Posted by Samara Dun
Jul 02, 2008; From Financial Times

Sean Stannard-Stockton writes in the Financial Times:  "As we face the myriad challenges of the 21st century, we must focus our examination of the social sector on identifying the very best people and organisations. We must champion these leaders and invest heavily in their ability to achieve an impact. Just as businesses turn investment dollars into profit, non-profits turn philanthropic dollars into social impact. It is not enough to simply do good, it is time to start funding the best."  (Emphasis ours; read the complete article here.) 

We couldn't agree more! Ploughshares Fund has been investing in the smartest people with the best ideas to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons, and build a safer, more peaceful world for over 25 years.  As we accelerate our efforts to put the U.S. on a path to a nuclear weapon-free world in the months ahead, nothing will be more important than identifying and investing in leadership, creativity and impact.

Check out Sean's blog, Tactical Philanthropy, for some of the latest thinking on the "new wave" of philanthropy. He writes, "Rather than supporting status quo projects, the donors of the Second Great Wave will primarily be concerned with funding entities that promise to bring new approaches to solving social problems," which is what Ploughshares Fund is all about.

Posted by Deborah Bain
Jul 02, 2008; From USA Today

"Shocking and irresponsible" is how Craig Williams describes a plan being considered by the Army to ship deadly chemical weapons to military sites in four states as a way to accelerate the destruction of the munitions.  Williams, executive director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group (CWWG) says that not only is such transport illegal, but it could expose the public to lethal nerve agents and mustard gas, and pose a risk of WMD terrorism.  Last April marked ten years since the landmark Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) entered into force and embarked on a plan to destroy all of the worlds chemical weapons stockpiles by 2007.  While solid progress has been made, that deadline was missed and the Pentagon has repeatedly extended the deadline, as Congress reduced funding for the task.  But thanks to relentless and targeted lobbying by CWWG and other groups, Congress has begun to add to the chemical weapons demilitarization budget and committed to completing destruction by 2017.  Two weeks ago, Ploughshares Fund renewed its support for the organization and its advocacy efforts to ensure that chemical weapons are eliminated quickly, safely and definitiively.

Posted by Paul Carroll
Jul 01, 2008; From Times of London

Another notable call to disarm came yesterday when four prominent British statesmen co-authored an op-ed in the Times of London that mirrored the seminal piece by U.S. counterparts in the Wall Street Journal more than a year ago.  In the article, called “Start Worrying and Learn to Ditch the Bomb”, three former Foreign Secretaries and one former NATO Secretary General laid out their reasons why nuclear disarmament is both possible and desirable.  Their case includes many of the same arguments articulated by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn -- the spread of nuclear know-how, nuclear terrorism that is not deterrable, and the need to conclude a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), among other things.  The article follows earlier statements from high-level UK officials, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown himself, endorsing the goal of eventual nuclear abolition.  Ploughshares Fund has supported efforts in Europe and the UK for years, recognizing the “special relationship” between the U.S. and UK and, in particular, their unique nuclear weapons ties.  Among the organizations we support, the British-American Security Information Council works with government officials in both countries to advocate for safer nuclear policies and plans.  In addition, the Acronym Institute works in international forums to build coalitions of like-minded governments to push for meaningful nuclear reductions on the path toward a nuclear weapon-free world.

Posted by Deborah Bain
Jun 26, 2008; From The Guardian

Ploughshares Fund grantee Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is in the news with a big story for the second time this week.  As reported in the Guardian (and other major news outlets) "the U.S. has removed its nuclear weapons from Britain, ending a contentious presence spanning more than half a century...on the orders of President George Bush.  The report's author, Hans Kristensen, one of the leading experts on Washington's nuclear arsenal, said the move had happened in the past few years, but had only come to light yesterday."  Kristensen noted that the move follows similar removals from bases in Germany and Greece, and leaves the U.S. with about 250 nuclear warheads in Europe.   On FAS' Strategic Security blog, he adds, "Why NATO and the U.S. have decided to keep these major withdrawals secret is a big puzzle. The explanation might simply be that 'nuclear' always means secret, that it was done to prevent a public debate about the future of the rest of the weapons, or that the Bush administration just doesn’t like arms control. Whatever the reason, it is troubling because the reductions have occurred around the same time that Russian officials repeatedly have pointed to the U.S. weapons in Europe as a justification to reject limitations on Russia’s own tactical nuclear weapons."

Posted by Paul Carroll
Jun 26, 2008; 

Today another positive step was taken in the years-long quest to roll back North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.  Since a Fall 2005 agreement, and later a February 2007 proclamation, negotiations and diplomatic give and take among the players in the Six Party talks (the U.S., North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia), negotiations and the diplomatic give-and-take have been extremely delicate and tenuous.  Nonetheless, in what can fairly be called a dramatic change of approach, President Bush has supported diplomatic engagement with the North in a multi-lateral setting that has yielded positive results.  Today the North delivered to China a declaration of its nuclear program’s history, including the amount of plutonium it has separated that could be used for weapons.  In exchange, the U.S. announced that it is lifting sanctions under the Trading With the Enemy Act and has started a clock under which North Korea will be removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, also allowing for sanctions to be lifted. 

