North
American Speaking Tour of Korean Activists
• 25th
Anniversary of Historic Gwangju People's Uprising
U.S. Must Disarm Now!
•
Denounce
Continued Provocations Against Korea
Sign
the Non-aggression Pact
•
Oppose U.S. Secret Plans to Build
Military Capability for "Contingencies" on
Korean Peninsula!
• Rumsfeld
Asks Congress to Fund Research on New Nuclear Weapon
Support Korean Unification
• Peace
and Reunification Guaranteed by Anti-U.S. Struggle — Rodong
Sinmun, DPRK
• Tradition
of Great National Unity
UN Review of Nuclear Weapons
• Statement
by H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic
Republic of Iran
• What
Does Not Exist Cannot Proliferate — Foreign
Ministers of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South
Africa and Sweden
• Erosion
of the Nonproliferation Treaty — Former President Jimmy
Carter
Denounce Continued Provocations Against Korea
President George W. Bush and his cabinet continue to make one provocation after another against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The actions are greatly increasing the danger of yet another aggressive U.S. war against the Korean people. They include positioning more nuclear weapons in south Korea and war plans that put the U.S. military in command in south Korea.
President Bush is now stepping up the provocations. Having already branded the DPRK as part of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and Iran, he utilized Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to threaten the DPRK, saying that if it does not submit, the U.S. will use the issue of nuclear weapons to demand that the UN Security Council act against the DPRK. Rice also branded the DPRK as an "outpost of tyranny."
How can the Koreans be expected to sit down for talks with the U.S. under such circumstances? It is also well-known that Bush, in his State of the Union, promised to use the full power of the U.S. to "eliminate tyranny." Branding the DPRK in this way is a very clear statement that the U.S. will use military force. The attacks on the DPRK also make clear that what Bush calls "tyranny" is the refusal of other countries, like the DPRK and Cuba and Iran and Venezuela, to bow down to U.S. dictate.
Just days after Rice's slanders, in a press conference April 28, Bush personally attacked the leader of the DPRK, Kim Jung Il, saying "Kim Jong Il is a dangerous person." Directly slandering him as well as the DPRK, Bush added, referring to whether the DPRK can deliver a nuclear weapon, "We don't know if he can or not, but I think it's best, when you're dealing with a tyrant like Kim Jong Il, to assume he can."
Bush also made clear that in addition to trying to force the Koreans to submit, another aim in fabricating a threat from the DPRK is to justify continued spending on a missile defense system. The system is notorious for costing billions, failing to work, and still being far from functional. Bush said that Defense "Secretary Rumsfeld has worked with Congress to set up a missile defense system. And we're in the process of getting that missile defense system up and running. One of the reasons why I thought it was important to have a missile defense system is for precisely the reason that you brought up: Perhaps Kim Jong Il has got the capacity to launch a weapon; wouldn't it be nice to be able to shoot it down?"
In a situation where the U.S. has a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, where it is the only country to use them, twice, where it claims to have "global freedom of action" to use pre-emptive military force anywhere, anytime and where Bush again reiterated that, "Like I've said before, all options, of course, are on the table," the DPRK, like any other country, has every right to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. They equally have the right to test them. They are also fully justified in refusing to engage in talks with the U.S. in the face of such repeated provocations. All the more so when Bush claims he supports a "nuclear-free Korean peninsula" while bringing more nuclear weapons into south Korea. The U.S. has by far the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula and in the region and refuses to remove them.
Bush also spoke about the six-way talks between the U.S., DPRK, Republic of Korea, China, Japan and Russia. These talks have been disrupted as a result of the continuing U.S. provocations. Bush spoke to U.S. efforts to try and use China and Russia against the Koreans. Referring to Rice's claim that the U.S. will go to the UN Security Council, Bush said the U.S. will continue with diplomacy if it can achieve consensus, especially with China and Russia. He added, "After all, some of the parties in the process have got the capacity to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution." He also said that while it is "best to consult" with participants in the talks to achieve the results the U.S. wants diplomatically, "all options, of course, are on the table." The continued provocations and war preparations are clear indications that the U.S. will very likely use military force.
The DPRK has said it will not use nuclear weapons offensively and that it is arming itself so as to defend itself against U.S. aggression. Korea has not carried out aggression against anyone. It has not committed war crimes against anyone. It has stood up against the U.S., carried forward on its own path, and fought for the reunification of Korea, all important contributions to peace.
