Project for Nuclear Awareness

To succeed with Iran, push a nuke-free zone, says Hans Blix

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:54:03 GMT

Photo Courtesy of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission

Hans Blix wrote an op-ed, published in print on October 26th exclusively by the Inquirer. Here's an excerpt--to continue reading, follow the link below:

"Today, with Iran and other states in the Middle East moving into nuclear activities, the zone idea has new appeal. For Iran, giving up enrichment within the framework of a zone would be different from acting unilaterally. It could contribute to a broader goal of regional disarmament and nonproliferation.

I do not underestimate the problems, such as verification or of outside assurances of security and supply of uranium fuel. Yet, if the Obama administration is serious about nonproliferation and disarmament, a bold, broad approach is needed. The problem is difficult, but by no means insoluble."

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/65964797.html

Alyn Ware, PNA International Youth Dialogue Keynote Speaker October 27, Wins "Alternate Nobel Prize" in Sweden

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:31:32 GMT

(RightLivelihood.org)

In all the hoopla surrounding President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, another visionary and activist for peace quietly received a momentous award for his work in nuclear disarmament around the world. Alyn Ware, global coordinator for the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, was one of five recipients for the Right Livelihood Award, often called the “Alternative Nobel Prize”.

Like President Obama, Ware was recognized for his work in the area of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, for several reasons. One, Alyn was instrumental in the organization of the World Court Project. This Project brought together NGOs to campaign for the International Court of Justice to hear a case on the question of whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons was illegal under international law. The court decided that yes, the threat or use of nuclear weapons was generally illegal under international law. But the Court also ruled that nuclear nations had the obligation under international law to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Against all odds, and a great deal of governmental pressure to prevent this case from reaching the Court, the World Court Project, which brought together groups such as the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, LCNP, and a number of European groups, succeeded in a legal victory against nuclear weapons.

Alyn Ware did not stop there. He organized the drafting of the model Nuclear Weapons Convention, and continues to campaign for this Convention, which would eliminate and ban all nuclear weapons just as biological and chemical weapons have been banned. And in 2002, Ware founded the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, a group that bridges the gap between NGOs and government leaders to find the path to global zero.

Nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation has reached center stage, and Alyn Ware and his affiliated groups-- which include PNA, the Project for Nuclear Awareness-- are a huge force behind this movement. His work with students, government leaders, lawyers, and activists at all levels signifies him as a tireless leader and promoter of peace and a nuclear-weapons free world.

The Project for Nuclear Awareness is proud and honored that Alyn Ware, 2009 recipient of the Right Livelihood Award, will be our keynote speaker on the second day of our International Youth Dialogue for Disarmament. Participants from all over the world will benefit from hearing from this global leader for nuclear disarmament.

No Time like the Present to Talk with Tehran

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:46:44 GMT

For the first time in 30 years, the United States and Iran sat down to deal directly with one another when US Undersecretary of State William Burns met with his Iranian counterpart Saeed Jalili in Geneva. Substantial progress was made in resolving the stand-off over Iran's nuclear program. You can check out our report on the Geneva meeting here at U.S. and Iran: Talks, Not Missiles, Are Launched at Geneva Meeting.

In an excellent article in The Nation Online, Robert Dreyfuss describes the details. For our readers, here is his article, "Talking With Tehran."

President "humbled", vows to live up to the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:23:13 GMT

The Project for Nuclear Awareness congratulates President Obama on winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on international diplomacy and cooperation. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee specifically mentioned President Obama’s vision for a world without nuclear weapons as one of the cornerstones of his nomination and award.

While some said the award was premature, the Nobel Committee and the President in his acceptance noted that the prize has been awarded as a call to action, to push forward the winner’s peace-minded agenda, and encourage other world leaders to follow in his or her footsteps.

Obama’s acceptance speech was humble. He said he did not deserve to be in the company of other Nobel Peace Prize winners, and that this award was in the spirit of all people who want to live in a more secure and peaceful world, a world without nuclear weapons, a world not drastically altered by climate change, a peaceful solution in the Middle East, and a respect for human dignity and rights everywhere.

World leaders responded with mixed emotions, many people did, but there were many positive notes from former Nobel Prize winners. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA who won in 2005, said “I cannot think of anyone today more deserving of this honor. In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself.” (NY Times).

Desmond Tutu said: “It’s an award coming near the beginning of the first term of office of a relatively young president that anticipates an even greater contribution toward making our world a safer place for all. It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope.”

While Obama’s vision of a more peaceful world is certainly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, this year’s Prize has awarded promise and vision of what is to come.

