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…
by Robert Mtonga
IPPNW Co-President Dr. Bob Mtonga. Photo by Aki Morizono
I represented IPPNW at the just-concluded 2nd Ministerial Review Conference of Armed Violence and Development (2MRC), which was co-convened by the Government of Switzerland and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The conference was held in Geneva from 31 October to 2 November.
The 2MRC was convened to review progress made, by the signatories to the Geneva Declaration (GDAV) on Armed Violence, on taking the commitments therein enshrined forward.
A political declaration, the GDAV, is a tool that brings states, non-governmental organisations, United Nations agencies and academic institutions to a round table to discuss a broad international agenda that places armed violence at the core of business with a view to finding workable ways and means that will translate into a meaningful reduction of armed violence and its ramifications on the ground and in the lives of affected individuals, families and communities in real time. Read more…
A couple of times each year, I talk about nuclear issues with the host of a Sunday morning radio talk show in Boston, and the interview usually ends with this question: “So are you feeling optimistic or pessimistic about our chances of getting rid of nuclear weapons?”
Most recently, a few weeks ago, I said I was on the fence. That I was taking a lot of encouragement from the growing number of non-nuclear-weapon states and civil society groups who have embraced the idea of a global abolition treaty, but that I was disheartened by the relentless modernization of nuclear weapons systems in every single nuclear-weapon state.
This morning I read a sobering new report on nuclear weapons modernization from the Trident Commission of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC), and am finding it a little hard to reconstruct the case for optimism. I expect that feeling will pass, but for now, here’s the condensed version of how bad the facts on the ground really are.
The report is called “Beyond the United Kingdom: Trends in the Other Nuclear Armed States” (you can get a copy at BASIC’s website), and it covers all the nuclear-armed states except the UK, which will get separate treatment in a parallel phase of the Commission’s work. Part summary of current arsenal sizes and configurations in each of the other nuclear-weapon states and part projection of budgeted and scheduled new deployments, the report by BASIC consultant Ian Kearns also assesses the priorities and rationales that are driving the expansion of nuclear forces into the middle of this century and beyond. Read more…
Free the World from the Nuclear Chain
Nuclear Power and the Bomb – inextricably linked
We talk about abandoning nuclear energy or abolishing nuclear weapons. But this is not enough. They are only the visible products of a whole chain of production that binds us – the nuclear chain. This chain does much more damage than we are aware of.
At the front end of the chain is uranium mining – providing the same source for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.
Next comes enrichment. Centrifuge technology enriches uranium and it is only a question of the enrichment grade that defines whether the uranium can be used for producing electricity or weapons.
Regardless of what we believe or not, we can never be 100% sure of what it will be used for. Look at Iran, an example that shows what role mistrust and tension play in the use of such technology. The combination of enrichment and political conflict could lead to war. Read more…
Indian doctors describe dire consequences of violence against women
by Dr. Balkrishna Kurvey
“Women and children are easy prey to those with guns,” said the keynote speaker at the national conference of the Association of Medical Women in India (AWMI) on October 15-16, 2011 at Nagpur, India.
Dr. Nalini Kurvey addresses Indian conference on violence against women
My wife Nalini and I agree, which is why we have been working for more than 15 years on preventing armed violence in India, especially toward women and children, and why we helped to organize the session entitled “Tackling growing violence against women—issues & strategies: Aiming for Prevention” at the AWMI conference. We addressed more than 375 Indian women medical doctors on the health effects of small arms and light weapons. Read more…
Remembering Reykjavic
An American and a Russian president almost made good on a serious proposal to abolish nuclear weapons 25 years ago this month. The leaders were Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev (who was actually the president of the now-defunct Soviet Union) and the occasion was the 1986 Reykjavic Summit.
The story of how Reagan and Gorbachev sat across from each other in Hofdi House, talking themselves into the elimination of all their ballistic missiles in one grand bargain, with US Secretary of State George Shultz cheering them on, was told in heartbreaking detail by Richard Rhodes in his 2008 book Arsenals of Folly. The heartbreak, of course, was the collapse of the proposal over Reagan’s stubborn adherence to the wholly imaginary Strategic Defense Initiative and Gorbachev’s unwillingness to ignore SDI as scientific and technological nonsense. They got a lot of support in these positions from obstructionist advisers who saw the actual elimination of nuclear weapons as not in, shall we say, their best interests. Read more…
Is Mitt Romney ready for the world?
If current polls are correct, Mitt Romney seems likely to become the 2012 Republican presidential candidate and the next president of the United States. Therefore, we should carefully examine his first major foreign and military policy address—delivered on October 7 at the Citadel, in Charleston, South Carolina—and ponder the question: Is Mitt Romney ready for the world? 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 