From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #82 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 Thursday, February 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 082 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:29:54 EST From: DavidMcR@aol.com Subject: (abolition-usa) Three crisis points and only silence Yesterday's New York Times carried a terrible story on the conflict (and impending war) between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Every day carries reports of the "slow motion" war against Iraq, with U.S. and British strikes to enforce a "no-fly zone" which has no standing in International Law. And finally, Clinton now proposes to send as many as 4,000 troops to Kosova, and even the Pentagon is expressing serious questions. My hunch is that all of us (in the U.S.) have been too distracted by the impeachment trial. Surely some focused response is needed in all three of these areas (and of the three, I think the danger of war between Eritrea and Ethiopia as, at the least, as urgent as the problems in Kosova, but are getting almost no attention outside the N.Y. Times. If the FOR, or WRI, or IFOR, etc., have statements on these issues, it would be helpful if they could be circulated. Peace, David McReynolds New York City - - 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: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:58:34 -0800 From: Shundahai Network Subject: (abolition-usa) "Nevada Sweethearts" to appear in Federal Court FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 16, 1999 CONTACT: Susi Snyder or Reinard Kuutsen (702) 647-3095 or shundahai@shundahai.org "NEVADA SWEETHEARTS" TO APPEAR IN FEDERAL COURT FOR NONVIOLENT ACTION TO STOP SUBCRITICAL NUCLEAR TESTING (Las Vegas - SN) Two staff members, Susi Snyder and Reinard Knutsen, of Shundahai Network, an international anti-nuclear and indigenous support organization with an office in Las Vegas, will appear in Federal Court, to face charges stemming from a September 8th, 1998 nonviolent direct action known as the "Nevada Sweethearts Action". The trial beginning, Wednesday, February 17, at 1:30 pm, takes place at the Foley Federal Building on 300 S. Las Vegas Blvd, where the two sweethearts celebrated their anniversary by locking themselves together on a ledge above the front entrance to bring public attention and pressure to stop the ongoing subcritical nuclear weapons program at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). "Bagpipe", the fourth subcritical test since 1997 was exploded on September 26. Since then two other subcritical tests "Cimarron" and "Clarinet" have been conducted at the test site. "We did not break the law," says Reinard Knutsen. "We are in fact citizen enforcers of the law. The U.S. government is breaking international law by their continuing nuclear weapons programs and Nevada law by threatening our land and water with radioactive contamination and our people with cancer and sickness. It is necessary for us as U.S. citizens to do everything within our power to uphold the law and protect ourselves and our community." "We are not the criminals here," declares Susi Snyder. "The DOE must be held accountable to the public for the destruction it is wreaking on our environment, our health, and our world. Only when the last nuclear weapon is dismantled, and the last nuclear power plant is decommissioned, and all of the world's nuclear wastes are stored in a safe and sane manner, will we end our vigilance!" The two "Sweethearts" will use first amendment, international law, the Treaty of Ruby Valley, and necessity under imminent duress as some of their legal arguments during the trial to prove that they were upholding international, national and Nevada law by taking their nonviolent direct action. Subcritical nuclear weapons tests use plutonium and high powered chemical explosives to study the physics of nuclear weapons material. These tests will help expand the knowledge base that scientists from the national Laboratories are developing under the Stockpile Stewardship Program, a key element of the Department of Energy's (DOE) 6.2 billion defense budget the Clinton administration has requested for next year. The plutonium is left 960 feet below ground dangerously close to the groundwater which has already been found to be contaminated by past nuclear tests. This groundwater flows out of the test site towards Amargosa Valley which depends on this water for its agriculture and dairy industries. "This is poisoning our water," says Susi Snyder. "The deadly results of atomic testing have not been made clear to the people of this country, and the Stockpile Stewardship Program is another blanket the DOE is pulling over the eyes of the people." Subcritical tests help fan the flames that continue the cold war mind set. Russia took up the "challenge" by detonating five subcriticals in 1998 and China reportedly has an ongoing subcritical program. Both India and Pakistan have conducted full scale nuclear weapons test last year citing frustration with U.S. hypcoracy through the continued U.S. nuclear testing program. These subcritical tests have created international outrage at U.S. hypocrisy and threaten the international ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. "We have tried for three years to stop this nuclear weapons programs by