Keep Kazakhstan Nuke-Free
April 16, 2016
Alice Slater / New Age Peace Foundation & President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan
"Under the IAEA auspices,"President Nazarbayev writes, "Kazakhstan is to host the Low-Enriched Uranium Bank on its territory, which will allow countries to develop civilian nuclear energy." The anti-war movement must condemn the "inextricable link" between nuclear weapons and nuclear power -- and should oppose this new misguided global measure to make Kazakhstan the locus for producing toxic radioactive enriched uranium for "peaceful" nukes.
You Can't Ban Nuclear Bombs Without Banning
Nuclear Reactors: Keep Kazakhstan Nuke-Free
Alice Slater / New Age Peace Foundation
(April 15, 2016) -- Dear Friends, I urge that our Abolition 2000 network -- which condemned at its 1995 founding, the "inextricable link" between nuclear weapons and nuclear power -- should oppose this new misguided global measure to make Kazakhstan the locus for producing toxic radioactive enriched uranium for "peaceful" nukes. (See Founding Statement below.)
Here is the relevant language in the new manifesto from Kazakhstan:
"Under the IAEA auspices, Kazakhstan is to host the Low-Enriched Uranium Bank on its territory, which will allow countries to develop civilian nuclear energy."
This material will be shipped all around the world to and from Kazakhstan proliferating nuclear technology and potential bomb factories and posing a hazard to land sea and air.
We should be aware of this and figure out how to stop it as well as the phase-out of existing nuclear power plants and the prevention of any new ones as part of the spirit of our original Abolition Statement that recognized in 1995 that you can't ban the bomb without banning the reactor as well!
A reminder that In 1995 the US airlifted the nuclear material out of the Soviet nuclear test facility at Semipalentsk, Kazakstan due to the lack of security and fears that "terrorist" groups in the mid-1990s would be able to get to the materials.
And in 2012, 3 people including an 82 year old nun Megan Rice walked unchallenged into the Oak Ridge nuclear facility--so much for US security!
I doubt if much has changed
I basically agree with you and the 'siamese twins' analogy of nucl weapons and pwr. However, I wonder about aleniating Mr Nazarbajew, one of our strongest ally among heads of state in our fight to abolish nucl weapons.
In Switzerld we observe that after the phase-out decision and due to the fact of very low prices for electricity the Swiss NPP operators suddenly face big losses and some of them even want to sell their shares in hydropwr investmnts.
I suggest we promote the fact that the pwr market today in many countries is clearly moving away from NP. Kazachstan, by relying on U minimg and promoting the fuel bank, seems to have a miopic view and as our nuclear ally should be convinced to diversify and rather leave the 'nuclear market'.
Manifesto: "The World; The 21st Century"
President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan
(March 31, 2016) -- Humanity hoped that the 21st century would herald a new era of global cooperation. This, however, may turn out to be a mirage. Our world is once again in danger and the risks cannot be underestimated. The threat is a deadly war on a global scale.
Our civilization, by scholars' estimates, has survived more than 15,000 wars, approximately three every year. Hundreds of millions of people have died, cities and countries have been destroyed, cultures and civilizations have vanished.
At the dawn of the 21st century, stunning scientific discoveries are being made, and new technologies are being invented. The world is at the verge of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Many horrific diseases are being successfully eradicated. But the virus of war continues to poison the international situation.
It drives the military-industrial complex, which, in some countries, has become the most powerful sector of the economy. It may even in the future infect the development of artificial intelligence. Militarism has deeply penetrated our minds and behavior. There are more than one billion small firearms in the hands of people. Thousands of civilians die every day from their use.
We cannot exclude the risk that this military threat could become a tragic reality on a global scale. We can see the signs of such a terrible outcome. In international relations, the risk of conflict has increased.
Conflict has engulfed the historic battlegrounds of the two World Wars -- Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is not fulfilling its purpose. Nuclear weapons and the technology that produces them have spread all over the world due to double standards of the main powers. It may be just a matter of time before they fall into the hands of terrorists.
