DPRK revisited: changes in the air?
[Editor’s note: Dr. Westberg was part of an IPPNW delegation that visited Pyongyang in October 2011. He wrote the piece that follows before the death of the DPRK leader, Kim Jong-Il, was announced.]
Already on the train from Beijing to Pyongyang do I feel a different atmosphere from that at my visit in 2005. The custom officials look briefly at our documents, register and seal our mobile phones as in previous years, but pay no attention to our computers, written material and CDs. The train is overflowing with packages and trunks, at least some of it apparently smuggled. At the first DPRK stop after the border an expensive new car picks up four big bags from the train. All houses along the track are newly painted, maybe for the benefit of the Dear Leader who passed through in his special train two years ago.
Mobile phones — yes they are here now! Statistics are not available but at least a large minority of the younger people in the streets of Pyongyang seem to have them. Our guide says that mobile phones are equally common in the rural areas. They can be used only for calls within the country. Considering that you need a permission to travel between the provinces and cities in the country, the mobile phones will be a strong factor in informing and uniting people.
Apparently, the middle class is growing and is becoming more prosperous. A few years ago there were few locals in the better restaurants, mostly foreigners. Today the locals are the majority. There are more bicycles, also in the biking-unfriendly Pyongyang. Bikers often disobey the rule that they should not cross the streets. They do not carry their bikes down and up the stairs at the underpasses as requested and sometimes bike on lanes marked “no bikes.” Pedestrians cross the street most anywhere. The beginning of civil disobedience? Read more…
Medical Alert for a Strong Arms Trade Treaty – Sign the Petition!
Calling All Health Professionals to Help Pass a Global Arms Trade Treaty to Save Lives, Protect Health
Hundreds of thousands of people are killed each year with firearms, with millions more maimed or traumatized. The cost of treating armed violence is a huge drain on health budgets and diverts monetary and human capital from other vital human needs.
Yet there are currently no legally binding, global rules regulating the trade in conventional arms.
The United Nations is negotiating a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to prevent irresponsible arms trade. A strong and humanitarian-focused ATT would help save lives and promote health.
If you are a medical or public health professional we need you to add your health voice to our new Medical Alert on Armed Violence petition to the United Nations to call for passage of a strong global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Our goal is 25,000 health signatures, and you can help.
Add your name to the petition supporting a strong and humanitarian-based ATT. A delegation of IPPNW medical professionals will deliver the petition to the key negotiators at the UN during the ATT Review Conference in 2012.
After you sign the petition, send a message to your medical colleagues and ask them to sign, too.
IPPNW is launching this campaign as a sister initiative to the global Speak Out! campaign of the Control Arms Coalition. Health professionals and others can add their voices to this campaign at the Control Arms web site here.
Indian doctors consider alternatives to nuclear energy
Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD), IPPNW’s Indian affiliate, held an interactive session on nuclear energy on October 20 at the India International Centre in New Delhi. Professor Andreas Nidecker, President IPPNW Switzerland, and General Vinod Saighal were the featured speakers. The session was moderated by Dr. L.S. Chawla, President of IDPD.
Dr. Nidecker presented medical arguments against the civil use of nuclear power, explained in detail the reasons why nuclear energy is not a viable source for meeting the world’s energy needs, and reported that after the Fukushima nuclear reactor crisis the Swiss government decided to phase out nuclear energy. He described the harmful effects of radiation throughout the nuclear chain — from uranium mining to nuclear waste disposal. Fukushima, he said, has put a full stop to the false claims about the safety of nuclear energy.
Dr. Nidecker noted several specific drawbacks to nuclear energy, including rising costs, security issues, the absence of a solution to the waste problem, intense water usage, environmental contamination, the health effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, and the increasing risks for nuclear proliferation, and the diversion of investments away from better, safer, and more sustainable alternatives, such as wind and solar power technologies.
General Saighal urged the development of a strong antinuclear movement. Dr. Chawla pointed out that nuclear energy is fraught with dangers to the health of the people, particularly those living around nuclear facilities. He said these problems had been confirmed by the IDPD study on the health effects of people living around Jadugoda uranium mines.
Dr. Arun Mitra, General Secretary of IDPD, said that the Indian people have to build a strong resistance against the nuclear policy of the government “against all the odds posed by the government and the pro-nuclear lobby in our country.”
A detailed report from the meeting is available here.
Ankara conferees: “Resolve Middle East conflicts without military force”
Ankara Declaration on IPPNW Middle East Core Group Meeting:
Strategies for Peace and Health in the Nuclear Free Middle East
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) representatives from Israel, Iran, Egypt, United States, UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Hungary and Turkey met in Ankara, Turkey, on December 8th to 10th 2011 to address the issues of peace, health and weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.
