By CHAD SOKOLOVSKY

Is it possible to eliminate nuclear weapons? If so, how? Is there any way to ensure that countries have complied with any international laws and not hidden some weapons?

These questions and others will be explored on Friday, October 13, in Modesto by Brian Watson, activist and representative of the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action in Poulsbo, Washington, one of eight defendants recently acquitted of disorderly conduct charges by a Kitsap County jury in June 1999. The eight activists, dubbed the "Bangor Eight," were protesting the U.S. Naval base at Bangor which is planning a $6 billion upgrade to its Trident submarine nuclear submarine system. The eight activists' acquittal was based on the statement of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), otherwise known as the World Court, that the Trident Missile program violates international law and that International law requires citizens to oppose such violations through non-violent means.

According to Ground Zero, the Trident system has been carefully designed to give U.S. troops first strike capabilities by allowing nuclear missiles to explode at or near ground level, thereby hitting hard targets. Such capabilities, according to Watson, give the U.S. an aggressive edge. "These plans allow us to glimpse the true nature of the U.S. nuclear forces...Nuclear weapons are not weapons for 'deterrence', but for aggression. They are not protecting us, but endangering us. They are not upholding the rule of law, but violating it."

The cliché, "Do as I say, not as I do," has a ring of ironic truth as U.S. nuclear weapons policy. While the US has signed treaty agreements such as the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obliging the US to lean toward nuclear disarmament, Washington is planning a $6 billion upgrade to its nuclear submarine arsenal that will turn a defensive system into one that can only be seen as an offensive weapon of aggression.

Former president Jimmy Carter said in Feb. 2000, "I think it can be said that the world is facing a nuclear crisis. Unfortunately, U.S. policy has had a good deal to do with creating it." Carter was referring to the largely ignored NPT.

The U.S. spends more money each year on its military than any other country by more than 40 percent. The end of the cold war has left America with a tremendous stockpile of nuclear weapons. Instead of attempting to disarm its nuclear capabilities, the U.S. has kept many weapons on ready alert and considers them the cornerstone of Western security.

This policy presents problems. First, the lack of commitment by the U.S. to adhere to the NPT has been used as justification by India and Pakistan to amass nuclear weapons. Secondly, the other 180 non-nuclear nations that have agreed to the terms of the NPT have little reason to stay out of the nuclear game if the nuclear nations refuse to hold up their end of the bargain.

Although the NPT has been given lip service by most nations, a landmark statement by the ICJ essentially outlaws the use of nuclear weapons by any nation. The ICJ statement says in part, "The threat or use of nuclear Weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law."

In her book, Nuclear Weapons are Illegal: The Historic Opinion of the World Court and How it Will be Enforced, Ann Fagan Ginger says that citizens need to use the ICJ statement to take action against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Hence, the need for the public to be made aware of the NPT and the ICJ statement is imperative to lessening the nuclear threat to humanity.

Former president Carter says, "Just as American Policy is to blame for many of the problems, so can our influence help resolve the nuclear dilemma that faces the world."

Peace Essay Contest 2001

If we cannot be reconciled with those closest to us, it is futile to think we can be instruments of peace in the world. —Gandhi

One of the most important steps to peace is fostering appreciation for the rich cultural heritages and experiences that contribute to our global life. This understanding can help us work through conflicts that arise as we live and work together.

The 15th annual Peace Essay contest celebrates the cultural diversity of our valley. This local contest, sponsored by the Modesto Peace/Life Center, is open to students in Stanislaus County grades five through twelve.

The Peace Essay Contest offers students an opportunity:

• to explore and honor their own cultural heritage,
• to reflect on what they have learned about other cultures,
• to understand the similarities and differences among people from different cultures, and, for the older students,
• to envision new opportunities to celebrate the diverse cultures in our valley.

Entry deadline is December 1, 2000.

Online copy of the flyer--click here

Peace Camp 2001 Planning Committee volunteers needed

Do you have any suggestions for Peace Camp 2001? speakers? activities? youth program?  Then we’d love to hear from you!

The Peace Camp Planning Committee is looking for ideas and volunteers. The first meeting will be in October. Please call the Peace/Life Center, 529-5750, and leave a message with your name, phone number, and e-mail address if applicable.

Would you like to be part of the Modesto Peace/Life Center Phone Tree?

