South Asia Peace Wire

Once upon a time making nuclear bombs was the biggest thing a country could do. But not any more; North Korea’s successful nuclear test provides rock-solid proof. This is a country that no one admires.

It is unknown for scientific achievement, has little electricity or fuel, food and medicine are scarce, corruption is ubiquitous, and its people live in terribly humiliating conditions under a vicious, dynastic dictatorship. In a famine some years ago, North Korea lost nearly 800,000 people. It has an enormous prison population of 200,000 that is subjected to systematic torture and abuse.

Why does a miserable, starving country continue spending its last penny on the bomb? On developing and testing a fleet of missiles whose range increases from time to time? The answer is clear: North Korea’s nuclear weapons are instruments of blackmail rather than means of defence. Brandished threateningly, and manipulated from time to time, these bombs are designed to keep the flow of international aid going.

Surely the people of North Korea gained nothing from their country’s nuclearisation. But they cannot challenge their oppressors. But, as Pakistan celebrates the 11th anniversary of its nuclear tests, we Pakistanis — who are far freer — must ask: what have we gained from the bomb?

Some had imagined that nuclear weapons would make Pakistan an object of awe and respect internationally. They had hoped that Pakistan would acquire the mantle of leadership of the Islamic world. Indeed, in the aftermath of the 1998 tests, Pakistan’s stock had shot up in some Muslim countries before it crashed. But today, with a large swathe of its territory lost to insurgents, one has to defend Pakistan against allegations of being a failed state. In terms of governance, economy, education or any reasonable quality of life indicators, Pakistan is not a successful state that is envied by anyone.

Contrary to claims made in 1998, the bomb did not transform Pakistan into a technologically and scientifically advanced country. Again, the facts are stark. Apart from relatively minor exports of computer software and light armaments, science and technology remain irrelevant in the process of produc

tion. Pakistan’s current exports are principally textiles, cotton, leather, footballs, fish and fruit. This is just as it was before Pakistan embarked on its quest for the bomb. The value-added component of Pakistani manufacturing somewhat exceeds that of Bangladesh and Sudan, but is far below that of India, Turkey and Indonesia. Nor is the quality of science taught in our educational institutions even remotely satisfactory. But then, given that making a bomb these days requires only narrow technical skills rather than scientific ones, this is scarcely surprising.

What became of the claim that the pride in the bomb would miraculously weld together the disparate peoples who constitute Pakistan? While many in Punjab still want the bomb, angry Sindhis want water and jobs — and they blame Punjab for taking these away. Pakhtun refugees from Swat and Buner, hapless victims of a war between the Taliban and the Pakistani Army, are tragically being turned away by ethnic groups from entering Sindh. This rejection strikes deeply against the concept of a single nation united in adversity.

As for the Baloch, they deeply resent that the two nuclear test sites — now radioactive and out of bounds — are on their soil. Angry at being governed from Islamabad, many have taken up arms and demand that Punjab’s army get off their backs. Many schools in Balochistan refuse to fly the Pakistani flag, the national anthem is not sung, and black flags celebrate Pakistan’s independence day. Balochistan University teems with the icons of Baloch separatism: posters of Akbar Bugti, Balaach Marri, Brahamdagh Bugti, and ‘General Sheroff’ are everywhere. The bomb was no glue.

Did the bomb help Pakistan liberate Kashmir from Indian rule? It is a sad fact that India’s grip on Kashmir — against the will of Kashmiris — is tighter today than it has been for a long time. As the late Eqbal Ahmed often remarked, Pakistan’s poor politics helped snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Its strategy for confronting India — secret jihad by Islamic fighters protected by Pakistan’s nuclear weapons — backfired terribly in the arena of international opinion. More importantly, it created the hydra-headed militancy now haunting Pakistan. Some Mujahideen, who felt betrayed by Pakistan’s army and politicians, ultimately took revenge by turning their guns against their sponsors and trainers. The bomb helped us lose Kashmir.

Some might ask, didn’t the bomb stop India from swallowing up Pakistan? First, an upward-mobile India has no reason to want an additional 170 million Muslims. Second, even if India wanted to, territorial conquest is impossible. Conventional weapons, used by Pakistan in a defensive mode, are sufficient protection. If mighty America could not digest Iraq, there can never be a chance for a middling power like India to occupy Pakistan, a country four times larger than Iraq.

It is, of course, true that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons deterred India from launching punitive attacks at least thrice since the 1998 tests. Pakistan’s secret incursion in Kargil during 1999, the Dec 13 attack on the Indian parliament the same year (initially claimed by Jaish-i-Muhammad), and the Mumbai attack in 2008 by Lashkar-i-Taiba, did create sentiment in India for ferreting out Pakistan-based militant groups. So should we keep the bomb to protect militant groups? Surely it is time to realise that these means of conducting foreign policy are tantamount to suicide.

It was a lie that the bomb could protect Pakistan, its people or its armed forces. Rather, it has helped bring us to this grievously troubled situation and offers no way out. The threat to Pakistan is internal. The bomb cannot help us recover the territory seized by the Baitullahs and Fazlullahs, nor bring Waziristan back to Pakistan. More nuclear warheads, test-launching more missiles, or buying yet more American F-16s and French submarines, will not help.

Pakistan’s security problems cannot be solved by better weapons. Instead, the way forward lies in building a sustainable and active democracy, an economy for peace rather than war, a federation in which provincial grievances can be effectively resolved, elimination of the feudal order and creating a society that respects the rule of law.

It is time for Pakistan to become part of the current global move against nuclear weapons. India — which had thrust nuclearisation upon an initially unwilling Pakistan — is morally obliged to lead. Both must announce that they will not produce more fissile material to make yet more bombs. Both must drop insane plans to expand their nuclear arsenals. Eleven years ago a few Pakistanis and Indians had argued that the bomb would bring no security, no peace. They were condemned as traitors and sellouts by their fellow citizens. But each passing year shows just how right we were.
The writer teaches nuclear physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

For nuclear sanity

by Praful Bidwai (Frontline, April 25 - May 08, 2009)

India should welcome Obama’s call for a nuclear weapons-free world and launch a spirited campaign for the rapid elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide.

PRESIDENT Barack Obama’s April 5 speech in Prague calling for a world free of the scourge of nuclear weapons is a major foreign and security policy initiative that deserves applause. If he pursues its logic through to the end with the same since rity and passion with which he outlined his commitment “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”, he could be the first United States President to go beyond nuclear arms control and to put nuclear weapons elimination on the global agenda. That would mark a turning point for strategic thinking the world over and open up new avenues through which to seek security.

