The International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) is an independent non-profit-organization concerned about the impact of science and technology on society. INES was founded in 1991. INES' efforts focus on disarmament and international peace, ethics, justice and sustainable development. INES is affiliated with the United Nations an with UNESCO as a NON-Governmental Organization (NGO). INES has become a network of nearly 100 organisations and individual members.

The "What's New In INES" (wnii) is the main communication instrument of INES. It shall give the member organisations the possibility to publish their articles, and serve at the same time as a general overview of related international news.

Editor: Kristin Kropidlowski:

WNII is archived under:

INES official site:

INES international Office:

INES Chair: Claus Montonen:

The recent issue of the INES newsletter is available at:


Topics, WNII, Issue No. 1/2006, January 2006


- In Focus: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran

- Nuclear War against Iran by Michel Chossudovsky

- An Arms Trade Treaty for conventional weapons?

- Putin's show of strength triggers fear of fresh nuclear arms race


- Foundation Launches New Blog for Its UC Nuclear Free Campaign

- Foundation Releases New Collection of Peace Quotes

- Mordechai Vanunu Arrested Again, Released a Day Later


- Nations Debate Approaches to Greener Development by John Heilprin


- Global Nuclear Survey: Public Support for New Power Plants Remains Tentative

- Pakistan, China to Expand Nuclear Cooperation


- IPRA Biennial Conference "Patterns of Conflict Path to Peace", June 29 - July 3, 2006 in Calgary / Canada


- "Thinking with Einstein" Conference Report by Reiner Braun

- "Why Nations Go Nuclear" by David Krieger





Updated news, press-reviews, key documents and more is available at the official IAEA site under:


NUCLEAR WAR AGAINST IRAN by Michel Chossudovsky


The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.

Coalition partners, which include the US,  Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister  Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets."  Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).

To read the full article please visit




While there are international conventions and treaties covering various weapons of mass destruction, there are none for conventional small arms and light weapons.  Since 2001 an Arms Trade Treaty has been proposed and together with regional codes of conduct, is gaining some momentum.  However, the codes of conduct have not been as useful as hoped, due to divergent standards, interpret ations, and even weaknesses, dilutions and loopholes that have allowed nations tosell or transfer arms on to human rights violators.  An Arms Trade Treaty attempts to consolidate existing obligations that states have already undertaken.  The experiences of existing codes of conduct could therefore help make such a treaty more likely to work. Additional information has been added in this area. You will find more under the above metioned link.




VLADIMIR Putin has sparked fears of a new arms race between Russia and the United States by deploying a nuclear ballistic strike force system that officials made clear could penetrate US anti- missile defences.

On Christmas Eve, the Russian army activated a new fleet of Topol-M missiles that can fit a nuclear warhead and travel 6,000 miles, changing trajectory to foil any enemy interception device.

The accompanying hawkish rhetoric of the Russian military commanders and the frenetic response of the US navy have stoked concern that the former Cold War adversaries have quietly resumed the arms race.

[...] Gen Solovtsov, a critic of US anti- missile defence technology, said the Topol-M missile "is capable of piercing any missile defence system" and is immune to electromagnetic blasts used by current US anti-missile systems.

While Russia had disbanded two missile divisions last year, it has now formed more than 20 new units - in the fastest increase of nuclear spending since the run-up to the Cuban missile crisis.

[...] Since the last US-Russia arms control treaty was signed in 1993 in Moscow, Russia has struggled to fund technology to replace its ageing defence system. The budget dried up as the Russian economy suffered.

But now the economy is flush with new oil wealth, the nuclear missile programme has been revived and was last month allocated a £1 billion budget increase from the Kremlin. This has boosted Mr Putin's popularity.

The unabridged article you will find at the mentioned link. For related information concerning nuclear defense see





Source: The Sunflower, Monthly Newsletter of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Jan 2006 / Issue No. 104

The Foundation has launched a new blog for its UC Nuclear Free Campaign. The new blog, available on the UC Nuclear Free website at, was launched in December and creates a much more interactive and responsive approach to involving broad student involvement in the campaign.  The blog structure for the site allows the campaign to be more timely and effective in providing up-to-date information and actions.  We invite you to visit the site to view and respond to new postings.

The UC Nuclear Free Campaign seeks to inform and mobilize students at the University of California (UC) to end the University's involvement in the design, research, testing and production of nuclear weapons.  The UC has managed the nation's nuclear weapons labs for more than 50 years and has overseen the production of every nuclear weapon in the US arsenal.  The Foundation feels that there is an inherent moral dilemma in institutions of higher learning being involved in the production of weapons of mass destruction and seeks to end this practice.