International terrorism has gained a more sinister character. It has moved from isolated acts in individual countries to a large-scale terrorist aggression across Europe, Asia and Africa. The exodus of millions of refugees, the destruction of sites and historic monuments have become an everyday reality.
Economic sanctions and trade wars are commonplace. Our planet is now on the edge of a new Cold War, which could have devastating consequences for all humankind. This threatens the achievements of the last four decades.
As a result of successful negotiations, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia have been reduced substantially.
Five nuclear powers have announced and kept a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. The process of forming regional security systems has accelerated. A unique and comprehensive security structure -- the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe -- was created on principles of mutual trust.
Coordinated action between world powers and UN peacekeeping operations saw many conflicts ended. However, today we are witnessing the erosion of these international security achievements. This is an increasing and serious concern for millions of people. How will the world situation develop?
Could the tensions between the leading world powers escalate into a new long-term confrontation? Which country could be the next victim of the so-called "proxy-wars" between the world and regional powers?
Which territory, flourishing for now, will be torn apart by tank tracks and explosive shells? In which cities will children die under heavy rocket fire? From where and where to will the refugees fleeing conflicts migrate next?
More than 60 years ago two prominent scientists Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell presented their manifesto, in which they asked "a dreadful but an inescapable question: shall we put an end to the human race, or will mankind be able to renounce war?"
The most brilliant minds of the 20th century have warned the people that in a future world war nuclear weapons will inevitably be used leading to the destruction of all life on our planet.
Their demand that disputes between countries cannot and should not be resolved by military means remains hugely relevant in the 21st century. To end all wars is the most challenging task for our civilization. But there is no other reasonable alternative. This task has to be treated by the world leaders as the highest priority on the global agenda.
In the 21st century humanity must take decisive steps towards demilitarization. We won't get another chance. If this objective is not achieved, our planet will end as a graveyard of radioactive materials.
Our planet is unique. We have no other home. It is why we need a new comprehensive PROGRAM -- "21st CENTURY: A WORLD WITHOUT WARS".
Through this global strategy we need to identify joint and responsible actions to be taken by all nations in order to destroy the virus of war. This document should be based on three main principles.
First, there will be no winners in any modern war; everyone would be on the losing side.
Secondly, a new war will inevitably entail the use of weapons of mass destruction. This will lead to the destruction of all humankind. It will be too late to argue over who is responsible for this catastrophe. This threat must be understood by all current and future national leaders and politicians.
Thirdly, the main tool for resolving all disputes between states should be peaceful dialogue and constructive negotiations on the basis of equal responsibility for peace and security, mutual respect and non-interference into domestic affairs
Taking all of this into consideration, the world community must take comprehensive action towards these goals.
First, there must be gradual progress to a world free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.
An important step, to which Kazakhstan made a significant contribution, has already been taken in the right direction. On December 7, 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration for the Achievement of a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World put forward by Kazakhstan.
25 years ago, Kazakhstan permanently closed the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site. We were the first, and for now, only such country to take this action.
Our newly independent state then voluntarily renounced the world's fourth largest arsenal of nuclear weapons -- the menacing legacy of the collapsed Soviet Union. These decisions triggered a moratorium on conducting nuclear tests by world nuclear powers.
Twenty years ago, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was developed in the UN and was put forward to Member States to sign but has still to come into force.
Under the IAEA auspices, Kazakhstan is to host the Low-Enriched Uranium Bank on its territory, which will allow countries to develop civilian nuclear energy. [Emphasis added -- EAW.]
Global nuclear security summits are of great importance. We now need global decisions to prohibit deploying lethal weapons in outer space, on the seabed and in international waters of the World Ocean, as well as in the Arctic.
We should develop and adopt international binding agreements to ban the creation of new types of weapons of mass destruction through new scientific discoveries.