This remains a big “if”. Obama has not yet worked out the doctrinal, strategic and practical consequences of his fundamental premise that a secure world without nuclear weapons is both possible and desirable. His speech only outlines some necessary steps but without specifying their sequence or time frame, numbers (of weapons to be de-alerted or destroyed), the roles of different actors, the function of legally binding treaties, and so on.

But Obama has stated some premises upfront and emphasised their moral-political rationale in a way no major global leader has done in recent years. Thus, he said, “the existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War”; these are “the ultimate tools of destruction”, which can erase the world “in a single flash of light”. The global non-proliferation regime is in crisis and “the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up”; soon, “we could reach the point where the centre cannot hold”.

“We are not destined,” said Obama, “to live in a world where more nations and more people possess [nuclear weapons]. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.” Logically, fighting fatalism means putting “an end to Cold War thinking” and reducing “the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy”.

This sets Obama miles apart not just from George W. Bush but also from Bill Clinton. Obama is effectively reversing a long tradition beginning with the Ronald Reagan presidency towards either a hardening of the U.S. nuclear posture, or the development of new weapons such as “Star Wars”-style ballistic missile defence (BMD), itself premised on even more dangerous doctrines than that of nuclear deterrence, which is fatally flawed.

Thus, the U.S. has failed, even two decades after the Cold War ended, to move beyond relatively paltry reductions in its nuclear arsenal through the Moscow Treaty of 2002. Under Bush, it refused to take 2,200 weapons off “launch on warning” alert. The U.S. military establishment wants to develop a Reliable Replaceable Warhead for existing ones, find new uses (for example, bunker-busting) for old weapon designs, and has yielded to pressures from the nuclear weapons laboratories to modernise and refine existing armaments and do experimental work on fusion weapons at the expensive National Ignition Facility.

Bush was not only obsessed with perpetuating America’s nuclear superiority. He gave it a particularly deadly edge through BMD deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic, thus exacerbating tensions with Russia and destabilising strategic balances worldwide. Bush also blurred vital distinctions between conventional and nuclear weapons, unsigned the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.

Bush’s BMD programme will militarise and nuclearise outer space, in which the U.S. seeks “full-spectrum” dominance. His paranoid response to the September 11 attacks resulted in the worst-ever fiasco in the history of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at its important review conference in 2005, liquidating all the significant gains made at the 2000 review.

Obama promises to change course, radically. He has spoken more boldly and honestly in favour of a nuclear weapons-free world than any other U.S. President in decades. He has gone further than any other in acknowledging that the U.S. bears a “moral responsibility” for nuclear disarmament because it is the only power to have used the horror weapon. This speaks of exemplary moral clarity, as does his statement that the U.S. must take the lead on disarmament. However, that cannot be said about four other propositions in Obama’s speech. First, he betrays an unpardonably naive faith in nuclear deterrence: “Make no mistake. As long as [nuclear] weapons exist, the U.S. will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary.…” He also believes in extended deterrence – deploying nuclear weapons in non-North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries.

This column has dissected the fallacy of nuclear deterrence far too often to warrant further comment other than that it is a fallible, fragile and unreliable basis on which to premise security (via a balance of terror). It involves unrealistic assumptions about capabilities and doctrines, symmetrical perceptions by adversaries of “unacceptable damage” means, and the complete absence of miscalculations and accidents – 100 per cent of the time.

Second, Obama continues to repose faith in BMD – he congratulated the Czech for their “courage” in hosting it – although he qualifies his support by saying BMD must be “cost-effective and proven”. This ignores BMD’s primitive, as-yet-premature status in intercepting missiles, and worse, the danger of escalating military rivalry to uncertain and risky levels where an adversary could feel tempted to neutralise a putative BMD advantage by amassing more missiles or launching wildcat strikes.

Third, Obama, like Bush and Clinton, makes a specious distinction between responsible/acceptable/good nuclear powers (the Big Five-plus-Israel-plus-India-plus-non-Taliban-Pakistan) and irresponsible/dangerous ones (Iran, North Korea). This permits double standards and detracts from the universal urgency of abolishing all nuclear weapons. Obama’s endorsement of Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative – unilateral interception at sea of suspect nuclear-related materials – follows from this.

Finally, Obama believes that disarmament may not be achieved in “my lifetime”. Such pessimism is unwarranted. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s thoughtful plan for global nuclear disarmament, presented to the United Nations General Assembly in 1988, set a 15-year timeline for complete nuclear elimination. This is realistic – if the U.S. and the international community musters the will for an early disarmament initiative.

If Obama effects deep cuts in U.S. nuclear weapons through the promised Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia this year, and launches a drive for banning nuclear testing and ending fissile production worldwide, the momentum can be accelerated, especially if U.S. policy shifts to no-first-use. After all, even the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – George P. Schulz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn – believe that nuclear weapons abolition can be achieved in the foreseeable future.

Obama’s speech provides an opportunity to all those who believe in complete nuclear weapons elimination, a cause kept alive by the peace movement, a coalition of states, and several expert commissions. India too professes a commitment to this goal and must seize this opportunity.
India’s lukewarm response

Regrettably, Indian policymakers have extended a lukewarm, if not cold, welcome to Obama’s speech. So fearful are they of pressure on India to sign the CTBT that they are clutching at straws. One such is Obama’s statement that “my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the CTBT”. This is different from what he wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh before he was sworn in: “I will work with the U.S. Senate to secure ratification of [CTBT] at the earliest practical day, and then launch a major diplomatic initiative to ensure its entry into force.” (The letter was suppressed by South Block.)

Indian policymakers are also reportedly relieved that Obama has not reiterated his letter’s reference to India’s “real responsibilities – [including] steps to restrain nuclear weapons programmes and pursuing effective disarmament when others do so”. They are also pleased that Obama has appointed Ellen Tauscher, a Democrat Congresswoman, as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security rather than Robert Einhorn, described by India’s nuclear hawks as “an ayatollah of non-proliferation”.

Such timidity is unbecoming of a nation that claims to be proud of its pro-disarmament record and has pledged to fight for a nuclear weapons-free world. India opposed the CTBT in 1995-96 not for its intrinsic flaws or demerits but because it wanted to test nuclear weapons. Having done so in 1998, India should sign and ratify the treaty. Even Arundhati Ghose, who famously declared that India will not sign it “not now, not ever”, now says that she sees no problem with its signature. This may show a deplorable level of cynicism, but it is nevertheless a ground for correcting course and returning to the disarmament agenda.

Logically, this includes several steps such as the CTBT, Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, regional nuclear risk-reduction and restraint measures (including forswearing missile test-flights and keeping delivery vehicles apart from warheads) and, of course, deep cuts in nuclear weapons by all the nuclear weapons states, beginning with the U.S. and Russia.