Source: The Sunflower, Monthly Newsletter of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Jan 2006 / Issue No. 104

The Foundation has published a new collection of peace quotations entitled "Speaking of Peace".  The booklet, edited by Foundation president David Krieger, is divided into ten sections, each comprising a different theme of peace.  As Krieger notes in his Introduction, "it seems evident to me that humankind has reached a point in history when we badly need the accumulated wisdom of the past if we are to have a decent future".  The insights provided by the many exceptional leaders and thinkers in this collection are at times profoundly moving and can help to guide us on the path to peace. "Speaking of Peace" can be downloaded as a PDF at



Source: The Sunflower, Monthly Newsletter of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Dec 2005 / Issue No. 103

On 19 November 2005, Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu was released on bail a day after being arrested for entering the West Bank in breach of conditions imposed on him when he was released in April 2004 after serving an 18-year sentence for revealing Israel's nuclear program.

Vanunu was detained at the Al-Ram checkpoint north of Jerusalem as he returned from the West Bank. During his arrest, Vanunu said, "I wanted to protest against the apartheid wall that is shutting the Palestinians off in a ghetto".

Vanunu's restrictions are renewable every 12 months and include a ban on travel to the Palestinian territories. He is also prohibited from going abroad and from speaking to foreign journalists without prior authorization. Attempts to overturn the restrictions have so far failed.

Orginally from: "Israel releases nuclear whistleblower Vanunu", AFP, 19 November 2005.






WASHINGTON (January 05, 2006). Producers of half the world's "greenhouse" gases are angling for more private investment to create cleaner energy technologies and help slow global warming.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and presidential adviser James Connaughton will meet next week in Sydney, Australia, with representatives from five Asian and Pacific nations. Along with the U.S., these countries account for nearly half the world's population, energy use and economic output.

The White House said its talks with Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea will enhance rather than replace the Kyoto climate treaty that President Bush rejected because of its mandatory cuts in carbon dioxide, methane and other gases.

"It's a complement to it," Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said Wednesday. "For the countries in Kyoto, it will be a very useful tool for them to meet their obligations."

Among major developed nations, only the United States and Australia reject the 1997 treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, that mandates specific cutbacks in emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases by 2012 in 35 industrialized countries.

China and India signed the treaty as developing nations, exempting them from the first round of emissions cuts. Japan must cut emissions by 6 percent below 1990 levels, and South Korea by 5 percent.

Fossil fuel-burning in the U.S. produces one-quarter of the world's gases that scientists blame for trapping heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse. The Bush administration advocates slowing the growth rate of those gases, not reversing the trend.

Connaughton said the "Asia-Pacific partnership" announced last July would drum up more private investment for common goals. They include U.S. and Chinese plans to improve energy efficiency in coal-burning power plants and cut acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide emissions.

"This is harder than negotiating a diplomatic document, because this is creating real work plans," he said. "The only way to reduce the environmental impact of growth in key developing countries like China and India is through growing the economies that will pay for the efficiency and pollution controls that make the cuts possible. We welcome their growth."

Far more will be required if China's economy keeps expanding at its current rate, said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, an environmental research group.

He argues in a new book that China could reach current U.S. income and consumption levels by 2031 -- and the world lacks the basic resources to sustain that.

"China is demonstrating that the Western economic model, the fossil fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy is not going to work," he said Wednesday. "And if it won't work for China, it won't work for India. Nor will it work for the other 3 billion people in developing countries also dreaming the American dream."

European wind farms, Japanese solar rooftops, U.S. hybrid cars, South Korea's reforested hills and bicycle-laden streets in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, are all examples of the "eco-economy" Brown has in mind.

Building it, he said, would require $161 billion a year in global spending on renewable energy, diversified transportation and far greater reuse and recycling of materials.

Rice is also traveling to Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, for talks on the country's democratic development and strengthening military ties with the United States. Bird flu is also on her agenda in Jakarta. Military ties have improved since the 1990s, when U.S. cut off most cooperation in response to government crackdowns in the troubled territory of East Timor.

Originally in: Associated Press





Source: IAEA Press Release 2005/16, 14 December 2005

A new 18-country opinion survey sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found that "while majorities of citizens generally support the continued use of existing nuclear reactors, most people do not favour the building of new nuclear plants."

Indeed, the findings of the survey, conducted by Globescan Inc. show that "six in ten citizens (62%) overall believe that existing nuclear reactors should continue to be used, yet six in ten (59%) do not favour new nuclear plants being built."

At a time when the nuclear power option is being vigorously pursued in the fast developing countries of Asia and being reconsidered in some European nations and the USA, the findings raise questions as to whether the nuclear industry and politicians have sufficiently raised public confidence in the safety and efficiency of the nuclear power option.

Regionally, support for nuclear power is highest in South Korea, the United States and India, where clear pluralities support the building of new nuclear plants. In Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Cameroon, pluralities prefer that all existing plants be shut down.

