It is already widely understood that President Bush's proposals for Missile Defence, or "Son of Star Wars" as it is more commonly known, menace existing agreements on nuclear disarmament and the control of nuclear competition between the powers. The Bush Administration intends to jettison the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which is generally seen as a cornerstone of international security. Its proposals also put at risk the Outer Space Treaty, which seeks to prevent the deployment of weapons designed to wage war in and from space. European peace movements will wish to evaluate the significance of the annulment of these treaties for European security.
National Missile Defence seeks not only to create a shield against nuclear missiles, but also to set in place the material pre-requisites for space wars. Star Wars proponents in the United States regard NMD as one "layer" in a broad US programme. This is to be "multi-layered" and to include "theatre defence" - weaponry used in or in close proximity to an area of conflict - missile defence and space-based weaponry. In December, the Pentagon chose the Stennis Space Centre in Mississippi as the development site for the $20-$30 billion "Space-Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator". Under this programme it is envisaged that 20 to 30 space-based laser satellites will eventually orbit the earth. They will be able to fire at targets in space, such as other satellites, as well as target earth. And they will doubtless be pressed into service to augment "Theatre" Missile Defence.
But it is not so widely understood how far these potential changes in military technology are transforming military doctrine and the policies of the nuclear powers concerning the use of nuclear weapons. Not only do these risk launching a new wave of nuclear proliferation, but they also risk the legitimation, and then, inevitably, the detonation of "tactical" nuclear bombs, or mini-nukes, against, for example, guerrilla insurgents. This would undoubtedly call forth paroxysms of lesser terrorism in response.
These changes already threaten all the existing conventions which seek to establish humanitarian standards in the prosecution of wars and to protect civilians, children and the other non-combatant victims of conflict.
The peace movements have always sought ways to join their forces in action against such harmful developments. Sometimes they have been able to do this very effectively, as was shown during the campaign against the installation of intermediate nuclear forces in Europe in the 1980s.
But today, at the same time as campaigning, we need to apply all our resources to achieve a better understanding of the meaning of the new changes in military technology and military doctrine. We now face new threats, against which old antidotes will not work.
What will result from the Russian declaration to terminate the rule of "no-first-use" of nuclear weapons?
What effects flow from the United States' commitment to domination of space, sea, air, land and communications in pursuit of the horrifying doctrine of "Full Spectrum Dominance", or from associated US Airforce thinking on "The Enemy as a System"?
What is the meaning of the revision of the Charter of the North Atlantic Treaty at the 1999 Washington Conference, and the effective sidelining of the United Nations?
Relevant action by the peace movements is more and more dependent on clear understanding of the veritable mutations which modern military thinking has undergone.
The present concerns of the peace movements include these and other difficult problems. Can we prevent the imposition of missile defence, and the destruction of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? What can be done to prevent the deployment of lethal weapons in space? How can we advance the movement to ban illegal nuclear weapons such as Trident, and to prevent the continued manufacture and use of Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions? How can the campaign against the arms trade be strengthened? What steps are necessary to halt the militarisation of the European Union? If military alliances can undermine the Charter of the United Nations, and weaken the sway of international law, what can we do to prevent the continuous expansion of Nato to include more and more formerly neutral states, and its ever more ambitious programme of hegemony over others? Is it not time to dissolve the Alliance?
Already, many interesting proposals are being elaborated or re-discovered. These include the call for the creation of nuclear-weapons-free zones in Europe; moves to strengthen the links between campaigns for peace and the campaign against globalisation, including continuing actions against the arms trade; preparing international actions against Star Wars through petitions and demonstrations, culminating in the International Day against the Militarisation of Space on 13 October 2001; helping in the defence of the rights of neutral states to remain outside military pacts; giving appropriate support to those who object to military service, or who object on conscientious grounds to military taxation; developing the international networks to share information and experiences about the effects of depleted uranium; mobilising in the universities against the Academic Military Industrial Complex; addressing continuing problems of peace and human rights - notably the crisis in Palestine, the oppression in Turkey and the defence of the Kurdish people, the problem of Cyprus, and the results of military intervention in the Balkans, amongst all too many other pressing issues.
We in the Russell Foundation have been engaged in an extensive process of consultation for a period of two years, in order to discover how to improve the co-operation of non-governmental organisations across Europe in favour of peace and human rights. We have received much advice from peace movements and other groups, many of which participated in two consultation meetings in Brussels. There has also been a programme of national meetings, during the course of which there has been widespread agreement that it is necessary to establish a permanent European Network for Peace and Human Rights, to discuss all the issues raised in this appeal, and related questions, to provide an inclusive forum for the exchange of information and ideas, and to help the co-ordination of practical actions.