India must boldly seize the initiative by updating the Rajiv Gandhi plan, opposing BMD and proactively arguing for rapid strides towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Here lies the litmus test of India’s commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world and of its creative and principled diplomacy.

The News International, 13 March 2009

‘Nobody will be a winner in an Indo-Pak war'
Friday, March 13, 2009
By Shahid Husain

Karachi

Jatin Desai, a senior journalist associated with leading Indian newspaper Hindustan Times, has said that war should not even be the “last option” between Pakistan and India because there will be no winners in a war between the two countries.

“Both India and Pakistan are nuclear-powered countries. Nowadays we have nuclear bombs that are 100 times superior to the ones used by the Americans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just imagine the havoc they can cause,” he said.

Born in Mumbai on January 1, 1955, Desai was whole timer with left-wing organisations in Maharashtra while he was a student and also worked on the trade union front. In 1986, he started his journalistic career with Guajarati Samachaar, a newspaper published from Mumbai. However, a year later he opted for a Guajarati paper called Janmabhoomi. Thereafter he joined Midday and worked there for nine years. Now he writes a column for Hindustan Times. He also remained the president of Mumbai Union of Journalists for four years and spearheaded movements for the freedom of press and speech. He also fought against fascist politics in Mumbai. “Two of our female journalists were attacked by these forces which only manifested their weakness,” he told The News.

Desai is also active in Pakistan-India Peoples’ Forum for Peace & Democracy and is a prominent anti-nuclear and human rights activist. He said that people have to accept that Mumbai carnage is a great setback for peace but he is optimistic that the people will compel their respective governments to immediately begin peace process which has been in the back burner.

“The common people on both sides of the border want peace. Day before yesterday, I was in Lahore and went to a second-hand bookshop to buy books but I was amazed that the shopkeeper simply refused to take money from me when he learnt that I was from India,” he said. He was met with the same hospitability in Islamabad, reveals Desai.

On his seventh visit to Pakistan, Desai strongly believes that the people of Pakistan and India want peace. Citing an example he adds, “Immediately after 26/11—the Mumbai attack — fundamentalist forces in India insisted that there should be a war or at least a “surgical strike” on terrorists hiding in Pakistan but the people thwarted the design.”

“It’s true that peace movement is weak but the majorities in both countries want peace. Unfortunately, the hawkish minorities in both countries are more organised and vocal as compared to the silent majority,” he said. “It’s high time that we take peace movement to the common man,” he said.

He agreed that the Indian media in general was hawkish after the Mumbai carnage but pointed out that the media has reviewed and realised its mistakes. “We never had an experience of 60-hour-long shootings and the media was unaware. We are in the process of learning. I guess the Indian media will behave more rationally in future,” he said.

He said on December 12 of last year the people of Mumbai organised a 100-kilometer human chain in support of peace and as many as 150,000 people participated in it. That amply demonstrates that they are against terrorism and disapprove of war, he added.

Asked if there was any possibility of a confederation amongst South Asian nations, he said Ram Manohar Lohia, a socialist, floated such an idea as early as 1962, today we have SAARC comprising eight countries and its original concept was regional cooperation on the lines of European Union, “the Euro is stronger than Dollar and South Asian countries can be strong too if we cooperate with each other.”

Referring to the problems of Indian and Pakistani fishermen, he said there should be consular access to fisher folk who tread unknowingly in territorial water, “both India and Pakistan should establish more consulates in order to facilitate people. Former President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee agreed some years ago that both countries will establish more consulates by January 4, 2006, but its 2009 now and there has been no progress in this regard,” he regretted.

Kashmir Times
February 9, 2009

Editorial

Peace process is imperative
Civil society in India and Pakistan must assert for renewal of dialogue process

Both India and Pakistan have yet to learn to live in peace, dignity and honour on the basis of equality as responsible sovereign democratic countries and enter into a fruitful era of mutual goodwill and cooperation, overcoming the prolonged confrontation that has only brought in its wake avoidable death and destruction.It took years for the civil society in the two countries to build bridges of understanding for beginning a process of dialogue and conciliation in place of mutual acrimony and confrontation. The peace process between the two neighbouring countries was the result of the efforts of the men and women of goodwill and peace who worked tirelessly since 1993 for forging people-to-people contacts to pressurize their respective governments to initiate the much needed process for peace and reconciliation. While the peace activists were striving for peace the powerfully entrenched vested interests, the rabble rousers and fundamentalists of various hues in the two countries were making every effort to subvert the peace process. Unfortunately the peace process between India and Pakistan had not moved as fast as it should have been. The hopes that with the return of democracy in Pakistan the peace process will be accelerated have been dashed to the ground with the Mumbai terror attack. The shock and anger over this most condemnable act was not misplaced. The concern for security of the citizens too is understandable. But the war cries and finger-pointing leading to the reversal of peace process defy any logic. The objective of the terrorists responsible for the attack was to subvert the peace process and renew hostilities between the two countries. Instead of playing into their hands it was imperative for the leadership of the two countries to push forward the peace process. It is indeed unfortunate that instead of meeting the challenge of terrorism with determination and mutual cooperation the ruling elites in the two countries are engaging themselves in a blame game and war of nerves.

The peace in the region is not only possible but is also necessary for the very welfare of the people of the two countries.Since the peace process, derailed in the wake of Mumbai terror attack, was the result of the efforts of the peace activists and members of the civil society in the two countries to create the conducive climate in this regard it is for them to rise, unite and assert to silence the war cries again being heard in the two countries. Let the saner elements in both India and Pakistan say no to war and confrontation and pressurize their respective governments to pick up the broken threads for reviving the much needed peace process. Instead of talking at each other the two governments must be made to talk to each other both for eliminating terrorism in the region and ushering into an era of peace and mutual cooperation. The people-to-people contacts established in the recent past have been the catalyst for the beginning of the dialogue process between the two estranged neighbouring countries. These contacts need to be further strengthened for pressurizing the establishments in Islamabad and New Delhi to renew the dialogue process for overcoming trust deficit and evolving a joint strategy and mechanism to deal with the menace of terrorism that poses threat to the security of the people as well as peace in the region. The two governments should allow such visits of the well-meaning civil society activists in increasing number for resurrection of the peace process.Dialogue is the only way to resolve all the outstanding disputes and overcome differences on various issues between the two countries. If the terrorists and hawks have the vested interests to subvert the peace process the interests of the common people in the two countries can best be served by carrying the peace process to its logical end. One can very well imagine the disastrous consequences of any war between the two nuclear powers. Let the people in the two countries assert to put halt to the foolish cries of war, hot pursuits, surgical strikes or retaliatory action and force the two governments to revive the abandoned peace process. All the contentious issues can be settled only through a purposeful process of dialogue with utmost sincerity.

