Nulclear talk in Russia - two views:
----------
>
> Subject: sfp-72: NATO Bombing - Dire Warnings
> Date: Monday, May 17, 1999 10:11 AM
>
>
> Two views from members of the Advisory Council of Science for Peace on
> Russian responses to the illegal NATO war against Yugoslavia:
>
> 1] "BOMBINGS REIGNITE NUCLEAR WAR FEARS", Times-Colonist p A15, 13 May
99
> by Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford, co-President of IPPNW, Nobel Peace Prize
> winners
>
> 2] "NATO Blitzkrieg & Russia", letter from David Morgan, President
> of VANA, to Eric Fawcett
>
***************************************************************************
>
>
> 1] "BOMBINGS REIGNITE NUCLEAR WAR FEARS"
> by Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford (Times-Colonist 13 MAY 99 page A15)
> Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford is co-president of the Nobel Peace Prize
IPPNW]
>
> I am writing with an enormous sense of urgency and dread. I have
> just been at a seminar in Moscow, followed by one at the Olof Palme
> Institue in Stockholm. The meetings have convinced me we are on the brink
> of nuclear war by the unintentional escalation of the war against
> Yugoslavia.
>
> Only western press and television coverage does not portray the
> significance of the change in Russian policy regarding nuclear weapons.
> The media imply that Russian warnings of a looming world war, and their
> refusal to ratify START II, are the usual political threats to gain
> concessions from the U.S.A. and loans from the International Monetary
Fund.
>
> This analysis does not reflect the profound change in public
> opinion expressed even by Moscow members of International Physicians for
> the Prevention of Nuclear War. One of our long-term IPPNW doctors,
> Dr. Davidenko, has changed from advocating nuclear disarmament to
> advocating nuclear deterrence for Russia. Our meeting with Aleksander
> Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Defence Committee of the Russian State
> Duma, left us deeply concerned.
>
> Arbatov stated that U.S.-Russian relations, in the wake of
> NATO's bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, are at the "worst, most acute,
most
> dangerous juncture since the U.S.-Soviet Berlin and Cuban missile
> crises." He states that START II is dead, co-operation with NATO is
> frozen, co-operation on missile defence is out of the question, and
Moscow's
> willingness to co-operate on non-proliferation issues is at an all-time
low.
>
> Moreover, anti-U.S. sentiment in Russia is real, deep and more
> wide-spread than ever, and the slogan describing NATO action - "today
> Serbia, tomorrow Russia," is "deeply planted in Russian's minds." Arbatov
> was bitter about 10 years of wasted opportunities on both sides, with
> disarmament talks completely stalled even before this crisis.
>
> Scientist, politicians, doctors and generals all told us the same
> thing, that NATO bombings of Serbia have set back disarmament 20 years.
> Some said that India and Pakistan are safe now they have nuclear weapons
> and that other states like North Korea will step up their nuclear weapons
> programs. Officials from Minatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, have
> indicated their great concern about some 22 nuclear reactors in the
region
> of conflict. A bomb hitting a reactor by accident would cause a
> catastrophe worse than Chernobyl. Government spokesmen told us repeatedly
> that Russia will not allow the bombings to continue for another month,
and
> that because their conventional forces are in tatters, Russia must rely
on
> its nuclear weapons. I must ask, "if these are idle threats, what
> distinguishes them from real threats?" The credibility of the people we
> spoke with has convinced me that the threats are serious.
>
> Opinion is divided in most countries, even in peace
organizations,
> about whether the NATO bombings were a humanitarian effort to stop a
> genocide or an act of aggression by NATO, but their impact on nuclear
> weapons policy is an extremely serious development. Most worrisome to us
> was the consistency of the statements from speakers at the Moscow seminar
> and those we met later in ministries of foreign affairs and health.
>
> The single exception was Dr. Evgenie Chazov. He said we must
renew
> our efforts for nuclear disarmament in this very dangerous situation. Dr.
> Chazov said we are back where we were in 1981 when he and American
> cardiologist Dr. Bernard Lown founded IPPNW, but our work will be more
> difficult now.
