Cockburn
/ St. Clair's Scorching New History of a Decade of War
Now Available!
Today's
Stories
May
22 / 23, 2004
Paul
de Rooij
Colin Powell, a Political Obituary
May
21, 2004
Ray
Close
The Canards of the Apologists
Christopher
Brauchli
"The Object of Torture is Torture"
Amira
Hass
Darkness at Noon
Jack
McCarthy
Camilo Mejia: Can the Son of a Sandinista Get a Fair Trial from
the US Army?
Bill
Kauffman
Nader v. Bush
Omar
Barghouti
No More Tears for America
Ghali
Hassan
Moral Failure of the "Free World" in Gaza
Christopher
Reed
How the CIA Taught the Portuguese to
Torture
Website
of the Day
Eric Idle on the Bush Administration: Fuck You, So Very Much
May
20, 2004
Andrew
Cockburn
The Truth About Chalabi
Kathy
Kelly
A Visit from the FBI
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
Brown and Bored of Education in India
Tom
Stephens & John Philo
The War Crimes of Bush, Cheney & Co.
Sam
Bahour / Michael Dahan
Genocide by Public Policy
Robert
Ovetz
Ending the Race for the Last Turtle
Billy
Wilson
The Most Important Thing I Learned at School This Year
Website
of the Day
Rafah Today
May
19, 2004
Elizabeth
W. Corrie
Caterpillar Should Do the Right Thing,
Now
Bill
and Kathleen Christison
The US Can't Win
Vijay
Prashad
For Whom the Polls Toll: the Indian Elections of 2004
Ray
Hanania
Israeli War Crimes: Who to Believe, AIPAC or Amnesty Intl.?
Greg
Moses
Man President Kisses Up at AIPAC
Michael
Gillespie
Who is Kenneth deGraffenried?
Josh
Frank
Homes Destroyed; Death Toll Mounts: But Where's John Kerry?
Gary
Corseri
Out of Iraq and Plato's Cave
Kevin
Alexander Gray
If Malcolm Were Alive
May
18, 2004
Neve
Gordon
The Gaza Debacle
Doug
Stokes
Imperial Policing: Why Abu Ghraib
Shouldn't Surprise Us
Bob
Wing
The Color of Abu Ghraib
Vanessa
Jones
Man on a Leash
Thomas
P. Healy
Chemical Trespass: the Body Burden
Zeynep
Toufe
Torture and Moral Agency: the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations
Kenneth
Roth
Mistreatment of Detainees in US Custody: a Letter to Bush
Elaine
Cassel
Pre-empting the Bill of Rights: The Other War, One Year Later
Website
of the Day
Truth Against Truth
May
17, 2004
Kurt
Nimmo
The John-John Ticket: Kerry Woos McCain
Laura
Santina
Military Conditioning and Abu Ghraib
Mickey
Z.
With Friends Like These: More Election 2004 Madness
Frederick
B. Hudson
Police Terror: Three Mothers Search for Justice
Shakirah
Esmail-Hudani
Inside Abu Ghraib: the Violence of the Camera
Boris
Leonardo Caro
The Revelations of Mr. W.
Alex
Dawoody
Iraq: From Saddam to Occupation
Victor
Kattan
On Watching the Execution of Nick Berg
Ron
Jacobs
Rumsfeld's Sovereignty Shell Game
May
15 / 16, 2004
Alexander
Cockburn
Green Lights for Torture
Douglas
Valentine
ABCs of American Interrogation: Phoenix Program, Revisited
John
Stanton
Kings of Pain: UK, US and Israel
Ben
Tripp
Torture: a Fond Reminiscence
Brian
Cloughley
Where are You Heading, America? Taking a Closer Look at the Patriot
Act
Justin
E. H. Smith
Islam and Democracy: the Lesson from Turkey
Brandy
Baker
Equal Opportunity Torture: Lynddie England, the Right and Feminism
John
Chuckman
Peep Show on Capitol Hill: Sex, Lies and Videotape
Bill
Glahn
RIAA Watch: Goon Squad
John
Holt
Fencing the Sky
Ron
Jacobs
The Power of Patti Smith
Brian
J. Foley
Why the Outrage Over Abu Ghraib?