From: Daily Times, December 13, 2008

Stepping away from the brink

by Abbas Rashid

If the Pakistani government is destabilised or undermined as a result of Indian tactics, the forces of militancy and extremism will not only get greater space in Pakistan, India too will end up facing a bigger problem

A fortnight after the Mumbai attacks that killed over 170 people and injured many more, Pakistan remains under pressure to do more to apprehend groups accused of playing a key role in the operation. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has referred to Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism and has insisted that the international community ensure the dismantling of the ‘infrastructure of terrorism’ in Pakistan.

The accusation is particularly directed at the Lashkar-e Tayba (LeT), the banned group that is seen as having taken the form of, or subsumed under, the Jama’at-ud Dawa (JD), also led by the former head of LeT, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed. The Indian media has by and large weighed in with considerable hype more likely to inflame popular sentiment rather than promote reasoned discussion. At the same time, the temperature has also been raised by media reports that the defence forces of both countries have been put in a state of heightened preparedness.

In an encouraging sign, Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee told Parliament on Thursday that attacking Pakistan to ‘avenge the Mumbai terror attacks is no solution’. However, this statement was accompanied by the demand that Pakistan hand over no less than forty people that India believes are behind the terror attacks.

Whatever the merit of such a demand, the government would risk a serious domestic backlash going though with it without unimpeachable proof of guilt being provided. Meanwhile Pakistan has sought the custody of Lt-Col Shrikant Prasad Purohit, allegedly involved in the Samjhota Express attack.

Among other things, we need to keep in mind that the Mumbai attacks also had the effect of reliving pressure on the Far Right extremist groups in India who appear to have supporters in the Indian armed forces as well, going by Purohit’s suspected involvement in the Samjhota Express attack. Similarly, it is extremist groups operating in the vicinity of Pakistan’s western border that have the most to gain from heightened tensions on the eastern border with India. Instead of more forces being moved west, as many advocate, to consolidate whatever gains have been made, this would have the opposite effect of relieving pressure on these groups.

Certainly, one key aspect of the issue then is whether Pakistan and India should cede a kind of veto to these groups over the peace process between the two countries.

The Pakistan leadership has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to cooperate in apprehending the perpetrators of the Mumbai massacre and bringing them to justice. A number of JD members have been picked up from Azad Kashmir and its leader Hafiz Muhammad Saeed has been put under house arrest.

There is also now a broader context to this focus. A Security Council panel late Wednesday declared Jama’at-ud Dawa a terrorist group subject to UN sanctions, including an asset freeze, travel ban and arms embargo. Now that authorities in Pakistan are moving against those identified by India and the international community, it would be far better to help in making this process more effective by sharing relevant intelligence, for instance.

Meanwhile, we cannot afford to lose sight of the peace process. Not least because, as the Indian external affairs minister has indicated, war is not an option. Given Pakistan’s many and widely known problems at this juncture, it seems that the Indian government regards this as an appropriate time to put maximum pressure on Pakistan. But if the government is destabilised or undermined as a result of Indian tactics, the forces of militancy and extremism will not only get greater space in Pakistan, India too will end up facing a bigger problem.

Pakistan must proceed with doing what it should have done much earlier, i.e., reorganise its forces and intelligence services to deal effectively with the greatest challenge to its integrity as a nation-state, which comes from within. This is not something that we should be doing at the behest of India or the United States, or any other country for that matter, but in our own national interest.

And certainly it poses a threat to our integrity if groups are found putting us in a position of vulnerability by using our territory as a launch pad to attack another country, whether on one border or the other. As President Zardari is reported to have told the most recent in a long line of visitors from the US, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, “The government is undertaking its own investigation of the incident and taking appropriate measures.”

At the same time, India needs to work with Pakistan to restore the peace process and to get the scheduled meetings back on track. The two countries have also in this tragedy had the opportunity to see how fragile this process remains after all the years of confidence building measures that have gone into it.

Both countries must go back with renewed vigour into resolving the issues that have been held up for years not only because of their complexity but more due to the absence of political will. Sir Creek and Siachen are two such issues. The groundwork for settling both is pretty much in place and it would be a fitting response to the terror unleashed in Mumbai last month if the two governments move for their resolution in 2009, as well as embarking on a credible initiative on Kashmir.

Abbas Rashid lives in Lahore and can be contacted at abbasrh@gmail.com

[Published in: The Telegraph (Calcutta), 18 August 2008]

Inflation and Morals:
- The answer to inflation is to cut down defence spending

by Ashok Mitra

Please have a heart; to ask a government wedded to the philosophy of the free market to discipline the demon of rising prices would be no less than cruelty. Inflation opens a floodgate of opportunities for producers and traders. A time lag exists between the production of a commodity and its sale. If prices shoot up during this interval, the producer makes a windfall profit in addition to the normal profit he already had borne in mind in his calculations. Given the gap of time between the purchase of stocks and their actual sales, the trader too experiences a windfall gain if market prices shoot up meanwhile. Free market economics ordains non-interference on the part of the government with happenings in the market. The continuing process of inflation helps producers and traders to keep making windfall profits. They should be allowed to do so, admonishes the doctrine of laissez-faire, the government must look the other way.

Such, then, is the crux of the matter. Inflation in the country, as measured by movements in the wholesale price index, is currently spilling beyond the rate of 12 per cent; in terms of the retail price index, it must be even higher. The government, given its commitment to neo-liberalism, can only watch the situation. It watches the situation with complacence for another, more intimate reason. The producers and the traders who are gathering in the profits are its classmates; their support sustains the government.

True, there is the other point of view. Whatever its class interests, the government functions within a democratic framework and will have to face the electorate soon. The overwhelming majority of the electorate consists of the poor and middle classes who are the severest victims of inflation. They could very well turn away from the parties constituting the government in case the wounds inflicted by rising prices become intolerable. Should not the government, for dear life, do something to save itself from the wrath of the people? For instance, could it not arrange to supply, through the public distribution system, essential commodities at a subsidy to the less fortunate sections? No, it could not; the proposal would be immediately shot down by decision-makers who shape and guide the destiny of the government. It is all very simple. Subsidized supply of commodities would adversely affect money-making by producers and traders; demand gets diverted from the free market to the public distribution system. That is as good as sabotaging the free market. The government, therefore, makes up its mind; it would not expand — on the contrary, it would phase out — the practice of supplying essential goods at subsidized prices.

There is a more basic reason why votaries of free market economics disfavour subsidies. Subsidies involve extra outlays on the part of the government. Such additional spending calls for additional taxation, the main burden of which supposedly falls on the traders and producers who rake up the profits engineered by inflation. Once more, class interests emerge as the issue. That part, the government, the free market doctrine says, is an evil; by its very existence, it stifles the freedom of individuals. This evil should not be allowed to extend its sphere of activities beyond defence and the maintenance of law and order. Offering subsidies belongs to this category of forbidden expenditure.

