Posts Tagged ‘Marshall-Inseln’

Österreich: Let’s ban the bombs!

Donnerstag, Dezember 11th, 2014

“Austria pledges to work for a ban on nuclear weapons

Austria pledges to work for a ban on nuclear weapons
Humanitarian initiative on nuclear weapons must initiate treaty process in 2015

December 9, 2014

After 44 states called for a prohibition on nuclear weapons at a conference in Vienna on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons, Austria delivered the “Austrian pledge” in which it committed to work to “fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons” and pledged “to cooperate with all stakeholders to achieve this goal”.

“All states committed to nuclear disarmament must join the Austrian pledge to work towards a treaty to ban nuclear weapons”, said Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

“Next year is the 70 year anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that will be a fitting time for negotiations to start on a treaty banning nuclear weapons”, Fihn added.

States that expressed support for a ban treaty at the Vienna Conference include: Austria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burundi, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Holy See, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

These announcements were given at a two-day international conference convened in Vienna to examine the consequences of nuclear weapon use, whether intentional or accidental.

Survivors of the nuclear bombings in Japan and of nuclear testing in Australia, Kazakhstan, the Marshall Islands, and the United States, gave powerful testimonies of the horrific effects of nuclear weapons. Their evidence complemented other presentations presenting data and research.

“The consequences of any nuclear weapon use would be devastating, long-lasting, and unacceptable. Governments simply cannot listen to this evidence and hear these human stories without acting”, said Akira Kawasaki, from Japanese NGO Peaceboat. “The only solution is to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons and we need to start now,” Kawasaki added.

For decades, discussions on nuclear weapons have been dominated by the few nuclear-armed states – states that continue to stockpile and maintain over 16,000 warheads. The humanitarian initiative on nuclear weapons has prompted a fundamental change in this conversation, with non-nuclear armed states leading the way in a discussion on the actual effects of the weapons.

Unlike the other weapons of mass destruction – chemical and biological – nuclear weapons are not yet prohibited by an international legal treaty. Discussions in Vienna illustrated that the international community is determined to address this. In a statement to the conference, Pope Francis called for nuclear weapons to be “banned once and for all”.

The host of the previous conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, Mexico, called for the commencement of a diplomatic process, and South Africa said it was considering its role in future meetings.

“Anyone in Vienna can tell that something new is happening on nuclear weapons. We have had three conferences examining their humanitarian impact, and now with the Austrian pledge we have everything we need for a diplomatic process to start”, said Thomas Nash of UK NGO Article 36.”


(Quelle: ICAN.)

USA: Peeeeeace – keine Chemiewaffen, bitte

Dienstag, September 17th, 2013

“U.S. Plans Nuclear Missile Tests Around International Day of Peace and UN High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament

Two dates this month have special significance to those who want to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons: the International Day of Peace (September 21) and the UN High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament (September 26).

Instead of honoring the significance of these dates and working in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament, the United States has chosen to schedule two tests of its Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile on September 22 and September 26.

Just hours after the International Day of Peace ends, the U.S. plans to launch a Minuteman III – the missile that delivers U.S. land-based nuclear weapons – from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

Then, on the same day that most countries will send their head of state or foreign minister to New York for the UN’s first-ever High-Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament, the U.S. plans to send another Minuteman III missile from California to the Marshall Islands.

These missiles are designed to carry nuclear warheads capable of killing thousands of times more people than the chemical weapons used in Syria.

Your actions have helped stop Minuteman III tests before: in 2011 on the International Day of Peace, and in 2012 on the anniversary of the largest-ever nuclear weapon test conducted by the U.S. (Castle Bravo in the Marshall Islands).

We need your support to stop these two tests as well. Click here to send a message to President Obama, telling him to cancel these two provocative nuclear missile tests and to attend the UN High-Level Meeting on September 26.”


(Quelle: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation)

Marshall-Inseln: Erneuter US-Atomwaffen-Test droht

Donnerstag, Mai 10th, 2012

“May 16 ICBM nuclear weapon capable missile test set

there will be a protest of the launch at a time still to be announced. call MacGregor Eddy 831 206 5043 to confirm location and time before going to the vigil. There is always a chance of last minute cancellation or postponement.


The LGM-30G Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, is an element of the nation’s strategic deterrent forces under the control of the Air Force Global Strike Command. The “L” in LGM is the Department of Defense designation for silo-launched; “G” means surface attack; and “M” stands for guided missile.