Robin
Philpot
Re-writing the History of the Rwandan Genocide
Eric
Leser
The Carlyle Empire
Ray
Hanania
From Abu Ghraib to Nick Berg: There's No Such Thing as a Good
War Crime
Jeff
Halper
Dozers of Mass Destruction
Joe
Surkiewicz
Inside the Baltimore Detention Center
John
Whitlow
Iraq Goddamn
Michael
Leon
Invitation to a Beheading: Why Bush Should Watch the Berg Video
Poets'
Basement
Krieger, Ford, LaMorticella, Smith and Albert
May
14, 2004
Dr.
Susan Block
Bush's POW Porn
Ron
Jacobs
Secret History of the War on Drugs
William
Blum
God, Country and Torture
Michael
Donnelly
The People v. Corporate Greed: A Victory on the North Coast
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
India Shines
Stephen
Gowans
Building Democracy in Iraq and Other
Absurdities
May
13, 2004
Dave
Lindorff
Where is Kerry?
Colm
O'Laithian
Torture and Degradation: Revenge American Style?
Saul
Landau and Farrah Hassan
Wal-Mart: Scrooge with Hi-Tech Accounting
Practices
Ralph
Nader
An Open Letter to Bush on the Inhumane Treatment of Iraqi Prisoners
Willliam
James Martin
Deir Yassin Massacre Recalled
Marc
Salomon
Reality TV Bites
Forrest
Hylton
Law 'n Order in La Paz: All Quiet
on the Southern Front?
May
12, 2004
Blanton
/ Kornbluh
Prisoner Abuse: Cheney Warned in
1992
Virginia
Tilley
So, Who's to Blame?
Bruce
Jackson
James Inhofe, the Dumbest Senator
of Them All
Thomas
P. Healy
No Enemies: Making Peace with Bert Sacks
Linda
S. Heard
Racism and Ignorance: a Lethal Cocktail in Iraq
Norman
Solomon
Spinning Torturegate
Lisa
Viscidi
The People's Voice: Community Radio in Guatemala
Jack
Heyman
View from the Bay Bridge: Longshoremen Plan Mass Workers March
on DC
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
Rummy's Reprieve
CounterPunch
Wire
Teamsters Corruption Scandal: Hoffa Exec. Assistant Alleged to
Have Quashed Investigation into Mob Influence
Christopher
Brauchli
Detention Camp, USA
William
S. Lind
Bush's Waterloo?
May 11, 2004
Mark
Engler
On the "Necessity" of Torture
Ray
McGovern
More Troops? A March of Folly
Kurt
Nimmo
Dirty Nukes and Jefferson's Grand Experiment
Mickey
Z.
Less Than Hero
Christopher
Reed
Torture on the Homefront: America's Long History of Prison Abuse
Dennis
Hans
When John Negroponte was Mullah Omar
Bruce
Jackson
Pete Seeger at 85
Mike
Whitney
Killing al Sadr
Simon
Helweg-Larsen
Shrinking the Guatemalan Military
William
A. Cook
The Unconscious Country: Righteous Indignation,
Nakedly Displayed
May
10, 2004
Robert
Fisk
From Hollywood to Abu Ghraib: Racism
and Torture as Entertainment
Wayne
Madsen
The Israeli Torture Template: Rape,
Feces and Urine-Soaked Cloth Sacks
Col.
Dan Smith
The Shame of Abu Ghraib
Joe
Bageant
John Ashcroft, Keep Your Mouth Off My Wife!