There is always an exception to the rule. Free marketeers do not mind increases in government expenditure if it is for defence spending. They would also not protest against the government laying out extra money on an extravagant scale for supposedly ensuring greater security for the nation, more specifically, for its leaders.

One further argument posted by those opposing subsidies is that these often lead to an excess of public spending over the government’s aggregate income. The inevitable sequel is again inflation, since too much money allegedly chases too few goods. Somewhat breathlessly, the conclusion is then drawn: any attempt to contain inflation via subsidies is self-defeating, it would only feed into inflation. Such simplistic logic will scandalize the followers of John Maynard Keynes, who had proved most effectively how a skilful deployment of deficit financing ensures gushing increases in income and employment and does not cause inflation. But Keynesians are now in the doghouse and the orthodoxy of balanced budget is back as king.

A timid soul might still offer a suggestion at this juncture: by all means have a balanced budget, but why not cut back on defence spending and use the savings to provide subsidies that could quell inflation? The timid soul, the chances are high, would immediately be dubbed an enemy of the country. Members of parliament will debate for hours on end the wisdom of according farmers an additional fertilizer subsidy of a thousand crore rupees; they will pass without discussion a 30,000-crore hike in the defence budget.

Better admit the nitty-gritty of reality: inflation is one of the corollaries of a free market existence. It widens the scope of profit-making. The higher the level of profit enjoyed by the top brackets in society, the greater is deemed to be the success of the liberal experiment, never mind what it does to the majority of the nation. There is, of course, a flip side to it. While the nation’s majority might feel helpless for a while, being at the receiving end of the maulings caused by inflation, this helplessness could gradually give rise to resentment and anger; this could have repercussions on the ballot box.

That bridge will be crossed, it will be said, when the government arrives there. A caste-, clan-, ethnicity-divided electorate can be expected to produce a caste-, clan-, ethnicity-divided parliament. In that event, it might well be possible to manoeuvre a majority support and come back to governance. Traders and producers, currently having it so good thanks to inflation, could then prove to be a most effective deus ex machina.

Inevitably, a moral will be sought to be drawn. Inflation and absence of subsidies do not necessarily topple a government. The not-so-ancient history of the collapse of the Soviet Union might be alluded to as a counter-point: the Soviet authorities subsidized about everything, from childcare to house rent to opera tickets, and yet failed to defeat destiny.

But is not a wrong reason being adduced here for the collapse of the Soviet Union? Its population enjoyed the bliss of comprehensive social welfare measures. Yes, the shadow nonetheless fell. Most of the population yearned for the richer, more luxurious things in life; which the State was unable to provide. Budgetary constraints stood in the way. A middle-income country’s leaders had vaulting ambition, they wanted to match the United States of America in military prowess, including in the arena of nuclear capability. The strain was too much on the country’s resources; the better things in life had to be denied to the populace. The disappointed people turned their backs on the leaders — and on their party.

If there is a lesson from the Soviet catastrophe, it is for reining in defence expenditure and spending what is saved thereby to provide the people with the kind of things they badly want. That moral should stand all countries in good stead and in all seasons, including in the season of inflation.

Letter sent to foreign ministers of governments represented on the NSG

Decision Time on the Indian Nuclear Deal: Help Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster

August 15, 2008

Dear Foreign Minister

Your government and other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) are being asked to consider the Bush administration's proposal to exempt India from longstanding NSG guidelines that require comprehensive IAEA safeguards as a condition of supply.

As many of us wrote in a January 2008 letter ("Fix the Proposal for Nuclear Cooperation with India"), India's commitments under the current terms of the proposed arrangement do not justify making far-reaching exceptions to international nonproliferation rules and norms.

Contrary to the claims of its advocates, the deal fails to bring India further into conformity with the nonproliferation behavior expected of the member states of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Unlike 178 other countries, India has not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It continues to produce fissile material and expand its nuclear arsenal. As one of only three states never to have signed the NPT, it has not made a legally-binding commitment to achieve nuclear disarmament, and it refuses to allow comprehensive, full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.

Yet the arrangement would give India rights and privileges of civil nuclear trade that have been reserved only for members in good standing under the NPT. It creates a dangerous distinction between "good" proliferators and "bad" proliferators and sends out misleading signals to the international community with regard to NPT norms.

We urge you to support measures that would avert further damage to the already beleaguered global nonproliferation and disarmament regime.

Given that the NSG only takes decisions by consensus, your government has a responsibility to consider the following adverse implications of the U.S. proposal to exempt India from key NSG guidelines:

1. Undermining the Nuclear Safeguards Regime
The proposed exemption of India from the comprehensive nuclear safeguards standard of supply threatens to undermine the nuclear safeguards system. Given that India maintains a nuclear weapons program outside of safeguards, facility-specific safeguards on a few additional "civilian" reactors provide no serious nonproliferation benefits.

As part of the carefully crafted final document of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, all NPT states-parties endorsed the principle of full-scope safeguards as a condition of supply. A decision by the NSG to exempt India from this requirement would also contradict this important element of the NPT bargain. Furthermore, it is inappropriate for the member states of the NSG to take it upon themselves to make a decision on this matter for the 140-plus other members of the NPT.

Making matters worse, Indian officials have suggested that it might cease IAEA scrutiny if fuel supplies are cut off, even if that is because it renews nuclear testing. NSG members should reject such an interpretation. Your government has a solemn responsibility to reject any India-specific exemption from NSG guidelines that is premised on a safeguards agreement that is in any way inconsistent with the principle of permanent safeguards over all nuclear materials and facilities.

India also pledged on July 18, 2005 to conclude an additional protocol to its safeguards agreement. States should insist that India conclude a meaningful Additional Protocol safeguards regime before considering whether and how to make any India-specific alteration to the NSG guidelines.

2. Possible Transfer of Sensitive Enrichment and Reprocessing Items
Unless rejected by the NSG, India's insistence on obtaining "full" nuclear cooperation would undermine efforts to prevent the proliferation of technologies that may be used to produce nuclear bomb material, including reprocessing and enrichment technologies and items. Allowing transfers of these sensitive nuclear technologies is extremely unwise given that IAEA safeguards cannot prevent such items from being replicated and used to advance India's weapons program. U.S. officials have stated that they do not intend to sell such technology, but other states may. Virtually all NSG states support proposals that would bar transfers of these sensitive nuclear technologies to non-NPT members. India must be no exception.

Recall that India detonated a nuclear device in 1974 that used plutonium harvested from a reactor supplied by Canada using heavy water from the United States in violation of earlier bilateral peaceful nuclear use agreements.

