Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 10. April 2010 / Time Line April 10, 2010
Version 3.004/10/2010
National Security Archive Update, April 10, 2010
KISSINGER BLOCKED DEMARCHE ON INTERNATIONAL ASSASSINATIONS TO
CONDOR STATES
Rescinded Orders to Warn Military Regmies Days before Letelier
Bombing in Washington, D.C.
Overruled Aides who Wanted to "Head Off" a "Series of International
Murders"
Washington, DC, April 10, 2010 - Only five days before a car-bomb
planted by agents of the Pinochet regime rocked downtown Washington
D.C. on September 21, 1976, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
rescinded instructions sent to, but never implemented by, U.S.
ambassadors in the Southern Cone to warn military leaders there
against orchestrating "a series of international murders,"
declassified documents obtained and posted by the National Security
Archive revealed today.
The Secretary "has instructed that no further action be taken on
this matter," stated a September 16, 1976, cable sent from Lusaka
(where Kissinger was traveling) to his assistant secretary of state
for Inter-American affairs, Harry Shlaudeman. The instructions
effectively ended efforts by senior State Department officials to
deliver a diplomatic demarche, approved by Kissinger only three
weeks earlier, to express "our deep concern" over "plans for the
assassination of subversives, politicians, and prominent figures
both within the national borders of certain Southern Cone countries
and abroad." Aimed at the heads of state of Chile, Argentina and
Uruguay, the demarche was never delivered.
"The September 16th cable is the missing piece of the historical
puzzle on Kissinger's role in the action, and inaction, of the U.S.
government after learning of Condor assassination plots," according
to Peter Kornbluh, the Archive's senior analyst on Chile and author
of the book, The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity
and Accountability. "We know now what happened: The State
Department initiated a timely effort to thwart a 'Murder Inc' in
the Southern Cone, and Kissinger, without explanation, aborted it,"
Kornbluh said. "The Kissinger cancellation on warning the Condor
nations prevented the delivery of a diplomatic protest that
conceivably could have deterred an act of terrorism in Washington
D.C."
04/10/2010
START Really a Beginning?
By: Lawrence S.
Wittner
Does the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed by
U.S. President Barack
Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Prague on April
8, really provide a beginning toward a nuclear-free world? That's
what Obama implied in a statement two weeks earlier. Speaking to
reporters at the White House, he described the treaty as an
historic step toward "a world without nuclear weapons."
At the least, START qualifies as a significant disarmament measure.
Under its provisions, the two nations would cut their deployed
strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 each, a reduction of about 30
percent. Furthermore they would each be limited to 700 deployed
nuclear delivery vehicles (i.e. missiles, submarines and bombers)
and to another 100 delivery vehicles in reserve. Verification would
be assured by 18 on-site inspections per year. According to a
statement issued by Peace Action, America's largest peace and
disarmament organization: "The START treaty is a good step towards
reducing the threat from nuclear weapons." Cutting nuclear arsenals
"makes Americans safer and sends the right message to the rest of
the world."
In fact, the treaty is less sweeping than government officials have
asserted. Indeed, under its provisions, the warheads are simply to
be taken off deployment. There is no requirement for their
destruction. Furthermore, the new treaty counts each bomber as one
nuclear warhead, whereas, in reality, a nuclear bomber can hold
roughly ten times as many such weapons. In addition, one might ask
whether the two nations -- which together possess about 96 percent
of the world's 23,000 nuclear weapons -- could not go further than
these relatively small reductions. "We wanted to go lower," an
administration official remarked defensively; but "this was a
negotiation with the Russians, not the Arms Control
Association."
Even so, it's hard to deny that the new START treaty represents an
advance for nuclear disarmers, particularly after the lean years of
the Bush administration. The agreement resumes the nuclear
disarmament process among the most heavily nuclear-armed nations,
lowers the number of deployed nuclear weapons, and updates the
disarmament verification and monitoring system. It also lays the
groundwork for a better relationship between the United States and
Russia, thus paving the way for further nuclear reductions.
Perhaps for these reasons, conservatives in both nations seem eager
to block treaty ratification. In the United States, where treaty
approval will require 67 votes in the Senate, the entire Republican
caucus in that body has announced that it will oppose any nuclear
reduction treaty until the President commits himself to modernizing
the U.S. nuclear arsenal. It also has warned that it will not
ratify the START treaty if the president cuts back the U.S. missile
defense program. Meanwhile, In Russia, hardliners contend that
their nation should rely more on nuclear weapons to offset NATO's
superiority in conventional military forces and to cope with the
U.S. missile defense program, now creeping toward Russia's borders.
As a result, ratification by both the U.S. Senate and the Russian
Duma remains uncertain.
The cautious nature of the Obama administration's Nuclear Posture
Review -- its official declaration of nuclear policy -- appears to
indicate its recognition of the serious obstacles it faces.
Announced on April 6, after lengthy intra-governmental battles, the
statement avoided committing the U.S. government to a "no first use
policy" for nuclear weapons or to the idea that the sole purpose of
such weapons was to deter a nuclear attack on the United States and
its allies. The Review also reiterated the Obama administration's
earlier decision to increase spending on the maintenance of the
U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Given the high expectations of peace
and disarmament organizations, they expressed their
disappointment.
On the other hand, this latest Nuclear Posture Review contains some
significant departures from those of the past. For the first time,
the U.S. government committed itself not to use nuclear weapons to
attack non-nuclear nations that were in compliance with the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In addition, the Review declared
that the "fundamental role" of U.S. nuclear weapons was to deter
nuclear attacks on the United States and its allies, as well as
that the U.S. government would not explode nuclear weapons for
tests, rejected the development of new nuclear weapons, and was
ready to negotiate substantially deeper nuclear weapons reductions
with Russia.
These changes from past practice and policy are important -- not
only in their own right, but because they have the potential to
lead the way to a nuclear-free world. Indeed, within the coming
months, much of the future of nuclear weapons -- and perhaps of the
planet -- will be determined. Not only will the START treaty and
the Nuclear Posture Review be hotly debated, but an NPT review
conference will open this May at the United Nations. Here
government leaders from around the world will discuss the
obligations they have under the treaty -- for the non-nuclear
nations, to forgo nuclear weapons; for the nuclear nations, to
disarm.
But none of this is going to get very far without a massive
outpouring of popular sentiment. At the moment, polls show
overwhelming public support for building a nuclear weapons-free
world. As this support is largely latent, it needs to be mobilized
if it is to overcome fierce political opposition and governmental
inertia. But there are signs that this is happening. Peace and
disarmament organizations are working to sharpen public
consciousness of the issues. Millions of people are already busy
petitioning for nuclear abolition. And many thousands of them will
be participating in an international demonstration for nuclear
abolition in New York City on May 2, as the NPT review conference
gets underway at the United Nations.
With lots of popular pressure -- and a little bit of luck -- START
could provide the beginning of a nuclear weapons-free world.
Dr. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New
York/Albany. His latest book is Confronting the Bomb: A Short
History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford
University Press).
 |
 |