По-долу поместваме два материала из mailing-list NATO-L (архива и друга информация за листа ще намерите на адрес: http://www.fas.org/spp/): Учредителна декларация на американската Коалиция против разширяването на НАТО (CANE) и текст, представящ ораторите-участници в поредицата конференции "Не на разширяването на НАТО", планирана за началото на февруари в САЩ, в който се посочват мотивите за тяхното противопоставяне.
The groups thus far endorsing the statement are:
On the right:
Free Congress Foundation
Eagle Forum
American Defense Institute
Media Research Center
On the left:
Council for a Livable World Education Fund
Peace Action
Center for Defense Information
Union of Concerned Scientists
An advisory council endorsing the coalition is also being formed and now
consists of:
Ted Galen Carpenter
Amb. Jonathan Dean
Senator Gordon Humphrey
Dr. Fred Ikle
Amb. Jack Matlock
Prof. Richard Pipes
FOUNDING DECLARATION OF THE COALITION AGAINST NATO EXPANSION
We, the undersigned organizations, as members of the Coalition Against NATO
Expansion (CANE), are deeply concerned that this country may soon make a
strategic decision of enormous importance with little thought and even less
debate. We refer to the proposal to expand the NATO alliance, initially
with three new members, later, most probably, with many more.
The expansion of NATO has broad, long-term implications for America. The
implications are strategic, political and financial. Yet the Senate, which
will vote this year on the proposed treaty, has held few hearings, and those
few have been stacked with witnesses who favor expansion. Most Senators
have not been exposed to the large and growing number of thoughtful
arguments opposing NATO expansion. More importantly, the American public
has yet to be engaged in discussion of a matter that involves its vital
interests: its commitments, its tax money, and potentially the lives of its
children, which may soon be pledged in defense of up to 12 more countries.
The Coalition Against NATO Expansion has been formed to call for and compel
the serious national debate the proposed treaty demands. The Coalition
includes organizations from across the political spectrum, organizations
which normally find themselves on opposite sides of an issue. We find
ourselves in agreement on this matter, not only in our belief that NATO
expansion is bad for all Americans, regardless of political outlook, but
also in the conviction that a matter of this importance should not be
railroaded through the United States Senate in a rush to judgment. America
does not need a Tonkin Gulf Resolution for central and eastern Europe.
The expansion of NATO contradicts vital American interests of three kinds:
strategic, political and financial.
Strategically, the expansion of NATO into central and eastern Europe
risks restarting the Cold War. By its nature, a military alliance is
directed against someone. The geography of NATO expansion makes its target
clear: Russia.
In the course of this century, Western civilization has fought three
terrible civil wars: the First World War, the Second World War, and the Cold
War. The cost in lives, treasure and moral capital has been immense. With
the fall of communism in the former Soviet Union, the West was finally
granted an opportunity to heal its fatal breaches and put an end to its
tragic internecine conflicts. The opportunity is historic, but it has been
met with contempt. The proposal to expand NATO tosses it away by telling
Russia in unmistakable terms that it remains excluded from the community of
Western nations.
The fact that Washington has been able to cajole and coerce the current
Russian government into keeping its objections to itself does not change
this reality. Again, the geography of NATO's proposed expansion cannot be
disguised: it cannot be directed against anyone but Russia. The large
majority of politically aware Russians understand this fact, and within
Russia, opposition to NATO expansion reaches across the political spectrum.
Today, Russia is too weak to oppose NATO expansion effectively, so she has
chosen to remain officially silent. But Russia understands. She will
remember, and ultimately, she will react, either from a position of renewed
strength or out of desperation.
The last great unfinished business of the 20th century is the reintegration
of Russia with the West. With the proposal to expand NATO, we have turned
our back on it. The future will not forgive us; nor will the more than 50
million people who died in Europe's previous wars in this century.