Ron
Jacobs
Rummy's Prisongate Blues: Don't Leave Mad; Just Leave
Ben
Tripp
Getting in Touch with Your Inner Savage
Ray
Hanania
Why They Hate Us: Racism, Bigotry and Abuse
Reza
Fiyouzat
"Mishandled" Invasions
Diane
Christian
Images & Abstractions &
Genitals
Website
of the Day
Crushing Iraqi Skulls with Tanks for Sport?
May
8 / 9, 2004
Cockburn
/ St. Clair
Torture: as American as Apple Pie
Adam
Jones
America's Srebrenica: What About the Hundreds of POWs Suffocated
and Shot at Kunduz?
Douglas
Valentine
Who Let the Dogs Out?: Torture, the CIA and the Press
Kurt
Nimmo
Rush Limbaugh and the Babes of Abu Ghraib
Brian
Cloughley
Humpty Dumpty is Falling
Lucia
Dailey
Forbidden Games
Joanne
Mariner
* * * *: Redacting Moussaoui
Mickey
Z.
Please Forgive U.S.? (There Are No Innocent Bystanders)
John
Chuckman
The Thing with No Brain
Doug
Giebel
Someone Knew: There Were No WMDs
Norm
Dixon
How the Bush Gang Exploited 9/11
Sam
Bahour
A Guiding Light Falls on Ramallah
Susan
Davis
Disorderly Conduct as Fine Art
Dave
Marsh
In a Pig's Eye: Alan Lomax, Dead But Still Stealing
Laura
Flanders
Life with Dick and Lynne
Dave
Zirin
Fans Push Spiderman Off Base
Carolyn
Baker
Why I Won't Vote in 2004
Prince
"Ain't No Sense in Voting"
Dr.
Susan Block
Onan for Two: Liberating Masturbation
Poets'
Basement
Smith, Sleeth, Ford, Albert and Saska
May
7, 2004
Human
Rights Watch
10 Prisons; 9,000 Prisoners: US Detention
Facilities in Iraq
Ron
Jacobs
UnAmerican? I Wish It Were So
Robert
Fisk
An Illegal and Immoral War
Ahmad
Faruqui
The 50th Anniversary of Dien Bien
Phu
Alexander
Zaitchik
From Terrell Unit in Texas to Abu Ghraib: Doesn't It Ring a (Prison)
Bell?
Mike
Whitney
The Price of Victory
Norman
Solomon
This War, Racism and Media Denial
M.
Shahid Alam
A Comic Apology
May
6, 2004
Jeffrey
St. Clair
They Did It for Jessica: Smeared with
Shit; Kicked to Death
Kathy
Kelly
May Day in Pekin Prison: Prison Labor
for the War Machine
Werther
The Sunk Cost Fallacy: War as Vegas
Casino Game
Lawrence
Ferlinghetti
Totalitarian Democracy
Robert
Fisk
"Smoke Him": Video Shows Wounded
Men Being Shot by US Helicopter
John
Janney
Torturing the Way to Freedom?
Christopher
Ketcham
Outlaw Heterosexual Marriage Now!
Alan
Farago
Dead Oceans: So Long, Thanks for the Fish
Sam
Hamod
Bush on Arab TV: Worthless and Demeaning
James
Brooks
Sullen Spring
William
S. Lind
On the Brink of Defeat in Iraq
May
5, 2004
Maj.
Gen. Antonio M. Taguba
Complete US Army Report on Abuse of
Iraqi Prisoners
Kathleen
and Bill Christison
Kerry: a Lost Cause for Progressives?
Will
Youmans
Deal with the Devil: a Palestinian
Zionist and the End of the World
Patrick
B. Barr
Terrorists R Us: the Powerful are Exempt from the Label
Lawrence
Magnuson
Nightline's All-American Morgue
Greg
Moses
Pocketbook of Denuded Ideals
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
Tormenting Prisoners, Torturing
Truth
Lee
Ballinger
Cinco de Mayo and Unity
Gilbert
Achcar
Bush's Cakewalk into the Iraq Quaqmire
Website
of the Day
Operation Phoenix & Iraq
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante
Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click
Here for More Stories.
|
Weekend
Edition
May 22 / 23, 2004
Breaking
with the Mythology
Charting
a New Course for US Nuclear Policy
By
DAVID KRIEGER
"Nuclear weapons give
no quarter. Their effects transcend time and place, poisoning
the Earth and deforming its inhabitants for generation upon generation.
