http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php en-us Copyright 2008 The Plougshartes Fund Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:13:57 GMT Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=590 Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Ploughshares-funded Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, was honored today with the Jane Bagley Lehman Award for Excellence in Public Advocacy by the Tides Foundation. This year's prizes went to three individuals who have advocated and organized against the reemergence of nuclear power as a "solution" to climate change. Makhijani is the author of Carbon Free and Nuclear Free: a Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, the first study to show that it is technically and economically feasible to phase out fossil fuels and nuclear power. In 2006, Ploughshares Fund recognized him as one of the "heroes" of Ploughshares' first twenty-five years, for his outstanding research and advocacy on nuclear production and proliferation issues, and his ongoing work to educate activists around the country about the science of nuclear weapons, and thereby enhance their effectiveness. Congratulations, Arjun! http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=590 Washington Times Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/18/trust-still-needs-verification/ Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) writes in today's Washington Times that the Russian parliament voted overwhelmingly earlier this month to extend the historic Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction agreement with the U.S. and "continue their 16-year cooperation to safeguard and destroy the vast Soviet nuclear, chemical and biological weapons arsenal, which to this day remains a danger to both countries." In light of the progress Nunn-Lugar has made possible, Senator Lugar says that it's time for the U.S. to extend and strengthen the START Treaty. Noting signs that the Bush Administration may be intending to let START expire, he calls on the President to an extend what he calls "the foundation of the U.S.-Russian strategic relationship...the key basis for trust between the two sides." These issues are central to the work of many Ploughshares Fund grantees. Last year, for example, Ploughshares' lobbying coalition worked to lift all congressional conditions to spending funds in support of Nunn Lugar activities. (photo: Senator Lugar meeting with Ploughshares Fund board members Michael Douglas and Joe Cirincione.) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/18/trust-still-needs-verification/ Haaretz Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=589 Despite the shift in the U.S. position toward Iran that was announced last week, the fear of war between Israel and Iran over the latter's nuclear program persists. Trita Parsi, president of the Ploughshares-funded National Iranian American Council, writing today in Israel's Haaretz, says that "listening to the politicians, one gets a sense that powers beyond our control are pulling us toward a 21st-century disaster." Parsi and co-author Roi Ben-Yahuda, an Israeli-American journalist, write that "a great deal of the force propelling us into confrontation is fueled by ignorance and dehumanization... Indeed, mutual ignorance of our respective societies plays into the hands of the hard-line leaders who are calling for blood and destruction." They offer a list of things Israelis and Iranians should understand about each other, from the fact that both countries are culturally and linguistically isolated from their neighbors in the Middle East, to the observation that in both countries, streets are named for poets. (photo: Rahul d'Lucca) http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=589 Huffington Post Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/us-policy-reversal-on-ira_b_113103.html One week after military maneuvers raised fears of war and the price of oil, a senior US official will meet with the Iranian nuclear negotiator. A deal may be in the works. Twenty-two years ago, former National Security Advisor Robert "Bud" McFarlane carried a cake, a bible and pistols to Tehran in a failed Reagan administration effort to trade weapons for Iranian aide to the Nicaraguan contras. Now, another senior official in a Republican administration is hoping for better luck. In a stunning announcement July 16, the White House disclosed that Undersecretary of State William J. Burns will travel to Geneva this weekend to sit face-to-face with Iranian nuclear negotiator Said Jalili. Tests of missiles have yielded to tests of diplomacy. Burns will meet Jalili with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana serving as interlocutor. The subject will be a proposed "freeze-freeze" deal: Iran would halt further expansion of its uranium enrichment program; in turn, the US and Europe will halt further sanctions on Iran. This is a dramatic reversal of Bush policy. Just two months ago, President Bush warned that negotiations with Iran would be "appeasement." Bush officials had said they would meet with Iranian representatives only after Iran fully suspended its enrichment program. Iran had said that suspension would be the subject of the negotiations, not a precondition. Bush blinked. He has dropped the precondition. Suspension might still be possible, but the "freeze-freeze" could be the half-way point that allows serious negotiations to resolve this now five-year stand off. It mirrors the shift the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice engineered in 2006 that reversed a similar policy towards North Korea. Then China served as mediator, orchestrating a meeting in Beijing between Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill and the North Korean negotiator. This was exactly the face-to-face talks Korea had been asking for and the U.S. had denied. It worked. Twenty months later, North Korea is blowing up its nuclear reactor, not nuclear bombs. The announcement also comes at the heels of major foreign policy addresses by both Presidential candidates. Sen. Obama laid out his plan for "aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy" with Tehran; Senator John McCain rejected the idea. Both the U.S. and Iran seem to be taking a page out of the Obama play book: Bush by sending Burns and Tehran by heeding Obama's warning to "negotiate now -- by waiting, they will only face mounting pressure." Conservative hardliners are sure to scream betrayal, as they did on North Korea. But the seeming ascendance of the pragmatist approach within the administration may save President Bush from adding to an already dismal record of foreign policy failure. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/us-policy-reversal-on-ira_b_113103.html TPM Cafe Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=586 Ploughshares Fund grantee William Hartung writes in TPM Cafe about revelations that photographs of Iran's missile tests last week were doctored, comparing them to the fake "Potemkin villages" in that were built to show conditions in Russia in a better light than they actually were. "More to the point," writes Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, "the whole missile episode is reminiscent of the old Soviet tactic of marching the same missiles in the annual May Day parade more than once to give a sense of a mighty military arsenal that wasn't matched in reality." The stakes are similar with Iran. "Before the United States goes forward with an enormously expensive plan to site a missile defense system in Poland (political conditions permitting) and the Czech Republic, it would make sense to do a sober analysis of what Iran's capabilities (and intentions) really are." Just such an analysis was compiled and presented to Congress last spring by Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione, and later summarized in the Foreign Policy magazine article, The Incredible Shrinking Missile Threat. Writing in Huffington Post last week just after Iran's missile tests, he noted that "[Iran's] pyrotechnic display was a political statement, not a demonstration of any new military capability." http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=586 Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=584 On June 10, the Ploughshares lobbying coalition won a critical victory. The Senate Appropriations Committee, without debate or amendment and on a bipartisan basis, cut all funding for the administration's new nuclear weapons program--the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). Last month, the House Appropriations Committee also refused to fund the RRW. As Representative Pete Visclosky said in a June 17 statement, “RRW was offered in a vacuum and there was no new strategy behind it. There was no plan for what the weapons were to be used for, how many there were to be, or how they were to be made.” This is the second year that Congress has refused to fund this new nuclear weapon despite the Administration's best efforts. Ploughshares Fund lobbyists worked hard and persuaded the Congress that no new nuclear weapons initiative like the RRW should be approved until the new President decides upon a plan to reduce our cold war nuclear weapons stockpile and reinvigorates the arms control process. This means that the next president can conduct his own assessment and decide on the future of the nation’s nuclear weapons policies and the size of the nuclear stockpile. The Ploughshares Fund lobbying coalition includes the Arms Control Association, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Council for a Livable World, Global Green, Global Security Institute, Friends Committee for National Legislation, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Union of Concerned Scientists and Womens Action for New Directions. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=584 Associated Press Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/11/business/NA-US-Missile-Defense-Outlook.php So says Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione in an article about the debate over missile defense, a debate that has changed little since "the height of the Cold War when Ronald Reagan outlined his vision for a network of missiles that could shoot enemy weapons out of the sky or space." Since that time, when Reagan's idea was roundly dismissed as a "Star Wars" fantasy, the technology has advanced to a point where earlier this year, the Pentagon used a sea-based missile defense system to shoot down a dying spy satellite loaded with a tank of toxic fuel, which was "an impressive technical feat," according to Ploughshares Fund grantee David Wright, co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "But it's not enough for a workable missile defense system." Grantee Ted Postol from MIT warned that an actual enemy missile strike would likely include countermeasures intended to trick the system. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/11/business/NA-US-Missile-Defense-Outlook.php Huffington Post Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/gulf-action-reaction-cycl_b_111713.html Each side in the Persian Gulf sees its moves as purely defensive. It is the other guy who's the belligerent. The latest Iranian tests continue a dangerous action-reaction cycle that could lead to war. It is no coincidence that Iran fired its salvo of 9 ballistic missiles on July 9 while the G-8 leaders in Japan were calling on Iran to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. Its pyrotechnic display was a political statement, not a demonstration of any new military capability. All the missiles had been tested before; all but the Shahab-3 fly only 70 to 180 miles and are a threat to those on Iran's borders, but no one else. Iran claims the Shahab can now fly 1250 miles, but scientists I talked to (sometimes you really do need to be a rocket scientist) are very skeptical. "This would be a huge leap in capability," says Dr. David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "If true, it would almost double the missile's range. I'd have to see a lot more before I accepted this claim." One could start tracing the reaction chain from any link, going back to the 1979 Iranian revolution, but the most relevant might be the Israeli military exercises reported on June 21 where Israel practiced sustained air strikes on a distant target that looked a lot like Iran. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard said June 28 that if attacked, Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz: "Should a confrontation erupt between us and the enemy, the scope will definitely reach the oil issue... Oil prices will dramatically increase. This is one of the factors deterring the enemy from taking military action." He also cited Iran's missile power and the vulnerability of Israeli and U.S. forces in the region. On July 2, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf said the U.S. Navy and its Gulf allies will not allow Iran to seal off the crucial straits, through which one-fifth of the world's oil supplies flow. On July 7, the U.S., the United Kingdom and Bahrain ran "Exercise Stake Net" to "practice the tactics and procedures of protecting maritime infrastructure," said Commodore Peter Hudson of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. On July 7, 8 and 9, the G-8 issued statements calling on Iran to end its enrichment program. On July 9 Iran launches its missiles. It is no secret why. They tell us. "We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch," said IRGC air force commander Brigadier General Hussein Salami. We have seen this movie before. In June 2006, the U.S. and South Korea conducted a large-scale, five-day war game with 22,000 military personnel and three aircraft carriers. It was the largest war game in the Pacific since Vietnam. In response, on July 4, North Korea tested seven ballistic missiles, including the medium-range Nodong that is the basis for the Iranian Shahab. Here is the risk. If this cycle is not broken, it escalates. With Pyongyang, the U.S. ratcheted up its rhetoric and sanctions efforts after the missile tests. Did North Korea back down? No, it detonated a nuclear weapon in October 2006. Only when the U.S. began direct talks with the Koreans did the tensions ease. Now, the North Koreans are blowing up their nuclear reactor instead of nuclear bombs. If direct talks (open or secret) do not begin soon, if all sides continue to respond only to that latest action of the other as if it had no precipitant, than the cycle will continue and could spin into a war no side truly wants. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/gulf-action-reaction-cycl_b_111713.html Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=583 "One of the most notable events of the G-8 meeting in Tokyo this week," writes Henry Sokolsky of the Ploughshares-funded Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in today's Wall Street Journal, "had little to do with economic growth. In a conversation yesterday, U.S. President George Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh discussed a civilian nuclear deal that has been in the works for nearly three years." Somewhat surprising, since that deal was considered by many analysts to be as good as dead just a month ago. The controversial agreement would provide India with American nuclear fuel and technology for civilian power while allowing it to retain its nuclear weapons arsenal. A "nonproliferation disaster" says Ploughshares Fund grantee Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, in a Carnegie analysis published today, co-authored with Ploughshares Fund advisor Jayantha Dhanapala. It is the Bush Administration's last hope for a foreign policy "victory" before leaving office. Buffeted by strong political opposition in both countries, the agreement got a new lease on life last week with a shift in the ruling coaltion in the Indian Parliament that produced a slim majority in favor of the deal. In the U.S., the deal has been forcefully opposed by nonproliferation advocates since the day it was announced, with Ploughshares Fund grantees in the lead. Kimball has spent the past week responding to questions from the Associated Press, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and others, explaining the latest nuances of the deal and speculating on the agreement's chances for survival in light of the hurdles that remain during the Bush Administration's remaining tenure. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=583 Huffington Post Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/czech-mate_b_111480.html Bush's agreement with the Czech government is too little, too late to save his plan for anti-missile bases in Europe. The Czech people and the American Congress have already blocked his rush to deploy a technology that does not work against a threat that does not exist. Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg signed an agreement in Prague on Tuesday allowing the U.S. to deploy a tracking radar in the country, part of an anti-missile system that would include interceptors based in Poland or another country. It is a huge political gamble for the government headed by Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek and it could lead to its downfall. The Czech public is overwhelming opposed, with 68 percent expressing their disapproval of the base in the latest’s polls. Thousands of demonstrators filled Prague streets Tuesday night to protest the plan. With just 100 seats in a 200-seat assembly and several in the majority party saying they will not vote for the unpopular plan, the government says it won't even try for approval until after new elections in 2010. That means no funding from the U.S. Congress. The House has fenced off construction funds until all the government parliaments approve deployment and it gets a report from the Pentagon showing that the proposed interceptors have passed realistic tests. Similar legislation is pending in the Senate. Neither successful tests nor ratified agreements are likely for several years. As Rep. Ellen Tauscher, (D-CA) said in supporting the restrictions she put into the defense authorization act, “We don’t believe the American people should be digging holes in Poland for a system that will eventually cost over $4 billion when we don’t have ratified and signed agreements with their government.” Tauscher chairs the strategic subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee and is deeply skeptical of the European bases. “I am concerned that we are proposing to deploy a new system,” she says, “that as of today has not demonstratedthe capability to defend Europe -- let alone the United States -- against an enemy attack under realistic operational conditions.” Poland, meanwhile, has balked at the plan and Bush officials are now shopping in Lithuania for a partner. But time may have run out on the administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to put the best face on the paper pact, “It is hard for me to believe that that’s not a capability an American president is going to want to have.” Really? The capability is just as meaningless as the agreement she signed. Neither the threat nor the technology justifies a rush to deploy. The administration’s main motivation is political: Bush is trying to box in the next president, to create facts on the ground that the next president would find difficult to reverse. He had hoped to build bases in Europe—as he already has done in Alaska and California—that would institutionalize his enormously expensive and technically unproven weapons system before he leaves office. The main justification for the bases is the Iranian missile program. Iran now has missiles whose 300- to 600- mile range could reach targets in southern Europe and Israel, but the proposed U.S. system is not aimed at this threat. The bases would counter missiles that exists only in the rhetoric of Iranian and American officials. Iran boasts of building a long-range missile and the Americans cite the claims to justify moving out now on anti-missile bases. Both are exaggerating. It is high unlikely that Iran will be able to build an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead that could threaten America in the next ten years. Only five countries have been able to build weapons in this range, and there is little reason to believe Iran would be the sixth. Its test program has been mediocre at best. Tests of the 600-mile range Shahab-3 missile (based on the North Korean Nodong)have been mixed, with at least two blowing up in flight. Iranian officials claimed the last test, February 4 of this year, was a success, but video footage clearly showed debris flying from the missile shortly into the flight, suggesting that Iran still faces serious technical hurdles. The vehicle seems to have only reached an altitude of 70 to 100 miles, far short of the capability required. Over the past ten years there have been repeated claims of the imminent appearance of longer-range Iranian missiles. These continue today in the media and from some foreign officials. It is possible Iran is making progress, but there is no publicly available evidence to support these claims. Congressional expert Steven Hildreth explained the history of crying wolf on new missile programs in recent testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Since the early 1960s, there have been any number of intelligence assessments and studies that predicted there would be more than five nations that could have accomplished this capability at various times in the past 40-50 years…Why has this number not increases as many had predicted? I believe that no small part of the reason lies with the serious technical challenges that countries face in building an operational ICBM armed with a nuclear warhead. Still, the administration is doing its best to convince everyone that there is an imminent missile threat from Iran. It has to. The Iranian program is a key justification for the rush to deploy. Of the $60 billion that the Bush plans to spend on anti-missile weapons over the next 5 years, $10 billion is solely to counter the hypothetical Iranian missiles. Our interceptors do not appear to work any better than the Iranian missiles. The administrations designs and grades its own tests and then usually classifies the results, so it is difficult to judge their real progress. They celebrate “successes” after firing interceptors at missiles traveling along precisely calculated and controlled trajectories. None have been tested against realistic targets deploying the kind of decoys and jammers our intelligence agencies say any nation would likely use to defeat a U.S. anti-missile system. The rush to deploy has also strained NATO relations—by trying to negotiate bilateral deals that skirt the alliance decision-making process—and our increasingly shaky relationship with Russia. Russian leaders contend that the missile bases on its borders are a threat to their national security. Newly-elected Russian President Dmitry Medvedev expressed his hopes for continued dialogue on the issue, while making it clear that a base in Lithuania is entirely unacceptable. No nation should have a veto of U.S. national security. But these bases are not worth the derailment of vital national security items, like the renegotiation of arms reduction treaties. Russia, after all, has 14,000 nuclear warheads. At last count, Iran had zero. The next president would be wise to pass on this “capability.” He will have enough problems on his desk without being handcuffed by hyped threats, phony weapons and angry allies pressured into shady deals. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/czech-mate_b_111480.html Financial Times Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=579 Sean Stannard-Stockton writes in the Financial Times: "As we face the myriad challenges of the 21st century, we must focus our examination of the social sector on identifying the very best people and organisations. We must champion these leaders and invest heavily in their ability to achieve an impact. Just as businesses turn investment dollars into profit, non-profits turn philanthropic dollars into social impact. It is not enough to simply do good, it is time to start funding the best." (Emphasis ours; read the complete article here.) We couldn't agree more! Ploughshares Fund has been investing in the smartest people with the best ideas to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons, and build a safer, more peaceful world for over 25 years. As we accelerate our efforts to put the U.S. on a path to a nuclear weapon-free world in the months ahead, nothing will be more important than identifying and investing in leadership, creativity and impact. Check out Sean's blog, Tactical Philanthropy, for some of the latest thinking on the "new wave" of philanthropy. He writes, "Rather than supporting status quo projects, the donors of the Second Great Wave will primarily be concerned with funding entities that promise to bring new approaches to solving social problems," which is what Ploughshares Fund is all about. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=579 USA Today Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=580 "Shocking and irresponsible" is how Craig Williams describes a plan being considered by the Army to ship deadly chemical weapons to military sites in four states as a way to accelerate the destruction of the munitions. Williams, executive director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG) says that not only is such transport illegal, but it could expose the public to lethal nerve agents and mustard gas, and pose a risk of WMD terrorism. Last April marked ten years since the landmark Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) entered into force and embarked on a plan to destroy all of the worlds chemical weapons stockpiles by 2007. While solid progress has been made, that deadline was missed and the Pentagon has repeatedly extended the deadline, as Congress reduced funding for the task. But thanks to relentless and targeted lobbying by CWWG and other groups, Congress has begun to add to the chemical weapons demilitarization budget and committed to completing destruction by 2017. Two weeks ago, Ploughshares Fund renewed its support for the organization and its advocacy efforts to ensure that chemical weapons are eliminated quickly, safely and definitiively. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=580 Times of London Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=578 Another notable call to disarm came yesterday when four prominent British statesmen co-authored an op-ed in the Times of London that mirrored the seminal piece by U.S. counterparts in the Wall Street Journal more than a year ago. In the article, called “Start Worrying and Learn to Ditch the Bomb”, three former Foreign Secretaries and one former NATO Secretary General laid out their reasons why nuclear disarmament is both possible and desirable. Their case includes many of the same arguments articulated by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn -- the spread of nuclear know-how, nuclear terrorism that is not deterrable, and the need to conclude a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), among other things. The article follows earlier statements from high-level UK officials, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown himself, endorsing the goal of eventual nuclear abolition. Ploughshares Fund has supported efforts in Europe and the UK for years, recognizing the “special relationship” between the U.S. and UK and, in particular, their unique nuclear weapons ties. Among the organizations we support, the British-American Security Information Council works with government officials in both countries to advocate for safer nuclear policies and plans. In addition, the Acronym Institute works in international forums to build coalitions of like-minded governments to push for meaningful nuclear reductions on the path toward a nuclear weapon-free world. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=578 The Guardian Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=575 Ploughshares Fund grantee Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is in the news with a big story for the second time this week. As reported in the Guardian (and other major news outlets) "the U.S. has removed its nuclear weapons from Britain, ending a contentious presence spanning more than half a century...on the orders of President George Bush. The report's author, Hans Kristensen, one of the leading experts on Washington's nuclear arsenal, said the move had happened in the past few years, but had only come to light yesterday." Kristensen noted that the move follows similar removals from bases in Germany and Greece, and leaves the U.S. with about 250 nuclear warheads in Europe. On FAS' Strategic Security blog, he adds, "Why NATO and the U.S. have decided to keep these major withdrawals secret is a big puzzle. The explanation might simply be that 'nuclear' always means secret, that it was done to prevent a public debate about the future of the rest of the weapons, or that the Bush administration just doesn’t like arms control. Whatever the reason, it is troubling because the reductions have occurred around the same time that Russian officials repeatedly have pointed to the U.S. weapons in Europe as a justification to reject limitations on Russia’s own tactical nuclear weapons." http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=575 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=576 Today another positive step was taken in the years-long quest to roll back North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Since a Fall 2005 agreement, and later a February 2007 proclamation, negotiations and diplomatic give and take among the players in the Six Party talks (the U.S., North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia), negotiations and the diplomatic give-and-take have been extremely delicate and tenuous. Nonetheless, in what can fairly be called a dramatic change of approach, President Bush has supported diplomatic engagement with the North in a multi-lateral setting that has yielded positive results. Today the North delivered to China a declaration of its nuclear program’s history, including the amount of plutonium it has separated that could be used for weapons. In exchange, the U.S. announced that it is lifting sanctions under the Trading With the Enemy Act and has started a clock under which North Korea will be removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, also allowing for sanctions to be lifted. A more dramatic event will take place soon when North Korea destroys – in front of western media – the cooling tower from its plutonium production reactor, symbolizing the extent to which it has disabled its nuclear facilities. It is notable that President Bush said in his speech outlining the developments that “multilateral diplomacy is the best way to peacefully solve the nuclear issue with North Korea. Today's developments show that tough multilateral diplomacy can yield promising results.” Ploughshares Fund has supported a number of efforts to promote the official negotiations and ensure that political support for the process remains strong. These efforts range from the technical analysis and assessments about the North’s program, done by David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, to policymaker education and advocacy to inform elected officials about the issues and promote diplomacy and engagement, such as the work of the National Committee on North Korea. Our goal in all of our investments on North Korea is to provide the best information and analysis to policymakers not only in the United States, but in the governments of the other parties as well – North Korea included. In fact, the photo of the cooling tower you see was provided by a member of a Ploughshares Fund-supported delegation from the U.S. to the Yongbyon nuclear site. As the next steps of this process unfold, we will continue to invest in people and projects that seek to advance the goals of the Six Party process and help ensure that effective diplomacy succeeds over dangerous confrontation. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=576 Politico.com Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=577 "As Congress prepares to consider the annual Department of Defense authorization bill and other military spending legislation totaling more than $700 billion, the need for more aggressive scrutiny is abundantly clear," write Ploughshares Fund grantee William Hartung of the New America Foundation, and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Pointing to a $9.3 trillion national debt and large unmet social needs, Hartung and Sanders call for new measures to stop the "revolving door" that allows Pentagon employees to leave government service and go to work in the lucrative defense industry. The Government Accountability Office reported that as of 2006, some 2,435 former generals, admirals, procurement officials and senior civilian leaders in the Pentagon were working in the defense industry, many working on defense contracts related to their former agencies. "These abuses of the public trust — and the public purse — are simply unacceptable." Hartung and Sanders call for new requirements to close loopholes in revolving door laws. Otherwise, they write, "the Pentagon will continue to misspend untold billions of dollars that could have been applied to urgent national priorities." http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=577 Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=574 "On June 22, international opposition to a U.S.-proposed missile defense system based in the Czech Republic and Poland ratcheted up as thousands of people around the world participated in a 24-hour hunger strike," writes Katrina vanden Heuvel in The Nation. Despite the number of participants "this tremendous grassroots opposition has received zero coverage from the U.S. mainstream media." She quotes Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione, who says that the U.S. is "rushing to deploy a technology that does not work against a threat that does not exist." vanden Heuvel concludes, "given the exorbitant costs of missile defense, its destabilizing impact, and the popular opposition in the host countries, greater attention needs to be paid to this issue during this presidential campaign." http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=574 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=573 Last year as part of the defense budget process, Congress mandated the Departments of Defense and Energy to submit a comprehensive review of the nation's nuclear posture "to address the role and value of nuclear weapons in the current global security environment" by the end of 2009. Such an assessment has not been conducted since the last Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in 2001. A key challenge for peace and security organizations is to figure out how best to influence the review. In the fourth meeting of its kind, the Peace and Security Initiative - partnering with Jon Wolfsthal at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) - recently brought together a group of think tank and advocacy leaders to discuss ways that the peace and security community can do just that. It is especially worthwhile to share these few tidbits from this meeting: 1. There’s no blueprint. There have been only two NPRs in the past, and both have been very different. 2. The next NPR is likely to be a top-down one (high-level). 3. Focus on the big picture. The best chance outside groups have of influencing the next NPR is to focus on answering the “big picture” questions like, “Why do we have nuclear weapons?” and “How do we talk about why we have them?” 4. Be patient. Past NPRs have taken 6-12 months to draft and an additional 12 months to implement. A handful of groups are already working on NPR-focused projects. The PSI is in the process of compiling information from all such groups so that we can highlight opportunities for working together and developing collaborative strategies for influencing the next NPR. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=573 World:Bridge Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=572 The plight of the five million people displaced from their homes by the war in Iraq is first and foremost a humanitarian crisis. But as Ken Bacon, president of the Ploughshares-funded Refugees International (RI) notes, it has become a major security problem, as well. RI recently issued a report that found that internally displaced Iraqis are turning increasingly to militia groups, not the government, for support. "As a result of the vacuum created by the failure of both the Iraqi government and the international community to act in a timely and adequate manner, non-state actors play a major role in providing assistance to vulnerable Iraqis. Militias, not the government, are winning the loyalty of aid recipients. This poses an obvious threat to what the U.S. most wants in Iraq--a stable, peaceful country run by a publicly supported government under the rule of law.” On World Refugee Day, recognition by the Bush Administration of the gravity of the crisis seems largely absent. (photo: Refugees International) http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=572 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=569 (by guest contributor Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Ploughshares-funded Arms Control Association.) In the first (and so far only) event of its kind this election season, the Arms Control Association's (ACA) June 16 Annual Meeting featured a session with representatives of the campaigns of Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama on "what their respective candidates would do to advance U.S. and international nonproliferation and disarmament efforts." While there are differences between the candidates' positions on some important policy details and implementation steps, the discussion provides further evidence of the emerging bipartisan consensus in favor of renewed U.S. leadership on nuclear disarmament that is needed to win support for steps needed to shore up the beleaguered global nonproliferation system. Before a packed crowd of more than 150 with C-SPAN on hand for live coverage, John Holum spoke for the Obama campaign, while Stephen Biegun spoke for the McCain campaign. Holum was Undersecretary of State for International Security and Arms Control and the the director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Bill Clinton Administration. Biegun was the national security advisor to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and was the executive secretary of the National Security Council from 2001 to 2003. (See the full transcript of the session and C-SPAN video of their remarks.) After their opening remarks, Holum and Biegun responded to a series of questions on how their candidate would handle issues, including North Korean denuclearization, Iran's uranium enrichment program, nuclear terrorism, nuclear testing and the CTBT, new nuclear weapons, the future of nuclear arms control with Russia and organizing the government to more effectively deal with nonproliferation issues. In his opening, Holum emphasized Senator Obama's commitment to "a world in which there are no nuclear weapons, period," noting that "Senator Obama has recognized that crossing the nuclear threshold is not simply passing a gradient, but plunging into a different realm." Referring to the Bush administration's now dead proposal for a new robust nuclear earth penetrator, Holum said "rather than finding new ways to use nuclear weapons, we need to confirm that in today's world, their only utility is to deter an attack on us. And in the world [Senator Obama] seeks, they'll have no utility at all." Holum said that Senator Obama "sees these issues as profoundly important" and noted that he has made nonproliferation a priority of his during his time in the Senate, as evidenced by his work with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) on the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act, which was introduced along with Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in 2007. Holum said, "Senator Obama understands that if we don't take seriously our own commitments under the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] to pursue nuclear disarmament, we'll have an uphill battle to lead a global response when Iran and North Korea blow off their obligations or an even bigger task in seeking to strengthen enforcement." Biegun noted that in John McCain's May 27, 2008 speech on nuclear security in Denver, he quoted President Reagan who said 25 years ago that "our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth." "This is very much Senator McCain's hope as well," Biegun said. Biegun noted that McCain is not George W. Bush and that "Senator McCain openly embraces the role of allies ... and the role of multilateral organizations in this process of addressing nuclear proliferation and improving nuclear security." He noted that McCain "will continue the process of studied, but forward progress on reducing the size of the nuclear arsenal of the United States of America," and "will be looking to engage Russia in the reduction of its nuclear forces." Biegun also said that McCain in his speech "also sought to restore some of the anathema around nuclear weapons." "I agree completely with John that it's diplomatic and strategic folly for us to erase the divide between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons. There is an anathema around nuclear weapons that properly must be restored," Biegun added. Both Holum and Biegun said their candidates would place a high priority on taking steps to prevent the threat of catastrophic nuclear terrorism. Holum said "the first priority that Senator Obama has laid out and that he's pursued since he has been in the Senate is prevention, securing all the nuclear materials and nuclear weapons that are now in vulnerable sites in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. Everything else pales behind that responsibility." "It's shocking to me that we're still 12 years away from having those materials secured based on the current pace. What [Obama] has pledged to do is pursue that within four years," Holum said. Biegun noted that Senator McCain has long-supported the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program and said he's "confident" regardless of who's in the White House, that they will put this issue "at the top of their agenda." Although Holum and Biegun struck similar themes, a few important differences on key issues emerged during the discussion. On nuclear reductions with Russia, Holum said that Senator Obama "supports reductions in nuclear weapons, and that means going significantly below the levels in the current [Strategic Offensive Reductions Agreement of 2002] of 1,700-2,200 deployed warheads [on each side]." "He also wants those agreements to be verifiable, either through the extension of START verification provisions or some other arrangement worked out in discussions with Russia," and "he would work with Russia to take our arsenals off hair-trigger alert," Holum said. The 1991 START agreement is due to expire in December 2009 unless extended. Biegun didn't explain how low Senator McCain might go or commit to reducing increasing nuclear warning times, but said that "in terms of the overall direction" there is no difference of opinion from the Senator McCain campaign. He noted that McCain would begin this process with a Nuclear Posture Review, with a "strong advisory role for our military and our civilians in the Pentagon" and "close consultation with our allies." Such a review has already been mandated by the Congress. On the issue of the long-sought and long-delayed negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty, Holum noted that in contrast to the current Bush policy, Senator Obama would seek negotiation