Im Juli 2014 veröffentlichte die internationale IALANA einen speziellen Newsletter mit Dokumenten u.a. zur Vorgeschichte der Klagen der Republik der Marshall-Inseln gegen die Atomstaaten

Introduction

Overview about the Marshall Islands Case

By John Borroughs

On April 24, 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed applications in the International Court of Justice against the nine nuclear-armed states, claiming they have violated their nuclear disarmament obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law. The respondent states are the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. The RMI also filed a companion case against the United States in U.S. federal court in San Francisco.

“Our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damage of these weapons, and we vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again experience these atrocities,” said Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum when the cases were filed. “The continued existence of nuclear weapons and the terrible risk they pose to the world threaten us all.”

This is the first time the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been asked to address issues relating to nuclear weapons since its 1996 advisory opinion, in which it unanimously concluded that 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." The cases serve to bring the legal obligations relating to nuclear disarmament back to the center of debate and action, where they belong, and to ensure that the ICJ’s 1996 opinion is not allowed to lie dormant and be ignored.

The International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) was deeply involved in the 1996 case, and we are now well represented on the International Legal Team for the Marshall Islands in the current ICJ cases.

The ICJ filings are contentious cases, in which the Court gives a binding judgment. While a judgment is formally binding only on the parties to the case, nonetheless the Court’s interpretation and application of the law will be authoritative with respect to other states as well.

 

Three of the nine states possessing nuclear arsenals, the UK, India, and Pakistan, have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court when the opposing state has done so, as the Marshall Islands has. The cases are proceeding as to those states, and developments can be followed on the ICJ website, www.icj-cij.org.

 

As to the other six states, RMI is calling on them to accept the jurisdiction of the Court in these cases and to explain to the Court their positions regarding the nuclear disarmament obligations. However, China has already notified the Court that it declines to accept the Court’s jurisdiction in this matter.

 

The claims in the ICJ cases are for:

 

1. breach of the obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, by refusing to commence multilateral negotiations to that end and/or by implementing policies contrary to the objective of nuclear disarmament;

2. breach of the obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, by engaging in modernization of nuclear forces and in some cases (Pakistan, India) by quantitative build-up as well;

3. breach of the obligation to perform the above obligations in good faith, by planning for retention of nuclear forces for decades into the future;

 

 

 

4. failure to perform obligations relating to nuclear disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race in good faith by effectively preventing the great majority of non-nuclear weapon states from fulfilling their part of those obligations.

For the NPT nuclear-weapon states, the U.S., UK, France, Russia, and China, the claims are made under both the NPT and customary international law.

 

For the four states possessing nuclear arsenals outside the NPT, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, the claims are made under customary international law only. The customary obligations are based on widespread and representative participation of states in the NPT and the long history of United Nations resolutions on nuclear disarmament, and reflect as well the general incompatibility of use of nuclear weapons with international law.

 

The relief requested is a declaratory judgment of breach of obligations relating to nuclear disarmament and an order to take, within one year of the judgment, all steps necessary to comply with those obligations, including the pursuit, by initiation if necessary, of negotiations in good faith aimed at the conclusion of a convention on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

The ICJ has set briefing schedules in the UK and India cases. In the UK case, the RMI is to file the opening memorial by March 16, 2015, and the UK is to file its counter-memorial by December 16, 2015. In addition, the UK can file preliminary objections any time up to three months after the RMI memorial is filed. In the India case, India sent a letter to the ICJ claiming that the Court has no jurisdiction. It has not appointed an agent and did not participate in the scheduling conference set for the RMI and India. The Court ordered that, given these circumstances, an RMI memorial on jurisdiction is to be filed by December 16, 2014, and a counter-memorial by India by June 16, 2015. In the Pakistan case, a scheduling conference has been reset for July 9.

 

The International Legal Team is headed by the two Co-Agents of RMI: Tony de Brum, RMI Foreign Minister, and Phon van den Biesen, an Amsterdam-based lawyer and longtime IALANA member. Other core members of the team are Laurie Ashton, Keller Rohrback, USA; Nicholas Grief, Doughty Street Chambers, London, and Professor of Law, University of Kent; Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law, London School of Economic and Political Science; John Burroughs, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, the UN Office of IALANA; David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, California; and Peter Weiss, Co-President, IALANA. In the case filed in U.S. court, the RMI is represented by the law firm Keller Rohrback.

