I wanted to share an announcement about the upcoming Think Outside the Bomb National Conference, which will take place in Albuquerque, New Mexico this August 13-16. For five years, Think Outside the Bomb has brought young people together to share resources, strategize collaboratively, and build a widespread movement for nuclear disarmament. The conference aims to give youth not only the inspiration to work for a nuclear free future for the coming year, but the tools and skills to do that work and the opportunity and camaraderie to start this organizng.
Youth are invited to attend. Visit the Think Outside the Bomb website to learn more and apply online. Limited travel stipends are available. Once in Albuquerque, room and board will be provided.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had an excellent OpEd in the San Francisco Chronicle today entitled “Russian nuclear agreement a good start.” Responding to President Obama’s negotiations with Russia, she applauds this initial step while highlighting the need to continue on a path forward to make the world safer from the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. Below are the beginning paragraphs. Click here to read the whole OpEd.
President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev reached preliminary agreement Monday for deep cuts to both nations’ deployed strategic nuclear arsenals – to as low as 1,500 warheads each. This is good news. It provides negotiators a framework for a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty by year’s end that would push our nuclear arsenals to the lowest levels of any U.S.-Russian arms control agreement. More broadly, it signals a thaw in the U.S.-Russian relationship and heralds a new era in arms control – one that could lead one day to a world free of nuclear weapons.
I congratulate both presidents, and I will do everything I can in the U.S. Senate to advance their vision of a nuclear-free world.
Nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to humanity; reducing and eventually eliminating them from the world’s arsenals is the most important task facing global leaders today.
The Senate will play a critical role in determining how much progress is made on nuclear weapons issues this year. Senators will have to ratify any final treaty between Russia and the US regarding nuclear weapons reductions and President Obama intends to ask for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
When releasing his new plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan, President Obama promised a “civilian surge” to complement the increase in troops. While the rhetoric is certainly appealing, numerous problems have already arisen, from the revelation that the State Dept. only has 18 Pashto speakers, to the fact that the supplemental funding request Congress passed contains ten times more military funding than civilian, to the report that Secretary Gates intends to fill those positions with military reservists because of the lack of capacity in the civilian agencies.
Anna Husarska of International Rescue Committee has an important piece in the Washington Post today about another problem with US attempts at reconstruction and development in Afghanistan–militarizing humanitarian work:
Integrating more civilians into military structures means further militarizing what has traditionally been humanitarian work. This is not in the interest of the Afghan people, who expect security from coalition forces and assistance from civilian aid agencies.
The main destination of this “surge” will be the U.S.-led provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs), whose performance in Afghanistan has been criticized by humanitarian groups on the ground: One aid worker from a European nongovernmental organization said they behave like “Humvees in a china shop.”
While working in the eastern city of Jalalabad last year, I heard many tales that amounted to such porcelain-breaking. The main victims were the communities the PRTs were seeking to help. An Afghan working for an Asian NGO recounted how 15 Humvees entered their compound unannounced and the uniformed “farenjee” (Afghan for “foreigners”) began conducting quick medical examinations — 45 seconds per patient — while photographing the process to document their outreach. (After complaints from the NGO, the Americans said they spent 105 seconds per patient, not 45.) There was the time that armed, uniformed Americans arrived at an orphanage, I was told, to distribute pencils and notebooks. In the process, the Americans terrified the female employees of the orphanage and the young children. An Afghan doctor from an American NGO told me his concerns about the welfare of communities where the PRTs distribute medicines from their Humvees: The labels are in English or Urdu, he noted, not Pashto, the language spoken in the region.
I visited Jalalabad again in May. The aid agency I work for, the International Rescue Committee, continues to implement programs there, but even now the ever-deteriorating security environment means we mostly have to rely on our trusted staff of Afghans. I did get to visit the American PRT in Jalalabad, where I was received by a senior civil affairs officer. He told me and an Afghan colleague of mine that Americans were no longer going out to villages uninvited. I suggested that the danger still existed for locals contacted by the PRTs — these Afghans could be branded collaborators. But the officer saw no problem. “Our presence forces them to make a choice: Either they support the government or they support the Taliban,” he said. And he added, “It takes a little bit of courage if you want to be free; freedom does not come free.”
My Afghan colleague later told me of recent incidents in which a mullah was killed in Chaparhar, apparently for working with government and coalition forces, and another mullah was decapitated in Khogyani for allowing his two sons to serve in the Afghan National Army, which was trained by the U.S.-led coalition.
Contact with the foreign troops, it seems, does not come free, either.
This is a problem for the current situation in Afghanistan as well as a long-term issue that the US government must address. It is time for our government to recognize that civilian tools like development, aid and diplomacy are integral to our national security, and make serious investments in building our civilian capacity rather than throwing money away on wasteful military projects.