With over 23,000 nuclear weapons still existing in the world, Obama should use his award status to encourage even more countries to move towards disarmament, nonproliferation, and peace. In the next few years, there will be no less than three major nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation treaties to move through the Senate. Obama still faces the Iranian threat, despite recent positive movement. India, Pakistan and Israel should sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and allow inspections and safeguards, so we can begin to assure against accidental launch, theft of materials or information, and safety of nearby communities.

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize must now become a call to action. The driving force behind his ideas can turn rhetoric into concrete change. Nobel Peace Prize winners are often visionaries, but at the heart of the matter, they are awarded and recognized for their leadership in the direction of their dreams, not simply the dreams themselves.

The Project for Nuclear Awareness is one of the NGOs motivating change towards a world without nuclear weapons. One of our innovative programs is our International Youth Dialogue on October 26^th and 27^th, connecting students from Russia, Mexico, and the United States in a global dialogue for disarmament and peace. Check out the press release here!

U.S. and Iran: Talks, Not Missiles, Are Launched at Geneva Meeting

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:15:17 GMT

On October 1^st, the U.S. and five other world powers—Great Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany, all sat down with Saeed Jalili, appointed as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator by the regime’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to discuss the Iranian nuclear program and other issues. The meeting came on the heels of the disclosure of a new Iranian research reactor near the holy city of Q’om, at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard base.

At that meeting, particularly following a private luncheon between U.S. negotiator Undersecretary of State William Burns and Jalili, positive steps forward were announced. This is the first high level meeting between US and Iranian delegations in thirty years, and such conversations and negotiations show that the US is serious about engaging with Iran on substantive matters.

Under the Geneva deal as reported on October 1^st, 2009, it appears Iran will ship roughly 1.5 metric tons of low-enriched uranium to Russia, where it will be enriched to 19.75%. This remains significantly below the highly enriched state needed for a viable weapons program. From Russia, the fuel will be sent to France where it will be packaged into reactor rods, and sent back to Iran for use for badly-needed medical isotopes. This is a face-saving way for Iran to have use of the materials, under stringent inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The first inspections will take place next week, by agreement, on or before October 23, 2009.

Is this a totally done deal? No. Unfortunately, Iran has a history of deceiving the IAEA, by non-disclosure. For example, the Natanz complex, their large uranium enrichment facility which now has 8,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium, was not admitted until revealed by a dissident Iranian group. But this time, there is this advantage. The U.S. seems to have garnered the support of Russia and China for stiffer sanctions, should those be needed, although China is still not fully on the record about this.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd (D-CN) held hearings on what those sanctions might look like. In particular, the Senate seems prepared to recommend stiff sanctions on Iranian banks—including for the first time the Iranian Central Bank. Such sanctions could create a large disruption in the Iranian economy, especially with regard to trade and letters of credit. The State Department’s Deputy Secretary, James Steinberg, testified that right now, the Obama Administration is holding off on such sanctions, but the writing is on the wall, if the U.S. should go there.

Iran is a country that has recently gotten itself into a serious internal rift, with disputed elections for President, and credible accusations of unlawful imprisonment and torture by the regime. It would be in the interests of all the parties to the talks, as well as of preventing war or crippling sanctions, if Iran honors its IAEA obligations under the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty).

Also, on the human rights front, American negotiators are pressing Iran to release the three imprisoned American hikers who accidentally wandered from northern Iraq into Iran this summer. One of those three hikers, Joshua Fattal, is from the greater Philadelphia area. Iran is under pressure to allow the International Red Cross immediate access to the three hikers, which apparently has been granted, and to negotiate a speedy release.

On October 18^th, there will be a follow-up meeting in Vienna, led by IAEA experts, to work out the details. The whole world is watching to see if this agreement succeeds and whether this confidence-building measure becomes a template for future negotiations with Iran.

For several years, the Project for Nuclear Awareness has promoted a campaign called “Launch Talks, Not Missiles.” As the name implies, we believe three things:

· One, talk first to your foes, before even considering a military option

· Two, this includes Iran and other countries we have issues with

· Three, work multilaterally with allies and the UN Security Council, to resolve international disputes, and promote multilateral mechanisms of enforcement, so everyone involved can “buy in” to the process, and it can work effectively

We are happy to see that, in most ways, President Obama and his Administration are developing policies consistent with these views. We have seen these ideas work before, in negotiations that helped to bring down the numbers of nuclear weapons with the Soviet Union, and eventually helped to bring a peaceful end to the Cold War. By bringing countries such as Iran out of their isolation, and preventing escalation of things such nuclear missile programs, we can not only help prevent war in the short run, but also help eventually to bring more peaceful solutions to broader problems in the Middle East. Indeed, nothing could build stability and security in the Middle East more than a Nuclear-Weapons Free Zone. This has been done with success in Latin America—where you do not hear about nuclear threats, despite tensions with Cuba, Venezuela, and others—as well as the Southeast Asia/ Pacific region, Central Asia, and most recently in Africa.