vigiling, writing letters and making phone calls to the White House and Congress, attending Department of Energy meetings and hearings," says Knutsen. "We took this nonviolent direct action because we were and continue to be under imminent duress. We felt like we had no other options but to put our bodies on the line to stop this nuclear nightmare that will effect people for generations to come." NTS is within the boundaries of the Western Shoshone Nation known as Newe Sogobia. The Western Shoshone National Council (WSNC) has long been opposed to U.S. nuclear weapons and waste programs conducted within their territory outlined by the Treaty of Ruby Valley ratified by Congress in 1886. A resolution was passed by the WSNC in 1995 declaring their nation to be a nuclear free zone. Anti-nuclear supporters and friends of the "Sweethearts" will gather in front of the Federal Building at 12:45 pm for a prayer vigil. The defendants and others will be available to answer questions before and after the trial. - -End- ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< ><<><< SHUNDAHAI NETWORK "Peace and Harmony with all Creation" out,out5007 Elmhurst St., Las Vegas, NV 89108-1304 Phone:(702)647-3095 (FAX)647-9385 Email: shundahai@shundahai.org 0000,0000,fefehttp://www.shundahai.org Shundahai Network is proud to be part of: Healing Global Wounds Alliance, a multi-cultural alliance to foster sustainable living and break the nuclear chain; and Abolition 2000: A Global Network 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: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:01:37 -0800 From: "David Crockett Williams" Subject: (abolition-usa) NUCLEAR WEAPONS ILLEGAL? World Court Opinion This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_006B_01BE59A7.58178720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit See details at http://ousdmail.ousd.k12.ca.us/~lorettah/mjohn/archival/media.html - ------=_NextPart_000_006B_01BE59A7.58178720 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Court Opinion.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Court Opinion.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://ousdmail.ousd.k12.ca.us/~lorettah/mjohn/archival/media.html Modified=20068266E659BE010C - ------=_NextPart_000_006B_01BE59A7.58178720-- - - 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: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:21:34 -0500 From: Kathy Crandall Subject: (abolition-usa) FEB. 23 FRONTLINE ON RUSSIA's NW Subject: FRONTLINE on Russia's nuclear weapons Check this web site and mark your calendars. On Feb. 23 the PBS Program "Frontline" will have a program on the security of Russia's nuclear arsenal. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ For more on de-alerting contact the Disarmament Clearinghouse. & ask about the Alliance For Nuclear Accountability's "Back from the Brink: Nuclear Weapons De-Alerting Action Month Organizer's Kit" with background information and action tools inclunding sample letters. - -- DISARMAMENT CLEARINGHOUSE Nuclear Disarmament Information, Resources & Action Tools Kathy Crandall, Coordinator 1101 14th Street NW #700, Washington DC 20005 TEL: 202 898 0150 ext. 232 FAX: 202 898 0172 E-MAIL: disarmament@igc.org http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse.htm http://www.psr.org/ctbtaction.htm A project of: Friends Committee on National Legislation Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Women's Action for New Directions - -- DISARMAMENT CLEARINGHOUSE Nuclear Disarmament Information, Resources & Action Tools Kathy Crandall, Coordinator 1101 14th Street NW #700, Washington DC 20005 TEL: 202 898 0150 ext. 232 FAX: 202 898 0172 E-MAIL: disarmament@igc.org http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse.htm http://www.psr.org/ctbtaction.htm A project of: Friends Committee on National Legislation Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Women's Action for New Directions - - 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: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:31:00 -0500 From: Kathy Crandall Subject: (abolition-usa) STAR WARS REVIVAL -Sen. Biden For more on how to STOP THE STAR WARS REVIVAL, contact the Disarmament Clearinghouse - Order your Action & Resource Kit with background information, including an update on the latest developments and actions that you can do now with media, and policy-makers. Includes sample letters to the editor and sample letters to Congress and the President. Contact the Clearinghouse for the latest information on the upcoming Senate and House Legislation urging deployment of STAR WARs ballistic missile defense. ******************************************************************* On the Strategic Slippery Slope . . . By Joseph R. Biden Jr. Tuesday, February 16, 1999; Page A17 Washington Post The Clinton administration is on a slippery slope toward deploying a ballistic missile defense system that might protect the United States against very limited ballistic missile attack but almost surely would violate the Anti-ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Before heading down this path, the president must explain to the American people the strategic rationale for turning away from a generation of arms control and nonproliferation policy. The administration took the first step down the slope