 

For the filings in the ICJ, background information, and media coverage, see www.nuclearzero.org, where you can sign a petition supporting the Marshall Islands' cases, and www.lcnp.org/RMI.

 

The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits Revised 4/25/14

 

The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits:

Taking Nuclear Weapons To Court

 

By David Krieger

 

Nuclear weapons remain the most urgent threat confronting humanity. So long as they exist, there is the very real chance they will be used by accident, miscalculation or design. These weapons threaten everyone and everything we love and treasure. They are fearsome destructive devices that kill indiscriminately and cause unnecessary suffering. No man, woman or child is safe from the fury of these weapons, now or in the future. Nor is any country safe from them, no matter how powerful or how much it threatens nuclear retaliation.

 

Given the extreme dangers of nuclear weapons, we might ask: why isn’t more being done to eliminate them? There has been talk and promises, but little action by the nine nuclear-armed nations – United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. All nine countries are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.

 

One small Pacific nation, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, has decided to take legal action against the nine nuclear-armed countries, which are threatening our common future. As Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands, points out, “The continued existence of nuclear weapons and the terrible risk they pose to the world threatens us all.”

 

To understand the nature of the legal actions taken by the Marshall Islands, it is necessary to go back in time. Forty-six years ago, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was opened for signatures; two years later it entered into force. The treaty seeks to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons, but it does more. It also obligates its parties to level the playing field by negotiating in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. This treaty currently has 190 countries signed on, including five nuclear weapon states and 185 non-nuclear weapon states.

 

The Marshall Islands is taking its case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and, in addition, filing against the U.S. separately in U.S. Federal District Court in San Francisco. The lawsuits argue that the nuclear disarmament obligations apply to all nine nuclear-armed states as a matter of customary international law. The courts are being asked in these Nuclear Zero Lawsuits to provide declaratory and injunctive relief, by declaring that the nuclear weapon states are in breach of their obligations under international law and ordering them to begin negotiating in good faith to achieve a cessation of the nuclear arms race and a world with zero nuclear weapons.

 

The Marshall Islands has shown courage and boldness by taking action in filing these lawsuits. It is a country that knows firsthand the consequences of nuclear detonations. Between 1946 and 1958, the U.S. conducted 67 nuclear weapon tests in the Marshall Islands. These tests had an equivalent explosive force greater than 1.5 Hiroshima bombs being detonated daily for 12 years. The Marshall Islanders paid a heavy price in terms of their health and well-being for these destructive tests.

 

Now this small island nation is standing up against nine of the most powerful countries on the planet. It is “David” against the nuclear nine “Goliaths.” Its field of nonviolent battle is the courtroom.

 

The Marshall Islands is, in effect, challenging the nuclear weapon countries to be honorable and fulfill their obligations not only to the rest of the countries that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but to all humanity.

 

The Republic of the Marshall Islands is offering us a way to live on a planet that is not threatened by nuclear catastrophe due to human fallibility or malevolence. This courageous small island country deserves our strong and unwavering support.

 

_______________

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), and a consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

 

 

Further Links:

 

Court Documents:

 

http://www.nuclearzero.org/in-the-courts

 

http://www.wagingpeace.org/nuclearzero/

 

Media Coverage:

 

http://www.nuclearzero.org/newsmedia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civil Society Presentations, 2014 NPT PrepCom, 29 April 2014

 

Mr. Phon van den Biesen, Vice-President, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, Co-Agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands

 

Introduction

 

It is a great honor for me to address this distinguished meeting. I am an attorney in Amsterdam and Vice-President of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms.

Last Thursday, in my capacity as Co-Agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), I submitted nine Applications to the International Court of Justice against each of the nine states possessing nuclear weapons.¹ The legal team advised the RMI that this was an entirely responsible thing to do given the state of the law today.

 

In litigation breach of contract is one of the common grounds to sue. This is not different in international litigation. If any one State is not getting what it is entitled to, based on a contract, a treaty or norms of customary international law, in spite of the clarity of the language in which the obligations are stated, there comes a day that such a State will stop requesting politely and will bring the State that is not delivering to Court. Since July 1996, some three quarters of the UN General Assembly have, indeed and over and over again, been asking politely for a beginning of negotiations leading to leading to an early conclusion of a convention prohibiting and eliminating nuclear weapons.² However, most of the nuclear armed States wouldn’t have it and ignored the polite request. And so these cases are now in Court.