It is the U.S. that has a long and criminal record of invasions, occupations and aggression against other countries, including the 1950-53 war against Korea and the forcible division of the country. It is the U.S. who says it will use nuclear weapons first and who is building new nuclear weapons. It is the U.S. who refuses to sign a non-aggression pact with the DPRK as a clear sign of its readiness to solve the problems peacefully.
The problem now is not that the DPRK has nuclear weapons. The problem, for Koreans, Iraqis, and the world's people is that U.S. imperialism is striving for world domination and prepared to launch nuclear war to get it. As the May Day actions in New York made clear, Americans stand with the world's people in demanding that the U.S. Disarm Now! No U.S. Troops Abroad!
[TOP]
Oppose U.S. Secret Plans to Build Military Capability for "Contingencies" on Korean Peninsula!
On April 8, south Korean news sources revealed that the U.S. military has stockpiled an enormous quantity of war supplies in south Korea to prepare for "contingencies" on the Korean peninsula — a thinly disguised threat of war against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The Korean Broadcasting System said that a large stockpile of some 600,000 tons of bullets, bombs, nuclear missiles and other weapons have been placed in various U.S. military bases in south Korea for immediate use in the event of "possible instability in north Korea." It was also reported in the south Korean press on April 6 that the U.S. nuclear submarine Los Angeles had entered a naval base in Jinhae, south Korea for joint military exercises.
These acts of aggression violate the collective right to the security and the well-being of not only the Korean people but also the peoples of Asia and the world. They violate all the treaties and agreements made between the U.S. and the DPRK including the Armistice Agreement and the Agreed Framework of 1994. These acts prove that the Bush administration's claim that it does not intend to start a war with the DPRK is a lie. The claim that the Bush administration is dedicated to finding a peaceful solution to the "nuclear crisis" on the Korean peninsula (a problem created entirely by the U.S.) is a lie. By "finding a peaceful solution" the U.S. means that the Korean people and their governments, especially the DPRK government, should surrender their sovereignty to the U.S. Should they fail to do so, they will be held responsible for any war which the U.S. unleashes against them. It is the logic of gangsters.
The situation is so dangerous that on April 15 the south Korean government demanded that the U.S. stop formulating a "military contingency plan" for "possible instability in north Korea." The National Security Council of south Korea has asked the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC) to scrap an operational plan, code-named "OPLAN 5029-05," which would enable the U.S. military to take over military operations in the event of a "contingency" that arose with the DPRK. The south Korean government stated that such plans violated "its sovereignty and ability to ensure peace on the Korean peninsula." The government of the DPRK has justly stated that in the face of these threats from the U.S. and in defense of its sovereignty and independence, it will continue to build its deterrent force. It has reiterated its right to use nuclear weapons.
In related news, a commentary in the April 20 issue of Minju Joson said that the key point of "OPLAN 5029-05" is that the U.S. and south Korea would play the main role in openly inducing a war on the Korean peninsula. "Herein lies the grave nature of this war scenario against the DPRK. According to it, the south Korea-U.S. `combined forces command' will undertake all actions from working out detailed plans to carrying out operations. Under the previous plans, the U.S. Pacific Command was to mainly take charge of military operations and actions. So, the `OPLAN 5029-05' is an adventurous scenario aimed at the provocation of a Korean war by the `combined forces command' any time, and it is a very dangerous document allowing a preemptive attack on the DPRK in a short time," the commentary said.
"The plan has made it all the clearer that the U.S. harbors in actuality the sinister intention to stifle the idea and system of the DPRK, though it freely uses phrases such as `peaceful solution to the nuclear issue' and `resumption of the six-way talks.' Now that the U.S. seeks to contain the DPRK by force, the army and people of the latter have no alternative but to put up a total rebuff."
Demand the U.S. Sign a Non-Aggression Pact! Hands Off Korea!