when Defense Secretary William S. Cohen announced that the projected defense budget through 2005 would include funds for actual deployment -- not just research and development -- of a nationwide missile defense system. A deployment decision is not due until next year, but the Pentagon already is surveying possible sites in Alaska and North Dakota, and President Clinton has informed Russian President Boris Yeltsin that we might decide to develop a system that conflicts with the ABM Treaty. If that decision is made, the United States would seek to amend the ABM Treaty to permit deployment of our system, while ensuring that it would not be able to thwart a major Russian attack. While Cohen affirmed that "the ABM Treaty is in our overall interest," he and other U.S. officials note that should such negotiations fail, we retain the right to withdraw from the treaty -- with six months' notice - -- if our "supreme interests" are jeopardized. Taken in isolation, these actions might be reasonable responses to a changing world. North Korea's attempted satellite launch last year raises a prospect that, within a few years, new countries could have missiles capable of delivering warheads to the United States. In this sense, the administration must be ready to proceed if a decision to deploy a missile defense is made next year. From a strategic perspective, however, the administration has yet to make the case. Cohen predicted that "technological readiness will be the primary remaining criterion" in a deployment decision next year. But that omits several important concerns. Here are three basic questions that need to be addressed: Will it work? I'm a big believer in American know-how; but after 15 years of missile defense research and development, what have we to show for it? Our most developed theater missile defense system, aimed at missiles slower than intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), has failed every flight test against a target. We just postponed by two years the earliest deployment date for a national defense system. Is it wise to decide on deployment next year, before any tests of actual hardware? Will a "thin," ground-based system work against ICBM warheads mixed with decoys or other countermeasures? No one knows. Is this the best way to ensure our security? Even if a national missile defense becomes technologically feasible, will it be in our national interest to deploy it? Would tens of billions of dollars be better spent on maintaining deterrence through our offensive power, which has kept the nuclear peace for more than 50 years? Could we not persuade North Korea to end its long-range missile programs for a fraction of the likely price of a national missile defense? What factors, other than Republican political pressure and the looming 2000 election, impel a decision to deploy a national missile defense once "technological readiness" is achieved? How will it affect strategic stability and nonproliferation? The overriding strategic interest of the United States is to deter others from attacking with weapons of mass destruction. Deterring countries such as Iran and North Korea is surely part of this objective, but so is maintaining our deterrence relationship with Russia - -- "strategic stability," in which neither side is tempted in times of crisis to engage in a first strike at the other. Equally important is the need to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. The strategic arms control process, already threatened by the Russian Duma's inaction on the START II Treaty, could collapse because of Russian concern and anger over missile defense. To win Russia's assent on an amended ABM Treaty, the Pentagon may offer to scrap the ban on multi-warhead ICBMs, the capstone of START II. These missiles can overpower missile defense by delivering more warheads, which is why the Pentagon might offer the deal. But they also threaten strategic stability, as they present a lucrative first-strike target in a crisis. Were strategic arms control to collapse, would the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty also be threatened? The "grand bargain" of that treaty was that the nuclear-weapon powers would move toward nuclear sarmament in return for other countries' forbearance from acquiring such weapons. Progress in strategic arms control is our sign of good faith in this regard. Would a breakdown in arms control lead other countries to conclude that the limits on them no longer applied? A "thin" national missile defense may be the best way to deter smaller countries that develop long-range missiles, while maintaining traditional nuclear deterrence with Russia. That is far from clear, however, and the administration has yet to present its strategic rationale. The time to make that case is now, before the slide down that slippery slope becomes irreversible. The writer, a senator from Delaware, is the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. - -- DISARMAMENT CLEARINGHOUSE Nuclear Disarmament Information, Resources & Action Tools Kathy Crandall, Coordinator 1101 14th Street NW #700, Washington DC 20005 TEL: 202 898 0150 ext. 232 FAX: 202 898 0172 E-MAIL: disarmament@igc.org http://www.psr.org/Disarmhouse.htm http://www.psr.org/ctbtaction.htm A project of: Friends Committee on National Legislation Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Women's