3. Indirect Assistance to India's Nuclear Weapons Program
In the absence of a suspension of fissile material production for weapons by India, foreign nuclear fuel supplies would free up India's relatively limited domestic supplies to be used exclusively in its military nuclear sector, thereby indirectly contributing to the potential expansion of India's nuclear arsenal. This would contradict the spirit if not the letter of Article I of the NPT (which prohibits direct or indirect assistance to another state's nuclear weapons program), and it would spur further arms racing in South Asia.

India's political commitment to support negotiations of a global verifiable fissile material cut off treaty is a hollow gesture given the fact that states have failed to initiate negotiations on such a treaty for over a decade.

4. Facilitating Indian Nuclear Testing
If, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on July 18, 2005, India would "assume the same responsibilities and practices" as other countries with advanced nuclear capabilities, it is reasonable to expect that India should agree to a legally-binding moratorium on nuclear test explosions. It would be highly irresponsible for CTBT signatories not to establish CTBT signature as a basic condition for NSG nuclear trade with India or any state that has not yet signed that treaty.

While Singh has reiterated his commitment to maintaining India's voluntary nuclear test moratorium, India has refused to make any commitment to a legally-binding commitment to a test ban and has sought to avoid the possibility of any penalty in the event that it does resume testing. As Singh asserted most recently in his July 22 statement to the Lok Sabha, "I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns."

To reduce the impact of a fuel supply cut off if India were to resume nuclear testing, Indian officials have gone further and are demanding a so-called "clean" and "unconditional" exemption from NSG guidelines and are seeking bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements that help provide India with strategic fuel reserves and/or lifetime fuel guarantees.

This flatly contradicts a provision in the 2006 U.S. Henry Hyde Act, which was championed by Sen. Barack Obama and approved by the U.S. Congress that stipulates that fuel supplies be limited to reasonable reactor operating requirements.1 It would also contradict the policy mandated by the U.S. implementing legislation that a nuclear test would lead to the immediate cessation of all U.S. nuclear cooperation with India.

If nuclear testing is to be deterred, meaningful penalties must be available. If NSG states do agree to supply fuel for India's "civilian" nuclear sector, they must avoid arrangements that would enable or encourage future nuclear testing by India. Otherwise, you and your government may become complicit in the facilitation of a new round of destabilizing nuclear tests.

In light of the above-mentioned flaws in the ill-conceived proposal to exempt India from certain NSG guidelines, we recommend that:

    * If NSG supplier states agree to supply fuel to India, they should establish a policy that if India resumes nuclear testing, or if India violates its safeguards agreement with the IAEA or withdraws "civilian" facilities or materials from international safeguards, all nuclear cooperation with India involving NSG members shall be terminated and unused fuel supplies from NSG states shall be returned.
    * If NSG supplier states agree to supply fuel to India, they should do so in a manner that is commensurate with ordinary reactor operating requirements and not provide - individually or collectively - strategic or lifetime nuclear fuel reserves.
    * NSG states should expressly prohibit any transfer of sensitive plutonium reprocessing, uranium enrichment, or heavy water production items to India, whether inside or outside bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements.
    * NSG states should actively oppose any arrangement that would give India any special safeguards exemptions or would in any way be inconsistent with the principle of permanent and unconditional safeguards over all nuclear materials and facilities subject to its safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
    * Before India is granted a waiver from the NSG's full-scope safeguards standard, it should join the other original nuclear weapon states by declaring it has stopped fissile material production for weapons purposes and transform its nuclear test moratorium into a meaningful, legally-binding commitment.2
    * NSG states should agree not to grant India consent to reprocess nuclear fuel supplied by an NSG member state in a facility that is not under permanent and unconditional IAEA safeguards, and also agree that any material produced in other facilities may not be transferred to any unsafeguarded facility.
    * NSG states should agree that all bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements between an NSG member state and India explicitly prohibit the replication or use of such technology in any unsafeguarded Indian facilities.

The Indian nuclear deal would be a nonproliferation disaster and a serious setback to the prospects of global nuclear disarmament, especially now. For those world leaders who are serious about ending the arms race, holding all states to their international commitments, and strengthening the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, it is time to stand up and be counted.

Sincerely,

Daryl G. Kimball,
Executive Director,
Arms Control Association, Washington, D.C.

Steven Staples
Director
Rideau Institute on International Affairs (Canada)
Global Secretariat to Abolition 2000

Hideyuki Ban
Co-Director
Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (Tokyo, Japan)

Endorsements continued below

1. See September 16, 2006 exchange on the floor of the Senate between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Richard Lugar, then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, available from <http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2006/2006_S11021.pdf > and <http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2006/2006_S11022.pdf>. Also see Sec. 103 (b) para 10 of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act.

2. All UN members states are also obligated to support UN Security Council Resolution 1172, which calls on India and Pakistan to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) stop producing fissile material for weapons, and undertake other nuclear risk reduction measures. All NSG states have a responsibility to uphold their obligations under UNSC 1172 by reiterating and actively encouraging India and Pakistan to implement these and other nuclear restraint measures.

Contact Addresses:

Abolition 2000 US-India Deal Working Group
c/o Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Akebonobashi Co-op 2F-B, 8-5 Sumiyoshi-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-0065, Japan
Tel: 03-3357-3800 Fax: 03-3357-3801

Arms Control Association
1313 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20005

Endorsements continued

Individual Endorsements

International NGOs

National and Local NGOs

Individual Endorsements (organizations listed for identification purposes only)

Tadatoshi Akiba (Japan)
Mayor of Hiroshima

Tomihisa Taue (Japan)
Mayor of Nagasaki City

Amb. Richard Broinowski (Australia)
Adjunct Professor,
School of Letters, Art and Media
University of Sydney, and
Former Ambassador to Vietnam, Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Central American Republics and Cuba

Amb. George Bunn (Stanford, CA, USA)
First General Consul for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,
Former Ambassador to the Geneva Disarmament Conference, and
Consulting Professor at the Center for International Security and Cooperation
Stanford University

Amb. Jayantha Dhanapala (Sri Lanka)
Former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, and
President of the 1995 NPT Review & Extension Conference

Amb. Robert Grey (USA)
Director, Bipartisan Security Group
Former U.S. Representative to the Conference on Disarmament

Fred McGoldrick (USA)
Consultant and
Former Director of Nonproliferation and Export Policy U.S. Department of State

Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C., (Canada)
Canadian Senator Emeritus
Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament

Praful Bidwai (India)
Senior journalist and author
Fellow at the Transnational Institute

Dennis Brutus (South Africa)
Honorary Professor Centre for Civil Society
University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban

Adele Buckley (Canada)
Canadian Pugwash Group
Executive Committee, Member
Pugwash Council

