Arms-Discussion Digest V13 #1
Rob Gross
From: Rob Gross (moderator)
<GR...@BCVMS.BITNET/GR...@BCVMS.BC.EDU>
Friday, March 10, 1995, 18:40 EST
Arms Discussion Digest
Volume 13 : Issue 1
All submissions to ARM...@BUACCA.BU.EDU (ARM...@BUACCA.BITNET)
Please do not post articles, as they have a high probability
of being lost.
[My apologies for the very long delay between issues. There is a
considerable backlog of submissions, and I hope to clear it out
over the next week. Thanks.--rhg]
Today's topics:
Ukrainian Arms Control (Matthew Kennedy)
Re: Arms-discussion digest (Bill Johnson)
Conventional Arms Trade (fwd) ("Sima R. Osdoby")
Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V12 #7 (Marcus Johns)
MTCR (GicKS)
Electronic sources dealing with NATO... (S=Popovici)
Lasers, Kreigsraison, and morality (Thomas Hugh O'Shay)
Dropping the Bomb (Peter Hoffman)
Re: On-Line Rare and Scholarly Law Bookshop ("Jordan D. Luttrell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 00:15:46 +0000 (GMT)
From: kenn...@tao.sosc.osshe.edu (Matthew Kennedy)
Subject: Ukrainian Arms Control
I will writing an research paper on American nuclear arms control
policies towards the Soviet Union, Russia, and Ukraine from
Reagan to Clinton. I know a primary concern of Ukraine's nuclear
weapons policy is deterring Russian nationalism. Are there other
objectives? What is Russia's principal nuclear arms control
ambition?
Matt Kennedy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 11:22:24 -0600
From: bjoh...@godiva.lanl.gov (Bill Johnson)
Subject: Re: Arms-discussion digest
Someone asked whether the Clinton administration was following
about the same course as had Bush. In my experience (usual
disclaimers), the answer is yes in principle -- we are honoring
the Bush commitments and making a few new ones that are
conceptually derived from the old ones. However, Clinton is
being faced with some implementation problems that the Bush
people didn't have to confront, since many of Bush's actions
didn't require actual implementation until after he was out of
office. The sources of these problems include the usual
bureaucratic inertia and fractious Congress, which of course
could have been predicted; but another, maybe less expected,
problem is that the Russians are genuinely bewildered as to just
what they have to do to live up to their part of the deal. It's
on the latter problem that I have some first-person perspectives
that I hope to be able to share.
-- Bill.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 13:55:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Sima R. Osdoby" <sos...@access.digex.net>
Subject: Conventional Arms Trade (fwd)
Perhaps readers of your newsgroup would be interested in learning
about an initiative underway in the 103rd Congress regarding
conventional arms transfers. Some background:
Since the end of World War II, reliable estimates place the
number of people killed in wars waged with conventional weapons
as high as 40 million. Since the end of the Cold War the US
government has reigned as the world's leading arms supplier.
Some of these arms deals have gone sour, especially when weapons
have been sold to regimes that are nondemocratic or abuse the
human rights of their people. In fact, the last four times
American soldiers were engaged in foreign conflicts - Panama, the
Gulf, Somalia, Haiti - they ran the risk of facing weapons or
technology "Made in the USA."
In the 103rd Congress, legislation was introduced to address some
of these issues and to raise the level of scrutiny and
Congressional responsibility regarding US arms sales. Identical
bills, S. 1677 and H.R. 3538, were introduced by Sen. Mark
Hatfield (R-OR) and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) to initiate an
"Arms Trade Code of Conduct."
The Code of Conduct would require that each year the President
submit to Congress a list of countries eligible to receive US
arms. To be eligible, the President must certify that a country:
- promotes democratic institutions;
- does not abuse the human rights of its citizens;
- does not attack its neighbors;
- participates in the UN Registry of Conventional Weapons
(an annual listing of weapons imports and exports).
If the President believed it necessary because of national
security reasons, to sell arms to countries that could not be
certified, he could seek a waiver and a majority of Congress
would have to agree.
A national poll released February 1, 1994 showed that a
staggering 96% of Americans agree with the principles of the
Code. A national grassroots educational effort is underway, with
the support of 200 organizations ranging from Amnesty
International to the YWCA, to build support for the principles
embodied in the Code of Conduct. A DC based lobbying effort is
also underway to promote the legislation, and involves many
national arms control, religious, human rights, womens and
development organizations. The legislation has 100 cosponsors
in the House and 6 in the Senate.