[TOP]
Rumsfeld Asks Congress to Fund Research on New Nuclear Weapon
"Any use of nuclear weapons, by accident or design, risks human casualties and economic dislocation on a catastrophic scale. Stopping the proliferation of such weapons — and their potential use, by either the State or non-State actors — must remain an urgent priority for collective security." — Report of Secretary-General's High Level Panel On Threats, Challenges and Change
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on April 27, just three days before the start of the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) at the United Nations, asked Congress to fund research for a nuclear weapon capable of penetrating deeply into buried targets. "It seems to me studying it makes all the sense in the world," Rumsfeld said at a Senate appropriations subcommittee, which was holding a hearing on the 2006 budget for defense.
The Bush administration has asked Congress for $8.5 million for research into the earth-penetrating "bunker buster" in fiscal 2006. The study, which had been undertaken at the Los Alamos, Sandia and Livermore national laboratories, was halted late last year after Congress deleted $27.5 million for it from the fiscal 2005 appropriations bill. The research project was started in 2002 as a three-year effort to see if an existing nuclear warhead could be fitted with a hardened casing allowing it to dig deeply into the earth before exploding.
The program has been restricted each year by Senate and House members who have argued that even studying the potential for such a new nuclear weapon undermines U.S. attempts to limit other countries from developing their own nuclear arsenals.
"There are some 70 countries that are currently pursuing underground programs," Rumsfeld said. "At the present time, we don't have a capability of dealing with that. "The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons," he said.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) calls on the five officially recognized nuclear-weapons states (the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China) to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament" (Article VI). In 2000, the five states committed themselves to an "unequivocal undertaking" to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals."
It is well-known that the U.S. and Russia still have the largest arsenals by far, with the U.S. the main state continuing to build new nuclear weapons, such as the tactical "bunker-busters" and others. The U.S., while itself refusing to disarm, is demanding that no other state acquire nuclear weapons. The U.S. is currently estimated to have 5,968 strategic warheads, more than 1,000 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 3,000 reserve strategic and tactical warheads.
[TOP]
Peace and Reunification Guaranteed by Anti-U.S. Struggle
— Rodong Sinmun, DPRK —
Pyongyang, May 5 (KCNA) — Anyone who has the soul of the nation and burns with patriotism should turn out in the righteous anti-U.S. struggle at this historic moment when the Korean nation is standing at the fatal crossroads of whether it suffers the holocaust of a nuclear war imposed by the U.S. imperialists or thwarts it and defends peace, whether it is forced to a permanent division by the U.S. or achieves reunification and whether the south Korean people are reduced to permanent slaves of outsiders or win sovereignty, urges Rodong Sinmun in an article today. Calling upon the Korean nation to wage a more dynamic anti-U.S. struggle on a new, higher stage and in a do-or-die spirit, the author of the article says:
The United States set as its "ultimate goal" to "bring down the system" of the DPRK and is tenaciously clinging to the moves to stifle it, using both the stick and carrot to attain this goal at any cost.
The danger of a new war is steadily growing on the Korean Peninsula and a grave snag is being laid in the way of the inter-Korean relations and the reunification movement owing to the U.S. getting more persistent and malicious in its aggressive and separatist Korea policy. The U.S. is going against the unanimous desire of the Korean nation and the trend of the times.
If the present Gordian knot is to be cut in favor of the peace and reunification of the country and the way out for the nation is to be opened successfully, all the forces of the nation available must be channeled into the anti-U.S. struggle to decisively check and frustrate the anti-DPRK war moves of the U.S., the chief criminal in hindering peace and reunification.
It is an indispensable national historic task for the south Korean people and all the fellow countrymen to turn out as one in a righteous anti-U.S. struggle and to put a decisive end to the tragic history of the protracted colonial rule of outsiders over south Korea.
There is no need to be squeamish in the choice of means and methods or to hesitate now that it has become crystal clear that the U.S. is not only the very one responsible for the division of the Korean nation. The U.S. is also the source of war and bringing the holocaust of a nuclear war over the head of the whole nation, disturber of reunification, and the aggressor, dominator and looter who tramples upon the sovereignty, dignity and interests of the Korean nation.
Only when the volcano of the struggle against the U.S. bent on doing harm to the Korean nation explodes all over south Korea can the way out for the nation be opened and can the desire of the south Korean people come true, the desire to build a new land free from outsiders where an independent life will bloom.