The Middle East (ME) region is experiencing a turbulent period. There are political instability, ethnic and religious conflicts, economic difficulties and external military interventions causing detrimental effects on the health and well-being of the citizens of the Middle East.
We as health professionals have responsibilities to respond to these unacceptable conditions which have caused large scale suffering and loss of human life, and we are concerned that the existing conflicts could escalate into the use of weapons of mass destruction.
We call for:
- Sincere commitment of governments for peaceful resolution of conflicts without use of military force; and using diplomacy and the rule of international law.
- We demand that all signatories to NPT to ratify and observe their responsibilities immediately.
- Noting the published reports that there are nuclear weapons in Israel and tactical NATO nuclear weapons in Turkey, and there concerns that Iran is developing nuclear weapons; and there are possible chemical and biological weapons in the ME countries, governments should immediately start negotiations to establish a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone -Middle East (WMDFZ-ME) including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; and take measures to strengthen the implementation of chemical weapons convention (CWC) and biological weapons convention (BWC). We demand that all governments immediately start negotiations for to establish a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC). We call for the development of regional International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) activities.
- We oppose the plans for deploying Missile Defense Systems including those recently positioned in Turkey. They must be removed at once as the system escalates the danger of nuclear proliferation.
- We demand the strict observation of the landmines convention.
- Cease the supply of small arms, conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction (or the components of such) in the region.
- The construction of nuclear power plants is a threat to the health of people and the environment of the ME as well as a stimulus to nuclear weapons proliferation. The ME is a primary earthquake region. Considering the bitter lessons of the Fukushima Catastrophe and past accidents such as Chernobyl, we call for an immediate abandoning of nuclear plant construction programs. The establishment of the renewable energy alternatives to nuclear power should be promoted.
- There are immense public health problems in the communities of the ME and primary health care programs have suffered from financial restriction and ongoing conflicts. We demand the immediate reallocation of military funding to health budgets.
- All efforts should be exerted by all governments and institutions to immediately end Israeli-Palestine/ Jewish-Arab conflict through peace negotiations and initiatives including the Arab Peace Initiative.
List of Signatories (in alphabetical order):
Abraham Behar, IPPNW-France, Mediterranean Commission Former President
Ahmed Saada, IPPNW-Egypt, Middle East Vice-President
Arielle Denis, ICAN Europe Coordinator – Geneva
Ernesto Kahan, IPPNW-Israel
Herman Spanjaard, IPPNW-Netherlands, Speaker of the International Council
Lars Pohlmeier, IPPNW-Germany, European Vice-President
Leila Moein, IPPNW-Iran, Medical Student Representative
Liz Waterston, IPPNW-United Kingdom
Patrice Sutton, IPPNW-USA
Raánan Friedmann, IPPNW-Israel
Robert Gould, IPPNW-USA
Sharon Dolev, ICAN Middle East
Zita Makoi, IPPNW-Hungary
Ahmet Saltik, IPPNW-Turkey
Bayazit Ilhan, IPPNW-Turkey, President of Ankara Medical Chamber
Berker Ozbek, IPPNW-Turkey, Medical Student
Burcak Aydin, IPPNW-Turkey, Medical Student Representative
Celalettin Guner, IPPNW-Turkey
Cem Coteli, IPPNW-Turkey, Medical Student Representative
Derman Boztok, IPPNW-Turkey
Guldali Aybas, IPPNW-Turkey
Ozen Asut, IPPNW-Turkey
Ozlem Tur, Ankara Middle East Technical University International Relations Department
Selcuk Atalay, General Secretary of Ankara Medical Chamber
Selenge Beduk, IPPNW-Turkey, Medical Student
Simge Uzman, IPPNW-Turkey, Medical Student
Aren’t nuclear weapons harmful, too?
The global treaty prohibiting cluster munitions, which entered into force last August, was pursued on the basis that such weapons cause “unacceptable harm.” Similarly, the treaty outlawing anti-personnel landmines, negotiated a decade earlier, was borne from widespread public concern for the overwhelmingly civilian victims of those conventional arms.
The two treaties were achieved as a result of civil society and “likeminded nations” working in partnership to resolve an obvious and urgent humanitarian problem. Now many of the same governments and campaigners involved in those initiatives are turning their attention to an equally pressing task: banning nuclear arms.
In recent years, a growing number of nations have expressed dissatisfaction at the slow rate of progress towards nuclear disarmament. The arms control approach, which focuses on “managing” the threat rather than eliminating it, is floundering. With some nations pursuing nuclear arms in defiance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the already-armed investing billions in the modernization of their arsenals, a new approach is clearly needed.
