Login/Logout

*
*  
“It will take all of us working together – government officials, and diplomats, academic experts, and scientists, activists, and organizers – to come up with new and innovative approaches to strengthen transparency and predictability, reduce risk, and forge the next generation of arms control agreements.”
– Wendy Sherman
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State
June 2, 2022
Chris Rostampour

Sweden Joins NATO


April 2024

Two years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Sweden officially joined NATO amid rising concerns that the war might spill into other European countries.

On March 7, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson handed over accession documents to the United States during a ceremony in Washington, culminating a process in which the allies unanimously approved the addition of the new member.

"Sweden is a safer country today than we were yesterday…. We have taken out an insurance in the Western defense alliance," he said.

The move is seen as a major blow to Russia, which long has opposed NATO expansion.

As a member, Sweden has pledged to adhere to NATO’s doctrine of common defense, by which allies agree to defend
any other NATO ally that comes under military attack by another country.

Now that it has joined NATO, Sweden is considering reinforcing Gotland, a strategic island in the Baltic Sea that is close to Russia and key to the defense of the Baltic states.

In an interview with the Financial Times on March 14, Kristersson confirmed that ways to protect Gotland are on the list of issues being discussed with the allies. He acknowledged that Sweden only has a “small” military presence on the island.

Sweden is the 32nd country to join NATO, following Finland, which formally became a member in April 2023. Both countries applied for membership in May 2022, abandoning their long-held neutrality, the hallmark of their Cold War foreign policy. Polls showed that public opinion on nonalignment shifted drastically after Russia invaded Ukraine.—CHRIS ROSTAMPOUR

Sweden Joins NATO

Congress Cancels Compensation for Radiation Victims


January/February 2024
By Chris Rostampour

Congress cut compensation for victims of U.S. nuclear testing-related activities from a compromise version of the 2024 fiscal year National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was passed by Congress in 1990 to offer health benefits and compensation to some victims who had developed serious illnesses due to radiation exposure caused by U.S. nuclear weapons development and testing in the 20th century.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), seen here at a Senate committee hearing, has been a leader in the effort to expand U.S. compensation for victims of U.S. nuclear testing-related activities. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)Over the years, as awareness increased about the full effects of these activities and new lawsuits were filed against the U.S. government related to radiation exposure claims, RECA’s narrow scope of coverage was broadened to include more affected communities.

In July, a bipartisan group of senators won approval to include a 29-page amendment to the draft NDAA that would extend RECA for two decades and expand its eligibility coverage to new regions and communities harmed by nuclear testing fallout. Additional harmed uranium miners and workers and certain Missouri communities affected by discarded Manhattan Project nuclear waste would have been covered for the first time. (See ACT, September 2023.)

The Senate passed its version of the NDAA by a vote of 87-13 on Dec. 13, and the House passed its version 310-118 on Dec. 14. The RECA amendment was not part of the House version of the NDAA, and the compromise hammered out by a House-Senate conference committee did not include the Senate amendment. The reconciled legislation was signed into law by President Biden on Dec. 23.

Senators who had introduced the RECA amendment blamed its exclusion on the Republican leadership in both chambers of Congress. “Earlier this year, the Senate made real progress on strengthening [RECA] when Democrats and Republicans passed my legislation” as part of the Senate NDAA, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) said in a statement. “However, at the eleventh hour, [the] Republican Leadership blocked its inclusion in the final bill.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who joined Luján in pushing the amendment, also blamed Republican leaders. In an interview with Bloomberg, he said taking the measure out of the NDAA was “100 percent a leadership decision,” referring to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Hawley told The Hill that Democratic leaders in both chambers “were supportive.”

The Hill reported that McConnell had personally expressed opposition to including the amendment in the bill, telling Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) early in the conference negotiations, “I don’t want RECA in there. I want to get rid of it.”

Hawley filed a motion on Dec. 12 to stop the NDAA procedural vote from taking place, but his plea to table the bill in the Senate failed 26-73.

“The Senate passed the defense bill tonight, but it’s nothing to celebrate. Defense contractors get paid billions, while Missourians poisoned by their government get nothing. It’s a travesty,” Hawley posted on his social media account shortly after the vote.

The RECA program still could still be extended and expanded if it is added as an amendment to another piece of legislation. Luján, who has secured multiple extensions for the program, introduced a separate RECA bill in the Senate in July.

Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.), who has introduced a companion bill in the House, said in a statement that the fight is not over.

“Our bipartisan coalition will not give up—we will fight to pass RECA and secure justice for our beloved New Mexico communities who unknowingly sacrificed so much for our nation’s security,” she wrote.

 

Congress cut compensation for victims of U.S. nuclear testing-related activities from a compromise version of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.

U.S. Formalizes Agreements With the Marshall Islands


November 2023
By Chris Rostampour

The United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, after months of haggling, finalized a new 20-year agreement that would provide the strategic Pacific Island nation with $2.3 billion in economic provisions.

After months of difficult negotiations, the United States and the Marshall Islands signed a new Compact of Free Association governing their relationship. At the ceremony in October are, from left, Carmen Cantor, U.S. assistant secretary of the interior for insular affairs; Joseph Yun, U.S. negotiator for the compact; Jack Ading, the Marshall Islands trade and foreign affairs minister; and Phillip Muller, the Marshall Islands chief negotiator. (Photo courtesy of The Republic of the Marshall Islands Port Authority)Joseph Yun, the U.S. special envoy for compact negotiations, and John Ading, the Marshall Islands minister of foreign affairs and trade, signed three agreements related to the Compact of Free Association on Oct. 16 in Honolulu after reaching what both sides have called a “compromise.”

The package must be approved by the U.S. Congress and the Marshall Islands Parliament.

The extension of the compact with the Marshall Islands, and earlier compacts with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau, will guarantee the United States exclusive military rights over large areas in the Pacific region at a time of increasing tension and competition with China. It also guarantees a continuation of federal services and rights for citizens of the island nations. (See ACT, March 2023.)

Negotiations with the Marshall Islands had stalled over a dispute on how the United States would address environmental and health damages to the Marshallese caused by 67 nuclear atmospheric tests conducted by the United States between 1946 and 1958. (See ACT, November 2022.)

The three nations were formerly U.S. territories that came under the direct administration of the United States during World War II. Combined, they cover a maritime area larger than the continental United States, including some 1,000 islands and atolls, and have a population of roughly 200,000 people.

The newly signed agreements include an amendment to the Marshall Islands compact, a new fiscal procedures agreement, and a new trust fund agreement, according to a statement from the U.S. State Department.

The statement offered no specifics, but draft legislation submitted to Congress shows that the package includes $700 million to underwrite a new Marshall Islands trust fund. Whether this amount is included in the $2.3 billion total economic package or separate is not clear in the draft bill, but Marshallese officials and media have reported it as an “additional” amount.

Phillip Muller, the Marshall Islands chief negotiator, said the nation aims to “repurpose” this fund to be used for its citizens “who have suffered because of U.S. nuclear or other military activities,” according to The Marshall Islands Journal.

Speaking at the signing ceremony, Ading described the negotiations as “long and difficult” and said “there have been times when communications had almost broken down entirely,” according to Pacific Island Times.

Ading said that he and his colleagues were “not able to work toward resolving our nation’s nuclear legacy” but still achieved “substantial increases” in promised U.S. funding, the Honolulu Civil Beat reported.

Congress has resumed consideration of a draft bill submitted in June 2023 to amend and appropriate funding for all three compacts, totaling $7.1 billion over two decades.

At a hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 19, Yun called for urgent approval of the legislation. But Amata Coleman Radewagen, American Samoa’s U.S. House delegate, referring to the Marshall Islands agreement, said “there is much in these agreements that is ambiguous, subject to further interpretation and discretion of the parties.” She urged Congress to “prescribe boundaries on interpretation” in a way that would serve the interests of both sides.

Yun admitted that including language related to nuclear testing in the agreements helped resolve the impasse in the Marshall Islands negotiations. As to how the amended agreements would impact the Marshall Islands nuclear claims tribunal, known as Section 177, Yun said, “We completely believe Section 177 remains in effect.”

The United States asserts that the compact and the tribunal “constitute the full settlement of all claims, past, present, and future, of the government, citizens and nationals of the Marshall Islands related to the nuclear testing program.” But the Marshallese do not consider the tribunal to be fully adjourned and claim roughly $3 billion in “uncompensated damages.”

The United States retains exclusive military rights in the region while the island nation receives economic assistance.

Lawmakers Seek Overdue Justice for Nuclear Victims


September 2023
By Chris Rostampour

Renewed bipartisan efforts are underway to extend and expand a federal program that offers health care benefits and compensation to some victims of U.S. nuclear weapons production and testing.