A more dramatic event will take place soon when North Korea destroys – in front of western media – the cooling tower from its plutonium production reactor, symbolizing the extent to which it has disabled its nuclear facilities.  It is notable that President Bush said in his speech outlining the developments that “multilateral diplomacy is the best way to peacefully solve the nuclear issue with North Korea. Today's developments show that tough multilateral diplomacy can yield promising results.”

Posted by Deborah Bain
Jun 25, 2008; From Politico.com

"As Congress prepares to consider the annual Department of Defense authorization bill and other military spending legislation totaling more than $700 billion, the need for more aggressive scrutiny is abundantly clear," write Ploughshares Fund grantee William Hartung of the New America Foundation, and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).  Pointing to a $9.3 trillion national debt and large unmet social needs, Hartung and Sanders call for new measures to stop the "revolving door" that allows Pentagon employees to leave government service and go to work in the lucrative defense industry.  The Government Accountability Office reported that as of 2006, some 2,435 former generals, admirals, procurement officials and senior civilian leaders in the Pentagon were working in the defense industry, many working on defense contracts related to their former agencies. "These abuses of the public trust — and the public purse — are simply unacceptable."  Hartung and Sanders call for new requirements to close loopholes in revolving door laws. Otherwise, they write, "the Pentagon will continue to misspend untold billions of dollars that could have been applied to urgent national priorities."

Posted by Deborah Bain
Jun 24, 2008; 

 "On June 22, international opposition to a U.S.-proposed missile defense system based in the Czech Republic and Poland ratcheted up as thousands of people around the world participated in a 24-hour hunger strike," writes Katrina vanden Heuvel in The Nation.  Despite the number of participants "this tremendous grassroots opposition has received zero coverage from the U.S. mainstream media."  She quotes Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione, who says that the U.S. is "rushing to deploy a technology that does not work against a threat that does not exist."  vanden Heuvel concludes, "given the exorbitant costs of missile defense, its destabilizing impact, and the popular opposition in the host countries, greater attention needs to be paid to this issue during this presidential campaign."

Posted by Alexandra Toma
Jun 23, 2008; 

Last year as part of the defense budget process, Congress mandated the Departments of Defense and Energy to submit a comprehensive review of the nation's nuclear posture "to address the role and value of nuclear weapons in the current global security environment" by the end of 2009.  Such an assessment has not been conducted since the last Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in 2001.  A key challenge for peace and security organizations is to figure out how best to influence the review.
In the fourth meeting of its kind, the Peace and Security Initiative - partnering with Jon Wolfsthal at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) - recently brought together a group of think tank and advocacy leaders to discuss ways that the peace and security community can do just that. It is especially worthwhile to share these few tidbits from this meeting:
 

Posted by Deborah Bain
Jun 20, 2008; From World:Bridge

The plight of the five million people displaced from their homes by the war in Iraq is first and foremost a humanitarian crisis. But as Ken Bacon, president of the Ploughshares-funded Refugees International (RI) notes, it has become a major security problem, as well.  RI recently issued a report that found that internally displaced Iraqis are turning increasingly to militia groups, not the government, for support. "As a result of the vacuum created by the failure of both the Iraqi government and the international community to act in a timely and adequate manner, non-state actors play a major role in providing assistance to vulnerable Iraqis. Militias, not the government, are winning the loyalty of aid recipients. This poses an obvious threat to what the U.S. most wants in Iraq--a stable, peaceful country run by a publicly supported government under the rule of law.” On World Refugee Day, recognition by the Bush Administration of the gravity of the crisis seems largely absent.  (photo: Refugees International)

Posted by Daryl Kimball
Jun 19, 2008; 

(by guest contributor Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Ploughshares-funded Arms Control Association.)

In the first (and so far only) event of its kind this election season, the Arms Control Association's (ACA) June 16 Annual Meeting featured a session with representatives of the campaigns of Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama on "what their respective candidates would do to advance U.S. and international nonproliferation and disarmament efforts."

While there are differences between the candidates' positions on some important policy details and implementation steps, the discussion provides further evidence of the emerging bipartisan consensus in favor of renewed U.S. leadership on nuclear disarmament that is needed to win support for steps needed to shore up the beleaguered global nonproliferation system.

Before a packed crowd of more than 150 with C-SPAN on hand for live coverage, John Holum spoke for the Obama campaign, while Stephen Biegun spoke for the McCain campaign. Holum was Undersecretary of State for International Security and Arms Control and the the director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Bill Clinton Administration. Biegun was the national security advisor to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and was the executive secretary of the National Security Council from 2001 to 2003.

(See the full transcript of the session and C-SPAN video of their remarks.) 

After their opening remarks, Holum and Biegun responded to a series of questions on how their candidate would handle issues, including North Korean denuclearization, Iran's uranium enrichment program, nuclear terrorism, nuclear testing and the CTBT, new nuclear weapons, the future of nuclear arms control with Russia and organizing the government to more effectively deal with nonproliferation issues.

In his opening, Holum emphasized Senator Obama's commitment to "a world in which there are no nuclear weapons, period," noting that "Senator Obama has recognized that crossing the nuclear threshold is not simply passing a gradient, but plunging into a different realm."

Referring to the Bush administration's now dead proposal for a new robust nuclear earth penetrator, Holum said "rather than finding new ways to use nuclear weapons, we need to confirm that in today's world, their only utility is to deter an attack on us. And in the world [Senator Obama] seeks, they'll have no utility at all."

