[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 27326-27327]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. LOIS CAPPS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, December 15, 2000

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I bring to the attention of my 
colleagues, a thoughtful article by David Kreiger which appeared in The 
Santa Barbara Independent, entitled ``An Open Letter to the Next U.S. 
President: Abolish Nuclear Weapons.'' I submit the following article 
into the Congressional Record.

          [From the Santa Barbara Independent, Oct. 12, 2000]

   An Open Letter to the Next U.S. President: Abolish Nuclear Weapons

                           (By David Krieger)

       The city of Hiroshima's Peace Declaration on August 6, 
     2000, stated, ``If we had only one pencil we would continue 
     to write first of the sanctity of human life and then of the 
     need to abolish nuclear weapons.'' The citizens of Hiroshima 
     have horrendous first-hand knowledge of the devastation of 
     nuclear weapons. They become the unwitting ambassadors of the 
     Nuclear Age.
       If we wish to prevent Hiroshima's past from becoming our 
     future, there must be leadership to reduce nuclear dangers by 
     vigorous efforts leading to the total elimination of all 
     nuclear weapons from Earth. This will not happen without U.S. 
     leadership, and therefore your leadership, Mr. President, 
     will be essential.
       Also in the Peace Declaration of Hiroshima is this promise: 
     ``Hiroshima wishes to make a new start as a model city 
     demonstrating the use of science and technology for human 
     purposes. We will create a future in which Hiroshima itself 
     is the embodiment of those `human purposes.' We will create a 
     21st century in which Hiroshima's very existence formulates 
     the substance of peace. Such a future would exemplify a 
     genuine reconciliation between humankind and the science and 
     technology that have endangered our continued survival.''
       With this promise and commitment, Hiroshima challenges not 
     only itself, but all humanity to do more to achieve a 
     ``reconciliation between humankind and science and 
     technology.'' The place where this challenge must begin is 
     with the threat posed by nuclear weapons.
       At the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the 
     U.S. and the other nuclear weapons states made an 
     ``unequivocal undertaking . . . to accomplish the total 
     elimination of their nuclear arsenals.'' This commitment is 
     consistent with the obligation in Article VI of the Non-
     Proliferation Treaty, and with the interpretation of that 
     obligation as set forth unanimously by the International 
     Court of Justice in its landmark 1996 opinion on the 
     illegality of nuclear weapons.
       In addition to moral and legal obligations to eliminate 
     nuclear weapons, it is also in our security interests. 
     Nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to the existence of 
     our nation and, for that matter, the rest of the world. The 
     American people and all people would be safer in a world 
     without nuclear weapons. The first step toward achieving such 
     a world is publicly recognizing that it would be in our 
     interest to do so. That would be a big step forward, one that 
     no U.S. president has yet taken.
       In the post-Cold War period, U.S. policy on nuclear weapons 
     has been to maintain a two-tier structure of nuclear 
     ``haves'' and ``have-nots.'' We have moved slowly on nuclear 
     arms reductions and have attempted (unsuccessfully) to 
     prevent nuclear proliferation. We have not given up our own 
     reliance on nuclear weapons, and we have resisted any 
     attempts by NATO members to re-examine NATO nuclear policy.
       One of the early decisions you will be asked to make, Mr. 
     President, is on the deployment of a National Missile 
     Defense. While this resurrection of the discredited ``Star 
     Wars'' system will never be able to actually protect 
     Americans, it will anger the Russians and Chinese, undermine 
     existing arms control agreements, and most likely prevent 
     future progress toward a nuclear weapons-free world. The 
     Russians have stated clearly that if we proceed with 
     deploying a National Missile Defense, they will withdraw from 
     the START II Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 
     This would be a major setback in U.S.-Russian relations at a 
     time when Russia has every reason to work cooperatively with 
     us for nuclear arms reductions.
       In fact, Russian President Putin has offered to reduce to 
     1,500 the number of strategic nuclear weapons in START III. 
     Well-informed Russians say that he is prepared to reduce 
     Russia's nuclear arsenal to under 1,000 strategic weapons as 
     a next step. We have turned down this proposal and told the 
     Russian government that we are only prepared to reduce our 
     nuclear arsenal to 2,000-2,500 strategic weapons in START 
     III. This is hard to understand because reductions in nuclear 
     weapons arsenals, particularly the Russian nuclear arsenal, 
     would have such clear security benefits to the United States.
       The Chinese currently have some 20 nuclear weapons capable 
     of reaching U.S. territory. If we deploy a National Missile 
     Defense, China has forewarned us that they will expand their 
     nuclear capabilities. This would be easy for them to do, and 
     it will certainly have adverse consequences for U.S.-Chinese 
     relations. Additionally, it could trigger new nuclear arms 
     races in Asia between China and India, and India and 
     Pakistan.
       North Korea has already indicated its willingness to cease 
     development of its long-range missile program in exchange for 
     the development assistance that they badly need. We should 
     pursue similar policies with Iraq, Iran, and other potential 
     enemies. We should vigorously pursue diplomacy that seeks to 
     turn potential enemies into friends.
       Rather than proceeding with deployment of a National 
     Missile Defense, we should accept President Putin's offer and 
     proceed with negotiations for START III nuclear arms 
     reductions to some 1,000 to 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons 
     on each side. Simultaneously, we should provide leadership 
     for multinational negotiations among all nuclear weapons 
     states for a Comprehensive Treaty to Eliminate Nuclear 
     Weapons. This would be a demonstration of the ``good faith'' 
     called for in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[[Page 27327]]