Tina Cordova (L) and Laura Greenwood of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium demonstrate to call attention to the legacy of the U.S. nuclear testing program and urge federal medical and other compensation for those still suffering the disastrous effects of those tests. (Photo courtesy of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium)On July 27, a group of lawmakers led by U.S. Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) secured enough votes to advance legislation that would extend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) for 19 years and expand its historical and geographical coverage.

The legislation, an amendment to the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), passed the Senate by a 61-37 vote. It still must be approved by a House-Senate conference committee.

RECA originally passed Congress in 1990 with bipartisan support. It aims to provide compensation for some victims exposed to radiation during U.S. atmospheric nuclear testing and employees of the U.S. uranium mining industry. The program, which expires in 2024, has been revised multiple times, but several impacted communities and individuals suffering lingering health effects have never received recognition or assistance despite a decades-long struggle.

Communities that would be eligible for compensation for the first time include individuals in Missouri who were impacted by nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project and the Downwinders in New Mexico, who were affected by the 1945 Trinity Test. In addition, RECA would be amended to recognize new regions in Arizona, Colorado, Guam, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah among those affected by nuclear testing. Coverage also would be expanded to new categories of employees in the U.S. uranium mining industry, including former workers from 1971 to 1990.

Republicans and Democrats advocating for RECA’s expansion are working to keep the usual party politics of the NDAA process from scuttling the amendment.

Luján highlighted this collaboration on Aug. 9 as President Joe Biden visited Belen, N.M., as part of a tour of the U.S. Southwest.

“Mr. President, we’re fighting with everything that we have with members of the Senate and the House across the country in hopes that we can keep this in the National Defense Authorization Act and make sure that these families are seen and get the help that they deserve,” Luján said.

Biden responded that he is “prepared to help in terms of making sure that those folks are taken care of.”

The following day, Hawley issued a statement saying, “Compensating victims of government-caused nuclear contamination and negligence should not be a partisan issue. It’s about justice.”

According to the Justice Department, RECA since its inception has awarded more than $2.6 billion to more than 54,000 claimants.

For decades, advocates have tried to bring attention to the environmental and humanitarian impacts of U.S. nuclear tests, including 216 atmospheric tests at various sites around the country and in the U.S. territories in the Pacific Ocean.

New scientific research released in June revealed that the fallout from the U.S. atmospheric tests was significantly underestimated. The study, from Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security, documented how 94 nuclear blasts in New Mexico and Nevada spewed radiation across the entire country and reached beyond the U.S. borders to Canada and Mexico.

Renewed bipartisan efforts are underway to expand a federal program offering health care and compensation to victims of U.S. nuclear weapons testing. 

ChatGPT Sparks U.S. Debate Over Military Use of AI


June 2023
By Michael Klare and Chris Rostampour

The release of ChatGPT and other “generative” artificial intelligence (AI) systems has triggered intense debate in the U.S. Congress and among the public over the benefits and risks of commercializing these powerful but error-prone technologies.

Sam Altman of OpenAI testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee in May about the promise and dangers of ChatGPT, a “generative” artificial intelligence system. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)Proponents argue that by rapidly utilizing such systems, the United States will acquire a significant economic and military advantage over China and other competing powers. But many experts warn that the premature release of such potent but untested technologies could lead to catastrophic consequences and so the systems should be constrained by rules and regulations.

Generative AI systems employ sophisticated algorithms to convert vast amounts of raw data into texts, images, and other content that seem to be produced by humans. It is thought to have widespread application in industrial, business, and military operations.

The potentially disruptive consequences of exploiting generative AI technologies for commercial and geopolitical advantage and the accompanying need for new laws in the area provoked heated discussion at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law on May 16.

The lead witness, Sam Altman of OpenAI, the San Francisco startup responsible for ChatGPT, highlighted the technology’s great promise, but also warned of its inherent defects, such as a tendency to produce false or misleading results. “If this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong,” he told the subcommittee. “[W]e want to work with the government to prevent that from happening.”

Many analysts are particularly worried about the hasty application of advanced AI in the military realm, where the consequences of things going wrong could prove especially catastrophic.

