[toeslist] "At a Critical Moment in History-" Mel Hurtig -
Janet M Eaton
Critical insights and an imperative warning from Mel Hurtig about the
dire threat posed to the world by the policies of the current US
adminstration i.e. the horrible and increasing danger of an
apocalyptic nuclear Armageddon.
In regard to the recent failure of the Conference of the Non-
Proliferation Treaty Hurtig singles out the US:
"Not only was no progress made on the vitally important issues of
nuclear disarmament, proliferation, abolishing testing and the
continuing upgrading and refinement of nuclear weapons and their
delivery systems, but in a shocking betrayal to the worlds
aspirations for peace, disarmament and redirecting arms funding to
badly-needed humanitarian use, clear-cut widely agreed-to commitments
made in the previous 1995 and 2000 Reviews were either ignored or
repudiated. Its impossible not to single out the administration of
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for the Conference
failure."
And he goes on to point out the cumulative failures of the US in this
regard:
"Having already backed away from the vitally important ABM Treaty,
having refused to back the Test Ban Treaty, having embarked on the
dangerous, escalating, so-called missile defence fiasco, having
already budgeted for the refinement of its nuclear weapons, having
planned for the development of new nuclear weapons and the horrendous
prospect of the weaponization of space, having agreed to a dangerous
new provocative nuclear agreement with India, the U.S. is now clearly
identifiable as the major threat to world peace and to the very
survival of the human race."
Hurtig concludes by citing the success of the Canadian Campaign
against joining Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), particualry the role
of the Internet, and the hope that implies for the future.
"There were many elements in our successful battle. But, if I had to
credit one above all others, it was our success in getting expert
information out over the internet that made the most difference.
Its a lesson that I know many of you will want to employ in the
future, because in the end, given reliable unbiased information, the
public will make the right choice, even in the face of well-financed
military-industrial misinformation, ignorant editorials and myopic
columnists, and concerted government propaganda."
fyi-janet
p.s Mel Hurtig is a well known Canadian nationalist, founder and past
Chair of the Council of Canadians, former Chair of the committee for
an Independent Canada, and author of "The Betrayal of Canada" and
"Rushing to Armageddon: The Shocking Truth About Canada , Missile
Defence, and Star Wars"
====================
Do not reply to this email. Comments and response may be directed to
Mel Hurtig at mhu...@telus.net. For list subscribe/unsubscribe
only,
please contact mha...@vivelecanada.ca.
AT A CRITICAL MOMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY
SO BIZARRE AS TO BE BEYOND BELIEF*
A Keynote Address by Mel Hurtig Association of World Citizens
Conference
University of San Francisco August 2, 2005
*words from an article by Robert S. McNamara, Foreign Policy,
May/June 2005
In what follows, I acknowledge with gratitude and admiration the
invaluable work of Douglas Roche, O.C. formerly Canadas Ambassador
for Disarmament and currently Chairman of the Middle Powers
Initiative. Roches analysis of the May, 2005 Seventh Review
Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is perceptive and
extremely
important.
While all of us in this room are fully aware of the dismaying failure
of the crucial Seventh Review Conference on the Non-Proliferation
Treaty which took place in New York in May, I very much doubt if one
in a thousand around the world paid attention to the month-long
deliberations or have any even vague idea of their importance, or the
inevitable tragic consequences of the enormously disappointing
Conference results.
Not only was no progress made on the vitally important issues of
nuclear disarmament, proliferation, abolishing testing and the
continuing upgrading and refinement of nuclear weapons and their
delivery systems, but in a shocking betrayal to the worlds
aspirations for peace, disarmament and redirecting arms funding to
badly-needed humanitarian use, clear-cut widely agreed-to commitments
made in the previous 1995 and 2000 Reviews were either ignored or
repudiated.
Its impossible not to single out the administration of George W.
Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for the Conference failure.
Time
and again the U.S. blocked crucial references to earlier commitments
and continued to stubbornly refuse to join the widely- supported
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
While most countries wanted a strengthened Non-Proliferation Treaty,
the U.S. clearly wanted it weakened.
And, while many U.S. allies, including seven NATO states called for
specific steps to quicken nuclear disarmament, and almost 2,000 NGOs
presented thoughtful, passionate pleas and warnings about the growing
dangers of proliferation, and while well-reasoned plans for
verification and the elimination of nuclear arsenals were presented
and overwhelmingly supported, the U.S. frustrated any such progress
towards goals almost universally supported.