They leave us wholly without defense, expunge all hope for survival.
They hold in their sway not just the fate of nations but of civilization."
--General George Lee Butler
(USAF, ret.)
"See, free societies...don't
develop weapons of mass terror and don't blackmail the world."
--George W. Bush, January 8,
2004
Among the countries that currently possess
nuclear weapons (China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia,
United Kingdom, United States and possibly North Korea), the
US is the most powerful, economically and militarily. If there
is to be movement toward making the world safer from nuclear
devastation, the US must lead the way. The US has the power to
influence each of these other countries in a way that no other
country or international organization could do. US leadership
has the potential to bring the threat of future nuclear holocausts
under control, and without this leadership the likelihood of
future nuclear catastrophes seems virtually assured.
At the 2004 meeting of the
countries that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) to plan for the 2005 NPT Review Conference, the US exerted
its leadership not for working towards far saner and safer nuclear
policies, including disarmament, but for creating obstacles to
progress on achieving a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as well
as on the other 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed
to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. One analyst, Rebecca Johnson,
summarized the meeting in this way: "The United States,
actively abetted by France and Britain, with the other nuclear
weapon states happy to go along, wanted to rewrite the NPT's
history by sidelining the 2000 Conference commitments, at which
they had made an 'unequivocal undertaking...to accomplish the
total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.' A majority of other
states, by contrast, wanted the 2005 Review Conference to build
on both the groundbreaking agreements from 2000 and the decisions
and resolutions from the 1995 Review and Extension Conference."
Current US nuclear policy comes
down on the side of an indefinite commitment to nuclear weapons,
or a policy of "forever nuclear." Presumably it maintains
this policy because its leaders believe that nuclear weapons
give the US a military advantage. US leaders are thus placed
in the position where they are pursuing policies opposing nuclear
weapons for other countries while continuing to rely upon these
weapons for themselves. This appears to the world as a "do
as I say, not as I do" approach to policy, that is, a policy
of nuclear hypocrisy. Such a policy not only makes the United
States less secure, but it also undermines respect for the country
throughout the world.
The United States is now engaged
in researching new and more usable nuclear weapons, Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrators ("bunker busters") and low-yield
nuclear weapons ("mini-nukes"). The US is developing
contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against seven countries,
at least four of which are non-nuclear weapons states. The US
has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order
to pursue missile defenses and space weaponization. Its most
recent treaty with Russia, the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions
Treaty, reduces the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons
to 2,200 by the year 2012, but does not require that any of the
weapons taken off deployed status be dismantled. The treaty ends
in the year 2012, unless extended. The US is also planning to
build a new facility capable of producing some 450 plutonium
pits annually for nuclear weapons, or twice that number if the
plant is used on a double shift.
When these activities are combined
with the vigorous opposition of the US government to commitments
to achieving nuclear arms control and disarmament, this paints
a picture for the world that the US is unwilling to change the
direction on its policy of indefinite reliance on nuclear arms.
For those who follow this issue closely, US nuclear policies
are a matter of great concern and discouragement.
There are three important questions
that deserve our foremost attention. First, what perspectives
would underpin a new course for US nuclear policy? Second, what
would be the basic contours of a new course for US nuclear policy?
Third, what would be needed to achieve this change in course?
While there is ample room for debate on the responses to these
questions, I offer my own views below as a starting point for
discussion.
What perspectives
would underpin a new course for US nuclear policy?