 

Jurisdiction of the Court

 

Three of the nuclear-armed States have accepted the general compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (UK, India and Pakistan). The other six have not done so and are, therefore, in accordance with the rules regulating the World Court, invited to accept the Court’s jurisdiction in the cases brought by the RMI. These six states maintain they are committed to the international rule of law and the at least eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. They should come before the Court and explain their positions, and give the Court a wider opportunity to resolve the deep divide of opinion concerning compliance with obligations of nuclear disarmament.

 

 

The 1996 Advisory Opinion

 

In its Advisory Opinion of July 1996 the World Court provided an extensive answer to the question posed by the General Assembly with respect to the legality or illegality of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Besides that and in the context of the question posed by the UNGA, the Court provided additional analysis:

 

“98. (…)In the long run, international law, and with it the stability of the international order which it is intended to govern, are bound to suffer from the continuing difference of views with regard to the legal status of weapons as deadly as nuclear weapons. It is consequently important to put an end to this state of affairs: the long-promised complete nuclear disarmament appears to be the most appropriate means of achieving that result.” (para. 98. of the Advisory Opinion)

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________

 

1. Three of the cases are on the Court’s General List: Proceedings instituted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 24 April 2014; Proceedings instituted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on 24 April 2014; Proceedings instituted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the Republic of India on 24 April 2014. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3

2. Most recently, A/RES/68/42, adopted 5 December 2013

From that starting point the Court went ahead and stated that it “appreciates the full importance of the recognition by Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of an obligation to negotiate in good faith a nuclear disarmament.” (para. 99 of the Advisory Opinion) And then the Court went on to – unanimously –conclude:

 

“F. 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.” (para. 105(2)F, concluding section of the Advisory Opinion)

 

Contents of the applications

 

In each of the nine Applications – which serve as a mere introduction to the proceedings – the RMI provides the relevant facts with respect to the nuclear arsenals as well as the nuclear policy of the Respondent State and sets out the main points of our legal position.3 Among other things we argue that upgrading and modernizing a State’s nuclear arsenal is not particularly providing evidence of respect for the legal obligation to bring the nuclear arms race to an early cessation, but rather it demonstrates that the Respondent State is not performing its legal obligations in good faith. The RMI also argues that the continued refusal of most of the nuclear-armed States to permit the commencement of negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament or even to participate in an Open-Ended Working Group aimed at facilitating such negotiations is evidence of their breaching the central obligation “to pursue and bring to a conclusion”.

 

 

So, the Court provided this additional analysis; the existing obligation is formulated in no uncertain terms.

 

What RMI asks from the Court

 

The RMI requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Respondent is, in performing its obligations, not acting in good faith, and also to adjudge and declare that the Respondent breaches its obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. Obligations that flow from Article VI of the NPT and also from the requirements developed under customary international law. Also, in each of these cases the RMI requests the Court to Order the Respondent to pursue, by initiation if necessary, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.

 

David and Goliath

 

The steps taken by the RMI have been characterized through the David and Goliath metaphor. That picture, certainly, is useful especially when one is aware that in the fight between these two men David prevailed. But we should not forget that in Court cases the respective actual powers of the two parties to “the fight” are not a relevant factor. All parties are equal before the law; all parties are equal before the World Court. Each State is entitled to demand that promises made are kept.

All State Parties to the NPT are under the obligation to pursue these negotiations. A situation in which less than two hands full of States are frustrating the expectations, yes, the rights of the great majority of States is not sustainable and needs to be put to an end, not by the law of force, but rather by the force of law.

________________________________________

 

3. UK: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/160/18296.pdf; Pakistan: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/159/18294.pdf; India: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/158/18292.pdf. Applications filed against the other six nuclear-armed states are available at www.nuclearzero.org.

 

The Emotional and Psychological Trauma to Our People Can't Be Measured In Real Terms

The Republic of the Marshall Islands in the northern Pacific Ocean is not only a breathtakingly beautiful island state, but has recently moved into the public eye by starting a bold initiative that is widely interpreted as a "David against Goliath" undertaking.

