New START: Arms Affirmation Treaty

http://www.fpif.org/articles/start_arms_affirmation_treaty

The New START treaty should at best be called an “arms affirmation treaty,” confirming that expensive weapons systems, which include the nation's nuclear arsenal, remain a national priority. Like the earlier Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, New START insulates nuclear weapons spending, as well as large budgets for other weapons systems.


Thus far, the ratification debate in the U.S. Senate has assured funding for multi-billion-dollar missile defense and prompt global strike weapons systems, and has undermined the possibility of political opposition. Campaign contribution and lobbying disclosure data help explain why corporate contractors, with vested interests, have been able to influence both Republican and Democratic Senators throughout the ratification debate.

WILPF Statement on the UN Summit on the Millennium Development Goals

With only five years left until the 2015 deadline to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to attend a summit in New York on 20–22 September to accelerate progress towards the MDGs. The 2010 MDG Report, produced by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, notes that “unmet commitments, inadequate resources, lack of focus and accountability, and insufficient dedication to sustainable development have created shortfalls in many areas.” Some of these shortfalls, the report explains, were aggravated by the global food, climate, economic, and financial crises as well as armed conflict. The report estimates that poverty rates will continue to increase throughout the world as a result of the persisting global economic crisis.

However, upon releasing its 2010 Yearbook, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute noted, “The financial crisis and economic recession that have affected most of the globe appeared to have little effect on levels of military expenditure, arms production or arms transfers.” In 2009, worldwide military expenditure totaled an estimated 1531 billion USD, which is an increase of 5.9% in real terms compared to 2008 and an increase of 49% since 2000. Of those countries for which data was available, 65% increased their military spending in real terms in 2009.

The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom emphasizes the links between military expenditure, the arms trade, violent conflict, and the reduction of available resources for social and economic development. Governments that spend excessive financial, technological, and human resources on their militaries divert resources from economic, social, and environmental programmes. The military-industrial-academic complex—composed of a state’s armed forces, the government, suppliers of weapons systems and services (corporations), and academic institutions that conduct research on weapon systems and designs—absorbs vast amounts of funding that could otherwise be spent on human security, including the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Furthermore, funds reserved for development initiatives are increasingly spent on emergency relief and rehabilitation operations to clean up after violent conflict.

While military expenditures increase every year, investment in conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and development lags far behind. As SIPRI notes in the release of its 2010 Yearbook, while the financial crisis did not seem to affect military spending, it “probably did undermine the willingness and ability of major governments and multilateral institutions to invest other, non-military resources to address the challenges and instabilities that threaten societies and individuals around the world.”

Since the end of the Cold War, militarism has been growing in response to an increasingly unstable world, propelling the world even further into tension and war. Armed conflict—and the constant threat of war or terrorism—has become both the cause of and response to this growing militarism. War and the threat of war destroy lives, infrastructure, and well-being, creating a culture of fear, violence, and instability. This impedes development by upsetting social programmes, education, transportation, business, and tourism, which prevents economic stability, mental well-being, and sustainable livelihoods. The manufacture and use of weapons also prevents sustainable ecological development and preservation, creating unequal access to resources and further impeding poverty reduction initiatives.

The continued investment in militarism does not make the world safer. Weapons cannot address the main threats people all over the world are facing today, such as natural disasters, increased food prices, and lack of adequate health care, education, and a clean environment. Yet these threats are aggravating arms races and weapons development. SIPRI has warned that growing competition for natural resources “may lead to increased military spending as a means of protecting resources from internal or external threats, while resource revenues are often a source of funding for arms purchases.” Therefore, in the context of the 2010 UN Summit on the Millennium Development Goals, WILPF urges UN member states and civil society to consider, what would you rather pay for:

One year of the world’s military spending, or over 24 years of the additional foreign aid required to reach the MDGs by 2015?

One year of the world’s military spending, or 700 years of the UN regular budget?

One year of the world’s military spending, or 2928 years of the new UN women’s agency?

Article 26 of the UN Charter mandates the UN Security Council with formulating a plan to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources. The Security Council has entirely neglected this responsibility and its permanent members have instead engaged in weapons profiteering and arms races, resulting in crises of international, national, and human security and of sustainable development.

The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom calls on all governments to:

• reduce military spending and redirect that expenditure to meet human and environmental needs, including fulfilling the MDGs;

• report on military spending and arms trade through the established UN mechanisms;

• support a robust legally-binding arms trade treaty that prevents arms transfers where there is a risk of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and that acknowledges the impact of the arms trade on socio-economic development; and

• call on the UN Security Council to report on progress made towards a plan to reduce the human and economic resources spent on armaments and indicate an intention to evaluate the Security Council’s performance and initiatives towards advancing article 26 in the next General Assembly session.

WILPF also calls on civil society to push their governments to meet these goals and to make the reduction of militarism a global norm by reframing the concept of security with a premium on universal human and ecological security, multilateralism, and a commitment to cooperative, nonviolent means of conflict resolution. We urge all governments present in New York this week to commit to making their MDG policies and strategies consistent with their obligations under Article 26 of the UN Charter and to remember that establishing peace and security for all humans is not separate from actions to fight poverty—it is central to these efforts.

Resources and further reading

The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010, United Nations, New York, 2010.
“Media Background—Military expenditure,” SIPRI Yearbook 2010, 2 June 2010.
“You get what you pay for!” Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 2009.

Sequel?

Over-arching themes presented in Countdown to Zero bear little difference from those in the 2004 film Team America: World Police. The major difference appears to be that the producers of CTZ didn't understand the sardonic nature of Team America's presentation. Instead CTZ has run full steam ahead with an Islamophobic and reactionary film that demonizes North Korea, Iran, and others, while mostly extolling the US as a responsible nation, the fount of progress.

