-Caveat Lector- Please contact your local Congressperson to support this important bill to protect the only planet we have. This is one of the important survival issue messages being carried by Global Peace Walk2000 from SF to DC to NYC for UN55th. http://www.globalpeacenow.org The full transcript of the press conference, with speeches by Congressional Co-Sponsors Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and nuclear policy experts Dr. Marcus Raskin (Institute for Policy Studies), Mary Olson (Nuclear Information and Resource Service), Bob Tiller (Physicians for Social Responsibility), and John Steinbach (Veterans for Peace), as well as the text of the bill HR-2545, can be found at http://prop1.org/prop1/990730p1.speeches.htm Summary of HR-2545 is at end of this post. From: Peace through Reason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [discussion of HR-2545] To: Alyn Ware <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; David Crockett Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: abolition caucus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Proposal to Abolition 2000. Holmes Norton Bill Date: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 11:34 PM At 11:51 AM 10/23/99 -0400, Alyn Ware wrote: >Dear David, > >Thank you for your communication regarding the bill proposed by Eleanor >Holmes Norton. I believe that Holmes Norton should be supported for this >initiative. I have distributed the bill in a variety of fora, including to >representatives arguing against nuclear weapons in the International Court >of Justice, with the result that it was referred to in the 1995-6 case. This is a fact. And your efforts have been greatly appreciated, Alyn. Fortunately, you are an Australian citizen. Unfortunately, the support needed for Norton's bill must come from US citizens. What is necessary is for millions of US citizens to insist that their congressional representatives support Norton's bill. >However, there are a number of problems with the bill which make it >difficult to swing in behind with wholehearted support. > >1. Requirement to "Refrain from all military operations". > >While I am personally a Pacifist and would support this statement, it >precludes those congresspeople who would support nuclear disarmament but not >yet support a pacifist US policy. It also could be inferred to prevent US >participation in UN peacekeeping operations. It must be tough to be a Pacifist politician; as a "politician," I imagine, the "Pacifist" would eventually be forced to speak out of both sides of his mouth. (Didn't something like that recently happen to some Greens in Germany?) Personally, as a Pacifist, my problem is those congresspeople who might "support" nuclear disarmament yet would remain militarists. For one thing, congresspeople who entertain that dualistic mind set seem to be seriously out of touch with reality. Consider the value of nuclear weaponry: simply, they are the most advanced weapons. It is axiomatic that the best defense is a good offense. It is also axiomatic that the best offense is the most murderous offense. Notwithstanding the fact that the US has demonstrated its' ability to bomb nations into the stone age with conventional weaponry, to my way of thinking, any congressperson who claims to support the elimination of nuclear weapons, but wants to continue with a strong military would be either a bad general, a clever liar, or living in Fantasyland. What's the point of having a military that's not capable of annihilating its' enemies? I know that if I believed in peace through strength, or that might makes right, I wouldn't beat my best weapon into any ploughshare. As a Pacifist, rather than play patty cake with a bunch of wingnut congresspeople, I'd prefer to encourage them to change their perspective of reality. And isn't that what a grassroots movement is supposed to do; convince government to change its' perspective of reality? >2. "This Act shall take effect when the President certifies to the Congress >that all foreign countries possessing nuclear weapons have established legal >requirements comparable to those set forth in section 2 and those >requirements have taken effect." > >The requirement that all foreign countries possessing nuclear weapons must >"undertake vigorous good faith efforts to eliminate war, armed conflict, and >all military operations (from Section 2)" is too stringent and allows the US >an easy excuse not to implement the bill, ie if Russia is in armed conflict >with Chechnya, the US can refuse to implement the ill. First, point 2 seems to be point 1 in disguise ("support nuclear disarmament but not yet support a pacifist US policy"). Second, if this section is too stringent to be taken seriously, then what can be said of the initial promise of the UN Charter: "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war?" (Reminds me of the League of Women Voters' spokeswoman who said that, although her organization and our organization both support the elimination of nuclear weapons, her organization couldn't support an initiative which called for the elimination of the weapons by the year 2000, because they "believe it is a long term goal.") Third, Just as Congress was the mechanism which refused to implement the CTBT, Congress would also be responsible for the implementation of Norton's bill. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Congress suddenly came to its' senses and actually implemented Norton's bill, that "bill" would then become "federal law," in which case, I think, the only way that "the US" could refuse to abide by its' own federal law would be through a revolution or military coup. Fourth, the "vigorous good faith efforts to eliminate war, armed conflict, and all military operations," is a clause independent of the elimination of nuclear weapons. I'm not so naive to think that war didn't long predate nuclear weapons, nor -- assuming humanity eliminates nuclear weapons before nuclear weapons eliminate humanity -- that war is unlikely to continue for a least a short time after nukes are gone. However, the operative words are, "vigorous good faith efforts." It might take awhile before these vigorous good faith efforts are realized, but it's better to start somewhere than to start nowhere. Fifth, and perhaps most important, nothing is written in stone here. The wording of Norton's bill in its' present incarnation is not the same as the wording contained in the voter initiative which "forced" (Norton's word) her to introduce the bill in the first place. Presently Norton's bill is still in committee (with enough grassroots support it could easily get out of committee), so debate on the bill has yet to even begin. If debate ever begins, the wording could be fine tuned. On the other hand, if debate never begins on this or some other measure to eliminate nuclear weapons, to imagine that the weapons might ever be eliminated seems merely a pipe dream. >The process implied here is also problematic. According to this clause, the >US shall wait until all other nuclear weapon