NEWSLETTER · 2014-06-07 · NEWSLETTER Volume45 June2008 issued by the Council of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs Nobel Peace Prize 1995 2008

N E W S L E T T E R

Volume 45 � June 2008

issued by the Council of the PugwashConferences on Science and World Affairs

Nobel Peace Prize 1995

2008—Centenary of the Birth of Sir Joseph Rotblat

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

TO THE PUGWASH COMMUNITY: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Pugwash Meeting no.329Pugwash 57th (Quinquennial) Conference on Science and World Affairs,“Prospects for Disarmament, Dialogue and Cooperation,”Bari, Italy, 21-26 October 2007Communiqué from the Pugwash Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Greetings from UN Secretary General Ban-ki Moon and Sir Arthur Clarke . . . . . . . . 6Program for the Pugwash 57th Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Report of Pugwash Secretary General Paolo Cotta-Ramusino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Reports from the Conference Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Conference Participant List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

REPORTS ON RECENT PUGWASH WORKSHOPS

Pugwash Meeting no. 327 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Pugwash Workshop on Self-Governance in Jammu and KashmirColombo, Sri Lanka, 22-24 July 2007

Pugwash meeting no. 330 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Pugwash Regional Workshop: Learning from Ancient HydraulicCivilizations to Combat Climate ChangeColombo, Sri Lanka, 22-28 November 2007

Pugwash meeting no.331 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4227th Workshop of the Pugwash Study Group on the Implementation ofthe Chemical and Biological Weapons ConventionsGeneva, Switzerland, 8-9 December 2007

Pugwash meeting no. 332 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Pugwash/CPIS/Friedrich Ebert Stiftung workshop on Conflicts,Islam, Peace MediationKazan, Tatarstan, Russia, 28-29 January 2008

Pugwash Meeting no. 335 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Pugwash Workshop on Intra-Kashmir Economic CooperationColombo, Sri Lanka, 15-16 March 2008

Pugwash meeting no. 336 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Pugwash Workshop: Promoting Regional Stability in South AsiaIslamabad, Pakistan, 29-30 March 2008

Pugwash meeting no. 338 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Pugwash Workshop: European Security and CooperativeApproaches to Arms ControlPotsdam, Germany, 6–8 June 2008

SPECIAL SECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Interview with Wolfgang Panofsky

NATIONAL PUGWASH GROUPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80UK Pugwash, The 2008 Joseph Rotblat Essay, by Emmet Farragher

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT/YOUNG PUGWASH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Report of International Student Young Pugwash from the 57th Pugwash Conferenceon Science and World Affairs, Bari Italy, 21–26 October 2007

OBITUARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87José Leite Lopes, Sir Timothy Garden, Ivan Supek, Kodi Husimi, Giuseppi Nardulli

Members of the Pugwash Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Calendar of Future Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inside back cover

Pugwash Council and Executive Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back cover

PugwashVolume 45 � June 2008

Editor:Jeffrey Boutwell

Design and Layout:Anne Read

Printing:Cardinal PressFredericksburg, Virginia

Cover photo:Jo Rotblat speaking from the porchof Thinker’s Lodge, the Cyrus Eatonhome in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, withRuth Adams listening, July 2003(photo by Götz Neuneck)

To the Pugwash Community

a nuclear weapons-free world, and he would have encour-

aged Pugwashites everywhere to ‘make that vision a

reality.’

As we go to press, we know there are events scheduled

around the world to celebrate Jo’s centenary, and to

promote the causes he held dear. We expect this list will

grow. To date we have learned that Pugwashites and

Student Pugwashites in Argentina, Australia, Canada,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the

UK, and the USA are all hoping to hold events focused on

Jo’s life, and will feature the new film on Jo Rotblat and

the Pugwash Conferences, by the National Film Board of

Canada, The Strangest Dream. As director Eric Bednarski

said, “Although in many ways The Strangest Dream is a

historical documentary which tells the story of a man and

a movement, it is also very much situated in the present.

We hope that it will educate people about nuclear

weapons in the world today, and generally raise awareness

about that problem, which effects us all.”

There is a special focus in the UK, where Jo lived and

worked. The British Pugwash Group initiated an essay

competition in Jo’s honor, with the winning essay by

Emmet Farragher published in thisNewsletter. UK

Centenary of Joseph Rotblat’s Birth

November 4, 2008 marks the centenary of the

birth of Pugwash’s leading spirit, the British

Nobel Peace Laureate Professor Sir Joseph

Rotblat (1908-2005), a former nuclear weapons scientist

who held strong views on the kind of world we should try

to create. This centenary provides an opportunity to

explore several key strands of his life, and to show how

society is still debating some of the key principles he cham-

pioned: the need for dialogue across political divides, the

dangers of continued possession of nuclear weapons, the

need ultimately for a world without war and the social

responsibility of scientists.

Pugwashites are familiar with Jo’s story: Jo worked with

Bertrand Russell to promulgate a 1955 statement that

became known as the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, and

signing this statement was one of the last acts of Einstein’s

life. The Manifesto led to a conference in 1957 that took

place in Pugwash, Nova Scotia. This historic meeting

involved scientists from East and West, and laid the

groundwork for a new type of transnational organization,

the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. In

1995 Rotblat and Pugwash were jointly awarded the

Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to diminish the role of

nuclear weapons. Today, as is evidenced throughout this

Newsletter, Pugwash continues to work across political

divides in regions of conflict where disagreements could

potentially lead to nuclear exchanges: Iran, Kashmir, the

Middle East, DPRK/South Korea, etc.

Rotblat was a leading voice for the abolition of nuclear

weapons. He himself left the US-led Manhattan Project on

principle when he learned that Hitler was not developing a

nuclear weapon. For this action he was labeled a possible

spy, and changed his field of work, to become a pioneer in

the emerging field of nuclear medicine. He would have

been encouraged by the current rhetorical shift in favor of

Pugwash Newsletter, June 2008 1

The quest for a war-free world has a basic purpose: survival.

But if in the process we learn how to achieve it by love rather

than by fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion; if in the

process we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable,

the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the

beautiful, this will be an extra incentive to embark on this

great task.

Above all, remember your humanity.

—Joseph Rotblat, Nobel Lecture, 1995

2 Pugwash Newsletter, June 2008

Pugwash held a special double-session meeting in April

which focused on the social responsibility of scientists

and the UK Trident programme. The WMD Awareness

Programme, launched by Jo and Mikhail Gorbachev, held

a “Peace of Art” competition for school kids, culminating

in a special awards day and concert on 4 November. Kit

Hill, a former scientific colleague of Jo’s and a leader in

British Pugwash, has published a book, Professor

Pugwash: The Man Who Fought Nukes, for people of all

ages and with the science accessibly explained to a wide

audience. And international Pugwash will honor Jo’s

centenary in early December 2008 in London, with the

European premiere of The Strangest Dream and a half-day

symposium to honor the achievements and memory of a

truly remarkable human being.Sandy Ionno Butcher

The 11th Pugwash Quinquennium: 2007-2012

This issue of the Pugwash Newsletter includes coverage ofthe 57th Pugwash Conference on Science and WorldAffairs, held in Bari, Italy in October 2007. The Bariconference marked the beginning of the 11th Quinquen-nium of Pugwash and the installation of a new President,Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala, a new Pugwash Council chairedby Prof. Saideh Lotfian of Iran, and a new Pugwash Exec-utive Committee chaired by Dr. Steven Miller of theUnited States.

During the 57th conference, the Pugwash community hadthe opportunity to express its thanks to those Councilmembers rotating off the Council, and to outgoing Presi-dent, Pres. M.S. Swaminathan of India, for his wonderfulservice to Pugwash during the 10th Quinquennium from2002 to 2007.

Sadly, we note the death of Giuseppe ‘Beppe’ Nardulli, themain organizer of the Bari conference, who died of cancerin June 2008 (please see p. 89). Beppe Nardulli epitomizedthe warm hospitality that all the participants of the 57th

conference felt while in Bari, and he will be missed byfamily, friends, and colleagues alike.

The period since the Bari conference has been perhapseven more active for the Pugwash Conferences than usual.President Jayantha Dhanapala has traveled widely onbehalf of Pugwash, visiting numerous countries andconferring with government leaders and nuclear non-proliferation experts on the current and future workof Pugwash. Secretary General Paolo Cotta-Ramusinocontinued his heavy travel schedule and active engagementwith policymakers in countries such as Iran, Pakistan,India, Israel, China, and the United States on issuesrelating to regional conflict and nuclear weapons. Much

of this work is done ‘behind the scenes’ and not publiclyreported, but is vital to the success of Pugwash in bringingtogether parties in conflict to discuss ways of reducing thenuclear threat and strengthening the international nuclearnon-proliferation regime.

58th Pugwash Conference onScience and World Affairs

At its meeting in Bari, Italy in October 2007, the PugwashCouncil decided to move to a schedule whereby the large‘annual’ conference of Pugwash would be held approxi-mately every 18 months, instead of once a year. Greatlyincreased international travel costs in particular, andhotel/conference costs in general, have dictated that inter-national Pugwash can no longer subsidize the large confer-ences as done in previous years.

Accordingly, the 58th Pugwash Conference on Science andWorld Affairs is scheduled to be held from April 17-21,2009 in The Hague, Netherlands. The 18-month interimbetween the large conferences also means that nationalPugwash groups, in this case Netherlands Pugwash, aregiven more time to raise funds from local sources to helpcover local hospitality and conference costs.

Acknowledgments

For continued support of the Pugwash Newsletter and thePugwash Conferences, we are grateful to the GermanResearch Society, the Russian Academy of Sciences, theJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, theCarnegie Corporation of New York, the PloughsharesFund, and the Cyrus Eaton Foundation.

Jeffrey Boutwell, Editor

57th Pugwash Conference on Science and World AffairsProspects for Disarmament, Dialogue and Cooperation

Bari, Italy, 21–26 October 2007

STATEMENT OF THE PUGWASH COUNCIL

weapons free world. Proposed new nuclear warheads andsystems could lead to a resumption of nuclear testing.New types of missiles and missile defense systems areunder development. There is the prospect that weaponsmay be deployed in space. In this climate, the PugwashCouncil notes with deep regret the progressive unravelingof the arms control regime, including the abandonment ofthe Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty by the US, the risk that theIntermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty may be undone, andthe freezing of Russian participation in the ConventionalForces in Europe Treaty and the non-ratification of theadopted CFE Treaty by most NATO countries. All of thesedevelopments are interrelated, and reinforce the idea thatpolitical leadership for a nuclear weapons free world issorely needed.

Conflict and instability in the Middle East, South Asiaand Northeast Asia make the threats to security posed bynuclear weapons more acute. There have been encouragingsigns that the DPRK is ready to relinquish its militarynuclear capabilities and the Pugwash Council welcomes theagreement reached earlier this year over the DPRK nuclearprogram and hopes for its speedy and comprehensiveimplementation and early reentry into the NPT.

As it has throughout its 50 year history, Pugwash callsfor the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The PugwashCouncil welcomes activities by national governments,international organizations, and other non-governmentalorganizations to this end, and is ready to initiate, to partic-ipate in, and contribute to these important initiatives.

Drawing on analysis gathered during the past year inPugwash workshops, the Council advocates the followingintermediate steps toward the goal of eventual eliminationof nuclear weapons:

The threat posed to humanity by the vast destructivepower of nuclear weapons remains as dangeroustoday as it was 50 years ago when the initiators of

the Pugwash Movement first met in Pugwash, NovaScotia. The need for “new thinking” on these matters is asurgent today as it was when the 1955 Russell-EinsteinManifesto, the founding document of Pugwash, firstcaptured the world’s attention with its direct and urgentappeal.

In this spirit, the Pugwash Council welcomes theenhanced awareness of nuclear issues provided by recentstatements by many prestigious non-governmental organi-zations like the WMD Commission and by senior figuresand former politicians such as Mikhail Gorbachev,Margaret Beckett, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, GeorgeShultz, and William Perry, calling for a nuclear weaponsfree world. These public pronouncements create an impor-tant window of opportunity.

And yet, nuclear weapons still pose a great and over-riding peril. Many years after the end of the Cold Warthere are over 20,000 nuclear warheads in the world, themajority of them in possession of the US and Russia.Regrettably, many of the US and Russian weapons remaindeployed on quick-reaction alert. The United Kingdom,France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel each holdsmaller numbers of nuclear weapons and do not plan todisarm. Moreover, it remains the policy of nuclearweapons states to modernize their nuclear arsenals. Inaddition, there are increased threats posed by the possibleacquisition and use of nuclear explosive devices by non-state groups.

The nuclear non-proliferation regime is under severestress. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and START IIhave not entered into force. There has been no progress onthe Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. The Nuclear-WeaponStates have not sufficiently met their Article VI obligationsunder the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; nor are theydemonstrating a commitment to the goal of a nuclear


P U G W A S H M E E T I N G N O . 3 2 9


1. The US and Russia should initially commit themselvesto reduce their nuclear arsenals to hundreds, and notthousands, of nuclear weapons under verifiable agree-ments that radically extend and continue beyond theSORT and START-1 agreements.

2. The US and Russia should destroy or disassembledecommissioned warheads and delivery systems.

3. The US and Russia should declare their quantities oftactical nuclear warheads and negotiate a treaty towithdraw and destroy them.

4. The US and China should ratify the ComprehensiveTest Ban Treaty. All states should sign and ratify theCTBT.

5. The danger posed by the large stocks of fissile materialmust be urgently addressed by eliminating it as quicklyas possible and by reinforcing its physical securitypending elimination.

6. A Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty should be achieved assoon as possible.

7. All states with nuclear weapons should refrain frommodernizing or renewing their nuclear forces andcommit themselves to further reduce their nucleararsenals. In this light, the Council deplores the recentUK decision to modernize its Trident submarine fleetand hopes this decision eventually will be reversed.

8. The US should withdraw its nuclear weaponsdeployed in Europe, and NATO should abandon itsreliance on nuclear weapons in its forthcomingStrategic Concept. The Pugwash Council calls for aninternational agreement on norms that prevent thedeployment of nuclear weapons outside national terri-tories.

9. The nuclear powers should agree to proposals forestablishing further nuclear weapons free zones, andfully respect existing zones.

10. The US should forgo strategic missile defenses andunderstand that attempts at developing strategicmissile defenses are going to decrease, rather thanincrease, its security and also that of the entire world.

11. The international community should prevent thedevelopment and deployment of weapons in space,under the auspices of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty,and develop further restraints and confidence-buildingmeasures.

In the five years since the last Pugwash Quinquen-nial Conference in La Jolla, California, USA the worldhas seen increasing military interventions and violence.The invasion in Iraq and the intervention inAfghanistan (which was originally mandate by theUN) have resulted in chaos, increased spread ofterrorist activities and dramatic suffering for the popu-lations. We have seen misguided and counterproduc-tive attempts to increase security through militaryactions, instead of fostering dialogue, reconciliationand reconstruction. Dialogue and reconciliation areoften not easy to achieve, but are essential elements forbuilding a lasting peace. The Pugwash Councilwelcomes efforts to apply these principles in Palestineand Israel, Iraq, and South and Northeast Asia, andexpresses its hope that the upcoming conference on theMiddle East conflict will initiate comprehensive andexpeditious negotiations for a final settlement of theIsraeli-Arab conflict.

The Council urges the exclusive use of diplomaticnegotiations over the nuclear program of the IslamicRepublic of Iran, with a view toward reaching apeaceful, non-coercive political solution with theactive cooperation with the IAEA. The Council recog-nizes that new demands for the peaceful uses ofnuclear energy are arising and notes the inalienableright of all nations to have access to nuclear tech-nology and nuclear materials for peaceful purposes,provided appropriate IAEA safeguards and confi-dence-building measures are in place. The Councilcalls for all nations to ultimately transparently andfairly internationalize the front-end and back-end ofthe nuclear fuel cycle, avoid the use of double stan-dards, and fully render the IAEA’s Additional Protocolas the new norm for nuclear safeguards.

The US-India deal sends mixed signals to the inter-national community, as it seems to suggest that nuclearweapons states, non-members of the NPT, can aftersome time, as de facto nuclear states, enjoy the rele-vant privileges of NPT members. In this way theperception that there are “good and bad proliferators”is strengthened and the NPT is weakened.

The Pugwash Council welcomes ongoing discus-sions in the UN General Assembly on the Arms TradeTreaty, aimed at establishing common internationalstandards for the import, export, and transfer ofconventional arms.

Pugwash will continue to work on other issues atthe intersection of science and society, including the


challenges posed by poverty, pandemics, global climatechange, environmental deterioration, resource scarcity,scientific illiteracy, and the need for renewable sources ofenergy.

On its fiftieth anniversary, Pugwash reaffirms itscommitment to ensuring that science and technology areutilized for the benefit of humankind, and not its destruc-tion. This is an inherent step toward creating a world freeof nuclear weapons, and a world without war, as envi-sioned in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto.

——————

The Pugwash Council met in Bari at the 57th PugwashConference on Science and World Affairs. The conferenceexplored “Prospects for Disarmament, Dialogue andCooperation: Stability in the Mediterranean Region.” TheItalian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hon. MassimoD’Alema, gave a keynote address to the 138 participantsfrom 39 countries.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon sent a letter ofgreeting to the conference.

Regional political leaders addressed the meeting andhelped the participants gain a deeper understanding of thechallenges and opportunities facing the Mediterranean inthis time of transition. They included: Hon. Nichi Vendola(Governor of the Puglia Region); Pietro Pepe (President,Puglia Regional Council); and Silvia Godelli (member ofthe Regional Committee in charge of the MediterraneanArea) The Pugwash Council notes with hope recentprogress toward greater regional stability.

Sir Arthur C. Clarke, the renowned writer, sent a tapedgreeting. The conference included a wide array of plenarydiscussions on the following topics, many of which inter-play with regional security issues: Nuclear Energy, Non-Proliferation Risks and Iran; The Status of Nuclear ArmsControl; Pakistan: Political Developments, Dialogue withIndia; the Arab-Israeli Conflict; Iraq and Reconstruction;and Kashmir. There was also a brief session on the 50th

anniversary of Pugwash, the report of the Pugwash Secre-tary General Paolo Cotta Ramusino, the DorothyHodgkin Memorial Lecture, a dialogue between incomingPugwash President Jayantha Dhanapala and SverreLodgaard, and a presidential address by outgoingPugwash President M.S. Swaminathan (seewww.pugwash.org for more details about the conference).

Pugwash is extremely grateful to the Puglia Region andUSPID for their support of this conference.

In recognition of the optimism, insight, and courage of theparticipants in the first Pugwash Conference, held inPugwash, Nova Scotia 50 years ago in July 1957, thePugwash Council calls on the governments and peoples ofthe world to draw inspiration from the words of the 1955Russell-Einstein Manifesto and to “remember yourhumanity and forget the rest.”

Adopted by the Pugwash Council

57th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs

27 October 2007, Bari, Italy

Berma Klein Goldewijk, Miguel Marin-Bosch, and John Finney.

Newly-installed President Jayantha Dhanapala with Masako Ikegami,Katsuko Kataoka, Hitoshi Ohnishi, Tatsu Suzuki, and Jiri Matousek.


U N I T E D N A T I O N S N A T I O N S U N I E S

T H E S E C R E TA R Y- G E N E R A L

MESSAGE TO THE 57th PUGWASH CONFERENCE

Bari, 21 October 2007

I am pleased to convey my greetings to the 57th Pugwash Conference. I congratulate yourdeparting President, Dr. M. S. Swaminathan, on his valuable contributions, and Mr. JayanthaDhanapala, former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, who willsoon assume the presidency.

Over the years, Pugwash conferences have promoted constructive dialogue on sensitivematters of international security. They have involved influential scientists and public leaders fromthroughout the world, even from countries that do not necessarily enjoy friendly relations with eachother.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Pugwash Conferences on Science andWorldAffairs. It is thus fitting for you to reflect on Pugwash’s contribution to the cause of world peace, andto the challenges ahead. It is also an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the importance of disar-mament, dialogue and cooperation in creating a more secure world.

In 1946, the very first resolution of the United Nations General Assembly called for the elimi-nation of all major weapons “adaptable to mass destruction.” Since then, the United Nations,together with crucial civil society partners like Pugwash, has been working towards the objective ofridding our world of all weapons of mass destruction.

We have much in common.We share a global approach to promoting disarmament and non-proliferation issues. We pursue similar aims of dialogue, peace, and security. Both our institutionshave received the Nobel Peace Prize for efforts in these areas.

Yet there is no room for complacency. Developments in science and technology are raisinghopes that new innovations could contribute to improving the quality of life of people throughoutthe world. But at the same time, developments in various fields of weaponry remind us of thepotential devastation from the use of weapons of mass destruction, and the very real threat theypose to all of humanity. Many such weapons remain, amid persisting risks that they may beacquired by additional states or non-state actors. Disarmament must remain at the top of ouragenda.

I hope that at this gathering, you will be able to identify specific contributions that the interna-tional community and the United Nations can make towards advancing the goal of eliminating theworld’s most deadly and indiscriminate weapons. In that spirit, please accept my best wishes for asuccessful conference.


Hello! This is Arthur Clarke, speaking from my home inColombo, Sri Lanka.

I’m very happy to join you on this occasion, when thePugwash movement is marking its 50th anniversary.

I send my greetings to all my friends – known andunknown – who share my deep interest in disarmamentand peace.

And I would like to congratulate Dr M S Swami-nathan, who completes his term as the President ofPugwash.

I extend a warm welcome to my long-time friendJayantha Dhanapala, who takes over as the new President.

Your movement can be traced back to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, which called upon scientists to assessthe dangers of weapons of mass destruction. Those days,that meant only nuclear weapons. Now there are multiplethreats.

I can still remember the global reverberations when theRussell-Einstein Manifesto was published in London inthe summer of 1955. It took extraordinary courage forleading scientists at that time to take this uncompromisingstand against the very weapons that were supposed todefend the free world.

Perhaps the most memorable line in the Manifesto wasits call: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

These sentiments resonated strongly with me. Only adecade earlier, as a young radar officer of the Royal AirForce, I had shared the global shock and horror when theatom bomb was used to end the Second World War.During the weeks following the attacks on Hiroshima andNagasaki, I wrote an essay, which I called “The Rocketand the Future of Warfare”.

I pointed out that the only defence against the weaponsof the future was to prevent them ever being used. Eventhen, I recognised that the problem was political — andnot military at all. A country’s armed forces can no longerdefend it; the most they can promise is the destruction ofthe attacker....

That essay was published in the Royal Air Force Quar-terly in March 1946. There, I probably earned the dubioushonour of first enunciating the doctrine of MutualAssured Destruction — appropriately abbreviated asMAD.

I would like to share with you the closing paragraph ofthat essay:

“Upon us, the heirs to all the past and trustees of afuture which our folly can slay before its birth, lies aresponsibility no other age has ever known. If we fail inour generation those who come after us may be too few torebuild the world when the dust of the cities has descendedand the radiation of the rocks has died away.”

For half a century, all of you in the Pugwash Move-ment have lived up to this enormous responsibility. It’shard to pinpoint how much of sanity and good sense hasprevailed because of your advocacy, but I can say withouthesitation that the world is a safer place thanks to yourefforts.

However, our race has still not been able to shake offits dangerous obsession with nuclear weapons. I oncecoined the slogan ‘Guns are the crutches of the impotent’.Similarly, hi-tech weapons are the crutches of impotentnations—where nukes are just the decorative chromiumplating.

It’s not only nukes that threaten our existence today –in the past few decades, they have been joined by a host ofchemical and biological weapons. And now they aretalking about cyber weapons that might just let us live, butinstantly return us to the Stone Age...

Let us not forget the conventional weapons, whichhave also been perfected over the years to inflict maximumcollateral damage – if you are at the receiving end, itdoesn’t matter if such weapons are ‘smart’ or stupid…

And it’s no longer just nations that lust after all theseweapons. We now have terrorist groups, disgruntled scien-tists and international gangsters all peddling—or seeking—deadly weapons.



VIDEO GREETINGS FROM SIR ARTHUR CLARKE


this, don’t forget that the next generation of leaders – ingovernment, military or terror groups – is being raised ona diet of movies, video games and Internet full of techno-porn. How can a ‘culture of peace’ emerge in such aworld?

In the end, I have great faith in optimism as a philos-ophy — if only because it offers us the opportunity of self-fulfilling prophecy.

So, despite alarming signs, I’d like to think that we’velearnt something from the 20th century — the mostbarbaric century in history — that we’ve just livedthrough.

But as memories of the 20th century fade away, it’stremendously important to keep reminding ourselves ofthe horrors and tragedies that we inflicted upon ourselves.

You have a major role to play in the next half century,to make our world a truly safe and peaceful place for us —and our children.

This is Arthur Clarke, wishing you all possible successin your endeavours.

So Pugwash at 50 faces new challenges no less formi-dable than those which your founders recognised at theheight of the Cold War.

Here’s one challenge that’s particularly close to myheart: How do you counteract the intellectual andemotional fascination of warfare, especially as embodiedin today’s glamorous weaponry?

I’m both alarmed and appalled by the mass media’scheer-leading of warfare – I call it ‘techno-porn’. Fromglossy aerospace magazines to violent video games,techno-porn images have become pervasive. And Holly-wood is doing its bit to perpetuate this illusion. Muchthough I admire it, I’m afraid George Lucas’s Star Warssaga is a perfect example of this, with its fascinating hard-ware and gorgeous explosions.

In this media-rich world of the 21st century, thePugwash Movement must address the rapid spread oftechno-porn. Yes, working with politicians and generals istremendously important. And inter-governmental negotia-tions at United Nations are also needed. While doing all


All Plenary Sessions will be held in the Salone degli Specchi



PROGRAM

Tuesday 23 October

09:00–11:00 PANEL SESSION on NUCLEAR ENERGY,NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION RISKS ANDTHE IRANIAN NUCLEAR FILEChair: Paolo Cotta-Ramusino

Tatsujiro Suzuki(Japan), Hossein Adeli (Iran),MSM Al Faraj (Kuwait)

11.00–11.30 Coffee break

11:30–13:30 PANEL SESSION on ARMS CONTROLChair: Sergey Batsanov

Goetz Neuneck (Germany), VladimirBaranovski (Russia), Kennette Benedict (USA),Wa’el Al Assad (Jordan/Arab League)

13:30–15:00 Lunch

15:00–17:00 Working Groups meet in parallel sessions

17:00–17:30 Coffee break


20:00 Dinner

Wednesday 24 October

09:00–11:30 PANEL SESSION on PAKISTAN: POLITICALDEVELOPMENTS, DIALOGUE WITH INDIAChair: Peter Jones

G. Parthasarathy (India), Talat Masood(Pakistan), Najmuddin Shaikh (Pakistan),Amitabh Mattoo (India)


12:00–13:00 DOROTHY HODGKIN MEMORIALLECTURE

The Future of Disarmament & the NonProliferation Regime

Sverre Lodgaard interviews Jayantha Dhanapala

13:30–15:00 Lunch

Sunday 21 October

All day Arrival and Registration of Conferenceparticipants

20:00 Informal reception in the Salone delle Feste

Monday 22 October

09:00–10:00 OPENING PLENARY SESSION

Welcome speeches from Pietro Pepe (President,Puglia Regional Council), Silvia Godelli(Member of the Regional Government in chargeof the Mediterranean Area)

Keynote Address by On. Nichi Vendola(Governor of the Puglia Region)

10:00–11:00 PLENARY SESSION: Keynote Speech On.Massimo D’Alema, Italian Minister of ForeignAffairs and Deputy Prime Minister


11:30–12:30 50 YEARS OF PUGWASH 1957–2007Francesco Calogero, Sandy Ionno

12:30–13:30 PLENARY SESSION: Report of the SecretaryGeneral Paolo Cotta-Ramusino

13:30–15:00 Lunch




20:00 Dinner in the Salone delle Feste

21:00 Meeting of the Pugwash Council with NationalGroups and International Student YoungPugwash



Friday 26 October

9:00–10:00 PLENARY SESSION Presidential Address byMS SwaminathanChair: Marie Muller

10:00–11:30 REPORTS OF THE WGS AND OF THE ISYPCONFERENCEChair: Lynn Eden


12:00–14:00 PUGWASH AND THE NEXTQUINQUENNIUMChair: Francesco Calogero

(Pugwash documents for the 11th

Quinquennium / new Council / new President)

Interventions from Paolo Cotta-Ramusino,Jayantha Dhanapala

CLOSING OF CONFERENCE


17:00:–17:30 Coffee Break

17:30–19:30 Discussion Session on Jammu and Kashmir

20:00 Dinner

Thursday 25 October

09:00–11:30 PANEL SESSION on the MIDDLE EASTChair: Paolo Cotta Ramusino

Panelists from the Middle East

11:30–12.00 Coffee Break

12:00–14:00 PANEL SESSION on IRAQ and itsRECONSTRUCTIONChair: Hilary Synnott

Ibrahim Bahr Alolom (Iraq), Mahmoud Vaezi(Iran), Hala Al Saraf (Iraq), Andy Grotto (USA)

14:30 Buses leave at 14.30 sharp for the excursion

Afternoon Excursion

20:30 Dinner at the Palace Hotel


57th Pugwash Conference on Science and World AffairsReport of the Secretary General 2007

Paolo Cotta-Ramusino23 October 2007

PUGWASH: A MOVEMENT WITH MANY FACES

stumble onto the bureaucratic path that plagues otherorganizations. Pugwash is geographically widespread, andbeing now present in about 50 countries, it is truly aninternational organization and not an international NGOset up and controlled by, say, a mother-house of a specificcountry. Finally, Pugwash is not a mini-UN, where unani-mous universal consensus is required among the represen-tatives of different countries to do anything; in fact, mostactions are carried out and implemented by Pugwash’s(very slim) central structure.

A changing international environment for theproblem of nuclear weapons

All these many facets of Pugwash’s work have been instru-mental in allowing Pugwash to face a rapidly changinginternational environment and to adapt to new situations.The most important changes with which we are concernedare of course those connected with nuclear weapons, theirnumbers, the countries possessing them and the relevantnuclear policies.

End of the Cold War but very limited disarmament

Over the last 15-20 years the confrontation between thetwo main blocs (US-Russia) changed nature in many ways.In particular, the number and characteristics of nuclearweapons ceased to be considered as one of the main (if notthemain) measuring sticks for the power confrontation.But the reduction of deployed nuclear weapons madepossible by the arms control agreements of the end of the1980s and the beginning of the 1990s was not pursued tothe point of getting below the existing level of severalthousand warheads in the hands of the two main nuclearpowers. So, despite the end of the Cold War, nuclear disar-mament was and still is beyond the horizon, while the rele-vance of nuclear weapons as a symbol of power has beenpreserved, albeit in a different framework and without the

Pugwash is the oldest thriving non-governmentalorganization dealing with the problems of nuclearweapons, nuclear disarmament, and more generally,

of weapons of mass destruction. Based on the RussellEinstein manifesto, it deals naturally with the conflicts(actual or potential) that involve States or entitiespossessing such weapons or that may possess suchweapons in the near future. Pugwash was founded byscientists who believed that putting the nuclear genie backinto the bottle and controlling and ultimately eliminatingnuclear weapons was the main social responsibility ofscientists, especially of those who helped build the nuclearbomb. So despite the fact that it may appear as a one-issuemovement, Pugwash in reality had and has many facetsand components. In Pugwash we have always beeninvolved in calling the attention of public opinion as wellas of policy makers to the fact that nuclear weapons areultimately incompatible with the progress and even theexistence of mankind. Pugwash involved scientists, policymakers and experts—all taking part in their personalcapacity and coming from different countries, political-ideological and religious backgrounds—who could beinfluential in the choices made by their governments andtheir respective political headquarters. This is somethingthat in modern terminology we call promoting track IIinitiatives. Pugwash dealt naturally with people belongingto opposite and conflicting fronts; the ensuing interactionbetween these fronts has been on many occasion animportant element of conflict prevention and/or conflictresolution. Finally, having been founded by scientists whohad been directly involved in the fabrication of weaponswith terrible devastating consequences, Pugwash hasalways stressed the need for the scientific/technologicalcommunity to keep in mind the social responsibility of itsactions. From an organizational point of view, Pugwashhas been always very flexible, resisting temptations to



tries added to the list of five official and one unofficialnuclear power states. The number of nuclear countries isstill low, but we should not forget that almost half ofmankind now belongs to countries that possess nuclearweapons. More countries may be on line to acquirenuclear weapons, and some countries have been suspectedof having an interest in nuclear technologies, and not forcivilian-only purposes.

Bad and good proliferators

The non proliferation policy of the major powers andparticularly of western states has recently put moreemphasis on coercing potential proliferators rather thanon building a general consensus for the non proliferationgoals. Sanctions and even war have been used as an instru-ment to prevent real or only suspected proliferation. Andparadoxically, the closer some critical countries have cometo the nuclear threshold, the more they have been treatedwith caution and respect. Even more, new nuclear orpotentially nuclear countries have been divided into goodand bad proliferators [or potential proliferators]. Thegood ones have been “forgiven” and rewarded in variousways, with the result that the “bad” ones have beeninduced to progress more rapidly in the nuclearizationprocess.

Renewed interest in nuclear energy

Other elements which are important in understanding thehigh proliferation risks that we are now facing is therenewed interest in nuclear (civilian) technology for energypurposes, considering the relatively thin barrier that sepa-rates military from nuclear civilan activities, and the factthat military nuclear technology is, in its less sophisticatedaspects, a technology which is about 60 years old andhence pretty accessible. The main technical obstacle tonuclear proliferation remains of course the availability offissile material, the control of which is of course veryimportant. It is also important that Pugwash support allforms of international control of the production, storageand transfer of fissile materials.

Pugwash’s task to reach out to regions andcountries where proliferation is a problem

In a world with more nuclear independent actors than inthe Cold War period, an organization like Pugwash shouldnot only support in general terms the goals of nucleardisarmament and non proliferation, but also extend itspresence to new subjects and areas and try to address thedividing issus or the sources of conflicts that may affect

extreme emphasis on the bilateral competition that wastypical of the Cold War period. Moreover, with the excep-tion of South Africa—in its transition period to the post-apartheid era—no country dismantled its nuclear arsenal.As the aura of nuclear weapons as a currency of power hasbeen preserved, so are the worries of non-nuclear statesthat are antagonized in various ways by nuclear countries.

The demise of arms control

During the Cold War, given the centrality of nuclearweapons in the East-West confrontation, arms-controltreaties and talks about nuclear weapons became the keyelement of the more general detente and peace process.Discussing nuclear arms control was probably the mostrelevant conflict prevention initiative. This was significanteven for track II initiatives or for non-official talks. Afterthe end of the Cold War, attention to bilateral armscontrol or bilateral arms reduction inititives droppeddramatically, even though the risks associated with nuclearweapons are far from having been eliminated. Moreoverspecific arms control agreements have been dismantled(such as the ABM treaty), prompting a possible chain reac-tion that in due time may bring the whole system of armscontrol inherited by the Cold War crashing down. As amatter of fact, there are now very worrisome symptoms ofa possible renewal of the US-Russian arms race.

Nuclear proliferation after the end of the Cold War

The problem of nuclear proliferation, which was keptunder relative control in the Cold War period by thebipolar system, acquired a new dimension in the post-ColdWar period. Generally speaking, a country may be moti-vated to acquire nuclear weapons for a combination ofprestige-related motivations and concerns about its ownsecurity. Despite the end of the Cold War, prestige associ-ated with nuclear weapons has been kept unfortunatelyhigh by the lack of disarmament, both in absolute termsand considering the trend over the last 15 years or so, andeven by the persisting identification of the five offcialnuclear powers with the permanent members of the UNSecurity Council. As for security concerns, those obviouslydid not disappear with the end of the Cold War. In somecases the lack of a bipolar equilibrium exposed somecountries to hightened levels of pressures from the onlysuperpower left; in other cases, tensions between morepowerful nuclear countries and smaller non-nuclear coun-tries encouraged the smaller countries to considerbecoming nuclear at least as a form of insurance policy.

In the post Cold War period we have seen three coun-


treated as terrorists, then the number and the influence ofterrorists is bound to increase dramatically. Engagingradical groups, allowing them to operate within a frame-work where some basic rules are respected, and under-standing their social basis, can be a complicated but neces-sary task.

Back to square 1: promoting nuclear disarmamentand stenghtening the NPT

One of the widespread myths used to justify the lack ofprogress in nuclear disarmament is that nuclear prolifera-tors are not influenced by either the lack of or progress indisarmament. The lack of nuclear disarmament creates aninternational climate where nuclear weapons are consid-ered both a currency of power and an instrument of domi-nance. Reactions to this climate have different and oftenunpredictable time scales, but this climate is defining theenvironment, and countries sooner or later are induced tofollow the example of the more powerful states. Art. VI ofthe NPT is not a token compensation for the non-nuclearstates. It was, and is, meant to be a clear committment.The distinction between good and bad proliferators is notso much injust as it is conterproductive. It increases thefatal attraction towards nuclearization. Equity and fair-ness in the NPT is, in the long run, the most effective wayto handle proliferation risks. A special word is also neededto support the preservation of the present architecture ofarms control agreements and, in fact, to improve it, whileavoiding that certain dubious choices, such as the deploye-ment of BMD systems, jeopardize the existing agreements.

Improving control of critical material and nucleartechnology

A big effort is needed in many directions to improve thecontrol of fissile material and to secure the developmentand spread of nuclear technology against the risks ofnuclear proliferation. Many ideas are on the ground, fromimproving safeguards to establishing international centers

areas where nuclear weapons are present or nuclear prolif-eration may be a serious risk. This has been part of a greateffort made by Pugwash in the past quinquennium.

The Cold War does not provide the only model forhandling confrontation betwen nuclear states orpotential proliferators: sources of conflict unrelatedto armaments

The Cold War model of how the confrontation betweennuclear states developed, was handled and eventuallyreduced does not necessarily apply to the various actual orpotential nuclear subjects that exist today. There are avariety of divisive factors that might today trigger a mili-tary nuclear action, or induce one country to seriouslydamage the non proliferation regime and the NPT treaty.Addressing these factors is important for any organizationwhose priority is preventing the acquisition, spread andparticularly use of nuclear weapons. For example, theissue of Kashmir can be more relevant in triggering anIndo-Pakistani confrontation than, say, the number ofweapons that are targeted across the border or the Line ofControl.

The “new” terrorism

Another important change from the Cold War period isthe role of terrrorism . On the one hand, it is apparentthat, given the availability of fissile material and particu-larly of HEU, terrorist groups could produce a nuclearbomb or a nuclear explosive device. On the other hand,the relevance of terrorist organizations has increased overthe last years, especially since 911. In particular, a view-point has gained ground by which societies are attackedfrom within, often by random destruction, so that fromthe ashes of destruction a new order might possibly bebuilt on the basis of “new” ideas. This sort of millenaristapproach has found a fertile breeding ground in the after-math of a series of crucial mishandlings of some specificcritical situations (Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle Eastin general). And from the point of view of nuclear risks, itis undoubtedly relevant, since the only thing standingbetween a consistent number of motivated individuals anda nuclear terrorist attack is the availability of fissile mate-rial which, especially after the demise of the Soviet Union,should not be underestimated. One point of extremeimportance in dealing with terrorism is not to identify allradical groups with actual or potential terrorists. Recentpolicies in the Middle East in particular do make this kindof confusion, complicating immensely the problem. Ifradical groups are indiscriminately identified with and


Pugwash Council meeting, with Galia Golan-Gild,Jayantha Dhanapala, Claudia Vaughn, Paolo Cotta-Ramusino,

and Saideh Lotfian.


for the production of nuclear fuel. Many of these ideaswill not be implemented if there is the perception thatthese measures are unfairly imposed on certain states.Countries interested in extending the production ofnuclear energy are not even interested in signing the IAEAadditional protocol, not to mention the idea of cooper-ating with more advanced safeguard constraints. The ideaof imposing safeguards or even denying access to parts ofthe nuclear energy production process on the basis of theright of the strongest risks being totally ineffective, andcan be a stimulus for further proliferation. A specialmention should be made on the need for monitoringefforts aimed at securing separated (excess) fissile materialand stored or dismantled warheads. This was a crucialproblem which Pugwash dealt with in many past meetingsand for which there is intense international activity. Thewidening of these activities so as to involve countries otherthan Russia is also important if the issue of nuclearterrorism is to be taken seriously on a world-wide level.

