Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 7. februar
2005 / Time Line February 7, 2005
Version 3.5
6. Februar 2005, 8. Februar 2005
02/07/2005
Pacifisten Jens Thoft fylder 60 år
Jens Thoft var
medlem af Folketinget fra 1984 til 1994 og var sit partis skatte-
og fredspolitiske ordfører.
I en periode var han medlem af Europarådet.
Efter at han forlod folketinget har han fortsat med at drive sin
revisionsvirksomhed – nu på 35. år.
Jens Thoft er på 13. år gift med skolepsykolog Pernille
Thoft.
Jens Thoft brænder for nedrustning og kampen mod
atomvåben og har hele sit liv været aktiv i
fredsbevægelsen. Det var derfor med stor logik, at han blev
indvalgt i Folketinget på det tidspunkt, hvor den
ikke-kommunistiske del af fredsbevægelsen, han var
tilknytter: Nej til
Atomvåben og Aldrig Mere Krig, var
stærkest. Han betragtede sig i høj grad som
talerør for bevægelserne i Folketinget. Som
information til fredsbevægelsen udsendte han bladet
”Bag Folketingets Kulisser” om de mange dagsordener og
hvad der foregik i folketingets forsvarsudvalg – Det var
dengang i forrige århundrede, hvor alting ikke lå
på nettet.
I 1986 tildelte Aldrig Mere Krig ham Ӂrets
Fredsrose”, hvilket han siden har pralet med i Kraks
Blå Bog.
Jens Thoft har hele sit liv været stærk skeptisk
overfor EU og NATO - organisationer, han i modsætning til
mange SF’ere aldrig kommer til at elske. Han er fortsat
medlem af SF i Århus og Aldrig Mere Krig.
Han fik væsentlig – men indirekte - indflydelse
på en stor del af dansk skattelovgivning. Det var
sjældent at han fik sine forslag vedtaget i første
omgang. Men få år senere, når regeringen manglede
penge, blev hans forslag støvet af og gennemført
alligevel. Jens Thoft praler selv af, at han aldrig fremsatte et
forslag, der kostede statskassen penge. Det er dog usandt, idet
oprettelsen af et institut for fredsforskning, var et forslag fra
ham, der blev vedtaget.
Han støbte en del af kuglerne bag 80-ernes mange
sikkerhedspolitiske dagsordner i samarbejde med Lasse Budtz (S),
Kjeld Albrechtsen (VS) og partifællerne Geert Petersen og
Pelle Voigt.
Fødselaren holder en lille reception i hjemmet om
eftermiddagen på adressen Stadion Alle 43 A i anledning af
hans 35 års forretningsjubilæum.
02/07/2005
Shouldn't a President Concerned About Nuclear Proliferation
Support the Treaty Controlling Nuclear Weapons?
By Lawrence S.
Wittner
According to recent news reports and as hinted in the president's
State of the Union Address, the neocons who dominate the Bush
administration are gearing up for another pre-emptive military
attack, this time upon Iran. The ostensible reason for such an
attack is that the Iranian government is developing nuclear
weapons.
In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which
regularly inspects Iran's nuclear operations, has not found any
signs of nuclear weapons. Although the IAEA has reported that Iran
has produced enriched uranium--which can be used for either
civilian or military purposes--such production has been halted
thanks to a November 2004 Iranian agreement with France, Germany,
and Britain. Thus, although it is possible that Iran might produce
nuclear weapons some time in the future, this is hardly a
certainty. Nor is it clear that the Iranian government has ever
planned to produce them.
Ironically, in the midst of this delicate situation, the Bush
administration is busy dismantling the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). This treaty, signed in 1968 by officials of the
United States and of almost all other countries, obligates
non-nuclear nations to forgo development of nuclear weapons and
nuclear nations to take steps toward nuclear disarmament. The Bush
administration reveres the first obligation and wants to scrap the
second.
In late December 2004, news accounts quoted an administration
official as saying that the final agreement at the NPT review
conference in 2000--which commits the declared nuclear weapons
states to an "unequivocal undertaking" to abolish nuclear
weapons--is a "simply historical document," which does not reflect
the drastic changes in the world since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Thus, he said, the Bush administration "no longer supports" all of
the thirteen steps toward disarmament outlined in the 2000
agreement and does not view it as "being a road map or binding
guideline or anything like that."
For those who have followed the Bush administration's nuclear
policy, this position should come as no great surprise. The
administration has not only abandoned efforts toward negotiating
nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements with other nations,
but has withdrawn the United States from the ABM treaty (signed by
President Nixon) and refused to support ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (signed by President Clinton).
It has also championed a program of building new U.S. nuclear
weapons, including so-called "bunker busters" and "mini-nukes," and
of facilitating the resumption of U.S. nuclear testing. Only an
unexpected revolt in Congress--led by Representatives David Hobson
and Pete Viclosky, the Republican chair and ranking Democrat of the
House Energy and Water Appropriations Committee--blocked funding
for the Bush administration's proposed new nuclear weapons in 2004.
Political analysts expect the administration to make another effort
to secure the funding this year.
For the Bush administration and its fans, this evasion of U.S.
obligations under the NPT makes perfect sense. The United States,
they believe, is a supremely virtuous nation, and nations with whom
it has bad relations--such as Iran--are "evil." In line with this
belief, the U.S. government has the right to build and use nuclear
weapons, while nations it places on its "enemies" list do not.
As might be expected, this assumption does not play nearly as well
among government officials in Iran, who seem unlikely to fulfill
their part of the NPT agreement if U.S. officials flagrantly renege
on theirs. At the very least, the Bush administration is offering
them a convenient justification for a policy of building Iranian
nuclear weapons.
Other nations have drawn this same conclusion. In the fall of 2004,
Helen Clark, the prime minister of New Zealand, warned: "First and
foremost we need to keep before us the essential bargain that the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty represents. While we will
willingly contribute to non-proliferation and counter-proliferation
initiatives, those initiatives should be promoted alongside
initiatives to secure binding commitments from those who have
nuclear weapons which move us further towards the longer-term goal
of nuclear disarmament."
Much the same point was made in early January 2005 by Mohamed
ElBaradei, the director of the IAEA. Calling upon all countries to
commit themselves to forgo building facilities for uranium
enrichment and nuclear reprocessing for the next five years,
ElBaradei added: "We should not forget the commitment by the
weapons states to move toward nuclear disarmament."
In fact, ElBaradei's evenhanded approach to nuclear issues has
angered the Bush administration, which is now working to deny him
reappointment as IAEA director.
The responsibility of all nations under the NPT will undoubtedly
receive a good deal of discussion at the NPT review conference that
will convene at the United Nations this May. Certainly it will be
interesting to see how the Bush administration explains the
inconsistencies in its nuclear
policy.
Unfortunately, by then we may well have another bloody military
confrontation on our hands. Like the war in Iraq, it will be sold
to us on the basis of the potential threat from a nation possessing
weapons of mass destruction. And, also like the war in Iraq, it
will be unnecessary--brought on by the arrogance and foolishness of
the Bush administration.
02/07/2005
Top
Send
kommentar, email
eller søg i Fredsakademiet.dk
|