The United Nations First Committee has voted, by an overwhelming margin, for state users of depleted uranium weapons to release data on where the weapons have been used to governments of states affected by their use.

136 states last night voted in favor of a resolution calling on state users of depleted uranium weapons to release quantitative and geographical data to the governments of affected states. The resolution will now go forward to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) for a second vote at the end of November.

Although UNGA resolutions are non-binding, they are a useful means of focusing attention on key issues. In this case the ongoing failure of the US to release data on its use of depleted uranium in Iraq and concerns over the use of the weapons in other conflicts, such as the interventions in Somalia in the mid-1990s. The resolution was submitted by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.

The resolution was opposed by only four states – the US, UK, France and Israel. These four also voted against previous resolutions accepting that DU has the potential to damage human health (2007) and calling for more research in affected states (2008).

For a full rundown of the results visit: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/348.html

Here is a link to a recent study of cancer and birth defects in iraq:

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf, and a wiki page on the likely cause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium.

And here are links to stories I’ve published about depleted uranium:

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/133581_du04.html

The event, “Iran-Israel-U.S.: Resolving the Nuclear Impasse,” is planned for December 16th at Seattle’s Town Hall. The organizers say that many in the progressive community are deeply concerned that the United States and/or Israel may take military action against Iran. These fears have been exacerbated by the recent House bill that provides for severe sanctions against Iran and by the continued statements from neocons in the United States and Israel declaring military force as the only way to curb Iran’s nuclear efforts.

The organizers of this event, in a recent fundraising letter, say, “This conference will present a comprehensive approach that could resolve major difference through diplomacy and open a new era in relations between these three current enemies. It will also discuss the best means of supporting the Iran reform movement in its efforts to encourage a government based on democracy and tolerance.”

One of the key organizers, Richard Silverstein, said, “The purpose of this event is to show the American people that there are legitimate ways to resolve the differences between the U.S. and Iran short of force and violence. Most analysts believe that neither sanctions nor a military attack can impede Iran’s nuclear program in any serious way. The only way to resolve this issue is through diplomacy and negotiation.”

The conference will feature three analysts who will discuss U.S. and Israeli policy options including sanctions and the possible military attack. The speakers will be: Reza Firouzbakht, national board chair, National Iranian American Council; Ian Lustick, political science professor, University of Pennsylvania; and Dr. Keith Weissman, former director of AIPAC’s Iran desk.

The conference coalition includes: the Middle East Center, Jackson School of International Studies, Univ. of Washington; the Stroum Jewish Studies Program, Univ. of Washington; the American Friends Service Committee; the United Nations Association; Peace Action of Washington; the Network Promoting Peace with Iran; Jewish Voice for Peace; and American Muslims of Puget Sound.

“I hope to show that Israel sees its interest as stirring up as much animosity as possible against Iran within this country — if Israel had its way I believe it would attack Iran,” Silverstein said. “But I hope we can do everything possible to show that the way to ease a possible Iranian nuclear threat is not through the path Israel would choose.”

The conference, despite its support, is not a done deal. Organizers are still trying to come up with the full $4,000 that the Town Hall event costs. So far, donors have come through with about $1,500. So there is a considerable amount of money to be raised.

If you are able to help, a tax-deductible contribution may be made to:

American Friends Service Committee
c/o Iran Conference (note this on your check as well)
814 NE 40th Street
Seattle, WA 98105

Or you may mail a check to:
Richard Silverstein
1110 37th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122

Barack Obama would like to go where no sitting U.S. president has gone before: to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s a real statement of Obama’s interest in eliminating nuclear weapons.

In an interview with Japan’s NHK public broadcasting network in advance of a trip to the Asian country this week, Obama said, “The memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are etched in the minds of the world and I would be honored to have the opportunity to visit those cities at some point during my presidency.” After Tuesday’s broadcast, the mayors of the two atomic-bombed cities quickly welcomed the statement as a very positive sign.

In the United States, Associated Press reported the statement in terms of the possible political controversy at home. Some conservatives would try to make the president look like he was apologizing for the atomic bombings at the end of World War II and attempt to dismiss his pursuit of a nuclear weapons-free world as naïve.

Although an apology would be justified (as with so many actions on all sides of the war), it’s not going to happen when some 60 percent of Americans – especially those who are white and older – believe the bombings were justified. But thinking that something may have been justified in the context of the world’s worst war hardly eliminates the element of human sympathy most Americans can feel and their rational concern about nuclear dangers.

In any visit, Obama’s points would be to promote nuclear weapons nonproliferation, to mourn the tragic toll of hundreds of thousands of victims and to express the world’s hope that the August 1945 bombings remain the only atomic attacks. Across the political spectrum, most Americans would be in accord with the president. Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former secretaries of state in Republican administrations, are active in promoting the complete abolition of nuclear weapons as a matter of national security.

Obama made no promises. But his interview will raise hopes even higher in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where people young and old had launched petitions asking the president to visit. As leaders of the international Mayors for Peace (Seattle’s outgoing leader, Greg Nickels, is a member), Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba and Nagasaki’s Tomihisa Taue have directed a great deal of attention to making progress on nuclear abolition when the United Nations holds a major review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty next May. As Obama tries to contain and reduce nuclear dangers, a visit to Hiroshima or Nagasaki would be a powerful symbolic card to play.

The leaders threatened new sanctions against Iran if it fails to comply.

All good, I suppose. We definitely need fewer nuclear arms in the world, not more. (The current roster of nuclear-armed nations, including the U.S., France and Britain, would do the world an enormous service by beginning to dismantle their stockpile.) And Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not endeared himself to the world community over the years. That unpopularity combined with Iran’s violent response to the disputed presidential vote makes him and his country an easy target. Maybe too easy.

Turns out this previously undisclosed site, which Iran, itself, told the International Atomic Energy Agency about in a letter earlier this week, was well known to our intelligence community. Also, after the statement on possible new sanctions, Iran said it would allow inspectors to visit the site.

So, this all seems a little overblown. Wasn’t there enough to concentrate on at the G-20 economic summit? Does this mean that the economy is rosy? I don’t think so.

Also, I’m starting to understand why these world leaders are often accused of having a double-standard regarding certain nations of the world.

Obama, in his statement Friday said, “The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.”

There is another nation in that part of the world that has defied “international standards and international laws” for years yet neither the United States, France, nor Britain has called for sanctions against it.

Yes, I’m talking about Israel.

Israel has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Not surprisingly, most of those resolutions call upon Israel to comply, in its actions towards Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter.
Way back in 1967, the UN Security Council, under Resolution 237, called upon Israel to “ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.”

Israel ignored the Security Council and defied the world community and today, 42 years after that resolution, it continues to defy it and all related resolutions since then.

When was the last time you heard a U.S. president, or a French or British president, call for sanctions against Israel?

Oh, and, by the way, Israel has a “secret” nuclear weapons program and a nuclear arsenal.