[TOP]
Tradition of Great National Unity
Pyongyang, May 5 (KCNA) — Sixty-nine years have passed since President Kim Il Sung founded the Association for the Restoration of the Fatherland (ARF) on May 5, Juche 25 (1936). On this occasion the people and servicepersons of Korea are looking back on the priceless experience and exploits gained by the President in the efforts to achieve great national unity. He put forward the idea of great national unity and the line of a united front in the first period of his revolutionary activities and worked very hard to realize them.
Basing himself on the Juche Idea, he expounded the issue of the nation from a new angle and advanced a unique idea of the great national unity and had successfully implemented it in the whole period of the struggle for national liberation, the building of a new country and national reunification, and thus set a great model in achieving great national unity.
Reflected in the program of the ARF is the idea that all classes and social strata should give priority to the demand and interests common to the nation and firmly unite as one irrespective of differences in ideology, political view, religious belief, property and social standing, for the purpose of achieving and defending the independence of the nation.
The ARF was an anti-Japanese national united organization, the first of its kind in Korea. Its formation made it possible to rally the patriotic forces of workers, peasants and other strata and build up the driving force of revolution.
It is entirely thanks to the wise guidance and energetic activities of the President that the Korean people found out a correct way for the liberation of the nation from the Japanese imperialist rule in line with the Ten-Point Program of the ARF, defeated the Japanese imperialists and liberated the country with their own efforts, united close around him.
He, on the basis of the brilliant success and rich experience gained in the efforts to closely unite broad sections of patriotic forces through the formation of the ARF, authored the "Ten-Point Program of the Great Unity of the Whole Nation for the Reunification of the Country."
The tradition of the great national unity established by the President has successfully been carried forward by leader Kim Jong Il.
Today all the Koreans in the north, south and overseas are making strenuous efforts to achieve the independent reunification of the country, rallied around the idea of "by our nation itself" set forth by the June 15 North South Joint Declaration.
[TOP]
Statement by H.E. Dr. Kamal Kharrazi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran
May 3, 2005 — In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Mr. President,
Despite the difficulties that the non-proliferation regime has historically faced, we can generally assess that the NPT has been successful in containing the number of nuclear-weapon States. Without the NPT, there would have certainly been more nuclear weapons in the hand of more countries in the world. This in turn would have put our planet at greater risk of more insecurity and instability.
On the other hand, the Treaty has not been successful in attaining the objective of nuclear disarmament as it has been called for in its Article VI. The continued existences of thousands of nuclear warheads in the nuclear-weapon States' stockpiles, which can destroy the entire globe many times over, are the major sources of threat to global peace and security. Unfortunately, the limited efforts of the two major nuclear-weapon States right after the Cold War to reduce their nuclear arsenals have faced serious setbacks, particularly in recent years. Nuclear weapons continue to be deployed in other countries; a fact that exacerbates the situation.
Following the major efforts by States Parties to strengthen the Treaty, the 2000 NPT Review Conference welcomed enthusiastically "the unequivocal undertakings by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States Parties are committed under Article VI." Accordingly, the Conference adopted the 13 practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI.
This Conference has a special responsibility to review the implementation of these practical steps and of the requisite measures to strengthen and complement them. Failure to embark upon a full scope review of the implementation of those steps would only result in the frustrations of the international community over the total indifference of nuclear-weapon States to the wishes of the international community to make progress towards nuclear disarmament. This could potentially amount to unraveling of the fabric, credibility and authority of the NPT.
But engagement in such a process requires us to face an unpleasant reality; and the reality is that no progress has been achieved in implementing the 13 practical steps. On the contrary, measures have been adopted and implemented which run against the letter and spirit of those obligations. This Conference should concentrate, therefore, much of its efforts to consolidate the 13 steps, by a thorough appraisal of their implementation and rectifying the areas that impede their realization.
In a nutshell, the following developments must be fully taken into account in our appraisals.
1. Concerns continue to remain over the research and development of new non
strategic and low yield nuclear weapons. Commitments need to be renewed to
ban developments of new nuclear weapon systems.
2. The principle of irreversibility should be applied to all unilateral, bilateral
and multilateral nuclear disarmaments. The nuclear-weapon States should ensure
that irreversibility would apply also to their existing measures in removing
the warheads from the nuclear weapon systems.
3. Effective steps should be taken to lower the operational status of nuclear
weapons to reduce nuclear war. Consequently, there should be a commitment to
revise nuclear doctrines, policies and postures to reflect such lowered operational
status.