At last year’s review conference of the four-decade-old NPT, in New York, a record number of states called for work to begin on a nuclear weapons convention – a treaty which, if successful, would make the aspiration of abolition a reality. By consensus, the conference acknowledged, first the first time, the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences” of any use of nuclear weapons, and the need to comply, at all times, with applicable international law.
The movement for a nuclear weapons ban received a further boost last week when national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies from around the globe adopted a historic resolution appealing to all states to “pursue in good faith and conclude with urgency and determination negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binding international agreement.”
Initiated by Australia, Norway and Japan, the resolution expressed deep concern about “the destructive power of nuclear weapons,” “the unspeakable human suffering they cause,” and “the threat they pose to the environment and to future generations.” It noted the impossibility of providing adequate relief in the event of a nuclear confrontation, and the fundamental incompatibility of nuclear weapons with international law.
This is not the first time the Red Cross has involved itself in this field – its doctors were among the first on the scene in Hiroshima, and the movement adopted several pro-disarmament resolutions during the Cold War, condemning the massive build-up of nuclear arms. But last week’s resolution signifies an important new commitment to the cause at a crucial moment. It could be a game-changer in the quest for a global ban.
The resolution follows a landmark speech last April by Jakob Kellenberger, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in which he declared that the existence of nuclear weapons “poses some of the most profound questions about the point at which the rights of states must yield to the interests of humanity, the capacity of our species to master the technology it creates, and the reach of international humanitarian law.”
Other major international organizations would do well to follow the Red Cross’ lead. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, for example, could raise public awareness about this enormous, immediate threat to our most fundamental of all human rights – the right to life. Greenpeace could re-engage in the field, which it all but abandoned a few years ago (with the exception of a few chapters).
Pursuing the elimination of nuclear weapons would also fit well with Oxfam International’s new campaign focus: food security for the world’s poor. Recent research by climate scientists shows that the use of even a small number of nuclear weapons would lead to devastating agricultural collapse across the globe (in addition to inflicting millions of immediate deaths).
All of these groups have a role to play in reshaping the debate – from one focused on Cold War notions of deterrence and military dominance to one concerned about the potential for these weapons to inflict grave humanitarian and environmental harm. Unless we radically alter our trajectory now and move expeditiously towards a nuclear weapons ban, the use one day of these ultimate instruments of terror seems all but inevitable.
Is nuclear war with China possible?
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all, for centuries national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon.
The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China’s growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China’s claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was “asserting our own position as a Pacific power.”
But need this lead to nuclear war? Read more…
Red Cross/Red Crescent movement calls for abolition of nuclear weapons
In an historic decision, the Council of Delegates of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, on November 26, adopted by acclamation a resolution calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons and calling on all national societies to conduct educational campaigns about the unique, catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.
The resolution was first proposed by the national societies of Norway, Japan, and Australia, and has been the subject of intense internal debate within the Red Cross movement for the better part of the last year.
Masao Tomanaga of Japanese Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, IPPNW’s Japanese affiliate, addressed the Council before the vote, powerfully describing the immediate and ongoing medical consequences of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
During the debate speakers repeatedly argued that nuclear weapons were in violation of international law, but they focused primarily on the inability of the Red Cross to respond to the aftermath of a nuclear war.
Both Dr. Tomanaga and Ira Helfand, IPPNW’S North American regional vice president, then participated in a special workshop for national affiliates interested in developing national campaigns to promote a nuclear weapons convention. The workshop was attended by 45 representatives from national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies who are interested in working on the nuclear issue.
Dr. Tomanaga shared his data on the long term health problems of nuclear bomb survivors in Japan, and Dr. Helfand presented new research suggesting that catastrophic global famine would follow even a limited use of nuclear weapons. They offered the full cooperation of IPPNW in developing national educational campaigns about the medical and humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.
The Australian Red Cross described the exciting campaign they have launched to promote public understanding of the need to abolish nuclear weapons. A full conference for interested national societies to develop national campaigns in their respective countries is in the early planning stages.
The final draft of the resolution presented to the Council of Delegates can be found here. This link will be updated when the final version, including any minor wording changes, is posted to the IFRC website.
You choose: $105 billion a year for health care or nuclear weapons?