Dealing with the root causes of hostility andconflicts in regions where nuclear weapons are arelevant factor.

Stabilizing situations where nuclear weapons are animportant factor (whether existing or potential) requiresdealing with complex issues, of which military (or nuclear)confrontation is only one. Hostility between countries orpopulations can come from territorial, religious, culturaland economic motivations. It can be the result of recentmisgivings, or antagonisms rooted in the past. Addressingthose issues and promoting dialogue across borders oracross dividing lines can contribute substantially tolowering tensions and to promoting a better relations thatcan have an effect on military stability. The point tounderline here is that lowering the risks of conflict(possibly with nuclear weapons) and promoting reciprocalengagement centered on the sources of hostility is a twoway-street.

The Pugwash method of bringing together criticalpeople from different fronts

What Pugwash has done in the past and intends to do evenmore in the future is to facilitate dialogue between keypeople coming from antagonistic countries or populations.The dialogue that Pugwash is promoting is often veryprivate and unpublicized and, I would add, unassuming,since immediate results are hardly ever expected. Thesekinds of meetings usually involve a very limited number ofparticipants. But it should be added that in the critical

situations we especially have in mind, such as the MiddleEast, South Asia, North East Asia and other places, thevery fact of opening a dialogue among selected peopleacross the dividing lines is a major undertaking, and anyresult in this direction carries in itself an important weightthat is not to be underestimated. Transferring peopleacross borders or having people sitting together fromdifferent fronts is at times both very difficult and veryimportant.

Dealing with other types of WMD and withconventional weapons

There is a long tradition in Pugwash of dealing with thecontrol and/or limitation of some specific type ofweapons. These include non-nuclear weapons that are alsocalled (properly or improperly) weapons of mass destruc-tion. Chemical and Biological weapons pertain to thiscategory. Other types of conventional weapons, fromcluster bombs to the widespread use of small arms in crit-ical areas, have also drawn Pugwash’s attention.

Back to the future: the global responsibility ofscientists and decision makers

Pugwash was initiated by a group of scientists (mainlyphysicists) interested in dealing with the consequences oftheir scientific activity and its horrible results on theworld. Our founder Jo Rotblat belonged to this categoryof scientists. We should recall that he was the only onewho left the Manhattan Project when it became clear thatNazi Germany would not produce an atomic bomb. Inabandoning working on the construction of the bombbefore the final result, he gave us a message that we stillcherish as the key element of our activity. Scientists, policymakers, decision makers and military leaders do not haveonly an obligation or loyalty only to their country or ownpolitical-religious frame of reference. They have more andmore a global responsibility. Our behavior on this planetshould take into consideration the living conditions of allof us. Policy makers or scientists—if they do not interactwith analogous decision makers or scientists fromdifferent countries or political-cultural-religious environ-ments—quite often do not grasp the real essence of thisglobal responsibility. Global responsibility is fully under-stood when comparison, engagement and cross culturalexchange is allowed. Pugwash is an instrument for thistype of reciprocal engagement. It is, and has always been,a small organization, but we have the presumption tobelieve that even after 50 years, we still play a role instrengthening global responsibility.


Report on Working Group 1Co-conveners: Mohamed Kadry Said,Kennette Benedict, Alexander NikitinRapporteur: Tom Sauer

A new arms race and a new Cold War?Russia, NATO, Europe, arms control treaties andmissile defense

The group covered a range of topics – from missiledefense, strategies for disarmament, nuclear terrorism, theeffect of globalization and networks on proliferation andarms control, nuclear weapons free zones, to arms sales inthe Middle East.

Out of the discussion came proposals for three taskforces:

• on missile defense and weapons in outer space;• on prospects for nuclear disarmament;• on the feasibility of an Arctic nuclear weapon freezone.

Missile Defense

The two papers presented were highly critical of US plansto install missile defense in Europe, and in particular theinstallation of a radar station in the Czech Republic andten missile interceptors in Poland. Different argumentswere flagged:

The technology is not ready, despite the fact that theUS already has spent more than 150 billion dollars on it.Many experts doubt whether a 100 % secure system, oreven a quasi-100% secure system, will ever become avail-able. Nevertheless, the US administration believes thatballistic missile defense is vital for its security. Also (poten-tial) adversaries will start from the (worst-case) assump-tion that the system works.

The threat has not (yet) materialized. Iran and NorthKorea are not capable of launching intercontinental

missiles with nuclear warheads. It will take a long timebefore they will be capable of doing so, if ever. And if theydo, what incentives do they have to launch ICBMs againstthe US, knowing very well that the US will retaliate ?

Missile defense undermines strategic stability. Russiaand China do not like American missile defense. Russia isespecially concerned about American missile defensesystems installed near its borders. While ten interceptorsdo not undermine the current Russian deterrent capabili-ties, a more expansive defensive missile shield may do so.In reaction to these plans, Putin has already frozenRussia’s participation in the CFE Treaty in July 2007.Continuing negative reactions of Russia may jeopardizefurther nuclear weapons reductions in the future, andtherefore may be a further blow to the current nonprolif-eration regime, which is already in crisis.

The Russian counterproposal to use Russian-controlled radars in Azerbedjan and Asmavir has not beentaken seriously by the US.

A related paper made a link between BMD andNORAD. While Canada has said “no” in the past to USinvitations to participate in the ballistic missile defensesystem, it may end up as it actively participates withinNORAD.

During the debate about missile defense, manydescribed Russia’s policy as an overreaction, both as aresult of corporate interests inside Russia and as a result ofpolitical gesturing vis-à vis the rest of the world. Some alsoquestioned whether American missile defense could under-mine the Russian nuclear deterrent, but agreed that thatcould be the case for China. This may lead to a build-up ofthe Chinese offensive arsenal, and to a new Asian armsrace.

Further, it was not completely ruled out that Russiamay in the end cooperate with the US in the field of missiledefense. A joint information exchange system aboutmissile launches could be set up as a first step.



REPORTS FROM THE CONFERENCE WORKING GROUPS


drawal of American nuclear weapons from Europe ingeneral. There was a consensus that their presence is ananachronism, and that public opinion in Europe is verymuch in favor of the withdrawal. The withdrawal couldalso have a very positive effect on the current nonprolifer-ation regime, at least as a symbolic gesture.

The reasons these weapons are still in Europe aredue to:

• Bureaucratic and political inertia; few politicians(except in Greece) are willing to use their politicalcapital to change policy. There are also parochialinterests involved, namely a small group within themilitary in the European countries, who believe thatthey can have more influence in NATO with thecontinued presence of these weapons in their respec-tive countries.

• Responsibility-sharing/burden-sharing withinNATO.

• Their presence in Europe is sometimes – e.g. in arecent platform of American experts related to theDemocrats—linked to Russian tactical nukes,suggesting that the withdrawal can only happen onthe condition that Russia changes its tactical nuclearweapons policy as well.

• The slippery slope argument: if NATO gives in onthis issue, perhaps it will be obliged to give in onother issues in the future.

• Uncertainty about the future.A more general question was whether public opinion

had to be involved in order to convince the government.Most of the participants (although not all) agreed thatpublic opinion was both an important actor and stake-holder. Also the media should play a much more activerole in stimulating a serious debate about these issues.

There is a proposal to set up a Pugwash WorkingGroup (or Task Force) on nuclear disarmament. The ideaof elimination is not a taboo anymore, thanks in part tothe Canberra Commission, the Blix Commission, andmore recently the op-ed by Schultz, Perry, Nunn andKissinger in The Wall Street Journal. At the same time,there is a window of opportunity with the coming changeof the US administration at the end of 2008, a new NATOStrategic Concept in 2009, and the upcoming NPT ReviewConference in 2010. The next two years may be critical.

It was repeatedly stressed that there was a need for acombination of vision AND concrete steps towards elimi-nation, like the ratification of the CTBT and the with-drawal of the American nuclear weapons from Europe. A

Others, in contrast, provided further argumentsagainst missile defense:

• There may be a new kind of proliferation in theoffing, namely missile defense proliferation, forinstance in India, as well as an arms race in space.

• The interception of North Korean missiles wouldtake place above the territory of Russia.

• How will Russia distinguish American defensiveinterceptors from offensive missiles flying into thedirection of Russia ? This may lead to Russian autho-rized nuclear weapons use after false alarm.

The Europeans will make themselves further depen-dent on the US, as they were before (and still today) withregard to the nuclear weapons umbrella.

What is hopeful (from an arms control perspective) isthat the US Congress recently diminished a substantialpart of the funding for the American missile defensesystem in Europe, and that a Democratic President in2008 would only go along on the condition that the tech-nology is ready, and effectively tested. In all likelihood,missile defense will remain an important arms controlissue in the coming years, if not decades.

Pugwash may wish to reestablish a Working Group onProblems of Missile Defense and the Prevention ofWeapons in Outer Space.

Strategies of disarmament: how to change nuclearweapons policy ?

A first paper explained how the Trident decision by theBlair administration was taken, and how Pugwash UKtried to influence that decision. Pugwash pressed for anopen debate, provided information to the public, invitedexperts, organized press briefings, and lobbied for post-poning the decision to replace Trident. While initial plan-ning for replacement submarines was approved, the issuewill come back to the parliament in 3 to 4 years for a deci-sion about funding the new system. Further input by non-UK Pugwash members is welcomed in the future.

The second paper recounted the efforts of CanadianPugwash to change NATO’s nuclear weapons policy. Sena-tors Gen. Johnson, Gen. Dallaire, and Amb. Roche gavepress conferences to publicize proposals to denuclearizeNATO. In Ottawa, meetings were held with ambassadorsfrom NATO countries.

A third paper described the arguments in favor of andagainst keeping American nuclear weapons in Turkey, andconcluded that it was time to send them back to the US.

The debate that followed focused on the possible with-


weapons purposes. Non-state actors are not able to enrichLEU to HEU.

The US is helping Russia in this process of conversionand securing HEU. The US paid 7-8 bn $ for about 300ton excess HEU, which is now used as LEU in Americancivilian nuclear reactors. The fact that the CooperativeThreat Reduction Program (between the US and Russia) –established in 1994—is a success, is sometimes forgotten.In principle, similar deals could be made with Russia inthe future, also by other countries or entities (like the EU).However, the political climate in Russia is currently notfavorable for such “soft” deals.

Towards an Arctic Nuclear Weapon Free Zone

The basic idea (from the Canadian Pugwash group) is tomake a NWFZ in the Arctic region. As new sea-lanesbecome available due to global warming and the meltingof the ice, a first step would prohibit the passage ofnuclear submarines in this area. In a later stage, theRussian bases in Murmansk should be closed as well. Thelatter may become an option if the number of strategicnuclear weapons continues to go down to a level of 1.000or even 500 in the future. Under that scenario, one or twolegs of the triad could be scrapped. For Russia, it would bemore logical to keep mobile ICBMs instead of SLBMs onsubmarines. There are normally not more than twonuclear strategic submarines on patrol; the others are inport, and therefore vulnerable.

Nevertheless, it was admitted that the whole plan wasquite ambitious because it would be the first time thatnuclear weapon states were directly involved in thecreation of a nuclear weapon free zone. While thisambitous plan was welcomed, many participants raisedseveral questions: are submarines not more cost-effectivethan ICBMs (like the UK’s decision to keep only subs) ?Can this passage of submarines be effectively controlled ?Would the Pentagon accept such intrusive verificationmechanisms ? What about the political atmosphere inRussia nowadays, which is not conducive to any substan-tial disarmament proposal ?

On the other hand, the plans to de-alert nuclearweapons may strengthen the idea. There would at least beone bureaucratic stakeholder in favour: the StrategicGround Forces in Russia.

A Pugwash Working Group might explore the feasibilityof establishing a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the ArcticZone.

new idea was to dismantle several American and Russiannuclear weapons under the supervision of an internationalor IAEA inspection team.

Russia is back on the global stage

Growing Russian assertiveness in international politicscould have positive consequences for arms control in themedium term. Under Putin and with the economy doingbetter than in the 1990’s (due to rising oil and gas prices),Russia’s self-confidence is increasing. Sometimes, it evenbehaves in a rather assertive or even aggressive way toshow the rest of the world and its own public that the eraof humiliation is over. Examples are the tests with ICBM’s,the vacuum bomb test in 2007, and bombers flying in thedirection of the West. It is clear that the Russian militaryvisibility and, by extension arms control, is used for geo-strategic (and domestic) reasons. The ballistic missiledefense controversy should be seen in this light. The sameapplies to the freezing of the participation in the CFETreaty in 2007 and the proposal to withdraw from theINF Treaty. In fact, it was suggested that Russia would liketo use arms control as a way to exert political power in theinternational system, even going as far as playing a leadingrole in shaping a new international order.

Some questioned whether Russia was really back onthe world stage. Others wondered what the long termvision behind this growing assertiveness was. Are we goingback to a new Cold War ? Most agreed that the latter wasunlikely, taking into account the power gap between theUS and Russia. Even a compromise with the US on BMDwas envisaged, on the condition that the Iranian threatwould not materialize and the US withdraws its proposalto install MD in Eastern Europe.

Danger of nuclear terrorism

How difficult is it for terrorists to build an atomic bomb ?Not so difficult. The biggest hurdle consists of gettingenough fissile material, about 100 kg of highly enricheduranium (HEU). Plutonium is the only alternative forHEU, but is much more difficult to handle, and has otherdisadvantages. Knowing that there is still a lot of HEUspread around the world – 1 million kg in Russia and 0.2million kg in the US—without the necessary protection, itis time that the international community does everything itcan to secure this material. The most urgent case are thenuclear research reactors, sometimes located at badlyguarded universities. In addition, HEU is also used fornaval purposes. HEU can be downgraded to lowlyenriched uranium (LEU), which cannot be used for



Pathways to proliferation and counterproliferation

The paper mentioned two new proliferation processes: 1)networked proliferation (e.g. Pakistan); and 2) non-stateactors (see nuclear terrorism). Networked proliferation,which is a phenomenon that is understudied, has the char-acteristic that it is not well detectable, that complete prod-ucts are delivered instead of drawing maps, and that non-state actors are the driving force. The paper also discussedthe impact of globalization on proliferation. Globalizationcan both help proliferation as it stimulates the movementof people, information and money, and be a tool in thefight against proliferation.

UN role in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis

A recently discovered aspect of the Cuban missile crisis isthe pivotal role played by the UN Secretary-General UThant. Thanks to Thant’s mediation efforts, PresidentKennedy had time to lower the tensions, and to imagine asolution without the use of force. In particular, Kennedyasked Thant to contact Khrushchev and ask him to keephis ships away from Cuba in order to have more time towork out a diplomatic solution. The Soviet leader agreedto the UN request. Second, Thant proposed the dismantle-ment of the missiles in exchange for an American guar-antee that Cuba wouldn’t be invaded by the US. The latterwas also accepted by both parties. Thirdly, Thant visitedCastro at the end of the crisis and convinced Castro totone down his rhetoric. This diplomatic approach wassuccessful, and should be an example for the handling ofcurrent conflicts.

Conventional weapons sales to the Middle East

Although weapons of mass destruction are often the centerof the international debate, we should not forget that warsare fought with conventional weapons. When it isdiscussed, the focus is most of the times on the demandside. The paper focused instead on the supply side. Thereare entities that have huge vested interests in selling arms.They can easily get away with the argument that “if we donot sell, other firms or states will sell exactly the sameweapons”. After the Cold War, this economic logic applieseven more than during the Cold War when friends andenemies were chosen on the basis of ideology to fight“proxy” wars.

The consequences of this arms trade, however, aresubstantial. Weapons are regarded as offensive, and stimu-late others to acquire arms as well. The security situationin the end may be worse than was the case before

acquiring these weapons. Another paradoxical result isthat states are sometimes confronted with their ownweapons in the hands of the enemy.

As the Middle East is an unstable region, there is a hugedemand for weapons. These weapons further destabilizethe region as a result of the wars that are fought (e.g. therecent Lebanon war in 2006, the Iraq war since 2003, etc).

In the debate that followed, the aspect of security guar-antees was touched upon. If states feel secure, they wouldhave no need to acquire (so many) weapons. Is there forinstance no possibility to offer security guarantees to Iranor Israel ? On the supply side, there exists already the UNArms Register and the Wassenaar Agreement, which arejust two examples of promoting transparency, which inturn may soften the security dilemma. Recently, the idea ofan Arms Trade Treaty came up in the UN GeneralAssembly, proposing that arms sales should be regulated. Itwas also mentioned that parliaments should take responsi-bility for arms exports much more than is the case today.

Working Group 2 ReportCo-Conveners: Wa’el Al Assad, Sverre Lodgaard,Pan ZhenqiangRapporteur: Bob van der Zwaan

1. The relation between nuclear non-proliferationand disarmament

Presentations and ensuing discussions in Working Group 2left no doubt that the global nuclear non-proliferation anddisarmament regime is in need of significant and urgentrepair. Yet it was recognized that the Non-ProliferationTreaty (NPT) remains the fundamental and indispensablecornerstone of this regime. It was observed that somecurrent events and public statements, among them thepublication in early 2007 of a seminal article in the WallStreet Journal calling for a complete elimination of nuclearweapons, present glimmers of hope that should beexploited to the fullest extent possible, also in the light ofrecent and imminent changes in political leadership inseveral of the countries directly concerned. Argumentswere made in support of both directions of correlationbetween a lack of progress in global disarmament effortsand proliferation of nuclear weapons. It was observed bysome that the stationing of American tactical nuclearwarheads in Europe contradicts the spirit of the NPT, andtherefore needs to be addressed by the governments of thecountries concerned. The demand side of the proliferation


problem could be addressed, in part, by decreasing thevalue of nuclear weapons through invigorated incrementaldisarmament efforts. Furthermore, increasing publicawareness of the dangers involved with nuclear weaponscould play a beneficial role in achieving a decrease of theirnumbers and eventually their elimination altogether.

2. Iran and the Middle East

The key to a solution of the controversy surrounding theIranian nuclear energy programme is the building ofmutual trust and confidence, rather than a fixation on thesuspension of uranium enrichment activities, as the lattercannot be sustained in the long term under the rightsprovided by the NPT to which Iran is a member. To thisend, however, it is in the interest of Iran itself and of theentire non-proliferation and disarmament regime, to usethe opportunities that exist to significantly enhance trans-parency regarding both its past and present nuclear activi-ties. Other options exist for all parties involved that couldstrengthen mutual confidence, such as Iran ratifying theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). First and fore-most, however, it is time that the US and Iran undertakedirect one-to-one discussions. Without it, it is hard toenvisage a satisfactory outcome of the conflict. It wasnoted that sanctions have become part of the problem:they escalate the conflict without providing any solution.All members of this working group were convinced thatthe use of military force should in any case be avoided.

3. The Korean Peninsula

It is gratifying that recent developments in the context ofthe 6-party negotiations have generated a breakthrough inthe previous deadlock between the government of theDPRK and the other 6-party group members. Optimismwas therefore expressed regarding the feasibility today toprovide the DPRK the security assurances it desires and tofinally establish a Peace Treaty between the 4 main Partiesinvolved. Given that prospects now exist for realizing acomplete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, itseems justified to currently carry great expectations, butthat for the moment still need to be accompanied byconsiderate caution.

4. The peaceful use of nuclear energy and thenuclear fuel cycle

Given the fundamental role of energy supply in economicdevelopment, it is becoming increasingly evident that theworld will continue to experience large increases in energy

consumption. The concurrent substantial increases in theglobal demand for electricity, as well as the need to miti-gate global climatic change and ensure energy resourcesecurity, may lead to a sizeable increase in the use ofnuclear energy world-wide and correspondingly theconstruction of new nuclear power plants during theforthcoming decades. Of concern, however, is that—ifrealized—this trend regarding the peaceful use of nuclearenergy is likely to lower the barriers to black market activ-ities. Also, due attention needs to be paid to possible defi-ciencies in adequate governance that new nuclear energycountries will need to be characterized by. In the light ofthese developments, it would be advantageous for all toultimately transparently and fairly internationalize thefront-end and back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle, avoid theuse of double standards, and fully render the IAEA’s Addi-tional Protocol as the new norm for nuclear safeguards. Tofacilitate steps in this direction, the nuclear weapons statesmust do more to fulfill their NPT article VI obligations.

5. Nuclear Weapon Free Zones

It was generally agreed that the establishment of NuclearWeapon Free Zones (NWFZ) remains an important assetfor the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. The deficienciesobserved in the six treaties that so far have been estab-lished in this regard could be addressed by using theamendment clauses available in the corresponding treatytexts. This would allow a better exploitation of several oftheir benefits, primordial among which is that theyprovide a strong disincentive to proliferate. In particular,the practical measures needed to implement a NWFZ inthe Middle East deserve urgent attention by not only thecountries directly involved but also by the entire interna-tional community.

6. The India-US nuclear deal

The intended US-India nuclear deal, while receivingcredits in several circles for bringing India closer to thenon-proliferation regime, was strongly criticized for notgoing far enough in this respect, inter alia for the liberty itpossesses with respect to deciding which facilities willactually fall under the deal. It is recommended that the US-India deal receives further in-depth analysis, in terms ofthe benefits and disadvantages that it implies for efforts tohalt nuclear proliferation and promote nucleardisarmament.


Report on Working Group 3Co-conveners: Alan McGowan, Beppe NardulliRapporteurs: ISYP Antoinette HilderingISYP Marianna Evtodjewa

The Middle East. The role of Europe and ofMediterranean cooperation

Within the Working Group, the discussion mainly focusedon the Palestinian – Israeli conflict, the situation in Iraqand the position of Syria and also Iran in the region, bothrelated to those issues and in the broader context of theMiddle East. The role of the US and Europe came upwhere relevant in relation to those discussions.

Palestinian – Israel conflict

The situation and conflict between Israel and the Pales-tinians was presented by both sides. The coming MiddleEast Conference—to be held in Annapolis, Maryland,aimed for in November—was elaborated upon and bothhope and scepticism were expressed concerning theprospects of its success. The situation on the ground in thePalestinian territories was presented, e.g., by showing thecombined effect of policies such as the building of the walland the location of settlements in the West Bank, to whichsome degree of disagreement remained relating to factsand terminology. The situation in Gaza and the positionand involvement of Hamas were also discussed.

Six main points of apparent agreement, in relation toboth the Middle East Conference and the peace process atlarge, were:• There needs to be a clear outcome from the beginningthat shows the end of occupation; there is no need tostart all over again, but continue from where the negoti-ations stopped.

• The 2-States solution seems to have the support of bothparties and their populations.

• The Arab Initiative can serve as a base to the Conferenceand peace negotiations, accepting the pre 1967 bordersand recognising Israel’s place in the region.

• The peace and the peace talks need to be comprehensive,including also Syria and Lebanon.

• There needs to be an end to the violence, which willrequire reciprocity.

• Time is of the essence.

General agreement on these points seems to exist, andmight provide optimism for the peace process. Pessimismseemed to mainly relate to problems in further definingand applying these points. Issues relating to the six points

just mentioned that arose, included the following:• The lack of trust in peace processes all the more requiresclarity on the outcome and final status from the begin-ning of the Conference on. It needs to be clear that it willresult in the end of the occupation. From there, e.g.,negotiations and the implementation of the Roadmap isto take place – including issues such as the refugees, theGolan and security. Scepticism is largely present for aseries of reasons, including the failure of earlier peaceprocesses and the practice on the ground such asviolence against civilians from both sides, continuance ofsettlements and other measures contradicting theexpressed intentions. As a result, trust in the other partyand in the leaders that already have a weak position islittle. If the Conference would fail or only producegeneral principles, the position of the ones that still hopefor a peaceful solution of the conflict will be furtherundermined. Moreover, the US as the facilitator iscomplicating the process, since they are part of theconflict instead of a third party viewed as neutral byboth sides. A call for stronger commitment and involve-ment of the UN and Europe was expressed.

• The 2-States solution was the one solution mentioned byall sides. The difficulties lay in defining the two States:although the general agreement on the pre 1967 borderscan be at the basis for acknowledging two States, theactual borders still need to be defined. These bordersremain disputed and will have a huge impact on thenegotiations, their results and their acceptance. There issome acceptance by both sides of land-swaps, but majorissues on the size and the quality of the land swappedneed to be overcome. It was agreed in the discussion thatthe Palestinian split into two by the situation in Gazarequires a solution that has to be decided upon by thePalestinians themselves and that others need to supportand stimulate such a solution.

• There seemed to be agreement that there is no need forHamas to recognise Israel since Israel does not need thatrecognition as a State; the acceptance of the Arab Statesof a place in the region seems much more important.

• It was agreed that a comprehensive peace requires theinvolvement of all relevant parties, including Hamas andalso Syria. The Conference can focus on the Palestinian –Israeli conflict, which seems more than enough to dealwith at this specific Conference, but for the largerMiddle East peace process other issues such as the Golanneed to be taken in as well. The current exclusive struc-ture of the Conference and the position of the US and


Europe toward Hamas stand in the way of the compre-hensive peace required and complicate successful imple-mentation of whatever outcome of the Conference.

• Violence against civilians was clearly condemned byboth sides. The trouble there seems to be who is going tobe the first to stop targeting the civilians, whether it bethe rocketing of the Israeli civilians or the killing ofPalestinians. Respect for the human rights of the otherparty and implementation of humanitarian law remainsproblematic in a situation where the violation by theother seems to serve as a reason not to live up to ownduties as well. Disagreement remained on violence usedagainst the occupation such as against Israeli soldiers.

• Time is of the essence; both Palestinian and Israeli peopleare tired of the conflict, plus the idea of the 2-States solu-tion is now accepted, which might not be the case if thepresent opportunity for peace is not taken up.It can be concluded that during the discussions, agree-

ment seemed to exist on the urgent need for a comprehen-sive peace that is based on the 2-States solution, with anoutcome clear beforehand. To an extent, disagreementremained on both facts and perspectives, such as on thechances of success for the coming Annapolis Conference.For the Conference to have a good chance to succeed, itneeds to include all parties and needs to have a clearoutcome, not just principles. The urgency of reaching suchan outcome was strongly emphasised by many partici-pants in the discussion. All agreed that the focus needs tobe on the future and that both parties have a large interestin and wish for peace, but it also became clear from theworking group that bridging the remaining gap requiresthird party involvement. There was some feeling thatEurope, not the United States, would be a more appro-priate third party. Pugwash could play its role in this bycontinuing and strengthening its efforts to bring both sidestogether, facilitate dialogue and underline commongrounds and shared interests.

Syrian-Israeli relationship

Participants of the working group agree that the Syrian-Israeli relationship is an important part, one of the maintracks of the Middle East peace process. But the problemof involvement of Syria to the talks on the Middle-Eastissues which are to be held in November, 2007 inAnnapolis, Maryland (US) still exist. This and stopping ofthe Syrian-Israeli talks is one of the important issues(tendencies) of the political process in the region. Themain problem is that neither Syria nor Israel wants to

undertake any gestures, or concessions, to another side onthe questions which might be put on the agenda (return ofthe Golan heights, cooperation between Syria and Iran,Syrian ties and financing of Hezbollah, Palestinianrefugees in Syria, etc.).

Israel is reluctant to initiate peace talks with Syriabecause the present situation in the Golan heights is stable,there is no violence or clashes, the Israeli boarders at theside of Golan are comparatively safe (it is Syria thatprovides nowadays such stability and security). In this situ-ation Israel from the one hand continues to built newsettlements on the territories of Golan plateau (most of the30 Israeli settlements situated there were built in the 1990-ies), and from the other hand prefers to keep status-quo inrelationship with Syria offering instead of it only measureson regulation of Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That is why assome experts regard at present day it is almost impossibleto explain to Israeli society the necessity of talks with Syria.

Syria also nowadays doesn’t want to implement anysteps to promote dialogue with Israel. Syria feels itselfisolated. Syrians have no allies in the region at present dayand that is why they have to turn to more close coopera-tion with Iran. Besides Syrian authorities continue toconsider Israelis as invaders who captured the heights, andthey cannot agree on concessions with Israel on Lebanonissues because of importance of “Lebanon question” forSyrian policy. As some experts warned, if Syria will expressless tough and more open positions in relationship withIsrael and the US it may lead to weakening of positions ofpresident Bashar Assad and to political instability in Syria.

Nevertheless the peace process in the Middle Eastcannot be implemented without regulation of Syrian-Israeli relationship; otherwise Israel could not manage toprevent further attacks from Hezbollah, the situation inLebanon would remain instable and possibly would runout in new clashes, fall of Lebanon government, etc.Besides there are some tendencies that may be favourablefor promotion of peace process. For example, as someparticipants recognise, the structure of possible peaceregulations between Israel and Syria may be more simplethan between Israelis and Palestinians. Also Syria may beregarded as a reliable partner that fulfils punctually condi-tions of treaties that it signs.

During the sessions of the working group some recom-mendations were offered according to which the Israeli-Syrian bilateral talks and inclusion of them into theagenda of the Middle-East process could be possible. First,Syria and Israel should both be able to offer each other


beneficial measures that could promote the peace process.These measures should include: a) elaborating of mecha-nisms of return of Golan heights to Syria or dividing of thelands; b) some guarantees from Syrian side that it will notsupport anti-Israeli activity of Hezbollah and other radicalgroups in Lebanon and will not maintain ties in thissphere with Iran.

At the same time as some experts recommended, Syriashould be more flexible in international politics and espe-cially in issues of relationship with Israel, Lebanon andIran, and also Syrian leadership need to demonstrate tointernational community more clearly their willingness tostart peace talks (by means of mass media, in speeches ofSyrian officials, etc.). Israel, on the other hand, as someworking group participants argued, ought to draw uppeaceful dialogue with Syria. From this point of view,Israel should convince Washington of the necessity ofstarting of new round of talks with Syria, and the initiativeof such talks should proceed from the US administration.From another point of view, Israel and Syria may startconsultations on peace process on bilateral basis withoutinvolving the US in talks. In particular, as some expertsrecommended, Syria should draw more attention toimproving relationship with European countries andinvolve them more widely in the peace process.

Situation in Iraq

Problems of political development in Iraq secured a specialpart in consideration of political processes in the MiddleEast. During the session of the working group the partici-pants turned their attention to the questions of electoralprocesses and development of democracy in Iraq, politicalclashes and tensions and sectarian problems within theIraqi society, growth of number of Iraqi refugees, prob-lems of possible withdrawal of US troops from Iraq andlow effectiveness and activity of Iraqi security forces,possibilities of Turkey operation in the Northern Iraqagainst Kurds, etc.

Many experts acknowledged that situation in Iraq hasdeteriorated in the last two years (2006-2007). Thesetendencies may be confirmed by high increase of refugeeswho fled from Iraq because of spread of violence (thenumber of refugees to Syria and Jordan already exceeded2 million), sand the strengthening of sectarian tensions inIraq.

In discussion on causes and different kinds of violencein contemporary Iraq most of experts agreed that it isnecessary to divide violence of different Iraqi groups

against occupation forces, violence between sectariangroups (Shia and Sunni), criminal violence (includingkidnapping), and political violence. In this connectionsome experts pointed out that often the importance ofsectarian tensions in Iraq is overexaggerated, and besidesthe political and social causes of increasing violence areunderestimated (for example, “Al-Qaida” can “hire” apotential suicide-bomber in Iraq for $100). From the otherhand, as some participants argue, sectarian factors stillexist and possibly the significance of them will even grow.Thus, many people Iraqi people perceive the violence as asectarian matter (they blame for murders and killings oftheir relatives Shias or Sunnis). As many experts affirmed,the role of sectarian factor may also grow because of awide involvement of different countries of the region inIraqi political processes. Among the key players in Iraq theparticipants of working group mentioned Iran, Turkey,Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. In a wholeas it was emphasised the role of these countries and thebalance of forces in the region in the last years signifi-cantly changed: Iran strengthened its positions due to closeties with Shias, Arab countries, on the contrary, lost theprevious role and faced with new problems of widespreadof instability and violence, refugees and others.

As for Turkey-Kurdish issues specifically, many expertsexpressed deep concerns that tendencies oriented onfurther federalization of Iraq and separation of Kurdishterritories from it alongside with the growth of anti-Turkish terrorist activity of Kurds will remain in the region.

On the questions of possible terms of withdrawal ofAmerican troops from Iraq and strengthening of Iraqisecurity forces many experts within the working grouphad quite different visions. They agreed that demolition ofSaddam Hussein army and security forces in which Sunnisplayed the main role had led to many negative conse-quences in the Iraqi security sphere, which is one of thereasons why it is very difficult nowadays to improve secu-rity situation in the country. In discussion about positionsof American forces in Iraq many experts agreed that theydefinitively have lost a credit of trust of Iraqi people andmight be therefore right now withdrawn from Iraq andreplaced by international forces. However some of theWG participants argued that withdrawal of troops willlead to more negative development of situation in Iraq (tocivil war and raise of sectarian clashes, to turn of Iraq intoa huge terrorist base and headquarters, etc.).

Among the recommendations on situation in Iraq thatwere offered by working group participants must bementioned the following:


• On the problem of Iraqi refugees it was suggested that aspecial document should be elaborated to determinegeneral priorities of rendering assistance to Iraqi refugeesin different countries (Syria, Jordan, etc.). This actshould include means of improving life conditions ofrefugees, provide social assistance, assistance in gettingjobs, etc. If it would not be done, as some expertsaffirmed, we may face in the future a possible repetitionof the Palestinian scenario with the Iraqi refugees;

• Many WG participants also emphasised the necessity ofadoption of special UN resolution on assistance in unifi-cation of Iraq. This document should define some condi-tions of promotion of further peace process in Iraq, fixthe principle of indivisibility of Iraq, and also includesome necessary obligations of neighbouring countries onnon-intervention in Iraqi affairs.

Report on Working Group 4Chairs: Lynn Eden, Claire GalezRapporteurs: Abeer Yassin , ISYP Noam Rahamim

Religion-inspired political movements, the spreadof radicalism and the consequences of the “Waron Terror”

Religion has always played an important role throughoutthe world, both in the east and the west. It played a centralrole in great changes in human society through thecenturies. Through the 20th century might be seen as themost secular one, we are now witnessing a revival of reli-gious movements and increase in their radicalization.

In our working group we dealt with this interdiscipli-nary issue from different perspectives, and devoted ourthree sessions to discussions on geographical areas as theMiddle East and Central Asia and to a global discussionon the consequences of the so called “the War on Terror”.We concentrated mainly on Islamic movements in theseregions and in the context of the War on Terror, as theyhave been major players. The leading question of thediscussion was why is there an increase of Islamist polit-ical movements and what is their nature?

During the first session we focused on the idea of theShia Crescent as a myth or reality. The Crescent is thecontinuous of Shiite communities from Lebanon, throughIraq, the Gulf countries, Iran and further on into Asia, andpresented by surrounding Arab and western leaders as anethno-religious based threat. The second session dealt withthe Middle East, particularly the Palestinian-Israeli

conflict, and in Central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.On the third session we discussed the issue of the “War onTerror” and its consequences.

A consensus in the group was that it would be amistake to consider the Shiites as one monolithic entity.The Shiite world in itself is divided to different politicallevels and frameworks, a fact that is expressed in aggres-sive confrontations between Shiites, both on local andinternational spheres. It seems that the loyalty and polit-ical affiliation of local Shiite communities are not dictatedby the religious element, which only play one part in amuch more complex system of identity characteristics.

It is important to note that states and local groups,whatever their religion may be, are still largely motivatedby political interests rather than religious ideology. Theexamples for this are many and varied: in the war betweenthe Christian Armenia and the Shiite Azerbaijan, Iranchose to support the Armenians, rather the Shiites; today,Sunni groups in Iraq are fighting the Sunni al-Qaeda;Shiite groups in Southern Iraq use more violence againsteach other than against the foreign British forces; inAfghanistan, Shiite Jihadists are now taking part in theSunni government, and the list goes on. It is to say,national and political interests usually override religiousaffiliations.

Our focus quickly shifted to a more fundamental issueof the relationship between Persian-Shiite-Iran and theArab-Sunni-World that historically have experiencedviolent enmity and lasting tensions. The rise of Shiitegroups to power, first in the Islamic revolution in Iran,Hizbulla in Lebanon and now the US-supported electedgovernment in Iraq, has a potential of a wide range polit-ical influence on neighboring countries, especially in theGulf area, which have significant populations of Shiites,some even as a majority of the general population. Tradi-tionally, deprivation of civil, social and political rights iscommon with regards to these groups, who do not getproportionate, and sometimes even any, political represen-tation. As in other cases, suppressed communities turn tolook for assistance from external players, namely Iran. Thisis true not only for Shiite groups but for the Palestinians aswell. While the official regimes are insensitive, unable orunwilling to insure stability and human rights for theirpopulation, social-religious movements come to fill thisgap and gather a wide popular base of support. Therefore,it is a social and political phenomenon by its nature, ratherthan religious, and it is strengthen also by the weakening ofthe Arabic nationality and political regimes.


In the more general context of globalization, nation-ality is losing its presence with the mass populations. Old-new identities of ethnicity, tribalism and religion are rising,and with them old-new confrontation. The media iscontributing significantly to these confrontations, with anextensive use of a language that stresses an “us vs. them”approach, expressed even more in context of the so called“War on Terror” – when you are “either with us or withthe terrorists”. The parallel processes create intra and interstate tensions and evoke instability throughout the area, tothe level of posing a threat to contemporary regimes. Themajor players to utilize this situation are Iran, whichgather support with growing Shiite populations, andIslamists-wahabi groups, inspired by Afghan Jihad,supported by Saudi money. These groups were first tointroduce religious justifications to existing ethno-nationalconflicts, such as in Pakistan, Kashmir and Chechnya.

Therefore, it was the consensus in the working groupthat in this respect, religion itself is not an engine behindpolitical movements, but rather is used as a mobilizationtool by political leaders and groups. On the other hand,religious movements use the political sphere to gain moreinfluence and expand their constituency by political tools.In fact, religion and politics play a game of two-way inter-action and cannot be separated.

Political vacuum invites militancy and extremism. Inmost cases, religion and religious justifications come toplay as a reaction to bad rulers, when it becomes the onlyavailable channel of expression, venting frustration andwelfare for many. This facilitates the rise of spontaneousreligious leaders who find it easy to play on emotions offear and hatred, in order to gain popularity, and by thatfueling a process of radicalization and conflict.

Since it is indeed a campaign for the hearts and mindsof people, we noted that the best way to counter thisprocess is by establishing good governance, in a formatthat is relevant to the local traditions, sensitive to itspeoples’ needs. It was noted that in Pakistan, the process ofopening to democratic ideas helped to reduce tensions andweakened the ability to mobilize for violent acts. As long asliberal and moderate voices cannot be heard and newforms of conflict management between the state and theindividuals cannot emerge, a polarized environment is sus-tained, between a suppressing, usually corrupted regime,and extremist, radical and usually violent movements.