Politically, the proposed expansion of NATO represents the growing split
in our country between ordinary Americans and Washington insiders. NATO
offers Washington insiders a cornucopia of opportunities for career
advancement and prestige. It is no surprise to those who know official
Washington that it wants NATO expanded -- or that Capitol Hill is currently
swarming with lobbyists from the defense industry, offering campaign
contributions and jobs for constituents in return for the new, multi-billion
dollar weapons contracts NATO expansion will bring (with the American
taxpayer paying the bill).
Outside of the beltway, however, it is difficult to find much enthusiasm
for additional foreign military commitments. America has grown tired of
"cabinet wars," of conflicts and commitments to conflict -- for that is what
NATO expansion involves -- to serve the interests of Washington gameplayers.
Administration officials and other proponents of NATO expansion have
declined to explain to the citizens of America that the expansion of NATO
involves this nation in more overseas military commitments. Central and
eastern Europe are rife with long-standing ethnic-conflicts. If NATO is
expanded into those regions, those conflicts will become ours.
There is no evidence that Americans desire to make such a commitment. Yet,
in a nation that preaches democracy to the rest of the world, our own public
has been left uninformed and uninvolved in this most critical of debates.
NATO expansion is being treated as merely another "insider deal" to be
rushed through the Senate with few hearings and little debate. No doubt
this benefits Washington. But does the rest of America count for so little
that it should be treated with such contempt? Surely those who gave the
Senate a role in the treaty process thought otherwise.
Even more is at stake here than in the strategic blunder of excluding
Russia from a new and united Europe. Railroading the NATO treaty through
the United States Senate is a blow to the very system of participatory
government that should be at the heart of American democracy.
Financially, the expansion of NATO lays a new and potentially heavy
burden on the American taxpayer. The candidates for admission into NATO,
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, have little money available for
defense. The European members of NATO have made clear their unwillingness
to bear any significant additional financial burden. Yet the costs of
admitting these three nations to NATO have been estimated as high as $125
billion. The new planes, tanks and other equipment the lobbyists are
hawking on Capitol Hill must be paid for. Who will pay? Inevitably, the
American people.
It is an advertisement for the cynicism with which NATO expansion is being
promoted that the details backing up NATO's own estimate of the cost of
expansion have been classified. Who does Washington fear will find out this
information? The American public. So those all-important details are now
secret. Is this the way business should be done in the world's greatest
advocate of democratic government?
Any serious proposal for NATO expansion must contain the best possible
estimate of its full costs, with a realistic explanation of who will pay the
bill. Absent such information, the Senate should refuse to bring the matter
to the floor.
In view of these and other serious objections to the expansion of NATO, the
Coalition Against NATO Expansion demands that the Congress of the United
States do its duty.
First, both Houses of Congress should debate every aspect of NATO expansion
extensively and exhaustively. The principal responsibility lies with the
Senate. There, the Foreign Relations Committee should schedule sufficient
additional hearings that the American people are drawn into the debate.
And debate it should be; the opponents of NATO expansion should be
represented equally with its advocates, and the advocates, including the
State Department, should be compelled to address the opponents' arguments,
not merely ignore them. Extensive hearings should also be held in other
committees whose areas of jurisdiction are involved: Armed Services, Budget
and Appropriations. Again, all sides should be heard, not just voices for
the Administration. Major treaties are too important to be left to the
diplomats.
Because tens of billions of dollars in taxpayers' money is involved in this
decision, the House of Representatives also has a role to play. Any
implementing legislation would have to pass the House as well as the Senate.
At the very least, hearings should be held by the House Budget and
Appropriations committees.
Second, the Senate should allow sufficient time to debate NATO expansion on
the floor after adequate hearings have been held. A vote on final passage
should be preceded by at least a week of serious debate and should not be
held until an informed American citizenry can make its voice heard. This
means that no vote should be scheduled before the summer, at the earliest.
Any plan for an earlier vote is railroading the issue.