The G8 Summit taking place at L’Aquila, Italy has released a statement on nuclear weapons. As the US and Russia move forward on negotiations to reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles, other countries are watching closely and agreeing that focusing on the threat of nuclear weapons is an urgent priority. The statement covered steps toward a nuclear weapons free world, strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, securing nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists, and further details about the Global Nuclear Summit President Obama announced in his April speech from Prague. Below are excerpts from two portions of the statement:
Moving Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons
- Underscores the commitment to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons and welcomes the nuclear disarmament measures taken by nuclear weapons states, including the announcement by the United States and Russia of their intent to conclude a legally binding agreement to replace START before it expires in 2009.
- Calls on all States to meet in full their arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation commitments,
- Welcomes President Obama’s announcement to seek ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),
Announcement of a Global Nuclear Summit in 2010
As the President stated in his Prague speech, nuclear terrorism is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. He announced an international effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials within four years, break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt illicit trade in nuclear materials.
In L’Aquila, the President formally announced his plan to host a Global Nuclear Security Summit in March 2010:
- The Summit would allow discussion on the nature of the threat and develop steps that can be taken together to secure vulnerable materials, combat nuclear smuggling and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism.
- The planned outcome of the Summit would be a communiqué pledging efforts to attain the highest levels of nuclear security, which is essential for international security as well as the development and expansion of peaceful nuclear energy worldwide.
- Each attending nation will nominate its own Sherpa to prepare for this important event.
- We should not wait for an act of nuclear terrorism before working together to collectively improve our nuclear security culture, share our best practices and raise our standards for nuclear security.
- Welcomes the adoption by the Conference on Disarmament of a program of work for the 2009 session and supports early commencement of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.
The latest installment of Rethink Afghanistan from Brave New Films takes on the misconception that the US military presence is advancing the cause of women’s rights in Afghanistan. It’s critically important to hear from Afghan women about the situation on the ground as many people who are sympathetic to their cause accept the idea that the US occupation is protecting women, when in fact it is making the situation worse.
Big news today from the summit in Russia. Presidents Obama and Medvedev issued a “joint understanding” agreeing to reduce each countries’ strategic offensive nuclear weapons stockpile to below 1700 weapons in the next 7 years.
The BBC reports:
After three hours of talks at the Kremlin on Monday, Mr Obama and Mr Medvedev publicly signed a joint understanding to negotiate a new arms control treaty that would set lower levels of both nuclear warheads and delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and bombers.
Under the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, each country is allowed between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed nuclear warheads and 1,600 delivery systems – meaning each side might only be required to decommission a further 25 warheads.
Though these reductions could have been much deeper as an initial step, the agreement is still a significant step forward toward a safer world with fewer weapons. Relations with Russia had soured during the Bush administration. This initial step can help build confidence in the benefits of continued negotiations. Both countries are looking ahead to the possibility of future treaties negotiating further and deeper reductions in their stockpiles. Once the details of the agreement are complete, the Senate will have to ratify the treaty before the START I agreement expires this December.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA-3), photo from his website
As you’ve read here before, we’ve been mobilizing our members to help gain cosponsors for Rep. McGovern’s bill calling for an exit strategy from Afghanistan. This is one of the first legislative vehicles we’ve had in Congress to raise questions about the Obama administration’s plans as they prepare to send another 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. While the bill represents only a small step in asking the administration to develop and present an exit strategy, its significance lies in the fact that it challenges the administration to answer tough questions and evaluate the efficacy of its policy. Because of the amazing grassroots efforts by Peace Action West supporters and other activists around the country, we managed to get the cosponsor count up to 94 before yesterday’s vote.
Rep. McGovern had initially tried to get the bill offered as an amendment to the $105 billion supplemental war funding bills, but couldn’t get it through. The Obama administration opposed the bill, and the Democratic leadership was not eager to put restrictions on the administration. Rep. McGovern was able to get a floor vote on the bill as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, and grassroots groups mobilized to get representatives on board.
In the vote today, the amendment failed 138-278. While the ideal situation would have been passing the amendment, this is still a sign of progress. We have found in congressional lobby visits and public statements that Democratic members of Congress are reluctant to challenge President Obama on Afghanistan and want to give him a chance to let his strategy work. When more than half of the Democratic caucus defied the administration and leadership by voting for this amendment, they signaled that they are willing to take a stand on this issue. We need to encourage members of Congress to speak out more; the only way we’re going to see the Obama administration move is if they are feeling pressure from those in the public and Congress who question the wisdom of the military strategy in Afghanistan. Click here to see how your representative voted, and here if you’d like to send a message of thanks or disappointment.
The slow pace of this organizing can be frustrating, but it’s important to realize that we are having an impact and moving toward our goal. I remember in the early years of the Iraq war, we struggled to get members of Congress to vote for any bill that implied there should be a timeline for withdrawal. The tide turned against the Iraq war, and I’m convinced the same will happen with Afghanistan, if all of us maintain our commitment to spreading the truth and pressuring our government to change course.
In other congressional voting news, the House handily defeated an amendment that would have taken $1.2 billion from cleanup of hazardous nuclear waste to fund our favorite Cold War boondoggle, missile defense. In a strange move, the leadership refused to allow a vote on Rep. Barney Frank’s amendment to cut $369 million that was added as a down payment on $2 billion in F-22s that the Obama administration and military don’t want. House Democrats protested the move, and Rep. Frank took on the argument that we should keep the F-22 as a jobs program.