However, there was a consensus that a blanketresponse to these movements is a mistake that will harmour ability to differentiate between groups, as there are

many shades of gray there. It is essential that we bothunderstand and engage with these groups to create anenvironment in which new possibilities for change in therelationship can be developed.

Furthermore, the development of the “War on Terror”shows clearly that the use of only military means iscounter productive with winning the campaign for thehearts and minds. During the six years of this War, theJihad arenas have only expanded to different countriesand violent Jihadi terrorism is rising. On the account ofthe growing violence, opposition groups in Arab states aregaining power, building on the unrest in the Muslim street.

When taking about Terrorism, we acknowledged thatit is the deliberated targeting of civilians. If we wish toovercome terrorism we have to pay the relevant attentionto both elements of operational capabilities accompaniedby motivation, with a greater emphasis on reduction ofmotivations. This can come in the form of establishingeffective institution and education, increasing economicinvestments and opportunities, restoring a sense of dignityand more. In this way we would be able to isolate the radi-cals and win the hearts and minds of the people.

This does not mean a full and immediate withdrawalof foreign forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. The “magicsolution” of “Democracy” is also not suitable, andWestern forces should not impose ethno-centralistic ideas.Rather there is an urgent need to increase efforts forreconstruction and reconciliation, based on conversationwith the local people. Efforts should be designed toemphasis the advantages and interests of working togetherand support good governance. This responsibility isshared both by western forces and by local regimes.

Several short points for conclusion:• Social injustices are a focal source for internal instability,and it has profound influences on regional and interna-tional relations. Therefore we should focus on commoninterest of internal stability and prosperity, based onhuman rights and equality.

• As principle, initiate conversation and dialogue with anattitude of including, not excluding.

• Regimes should improve relations with existing localcommunities, in terns of civil, social and political rights,and economic conditions.

• For external forces, with emphasis on the US, it is crucialto shift efforts back to the use of soft power and culturaldiplomacy. Great power can bring about tremendousdamage but can also create tremendous good.

• Utilize positive interpretations and peaceful elements in


Islam. As religion was used to divide us, we can use it asa source of unity for all humans, stressing our commu-nalities rather than minor differences. This is a long-termmission for mass education process especially in theMuslim world, and a responsibility of the states to over-ride the Madrassas’ influence, but it can start now.

• All players must be SELF-critical, continually re-choosing the more humanistic interpretations of theirown religion and policy.One comment was made, which we personally find

deeply important. It is probably the most quoted sentencein this conference: “Remember your humanity and forgetthe rest”. We say that again because during our very inter-esting discussion, we found ourselves repeatedly drawninto a political debate, focusing on politics rather than onhumanity, drifting away from the power of this idea. So inthis context it is curtail that we continually remindourselves of this two-fold truth: Remember your humanityand FORGET the rest.

Report on Working Group 5Co-conveners: Professor M E Muller andDr. Aharon ZoharRapporteur: Happymon Jacob

Non-military Threats to Security

The group had a great deal of discussion on the theoreticalas well as the practical, policy and political aspects of themany non-military threats to security. The group recog-nizes that major threats to humanity today emanate notonly from inter-state wars or arms races but from environ-mental degradation, climate change, diseases, inequality,poverty to name a few. This is the age of subaltern politics.The group particularly stressed the importance of re-theo-rizing security so that the program for action to combatnon-traditional threats to security is not without adequatetheoretical and conceptual foundation. Human discoursesand concepts of non-military security should translatethemselves into discursive practices, political projects, andnational and international advocacy.

It was considered that human security, from a concep-tual point of view, is an evolving, expanding and devel-oping concept. Human security is a much debated andwritten about concept and it did evoke a great deal ofdiscussion in the group. Despite criticism about its‘expandability’, which can potentially render it ineffectualfrom a practical point of view, it was felt, after considering

the pros and cons of its ‘all-inclusive’ and ‘expandable’nature that it is better to let the concept evolve and expandin the course of time. Human centered discourses shouldbe seen as a normative aspect of the international commu-nity. Such discourses carry the power of emancipation andupliftment of the downtrodden.

It was pointed out that today a large share of humandiscourses is unfortunately limited to citizens, leavingstateless people even more vulnerable; it is necessary toinclude non-citizens in such crucially importantdiscourses.

Sometimes there can be tension, from a practical pointof view, between the standard of justice and standard ofhumanity while implementing the principles of humandiscourses. However, both standards are intrinsically inter-linked to the human discourses of security, rights anddevelopment, and include associated responsibilities. It isnot justice alone that should prompt us to act in favour ofhuman security. Humanity offers us an equally forcefultrigger as well as a clear basis for identifying moral, polit-ical and legal obligations. In this regard, it was pointed outthat sometimes reaffirming our humanity may come first.

It was also felt that even as human discourses give a lotof importance to developing universal norms, it is neces-sary to give importance and recognition to local narra-tives. Promotion of Subaltern schools of human discourseassumes great significance in this regard. When dealingwith universal human discourses, care should be taken toavoid both ethnocentrism and ethno-guilt. While localpeace and justice systems and local narratives on non-traditional security are to be promoted, it is also impor-tant to understand that universal principles are not neces-sarily equivalent to Western principles.

One of the ways security can be demystified and usedfor the wellbeing of disadvantaged sections of humanity isto use the tool of securitization. The concept of humansecurity, that keeps the human person at the centre oftheory and praxis, has benefited a great deal from theconcept of securitization which is an inter-subjective,constructivist, emancipatory and political project.

Despite its (securitisation’s) inherent strength inempowering the security of the human person, it needs tobe kept in mind that undue and careless processes of secur-tisation can lead to depoliticisation, creation of militarizedsolutions to political problems by self-seeking securityelites. Such misuse has been witnessed in the ongoing waron terror, the perception of Islam and in dealing with theenvironment.


Under such circumstances, it is necessary to de-securi-tise such issues and bring them back to the normal polit-ical realm where open and unconstrained debate on issuesis possible and nuances can be understood as a result. Theimportance of the dynamic and the discursive process inthe acts of securitization and desecuritisation needs to bestressed here.

An important thematic debate in the group was termi-nological in nature. Whether issues at stake and underdiscussion in a group like ours are to be termed as ‘threats’or ‘challenges’ was carefully considered by the members ofthe group keeping in mind the fact that terms, words andspeech can go a long way in understanding issues andproblems and can consequently determine themodusoperandi of addressing them. It was felt that the serious-ness and context of the threat would need to be carefullyconsidered while terming it one way or the other.

The deliberations of the working group had focused onthe following non-military threats to security: climatechange, migration human rights, circumvention of interna-tional law, poverty, diseases, HIV/AIDS and demographicissues. There were more issues i.e. water resources, energy,food production etc. that were not mentioned.

One of the key main threats to security are climatechange and environmental degradation. The existingglobal security framework itself needs to be transformedin order to include threats to human security such as envi-ronmental degradation. It was pointed out that whileclimate change and its impact on security will impact onthe entire world, it will harm the developing and poorerparts of the world more acutely.

Even as more and more focus should be given to envi-ronmental security, it is necessary to inculcate attitudinaland behavioral changes in safeguarding the environment.

Migration and related human rights issues wereconsidered to be another important issue in the non-tradi-tional security paradigm. The international convention forthe protection of rights of all the working migrants andmembers of their families, passed in December 1990 bythe UN General Assembly, admits that many workingmigrants and their families are unprotected by nationalnorms. These issues should be addressed by the interna-tional community.

Illegal immigrants face more violations than the legalones even though legal immigrant workers are notcompletely free from rights violations. More significantly,it was pointed out that there is a gender dimension to therights violations of the immigrant communities as women

suffer more from poverty, rights violations and evensexual abuse. Thus governments of the well-off countrieshave to be persuaded to keep this in mind such humani-tarian concerns when framing policies relating to immi-grant labour.

The group also considered that in order to ensurejustice for humanity, it is necessary to have respect forinternational legal norms, laws and international courts.However it is saddening to see the manner in which somestates circumvent the provisions and spirit of the Interna-tional Criminal Court. Specific mention may be made ofthe UN Security Council Resolution that the ICC mustrefrain from initiating any investigation or trial againstany state that is not party to the Rome Treaty on the basisof the facts or omissions connected to an operation estab-lished or allowed by the UN. To cite another suchexample, the United States has repeatedly signed bilateraltreaties with individual countries to claim immunity for itsforces brought to trial. Such actions by governments willundoubtedly violate human rights.

Poverty is another non-military threat to be discussedand tackled. There are many global structural reasons forits continuation and aggravation. The adoption of the‘Washington Consensus’ in Latin American countries is acase in point. The adoption of socio-economic policiessuggested by the Washington Consensus pushed many ofthese countries into deep crisis. In real terms, this meantreduction of the role of the state from its traditionaleconomic ones, consolidation of oligopolic economies,disinvestment in basic infrastructure, fund cuts in educa-tion and health and the privatization of these sectors,increasing external debt etc. This combined with the lackof representative democracy, social and political insta-bility, large scale corruption among other such socio-polit-ical problems in these countries have added to the existinginsecurity of the people. It was felt that the role of the statehas to be re-established as coordinator of social organisa-tion, provider of public goods and as regulator of fair,democratic labor and labor union relations. Allocatingresources and determining priorities cannot be left to themarket.

One important means of empowering the people espe-cially the youth is by imparting socially relevant educa-tion. The use of education to resolve socially complex situ-ations for students was appreciated by the group. Theexposure of youth to research and developments in sciencewill not only prompt them to continue with their quest forknowledge but will also instill scientific temper in them. In


an era when we talk of the responsibility of scientists to beethical in their endavours, it is necessary to promote suchalternative ways of promoting scientific temper and ethicalscientific practices.

Diseases pose a great deal of insecurity to humanityespecially to the more unfortunate ones. While on the onehand certain diseases are just not curable, these incurablediseases have a more pronounced impact on the poor.Even when some of them are curable, millions die due tosheer lack of health infrastructure and medical help.HIV/AIDS is one such disease that has killed hundreds ofthousands of people all over the world. Africa is the conti-nent worst hit by the AIDS epidemic. Of the 40 millionpeople living with HIV/AIDS worldwide, nearly 75 percent live in sub-Saharan Africa, which is inhabited by just10 per cent of the world’s population. More so, among the22 million people who have died of the disease, 14 millionhave been in this region. Malaria is another such killerdisease. More then two billion people, around 40 per centof the world’s population live in areas of high risk ofmalaria. It may also be mentioned that around 90 per centof the world’s disease burden falls on the developingworld. Yet only three per cent of the research and develop-ment expenditure of the pharmaceutical industry isdirected towards those ailments since their markets are notparticularly lucrative to the companies. Here lies the socialresponsibility of science and scientists.

While it is necessary to give funding to the developingworld to fight these diseases, funds alone won’t get usanywhere. There needs to be public education, increasedawareness and local government responsibility to fightthese human security threats effectively.

While considering effective ways of fighting HIV/AIDSnew research findings would need to be considered. To citean example, evidence now exists that HIV infection has amuch greater impact on the mucosal immune system ofthe gut where 98 per cent of the CD4T cells are foundthan on its systemic counterpart, that is, the bloodstream,where only 2 per cent of the CD4T cells are found. Thislatest insight on HIV infection has implications forongoing vaccine research and development, improvingexisting therapies and finding attractive therapeuticapproaches for HIV infected persons.

Another aspect of crucial importance in this regard isthe issue of anti-biotic resistance which may be termed asa formidable threat to the human race. Because of exten-sive usage and misuse of antibiotics, we are today facedwith a number of super bugs that can not be killed by

existing antibiotics. Super bugs are those pathogens thathave developed multiple mechanisms to express antibioticresistance to counter antibiotic effects. It is necessary thatthe general population and the scientific community wakeup to this threat. The strategies to deal with them arecurrently preventive in nature such as using environmen-tally safe multivalent vaccines, multiple antibiotic therapy,recombinant genetic technology and public educationabout the nature of antibiotics. It was also pointed outsince the total sales of all kinds of antibiotics is onlyaround $25 billion per year, most pharmaceutical compa-nies are moving away from drug research and develop-ment owing to higher cost and time involved and lowreturn of investment.

On a different note, there was also an importantpresentation in the group on the future of the global popu-lation which evoked a lot of substantive debate. While thedeliberations of the group were more or less focused ondirect and immediate threats to human beings, the argu-ment that the global population, especially in the devel-oped world, will stabilize as a result of which the elderlywill outnumber the young and the global population willcease to grow led to an interesting discussion. Suchrestructuring of the age-pyramid will have implications forglobal security, social security, economic priorities andethnic composition of countries. Such issues of long-termimpact on humankind will need to be factored into under-standing security, the group felt.

In conclusion, I would like to report that we discussedthe important concept and practice of human securityfrom a variety of perspectives including political theory,international law, medical research, science education,demography, and sustainable and equitable development.One of the key benefits of debating non-military securityissues in groups like this with participants from a broadspectrum of disciplines and streams is that there is a realpossibility of doing so beyond disciplinary boundaries:many of these non-military threats are international andinterdisciplinary so we need the expertise of participantsfrom a variety of fields.

Concrete Suggestions for Future Pugwash Agenda

• Continue to include more discussion on non-militaryaspects of security in pugwash meetings.

• Include a greater variety of issues.• Include a plenary panel discussion on non-military secu-rity at the next Annual Conference.

Participants

Dr. Adele Buckley, Chair, CanadianPugwash Group; Vice President,Technology & Research, Ontario Centrefor Environmental TechnologyAdvancement (OCETA), Toronto,Ontario, Canada

Prof. Francesco Calogero, Member,Pugwash Council; Professor ofTheoretical Physics, University of Rome“La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy

Col. (ret.) Pierre Canonne, Member,Pugwash Council

Dr. Janiki Cingoli, Director, CentroItaliano per la Pace in Medio Oriente(CIPMO), Milan, Italy

Ms. Haydee Silvia Contrafatto,Secretary, Judiciary Power of NeuquénProvince – Argentina; PhD candidate,University of Mendoza

Prof. Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, Secretary-General, Pugwash Conferences onScience and World Affairs; Member,Pugwash Executive Committee;Professor of Mathematical Physics,University of Milan, Italy

Mr. Vilmos Czervery, Director, Office ofExternal Relations and PolicyCoordination, International AtomicEnergy Agency (Atoms for Peace),Vienna, Austria

Dr. Parvin Dadandish, Researcher andLecturer, International RelationsUniversity, Tehran, Iran

Mr. Maulvi Iftikar Ansari, SeniorMember, Peoples Democratic Party(PDP), Srinagar; President, All Jammuand Kashmir Shia Association

Mrs. Haifa’ Baramki, FreelanceConsultant in Education &Management, Ramallah, Palestine;President of the YWCA RamallahBranch; Chairperson of the Board ofTrustees of PANORAMA (PalestinianCenter for the Dissemination ofDemocracy & CommunityDevelopment)

Prof. Vladimir Baranovsky, DeputyDirector, Institute of World Economyand International Relations (IMEMO),Moscow, Russia

Mr. Alessandro Barchiesi, University ofBari, and INFN, Bari, Italy

Amb. Sergey Batsanov, Director, GenevaOffice of International Pugwash;Member, Pugwash CBW SteeringCommittee; Senior Consultant, GenevaCentre for the Democratic Control ofArmed Forces (DCAF)

Ms. Kennette Benedict, ExecutiveDirector and Publisher, Bulletin of theAtomic Scientists, Chicago, IL, USA

Dr. Jeffrey Boutwell, Executive Director,Pugwash Conferences on Science andWorld Affairs, Washington, DC, USA;Member, Pugwash Council

Gen. (ret.) Mansour Abu Rashid,Chairman, Amman Center for Peace andDevelopment, Amman, Jordan

Amb. (ret.) Ochieng Adala, Member,Pugwash Council; Senior ProgramOfficer, Africa Peace Forum (APFO),Nairobi, Kenya

Dr. Hossein Adeli, Chairman and CEO,Ravand Institute for Economic &International Studies (RIEIS), Tehran,Iran

Amb. Wa’el N. Al-Assad, Director,Disarmament & Multilateral RelationsDepartment, League of Arab States,Cairo, Egypt

Dr. Sami M.K.M. Al-Faraj, President,Kuwait Centre for Strategic Studies,Kuwait City

Dr. Ibrahim Bahr Alolom, formerMinister of Oil, Baghdad, Iraq

Ms. Hala Al Saraf, Founder andPresident, Iraq Health Access Program,NGO based in Iraq

Dr. Athem Alsabti, Professor of Physicsand Astronomy at the University ofLondon Observatory / University CollegeLondon; International Relations Officerfor the Iraqi Academy of Science

Mr. Mohammed Jawad Al Sharaa,Director General, Iraqi NationalMonitoring Directorate, Baghdad

Pugwash Meeting No. 329

28 Pugwash Newsletter,June 2008

The Pugwash Council for 2007-2012.

Participants, continued

Political Science Dept., London, ON,Canada

Prof. Robert Hinde, former RoyalSociety Research Professor (now retired),St. John’s College, Cambridge, UK

Mr. Hou Hongyu, Chinese People’sAssociation for Peace and Disarmament(CPAPD), Beijing, China

Dr. Masako Ikegami (Sweden/Japan),Professor and Director, Center for PacificAsia Studies (CPAS), StockholmUniversity, Stockholm, Sweden; GuestLecturer, Faculty of InternationalStudies, Meiji-Gakuin University, Tokyo

Prof. Tomohiro Inagaki, AssociateProfessor, Information Media Center,Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan

Mr. Jeremy Issacharoff, DeputyAmbassador of Israel to the UnitedStates, Washington, DC;

Mr. Jad Isaac, Director General, AppliedResearch Institute-Jerusalem, Bethlehem,Palestine

Mr. Happymon Jacob, Lecturer,Department of Strategic & RegionalStudies, University of Jammu, J&K,India

Mr. Thomas Johansson, Security PolicyAnalyst, Swedish Armed Forces HQ,Stockholm

Dr. Narsi Ghorban, Managing Director,Narkangan Gas to Liquid InternationalCompany; Director, InternationalInstitute for Caspian Studies, Tehran,Iran; Vice Chairman, Azar Energy;Director Pishrayan Paytakhat

Prof. Galia Golan-Gild PhD, Professor ofGovernment, Interdisciplinary Center(IDC), Herzliya, Israel; ProfessorEmerita, Department of Political Science,Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Dr. Jozef Goldblat, Vice-President,Geneva International Peace ResearchInstitute (GIPRI), Geneva, Switzerland;Senior Research Fellow, UNIDIR,Geneva

Dr. Berma Klein Goldewijk, Director,Cedar International, Center for Dignityand Rights, The Hague, TheNetherlands

Mr. Andrew Grotto, Senior NationalSecurity Analyst, Center for AmericanProgress, Washington, D.C., USA

Mr. Efraim Halevy, Center for StrategicStudies, Hebrew University, Israel

Prof. Karen Hallberg, Member, PugwashCouncil; Professor of Physics, BalseiroInstitute, Bariloche, Argentina

Miss Steacy Henry, Canadian StudentYoung Pugwash ExecutiveRepresentative and undergraduatestudent, University of Western Ontario,

Marco De Andreis, Assistant Director,Director of Research, Fondazione UgoLa Malfa, Rome, Italy

Amb. Jayantha Dhanapala (Sri Lanka),President-designate, PugwashConferences on Science and WorldAffairs, immediate past Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, UnitedNations, New York

Nola Dippenaar, Health Consultant(Health Insight), Pretoria, South Africa;Extraordinary Professor at the Universityof Pretoria, School of Medicine; Chair ofSA National Pugwash Group

Prof. Walter Dorn, Associate Professor,Department of Security Studies,Canadian Forces College, Toronto, andThe Royal Military College of Canada,Kingston, Ontario; Chair, CanadianPugwash Group; UN Representative,Science for Peace

Prof. Lynn Eden, Member, PugwashCouncil; Associate Director forResearch/Senior Research Scholar,Center for International Security andCooperation (CISAC), Freeman SpogliInstitute for International Studies (FSI),Stanford University, Stanford, California;USA, Co-Chair U.S. Pugwash Group

Dr. Mirco Elena, Research Associate,ITC, and Researcher, Union of Scientistsfor Disarmament (USPID), Trento, Italy

Amb. Wahib El-Miniawy, Member ofthe Board, Egyptian Council of ForeignAffairs, Cairo, Egypt

Prof. Emeritus. Yair Evron, Tel-AvivUniversity (TAU), Israel

dott. Fabio G. Festa, Bari, Italy

Prof. John Finney, Professor of Physics,Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,University College London, UK

Prof. Georg Frerks, Professor of ConflictPrevention and Conflict Management,Centre for Conflict Studies, UtrechtUniversity, The Netherlands; Professorof Disaster Studies, WageningenUniversity; Chairman, PugwashNederland

Ms. Claire Galez, Director, Centre forSouth Asian Studies (CSAS), Geneva,Switzerland; Research Associate, Centrefor Asian Studies (Geneva University –GIIS/GIDS)




Mr. Mohammed Al Mahruqy, Memberof the State Council; Member of theConsultative Council to the SupremeCouncil of GCC Countries

Dr. Dmitry Makarov, Executive Director,International Center for Strategic andPolitical Studies, Moscow, Russia;Research Fellow, Institute of OrientalStudies, Russian Academy of Sciences

Amb .Miguel Marin-Bosch, Director,Mexico’s Diplomatic Academy, MexicoD.F.; Member, Pugwash Council

dott. Giuditta Marinaro (Italy)

Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Talat Masood,Independent Columnist, Commentatorand Analyst, Islamabad, Pakistan

Amb. (ret.) Juan Antonio Mateos,former Ambassador of Mexico toMorocco, Israel, and Kenya

Prof. Jiri Matousek, Professor ofToxicology, Masaryk University Brno,Faculty of Science, EU Research Centreof Excellence for EnvironmentalChemistry and Ecotoxicology, Brno,Czech Republic; Chairman, OPCWScientific Advisory Board

Prof. Amitabh Mattoo, Vice Chancellor,University of Jammu, Jammu, J&K,India; Member, Prime Minister’s TaskForce on Global Strategic Developments;Professor of Disarmament Studies,School of International Studies,Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU),New Delhi

Prof. Alan H. McGowan, Science,Technology and Society Program (STSP),Eugene Lang College, New SchoolUniversity, New York, NY, USA; Chair(voluntary position), Student PugwashUSA; Executive Editor (voluntaryposition), Environment magazine

Prof. David Menashri, Head, Center forIranian Studies, Tel Aviv University, TelAviv, Israel

Amb. Atilio N. Molteni, Ambassador ofArgentina to Israel since 2003

Prof. Marie Muller, Chair of thePugwash Council; Dean, Faculty ofHumanities, University of Pretoria,South Africa

Amb. (ret.) Andrea Negrotto-Cambiaso(Italy), Geneva, Switzerland

Division, Preparatory Commission forthe Comprehensive Nuclear Test BanTreaty Organization (CTBTO), Vienna,Austria

Kim Myong Chol, Korean NationalPeace Committee (KNPC), PyongyangCity, DPR Korea

dott. Diego Latella, Senior Researcher,CNR/ISTI, , Pisa, Italy

Dr. Francesco Lenci, National ResearchCouncil (CNR) Research Director, Pisa,Italy; President, European Society forPhotobiology; Member (Elected), CNRGeneral Scientific Council

Mr. Sverre Lodgaard, Director,Norwegian Institute of InternationalAffairs (NUPI), Oslo, Norway

Mr. Sajad Gani Lone, Chairman, Jammu& Kashmir Peoples Conference,Srinagar, J&K

*Office: J & K Peoples Conference, H.No. 1, Rawalpora, Santhnagar ,Srinagar, J&K, Tel.: (++91-194) 2430634/5431, Fax/Tel: (++91-194) 2435594, Email: [email protected],[email protected]

Prof. Saideh Lotfian, Member, PugwashCouncil; Associate Professor of PoliticalScience, and Associate Dean forResearch, Faculty of Law and PoliticalScience, University of Tehran, Iran

Dr. Peter Jones, Associate Professor,Graduate School of Public andInternational Affairs, University ofOttawa, Ontario, Canada

Jong Un A, Korean National PeaceCommittee (KNPC), Pyongyang City,DPR Korea

Dr. Venance Journé, Researcher,National Scientific Research Council(CNRS), Paris, France

Dr. Victor Kamyshanov, President,International Federation for Peace andConciliation, Moscow, Russia

Kang Yong Hui, Korean National PeaceCommittee (KNPC), Pyongyang City,DPR Korea

Dr. Sergey Kapitza, Institute for PhysicalProblems, Russian Academy of Sciences,Moscow, Russian Federation

Dr. Katsuko Kataoka, ProfessorEmeritus; Vice-President, IPPNW, andSecretary General, Japanese AffiliateIPPNW

Dr. Mustafa Kibaroglu, AssociateProfessor (non-proliferation, armscontrol & disarmament matters), BilkentUniversity, International RelationsDepartment, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey

Col. Dr. Kim Dong-Myung (S. Korea),Chief, International CooperationSection, Legal and External Relations



Galia Golan-Gild and Haifa Baramki.


International Politics and Economics,Belgrade, Yugoslavia

Dr. Tatsujiro Suzuki, Visiting Professor,Graduate School of Public Policy(GRASPP), The University of Tokyo;Senior Research Scientist, Socio-economic Research Center, CentralResearch Institute of Electric PowerIndustry (CRIEPI), Tokyo; Co-Founder,Peace Pledge, Japan

Prof. M.S. Swaminathan, President,Pugwash Conferences on Science andWorld Affairs; Chairman, NationalCommission on Farmers, Govt. of India;Chairman, MS Swaminathan ResearchFoundation, Chennai

Sir Hilary Synnott KCMG, ConsultingSenior Fellow, International Institute forStrategic Studies, UK; Eric LaneHonorary Fellow, Clare College,Cambridge

Dr. Giancarlo Tenaglia, voluntary StaffMember, Pugwash Conferences onScience and World Affairs, Rome, Italy;Member, Italian Pugwash Group

Dr. Mahmoud Vaezi, Deputy of ForeignPolicy Research, Center for StrategicResearch, The Expediency Council,Tehran, Iran

Professor Alexey Vasilyev,Corresponding Member of the RussianAcademy of Sciences (RAS), Moscow,Russia

Prof. Mike Wallace, University of BritishColumbia, Vancouver, Canada; Member,Canadian Pugwash Group

Ms. Abeer Yassin, Researcher, Al-AhramCenter for Political and Strategic Studies(ACPSS), Cairo, Egypt

Zhao Wuwen, Institute of AppliedPhysics and Computational Mathematics(IAPCM), Beijing, China

Amb. Bozorgmehr Ziaran, Delegation ofthe Islamic Republic of Iran to theOPCW, The Hague, The Netherlands

Dr. Aharon Zohar, Senior Consultant onnational planning to the NationalPlanning Administration, Israel

Dr. Bob van der Zwaan, Senior ScientificResearcher, Energy Research Center ofthe Netherlands (ECN), Amsterdam

Mr. Ernie Regehr, Adjunct AssociateProfessor of Peace Studies, Institute ofPeace and Conflict Studies, ConradGrebel University College, University ofWaterloo, Ontario, Canada

Ri Myong Guk, Korean National PeaceCommittee (KNPC), Pyongyang City,DPR Korea

Mr. Nasser Saghafi-Ameri, SeniorFellow, Foreign Policy and InternationalRelations Department (FPIRD), Centerfor Strategic Research, Tehran, Iran

Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Dr. Mohamed KadrySaid, Member, Pugwash Council;Military and Technology Adviser, Al-Ahram Center for Political and StrategicStudies, Al-Ahram Foundation, Cairo,Egypt

Dr. Elias Samo (Syria/US)

Dr. Tom Sauer, Brussels, Belgium

Dr. Walter Scheuer, now retired,formerly with Argentine Atomic EnergyCommission

Amb. Najmuddin Shaikh, retiredPakistan Foreign Service Officer;Member, Board of Governors, Instituteof Strategic Studies, Islamabad; SeniorVice President, Karachi Council ofForeign Relations; Columnist forKarachi

Mr. Samir Shawa, Chairman, AlhaniCultural Foundation, Gaza City,Palestine

Mr. Nirmal K. Singh, President, BJP,Jammu, J&K, India; Professor ofHistory, University of Jammu,

Prof. Ivo Slaus, Member, PugwashCouncil; Director, World Academy forSoutheast Europe Division; President,Croatian Pugwash

Dr. Mark Byung-Moon Suh(Germany/South Korea), Member,Pugwash Council; Senior Researcher andKorea Coordinator, Free University ofBerlin, Germany; President, KoreanPugwash Group

Dr. Olga Sukovic, Freelance Consultanton Security and Disarmament matters[formerly: Consultant, UN Departmentfor Disarmament Affairs, New York;Scientific Adviser, Institute of

Prof. Dr. Götz Neuneck, Physicist, andMember, Pugwash Council; Head of the“Interdisciplinary Research GroupDisarmament, Arms Control and NewTechnologies”, Institute for PeaceResearch and Security Policy (IFSH),Hamburg, Germany

Amb. Nguyen Van Huynh, VicePresident and General Secretary,Vietnam Peace Committee: formerAmbassador

Dr. Alexander Nikitin, Member,Pugwash Council; Director, Center forPolitical and International Studies(CPIS), Moscow, Russia

Mr. Niu Qiang, Secretary General,Chinese People’s Association for Peaceand Disarmament (CPAPD), Beijing,China

Mr. Ayman Abdel Nour, former Advisorto the President of Syria, Damascus

Prof. Hitoshi Ohnishi, Member,Pugwash Council; Vice President, andProfessor of International Relations inthe School of Law, Tohoku University,Sendai, Japan

Gen. Pan Zhenqiang, Member, PugwashExecutive Committee and Council;Professor, Institute of Strategic Studies,National Defense University, PLA,Beijing, People’s Republic of China

Amb. Gopalaswami Parthasarathy,Visiting Professor, Centre for PolicyResearch, New Delhi, India

Dr. Georges Parisot, Chair TelecomClub, French Society forElectricity,Electronics and IT (SEE),Paris, France; Chair, French PugwashGroup (Association Francaise duMouvement Pugwash)

Prof. Alessandro Pascolini, AssociateProfessor of Theoretical Physics,University of Padua, Department ofPhysics, Padova, Italy

Prof. J. Martin Ramirez, Professor ofPsychiatry, and Head, PsychobiologyDepartment, & Institute forBiofunctional Studies, UniversidadComplutense, Madrid, Spain

Mr. Abul Ahrar Ramizpoor, Lecturer,Kabul University, and Human RightsOfficer, Central Region Office-UNAMA,Afghanistan





I S Y P

Mr. Almotaz Abadi, Engineer andDeputy Director, Palestinian WaterAuthority (PWA), Ramallah, West Bank,Palestine, MSc student, Birzeit University

Ms. Marianna Evtodjeva, Boardmember, Russian Student/YoungPugwash, Moscow, Russian Federation;Head, Informational Centre ofInternational Federation for Peace andConciliation, Moscow

Dr. Antoinette Hildering, Ph.D., LL.M.,Lecturer Public International Law,Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Dr. Maryam Javanshahraki, SeniorFellow, Center for Strategic Research(CSR), University of Tehran, Iran

Mr. Karim Kadry, Sales & ContractsSupervisor, Egyptian Drilling Company,Cairo, Egypt; Head, Egyptian StudentYoung Pugwash

Mr. Rian Leith, Lecturer in History,Department of Historical and HeritageStudies, Faculty of the Humanities,University of Pretoria, Pretoria, SouthAfrica

Mr. Matthew Loffman, Researcher,Quaker Council For European Affairs,Brussels, Belgium

Ms. Kate Marvel, PhD Candidate, Dept.of Applied Mathematics and TheoreticalPhysics, Cambridge University, UK

Ms. Sophie Miller (US / UK), QuakerCouncil for European Affairs

Dr. Joelien Pretorius, Lecturer,Department of Political Studies,University of Western Cape, Belville,South Africa

Mr. Noam Rahmim, Assistant to CEO,Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Tel-Aviv,Israel

Mr. Parthiban Rajasekaran (India), PhDStudent, Department of BiomedicalSciences and Pathobiology, VirginiaTech, Virginia

Mr Livio Riboli-Sasco (Italy/France),PhD student, President of ParisMontagne Association, Paris, France

Mr. Benjamin Rusek, ISYP Board (USA),and Research Associate, Committee onInternational Security and Arms Control(CISAC), The U.S. National Academy ofSciences (NAS), Washington, DC, USA

Ms. Sebnem Udum, Research Assistant,PhD Candidate, Bilkent University,Department of International Relations,Bilkent/Ankara, Turkey

Stefano Nicotri (Italy), University andINFN of Bari

Roberto Anglani (Italy), University andINFN of Bari

Rossella Romita (Italy), University andINFN of Bari

Floriana Giannuzzi (Italy), Universityand INFN of Bari

Grazia Ingravalle (Italy), University andINFN of Bari

Giovanna Tansella (Italy), University andINFN of Bari

O B S E R V E R S

Mrs. Dennice Leahey, Pugwash PeaceExchange, Nova Scotia, Canada

Mr. Stephen Leahey, Pugwash PeaceExchange, Nova Scotia, Canada

Mr. Kang Cheolwoong, Researcher, TheInstitute of North East Asia Policy.Seoul, South Korea (ROK)

Mr. Kim Yongkwon, Researcher, TheInstitute of North East Asia Policy.Seoul, South Korea (ROK)

Mr. Yoon Bongjin, Senior Researcher,The Institute of North East Asia Policy.Seoul, South Korea (ROK)

L O C A L O R G A N I Z I N G C O M M I T T E E

Prof. Nicola Cufaro, Professor ofPhysics, University of Bari, Italy

Prof. Giuseppe Nardulli, Professor ofTheoretical Physics, University of Bari,Italy; Director, Post-Graduate Course onTechnologies for Disarmament; Director,Tires Center (Innovative Technologiesfor Signal Detection, University of Bari)

S T A F F

Rome: Claudia Vaughn

London: , Sandy Ionno Butcher, JeanEgerton




Pugwash Workshop on Self-Governance in Jammu and Kashmir:Building Institutions for Peace in J&K, and Improving Cooperation

and Communication across the LoCColombo, Sri Lanka, 22–24 July 2007

Workshop Reportby Claire Galez

report.htm) contains the backgroundand status of the India-Pakistan bilat-eral composite dialogue, whichincludes negotiations and nationalprocesses with regards to J&K

Since then, on December 5, 2006,in a significant departure fromPakistan’s traditional position onKashmir, President Musharraf,announced a “Four Point Formula”for the resolution of the Kashmirdispute. This formula envisages softborders across the LoC for the freemovement of people, self-governanceon both sides of J&K, phased demili-tarization and joint supervisorymechanisms. President Musharraf’sproposal builds on the basic under-standing reached between him andIndian Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh that although theKashmir status quo must change,there can be no redrawing of bound-aries and yet, the LoC could become“irrelevant”. Even if the three firstpoints raise a number of crucial ques-tions in terms of their contents andimplementation-capacity bilaterallyand by each country respectively, thefourth issue of joint supervisorymechanisms may be the mostcontentious.

In 2006-2007, the two countrieshave had a sustained dialogue andprogressed on significant issues,including the opening of fivecrossing-points between IaK andPaK; protocols and agreements on

trade links. Protocols and agreementson movement of people across theLoc; the Wullar Barrage andKishangaga power project, theBaglihar Dam on the Chenab Riverand the question of joint mechanismsin order to monitor and fight againstthe spread of terrorism in the regionhave also been discussed.

In 2007, President Musharraf andPrime Minister Manmohan Singhdeclared on several occasions that thepeace process had become “irre-versible” even if the restoration oftrust between the two parties willtake some time and remains a corner-stone for genuine improvement bothin terms of bilateral relations and onthe issue of Kashmir in particular. InIndia, Prime Minister ManmohanSingh initiated the creation of fiveRound Table Working Groups whereall parties, including oppositionleaders to Indian rule, are invited toparticipate. The WG are intended todevelop a consensual approach onmajor issues of public interest andcross-border relations and include:Confidence Building Measures acrossSegments of Society in J&K (IaK inthis case) – Strengthening Relationsacross the Line of Control –Economic Development in J&K (IaK)– Working Group on ensuring GoodGovernance in J&K (IaK). Bothfactions of the Hurriyat Conferenceand other secessionist leaders have sofar declined to participate.

The July 2007 Pugwash work-shop in Colombo is the 4th

Pugwash initiative sinceDecember 2004. The meeting wasattended by eminent delegates fromIndia, Pakistan and Kashmir; intellec-tuals, former diplomats, Kashmirileaders, mainstream Kashmiri polit-ical parties’ and civil society’s repre-sentatives from both side of the LoC.The last Pugwash workshop hadbeen held in Islamabad in March2006, the report (www.pugwash.org/reports/rc/sa/march2006/march2006-

Throughout the document, unless other-wise specified, “Kashmir” or “Jammu andKashmir” is taken to mean the whole terri-tory comprising both Indian and PakistaniAdministered Jammu and Kashmir

Acronyms used in the document:

J&K: Jammu and Kashmir

IaK: Indian Administered Kashmir

PaK: Pakistan Administered Kashmir

NAs: Northern Areas

LoC: Line of Control

CBMs: Confidence Building Measures

APHC All Parties Hurriyat Conference

WG(s) Working Group(s)

SAARC South Asian Association forRegional Cooperation

SAFTA South Asia Free Trade Agreement

highly dangerous zone of conflictthat impacts on a large range ofregional and international issues.

Participants at the Colomboworkshop also reiterated thatviolence or a military solution to theKashmir issue could definitely notoffer any avenue for the resolution ofthe conflict. It was strongly statedthat, in spite of slight improvements,there is still much violence in theState which is a major impediment tothe implementation of Kashmir-specific CBMs.

The participants agreed that, atthe bilateral level, there had beennoticeable progress particularly interms elaborating on and imple-menting low risk CBMs of mutualinterest such as some aspects of secu-rity, trade and people-to-peoplecontact. In the regional context, theSAARC vision 2020 spells outmedium-long term recommendationsfor regional development and cooper-ation, especially in terms ofeconomic, physical, infrastructural,people-to-people and culturalconnectivity as well as specific devel-opment projects and the role of civilsociety in the development ofSAARC. It was suggested by someparticipants that making India andPakistan, including on the questionof Kashmir, fully aware and active indeveloping their country perspectivein view of achieving the benchmarksof SAARC 2020, would go a longway in supporting and facilitating asignificant rapprochement betweenthe two countries as well as greatlybenefiting the situation in Kashmir.

While agreeing on this prospect,other participants were of theopinion that there are low risk secu-rity issues, Sir Creek and Siachen inparticular that could be easilyresolved but suffered so far fromunnecessary delays.