Third, a series of debates should be held around the country on the merits
of the proposed expansion of NATO. The Coalition Against NATO Expansion
challenges the U.S. Department of State, the principal advocate of
expansion, to such debates. We will provide a politically balanced team of
opponents to meet a State Department team in the major cities of America, in
a series of debates between now and the coming summer. By debating NATO
expansion across America, instead of treating the matter as a Washington
beltway "insider deal," the advocates of expansion can answer the objection
that the American people are not being consulted on a matter of overwhelming
importance to their interests. If the State Department rejects such
debates, it also rejects the participation of the people in this question.
In that case, let us hear no more from this Administration on the world-wide
merits of democracy.
The Coalition Against NATO Expansion is confident that a careful,
thoughtful and thorough consideration of the merits of NATO expansion can
only benefit this country. Deals done in the dark have a way of going bad.
Nor, if the American public is effectively excluded from this decision, does
that public have a stake in it. When the time comes that the treaty must be
backed-up with money and personnel, there is no reason the American people
should agree to do so. A treaty rushed through the Senate with perfunctory
debate would indeed be a scrap of paper. 0ur nation, and the other nations
of the world which will be affected by this historic decision, deserve
better than that.
The Coalition Against NATO Expansion (CANE)
January 26, 1998
Russian, other European Experts Speak Out on Nationwide Tour
January 21, 1998
Senate Ratification in Doubt as Questions Mount
Diplomats, retired military officers, and policy experts will tour fifteen
cities to launch a national debate on the expansion of NATO in the run up to
the Senate ratification vote expected in March. Sponsored by a broad
coalition of citizens groups, the No to NATO Expansion Speakers Tour will
raise popular awareness of the costs and consequences of this top foreign
policy issue.
The once-certain entry of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic is now
clouded by controversy over the true cost of NATO expansion, dubbed the
mother of all unfunded mandates. Cost estimates for the first planned round
of expansion range from $1.5 billion to $125 billion over the next decade.
The Clinton Administration is pushing for admission of up to a dozen or more
former Eastern bloc nations over the next decade, which could cost U.S.
taxpayers up to $250 billion out of a total $500 billion cost to NATO
countries.
At the same time, eminent foreign policy experts believe the expansion plan
to be fatally flawed and inherently dangerous to U.S. and global security.
Leading foreign policy experts from Russia, East and West Europe, the U.S.
and Canada will visit Boston, New York, Yale, Princeton, Washington, D.C.,
Tampa, Atlanta, Chicago, Madison, Milwaukee, Seattle, Portland, San
Francisco, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles.
Speakers include Dr. Alla Yaroshinskaya, advisor to President Yeltsin and
former member of the Russian parliament; Ann Clwyd, MP in the U.K.'s new
Labor Government; Vladimir Lukin, member of the Russian Duma (parliament);
Colonel Yiri Matousek (ret.), Czech Republic; Sir Hugh Beach, retired
four-star British general and former NATO Brigade Commander in Germany;
former Sen. Gary Hart; Douglas Roche, Canada's Ambassador for Disarmament
1984-89 and former member of Parliament, Canada.
A politically diverse group of experts, containing both supporters of the
NATO alliance and those who seek its dissolution, the speakers assert that
expansion would redivide and remilitarize Europe; reopen recent arms control
reductions; trigger Russian rearmament, create an arms sales bonanza in
Eastern Europe financed by U.S. loans, and make renewed nuclear
confrontation with Russia more likely. It is further troubling that NATO
expansion would undermine the three great cooperative organizations of
Europe: the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE), and the European Union.
The No to NATO Expansion Speakers Tour asks who will profit and who will
pay? Why does Clinton seek to burden American taxpayers and soldiers with
costs and obligations that the Eastern Europeans are not able to pay, to
defend them from a Soviet threat which no longer exists, while provoking
great hostility in Russia when, for once, Russia faces a Europe without any
territorial ambitions?
To debate the costs and consequences of NATO expansion with foremost
international NATO analysts and political leaders, call us today at
401-751-8172. Join the Great NATO Debate, destined to become the most
contentious foreign policy issue since NAFTA.
