From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Germany & NFU >Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:25:19 -0500 >Subject: Germany & NFU >Priority: non-urgent >To: abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca >X-FC-Forwarded-From: plough@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca >From: abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) > >The Guardian > >Bonn wants Nato pledge on no first nuclear use=20 > >By Ian Traynor in Bonn >Thursday November 19, 1998=20 > >Germany wants Nato to break with half a century of military >and strategic doctrine and commit itself not to use nuclear >weapons first.=20 > >The policy shift by Chancellor Gerhard Schr=F6der's coalition >of Social Democrats and Greens is already encountering >resistance in Western capitals and threatens to put the new >Bonn government on a collision course with Washington. > >In the run-up to next April's Nato summit in Washington, >which marks the alliance's 50th anniversary and is to adopt >a new "strategic concept" redefining its purpose in the light >of its expansion into eastern Europe, senior German officials >said they would fight to have the no-first-use commitment >enshrined in the document. > >"The security and military situation has changed so radically >in recent years that the time is right for this," a senior >German foreign ministry official said. "It belongs in the Nato >review and we want to push it at the April summit." > >"These are highly sensitive issues," another German official >said. "But if the nuclear states don't move towards more >disarmament, then the incentive for those states on the brink >of going nuclear is extremely low." > >Nato officials in Brussels said they had not been formally >notified of the German initiative, but were aware of the new >thinking in Bonn. > >"At the moment this is a German debate. If they intend to >raise it there will be rigorous debate, but the United States >will not support that position, will not agree that no-first-use >becomes Nato policy," an alliance official said. > >Reserving the option of going nuclear first in a conflict has >been a keystone of Nato deterrence strategy for decades. It >became particularly controversial in the closing phase of the >cold war in the 1980s, when the Soviet Union adopted a >no-first-use stance in an attempt to force Nato to make a >similar commitment. > >"Deterrence depends on having and being prepared to use >nuclear weapons," a Nato official said. > >Western governments are monitoring shifts in German >foreign and security policy. The no-first-use demand is a >concession to the environmentalist Greens, the junior >coalition partner, whose leader, Joschka Fischer, is the new >foreign minister. > >His foreign policy watchword is "continuity". He told foreign >journalists this week: "In foreign policy I have no ambition >to be a revolutionary. That's the last thing Germany needs." > >But the call to reverse nuclear policy is being seen as a >breach in continuity. The 50-page coalition pact agreed by >the Social Democrats and the Greens last month included a >line stating that the new government "will campaign to lower >the alert status of nuclear weapons and for a renunciation of >the first use of nuclear weapons". > >The first indication of the position emerged last Friday at the >United Nations in New York when Germany abstained on >a motion by neutral countries for nuclear disarmament. The >key Nato allies - the US, France, and Britain - all voted >against the resolution. > >"There may be question marks over the German approach," >a Western diplomat in Bonn said. "The abstention at the >UN caused some concern with the Americans." > >A German official said: "The abstention showed that we >can't say yes because of the allies, but that we don't want to >say no." > >The US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, is believed >to have raised the issue with Mr Fischer, while the Nato >secretary-general, Javier Solana, is believed to have voiced >concern to Mr Schr=F6der in Berlin last week. > >--=20 >Bill Robinson, Project Ploughshares, >Conrad Grebel College, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G6 >Phone: 519 888-6541 x264 Fax: 519 885-0806 >E-mail: plough@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca >http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough > >Project Ploughshares is a member of the Canadian Network to Abolish >Nuclear Weapons (http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough/cnanw/cnanw.html) >=20 Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 15 East 26th Street, Room 915 New York, NY 10010 tel: (212) 726-9161 fax: (212) 726-9160 email: aslater@gracelinks.org GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:46:25 -0500 From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: National Post 19Nov98 >Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:34:36 -0500 >Subject: National Post 19Nov98 >Priority: non-urgent >To: abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca >X-FC-Forwarded-From: plough@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca >From: abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) > >National Post, 19 November 1998 > >Commons report likely to rile the U.S. over disarmament >Canadian policy review : >Committee seeks to line up allies for nuclear contraction > >Mike Trickey >Southam News > >A Commons committee reviewing Canada's nuclear >policy wants the government to push the United States to >remove its nuclear defence umbrella from Europe. > >The recommendation, one of several likely to bring Canada into >conflict with its closest ally and primary