The most basic perspective
that would underpin a new course for US nuclear policy is that
nuclear weapons lessen rather than increase security. The possession
of nuclear weapons virtually assures that a country will be a
target of nuclear weapons. Further, the more nuclear weapons
that exist in the world, the more likely it is that they will
proliferate to both state and non-state actors with unforeseeable
consequences that only assure that the world will become more
dangerous.
A second perspective is that
nuclear weapons are in a class by themselves in terms of their
destructive potential. It is an oversimplification to lump them
together with chemical and biological weapons as weapons of mass
destruction because their potential for causing widespread death
and destruction is so much greater. Additionally, threatening
to use nuclear weapons against chemical and biological weapons
stores or perpetrators of chemical or biological attacks provides
incentive for other states to develop nuclear arsenals.
A third perspective is that
the strengthening of international law and institutions provides
a better basis for building security in its many dimensions than
the threat of nuclear retaliation. Adherence to international
law includes support for: the United Nations and its Charter;
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights
agreements; the International Court of Justice, which adjudicates
between countries; and the International Criminal Court, which
holds individuals accountable for serious crimes under international
law.
A fourth perspective relates
to the issue of national integrity. The US has made many commitments
to fulfill nuclear disarmament obligations, starting with the
1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and including the 13 Practical
Steps agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. The US must
give up the idea that it can flout, disregard and discard international
agreements and commitments with impunity.
A fifth perspective is that
US leadership is essential to achieve a world free of nuclear
weapons, and that such a world would be more secure for all states,
including the US. This perspective is based upon the understanding
that there is no other country that could effectively provide
this leadership, and so long as the US does not do so it is unlikely
that change will occur.
A sixth perspective is that
the US must stop seeking to impose double standards akin to nuclear
apartheid. US leaders must take responsibility for acting themselves
as they desire other countries to act. If the US and other nuclear
weapons states continue to ignore their obligations for nuclear
disarmament under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, other states will undoubtedly follow their lead.
Mohamed ElBaredei, the director
general of the International Atomic Energy Agency has argued:
"We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally
reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction
yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security
- and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate
plans for their use." The argument is not for more nuclear
weapons states, but for none, and the US must lead in this effort.
Finally, a sense of urgency
must accompany the other perspectives. There must be a sense
that this issue demands priority among US security objectives
and that a continuation of the status quo will undermine US non-proliferation
efforts and US security.
What would
be the basic contours of a new course for US nuclear policy?
There are many forms and timeframes
that a new US nuclear policy could take. Most important, however,
must be a commitment to achieve the multilateral phased elimination
of nuclear weapons within a reasonable timeframe and the further
commitment to provide leadership toward that goal. The US will
have to demonstrate by its actions, not only its words, that
it is committed to this goal.
The US must use its convening
power to bring all nuclear weapons states together to the negotiating
table to negotiate a Nuclear Weapons Convention. This would be
consistent with the unanimous conclusion of the International
Court of Justice in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Illegality
of Nuclear Weapons: "There exists an obligation to pursue
in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading
to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective
international control."
In terms of a timeframe, one
proposal, put forward by the Mayors for Peace Emergency Campaign
to Ban Nuclear Weapons, calls for starting negotiations on a
treaty to ban nuclear weapons in 2005, the completion of negotiations
by 2010, and the elimination of all nuclear weapons by the year
2020. The exact date of completing the process of nuclear disarmament
may be less important than the demonstration of political will
to achieve the goal combined with substantial steps toward the
goal. It is clear that the world will become far safer from nuclear
catastrophe when there are a few tens of nuclear weapons rather
than tens of thousands.
The US must forego provocative
policies in nuclear weapons research and development leading
to new and more usable nuclear weapons ("bunker busters"
and "mini-nukes"). It must also stop working toward
reducing the time needed to resume nuclear testing; and cease
planning to create a facility to produce plutonium pits for large
numbers of new or refurbished nuclear warheads.
The US will need to reevaluate
building defensive missile systems and weaponizing outer space,
both projects that stimulate offensive nuclear responses.