General Debate

Pugwash Colombo workshopmainlyconcentrated on the present status ofKashmir- specific CBMs and on thenecessary institutional arrangementsthat would further promote India’sand Pakistan’s efforts of normaliza-tion. The participants recognized thatfunctional and sustainable institu-tional arrangements were essential inaddressing the main issues of relieffor the Kashmiri population,economic development of the entirestate and political inclusiveness of allparties concerned. As often reflectedupon, Kashmir has the full potentialto be a bridge of good neighbourli-ness between India and Pakistanrather than remaining a potentially

With the ceasefire on the LoCholding since August 2003, a notice-able decrease in terrorist violence inthe state, a popular mood in favourof reconciliation and major partiesincluding the Hurriyat Conference(Mirwaiz Umar Farooq-lead APHC)making declarations to the effect ofsupporting the peace process, positiveingredients have now been injectedfor the dividends of normalization tobe progressively generated. In thecontext of Kashmir nonetheless, evenif there is a more constructive debatetaking place, the processes of imple-mentation of Kashmir-specific CBMsneed urgently to be reinforced andput into motion.

********



authorities operative in this matter.The creation of an appellate body incase of rejection may also have to beconsidered. Some delegates alsosuggested that instead of having toobtain the permit for each visit, thepermit should be valid for a reason-able period of time (one year ormore). Other delegates also suggestedthat once the permit obtained, thevisitors should not be restricted tovisit Kashmir alone but allowedaccess to the rest of the country bothin Pakistan and in India.

In order to facilitate the screeningprocess, it may be possible to usemodern technology to issue identifi-cation cards to J&K residents.

In spite of the difficulties faced bythe common person in obtaining thepermit, it should be noted that therehave now been several Intra-KashmirDialogue sessions. Even if it was diffi-cult at the beginning, this has nowbecome almost a routine exercisewhere permits are more easilyobtained. There is thus scope forimprovement on this front.

Communications and Technology

Most delegates agreed that civiliantechnology and communicationsystems are not a threat to security.Those involved in illegal activities,including terrorism, have easy accessto sophisticated modern technology

yet reached a point of normalizationand still proves to be a serious chal-lenge to law and order and protectionof the civilian population in the Statewas evoked by some delegates as areason for lack of expediencymeasures in delivering crossingpermits. Some other delegatesremarked that those involved inillegal and violent activities would notwait for the bus service to be in place.On the other hand, when the busservice was announced and began torun across the LoC, people on bothsides began repairing houses, settingup shops, etc. with the expectationthat this was a chance to improvetheir livelihood. The disappointmentis shared on both sides of the LoC, allthe more so that at present theissuance of permits has been scaleddown to family reunion only. Severaldelegates remarked that there needsto be a vision and a realization thatpeople-to- people contact would be afundamental asset for the peaceprocess. The scope of connectivityshould be enlarged to tourism, sports,professional, cultural, educational,religious, and other exchanges.

At present, neither Pakistan norIndia have overcome the complexityof issuing permits to J&K residentsfrom both sides of the LoC. Theprocess should be simplified, possiblymaking State institutions and district

It was also suggested and gener-ally agreed that a final solution forKashmir would emerge from genuineprogress made on the ground. On onehand, party politics cannot be over-ruled, but they should not prevail to apoint where they obstruct progress. Apeople-centric approach on both sidesof the LoC and at the national levelwould help a great deal in findingcommon ground rather than leavingIndia, Pakistan and the Kashmiris in astalemate. A great scope for improve-ment would come from looking atfeasible cross-border infrastructuraldevelopment in sharing of energyresources for example. Investing inthe human capital that exists on bothsides aimed at developing cooperativeand institutionalized socio-economicactivities would also go a long way.Some delegates pointed at the factthat there is an urgent need to restorethe confidence of the people with veryconcrete and pragmatic initiatives notonly in socio-economic terms but inmaking the civilian institutions func-tional on both sides of the LoC andwith a commitment to a timeframefor implementation.

Specific Issues

1.1 People- to -People Contact

The Srinagar-Muzaffarabad busservice agreed upon in February 2005and resumed soon after that, wasconsidered to be a great achievementin itself and was expected to generatepositive inter-action between peoplefrom across the LoC. Mainly, delaysin the issuance of permits due to alengthy and complex administrativeprocess, both in India and inPakistan, has considerably lessenedthe constructive impact expectedfrom this service.

The security situation, which hasto some extend improved but has not





and the monitoring process is nowwell developed by the authorities.The common person should not bedeprived of most common commodi-ties, such as land lines and mobilephones services across the LoC, in thename of security. On the other hand,the connectivity between the twosides of Kashmir could highly benefitfrom video conferences systems in theeducational sector for example.

Routes and Access Points

While five crossing points have beenopened across the LoC, there couldbe more border posts open to permits(ID cards) holders. Moreover, theNorthern Areas of Kashmir are stillvery isolated. There is an urgent needto reopen the Kargil-Skardu road andbroaden the scope for more connec-tivity between Laddakh and theNorthern Areas.

1.2 Economic Cooperation

The delegates developed a consensualapproach to J&K’s economic devel-opment and cross-border coopera-tion, stating that the people of theState cannot wait for a political solu-tion to be reached before improvingthe economic situation on both sidesof the LoC. It was also recognizedthat socio-economic developmentwould contribute to create peaceconstituencies across the State.

Whereas both countries’ bureau-cracy have been either reluctant orsimply slow in identifying the type ofproducts that could easily be tradedbetween them, the opening of traderoutes across the LoC can be cost-effective. It would open the scope forregional and much needed localeconomic development.

The Pakistan-India and J&KChambers of Commerce have beenidentified by the delegates as the mostappropriate bodies to develop

schemes and prospects for economiccooperation. It was noted thatpeople’s representatives, politicalparties and the civil society shouldalso support and press for developingsubstantial economic cooperation.

Kashmir’s cross-border trade couldbe integrated in the overall process ofIndia-Pakistan trade, possibly usingthe SAARC’s South Asia Free TradeAgreement (SAFTA) framework.

Both sides of Kashmir have muchto offer in terms of local production.While one trade route has so far beenidentified, there should be the scopeof opening more border points thatwould also expand the potential forbilateral trade between India andPakistan. The computerisation ofcheck points may be worth consid-ering in view of accelerating theprocess of cross-border trade.

Kashmir also has a huge potentialto generate hydroelectric power andyet due to the lack of cooperationbetween Pakistan and India andPakistan’s apprehension that Indiacould use the water supply as leverageagainst Pakistan, no progress hasbeen made in developing the neces-sary infrastructure for power genera-tion. In winter the power generationgoes down approximately 80%. Ifboth countries and the Kashmiriindustrial sector could outline a wayof cooperating in the form of jointventures for example, the prospect ofintra-Kashmir economic cooperationwould also find a market in mainlandIndia and Pakistan.

Infrastructural development interms of roads, pipelines, railways,etc. could be envisaged as coopera-tive enterprises/joint ventures by bothcountries. Some delegates suggestedthat it would also be worth consid-ering a monitoring mechanism foropening J&K infrastructural develop-ment to foreign investments and

international financial institutionssuch as the World Bank, the AsiaDevelopment Bank, etc.

1.3 Institutional Cooperation

While debating the question of insti-tutional cooperation, delegatespointed at the fact that all issuesdiscussed above, came under theState’s political umbrella. While notbypassing India and Pakistan (whichwould be unrealistic) and in fullconsultation with New Delhi andIslamabad, political cooperationmust develop with a priority given tosocio-economic development. It wasproposed that a mechanism be put inplace for the Legislative Assemblieson both side of the LoC to holdregular consultations with the primeobjective of implementing construc-tive projects within a reasonabletimeframe. The creation of a parlia-mentary commission constituted oflegislators from both sides of the LoCcould form a consultative body.Alternatively, some delegatessuggested that if this mechanismcould not be envisaged in a very nearfuture, the Assemblies could hostdelegates from the Chamber ofCommerce, the Bar Association, andother institutions while those wouldbe visiting the other side of the State.

Without undermining the usefulpotential carried by such initiatives,some delegates pointed at the factthat, in the present context, the legiti-macy of elected representatives wasnot sufficiently inclusive. In IaK, allparties are allowed to contest elec-tions, even if some decide to thecontrary. In PaK, there are limitationsto the participatory process. On theother hand, the status of the NorthernAreas, as it stands now, wouldexclude people from that region ofKashmir to participate in the exercise,unless as suggested by the Hill



Council of Laddakh, there would bemeetings and consultations betweenadvisory councils from both sides.

It was generally agreed that thepresent institutions may not beperfect on either side of the LoC butthere is a need to initiate a process.Actions can only be taken at thispoint of time with the present institu-tional set up. Another proposal wasthat of a more linear process of sisterinstitutions to meet bilaterally suchas direct consultative exchangesbetween the Chambers of Commerce,the judicial, educational and otherinstitutions.

Demilitarization

There was a general understandingamongst the participants that thepresence of security forces is propor-tionate to the level of violence on theground and proportionate to thethreat perception.

It was generally acknowledgedthat the situation on the ground isgradually changing and needs re-assessment. The climate is moreconducive to demilitarization ofspecific areas especially due to thesustained dialogue between India andPakistan with the backing of worldpowers and peace constituencies inIndia, in Pakistan and in Kashmir.

In terms of political will andstrategic perception, Pakistan seemsto have lowered its reliance on mili-tancy, while not completely closingthe option, and India seems to realizethat some level of pressure on thecommon person must be liftedwithout affecting the operationalcapability of the security forces insensitive areas.

The other factor contributing to amore conducive atmosphere is thefact that militancy cannot besustained without the support of the

local population. The approximateturnout of 80% at the electionsdemonstrated people’s good will anddesire for a political process with therealization that violence leads to thephysical and institutional destructionof the society.

Some delegates indicated that inorder to proceed successfully towardsdemilitarization, there was a need forbringing the militant factions active inIaK on board the political process.They indicated that there were twotypes of non-state actors’ interventionin the state constituted of Kashmirimilitants and foreign militants. It

should be clearly understood that,from India’s point of view, thisdialogue can only take place with theKashmiri factions and that increasingefforts have to be made in this direc-tion. It has nonetheless to be takeninto account that those militants whowould be inclined to consider a polit-ical dialogue are the ones who becomethe prime targets of rival factions.

Other delegates raised concernsthat a decrease in political violencegoes hand in hand with a crediblepolitical and reconciliation process.There is thus an urgent need forimmediate measures to be taken both

Srinigar-Muzaffarabad Bus .

Participants

I N D I A / J A M M U A N D K A S H M I R

Mr. Mia Altaf, former minister for Healthin J&K, India

Mr. Maulvi Iftikar Ansari, SeniorMember, Peoples Democratic Party(PDP), Srinagar; President, All Jammuand Kashmir Shia Association; formerly:Cabinent Minister with various portfo-lios; Leader of opposition in Congress (I),1983-85

Prof. Noor Ahmad Baba, Professor &Head, Dept. of Political Science , Univer-sity of Kashmir, Srinagar, J&K, India

Mr. Jatendra Bakshi, Secretary General,Jammu & Kashmir Institute for Peace,Justice and Democracy; President, ActionCommittee for Return of Migrants,Satwari, Jammu (J&K), India; President,J&K Society of Technocrats; SecretaryGeneral, Jammu Consumers Council

Ms. Hameedah Nayeem Khan Bano,Associate Professor, Dept. of English,University of Kashmir, Srinagar, J&K,India; Founder member, Women WagingPeace, Harvard University, Cambridge,MA, USA; Chairperson, Kashmir Centrefor Social and Development Studies(KCSDS)

Ms. Sushobha Barve, Executive Secretaryand Chief Program Coordinator, Centrefor Dialogue and Reconciliation,Gurgaon, Haryana, India

Mr. Ved Bhasin, Chairman, KashmirTimes Group of Newspapers; President,J&K Institute of Peace, Justice andDemocracy, Jammu

Mr. Happymon Jacob, Lecturer, Centrefor Strategic & Regional Studies, Univer-sity of Jammu, J&K, India; VisitingFellow, Nelson Mandela Centre for Peaceand Conflict Resolution, Jamia MilliaIslamia University, New Delhi

Mrs. Binoo Joshi, Correspondent, BBC,New Delhi, India

Mr. Asgar Ali Karbalaie, Chairman,Kargil Hill Council

Prof. Radha Kumar, Professor, MandelaCentre for Conflict Resolution, NewDelhi, India; Trustee, Delhi Policy Group



at State and Central levels inaddressing issues such as the rehabili-tation of former militants, consid-ering schemes of amnesty, a closerscrutiny and transparency in cases ofdisappearances and missing personsand other issues that have affectedinnocent civilians.

On the other hand, a more cohe-sive approach to cross-border coop-eration calls for a review of thecivilian-military relations in thegovernance of PaK. The creation andreforms of the institutions and anextension of the democratic processesto the Northern Areas should also beurgently considered.

Conclusions

The meeting concluded that acomprehensive framework foreconomic cooperation across theLoC, making J&K relevant in theSAARC 2020 country strategieswould boost the local economy andrestore people’s confidence in thepeace process as much as it wouldbenefit both India and Pakistan.

Economic cooperation andnormalization of relations wouldgreatly benefit from India andPakistan joint ventures (private andpublic capital), especially in terms of

energy generation, cross-bordermanagement of water resources,environmental management, etc.

People-to-people contact is anessential component to the creationof peace constituencies on both sidesof the LoC. It is also an essentialcomponent in enhancing andimproving economic and institutionalcooperation.

Although the present institutionalset up on either side of the LoCwould need reforms, there are severaloptions to embark on a process ofinstitutional cooperation that wouldenhance mutual understanding andcapacity-building.

A demilitarization process, withdue consideration for respectivenational interests and local andnational security concerns, wouldlead to improvements of bilateralrelations (India-Pakistan), to substan-tial upgrading of people’s life on bothsides of the LoC and the consolida-tion of principles agreed upon by allparties. Areas that can be demilita-rized in IaK should be promptly iden-tified. In PaK the military-civilianmode of governance and the status ofthe Northern Areas should bereviewed.


P A K I S T A N / A J K

Dr. RifaatHussein, Regional Centre forStrategic Studies (RCSS), Colombo, SriLanka

Amb. Aziz Ahmad Khan, former HCPakistan to India, New Delhi; formerAdditional Secretary, Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Islamabad, Pakistan

Mr. M. Ismail Khan, Development &Governance Specialist; Elected Represen-tative (Asia Pacific), Board of Directors ofthe Mountain Forum; Team Leader,CPS–CI, Asian Development Bank; Resi-dent Mission Pakistan

Mr. Muhammad Abdul Razzaq Khan(MARK) Khaleeque, President of JammuKashmir National Awami Party(JKNAP), Muzaffarabad, Azad J&K

Mr. Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, AllJammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference,and former President and Prime MinisterAJK

Col. (ret) Muhammad Farooq, Advisor toex-Prime Minister of AJK, Sardar M.Abdul Qayyum Khan [formerly:Chairman, Prime Minister Team, AJK;Director General, Civil Defence, AJK]

Muhammad Ashraf, Attendant to SardarAbdul Qayyum Khan

Mr. Sardar Usman Ali Khan, CentralCoordinator, All Jammu & KashmirMuslim Conference Youth Wing,Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Lt.-Gen. (ret.) TalatMasood, Indepen-dent Columnist, Commentator andAnalyst, Islamabad, Pakistan, formerly:retired Lt. General; Secretary, DefenceProduction Division, Ministry ofDefence; Chairman, Pakistan OrdnanceFactories Board

Mr. GhulamQadir Shah, Speaker, AJ&KLegislative Assembly; Secretary General,AJ&KMuslim Conference; Chairman,Kashmir Institute of International Rela-tions

Dr. Sheikh G.R Waleed Rasool, Director;Research and Publication, Kashmir Insti-tute of International Relations (KIIR);Ambassador of Peace ( Universal Peace

Mr. Bilal Gani Lone, APHC

Mr. Sajjad Gani Lone, Jammu & KashmirPeople’s Conference, Srinagar, J&K

Prof. AmitabhMattoo, Vice Chancellor,University of Jammu, Jammu, J&K,India; Member, Prime Minister’s TaskForce on Global Strategic Developments;Professor of Disarmament Studies, Schoolof International Studies, JawaharlalNehru University (JNU), New Delhi

Hon. MehboobaMufti, Member ofParliament and President, Jammu andKashmir Peoples Democratic Party, India

Mr. Sonam (Pinto) W.Narboo, Member,JK Legislative Assembly (Ladakh), E-mail: [email protected]

Amb. Gopalaswami Parthasarathy,Visiting Professor, Centre for PolicyResearch, New Delhi, India; SeniorFellow, Centre for Strategic and Interna-tional Studies, and Member, ExecutiveCommittee, Centre for Air Power Studies,New Delhi, Member, Policy AdvisoryGroup, Ministry of External Affairs

Mr. Abdul Rahim Rather, M.L.A.(Leader of the Opposition—Lok Sabha),Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly,Jammu, J&K

HakimMohammed Yasin Shah, Ministerfor Transport, J&K Government,Srinagar; Chairman, Jammu & KashmirPeoples Democratic Front, Srinagar

Mr. Nirmal K. Singh, President, BJP,Jammu, J&K, India; Professor of History,University of Jammu

M.Y. Tarigami, Member J&K LegislativeAssembly, Srinagar; State SecretaryCPI(M)

Mr. Abdul Ghani Ganai (Wakil), SeniorVice President, JK Congress Party

Prof. SiddiqWahid, Vice Chancellor,Islamic University at Awantipora, J&KState, India; Director, All J&KWaqfBoard; Member of Governing Board,People’s Convention on Environment andDevelopment, India; Member, IndiaForum

Federation); Member APHC; SecretaryGeneral, Human Rights Commission;Research Fellow, University of AJ&K

Prof. Shafique-ur-Rehman Kashmiri,Professor of Botany, and Director of theInstitute of Kashmir Studies, University ofAzad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad,Azad Kashmir, Pakistan

Arif Shahid, Jammu and KashmirNational Liberation Front

Amb. Najmuddin Shaikh, retiredPakistan Foreign Service Officer;Member, Board of Governors, Institute ofStrategic Studies, Islamabad; Senior VicePresident, Karachi Council of ForeignRelations; Columnist forDawn, Karachi

P U G W A S H

Prof. Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, Secretary-General, Pugwash Conferences onScience and World Affairs; Professor ofMathematical Physics, University ofMilan, Italy; Director, Program on Disar-mament and International Security,Landau Network – Centro Volta, Como,Italy [formerly: Secretary General, Unionof Italian Scientists for Disarmament(USPID)]

Ms. Claire Galez, Director, Centre forSouth Asian Studies (CSAS), Geneva,Switzerland; Research Associate, Centrefor Asian Studies (Geneva University –GIIS/GIDS)

Dr. Peter Jones, Associate Professor,Graduate School of Public and Interna-tional Affairs, University of Ottawa,Ontario, Canada

Ms. Claudia Vaughn, Program Coordi-nator, Pugwash Conferences, via dellaLungara 10, I-00165 Rome



Engineers, Sri Lanka, with theCanada Ambassador as Chief Guest,who spoke about Pugwash, a villagein her country). Jayantha Dhanapalagave a Welcome Address andProfessor Arjuna Aluvihare deliveredthe Vote of Thanks to conclude theopening plenary session of the Work-shop.

Closed Workshop sessions wereheld in the GFH on two days,November 22-23, and participantswere taken on field visits onNovember 24 – 27, to see for them-selves lessons to be learned from theancient hydraulic civilization of SriLanka. This began in Rajarata, theking’s country, and continued toKandy, the famed hill capital of SriLanka, and then to the southern areaof ancient Ruhunurata. On the lastday, November 28 in Colombo,foreign and Sri Lanka Pugwashites

met for discussions in mini workshopsessions in different locations inColombo. These included meetingswith Dr C GWeeramantry, formerVice President of the InternationalCourt of Justice, The Hague, and DrSudarshan Seneviratne, Chairman ofthe Cultural Triangle project andProfessor of Archaeology atPeradeniya..

The field trip: In Rajarata thegroup visited Anuradhapura, theancient capital city featured in thefelicitation volume, and Sigiriya,described by Arthur C Clarke as theeighth wonder of the world. Qualitytime was spent at Kalaweva, agigantic reservoir built in the 5th

century CE, known as the heart ofthe ancient hydraulic civilization ofRajarata. The Jayaganga ecosystemand the Eppawala phosphate projectmentioned in several Pugwash papersin the 1990s, and Maha IlluppalamaAgriculture Research station wherethe field visit in the 1982 Sri LankaPugwash Symposium on TropicalAgriculture was held with ProfesorRoger Revelle as the representative ofthe Pugwash Council, were passed onthe way to Anuradhapura. (The 1982Symposium, like all other Sri LankaPugwash activities for more than 25years, was not recognized byPugwash so that participants did notqualify as Pugwashites, alas!).

In Kandy, participants visited theDalada Maligawa, the Temple of theSacred Tooth Relic venerated by

TheWorkshop was organisedto celebrate the appointmentof Jayantha Dhanapala as

President of Pugwash for a five yearterm 2007 – 2012. Foreign partici-pants were met at the airport andtaken back for their flights, from theGalle Face hotel, Colombo, oldestfive star hotel east of Suez. The inau-gural Plenary session on November22, was in the Victoria MasonicTemple hall, within walking distanceof the GFH, with Hon. ProfessorTissa Vitarane, Minister of Scienceand Technology as Chief Guest, andProfessor Arjuna Aluvihare,Chairman of Sri Lanka Pugwash asGuest of Honour. A Felicitationvolume to honour AmbassadorDhanapala was presented to each ofthe foreign delegates and to thesupporters of the workshop whowere distinguished guests. TheMessage from President of Sri LankaH. E Mahinda Rajapakse in the felici-tation volume was read by ProfessorWimal Epasinghe, Adviser to thePresident on Scientific Affairs. (H. E.Valerie Bogdan, Ambassador forCanada in Sri Lanka, was out of thecountry, so the felicitation volumewas formally launched later onJanuary 3, 2008, in the Institution of

Workshop Reportby D L OMendis, Secretary/Convenor, Sri Lanka Pugwash

Learning from Ancient Hydraulic Civilizations toCombat Climate Change

Colombo, Sri Lanka, 22–28 November 2007



Pugwash President Jayantha Dhanapala

state. But there is another way.Commons management has workedfor centuries and is still workingtoday. It can be adapted for the mostpressing global problems, such asclimate change’. This statement justi-fies the choice of theme for the SriLanka Pugwash Workshop as seen inthe Proceedings.

Waterways at Sigiriya.

Buddhists, the Archaeologicalmuseum, and the open air Christianchapel at Trinity College whereJayantha Dhanapala had his earlyeducation. They also saw theUdawattekele rain forest aboveTrinity College, site of the BuddhistMonastery where Joseph Rotblat onhis 1981 visit to Sri Lanka met andhad discussions with the famedscholar Bhikkhu NyanaponikaMahathera from Germany. A drivethrough visit to the University ofPeradeniya and a glimpse of thefamous Botanical Gardens nearby,but not a visit, began the long drivefrom Kandy to Pelwatte project in thefar south. At Pelwatte an effort isbeing made by a local entrepreneur, asupporter of Sri Lanka Pugwash, torestore the earth that has beenpoisoned by chemicals used in agri-culture earlier, by combining sugar-cane farming and dairy. This wasappreciated by Indian delegates sinceIndia has long since achieved self-sufficiency in milk and sugar. Lunchon the way was hosted in his ancientwalauwa (residence) by Dr SiranDeraniyagala, former Commissionerof Archaeology, which meeting wasanother mini-session of the Work-shop.

Proceedings of the Workshop willbe published as a companion volumeto the Dhanapala felicitation volume.Among the papers is one from Japanon the Commons. The Commons isreceiving attention today, forexample in the Worldwatch InstituteState of the World 2008, 25th

Anniversary edition, titled Innova-tions for a Sustainable Economy,which concludes: ‘For centuries wehave been told that there are onlytwo choices for the management ofscarce resources: corporate self-seeking or the bureaucracy of the





27th Workshop of the Pugwash Study Group on theImplementation of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions:

Moving Forward after the Sixth BWC Review ConferenceGeneva, Switzerland, 8–9 December 2007

Workshop ReportBy Catherine Jefferson (HarvardSussex Program, University ofSussex)

I: Towards the Second CWCReview Conference

The workshop opened with a reporton the challenges ahead for theSecond Review Conference of theChemical Weapons Convention(CWC), which is scheduled for April2008. It was noted that while theCWC enjoys an exemplary record ofsuccess compared to other multilat-eral disarmament regimes, severalchallenges remain. One general chal-lenge is to ensure that the politicalcommitment of member states to theCWC and Organization for the Prohi-bition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)is maintained, particularly in view ofthe current deterioration of the situa-tion in the field of arms control, disar-mament and non-proliferation.

Another more specific challenge isdealing with the slower thanexpected rate of chemical weapons(CW) destruction and addressingpotential failures to meet deadlines.Focusing on the Albanian experience,in which the CW destruction dead-line was missed but the destructionwas ultimately achieved, it wassuggested that the CWC is flexibleenough to deal with such ‘mini-crises’. In regard to the more pressingsituation in the USA and Russia itwas urged that political effortsshould be focused on the need tocomply with deadlines rather thanreinforcing the perception that delayis inevitable.

It was also suggested thatmeasures must be in place to avoidcomplacency after CW destructionhas been achieved. This raises theissue of compliance and verificationmore generally. It was noted thatmore resources will need to be trans-ferred to industry verification andthat more effective mechanisms forsuch verification are necessary. It wasalso suggested that the wider issue ofnon-proliferation should becomemore prominent in the work of theOPCW to promote effective imple-mentation of, and compliance with,the CWC, such as designing mecha-nisms for assisting effective nationalimplementation and continuing towork towards full universality.

It was further pointed out that theGeneral Purpose Criterion (GPC)must be reaffirmed in the SecondReview Conference to ensure thecomprehensive nature of the conven-tion. This is particularly important inrespect to the challenges presented bythe continued and rapid develop-ments in science and technology(S&T) as well as perceived new utili-ties for ‘non-lethal’ CW and incapaci-tating biochemicals.

Another challenge for the full andeffective implementation of the CWClies in reducing the risk of chemicalattacks by non-state actors andterrorists by improving organization,planning and security within thechemical industry. It was noted thatefforts around terrorism must also be

This workshop was hosted bythe Association Suisse dePugwash in association with

GIPRI, the Geneva InternationalPeace Research Institute. The meetingwas supported by a grant providedby the Swiss federal authorities.Participants were welcomed by thePresident of the Association Suisse dePugwash.

The workshop took place on theeve of the 2007Meeting of StatesParties to the Biological WeaponsConvention (BWC) and was attendedby forty-eight participants, all by invi-tation and in their personal capacities,from eighteen countries: Australia,Belgium, Canada, France, Germany,Iran, Ireland, Italy, Macedonia(FYROM), the Netherlands, NewZealand, Pakistan, Russia, Slovakia,Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and theUSA This report is the sole responsi-bility of its author, who was asked toprepare a brief account of theproceedings of the meeting in consul-tation with the Steering Committee. Itdoes not necessarily reflect aconsensus of the workshop as awhole, nor of the Study Group. Theworkshop was strictly governed by theChathamHouse Rule, so reference tospecific speakers is not detailed here.



balanced against costs in terms oftransparency.

The final challenge discussed wasthe need for capacity building withinthe OPCW. It was argued that theOPCW should have greater capacityto develop new ideas, to have meet-ings on a wider range of trans-boundary topics, and to developstronger links with non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), think tanksand other organizations. It was notedthat the BWC ImplementationSupport Unit (ISU) had met with theOPCW at the 9th Annual Meeting ofNational Authorities in The Hague,and it was suggested that mechanismsfor greater overlap and learningexchange within the CWC and BWCwould be mutually useful. Finally, itwas observed that the tenure policy inplace in the OPCWwas creating aloss of institutional memory and thatcontracts with no definite expirationdate, but which may be terminated atany time with six months notice andthe payment of additional indemnitywithin the framework of the tenuresystem would improve the retentionof high calibre staff.

Implementation of the Decisionson the Sixth BWC ReviewConference

A report was given on the implemen-tation of the decisions that came outof the Sixth BWC Review Confer-ence. Contrary to earlier pessimism,the Sixth Review Conference demon-strated a renewed commitment ofstates parties to the BWC, withseveral positive outcomes beingagreed and subsequently imple-mented, namely:

• Progress has been made inpersuading new states to join theBWC and others have madecommitments to join hence movingforward towards universalisation

• The ISU (Implementation SupportUnit) has been created within theUN Office of Disarmament Affairsand has been active across the fullbreadth of its mandate. Further rolesfor the ISU were also suggested,such as providing analysis of thequality of national implementationlegislation, producing a backgrounddocument for an implementationcheck-list, creating an informationresource for sharing NGO activitywith States parties and establishingmechanisms for improving dialoguewith the scientific community.

• Electronic reporting formats forthe confidence-building measures(CBMs) have been implemented.2007 has seen the largest numberof CBM returns (61) since theirinception.

• One in three States parties haveprovided details of a national pointof contact, and this number isexpected to double over the courseof the next year.

• Progress has been made on nationalimplementation. The National Imple-mentation Database, maintained bythe ISU, has increased in size by athird since it was created in 2003.

The 2007 Meeting of Experts hadalso been a success. It fostered infor-mation sharing between organizationsand agencies, and demonstratedsynergies both within and across dele-gations. It is hoped that the Meetingof States Parties will build on thissuccess through focusing on three crit-ical areas:

• Building synergy with other interna-tional organizations.

• Increasing inclusiveness of academicand research institutions as well asNGOs.

• Improving transparency throughopen communication and dialoguewith industry.

Finally, it was noted that the inter-sessional meetings for 2008 willconsider biosafety and biosecurity aswell as education and awareness-raising. Addressing these issues willnecessitate continued engagementwith the scientific, medical, commer-cial and educational communitiesand a major challenge for next yearwill be for the Chair to integratethese resources into our collectiveefforts to minimising the possibilityof the use of biological science andtechnology for malign purposes.

II: Moving Forward from theSixth BWC Review Conference

The Intersessional Programme2007-2010

Topics for 2007 – Nationalimplementation

Work on this agenda item began witha report on the ISU, its mandate andactivities. The ISU provides adminis-trative support to meetings as well ascomprehensive implementation,universalization of the Conventionand the exchange of CBMs. The ISUhas created and maintained a websiterelating to the Convention whichincludes a restricted access area forstates parties. The restricted sectionof the website provides telephone,facsimile and e-mail addresses fornational points of contact, electroniccopies of CBM submissions andinformation on the results of effortsto promote universalisation. Some ofthe CBM submissions are posted inthe open part of the ISU website. Thefull report of the ISU meeting withthe OPCW is also in the restrictedarea but this does not necessarilyreflect a long-term policy to restrictaccess to such reports.

In regard to the intersessionalprocess, it was stressed that the ISUwas a tool for the states parties and,as such, does not set the agenda, but

that monitoring of the life sciencesshould be understood as on ongoingday-to-day process consisting ofoverlapping methods for monitoringat multiple stages in the research anddevelopment (R&D) process.

It was pointed out that effectiverisk regulation regimes shouldcomprise and combine all theseelements – legislation, enforcementand monitoring – in order to be effec-tive. In this regard, it was noted thatthe artificial disaggregation of topicsfor the intersessional meetings waspotentially problematic as it limitsopportunities to recognise the reallinkages between the topics.

The final presentation examinednational implementation effortsthrough a survey of states’ legislativeprovisions. The survey contained 96criteria (based on but not limited bythe UN Security Council Resolution1540 matrix) covering definitions,offences and penalties, preparations

the use of the OPCWmodel but itwas argued that simple indicatorswould be a useful step forward in anongoing process.

The following presentationfocused on this theme of process inrelation to national implementation.It was urged that national implemen-tation should be understood ascomprising three components – legis-lation, enforcement and monitoring.It was also suggested that a promo-tional element could be added to thisunderstanding in terms of promotingnational implementation in devel-oping countries.

It was stressed that enforcementshould not be limited to ‘big stick’actions such as fines and prosecu-tions, but also ‘softer’ approachessuch as requiring changes in researchprocedures, serving improvementnotices or prohibition notices, andwithdrawing consent for question-able research. It was also suggested

rather helps to implement it. Indiscussion, mechanisms forincreasing the input of scientificexpertise were discussed, such asinformal channels of dialogue andformal advisory boards. Resourcelimitations of the ISU were alsodiscussed in this context, but thesmall size of the ISU (3 staff) was alsoconsidered to be beneficial inenabling fast action.

The next presentation pointed outthat there was a need for sustainedaction on national implementation,recognising the experience of theCWC. It was suggested that inputs tothe National Implementation Data-base should be analysed on a regularbasis by the ISU using a set of simpleindicators thereby enabling the StatesParties collectively to appreciate whatprogress had been achieved. Suchindicators could be developed fromthose used by the OPCW. In discus-sion, some doubt was expressed over



facilitate the process of providingassistance and international coopera-tion on BWC implementation.

Finally, it was also noted that thepromotion of cooperation on BWCimplementation not only providesopportunities for improving mecha-nisms for national implementation, italso has a role to play in generatingregional dynamics of trust and trans-parency.

Topics for 2008 – Biosafety andbiosecurity

Work on this topic began with apresentation examining the framingassumptions that have driven initia-tives on the governance of dual-useresearch. Drawing on literature in thefield of science and technology policy,it was argued that dual-use policy canbe understood in terms of twomodels: technology transfer and tech-nology convergence.

The traditional model regardstechnology primarily as an event – anartefact with a fixed function – andas such conceptualises the dual-useproblem in terms of preventing thetransfer of intrinsically dangerousresearch and technology to hostilestates or non-state actors.

The alternative model focuses ontechnology as an innovation processthat interacts and converges withwider social systems. Technology istherefore understood as more thansimply an artefact and also includesthe knowledge, concepts, experi-ments and intangibles of the processtoo. In this model the dual-useproblem is framed in terms similar tothe General Purpose Criterion, withcontrol measures being directed atpurposes rather than artefacts. It wasargued that framing the dual-useproblem in terms of technologyconvergence implies that a ‘lightertouch’ in policy design is needed tocreate cumulative webs of gover-

In conclusion, it was felt that legis-lation for national implementation isbest understood as a ongoing andcomplex process, but that toolsshould be offered to states to helpwith the process by providingdrafting assistance, check lists andother educational tools.

Topics for 2007 – Internationalcooperation on BWCimplementation

Work on this agenda-item addressedthe promotion of assistance andinternational cooperation on BWCimplementation from the perspectiveof the European Union (EU). It wasnoted that the EU has promoted itslegal assistance project under theBWC Joint Action for more than oneand half years but that only a fewcountries had formally applied forassistance.

It was argued that the problem isdue in part to the absence of an inter-national organization with the man-date to screen the implementation ofthe BWC, but also due to a lack ofpriority in some countries whereWMD proliferation is not considereda national concern. It was suggestedthat states should be encouraged torecognise that non-proliferation andother objectives of domestic policyare not necessarily contradictory. Inaddition, it was pointed out that theEU is in the process of adopting newJoint Action in support of WorldHealth Organization (WHO) activi-ties in the area of laboratory biosafetyand biosecurity under the overallobjective of supporting the implemen-tation of the BWC.

Given the institutional deficit thatcharacterizes the organizationalunderpinning of the BWC, it wasfurther suggested that the involve-ment of other international organiza-tions, such as the WHO, should beencouraged to work with the ISU to

to commit offences, jurisdiction overoffences, control lists, preventativemeasures to account for, secure andphysically protect dangerous biolog-ical agents and toxins, and enforce-ment. 35 countries were surveyedfrom a wide geographical spread.

The results of the survey suggestedthat only a small number of countrieshave developed laws directly imple-menting the BWC. It was said thatwhile most states surveyed appearcapable of being reactive to eventsinvolving biological weapons (BW),most are not in a position to beproactive in preventing such eventsor regulating pathogens for legitimateand peaceful purposed. It wassuggested that much work remains tobe done in assisting states with fillingthe gaps in their legislative frame-work. It was suggested in discussion,however, that the selection criteria ofthe survey may have placed highexpectations on the states legislatureand that apparent gaps in the find-ings may in fact reflect irrelevancy tocertain states rather than legislativeinadequacy.

Another concern was expressed interms of the implications of ‘fillingthe gaps’ by providing standardisedlegislation for national implementa-tion. It was said that standardisedlegislation was problematic forseveral reasons:

• It is not sensitive to social/culturalelements

• It misses the process, which can bevaluable in creating a sense ofownership of the problem

• Models encourage a ‘rubber-stamp-ing’ mentality, which discouragesadaptation and continued review

However, model legislation can behelpful in providing elements thatcan be incorporated into nationallegislation.





nance measures akin to the ‘web ofprevention’ model.

The next presentation focused onthe issues of biosafety and biosecurityfrom the perspective of the publichealth mandate of the WHO. TheWHO has in place several proactivemeasures including the InternationalHealth Regulations (2005) andBiorisk Reduction, which providesguidance and training on the safehandling and control of diseaseagents. It was suggested that theguidelines provided by the WHOcould translate into national stan-dards for biosafety and biosecurity,though the variable health situationin different countries was also noted.It was also suggested that a mecha-nism should be in place, at both themedical and organizational level, toinvestigate the nature of outbreaks(natural or deliberate).

The final presentation examinedsome of the challenges facing theWHO Global Influenza SurveillanceNetwork (GISN). It was argued thatinternational sharing of viruses couldbe problematic in terms of nationalsovereignty and intellectual propertyrights. Furthermore, concern wasexpressed that GISN lacks trans-parency and equity.

Topics for 2008 – Oversight,education, awareness raising, andadoption and/or development ofcodes of conduct

Work on this agenda-item began witha discussion of the problem of educa-tion and awareness raising in thescientific community. Drawing on theresults of a series of seminars thathad been conducted with life scien-tists across several countries aroundthe world, it was pointed out thatthere is little evidence of awarenessamong life scientists of the dual-usenature of their research. It was urged

that there is a need for awareness-raising in all states.

Several recommendations weremade to raise awareness among lifescientists. One suggestion was toencourage and foster a sense ofresponsibility among life scientistsanalogous to the situation withphysicists and the anti-nuclear move-ment. However, concern wasexpressed that a top down approachby governments was needed toencourage life scientists to takeownership of the problem. Forexample, it was argued that whilephysicists have been embedded inmilitary science for a long time, lifescientists see the problem of BW asbeing external to them. Even aterrorist event using BW might notprovide the desired ‘wake-up call’since the event would not necessarilybe perceived as having emerged fromthe scientific community

Other recommendations forawareness raising and fosteringownership of the problem were alsodiscussed. The idea of an oath similarto the Hippocratic Oath in themedical profession was discussed,though it was felt that without conse-quences in the event of violation thiswould lack value. The need forcontrol and government engagementwas stressed. It was also suggestedthat registration of life scientists anda bottom-up approach based onmandatory educational modulesmight provide means to increaseawareness and responsibility in thelife sciences.

The next presentation continuedthe discussion of education andawareness raising from the perspec-tive of the scientist. It was noted thatthe dual-use problem in the lifesciences was complicated for severalreasons:

• The dual-use dilemma is exacer-bated by the fact that the threat ofBW use can utilise material fromnatural origins and that detection,protection and treatment are basedon the same science as hostile appli-cation.

• Despite the historical record ofaggressive BW programs in thepast, there remains a lack of aware-ness of the problem among lifescientists.

• New dangers are constantly arisingdue to rapid advances in S&Twhere the results of the researchand dual-use implications are oftenunpredictable.

• Transparency is hindered by theneed for secrecy in defensiveresearch.

It was argued that guidelines forthe oversight of science do exist (forexample, the Lemon-Relman Report)but that the problem is enforcingthese guidelines. It was argued thatbottom-up approaches are inade-quate and that top-down mecha-nisms are necessary to force scientiststo take responsibility. It was arguedthat ultimately the responsibility lieswith the government to control whatwork is carried out.