states have dismantled their >nuclear weapons before they begin the process. Other countries will not >agree to this. They will only agree to simultaneous dismantling. Hmmm. This is one respect in which the wording of the original initiative differs from the wording of Norton's bill. As a Pacifist, I'd be in favor of unilateral disarmament. As a realist, I know from experience that most US citizens aren't Pacifists, therefore the initiative would never even have gotten on the ballot had it called for unilateral disarmament. The initiative called for the US to eliminate nuclear weapons if the now-defunct Commonwealth of Independent States agreed to eliminate its' weapons. Norton took it a step further by substituting "all other nuclear weapon states." >In order to achieve nuclear disarmament, the US cannot take a unilateral >position and then expect others to jump to their bidding. Of course not. But I don't think Norton figures it will work that way. What Norton's bill, should it become law, would do is to put the US in a position of being legally bound to dispose of its' nuclear capability if the others do the same. >The process will >require negotiations between states in order to achieve an agreement on >universal non-use of nuclear weapons and an agreed process for the eliminati >on of nuclear weapons which can be verified, ie a nuclear weapons >convention. Well, sure, the process will require negotiations between states in order to achieve an agreement, but, to my mind anyway, the US is the toughest nut to crack. Again, Norton's bill is directed at the US. Since I'm not a US citizen, I don't think I can reasonably be accused of jingoism when I say, realistically, like it or not, the US is truly a "world leader." My problem is that it seems to be leading in the wrong direction. The US has led the way in the development of these devices, and is the only nation ever to have used them against human beings. It appears self-evident that, if there is ever to be any reversal in the process, the US is pivotal. >This is why the Markey resolution, while only a resolution, is >much more realistic in what it calls for. I think you mean the Woolsey resolution (H.Res. 82), which calls for "the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention as a discussion document intended to further negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament." Unless I'm mistaken, Markey's two resolutions dealing with nuclear weapons (H.Res. 74 and 177) deal with Stockpile Stewardship and Y2K respectively. Unfortunately, Markey's resolutions, which refer to the CTBT, probably need to be reintroduced with slightly different wording. "Only a resolution," is significant, because there's a big difference between a "bill" and a "resolution." A bill makes a law, and, in nations under the rule of law, a law is significant. In reality, a resolution is little more than a feel good placebo. As far as "realistic" is concerned, whether Woolsey's resolution is more or less "realistic" than Norton's bill would seem to depend on one's definition of the term. If "realistic" is defined as, "getting something passed in congress easily," then Woolsey's resolution would most likely be more realistic than Norton's bill. However, if the definition is, "getting something passed in congress which will have some practical effect," then, I believe, Norton's bill is the more realistic approach. In fact, Woolsey is co-sponsoring Norton's bill. In her speech at the press conference when Norton introduced the bill this time, Woolsey stated that her resolution would work in conjunction with Norton's bill. >The Markey resolution is backed up >by the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention, which outlines the legal, political >and technical considerations required for the elimination of nuclear >weapons. I guess the main reason that I think Woolsey's resolution could work in conjunction with Norton's bill, while, in practical terms, it is pretty unrealistic without Norton's bill is that; perhaps even more surely than that other nations won't jump to the bidding of the US, the US is not going to jump to the bidding of the UN. Believe it or not, there are multi-millions of US citizens who actually believe that the UN is a satanic plot. There are many more multi-millions, including many members of Congress, who just believe that the UN is bad for US interests. Certainly the UN can hold a convention and demand that the US scrap its' nukes, but how is the UN going to enforce its' demand? Shucks, they can't even force the US to pay its' dues. I hope these comments are helpful. Peace through Reason, Thomas ____________________________________________________________ * Peace Through Reason - http://prop1.org -Convert the War Machines! * ____________________________________________________________ --------- 106th CONGRESS CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H.R. 2545 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Armed Services and International Relations Committees on July 16, 1999 A BILL To provide for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion in accordance with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 1993 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the "Nuclear Disarmament 5 and Economic Conversion Act of 1999". 6 SEC 2. REQUIREMENT FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND 7 ECONOMIC CONVERSION. 8 The United States Government shall---- 1 (1) disable and dismantle all its nuclear weap- 2 ons and refrain from replacing them at any time 3 with any weapons of! mass destruction; 4 (2) redirect resources that are currently being 5 used for nuclear weapons programs to use 6 (A) in converting all nuclear weapons in 7 dustry employees, processes, plants, and pro- 8 grams smoothly to constructive, ecologically 9 beneficial peacetime activities during the 3 10 years following the effective date of this Act, 11 and 12 (B) in addressing human and infrastruc- 13 ture needs such as housing, health care, edu- 14 cation, agriculture, and enviromnental restora- 15 tion; 16 (3) undertake vigorous good faith efforts to 17 eliminate war, armed conflict, and all military oper- 18 ations; and 19 (4) actively promote policies to induce all other 20 countries to join in these commitments for world 21 peace and security. 22 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 23 This Act shall take effect when the President certifies 24 to the Congress that all foreign countries possessing nu- 25 clear weapons have established legal requirements com- 1 parable to those set forth in section 2 and those require- 2 ments have taken effect. ______________________________________________________________________ If you have any questions about the bill or event, please contact Ellen Thomas, PROPOSITION ONE COMMITTEE PO BOX 27217, WASHINGTON, DC 20038 USA 202-462-0757-- (voice) | 202-265-5389 -- (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- (e-mail) | http://prop1.org -- (World-Wide-Web) DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