As part of the tree, you will be notified of upcoming events such as vigils, fundraisers, speakers, and general Peace/Life Center gatherings. This is a great way to stay on top of Peace/Life Center events! If you are interested or would just like more information, please call the Center, 529-5750, and leave a message regarding the phone tree.

Mikhail Gorbachev to speak at Modesto Junior College

(Modesto, CA) — Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union will speak at Modesto Junior College on Wednesday, October 4, 7 p.m. in the MJC Auditorium.

Gorbachev’s topic will be "Peace and Leadership in the 21st Century." The event is being presented by the Modesto Junior College Foundation and co-sponsored by several community partners including Foster Farms and The Modesto Bee. Following his speech Gorbachev will answer questions.

Gorbachev led the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1991 and was responsible for working to streamline and decentralize the communist system. In an effort to secure relations with the West, Gorbachev signed two broad disarmament pacts ending the Cold War, fifty years of nuclear brinkmanship. For his extraordinary efforts, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990.

Gorbachev introduced the world to two new words: perestroika (governmental restructuring) and glasnost (political openness), revolutionary concepts which led to the blossoming of freedom in Eastern Europe and the introduction of democracy to Russia.

Retired from politics, Gorbachev continues to strive towards achieving his global vision of peace. In 1992 he founded and became the president of the Gorbachev Foundation, the International Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies. This non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation attempts to address the challenges of the post Cold War world through the revision of global priorities.

In 1993, Gorbachev founded the non-governmental environmental organization, Green Cross International. Green Cross has chapters in Russia, The Netherlands, Japan, and Switzerland. Its U.S. chapter is known as Global Green. This program’s mission is to clean up military toxins, assist in the creation of global ecological law, and foster a value shift on the environment.

Tickets are $100, $75 and $45 and may be purchased Monday through Friday, 12 noon to 8 p.m. at MJC’s East Campus Auditorium Box Office, 435 College Avenue. Tickets may also be reserved by calling 575-6776, during these open hours.

(edited from MJC press release)

By BRIAN OLIVER SHEPPARD

The US Air Force had a secret project to detonate nuclear missiles on the moon in 1958 "to impress the world with the prowess of the United States," according to an ex-military physicist interviewed by The New York Times. The Times article, which appeared May 16, 2000, gave details of the long-buried, and ultimately scrapped, plan devised in response to the successful Sputnik mission of the Soviet Union.

Physicist Leonard Reiffel, now 72, told the Times that he was one of the scientists in charge of the project. He came forward in the May 4 issue of Nature in response to a book review of Carl Sagan: A Life featured in that magazine.

Dr. Reiffel said that the young Dr. Sagan was also involved in the project. "There would have been an outcry if the project had been made public," Dr. Reiffel admitted. The blast on the moon, which would have been visible to people on earth, would have served as "a PR device, without question, in the minds of the people from the Air Force."

Lacking the technology to beat the Soviet space program into orbit, or even to immediately follow it, the Air Force felt exploding nuclear bombs on the moon would reassert US military and technological superiority in the eyes of the rest of the world, the report indicates. The 1958 project was sponsored by the Air Force’s special weapons center near Albuquerque, New Mexico, though most of the actual research took place at the Armour Research Foundation in Chicago. The Armour Research Foundation is now a part of the Illinois Institute of Technology.

After husband and wife Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of giving atomic bomb secrets to the USSR, the public of the United States became increasingly unsure of the military’s ability to effectively protect US citizens. The fact that the Soviet Union beat the United States into orbit and then was first in landing a probe on the moon in 1959 gave the nation a case of "low self-esteem," according to Dr. Reiffel. These Cold War pressures led to the environment that made such a plan a possibility, the Times article reported.

Dr. Reiffel later became a deputy director at NASA and played an important role in the agency’s Apollo program. The plan to explode nuclear armaments on the moon was dissolved in 1959 when the United States began deploying ICBMs. Until then, for almost a year, Dr. Reiffel says he reported to the Air Force on possible effects on the moon and its gravitational relation to the earth if such explosions were conducted. Dr. Sagan was to study whether the blast could indicate the presence of organic molecules on the moon.