Action for New Directions - - 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: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:24:00 -0800 From: "David Crockett Williams" Subject: (abolition-usa) Fw: y2k & abolition 2000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0212_01BE59C8.C2B314C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is a very talented Washington, DC, activist wondering what the = results of the meeting in Santa Barbara may have produce by way of = action strategies connecting Y2K and the dangers of accidental nuclear = war as an incentive to "shut them all down" by New Year's Eve 1999. = Any feedback from those on this list who were there in Santa Barbara = last weekend? - -----Original Message----- From: Carol Moore To: David Crockett Williams Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 3:51 PM Subject: y2k & abolition 2000 Anything happen with them on nukes and y2k?=20 Were starting to meet here in DC to get some of=20 the big peace groups hopping. Carol=20 - ------=_NextPart_000_0212_01BE59C8.C2B314C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here is a very talented Washington, = DC, activist=20 wondering what the results of the meeting in Santa Barbara may have = produce by=20 way of action strategies connecting Y2K and the dangers of accidental = nuclear=20 war as an incentive to "shut them all down" by New Year's Eve=20 1999.   Any feedback from those on this list who were there in = Santa=20 Barbara last weekend?
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Carol Moore <CarolMoore@kreative.net>To:=20 David Crockett Williams <gear2000@lightspeed.net>Date:=20 Tuesday, February 16, 1999 3:51 PM
Subject: y2k & = abolition=20 2000

Anything happen with them on = nukes and=20 y2k?
Were starting to meet here in DC to get = some=20 of
the big peace groups hopping.  = Carol=20 - ------=_NextPart_000_0212_01BE59C8.C2B314C0-- - - 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: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:36:11 -0800 (PST) From: Timothy Bruening Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: Fwd: A2000 election issue? At 05:52 PM 7/21/98 +0800, you wrote: >Dear Bill, > >Thanks for your reply. The idea of an ad in a prominent newspaper is a good >one. Ted Turner seems to be positive on these types of issues from what I >gather, the ad could highlite the "Generals and Admirals statement", the ICJ >decision, the canberra Commission report and so-on (I believe Ronald Reagan >even advoacted nuclear abolition in the latter days of his Presidency - >dones anyone have the quotes on this?), and could challenge election >candidates to declare their position on Abolition 2000. > >We could fund-raise through our local groups to pay for it (our local group, >People for nuclear Disarmament, would I am sure make a donation and I would >contribute whatever I can afford personally) > >What do other people think? I second the motion. - - 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: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:50:17 -0800 (PST) From: Timothy Bruening Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Key to Abolition 2000 At 09:02 AM 2/11/99 -0800, "David Crockett Williams" wrote: >The fundamental basis for the abolition of nuclear weapons, other weapons of >mass destruction, and general disarmament, is the same: A change in the >moral position of the population of the United States of America, the only >nation to ever use nuclear weapons against human beings. Munching of paragraph about convincing Americans that A-bombing of Japan unjustified. >In February of 1945 a then secret meeting took place between the leaders of >the Allied Powers, with the expected imminent defeat of Germany that >happened in April, to plan not only the boundaries of Eastern Europe but the >plans to finish the war with Japan. At this meeting it was agreed that the >Soviet Union would bear the responsibility of the final attack on Japan and >that Japan after the war would be a Soviet satellite nation. On the eve of >the atomic bombings the Soviets were massing troops at the Manchurian border >preparing to execute this agreement. By this time the US was resolved that >this agreement should not be kept. The public justification of the US for >these bombings, of civilian populations with no war industries in their >cities populated by women, children, and elderly because the male population >was away at war, is that it was "to save American soldiers' lives". But >behind the scenes these bombings were calculated human tests of this >fearsome new weapon done primarily to threaten the Soviets, begin the Cold >War, and to ensure that Japan became an American "possession" after the war. Considering what the USSR did to Eastern Europe, I am certain that many will argue that preventing Japan from falling to the USSR was an excellent reason to drop a few A-bombs on it. I suspect that a Soviet occupation of Japan would have done more damage to it than the two A-bombs did. What do you think of this reasoning? - - 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: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:55:27 -0500 From: "Ross Wilcock" Subject: RE: (abolition-usa) Key to Abolition 2000 Ah Timothy, you do bring up the most difficult questions! I thought David Crockett