Lawmakers and senior Pentagon officials who seek to apply these technologies as rapidly as possible argue that this approach will provide the United States with a distinct advantage over China and other rivals. But concerns have emerged in these circles over the premature application of AI to military use. Although officials believe that AI utilization by the military will enhance U.S. combat capabilities, many worry about the potential for accidents, enemy interference, and other dangerous unintended outcomes and so favor the cautious, regulated utilization of AI.

“To stay ahead of our potential adversaries…we need to identify key technologies and integrate them into our systems and processes faster than they can,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), chair of the Senate Armed Services cybersecurity subcommittee, said during an April 19 hearing on AI use by the Defense Department. But, he added, “the applications deployed must be more secure and trusted, meaning we [must adopt] more rigorous policy enforcement mechanisms to prevent misuse or unintended use.”

Witnesses at the April 19 hearing, including officials of leading defense contractors making use of AI, emphasized the need to adopt AI swiftly to avoid being overtaken by China and Russia in this critically important area. But under questioning, they acknowledged that the hasty application of AI to military systems entailed significant risk.

Josh Lospinoso of Shift5, for example, warned that the data used in training the algorithms employed in generative AI systems “can be altered by nefarious actors” and also are vulnerable to “spoofing” by potential adversaries. “We need to think clearly about shoring up those security vulnerabilities in our AI algorithms before we deploy these broadly,” he said.

Manchin indicated that, for these and other reasons, Congress must acquire a better understanding of the risks posed by the Pentagon’s utilization of AI and develop appropriate guardrails. He asked for the witnesses’ help in “looking at how we would write legislation not to repeat the mistakes of the past,” alluding to congressional failure to impose such controls on social media and the internet.

Judging by his comments and those of his colleagues, any legislation that emerges from Manchin’s subcommittee is likely to incorporate measures intended to ensure the reliability of the data used in training complex algorithms and to prevent unauthorized access to these systems by hostile actors.

Other lawmakers have sought to write legislation aimed at preventing another danger arising from the hasty and misguided application of AI by the military: the possibility that AI-enabled autonomous weapons systems, or “robot generals,” will someday acquire the capacity to launch nuclear weapons.

The Defense Department currently is modernizing its nuclear command, control, and communications systems, including through the widespread integration of advanced AI systems. Some analysts fear that this process will dilute human control over nuclear launch decision-making. (See ACT, April 2020.)

To ensure that machines never replace humans in this momentous role, a bipartisan group of legislators introduced the Block Nuclear Launch by Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Act on April 26. If enacted, the law would prohibit the use of federal funds to “use an autonomous weapons system that is not subject to meaningful human control…to launch a nuclear weapon; or…to select or engage targets for the purposes of launching a nuclear weapon.”

In the House, the legislation was introduced by Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and co-sponsored by Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Ken Buck (R-Colo.). A companion bill was introduced in the Senate on May 1 by Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and co-sponsors Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Lieu said that passage of the bill “will ensure that no matter what happens in the future, a human being has control over the employment of a nuclear weapon, not a robot. AI can never be a substitute for human judgment when it comes to launching nuclear weapons.”

In the U.S. Congress and among the public, there are rising questions about the benefits and risks of commercializing these powerful but error-prone technologies, including in the military sphere.

Over 1,000 Scientists Condemn All Threats to Use Nuclear Weapons

Sections:

Body: 

For Immediate Release: Jan. 17, 2023

Media ContactsDaryl G. Kimball, Member of the Steering Committee, Physicists Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction (202) 463-8270 ext 107; Chris Rostampour, Policy and Communications Coordinator, Physicists Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction  (202) 463-8270, ext 103

(Washington D.C./New York) — From the beginning of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly issued threats to use nuclear weapons. As the war continues into 2023, the risk of nuclear war remains high.

In response, a group of more than 1,000 scientists across various fields issued a joint statement, condemning all threats to use nuclear weapons.

In the statement, which was delivered to key governments and decision-makers today, the scientists “… state unequivocally that any threat to use nuclear weapons, at any time and under any circumstances, is extremely dangerous and totally unacceptable. We call on all people and governments everywhere to clearly condemn all nuclear threats, explicit or implicit, and any use of such weapons.”

The scientists' statement warns that: “Once nuclear weapons are used in a conflict, particularly between nuclear-armed adversaries, there is a risk that it could lead to an all-out nuclear conflagration.”

“If the United States or NATO were to launch a nuclear retaliatory strike against Russia in response to a Russian nuclear attack in Ukraine,” the scientists’ statement notes, “it would create significant risk of an escalatory cycle of nuclear destruction.”