Having already backed away from the vitally important ABM Treaty,
having refused to back the Test Ban Treaty, having embarked on the
dangerous, escalating, so-called missile defence fiasco, having
already budgeted for the refinement of its nuclear weapons, having
planned for the development of new nuclear weapons and the horrendous
prospect of the weaponization of space, having agreed to a dangerous
new provocative nuclear agreement with India, the U.S. is now clearly
identifiable as the major threat to world peace and to the very
survival of the human race.
The mayor of Hiroshima has eloquently warned of the terrible
consequences, as have numerous others such as Secretary-General Kofi
Annan, Mohamed ElBaradei, Robert McNamara, Canadas Douglas Roche,
and
John Polanyi, Sir Joseph Rotlat, and many other respected world
leaders and admired authorities.
Conversely, and remarkably, not a single high-ranking U.S. official
bothered to attend the New York Conference.
Meanwhile, in most Western democracies, the media has done a
miserable job of informing citizens about the horrible and increasing
danger of an apocalyptic nuclear Armageddon.
With the U.S., and to a somewhat lesser degree France and Britain
essentially repudiating their previous commitments to the Programme
of 13 Practical Steps for the elimination of their nuclear weapons,
with new weapons and their delivery systems being planned by the
nuclear weapon states, is it any wonder that around the world non-
nuclear states (north Korea and Iran among them) are logically saying
that if the major nuclear powers refuse to pay attention to the will
of the overwhelming majority, to their previous clear-cut promises,
or to the explicit direction of the International Court of Justice,
is it any wonder that these currently non-nuclear states are
concluding that their own best interests oblige them to acquire an
arsenal of nuclear weapons?
And why would they not do so given the pathetic failure in New York,
and the aggressive, militaristic behaviour of the Bush government and
the widespread emergence of the Pakistani nuclear black market?
Bear in mind that what needs to be done has been already widely-
agreed-to. A non-reversible program for the destruction of all
strategic and tactical nuclear weapons is essential. A fissile
material cut off treaty must be rushed into force. All strategic
nuclear weapons must be promptly taken off alert status. Stockpiles
of nuclear materials must be much more heavily guarded and converted
for peaceful uses. While the world continues to fear the despicable,
murderous terrorist activities that have shocked the U.S., Europe,
the Middle East and Asia, the inevitability of terrorist access to
plutonium and/or enriched uranium has been growing for years. The
potential for a massively horrendous, unprecedented slaughter of
innocents is no longer a remote possibility.
In all of this, as I spelled out in my last book, its essential to
consider the actions and responses of both Russia and China. Both
countries have reacted to the aggressive posture of the U.S. and the
huge increases in American military spending by increasing and
modernizing their own military strength and by developing formidable
new weapons. Russia is carrying out research and missile tests for
new state-of-the-art nuclear missile systems and a unique new
generation of nuclear weapons. including new maneuverable
warheads, increased road-mobile weapons and new ICBMs and cruise
missiles. China is developing improved long- range missiles carrying
multiple nuclear warheads and rapidly expanding its ballistic missile
submarine force, and increasing its own number of nuclear weapons.
Recent ominous Chinese threats to attack the U.S. with nuclear
weapons in response to American aggression or interference re Taiwan
were neither frivolous nor unplanned.
At the same time, while Russia and China conduct unprecedented joint
military exercises, both have also repeatedly come down firmly on the
side of peace and disarmament, repudiating the U.S. abandonment of
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the plans for the weaponization of
space, the failure of the U.S. to ratify the 1996 Comprehensive Test
ban Treaty (now ratified by 120 countries), the Conference on
Disarmament paralysis, the American proposals for the development of
new nuclear weapons, the U.S. pre-emptive nuclear strike policy and
the American lowering of the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons.
Meanwhile, the European Unions position and its 43 New York
suggestions relating to disarmament and non-proliferation would have
definitely strengthened the NPT.
As the New Agenda Coalition (Sweden, Egypt, Ireland, New Zealand,
Mexico, Brazil and South Africa) pointed out at the New York
Conference, there are now some 30,000 nuclear weapons in existence,
almost as many as those that existed when the NPT came into force 35
years ago! Moreover, there is now the clear potential for a
disastrous major new nuclear arms race.