Williams said it rather well: >The fundamental basis for the abolition of nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and general disarmament, is the same: You asked: "Considering what the USSR did to Eastern Europe, I am certain that many will argue that preventing Japan from falling to the USSR was an excellent reason to drop a few A-bombs on it. I suspect that a Soviet occupation of Japan would have done more damage to it than the two A-bombs did. What do you think of this reasoning?" People always forget the past - so wars return to plague and teach us again. Do you understand why Hitler and Stalin behaved as they did? They claimed to have their reasons in their day so we continue - mired in psychopathology - and human misery. Reagan and Gorbachev gave us a wonderful opportunity - a gift of time. What have we done with it? The Kremlin powers invaded Chechnya and committed the most horrible, shameful atrocities there. How can we have confidence in such people? The White House powers committed terrible atrocities in Vietnam. Consider now the plight of the Iraqi people - and what of the Rwandans who could have been far better off with a little timely help - the list goes on and on... How can we have confidence in people who do bad things and fail to do good? Once I thought I knew the meaning of justice but it is elusive today. When you are young it is easy to think in black and white and about good and evil. Truth is harder than that - there is good and bad in everyone and we have to make the best we can out of our human predicament. The most inspiring people often emerge from difficult situations - like Pres. Nelson Mandela and Rev. Desmond Tutu. The holy books tell us that God is great, oft forgiving and most merciful. If humans were likewise it could be a wonderful world! You tell me - why is a good man like Mikhail Gorbachev so shamefully cast aside? He after all gave the first real hope that Abolition 2000 could be more than a dream! Ross Wilcock rwilcock@pgs.ca - - 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: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:58:15 EST From: DavidMcR@aol.com Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Key to Abolition 2000 This is the first I had ever heard of any plan to turn Japan over to the Soviets and I'd need ample documentation before I'd believe it. Japan was - and Washington knew this - on the ropes and there was no reason to offer the Soviet Union any incentive for the attack. It is vaguely possible that in February it still looked doubtful, but I think by then the trend in the war was quite clear. Yes, I think given the Soviet track record in Eastern Europe, the Japanese "were lucky in their defeat" but obviously none of this justifies the atomic bombing, which remains a war crime. Peace, David McReynolds tsbrueni@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us writes: << At 09:02 AM 2/11/99 -0800, "David Crockett Williams" wrote: >The fundamental basis for the abolition of nuclear weapons, other weapons of >mass destruction, and general disarmament, is the same: A change in the >moral position of the population of the United States of America, the only >nation to ever use nuclear weapons against human beings. Munching of paragraph about convincing Americans that A-bombing of Japan unjustified. >In February of 1945 a then secret meeting took place between the leaders of >the Allied Powers, with the expected imminent defeat of Germany that >happened in April, to plan not only the boundaries of Eastern Europe but the >plans to finish the war with Japan. At this meeting it was agreed that the >Soviet Union would bear the responsibility of the final attack on Japan and >that Japan after the war would be a Soviet satellite nation. On the eve of >the atomic bombings the Soviets were massing troops at the Manchurian border >preparing to execute this agreement. By this time the US was resolved that >this agreement should not be kept. The public justification of the US for >these bombings, of civilian populations with no war industries in their >cities populated by women, children, and elderly because the male population >was away at war, is that it was "to save American soldiers' lives". But >behind the scenes these bombings were calculated human tests of this >fearsome new weapon done primarily to threaten the Soviets, begin the Cold >War, and to ensure that Japan became an American "possession" after the war. Considering what the USSR did to Eastern Europe, I am certain that many will argue that preventing Japan from falling to the USSR was an excellent reason to drop a few A-bombs on it. I suspect that a Soviet occupation of Japan would have done more damage to it than the two A-bombs did. What do you think of this reasoning? - - 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: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:14:14 -0500 From: "Ross Wilcock" Subject: RE: (abolition-usa) Key to Abolition 2000 I seem to have missed Ronald Reagan here - I have a book of his salty quotations by my bed. Did anyone ask him recently what he can say about Abolition 2000? Ross Wilcock rwilcock@pgs.ca - - 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: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:31:53 -0500 From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Date set for NATO