Michael Byers (Canada)
Chair in Global Politics and Intl. Law
University of British Columbia

Helen Caldicott (Australia)
Co-founder, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Founder, Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament
Founder, Nuclear Policy Research Institute

Noam Chomsky (Cambridge, MA, USA)
Emeritus Professor of Linguistics and Philosophy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Joseph Cirincione (USA)
President
Ploughshares Fund

Mark Diesendorf (Australia)
Senior Lecturer
Institute of Environmental Studies
University of New South Wales

Jim Falk (Australia)
Director
Australian Centre for Science, Innovation, and Society
Melbourne University

Charles D. Ferguson (Washington, D.C., USA)
Philip D. Reed Senior Fellow for Science and Technology
Council on Foreign Relations

John Finney (UK)
Chair, British Pugwash Group
Member of the Council and Executive Committee of International Pugwash
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University College London

Geoffrey Forden (Cambridge, MA, USA)
Research Associate, Program in Science, Technology and Society
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Lt. Gen. Robert Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.)
Senior Military Fellow
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Subrata Ghoshroy (Cambridge, MA, USA)
Research Associate, Program in Science, Technology and Society
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Prof. Dr. Ulrich Gottstein (Germany)
Emeritus IPPNW Vice President Europe and
Honorary board member, IPPNW-Germany

Frank von Hippel (Princeton, NJ, USA)
Professor of Public and International Affairs
Program on Science and Global Security
Princeton University

Kayoko Ikeda (Japan)
Member of the Committee of Seven for World Peace Appeal

Jungmin Kang (Stanford, CA, USA)
Science Fellow
Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University

Michiji Konuma (Japan)
Member of the Committee of Seven for World Peace Appeal
Former Council Member of the Pugwash Conferences, and
Professor Emeritus, Keio University and Musashi Institute of Technology

Oliver Meier (Germany)
Researcher
Hamburg Peace Research Institute

Zia Mian (Princeton, NJ, USA)
Research Scientist
Program on Science and Global Security
Princeton University

Gavin Mudd (Australia)
Engineering Lecturer
Monash University

Masashi Nishihara (Japan)
President
Research Institute for Peace and Security

Jin Hee Park (South Korea)
Assistant Professor
Dongguk University

William C. Potter (Monterey, CA, USA)
Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar Professor of Nonproliferation Studies
Monterey Institute of International Studies

Ernie Regehr, O.C. (Canada)
Co-Founder
Project Ploughshares of Canada
Adjunct Associate Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies
University of Waterloo

Alan Roberts (Australia)
Former member of the
Nuclear Safety Committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

Timothy L. Savage (Republic of Korea)
Deputy Director
Nautilus Institute at Seoul

Shoji Sawada (Japan)
Emeritus Professor
Nagoya University

Henry D. Sokolski (USA)
Executive Director
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center

Tatsujiro Suzuki (Japan)
Member, Japan Pugwash Group
Co-founder, Peace Pledge Japan

Takao Takahara (Japan)
Professor, International Peace Research Institute
Meijigakuin University

Aaron Tovish
Director, 2020 Vision Campaign
Mayors for Peace

Hideo Tsuchiyama (Japan)
Member of The Committee of Seven for World Peace Appeal
Emeritus Professor and former President of Nagasaki University

Hiromichi Umebayashi (Japan)
Special Advisor
Peace Depot

Achin Vanaik (India)
Professor of International Relations and Global Politics
Department of Political Science
Delhi University
Fellow, Transnational Institute

Leonard Weiss (United States)
Consultant and Chief Architect of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978

Kiho Yi ( Republic of Korea)
Research Professor
Democracy and Social Movement Institute
Sungkonghoe University

Ichiro Yuasa (Japan)
President
Peace Depot

International NGOs

Regina Hagen
Coordinator
International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation

Tilman Ruff
Chair, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
Chair, Australian Management Committee of ICAN

Susi Snyder
Secretary General
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

Alyn Ware
Consultant
International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

National and Local NGOs (listed by region)

South Asia

India

Sujay Basu
Director
Centre of Energy and Environment Management (Kolkata)

Santanu Chacraverti
Secretary
Society for Direct Initiative for Social and Health Action

Anil K. Chaudhary
Popular Education and Action Centre (New Delhi)

Sajaya Kakarla
Caring Citizens Collective (Hyderabad)

Saraswati Kavula and Dr. Satya Lakshmi Komarraju
Movement Against Uranium Projects (Hyderabad)

N. Ramesh
Organiser
Journalists Against Nuclear Weapons, Thanjavur Chapter

Captain J. Rama Rao and Dr. K. Babu Rao
Forum for Sustainable Development (Hyderabad)

Sukla Sen
EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity) (Mumbai)

S. P. Udayakumar
Coordinator
People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu)

South Asian Diaspora

Harsh Kapoor
South Asians Against Nukes (France)

Hari Sharma
President
South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (Vancouver, Canada)

Africa

South Africa

Genni Easton
Chair
Table View Ratepayers Association

Dominique Gilbert
Pelindaba Working Group

Mike Kantey
National Chair
Coalition Against Nuclear Energy

Andy W. Pienaar
Namaqualand Action Group for Environmental Justice (Komaggas)


East Asia

Japan

Sadao Ichikawa
Chair
Japan Congress Against A- and H- Bombs (Gensuikin)

Mayako Ishii
President:
YWCA of Japan

Goro Kawai, Haruko Moritaki, Mitsuo Okamoto
Co-Directors
Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition

Akira Kawasaki
Executive Committee Member
Peace Boat

Nobuo Kazashi, Director and
Haruko Moritaki, Executive Director
NO DU Hiroshima Project

Masayoshi Naito
Coordinator
Citizens' Network for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (Tokyo)

Osamu Niikura
President
Japanese Lawyers International Solidarity Association

Kenichi Ohkubo
Secretary General
Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (JALANA)

Daisuke Sato
Secretary-General
NoNukes Asia Forum Japan

Yoshiko Shidara
Co-Director
Women's Democratic Club

Aileen Mioko Smith
Director
Green Action (Kyoto)

Terumi Tanaka
Secretary General
Nihon Hidankyo (Japan Confederation of A- and H-bomb Sufferers)

Republic of Korea

Cheong Wooksik
Representative
Peace Network

Koo Kab-woo
Director
Center for Peace and Disarmament
People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

Lee Heonseok
Representative
Korea Eco-Center

Park Jung-eun
Chief Coordinator
Center for Peace and Disarmament
People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

Seok Kwanghoon
Energy Policy Consultant
Green Korea United

Malaysia

Ronald McCoy
President
Malaysian Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibility

Europe

Austria

Hildegard Breiner
President
Naturschutzbund Osterreich, Landesgruppe Vorarlberg (Dornbirn) and
Speaker
Vorarlberger Plattform gegen Atomgefahren (Bregenz)

Pete H_mmerle
Austrian Fellowship of Reconciliation
(Internationaler Vers_hnungsbund, _sterreichischer Zweig)

Hans Holzinger
Robert-Jungk-Foundation (Salzburg)

Maga. Johanna Nekowitsch
Wiener Plattform "Atomkraftfreie Zukunft"



Matthias Reichl
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence (Bad Ischl)

Dr. Klaus Renoldner, Chair
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Austria

Heinz Stockinger
PLAGE (Salzburg Platform Against Nuclear Dangers)

Belgium

Jef De Loof
President
'Physicians for Peace' (Belgian Affiliate of IPPNW)

Gio De Weerd
Pax Christi Vlaanderen

David Heller
Coordinator
Friends of the Earth, Flanders & Brussels

Hans Lammerant
Vredesactie - Bombspotting

Georges Spriet
Secretary General
Vrede

Michel Vanhoorne
Coordinator
Left Ecological Forum

Finland

Laura Lodenius
Executive Director
Peace Union of Finland

Anna-Liisa Mattsoff
Coordinator
No More Nuclear Power movement

France

Dominique Lalanne
Chair
Abolition of Nuclear Weapons / Stop essais

Germany

Johannes M. Becker
Board
Wissenschaft & Frieden

Xanthe Hall
IPPNW Germany

Martin Kalinowski
Board
Forschungsverbund Naturwissenschaft, Abr_stung und internationale Sicherheit (FONAS)

Prof. G_tz Neuneck, Ph.D.
Chair
Germany Pugwash Group

Ireland

Mary McCarrick
Executive Committee Member
Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Italy

Albino Bizzotto
President
Beati i Costruttori di Pace (Blessed Are the Peacemakers)

Lisa Clark
Nuclear Weapons Working Group
Rete Italiana per il Disarmo (Italian Disarmament Network)

Nicola Cufaro Petroni
Secretary Generale
USPID (Union of Scientists for Disarmament)

Netherlands

Marjan Lucas
IKV Pax Christi Netherlands

Ak Malten
Director
Global Anti-Nuclear Alliance

Fred Valkenburg
Chair
Pais (Dutch Section War Resisters International)

Wendela de Vries
Coordinator
Campagne tegen Wapenhandel (Campaign Against Arms Trade)

Norway

Tordis S_rensen H_if_dt
Chair
Norske Leger mot atomv_pen, NLA
(Norwegian Affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War)

Stine Rodmyr
Director
No to Nuclear Weapons

Russia

Alexey Toropov
NGO Siberian Ecological Agency

Spain

Josep Puig
President
Group of Scientists and Technicians for a Non Nuclear Future (Barcelona)

Sweden

Frida Sundberg (President) and Gunnar Westberg (Member of the Board)
Swedish Physicians Against Nuclear Weapons (SLMK)

United Kingdom

Pat Haward (Chair) and George Farebrother (Secretary)
World Court Project UK

Paul Ingram
Executive Director
British American Security Information Council (London and Washington, D.C.)

Oceania

Australia

Michael Denborough
The Nuclear Disarmament Party of Australia

John Hallam
People for Nuclear Disarmament Nuclear Flashpoints Project

Don Jarrett
President
Australian Peace Committee

Pauline Mitchell
Campaign for International Cooperation and Disarmament (Melbourne)

South Australian Regional Meeting
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

Cam Walker
National Liaison Officer
Friends of the Earth Australia

Sue Wareham OAM
President
Medical Association for Prevention of War

New Zealand

Dr. Kate Dewes (Coordinator) and Commander Robert D. Green (Royal Navy - Ret.)
Disarmament & Security Centre (Christchurch, New Zealand)

Simon Reeves
Chair
Aotearoa Lawyers for Peace

North America

Canada

Elaine Hughes
Spokesperson
Stop the Hogs Coalition


S. (Ziggy) Kleinau
Coordinator
Citizens for Renewable Energy (Lion's Head, Ontario)

David H. Martin
Climate & Energy Coordinator
Greenpeace (Canada)

Dr. Joan Russow
Global Compliance Research Project (Victoria, B.C.)

Laura Savinkoff
Boundary Peace Initiative (Grand Forks, B.C.)

Mexico

Luis Guti_rrez Esparza
President
Latin American Circle for International Studies (Mexico City)

USA - National

David Culp
Legislative Representative
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) (Washington, DC)

Marie Dennis
Director
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns (Washington, DC)

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

Amy Isaacs
National Director
Americans for Democratic Action (Washington, DC)

John Isaacs
Executive Director
Council for a Livable World (Washington, DC)

Rob Keithan
Director
Washington Office for Advocacy
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations (Washington, DC)

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Paul Kawika Martin
Organizing and Policy Director
Peace Action

Michael McNally, MD, Ph. D
Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Jon Rainwater
Executive Director
Peace Action West

Susan Shaer
Executive Director
Women's Action for New Directions (Washington, DC)

Alice Slater
Convener
Abolition 2000 Sustainable Energy Working Group

USA - Regional

Chuck Baynton
Member
Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice

Ken Bossong
Executive Director
SUN DAY Campaign (Takoma Park, MD)

Buffalo Bruce
Vice-Chair
Western Nebraska Resources Council

George Crocker
Executive Director
North American Water Office (Lake Elmo, MN)

Mary Davis
Director
Yggdrasil, a project of Earth Island Institute (Lexington, KY)

Elena Day
Steering Committee Chair
People's Alliance for Safe Energy (Charlottesville, VA)

Bruce A. Drew
Steering Committee
Prairie Island Coalition (Minneapolis, MN)

Wells Eddleman
Staff Scientist
North Carolina Citizens Research Group

Judi Friedman
Chair
People's Action for Clean Energy (Connecticut)

Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs (Livermore, CA)

Mary Lampert
Director
Pilgrim Watch (Duxbury, MA)

Conrad Miller, MD
Founder
Physicians For Life (Watermill, NY)

Capt. William S. Linnell
Spokesperson
Cheaper, Safer Power (Portland, OR)

Sal Mangiagli
Board Member
Citizens Awareness Network - Connecticut Chapter

Alan Muller
Executive Director
Green Delaware

Lewis E. Patrie, MD
Chair
Western North Carolina Physicians for Social Responsibility

Guy C. Quinlan
Chair, Nuclear Disarmament Task Force
All Souls Unitarian Church (New York, NY)

Judy Treichel
Executive Director
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force (Las Vegas, NV)

Michael Welch
Redwood Alliance (Arcata, CA)

Tags: India, Pakistan, Peace, Militarisation, Nuclear Weapons, Defence Spending