Information regarding the bill is available via internet through
the Library of Congress. ( gopher marvel.loc.gov or telnet
locis.loc.gov)
I serve as legislative coordinator for the coalition effort and
can provide additional information, via my e-mail address.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 19:20:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Marcus Johns <umjo...@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V12 #7
> From: BRIC...@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
> Subject: A Couple of Random Comments
>
> I'm sure most of you already know this, but Russia tried recently
> to get out of some of the conditions of the Conventional Forces
> in Europe Treaty it signed with the West so it can move forces
> into Abakazia (I think).
>
> Is this good or bad? I'm not too sure because I don't know all
> the numbers concerning just what Russia is allowed to have and
> what they may need to impose their will in Abakazia.
Brett,
>From what I have read Russia wants to keep the territories in its
"backyard" in its traditional sphere of influence, after all they
were fellow comrades a few years back. This is similar to the
USA's "hemisphere police" policy, the Monroe Doctrine. Russia
offered peace-keeping forces to the trouble areas because it
wants to maintain its position of power in an area where it can't
afford to appear weak. Thus Russia didn't want to see a
multi-national UN force undermine their position. To achieve
this, Russia made a deal with the USA. Russia doesn't use its UN
Security Council veto to halt US actions against Haiti in return
for not being hindered in areas the Russians traditionally
influenced. A fair trade off between two powers that carry the
"big sticks" in their neighborhoods.
MJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marcus Johns "Flatter me, and I may not believe you.
University of Manitoba Criticize me, and I may not like you.
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Ignore me, and I may not forgive you.
Encourage me, and I will not forget you."
e-mail: Marcus...@UManitoba.ca
at...@freenet.carleton.ca
or
umjo...@cc.umanitoba.ca
Marcus...@cc.umanitoba.ca
M_J...@cc.umanitoba.ca
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 1994 15:55:26 -0500
From: gi...@aol.com (GicKS)
Subject: MTCR
Could anyone guide me to information on the Missile Technology
Control Regime Info on the Net. Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:13:42 +0100 (MET)
From: S=Popovici%BW%K...@VINES.UCI.KUN.NL
Subject: Electronic sources dealing with NATO...
I am wondering if anyone might suggest me some sources (e.g.,
databases, E- journals, lists) dealing with NATO, CSCE and WEU.
Sorin Popovici
Political Science Department
Catholic University of Nijmegen
Holland
E-mail: S Popovici@BW@KUN
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 12:29:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Thomas Hugh O'Shay <tos...@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Lasers, Kreigsraison, and morality
Greetings.
It seems I have the pleasure of developing a paper for potential
publication in a law journal on the legality and morality of the
use of non-lethal, but maiming technologies (specifically
blinding lasers) in the context of contemporary laws of war. I
was curious as to whether anyone could help me with some
references on this topic-- Dealing with political or legal
philosophy, the Hague Conventions, morality, military history, or
anything that might be able to serve as background. I am in the
bibliography stage at the moment. Any help would be greatly
appreciated!!
Thom O'Shay
tos...@gmu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 22:20:14 +0000 (GMT)
From: hof...@pell3l2.alleg.EDU (Peter Hoffman)
Subject: Dropping the Bomb
I'm looking for information about Truman's decision to drop the
Atomic Bomb. I'm especially interested in how he found out once
he became President, and how he used it as an article of
persuasion at the Potsdam Conference.
-Peter Hoffman
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 1994 19:37:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jordan D. Luttrell" <lutt...@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: On-Line Rare and Scholarly Law Bookshop
For those interested in out-of-print and even rare books on war,
peace, human rights and related topics, there is now a bookshop
on the Internet with its inventory (about 6,000 books) devoted in
part to this kind of book.
The inventory can be searched easily but powerfully by e-mail.
Send an e-mail message to "rare-lawbooks" @netcom.com with the
word "search" as the subject and the message "search
<your-word>". For example:
To: rare-l...@netcom.com
Subject: search
Message: search human rights
Within a short period of time, you will receive an e-mail
reply consisting of a list of those books which satisfy your search
request.
A Help File may be obtained, also via e-mail:
To: rare-l...@netcom.com
Subject: help
Message: help
--------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
**************************