We encourage our viewers and readers to write to Congress and the White House, in support of Talks, Not Missile Launches, on both sides of the Middle East.

Read more about the ongoing multilateral Iran talks and Senate debate here:

Louis Charbounneau’s “Q&A: What’s behind Geneva agreement on Iran’s enriched uranium?” http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59129F20091002

Glenn Kessler’s “Iran, Major Powers Reach Agreement on Series of Points”. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/01/AR2009100101294.html?hpid%3Dmoreheadlines&sub=AR

Jim Abrams, “Congress poised to act swiftly on Iran if needed” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/03/AR2009100300544.html?sub=AR

Can We Ban Nuclear Testing? Why Now, If Not Before?

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:31:04 GMT

International Monitoring System, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization

Skeptics will say—sure, but a Republican Senate turned it down before, and the Senate will again. Today, we have sixty Democratic votes in the Senate; times have changed in other ways as well. Can we be sure? No. Have the odds improved? Yes.

Here are some reasons, beyond the unanimity of opinion voiced at the September 24, 2009 CTBT meeting in New York. First, in 1999, the Treaty opponents’ arguments were twofold— 1) we need nukes to be strong, and since they may deteriorate over time, we need testing. 2) we have no reliable way of verifying that no tests are taking place, or that people are not cheating.

On the “strength” argument: Most generals and military experts today understand that nukes actually detract from strength by diverting resources needed for troops and strong conventional forces, as well as resources for diplomacy and sustainable development. Fortunately, the current Defense Secretary, Robert M. Gates, seems to understand this lesson, as do both the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Further, scientists have shown that the warheads are reliable for 85-100 years, and none in the arsenal are over about 30 years old.

As for verification, we now have twelve years of experience. And, the evidence of success in verification of nuclear explosions under the Treaty is piling up. First, 80% of the 337 seismic stations in the International Monitoring System (IMS) have already been certified to meet rigorous specifications, according to Secretary Clinton at the U.N. The IMS, further, utilizes “four monitoring technologies to scan the earth for [tests]—seismological, ultrasound, hydroacoustic, and radionuclide.”^{^[i]}

Second, in June 2009, the International Scientific Studies (ISS) Conference in Vienna brought together 600 scientists “to assess the capability and readiness” of the IMS, which met with their approval.

Finally, we have the successful conclusion of the CTBT Organization’s “Integrated Field Expertise” in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan. This test demonstrated the capacity of the CTBO to launch inspections in the case of a suspected nuclear testing event anywhere in the world, on “very short notice.” And of course, the small underground tests actually done by North Korea were instantly detected by the CTBTO.

So, will the U.S. and the other nations who still need to ratify the Treaty do so?

Full Court Press at the UN

The significance of the appearance, first at the UN Security Council in New York by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, along with opportunities to get other nations on board for the Treaty and for cooperation on Iran and North Korea, cannot be overestimated. For the first time in years, U.S. prestige is on the line for nuclear disarmament. We also need to show our good faith for purposes of the success of the Non-Proliferation Review next year, which relies in some part on whether the CTBT is within sight of full entry-into-force.
To keep non-proliferation a viable goal, the President, the Secretary of State, and the Vice President must now show the Senate just how important ratification of the test ban treaty. Second—and on this they have made a good start—they need to demonstrate to the world that the USA is once again serious about the steps promised during the year 2000 negotiations to ratify and to extend the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Obama has done so in several well-orchestrated speeches, and the rhetoric has certainly seemed quite sincere. Now, the time will come very soon for action, on all these fronts, and they must be ready. It will not be easy, but it can and must be done, if we are to succeed.

It’s clear that the President has deployed a powerful team in building support for this enterprise; beyond Hillary Clinton, there’s also former House Energy Committee Chair Ellen Tauscher, along with Rose Gotemoeller, a very smart lawyer, who will both help lead the State Department’s efforts, while Vice President Joe Biden, a 36-year veteran of the United States Senate, is tasked with working with former Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve the needed two-thirds vote for the Treaty.