expansion >Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:33:41 -0500 >Subject: Date set for NATO expansion >Priority: non-urgent >X-FC-MachineGenerated: true >To: abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca >X-FC-Forwarded-From: sstaples@canadians.org >From: abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) > >Date set for NATO expansion > >February 16th, 1999 > >It has been officially announced that Hungary, Poland and the Czech >Republic will be formally admitted to >NATO on March 12, at a ceremony to be held in Independence, Missouri, >USA. > >The accession ceremony will be held in the Harry S. Truman Library in >Independence, a key place in the >history of the military organisation. > >These three European countries will be the first former members of the >Soviet-led Warsaw Pact to join the >western Alliance that was created in April 1949. > >The three countries have been lobbying for accession before NATO's 50th >anniversary summit, being held >April 23-25 in Washington, which is expected to outline the future of >the Alliance. The meeting will be the >largest gathering of heads of state ever in Washington. > >The Washington meeting has been called in order to set a future course >for the alliance in the next century >and to update the alliance's "strategic concept's". > >A recent report has emphasised that a three to five year interval is now >needed to let NATO absorb the >first three new members. There is also concern that further expansion >will antagonise Russia and weaken >further co-operation between the NATO and Moscow. > 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: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:51:18 -0500 From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Navajo Nuclear Free Zone >Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:41:01 -0500 >Subject: Navajo Nuclear Free Zone >To: bobschaeffer@igc.org, bananas-ana@igc.org, > bcostner@emeraldnet.net, aslater@gracelinks.org, > allister@snakeriveralliance.org, healls@aol.com, > dm4stand@arn.net, healtm@aol.com, > mstewart@snakeriveralliance.org, tn4stand@arn.net, > pa4stand@arn.net, tomc@whistleblower.org, dallas41@hotmail.com, > cprcrogers@mindspring.com, gmello@lasg.org >From: sric@igc.apc.org (sric@igc.apc.org) > >The newly elected Navajo Nation President and Chief Justice today announced >they've signed a proclamation making the Navajo Nation a nuclear free zone! >In addition to having a moratorium on uranium mining and milling and >supporting legislation in Congress to fund uranium victims compensation, >the >proclamation says that dealing with radiation exposure is a chief public >health problem on the reservation, and it states that the tribe will oppose >shipments through its land to WIPP, Yucca Mountain, Skull Valley, and Ward >Valley! >Don Hancock >Southwest Research and Information Center >PO Box 4524 >Albuquerque, NM 87106 >505/346-1455 >505/346-1459 - Fax >http://www.sric.org > 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, 18 Feb 1999 13:43:55 EST From: DavidMcR@aol.com Subject: (abolition-usa) NYC / Monday demo / NYC area only This is all I have on this so far. If more comes in, will post it. David McReynolds Subj: NYC / Monday demo / NYC area only Date: 2/18/99 1:40:04 PM Eastern Standard Time From: DavidMcR To: StevenAult, wrll@scn.org, wrl@igc.apc.org To: COC-L@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU To: DEMSOC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM To: LEFT-L@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU To: RedYouth@lefty.techsi.com, spusa@netscape.net To: jhurd_newparty@indiana.edu To: SocialistsUnmoderated@lefty.techsi.com BCC: DavidMcR As I get further information I'll post it David McReynolds << ---Begin Forwarded Message---------- Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 10:53:40 AM From: afrique@earthlink.net Subject: City-wide coalition announces Feb. 22 March Against Police Brutality FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Press Information: 212 222-1139 General Information: 212 979-7878 X3920 City-wide Coalition Announces February 22 March Against Police Brutality Press Conference: Tuesday, February 16, 11 AM, Abyssinian Baptist Church, 132 West 138th Street. February 15, 1999 - The Citywide Coalition for Justice, an ad hoc group of organizations, activists, religious leaders and elected officials, calls on all citizens of New York, across race, class, religion, age, gender and sexual preference to join in expressing their outrage at the murder of Amadou Diallo and take action against police brutality on Monday, February 22, 4:30 to 6:30 at City Hall. Mr. Diallo, a 22-year-old immigrant from Guinea, was killed on February 4 by four New York City Police Officers who fired a total of 41 rounds, hitting him 19 times. Mr. Diallo, a Muslim, was unarmed, had no criminal record and was not under investigation. Like so many other immigrants, he came to New York in search of a better life. Instead, what he found was death at the hands of employees of the New York Police Department (NYPD). The murder of Amadou Diallo is the most recent and violent instance of police brutality toward Black, Latino, and Asian citizens that spans decades. Both Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Police Commissioner Howard Safir have failed to address the systemic