new icn messageflickr-free-ic3d pan white

Adult Content

You must be signed in to see this content. Sign in

Back to photostream

NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT 2014 @PEACE PALACE in The Hague "Don't feed the doves" ...

NUCLEAR SECURITY SUMMIT 2014 (1) @PEACE PALACE (2) in The Hague "Don't feed the doves", as long as the eagles of war still have their nuclear nests in the Netherlands. (3)

 

We should keep in mind, that in spite of the Netherlands hosting the Peace Palace for over one century, the military policy of the Netherlands is not one of peaceful disarmament. The Netherlands is one of the countries that is host to USA nuclear weapons in Europe for decades. These nuclear war heads (B51) are stored on the Volkel Air Base in the south of the Netherlands. Last year the Dutch parliament was forced to accept - implicitly - this nuclear war role, also for the future, by the governmental decision to buy a new type of jet-fighter JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) that has as one of its features to carry a nuclear war head inside it's 'stealth' body... for secure disastrous delivery. The decision for using such a monstrous device does not even lay with the Dutch government, but is managed by the Americans, who do control the whole storage and activation of nuclear weapons in the Netherlands and at a few more spots in Europe (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey (is grouped for this 'occasion as a European nation as a NATO partner). This practice is called 'nuclear sharing'.(4)

 

It is not only the hosting of these nuclear weapons for mass destruction by the Netherlands to which attention should be drawn, the Netherlands also is a provider of components for chemical- and -nuclear weapons for other countries (the United States, Israel and Pakistan still today, and Iraq in the past). (5)

 

This is situation that is not at all mentioned in all the statements of the actual Nuclear Security Summit. Not only can the Americans - during a conflict - decide to use the nuclear devices stored in the Netherlands, it also makes the Netherlands a target in the military logic of 'strike first' of opponents of NATO, the Netherlands or the USA.

 

Even worse, the whole concept and practice of 'nuclear sharing' is seen by others than the United States and it's allies (NATO, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) as a breach of the principles laid down in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty prohibits "the transfer and acceptance, respectively, of direct or indirect control over nuclear weapons." (6)

 

As world leaders are flocking to The Hague to the Nuclear Security Summit 2014, there are many that are 'eagles' and 'hawks' cloaked as doves.

 

The dove of peace can not be fed while the eagle of war has it's nuclear nest in the Netherlands and elsewhere.

 

---- post scriptum ----

Yesterday I made an associative 'news-tableau' about celebrities and world leaders making their presence in Amsterdam these days (from Byoncé to Obama and Xi Jinping), all my associations come together on the Amsterdam Dam square. This square carries the National Monument for WWII victims and is bordered at the other side by what is called The Royal Palace (a historical 17th century building that was once the city hall). As visual and text associations kept popping up in my brain, I also noticed something that was about the ubiquitous use of the symbol of peace, a white dove: "At the back of the pillar of the National Monument of the Netherlands, the sculptor has sculpted a series of doves that are about to free themselves from the marble column... are these doves messengers, angels of peace, pure and white like the dress of Beyoncé?", was my comment.

www.flickr.com/photos/7141213@N04/13357161104/

 

This morning I looked around for the logos', icons and symbols used by the Nuclear Security Summit 2014 in The Hague and, once again, it is full of doves, associated with the metamorphosis graphics of the Dutch artist Esser. (7) Not that it has been done in any intelligent way... it is mere decoration for what otherwise would have been just text. One can say that often the graphics do express the quality and intent of a meeting, or the lack of it.

---- /post scriptum ----

 

====

notes

 

(1) "The Nuclear Security Summit 2014 is a world summit, aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism around the globe."

www.nss2014.com/en

 

(2) "The foundation of the Peace Palace marks a pivotal point between two centuries. At the end of the 19th century, the idea of world peace was blooming as never before. Europe and America had hundreds of active peace organisations, some of them with millions of members. This huge international peace movement was fed by high-profile writers and pacifists such as Leo Tolstoi (Russia), Bertha von Suttner (Austria) and Jean Bloch, a French banker who worked for six long years on a monumental description of "The Horrors of War". A Swiss organisation, the Société de la Paix, introduced the word pacifism into the world. At the dawn of the 20th century however, expectations had toned down considerably. One year after the festive opening of the Peace Palace in 1913, the First World War broke out."

www.vredespaleis.nl/index.php?tl=1

 

(3) See my news-tableaus on the subject:

- 18/9/2013: "2013 Dutch JSF Decision? It is just an old secret deal! After decades Parliament outmaneuvered by Spin Doctors & Lobbyists"

www.flickr.com/photos/7141213@N04/9801217683/

- 17/9/2013: "STRAALJAGER POLITIEK: "Nederland Sterker & Socialer" door het breken van verkiezingsbeloften & steun aan de oorlogsindustrie en NAVO-koloniale Atoomwapen-avonturen"

www.flickr.com/photos/7141213@N04/9783881013/in/photolist...