The US will have to make its
nuclear reduction commitments irreversible by dismantling the
weapons taken off active deployment.
Finally, the US must give assurances
to other countries that it is not relying upon its nuclear weapons
for use in warfare. Such assurances could take the form of legally
binding negative security assurances (the US will not use nuclear
weapons against a non-nuclear weapons state) and an agreement
to No First Use against other nuclear weapons states, as well
as taking its arsenal off hair-trigger alert.
What would
be needed to achieve this change in course in US nuclear policy?
It is unlikely that US leaders
will come to the conclusion of their own accord that it is necessary
to chart a new course in US nuclear policy. They need serious
prompting, both from American citizens and from the rest of the
world. Other countries have been trying to influence the US government
on this issue throughout the post-Cold War period to little avail.
While other countries should certainly continue in this pursuit,
the burden of responsibility for changing the course of US nuclear
policy remains primarily with US citizens. It is an awesome responsibility,
one on which the future of the world depends.
A massive education and advocacy
program is needed in the United States to mobilize widespread
support for a new course in US nuclear policy. It will require
resources, professionalism and persistence. The issue must be
framed in a way that US citizens can grasp its importance and
raise it to a high level in their hierarchy of policy priorities.
The messages must be simple, clear and compelling. It is a challenge
that demands our best thinking and organized action. It will
require the wedding of old fashioned policy promotion with new
technologies such as the internet. It will also require greater
cooperation among advocacy groups and creativity in expanding
the base of involvement by individuals and civil society groups
that care not only about peace and disarmament, but also about
the environment, human rights, health care and many other issue
areas.
Conclusion
It would be tragic beyond reckoning
for US leaders to arrive at an understanding of the need for
a new course in US nuclear policy only after nuclear weapons
are again used. The US remains the only country to have used
nuclear weapons, a historical occurrence that is largely mythologized
as beneficial in the context of ending the war against Japan.
We must break through this mythology to realize that, as humans,
we are all survivors of past atomic bombings and all potential
victims of future atomic bombings.
We are challenged to do something
that has never been fully done before: to eliminate a type of
weapon that may appear to its possessors as providing political
or military advantage. If we can help citizens and leaders alike
to use their imaginations to project the likelihood and consequences
of the further use of these weapons, we may be able to navigate
a new course in US nuclear policy, leading to the control and
elimination of these weapons. We must engage this issue as if
our very future and that of our children and grandchildren depended
upon it. It does.
David Krieger is president of the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation.
Weekend
Edition Features for May 15 / 16, 2004
Alexander
Cockburn
Green Lights for Torture
Douglas
Valentine
ABCs of American Interrogation: Phoenix Program, Revisited
John
Stanton
Kings of Pain: UK, US and Israel
Ben
Tripp
Torture: a Fond Reminiscence
Brian
Cloughley
Where are You Heading, America? Taking a Closer Look at the Patriot
Act
Justin
E. H. Smith
Islam and Democracy: the Lesson from Turkey
Brandy
Baker
Equal Opportunity Torture: Lynddie England, the Right and Feminism
John
Chuckman
Peep Show on Capitol Hill: Sex, Lies and Videotape
Bill
Glahn
RIAA Watch: Goon Squad
John
Holt
Fencing the Sky
Ron
Jacobs
The Power of Patti Smith
Brian
J. Foley
Why the Outrage Over Abu Ghraib?
Robin
Philpot
Re-writing the History of the Rwandan Genocide
Eric
Leser
The Carlyle Empire
Ray
Hanania
From Abu Ghraib to Nick Berg: There's No Such Thing as a Good
War Crime
Jeff
Halper
Dozers of Mass Destruction
Joe
Surkiewicz
Inside the Baltimore Detention Center
John
Whitlow
Iraq Goddamn
Michael
Leon
Invitation to a Beheading: Why Bush Should Watch the Berg Video
Poets'
Basement
Krieger, Ford, LaMorticella, Smith and Albert
Keep
CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home
/ subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|