4. Development of national missile defense systems would instigate a new arms
race in outer space and should be avoided. Fresh efforts should be made within
the CD to negotiate the arrangements to prevent arms race in outer space. In
the meantime the nuclear-weapon States should make a commitment in this Conference
to make every effort to prevent such an arms race.
5. Unilateral nuclear disarmament measures should be pursued vigorously and
go well beyond removing warheads from deployment.
6. Submission of more detailed information, inter alia, on the total current
numbers of nuclear weapons, the numbers and yield of their warheads, the plan
for the deployment and development of missile defense, and the inventories
of fissile materials for weapon purposes, are expected from the nuclear-weapon States as a confidence building measure and transparency.
7. The negotiation on a verifiable fissile material cut off treaty needs to
be started at the CD within its overall program of work.
Mr. President,
I would like to recall that the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) legally prohibit the use of these two categories of weapons of mass destruction. But contrary to the legitimate expectations of the international community, prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, as the most destructive and catastrophic weapons, is yet to be affirmed through the conclusion of a legally binding instrument. Unfortunately, against the backdrop of this existing gap, some nuclear-weapon States are developing new and more easy to use nuclear weapons. I would like, hereby, to echo the proposal of the civil society for legal prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons within the context of this NPT Review Conference.
In the same vein, the unfulfilled commitments and promises on a legally binding instrument on Negative Security Assurances in the framework of the 1995 package of Decisions and the 2000 Final Document needs to be materialized in this Conference. The 2000 Review Conference, under the Chapter on "Article VII" of its Final Document reaffirmed that total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and agreed that legally binding security assurances by the five nuclear-weapon States to the non nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT strengthen the non proliferation regime, and called upon the Preparatory Committee to make recommendations about it to the 2005 Review Conference.
We regret that the Preparatory Committee was disabled from producing such recommendations. It is abhorrent that during the same period, the dangerous doctrine of use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear states and threats were officially proclaimed by the United States and NATO.
Therefore, we propose that the Conference would establish an Ad-hoc Committee to work on a draft legally binding instrument on providing security assurances by the five nuclear-weapon States to non nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty, and to submit the draft of the legal instrument to the next Review Conference for its consideration and adoption.
As a first step to address the twin issues of illegality of use and NSA, we believe that as suggested by the NGO community this conference should adopt a decision through which the Conference "decides that the threat or use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear-weapon States shall be prohibited."
Mr. President,
The inalienable right of the States to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes emanates from the universally accepted proposition that scientific and technological achievements are the common heritage of mankind. Nuclear technology has been recognized as a source of energy and a viable option within the sustainable development policies with broad applications in the field of food and agriculture, human health, power generation and industry, water resource management and environment. The promotion of the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes has been, therefore, one of the main pillars of the NPT and the main statutory objective of the IAEA.
It is unacceptable that some tend to limit the access to peaceful nuclear technology to an exclusive club of technologically advanced States under the pretext of non-proliferation. This attitude is in clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Treaty and destroys the fundamental balance which exists between the rights and obligations in the Treaty. The Treaty itself has clearly rejected this attempt in its Article IV by emphasizing that "nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all Parties to the Treaty to develop research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination."
Let me make it absolutely clear that arbitrary and self serving criteria and thresholds regarding proliferation-proof and proliferation-prone technologies and countries can and will only undermine the Treaty. Iran, for its part, is determined to pursue all legal areas of nuclear technology, including enrichment, exclusively for peaceful purposes and has been eager to offer assurances and guarantees that they remain permanently peaceful. But, no one should be under the illusion that objective guarantees can theoretically or practically amount to cessation or even long term suspension of legal activity which have been and will be carried out under the fullest and most intrusive IAEA supervision. Cessation of legal activity is no objective guarantee against so-called break out; it is indeed a historically tested recipe for one.
The implementation of Article IV of the Treaty has been assured by the commitment of the States Parties to Article I and II as well as the implementation of the IAEA safeguards. The IAEA full scope safeguard system provides the main foundation and basis for preventing the diversion of peaceful nuclear technology to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The IAEA has been recognized by the previous NPT Conferences as "the competent authority to verify and assure compliance with the safeguards agreements" and to consider and investigate concerns regarding non-compliance.