Check out these two clips. Note symbols and imagery used to depict Muslims and non-European peoples in each? [double click on the links to view in new window, full size.]

I posted an essay today on the new film, Countdown to Zero, only to find that another critic has basically reached the same conclusion: it's dangerous, fear mongering, Islamophobic propaganda. It focuses only on a select few "nuclear threats," ones that allow for a more aggressive set of US policies against Iran and other nations.

Nevertheless, rational responses to Countdown based on its likely political effects and the ways it will be used to both legitimate US nuclear weapons and attack other nations that might acquire them will probably be drowned out in most discussions about the film. This isn't going to foster more informed public debates about the role of American power in the world. Instead, it's going to whip up fear and enable those who would further enable American nuclear-armed empire.

For those who go see it, I urge you to recognize (1) what's not discussed in the film, (2) how the "nuclear threat" is defined and framed, (3) which nations aren't criticized, or how criticisms differ, and (4) what kinds of solutions are proposed.

Mostly I urge people to boycott the film and educate others about its flaws.

Small Arms Monitor

Reaching Critical Will, in cooperation with Global Action to Prevent War, the International Action Network on Small Arms, and Oxfam International, will be reporting on the Fourth Biennial Meeting of States on Small Arms and Light Weapons through a blog site, Small Arms Monitor. Please be sure to check it out and share the link with colleagues.

Disarmament Commission 2010: facing the “guillotine of redundancy”?

The United Nations Disarmament Commission opened its 2010 session today. This deliberative body, mandated to make recommendations on issues related to disarmament, is in the second year of its current three year cycle. It struggled to adopt its agenda last year, but did eventually agree to work on three issues: 1) recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation; 2) elements of a draft declaration of the 2010s as the fourth disarmament decade; and 3) practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons. It began work on the first of these two items last year, which it will continue this year.

Monday consisted of general debate statements. There is little to report from today’s meeting. Most delegations reiterated the importance of the Commission to get to work, noting that it has failed to produce anything for more than a decade. A few states commented on process. Pakistan’s Ambassador Haroon, responding to murmurs of abandoning the stalemated Conference on Disarmament in favour of an alternative negotiating process, argued that the current UN disarmament machinery cannot work if its members “try to bury, obfuscate or side-step genuine security concerns to push through a mirage of disarmament and non-proliferation related progress” and that it is important to prevent elements of the machinery from being put “under the guillotine of redundancy” just because not all member states “subscribe to certain world views”.

In terms of substance, most delegations mentioned current and upcoming initiatives to be supported, such as the preparatory process for the arms trade treaty negotiations, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and the usual list of arms control and non-proliferation measures such as CTBT, FMCT, etc. One speaker, Ambassador Davide, Jr of the Philippines, voiced his delegation’s support for the establishment of “an international conference that will set the parameters for the elimination of nuclear weapons and prohibit their production, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and provide for the destruction of such weapons.” He noted that his delegation “gives much importance to having a specified time frame for the destruction of such weapons and the negotiation of Nuclear Weapons Convention.”

General debate will continue tomorrow. On Wednesday, the Commission will break into informal meetings to discuss the substance of two of the three working groups. Civil society will not be permitted to attend these meetings but will rejoin the Commission on 16 April when it reconvenes to adopt its reports.

President Obama's Nuclear "Surge"

The Obama administration released its budget for FY 2011 today.

The centerpiece of the budget's National Nuclear Security Administration section is a "surge."

You can read about president Obama's $5 billion dollar nuke spending hike by downloading the NNSA budget. According to the administration they are boosting spending on nuclear weapons by 9.8% this year, with larger increases in outyears, so as to "take steps toward achieving a world without nuclear weapons" (p. 7).

Here's an excerpt (emphases added):

"Weapons Activities: The request for this appropriation is $7.0 billion, an increase of 9.8 percent over the FY 2010 appropriated level. This level is sustained and increased in the later outyears. Increased funding is requested for programs in direct support of the nuclear weapon stockpile, for scientific, technical and engineering activities related to maintenance assessment and certification capabilities for the stockpile, and for critical infrastructure improvements" (p. 9).

By "critical infrastructure improvements" the administration means the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Faciltiy planned for Los Alamos Lab, and the Uranium Processing Facility being built at Y-12 in Tennessee. The first is essentially a plutonium pit factory costing several billion. The second will provide uranium for US nuclear weapons programs, also at a cost of several billion. Neither facility is needed to "maintain" the stockpile, especially if the US is poised to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Both of these projects are necessary to lock-in nuclear weapons spending at the labs for many decades, and fully commit the US to nuclear weapons, regardless of how well international treaty discussions might go.

The importance of these facilities is emphasized in the NNSA's budget request:

"The President’s Request includes funding to complete the design and begin construction of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility Replacement (CMRR) nuclear facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This facility conducts plutonium research and development and provides analytical capabilities in support of pit surveillance and production. Current planning would have this facility fully operational by 2022. A related project is requested to increase pit production capacity and capability at the adjoining PF-4 facility that is part of the main plutonium facility at Los Alamos to demonstrate pit reuse by 2017 and production by 2018-2020. The budget request also includes funding to complete the design and begin construction of the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at the Y-12 National Security Complex to support production and surveillance of highly-enriched uranium components. This facility is also planned to achieve full operations by 2022" (p. 11).

The Obama administration's budget also appears to be easing the way for design efforts of new weapons at the laboratories, something that was resisted under the Bush White House's tenure. The NNSA budget states that;

"The President’s Request provides funding necessary to protect and advance the scientific capabilities at the U.S. national security laboratories — including the ability to design nuclear warheads as well as development and engineering expertise and capabilities— through a stockpile stewardship program that fully exercises these capabilities" (p. 10).