Further arguments on the top-down versus bottom-up approach toawareness raising and responsibilityin the life sciences were also made. Itwas suggested that no one singleapproach is adequate and that bothprocesses (top-down oversight andbottom-up education) need to be inplace. It was suggested that a betterconceptualisation might be ‘outside-in’, ie, engaging scientists in thebroader context of social ethicalresponsibility.

The next presentation consideredthe usefulness of codes of conduct forscientists. It was suggested that in



order to improve their effectiveness,some mechanism needed to be inplace in order for scientists to identifyand report transgressions. However,it was noted that this type of whistle-blowing mechanism is also insuffi-cient since it suggests that codes ofconduct are a reactive rather that aproactive control measure. It wasfurther argued that codes of conductmight be viewed as an ‘easy option’for implementing a quasi-system ofcontrol which could get in the way ofproper legal oversight.

Following from this theme, thenext presentation offered a differentconceptualisation of codes ofconduct. It was argued that codes ofconduct should be seen in three layerscomprising:

• Guiding principles

• Codes developed by the scientificcommunity

• Institutional or workplace codes

It was argued that all institutionsconducting dual-use research shouldhave a workplace code. Elements ofthe workplace code should include anawareness of the BWC, UN SecurityCouncil resolution 1540 (2004) andnational legislation, as well as apersonal commitment by scientists toreport concerns in-house. It was alsosuggested that the recommendationsfor codes of conduct for chemistsbeing developed by the InternationalUnion of Pure and Applied Chem-istry (IUPAC) could offer usefulparallels and convergences for devel-oping codes of conduct for life scien-tists.

The final presentation in thissession examined the role a nationalregulatory commission could play inestablishing regulations and codes ofconduct to ensure compliance withthe BWC. It was argued that anational regulatory commission

could also more efficiently coordinateand distribute funds for biodefenceresearch. However, it was noted thatincreasing bureaucracy could beproblematic.

Enhancing Transparency ofProgrammes to Counter DeliberateOutbreaks of Disease

Work on this topic began with asuggestion that transparency shouldbe measured in terms of the willing-ness of facilities to release records ofits activities, such as fundingproposals, project reports, researchprotocols, safety documents, accidentrecords, equipment logs andcontracts. However, in discussion itwas noted that, while this level oftransparency might be deemed desir-able, adequate transparency wasachievable without this level ofdetail.

The next presentation suggestedthat transparency could be improvedby extending the use of CBMs tocover any programs aimed atprotecting against the deliberate useof biological agents hence includingboth biodefence programs andprograms aimed at protecting againstbioterrorism. It was also urged thatthe CBMs should include questionson codes of conduct for scientist insuch programs and mechanisms fornational oversight. However, it wasfelt that this measure would beinsufficient to improve transparencygiven the limited participation ofstate parties in the CBM mechanism.

The following presentation exam-ined the difficulties of enhancingtransparency. It was noted thatdespite general agreement withgovernments and civil society thattransparency in programmes tocounter deliberate outbreaks is bothan appropriate and importantmeasure for effective control of BW,

there is little consensus on how trans-parency should be achieved. It wassuggested that clearer definitionsabout the goals and objects of trans-parency are necessary.

It was said that the growing secre-tiveness surrounding biodefenceactivities presents a problem fortransparency. Furthermore, legitimateconcerns about the potential hostileexploitation of biotechnology, andthe realisation of the growingeconomic and strategic importance ofbiotechnology, generate incentives forstates to be less transparent in orderto protect national security andcommercial interests. However, itwas suggested that this type ofhedging in regard to biodefence runscontrary to the logic of transparency.The aim of transparency is not togenerate vulnerabilities but to helpstates constrain their own biodefenceactivities in the broader effortsagainst the hostile exploitation ofbiotechnology.

The final presentation given in thissession addressed the United NationsSecretary-General’s working groupon the investigation on alleged use ofchemical or biological weapons. Itwas reported that the first meeting ofthis working group had enabled avaluable exchange of information totake place. Further efforts are beingdeveloped.

Confidence-Building Measures

Work here began with an EUperspective on the future of CBMs. In2006 the EU adopted an action planto ensure that all member states ofthe EU fulfilled their obligations tofile a CBM return each year. The EUis now in a position to display fullparticipation in the CBM process.However, it was stressed that thissuccess was only achieved as a resultof an ongoing commitment to

active interaction was generated. Itwas suggested that interaction acrossthe interface of government and civilsociety might be the source ofclaiming ownership. It was notedthat interaction appeared to givefocus and purpose to the meetings,and translated abstract goals into theneed for concrete action. It was urgedthat promoting stakeholdership ingovernment, parliament and civilsociety should be the primary goalfor achieving universalisation.

Finally, the lack of saliency ofArticle X of the BWC among non-states-parties was noted. It wasobserved that the regulatory ratherthan promotional components of theBWC tended to be emphasised. Itwas also said that the needs andconcerns of non-states-parties focusless on international cooperation,exchanges and technology transfer,etc, and more on basic information,concrete indicators of legal,economic, financial and humanresource implications of joining thetreaty and general capacity buildingof government agencies.

Future Work

The workshop concluded with somediscussion on the future role of thePugwash Study Group. It wassuggested that if the Workshopagenda was limited to that of theintersessional process this mightinhibit consideration of the biggerpicture and in particular brain-storming about possible future devel-opments to strengthen the Conven-tion. It was observed that thisWorkshop was but a year after theSixth Review Conference and thatfuture Workshops would naturally belooking ahead to wards the SeventhReview Conference in 2011 andbeyond.

weaponised biological material,should also be submitted under anew CBM form in the interests ofpromoting transparency and a clearerglobal picture of biosecurity-relatedevents.

The final presentation discussedan NGO-provided CBM reader – asummary of the publicly availableCBM data submitted in 2006 and2007 – and its future role. In discus-sion, it was recommended that CBMdata should be analysed in aconstructive way to help statesparties since critical analyses coulddeter them from making their decla-ration open access. On the otherhand, it was also felt that stateparties should be able to stand up toscrutiny. The need to be able todistinguish between good faith effortsand deliberate omissions wasstressed.

Promotion of Universalization

On this topic, the workshop exam-ined bottom-up (working with civilsociety constituencies) and top-down(working from government togovernment) approaches to encour-aging universalisation of the BWCbased on a series of regional semi-nars. It was observed that bottom-upapproaches are useful for raisingawareness, building linkages toparticipants’ professional/personalbackground and building knowledge.However, it was also found thatownership of the issue was not takenup automatically. The top-downapproach was found to be useful forraising awareness but created limitedcapacity building. Limited stakehold-ership in the BWC was also observedamong government agencies of non-states-parties.

It was observed that in a seminarexperiment in which civil society andgovernment were both targeted,

improve measures and mechanismsfor CBMs and that pressure on localadministrations needed to bemaintained.

Questions were raised over thequality of the content of the CBMssince there is no assessment mecha-nism but it was said that while thereturns contain variable informationthe average level of the content hasnot changed over time. Questionswere also raised about the value ofCBMs given that public access toCBM returns had been so heavilycurtailed by the Sixth Review Confer-ence and given, also, their limitedparticipation by states parties to theBWC as a whole. However, it wasnoted that participation is growingand, furthermore, that the countriesthat are participating are majoractors in the area if the life sciences.

The next presentation addressedthe issue of consistency andcompleteness in CBM returnsthrough a comparative analysis ofdata provided in the CBMs and opensource data. The results of theanalysis demonstrated that diseasedata is often not declared and, if it is,it is frequently found to be inaccurateand incomplete. It was noted thatcomparing data submitted in theCBMs with open source informationis problematic since an unusualoutbreak as defined in the CBMs isnot necessarily an outbreak relevantto Article I of the BWC.

It was recommended that thequality of the CBM returns could beimproved by removing ambiguityover declarations (for example,distinguishing between non-events,information not being collected onevents, or events not being reported).It was further suggested that declara-tions on events of biosecurityconcern, such as accidents in biode-fence facilities and incidents with



Participants

Prof. Henri Korn, Prof. Honoraire,Pasteur Institute and Dir. Res. Emeritus,INSERM; Adjunct Professor at: ScrippsResearch Institute, La Jolla, CA andAlbert Einstein College of Medicine,Bronx, NY

Mr. Vladimir Ladanov, First Secretary,Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Moscow,Russia

Dr. Filippa Lentzos, Senior ResearchFellow, BIOS Centre, London School ofEconomics, UK

Prof. Robert Mathews, PrincipalResearch Scientist, Defence Science andTechnology Organisation, Australia ;Associate Professor, Asia Pacific Centrefor Military Law, University ofMelbourne

Dr. Patrick Mc Carthy, Coordinator, TheGeneva Forum, Geneva, Switzerland

Ms. Kathryn McLaughlin, PublicationsCoordinator, BioWeapons PreventionProject (BWPP), Geneva, Switzerland;Fellow, Landau Network-Centro Volta(LNCV), Como, Italy

Dr. Caitriona McLeish (Ireland),Research Fellow, Science & TechnologyPolicy Research (SPRU), The FreemanCentre, University of Sussex,, BrightonBN1 9QE, UK

Dr. Piers Millett (UK), Political AffairsOfficer, Implementation Support Unit,Biological Weapons Convention, UNOffice for Disarmament Affairs, UnitedNations Office, Geneva, Switzerland;Consultant on science and technologyfor the ICRC project on BiotechnologyWeapons and Humanity

Dr. Ali A. Mohammadi, Scientist,Biosafety Biorisk Reduction forDangerous Pathogens, Epidemic andPandemic Alert and Response, WorldHealth Organization (WHO), Geneva,Switzerland

Ms. Ngoc Phoung Huynh, BiologicalWeapons Convention ImplementationSupport Unit, Geneva, Switzerland

Dr. Alan Pearson, Director, Biological &Chemical Weapons Control Program,

Foreign Affairs and International Trade,Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Ms. Inès El-Shikh, GIPRI, Geneva,Switzerland,

Jozef Goldblat (Sweden/Switzerland),Vice President, Geneva InternationalPeace Research Institute (GIPRI),Geneva, Switzerland; Consultant, UnitedNations, Geneva

Mr. Mikaël Griffon, Conseiller,Permanent Mission of France to theConference on Disarmament

Mr. Richard Guthrie (UK), Co-ordinating Editor, CBW Events

Mr. Edward Hammond, Director, TheSunshine Project, Austin Texas, USA

Dr. Gert Günter Harigel, Senior Physicist(Emeritus), European Laboratory forParticle Physics (CERN), Geneva,Switzerland

Mr. Shaun David Hayeslip, ForeignAffairs Officer, United StatesDepartment of State, Washington, DC

Dr. Iris Hunger, Head, ZNF-ResearchGroup for Biological Arms Control,Hamburg, Germany

Ms. Ngoc Phuong Huynh, AssociatePolitical Affairs Officer, BWCImplementation Support Unit, Geneva,Switzerland

Mr. Nicolas Isla, Researcher, HamburgResearch Group for Biological ArmsControl, Centre for Science and PeaceResearch, University of Hamburg,Germany

Ms. Catherine Jefferson, DoctoralCandidate, Harvard Sussex Program,SPRU–Science and Technology PolicyResearch, Freeman Centre, University ofSussex

H.E. Amb. Masood Khan, PermanentRepresentative of Pakistan to the UNand other International Organizations,Permanent Mission of Pakistan, Geneva,Switzerland

Mr. Aftab A. Khokher, Counsellor,Permanent Mission of Pakistan to theUnited Nations, Geneva, Switzerland

Dr. David Atwood (USA),Representative, Disarmament and Peace,Quaker United Nations Office, Geneva,Switzerland

Amb. Georgi Avramchev, Ambassadorand Permanent Representative of TheRepublic of Macedonia to the UNOGand Other International Organizationsin Switzerland

Dr. Maurizio Barbeschi, Scientist, HealthSecurity, Office of the Director of theEpidemic and Pandemic Alert andResponse, Health Security andEnvironment Cluster (HSE/EPR), WorldHealth Organization (WHO), Geneva,Switzerland

Amb. Sergey Batsanov, Director, GenevaOffice, Pugwash Conferences on Scienceand World Affairs; Member, PugwashCouncil; Member, InternationalAdvisory Board, Geneva Centre for theDemocratic Control of Armed Forces(DCAF)

Ms. Una Becker, Research Associate,Peace Research Institute Frankfurt(PRIF), Germany

Dr. Vladimir S. Bundin, SeniorCounselor, Department of Security &Disarmament Affairs, Ministry ofForeign Affairs of the RussianFederation, Moscow

Dr. Marie Chevrier, Associate Professor,University of Texas at Dallas,Richardson, Texas, USA; Chair,Scientists Working Group on Biologicaland Chemical Weapons, Center for ArmsControl and Nonproliferation,Washington, DC

Dr. Robin Coupland (UK), MedicalAdvisor, Legal Division, InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross (ICRC),Geneva, Switzerland

Prof. Malcolm Dando, Professor ofInternational Security, Department ofPeace Studies, University of Bradford,Bradford, UK

Ms. Kendra Davidson, Non-Proliferation& Disarmament (Chemical, Biologicaland Conventional), Department of





Center for Arms Control &Nonproliferation, Washington, DC, USA

Dr. Graham S. Pearson, VisitingProfessor of International Security,Department of Peace Studies, Universityof Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire,UK; Member, HSP Advisory Board;Member, Pugwash CBW SteeringCommittee

Dr. Imtinan. E. Qureshi, Minister(Technical), Permanent Mission ofPakistan to the United Nations, Geneva,Switzerland

Prof. Julian Perry Robinson, SussexDirector, Harvard-Sussex Program,Science & Technology Policy Research(SPRU), University of Sussex, Brighton,UK; Member, Pugwash CBW SteeringCommittee

Mr. Roger Roffey, Research Director,Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI),Stockholm; Member of the Board,Swedish Pugwash Group

Mr. Robert Schwartz, Esq., StaffAttorney, Tri-Valley CAREs, Livermore,CA, USA

Mr. Nicholas Sims, Reader inInternational Relations, London Schoolof Economics and Political Science(LSE), University of London, London,UK

Mr. Scott Spence, LegislationConsultant, The Hague, TheNetherlands [formerly:Biocriminalization Project Manager,INTERPOL (Lyon); Legal Consultant(CWC legislation), OPCW (The Hague);HSP Researcher, OPCW (The Hague);Attorney, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer(New York)]

Prof. Jean-Pierre Stroot(Belgium/Switzerland), retired Physicist;President of the Board of the GenevaInternational Peace Research Institute(GIPRI), Geneva, Switzerland;Association Suisse Pugwash, Geneva

Ms. Zuzana Šutiaková, Administrator,Council of the EU, Brussels, Belgium

Ms. Riccarda Torriani, Desk Officer,Arms Control and Disarmament Section,Swiss Federal Department of ForeignAffairs, Bern

Dr. Ralf Trapp (Germany), Consultant,CBW, Arms Control and Disarmament,Chessenaz, France

Amb. Hendrik Wagenmakers(Netherlands), Consultant, Bern,Switzerland

Mr. Reto Wollenmann, Directorate forSecurity Policy, Arms Control andDisarmament Policy, Bern, Switzerland

Ms. Angela Woodward (NewZealand/UK), Executive Director,Verification Research, Training andInformation Centre (VERTIC), London,;UK; Teacher, Law Department, LondonSchool of Economics

Dr. Jean Pascal Zanders, Director,BioWeapons Prevention Project (BWPP),Geneva, Switzerland




Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Federation for Peace and ConciliationRussian Political Science AssociationIslam, Conflicts, Peace MediationKazan, Tatarstan, Russia, 27–29 January 2008

Reportby Mikhail Lebedev

President of the Republic ofTatarstan, Rafael Khakimov. In hisspeech R. Khakimov emphasized thespecial experience of the republic ofTatarstan in its search for a model ofpeaceful co-existence of civilizationsand religions. During its evolution,Tatarstan has developed a uniqueethnic policy – subsequently namedwith a light touch by Harvard acade-mics, “the model of Tatarstan”—based on a balance of interests,mutual understanding, and coopera-tion between the leaders of thevarious religions found in Tatarstan.According to R. Khakimov, the mostimportant component of this modelis co-existence and tolerance—forexample, as seen in the proximity ofthe mosque and orthodox cathedralin the Kazan’ Kremlin.

The experience of Tatarstan wasdescribed as positive by the Secretary

General of Pugwash, Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, who called on the formerrepublics of the USSR to use thisexperience in mediating conflicts.After acknowledging that all religionsare essentially peaceful, Prof. Cotta-Ramusino pointed to the problem ofthe “the complexities of self-identifi-cation”, where belonging to one reli-gion becomes part of one’s nationalself-identification, which in turnhampers the process of determiningthe nature of a conflict.

One participant noted the prob-lems of correlation between religionand national factors, where religiousattitudes often determine the behaviorof nations. In this view, contempo-rary conflict is a rebirth, or “re-incar-nation” of an old national liberationmovement, marked now in newterms. Religious leaders are broughtto the forefront by public authorities

An international conference on“Islam, Conflicts and Peace-Building” took place from

January 28-29, 2008 in Kazan, thecapital of the republic of Tatarstan,organized by International Pugwashand the Russian Association of Polit-ical Science, together with the Feder-ation for Peace and Conciliation andthe Russian Pugwash movement ofscientists. Participants came fromtwelve countries, including Russia,Egypt, Iran, Oman, Pakistan,Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, andGermany.

As was noted on the opening dayof the conference by PugwashCouncil member and President of theRussian Association of PoliticalScience, Alexander Nikitin, theconference was planned as an inter-national dialogue, dealing with astudy of the role of Islam in the regu-lation of conflicts, and it was aimedat providing a more realistic under-standing of the role of Islamic factorin policy.

The conference was opened by therector of the Academy of State andMunicipal Administration under thejurisdiction of the President of theRepublic of Tatarstan, AndreyErshov and by state adviser to the

0 500 1,000250 Kilometers

in Azerbaijan. Today the calls forassociation in Azerbaijan under theflags of Islam, finds approval inpopulation. At the same time, thestrengthening of pro-Islamic orienta-tion inside the country has notentailed a significant improvement ofrelations with Iran. Opinion pollsshow that the population of Azer-baijan is against any possible militaryaction by the US against Iran, but, atthe same time, the general attitude ofAzerbaijani toward Iran remainspoor. In the country there are strongpro-Israeli sentiments, concernedwith the support by Israel of Azer-baijan in the US, in contrast to theefforts of the Armenian lobby. Theattitude of Azerbaijan towards inter-national structures is determinedthrough the prism of Karabach(“whoever helps to return Karabachto Azerbaijan, we enter this organiza-tion”). Obviously, this explains theappearance of NATO bases in Azer-baijan, and also “radar policy”,established against Iran and Russia.

In course of the discussion an inter-religious dialogue developed. Therepresentative of Russian OrthodoxChurch, Alexander Makarov,remarked on the similarity of thegeneral values of Islam and Ortho-doxy—concept of God, sin, moralvalues. One issue for both religions isthat of pressure from the westernliberal tradition. What is needed aremore inter-faith dialogues, such as theinitiation of the Christian-Moslemdialogue that was established in 1997.

One of the factors of the situationin Central Asia, according to localexperts, is the attempt by Iran topopularize the Moslem faith.Commenting on the situation in Iran,one participant noted that policysolutions in Iran are frequently madeon the basis of rational calculationsand national interests of the country.For example, issues relating toIranian maritime rights and regionaleconomic integration are resolvedthrough collaborative efforts withcountries in the Persian Gulf region.For example, during his visit toQatar, President M. Ahmadinejadpointed to twelve factors which facil-itate this type of collaboration.Among them he mentioned suchissues as simplifying the process ofgranting visas, the creation of anorthern transport corridor, etc. Inthis sense, religious factors were notpredominant in relations betweenIran and its neighbors; in fact, Iran ispursuing a pragmatic policy, aimed atthe cessation of its isolation.

Regarding the role of religion inAzerbaijan, a neighbor of Iran, it wasnoted that there are three politicalorientations: pro-Islamic (pro-Iranian), pro-Russian, and pro-Western (pro-Turkish, pro-European,pro-Israeli). At the beginning of the21st century in Azerbaijan, a disap-pointment concerning western valuesis observed. After 2003, when the USactually supported the falsification ofpresidential elections in Azerbaijan,anti-Western sentiments startedgrowing, and the Islamic factor isnow playing an increasingly signifi-cant role. At the same timewahhabism, which unites people herewith its tenets of striving for nationalunity and a pure Islam, has emerged

to legitimize their use of power, butthis “is a misuse of religion.”

Participants from three Central-Asian republics—Kyrgyzstan, Tajik-istan, Uzbekistan—took an especiallyactive part in the discussion. Oneconclusion drawn from the discus-sion was a thesis about the process ofIslamization of the Central-Asiancountries. In Kyrgyzstan and Tajik-istan there are already more than twoand four thousand mosques, respec-tively. The number of believersgrows. There exists a system calleddaavat (a call to Islam), and Islam isbecoming a political factor. However,these countries are not prepared forthese developments. In these states itis necessary to formulate clear policyin the religious aspect, to determine aformat of interaction between Islamand politics, and namely to integrateIslam in policy-making in accordancewith national interests. A specificcompromise between state and reli-gion needs to be achieved. In Tajik-istan, agreement was reached toregister the Islamic party ofrenascence. However, the state is notprepared to inject Islam into theeducation system. The authorities ofTajikistan have forbidden Islamicclothing in schools, and debates areheld about khidzhaba. An importantfactor of stabilization of relationsbetween state and religion in Central-Asian countries is social andeconomic progress; the absence ofsuch progress will lead to dissatisfac-tion among the population, especiallyin poor rural areas, where a majorityof believers live, and these willstrengthen the positions of Islamicopposition. Poor religious culture oflocal believers remains a seriousproblem.



Participants

Tatarstan.

Tajikistan: Parviz Mullojanov, director,Public Committee on Promotion ofDemocratic Processes in Tajikistan

Turkey: Hakan Kirimli, Professor of theBilkent University (Turkey)

Uzbekistan: Bakhtiyar Babajanov,Leading Research Fellow, Islamic StudiesDepartment, Institute of OrientalStudies, Uzbek Academy of Sciences

Rev. Roshchin, Coordinator of Inter-religious Dialogue, Authority of theRussian Orthodox Church (Moscow);

Zaid Abdulagatov, Department Head,Institute for History, Archeology andEthnography, Dagestanian ScientificCentre of the Russian Academy ofSciences (Dagestan Republic, RussianFederation)

International Organizations: PaoloCotta-Ramusino, Secretary General,Pugwash Conferences on Science andWorld Affairs (Rome, Italy);

Victor Kamyshanov, InternationalFederation for Peace and Conciliation,(Moscow, Russia)

Afghanistan/UN: Abul AhrarRamizpoor, Human Rights Officer,UNAMA Central Region Office (Kabul,Afghanistan)

Azerbaijan: Arif Yunusov, Center forPeace Studies

Egypt: Abeer Yassin, Researcher, Al-Ahram Center for Political and StrategicStudies, Cairo

Germany: Reinhardt Krumm, Head ofthe Friedrich Ebert Stiftung office inRussia

Iran: Saideh Lotfian, Chair of thePugwash Council, Professor of TeheranUniversity

Kirgizstan: Akylbek Saliev, Director ofthe Institute for Strategic Analysis andForecasts

Oman: Mohammed Said Harib alMahruqy, member of the ConsultativeCommission of the Supreme Council ofGulf Co-Operation Countries

Pakistan: Amb. Najmuddin Shaikh,former Foreign Secretary of theGovernment of Pakistan, member ofBoard of Governors, Institute forStrategic Studies (Islamabad, Pakistan)

Russian Federation: Alexander Nikitin,President of the Russian Political ScienceAssociation (Moscow) and Member ofthe Pugwash Council;

Viktor Yurchenko, Political ScienceDepartment Chair, Kuban’ StateUniversity (Krasnodar, RussianFederation)

Abdulla Istamulov, Head of the Centerfor Strategic Studies and Promotion ofCivil Society on North Caucasus(Chechen Republic, Russian Federation);



The following recommenda-tions constitute a holistic planfor cross-LoC collaboration

in terms of human and economicexchange. A number of avenues areexplored, each of which can poten-tially bring gains in its own right.However, ideally, the sector-specificproposals need to be tackled withinan overarching framework. As shallbe clear shortly, a number of aspectsof the proposed plan are inter-linkedand would either lose their utility orwould be impossible to implementwithout tackling other concernssimultaneously.

Kashmir Conflict and its Impact

The dispute over the princely state ofJammu and Kashmir continues toprevent Pakistan and India from real-izing the true benefits of economicintegration between geographicallycontiguous states. Indeed, the bravemove from Pakistani and Indianleaders to pursue a normalizationcourse on Kashmir has underminedvested interests to some extent and hasalready provided a real opening forpeace in Jammu and Kashmir.However, the initial momentum issubsiding as residents on both sides ofthe Line of Control (LoC) have notexperienced the kind of beneficialinteraction they had initially expected.

The Proposal

Human Exchanges

The most urgent need is to enhancehuman interaction across the LoC.Success in such an endeavor wouldunderpin the entire collaborationframework. Indeed, this was the real-ization that led Pakistani and Indianleaders to order the initiation of theMuzaffarabad-Sri Nagar bus servicein 2005. The service allowed dividedfamilies to connect after over fivedecades of complete isolation.Notwithstanding, this service wasonly an initial step that was neverlikely to have more than a marginalimpact given the stringent nature ofthe travel regulations. While thosewho stand to gain from a slow downof the normalization process inKashmir are already pointing to thesharp decline in peoples’ interest totravel on the bus, the reality is thatpeople remain deeply interested inthe freedom of travel. It is only thenarrow focus on divided families aswell as the excessive proceduralhurdles and fear of reprisal fromintelligence outfits that have keptpeople from making better use of thefacility.

To realize the full potential ofhuman exchange, we suggestexpanding the scope of the busservice to include all Kashmiri resi-dents from both parts and stream-lining the travel documentationrequirements. This would allow notonly private citizens but also the

The immense losses that theKashmir conflict has caused forPakistan and India- and thus thebenefits installed in the normalizationprocess for both sides- cannot beexaggerated. Pakistan has foregoneeconomic growth of 2.5-3 percentannually for the entire sixty yearperiod. The country’s Gross Producttoday would have been 3.4-4.4 timeshigher, the GDP would have beengreater by a factor of 3.5 and the percapita income would have approxi-mated $ 2,200 had it not born thecosts of the Kashmir conflict. ForIndia, the costs incurred should beobvious from the fact that till theonslaught of the Kashmiri insur-gency, the Central government had toloan 80 percent of Indian Kashmir’sbudget instead of the 20 percent thatit contributed towards other states.Since the insurgency began however,the state’s entire budget has beenborn by the government in NewDelhi. The direct costs of fighting theinsurgency which approximate $ xxare in addition to this.

Were the following proposed planfor increased collaboration across theLoC executed in its entirety, over aten-year period, an additional $ 40million can be generated as incomefor the two parts of Kashmir. Thiswould correspond to a 9.5 percentincrease in the state’s GSDP. More-over, the per capita income wouldrise to $ 745 which would be compa-rable to Pakistan and India’sprojected level over the next decade.

ReportBy Moeed Yusuf

Pugwash Workshop on Intra-Kashmir Economic CooperationIntegrating Jammu and Kashmir Within the Indo-Pak Peace Process

Colombo, Sri Lanka, 15–16 March 2008



faculties and students in Kashmircould have a significant multipliereffect in terms of generating newideas for cooperation in addition toaltering mindsets towards the ‘other’among the upcoming generation.Student exchanges are already takingplace between Pakistan and India.Even the University of Jammu is inthe process of signing MoUs forstudent exchanges with the LahoreUniversity of Management Sciencesin Lahore. The precedent thus existsfor such arrangements to be reachedbetween the University of Jammuand/or the planned Indian Institute ofTechnology in Indian Kashmir and

regime for Pakistan and Indian Parlia-mentarians should be extended to theAJK legislature on the Pakistani sideand the Jammu and Kashmir stateassembly on the Indian side. A jointIndo-Pak parliamentary committeeshould be mandated to meet periodi-cally to identify and propose avenuesfor cooperation in areas of commoninterest. Corresponding workinggroups at the local government levelsshould also be set up to work outmodalities for various initiatives.

We see intellectual interaction as aspecific subset within the context ofhuman interaction. This is so sincecollaboration between university

community based organizations, depoliticized community leaders, socialworkers, business communitymembers, and religious and youthorganizations to interact regularly.Permit procedures need to be simpli-fied to allow speedy approval ofapplications. One option could be toallow the Government of AzadJammu Kashmir (AJK) on thePakistani side and the Jammu andKashmir state government on theIndian side to administer the permitissuing process. A ceiling limit on thetime for processing of permits couldalso be instituted to prompt adminis-trations to hasten the bureaucraticprocesses. Visa issuing centers couldbe opened on the five LoC “meetingpoints” already in place to facilitateapplicants. Moreover, loosening ofthe permit regime to allow formultiple entry permits must beconsidered. A group visa policy fortourists and traders should also beinitiated; such facilities are essentialas they underpin the economic devel-opment and commercial exchangeplan we have presented.

A subsequent step would be toallow Kashmiris from the Indian sideto visit Pakistan and vice versa, aswell as for Pakistanis and Indians tovisit the part of the Jammu Kashmirstate across the LoC. For thispurpose, a dual travel documentationrequirement could side-step thebureaucratic hurdles. A travel permitshould suffice for Kashmiris to travelwithin the state but passports shouldbe required to enter Pakistani andIndian territory beyond Jammu andKashmir. For Pakistanis and Indiansnot belonging to Kashmir however,passports would be required to crossthe LoC.

Political interaction could providethe overarching framework forhuman interaction. The visa free



be required to modernize the twoeconomies. Moreover, processingindustries such as high value addedfurniture would also gain from voca-tional training.

The media has been a potent forcein bringing vibrancy to the Pakistanicivil society. It has allowed communi-ties a voice and participatory mecha-nism despite lack of genuine democ-racy in the country. Similar benefitscan be accrued in Jammu andKashmir should media freedom begranted. Both governments shouldallow a select number of TV andradio channels to be aired on bothsides of the LoC. For their part, theIndian and Pakistani media shouldencourage joint current affairs TVand radio shows. The programs couldbe hosted by channels viewable inKashmir. The shows could be hostedalternatively fromMuzaffarabad andSir Nagar with guests from both sidesof the LoC; even Pakistani or Indianexperts on the subject could beinvited. Such an initiative has alreadybeen a great success in the Israel-Palestine context. To maximize gains,Pakistani and Indian TV and radiochannels can be persuaded to air a“Kashmir series” that would allow atleast one or two programs a month tofocus solely on various aspects of theKashmir problem.

Pakistan must also extend thecurrent proposal of legalizing Indianfilms within Pakistan to AJK and theNorthern areas. The entertainmentindustry in Pakistan/ PakistaniKashmir should be allowed to holdformal viewings of films and dramasproduced in India and vice versa.Again, much like intellectualexchanges, a multiplier effect wouldbe evident as producers would seethis as an opportunity to developfeatures focusing on the positiveaspects of peace and collaboration in

the governments of Pakistan andIndia could consider establishing ajoint university with multiplecampuses spanning both sides of theLoC. The framework would besimilar to that of the proposedSAARC University. This would allowcross-registration for students andprovide the faculty an option to teachcourses of their choosing at any ofthe campuses.

In addition to collaborationbetween established educationalinstitutions, human capacity buildingwill be required across sectors ofeconomic interest. For this purpose,not only would both sides need toenhance their vocational trainingcapacity but would also need todevelop synergies in training espe-cially in sectors that necessitate jointoperations. Both sides could considersetting up joint vocational traininginstitutes on the LoC or share mastertrainers to standardize trainingquality on both sides. Key sectorswhere such collaboration is envi-sioned include the tourism industrythat will require much enhancedcapacity for tour operators, travelgroup managers, hotel staff, touristguides, and the like. IT specialists will

the University of Azad JammuKashmir across the LoC.

There is tremendous potential forjoint research projects and interactiveteaching on subjects that are neutralto sensitivities of both sides. The AJKUniversity has initiated a KashmirStudies Program that focuses onKashmir’s economy, art, culture,disaster management, post-conflictresolution and other such cross-cutting aspects that are pertinent tostudents and faculty throughout theKashmiri state. This program couldbe used as a starting point for educa-tional collaboration and be expandedover time. A semester-long deputa-tion for faculty could be instituted toallow them to teach in the KashmirStudies Program jointly. As forstudents, a facility similar to thestudy abroad programs instituted inwestern universities could allowstudents to spend one-year of theireducation in institutions across theLoC with credits being transferred totheir parent institutions. Of course,such arrangements would only beviable in programs offered by univer-sities on both sides.

Once the dividends of initial intel-lectual exchanges become evident,



Shahid Javid Burki, Moeed Yusuf, Paolo Cotta-Ramusino.

interaction could lead producers onboth sides to gauge consumer prefer-ences and specialize products, espe-cially crafts and value added goods.

Extremely beneficial for both sideswould be an arrangement wherePakistani Kashmir serves as a transitroute for Indian Kashmiri goodsdestined for the rest of the world. Asimilar arrangement could be insti-tuted for imports coming into IndianKashmir. The framework could repli-cate the Afghan Transit Trade (ATT)facility that allows Afghan goods totravel to India via Pakistan and viceversa. Since none of these items willbe destined for the Pakistan market,sensitive issues such as Rules ofOrigin, authenticity of the docu-ments, and the like would not arise.Pakistan would charge royalties inreturn for providing the transitfacility.

The transit arrangement has greatscope as the pre-partition transportroutes between Jammu and Sialkotand Sri Nagar and Muzaffarabadremain much more economical fortraders in the Indian state of Jammuand Kashmir even today. For itemssuch as woolen shawls, wooden arti-facts, and animal skins, Lahore’s newairport can provide feeder servicesfor onward shipment to the rest ofthe world. For goods more suited tosea-shipment, the much improvedfacilities of the Port Bin Qasim andKarachi Port Trust are more attrac-tive propositions than Mumbai fortraders on the Indian side of the LoC.Finally, if Pakistan’s plan to upgradethe Karakoram Highway does mate-rialize in the medium term, it couldprovide a convoluted, yet economicalroute for Kashmiri goods to find theirway into China and Central Asia.

While the transit facility could beoperationalized utilizing the currentroad links available across the LoC

and granted rights equivalent tothose of the LDCs in South Asia.Both Pakistan and India would allowduty free access to Kashmiri goodsfrom the opposite side of the LoC.This would necessitate an agreementon the Rules of Origin. However,neither side should hesitate to imple-ment such a regime since JammuKashmir does not have the kind ofproduction potential that could floodPakistani and Indian markets.

We recognize that a sub-regionalarrangement may only be possibleover the long-run. As a first step- tooptimize current trade potential- theforemost requirement is to remove alltariff and para-tariff barriers to inter-Kashmir trade. The preferentialarrangement would allow for cross-LoC duty free access of raw materialsand value added goods. No sensitivelists ought to be prepared, thusallowing all Kashmiri products to betraded free of duties.

Both sides must explore the optionof establishing border markets atdesignated points to cater to demandfor residents across the LoC andtourists alike. Three obvious loca-tions could be the Poonch-RawalaKot route, Uri, and Chakothi. Bordermarkets should serve as the center ofcommerce activity where people fromacross the LoC are allowed to visit,using officially stipulated travel docu-ments. Not only could such bordermarkets act as retail hubs, but theycould also provide opportunities fortraders on both sides, be theyfarmers, craftsmen or producers ofother value added products, to meetand conclude future business deals.Moreover, were a quota for a certainproportion of rural producers (espe-cially for agricultural producers) toset up retail stations in the marketswould ensure easier market access forthe rural poor. Arguably, enhanced

Kashmir. This is sure to impact mind-sets positively on both sides over thelong run.

Economic Collaboration

Despite the fact that discussionsabout potential for economic cooper-ation have been part of the agendathroughout the Kashmiri peaceprocess, there is still little concreteinformation on the precise comple-mentarities between the two parts ofthe Jammu Kashmir state. While wedo point to the sectors of interest andpossible initiatives, the first order ofthe day should be to generate accu-rate and specific information on thequalitative and quantitative gainsinstalled for both sides. Governmentsin Islamabad and New Delhi shouldcoordinate joint survey/ informationgathering exercise on all potentialavenues of cooperation. Thisarrangement will have to be insti-tuted immediately and is distinctfrom the parliamentary and localgovernment interaction proposed forKashmiri elected representativesabove. The urgency for fact finding isborne out of the obvious compulsionto base any formal arrangements tocooperate on solid informationregarding the current state of affairs.This will also help Islamabad, NewDelhi, Muzaffarabad, and Sri Nagarto generate political support for jointinitiatives.

Trade in goods

In order to maximize gains fromtrade in goods, we propose a sub-regional arrangement within theSAFTA auspices but one that will notonly include trade in goods but alsoprotocols for trade in services andjoint ventures. Under the sub-regional arrangement, the entire stateof Jammu and Kashmir could beaccorded the status of a quasi-state



and will have tremendous spin-offeffects. One is premised on the visibleinclination from both Pakistan andIndia to demilitarize the Siachenglacier. The Siachen and Boloto glac-iers could be converted into a scien-tific park. The scientific merit for thisproject has already been established.A similar initiative could be taken inthe area covering the CentralKarakoram National Park. A jointmanagement committee with relevantpublic and private stakeholders fromboth sides could manage these facili-ties under IUCN guidelines.

Once the industry takes off, thejoint consultative group could act asthe Tourism Development Board thatwould coordinate tourism activities.The industry should be privatelymanaged with the tourism boardauthorizing registered privatelyowned travel facilitation companiesto have all formalities cleared fortheir clients. Logistically, inter-Kashmir tourism could be conductedby offering joint travel packages thatprovision for visits to sites across theLoC utilizing the Muzzaffarabad-SriNagar road link. For all foreigntourists, national passports shouldsuffice for cross-LoC travel. Kash-miris could utilize facilities by virtueof their travel permits.

Of course, physical infrastructurein terms of five star hotels, anexpanded road network, communica-tion systems, banking facilities, andhealth facilities would all have tomeet international standards for thetourism industry to generate theexpected dividends. Equally impor-tant is the need to have trainedhuman resources who could managesuch a specialized industry. In thisregard, India could gain from itsexisting human capacity buildingtrack record to set up hotel manage-ment institutes in Sri Nagar, where

surplus electricity would be exportedto India, Pakistan and even otherCentral Asian states and would thusnecessitate a revenue sharing arrange-ment. A sub-regional arrangementspecific to energy could be framed orelse, the overarching sub-regionalagreement mentioned earlier couldprovision for such collaboration.

Tourism

The beauty contained within the stateof Jammu and Kashmir makes itnaturally suited for a thrivingtourism industry. The state used toattract a large number of touristsprior to partition. Indian Kashmirremained a popular tourist spot untilthe insurgency broke out in 1989.The first order of the day is for bothsides to determine the accuratepotential in terms of volume, attrac-tive sites, and infrastructure needs forthe development of this industry.There is need to set up a joint consul-tative mechanism with officials fromtourism departments and prominentmembers of the tourism industryfrom both sides. The group would betasked to identify concrete measuresto enhance the tourism potentialacross the LoC.