The difficulty arises and gets worse when, in practice, the non-Parties to the Treaty which are supposed to be under special restrictions have been rewarded at least by acquiescence to have unrestricted access to materials, equipment and technology, while States Parties to the Treaty under the IAEA safeguards have been under extensive restrictions. In the case of the Middle East, provision of such unrestricted access to one non-party to the NPT has effectively contributed to the development of one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons which has endangered regional and global peace and security. Israel has continuously rejected the calls by the internationally community and more particularly the NPT Conferences to accede to the NPT and place its facilities under the IAEA full-scope safeguards.
Mr. President,
This conference would be succeeded if we act together and focus our efforts towards major issues of high importance. Non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use are the pillars of the Treaty. The international community has lent this responsibility to each of us to preserve the integrity of the Treaty and promote its implementation. This would be achieved if we take appropriate decisions on:
1. Concrete steps towards ensuring universality of the NPT;
2. Realization of the commitment by Nuclear Weapons States not to use or threaten
to use nuclear weapons against Non-Nuclear Weapons States parties to the
Treaty through concluding a legally binding instrument;
3. Ensure and promote the basic rights of states parties to unhindered access
to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes without discrimination;
4. Reconfirm the undertakings by nuclear-weapon States to implement 13 practical
steps towards nuclear disarmament;
Today, the credibility of the NPT is at stake. The Treaty faces new challenges which we need to effectively address. However, the fact is that this Treaty with whatever shortcomings it may have and the deficiencies in its implementation process provides the only internationally viable foundation for curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and attaining the goal of nuclear disarmament. I sincerely hope that the deliberations of this conference could assist us to consolidate the foundations of this Treaty in the circumstances that global security system more than ever requires wise and brave decisions to salvage the credibility of the Treaty.
Thank you Mr. President
[TOP]
What Does Not Exist Cannot Proliferate
— Foreign Ministers of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden —
May 2, 2005 — When the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty came into force 35 years ago, the central bargain of the agreement was that non-nuclear-weapon states like us would renounce their right to develop nuclear weapons, while retaining the inalienable right to undertake research into nuclear energy and to produce and use it for peaceful purposes. In return, the five declared nuclear-weapon states would reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear weapons. More recently, our countries formed the New Agenda Coalition to press for the world envisaged by the treaty, a world in which nuclear weapons would have no role. Our philosophy is that the world will be safe only when nuclear weapons are eliminated and we can be sure they will never be produced or used again.
At their meeting this month in New York as part of the five-year review conference called for in the treaty, the signatories will have a timely opportunity to scrutinize what efforts are being made by the nuclear-weapon states — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — in fulfilling their obligations to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
For our part, we remain concerned about their unsatisfactory progress. At the review conference five years ago, the nuclear-weapon states made an "unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals." This goal is all the more important in a world in which terrorists seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, the nuclear- weapon states should acknowledge that disarmament and nonproliferation are mutually reinforcing processes: What does not exist cannot proliferate.
It's true that challenges to the treaty are being made by those who would defy or undermine its rules against proliferation — the review conference will need to address concerns that have arisen in recent years about proliferation in various countries. It's also true that the possession of weapons by the declared nuclear powers is no excuse for other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
But challenges also come from fears that existing nuclear arsenals will be extended or modified rather than destroyed. They come from any member that seeks to diminish previous undertakings. They come from any member whose approach fails to reflect the careful balance of the treaty. While nearly 190 countries are now parties to the treaty, the New Agenda Coalition continues to call those states that remain outside - India, Israel and Pakistan — to join as non-nuclear-weapon States, thus achieving universality.
In his recent report "In Larger Freedom," the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, pointed out that "the unique status of the nuclear-weapon states also entails a unique responsibility, and they must do more, including but not limited to further reductions in their arsenals and pursuing arms control agreements that entail not just dismantlement but irreversibility." We call on these states, which are also permanent members of the Security Council, to seize this opportunity for leadership to help strengthen the treaty as the cornerstone of international security.
We welcome the statement by President George W. Bush on the 35th anniversary of the entry into force of this treaty in which he reaffirmed the "determination of the United States to carry out its treaty commitments and to work to ensure its continuance in the interest of world peace and security." We have taken at face value such commitments to the treaty.