       In addition to these steps, there are many more positive 
     steps that require U.S. leadership. Among these steps are de-
     alerting nuclear forces, separating warheads from delivery 
     vehicles, providing assurances of No First Use of nuclear 
     weapons, establishing an accounting for all nuclear weapons 
     and weapons grade materials in all countries, withdrawing 
     nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters, 
     and providing internationally monitored storage of all 
     weapons-grade nuclear materials.
       The United States is a powerful country. It will have 
     enormous influence, for better or for worse, on the future of 
     our species and all life. Continuing on with our present 
     policies on nuclear weapons will lead inevitably to disaster. 
     Millions of Americans know that we can do better than this. 
     Because these weapons are in our arsenal now does not mean 
     they must always be, if we act courageously and wisely.
       We need to set a course for the 21st century that assures 
     that it will be a peaceful century. The lack of leadership to 
     end the nuclear threat to humanity's future is unfortunately 
     augmented by other unwise policies that we pursue. Our 
     country must stop being the arms salesman to the world, the 
     policeman for the world, and the chief trainer for foreign 
     military and paramilitary forces.
       We need to become an exporter and promoter of democracy and 
     decency, human rights and human dignity. If these values are 
     to be taken seriously abroad, we must demonstrate their 
     effect in our own society. To do this, we need to reduce 
     rather than increase military expenditures. We are currently 
     spending more on our military than the next 16 highest 
     military-spending countries combined. This is obscene and yet 
     it goes unchallenged. It is another area where presidential 
     leadership is necessary.
       We live in a world in which borders have become incapable 
     of stopping either pollution or projectiles. Our world is 
     interconnected, and our futures are interlinked. We must 
     support the strengthening of international law and 
     institutions. Among the treaties that await our ratification 
     are the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Land Mine 
     Prohibition Treaty, the Treaty on the Rights of the Child, 
     the Treaty on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the 
     Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and 
     the Treaty for an International Criminal Court.
       Mr. President, I have watched many of your predecessors 
     fail to act on these issues. You have the opportunity to set 
     out on a new path, a path to the future that will bring hope 
     to all humanity. I urge you to accept the challenge and take 
     this path. Be the leader who abolishes nuclear weapons. It 
     would be the greatest possible gift to humanity.

     

                          ____________________