defender, is >part of a report obtained by the National Post. > >The report of the Commons foreign affairs committee is to >be presented to Parliament next month. > >Other potentially controversial recommendations include, "at >minimum," the commitment of all NATO states to the eventual >elimination of nuclear arsenals, the need for a revised NATO >nuclear policy that carries an implicit renunciation of "first-use" of >nuclear weapons, and a strong endorsement of the concept of >"de-alerting" all nuclear forces, particularly in the cases of Russia >and the United States. > >The report's recommendations are in step with Canada's abstention >last week on a United Nations resolution calling for fast-track >negotiations to abolish nuclear weapons. > >That vote passed by a 97-19 count, with most NATO members >joining Canada in abstaining in a shocking repudiation of the U.S. >position. Fellow nuclear club members France and Britain, as well >as Turkey, were the only NATO nations supporting Washington in >voting against the non-binding resolution. > >Canada argues that opposition by the U.S. and other nuclear >powers to the UN resolution runs counter to the commitments it has >made by signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. > >Article 6 of the treaty, which has been signed by every country in >the world except Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan, commits >signatories to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. > >The committee wants Canada to reaffirm its support for the treaty >as the centrepiece of global nuclear non-proliferation, and to reject >any attempt to revise it in a way that would recognize India and >Pakistan as "nuclear-weapon states" after they successfully tested >nuclear weapons in May. > >The committee argues that the government should use its best >efforts to convince fellow NATO members that international >developments since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 should >be reflected in NATO nuclear policy to help achieve global >disarmament goals. > >"At a minimum, the updated Strategic Concept should reflect: > >- The commitment of all NATO member states to the reduction and >eventual elimination of nuclear arsenals; > >- The further reduction in any likelihood of the use of nuclear >weapons, and the need for progressive limitation of recourse to >them on a global basis; > >- The fact that the modern Alliance is now so strong politically and >militarily that the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe is no >longer essential as a demonstration of solidarity and the >transAtlantic link; > >- The need, in light of transformed international security >circumstances and common security goals, to update Alliance >nuclear policy on an on-going basis." > >American and British officials have said that any review of NATO's > >nuclear strategy raises the spectre of renouncing the "first-use" >policy. > >They also argue that such a declaration is unacceptable because it >would undermine the credibility of their deterrence capabilities. > >Commitment to "de-alerting" is also sure to draw fire from the >nuclear states, who say the process, which involves separating the >warhead from the delivery system, undermines the ability to retaliate >promptly and is a concept which is virtually impossible to verify. > >Other committee recommendations include encouraging Russia and >the United States to continue the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks >process, in particular, prompt Russian ratification of START-2; the >feasibility of establishing a NORAD hotline with the U.S. and >Russia to address the potential dangers of the "millennium bug;" >encouraging all nuclear states to increase the transparency about >their nuclear stockpiles and fissile material; and that Canada ratify >as quickly as possible the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. > >Legislation ratifying the CTBT is now in third reading in parliament, >and is expected to be passed by the end of the year. > >-- >Bill Robinson, Project Ploughshares, >Conrad Grebel College, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G6 >Phone: 519 888-6541 x264 Fax: 519 885-0806 >E-mail: plough@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca >http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough > >Project Ploughshares is a member of the Canadian Network to Abolish >Nuclear Weapons (http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough/cnanw/cnanw.html) > Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 15 East 26th Street, Room 915 New York, NY 10010 tel: (212) 726-9161 fax: (212) 726-9160 email: aslater@gracelinks.org GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:37:54 -0500 From: "David Culp" Subject: (abolition-usa) START II Articles from Moscow (Thursday) Segodnya (Moscow) Thursday, November 19, 1998 (Summary translation from Russia Today) START 2: SORRY TO DROP IT, BUT IT'S TOO HEAVY TO CARRY Summary Duma defense committee chairman Roman Popkovich on Wednesday spoke about the START 2 treaty signed by Russian and U.S. leaders in 1991. The daily wrote that from his speech, it finally became clear why the Duma has refused to ratify START 2 for so long: The deputies were unhappy with the treaty's technical parameters. It was hard to dare to cut heavy RS-20 missiles made in Ukraine. But the most important thing was that Russia still hoped to have closer military cooperation with Ukraine, which would have made cooperation in missile construction viable. For this reason, in 1992-93 the START 2 treaty was considered premature, if not damaging. Now, it is obvious that economic cooperation with Ukraine