Holum said that Senator Obama "sees these issues as profoundly important" and noted that he has made nonproliferation a priority of his during his time in the Senate, as evidenced by his work with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) on the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act, which was introduced along with Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in 2007.

Holum said, "Senator Obama understands that if we don't take seriously our own commitments under the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] to pursue nuclear disarmament, we'll have an uphill battle to lead a global response when Iran and North Korea blow off their obligations or an even bigger task in seeking to strengthen enforcement."

Biegun noted that in John McCain's May 27, 2008 speech on nuclear security in Denver, he quoted President Reagan who said 25 years ago that "our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth."

"This is very much Senator McCain's hope as well," Biegun said.

Biegun noted that McCain is not George W. Bush and that "Senator McCain openly embraces the role of allies ... and the role of multilateral organizations in this process of addressing nuclear proliferation and improving nuclear security." He noted that McCain "will continue the process of studied, but forward progress on reducing the size of the nuclear arsenal of the United States of America," and "will be looking to engage Russia in the reduction of its nuclear forces." Biegun also said that McCain in his speech "also sought to restore some of the anathema around nuclear weapons."

"I agree completely with John that it's diplomatic and strategic folly for us to erase the divide between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons. There is an anathema around nuclear weapons that properly must be restored," Biegun added.

Both Holum and Biegun said their candidates would place a high priority on taking steps to prevent the threat of catastrophic nuclear terrorism. Holum said "the first priority that Senator Obama has laid out and that he's pursued since he has been in the Senate is prevention, securing all the nuclear materials and nuclear weapons that are now in vulnerable sites in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. Everything else pales behind that responsibility."

"It's shocking to me that we're still 12 years away from having those materials secured based on the current pace. What [Obama] has pledged to do is pursue that within four years," Holum said.

Biegun noted that Senator McCain has long-supported the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program and said he's "confident" regardless of who's in the White House, that they will put this issue "at the top of their agenda."

Although Holum and Biegun struck similar themes, a few important differences on key issues emerged during the discussion. On nuclear reductions with Russia, Holum said that Senator Obama "supports reductions in nuclear weapons, and that means going significantly below the levels in the current [Strategic Offensive Reductions Agreement of 2002] of 1,700-2,200 deployed warheads [on each side]."

"He also wants those agreements to be verifiable, either through the extension of START verification provisions or some other arrangement worked out in discussions with Russia," and "he would work with Russia to take our arsenals off hair-trigger alert," Holum said. The 1991 START agreement is due to expire in December 2009 unless extended.
Biegun didn't explain how low Senator McCain might go or commit to reducing increasing nuclear warning times, but said that "in terms of the overall direction" there is no difference of opinion from the Senator McCain campaign. He noted that McCain would begin this process with a Nuclear Posture Review, with a "strong advisory role for our military and our civilians in the Pentagon" and "close consultation with our allies." Such a review has already been mandated by the Congress.

On the issue of the long-sought and long-delayed negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty, Holum noted that in contrast to the current Bush policy, Senator Obama would seek negotiation of a fissile material cut-off "with strong verification" provisions.
Senator McCain, on May 27, expressed support for the initiative but did not indicate whether he believes it can or should be verified. Biegun elaborated by saying that there is a U.S. proposal currently on the table at the Conference on Disarmament that does not make a judgment on verifiability that "could very easily be taken up"  and that "McCain would be very eager to move forward."

On nuclear testing and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Holum said Obama will "press for the earliest possible ratification of the CTBT -- not just take a look, but take the lead in getting it approved -- and not just limit testing, but to end it for all time." He noted that there have been improvements in the verifiability of the zero-yield CTBT since 1999 and greater confidence in the United States ability to maintain its existing stockpile in the absence of nuclear test explosions.

Biegun was far more equivocal about the advisability of the CTBT in its current form. In response to one of the questions, he noted that McCain said on May 27 that "he's committed to continuing the U.S. moratorium on testing" and did commit "to take a look" at the CTBT "and any other serious initiative" to further limit testing. Referring to the Senate debate and rejection of the CTBT in 1999, Biegun said, "I don't accept as confidently as John that all of those problems are resolved."

Biegun added, "the question was, can this treaty, as it is currently written, be brought into force. I think that is a stretch ...."

To date, 178 countries including the United States have signed. Nine more states including the U.S. and China must ratify to achieve its entry into force.

On the controversial proposal for a new, so-called "reliable replacement warhead," each speaker reiterated his candidate's previous positions. Biegun noted that Senator McCain has not addressed it specifically but noted that in his May 27 speech McCain laid out an "all-encompassing vision that he expects to apply to any new developments in this strategic area."

Holum noted that Senator Obama has said that "we shouldn't be rushing to deploy a new nuclear warhead at a time when we are leading to convince the rest of the world that nuclear weapons have a diminished and an ultimately disappearing role in our security strategy and in the security strategy of other countries." Holum said Obama "hasn't ruled out for all-time that concept; but he has said it's very important not to pursue anything like this way before it's necessary to consider it."

As I noted in my opening remarks for the session, Senator McCain's and Senator Obama's focus on this underreported issue in the campaign is a welcome start. Yet, every presidential candidate pays homage -- at some point -- to the importance of reducing and eventually eliminating the nuclear threat. The real test is whether they will exert the time, the diplomatic energy, and the good judgment necessary to meet the challenge once they are elected -- and whether the public is sufficiently informed and engaged to hold them to their commitments.