Stimulating Public Debate on NATO Expansion
Guests on NATO Expansion
General Sir Hugh Beach: Retired four-star British general, currently Vice
Chairman of the Council for Arms Control, a British non-governmental
advisory body affiliated with the Department of War Studies at Kings
College, London. General Beach was a NATO Brigade Commander in Germany in
the early 1970s. He has recently joined other retired generals, admirals and
prominent defense and foreign policy experts from the U.K. in signing a
letter to the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, warning of the dangers of
NATO expansion. The letter will be delivered in early 1998. General Beach is
a British signatory to the December 1996 Statement on Nuclear Disarmament by
International Generals and Admirals, organized by former U.S. Commander of
the Strategic Air Command, General Lee Butler (ret.) and former Senator Alan
Cranston. He is the most senior and prominent military officer from the
United States' closest ally, Great Britain, to be speaking out in opposition
to NATO expansion today.
He opposes NATO expansion primarily because of the detrimental affect on US
and Western European relations with Russia, especially in the area of arms
control; because there is no clear strategic mission; because expansion may
weaken NATO.
Tampa, FL: Mon Jan. 26: Brian Keaney 813-632-9230
Washington, DC: Tues Jan. 27, Wed Jan 28 (am): Francyne Harrigan 202-862-0700
Cambridge & Boston, MA: Wed Jan. 28 (pm), Thurs Jan. 29 (am): Susan Shaer
781-643-6740
Trenton & Princeton, NJ: Thurs Jan. 29 (pm): Bob Moore 609-924-5022
New York City: Fri Jan 30, Sat Jan 31: Tracey Moavero 212-750-5795, or
Richard Kim, Nation Institute 212-242-8400 ext. 228
Ann Clwyd: (pronounced CLOO-wid) Labour Member of Parliament, UK
representing Cynon Valley, Wales, since 1984. Former member of the European
Parliament for Mid and West Wales 1974-84. Among many opposition leadership
posts, Ms. Clwyd served as Labour Shadow Secretary on Overseas Development
and Cooperation, 1989-92, and on Foreign Affairs 1994-95. She is chair of
the All Party Group on Human Rights. Before entering politics, Ms. Clwyd
worked as a television and radio reporter for the BBC and as Welsh
correspondent for The Guardian and The Observer newspapers. She is a
prominent proponent in Britain for a ban on landmines, and for nuclear
disarmament.
Dates of visit to be arranged. Contact Karina Wood for more information
401-751-8172.
Ralph DeGennaro: (pronounced duh-juh-NAIR-oh) Executive Director, Taxpayers
for Common Sense, a non-profit, non-partisan watchdog group in Washington,
D.C. dedicated to fighting government waste. TCS works to strengthen U.S.
national security by cutting wasteful and unneeded weapons, getting more
information about defense spending, and ensuring that other nations pay a
fair share of the cost of their own defense. Mr. DeGennaro has fought
military waste for over a decade, helping to win significant victories on
the Star Wars and B-2 Bomber programs that saved billions of dollars for the
taxpayers. Previously, he served six years as staff to various members of
Congress, including Congressman Charles E. Bennett (D-FL), a senior member
of the House Armed Services Committee and Co-chair of the Congressional
Military Reform Caucus. Mr. DeGennaro has broad expertise on the federal
budget, has testified before several congressional committees, and has
debated government waste on the NBC Today Show and CNN's Crossfire.
Opposes NATO expansion primarily because it is a huge waste of the
taxpayers' money. In addition, US arms contractors will win lucrative
contracts in Eastern Europe that the Eastern Europeans will pay for with US
loans, courtesy of the US taxpayers.
Ralph DeGennaro: 202-546-8500 (x102); Fax: 202-546-8511;email:
ralph@taxpayer.net
Dr. Ivan Eland: Director of Defense Policy Studies at the CATO Institute.
Former principal defense analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, and
author of the March 1996 CBO report "The Costs of Expanding the NATO
Alliance." Former analyst in the National Security and International Affairs
Division of the US General Accounting Office. Dr. Eland has appeared on
national television and radio programs many times, and has testified before
Congress on several occasions.