Will this combination of savvy pros and world public opinion help to convince two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to advise and consent to the Test Ban? Only time will tell and the informed public will have to weigh in strongly. But the prospects look better than they have for many years that the U.S. will actually move forward on the test ban and nuclear security, which also means counter-terrorism, and disarmament of these mass-destruction weapons.

[i] McGrath, Kaegan and Luis Gain. “Will the Stars Align in New York for Test Ban Advocates? A Preview of the Sixth CTBT Article XIV Conference”. James Martin Center for Non-Proliferation Studies. 2009. <http://cns.miis.edu/stories/090916_ctbt_conference.htm>.

Missile Defense- Joe on Rachel Maddow

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:12:22 GMT

Here is Joe Cirincione, on cancelling missile defense in E. Europe- good for U.S.?

To take action on this issue, attend the Oct. 26-27 International Dialogue for youth,
peace, and environment activists at UC-Santa Barbara, and U-Arts Philadelphia.
Go to the International Youth Dialogue link, on the PNA Home Page, and register now,
for your venue- two in the US, one in Mexico City, or one in Moscow, Russian Federation.

The video: http://www.ploughshares.org/news-analysis/news/rachel-maddow-show-1

Here is Joe Cirincione, on cancelling missile defense in E. Europe- good for U.S.?
To take action on this issue, attend the Oct. 26-27 International Dialogue for youth,
peace, and environment activists at UC-Santa Barbara, and U-Arts Philadelphia.

The video: http://www.ploughshares.org/news-analysis/news/rachel-maddow-show-1

Fall Classic: The UN Super Bowl, and the Obama Team

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:28:08 GMT

Fall Classic: The UN Super Bowl, and the Obama Team

(Original photo credits to MoonBattery.com and Grand Rapids Press. Photos altered by Kim-Thao Nguyen)

President Obama will arrive at the United Nations on September 24, ready to play ball. Despite domestic policy crises, the President is moving full steam ahead on foreign affairs, and he continues to follow the course he set in his Inaugural Address, when he announced to adversaries that “we will extend a hand if you … unclench your fist.”

On that day, President Obama will be chairing the UN Security Council meeting on nuclear nonproliferation, disarmament, and international security issues. In preparation for this historic, unprecedented and critically important event, Obama dealt with a few obstacles between him and the end-zone of moving the ball forward on nuclear disarmament.

In other developments:

1) The United States and other nations have agreed to meet with Iran on October 1^st to discuss the Iranian negotiation proposal, which included topics of international security, nuclear nonproliferation, and the Palestinian question, but did not specifically include Iran’s nuclear program.

2) On Thursday, September 17, 2009, Obama and his national security advisors unveiled a positive change in the US missile defense system plans for Europe, citing changing intelligence reports regarding Iranian nuclear weapons program and the ability to use advanced technology on a more comprehensive and mobile system. The previous plan was a major roadblock to improved US-Russian relations, including in the area of nuclear disarmament and cooperation on Iran. The new system will use the Aegis system, mounted on ships, with the idea of deploying three to four ships in each area requiring anti-ballistic missile system coverage (Mediterranean, North Sea, and on the Pacific side). However, we cannot be sure this system will work effectively, or deter Iran and other nations from pursuing a weapons program. Still, this proposal has been well received by most US analysts and overseas. Russia’s reaction has been reserved, but approving of the adjustment.

3) President Obama’s April 5^th Prague speech and May 10^th Cairo speech both reaffirmed his foreign policy goals on international security: a world free of nuclear weapons, the option of an international fuel bank to address concerns about dual use nuclear reactors, and a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli crisis. By laying these positions out before his United Nations visit, President Obama has made his immediate foreign policy goals very clear.

Happening simultaneously, on September 24-25, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization meeting will discuss ways to encourage countries to ratify the CTBT into force. The United States is one of those countries whose ratification is necessary, and Obama has said that he wants to have the U.S. ratify the Treaty soon. The administration is sending Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the US representative to the CTBTO meeting, a strong sign that Obama is serious about moving the treaty through the Senate. Politically, it may be difficult for the Senate to ratify the treaty. Republican hawks are upset at Obama’s handling of the missile defense system and the START follow-on negotiations. The forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review will also play a major role in domestic support for the CTBT. We will be examining that Review in our next update, and in our visits to Congress and area districts.

It is a difficult time for the U.S., with economic and health care debates at home. But it can also be a very fruitful time to advance international framework for peace and security. If we keep our eye on the ball, we can move forward toward the advancing goal line—the two most immediate goals are a START follow-on treaty and ratification of the CTBT. Intermediate goals: the fuel bank and other safeguards on fissile materials. Finally, deep cuts worldwide, the denuclearization of the Middle East, and the long-term final score: a world free of nukes, as the President and a majority of world leaders, including the entire European Parliament in a vote this spring, have avowed.