The 119-member states of the Non-Aligned Movement warned that We must
all call for an end to this madness and seek the elimination and ban
on all forms of nuclear weapons and testing as well as the rejection
of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence.
At the end of the New York Conference, delegates described the
results as extremely regrettable (Japan), profoundly
disappointing (Norway), unfortunate (Ukraine), and they expressed
frustration (Chile and Brazil).
Ambassador Paul Meyer of Canada condemned the hubris that demands
the priorities of the many be subordinated to the preferences of the
few..
During the Conference, a massive accumulation of evidence showed how
the U.S. was ignoring its previous disarmament promises and how it
still plans to have over 5,000 operational nuclear weapons in 2012,
how it has no plans to reduce its nuclear deployments or discontinue
the maintenance of thousands of nuclear weapons on high alert, how it
is currently budgeting over $22 million for research into new nuclear
weapons and providing additional funding for new delivery systems,
how it intends to modify and update its existing nuclear weapons and
ballistic missiles and develop a global strike capacity that will
facilitate the delivery of nuclear weapons, anywhere on earth, in a
few hours at the most. Moreover, the U.S. is now spending some $40
billion a year on its nuclear forces, far more than the total of all
military spending for most countries and a 150 per cent increase over
its nuclear weapons spending during the Cold War.
And of course all of this is in addition to the over $100 billion
already spent on the so-called Missile Defense program, which many
believe is in reality a precursor for the weaponization of space.
And the result?
As The Western States Legal Foundation put is so well, there is a
growing possibility of a new nuclear confrontation that may
overshadow the Cold War in its complexity. Moreover, the American
implication that the selective use of nuclear weapons in ordinary
warfare is lawful and legitimate [implies that] if it is legal and
moral for one country to use nuclear weapons. it is legitimate for
any country to do so.
As Tri-Valley CARES of Livermore, California put it The United States
is conducting a one-nation arms race against itself to upgrade its
nuclear weapons and capabilitiesan approach that undercuts
international efforts to discourage nuclear weapons development in
countries like North Korea and Iran.
Moreover, in the words of the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, nations such as Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Taiwan
will very likely initiate nuclear weapons programmes, increasing both
the risk of the use of the weapons and the diversion of weapons and
fissile materials into the hands of terrorists.
Carnegie should also have included a host of other countries, such as
Brazil and South Africa.
Douglas Roche draws attention to The New York Times article by the
distinguished 97-year-old Sir Joseph Rotlat, where the 1995 Nobel
Peace Prize winner warns of a nuclear arms race. To gloss over the
hypocrisy of the nuclear weapons states, which are modernizing
nuclear weapons and ensconcing them in their ongoing military
doctrine, while urging abstinence on everyone else is stunning.
Throughout the Conference there were many excellent suggestions about
the ways to diminish the threat of a nuclear catastrophe, including
those by informed critics of nuclear power. Unfortunately, its now
clear that in many ways relating to nuclear matters the world is
rapidly headed down exactly the wrong path.
Among the proposals from Mohamed ElBaradei were a five-year
moratorium on new uranium enrichment and plutonium separation
facilities, and the conversion of all nuclear reactors now using
highly enriched uranium to low grade uranium which cannot be used for
bombs.
As the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
points out, the NPT has been the foundation for non-proliferation and
disarmament for 35 years, and the vast majority of its members
support its goals and obligations without question. But today, the
Treaty is essentially in shreds, and the world is plunging towards
the abyss.
Among the many eloquent recent warnings of the potential for
catastrophe, one of the most forceful has come from Robert S.
McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defence from 1961 to 1968[1] McNamara
says U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons is immoral, illegal, militarily
unnecessary and dreadfully dangerous. U.S. policy has only grown
more dangerous and diplomatically destructive. The average U.S.
warhead has a destructive power 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb.
2000 are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15 minutes
warning.
The whole situation seems so bizarre as to be beyond belief. On any
given day, as we go about our business, the president is prepared to
make a decision within 20 minutes that could launch.a nuclear
holocaust.
[Our policy] raises troubling questions as to why any other state
should restrain its nuclear ambitions.
In his article, McNamara describes the horrendous destruction which
would be caused by only a single 1 megaton weapon. Its chilling
reading. As for U.S. policy The statement that our nuclear weapons
do not target populations per se was and remains totally misleading
in the sense that the so-called collateral damage of large nuclear
strikes would include tens of millions of innocent civilian dead.