It is necessary to create a register in the UN of such scientific developments, which could be used for the creation and advancement of weapons of mass destruction.
Secondly, we must build on and expand existing geographical initiatives to gradually eliminate war as a way of life.
There are already six nuclear-weapon-free zones in the world. They encompass Antarctica, virtually the entire South Hemisphere, including Latin America, Africa, Australia, and Oceania.
The newest is a zone free of nuclear weapons in Central Asia created 10 years ago in Semipalatinsk by five states of the region. Now we must intensify international efforts to create a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.
In 1992, Kazakhstan put forward the initiative to convene the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia. This century, the forum has been successfully institutionalized with participation of 26 Member States of the continent, the United Nations and other international organizations.
Multilateral cooperation among the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's activities has had a positive impact.
Peace zones in South America, South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean have significant potential. We should bring together these initiatives to create global areas of peace based on a special international law.
Issues of security and development in these Areas of Peace could be guaranteed by all the UN Member States as well as the UN Security Council.
Thirdly, it is necessary to eliminate such relics of the Cold War as military blocs, which threaten global security and impede broader international cooperation.
Geopolitical reality means that when one military bloc is established and developed an opposing bloc will be created. Power generates anti-power. Military blocs can include countries which are not always aware of their responsibility to promote peace and security.
We have also seen attempts by some states to use the protection of military blocs to their advantage in their interactions with third countries, including immediate neighbors. It is how confrontation can be infinitely cloned in different regions and globally.
We should also have learnt from past wars and conflicts that it is impossible to ensure our own security by undermining the security of others. That is why a Global Coalition of States for peace, stability, trust and security under the UN auspices should be set up against military blocs.
Our common task for the next decade should be to end wars and conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Syria, in eastern Ukraine and the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation. We must reduce the dangerous potential of the situations on the Korean Peninsula, the basin of the South China Sea, and the Arctic.
Fourthly it is important to adapt the international disarmament process to the new historic conditions.
A short-sighted dismantlement of previous treaty limitations on anti-missile systems and conventional arms has resulted in militarization in the political space of Eurasia. This increases the risk of a new global war, even by the possible failure of electronic defense management systems.
We need a new strategy for the UN Conference on Disarmament. The world needs to eliminate the new threat of cybercrime, which can become a very dangerous weapon if used by terrorists.
Fifthly, a world without war requires primarily fair global competition in international trade, finance, and development.
During the 70th session of the UN General Assembly, Kazakhstan proposed the development of a 2045 Global Strategic Initiative Plan. Its main goal is to eliminate the root causes of wars and conflicts. This can best be achieved by through equal and fair access to infrastructure, resources and markets for all nations. The plan should be implemented in time for the 100th anniversary of the United Nations in 2045.
Kazakhstan proposes to convene a high level UN Conference in 2016. At this conference, we should confirm the basic principles of international law to prevent devastating wars and conflicts in the 21st century. Calls for reason and dialogue, restraint and common sense should not be the targets of attacks by those opposing global peace.
In the 21st century, we all need peace. This is a key mission of our time. Peace is worth fighting for just as deliberately and persistently as did people in the past century.
We should think hard about the future of our children and grandchildren. We must combine the efforts of governments, politicians, scientists, entrepreneurs, artists, and millions of people around the world in order to prevent a repetition of tragic mistakes of past centuries and spare the world from the threat of a war.
Failing to act or putting limits on efforts to promote peace risk global catastrophe.
My Manifesto "The World. The 21st Century," reflects a sincere concern for the fate of future generations, which will live and work in the coming decades.
We, the leaders of states and politicians, bear an enormous responsibility for the future of the humanity.
As an individual who went through hardship and difficulties, and as a statesman who made a difficult decision to close the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site and renounce nuclear weapons, I urgently call on world leaders and the entire international community to listen to reason.
We need to do our utmost to free humanity from the threat of deadly wars forever.
There is no more important goal.