problems in the Police Department. Training, conduct and attitudes that led not only to the murder of Amadou Diallo, but Anthony Baez, Jose Sanchez, Eleanor Bumpers, and too many others. According to the Amnesty International Report, "United States of American: Police brutality and excessive force in the New York City Police Department," (June 1996), "In these and other cases police officers appeared to have resorted to unwarranted levels of force out of all proportion to any threat posed, in violation of their own guidelines." (P.10) We support all organizing around the issue of police violence and ask organizations planning local actions on February 22nd to join us at City Hall at 4:30. We call on all New York's citizens to join the on-going fight against police violence. We call on ALL citizens of New York to join together on Monday, February 22, from 4:30 to 6:30 for a mass rally at City Hall. Enough is Enough! ----End Forwarded Message------------ >> - - 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, 18 Feb 1999 16:24:36 -0500 From: ASlater Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: Roche speech on Star Wars Dear Friends, Our neighbor to the North, Canada, is doing its part to stop the abominable son of star wars. We must do ours. Write today to your Congressperson, Senators, the President, and heir apparent Vice President. Many thanks. Peace, Alice Slater Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:39:45 -0500 >Subject: Roche speech on BMD >Priority: non-urgent >X-FC-MachineGenerated: true >To: cnanw@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca, abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca >X-FC-Forwarded-From: brobinson@ploughshares.ca >From: abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (abolition@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca) > >Just Say ‘No' to Missile Defense > >By Senator Douglas Roche, O.C. > >An Address to the Senate of Canada > >February 18, 1999 > > >The Senate should be aware of a development that will profoundly alter >international relations, cripple disarmament work, and tie Canada >inextricably to >U.S. ill-conceived military plans. I speak of the U.S. government's >current design >of a ballistic missile defense shield over North America. > >Canadians thought this problem went away when Canada refused the U.S. >invitation to participate in the Strategic Defense Initiative (known as >"Star Wars") >in 1985. SDI itself was abandoned, but in the 1990s it reappeared as a >National >Missile Defense program designed to provide for the interception of >long-range >missiles targeted on the United States. A missile defense program for North >America is now being promoted and Canada is inexorably being drawn into the >web of U.S. military-industrial-complex interests. > >This is being done without the knowledge or consent of the Canadian >Parliament >and people. The Government of Canada keeps saying: Relax, nothing's going >to >happen for a long time. > >Honourable Senators, there is plenty to worry about and the time for us to >speak >out against this retrograde, dangerous proposal is now. > >The facts, briefly, are these: > >1. Discussions are now taking place between the United States and Canada >on a North American ballistic missile defense (BMD) system. The U.S. >is on track to deploy this system in Alaska and North Dakota possibly >by 2005, and the Administration is pumping $6.6 billion into the project. >The time for Canada to decide its course of action is now, not later, on >the eve of deployment, when Canada's options will be significantly >reduced. > >2. The 1994 Defense White Paper unfortunately opened the door to >Canadian participation, despite a 1985 Canadian government decision >not to participate in U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) research. >SDI closed down in the early 1990s. BMD is its successor. The U.S. >wants Canada involved in BMD through NORAD. > >3. BMD would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), >which forbids a nation-wide missile defense system. The ABM Treaty >is an essential part of nuclear arms control. It has long been recognized >that constructing such national defenses (leaving aside the improbability >of their working) would spur opposing nations to develop new offensive >weapons to circumvent defense systems. Thus the nuclear arms race >would keep accelerating. > >4. The U.S. recognizes BMD would violate the existing ABM and >has suggested to Russia that the ABM be renegotiated. Russia, so >far, adamantly refuses and has threatened to stall START II even >further if BMD is proceeded with. The Government of China has >warned that a new nuclear arms race will break out in Asia. > >5. The Canadian government said in 1995 it opposed abrogating or >weakening the ABM, calling it "absolutely essential," for the >maintenance of international nuclear security. In 1996, the >government added, "Canada remains firmly committed to the >1972 ABM Treaty." > >6. The Canadian government has consistently said it will work for the >continued development of international law. To join in a process of >weakening or abrogating the ABM to satisfy the demands of the U.S. >military system, which has not lost its appetite for expansion even >though the Cold War ended nearly a decade ago, would greatly >endanger Canada's credibility