Posted by Deborah Bain
Jun 19, 2008; 

Based on a report by Ploughshares Fund grantee Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Time magazine is warning that European Air Force bases that store U.S. nuclear weapons are below par in with respect to security for those weapons. "According to an internal U.S. Air Force report," the magazine notes, "the sites are falling short of Department of Defense requirements, with fencing and security systems in need of repair, thin rotations that often lead to staffing shortages, and responsibilities falling to inadequately trained foreign security personnel."  Kristensen, who obtained the Air Force report through the Freedom of Information Act, concludes in FAS' Strategic Security Blog that "the nuclear weapons deployment in Europe is, and has been for the past decade, a security risk....Since the terrorist attacks in September 2001, billions of dollars have been poured into the Homeland Security chest to increase security at U.S. nuclear weapons sites, and a sudden urge to improve safety and use control of nuclear weapons has become a principal justification in the administration’s proposal to build a whole new generation of Reliable Replacement Warheads. But, apparently, the nuclear deployment in Europe has been allowed to follow a less stringent requirement."   Kristensen writes that perhaps the new information will empower governments and individuals who have long argued for an end to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

The news comes just as the Financial Times reports that hundreds of sensitive nuclear missile components cannot be accounted for in the U.S. military's inventory.  Ploughshares Fund grantee Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, is quoted in the Financial Times article calling the revelation was “very significant and extremely troubling.”

Posted by Terri Lodge
Jun 18, 2008; 

Hard work on Capitol Hill by Ploughshares Fund's Arms Control Advocacy Collaborative is paying off again.  On June 17, 2008 the House Energy and Water Subcommittee on a bipartisan basis voted to delete all funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). The Administration had requested $40 million dollars for the RRW this year even though the Congress decided to end the program last year.  Noting that "the President's request is long on weapons and short on nonproliferation," Subcommittee Chairman Pete Visclosky (D-IN) deleted funding for the RRW while increasing funding for nonproliferation programs.  He said, "there is no sense in expending the taxpayer's hard earned dollars absent clear plans" for the future. Read Congressman Visclosky's statement here.

Much more work is ahead.  The Senate will be acting on this issue later in the summer.   

Posted by Deborah Bain
Jun 18, 2008; From Slate

While A.Q. Khan, the disgraced former head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, characterized as "lies" the new allegations revealed by Ploughshares Fund grantee David Albright that he provided a Swiss nuclear smuggling ring with blueprints for an advanced nuclear warhead, readers of the online magazine Slate had other questions on their minds.  What does such a blueprint actually look like, they asked Slate's "explainer," Chris Wilson.  Is it even blue? He, in turn, asked Albright and nuclear weapons experts at three other Ploughshares-funded organizations to clarify.  With information from Matt Bunn, Phil Coyle and Jon Wolfsthal, the Explainer explained that "while the word blueprint may conjure images of white schematics on blue paper, the designs found on the computers of two Swiss businessmen associated with Khan contain gigabytes of digital information.... Assuming the electronic blueprints described this week are fairly complete and authentic, they contain far more than just a set of pictures."  Would the information by itself enable a country to develop a nuclear weapon? "Most experts say it is more important to stop the proliferation of the nuclear material needed to create an atomic weapon than the designs for the bombs themselves. But many fear that the blueprints could contain sensitive nuclear secrets that are classified in the United States. Even if a nation or terrorist group with nuclear ambitions lacked the knowledge or materials to construct the precise weapon from the blueprints, the instructions may offer some pointers for the development of a more general program."      

Posted by Paul Carroll
Jun 16, 2008; From Washington Post

Over the weekend, the Washington Post, New York Times and virtually every major news organization reported on new information developed by Ploughshares Fund grantee David Albright indicating that detailed, digital blueprints for a sophisticated nuclear warhead design were contained in computer files seized from a family of Swiss businessmen. The three men – a father and two sons – were part of the infamous A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network and had been arrested and jailed several years ago.  In 2006 it was discovered that their computers contained, among other things, design specifications for a warhead that could be small enough to be delivered by a missile – such as those possessed by Iran and North Korea.  In Sunday’s Washington Post, Joby Warrick writes about discovery of the files and raises serious questions about their implications.  Albright's Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) is a leader in providing independent technical oversight and analysis of governmental and media claims.  ISIS’ new report alerted the world to the existence of the blueprints, and to the fact that the extent of their dissemination and whether other copies exist elsewhere are unknown.  The report quotes a senior IAEA official who says it is a "very scary possibility" that others may have obtained them.  
Some four years after the U.S. government declared the Khan episode “wrapped up,” the network continues to pose dire risks.  With the help of people like Albright, Ploughshares Fund will work to keep these serious issues in the media and to demand accountability from governments.  Interviewed by Reuters, Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Ploughshares-funded Arms Control Association, said that the U.S. needs to pressure Pakistan's new government to let the IAEA interview Khan.  