Opposed to NATO expansion primarily on grounds of its high price tag, and
because it is not in the US national interest to pledge military protection
to Eastern European countries which no longer face a tangible threat from
Russia.
Washington, DC: Wed Jan 28: CATO 202-842-0200
Chicago: Wed Feb 4, Thurs Feb 5(am): Carl Nyberg 312-939-3316
Gary Hart (D-CO): Former Senator for Colorado 1975-87. In 1984, he was a
Democratic presidential candidate. Since retiring from the United States
Senate, Gary Hart has been extensively involved in international law and
business, and as a strategic advisor to major US corporations. He is
presently Of Counsel to the international law firm of Coudert Brothers. He
is a member of the Board of the US Russia Investment Fund. During his twelve
years in the Senate, he served on the Armed Services Committee, where he
specialized in nuclear arms control and naval issues, and was an original
founder of the military reform caucus. Sen. Hart is the author of eight
books. His latest book, The Minuteman, will be published by the Free Press
in early 1998.
He opposes NATO expansion because it is a policy error of historic
proportions which will decrease allied security and unsettle European
stability, by serving to strengthen the non-democratic opposition in Russia,
and galvanizing opposition to the START II and III treaties in the Duma.
Russia does not now pose a threat to its western neighbors, and for this
reason and the ones stated above NATO expansion is neither necessary nor
desirable, and should be put on hold. He was one of fifty former Senators,
diplomats and foreign policy experts who signed a letter to the President
last summer, urging that NATO expansion be reconsidered.
Chicago: Wed Feb 4 (pm), Thurs Feb 5 (am): Carl Nyberg 312-939-3316
Major General Leonard Johnson: Retired, Canadian. Former Commandant of the
National Defense College of Canada. Former Chair of the Canadian Pugwash
Group, 1990-97. Member of the Worldwide Consultative Association of Retired
Generals and Admirals. Canadian signatory to the December 1996 Statement on
Nuclear Disarmament by International Generals and Admirals, organized by
former U.S. Commander of the Strategic Air Command, General Lee Butler
(ret.) and former Senator Alan Cranston. A prolific writer and lecturer, and
regular columnist for the Rideau Review-Mirror. He is author of A General
For Peace (Lorimer & Co., 1987).
He opposes NATO expansion primarily because international security is
weakened by bringing new states into NATO and redividing Europe, when the
path to integration lies in economic cooperation, such as membership of the
European Union. Expansion will likely lead to deterioration of relations
between Russia and the US and other NATO countries, and will negatively
affect the chances for progress toward nuclear disarmament.
Yale University: Mon Feb 2: Bruce Martin 860-522-5995
New Haven (and maybe New York): Tues Feb 3: Bruce Martin 860-522-5995
Chicago: Wed Feb 4, Thurs Feb 5 (am): Carl Nyberg 312-939-3316
Dr. Carl Kaysen: David W. Skinner Professor of Political Economy, Emeritus,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Former deputy special assistant for
National Security Affairs to President Kennedy, 1961-63. In 1987-88, Dr.
Kaysen was chairman of the Editorial Advisory Board for the Nuclear Age
Project, a 13 part television documentary history produced by WGBH-TV,
Boston's public television station. Dr. Kaysen's expertise is in the
changing concepts of security in the post-cold war world, and how
international action affects national sovereignty.
He opposes NATO expansion because it is a policy error of historic
proportions which will decrease allied security and unsettle European
stability, by serving to strengthen the non-democratic opposition in Russia,
and galvanizing opposition to the START II and III treaties in the Duma.
Russia does not now pose a threat to its western neighbors, and for this
reason and the ones stated above NATO expansion is neither necessary nor
desirable, and should be put on hold. He was one of fifty former Senators,
diplomats and foreign policy experts who signed a letter to the President
last summer, urging that NATO expansion be reconsidered.
Cambridge/Boston: Wed Jan 28: MIT 617-258-6531
Geoffrey Kean: Former Director of International Affairs, IBM World Trade
Corporation, Mr. Kean is a German born naturalized US citizen who has lived
in Germany, England and the United States. Before coming to the United
States, he worked for the British Broadcasting Company making documentaries.