The most obvious activities thatcould make Kashmir an attractivetourist destination includes moun-taineering, skiing resorts, and watersports In addition, if Kashmir’shistory could be captured throughmuseums, it is sure to interestChinese and other East Asian nationsthat trace back their roots to this partof the world. With direct road linkswith China and reports indicatingthat as many as 100 million Chinesetourists may be interested in joiningthe global tourist industry as clients,Kashmir could benefit immensely.Two rather innovative but concreteproposals are already on the table

(GoP has already expressed interestin starting a truck service betweenMuzaffarabad and Sri Nagar), itstrue potential would only be realizedafter the transport links have beenupgraded. A number of new trans-port links have already been identi-fied as key to increasing commercialexchange. These include Jammu-Sialkot, Turtuk-Khapulu, ChambJurian-Mirpur, Gurez-Astore-Gilgit,Tithwal-Chilhan, and Nowshera-Mirpur-Kotli, and Skardu-Kargil.The revival of the traditional rail linkbetween Jammu and Sialkot and alink between Sri Nagar and Muzaf-farabad through rail, continuingonwards to Abbotabad and RawalPindi are equally important.

Joint CollaborationHydroelectricity

Perhaps the greatest potential for thestate of Jammu and Kashmir is withregard to generation of hydroelec-tricity. The Indus Water Treaty (IWT)delineated the use of water fromrivers flowing through Kashmir butended up leaving the electricity gener-ation potential of the state under-utilized. The Treaty need not bealtered- only reinterpreted- to allowfor joint hydroelectric production.An integrated power grid which isbased on an extension of the currentdistribution systems on both sides ofthe LoC is permissible under the IWTand could provide 5,000-7,500megawatts of readily utilizablepower. A less ambitious plan could beto jointly develop a power generationprojection project around the LoC.

The hydroelectricity generationplan would automatically bringexperts from both sides of the LoCtogether to devise the mechanism forcooperation. This could be bestachieved under a sub-regional agree-ment, which is also necessary as



to develop human resource capacityfor long term sustainability, Indian ITprofessionals could be requested toteach at small IT training centers thatcould be set up in Pakistani Kashmir.Moreover, IT students from PakistaniKashmir could study in the proposedIndian technology institute in IndianKashmir. The Indian side could alsohelp their Pakistani counterparts insetting up software technology parksand other such IT ventures. While theprincipal beneficiary of which coop-eration may seem to be the PakistaniKashmir, the fact is that withoutenhanced capacity in this area, muchof the other collaborative efforts mayfall short of realizing their benefits.Indian Kashmir therefore has aninterest in uplifting the IT capacityacross the LoC.

Efficient communication linksunderpin any modern economy.There is virtually no possibility ofintegration between the two parts ofthe state unless telecommunicationand internet facilities parallel those inPakistan and India. Currently, peopleon the Indian side of Jammu andKashmir have no telephone connec-

able use of water resources by agri-cultural communities on both sides ofthe LoC. Moreover, a periodic jointenvironmental clean-up exercisecould also be mandated. However,since this initiative may requirebuffering water flows, a politicalconsensus on such collaborationwould have to be reached in advance.

Information Technology

The role of the IT industry on bothsides is multifaceted. The entireeconomy ought to move towardsautomation in order to ensure effi-ciency in trade deals as well as topromote investor friendliness. Thedemand for IT services on both sidesof the LoC could be expected toincrease tremendously once Kashmirtransforms into a modern economyand banking, e-commerce, and e-governance practices are instituted.Moreover, the industry could becomethe mainstay of Jammu Kashmir’smarketing and information projec-tion strategy.

Given the above, there is a needfor Pakistani Kashmir to accelerateIT development in the state. In order

Kashmiris from both sides could betrained. As already mentioned, othermore specific vocational traininginstitutes for personnel to be involvedin various capacities in the industrycould be set-up and utilized by resi-dents of both sides.

Forest and Environment

Both sides of Kashmir are rich inforests, albeit ones that have beendegraded severely over the years.Consequently, the furniture industryin Kashmir, especially Walnut furni-ture that was once a well-knownproduct of the state, has disappeared.In order to revive the furnitureindustry, joint forest management(JFM) experiences on both sides needto be studied. While measures toimprove forest cover will be largelyunilateral, a consultative group couldshare best practices on forestmanagement. Moreover, processingindustry needs to be revitalized at thebehest of the private sector corpora-tions. Private investors should beallowed to invest in forest resourcesand furniture production on bothsides of the LoC. In order for bothsides to accrue comparable benefitshowever, Indian and Pakistani partsof Kashmir should supply similarvolumes of wood to processing units.

Kashmir’s waterways intrinsicallylink Pakistan and India. All threemajor rivers of Pakistan, the Indus,Jhelum and Chenab flow throughJammu Kashmir. The fact that water-sheds lie across the LOC implies thatPakistan is directly affected by thestate of rivers in Indian Kashmir. Ajoint group across the LoC could beset up to exchange data on waterflows and assess water quality.Constant gauging of the waterquality could also allow the group todetermine the optimal irrigationpractices that would ensure sustain-



to encourage foreign investment in itsstate of Jammu and Kashmir. Realis-tically, the plan would have to be runat the behest of the IFIs and bilateraldonors with a heterogeneous mix oflocal investors complementing inter-national lending.

To begin with, a sector-by-sectorfinancial plan should be developedwith the help of technical expertsdealing with various facets of theprogram. Next, feasibilities forvarious identified projects could becarried out. Subsequently, the plancould be floated to seek investorinterest. Simultaneously, the WorldBank’s Foreign Investment AdvisoryService could also be requested toconduct a detailed investment climatesurvey of the region. In terms of IFIlending, the World Bank and ADBshould be approached to finance theplan through special low-interestloans typical of post conflicteconomies. This would have to bedone though the governments ofIndia and Pakistan who wouldunderwrite the loans. Each agencycould opt for projects that fall withinits priority areas. For example, ADB’sfocus on infrastructure and waterand sanitation would lure it to suchinitiatives.

The IFIs also have a role in plan-ning with the concerned governmentsto channel private investment intothe State. Granted, Kashmir’s trou-bled law and order situation on theIndian side and relative lack of devel-opment on both sides implies that theterms of private investment wouldhave to be overly attractive. Notwith-standing, the level of private invest-ment in large part will depend on theextent to which the public sectoragrees to give up its monopolies. TheKashmiri diaspora could prove to bea major resource bank. Expatriateinvestors could be targeted to involve

provision for people to assist acrossthe LoC should normal food suppliesbe cut off for either side or if exten-sive loss of human life seems immi-nent. The group could specify thekind of cooperation in terms ofnumber of people or type ofmachinery that could be exchangedshould a natural disaster occur.

The civil society could take thelead role in instituting communitybased training programs seeking tointegrate traditional coping mecha-nisms with modern techniques fordisaster mitigations. It could evenliaison with relevant governmentfunctionaries to ensure the necessarydisaster prevention infrastructure isavailable to each community in theregion. Again, Indian and Pakistanigovernments would have to allowcivil society organizations to coordi-nate on both sides of the LoC for thispurpose. Perhaps, a small number ofcivil society outfits could be allowedto maintain presence in Indian andPakistani Kashmir.

Financing the Plan

The entire plan is likely to costbetween $20-35 billion. Therefore,local resources will be inadequate.Both governments would thus have

tions with residents across the LoC.Since cellular and satellite-linkedcommunications are already acces-sible (this undermines the securitybased argument for restrictingcommunications), land-line commu-nication should also be allowed. Thisis essential if attractive cross-LoCtourism and trade regimes are to beinstituted.

Disaster Management

The 2005 earthquake was a starkreminder of the effects the artificialdivide between the people of Jammuand Kashmir could have in crisis situ-ations. People from both sides of theLoC were in close proximity to eachother but could not cross over to helptheir brethren. While such anexchange was allowed eventually, itwas much delayed and largelysymbolic.

Since Jammu and Kashmir isprojected to be home to active seismicactivity for the foreseeable future,both governments should considersetting up a joint disaster planninggroup which can work out a commonprotocol to interact and cooperate incase of disasters. Specifically, the plancould provision for disaster responsecenters close to the LoC as well as a



A. Heather Coyne and Moeed Yusuf.

Mr. Zulfiqar Abbasi, President, AzadJammu & Kashmir Chamber ofCommerce & Industry (AJKCCI), Mirpur(AJK), Pakistan

Ms. Safiya Aftab, Research Fellow,Strategic and Economic Policy Research(SEPR), Islamabad, Pakistan

Mr. Jatendra Bakshi, President, ActionCommittee for Return of Migrants,Satwari, Jammu (J&K), India; President,J&K Society of Technocrats; SecretaryGeneral, Jammu Consumers Council

Mr. Ved Bhasin, Chairman, KashmirTimes Group of Newspapers; President,J&K Institute of Peace, Justice andDemocracy, Jammu

Dr. Jeffrey Boutwell, Executive Director,Pugwash Conferences on Science andWorld Affairs, Washington, DC, USA;Member, Pugwash Council

Mr. Shahid Javed Burki, former VicePresident of World Bank, former FinanceMinister of Pakistan

Mr. Suba Chandran, Institute of Peaceand Conflict Studies, New Delhi, India

Prof. Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, Secretary-General, Pugwash Conferences onScience and World Affairs; Member,Pugwash Executive Committee; Professorof Mathematical Physics, University ofMilan, Italy

Ms. A. Heather Coyne, Center for Medi-ation and Conflict Resolution, US Insti-tute of Peace, Washington, DC, USA

Dr. SyedHamdani, Dean, Faculty of Arts,University of AJK, Muzaffarabad, andResearch Scholar, Harvard University;Executive Editor, International JournalHuman Development, UAJK; Coordi-nator, Divine Economics Research Group

Col. Rtd. Dr.Masood-ul-Hassan, CentralChairman, Kashmir Society of Scientificand Social Research, Muzaffarabad.Azad Kashmir, Pakistan

Dr. RifaatHussein, RIIS, Colombo, SriLanka

Mr. Happymon Jacob, Lecturer, Depart-ment of Strategic & Regional Studies,University of Jammu, J&K, India

Mr. Taimur AltafMalik, ExecutiveDirector, Research Society Of Interna-tional Law (RSIL), Lahore, Pakistan;Barrister-At-Law, Abs & Co Advocates& Corporate Counsels; Visiting FacultyMember, The Institute Of Legal Studies,Lahore

Lt.-Gen. (ret.) TalatMasood, Indepen-dent Columnist, Commentator andAnalyst, Islamabad, Pakistan

Mr. Sonam (Pinto) W.Narboo, Member,JK Legislative Assembly (Ladakh)

Amb.S. Palihakkara, United Nations,New York

Mr. Ram Sahai, President ChamberCommerce Jammu

Mr. Mubeen Shah, President ChamberCommerce Srinagar


Sen. Mushahid Hussain Syed

Mr. Moeed Yusuf, Consultant, EconomicPolicy, Sustainable Development PolicyInstitute, Islamabad, Pakistan

Participants

world. There is substantial role forthe private sector in the forest sector.Civil society involvement in theservices and social sectors would alsobe essential. Consequently, the publicsector monopolies would have to giveway, with the sector’s role beinglimited to one of a loose regulator.The most important function for thepublic sector would be to guaranteean investor friendly climate withclearly defined regulatory and legalframeworks, facilitate businessprocesses by reducing bureaucraticred-tape, enhance transparency andaccountability in official mecha-nisms, and most importantly provideclear boundaries for permissibleinteraction within which govern-ments would refrain from invokingsecurity concerns.

ically. This way, both governmentswould also be able to track transmis-sion of all funds, thus allying anysecurity concerns that may have.

Seeking a transformation inJammu and Kashmir’s economy

The ultimate objective of theeconomic development plan wouldbe to create a win-win whereby thepublic sector could withdraw gradu-ally, thus reducing its burden whileinviting private sector competitionwith attendant efficiency gains.

Industrial production and servicesindustries like tourism and IT mustbe driven by private sector involve-ment to ensure efficiency. Privatesector involvement would also be keyin Kashmir’s image projection andindustrial marketing around the

themselves in sectors of their interest.Another option would be to floatinternational bonds, say the“Kashmir bonds” to raise resources

The domestic banks will also havea role to play in terms of supportingsmall-scale investment. Financialcompetition within banks and otherslenders such as micro-credit institu-tions therefore needs to be increased.Commercial banks should be allowedto open their branches on both sidesof Kashmir. The Bank of Jammu isalready interested in openingbranches in Pakistan. If the govern-ments signaled their interest andprovisioned for Pakistani, Indian,and especially Kashmiri banks toenhance their presence on both sidesof the LoC, all investment and tradetransactions could be settled electron-





AGENDA

Friday 14 March 2008

Arrival of participants

20.00 Informal Reception and Dinner at the hotel

Saturday 15 March 2008

09.00–10.45 Session 1: Chair, Paolo Cotta-RamusinoThe Pugwash Project on Strengthening Intra-Kashmir Economic andCivil Society Cooperation

10:45–11:15 Coffee Break

11:15–13:00 Session 2: Chair, Jeffrey Boutwell`The Potential for Economic Cooperation Across the Line of Control

13:00–14:30 Lunch

14:30–16.00 Session 3: Chair, Talat MasoodPotential Areas of Economic Cooperation: Trade, Agriculture, Tourism

16.00–16.30 Coffee Break

16:30–18:00 Session 4 Chair, Jeffrey BoutwellFinancial and Legal Frameworks needed for intra-Kashmir Cooperation

20.00 Dinner

Sunday 16 March 2008

09.00–10.45 Session 4 Chair, Paolo Cotta-RamusinoCooperation among Educational Institutions


11:15–13:00 Session 5 Chair, Jeffrey BoutwellNatural Disaster Management

13.00–14.30 Lunch

14.30–16.00 Session 6 Chair, Jeffrey BoutwellImproving Civil Society Cooperation


16:30–18:00 Session 7 Chair, Paolo Cotta-RamusinoSummary Discussion of Facilitating Intra-Kashmir Economic and CivilSociety CooperationOpen Discussion

20.00 Dinner

Monday 17 March 2008

Departure of participants



Pugwash Workshop:Promoting Regional Stability in South Asia

Islamabad, Pakistan, 29-30 March 2008

ReportBy Claire Galez

healthy balance of power in thecountry and that democracy will, atlast, succeed in being staunchly insti-tutionalized. It is also hoped thatimproved governance will addressPakistani people’s major socio-economic and security concerns.Progress on the resolution of seriousissues of internal security as well ascritical bilateral relations, in partic-ular Pakistan-Afghanistan andPakistan-India relations, includingKashmir, also rest on a harmonizedvision of the civilian and militaryestablishments.

In spite of been stalled for sometime, the 5th round of India-Pakistancomposite dialogue will take place inApril-May this year. The compositedialogue needs to regain momentumand give impetus to the implementa-tion of agreed bilateral and Jammuand Kashmir specific CBMs,enhanced economic and securitycooperation, and a continued effortto build trust between the twonations. In security matters, forexample, Siachen and Sir Creek arenot infringing on the balance ofpower between the two countries andare therefore the least controversialissues. Arriving at an agreement onboth fronts would demonstratecommitment and political willtowards peace.

In this context, it is to be notedthat the ceasefire between India andPakistan on the line of Control (LoC)dividing Pakistan and India Adminis-

tered Kashmir has held since 2003.In different countries of the region,

people increasingly make their voiceheard claiming their right to agenuinely participatory system ofdemocracy, such as in Pakistan and inNepal. In Bhutan a smooth andenlightened transition towardsdemocracy looks promising.

Afghanistan remains critical onmany fronts but, with the help of theinternational community, the govern-ment has progressed in developing awide range of sector strategies with avision for the country as a wholefrom education, health care andaccess to basic facilities to macrodevelopment. Yet, the implementa-tion of these strategies must prove tobe successful. Fundamental securityissues such as the disentanglement ofmilitary operations from socio-economic reconstruction; economicand diplomatic relations withAfghanistan’s neighbours, especiallyCentral Asia; and adjustment ofcounter-insurgency operations inorder to lower the level of collateraldamages are also under seriousconsideration. The South and Easternregions are still very vulnerable,while Afghanistan and Pakistan arestruggling to find ways and means fora mutually beneficial rapprochement.

In all the countries of the region,there is hope that democratic institu-tions will develop in order to sustaina process of improved governanceand socio-economic development,

Framework of the meeting

Pugwash having conductedseveral workshops and meet-ings on critical bilateral and

intra-state conflicts in the heavilynuclearized South Asian andsurrounding region, it was felt that itis time to look at these conflicts in abroader regional context. Represen-tatives from Pakistan, Afghanistan,India, Iran, Europe and the UnitedStates participated in the March2008 Pugwash workshop in theirpersonal capacity and reflected onthe chances for an enlarged regionalcooperative framework addressingthe intertwined issues of security andeconomic cooperation at micro andmacro levels.

Three inter-related issues guidedthe debate:

• Afghanistan andPakistan–Afghanistan relations

• India-Pakistan relations and Jammuand Kashmir

• The War on Terror

Positive trends in the region:

Elections in Pakistan have broughtback a civilian government to powerafter almost 9 years of military rule.It is hoped that the restoration of acivilian administration will create a



improved regional and internationalrelations and to enhance the qualityof multi-track dialogues in order toresolve decades of internal and crossborder conflicts.

Pakistan-Afghanistan

Pakistan

Pakistan Western province and tribalareas remain extremely volatile. Thecoming to power of the AwamiLeague party in NWFP is a clear indi-cation of people’s rejection ofviolence and extremism. However,parties and groups associated tolethal political statements such assuicide bombing and random killings,causing heavy civilian casualties, arefar from been defeated on theground. Pakistan’s civilian govern-ment’s intention to re-establish adialogue with conservative elementsand warring factions in the region isa dicey exercise calling for heightenedcaution, yet one has seen straightmilitary operations conducted by thePakistani army, failing to restore lawand order.

Simultaneously, attempts at inte-grating the Provincially AdministeredTribal Area (PATA-NWFP) in auniformed system of governancealigned on the Centre (party politicsintroduced in the 1960s) have notbeen very successful. It has rathercompeted with the traditional systemof governance and weakened theauthority of the elders (Maliks). Thiscombined with extremely poor invest-ment, particularly in education, hasdeeply affected the traditional societalhierarchy where the authority of theelder got further swamped by acenturies old marginalized rural reli-gious, but increasingly poorlyeducated, male-dominated society. Insum, party politics is a plus in asystem that moves towards participa-

tory democracy as long as the Centreestablishes a trust relationship withthe province’s elected representativesand provides for urgent priorityneeds. Another centre of power in theProvince is the elders, with whomboth the Centre and local politicalduty-bearers need to establish consul-tative and constructive power-sharingmechanisms. On the other hand, theambitious self-perception of brutaland crude marginalized groups turnedpower-brokers (with or without thesupport of the State) mostly relyingon a very narrow understanding ofreligious principles, cannot be eithermilitarily and politically dismissed oreducationally and socially ignored.Result-oriented dialogue on power-sharing and developmentprogrammes are undoubtedly neces-sary but non-action in spawning aneducated elite in Sharia, Constitu-tional and customary law willpreclude any success in restoringsocial harmony and addressing one ofthe fundamental root causes ofconflict in the region.

NWFP (PATA and FATA) is hometo local and cross-border movementssuch as the Taliban, local militias andforeign elements. Their strength isexacerbated by three main factors.One is a difficult centre-provincerelation, as described above, wherecore issues failed to be addressed fordecades dangerously marginalizing awide range of the population; thesecond being a somewhat unchangedregional strategic vision and policyand the third being the military pres-ence of foreign troops.

Post 9.11, the “War on Terror”added to the already equation.Whereas military and security forces’intervention may be inevitable,dialogue should prevail at nationallevel for Pakistan to regain owner-ship of its own take in theWar

against Terror. A failure to do soexacerbates a populist perception ofillegitimate foreign (political andmilitary) interventionism and widensthe gap between the government andits people.

Afghanistan

Afghanistan Southern and Easternregions witness a revival of anti-government forces which no militaryintervention could claim a straightvictory against, quite the contrary.

After 6 years of intervention, thepresence of foreign political and mili-tary forces is not perceived as havingstabilized the country or significantlyimproved people’s lives. This createsresentment and runs the risk of aserious backlash.

The visibility of reconstructionefforts shrinks as divergent viewsdivide Afghanistan “friendly”powers. This, along with a dispro-portionate use of force (creatingcollateral damages) has seriousconsequences on people’s perceptionsand creates a vacuum easily occupiedby anti-government forces.

Although there are enormousamount of reconstruction moneyspledged to the country, the use offoreign contractors and subcontrac-tors causes enormous losses andlessen aid effectiveness.

Alleged overwhelming foreigninfluence together with high level ofcorruption and poor governanceundermine the legitimacy of thegovernment.

Illegal trade is far from receding.For the populations concerned acrossthe border there are first of allcenturies of unregulated traditionaltrade and little or no access to alter-native livelihood. On the other hand,a climate of impunity and high levelcorruption strengthens criminalitywhile the benefits of principally



narcotics and arms trade fortifywarring factions’ capabilities.

The announced 2009 electionsalready exacerbate tensions and thespread of terror attacks beyond theSouth and Eastern regions.

Looking Westward (in thiscontext), the isolation of Iran is gener-ally detrimental to regional coopera-tion and appeasement of conflict.

Pakistan-Afghanistan

Pakistan–Afghanistan divided(predominantly Pushto) regionremains extremely volatile politicallyand militarily. The region’s cross-border and intra-state conflicts onboth sides of the Durand Line keeps aproud and defensive majority popula-tion subdued to the conflicting inter-ests of several parties to the conflicts.

On both side of the border, anti-government forces are not homoge-nous as often portrayed but are prin-cipally formed of ethno-nationalists,religiously driven ideologues as wellas leaders with vested power andfinancial interests fueling amongstother factionalism and illegal trade.All these movements’ foot soldiers areoften destitute individuals who see noend to their ordeal and make a choiceby default or desperation and frustra-tion. A failure to de-construct theconcept of “the enemy” will erode thechances of tackling resurgent andstronger instability in the region.

India-Pakistan relations andJammu & Kashmir

India-Pakistan

The general perception is that ascompared to the situation in theWestern part of the Sub-Continent,some significant progress has beenmade both in terms of India-Pakistanrelations and on the issue of Jammuand Kashmir.

It is well understood that 60 yearsof breach of trust, wars and conflictcannot be resolve by the stroke of thepen. On the other hand, in the pastfew months, the situation in Pakistanhas not been very conducive tokeeping the momentum on bilateralrelations but it is undeniable that thefoundations for political under-standing have been firmly establishedin the past years.

It is also to be taken into consider-ation that State elections in IndianAdministered Kashmir in 2008 andnational elections in India in 2009will influence the pace of dialogueand implementation of both bilateraland Kashmir specific CBMs.

The latest developments inPakistan have demonstrated the posi-tive effect of a vigilant civil society.Strengthening civil society willstrengthen the leadership to takebolder steps towards rapprochementand improvement of relations.

Jammu and Kashmir

Positive trends

The achievements of Pakistani andIndian leaderships over the past fewyears should not be underestimated.

Both countries have begun torecognize and identify commoninterests in moving towards aresolution of the issue.

Improved cross-LoC relations areless and less perceived as an erosionof sovereignty by both countries.

Even if the Kashmir specific CBMshave so far not delivered, they remaina solid foundation to reinvigorate thedialogue process.

The creation of civilian institutionon both sides of the LoC with theperspective of exchange and reci-procity in the fields of education,professional exchanges, energy, cross-border trade, people to peoplecontact, etc. is attracting muchinterest.

Proportionately to the decrease ofviolence in Indian AdministeredKashmir, the prospect of withdrawaland reduction of troops remainsfirmly on the agenda.

It is generally understood that theprocess and genuine progress aremore important that the continuedargument on a possible end game.

It is generally understood thatthere should no longer be any consid-eration for a redrawing of borders.

Great Mosque, Islamabad.



It is hoped that the ceasefire on theLoC which has held since several yearswill become a permanent featureconsolidated by positive cross-bordercommunication and exchanges.

Critical issues

Consultation and inclusive dialoguewith the Kashmiri leadership on bothsides of the Line of Control (LoC)remains a source of concern on thepart of the Kashmiri leadership. Onthe other hand, Pakistan maintainsthat although it acknowledges thatthe UN resolutions do not offer theproper framework for the resolutionof the dispute any long term solutionon Kashmir should be acceptable andin the best interest of all Kashmirigroups.

It is widely acknowledged thatviolence and the use of force cannotenforce a solution but statesmanshipin both countries with more politicalwill and pro-active policies have beenlacking.

A great weakness in the past years’process has been the failure of posi-tive Track II initiatives to influence orsignificantly change the mindset atTrack I level.

Kashmir specific CBMs havelacked firm political support in bothcountries and failed to deliveraccording to people’s expectations.This is a dangerous trend. Both coun-tries need to go beyond a nationalsecurity syndrome and be pragmaticin resolving administrative hurdlesand unnecessary restrictions forexample on the movement of peopleand improved cross-LoC communi-cations.

Little progress has been made inintegrating and developing democ-ratic institutions in the NorthernAreas and in considering the regionas a major factor in favour ofregional cooperation.

Comparatively whereas APHC isin principle not barred from partici-pating in elections, the same is nottrue in Pakistan AdministeredKashmir. An enlarged and more equi-table electoral process muststrengthen Kashmiri people’s repre-sentation.

Iran in the regional context

Approached by the EU and Japan atthe early stage of consultation onAfghanistan (Bonn), Iran expressedits will to cooperate in the stabiliza-tion and reconstruction ofAfghanistan by handling reconstruc-tion and surgical security operationssimultaneously. Unfortunately, in theaftermath of the invasion of Iraq, thecontinued isolation of Iran and theconstant threat of war against thecountry set a dangerous trend

US embargo on any initiative ofregional cooperation in the energyand trade sectors further underminethe chances of multilateral benefitsfor the region.

Unless a constructive multilateraldialogue is initiated, there are littleprospect of stabilization in theregion.

The War on Terrorism

The principal stake-holders in theregion have different timeframes andstrategies less according to a genuineassessment of the situation than thatof their perception of nationalinterest:

The US intervention in the regionis driven by considerations of itssubjective global interests fromthe Middle East to China andCentral Asia.

Iran battles its isolation fightingUS interests directly or by proxyon the same terrain (fromMiddleEast to China and Central Asia).

NATO remains constrained byits dual role as a military andreconstruction force inAfghanistan

Pakistan half heartedly strugglesto maintain a level of negotia-tions with India while keeping itsstrategic precept of need for terri-torial depth and for a “friendly”government in Kabul. Now thatthe battle against extremism isfought on its own soil and that itrealizes military intervention willnot pay much dividends but toplease its allies, it is re-thinkingits strategies and approacheswith little guarantee of success.

India, strengthened by a strongereconomy and a new place on theworld stage is slower to respondto immediate conclusivemeasures of normalization ofrelations with Pakistan which itstill suspects of harbouring proxyenemy forces (Jihadism andterrorism) as an indirect militaryoption. India’s influence inAfghanistan is perceived bycompeting powers as a threat.

An amalgamation and short cut iden-tification of “the enemy” leads tounsophisticated and often dispropor-tionate use of force provoking collat-eral damages that engenders highresentment serving the cause of lethalanti-government forces both inPakistan and in Afghanistan. Thesame reinforces the links betweenlocal and foreign elements.

A public perception of a foreigndominated agenda in the region hasde-legitimized national governmentswith dire consequences.

Conclusions

Starting from cross border conflicts(Pakistan–Afghanistan / Pakistan-India-Jammu &Kashmir) andextending to the volatile situation in



rest of the region, a zero sum gamewill bring no short or long termbenefit to the countries of the regionand beyond. Conflicts in theseregions have destroyed the fabric ofsociety. There are no other ways butto cement relations rather than tryingto by-pass each other. Each party tothe conflicts and war in the regionhas to come to the realization thatvested interests or a misconstruedperception of the 21st century secu-rity paradigm will ultimately notserve its own aim. From Egypt toChina, the South, West and CentralAsian region is one of the two epicen-ters of peace or destabilization in theworld.

Since the Soviet era to now, thewhole region has born the cost ofconflict in Afghanistan. Proliferationof arms, emergence of extremeideology, proliferation of unregulated

and illicit trade, flows of refugees,destitution and marginalization ofentire sections of populations,increased factionalism, etc. all coun-tries are affected. Working on aninclusive cooperative regional frame-work is essential to strengthen liberalforces and re-establish viable socio-economic conditions for billions ofpeople.

In shedding their own vestedinterest Iran and Pakistan can be verypositive forces in the stabilization ofthe whole region

Strengthening of democratic stateinstitutions and robust economicreforms are essential for the govern-ments of the region to regain legiti-macy in the eyes of their citizens.

The question of border controland of proportionate use of force isessential in avoiding collateraldamages both on the Pakistani and

Afghan sides of the border. There is agreat and urgent need for cooperativesecurity mechanisms. A genuineassessment of military interventionand a thorough analysis of the failureto deliver principally in theeconomic, justice and rule of lawsectors are urgently needed by allparties concerned, including by theinternational community at large,NATO and the United States.

In both case of Kashmir and Push-toon areas, there are ways to restorenational harmony and identitieswithout re-questioning the borders.

A wide range of areas of coopera-tion inclusive of all countries in theregion from Iran to China need to beexplored and considered more seri-ously as a deterrent to further desta-bilization and as a mean to margin-alize anti-government and extremistforces.

Participants

Mr. Omar Abdullah, Member of Parlia-ment (Lok Sabha); National ConferencePresident, Srinagar, India

Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, Making Informa-tion Work, Mirpur, Kashmir, India

Mr. Imtiaz Alam, Secretary-General,South Asian Free Media Association(SAFMA); Editor, Current Affairs, TheNews, Pakistan; Editor, South AsianJournal and South Asian Media Net,Lahore, Pakistan

Prof. Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, Secretary-General, Pugwash Conferences onScience and World Affairs; Member,Pugwash Executive Committee; Professorof Mathematical Physics, University ofMilan, Italy

Ms. Claire Galez, Consultant for theUnited Nations, Kabul, Afghanistan;Director, Centre for South Asian Studies(CSAS), Geneva, Switzerland; Research

Dr. Peter Jones, Member, PugwashCouncil; Associate Professor, GraduateSchool of Public and InternationalAffairs, University of Ottawa, Ontario,Canada

Dr. Arun Joshi, Chief of Bureau ( J&K),Hindustan Times, Jammu (J&K), India

Mr. Fayaz Kaloo, Editor,GreaterKashsmir, J&K, India

Mr. Afzal Khan Lala, Durushkhella,District Swat

Mr. Amanullah Khan, Jammu andKashmir Liberation Front, Rawalpindi,Pakistan

Amb. Aziz Ahmad Khan, retired Ambas-sador, Islamabad, Pakistan

Mr.Humayun Khan, former ForeignSecretary of Pakistan

Associate, Centre for Asian Studies(Geneva University – GIIS/GIDS)

Mr. EjazHaider, Op-Ed Editor, TheDaily Times; Consulting Editor, TheFriday Times, Lahore, Pakistan

Prof. PervezHoodbhoy, Member,Pugwash Council; Professor of NuclearPhysics, Department of Physics, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Mr. Happymon Jacob, AssistantProfessor, Department of Strategic &Regional Studies, University of Jammu,J&K; Visiting Fellow, Nelson MandelaCentre for Peace and Conflict Resolution,Jamia Millia Islamic University, NewDelhi, India

Dr. Neil Joeck, Senior Fellow, Center forGlobal Security Resesarch, Global Secu-rity Principal Directorate, LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory, Liver-more, CA, USA



Mr. M. Ismail Khan, IndependentAnalyst; Peace and human rights activist

Sen.Maulana Gul Naseeb Khan, Jamiati-Ulumai-Islam, Member, Asian Parliamen-tary group

Dr. Rashid Ahmad Khan, SeniorResearch Fellow, Islamabad PolicyResearch Institute (IPRI), Pakistan

Mr. Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, AllJammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference

Mr. Sardar Khalid Ibrahim Khan, Presi-dent, Jammu Kashmir People’s Party,Islamabad, Pakistan

Mr. Afrasyab Khattak, Awami NationalParty

Prof. Saideh Lotfian, Member, PugwashCouncil; Associate Professor of PoliticalScience, and Associate Dean forResearch, Faculty of Law and PoliticalScience, University of Tehran, Iran

Justice Abdul MajeedMallick, President,Jammu & Kashmir Liberation League,Mirpur, Azad J&K; retired Chief Justice,Azad Kashmir High Court

Mr. Mohammad HadiMarifat, HumanRights Assistant, UNAMA, Kabul,Afghanistan

Lt.-Gen. (ret.) TalatMasood, Indepen-dent Columnist, Commentator andAnalyst, Islamabad, Pakistan; retired Lt.General; Secretary, Defence ProductionDivision, Ministry of Defence

Prof. AmitabhMattoo, Vice Chancellor,University of Jammu, Jammu, J&K,India; Member, Prime Minister’s TaskForce on Global Strategic Developments;Professor of Disarmament Studies, Schoolof International Studies, JawaharlalNehru University (JNU), New Delhi

Dr. StevenMiller, Chair, Pugwash Execu-tive Committee; Director, InternationalSecurity Program, Center for Science &International Affairs (CSIA), HarvardUniversity, Cambridge, Massachusetts,USA

Amb. MahmoudMoosavi, formerAmbassador of Iran to Pakistan

Hon. MehboobaMufti, Member ofParliament and President, Jammu andKashmir Peoples Democratic Party, India

Prof. AbdulNayyar, Sustainable Devel-opment Policy Institute, Islamabad,Pakistan; on leave from the PhysicsDepartment, Quaid-i-Azam University,Islamabad

Mr. Abul Ahrar Ramizpoor, HumanRights Officer, Central Region Office-UNAMA

Ms. Robin Raphel, Senior Vice President,Cassidy & Associates, Washington DC,USA

Mr. Nasser Saghafi-Ameri, Senior Fellow,Foreign Policy and International Rela-tions Department (FPIRD), Center forStrategic Research, Tehran, Iran

Hon. Abdul Sattar, Member, Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protec-tion of Human Rights, Palais desNations, Geneva, former ForeignMinister of Pakistan

Mr. Abdul Rasheed Shaheen, Member ofParliament from Baramulla

Amb. Najmuddin Shaikh, retiredPakistan Foreign Service Officer;Member, Board of Governors, Institute ofStrategic Studies, Islamabad; Senior VicePresident, Karachi Council of ForeignRelations

Ms. Attia Ali Shams, Political AffairsOfficer, Central Regional Office (CRO)-UNAMA, Kabul, Afghanistan


Sir Hilary Synnott KCMG, ConsultingSenior Fellow, International Institute forStrategic Studies, UK; Eric LaneHonorary Fellow, Clare College,Cambridge

Prof. SiddiqWahid, Vice Chancellor,Islamic University at Awantipora, J&KState, India

Mr. Moeed Yusuf, Consultant, EconomicPolicy, Sustainable Development PolicyInstitute, Islamabad, Pakistan

Ms. Nasim Zehra, Independent Colum-nist and TV Anchor ; Fellow, HarvardUniversity Asia Centre

P U G W A S H S T A F F

Claudia Vaughn, Program Coordinator,Pugwash Conferences, via della Lungara10, I-00165 Rome, Italy, Tel. (++39-0765) 607770, Fax: (++39-06) 687-8376,Mobile: (++39-333) 456-6661, E-mail:[email protected]



P U G W A S H W O R K S H O P N O . 3 3 8

European Security and Cooperative Approaches to Arms ControlPotsdam, Germany, 6–8 June 2008

Report byGötz Neuneck

arms-control debate within Europe –including Eastern Europe and Russia.Additionally, two internationalappeals fromWestern (“Bring theAdapted CFE Treaty into Force,”November 2007) and Russianexperts, academics, and former diplo-mats (“Re-vitalize the CFE TreatyRegime,” March 2008) [see thePugwash website] have recentlyunderlined the need to overcome thecurrent stalemate in European co-operative security arrangements,which could lead to new dividinglines and confrontation.

The German Pugwash Groupdecided at short notice to hold aPugwash workshop on “EuropeanSecurity and CooperativeApproaches to Arms Control” inPotsdam, near Berlin. The goals ofthe workshop were to bring togetherhigh-ranking decision makers andacademic experts from the UnitedStates, the Russian Federation, andEurope to discuss problems of Euro-pean security and arms control inreference to a number of concreteissues; to identify options for futureaction that could strengthen coopera-tive security structures; and to boostdialogue between the participatingactors and organizations. The work-shop was attended by around 25participants. The lack of preparationtime (planning only started in April2008), was compounded by theinability of many academics andexperts to attend due to other obliga-tions. Nevertheless, the interest in

discussing crucial arms-control issueson the part of experts, officials, andacademics was very high.

In his welcoming address, Secre-tary General Paolo Cotta-Ramusinonoted that, under the current circum-stances, Europeans should be able tosolve their low-level conflicts, andcalled for them to use the workshopto think beyond the traditional armscontrol discourse. The first session,“European Security and the Status ofArms Control,” focused on the poorshape of key arms control agreementssuch as the bilateral START Treaty,the NPT, the Outer Space Treaty, andthe conventional arms controlregime. Unfortunately, militarymatters, unresolved disputes overflank regulations, and the unwilling-ness of some parties to undertakefurther reductions are causing long-standing regulations to be over-turned. Many participants stressedthat arms control could be for thebenefit of all parties and that co-operative arms control is a goodinsurance policy when facing anuncertain future. A discussion of thehistorical lessons that can be learnedand the promise of specific aspects ofarms control for the future is urgentlyneeded. A number of participantspointed out that NATO’s ongoingexpansion and US missile defensedeployments are complicatingfactors.

The second session, “The CFETreaty: Different Perspectives –Options for Preserving the Treaty

Key arms-control agreementsthat were negotiated in thelatter stages of the Cold War

and which contributed significantlyto bringing that conflict to an end areincreasingly losing their significance.Following the cancellation of theABM and START II treaties, Euro-pean arms control agreements arenow also being affected by thiserosion. The Treaty on ConventionalForces in Europe (CFE) wassuspended by President Putin on 12December 2007 in response to theNATO states’ failure to ratify theAdapted CFE Treaty and to fulfilladditional Russian demands. USplans to install components of aglobal missile defence system inPoland and the Czech Republic andthe potential of further NATOenlargement are further sources ofRussian grievance. There is concernthat further treaties, such as the INFTreaty, the Vienna Document, or theTreaty on Open Skies, could also beaffected by this trend. The collapse ofEuropean arms control would havefar-reaching consequences for Euro-pean and international security.

As we all know, Pugwash played asignificant role in helping to end theCold War and to establish compre-hensive arms control agreements. Forthis reason, the Pugwash communityshould invest more in shaping the



Regime,” revolved around thesuspended CFE Treaty and theunwillingness of NATO countries toratify the Adapted CFE Treaty. Onepaper outlined the stabilizing func-tion that the CFE Treaty exerts onEurope. Future steps could includethe lowering of national and territo-rial ceilings as a compensation forNATO expansion. Minor issuesshould not dominate the CFEagenda. The hope was expressed thatarms control should not be under-mined by the so-called “frozenconflicts.”

The third session focused on“Missile Defense and Security inEurope.” One paper outlined themajor difference between technolog-ical reality and political concernsover a new strategic threat, which isonly expected to emerge in severaldecades. Known as “third-site”missile defense, the deployment ofcomponents of the US missile-defensein Poland and the Czech Republictouches Russian strategic sensitivities.The emergence of missile defensecapability is directly related tonuclear arsenals and the future ofnuclear disarmament. The discussionagain reflected the confusion on tech-nical questions and political ambi-tions. There is also no homogeneousEuropean position, which gives thesuperpowers the opportunity todominate the discourse.