Proliferation is a threat to the whole international community. All states have an interest and a responsibility to work together to remove that threat. Forging common cause is as much the responsibility of the nuclear-weapon states as it is for the rest of us. The New Agenda Coalition for its part will be playing a constructive role in ensuring a strong outcome to the review conference, an outcome that makes a difference especially in removing the threats of proliferation and the continuing existence of huge arsenals of nuclear weapons.
Celso Amorim is the foreign minister of Brazil. Ahmed Aboul Gheit is the foreign minister of Egypt. Dermot Ahern is the foreign minister of Ireland. Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista is the foreign minister of Mexico. Phil Goff is the foreign minister of New Zealand. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma is the foreign minister of South Africa. Laila Freivalds is the foreign minister of Sweden.
[TOP]
Erosion of the Nonproliferation Treaty
— Former President Jimmy Carter —
May 2, 2005 — As the review conference of the Nonproliferation Treaty convenes in New York this month, we can only be appalled at the indifference of the United States and the other nuclear powers. This indifference is remarkable, considering the addition of Iran and North Korea as states that either possess or seek nuclear weapons programs. In the run-up to the conference, a group of "Middle States" had a simple goal: "To exert leverage on the nuclear powers to take some minimum steps to save the nonproliferation treaty in 2005." Last year this coalition of nuclear-capable states — including Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and eight NATO members — voted for a new agenda resolution calling for implementing NPT commitments already made. Tragically, the United States, Britain and France voted against this resolution.
Preparatory talks failed even to achieve an agenda because of the deep divisions between nuclear powers that refuse to meet their own disarmament commitments and the non- nuclear movement, whose demands include honoring these pledges and considering the Israeli arsenal.
Until recently, all American presidents since Dwight Eisenhower had striven to restrict and reduce nuclear arsenals — some more than others. As far as I know, there are no present efforts by any of the nuclear powers to accomplish these crucial goals.
The United States is the major culprit in this erosion of the NPT. While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons, including antiballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating "bunker buster" and perhaps some new "small" bombs. They also have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states.
Some corrective actions are obvious:
The United States needs to address remaining nuclear issues with Russia, demanding the same standards of transparency and verification of past arms control agreements and dismantling and disposal of decommissioned weapons. With massive arsenals still on hair- trigger alert status, a global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the cold war. We could address perhaps the world's greatest proliferation threat by fully securing Russia's stockpiles.
While all nuclear weapons states should agree to no first use, the United States, as the sole superpower, should take the lead on this issue.
NATO needs to de-emphasize the role of its nuclear weapons and consider an end to their deployment in Western Europe. Despite its eastward expansion, NATO is keeping the same stockpiles and policies as when the Iron Curtain divided the continent.
The comprehensive test ban treaty should be honored, but the United States is moving in the opposite direction. The administration's 2005 budget refers for the first time to a list of test scenarios, and other nations are waiting to take the same action.
The United States should support a fissile-materials treaty to prevent the creation and transport of highly enriched uranium and plutonium.
The United States should curtail development of the infeasible missile defense shield, which is wasting huge resources, while breaking our commitment to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without a working substitute.
Act on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, an increasing source of instability. Iran has repeatedly hidden its intentions to enrich uranium while claiming that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. This explanation has been given before, by India, Pakistan and North Korea, and has led to weapons programs in all three states. Iran must be called to account and held to its promises under the Nonproliferation Treaty. At the same time, we fail to acknowledge how Israel's nuclear status entices Iran, Syria, Egypt and other states to join the community of nuclear-weapon states.
If the United States and other nuclear powers are serious about stopping the erosion of the Nonproliferation Treaty, they must act now on these issues. Any other course will mean a world in which the nuclear threat increases, not diminishes.
[TOP]
North American Speaking Tour of Korean Activists
25th Anniversary of Historic Gwangju People's Uprising
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Gwangju People's Uprising, a pivotal moment in the movement for Korean democracy and human rights. On May 18, 1980, the people of Gwangju, a city in the southwest of the Korean peninsula, organized resistance to liberate their city from the military dictatorship of General Chun Doo Hwan. The people, organized by citizen's councils, held the city for five days before elite south Korean troops under U.S. command were deployed from the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) to brutally crush the uprising. More than 2,000 men, women and children were killed, thousands of others injured, tortured and imprisoned. Their martyrdom and the struggle for democracy, self-determination and reunification that followed sparked a fundamental transformation of south Korean society that continues to reverberate to this day. Now a national holiday, the Gwangju People's Uprising is revered as a source of inspiration for activists around the world and as a point of unity for the Korean people.