has become impossible for political as well as economic reasons. To keep up at the level of the START 1 treaty, Russia would need 50-60 billion rubles annually -- more than the whole budget for its military. Popkovich concluded that ratification of START 2 by the incumbent Duma is better for Russia's strategic defense capabilities, because rejection would result in great problems in the future. - ---------- Washington Post Thursday, November 19, 1998 TROUBLES INVIGORATE DEBATE ON START II: RUSSIAN CRISIS SAPS BUDGET FOR MISSILES By David Hoffman Washington Post Foreign Service MOSCOW, Nov. 18=97After years of delay, Russia's lower house of parliament has begun making serious headway toward ratification of the START II strategic arms accord, lawmakers and experts said today. The shift followed delivery to parliament of a secret government report warning that Russia's nuclear shield will shrink dramatically and unavoidably in the years ahead due to weapons obsolescence and national economic decline. The treaty -- signed in January 1993 by President Bush and President Boris Yeltsin and ratified by the U.S. Senate in January 1996 -- has attracted sharp opposition in the lower house, the State Duma, from nationalists and Communists, who dominate the 450-member chamber. The accord has languished there for almost six years, despite Yeltsin's repeated promises to push it forward. But lawmakers said there has been a change in the political outlook for the treaty that could bring it to a vote as soon as next month. The shift is based on an increasing realization that Russia's economic troubles have seriously undermined its ability to maintain a large strategic nuclear force. Backers say the treaty will limit the size of the U.S. nuclear force, which has become a compelling argument for ratification as the scope of the Russian decline grows apparent. Alexei Podberiozkin, an influential Communist Party member and deputy chairman of the International Affairs Committee, has decided to back the treaty. "I had been very strongly opposed to this treaty for many years, but the situation has changed -- not in favor of Russia," he said. Podberiozkin added that "until recently, I thought there was no chance for ratification. Now, if we work hard, I suppose we can ratify it in December." Like many other officials here, Podberiozkin said he wants ratification to lead "as quickly as possible" to negotiations for a follow-on START III accord, with still lower levels of strategic weapons, which Yeltsin and President Clinton have pledged. START II would set limits of 3,500 to 3,000 warheads for each side, down from 6,000 under START I. The tentative goals for START III, set earlier by Clinton and Yeltsin, are between 2,500 and 2,000 warheads for each side. However, the reality of Russia's dwindling strategic forces is that it cannot support even that many and that its heavy multiple-warhead, land-based missiles are reaching the end of their service life. Some hard-liners had argued that those missiles could be kept in service for many years more, but "it became painfully obvious that we will not have the money to maintain any kind of multiple-warhead missiles and that it is wiser to concentrate on modernization of strategic forces," said Vladimir Averchev, a supporter of START II and a member of the centrist Yabloko bloc in parliament. START II outlaws land-based, multiple-warhead missiles, and Russia has started replacing them with new, single-warhead missiles, but the new Topol-M rocket recently failed a test flight, and it is not clear how many Russia can build, given its economic problems. Roman Popkovich, chairman of the Duma's Defense Committee, said that if Russia does not ratify START II and decides to maintain the older missiles, it would consume more than the current military budget. Moreover, he said, the older missiles are a safety threat. "After lengthy storage . . . nobody knows where it is going to fly after launch," he said. The projected decline in Russian strategic arms capability in the years ahead was documented in a secret report recently sent to the Duma by First Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Maslyukov, a former top Soviet-era military-industrial planner who has pushed for ratification of START II. According to two sources who asked not to be identified, Maslyukov estimated in his report that, because of obsolescence and other factors, Russia may be able to field only 800 to 900 nuclear warheads seven years from now. Such predictions are highly reflective of the state of the economy, but Maslyukov's estimates appear to fall well below the levels envisioned by a Kremlin strategic weapons review Yeltsin approved last July. Maslyukov's views are believed to have carried weight with Communist legislators who previously were leading opponents of the treaty. "Maslyukov said many times and continues to say that Russia has no choice and parliament should ratify, because in 10 years the current Russian missiles will die," said his spokesman, Anton Surikov. =A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company - ---------- Voice of Russia (Moscow) Thursday, November 19, 1998 The Defense Committee of the Russian State Duma has favored an early ratification of the Russian-American START II treaty. According to members of the Russian parliament, the ratification of the treaty will not lower the country's combat capability nor will it weaken national security. Earlier the Speaker of the State Duma Gennady Seleznyov said the State Duma suggested its own version of the document, a supplement of the document suggested by the President with a number of new articles. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:57:51 -0500 From: "David Culp" Subject: (abolition-usa) More on START II from Moscow (Thursday) Moscow Times Thursday, November 19, 1998 DUMA DRAFTS BILL TO RATIFY START II By Chloe Arnold Staff Writer The State Duma is ready to debate ratification of the long-awaited START II nuclear disarmament treaty, speaker of the lower house Gennady Seleznyov said Wednesday. A parliamentary bill calling for ratification of the treaty has been drafted by lawmakers, was approved by Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov and is unlikely to be snubbed by President Boris Yeltsin, Seleznyov said. He did not say when the treaty will be put to a vote, butDuma sources said it is likely to be put on the agenda for next month. The drafting of the bill marks the most significant progress yet toward ratifying the treaty, which has been languishing in the Duma for several years. The Communist and nationalist-dominated Duma has repeatedly refused to discuss START II in the past, claiming the treaty would put Russia at a strategic disadvantage compared to the United States. But analysts say that today's dire financial climate and the need to curry favor with Western governments and lending institutions have persuaded many lawmakers of the need to ratify the document. Deputies, however, insisted on including several conditions in the bill on ratification, in particular that the government immediately begin negotiating a START III disarmament treaty, which the Duma hopes will further reduce the United States' strategic advantage over Russia. "The problem of security must be viewed in a wide context," Seleznyov said. "Duma deputies and other state officials are aware of this." "The bill provides for funds needed to keep the remaining missiles combat -ready and calls for the speedy signing of START III, which would protect Russia's security," Interfax quoted Seleznyov as saying during a meeting with visiting Ukrainian Foreign Minister Boris Tarasyuk. Signed in 1993 by Yeltsin and then- U.S. President George Bush, the START II agreement bans all multiple-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles by 2003 and cuts the number of single-warhead ICBMs on both sides to between 3,000 and 3,500. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in 1993, but the Duma has dragged its feet until now. The Russian government insists that it needs the treaty to maintain parity with the United States. While Washington keeps a massive nuclear arsenal, Moscow cannot afford to do so and its stockpile is shrinking as aging missiles are taken out of service and not replaced. At a briefing Wednesday, Duma Defense Committee chairman Roman Popkovich said deputies, too, are beginning to share the government's view. "The point of ratification is not just to bring down the ceiling, but to protect our national security," Popkovich said. "We must clearly realize that today it is not necessary to have stocks of 6,000 warheads." Popkovich said the Russian state could no longer afford to maintain as many nuclear arms as the United States and that ratifying the accord was therefore essential. "In order to maintain our nuclear missile potential, we will need 50 to 60 billion rubles [$3 billion to $3.5 billion] a year for the next seven years," he said. "The Duma approved an entire defense budget for this year of 82.5 billion rubles. So we have to decide whether or not this is feasible." - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 23:38:43 -0600 (CST) From: smirnowb@ix.netcom.com (Robert Smirnow) Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: CDC Nuclear Halth Effects Mtg - -- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:02:31 -0500 (EST) From: Dan Yurman To: nukenet@envirolink.org Subject: CDC Nuclear Halth Effects Mtg Reply-To: dyurman@world.std.com Sender: owner-nukenet@envirolink.org Subject: INEL: Public Health Service Activities and Research at DOE Sites; Citizens Advisory Committee Notices Public Health Service Activities and Research at DOE Sites; Citizens Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting 11/19/1998 Federal Register Copyright 1998. All rights reserved. Citizens Advisory Committee on Public Health Service Activities and Research at Department of Energy Sites: Fernald Health Effects Subcommittee; Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee; Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Health Effects Subcommittee; and Savannah River Site Health Effects Subcommittee; and the Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects: Meetings. In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) announce the following Federal advisory committee meetings. Name: Citizens Advisory Committee on Public Health Service Activities and Research at Department of Energy Sites. Times and Dates: 8 a.m.-5 p.m., December 8, 1998; 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., December 9, 1998. Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, telephone 801-532-3344, fax 801-531-0705. Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 150 people. Background: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Energy (DOE) have two Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) for public health activities and research at DOE sites. One transferred the responsibility for the management and conduct of energy-related analytic epidemiologic research to HHS, and HHS subsequently delegated program responsibility to CDC. The other is a separate MOU between ATSDR and DOE. This MOU addresses ATSDR public health responsibilities around DOE sites. In addition, ATSDR is required by law (Sections 104, 105, 107, and 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) to conduct public health assessments, and where appropriate, other health activities, many of which are conducted at DOE sites. Implementing these MOUs requires significant interaction with communities living in proximity to DOE sites. This committee was chartered in response to the requests by representatives of the communities surrounding DOE sites to provide consensus advice and recommendations on community concerns related to CDC's and ATSDR's activities related to the sites. Purpose: This committee provides advice and recommendations to the Director, CDC, and the Administrator, ATSDR, regarding community, American Indian Tribes, and labor concerns pertaining to CDC's and ATSDR's public health activities and research at respective DOE sites. Activities focus on providing a forum for community, American Indian Tribal, and labor interaction, and serve as a vehicle for communities, American Indian Tribes, and labor to express concerns and provide advice and recommendations to CDC and ATSDR. Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items will include presentations from each of the four established subcommittees; status of the Advisory Committee for Energy-Related Epidemiologic Research Subcommittee for Community Affairs; up to four break-out sessions with presentations post break-out; proposed evaluation of the health effects subcommittees; group discussions and public comments. Name: Fernald Health Effects Subcommittee (FHES). [Page Number 64266] Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m., December 10, 1998. Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, telephone 801-532-3344, fax 801-531-0705. Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room will accommodate approximately 75 people. Purpose: This subcommittee reviews and provides consensus advice to CDC and ATSDR on their public health activities and research at the Fernald, Ohio, site. Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include an update on worker studies related to the Fernald site from NIOSH; an update on risk assessment from NCEH; selection of FHES representative for an evaluation project; and subcommittee discussion. Name: Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects (ICHHP) in Association with the Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee (HHES). Time and Date: 8 a.m.-12 noon, December 10, 1998. Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, telephone 801-532-3344, fax 801-531-0705. Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 75 people. Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to address issues that are unique to tribal involvement with the HHES, including considerations regarding a proposed medical monitoring program and discussion of cooperative agreement activities designed to provide support for capacity-building activities in tribal environmental health expertise and for tribal involvement in HHES. Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items will include a dialogue on issues that are unique to tribal involvement with the HHES. This will include exploring cooperative agreement activities in environmental health capacity building and providing support for tribal involvement in and representation on the HHES. Name: Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee (HHES). Times and Dates: 1 p.m.-5 p.m., December 10, 1998; 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m., December 11, 1998. Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, telephone 801-532-3344, fax 801-531-0705. Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 75 people. Purpose: This subcommittee reviews and provides consensus advice to CDC and ATSDR on their public health activities and research at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items will include an update from the ICHHP; the review and approval of Minutes of the previous meeting; updates from ATSDR, NCEH, and NIOSH; reports from the Outreach, Public Health Assessment, Public Health Activities, and Studies Workgroups; and other issues and topics as necessary. Name: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Health Effects Subcommittee (INEELHES). Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., December 10, 1998. Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, telephone 801-532-3344, fax 801-531-0705. Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 75 people. Purpose: This subcommittee reviews and provides consensus advice to CDC and ATSDR on their public health activities and research at the INEEL. Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include an update on the status of research at the INEEL, discussion on document management at DOE; and subcommittee discussions. Name: Savannah River Site Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES). Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., December 10, 1998. Place: Salt Lake City Hilton, 150 West 500 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, telephone 801-532-3344, fax 801-531-0705. Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 75 people. Purpose: This subcommittee reviews and provides consensus advice to CDC and ATSDR on their public health activities and research at the SRS. Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include an update from ATSDR on its research; the schedule for release to the public of the Phase II report; presentations by NCEH, ATSDR, and NIOSH on the design of their respective web pages; and subcommittee discussion. All agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information on the HHES and the ICHHP may be obtained from Leslie C. Campbell, Executive Secretary, HHES, or Marilyn Palmer, Committee Management Specialist, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, NE (E-56), Atlanta, GA 30333, telephone 1-800-447-1544, fax 404-639-6075. Information on the FHES may be obtained from Steven A. Adams, Executive Secretary, FHES, Radiation Studies Branch (RSB), Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects (DEHHE), NCEH, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, (F-35), Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, telephone 770-488- 7040, fax 770-488-7044. Information on the INEELHES may be obtained from Arthur J. Robinson, Jr., Executive Secretary, INEELHES, RSB, DEHHE, NCEH, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, (F-35), Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, telephone 770-488- 7040, fax 770-488-7044. Information on the SRSHES may be obtained from Paul G. Renard, Executive Secretary, SRSHES, RSB, DEHHE, NCEH, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, (F-35), Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, telephone 770-488-7040, fax 770-488-7044. The Director, Management Analysis and Services office has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and ATSDR. Dated: November 13, 1998. Carolyn J. Russell, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). [FR Doc. 98-30913 Filed 11-18-98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P END - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:41:37 -0500 From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Nat Post 20Nov98 >Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:10:04 -0500 >Subject: Nat Post 20Nov98 >Priority: non-urgent >To: abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca >X-FC-Forwarded-From: plough@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca >From: abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) > >Another article by Mike Trickey in the National Post. I believe some >other Southam papers ran the full article (appended at the end of this >message), but I guess the Post just didn't have room for a favourable >Canadian point of view. Maybe they should use this as one of the >examples in their Pre/Post ad campaign... > > >National Post, 20 November 1998 > >Opposition growing to 'first-use' strategy > >Mike Trickey >Southam News > >A Canadian push for the NATO defence alliance to renounce the >right to first use of nuclear weapons is gaining support, and is >causing growing discomfort for the United States. > >The new German government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a >coalition of Social Democrats and Greens, is seeking such a >declaration as part of a new strategic concept to mark NATO's >50th anniversary at a summit next April in Washington. > >Canada's Commons foreign affairs' committee is preparing a report >to Parliament that implicitly seeks the renunciation of the first-use >policy, as well as the removal of American nuclear weapons from >Europe. > >A third recommendation that runs directly counter to U.S. policy >calls for disarming nuclear weapons through a process which >separates the warhead from the delivery system. > >The committee also recommends Canada "redouble its efforts, in >co-operation with like-minded states, to mobilize public opinion on >the humanitarian aspects of nuclear non-proliferation, arms control >and disarmament" in a process similar to that which mobilized the >international effort culminating in last year's signing of the treaty >banning the use, production and transfer of anti-personnel >landmines. > >The committee report is to be presented next month to the >government, which will then have 150 sitting days to determine a >course of action. > >Indications are the report will not become new government policy >despite support from Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy, >because Prime Minister Jean Chretien is loath to split with Canada's >two largest allies over the issue. > >The coalition to change NATO's nuclear policy is already at work, >with Canada and Germany joined by 10 other non-nuclear states >resisting U.S. pressure to vote last week against a United Nations >resolution calling for the fast-tracking of negotiations to abolish >nuclear weapons. > >The 12 abstained in the non-binding vote, which passed by a 97-19 >margin, to send a message to the U.S. that they are seeking change >but do not want to openly challenge the alliance leader. > >Joschka Fischer, the new German foreign minister and a member of >the Greens, told foreign journalists last week he has "no ambition to >be a revolutionary," but his party has long advocated the abolition >of nuclear weapons. > >The option of "first-use" of nuclear weapons has been the >underpinning of NATO's deterrence strategy in the second half of >the 20th century. > >The U.S. insists it must reserve the right to determine the time, place >and nature of its response to aggression. > >A paper from the National Defence University in Washington sums >up the U.S. position. "The very uncertain nature of the potential >U.S. response, coupled with an ability to respond overwhelmingly, >complicates an aggressor's calculations, contributes to his >uncertainty of success and makes deterrence credible." > >One of the recommendations in the committee's draft notes, "the >modern alliance is now so strong politically and militarily that the >presence of U.S. nuclear weapons is no longer essential as a >demonstration of solidarity and the transatlantic link." > >END OF POST VERSION > > >LONGER VERSION OF ARTICLE > >Canada's nuclear position gains supporters > >By MIKE TRICKEY > >OTTAWA -- A Canadian push for the NATO defence alliance