>
> The Russian speakers deplored ethnic cleansing and did not
support
> Milosovic, but Dr. Serguei Kapitsa, a scientist famous for his weekly
> television show, stated that Russians feel a sense of betrayal by the
West
> and a profound loss of confidence in treaties and in the United Nations
> because NATO took this action outside the UN. Previously confident that
> Russia was moving toward integration with Europe, they focused their
> security concerns only on their southern and eastern boundaries. Now they
> perceive their primary threat from the West.
>
> Officials in Foreign Affairs (Arms Control and Disarmament) told
> us that Russia has no option but to rely on nuclear weapons for its
> defence because its conventional forces are inadequate. When I said that
> if Russia used even a single nuclear weapon the U.S.A. would respond with
> hundreds or thousands of missiles, they nodded and said "Yes, it would be
> suicidal, but how else can we defend ourselves?"
>
> As I left Moscow, I felt the same dread I experienced in the
> Reagan years, with a similar sense of unreality. While the Russians are
> comparing this situation to the Cuban missile crisis, journalists in the
> West tell me that the war is almost over now that negotiations including
> the Russians are under way. Why are they reassured when Milosevic has not
> agreed to anything, and the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade
has
> added even greater tensions to this war?
>
> Even if the bombings stop now, they changes in Russia's attitude
> toward the West, its renewed reliance on nuclear weapons with thousands
on
> high alert, and its loss of confidence in international law leave us
> vulnerable to catastrophe.
>
> Those of us who live in NATO countries must convince our
> governments to stop the bombings until negotiations can bring about a
> settlement. This crisis makes de-alerting nuclear weapons more urgent
than
> ever. To those who say the Russian threat is all rhetoric, I reply that
> rhetoric is what starts wars.
>
> The global situation is the most urgent crisis of our time. We
> must mobilize all or networks to stop this bombing before we slide into
> the final world war.
>
****************************************************************************
>
> 2. NATO Blitzkrieg & Russia
> by David Morgan, President of VANA Vancouver, May 11
>
> VANA's prime concernn remains the threat of nuclear war. In our 1995
> convention we voted by about 75% in favour of Canada's exit from NATO.
> This was based on NATO's highly belligerent and provocative actions
during
> the Cold War, especially in 1983 when the Pershing II & Cruise missiles
> were deployed in Europe. These actions of NATO's were far more dangerous
to
> human survival than the current blitzkrieg against Yugoslavia. So for
VANA,
> NATO was a thoroughly discredited institution at the end of the Cold War.
>
> When NATO announced its expansion into Eastern Europe, it confirmed our
> worst suspicions about the essentially belligerent and militaristic
policy
> of NATO. Lloyd Axworthy strongly supported this expansion and even
> favoured NATO's expansion into the Ukraine. Much Russian goodwill towards
> the west disappeared as this expansion took place.
>
> NATO's bombing attack on Yugoslavia has been the clincher. The bonds
> between Russia and Serbia are very strong. In 1941, the apparently
> "futile" Serb and Greek resistance to the German invasions delayed the
> start of Barbarossa from 15 May to 22 June - 38 fateful days which were
> critical in late November as the harsh Russian winter closed in on the
> ill-prepared German army. In 1942 when the Germans were attacking Russia
> with 200 divisions they had to keep 40 divisions in Serbia to try to
> control the partisans.
>
> This bombing attack violates the UN Charter, NATO's own North Atlantic
> Treaty of 4 April 1949 and its recent Founding Act on Mutual Cooperation
&
> Security between NATO and the Russian Federation, of 27 May 1979.
> Russian public opinion has swung from suspicion to outrage. Trust and
> goodwill towards the west have been widely damaged.
>
> When the radar warning reports come to the White House or the Kremlin in
> the middle of the night, the fate of the human race can depend on trust
> and goodwill. Both of these priceless assets have been recklessly
> squandered by the US/NATO bombing of Serbia. The stage has been set for
> very dangerous future crises.
>
> Prime Minister Chretien and Foreign Affairs Minister Axworthy have played
> criminal roles in this disaster. VANA strongly supports the international
> group of lawyers led by professors from Osgoode Hall Law School of York
> University in Toronto, who have laid a formal complaint with the
> International Criminal Tribunal at The Hague against all of the
individual
> leaders of the NATO countries (including Chretien, Axworthy & Eggleton)
> and officials of NATO itself. The Canadian peace movement should unite
in
> calling for the resignations of these ministers.
>
>
>
|