In the next session, “NuclearDisarmament and Arms Control inEurope,” two papers shed light onthe NATO tactical nuclear weapons(TNWs) that remain in Europe,explaining the obstacles to furtherreductions or total elimination. The2010 NPT Review Conference is aperfect opportunity to end thedeployment of US nuclear weaponsin Europe. Participants mentioned

the double standards of Westernnonproliferation policies as well assecurity concerns regarding thestorage of these weapons, and callswere made for new initiatives in thiscomplex field. Under these circum-stances, the Russian governmentseems to be less inclined to reduce thenumber of TNWs that it has instorage.

The final session provided spacefor additional comments and sugges-tions. Many agreed that arms controlis becoming more difficult as a resultof the complex political environment.The general public and the world ofhigh politics are less sensitive to thearms control agenda. There is somehope remaining that cooperativearrangements in the fields of conven-tional arms control (ratification ofthe AFCE-Treaty) or missile defense(cooperative missile defense activi-ties) may be able to help overcomethe impasse. An impression was alsoleft that the positions of the two sidesare not as far away from each otheras they are sometimes presented asbeing. However, it also become clearthat unforeseen events could cause adownward spiral that could lead thesituation to deteriorate in Europe andmight ruin the benefits of the armscontrol infrastructure, which are thefruits of common interests and thework of the last decade.

Working Papers

Wolfgang Zellner: European Securityand the Status of Arms Control

Hans-Joachim Schmidt: The CFETreaty: Different Perspectives –Options for Preserving the TreatyRegime

Marco de Andreis: EliminatingNATO Tactical Nuclear Weapons,Unione Scienziati Per Il Disarmo

Martin Butcher:NATO, ArmsControl and European Security

Götz Neuneck: Technical and Polit-ical Realities of Ballistic MissileDefense in Europe



VLR I Michael Biontino, Head of Unit242 of the German Federal ForeignOffice, Berlin

Martin Butcher, Acronym Institute,London, UK

Lieutenant-General Eugeny Buzhinskiy,Chief of the International Treaty Direc-torate, Deputy Chief of the Main Interna-tional Military Cooperation Directorate,Ministry of Defense, Russian Federation,Moscow

Prof. Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, SecretaryGeneral of the Pugwash Conferences onScience and World Affairs, Milan/Rome

Marco De Andreis, Fondazione Ugo LaMalfa, Rome

Sergey Federyakov, Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Russian Federation, Moscow

Brigadier General (ret.) Greg Govan,former US Chief Representative to theJoint Consultative Group

VLR I Thomas Göbel, Unit 240 of theGerman Federal Foreign Office, Berlin

Andreas Kintis, Directorate NATO/WEU,Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece,Brussels

Ambassador Rüdiger Lüdeking, ForeignOffice, Berlin

Mike Miggins, Head of the Arms ControlSection, Political Affairs and SecurityPolicy Division, NATO, Brussels

Prof. Götz Neuneck, Senior ResearchFellow at the Institute for Peace Researchand Security Policy at the University ofHamburg, Pugwash Germany

Colonel (GS) Wolfgang Richter, Perma-nent Mission of Germany to the Organi-zation for Security and Cooperation inEurope (OSCE), Vienna

Dr Hans-Joachim Schmidt, SeniorResearch Fellow at the Peace ResearchInstitute Frankfurt/M. (PRIF)

Larry Schultz, Senior Adviser on CFETreaty Matters, US Department of State,Washington, DC

Petr Chalupecký, Security Policy Depart-ment at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofthe Czech Republic, Prague

Ömer Burhan Tüzel, Control and Disar-mament Department of the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Turkey, Ankara

Dr Wolfgang Zellner, Deputy Director atthe Institute for Peace Research and Secu-rity Policy at the University of Hamburg,Head of the Centre for OSCE Research(CORE)

Participants


UNIVERSITY OF ROME “TOR VERGATA” • USPID–SEZIONE DI TRENTOUNIVERSITY OF TRENTO • FORUM TRENTINO PER LA PACE

Autonomous Province of Trento

ITALIAN PUGWASH GROUPINTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ON DISARMAMENT AND RESEARCH ON CONFLICTS

ISODARCOFounded in 1966

22nd WINTER COURSE

Nuclear Futures: What Would Nuclear Disarmament Look Like?ANDALO (TRENTO), ITALY, 11–18 JANUARY 2009

ISODARCO has organized residential courses on global security since 1966 primarily in Italy but also in China, Germanyand Jordan with the generous support of private foundations and international and national institutions and organiza-tions. The courses are intended for those who would like to play a more active and technically competent role in thefield of international conflicts as well as those who already have a professional interest and experience in this field. Thecourses are intensive, interactive and interdisciplinary in focus. The subject matter span not only the technical and scien-tific dimensions of these problems but also their sociological and political implications. After a decade and more duringwhich the issues posed by nuclear weapons were largely eclipsed by concerns over ethnic wars and the threat of terrorism,there is renewed serious interest in the goal of nuclear disarmament. The 2009 ISODARCO Winter School will bedevoted to considering the political, economic, and technical implications of moving toward nuclear disarmament withinthe next decade or so and the operational steps that might be taken in the near future toward that goal.

INVITED LECTURERS

James Acton (King’s College, London, UK); Alexey Arbatov (Carnegie Moscow Center, Russia);Nadia Arbatova (Institute of the World Economy and International Relations, Moscow, Russia);

Bates Gill (SIPRI, Sweden); Lynn Eden (CISAC, Stanford University, CA, USA);David Holloway (Stanford University, CA, USA); Götz Neuneck (University of Hamburg, Germany);

Etel Solingen (University of California, Irvine, CA, USA)

Additional information on the School can be found at: www.isodarco.it

DIRECTORS OF THE COURSECatherine M. Kelleher, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

Judith Reppy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

DIRECTOR OF THE SCHOOLCarlo Schaerf, University of Rome “Tor Vergata,” Rome, Italy

I S O D A R C O


You met Albert Einstein in Princeton…

Well, Einstein was an acquaintance of my father. InPrinceton, my parents didn’t drive a car and Einsteindidn’t drive a car, so I was sort of the designated driver. SoI would drive Einstein and my father around while theywere having discussions in the back seat.

You said your father wasn’t interested in science, so whatdid he and Einstein talk about?

Einstein was sort of interested in the mythology of science,how the pursuit of science related to ancient beliefs andmy father was very well acquainted with cultural history.So they had a lot of discussions about how things changedfrom mysticism to science and from belief to science. Theywere interested mainly in the philosophical foundations ofscience.

Anybody would think that having Einstein around wouldbe a great influence in the life of a physicist, but do youthink he had an influence on you?

No. I was just trying to help my father to get around. Wehad no intellectual relation. I knew he was a great andfamous physicist, but that’s all. He was a nice man but wehad no discussion on physics.

Interview with Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky (1919–2007)May 30–June 1, 2007

by María José Viñas

S P E C I A L R E P O R T

In your memoirs, you mention that your parents, bothenthusiasts of art, were disappointed by the fact that yourbrother and you chose the science path…

They were not disappointed. My father [Edwin Panofsky]was a very well-known professor of the history of arts andmy mother was also a student of art history. So they hadabsolutely no interest in science. And both my brother andI got interested in science, so my parents called their kids“the plumbers”. But it was not criticism; to them it wassort of amusing. They helped whenever they could to buyus gadgets and tools and whatever. They were verysupportive, but just intellectually not very interested.

Then, how did you get interested in science if you didn’thave a scientific-oriented family?

As a kid I liked building things and I put together a tinker-ers’ club of fellow students. We got together and builtgadgets. When my family was forced to leave Germany,we went to the United States and I entered Princeton at avery early age, at 15. My knowledge of English was verybad, so it was sort of natural to concentrate in science. Itwas relatively easy for me to pursue the scientific directionbecause I could do that without being much impeded bymy very poor knowledge of English.

So was it a mix of coincidence and interest?

Opportunity and interest. I mainly took courses in physics,engineering and science, so one thing led to another.

This is likely one of the last interviews given byWolfgang Panoksky, known to his many friends andcolleagues as ‘Pief.’ Prof. Panofsky was one of theearliest of the prominent American physicists to devotehis efforts to ensuring that nuclear weapons wouldnever again be used in warfare. He first attended aPugwash meeting in Stowe, Vermont, in 1961, andcontinued to support the Pugwash movementthroughout his life.


Do you regret that now?

Well, there was no way at that time. I didn’t knowanything. I was around 15.

What about meeting Wolfgang Pauli, was it any different?

It was somewhat similar. My father and Pauli weremembers of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton.They also talked about similar things, about mysticism.Pauli in particular was interested in how science related tothe culture of different evolving times. I met Pauli againmuch later, after I did some experiments in Berkeley I gavea talk in Princeton and Pauli asked questions and so forth.

And did you manage them well?

Oh yes! He would sit in the front row, nodding his headand you would think he was asleep, but he was not.

How did you get involved in the Manhattan Project?

It was fairly accidental. During the war, almost all physi-cists were drawn into military activities. I was working atCaltech on measuring shockwaves from high speedprojector, and then I got drawn into the ManhattanDistrict. Luis Alvarez was at Los Alamos and [Walter]Oppenheimer asked him to develop methods to measurethe strength of the nuclear explosions. Alvarez read someof the papers that we had written at Caltech and he said,“Hey, those people have done my job, so I don’t have todo it.” So he got in touch with [Jesse] DuMont, my thesissupervisor at Caltech. I just went back and forth betweenCaltech and Los Alamos, carrying with me some of theinstruments which I had built at Caltech for measuring theshockwaves of the bullets, and then reengineered them tomeasure the shockwaves from nuclear bombs. Thosedevices were used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki; theairplanes that dropped the bomb also dropped with aparachute the gadgets that I had designed to measure theshockwaves.

Why was it so important to measure the shockwave?

Obviously the physicists who had designed the thingwanted to know how well it worked, how close the actualperformance was compared to the calculations. And theshockwave is a very precise way to measure the energyreleased from the bomb.

How was the measuring of the first test of the bomb?

We planned to use our device in the first test in July 1945in Alamogordo, but the weather was bad. I was in anairplane over the bomb, but Mr. Oppenheimer ordered us

to stay away at a safe distance, 20 miles away. Since it wasthe first bomb, nobody knew exactly how much pressureit would cause. We took sketches of the mushroom cloudand all that, but we didn’t drop the gadget.

So your only participation with the Manhattan project wasregarding the shockwave measuring device?

Oppenheimer refused to have any information barrieramong the different scientific people who worked [at LosAlamos]. So even when I was working on instrumentationto measure the blast wave, I was invited to all the meet-ings, where they talked about the design of the bomb andall the other great secrets. So I was well informed of thewhole business, but I was not involved in the actualbuilding or designing of the bomb.

How long did you work in the Manhattan Project?

A bit over a year. Everything went much faster during thewar than today; there was minimum bureaucracy, peopledidn’t worry much about where things went and wheremoney was spent… it was all “get the job done” and we’ddo the paperwork later. So I worked quite hard inadapting these things, and they were used overseas but Ididn’t go. Alvarez did.

And after the war, you moved to Berkeley…

Luis Alvarez was a professor on leave from Berkeley andhe developed some ideas about using surplus leftovermaterials from radars to build the power sources for alinear accelerator. He had liked my work at Los Alamos sohe twisted my arm to join him in Berkeley. I became sortof his deputy in building the proton linear accelerator inBerkeley in 1945.

From what I have read in your memoir, it seems thatAlvarez wasn’t an easy person to work with, right?

Well, he was an interesting person. He was what todaywould be considered a conservative. He didn’t reallyunderstand the color grey: things were either black orwhite. And he had a great deal of self-confidence, so hehad strong opinions on what was right and what waswrong. We disagreed often on political subjects, but weremained good friends. And he was a great physicist, hewas the “show-me” type: he didn’t like to acceptauthority, he would only do those things that he person-ally understood very well.

What was your work at Berkeley?

I basically did the detailed engineering work on the accel-erator and supervised about 30 people working in it. I was


what today would be called a project manager, and I neverknew what the budget was. We built the proton acceler-ator, and it worked. I did some theoretical work on theaccelerator, but mainly practically put it together. InBerkeley, there was no distinction like there’s here betweenaccelerator builders and experimentalists; as a reward forhaving built a machine, you could use it. I did somemeasurements on proton-proton scattering with thatmachine. Those were days in Berkeley that were veryexciting; at the same time that the proton accelerator wasbuilt, the synchrocyclotron and the synchrotron werebuilt, and I did experiments in all of those. It was sort ofan informal arrangement. And I learnt a lot of physics inthe process: before I went to Berkeley I had had no contactwith nuclear physics or particle physics.

You left Berkeley due to political reasons, right?

Berkeley at that time was probably the most productiveand exciting place to be in high-energy particle physics,but then they had this disaster. This was the year of[Senator Joseph] McCarthy, who thought the world wasfull of communists and they were infiltrating everything.Accusations were made that universities’ faculties andcommunities were full of communists, so the vice-presi-dent of the university, who was sort of the lobbyist forBerkeley in Sacramento, reported to the university’s presi-dent Robert Gordon Sproul that the legislators were goingto pass some laws which would make it illegal to employanyone in the university who had some kind of communistbackground. So instead, the president decided to have allmembers of the staff and faculty to swear an oath statingthat they had never been members of a communist-associ-ated organization. The Loyalty Oath caused a lot ofcommotion on campus. Interestingly enough, people whohad European background were much more sensitive toget offended to swear an oath, because Mussolini in Italyalso used an oath to get rid of people he didn’t like. Somost Americans took this sort of as being dirty politics,but some people refused. I actually signed it, because I hadalready signed so many other things: during the securityclearances for the Manhattan District, I had signed allthese investigations that I wasn’t a spy. But when it wasclear that the rights of the people who had a strongconscience about such matters were not respected, I gotvery unhappy and I told the laboratory I was leaving.

Did they let you go easily?

Ernest Lawrence drove me to the house of John Neylan,who was the chairman of the board of regents of the

University of California to talk about why I was unhappy,because Mr. Lawrence didn’t want me to go away. So Mr.Neylan, who was an old man in his 70s, said “Young man,what is bothering you?” And I told him that the rights ofpeople who had strong conscience about such mattersshould be respected. So Mr. Neylan said “Now listen here,young man”. And I never opened my mouth again for twohours. Actually, it was interesting and illuminating: Mr.Neylan didn’t care that much about communism, he justfelt that the faculty members had behaved irresponsibly.

What do you mean?

They had kept changing their mind about how to react tothis: some people suggested changing the words in theoath; others said they didn’t want any oath… People triedto compromise in various ways and they were not negoti-ating in a responsible manner. But that’s the way profes-sors behave. So this mainly proved to me that Mr. Neylandidn’t really understand the academic animals very well.But anyway, I quit, and since I had published some verywell-known papers, I got a whole raft of offers of employ-ment, including from Princeton, Bell Telephone Laborato-ries, Columbia… But then, two people from Stanfordshowed up in my office and twisted my arm to make mecome to Stanford.

What did they do to convince you?

It was easy. In my soul, I didn’t really want to leave and inaddition, I had lots of kids, so just moving across the Baywas sort of a bit of a compromise. But Alvarez told me “Ifyou go to Stanford, you’ll never do anything again.”

Was that a threat?

No, he said that like a friend. He said: “Please don’t leave.If you go to Stanford you’ll be just teaching some coursesand you won’t do anything again.” But I left anyway. Lifeat Stanford was very complicated in the beginning becauseat that time there was on the one hand the development ofelectron linear accelerators and in the other hand therewere some very good physicists who were trying to use theaccelerator, like Robert Hofstadter, but they didn’t talk toone another. There was very bad understanding hereabout the essential unity between your tools and yourexperiments — there was a rather sharp division betweenthe accelerator builders and the experimentalists, andthere were all sorts of totally paradoxical things. Theybuilt an accelerator, but it ended 6 inches from the backwall, so there was no room to do any experiments. Hofs-tadter tried to set up the experiments on the side, but he


didn’t resolve how to do that. What Stanford needed badlywas to unify the communities of accelerator builders andaccelerator users, and theoreticians. I had experience inexactly that, so that worked there. I also designed somegadgets for filtering the beam, so experimentalist wouldknow exactly what energy width they had to work with.But at the same time, since I was a member of the physicsdepartment faculty, and all members of the faculty had toteach freshmen. So even though some of us had heavyresponsibilities in building things, organizing things, allthat, we all taught freshman physics. And in addition tothat, I got involved in arms control and other military stufffor the government. So I had sort of a triple life betweenteaching, trying to turn a high-energy physics laboratoryinto a productive institution and then running back andforth to Washington.

You made the proposal for building the Stanford LinearAccelerator Center in 1957. How did things develop fromthere?

Well, several people felt that the work at the high-energyphysics lab was very successful: Hofstadter had done hisexperiments in electron scattering and I directed 14 differentPhD theses at the time, and various experiments of particlephysics on the decaying spectrum of the muon and electro-pion production. We gave lots of reports at internationalconferences, so the work here became very well know. Sosuddenly the linear accelerator business put Stanford in themap of high-energy particle physics. That induced several ofus to think about the next step, so we had a series of meet-ings and we designed a proposal to build the next verymuch larger machine. And then some of the theoreticianslooked at some of the possible experiments with the acceler-ator. But what we proposed to do and what SLAC actuallydid was a completely different thing.

How so?

The proposal to build SLAC is an amazing document. Ifyou compare to what is now demanded, it is ridiculous, itonly has 50 pages. We mainly proposed to extend thework in electron scattering from the high energy physicslaboratory, and we proposed to use the electron machineas a source of secondary particles [pions and others] tostudy their interaction. But there was no mention ofinelastic scattering, there was no mention of creating newleptons…. So the whole bunch of things with which SLAChas contributed to the evolution of the work on the stan-dard model, nothing of that was foreseen.

I understand that what followed was a bit of a bureaucraticnightmare…

The problem was that since this proposal was a very newinitiative, we didn’t even know which part of the govern-ment we should send the project to. At that time, theNational Science Foundation had just been created, whilethe Atomic Commission had lots of experience insupporting the various organizations which were left overafter the Manhattan District, including UC Berkeley. Onthe other hand, the Department of Defense and the Navyhad been supporting the work at Stanford, at the high-energy physics laboratory. We had no idea whom toaddress the proposal, so we submitted it to all three ofthese governmental agencies and we spent quite a lot oftime running around Washington, giving briefings on whatthe proposal was about. The government had establisheda special committee to advice on the future of high-energyphysics, and they wrote a very positive report. PresidentEisenhower designated that the Atomic Commissionsshould be the constituent agency on behalf of the entireUnited States to manage high-energy physics, mainlybecause of their experience in running big projects. So theAtomic Commission, now the Department of Energy,inherited the responsibility.

And the Eisenhower made a speech endorsing SLAC’sconstruction. But he had forgot some formality…

Eisenhower had forgot to consult the Congress beforemaking the speech, and at that time we had a Democraticcongress and a Republican administration, and theCongress decided not to approve it to “slap” Eisenhowerfor not having asked them beforehand. Then there waslots of back and forth politics, but then after a delay of afew years, congress did approve the construction of Stan-ford’s two-mile machine and a certain project in Hanford,Washington, which the Democrats wanted. In 1961 SLACgot approved and in between we had money fromCongress to continue designing the engineering. We puttogether a very good team, and we were able to recruit avery good group of architect engineering management tomanage the civil construction.But the main thing, I felt again that because of the unitybetween the experiments, we had to design and build theexperimental facilities at the same time as building theaccelerator, although that was not the costume at thattime. So then the machine got built and the rest is history.

How would you compare what it was building SLAC towhat it is today building an international facility?


While building SLAC, the job of the director was mucheasier. This was inherited from the war: from the war peoplerecognized that a bunch of physicists, if highly motivated,can really manage these giant projects and do them rapidly.SLAC was built within budget, within proposed perfor-mance and on schedule. We met exactly what we proposedto do. And the government basically didn’t want to ask inreal detail. I mean, of course we accounted for the moneyand all that, but the government did not really have thecapability to track that we were able to do that. But now,that memory of what physicists can do has sort of faded andthe trust of the government in physicists to manage theirown affairs has sort of eroded in time. So now there’s a lotmore details, supervision and accountancy. That means thattoday’s directors have to spend a lot more time and effort inadministration than on the science, which is unfortunate. Sounder today’s conditions we could have not possibly builtthis machine in four years. But we did.

Research in accelerator-based particle physics is becomingmore and more expensive, since there’s always need for abigger machine. Do you think that in the future, interna-tional collaborations will be needed to fund this research?

The answer to that question is technically no, politicallyyes. Technically, it is obvious that the next acceleratorcould easily be afforded just by United States, or just byEurope or just by Asia. If you look at the numbers,roughly speaking the next accelerator will cost around 10billion dollars. Now that’s what the United States spendsin the Iraq war in one week. So clearly the U.S. couldafford it, could build the next generation of acceleratorsfor particle physics. But since the fraction of money whichwe spend in basic science is whatever it is; the generalagreement is that the next generation of a major acceler-ator must be an international undertaking. That’s basicallya political conclusion, not a technical conclusion.

And the problem with international collaborations is thatthe administrative complexities that go with them makelife extremely complicated. So accelerator-based physics isin real trouble because the time scales are so long that isnot clear to me how the career pattern of young people onwhom we depend for new ideas, new initiatives, how theircareer pattern fits to this timescale.

You have been, and still are, a member of the JASONdefense advisory group. How did you get involved with thisgroup and what are your duties?

Right after the war, several people, particularly Marvin

Goldberger, who later became president of Caltech,worried about the fact that although during the war scien-tists had been interested in security affairs, now everybodyhad gone back to their campuses to teach or do research.He felt that scientists should keep involved in securityaffairs. So he founded what’s called the JASON, which is agroup of scientists, initially mainly physicists but now alsoa lot of biologists, who were interested in issue of nationalsecurity. They’re very independent, they’re beingsupported by the defense department, but they don’t takeany instructions. And they chose their own members.There was a big crisis a few years ago when the Bushadministration wanted them to add three members of theirown choosing and they said no, so they cancelled thecontract and that caused a big row, they went ahead andeverything went reinstated.

What kind of issues have you studied as a JASON?

Some times I participated in studies and wrote somereports. Now, being sort of ancient, I usually go to thefinal close-out review sessions and discuss the reports, butI’m not particularly active in the studies. I’ve worked onsome phases of what is called the stockpile stewardshipprogram, to keep nuclear weapons reliable without anytesting. I’ve also been participating in how to detectradioactive materials which are smuggled in shippingcontainers.

One of the main things that JASONs do is shutting downwhat we call crackpot ideas. There are all sorts of projectson which the Pentagon spends a lot of money, which havebasically bad science. Quite recently there was an episodewhere the Pentagon thought that a certain material,hafnium, would be a nuclear explosive and it was wrong.Basically the JASONs wrote a very nasty report shutting itdown.

How did you become involved with nuclear weaponscontrol?

After the war I started to get personally very muchconcerned that nuclear weapons had changed everything.Nuclear weapons have the power to put the effect of morethan a millionth more explosive power into ammunitionof a given size and weight. The lay people just don’t under-stand the enormity of the difference it makes. After thewar, I joined some groups, trying to give lectures to laygroups, explaining the difference between chemical energyand nuclear energy. The whole question of the balancebetween defense and offense is totally upset by the advent


of nuclear weapons, because a single nuclear weapon cando so much enormous damage, as we know fromHiroshima and Nagasaki, that the standards whichdefense must meet are so much higher relative to offense.In regular conventional weapons, defense can be veryeffective, even if they stop just a certain fraction of theweapons. But in the nuclear age, if a single rocket pene-trates, it’s an incredible disaster, so the standard whichdefenses have to meet relative to offense have tremen-dously changed, and people forget that. When peoplepromote ballistic missile defense, they keep forgetting thatin the nuclear age, the standards defenses must meet areincredibly much more demanding.

What was your role in the negotiations with the Sovietsabout stopping nuclear testing?

President Eisenhower had the idealistic idea that you couldseparate science and politics. So in 1958, he and theSoviets negotiated to have a conference of experts, wherescientists would talk to one another to establish a possiblecontrol system to monitor and verify a possible treatyforbidding nuclear test. The idealistic objective was thatscientists talking to one another would use the samelanguage, so they could arrive at something and then laterthe politicians could negotiate the treaty based on that.Prior to the conference, the government had had severalcommittees to study how you would monitor nuclearexplosions in outer space a hundred million kilometersaway. There were people in the United States who didn’twant to stop nuclear testing, mainly Edward Teller. Hekept inventing lots of ways how the Soviets could cheatand evade any possible test ban. He proposed that theSoviets could send one rocket to space carrying a nuclearweapon and then another one carrying the gadgets tomeasure the nuclear explosion and broadcast back toEarth. So a committee was set up, of which I was achairman, to see whether Teller’s objections made anysense. I studied the technical features, and mainly came tothe conclusion that the Soviets wouldn’t go through thateffort to evade a ban on testing. We wrote a report, whichwas unanimous, and made it rather clear that it was not agood idea, but then the negotiations with the Soviets tookplace in 1958 and because of Teller’s pressure, there weretwo discussions with the Soviets, one, called TechnicalGroup 1, to discuss how you could evade a ban on testingin space, and the Technical Group 2, how recent data hadmade it easier to cheat by setting nuclear weapons testingunderground. It was a very interesting experience and itshowed very clearly that separating science and politics

was essentially impossible, because most of the times whenwe disagreed with the Soviets it was always in the samedirection, with the Soviets saying that monitoring andtesting was relatively easy and we said it was harder,because the Soviets didn’t like intrusive inspections. So ifthe technical means of detecting these things was easier,there would be no need for inspections. So it was clearthat the Soviets, either by instinct or by instruction, couldnot clearly separate politics and science in this clean wayas Eisenhower had visualized.

How do you think the situation is nowadays: Are scienceand politics still mixed?

When you talk about science advising to politicians, youhave to recognize that there will always be tensions. Todaywhat happens very often is that scientists come to theconclusion that something which the government is doingreally violates lots of science, and the government doesn’tlike to hear that. It automatically sets up a conflict. Sohaving a clean separation between science and politicssimply doesn’t do well.

To how many presidents were you a scientific advisor?

I was a member of the Presidential Scientific AdvisoryCommittee during Eisenhower and Kennedy, and then Iwas in sub committees under Johnson, and then I was inan especial committee in arms control for Carter. Carterwas a remarkable guy; in contrast to others, he was verymuch interested in technical things. But he sometimeswould want much more detail technically than was prac-tical for the president. I remember once I was giving a one-hour briefing to Carter on the safety of nuclear reactors.And then there were two minutes left of the appointmentand he said “Dr. Panofsky, explain to me the differencebetween the uranium and sodium fuel cycle of the reac-tors.” This was a question from the POTUS, but even if hehad not been the President, I was not prepared and therewould not have been a way to explain that in 2 minutes!So it showed very clearly he was interested, but he didn’thave the sense to know what was practical or not practicalto communicate.

What is your opinion on the present state of the nucleararmament race?

It’s very complicated. In 1968, the United States promotedand then signed a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,which was ratified and came into force in 1970. It’ssupposed to be a bargain, between the divided countries ofthe world (non-nuclear states and nuclear states): there


were 5 nuclear weapon states — US, France, UK, Russiaand China. The non-nuclear weapon states are forbiddento build nuclear weapons, and the nuclear weapons stateswere not supposed to give nuclear weapons to the NNWS,but in exchange for that, NNWS had the right of pursuingpeaceful nuclear power, and then the NWS were obligatedto work in good faith to get rid of their nuclear weapons.That’s the bargain. That bargain is now under very severestress, because on one hand, the NWS, particularly theUnited States, have not really done a good job in de-emphasizing nuclear weapons. During the peak of theCold War there were 70,000 nuclear weapons built by theUnited States and U.S.S.R. combined. If you think aboutit, it’s an absolutely insane number. If you think about thefact that two nuclear weapons, which had about 1/20th oftoday’s weapons power, killed about a quarter millionpeople, what would you do with 70,000? And today thenumbers have come a little below 30,000, which are still95% in the hands of Americans and Russians and that’sstill a much too large number. We really should de-empha-size nuclear weapons as tools for our national security,and we don’t. We are still spending enormous amounts ofmoney to maintain the nuclear weapons, we still haveabout 10,000 nuclear weapons, and the general popula-tion doesn’t know that. It’s no secret, but I once asked amember of Congress how many members of Congressknow how many nuclear weapons the U.S. has. Hethought very carefully and he said “about 10.” And thereare almost 500 members of Congress.

But some of the non-nuclear weapon states aren’t complyingwith their part of the deal, neither.

Yes, on the other hand, some of the non-nuclear weaponstates are secretly trying to acquire nuclear weapons.There is a long story of many countries who startednuclear weapons programs and then either voluntarily orunder persuasion stopped doing it; Australia, Sweden,Switzerland, South Korea… lots of them. But some coun-tries have programs going on. The main problem is thatthe technology of parts of the nuclear fuel cycles forpeaceful nuclear power overlaps the technology fornuclear weapons. That’s the problem today with Iran. TheIranians are saying “we are having a peaceful programand nuclear weapons are an instrument of the devil” andwe think “you are having a nuclear weapons program.”And at this particular moment in time, technically youcan’t tell the difference. The International Atomic EnergyAgency keeps criticizing the Iranians of not being fully incompliance to some of their rules, but at the same time

they are also saying they have no evidence that theIranians have a nuclear weapons program and we keepsaying, “yes, they have a nuclear weapons program.”There’s no way to fix that unless you internationalize thesupply of fuel to those countries that don’t make theirown. But that hasn’t happened. So you can’t tell the differ-ence; Brazil is doing exactly the same thing that theIranians are doing, they are enriching the uranium andthey say they are doing it for national prestige and inde-pendence but since the United States likes the Braziliansand doesn’t like the Iranians, we have a basically a highlydiscriminatory, illogical policy.

So everybody’s to blame?

Nuclear states are not really living up to their commitmentto de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons in interna-tional relations. For instance, the Americans are pursuingprograms to prolong the life of nuclear weapons. Currentlythere is a major debate about designing a new generationof nuclear weapons which are more reliable, and the Britishhave just decided to start a new generation of weapons fortheir submarines. The Russians have a very large numberof tactical nuclear weapons, which no one really knowswhat they are for. That means, shorter range nuclearweapons. The Chinese have not increased their number ofnuclear weapons – and their numbers are small comparedto the United States and Russia —, but they keep modern-izing the means of delivering them. So none of the nuclearweapon states are really de-emphasizing nuclear weapons.Although the numbers have gone down some, from 70,000to 30,000, but it’s still a completely insane number. So thenon-proliferation regime is under severe stress, but it’sincorrect to say that it’s all the Iranians fault or it’s all theAmericans fault. America has a true policy of perpetuatingthe discriminatory aspect of the non-proliferation treatyand decreasing our nuclear weapons only fairly moderately.We agreed in 2001 in the Treaty of Moscow to decrease thestrategic nuclear weapons from the present number to2,200, but that treaty only applies to the so-called opera-tionally deployed strategic nuclear weapons, so that’s 2,200but the total number we have is 10,000. So even if we’readvertising that we’ve done some arms-control with theRussians, the arms control only applies to a fraction of thetotal inventory.

Lastly: As a physicist, have you had fun?

Yes. Lots of fun. It’s been a complicated life, but anywayI’ve had fun.


Toquote the legendary American singer-songwriterJim Morrison, “The future’s uncertain and the endis always near.” This sentiment forms the back-

bone of most arguments supporting an independentnuclear weapon for Britain. The logic of the argument isthat in the decades to come, the world may change in wayswe cannot predict, and that in this potentially dangerousfuture world Britain may need the security of a nuclearweapon. This argument has re-surfaced in the debate overthe renewal of Trident, Britain’s submarine-launchedballistic missile system. The current Trident submarineswill last until 2025. Since a new Trident submarine wouldtake two decades to develop and build, the governmentbelieves that if it wants to renew Trident it needs to takethe decision to do so this decade.—if the decision weremade later, it would risk a gap between the systems, inwhich Britain would have no submarine-launched ballisticmissile system. Consequently, in March of this year it tookthe decision, and plans for the renewal of Trident passedthrough parliament, not without considerable resistance.However, more recently, the outgoing foreign ministerMargaret Beckett called for Britain to serve as a ‘disarma-ment laboratory’ and said that‘new thinking’ was underway.So the debate on the indepen-dent British nuclear weapon isnot over. An important part ofthis debate will be the analysisof possible future scenarios inwhich a British nuclear weaponmight be used, examining, ineach case, whether there wouldbe a non-nuclear alternative.

In the forthcoming debate,

the case for Britain’s nuclear weapon should not be basedon a vague fear of the future. Possible scenarios in whichthis weapon could arguably be used need to be sketchedout in as much detail as is currently possible. In this paperwe consider three possible scenarios. In each case, theprobability of its occurrence is perhaps low, but it wouldbe rash to rule it out altogether.

1. A surprise attack on Britain made by a memberof the current ‘nuclear club’.

This ‘club’ is made up of Britain, the U.S.A, Russia,France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea, pluspossibly Israel, Iran and Syria. Israel is widely believed tohave nuclear weapons, though it has refused to confirm ordeny this. Iran and Syria have been accused by a numberof governments of currently attempting to develop nuclearweapons technology. Lewis Page once described thenuclear club as “three proper liberal democracies, and fiveother regimes ranging from a little bit worrying to quitebad news.” The five other regimes he was referring towere Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan. Of these, inthe current political climate, Russia could be considered as

quite worrying. In the last year UK-Russian relations have becometense. Despite this, it is unlikely thatBritain would ever face a scenarioin which an independent Britishnuclear weapon was used onRussia. Even if tension grew to thepoint where, for example, Russiacut off energy supplies to Britain, itis hard to imagine that it wouldretaliate by using nuclear weapons.Britain went through more than

British Pugwash GroupThe 2008 Joseph Rotblat Essay

by Emmet Farragher

AN ANALYSIS OF SCENARIOS IN WHICH AN INDEPENDENT BRITISHNUCLEAR WEAPON COULD ARGUABLY BE USED, TOGETHER WITH ANEXAMINATION OF NON-NUCLEAR ALTERNATIVES IN EACH CASE.

N A T I O N A L P U G W A S H G R O U P S


fifty years of Cold War without using its nuclear weapons.In any case, Russia would never risk launching a nuclearattack on Britain because of the possibility that Americawould come to the defence of its old ally. The same ‘ColdWar’ considerations also apply to China, a superpowerwhose emergence is almost complete.

Britain would be more likely to face danger from asmaller nuclear state, if it came to be controlled by extrem-ists opposed to British values. Such a “rogue” state mightconceivably attack Britain with its arsenal withoutwarning. One possible example of this scenario might bePakistan, which currently has a very unstable politicallandscape. It cannot be excluded that at some time in thefuture, extremists opposed to Britain could come to powerthere. A similar situation could also arise in Iran, if it wereto pursue a nuclear weapons programme, and extremistelements such as the Revolutionary Guard took completecontrol of the country. If Britain were attacked by such arogue state, using nuclear weapons or other weapons ofmass destruction, a British response using a nuclearweapon might be conceivable. In this case Britain’s optionswould be limited. If it were really a surprise attack, itwould clearly be too late for negotiation or sanctions, anda retaliatory attack might be made to limit further damageto Britain, provided that Britain’s nuclear capability hadnot been destroyed. Whether this retaliatory attack wouldbe made using conventional or nuclear weapons woulddepend on the technological capabilities of the conven-tional weaponry available at the time: if conventionalweapons were capable of destroying the enemy states’nuclear sites, there would be no need for nuclear retalia-tion.

2. A developing threat of a nuclear attack bya ‘rogue’ state.

It is in fact rather implausible that a nuclear attack by arogue state would come as a complete surprise. Thatscenario pre-supposes that Britain had severely, and unpre-dictably, provoked the state in question, and that no thirdparty had sought to defuse the situation. As Rodric Braith-waite, former British ambassador in Moscow, questions‘What provocation would we have to give to drive thedictator to such a course? Would the Americans not findtheir own way of stopping the crisis before a nuclearexchange developed that was out of their control?’Furthermore, a surprise attack is also made unlikely by thesurveillance technology that exists today. Satellite tech-nology, and other means of surveillance, enable govern-

ment agencies to spot the tell-tale signs of nuclearweapons development, and this gives information whichwould typically transform the scenario from a short-termcrisis to a longer-term process. If a potentially dangerousstate unfriendly to Britain is found to possess, or to bedeveloping, weapons of mass destruction, Britain hasmany more options. A nuclear attack could arguably beproposed, but it would be a very flawed argument. A pre-emptive nuclear strike would, at the very least, earnBritain the condemnation of the international community.It would also be a very dangerous move, which wouldunbalance the international landscape, and possibly leadto a retaliatory attack and to a very messy conflict. Thelonger-term nature of this scenario allows a number ofnon-nuclear alternatives to be considered. The most desir-able alternative would be to persuade the country in ques-tion to disarm itself of nuclear weapons or stop theirdevelopment. Britain would join with the internationalcommunity in attempting to encourage the disarmamentof the country by diplomatic means e.g. through interna-tional economic and political tools such as negotiations,sanctions and the control of international aid. In recenttimes this approach has been successful, as the examplesof North Korea and Libya testify.

The Republic of North Korea had been suspected ofharbouring ambitions for nuclear weaponry since it with-drew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1993. InOctober 2006 North Korea claimed to have tested anuclear weapon for the first time. These claims werequickly confirmed by U.S and Russian intelligence agen-cies. Since then, international negotiations have led toNorth Korea taking at least the first steps towards nucleardisarmament. This has been achieved through Six-nationtalks involving North and South Korea, the U.S.A, Russia,China and Japan and through talks with the UnitedNations International Atomic Energy Agency. In a dealreached in February 2007, Pyongyang pledged to shutdown its Yongbyon reactor within 60 days in return for50,000 metric tons of fuel aid. A further 950,000 tonnes offuel oil or an equivalent in economic aid will be sent to theNorth once it permanently disables its nuclear operations.The U.S also agreed to begin the process of removingNorth Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.By July the Yongbyon reactor had been shutdown and allother North Korean nuclear facilities are scheduled to bedeclared and disabled by the end of the year.

The method of encouraging disarmament throughdiplomacy has also succeeded in persuading Libya to


disclose and dismantle its nuclear weapons programme.Libya had been under UN sanctions for a number of years,largely due its weapons of mass destruction programs andinvolvement with terrorist activities. But in recent yearsthere has been a difference in the diplomatic mood. AfterLibya renounced terrorism and agreed to pay compensa-tion to the victims of the Lockerbie bombing of 1988, theUN lifted its sanctions against the country. In 2004 Libyanleader Col. Gadhafi announced his commitment todismantle all weapons of mass destruction in his countryand to allow full inspections. Gadhafi’s decision is thoughtto have been largely influenced by his desire to improveLibya’s economy and also for his country to come out ofthe diplomatic cold. This could not be achieved without theremoval of sanctions, and for this he gave up his country’sweapons programme. These examples show that the use ofinternational diplomacy would be a viable, as well as themost desirable, method to pursue if Britain was faced withthe scenario of an unfriendly country developing nuclearweapons. Both examples illustrate that these methods areoften slow, and can take many years to get results.