The Minuteman is a strategic weapon system using a ballistic missile of intercontinental range. Missiles are dispersed in hardened silos to protect against attack and connected to an underground launch control center through a system of hardened cables. Launch crews, consisting of two officers, perform around-the-clock alert in the launch control center.
An extensive life extension program is underway to keep the remaining missiles safe, secure and reliable well into the 21st century. These major programs include: remanufacture of the solid-propellant rocket motors, replacement of standby power systems, repair of launch facilities, and installation of updated, survivable communications equipment and additional security enhancements.
Today’s Minuteman weapon system is the product of almost 40 years of continuous enhancement.
The current Minuteman force consists of 450 Minuteman III’s located at the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo.; the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom AFB, Mont.; and the 91st Missile at Minot AFB, N.D. all data from


(Quelle: Peace Protest at Vandenberg Space Command / Air Force Base.)

Siehe auch:

May 15 peace vigil and protest ICBM launch 3:45 pm to 6 pm

Global: Nein zum US-Atomraketentest (KAMPAGNE)

Montag, Februar 13th, 2012

Oppose Nuclear Missile Test Launches

Please sign the petition below to register your opposition to the planned test-launch of a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base on February 25, 2012. The last test-launch, fired in July, was a unique failure, and we believe that our previous petition effort helped lead to the cancellation/delay of the subsequent test-launch that was originally planned – paradoxically – for the International Day of Peace, September 21, 2011.

We will submit this petition to the White House three days before the scheduled launch or every time we gather 1000 signers.

You can also click here to download a paper version of the petition to collect signatures in your community.

The United States regularly test-launches nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, to the Marshall Islands.

Each test costs tens of millions of dollars — money which is desperately needed to meet domestic needs and contribute to genuine security here at home. As important as the budgetary implications, such tests also foster international distrust and sow the seeds of future, potentially nuclear-armed conflicts.

The continued testing of Minuteman III nuclear-capable missiles is a clear example of U.S. double standards. The U.S. government hypocritically believes that it is fine to test-fire these missiles time and again, while expressing criticism and even outrage when other countries conduct tests of relatively primitive, shorter-range missiles. Such double standards may encourage nuclear proliferation and make the world an even more dangerous place.

The testing of these missiles undermines the credibility of President Obama’s stated commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons and United States obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and other international agreements.

The American people cannot afford the current level of U.S. military spending, which roughly equals the military spending of the rest of the world combined. A recharged and expanded nuclear arms race will further compound the problem. I call on President Obama to take the following steps:

1. Cancel the February 25, 2012 ICBM test-launch.

2. Fulfill the legal requirement, binding on the United States under the 1970 Nonproliferation Treaty, to end the nuclear arms race “at an early date” and to negotiate “in good faith” the elimination of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery.


Wenn Sie die Petition unterzeichnen möchten, klicken Sie bitte hier.


(Quelle: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.)

USA: Test von atomwaffenfähiger Trägerrakete

Samstag, Juli 9th, 2011


Pazifik: Vorbereitung auf den Untergang…

Dienstag, Mai 10th, 2011

“If a Country Sinks Beneath the Sea, Is It Still a Country?

By LISA FRIEDMAN of ClimateWire

Rising ocean levels brought about by climate change have created a flood of unprecedented legal questions for small island nations and their neighbors.

Among them: If a country disappears, is it still a country? Does it keep its seat at the United Nations? Who controls its offshore mineral rights? Its shipping lanes? Its fish?

And if entire populations are forced to relocate — as could be the case with citizens of the Maldives, Tuvalu, Kiribati and other small island states facing extinction — what citizenship, if any, can those displaced people claim?

Until recently, such questions of sovereignty and human rights have been the domain of a scattered group of lawyers and academics. But now the Republic of the Marshall Islands — a Micronesian nation of 29 low-lying coral atolls in the North Pacific — is campaigning to stockpile a body of knowledge it hopes will turn international attention to vulnerable countries’ plights.

“At the current negotiating sessions and climate change meetings, nobody is truly addressing the legal and human rights effects of climate change,” said Phillip Muller, the Marshall Islands’ ambassador to the United Nations.

“If the Marshall Islands ceases to exist, are we still going to own the sea resources? Are we still going to be asked for permission to fish? What are the rights that we will have? And we are also mindful that we may need to relocate. We’re hoping it will never happen, but we have to be ready. There are a lot of issues we need to know the answer to and be able to tell our citizens what is happening,” he said.

Frustrated by the dearth of answers to the questions he was posing, Muller said, Marshall Islands leaders contacted Columbia Law School. Michael Gerrard, who leads the law school’s Center for Climate Change Law, picked up the challenge and issued a call for papers.