The Marshall islands were subjected to dozens of nuclear tests, carried out by the U.S. after 1945.
According to the Associated Press, the island group filed suit in late April against each of the nine nuclear-armed powers in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. It also filed a federal lawsuit against the United States in San Francisco.

The Marshall Islands claims that instead of negotiating disarmament, the nine countries are modernizing their nuclear arsenals, spending $1 trillion on those arsenals over the next ten years.

"I personally see it as kind of David and Goliath, except that there are no slingshots involved," David Krieger, president of the California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told AP. The Foundation is acting as a consultant in the case and is hoping that other countries will join the legal effort, Krieger points out.

Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are included in the indictment. The last four are not parties to the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but appear to be, according to the lawsuits, bound by its provisions under "customary international law." The NPT, considered the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament efforts, requires negotiations among countries in "good faith" on disarmament, AP reports.

None of the countries had been informed in advance of the lawsuits. The case found broad recognition within the international press.

The Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands, Tony de Brum, explains in an interview the impact the nuclear tests had and still have for his citizens and what he hopes this lawsuit can achieve for the island state and the world community.

Picture: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

You grew up on the island of Likiep during the 12-year period when the United States tested 67 atomic and thermonuclear weapons in the atmosphere and under water in the Marshall Islands (1946-1958). What are your memories on the impact these tests had for the island of Likiep and its inhabitants? Environmentally, politically and psychologically?

My memories of the tests are a mixture of awe, of fear, and of youthful wonder. We were young, and military representatives were like gods to our communities and so our reactions to the tests as they took place were confused and terrifying. We had no clue as to what was happening to us and to our homelands. Our elders, including my grandfather, tried to stop the tests in petitions and communications to the UN but were not successful. I personally witnessed the injuries to some of our countrymen from Rongelap and to this day cannot recall in words my sense of helplessness and anxiety without severe emotional stress. But for as long as I can remember, the explosions and the bizarre effects that lit up our skies are still a source of pain and anger. How could human beings do this to other humans?

While in later life many attempts have been made, both in good and bad faith, to reconstruct the impact of the testing on our people, only the physical and environmental effects can be discussed with some confidence. The emotional and psychological trauma to our people, both young and old, cannot be measured in real terms. The pain is real and the uncertainty is overwhelming. As a young lady said to me when showing me pictures of her dead deformed infant child, "God did not create my baby. He cannot be so cruel."

The Republic of the Marshall Islands recently filed an extraordinary lawsuit at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, suing all nine nuclear weapons possessors for failing to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. But only three of the nine nuclear states named by the lawsuit generally accept the rulings of the International Court of Justice. What do you hope for the outcome of this case?

My country has exhausted all means within our limited power to bring attention and closure to our outstanding nuclear issues with our former Administrative Authority, the United States. Mechanisms jointly established for dealing with outstanding claims for physical injury and property damage have fallen way short of satisfying even the basic findings of the Nuclear Claims Tribunal formed under treaty agreements. This is due mostly to the withholding of critical information necessary for us to make informed decisions regarding our nuclear past and our uncertain future. To this day the United States still refuses to release information we have identified and requested under established processes. All the while we have to cope with displaced communities, skyrocketing medical costs, dangerously radioactive environments, and deprivation of use of traditional lands.

The United States tells us they have satisfied their obligation under the Free Association Compact, a Treaty, and that they will not entertain any claims or requests for meaningful assistance in this issue. In fact, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the cases of the People of Bikini and the People of Enewetak seeking damages for their destroyed homelands. After seeing what mere testing of these terrible weapons of mass destruction can do to human beings it makes sense for the Marshallese People to implore the nuclear weapons state to begin the hard task of disarmament. All we ask is that this terrible threat be removed from our world. It is the best we can do as collateral damage in the race for nuclear superiority. Our sacrifice will be for naught if the nuclear countries do not stand up and take notice of the evil that nuclear weapons present to our earth.

Do you think that this case can help to create enough international momentum for the Non-Proliferation-Treaty (NPT) to be treated -- due to its near universal adherence -- as part of customary international law by which all states must abide, regardless of whether or not they actually signed the treaty?

We believe that it is sensible and logical for the world community to consider this matter as one of customary international law. To do otherwise is to gamble with the future of the world.

What effects would that have on the discourse of nuclear disarmament worldwide?