The IAEA-sponsored survey was conducted between May and August this year in 18 countries representing all regions. Approximately 18,000 people were polled by telephone and in-person interviews. The opinion poll fielded six distinct questions, ranging from awareness of the IAEA and the effectiveness of IAEA inspections to support for peaceful nuclear applications and views about the security of nuclear materials and facilities and the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Among the many revealing findings from the survey:

- Pluralities of citizens in all but three of the 18 countries surveyed believe that IAEA inspections are not effective in monitoring countries´ nuclear programmes. An average of 46 percent of people across the 18 countries surveyed say that IAEA inspections are not effective, while three in ten people (29%) say that they are.

- Majorities in 14 of the 18 countries - and pluralities in the remaining four countries - believes that the risk of terrorist acts involving radioactive materials and nuclear facilities is high because of insufficient protection. A majority of 54 percent across all countries surveyed believe the risk of nuclear terrorism to be high, while three in ten (28%) say that the risk is low.

- People appreciate the value of nuclear technology. When asked to consider the peaceful uses of nuclear technology, people in all but three countries are most supportive, by far, of medical applications, followed by electricity generation. Across the 18 countries surveyed, respondents are most likely to choose the use of nuclear technology to treat human diseases as their preferred application (39%). This is followed by electricity generation (26%).

- Stressing the climate benefits of nuclear energy positively influences one in ten people to be more supportive of expanding the role of nuclear power in the world, but there is still a general reluctance to build more nuclear plants.

- Awareness of the IAEA among the general population is generally low. However, one in four citizens across the 18 countries surveyed say that they have heard or read "a lot" or "some" about the agency, with higher awareness in Asia and the Middle East.

The full report, Global Public Opinion on Nuclear Issues and the IAEA - Final Report from 18 Countries, is being released today by the IAEA in Vienna. The countries surveyed included: Argentina, Australia, Cameroon, Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and the United States. It is available under



Source: The Sunflower, Monthly Newsletter of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Jan 2006 / Issue No. 104

On 28 December 2005, China and Pakistan agreed to expand the scope of existing nuclear energy cooperation agreements. Sun Qin, China's Minister for Science and Technology and Chairman of China's Atomic Energy Authority, assured Pakistan's Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz that China will continue to cooperate with Pakistan, and assist in Pakistan's ambitious plan to build as many as eight new reactors by the year 2030.

During a meeting of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission on 30 December, Aziz announced that increasing nuclear generating capacity by 8,800 MW will become a national priority.

The expanded Sino-Pak nuclear partnership follows the controversial agreement between the US and India whereby the US will supply India with civil nuclear material so long as India separates its civil and military nuclear programs. The Sino-Pak nuclear partnership is similarly controversial in that both India and Pakistan are not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and are unofficial nuclear-weapons states.

Originally from: "Pakistan launches nuclear project", BBC News, 28 December 2005; "Pakistan, China agree to further enhance nuclear cooperation", Asian Tribune, 29 December 2005; "Pak plans to produce 8,800 MW of nuclear power by 2030: Aziz", Rediff, 30 December 2005.






June 29-July 3, 2006

Calgary, Canada

Waging peace is the greatest affair of mankind in the 21st century, the basis of life and death, the way to survival or extinction. Hence, it is imperative that it be thoroughly studied. (What Sun Tzu said about waging war is even more true for waging peace.)

We would like to invite IPRA members and others to provide proposals for papers, panels, or other contributions.

The next biennial conference "Patterns of Conflict, Paths to Peace" will be held in Calgary (Canada) from June 29 to July 3, 2006. Our Calgary team is taking the lead in organizing the meeting. The members of the Council and Commission Conveners are working hard to compose exciting panels and discussion sessions.

The plenary themes for the Calgary conference will be the following:

- Aboriginal Canadians on peace

- Peace and the environment

- Peace journalism

- "Professionalism" in violence prevention and peace building

- Peace research and action: regional trends in the 21st century

- Security with a human face

- Sustainable peace building architecture

Deadline for submission of proposals: 15 February 2006!

You can submit the proposal forms by mail, e-mail or via the IPRA website. IPRA has a limited number of scholarships. More informations you can find at





International Peace Conference as Part of the Einstein-Year 2005

From October 14th - 16th, 2005 took the international peace conference "Thinking with Einstein. The Responsibility of Science for Peace in the 21th Century" place. More than 600 participants followed the invitation of the organising committee [Association for Peace and Conflict Research, the German Foundation for Peace Research, the Research Association for Science, Disarmament and International Security, Scientist for Peace and Responsibility and Federation of German Scientists] to join the congress that was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Research and Technology.