He was IBM's liaison with international governmental bodies and involved in
negotiations with various governments. He helped to formulate and coordinate
policy with respect to changing conditions of international investment and
trade and the needs of developing countries. In this capacity, he traveled
extensively throughout Europe and the globe. After twenty-two years with
IBM, he left to establish his own company, The Corporate Intelligence Group,
advising investment houses and corporations.
He opposes NATO expansion on the grounds that it is a nebulous scenario with
no accurate costs or time limit which will divert billions of American
taxpayers' dollars away from their main concerns -- child care, looking
after our parents, good education, more stable and family-friendly working
conditions. While at the same time alienating Russia, when we should be
working on ways to bring Russia into global finance and trading
partnerships, which would benefit American business.
Geoffrey Kean: 203-438-0256; fax: 203-438-3489
Yale University: Mon Feb 2: Bruce Martin 860-522-5995
Dave Knight: Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), UK. With a
membership of 40,000, CND is one of Europe's oldest and the largest
grassroots anti-nuclear organization, celebrating its fortieth anniversary
this year. Mr. Knight and CND are organizing and leading public opposition
in Britain to the expansion of NATO. He has provided consultation to the new
Labour government on their current Strategic Defense Review, and has
recently attended government seminars and meetings at the Ministry of
Defense. He has briefed various non-nuclear weapons states delegates to the
UN Non-Proliferation Treaty review conferences. Often appearing in the
British press, Mr. Knight is a frequent public speaker in Britain and other
European countries; this is his second speaking tour of the United States.
He opposes NATO expansion primarily because NATO is a nuclear alliance and
its enlargement constitutes an act of nuclear proliferation. He questions
the political and military necessity of NATO in the post-cold war world, and
suggests that Europe would be better served to govern its own military and
economic affairs.
Los Angeles: Mon Feb 2: Jonathan Parfrey 310-458-2694
San Francisco: Tues Feb 3: Colleen Miller: 510-845-8395
Seattle: Wed Feb 5: Scott Carpenter 206-527-8050
Portland: Thurs Feb 6, Friday Feb 7: Michael Carrigan 503-585-2767
Dr. Richard Pipes: A Polish-born, naturalized US citizen, Dr. Pipes is the
Frank B. Baird, Jr. professor of History, Emeritus, at Harvard University.
Former Director for East European and Soviet Affairs on the National
Security Council, 1981-82. In 1976, he chaired the CIA's "Team B" to review
strategic intelligence estimates. His many publications on Russia include A
Concise History of the Russian Revolution (Knopf, 1985) and US-Soviet
Relations in the Era of Dйtente (Westview Press,1981). Dr. Pipes was awarded
the Commander's Cross of Merit by the Republic of Poland in 1996.
He opposes NATO expansion because: 1) Excluding Russia from Europe will lead
it to assert its great power status by forging closer military and economic
ties with the Ukraine, Central Asia and China - creating antagonisms not
beneficial to the US and global stability; 2) to gain Moscow's approval for
expansion, the West has had to make a variety of concessions, the most
troublesome of which is the formation of the NATO-Russia Joint Council,
which may in time prove NATO's undoing; 3) the Duma is delaying ratification
of START II to punish Yeltsin for approving NATO's expansion. Reducing
weapons capable of destroying the United States would improve our security
much more than guarding against the hypothetical Russian threat to the
sovereignty of former Soviet bloc states. He was one of fifty former
Senators, diplomats and foreign policy experts who signed a letter to the
President last summer, urging that NATO expansion be reconsidered.
Speaking dates to be arranged. Contact him directly at 617-492-0727.