As part of this commemoration, two activists from Gwangju will be visiting the United States and Canada on a speaking tour this May to discuss the legacy of the Gwangju People's Uprising and the prospect of peace on the Korean peninsula, as well as their current involvement in the anti-war movement against the U.S. military occupation of Iraq and Korea. The broad aims of this speaking tour are to commemorate and raise awareness of this historic event, make connections between the past and present in Korean history and between different struggles, as well as create a point of unity for the Korean people and the peoples of the U.S. and Canada.
US/Canada Tour
The Gwangju Peoples Uprising is revered as a source of inspiration for activists around the world and as a point of unity for the Korean people. A tour in the U.S. and Canada, with visits to 18 cities is taking place in May, celebrating the anniversary of the uprising. The tour includes two guest speakers from Korea and a photo exhibition and video presentation. The two speakers are activists who have been part of the Korean democracy and human rights movement since 1980.
Kim Hyo-Seok, Co-director of the Korea Truth Commission in Gwangju-Chonnam, Co-director of the Anti-War Alliance. Participated in the 1980 Gwangju People's Uprising as a high school student and became a political prisoner. Mr. Kim is president of May Light, an organization established in 1998 to promote human rights and peace.
Lee Shin, a former student activist, is a graduate student at Chonnam University and advisor to May Light. Mr. Lee is also director of policy for the Reunification Alliance in Gwangju-Chonnam and the Investigation for the Korea Truth Commission also in Gwangju-Chonnam.
Tour Dates and Cities
May 12: Lincroft, NJ. Thursday, 6:30 pm; Unitarian Community Center, 1475 W. Front St., Lincroft, NJ; Sponsor: Central NJ Coalition for Peace and Justice Box 6571, Fair Haven, NJ 07704.
May 13: Boston, MA. Friday, 6:30 pm; IAC, 284 Amory Street, Jamaica Plain, MA; Sponsor: 25th Anniversary of the Gwangju Peoples Uprising US/CANADA Tour
May 14: Flushing, NY. Saturday, 7:00 pm; Korean YWCA, 42-07 Parsons Blvd, Flushing, NY 11355; Sponsor: 25th Anniversary of Gwangju Peoples Uprising Speaking Tour -New York Preparatory Committee. Contact: 917-418-2343.
May 15: New York, NY. Sunday, 1:00 pm]; UN Church Center Boss Room, 777 UN Plaza, New York City (44th Street between 1st Ave and 2nd Ave). Contact: 212.633.6646 or 917.225.9615.
May 16: Philadelphia, PA. Monday, 7:30 pm; Calvary Church, Corner of 48th & Baltimore, Philadelphia
May 17: Washington, D.C. Tuesday, 6:30 pm; DC1525, Newton Street, NW,
May 18: Raleigh, NC
May 19: Charlotte, NC. Thursday, 7:00 pm; The International House, 322 Hawthorne Lane
May 20-21: Atlanta, GA. Friday-Saturday
May 22: Chicago, IL. Sunday
May 23: Evanston, IL. Monday
May 25: Detroit, MI. Wednesday, 7:00 pm; Bernath Auditorium, Adamany Undergraduate Library, Wayne State University; Sponsor: Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice (MECAWI).
May 26: Windsor, CANADA. Thursday
May 27: Hamilton, CANADA. Friday
May 28: Toronto, CANADA. Saturday; Contact: Korea Truth Commission (Canada) at (416) 703-7970 or peoplesfront@bellnet.ca.
May 29: Buffalo, NY [Sunday]
May 31: San Francisco, CA [Tuesday]
June 1-3: Los Angeles, CA Wednesday-Friday; Thursday, 3-5 pm: UCLA, Center for Korean Studies; Friday: Korean Buddhist Cultural Center, 4279 W. 3rd Street, Los Angeles CA 90020; Sponsor: 25th Anniversary Gwangju Peoples Uprising US/Canada Tour-LA Committee; Endorsers: UCLA Center for Korean Studies, Korean Buddhist Cultural Center.