In 2011 the nine nuclear-armed nations will spend an estimated US$105 billion maintaining and modernizing their nuclear weapons, despite the International Court of Justice having declared it illegal to use and threaten to use such weapons. This expenditure—up from $91 billion in 2010—casts serious doubt on the sincerity of leaders’ pledges to work for a world free from nuclear arms, suggesting instead a commitment to retain such weapons indefinitely. Beyond the pro-disarmament rhetoric of the nuclear-armed states is the disturbing reality of a massive effort to bolster the world’s nuclear forces, the consequences of which are potentially catastrophic. Read more…
Advocating for transparency in the global arms trade
by Hakeem Ayinde, MD
I attended, with Cathey Falvo of PSR, New York City, a recent special event at the United Nations that addressed Transparency in Global Arms Trade. Having attended the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) PrepCom meeting in July as an IPPNW delegate, I found the topic very pertinent and also enlightening. Particularly interesting was the speech by the keynote speaker, Michael Klare, who is a professor of peace and world security studies at the Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Professor Klare discussed the relationship between oil and other natural resources, and the international arms trade. He explained how the pursuit of natural resources leads to an increase in arms sales, pointing out that a country like Saudi Arabia, for example, is the largest oil exporter, and equally the largest arms importer. These resource-rich countries are usually courted for their oil or other resources in exchange for arms by the major arms exporting countries. These arms exporters would forge relationships with the oil-rich nations wherein they offer aid, diplomatic support, arms transfers etc, in order to gain more influence and access to the resources.
Conversely, the Professor also argued that the presence of natural resources also causes countries to move to acquire more arms. This would be useful as a deterrent to neighboring countries and to secure their borders or as a measure to control insurgent groups within the country. Countries like Libya and Syria readily come to mind for the latter reason. Additionally, the pursuit of arms by resource-rich countries also affects social and economic development in these countries, as funds may be diverted from development programs to the purchase of weapons.
The reasons aforementioned beg for increased transparency in transnational arms transfer, which would improve international peace and security and also help us better understand the dynamics between the pursuit of natural resources and arms trade.
Also interesting was Magda Coss, an investigative journalist with significant experience researching violence in Latin America. She brought attention to the effects of armed violence in Latin America, which accounts for an alarming 42% of the world’s firearm-related deaths, from between 40 and 65 million existing firearms in the region. A major obstacle to her work, she believes, is the difficulty in obtaining data on firearms traffic in these countries. This may sometimes be due to censorship by government, but more often, it is because the governments themselves do not have the information.
She urged a stronger role for the media in raising awareness on the consequences of firearms and also to expose the corruption and faults in institutions that promote proliferation of firearms.
Ms Coss also advocated for more transparency and responsibility on the part of arms exporters in arms transfers to developing countries, as the impact of this is palpable.
The failed operation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), nicknamed ‘Fast and Furious’, in which arms were introduced into Mexico in order to track them to their destination highlighted the irresponsibility of government and a lack of transparency. The firearms only showed up after they were used to kill people.
Mr Tobias Bock of Transparency International’s Defense and Security program got a cheer from the audience when he introduced the newly revamped UN Register of Global Reported Arms Trade which now includes small arms. The website has been made more user-friendly, and the information on arms trade more accessible. The site also conspicuously showed discrepancies in information reported by some arms exporters and importers. It is possible that the importing countries underreported the actual number of arms imported. This is problematic because defense budgets are usually shrouded in secrecy, and thus it would be difficult to verify the actual volume of arms transferred.
Other speakers at the event were Mark Bromley, senior researcher with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Arms transfer program, and Jeff Abramson, former deputy director at the Arms Control Association and current coordinator of the Control Arms Coalition Secretariat. Jeff offered his opinion that transparency in reporting small arms trade is a great challenge due to the proliferation of such arms worldwide, but it must still be pursued.
Overall, the seminar was highly educative and it exposed certain challenges that may be further discussed while we push for the adoption of an effective Arms trade Treaty.
Eyewitness to the “Arab Spring”: Interview with Ahmed Saada
In early 2011 the world was riveted by massive demonstrations throughout the Middle East that came to be known as the Arab Spring. One of the most compelling was the occupation of Tahrir Square in Cairo by thousands of ordinary Egyptians seeking government reforms. Middle East Regional Vice President Dr. Ahmed Sa’ada of Egypt was one of those who held the vigil over many days and nights, and also helped treat wounded protesters who were attacked by government-led forces.
VS: You helped make history as part of the nonviolent revolution in Egypt. Were there any particular moments that stood out for you? How did it feel to be a participant in such dramatic events?
Dr. Ahmed Saada
AS: As an Egyptian young man, I felt that I am putting all my future life on the edge for the sake of my country freedom, to regain our dignity and to have a democracy in our New Egypt.
I stayed in Tahrir Square almost continuously for seven days, sleeping on the ground, walking all the day in protests and raising my voice amongst my Egyptian fellows calling for my country’s freedom. Read more…
Bimal Khadka
Bjorn Hilt
Charles K. Johnson
Gunnar Westberg
IPPNW
John Loretz
Lawrence Wittner
Maria Valenti
mollymcgint
Sue Wareham
Tilman Ruff
Tim Wright
Xanthe Hall
IPPNW peace and health blog 