It should stimulate intelligent discourse and wise solutions. For what would it gain the world for instance, to be protected from climate change, only to suffer massive destruction from nuclear weapons? All our efforts to be sane about the future must be connected to survival and peace. The right hand cannot be out seeking climate peace while the left is busy waging nuclear war.

Looking at the status quo of this discourse, how do you evaluate the outcome of the recent NPT PrepCom at United Nations' headquarters in New York City which closed without adopting the Chair's draft recommendations to the Review Conference?

The outcome of the recent NPT PrepCom appeared to be more "business as usual," with the nuclear-armed parties to the treaty essentially evading their Article VI obligations or claiming they were fulfilling them in a step by step manner, while at the same time continuing to modernize their nuclear arsenals and relying upon them in their military strategies. It is clear that the nuclear-armed states are not pursing negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament, as they are obligated to do under Article VI of the treaty.

You have also been advocating on the issue of climate change, a grave concern that affects not only the Pacific Islands, but has obvious global consequences. Are there linkages between nuclear disarmament and climate change? Considering that both issues climate change, as well as nuclear disarmament are political matters of tremendous significance, which one, in your opinion, has the capacity of being addressed faster by the international community?

I hit upon this somewhat in question four but clearly one cannot isolate climate change from the other most pressing issue of world security today. They go hand in hand, and must be dealt with in a coordinated and universally accepted pathway. As a country that has seen the ravages of war, suffers the lingering effects of nuclear tests, and facing the onset of a rising sea, we see all these to be threats of equal force against world peace and human life. But finger pointing and challenges of who goes first must now stop and sane and intelligent human beings must confront this insanity with firm confidence and clear peaceful intentions.

 

 

“Together with our support for your legal proceedings and our recognition of the intense suffering from which this was born, I would like to say that we also feel a strong and long lasting bond with the people of the Marshall Islands. The experience of your country and your people is at the very heart of our movement.”

Kate Hudson, General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

“The new legal challenge to nuclear-armed nations from the Marshall Islands is hugely inspiring. The Nuclear Zero campaign is another definitive step in the direction of nuclear abolition.”
Kathleen Sullivan, Program Director, Hibakusha Stories

 

U.S. Conference of Mayors Adopts Bold New Resolution Calling for Constructive Good Faith U.S. Participation in International Nuclear Disarmament Forums; Commends Marshall Islands for bringing lawsuits against U.S. and 8 other Nuclear-Armed States

 

For immediate release: June 24, 2014

Contact: Jackie Cabasso, Mayors for Peace North American Coordinator (510) 306-0119

 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), the non-partisan association of America’s big cities, on June 23, 2014 unanimously adopted a sweeping new resolution Calling for Constructive Good Faith U.S. Participation in International Nuclear Disarmament Forums at its 82^nd annual meeting in Dallas, Texas. According to USCM President Kevin Johnson, Mayor of Sacramento, California, “These resolutions, once adopted, become official USCM policy.”

 

Recalling that “August 6 and 9, 2015 will mark the 70^th anniversaries of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed more that 210,000 people by the end of 1945,” the resolution notes that “the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) continue to suffer from the health and environmental impacts of 67 above-ground nuclear weapons test explosions conducted by the U.S. in their islands between 1946 and 1958, the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima-sized bombs detonated daily for 12 years.”

 

On April 24, 2014, the RMI filed “landmark” cases in the International Court of Justice against the U.S. and the eight other nuclear-armed nations, claiming that they have failed to comply with their obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law to pursue negotiations for the global elimination of nuclear weapons, and filed a companion case in U.S. Federal District Court. In its resolution, the USCM “commends the Republic of the Marshall Islands for calling to the world’s attention the failure of the nine nuclear-armed states to comply with their international obligations to pursue negotiations for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and calls on the U.S. to respond constructively and in good faith to the lawsuits brought by the RMI.”

 

Over the past three years there has been a new round of nuclear disarmament initiatives by governments not possessing nuclear weapons, both within and outside the United Nations. Yet the U.S. has been notably “missing in action” at best, and dismissive or obstructive at worst. The USCM resolution documents the dismal U.S. record and calls on the administration to participate constructively in deliberations and negotiations regarding the creation of a multilateral process to achieve a nuclear weapons free world in forums including the Third Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons to be held in Vienna, Austria in December 2014, the UN Conference on Disarmament, and the May 2015 NPT Review Conference.