These arguments will come from the very people who denied that the economic recovery plan created any jobs. We have a very odd economic philosophy in Washington: It’s called weaponized Keynesianism. It is the view that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is of course economic salvation.
More fighter jets. President Obama hasn’t asked for them, Defense Secretary Gates doesn’t want them, but our representatives in Congress are planning to waste money on them anyway. We can stop it. Click here to urge your representative to cut funding for the F-22.
In an effort to trim the substantial fat in the military budget, the Obama administration decided to cut back on its order of new F-22s. These fighter planes were designed to fight planes from the Soviet Union, and are now obsolete. In spite of all this, the House Armed Services Committee added $369 million as a down payment on twelve F-22s, with a long-term cost of $2 billion.
Where did they find this money in the midst of a budget crunch? They took it from a fund to clean up hazardous nuclear waste. There’s no excuse for this irresponsible behavior. The House could vote on an amendment to put the money back in environmental cleanup as soon as tomorrow.
This isn’t about making Americans safer – it’s all about the money. The weapons lobby is incredibly powerful, and they spend millions to influence Congress. They put suppliers and plants in 44 different states, making it a favorite for lawmakers trying to bring money back to their districts. While members of Congress are saying they can’t pay for things like health care that would actually improve the quality of life for millions of people, they have no problem throwing money at a program the President, Secretary of Defense and American people don’t want. Now is the time to show that the American people want smart policies that meet real needs. Because thousands of you spoke out earlier this year, we cut $1 billion in the stimulus bill for the nuclear weapons complex. Let’s work together for another victory.
Our friends at Brave New Foundation have just released the latest part of their documentary Rethink Afghanistan. This segment offers a heartbreaking look at the civilian casualties caused by the occupation of Afghanistan. The mainstream media has not brought this human side of the war to the American public, and Afghan voices are not being heard enough in Congress. A few members of Congress are raising concerns about civilians casualties, both because the devastation is morally reprehensible and it undermines security and stabilization. We need to get these stories out to the public and mobilize people to pressure our government to change course.
Photo of a Basiji forwarded to me by a contact in Esfahan
Here is another update on the situation in Tehran from my contact there, whom I quoted earlier this week:
It’s 1:00 am
I am just coming from outside.
The streets was full of people. (only with their cars)Unbelievable how many Police and Basiji i saw on the streets. Standing at each crossroad with their batons and Evil eyes.
Incredible how many roadblocks they had built this shows that the regime is afraid of the wrath of the people. Specially in Jaame Jam Street near the National TV station - there was so many guards. But i can tell you since last Friday the people have turned the night into day. There are so many cars in the streets. I saw so many guards in the street tonight and i haven’t heard any protest with the car horns tonight. I think the people are afraid and shocked of the big presence of all kind of security forces like Basij , police …..in the streets. They were laughing and playing with their batons . A very ugly laughing.This famous ugly Basiji laughing that unfortunately every Iranian knows. I HATE IT!!!
Today everything was much calmer than the last nights. The people have changed the way of the movement they have stopped there aggressive protests and i think we are going into the next stage of the movement. Peaceful protests and rally’s and ….maybe – maybe i am not sure but i think the people will go for strike next week or if the rally’s continue – the week after that.In contrast of few days ago where i thought that the protests will end soon , i have changed my opinion now and i think that this time everything is different than the past. The people are continuing their protests day after day and the crowds are getting huger and huger. As we all saw today on the 7thTir and Karimkhan street. Beside the fact that Ahmadinejad created a very bad image of Iran in the last for years, i have really to thank him now because without Ahmadinejad this what we see in Iran now would not be possible and maybe all the …..would happen much later.
Years after years the Iranians was suffering from this brutal regime. To say it in one word : THEY HAVE ENOUGH !
And another thing that i have understand during the last days is that : it seems that the people are using Mussavi as a legal pretext/or an excuse for their revolutionary movement , because mussavi is one of them or let me say gently: was one of them. The people are using the name of mussavi so they can continue with their protests as it were legal. (As it is not in Iran)As i said before we don’t have to forget that even Mussavi is in some form one of them. I don’t think that because he is much moderator now than the ruling mullahs he will bring much change to Iran if he would take the place of Ahmadinejad.
We have to be aware of this undeniable fact !!! But ones again the Mussavi and Ahmadinejad conflict can be a huge chance for the Iranian people to free themselves from this Regime and doing the first steps towards a democratic and bright future.
Jon Rainwater, Executive Director. For over 25 years, Jon has been active in campaigns on issues of peace, nuclear disarmament, social justice and environmental sustainability. 
Rebecca Griffin, Political Director. Rebecca is spearheading campaigns to get Afghanistan right, and promote a diplomatic solution with Iran. 
Cara Bautista, Deputy Political Director. Cara is head coordinator for 