to renounce the >right >to first use of nuclear weapons is gaining support and is causing >growing >discomfort for the United States. > >The new German government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, a coalition of >Social Democrats and Greens, is seeking such a declaration as part of a >new >strategic concept to mark NATO's 50th anniversary at a summit next April >in >Washington. > >Canada's Commons foreign affairs committee is preparing recommendations >to >Parliament which implicitly seeks the renunciation of the first-use >policy, >as well as calling for the removal of the United States' nuclear weapons >from >Europe. > >A third recommendation that runs directly counter to U.S. policy calls >for >de-arming nuclear weapons, a process which separates the warhead from >the >delivery system. > >The committee also recommends that Canada "redouble its efforts, in >cooperation with like-minded states, to mobilize public opinion on the >humanitarian aspects of nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and >disarmament" in a process similar to that which mobilized the >international >effort that culminated in last year's signing of the treaty banning the >use, >production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. > >That coalition is already at work, with Canada and Germany joined by 10 >other >non-nuclear states resisting U.S. pressure to vote last week against to >a >United Nations resolution calling for the fast-tracking of negotiations >to >abolish nuclear weapons. > >The 12 abstained in the non-binding vote, which passed by a 97-19 >margin, to >send a message to the U.S. that they are seeking change but do not want >to >openly challenge the alliance leader. > >New German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, a member of the Greens, >told >foreign journalists last week that he has "no ambition to be a >revolutionary," but his party has long advocated the abolition of >nuclear >weapons. > >The option of "first-use" of nuclear weapons has been the underpinning >of >NATO's deterrence strategy in the second half of the 20th century. > >The United States insists that it must reserve the right to determine >the >time, place and nature of its response to aggression while leaving open >the >precise character of that response. > >To renounce that option, goes the argument, would permit an aggressor to >devise strategies that limit the ability to respond. > >A paper from the National Defence University in Washington sums up the >American position. > >"The very uncertain nature of the potential U.S. response, coupled with >an >ability to respond overwhelmingly, complicates an aggressor's >calculations, >contributes to his uncertainty of success and makes deterrence >credible." > >Canada and the like-minded nations argue that such thinking is outdated. >One of the recommendations in the parliamentary committee's draft report >notes, "the modern alliance is now so strong politically and militarily >that >the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons is no longer essential as a >demonstration of solidarity and the transAtlantic link." > >The committee also wants a new NATO strategic concept to recognize the >post- >Cold War era and the "reduction in any likelihood of the use of nuclear >weapons" by committing all member states to the reduction and eventual >elimination of nuclear arsenals. > >Though the Americans and British reject any suggestion that the >first-use >option be scrapped, peace organizations see a growing repudiation of >that >position within the alliance. > >"The argument we get from the Americans is that first use is required >because >the European allies demand it and if they didn't provide it that the >Europeans might consider going nuclear themselves, which is just not a >realistic option," says Bill Robinson of Project Ploughshares. > >"I think for the European allies to say they want this reviewed is an >important step and one which should help free up the Americans to >reconsider >that idea, too." > >Robinson says the committee has put together a good report, but could >have >gone further. > >"We would have hoped to see some stronger recommendations; an explicit >position, for example, on no first use. We also would have liked >explicit >support for joining the new agenda coalition." > >The committee report is to be presented next month to the government, >which >will then have 150 sitting days to determine a course of action. > >Indications are that the report will not become new government policy >despite >support from Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy because Prime >Minister >Jean Chretien is loathe to split with Canada's two largest allies over >the >issue. > > > >-- >Bill Robinson, Project Ploughshares, >Conrad Grebel College, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G6 >Phone: 519 888-6541 x264 Fax: 519 885-0806 >E-mail: plough@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca >http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough > >Project Ploughshares is a member of the Canadian Network to Abolish >Nuclear Weapons (http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~plough/cnanw/cnanw.html) > Alice Slater Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE) 15 East 26th Street, Room 915 New York, NY 10010 tel: (212) 726-9161 fax: (212) 726-9160 email: aslater@gracelinks.org GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network working for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons. - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #41 ********************************** - To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.