To view this discussion on the web visit: https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nuclear-news-list/CAHE2ApR6DxM9YnzJcg98D7X08zGO_8sj009JutAjWZf179YXqA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit: https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The Abolition 2000 Founding Statement
On April 1995, during the first weeks of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, activists from around the world recognized that the issue of nuclear abolition was not on the agenda.
Activists met together to write the following statement that has become the founding document of the Abolition 2000 Network. 2,000+ organizations in over 90 countries have now signed the Abolition 2000 Statement and are actively participatng in ten working groups to accomplish the eleven points listed below.
Abolition 2000 Statement
A secure and livable world for our children and grandchildren and all future generations requires that we achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and redress the environmental degradation and human suffering that is the legacy of fifty years of nuclear weapons testing and production.
Further, the inextricable link between the "peaceful" and warlike uses of nuclear technologies and the threat to future generations inherent in creation and use of long-lived radioactive materials must be recognized.
We must move toward reliance on clean, safe, renewable forms of energy production that do not provide the materials for weapons of mass destruction and do not poison the environment for thousands of centuries. The true "inalienable" right is not to nuclear energy, but to life, liberty and security of person in a world free of nuclear weapons.
We recognize that a nuclear weapons free world must be achieved carefully and in a step by step manner. We are convinced of its technological feasibility. Lack of political will, especially on the part of the nuclear weapons states, is the only true barrier. As chemical and biological weapons are prohibited, so must nuclear weapons be prohibited.
We call upon all states particularly the nuclear weapons states, declared and de facto to take the following steps to achieve nuclear weapons abolition. We further urge the states parties to the NPT to demand binding commitments by the declared nuclear weapons states to implement these measures:
1. Initiate immediately and conclude* negotiations on a nuclear weapons abolition convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.**
2. Immediately make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.
3. Rapidly complete a truly comprehensive test ban treaty with a zero threshold and with the stated purpose of precluding nuclear weapons development by all states.
4. Cease to produce and deploy new and additional nuclear weapons systems, and commence to withdraw and disable deployed nuclear weapons systems.
5. Prohibit the military and commercial production and reprocessing of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.
6. Subject all weapons-usable radioactive materials and nuclear facilities in all states to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards, and establish a public international registry of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.
7. Prohibit nuclear weapons research, design, development, and testing through laboratory experiments including but not limited to non-nuclear hydrodynamic explosions and computer simulations, subject all nuclear weapons laboratories to international monitoring, and close all nuclear test sites.
8. Create additional nuclear weapons free zones such as those established by the treaties of Tlatelolco and Raratonga.
9. Recognize and declare the illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons, publicly and before the World Court.
10. Establish an international energy agency to promote and support the development of sustainable and environmentally safe energy sources.
11. Create mechanisms to ensure the participation of citizens and NGOs in planning and monitoring the process of nuclear weapons abolition.
A world free of nuclear weapons is a shared aspiration of humanity. This goal cannot be achieved in a non-proliferation regime that authorizes the possession of nuclear weapons by a small group of states. Our common security requires the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Our objective is definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.
* The 1995 Abolition 2000 Statement called for the conclusion of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention "by the year 2000." Recognizing that the nuclear weapons states would likely fail in their obligations to conclude such negotiations, this phrase was removed at the end of the year 2000 after member organizations voted and agreed upon its removal.
** The convention should mandate irreversible disarmament measures, including but not limited to the following: withdraw and disable all deployed nuclear weapons systems; disable and dismantle warheads; place warheads and weapon-usable radioactive materials under international safeguards; destroy ballistic missiles and other delivery systems.
The convention could also incorporate the measures listed above which should be implemented independently without delay. When fully implemented, the convention would replace the NPT.
If your group or organization wishes to sign on to this statement, please send an e-mail stating contact name, organization name, address, fax, telephone to firstname.lastname@example.org -- See more at: http://www.abolition2000.org/?page_id=153#sthash.Dfstyjfd.dpuf