Posted by Samara Dun
Jun 13, 2008; 

Ploughshares Fund's longtime contributor and friend, Suzanne Seton, wrote to us recently: "I had just finished reading Joe Cirincione's recent letter of May 16th to Ploughshares Fund's supporters when Charlie Rose's program came on the air...his guest was Sandy Weill, former chairman and CEO of Citigroup.  He spoke of his passion for philanthropic work...and that he was now in search of some project that would spark his interest.  What - thought I - would be more appropriate than the work of Ploughshares!  After all, unless we get rid of all nuclear weapons that could destroy mankind and make uninhabitable the world as we know it...all the philanthropic projects Sandy Weill has made possible could be wiped out."  Mr. Weill, are you listening?

Jun 11, 2008; 

On Tuesday, June 10th, citizens got on the phone to stop a future war. Organizers of "Time to Talk with Iran"set up hotlines on the West Side Terrace of the Cannon House Office Building allowing people to talk directly to Iranian citizens. Those outside the area were encouraged to contact their congressional representatives to urge them to support a U.S. policy of direct, bilateral and comprehensive talks without preconditions between the governments of the U.S. and Iran. Representatives Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Ron Paul, Marcy Kaptur and Sheila Jackson-Lee joined the campaign in a press conference and spoke in support of talking with Iran without preconditions. Click here to watch a video summary of the event by The Real News Network.

More than 50 conversations between Americans and Iranians took place during the event, which was sponsored by the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran (CNAPI). Members of CNAPI include Ploughshares Fund grantees Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Friends Committee on National Legislation.

On the same day, an editorial in the New York Times warned the U.S. and Israel to refrain from saber rattling, but included “greater financial pressures” as a valid diplomatic tool, a position some have disagreed with. A Government Office of Accountability (GAO) report issued in January showed limited or no effects from the current economic sanctions.
 
Tomorrow, Ploughshares Fund grantees Robert Einhorn of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC) testify before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on “Russia, Iran, and Nuclear Weapons: Implications of the Proposed U.S.-Russia Agreement”. Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-MA) will also testify at the hearing. Yesterday in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled “Why is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?” he posed the following riddle: "What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world's largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars."

Through a combination of expert testimony and public education, arms control advocates are promoting informed policymaking on proliferation risks, the risks of war, and the role of diplomacy.

Posted by Deborah Bain
Jun 11, 2008; From ABC News Australia

Australia can play a leading role in the international push to eliminate nuclear weapons, former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans said as he accepted an invitation from Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to head a new International Commission on Nonproliferation and Disarmament, which will be chaired jointly by Australia and Japan.  The commission's goal is to jump-start efforts to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in advance of the 2010 NPT Review Conference. 

Evans, who is president of the Ploughshares-funded International Crisis Group, is no novice when it comes to nuclear disarmament.  He headed the landmark Canberra Commission for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, which in 1995 laid out a series of "practical steps towards a nuclear weapon free world.   Not surprisingly, those steps are similar to the action plan outlined by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn in their now-famous series of op-eds in the Wall Street Journal calling for a  "world free of nuclear weapons."  The difference now is that the global climate is ripe for nuclear disarmament.  And as one Sydney newspaper noted, Australia wants to be at the forefront of the debate once again.

Evans was also a member of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission chaired by Hans Blix.  But his most recent and most enduring work has been to develop and champion the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect, R2P for short.  R2P seeks to prevent genocide and mass atrocities by affirming that states bear the primary responsibility for protecting their populations from harm, and if they are unable or unwilling to do so, the international community has an obligation to act. A radical departure from the policies of the past, R2P removes the cloak of state sovereignty that has historically allowed governments to ignore or engage in atrocities with impunity.  The UN General Assembly adopted the principles of R2P in 2005.

Because of his advocacy on behalf of nuclear disarmament and on behalf of the world's most vulnerable people, Ploughshares Fund named Gareth Evans as one of our heroes of the last 25 years.    

Posted by Deborah Bain
Jun 10, 2008; From Boston Globe

A plan to internationalize Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, once considered unthinkable, is gaining traction among policymakers around the world, reports Farah Stockman in the Boston Globe.  The proposal, first publicized in detail in an article earlier this year in the New York Review of Books, calls for a dramatic shift in U.S. policy. "Rather than trying to halt Iran's efforts to enrich uranium, it says, the United States should help build an internationally run enrichment facility inside Iran to replace its current facilities," writes Stockman. "Supporters argue that such a program would fulfill Iran's insistence on enriching uranium on its own soil, while preventing the dangerous material from being diverted to weapons."  Members of Congress, including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Hagel, have endorsed exploring the idea.  Iran proposed a similar plan in a letter last month to the UN, and Iran's ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, told Stockman that the plan should be negotiated.  Ploughshares Fund has supported a number of programs to engage high-level Iranians in discussions about Tehran's nuclear program, including grants for efforts by William Luers, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and  Dr. Jim Walsh, who detailed the proposal in the New York Review of Books. "This is nobody's first choice, but it may be the compromise we end up with," Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione told the Globe.

Posted by Paul Carroll
Jun 06, 2008; From Moscow Times

Posted by Deborah Bain
Jun 04, 2008; From Los Angeles Times

(The following op-ed by Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione appeared in today's Los Angeles Times.)