Lights, Camera, Decommission!

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:53:10 GMT

Vinča reactor: International Atomic Energy Agency photo, 2006

It sounds like the plot of a movie: several Serbian nuclear scientists arrive unannounced and uninvited to a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Germany. Their presentation on the Vinča reactor just outside Belgrade, Serbia, stuns the international community. The aging storage facilities, the rusting containers, the lack of safeguards, and underpaid personnel during a time of turbulence in the former Yugoslavia lead the IAEA to assume the worst and declare the reactor one of the most dangerous reactors in the world. This meeting did indeed occur, in 1995, but it was only when Serbia joined the IAEA six years later, after the overthrow of then-Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, that the international community was able to act on the serious issues posed by what the scientists revealed that day about the nuclear reactor at Vinča, Serbia. This is one nuclear-calamity story with a positive ending, as we shall see.

The Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences, a research lab and nuclear reactor left on Serbian territory, is one of the unknown legacies of the Cold War. The containers are rusting away, causing some radiation contamination in the surrounding area, and posing a huge risk for much more serious contamination. The Vinča reactor was primarily a research reactor, but is a perfect example of the threat posed by aging, poorly maintained, understaffed, and under-protected nuclear reactors. While it would have been a mammoth task to steal from the facility, it would not have been impossible. The amount of material would have posed a major threat to the community, or in an act of terrorism.

But we should never doubt what political will and international cooperation can accomplish. The IAEA has since helped Serbia build a huge new complex where it can store and process decaying waste for generations in a safer environment, reducing the risk of contamination to the Vinča community. Serbia has also signed onto the Additional Protocols for Nuclear Safeguards, a move applauded by the IAEA. As the original technology and fuel came from the Soviet Union, Vinča’s nuclear fuel will be returned to Russia. This process of moving fuel back to Russia derives from a 2002 Russian-Serbian agreement to move highly enriched uranium from Serbia back to Russia. This particular project moved enough HEU to make two nuclear weapons and demonstrated the success of moving fuel across international borders in a secure manner.

This immense project is expensive and requires advanced technology for both Serbia and the IAEA. The Vinča Institute Nuclear Decommissioning (VIND) Project is the most expensive and logistically complex project in IAEA history. But in the grand scheme, the price tag of $75 million for the entire project seems low when faced with the option of inaction. To complete this project, the IAEA successfully rounded up a strong pool of international donors, including the EU, the US, Russia, Slovenia (a former Yugoslav republic), the UK, Italy, the Czech Republic and the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a United States NGO led by former Senator Sam Nunn and philanthropist Ted Turner.

Decommissioning nuclear weapons is not the only aspect of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. The aging research reactors left over from the Cold War must also be successfully decommissioned and safeguarded for the good of the surrounding community and international security. Successful projects like VIND can prove to the doubters that the IAEA and international community are capable of handling the technologically challenging and critical necessity of dismantling, processing, decommissioning, and safeguarding nuclear waste contributing to major environmental and security threats. Though this project has just begun, and will take several more years to complete, all signs point to VIND’s success as a blueprint for international cooperation on future nuclear decommissioning and safeguarding projects.

Check out these resources for more information on VIND!

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/vinca.html

http://www.nti.org/c_press/release_082302.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Multimedia/PhotoEssays/VincaIII/index.html

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/nonprorev-bleek.pdf

Look for an upcoming PNA Story-of-the-Week on the importance of addressing research reactors in nuclear nonproliferation!

Edward M. Kennedy- A Voice of Reason on Foreign Policy, and Nuclear Weapons

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:31:17 GMT

It is important to remember, in this sad but hopeful time, that while Ted Kennedy was perhaps best known for championing human needs issues, he also saw the profound connections with foreign policy. He was a pioneer on nuclear issues, as this article from our colleague Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund shows.

Ed Aguilar, Project for Nuclear Awareness
Executive Director

Ted Kennedy: A Lion For Nuclear Disarmament
by Joe Cirincione, Ploughshares Fund

(Photo: Huffington Post article linked below)

Senator Ted Kennedy worked tirelessly to protect America from the threats of nuclear terrorism and proliferation and to reduce and eliminate all nuclear arsenals.

In June 2004, I had the honor of introducing Senator Kennedy as a keynote speaker at the Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference. He was warm, gracious and generous in his praise of our work at Carnegie. He was also ferocious in his criticism of the failed policies that had led the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq and that had increased the nuclear threats. (Read the rest of this article at the Huffington Post...)