in arms control and disarmament work. >Canada must speak now. By signaling that Canada is open to the idea, >DND is encouraging the U.S. to proceed on the assumption that Canada >will be involved. > >7. U.S. proponents claim that BMD will protect the continent >against the incoming missiles of "rogue" States. But BMD is a bad >idea because it presumes a potential attacker would develop an >extremely expensive delivery technology when it could much more >easily and reliably deliver a bomb in a commercial airliner or >shipping container, methods a BMD would be powerless to stop. > >Honourable Senators, Canadian interests in the NORAD Agreement are being >compromised through U.S. action. NORAD was not meant to be a ballistic >missile >defense, yet NORAD is being used as the instrument to jump start U.S. >ability to >fight space wars of the 21st century. U.S. military interests are playing >on >fears of a ballistic missile attack on North America by some rogue state >or terrorist >and have even conjured up the ludicrous spectacle of North Korea launching >a >ballistic missile attack on Montreal. The U.S. Ambassador to Canada has >joined in >this softening up approach to getting Canada's compliance by references to >the >need of our two countries to stick together against vague enemies of the >future. > >We must realize what is happening. The U.S. is extending its military >capacity in >order to be the militarily dominant nation of the 21st century and to >secure this power by a comprehensive system of surveillance and >communications >technologies. Is putting such immense power in the hands of a single state >in the >best interests of international peace and security? Is abrogating the ABM >Treaty >justified by such inordinate quest for power? Is Canada, which campaigned >hard >for a seat on the U.N. Security Council in order to bring forward new >ideas for >peace and security, served by tying ourselves to a military machine out of >control? > >The Canadian government has got to stop saying: Don't worry, be happy. >Every >month that goes by without the Government speaking out firmly against >participation in a ballistic missile defense system allows the U.S. >government to >interpret our silence as tacit acceptance. Then, when the system is about >to be >deployed, it will be too late for us to pull out. Moreover, putting $600 >million of >Canadian taxpayers' money into this ill-conceived venture would be an >unconscionable affront to every Canadian who needs improved health, >education >and social care. > >The correct answer to what BMD seeks to accomplish, namely the security of >North America, is to pursue, as the International Court of Justice has >called for, >comprehensive negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons. >Significant progress in this respect has been made in recent years. This >progress is >now jeopardized by BMD. As the prestigious U.S. National Academy of >Sciences >concluded in its 1997 report, The Future of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, >"deploying missile defenses outside the bounds of the ABM Treaty could >greatly >diminish the prospects for future reductions in nuclear weapons." That is >cautious >language for what should be stated frankly: we can kiss goodbye to nuclear >disarmament if BMD proceeds. And if strategic arms control collapses, the >Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Canada has always championed, will be in >ruins. > >Now is the time to debate this. Now is the time to inform the public. Now >is the >time to obtain the consent of the Canadian Parliament. > >Honourable Senators, on the basis of my experience in personally meeting >with >hundreds of informed Canadians in all 10 provinces on nuclear weapons >issues, I >contend that the Canadian public opposes the madness of a missile defense >system. >The Canadian Government knows there is little support for the system. Why, >then, >dally? > >The Government should couple its resistance to missile defense by a >vigorous >implementation of the 15 recommendations in the Report of the Standing >Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada and the >Nuclear >Challenge: Reducing the Political Value of Nuclear Weapons for the >Twenty-First Century. This report has rightly pointed the way for Canada >to work >with like-minded States in pressing the Nuclear Weapons States to make an >unequivocal >commitment to commence negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear >weapons. The Committee wants Canada to argue within NATO for less reliance >on >nuclear weapons so that the way can be cleared for the NATO nuclear States >to >pledge No-First-Use of nuclear weapons and to put their nuclear weapons on >de-alert status. > >That would be a positive contribution by Canada to enhancing peace and >security >in the world. That is the way forward, providing confidence-building >measures and >hope for the Canadian people who want an end to nuclear weapons. > >- 30 - > >-- >Bill Robinson, Project Ploughshares, >Conrad Grebel College, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G6 >Phone: 519 888-6541 x264 Fax: 519 885-0806 >E-mail: brobinson@ploughshares.ca >http://www.ploughshares.ca > >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 #82 ********************************** - 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.