 

(4) Netherlands and weapons of mass destruction

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_and_weapons_of_mass_des...

 

(5) One constant good source on European involvement in American nuclear weapons is Hans M. Kristens:

"After a US Air Force Blue Ribbon Review in 2008 discovered that “most” U.S. nuclear weapons sites in Europe did not meet U.S. security requirements, the Dutch government denied there were security problems. Yet more than $63 million of the over $80 million spent on improving security since 2000 were spent in 2011-2012 – apparently in response to the Blue Ribbon Review findings and other issues. The additional $154 million suggests that the upgrades in 2011-2012 did not fix all the security issues at the European nuclear bases."

blogs.fas.org/security/2014/03/nato-nuclear-costs/

 

(6) Nuclear sharing

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_sharing

 

A more detailed description of how to see the 'nuclear sharing' of the USA with other countries in the light of 'non-proliferation' and it's treaty (short name = NPT) can be found on many sites. I did choose this serious one of the British American Security Information Council:

-

"NUCLEAR SHARING REGULATIONS Approximately 200 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons are thought to be currently deployed in Europe at six NATO bases in five non-nuclear weapon states.iii Through various NATO nuclear sharing agreements, the vast majority are assigned for delivery by the air forces of four non-nuclear NATO member states (Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands) and are stored within vaults using the WS3 Weapons Storage and Security System under the control of the USAF. The codes required for detonating them are all under U.S. control, with the intention of the transfer of the warheads to the host state and codes at a time of conflict.

(...)

The particular problems of compatibility focus upon NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) Articles 1, 2 and 6. Article 1 prohibits nuclear weapon states sharing their weapons with non-nuclear states: "Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices." Article 2 provides for a corresponding obligation on the part of non-nuclear states parties not to receive nuclear weapons: "Each non-nuclear weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." If the United States explicitly transferred nuclear warheads to its NATO allies it would unambiguously break Article 1, and their allies would be breaking Article 2. The tactical warheads based in these host states are intended for delivery by those host states. How does this not break the two articles?"

-

[BASIC Getting To Zero Papers; number 13; 22/4/2009;.Laura Spagnuolo. (London British American Security Information Council). on-line resource: www.basicint.org/node/320 ; p. 2. ]

 

"The particular problems of compatibility focus upon NPT Articles 1, 2 and 6. Article 1 prohibits nuclear weapon states sharing their weapons with non-nuclear states: "Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices." Article 2 provides for a corresponding obligation on the part of non-nuclear states parties not to receive nuclear weapons: "Each non-nuclear weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." If the United States explicitly transferred nuclear warheads to its NATO allies it would unambiguously break Article 1, and their allies would be breaking Article 2. The tactical warheads based in these host states are intended for delivery by those host states. How does this not break the two articles?

The United States government points to two particular reasons, or loopholes. Firstly, the transfer of the warheads only happens at a point when hostilities break out and secondly, the transfer of related technologies and hardware is not covered by the NPT. The claim that the NPT is not applicable during wartime, and that member states can prepare now to break off their NPT commitments in advance, is highly controversial. The traditional view maintains that the declaration of war renders most treaties null and void. Contemporary legal doctrine denies that war has extinctive effect on multilateral treaties, unless, in the light of the clause rebus sic stantibus, there has been a radical change in the circumstances rendering the treaty obsolete. The US view specifically in this instance has been that the purpose of the NPT is to prevent proliferation, and that if nuclear war were to break out it would have failed and would therefore no longer apply. Whether it is legal or not, the preparation by NPT members to break with the terms of the Treaty certainly and undeniably undermines its efficacy, the commitment of the Alliance to the Treaty, and the willingness of members outside the Alliance to stick to its provisions." [Ibid.; p. 3.]

 

(7) On the tower of the Congress Building in The Hague a huge banner has been hung with a pure decorative euphemistic design, as can be seen in this photograph on Flickr:

farm4.staticflickr.com/3759/12904685034_a638cbbe7b_o.jpg

17,244 views
1 fave
0 comments
Taken on March 24, 2014