Theoretical questions become real

Gerrard, who is arranging a conference sponsored by Columbia University’s Earth Institute next year, said that when he began reaching out to scholars, he realized most were working in isolation from one another. And, he said, some of the most ticklish legal questions facing small island nations have been understudied — because until recently, the notion of a country’s extinction has been largely theoretical.

“The prospect of a nation drowning is so horrific that it’s hard to imagine,” Gerrard said. Moreover, he added, until just a few years ago, it was difficult to have a conversation in the international community about how countries might adapt to climate change.

“There was a concern that it would divert focus from mitigation. But now people recognize that even with the most aggressive imaginable mitigation measures, the climate situation will get worse before it gets better, and we have to begin making serious preparation,” he said.

The plight of refugees is the most emotional of the looming questions. Deciding where to relocate citizens is just the beginning for a disappearing nation. Still unanswered: What will the political status of those displaced people be? Will they assimilate into the culture and economy of their new host country, or will they retain a separate identity?

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates that rising sea levels, saltwater intrusion and accelerated coastal erosion could lead to as many as 200 million environmentally induced migrants worldwide by 2050.

The Carteret Islanders of Papua New Guinea could be some of the world’s first climate “refugees.” The land is expected to be under water by 2015, and Papua New Guinea’s mission to the United Nations has already announced it would evacuate the approximately 2,000 islanders to Bougainville Island — about a four-hour boat ride away.

Maldives wants a fund of last resort

Meanwhile, in the Maldives, President Mohamed Nasheed declared upon entering office that he would create a sovereign fund — something of a last-resort insurance policy — in the event that the country’s 305,000 citizens would require relocation. The fund fell victim to budget shortfalls, but Maldivian officials have said it had the desired effect of raising awareness in the international community.

And while environmental migration is not a new phenomenon, the projected scale of human movement over a short period of time is unprecedented. But, noted University of New South Wales professor Jane McAdam, “there is at present no internationally agreed definition of what it means to be an environmental ‘migrant,’ ‘refugee,’ or ‘displaced person,’ and consequently, no agreed label for those affected.”

Edward Cameron, former senior adviser to the government of the Maldives, added: “We see at the moment how many people are on the move in Pakistan.” While the floods devastating that country have been displacing millions internally, Cameron asked, “What if they were on the move across an international border? They certainly wouldn’t have refugee status.”

But while questions abound over the status and rights of displaced persons, experts say that field of study is burgeoning compared to the study of sovereign rights of vulnerable countries.

McAdam, who has looked at the question of whether a disappeared nation could retain its U.N. seat, noted that there is no automatic triggering mechanism that “undoes” a state.

“Certainly states have ceased to exist in the past, but it’s through occupation, war, state secession,” McAdam said. The closest thing to an extinct nation would be a government in exile. Yet even that assumes the government will eventually return to its territory — something climate change may make impossible.

“There’s precedent for other things that we can draw on, but … there’s no self-executing formula for deciding when a country doesn’t exist anymore,” she said.

Cleo Paskal, associate fellow at Chatham House and author of “Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map,” said one of her top worries is the fate of countries’ maritime exclusive economic zones.

Those areas where countries have exclusive rights to the resources are measured from coastlines or offshore islands. But, Paskal noted, the laws assume the coastlines won’t change or disappear. That’s already happening.

Laws assume coastlines are a constant

“Any country with a coastline or offshore islands that are being used to anchor claims need to start thinking about if that coastline or offshore island is affected, and what will that do to the exclusive economic zone claims?” she said. “The core issue is that we have written our laws, regulations, subsidies on the assumption that the environment is a constant, and it isn’t.”

Moreover, as Paskal noted in a recent blog post, countries that take in climate “refugees” might make a case for governing the former nation’s maritime zone — something she described as a “very lucrative and geopolitically touchy proposition.”

Meanwhile, Paskal and others warn that well before a country disappears under rising waters, it will face less provocative but deeply vexing problems.

“On your way down, before your country disappears, you’ve got desalination problems, agriculture problems, import problems. You might lose your fresh water; your land might start to degrade because of saltwater intrusion,” Paskal said.

Cameron said threatened nations need answers to the vexing legal questions of land, water and migration for their own sakes as well as to send a signal to developed countries stalling on climate change action that “if you don’t come up with a response, we’re going to start looking at legal options.” But more broadly, he said, the international community needs to start viewing climate change through the lens of human rights.

“What we’re trying to do in this debate is take an old issue, which is climate change, and make people look at it in a completely different way … as a human and social issue instead of an ecological issue,” he said. “Climate change is not about polar bears; it’s about people, and human rights helps us to understand it as a human issue.”

Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.”


(Quelle: The New York Times.)