Dr. George Rathjens: A professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology since 1968, Dr. Rathjens is the Secretary General of
the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. His expertise is in
military research, public policy development, nuclear arms control and the
role of nuclear weapons in Russian-American relations. He was on the staff
of President Eisenhower's science advisor, George Kistiakowsky, 1959-1960;
chief scientist and then deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects
Agency, Department of Defense, 1960-62; deputy assistant for Science and
Technology and then special assistant to the director, US Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency, 1962-65. In 1979, he was deputy to Gerard Smith,
President Carter's Ambassador-At-Large for Nuclear Nonproliferation Matters.
He opposes NATO expansion primarily because international security is
weakened by bringing new states into NATO and redividing Europe, when the
path to integration lies in economic cooperation, such as membership of the
European Union. Expansion will likely lead to deterioration of relations
between Russia and the US and other NATO countries, and will negatively
affect the chances for progress toward nuclear disarmament. He was one of
fifty former Senators, diplomats and foreign policy experts who signed a
letter to the President last summer, urging that NATO expansion be
reconsidered.
Cambridge, MA: Wed Jan 28: American Academy of Arts & Sciences 617-576-5021
New York City: Fri Jan 30: Tracey Moavero 212-750-5795, or Richard Kim,
Nation Institute 212-242-8400 ext. 228
Douglas Roche: Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament 1984-89. Former
Chairman of the United Nations Disarmament Committee, 1988. Mr. Roche served
four terms in the Canadian parliament from 1972-84, specializing in
development and disarmament issues. He lectures widely on these themes
today. He is a visiting professor at the University of Alberta where he
teaches the course "War or Peace in the 21st Century?" He is the author of
fifteen books, his latest being The Ultimate Evil: The Moral Case Against
Nuclear Weapons (Lorimer, Oct. 1997). Mr. Roche is founding president of
Parliamentarians for Global Action, an international network of 1,200
parliamentarians in 82 countries. He is president of Global Security
Consultants, specializing in monitoring global security trends.
He opposes NATO expansion primarily because NATO is a nuclear alliance and
its enlargement constitutes an act of nuclear proliferation. Expansion
threatens ratification of START II in the Russian Duma, and is already
provoking a renewed Russian reliance on nuclear weapons which will make
nuclear reductions and disarmament much more problematic.
Santa Barbara: Wed Feb 4, Thurs Feb 5: David Krieger 805-965-3443
Atlanta: Fri Feb 6, Sat Feb 7: Bobbie Wrenn Banks 404-370-0491
Dr. Alla Yaroshinskaya: (pronounced YAR-oh-shin-SKY-yah) Advisor on nuclear
weapons proliferation and arms control to the President of the Russian
Federation, Boris Yeltsin. Member of the USSR parliament 1989-91. Member of
the European Parliament 1990-91. A former journalist for the Russian
newspaper Radvanska Zhitomirshina, Dr. Yaroshinskaya has served since 1992
as secretary of the Journalists Union of Russia. She is a frequent lecturer
in Europe on disarmament and the environment, and is published widely. She
is author of the controversial Russian best sellers Chernobyl Is With Us
(1991) and Chernobyl: Top Secret.
She opposes NATO expansion primarily because of the hostility it is creating
in Russia, which will likely lead to a rise in support for nationalist,
isolationist politicians, and a renewed reliance on nuclear weapons. The
Duma is likely to postpone indefinitely ratification of the START II nuclear
weapons reduction treaty, and it will be harder to move towards nuclear
disarmament. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact,
NATO no longer has a clear mission.
Los Angeles: Mon Feb 2: Jonathan Parfrey 310-458-2694
San Francisco: Tues Feb 3: Colleen Miller: 510-845-8395
Seattle: Wed Feb 4: Scott Carpenter 206-527-8050
Portland: Thurs Feb 5; Friday Feb 6 (am): Michael Carrigan 503-585-2767
Bay area: Friday Feb 6: Colleen Miller 510-845-8395
Karina Wood
Tour Coordinator
No to NATO Expansion Speakers Tour
43 Nisbet St, 3rd Fl.
Providence, RI 02906
Tel: 401 751-8172
Fax: 401 751-1476
Email: kwood@igc.org
Пишете ни: iskri@ecn.org