Posted by Alexandra Bell
Jun 03, 2008; 

Posted by Deborah Bain
Jun 02, 2008; From YouTube

"Like war, peace must be waged," says actor George Clooney in a video commemorating 60 years of United Nations peacekeeping. He reminds us that peace is more than a wristband, a slogan on a t-shirt, "and certainly more than a celebrity endorsement." As he salutes the more than 100,000 blue-helmeted UN peacekeepers currently deployed in seventeen missions worldwide, we at Ploughshares Fund recognize the people and initiatives we support to strengthen peacekeeping around the world, including the Future of Peace Operations Project at the Stimson Center, which works with the UN, the African Union and other regional organizations to strengthen the capacity of military to protect civilians from genocide; the Partnership for Effective Peacekeeping (PEP) which promotes better peacekeeping policymaking; the Public Law and Policy Group for its on-the ground legal assistance to governments involved in peace negotiations; and the Post Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies for its innovative work in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other conflict-prone regions.  "Peace," says George Clooney, "is a full-time job." (Click to view the video.)

Posted by Paul Carroll
May 30, 2008; From McClatchy Newspapers

There is no love lost between President Bush and North Korea.  In fact, statements made earlier in his administration showed a personal distaste for thinking about, much less dealing with Kim Jong Il, the DPRK’s leader.  Nonetheless, over the past two years, what had arguably been an abject failure of the administration’s approach to North Korea’s nuclear program, underscored most dramatically by its October 2006 nuclear test, has been reversed.  Ambassador Christopher Hill, with clear support from the President and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has been managing an extremely difficult task of dealing with the North Koreans and other nations involved in the Six Party talks.  The result was a February 2007 agreement with specific goals and “deliverables” from the DPRK, the U.S. and its partners. 
No one ever said seeing the agreement through would be easy. 
To wit, this week as U.S. officials pored over some 18,000 pages of the North’s records of operating its Yongbyon reactor, it was learned that prior CIA assertions that the DPRK had reprocessed plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons before 1992 may have been wrong.  In a story today by McClatchy's Warren Strobel, Ploughshares Fund grantee David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, provided his insights about the discovery.  Albright, a former UN nuclear weapons inspector who consults frequently with the U.S. government, said the reactor records turned over by North Korea are "consistent with what they've said."  

Posted by Terri Lodge
May 23, 2008; 

On May 22, the full House defeated an attempt to fund a new nuclear weapon program that had been cut by the House Armed Services Committee.  Members voted against an amendment by Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) to restore $10 million for the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) after Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D–CA) successfully urged members to sustain the cut to RRW funding in the House Armed Services bill.  The amendment was soundly defeated 271 to 145.  In an important shift, 44 Republican Representatives voted against funding this new hydrogen bomb.
This was the first time the full House of Representatives considered the RRW program and the big vote against funding is a significant victory. Ploughshares Fund's lobbying coalition of 14 advocacy groups has worked strenuously to delete funding for this new warhead while urging lawmakers to develop new nuclear policies and reinvigorate U.S. nonproliferation efforts. 

Posted by Deborah Bain
May 20, 2008; From NPR's Talk of the Nation

"Why should a senator or member of the House of Representatives care what an actor has to say?" NPR's Neal Conan asks actor, producer and Ploughshares Fund board member Michael Douglas in an interview on Talk of the Nation.  Michael offers his view of the role of celebrity advocates in bringing attention to the issues they care most about.  Listen as describes his epiphany with the film The China Syndrome that has led to more than 25 years of activism on nuclear disarmament.

Posted by Paul Carroll
May 17, 2008; 

This past week the world has been gripped by the tragedies in Myanmar and China, epic natural events that have killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people.  Our thoughts and hopes are for rapid and effective assistance for those left homeless and injured by the cyclone and earthquake.  These events, while beyond human control, nonetheless point out what is within our power to change.    

May 15, 2008; From Time Online

How safe are American nukes? Not so safe, even alarmingly unsafe, according to two Ploughshares Fund grantees.  In late April, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory tested its security systems in a force-on-force exercise. The mock terrorist attack revealed a system in need of repair, as “terrorists” attacked and penetrated the lab, and as Time Magazine online reports, “quickly overpowering its defenses to reach its 'objective' — a mock payload of fissile material.” Among other failures, Livermore's truck-mounted Gatling guns malfunctioned. The guns have the capacity to fire 4,000 rounds a minute and kill a person more than a mile away. Given the lab's location in a densely populated area near elementary schools, parks, and residential neighborhoods, the failure raises has raised fears among local residents. 

Posted by Deborah Bain
May 15, 2008; From Friends Committee on National Legislation

The Ploughshares-funded Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports today that a key U.S. House committee has just rejected a Bush administration plan to develop a new nuclear weapon by denying a $33 million funding request for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. FCNL lobbyists and other arms control experts believe the House Armed Services Committee's decision may have effectively blocked the program from ever moving forward. The House Armed Services Committee is the third congressional committee to reject RRW. Last year the House and Senate appropriations committees eliminated funding for the program and are expected to do so again this year.  Defeat of the RRW has been a high priority for Ploughshares Fund's Arms Control Advocacy Collaborative, which comprises fourteen top lobbying organizations including FCNL. (photo:RRW test at LLNL)

Posted by Deborah Bain
May 13, 2008; From The Guardian

The world has watched in disbelief over the past week as the devastation wrought by Cyclone Nargis has been compounded by the intransigence of Myanmar's military rulers in blocking desperately needed humanitarian aid from reaching the victims of the disaster.  Many observers are calling for the invocation of a new international doctrine designed to protect innocent citizens from the kinds of mass violence that shattered Rwanda and Darfur.  The "responsibility to protect," commonly known as R2P, seeks to remove the cover of state sovereignty that has historically permitted governments to ignore, condone or engage in mass atrocities against their citizens, and replace it with a new norm whereby individual states would bear the responsibility to protect its people from violence.  And if states "cannot meet that responsibility, through either ill-will or incapacity, it then falls on the wider international community to take appropriate action."