 

The USCM also “calls on the President and Congress to reduce nuclear weapons spending to the minimum necessary to assure the safety and security of the existing weapons as they await disablement and dismantlement, and to redirect those funds to meet the urgent needs of cities.”

 

Recalling the U.S. commitment under the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to pursue negotiations in good faith on the elimination of nuclear weapons, the resolution notes that “forty-four years after the NPT entered into force, an estimated 16,400 nuclear weapons, most held by the U.S. and Russia, pose an intolerable threat to humanity, and there are no disarmament negotiations on the horizon” and that “the U.S. and the eight other nuclear weapon possessing states are investing an estimated $100 billion annually to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals while actively planning to deploy nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future.”

 

The resolution states that “according to the General Accounting Office, the U.S. will spend more than $700 billion over the next 30 years to maintain and modernize nuclear weapons systems,” and that “this money is desperately needed to address basic human needs such as housing, food security, education, healthcare, public safety, education and environmental protection.”

 

Reflecting current international tensions, the resolution warns that “the U.S.- Russian conflict over the Ukraine may lead to a new era of confrontation between nuclear-armed powers, and nuclear tensions in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and on the Korean peninsula remind us that the potential for nuclear war is ever present.” The resolution “urges President Obama to engage in intensive diplomatic efforts to reverse the deteriorating U.S. relationship with Russia.”

 

Expressing its “deep concern” about the U.S. failure to engage in recent intergovernmental and United Nations nuclear disarmament initiatives, the USCM “calls on the U.S. to participate constructively and in good faith in the Third Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons to be hosted by Austria in Vienna, December 8 – 9, 2014” and “in urgent commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament for the early conclusion of a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons,” and “to press the other nuclear weapon states to do likewise.”

 

The USCM “calls on the U.S. to demonstrate a good faith commitment to its disarmament obligation under Article VI of the NPT by commencing a process to negotiate the global elimination of nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, under strict and effective international control, at the May 2015 NPT Review Conference, and to press the other nuclear weapon states to do likewise.”

 

The USCM also “calls on its membership to Proclaim September 26 in their cities as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and to support activities to enhance public awareness and education about the threat posed to humanity by nuclear weapons and the necessity for their total elimination.”

 

The resolution notes that Mayors for Peace, with over 6,000 members in 158 countries, representing one seventh of the world’s population, continues to advocate for the immediate commencement of negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2020, and that “Mayors for Peace, with members in the U.S. and Russia; India and Pakistan, and Israel, Palestine and Iran can be a real force for peace.” The USCM “expresses its continuing support for and cooperation with Mayors for Peace,” and “encourages all U.S. mayors for join Mayors for Peace.”

 

The resolution was sponsored by Mayor Donald Plusquellic of Akron, Ohio, past President of the USCM and a Vice-President of Mayors for Peace, and 26 co-sponsoring mayors from cities in Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maine, California, Minnesota, and New Mexico.

 

Mayors for Peace is an international association, founded in 1982 by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States Conference of Mayors is the national non-partisan association of cities with populations over 30,000.

 

Full text of the resolution, with the complete list of co-sponsors: http://wslfweb.org/docs/MSPUSCMsponsorsfinal.pdf

 

More information about Mayors for Peace: www.mayorsforpeace.org and www.2020visioncampaign.org

 

More information about the U.S. Conference of Mayors: www.usmayors.org

 

US warns Marshalls over missile test

5 June 2014, Radio New Zealand

The United States Army has warned Marshall Islands residents about a missile test from Kwajalein Atoll later this month.

The army says an interceptor missile is scheduled to be launched from Meck Island in Kwajalein on June the 23rd and it is warning people to stay away from certain areas northeast of Kwajalein.

The Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein is one of the U.S. military's primary missile defense test sites.

The Army says the populated atolls of Utrik, Ailuk, and Likiep and the island of Mejit are in what it describes as an Ocean Caution Area.

About 1,600 people live in the area and the army has urged people not to travel between the atolls from June the 23rd to June the 25th as back up tests are scheduled.

The army says the risk to people on the atolls is small but it has urged them to avoid being on two uninhabited islands on the southeastern end of Likiep Atoll during the test period.

It has also warned planes and ships to keep clear.

The army has also warned anyone observing mission debris to stay at least 45 metres away and report it.