"As these things go, this was small," Dr. Reiffel is quoted as saying. "It was less than a year and never got to the point of operational planning. We showed what some of the effects might be. But the real argument we made, and others made behind closed doors, was that there was no point in ruining the pristine environment of the moon. There were other ways to impress the public that we were not about to be overwhelmed by the Russians."

A spokesman for the US Air Force told The New York Times that it had no comment until it could review its records.

By CHAD SOKOLOVSKY

August 6 marked the 55th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. While many were solemnly reflecting on the past, several hundred protesters marched in San Francisco to speak out against a tragedy that has claimed the lives of over 1 million people and counting.

August 5 marked the 10-year anniversary of the implementation of the UN sanctions on Iraq. Since that time, over 500,000 children under the age of 5 have died from easily curable diseases such as diarrhea and dysentery. On the average, 250 people die every day as a direct result of the sanctions. Hospitals are depleted of medicine allowing preventable diseases to reach epidemic proportions. The sanctions on Iraq have reached genocidal proportions.

The UN seems unwilling to lift the sanctions despite international outrage. Because the innocent citizens of Iraq are being punished for events and circumstances beyond their control, protests have been mounting.

A march and rally in San Francisco was organized for August 6 by the Coalition to End the Sanctions, a coalition including the Modesto Peace/Life Center, religious groups and other political action organizations. Demonstrators gathered in Dolores Park to collect signs and organize the march that ended in the UN Plaza. A banner demanding "End the sanctions against Iraq" led the march.

Once demonstrators reached the UN Plaza, several Iraqi speakers took the stage to give first-hand accounts about the conditions in Iraq. These speakers included some children who had recently left Iraq and are plagued with memories of lost loved ones left behind.

After an Imam from a local mosque sang a prayer in Arabic, Hatem Bazian from UC Berkeley interpreted the passage and recounted the history of foreign intervention in the Middle East. "Our oil? Since when has Iraq become the 51st or 52nd state of the US?" said Bazian, referring to comments of the US government regarding Iraq's oil as a US asset.

Richard Becker from the International Action Center spoke at length regarding the political motives behind the sanctions. The geo-political concerns of the US are at the heart of the justifications given by the US government, according to Becker.

The protest in San Francisco came on the heels of the demonstrations in Los Angeles at the Democratic National Convention, where the anti-sanctions movement was a major issue for protesters.

The anti-sanctions movement has been able to bridge people of different backgrounds, nationalities and religions. Americans, Arabs, Christians and Muslims all marched together in San Francisco to protest the sanctions. Despite differing ideologies, the common desire to stop the suffering has united people from all walks of life.

The US and the UK are bombing Iraq almost daily, and sanctions are killing innocent people on a horrific scale. We cannot remain silent. This is the message of the Coalition to End the Sanctions. Although nearly 700 people came to the demonstration in San Francisco, minimal press coverage was given. It is up to each conscientious individual to speak out against the atrocities being committed in the name of US interests.

By CHAD SOKOLOVSKY

The recent political conventions held this summer may have addressed many issues of concern to Americans. There is one such issue that both established parties, to say nothing of the President, failed to mention. Although the current US involvement in Colombia has the potential to be the next Vietnam, this potential apparently wasn't important enough to be discussed.

An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle from August 21 called the United States' intervention in Colombia a serious mistake, despite bipartisan support. Congress has approved a $1.3 billion foreign aid package to Colombia. The public was told that the foreign aid, which took the form of weapons, helicopters, cash and military training, was to fight the war on drugs. Colombia was supposed to use the funding to combat drug lords and burn coca fields. But a different kind of war in Colombia has been building momentum, and the US troops currently stationed in Colombia are adding fuel to an already blazing fire. So what war is America entering and for what reasons?

Colombia has been in a 40-year old civil war between the government, different rebel groups, and paramilitary forces that frequently work for the Colombian government and the drug lords. One rebel group known as the FARC-EP, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples Army, is reported to control almost 40 percent of the countryside. With rebel troops gaining ground, the US has stepped in.

What reason does the US have in taking sides in a civil war? Colombia is a country rich in natural resources including coffee and more importantly in oil. Texaco, Chevron, BP and Occidental Petroleum are heavily invested in Colombia. Corporate interest including personal stock holdings by current vice-president Al Gore have doubtlessly influenced policy making in Washington. History has shown that when there is revolution or political unrest, foreign investments are some of the first things to be expelled from the country. Any successful rebel group would be an unlikely ally to foreign-owned oil companies.