Former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, president of the Ploughshares-funded International Crisis Group, was one of the key architects of the R2P doctrine.  He cautions that invoking R2P's provisions for coercive intervention in cases that do not involve "genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" could undermine the doctrine and render it ineffective in dealing with such atrocities in the future.  "But here’s the rub," he writes. "If what the generals are now doing, in effectively denying relief to hundreds of thousands of people at real and immediate risk of death, can itself be characterised as a crime against humanity, then the responsibility to protect principle does indeed cut in."   But, said Alexander Woollcombe, a spokesperson for Oxfam, "at this crucial stage of the response, the theoretical debate about the application of R2P needs to take a back seat to the overwhelming imperative to get more aid to more people as quickly as possible." 

Posted by Deborah Bain
May 12, 2008; From Washington Post

At least 40 developing countries have recently signalled interest in starting nuclear power programs in discussions with UN officials, writes Joby Warrick in today's Washington Post, including at least a half dozen who plan to build uranium enrichment or reprocessing facilities.  Proliferation experts warn that such developments could provide the building blocks of nuclear arsenals in some of those nations.  "This is not primarily about nuclear energy. It's a hedge against Iran," said Ploughshares Fund president Joseph Cirincione. "They're starting their engines. It takes decades to build a nuclear infrastructure, and they're beginning to do it now. They're saying, 'If there's going to be an arms race, we're going to be in it.' "

Posted by Deborah Bain
May 08, 2008; From NPR

Who can forget Senator John McCain singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran," at a campaign appearance last year? Or Senator Hillary Clinton saying recently that the U.S. would "totally obliterate" Iran if it were to consider attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon.  Fortunately, reports NPR's Mike Shuster, all three candidates offer more nuanced and less bellicose language when asked detailed, substantive questions such as, "should Iran permanently or temporarily suspend its uranium enrichement activity and development of a plutonium processing capability?"  That's just one of the queries posed to Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama by the Ploughshares-funded Institute for Science and International Security as part of a project aimed at providing the public with greater clarity about the candidates' positions and about the issue itself.  ISIS' Jacqueline Shire, who helped develop the questionnaire, reports that "McCain gave a … direct answer, saying there's no circumstance under which the international community can be confident that uranium-enrichment activity in Iran is for peaceful purposes. "  Both Senators Clinton and Obama favor direct talks with Iran without insisting that Iran suspend uranium enrichment first.  She says that both Democratic candidates "hew closely to the approach that diplomacy is best — in Clinton's case, carrots and sticks; in Obama's case, thinking maybe a little more broadly about bringing the international community into the solution."  Listen to Shuster's report and read more about what the candidates said. 

May 02, 2008; From Scientific American

Ploughshares Fund Advisor Frank von Hippel argues in this month’s Scientific American against U.S. Department of Energy calls to revive nuclear fuel “reprocessing.”  In his feature article Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It’s Worth, von Hippel lays out the debate:

• -- Spent nuclear fuel contains plutonium, which can be extracted and used in new fuel.
• -- To reduce the amount of long-lived radioactive waste, the U.S. Department of Energy has proposed reprocessing spent fuel in this way and then “burning” the plutonium in special reactors.

Posted by Paul Carroll
May 02, 2008; 

Last week we wrote about the highly charged atmosphere surrounding an administration intelligence briefing to Congress about details on the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor, a site that was bombed by Israel in September.  New revelations seem to indicate that the site was a nuclear reactor facility, and that there was some tangible North Korean association with it.  What exactly the facility was intended for, and what that “association” is still the subject of much speculation.  Some of the briefing evidence was released to the media, and the op-ed pages and blogosphere have been abuzz with speculation.  While the new evidence seems damning, as is often the case with intelligence information the drama last week has raised more questions than it answered.  Currently, there is a healthy debate about the timing and intention of the administration’s action.  Was it timed to help the case for continuing the Six Party process and agreement and garner congressional support?  (Congress is currently considering a waiver to allow U.S. funds to be spent on North Korea projects.)  Was it the result of a sub-set of administration players attempting to undermine the deal, those who have opposed it from the start?  Regardless of the answer, one thing seems clear:  for now, President Bush himself is supporting the process and, as difficult as it may be, is putting his political capital squarely behind Ambassador Chris Hill to move keep moving ahead.  At an address on April 30 to an audience of Asian-Pacific American, the president specifically identified Amb. Hill and offered support and endorsement of his efforts with North Korea.  Ploughshares continues to support independent analysts and expert interlocutors who work directly with North Korea as well as with the administration and Congress to sort out the facts, consider flexible options, and keep the focus on the constructive engagement with North Korea to eliminate its nuclear capacity. 