This in a nut shell is what nuclear weapons do: They
indiscriminately blast, burn and irradiate with a speed and finality
that are almost incomprehensible. This is exactly what countries
like the United States and Russia, with nuclear weapons on hair-
trigger alert; continue to threaten every minute of every day in this
new 21st century.
There is no way to effectively contain a nuclear strike to keep it
from inflicting enormous destruction on civilian life and property,
and there is no guarantee against unlimited escalation once the first
nuclear strike occurs.
McNamara goes on to estimate the destructive power of a U.S.-Russian
nuclear exchange at at least 65,000 times that of the Hiroshima bomb.
He describes current U.S. policy as We, with the strongest
conventional military force in the world, require nuclear weapons in
perpetuity, but you are never to be allowed even one nuclear weapon.
He concludes with an ominous warning: The knowledge of how to
construct a simple gun-type nuclear device, like the one that was
dropped on Hiroshima, is now widespread. ..Former Secretary of
Defence William J. Perry said just last summer I have never been
more fearful of a nuclear detonation than now. There is a greater
than 50 percent probability of a nuclear strike on U.S. targets
within a decade. I share his fears. We are at a critical moment in
human history.
I want to end my remarks here today in San Francisco with a brief
description of how some of us mobilized successfully to keep Canada
out of the so-called U.S. missile defence plans.
It wasnt easy. Long before most Canadians and most of the media had
any idea of the implications, after a cabinet meeting in Ottawa,
Canadas Minister of Defence met with Donald Rumsfeld in Washington
and, in no uncertain terms, promised Canadas participation. When we
learned about this, many of us were appalled. And the more we
learned about the profound implications, the more we became
determined, if at all possible, to reverse the governments decision,
a decision that had been made with virtually no public debate.
Early on, the public opinion polls, for what they were worth, sided
with the Liberal government in Ottawa. Most Canadians had absolutely
no idea what the dangers of the U.S. plans were. When asked
questions like Should Canada join with the U.S. in building a missile
defence system which will stop rogue states from dropping a nuclear
bomb on your home, destroying you and your family and friends?
most Canadian, of course, answered yes. Early polls were roughly
60 per cent in favour of participation, but with a surprisingly
strong 40 per cent opposed. The government was firmly committed.
Having stayed out of the Iraq war, much to the displeasure of the
Bush administration, timid, colonial-minded politicians and
bureaucrats in Ottawa were offering missile defence as a mending mea
culpa.
But those of us who understood the significant danger of a new arms
race, the prospects for the weaponization of space, the horrendous
costs of a system that would never work, the hidden offensive
military first-strike implications, the increasing possibility of a
nuclear nightmare in a situation of certain escalation,
destabilization and insecurity.those of us who studied and
understood these dangers became even more determined to try to stop
Canadas participation.
In countries like the U.S. and Canada, with heavy degrees of media
concentration in the hands of men on the far right of the political
spectrum, getting the message and the truth out is never easy.
We did it in several ways, one of the most important being the
internet. While the right-wing press and television essentially
parroted the Ottawa and Washington official propaganda lines, we
brought in our own skilled experts to new conferences, and began a
steady stream of internet releases including expert testimony from
some of the most brilliant scientist, economists, political
scientists and others with expertise not previously available to the
public.
We worked with wonderful people and organizations in Washington, such
as the Center for Defense Information, physicists at MIT and many
others, including our own Canadian experts. We published books,
papers, studies and articles full of information most Canadians were
not aware of. My own weekly e-mail to some 1,500 across the country
would be recirculated to, on average, some 100,000. Many of my
colleagues across the country had their own extensive lists.
And we prevailed. After several months, the polls turned in our
favour. After seven consecutive polls, the last one showing 65 per
cent of Canadians opposed, the government, much to the displeasure of
the Prime Minister, felt that Canadas participation was so
increasingly unpopular that it had no choice. Canada announced we
would not be joining in the American plans.
There were many elements in our successful battle. But, if I had to
credit one above all others, it was our success in getting expert
information out over the internet that made the most difference.
Its a lesson that I know many of you will want to employ in the
future, because in the end, given reliable unbiased information, the
public will make the right choice, even in the face of well-financed
military-industrial misinformation, ignorant editorials and myopic
columnists, and concerted government propaganda.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. Its a great honour
and I wish you well in your continuing deliberations.
[1] Foreign Policy, May, June, 2005
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toeslist/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
toeslist-u...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/