of a fissile material cut-off "with strong verification" provisions. Senator McCain, on May 27, expressed support for the initiative but did not indicate whether he believes it can or should be verified. Biegun elaborated by saying that there is a U.S. proposal currently on the table at the Conference on Disarmament that does not make a judgment on verifiability that "could very easily be taken up" and that "McCain would be very eager to move forward." On nuclear testing and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Holum said Obama will "press for the earliest possible ratification of the CTBT -- not just take a look, but take the lead in getting it approved -- and not just limit testing, but to end it for all time." He noted that there have been improvements in the verifiability of the zero-yield CTBT since 1999 and greater confidence in the United States ability to maintain its existing stockpile in the absence of nuclear test explosions. Biegun was far more equivocal about the advisability of the CTBT in its current form. In response to one of the questions, he noted that McCain said on May 27 that "he's committed to continuing the U.S. moratorium on testing" and did commit "to take a look" at the CTBT "and any other serious initiative" to further limit testing. Referring to the Senate debate and rejection of the CTBT in 1999, Biegun said, "I don't accept as confidently as John that all of those problems are resolved." Biegun added, "the question was, can this treaty, as it is currently written, be brought into force. I think that is a stretch ...." To date, 178 countries including the United States have signed. Nine more states including the U.S. and China must ratify to achieve its entry into force. On the controversial proposal for a new, so-called "reliable replacement warhead," each speaker reiterated his candidate's previous positions. Biegun noted that Senator McCain has not addressed it specifically but noted that in his May 27 speech McCain laid out an "all-encompassing vision that he expects to apply to any new developments in this strategic area." Holum noted that Senator Obama has said that "we shouldn't be rushing to deploy a new nuclear warhead at a time when we are leading to convince the rest of the world that nuclear weapons have a diminished and an ultimately disappearing role in our security strategy and in the security strategy of other countries." Holum said Obama "hasn't ruled out for all-time that concept; but he has said it's very important not to pursue anything like this way before it's necessary to consider it." As I noted in my opening remarks for the session, Senator McCain's and Senator Obama's focus on this underreported issue in the campaign is a welcome start. Yet, every presidential candidate pays homage -- at some point -- to the importance of reducing and eventually eliminating the nuclear threat. The real test is whether they will exert the time, the diplomatic energy, and the good judgment necessary to meet the challenge once they are elected -- and whether the public is sufficiently informed and engaged to hold them to their commitments. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=569 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=570 Based on a report by Ploughshares Fund grantee Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Time magazine is warning that European Air Force bases that store U.S. nuclear weapons are below par in with respect to security for those weapons. "According to an internal U.S. Air Force report," the magazine notes, "the sites are falling short of Department of Defense requirements, with fencing and security systems in need of repair, thin rotations that often lead to staffing shortages, and responsibilities falling to inadequately trained foreign security personnel." Kristensen, who obtained the Air Force report through the Freedom of Information Act, concludes in FAS' Strategic Security Blog that "the nuclear weapons deployment in Europe is, and has been for the past decade, a security risk....Since the terrorist attacks in September 2001, billions of dollars have been poured into the Homeland Security chest to increase security at U.S. nuclear weapons sites, and a sudden urge to improve safety and use control of nuclear weapons has become a principal justification in the administration’s proposal to build a whole new generation of Reliable Replacement Warheads. But, apparently, the nuclear deployment in Europe has been allowed to follow a less stringent requirement." Kristensen writes that perhaps the new information will empower governments and individuals who have long argued for an end to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. The news comes just as the Financial Times reports that hundreds of sensitive nuclear missile components cannot be accounted for in the U.S. military's inventory. Ploughshares Fund grantee Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, is quoted in the Financial Times article calling the revelation was “very significant and extremely troubling.” http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=570 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=568 Hard work on Capitol Hill by Ploughshares Fund's Arms Control Advocacy Collaborative is paying off again. On June 17, 2008 the House Energy and Water Subcommittee on a bipartisan basis voted to delete all funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). The Administration had requested $40 million dollars for the RRW this year even though the Congress decided to end the program last year. Noting that "the President's request is long on weapons and short on nonproliferation," Subcommittee Chairman Pete Visclosky (D-IN) deleted funding for the RRW while increasing funding for nonproliferation programs. He said, "there is no sense in expending the taxpayer's hard earned dollars absent clear plans" for the future. Read Congressman Visclosky's statement here. Much more work is ahead. The Senate will be acting on this issue later in the summer. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=568 Slate Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=571 While A.Q. Khan, the disgraced former head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, characterized as "lies" the new allegations revealed by Ploughshares Fund grantee David Albright that he provided a Swiss nuclear smuggling ring with blueprints for an advanced nuclear warhead, readers of the online magazine Slate had other questions on their minds. What does such a blueprint actually look like, they asked Slate's "explainer," Chris Wilson. Is it even blue? He, in turn, asked Albright and nuclear weapons experts at three other Ploughshares-funded organizations to clarify. With information from Matt Bunn, Phil Coyle and Jon Wolfsthal, the Explainer explained that "while the word blueprint may conjure images of white schematics on blue paper, the designs found on the computers of two Swiss businessmen associated with Khan contain gigabytes of digital information.... Assuming the electronic blueprints described this week are fairly complete and authentic, they contain far more than just a set of pictures." Would the information by itself enable a country to develop a nuclear weapon? "Most experts say it is more important to stop the proliferation of the nuclear material needed to create an atomic weapon than the designs for the bombs themselves. But many fear that the blueprints could contain sensitive nuclear secrets that are classified in the United States. Even if a nation or terrorist group with nuclear ambitions lacked the knowledge or materials to construct the precise weapon from the blueprints, the instructions may offer some pointers for the development of a more general program." http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=571 Washington Post Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=567 Over the weekend, the Washington Post, New York Times and virtually every major news organization reported on new information developed by Ploughshares Fund grantee David Albright indicating that detailed, digital blueprints for a sophisticated nuclear warhead design were contained in computer files seized from a family of Swiss businessmen. The three men – a father and two sons – were part of the infamous A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network and had been arrested and jailed several years ago. In 2006 it was discovered that their computers contained, among other things, design specifications for a warhead that could be small enough to be delivered by a missile – such as those possessed by Iran and North Korea. In Sunday’s Washington Post, Joby Warrick writes about discovery of the files and raises serious questions about their implications. Albright's Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) is a leader in providing independent technical oversight and analysis of governmental and media claims. ISIS’ new report alerted the world to the existence of the blueprints, and to the fact that the extent of their dissemination and whether other copies exist elsewhere are unknown. The report quotes a senior IAEA official who says it is a "very scary possibility" that others may have obtained them. Some four years after the U.S. government declared the Khan episode “wrapped up,” the network continues to pose dire risks. With the help of people like Albright, Ploughshares Fund will work to keep these serious issues in the media and to demand accountability from governments. Interviewed by Reuters, Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Ploughshares-funded Arms Control Association, said that the U.S. needs to pressure Pakistan's new government to let the IAEA interview Khan. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=567 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=566 Ploughshares Fund's longtime contributor and friend, Suzanne Seton, wrote to us recently: "I had just finished reading Joe Cirincione's recent letter of May 16th to Ploughshares Fund's supporters when Charlie Rose's program came on the air...his guest was Sandy Weill, former chairman and CEO of Citigroup. He spoke of his passion for philanthropic work...and that he was now in search of some project that would spark his interest. What - thought I - would be more appropriate than the work of Ploughshares! After all, unless we get rid of all nuclear weapons that could destroy mankind and make uninhabitable the world as we know it...all the philanthropic projects Sandy Weill has made possible could be wiped out." Mr. Weill, are you listening? http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=566 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=564 On Tuesday, June 10th, citizens got on the phone to stop a future war. Organizers of "Time to Talk with Iran"set up hotlines on the West Side Terrace of the Cannon House Office Building allowing people to talk directly to Iranian citizens. Those outside the area were encouraged to contact their congressional representatives to urge them to support a U.S. policy of direct, bilateral and comprehensive talks without preconditions between the governments of the U.S. and Iran. Representatives Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Ron Paul, Marcy Kaptur and Sheila Jackson-Lee joined the campaign in a press conference and spoke in support of talking with Iran without preconditions. Click here to watch a video summary of the event by The Real News Network. More than 50 conversations between Americans and Iranians took place during the event, which was sponsored by the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI). Members of CNAPI include Ploughshares Fund grantees Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Friends Committee on National Legislation. On the same day, an editorial in the New York Times warned the U.S. and Israel to refrain from saber rattling, but included “greater financial pressures” as a valid diplomatic tool, a position some have disagreed with. A Government Office of Accountability (GAO) report issued in January showed limited or no effects from the current economic sanctions. Tomorrow, Ploughshares Fund grantees Robert Einhorn of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC) testify before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on “Russia, Iran, and Nuclear Weapons: Implications of the Proposed U.S.-Russia Agreement”. Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-MA) will also testify at the hearing. Yesterday in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled “Why is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?” he posed the following riddle: "What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world's largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars." Through a combination of expert testimony and public education, arms control advocates are promoting informed policymaking on proliferation risks, the risks of war, and the role of diplomacy. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=564 ABC News Australia Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=565 Australia can play a leading role in the international push to eliminate nuclear weapons, former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans said as he accepted an invitation from Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to head a new International Commission on Nonproliferation and Disarmament, which will be chaired jointly by Australia and Japan. The commission's goal is to jump-start efforts to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in advance of the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Evans, who is president of the Ploughshares-funded International Crisis Group, is no novice when it comes to nuclear disarmament. He headed the landmark Canberra Commission for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, which in 1995 laid out a series of "practical steps towards a nuclear weapon free world. Not surprisingly, those steps are similar to the action plan outlined by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn in their now-famous series of op-eds in the Wall Street Journal calling for a "world free of nuclear weapons." The difference now is that the global climate is ripe for nuclear disarmament. And as one Sydney newspaper noted, Australia wants to be at the forefront of the debate once again. Evans was also a member of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission chaired by Hans Blix. But his most recent and most enduring work has been to develop and champion the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, R2P for short. R2P seeks to prevent genocide and mass atrocities by affirming that states bear the primary responsibility for protecting their populations from harm, and if they are unable or unwilling to do so, the international community has an obligation to act. A radical departure from the policies of the past, R2P removes the cloak of state sovereignty that has historically allowed governments to ignore or engage in atrocities with impunity. The UN General Assembly adopted the principles of R2P in 2005. Because of his advocacy on behalf of nuclear disarmament and on behalf of the world's most vulnerable people, Ploughshares Fund named Gareth Evans as one of our heroes of the last 25 years. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=565 Boston Globe Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=563 A plan to internationalize Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, once considered unthinkable, is gaining traction among policymakers around the world, reports Farah Stockman in the Boston Globe. The proposal, first publicized in detail in an article earlier this year in the New York Review of Books, calls for a dramatic shift in U.S. policy. "Rather than trying to halt Iran's efforts to enrich uranium, it says, the United States should help build an internationally run enrichment facility inside Iran to replace its current facilities," writes Stockman. "Supporters argue that such a program would fulfill Iran's insistence on enriching uranium on its own soil, while preventing the dangerous material from being diverted to weapons." Members of Congress, including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Hagel, have endorsed exploring the idea. Iran proposed a similar plan in a letter last month to the UN, and Iran's ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, told Stockman that the plan should be negotiated. Ploughshares Fund has supported a number of programs to engage high-level Iranians in discussions about Tehran's nuclear program, including grants for efforts by William Luers, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Dr. Jim Walsh, who detailed the proposal in the New York Review of Books. "This is nobody's first choice, but it may be the compromise we end up with," Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione told the Globe. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=563 Moscow Times Fri, 6 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=562 "From this moment, the Siberian Chemical Combine has ceased turning out weapons grade material," said a spokeswoman for the the Russian plant. "From now on the combine will move to exclusively peaceful activities." On Thursday, the second of three Russian nuclear reactors that were designed specifically to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons was shut down, reports the Moscow Times. The reactor, located in the Siberian city of Seversk (Tomsk-7 was the name used during the Cold War), had been the subject of negotiations between former U.S. Vice President Gore and former Russian Vice President Chernomyrdin back in 1994 as a way to begin to curtail global production of fissile materials. The challenge was that though the reactors were military in purpose, they also provided heat and electricity for nearby cities. So a plan had to be worked out to supplant the energy that they provided. As early as 1995 Ploughshares Fund was making grants to assist in the effort. The Tomsk Ecological Initiative was a citizen’s group formed to monitor the operations at Seversk and became involved in the transition once the decision to shutter the reactors was made. In part through its efforts, a proposal to build a new nuclear reactor for power production was stopped, and instead fossil fuel plants were used. More recently, Ecologia, a U.S.-based group, worked with citizens and government entities in Seversk to advise them on how to transition economically from their nuclear and weapons-related past. This milestone is an important one for nonproliferation. It means the production of nearly 1000 kilograms of plutonium each year – enough for about 200 bombs – will cease. But it is also important to remember that in some cases in order to get to such a goal, other plans and considerations have to be made. In this case, powering a city and supporting a local economy had to be completely recalibrated. As we pursue further nonproliferation goals there will be similar needs, and Ploughshares plays a role in addressing them. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=562 Los Angeles Times Wed, 4 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=559 (The following op-ed by Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione appeared in today's Los Angeles Times.) Speaking to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council on March 26, Sen. John McCain surprised many listeners when he said that "the United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament." It has been a long time since a Republican candidate for president said anything close to this, let alone seemed to think it would help him win election. But McCain senses what many may have not: This is a rare moment in national and international politics, a period of rapid change that promises a transformation in global nuclear policy. This transformation is the result of four converging factors. The first is the deep and ongoing concern about existing nuclear threats. These threats include the possibility that a terrorist group might get hold of a nuclear weapon; the fact that there are still 26,000 existing nuclear weapons held by nine nations today; the efforts of a few countries -- most prominently Iran and North Korea -- to develop their own nuclear weapons for the first time; and the possible collapse of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty regime triggering a cascade of proliferation. The second factor is the widespread sense, among policymakers and the public, that existing U.S. policies have failed to lessen these dangers. President Bush sought to maintain U.S. supremacy through a reduced but still large nuclear arsenal, new nuclear weapons (like his "nuclear bunker buster" or the artfully dubbed "reliable replacement warhead"), rejection of treaties limiting U.S. freedom of action and preemptive military action against hostile states. But nuclear threats only increased as confidence in American leadership decreased. Third (and in response to this policy collapse), there is a new drive for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. This once utopian dream (held a few decades ago only by those on the left of the foreign policy mainstream) is now the focus of a bipartisan appeal from Republicans George Shultz and Henry Kissinger and Democrats William Perry and Sam Nunn in two Wall Street Journal Op-Ed articles for "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons." They are not alone. The foundation I lead funds dozens of institutes working on plans for sweeping change in nuclear policy, including the Council on Foreign Relations, the Monterey Institute for International Studies and the Physicians for Social Responsibility. Finally -- and this is what may make it all come together at last -- there is a nearly simultaneous leadership turnover in most of the world's major nations, creating openings for new leaders less rigidly wed to the failed policies of the past. By early 2009, four of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, seven members of the G-8 and a number of other major states will have installed new executives. Among them: Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Pakistan, South Korea, Britain, the United States and possibly Israel and Iran. Together, these factors offer an extraordinary opportunity to advance new policies that can dramatically reduce and even eliminate many of the dangers that have kept political leaders and security officials worried about a nuclear 9/11. How extraordinary? Consider this: The drive to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons comes from the very center of America's security elite. The conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where Shultz and Perry are both scholars, is the epicenter of this nuclear policy earthquake. Of the 24 former national security advisors and secretaries of State and Defense who are still living, 17 have endorsed the Hoover campaign for a series of practical steps leading toward nuclear abolition. They favor deep reductions in our and others' nuclear arsenals, as well as a complete ban on nuclear tests and on the production of bomb materials. They've also called for the rapid securing of all bomb materials to prevent nuclear terrorism and taking U.S. and Russian missiles off hair-trigger alert so a president has more than 15 minutes to decide if he should initiate Armageddon. These former officials -- including former Republican Cabinet members from every administration going back to President Nixon -- recognize that the current strategy has not worked. The clearest failure is the Iraq war. The war was the prototype for what the Bush administration hoped would be ongoing U.S. policy: the use of military means to stop proliferation preemptively. Bush said on its eve, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." But there was no Iraqi nuclear weapons program -- and there were no chemical or biological weapons either -- and the war, in the end, actually provoked Iran and North Korea to accelerate their programs. Both have made more progress in the last five years than in the previous 10. The idea that we and our allies could keep our nuclear weapons and simultaneously prevent others from getting them also proved bankrupt. While opposing, correctly, nuclear efforts in Iran, the Bush administration blessed, incorrectly, the nuclear weapons program in nearby India with a special trade deal and looked the other way while Pakistan continued work on its bomb program and nuclear trade until it was too obvious to ignore. Indeed, the most dangerous country in the world today is not our adversary Iran, which is still five to 10 years from a nuclear capability, but our ally Pakistan. Its unstable government, growing mountain of nuclear weapon material and tolerance of Al Qaeda bases within its territory give Osama bin Laden the best chance he has ever had of acquiring the nuclear weapon he seeks. This is one reason realists like Kissinger have concluded that we must turn "the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a practical enterprise among nations." This policy is in tune with the American people, with 70% favoring nuclear elimination in polls. McCain has now adopted some of the new policies; Sen. Barack Obama has embraced the entire plan, including his pledge to secure all loose nuclear materials -- thus preventing nuclear terrorism -- in his first term. We cannot know for certain if these plans will work. But we do know these policy moments do not last long. As quickly as they open, they close. The next two to three years will tell if the leaders we elect will have the wisdom and courage to make the change they promise and the people desire. We may not get another chance. Joseph Cirincione is the president of Ploughshares Fund and the author of "Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons." http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=559 Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=560 Secrecy News, a blog on the website of the Ploughshares-funded Federation of American Scientists, posted a link to a disturbing report about the animal poxvirus research being conducted throughout the world. The MITRE Corporation prepared the report for the Open Source Center, a communication tool for the intelligence community. This report was not classified, but it was also not approved for public release. The report reveals that dozens of countries are experimenting with animal poxviruses, including strains to which humans are susceptible. The problem is due to the fact that "…advances in molecular genetics technologies as well as in understanding of the disease-causing mechanisms of poxviruses, it is now possible to genetically engineer relatively benign poxviruses to make them more virulent.” There is also concern that undeclared stocks of variola major (the virus that causes smallpox) may exist, despite the WHO mandate that the last remaining stores of the virus exist at two locations in Russia and the United States. The possible release of smallpox or any other dangerous variola strain (whether purposefully by a state actor or terrorist group or accidentally through scientific experimentation) into the human population would be disastrous. Smallpox killed more people in the twentieth century than every war combined and small pox was effectively eradicated 25 years before the century was over. The majority of the world has no natural resistance to the disease, as inoculation ended a generation ago. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=560 YouTube Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=558 "Like war, peace must be waged," says actor George Clooney in a video commemorating 60 years of United Nations peacekeeping. He reminds us that peace is more than a wristband, a slogan on a t-shirt, "and certainly more than a celebrity endorsement." As he salutes the more than 100,000 blue-helmeted UN peacekeepers currently deployed in seventeen missions worldwide, we at Ploughshares Fund recognize the people and initiatives we support to strengthen peacekeeping around the world, including the Future of Peace Operations Project at the Stimson Center, which works with the UN, the African Union and other regional organizations to strengthen the capacity of military to protect civilians from genocide; the Partnership for Effective Peacekeeping (PEP) which promotes better peacekeeping policymaking; the Public Law and Policy Group for its on-the ground legal assistance to governments involved in peace negotiations; and the Post Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies for its innovative work in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other conflict-prone regions. "Peace," says George Clooney, "is a full-time job." (Click to view the video.) http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=558 McClatchy Newspapers Fri, 30 May 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=557 There is no love lost between President Bush and North Korea. In fact, statements made earlier in his administration showed a personal distaste for thinking about, much less dealing with Kim Jong Il, the DPRK’s leader. Nonetheless, over the past two years, what had arguably been an abject failure of the administration’s approach to North Korea’s nuclear program, underscored most dramatically by its October 2006 nuclear test, has been reversed. Ambassador Christopher Hill, with clear support from the President and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has been managing an extremely difficult task of dealing with the North Koreans and other nations involved in the Six Party talks. The result was a February 2007 agreement with specific goals and “deliverables” from the DPRK, the U.S. and its partners. No one ever said seeing the agreement through would be easy. To wit, this week as U.S. officials pored over some 18,000 pages of the North’s records of operating its Yongbyon reactor, it was learned that prior CIA assertions that the DPRK had reprocessed plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons before 1992 may have been wrong. In a story today by McClatchy's Warren Strobel, Ploughshares Fund grantee David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, provided his insights about the discovery. Albright, a former UN nuclear weapons inspector who consults frequently with the U.S. government, said the reactor records turned over by North Korea are "consistent with what they've said." But a more fundamental theme should be kept in mind. The documents that are the source of the story were acquired because of the diplomatic effort and difficult but persistent application of diplomacy and negotiation. Clearly questions about North Korea’s claims and statements will always be raised and verifying them should always be a keystone of dealing with them. But absent any engagement and negotiation, we wouldn’t be in a position to have the debate we are now having over "what did they have and when did they have it." The questions these findings raise should be answered by direct monitoring and technical means at the facilities, but often it is only because of diplomacy that we know what questions to ask and how to answer them. Ploughshares Fund supports experts and projects that assist with the difficult and sometimes distasteful diplomatic approach to eliminating North Korea’s nuclear capacity, and we are committed to see that process through. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=557 Fri, 23 May 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=553 On May 22, the full House defeated an attempt to fund a new nuclear weapon program that had been cut by the House Armed Services Committee. Members voted against an amendment by Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) to restore $10 million for the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) after Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D–CA) successfully urged members to sustain the cut to RRW funding in the House Armed Services bill. The amendment was soundly defeated 271 to 145. In an important shift, 44 Republican Representatives voted against funding this new hydrogen bomb. This was the first time the full House of Representatives considered the RRW program and the big vote against funding is a significant victory. Ploughshares Fund's lobbying coalition of 14 advocacy groups has worked strenuously to delete funding for this new warhead while urging lawmakers to develop new nuclear policies and reinvigorate U.S. nonproliferation efforts. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=553 NPR's Talk of the Nation Tue, 20 May 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=554 "Why should a senator or member of the House of Representatives care what an actor has to say?" NPR's Neal Conan asks actor, producer and Ploughshares Fund board member Michael Douglas in an interview on Talk of the Nation. Michael offers his view of the role of celebrity advocates in bringing attention to the issues they care most about. Listen as describes his epiphany with the film The China Syndrome that has led to more than 25 years of activism on nuclear disarmament. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=554 Sat, 17 May 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=551 This past week the world has been gripped by the tragedies in Myanmar and China, epic natural events that have killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. Our thoughts and hopes are for rapid and effective assistance for those left homeless and injured by the cyclone and earthquake. These events, while beyond human control, nonetheless point out what is within our power to change. The International Herald Tribune reported today that a significant portion of that country’s nuclear infrastructure is located very near the epicenter of the quake. Although U.S. officials, monitoring the region by spy satellite, say that there are no immediate concerns, Hans Kristensen at the Ploughshares-funded Federation of American Scientists says that "it's potentially a serious issue. "Radioactive materials could be released if there's damage." Nuclear weapons expert Jeffrey Lewis at the New America Foundation said that military buildings in China, including those housing nuclear weapons facilities, are unusually strong compared to civilian buildings. "I'd rather have been in the reactor building than a grade school" on Monday when the quake struck, he said. The earthquake in China underscores once again that nuclear materials and facilities are not invulnerable to Mother Nature, making design and planning for how we operate them a critical concern. Here in the U.S. our own nuclear weapons facilities are no less at risk, and recent revelations by the Project on Government Oversight (see previous post, "Nuclear plant fails security test.") demonstrate how even the best laid plans or security can be fatally flawed. While that report focused on human threats from a terrorist scenario, we should also be reminded that the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is located in an area that is rife with faults and large earthquake activity. Tri-Valley CAREs has repeatedly documented the vulnerability of the lab to a major earthquake, arguing that it is an inappropriate site for a facility that handles fissile material or biological warfare agents. Ploughshares Fund supports other citizen "watchdog" groups from Russia to Europe to Asia to the U.S. that point out vulnerabilities and offer alternatives to reduce them. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=551 Time Online Thu, 15 May 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=550 How safe are American nukes? Not so safe, even alarmingly unsafe, according to two Ploughshares Fund grantees. In late April, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory tested its security systems in a force-on-force exercise. The mock terrorist attack revealed a system in need of repair, as “terrorists” attacked and penetrated the lab, and as Time Magazine online reports, “quickly overpowering its defenses to reach its 'objective' — a mock payload of fissile material.” Among other failures, Livermore's truck-mounted Gatling guns malfunctioned. The guns have the capacity to fire 4,000 rounds a minute and kill a person more than a mile away. Given the lab's location in a densely populated area near elementary schools, parks, and residential neighborhoods, the failure raises has raised fears among local residents. The article cites two Ploughshares Fund grantees who have teamed up to educate the public about the real possibilities of “loose nukes” on American soil. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and Livermore’s own Tri-Valley CAREs, have allied in the past, most recently through a national Connect US grant, to build political will for increased control and reduction of nuclear arsenals by pressing the environmental, budgetary and security cases for major consolidation of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. The members of the collaborative include POGO, TriValley CAREs, NRDC, Nuclear Watch New Mexico and PeaceWorks of Kansas City-- all Ploughshares Fund grantees -- as well as Peace Farm of Texas. Watch POGO's video detailing the failed force-on-force exercise, and read its recent report on LLNL. (photo:joelogon) http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=550 Friends Committee on National Legislation Thu, 15 May 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=552 The Ploughshares-funded Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports today that a key U.S. House committee has just rejected a Bush administration plan to develop a new nuclear weapon by denying a $33 million funding request for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. FCNL lobbyists and other arms control experts believe the House Armed Services Committee's decision may have effectively blocked the program from ever moving forward. The House Armed Services Committee is the third congressional committee to reject RRW. Last year the House and Senate appropriations committees eliminated funding for the program and are expected to do so again this year. Defeat of the RRW has been a high priority for Ploughshares Fund's Arms Control Advocacy Collaborative, which comprises fourteen top lobbying organizations including FCNL. (photo:RRW test at LLNL) http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=552 The Guardian Tue, 13 May 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=549 The world has watched in disbelief over the past week as the devastation wrought by Cyclone Nargis has been compounded by the intransigence of Myanmar's military rulers in blocking desperately needed humanitarian aid from reaching the victims of the disaster. Many observers are calling for the invocation of a new international doctrine designed to protect innocent citizens from the kinds of mass violence that shattered Rwanda and Darfur. The "responsibility to protect," commonly known as R2P, seeks to remove the cover of state sovereignty that has historically permitted governments to ignore, condone or engage in mass atrocities against their citizens, and replace it with a new norm whereby individual states would bear the responsibility to protect its people from violence. And if states "cannot meet that responsibility, through either ill-will or incapacity, it then falls on the wider international community to take appropriate action." Former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, president of the Ploughshares-funded International Crisis Group, was one of the key architects of the R2P doctrine. He cautions that invoking R2P's provisions for coercive intervention in cases that do not involve "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" could undermine the doctrine and render it ineffective in dealing with such atrocities in the future. "But here’s the rub," he writes. "If what the generals are now doing, in effectively denying relief to hundreds of thousands of people at real and immediate risk of death, can itself be characterised as a crime against humanity, then the responsibility to protect principle does indeed cut in." But, said Alexander Woollcombe, a spokesperson for Oxfam, "at this crucial stage of the response, the theoretical debate about the application of R2P needs to take a back seat to the overwhelming imperative to get more aid to more people as quickly as possible." http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=549 Washington Post Mon, 12 May 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=548 At least 40 developing countries have recently signalled interest in starting nuclear power programs in discussions with UN officials, writes Joby Warrick in today's Washington Post, including at least a half dozen who plan to build uranium enrichment or reprocessing facilities. Proliferation experts warn that such developments could provide the building blocks of nuclear arsenals in some of those nations. "This is not primarily about nuclear energy. It's a hedge against Iran," said Ploughshares Fund president Joseph Cirincione. "They're starting their engines. It takes decades to build a nuclear infrastructure, and they're beginning to do it now. They're saying, 'If there's going to be an arms race, we're going to be in it.' " http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=548 NPR Thu, 8 May 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=547 Who can forget Senator John McCain singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran," at a campaign appearance last year? Or Senator Hillary Clinton saying recently that the U.S. would "totally obliterate" Iran if it were to consider attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon. Fortunately, reports NPR's Mike Shuster, all three candidates offer more nuanced and less bellicose language when asked detailed, substantive questions such as, "should Iran permanently or temporarily suspend its uranium enrichement activity and development of a plutonium processing capability?" That's just one of the queries posed to Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama by the Ploughshares-funded Institute for Science and International Security as part of a project aimed at providing the public with greater clarity about the candidates' positions and about the issue itself. ISIS' Jacqueline Shire, who helped develop the questionnaire, reports that "McCain gave a … direct answer, saying there's no circumstance under which the international community can be confident that uranium-enrichment activity in Iran is for peaceful purposes. " Both Senators Clinton and Obama favor direct talks with Iran without insisting that Iran suspend uranium enrichment first. She says that both Democratic candidates "hew closely to the approach that diplomacy is best — in Clinton's case, carrots and sticks; in Obama's case, thinking maybe a little more broadly about bringing the international community into the solution." Listen to Shuster's report and read more about what the candidates said. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=547 Scientific American Fri, 2 May 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=544 Ploughshares Fund Advisor Frank von Hippel argues in this month’s Scientific American against U.S. Department of Energy calls to revive nuclear fuel “reprocessing.” In his feature article Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It’s Worth, von Hippel lays out the debate: -- Spent nuclear fuel contains plutonium, which can be extracted and used in new fuel. -- To reduce the amount of long-lived radioactive waste, the U.S. Department of Energy has proposed reprocessing spent fuel in this way and then “burning” the plutonium in special reactors. -- But reprocessing is very expensive. Also, spent fuel emits lethal radiation, whereas separated plutonium can be handled easily. So reprocessing invites the possibility that terrorists might steal plutonium and construct an atom bomb. Many Ploughshares Fund grantees have spoken out on the proliferation and environmental dangers of reprocessing. Robert Alvarez of the Institute for Policy Studies recently delivered a lecture at National Defense University laying out the case in the context of nuclear disarmament. As Congress considers funding requests related to reprocessing, we expect to see more debate among policymakers, technical and policy analysts, and grassroots groups. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=544 Fri, 2 May 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=545 Last week we wrote about the highly charged atmosphere surrounding an administration intelligence briefing to Congress about details on the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor, a site that was bombed by Israel in September. New revelations seem to indicate that the site was a nuclear reactor facility, and that there was some tangible North Korean association with it. What exactly the facility was intended for, and what that “association” is still the subject of much speculation. Some of the briefing evidence was released to the media, and the op-ed pages and blogosphere have been abuzz with speculation. While the new evidence seems damning, as is often the case with intelligence information the drama last week has raised more questions than it answered. Currently, there is a healthy debate about the timing and intention of the administration’s action. Was it timed to help the case for continuing the Six Party process and agreement and garner congressional support? (Congress is currently considering a waiver to allow U.S. funds to be spent on North Korea projects.) Was it the result of a sub-set of administration players attempting to undermine the deal, those who have opposed it from the start? Regardless of the answer, one thing seems clear: for now, President Bush himself is supporting the process and, as difficult as it may be, is putting his political capital squarely behind Ambassador Chris Hill to move keep moving ahead. At an address on April 30 to an audience of Asian-Pacific American, the president specifically identified Amb. Hill and offered support and endorsement of his efforts with North Korea. Ploughshares continues to support independent analysts and expert interlocutors who work directly with North Korea as well as with the administration and Congress to sort out the facts, consider flexible options, and keep the focus on the constructive engagement with North Korea to eliminate its nuclear capacity. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=545 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=543 Calling ballistic missile defense “a placebo strategy that gives the troops and the nation the illusion of defense,” Ploughshares Fund president Joseph Cirincione testified again today before the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, calling on Congress and the next administration to change the mission and restructure the missile defense program in a way that would “give the nation a better chance to field capable weapon systems against the near-term threats.” He said that missile defense leaders have been engaged in a "Sisyphean task...they are rolling money up the hill, but the programs keep rolling back down." Despite the fact that “anti-missile program are now free from any treaty restraints, flush with cash, and exempt from the normal defense program checks and balances...instead of soaring performance, we have a record unblemished by success." (Read Cirincione’s prepared testimony here.) Cirincione was joined at the witness table by Philip Coyle, senior advisor at the Ploughshares-funded Center for Defense Information, who provided a point-by-point technical critique of each element of the program, along with an analysis of the strategic costs of the 60-year pursuit of missile defenses. "The U.S. proposal to site missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic has alienated Russia and upset the overall strategic balance to a degree not seen since the height of the Cold War,” he said. Coyle’s testimony can be viewed here. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=543 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=541 This Mother’s Day, Americans are expected to spend $15.8 billion on gifts for their moms, according to a new survey by the National Retail Federation. That’s an average of $138 per person on jewelry, clothing, flowers, dinners out and trips to the spa. Don’t get me wrong – I love being remembered on my special day (are you listening, Andy and Hallie?) -- but with so much need in the world, maybe it’s time to rethink our priorities. Ploughshares Fund’s Mother’s Day for Peace campaign invites sons and daughters everywhere to give something of lasting value -- the gift of peace. A donation to the Mother’s Day Peace Fund, given in honor of someone special, will support initiatives to rid the world of nuclear weapons, rebuild war-torn regions, and restore a healthy environment, free from the damage caused by weapons of war. For those of you who still want to shower your mom with gifts, Ploughshares Fund will deliver a dozen roses to whomever you designate (with a donation of $250 or more), and in time for Mother’s Day if you make your gift online by Wednesday, May 7. “Mom has been saying for decades that it’s the thought that counts on Mother’s Day,” says the author of the National Retail Federation’s survey. Here’s a thought: Mother’s Day was meant originally as a holiday to encourage people to work for peace. With so much conflict in the world, it’s about time we returned to those roots. Happy Mother’s Day for Peace. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=541 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=542 Faced with more than 87,000 public comments to date, demands for more time, and official requests from both New Mexico senators as well as Governor Bill Richardson, the Department of Energy (DOE) undertook a highly unusual step and extended the public comment period for its highly controversial “Complex Transformation” plans.The public now has until April 30 (that's this Wednesday) to submit comments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Complex Transformation is a plan that would shrink the “footprint” of today’s nuclear weapons research, design and manufacturing infrastructure and consolidate some operations and materials. Sounds like a good idea, right? The problem is that the plans, while seemingly aimed to economize operations and save money, obscure a more fundamental goal – that of continuing to design and build new nuclear warheads and even build new facilities to do so. Rather than restructuring the weapons facilities to cease production and clean up past messes, the DOE is seeking a leaner, meaner “complex” with a fundamental mission of modernizing the arsenal. Ploughshares Fund is supporting groups that are working to keep the public educated and informed, like Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety and Nuclear Watch New Mexico on front lines” near DOE weapons facilities as well as national groups like the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability that are weighing in on the plans and seeking to cut funding for the DOE’s ill-advised plans. http://www.ploughshares.org//news.php?id=542 http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=542 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=539 Seven months following an Israeli strike on a Syrian site believed to be a nuclear reactor, intelligence officials say they have evidence that it was, in fact, a reactor and that North Korea helped to construct it. Yesterday, officials briefed select Congressional committees using photos said to have been taken inside the facility. The White House released the following statement: “Until Sept. 6, 2007, the Syrian regime was building a covert nuclear reactor in its eastern desert capable of producing plutonium. We are convinced, based on a variety of information, that North Korea (DPRK) assisted Syria's covert nuclear activities. We have good reason to believe that reactor, which was damaged beyond repair on Sept. 6 of last year, was not intended for peaceful purposes.” The Syrian embassy in Washington denies the administration’s allegations. It is still unclear exactly what the evidence shows or does not show, and observers can only comment on what has been made public. Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione said in an interview with the The Guardian, "We should learn first from the past and be very cautious about any intelligence from the U.S. about other country's weapons." Today in an interview with NPR’s Tom Gjelten on Morning Edition he said that while the photos made a compelling case for reactor construction, the facility could only be considered one piece of a nuclear program. There is no evidence that the reactor had the capabilities to make material for nuclear weapons. Cirincione and many other Ploughshares Fund grantees say that there is no information on how Syria would fuel the reactor and no evidence of Syrian plutonium separation facilities or nuclear weaponization facilities. The release comes at a time when the Administration has gained significant ground in the shut down of North Korea's existing nuclear weapons program and their existing plutonium production reactor. With persistent negotiation among members of the Six-Party framework, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill has come close to ending a major international security threat. U.S. technicians are in North Korea today disabling the reactor, negotiating its complete dismantlement, and in the process of verifying all plutonium stocks and arranging for their disposal. News of possible North Korean proliferation activities with Syria could threaten support for the negotiations. Ploughshares Fund grantee David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, has been investigating the issue since the bombing of the site in September, said in a new brief issued yesterday, “This new information confirms the need to be concerned about Syrian and North Korean actions, including their nuclear cooperation which dates back many years. However, it should not be seen as a casus belli against Syria or a reason to scuttle the progress being made at the Six Party Talks in disabling and dismantling North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.” Albright is just one of a number of Ploughshares Fund grantees who have been working for years to ensure the success of the denuclearization of North Korea. Dr. Siegfried Hecker, former head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and currently professor at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, recently visited the Yongbyon nuclear complex in North Korea and filed this report. These events underscore just how vital it is to understand the extent of any proliferation activities by North Korea or any other nation, but that it is also critical to preserve the gains already made in the Six Party Agreement and use this new information to bolster that process rather than undermine it. The evidence of North Korean participation places an imperative on the DPRK to fully explain its activities – something the Six Party Process is designed to do. To stop that process now will leave these questions unanswered. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=539 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=540 Ploughshares Fund grantee Gareth Evans wants to change "the idea that a state's sovereignty is a license to kill its own people." In a story reported this week in BBC News, Evans is making the case for a "responsibility to protect", also known as R2P. He co-chaired the commission that coined the phrase and has campaigned tirelessly for a new norm whereby individual states would bear the responsibility to protect their people from violence. And if states "cannot meet that responsibility, through either ill-will or incapacity, it then falls on the wider international community to take appropriate action." Evans, who was also the Foreign Minister of Australia and currently serves as President of the International Crisis Group, delivered his powerful message earlier this month to an audience of some five hundred philanthropists at the invitation-only Global Philanthropy Forum. The conference focused this year on human security, human rights and the shared responsibility to protect. Speakers, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Annie Lennox, Jeff Skoll, and many others delivered impassioned speeches addressing regional flashpoints, the impact of conflict on women and children, the role of civil society and Track II diplomacy, and innovative solutions and success stories. (I was invited to speak on the topic of conflict and small arms flows.) Jane Wales, the founder of the Forum, implored philanthropists to "act together to address the root causes of the cycles of violence and poverty that perpetuate insecurity globally, and to prevent disastrous situations before they develop. When it comes to protecting human rights, preventing deadly conflict, advancing public health and addressing resource scarcity, philanthropy not only supports the work of changemakers, but is itself a source of innovation." Ploughshares Fund-supported projects such as the Failed States Index, the Alliance for Peacebuilding, the Public International Law and Policy Group, or the Nonviolent Peace Force are examples of innovative partnerships between philanthropsists and civil society that are contributing to conflict prevention and the rebuilding of societies after war. http://www.ploughshares.org//news.php?id=540 http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=540 New York Times Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=538 Check off the completion of a two key U.S. nonproliferation goals this month. Last weekend, Russian news agencies announced the closure of a weapons-grade plutonium producing reactor in the Siberian town of Seversk. Officials shuttered the reactor only weeks after temporarily deactivating it. A second reactor in Seversk (also know as Tomsk-7 and part of the Soviet nuclear weapons complex) will close in June, and a third, located further east in Zheleznogorsk, is slated for closure in late 2009, early 2010. Zhelznogorsk is home to the Krasnoyarsk Mining and Chemical Combine and also to Ploughshares Fund grantee Vladimir Mikheev, who has been reporting on and monitoring developments at the site -- and advocating for its closure -- since 1998, much of that time with Ploughshares Fund support. Two weeks ago, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) announced the completion of the elimination of all Soviet SS-24 "scalpel" intercontinental ballistic missiles, "another important milestone in our 16-year effort to secure and dismantle the weapons of mass destruction of the former Soviet Union." The announcement from Seversk came a week ahead of the 22nd anniversary of the Chernobyl accident and a day ahead of the second annual Russian Nuclear National Dialogue on Nuclear Energy, Society, and Security co-organized by Green Cross International, the Public Council of Rosatom, and the Russian Academy of Science. Ploughshares Fund grantee and Global Green USA Legacy Program Director Paul Walker plays a key organizing role. The Dialogue will take on issues of Russia’s energy future, nuclear legacies of the Cold War across Russia, and security and proliferation risks of nuclear weapons, fissile materials, and related systems, including threat reduction and Global Partnership demilitarization and disarmament efforts. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=538 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=537 Congressman John F. Tierney is determined to restore congressional oversight to wasteful government programs, and ballistic missile defense is high on his list. His hearing at the Government Reform and Oversight Committee on April 16 brought three of the nation’s top missile defense experts—all from Ploughshares-funded organizations—to the witness stand. Tierney pointed out that since the 1980s anti-ballistic missile programs had cost taxpayers an estimated $120 to $150 billion. Future costs of the program are said to be an “additional $213 billion to $277 billion between now and 2025.” Lisbeth Gronlund of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Philip Coyle of the Center for Defense Information, and Richard Garwin of IBM (and affiliated with numerous Ploughshares Fund grantee organizations) testified that the Pentagon’s missile tests—such as the one coming up later this month--continue to lack any clear criteria of success or failure. Although officials routinely talk about “realistic” tests, they are anything but. Phil Coyle, who oversaw defense testing for almost 10 years, said the tests to not include the decoys and other counter-measures that any interceptor would face. Dr. Gronlund told the Congress that missile defense tests have become increasingly unrealistic, and “dumbed down.” Dr. Garwin said, “…the primary responsibility [of the anti-missile programs]—that of protecting the United States against attack by nuclear weapons or biological weapons is a failure and will remain so for the foreseeable future.” This was the second of a planned three panels on the cost of missile defense. On my first day as President of Ploughshares Fund I warned Congress of the inflated threats that proponents of missile defense make to justify the out of control spending on a system that does not work. The hearings will wrap up on April 30, when I will again appear before the Committee. The Nation posted an excellent summary of the hearing with extensive excerpts from the witnesses. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=537 Boston Globe Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=536 Theodore A. Postol, Ploughshares Fund grantee and professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, questions the viability of U.S. missile defense in today’s Boston Globe. Postol’s opinion piece comes a day ahead of a key hearing of the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs. First, he asks whether the system is indeed capable of defense, namely, of distinguishing between decoys and real warheads. Second, has the government’s Missile Defense Administration (MDA) exercised proper oversight of its operations? He responds to both questions in the negative. Postol raises allegations that the MDA and organizations like MIT Lincoln Laboratory “that were created by Congress to provide the nation with accurate technical information on these matters” of tampering with scientific findings. “If Congress vigorously pursues these matters of alleged scientific fraud in the missile defense program, it may not only find that the promise of missile defense is a pipe dream, but that major institutions charged with protecting U.S. security have failed in their duties." Postol has long provided independent expert analysis on missile technology. Read more of his recent critiques of European missile defense proposals in the October 2007 issue of Arms Control Today (with George Lewis) and in the Congressional News Quarterly report “Missile Agency Under Fire” By Josh Rogin – March 24, 2008. Related hearings: April 1 - Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee receives testimony on Ballistic Missile Defense programs and their future from Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the Government Accountability Office, and Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Committee members raise questions about MDA oversight. March 5 - In his first day as president of Ploughshares Fund, Joseph Cirincione warned Congress of inflated threats, inflated capabilities and inflated budgets in the $12.3 billion administration request this year for anti-ballistic missile weapons. In testimony before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Cirincione presented a detailed analysis showing that the record-breaking budget request comes at a time of steady decline in the threat posed by ballistic missiles. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=536 Times of London, Los Angeles Times Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=534 Over the past week, stories about Iran's growing offensive capability have been in the headlines. But it takes the kind of nuanced understanding and analysis that Ploughshares Fund grantees provide -- often found in the third or fourth paragraph -- to make sense of these developments. The Los Angeles Times reported that "ignoring international condemnation, Iran announced Tuesday that it has begun to dramatically increase its capacity to produce enriched uranium and is adding newly developed high-speed centrifuges, which can be used to produce atomic material either for electricity or a nuclear bomb." While not minimizing the implications of the move, Ploughshares Fund grantee David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security focuses on what's actually being increased -- the problem-prone "P-1" design that Iran's centrifuges have been based on. "The question is whether the P-1 they're building is better than the P-1 they've got already... It's pitiful how poorly it's performed." Even Tehran's new, faster centrifuge, the IR-2, is based on an "antiquated" technology that experts say was surpassed long ago in the West. Meanwhile, the Times of London reports that new satellite images reveal the location of "the secret site where Iran is suspected of developing long-range ballistic missiles," from which Iran launched a "research rocket" claiming that it was in connection with their space program. Geoffrey Forden of the Ploughshares-funded Massachusetts Institute of Technology analyzed the photographs and identified a recently constructed building similar to a North Korean missile assembly facility. Forden said that the test launch did not demonstrate any significant advances in ballistic missile technology. “But it does reveal the likely future development of Iran's missile program,” he said. The Iranians denied any plans to develop nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. Ploughshares Fund believes that any attempt to engage with Iran and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons must be based on detailed, accurate assessments of technological developments, the kind that scientists like Albright and Forden are providing. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=534 Military.com Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=532 "You can have all sorts of rules and regulations, but they still won't do any good if the people don't follow them," said Hans Kristensen of the Ploughshares-funded Federation of American Scientists (FAS) in response to a new report by the Defense Science Board recapping the "lessons learned" of last summer's flight by an Air Force bomber, accidentally armed with nuclear bombs. On Aug. 31, 2007, crews loaded six live nuclear warheads onto a B-52 bomber and flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. "The system of checks and balances has degraded to a point that six of the planet's most powerful weapons were missing for 36 hours -- and no one noticed until they had landed in Louisiana," writes Adam Pitluk in Military.com. Kristensen notes in FAS's Strategic Security Blog that the incident he calls "one of the biggest nuclear weapons blunders in U.S. nuclear history" does not even appear on the Air Combat Command's list of "bent spear" incidents recently obtained from the Department of Defense. (Photo:US Air Force) http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=532 Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=533 Tuesday, April 8 was a busy day on the Hill, and competing with the long-awaited testimony of General David Petraus was not the most desirable option. Nevertheless,"Breaking the U.S.-Iran Stalemate: Reassessing the Nuclear Strategy in the Wake of the Majles Elections," a conference sponsored by the Ploughshares-funded National Iranian American Council (NIAC), attracted a capacity audience and a full schedule of major heavy hitters from the foreign policy world, including Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) as the keynote speaker. The room was filled to capacity and Congressman Kucinich (D-OH)even stopped by to listen for awhile. Initial discussion centered on the political landscape of Iran and the distant possibility of direct U.S.-Iran talks. Despite soaring inflation and high unemployment conservatives blocked the reformist zeal. Moderate voices in Iran made modest gains in the latest parliamentary elections, but the Supreme Leader seems to have supported a fundamental shift to the right in the Iranian political sphere. Speakers Barbara Slavin, Scott Peterson and Ahmad Sadri all agreed that the current sanctions against Iran seemed to be helping this conservative drift. The middle class is feeling the most of the pain and the centrifuges at Natanz continue to spin. Hans Blix, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and David Albright, president of the Ploughshares-funded Institute for Science and International Security covered the major issues surrounding the technical capabilities of the Iranian nuclear program in detail. Despite the many political reasons for the current stand-off, they agreed that talks without preconditions were an absolute necessity. The Iranians are creating "nuclear facts on the ground" and the longer the world delays, the more likely it is that Iran will move toward a weapons capacity. Senator Feinstein closed the conference with a speech laced with hope for progress. While she acknowledged the need for Iran to accept Israel's right to exist and full IAEA compliance, she supported many of the policies proposed earlier in the day, including the need for diplomatic initiatives between the U.S. and Iran to take place without preconditions. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=533 Mon, 7 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=530 For the first time in memory, all three major presidential candidates are on record calling for nuclear disarmament, notes Ploughshares Fund grantee William Hartung, writing in TPM Cafe. Speaking in Los Angeles on March 26th, Senator John McCain said that "the United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace," thus joining Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who have called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. But, Hartung asks, "What can the candidates do NOW to back up their rhetoric? A good start would be to speak out loudly and clearly -- at every opportunity -- against the Department of Energy's Complex Transformation initiative, which would spend $200 billion or more in the next two decades to build new nuclear weapons and new nuclear weapons factories." Speaking at a recent Department of Energy hearing, Hartung called the plan "provocative, premature, unnecessary and a massive waste of taxpayer dollars." Premature, he says, because the decision about whether to proceed should be made by the next president, who is likely to revise the current U.S. nuclear posture. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=530 The New Republic Sun, 6 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=531 Concern about global warming may be the best thing that's ever happened to the nuclear power industry, writes J. Peter Scoblic in "Nuclear Spring," which appears in this month's issue of The New Republic. By "aggressively rebranding itself as eco-friendly" and the solution to climate change, the industry is enjoying a "nuclear renaissance" worldwide, with multiple new reactors under development in the U.S. and country after country announcing itheir intention to develop nuclear power. "While there's good reason to believe some countries intend to harness nuclear power toward green ends, there's also good reason to believe that other nations will use warming as a pretext for less virtuous purposes--namely, to acquire technology that would allow them to build nuclear weapons. And, even as nuclear power spreads to developing countries without such nefarious motives, the increased production of uranium and plutonium will provide new opportunities for would-be terrorists (or profiteers selling to terrorists). Nuclear power may be a necessary, if not sufficient, weapon against planetary apocalypse; but, in hyping its ameliorative properties, we could well open ourselves to a different sort of catastrophe." Scoblic, executive editor of The New Republic and former editor of Arms Control Today, received a grant ifrom Ploughshares Fund in 2007 to support the writing of articles on nuclear non proliferation. http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=531 Washington Post/Newsweek blog Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:00:00 GMT http://www.ploughshares.org/news.php?id=529 "Americans and Iraqis tell two different stories about the war in Iraq," writes Ploughshares Fund grantee Lisa Schirch in Post Global, the Washington Post/Newsweek global issues blog. "Most Iraqis say that the U.S.-led invasion and occupation have fueled violence. The dominant American story is that U.S. forces are curbing sectarian violence and making things better in Iraq." She writes that "while some of us believe we should not have gone to war in the first place, many now believe the United