Posted by Deborah Bain
Apr 30, 2008; 

Calling ballistic missile defense “a placebo strategy that gives the troops and the nation the illusion of defense,” Ploughshares Fund president Joseph Cirincione testified again today before the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, calling on Congress and the next administration to change the mission and restructure the missile defense program in a way that would “give the nation a better chance to field capable weapon systems against the near-term threats.”  He said that missile defense leaders have been engaged in a "Sisyphean task...they are rolling money up the hill, but the programs keep rolling back down." Despite the fact that “anti-missile program are now free from any treaty restraints, flush with cash, and exempt from the normal defense program checks and balances...instead of soaring performance, we have a record unblemished by success."  (Read Cirincione’s prepared testimony here.)  
Cirincione was joined at the witness table by Philip Coyle, senior advisor at the Ploughshares-funded Center for Defense Information, who provided a point-by-point technical critique of each element of the program, along with an analysis of the strategic costs of the 60-year pursuit of missile defenses.  "The U.S. proposal to site missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic has alienated Russia and upset the overall strategic balance to a degree not seen since the height of the Cold War,” he said.  Coyle’s testimony can be viewed here.

Posted by Deborah Bain
Apr 29, 2008; 

This Mother’s Day, Americans are expected to spend $15.8 billion on gifts for their moms, according to a new survey by the National Retail Federation.  That’s an average of $138 per person on jewelry, clothing, flowers, dinners out and trips to the spa.  
Don’t get me wrong – I love being remembered on my special day (are you listening, Andy and Hallie?) -- but with so much need in the world, maybe it’s time to rethink our priorities.  Ploughshares Fund’s Mother’s Day for Peace campaign invites sons and daughters everywhere to give something of lasting value -- the gift of peace.  A donation to the Mother’s Day Peace Fund, given in honor of someone special, will support initiatives to rid the world of nuclear weapons, rebuild war-torn regions, and restore a healthy environment, free from the damage caused by weapons of war. 
For those of you who still want to shower your mom with gifts, Ploughshares Fund will deliver a dozen roses to whomever you designate (with a donation of $250 or more),  and in time for Mother’s Day if you make your gift online by Wednesday, May 7.  “Mom has been saying for decades that it’s the thought that counts on Mother’s Day,” says the author of the National Retail Federation’s survey. 
Here’s a thought: Mother’s Day was meant originally as a holiday to encourage people to work for peace.  With so much conflict in the world, it’s about time we returned to those roots.  Happy Mother’s Day for Peace.

Posted by Paul Carroll
Apr 28, 2008; 

Faced with more than 87,000 public comments to date, demands for more time, and official requests from both New Mexico senators as well as Governor Bill Richardson, the Department of Energy (DOE) undertook a highly unusual step and extended the public comment period for its highly controversial “Complex Transformation” plans.The public now has until April 30 (that's this Wednesday) to submit comments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Complex Transformation is a plan that would shrink the “footprint” of today’s nuclear weapons research, design and manufacturing infrastructure and consolidate some operations and materials.  Sounds like a good idea, right?  The problem is that the plans, while seemingly aimed to economize operations and save money, obscure a more fundamental goal – that of continuing to design and build new nuclear warheads and even build new facilities to do so.  Rather than restructuring the weapons facilities to cease production and clean up past messes, the DOE is seeking a leaner, meaner “complex” with a fundamental mission of modernizing the arsenal. 
Ploughshares Fund is supporting groups that are working to keep the public educated and informed, like Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety and Nuclear Watch New Mexico  on front lines” near DOE weapons facilities as well as national groups like the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability  that are weighing in on the plans and seeking to cut funding for the DOE’s ill-advised plans. 

Apr 25, 2008; 

Seven months following an Israeli strike on a Syrian site believed to be a nuclear reactor, intelligence officials say they have evidence that it was, in fact, a reactor and that North Korea helped to construct it. Yesterday, officials briefed select Congressional committees using photos said to have been taken inside the facility. The White House released the following statement: “Until Sept. 6, 2007, the Syrian regime was building a covert nuclear reactor in its eastern desert capable of producing plutonium. We are convinced, based on a variety of information, that North Korea (DPRK) assisted Syria's covert nuclear activities. We have good reason to believe that reactor, which was damaged beyond repair on Sept. 6 of last year, was not intended for peaceful purposes.” The Syrian embassy in Washington denies the administration’s allegations.   

It is still unclear exactly what the evidence shows or does not show, and observers can only comment on what has been made public. Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione said in an interview with the The Guardian, "We should learn first from the past and be very cautious about any intelligence from the U.S. about other country's weapons." Today in an interview with NPR’s Tom Gjelten on Morning Edition he said that while the photos made a compelling case for reactor construction, the facility could only be considered one piece of a nuclear program. There is no evidence that the reactor had the capabilities to make material for nuclear weapons. Cirincione and many other Ploughshares Fund grantees say that there is no information on how Syria would fuel the reactor and no evidence of Syrian plutonium separation facilities or nuclear weaponization facilities. 
The release comes at a time when the Administration has gained significant ground in the shut down of North Korea's existing nuclear weapons program and their existing plutonium production reactor.  With persistent negotiation among members of the Six-Party framework, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill has come close to ending a major international security threat. U.S. technicians are in North Korea today disabling the reactor, negotiating its complete dismantlement, and in the process of verifying all plutonium stocks and arranging for their disposal.  News of possible North Korean proliferation activities with Syria could threaten support for the negotiations.  Ploughshares Fund grante