Renowned scientists, prominent personalities as well as interested and engaged people discussed in the traditional convention centre Urania in Berlin the challenges of peace and the role of sciences today. Thinking with Albert Einstein, a scientist who passionately engaged in the political debates of his time and who always remained aware of the social responsibility that accompanied his profession, was the slogan of the weekend.

Prominent personalities like Maria Muller, Daniel Ellsberg and Samir Amin argued on Friday evening after the opening and welcome address by Volker Rittberger and the education minister Edelgard Bulmahn about the necessity of civil engagement in a world characterised by war, hunger, oppression and the increasing structural irresponsibility of sciences. Connected to and in tradition of the promotion of civil engagement were on Saturday the scientists Theodore Postol and Arpad Pusztai with  the so called Whistleblower Price awarded.

The Friday evening remembered the late peace noble laureate Sir Joseph Rotblat who was supposed to give the inaugural address. The main work was made on Saturday. In nine parallel forums discussed international renowned scientist together with the participants the social responsibility of sciences, the guiding principles of research and the requirements of a sustainable policy of peace and disarmament. It would go beyond the scope of this paper to write in detail about each of those forums. Instead have a look to the summarising report of Wolfgang Liebert which you will find on the web page of the congress.

Here I would like to refer to a few thoughts that seem to me remarkable within a continuing discussion: The basic changes which are connecting to the keyword "globalisation" challenge the general framework of peace and science, even though old questions like are still up to date, for instance continuing threats such as weapons of mass destruction already discussed by Albert Einstein. In this context, we need to have a close look to the phenomena of "new wars" and therefore the complex of privatisation. Asymmetric wars and the increasing militaristic interventions demand civil alternative, including an obvious strengthen peace research that is not only transcending an "end of pipe" strategy, but also addressing central questions of international law and political hegemony. Are those concept of sustainability a social alternative? We are in a process of seeking like Wolfgang Liebert said. Clear is the reinvigoration of expenses in armament research and the rising difficulties in differentiating it from civil research ["dual-use" issue, biotechnology]. The sciences have to ask if a separation in basic and applied research is - in view of "technology-science" - possible at all. The relevance of a world-economy was devised, alternatives and analyses were  discussed controversially with decline of the "neo-liberal walkover". Reform and system-alternative were the two maybe not antagonistic keywords. The role of the UN as peace and equality creating organisation was emphasised. Thereby, it was referred to the insufficient implementation of the millennium goals. Do we need to go back to the old/new international law? If yes, how? The dynamic within the scientific-technological area requires new answers concerning the armament control. Just one keyword shall be the pre-emptive armament control which can be an alternative to the increasing militarisation in Europe.

Attention was given also to central questions of democracy or better democratisation and participation relating to different actors. This contains the scientific area, too. Many questions were asked, but also answers disputed. It was an ambition for answers in the best terms of Einstein.

Sunday's focus was the panel discussion "Thinking with Einstein: For a Future without Weapons of Mass Destruction". The main objective was to foster a dialogue between [peace]science, politics and society. Therefore, staff of the European commission, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and NGOs discussed the explosive global problem of peace: weapons of mass destruction. Even though they all agreed to obtain a strengthen process of nuclear disarmament, the strategic and tactical differences dominated the discussion, especially concerning a further prohibition of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. No wonder with this composition. But the discussion was anyway an attempt to be interoperable without expecting that one would disclaim his position. Particularly the NGOs are demanded to think about a new anti-nuclear-movement "from the bottom". Apparently, neither the diplomacy nor politics have this ability.

The day before the congress the Potsdam Manifesto by Hans-Peter Dürr and Daniel Dahm has been presented on a press conference. It is a sequel to the Russell-Einstein-Manifesto and sues for the basic necessity of a new thinking to the civilising tasks of the human kind.

Conference, Whistleblower Award Ceremony 2005 and Potsdam Manifesto attracted  an almost unusual attention in the media. The main contributions and contents of the congress are going to be published in form of a book.

The conference which prearrangement was not always easy and peaceful is regarded in the review from its speakers and participants as a success and from the organising committee as a demand for keeping at the topic.

Reiner Braun, project leader and staff member of the project Einstein at the Max-Planck-Institute for Science History.



Source: The Sunflower, Monthly Newsletter of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Dec 2005 / Issue No. 103

Understanding the reasons why a country chooses to go nuclear are complex, variable and speculative, but I would offer as a hypothesis four principal, though often overlapping factors: fear, security, enhancing the country's bully potential or countering another country's bully potential, and prestige. North Korea seems to be pioneering a fifth reason: to use the weapons as a bargaining chip to gain security guarantees and financial concessions. Each country that chooses to go nuclear will certainly reflect some or all of these reasons in their decision, although they may be in different combinations or proportions for different states. The reasons that the current nuclear weapons states went nuclear provide insights into these dynamics.

To read the full article, visit