At the end of the day, if the country in question refusesto respond to diplomatic pressures, there are still anumber of non-nuclear alternatives available to Britain. Itcould turn to the use of conventional military weapons,e.g. seeking to disable the nuclear weapons facilities of thecountry in question, by means of a series of precise airstrikes, or by an invasion or small military incursion. Theair strike option in a scenario of this kind has some prece-dents. In 1981 Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant nearBaghdad. Their justification for the attack was their beliefthat the plant was designed to make nuclear weapons tobe used against Israel. The attack, though technicallysuccessful, was globally condemned. More recently, inOctober of this year, Israel targeted an air strike on asuspected nuclear reactor in Syria. Britain’s air forcewould clearly be capable of undertaking such an action,though for political reasons it would probably chose to doso in cooperation with other countries which saw thenuclear facilities as a threat.

The military incursion/invasion option also has prece-dents. An obvious (if un-encouraging) example of this isthe invasion of Iraq in 2003, led by the United States andbacked by British forces. An official objective of the inva-sion was “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruc-tion.” No such weapons were found. Furthermore theinvasion sparked off the ongoing conflict, which has beendisastrous for both Iraq and the forces that invaded it. It

has certainly not made Britain a safer place. After Iraq it ishard to imagine that Britain would wish to invade acountry in response to a scenario of this type. It should benoted that either option requires extensive and accurateintelligence information, which was clearly lacking in thecase of Iraq. In this context, conventional military force isa much blunter tool than diplomacy. It can spark off awidespread conflict within the country, and it can alienatethe belligerents from its allies and the world community ingeneral. Nevertheless it would be preferable to the use ofnuclear weapons. A nuclear strike by Britain on thecountry in question would put Britain in more danger, andwould destabilise the world situation. It might achieve theshort-term objective of destroying the suspected nuclearweapons facilities, but in the longer term it would severelydecrease the security of the country.

Diplomacy is clearly the most desirable option topursue in this scenario. Negotiations may need to bebacked by international pressure, (e.g. sanctions) in acarrot-and-stick mode. However, it is vital that the diplo-matic approach should not be cut short, as happened inthe run-up to the invasion of Iraq. If Britain finds itself inthis scenario again it must commit itself fully to diplo-matic means. Only when all diplomatic avenues have beenexhausted, should the use of conventional arms be consid-ered. Hopefully, after the disastrous invasion of Iraq, thislesson will have been learned.

3. Nuclear attack by an international terroristorganisation

So far the scenarios discussed have involved Britain beingthreatened by the nuclear capabilities of another country.However the rise of international terrorist organisationsalso brings with it the threat of a nuclear attack on Britainfrom one of these groups. In a scenario where Britain wasattacked by a terrorist organisation using nuclearweapons, the options open to Britain would be extremelylimited. A retaliatory nuclear attack could be considered.However, Britain would presumably feel itself unable toattack the country where the terrorists were based (even ifthat were known) unless it had convincing evidence thatthe country was in some way sponsoring the terroristorganisation. In some cases, the aim of the terrorists’attack might be to provoke a retaliatory attack, and wouldplay into the terrorists’ hands. The only realistic way ofdealing with this scenario is to stop it occurring. This willrequire the intelligence services of Britain in cooperationwith other countries to track terrorist activities extremely


accurately. In addition, a key preventative measure is thetight regulation of nuclear material, to minimise the risk ofits falling into the wrong hands.

Conclusions

The three scenarios described above are all ones in whichcould conceivably be argued that Britain might be drivento use its independent nuclear deterrent. Its freedom to doso would, of course, depend on how independent theBritish nuclear weapon system actually is. The reality isthat the Trident system is to a considerable extent depen-dent on the USA. We purchase our Trident missiles fromthe USA, the USA maintains the missiles, and provides uswith satellite guidance. As Rodric Braithwaite puts it,“One day, the US Congress may decide to withdraw thesefacilities. It would certainly do so the moment we fired offa missile without American permission.” So our capacityfor independent action is limited.

The first scenario, a surprise attack, might appear togive justification for a retaliatory nuclear attack in order toensure the defence of the country. However, a retaliatoryattack would not mend the destruction already caused toBritain, and might fail to prevent further destruction. It ismuch more important to focus on how to prevent Britainbeing attacked. In the second scenario, Britain becomesaware that a potentially hostile country possesses, or isdeveloping nuclear weapons. A pre-emptive nuclear strikewould be out of the question, for both pragmatic and polit-ical reasons. The best non-nuclear alternative would be thecommitted use of diplomacy to cool the situation andpersuade the country to give up its nuclear weapons facili-ties. As a last resort, conventional arms could be used,either precision air strikes or an invasion force to destroythe nuclear facilities. If either of these methods were to beused, it would be crucial for the mistakes of the Iraq inva-sion not to be repeated. The third scenario, a nuclear attackon Britain by a terrorist organisation, gives Britain a verylimited range of options. Britain would not be able to strikeback at the country where the terrorists were based (even ifknown) unless it had compelling evidence that the countrywas sponsoring the group. The only sensible option is toprevent such an event from happening through the use ofsmart intelligence gathering and strict control of nuclearmaterials.

The analysis of each of these scenarios shows that theuse of a nuclear weapon is unlikely to be an effectiveresponse. It might, however, be argued that the nuclearweapon does not actually have to be used – its mere exis-

tence is sufficient to act as a deterrent. This argument isdifficult to disprove, since it is hard to prove that a specificmeasure has deterred somebody from a course of action.However a counter-argument is that the British deterrent,rather than deterring nuclear warfare, is more likely toencourage other countries to develop their own nuclearweapons so they can feel more secure, thereby increasinginternational insecurity.

The analysis in this paper shows that Britain’s posses-sion of nuclear weapons confers no real benefit in any ofthese scenarios. Wherever possible, those scenarios shouldbe prevented from occurring, through a commitment todisarmament and diplomacy, with a resort to conventionalwarfare only when those have totally failed. All the moneyand faith that have been invested in the British nuclearweapon system have given us no more than an illusion ofsecurity. It may have given us a place on the top table ofinternational politics, but that is not a valid justificationfor possessing such a devastating weapon. At first sight,it might appear that giving up our independent nuclearweapon would be a gamble. However, our analysis ofthese scenarios shows that in reality we are keeping ournuclear weapons system in an attempt to preserve ourstatus in the world, not to defend the country.

The British Pugwash Group launched the Joseph Rotblat EssayCompetition in the 2007-2008 academic year to honour thecentenary of the birth of Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat, KCMGCBE FRS, one of the founders of the Pugwash Conferences onScience and World Affairs and of British Pugwash. Rotblat wasan ardent advocate of young people and believed that drawingupon their creativity and energy is a crucial step in creating abetter world. This annual essay competition is designed toengage students in seeking solutions to the challenges of thenuclear age.

Jayantha Dhanapala, Emmet Farragher, John Finney.


Rapporteurs:Parthiban Rajasekaran & Joelien Pretorius

This report summarizes the proceedings and outcomesof the 5th annual International Student/Young

Pugwash (ISYP) Conference, held in Bari, Italy from 20 to21 October 2007. The 20 students in the working groupdiscussed topics that originated in papers prepared forpossible publication in the ISYP Journal atwww.scienceandworldaffairs.org. This document is thereport of the presentations and discussions from theworking group but its content is the sole responsibility ofthe rapporteurs.

We are grateful for the opportunity to share ourthoughts with the Pugwash Conferences on Science andWorld Affairs. It is our hope that this report will enrich theideas and actions of the entire Pugwash Community.

The threats faced by humanity in the 21st Century areinterrelated, complex, and not easily delineated intodifferent categories. Climate change, a non-military andglobal threat, may well lead to localized, militaryconfrontation. Likewise, no discussion of nuclear energyfor development is complete without consideration of theproliferation risks. However, to order our deliberations wemade a distinction between military and non-militarythreats, although we recognised that the two are ofteninterrelated.

Military Threats to Security

In the area of military threats to security, discussionsencompassed both regional and global issues. Papers werepresented that evaluated and compared the securitycomplexes and security architecture in three geographicalareas of importance to the location and theme of theconference: Europe, the Aegean and the Middle East.

It was argued that European security architecture iswell-developed through NATO, the European Security

and Defence Policy and the expansion of this architectureto Eastern European countries. This expansion has unfor-tunately coincided with an increase in armament produc-tion and acquisition.

Aegean disarmament prospects are related to the reso-lution of conflict between Turkey and Greece with thestatus quo maintained by Turkish and Greek soldiers on adivided Cyprus. The security conception in this area is stillbased on realpolitik, but impending Turkish EU member-ship may help transform this conception to improveprospects for disarmament.

The security complex in the Middle East is character-ized by different faultlines: that between Israel and Islamiccountries, between Sunnis and Shias and lastly, countriessympathetic and not sympathetic to the West. The institu-tions of security in the Middle East are weak compared tothose of Europe owing to shifting alliances between statesand the absence of a regional institution of which Israel,Iran and the Arab states are members. The Arab Leagueinvolves itself in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, butits efforts are hampered by resources and membershiplimitations.

Looking at the security relationship between theseareas, it was noted that the unbalanced nature of securityarchitecture makes interaction in the area of defencebetween Europe and the Middle East difficult. Theincrease in armaments in both regions, especially thedevelopment of mid to long-range missiles, anti-ballisticmissile systems and the doctrine of pre-emption as intro-duced by the US through NATO are impeding factors. Itwas argued that in the institutional sphere the Europeanneighbourhood policy and the Arab League could providemechanisms for confidence building and conflict resolu-tion, but the participants noted the need for a SpecialCouncil for Europe and the Middle East

In terms of the relationship between the EuropeanUnion and the Aegean security complex, it was arguedthat Turkish membership in the EU could extend the Euro-

2007 International Student/Young Pugwash Conference

Bari, Italy, 20–21 October [email protected] • www.student-pugwash.org

I S Y P


pean security community to the Aegean and in that waysocialise the Greek and Turkish military in cooperative,rather than realist notions of security. Shifting the goalposts of Turkish membership is not conducive to securityin the region, although the view was expressed thatTurkish membership of the EU may only internalise theGreek/Turkish split. The options for security assurancesfrom the EU and economic integration of Turkey into theEU were explored.

To address security threats in these regional contexts, itis important to consider the global security situation,focussing particularly on the interactions between the USand other countries and their implications for interna-tional security.

An international norm prescribes nuclear exports forpeaceful uses only and the Nuclear Suppliers Group(NSG) is critical to the maintenance of the norm. A US-India nuclear energy cooperation deal that would allowthe export of nuclear technology and assistance to acountry outside of the non-proliferation regime, wouldonly challenge this norm if India failed to prove thatimported nuclear material would not be diverted to mili-tary use. At a minimum India must separate its militaryand civilian facilities, negotiate IAEA safeguards and jointhe CTBT.

The US plan for Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) wasconsidered from a Canadian perspective. Canada hasvetoed the use of NORAD for BMD purposes on thegrounds that BMD may stimulate nuclear proliferationand the weaponisation of space. Non-participation maycost Canada in terms of security cooperation with the US,but participation could erode Canada’s middle powerstatus.

The group made several conclusions. First, there is aclear need for a political forum that would improve inter-action, confidence, and predictability between countries inEurope, the Aegean and the Middle East. Second, India,Pakistan and Israel must be brought into the non-prolifer-ation regime. As a first step this means that the NSG andthe US congress should hold India to non-proliferationnorms before the US-India nuclear deal is legitimised.Third, true security requires a longer-term vision thatconsiders implications for future generations when facedwith difficult security choices. Canada, in particular, mustadopt a longer-term strategy when considering whether tojoin US BMD plans. Fourth, we recognize the need toovercome the impulse to justify one’s own country’s trans-gression of non-proliferation by referring to other’s action.Being part of the problem will not solve the problem.

Non-Military Threats to Security

The human race faces grave non-military-centred threatsto human security. Climate change, global pandemics,pollution, scarce water resources, and scientific illiteracyare some of the serious threats that are often overlooked inthe shadow of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Shared resources necessitate a shared responsibility.Environmental security threats cross state boundaries andexpose the weakness of a purely national approach tohuman security.

Climate change is an environmental threat of increasingconcern. Its impact can already be seen in conflict areassuch as Darfur, where desertification has reduced theavailability of arable land and led to a humanitarian crisis.Proposed solutions to the climate change threat must takeinto account conflict between populations competing forincreasingly scarce resources and the effects of climate-induced mass migration.

Increasing pollution of the marine environment demon-strates the international implications of domestic environ-mental actions. Land-based pollutants do not restrictthemselves to the area in which they are used; instead theyare carried to the marine environment through domesticwater bodies. The pollution therefore does not respectstate boundaries and must be treated as a threat to theglobal environment and to human security. There are well-established international norms governing the marineenvironment and freshwater areas; these must be synchro-nized to take into account the interrelationship betweenthe two systems.

The effects of conflict in resource scarce areas can bedemonstrated in specific regional contexts. The barrierbuilt by Israel along the disputed boundary with the WestBank illustrates the environmental impact of military deci-sions. The fence is either blocking or redirecting thenatural flow of water bodies across the borders. Thisinterruption can affect the availability and quality of waterin these areas.

It is clear that global threats, especially those affectingthe environment, require global solutions. It has beensuggested that the existing Responsibility to Protectdoctrine, which suggests that the international communityhas a duty to intervene in domestic affairs to protecthuman rights, be extended to environmental security.However, there appears to be great potential for abuse ofthe Responsibility to Protect doctrine as applied to envi-ronmental issues. There are concerns that it could be usedto deny developing nations, in particular China and India,access to the energy needed to compete on the world stage.


Increasing antibiotic resistance represents an over-looked threat to human security. Bacterial infections resis-tant to one or more antibiotics, known as “superbugs”,pose a serious threat to global health. The high cost andlengthy development timescale involved discourage phar-maceutical companies from investing in antibiotics tocounteract these superbugs. Recombinant genetic tech-nology, better management practices and global publiceducation on prudent use of antibiotics are necessary toimprove the situation.

Religious non-state actors play important roles insupplanting, supporting, or contesting how states providefor the welfare of their populations. This means that, whilereligion is often construed as a threat to human securityand a source of conflict, it can also be used to promotehuman security. This brought us to a discussion of the rela-tionship between religion, identity and terrorism.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are often and unhelpfullyconflated by policymakers in the West. The Taliban rejectmodernity and what they see as the corrupting influence ofreason, and are essentially non-political in character. Al-Qaeda, by contrast, is an explicitly political movementwhich embraces modern technology; unlike the revivalistTaliban, it espouses violent revolutionary change. Thefailure of Western policy to differentiate between these

two very different groups is indicative of a greater failurein the region; the inability of policymakers to differentiatebetween disparate groups and ideologies is a seriousimpediment to any attempts to create regional security.

How do we address these threats? A U.S. group is devel-oping a multi language glossary of military security termsas a “Track II” diplomacy initiative. This programme iden-tifies and describes terms in the nuclear security vernacularof China and the US to serve as a resource for better tech-nical understanding, confidence building and eventualnegotiation between these two countries in this area. Theincreasing intersection of scientific and political issuesnecessitates improved education. A France-based initiativeencourages high school children in deprived areas toconsider science as a career. Addressing the drop in scienceenrolment while encouraging the use of science educationas a tool for social justice increases human security. Finally,there is a need for mediators and translators who couldhelp the military, business, scientists and ordinary people tocommunicate and build a humane and liveable world. It isin this capacity that we see the greatest role for organiza-tions such as Pugwash. By bringing together those fromdifferent backgrounds, ideologies, and regions, we hope tocreate an environment in which it is truly possible toremember our humanity.

Jayantha Dhanapala and Robert Hinde with members of UK Student Pugwash


Prof. José Leite Lopes, born October 28, 1918 in Recife,Pernambuco, Brazil, died June 12, 2006 in Rio de Janeiro.He was a noted Brazilian theoretical physicist in the fieldof quantum field theory and particle physics.

Together with César Lattes, a young physicist from SãoPaulo who had achieved international notoriety due to hisco-discovery of a new kind of nuclear particle, the pion(pi-meson), Leite Lopes was instrumental in creating inJanuary 1949, in Rio de Janeiro, the Centro Brasileiro dePesquisas Físicas (Brazilian Center for Research in Physics)(CBPF), a research center in theoretical physics (the first inLatin America).

In 1969, the new military regime in Brazil took away hispolitical rights, he was dismissed summarily from the veryCenter he had created and he had to exile himself volun-tarily to the USA (at the Carnegie Mellon University) andthen to the Université Louis Pasteur, in Strasbourg, France.

From 1974 to 1978, Leite Lopes was appointed fullprofessor with the Université Louis Pasteur, taking up thedirectorship of the Division of High Energy and the posi-tion of vice-director of the Centre de Recherches Nucle-aires, a part of the Centre National de la Recherche Scien-tifique (CNRS).

He returned to Brazil in 1986, as the director of theCentro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas. He was also anhonorary president of the Brazilian Society for theAdvancement of Science. Among many international andnational honors and prizes, Leite Lopes received the 1999UNESCO Science Prize and received the Great Cross ofthe Brazilian Order of Scientific Merit.

Prof. Leite Lopes was the first Brazilian to serve in thePugwash Council. He attended his first Pugwash meetingin September 1967 in Ronneby, Sweden, and his final onewas the 35th Pugwash Conference held in Campinas,Brazil in July 1985.

Prof. José Leite Lopes(1918–2006)

O B I T U A R I E S

Air Marshal the Lord Garden KCB(1944–2007)

Trained as a physicist at St. Catherine’s College, Oxford,Tim Garden joined the RAF and commanded a jet flyingtraining unit, a Vulcan bomber squadron (responsible fordelivering nuclear weapons) and a helicopter base. Hetook time out to obtain a postgraduate degree in interna-tional relations at Magdalene College, Cambridge, andbecame Director of Defence Studies for the RAF. Hewrote two books: Can Deterrence Last (1984) and TheTechnology Trap: Science and the Military (1989). Hespent eight years in the Ministry of Defence, finishing asAssistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Programmes).

His last job in the service was Commandant of the RoyalCollege of Defence Studies. He was awarded a knighthoodin 1994 and retired from the Air Force in 1996, with therank of air marshal. In 1997-8 he was Director of theRoyal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House).He later became a visiting professor at Kings’ CollegeLondon and Indiana University, a Council member of

RUSI, and a patron of the Oxford Research Group. In July2003 French President Jacques Chirac presented him theChevalier de l’Ordre National de la Legion d’Honneur forhis work on European defence issues. In 2004 he became aLiberal Democrat peer, their spokesman on Defence in theHouse of Lords, and later Convener of the All PartyParliamentary Group (APPG) on Global Security andNon-proliferation.

Tim Garden attended his first Pugwash workshop in 1999,in Castellón de la Plana, Spain on NATO and EuropeanSecurity. He also attended a 1999 workshop in Venice onIntervention, Sovereignty and International Security andthe 50th Pugwash Conference, held in Cambridge, UK inAugust 2000. .

Tim died on August 9 and is survived by his wife, Susan,and their two daughters.

Sir Hugh Beach and Sandra Ionno Butcher


Academician Ivan Supek, a prominent Pugwashite, diedfollowing a hip fracture on March 5, 2007 at the age of91. Academician Supek was a scientist, educator andpromoter of science, a writer and public figure, in short, arenaissance person in the full sense of word. His limita-tions were in belonging to a small and poor country withonly the rudiments of science and democracy in the earlyyears of his life.

Just before the outbreak of World War II he studiedmodern quantum physics, working with top scientists inseveral leading European centers. War found him inGermany. Threatened by the Gestapo, he left his workwith Heisenberg in Leipzig to join the partisans in occu-pied Yugoslavia. As a leftist and partisan, he was toleratedby Yugoslav communist leaders, although he alwaysopposed the Bolshevik doctrine of party dictatorship,which, eventually, in the 1970s, made him an opponent ofthe system and a dissident

When the Yugoslav government decided to embark on thedevelopment of nuclear technology soon after the war,Ivan Supek succeeded in turning the Zagreb InstituteRu er Boskovic (1950) into an institute for fundamentalresearch which, through openness and many scientificcontacts with Western scientific centers, became abreeding center for modern science in Croatia andrespected European science center, especially in theoreticaland nuclear physics. Another great achievement of his wasfounding the international Inter-university Center inDubrovnik (IUC), established in 1971 while he was aZagreb University rector. With partnership of more than200 Universities, IUC is a unique place for exchange ofscientific, political and social ideas.

Supek deserves to be called the father of modern science inCroatia. After the disintegration of Socialist Yugoslaviaand creation of the Republic of Croatia, he became ahighly respected public figure, pleading for the democraticdevelopment of the new State. He was a candidate for thePresident of the Republic, and then became President of

the Croatian Academy of Science and Art from 1991-1997.

His early contact with leading European physicists imme-diately after the discovery of fission made him aware ofthe great danger to mankind from the possible militaryabuse of nuclear energy. This he made public in June,1944 while still with Yugoslav partisans. Quite naturallyhe was close to Pugwash ideas on nuclear disarmamentand was in contact with early Pugwashites. In April 1961he attended the 4th meeting of the Pugwash EuropeanGroup, followed by the 9th and 10th general Pugwashconferences held in Cambridge, UK (August 1962) andLondon (September 1962). In parallel he recruitedYugoslav scientists to create a Yugoslav Pugwash Group,which hosted the very successful 11th Pugwash generalconference in Dubrovnik in1963.

Supek attended a total of 21 Pugwash meetings, the lastbeing the 43rd Pugwash Conference held in Hasseludden,Sweden in June 1993. His later years were predominantlydevoted to writing, which ranged from science and philos-ophy of science to historical novels and politics. But hewas also very active with the Croatian Pugwash Group,which sought to unify scientists and intellectuals for demo-cratic reforms in Yugoslavia. He had a particular interestin stressing the need for ethical principles in science, andaccordingly organized the 22nd Pugwash Symposium:Science and Ethics, in Dubrovnik in January 1975.

Another of the great figures from early Pugwash has leftus. With sorrow we must accept the laws of time andnature. With great gratitude we recall his contributions toPugwash. His life of exceptional creativity and highestethical standards was dedicated to science, peace andhumanistic ideals and will remain an example to genera-tions.

Vladimir KnappCroatian Pugwash Group

Academician Ivan Supek(1915–2007)


Kodi Husimi, a Japanese physicist and Pugwashite, passedaway peacefully in Yokohama, Japan, on May 8, 2008,from natural causes. He was active and full of curiosity tohis very last days. Just a few months before his death hepublished an interesting introductory book on atomicphysics.

Husimi was graduated from the University of Tokyo in1933. After working as a research associate, he transferredto Osaka University, where he worked first on neutronexperiments by using the Cockkroft-Warton accelerator,then mainly on the theory of statistical mechanics. Heserved as Dean of Faculty of Science. He promoted plasmascience in Japan and worked as the first Director of theInstitute of Plasma Physics, Nagoya University from 1961.After retirement from the University in 1973, both OsakaUniversity and Nagoya University conferred on him thetitle of Professor Emeritus.

His activity was not limited to research and education ofphysics. He was elected as one of the first members ofScience Council of Japan, the governmental organizationon science and society in 1949. He pioneered research anddevelopment on nuclear energy after the Japanese recoveryof independence from the military occupation by AlliedPowers in 1952. Kodi Husimi proposed three fundamentalprinciples on peaceful use of nuclear energy: openness,autonomy and democracy. At the same time he pursuedthe abolition of nuclear weapons. His idea was supportedand concluded as a statement by the Science Council of

Japan in 1954. These principles were adopted in theFundamental Law on Peaceful Research and Developmenton Nuclear Energy. Thanks to Kodi Husimi, the militaryapplication of nuclear energy is strictly prohibited in Japanby this law.

Husimi was President of the Science Council of Japan in1977 through 1982 and a member of the House of Coun-cilors in 1983 through 1989. Then, following the dissolu-tion of the Soviet Union, Husimi initiated a program tosupport academic collaborations between scientists inJapan and the former USSR. The program continued from1992 to 1997 and encompassed a total of 103 projectsand 431 scientists from the former Soviet Union.

Kodi Husimi was an active member in the PugwashConferences on Science and World Affairs. His first partic-ipation was at the 31st Pugwash Conference held in Banff,Canada in August 1981. He attended several morePugwash meetings in the 1980s, and then the 45th

Pugwash Conference held in Hiroshima in July 1995. Hewas a good friend of Jo Rotblat.

In addition to writing many professional articles, textbooks, and scientific and other essays, Husimi lovedpainting and origami (the art of folding paper intofigures). He lived a happy long life supported by enthusi-astic humanity.

Michiji KonumaJapan Pugwash

Giuseppe (Beppe) Nardulli(1948–2008)

Prof. Giuseppe (Beppe) Nardulli, an Italian physicist, long-time member of Pugwash, and the main organizer of the57th Pugwash Conference held in Bari, Italy in October2008, died of cancer on June 26, 2008, at the age of 60.A former National Secretary of the Italian Union ofScientists for Disarmament (USPID), Beppe Nardulli first

attended a Pugwash meeting in October 1986, the work-shop on Conventional Forces in Europe, held inCastiglioncello. He attended a total of eight Pugwashworkshops and conferences in all, the last being the 57th

Conference in Bari, which through his tireless efforts atorganizing and fundraising, was a major success.

Kodi Husimi(1909–2008)


E X - O F F I C I O M E M B E R S

PresidentAmb. Jayantha Dhanapala is a formerUnder-Secretary-General for Disarma-ment Affairs at the United Nations(1998-2003), and former Ambassador ofSri Lanka to the US (1995-97) and to theUN Office in Geneva (1984-87). He iscurrently Chairman of the UN UniversityCouncil, a member of the GoverningBoard of SIPRI, and several other advi-sory boards of international bodies. Healso has been a member of both theCanberra Commission (1996) and theWMD Commission (2006).

Secretary-GeneralProf. Paolo Cotta-Ramusino is SecretaryGeneral of the Pugwash Conferences(since August 2002) and Professor ofMathematical Physics at the University ofMilan. He is the former Director of theProgram on Science, Technology andInternational Security, Landau Network–Centro Volta, Como, and former Secre-tary General of the Union of Italian Scien-tists for Disarmament (USPID).

Executive DirectorDr. Jeffrey Boutwell is Executive Directorof the Pugwash Conferences on Scienceand World Affairs, former AssociateExecutive Officer at the American Acad-emy of Arts and Sciences in Cambridge,and former Staff Aide at the NationalSecurity Council in Washington, DC.

Former Secretary GeneralProf. Francesco Calogero is Professor ofTheoretical Physics at the University ofRome “La Sapienza”. Formerly, he wasSecretary General of Pugwash (1989-1997), Chair of the Pugwash Council(1997-2002), and a member of theGoverning Board of SIPRI (1982-1992).

= = = = = = = = = =

Amb. (ret.) Ochieng Adala, of the AfricaPeace Forum (APFO) in Nairobi, Kenya,is former Permanent Representative ofKenya to the United Nations in NewYork (1992-93), former Deputy Secre-tary/Director for Political Affairs,Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Interna-tional Cooperation (1988-92), and

former Ambassador of Kenya to the ArabRepublic of Egypt, the Kingdom ofMorocco, Algeria and Tunisia.

Amb. Sergey Batsanov is Director of theGeneva Office of International Pugwash,member of the Pugwash CBW SteeringCommittee, and member of the Interna-tional Advisory Board of the GenevaCentre for the Democratic Control ofArmed Forces (DCAF). He is formerDirector of Special Projects at the Organi-zation for the Prohibition of ChemicalWeapons (OPCW) in The Hague, andformer Representative of theUSSR/Russian Federation to the Confer-ence on Disarmament, Geneva (1989-93).

Dr. Adele Buckley is a physicist, engineerand environmental scientist, and pastChair of the Canadian Pugwash Group.She was formerly Vice President of Tech-nology & Research at the Ontario Centrefor Environmental Technology Advance-ment (OCETA) in Toronto, Ontario,Canada.

Dr. Lynn Eden is Associate Director forResearch and Senior Research Scholar atthe Center for International Security andCooperation (CISAC), Freeman SpogliInstitute for International Studies (FSI),Stanford University in California, and co-chair of the US Pugwash Committee.

Prof. John Finney is Professor of Physicsin the Department of Physics andAstronomy at University College London,Deputy Chairman of the British PugwashGroup, and Chair of the WMD Aware-ness Programme. His former positionsinclude: Professor of Crystallography atBirkbeck College in London; Chief Scien-tist at the ISIS Facility of the RutherfordAppleton Laboratory; and Science Coor-dinator for the European SpallationSource Project.

Prof. Galia Golan-Gild is Professor ofGovernment at the InterdisciplinaryCenter (IDC) in Herzliya, Israel, andProfessor Emerita in the Department ofPolitical Science at The Hebrew Univer-sity of Jerusalem, where she was alsoDarwin Professor of Soviet and EastEuropean Studies, and Chair of theDepartment of Political Science.

Prof. Karen Hallberg is Professor ofPhysics at the Instituto Balseiro (Bari-loche, Argentina), Research Fellow of theArgentine National Council of Scienceand Technology at the Centro AtomicoBariloche (National Commission ofAtomic Energy), Fellow of the Guggen-heim Foundation, Member of the boardof the Latin American Center of Physics(CLAF), Commission Member of theInternational Union for Pure and AppliedPhysics (IUPAP), and member of theBariloche Group for Science and WorldAffairs (Argentine Pugwash branch). Shewas formerly a member of the Board ofthe Argentine Physical Association.

Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy is Professor ofNuclear Physics at Quaid-e-Azam Univer-sity in Islamabad, Chairman of MashalBooks, commentator on political affairsin Pakistan, an independent maker ofdocumentary films for popularisingscience in Pakistan, and an activist forpeace and social reform.

Dr. Peter Jones is Associate Professor inthe Graduate School of Public and Inter-national Affairs at the University ofOttawa, Ontario, Canada. He wasformerly: Senior Policy Advisor, Securityand Intelligence Secretariat, Privy CouncilOffice, Ottawa (The Prime Minister’sDepartment), Project Leader, Middle EastProject, Stockholm International PeaceResearch Institute (SIPRI) and DeskOfficer in the Arms Control and Disar-mament Division Department of ForeignAffairs and International Trade, Ottawa.

Gen. (ret.) Dr. Mohamed Kadry Said isHead of the Military Studies Unit andTechnology Advisor at the Al-AhramCenter for Political and Strategic Studies,Al-Ahram Foundation in Cairo, Egypt,and Member of the Committee ofStrategic Planning of the EgyptianCouncil of Space Science and Technology.

Dr. Mustafa Kibaroglu is AssociateProfessor (non-proliferation, arms control& disarmament matters) in the Interna-tional Relations Department of BilkentUniversity, Ankara, Turkey, and wasformerly with the International SecurityProgram& Project onManaging the Atom

Pugwash Council for the 2007–2012 Quinquennium


at the Belfer Center for Science and Inter-national Affairs, John F. Kennedy Schoolof Government, Harvard University.

Mr. Sverre Lodgaard is former Directorof the Norwegian Institute of Interna-tional Affairs (NUPI) in Oslo, formerDirector of the United Nations Institutefor Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) inGeneva, and former Director of the PeaceResearch Institute of Oslo (PRIO).

Prof. Saideh Lotfian is AssociateProfessor of Political Science at theUniversity of Tehran. She was formerlyDeputy Director of the Center for MiddleEast Strategic Studies (1996-2002), andVisiting Iranian Fellow at St. Antony’sCollege, Oxford University (2003).

Dr. Riad Malki is Minister of ForeignAffairs and Minister of Information ofthe Palestinian National Authority. He isalso Director General of Panorama (ThePalestinian Center for the Disseminationof Democracy and Community Develop-ment) in Ramallah, West Bank, Palestine,and formerly taught at BirZeit UniversitySchool of Engineering.

Amb. Miguel Marin-Bosch is Professor ofDisarmament and International Security,President of Desarmex (an NGO inMéxico, D. F.), and a former DeputyForeign Minister of Mexico.

Prof. Amitabh Mattoo is Vice Chancellorof the University of Jammu, Jammu,J&K, India, a Member of the PrimeMinister’s Task Force on Global StrategicDevelopments, and Professor of Disarma-ment Studies at the School of Interna-tional Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru Univer-sity (JNU), New Delhi. He was formerlya Member of the National Security Advi-sory Board of India.

Dr. Steven Miller is Director of the Inter-national Security Program of the BelferCenter for Science and InternationalAffairs at Harvard University’s KennedySchool of Government, Editor-in-chief ofthe quarterly International Security, andCo-chair of the US Pugwash Committee.Formerly, he was a Senior ResearchFellow at the Stockholm InternationalPeace Research Institute (SIPRI), and

taught defense and arms control studiesin the Political Science Department at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology.

Prof. Marie Muller is Dean of the Facultyof Humanities, former Director of theCentre for International Political Studiesat the University of Pretoria, formerCouncil Member of the Academy ofScience of South Africa, and former(Founding) Chair of the Pugwash SouthAfrica Group.

Prof. Götz Neuneck is a physicistworking on international security issuesand technical aspects of arms control. Heis currently Project Leader of the “Inter-disciplinary Research Group Disarma-ment, Arms Control and New Technolo-gies” at the Institute for Peace Researchand Security Policy (IFSH) in Hamburg.He teaches in the postgraduate Master’sProgramme “Peace and InternationalSecurity”, is a Member of the Council ofthe German Physical Society (DPG), andDeputy Chairman of the Working Group“Physics and Disarmament” in the DPG.

Dr. Alexander Nikitin is Director of theCenter for Political and InternationalStudies (CPIS), Vice Chairman of theRussian Pugwash Committee of Scientistsfor Disarmament and International Secu-rity, Professor at Moscow State Institutefor International Relations, President ofthe Russian Political Science Association,Director of the Center for Euro-AtlanticSecurity of MGIMO University, andBoard Member of the Russian Academyof Political Sciences.

Mr. Niu Qiang is Secretary General andSenior Researcher at the Chinese People’sAssociation for Peace and Disarmament(CPAPD) in Beijing, China.

Gen. Pan Zhengqiang is DeputyChairman of the China Foundation ofInternational Studies, a retired MajorGeneral in the Chinese People’s Army,and former Director of the Institute ofStrategic Studies.

Acad. Yuri Ryzhov is President of theInternational Engineering University inMoscow, Chair of the Russian PugwashGroup, Academician of the Russian

Academy of Sciences, former Member ofthe Presidential Council of the RussianFederation, and former AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary ofRussia to France.

Prof. Ivo Slaus is Director of the WorldAcademy for Southeast Europe Division,President of Croatian Pugwash, aMember of the Club of Rome, and aFellow of the Academia Europea.Formerly, he was a Member of the Croa-tian Parliament, Chairman of the Parlia-mentary Subcommittee on Science,Higher Education & Technology,Professor of Physics at Rudjer BoskovicInstitute, and Foreign Secretary of theCroatian Academy of Sciences & Arts.

Dr. Mark Byung-Moon Suh is a SouthKorean political scientist, Chairman ofthe Corea Trust Fund, and a VisitingScholar at the Institute for Peace Affairs(IPA) in Seoul. He was formerly a SeniorResearcher and Korean Co-ordinator ofthe Free University of Berlin in Germany,President of the Korean Pugwash Group,and member of the Presidential AdvisoryCouncil on Peaceful and DemocraticUnification of Korea.

Dr. Tatsujiro Suzuki is Visiting Professorat the Graduate School of Public Policy(GRASPP) at The University of Tokyo, anAssociate Vice President at the Socio-economic Research Center of the CentralResearch Institute of Electric PowerIndustry (CRIEPI) in Tokyo, and Co-Founder of Peace Pledge in Japan. Hewas formerly Professor at Keio UniversityGraduate School of Media and Gover-nance (April 2001-March 2004), VisitingAssociate Professor in the Department ofQuantum Engineering and SystemsScience at the University of Tokyo.

Dr. Bob van der Zwaan is Senior Scien-tific Researcher at the Energy ResearchCenter of the Netherlands (ECN) inAmsterdam and at Columbia University’sEarth Institute in New York. He has heldformer research positions at the BCSIA atHarvard University, IVM at the VrijeUniversiteit Amsterdam, CISAC at Stan-ford University, IFRI in Paris, and CERNin Geneva.

Pugwash Council continued


Did you know?

That Pugwash was the subject of US Senate Internal Securitysubcommittee reports in the 1960s?

Calendar of Future Pugwash Meetings

4 November 2008 Centenary of Joseph Rotblat’s birthLondon, UK

13-16 November 2008 Advanced Research Workshop on Issues of IndependentZagreb, Croatia Scientific Input into WMD Issue

(UK and Croatia Pugwash)

21-22 November 2008 Workshop on Nuclear Weapons in EuropeAntwerp, Belgium (Netherlands Pugwash)

29-30 November 2008 29th Pugwash Workshop on Chemical and Biological WeaponsGeneva, Switzerland

9-10 December 2008 UK Premiere of Canada Film Board Documentary Film onLondon, UK Joseph Rotblat and Pugwash, The Strangest Dream,

and Symposium on Nuclear Weapons

17-21 April 2009 58th Pugwash Conference on Science and World AffairsThe Hague, Netherlands

Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs

President Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala

Secretary-General Professor Paolo Cotta-Ramusino

Executive Director Dr. Jeffrey Boutwell

Pugwash Council

Chair Professor Saideh Lotfian

Members Ambassador Ochieng Adala

Ambassador Serguei Batsanov

Dr. Jeffrey Boutwell

Dr. Adele Buckley

Professor Francesco Calogero

Professor Paolo Cotta-Ramusino

Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala

Dr. Lynn Eden

Professor John Finney

Professor Galia Golan-Gild

Professor Karen Hallberg

Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy

Professor Peter Jones

Maj. Gen. Mohamed Kadry Said

Dr. Mustafa Kibaroglu

Pugwash Executive Committee

Chairman Dr. Steven Miller

Members Dr. Jeffrey Boutwell

Prof. Paolo Cotta-Ramusino

Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala

Prof. John Finney

Mr. Sverre Lodgaard

Mr. Sverre Lodgaard

Dr. Riad Malki

Ambassador Miguel Marin-Bosch

Professor Amitabh Mattoo

Dr. Steven Miller

Professor Marie Muller

Dr. Götz Neuneck

Dr. Niu Qiang

Dr. Alexander Nikitin

Maj. Gen. (ret.) Pan Zhenqiang

Academician Yuri Ryzhov

Professor Ivo Slaus

Dr. Mark Byung-Moon Suh

Dr. Tatsu Suzuki

Dr. Bob van der Zwaan

Dr. Götz Neuneck

Dr. Alexander Nikitin

Prof. Saideh Lotfian

Maj. Gen. (ret.) Pan Zhenqiang

Geneva Office16 rue de la Voie-Creuse1211 Geneva, SwitzerlandPhone: **41-22-919-7920Fax: **41-22-919-7925E-mail: [email protected]

Washington, DC Office1111 19th Street NWSuite 1200Washington, DC 20036Phone: **1-202-478-3440Fax: **1-202-238-9604E-mail: [email protected]

London OfficeFlat A Museum Mansions63A Great Russell StreetLondon WC1B 3BJ, EnglandPhone: **44-20-7405-6661Fax: **44-20-7831-5651E-mail: [email protected]

Rome OfficeAccademia Nazionale de Linceivia della Lungara, 10I-00165 Rome, ItalyPhone: **39-06-6872606Fax: **39-06-6878376E-mail: [email protected]

Documents

NEWSLETTER · 2014-06-07 · NEWSLETTER Volume45 June2008 issued by the Council of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs Nobel Peace Prize 1995 2008