The story is more complicated than just protecting corporate interests. Colombia has had a turbulent past and general strikes by labor organizers in recent months have contributed to the instability of the country. Most of the oil in the country is shipped to the US, while the average Colombian pays over $2 a gallon for gasoline. The country's economy shrank 4.5 percent last year and the official unemployment rate is at 20.4 percent. According to a recent announcement, the Colombian government plans to cut 5000 jobs by 2001, adding to the civil unrest and exploitation of the Colombian citizens.

Despite the internal troubles, President Clinton plans an escalation. On August 4, the President signed a directive ordering an intensified effort to assist the Colombian government with the already approved $1.3 billion aid package. Last year, the Clinton administration claimed that any money sent to Colombia would be strictly to fight the drug war. The funds were not supposed to be used to fight guerrilla forces. This policy has been revised. According to US State Department Spokesman, Philip Reeker, the helicopters sent to Colombia are permitted to conduct search and rescue operations in addition to the normal anti-narcotics responsibilities. Reeker was referring to a recent government offensive against the FARC-EP in the western town of Arboleda. Government forces were using US Blackhawk helicopters in the attack. Incidentally, there are no coca or poppy fields near Arboleda. This was a direct contradiction of the terms of helicopter use as outlined in the Plan Colombia.

Since the US has admitted that the equipment is going to be used for purposes other than fighting drug lords, what is it there for? Clearly the US is taking sides with the Colombian government, despite that government's repeated, horrific human rights violations and its close ties to both the paramilitary groups and the drug cartels. The Colombian government has continued to suppress organized unions and journalists who try to speak out against the injustice in Colombia. The trade off in exchange for military aid is that the Colombian government will continue to allow US foreign intervention to assure that US corporate interests are protected.

Other South American countries such as Brazil are now refusing to support US intervention in light of the use of US troops and arms against rebel forces.

In addition to the above concerns about US involvement, if US troops already stationed in Colombia are attacked or endangered the President claims the right to increase the number of American troops sent to Colombia. This is a likely outcome since Paul Reyes, a spokesperson for FARC, has stated that if US helicopters are used to rescue government officials or police forces they well be considered "military targets" (San Francisco Chronicle 8/21/00).

This serious issue has received little if any mainstream press coverage. The issues facing Colombia cannot be resolved through military intervention by the US, even if the US has a right to be involved. The US involvement cannot bring about positive results for either the US personnel stationed there, or for the Colombian people who are caught in the middle.

The US intervention in Colombia has serious implications and raises more questions about the legitimacy of military aid to a region that is plagued by human rights violations, unemployment, poverty and corruption.

The US has no business sending troops to Colombia to intervene in a civil war under the guise of protecting Americans from the ravages of cocaine use. The drug war is a hollow excuse for protecting American corporate interests. While the issues might have been clouded in the mid 1960's, there should be no reason that the American public is unaware of the motivations of this military intervention. Alternative press publications such as The Nation, The Progressive, Extra! and Z Magazine have all written in depth on the US intervention in Colombia, and these publications' consensus is that it is simply not justifiable.

Slide-show presentation on Nicaraguan community development

Laura Power & Errol Comma’s presentation on Thursday October 12, at 7:00 p.m. at the College Ave. Congregational Church will be of special importance to anyone who is interested in Third World development, water and sanitation issues, the environment, or social and economic justice in Nicaragua today. Don't miss this interesting talk about the success of poor rural people in improving the quality of their lives. El Porvenir's optimism springs from our experience of the creativity and strength of ordinary people who, with our support, change the life and health of their communities through their own efforts. Laura and Errol will also talk about ways you can participate in this exciting and satisfying work.

Learn about opportunities to travel to Nicaragua on an El Porvenir work experience or educational/cultural tour. These small group trips are offered throughout the year and provide a chance to get to know Nicaraguans on a personal basis, through shared work, meetings and conversations with people in all walks of life.

El Porvenir has supported self-help village water and sanitation projects in Nicaragua since 1989. In 1998, this non-profit organization began a reforestation program to preserve the watersheds of the communities where it has supported the construction of wells and latrines.

Laura and Errol bring 6 years experience with El Porvenir in Nicaragua coordinating programs and delegations