U.S. President Joseph Biden said in early October, “I don’t think there’s any such thing as an ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.”

“Today, it is widely understood that there can be no adequate humanitarian response following the use of nuclear weapons,” the statement notes. “Nuclear weapons kill and injure people immediately and indiscriminately, destroy cities, and contaminate the soil, water, and atmosphere with radioactivity. The smoke from burning cities in a nuclear war could darken and cool Earth’s surface for years, devastating global food production and ecosystems and causing worldwide starvation.”

“Despite this, all nine nuclear-armed states are investing in sustaining and modernizing their nuclear arsenals and have plans to use them to wage nuclear war if they choose. So long as countries possess these weapons of mass destruction, there is a risk they will be used. Threats to use nuclear weapons, especially in a time of war, make their use more likely,” the scientists write.

The scientists’ statement adds to the chorus of voices warning against the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons by any nuclear-armed states for any reason.

In June 2022 the 65 states-parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons issued a political statement noting that “…any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is a violation of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations” and condemning “unequivocally any and all nuclear threats, whether they be explicit or implicit and irrespective of the circumstances.” In November 2022, the Group of 20 states agreed that threats and use of nuclear weapons are “inadmissible.”

Since the beginning of the nuclear age, scientists have warned governments and publics what these terrible weapons can do. In 1946, the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, chaired by Albert Einstein, warned the world about nuclear weapons, calling for their elimination and declaring that otherwise, “If war breaks out, atomic bombs will be used, and they will surely destroy our civilization.”

“With this statement, we add our voices to those already speaking out about the immense danger posed by nuclear weapons and call for immediate and concrete actions towards their elimination,” the January 2023 scientists’ statement concludes.

The scientists’ statement was delivered to the office of the UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Izumi Nakamitsu, the office of the President-elect of the UN General Assembly, Csaba Kőrösi, as well as the permanent missions of the United Nations member states in New York.

Among the 1,000 signatories are several Nobel Prize laureates and Shaw Prize winners, members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and hundreds of other distinguished scientists from across the United States and around the globe.

The full text of the statement and list of signatories is available online.

Description: 

In a statement, which was delivered to key governments this week, 1,000 scientists “… state unequivocally that any threat to use nuclear weapons, at any time and under any circumstances, is extremely dangerous and totally unacceptable. We call on all people and governments everywhere to clearly condemn all nuclear threats, explicit or implicit, and any use of such weapons.”

U.S., Marshall Islands Grapple With Nuclear Legacy


November 2022
By Daryl G. Kimball and Chris Rostampour

Negotiators from the Marshall Islands are insisting that the United States address long-standing health and environmental problems created by U.S. nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific Island chain in their discussions on an agreement governing their relationship.

Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands was the site of 23 nuclear tests conducted by the United States from 1946 until 1958 that did untold damage to the coral reef and its inhabitants, who were forcibly relocated. (Library of Congress)The agreement, known as the Compact of Free Association, defines the terms of U.S. economic assistance, allows Marshallese to live and work in the United States, and grants the United States the right to operate military facilities in the region, including Kwajalein Missile Range. It also excludes activities by the militaries of other countries without U.S. permission.

U.S. and Marshallese representatives began negotiations earlier this year on renewing the 20-year-old compact, which expires in October 2023. In March, U.S. President Joe Biden appointed Joseph Yun as a special presidential envoy for the negotiations.

In September, the Marshallese delegation declared a pause in the negotiations until Washington shows greater willingness to address ongoing health, environmental, and economic issues resulting from Cold War-era testing in their homeland.

The 67 U.S. atmospheric nuclear weapons tests between 1946 and 1958—23 at Bikini Atoll and 44 at Enewetak Atoll—spewed radiation over the Marshall Islands and produced a total explosive power of 108.5 megatons (TNT equivalent). That was about 100 times the total yield of all atmospheric tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site in the United States.

As a result, islanders still suffer such health and environmental effects as elevated cancer rates and enduring displacement from contaminated areas. But to this day, the only individuals considered by the United States as exposed to radiation effects were those physically present at Rogelap, Ailinginae, or Utrok atolls at the time of the “Bravo” nuclear test on March 1, 1954.

The chair of the Marshall Island’s National Nuclear Commission, Alson Kelen, told Agence France-Presse, “We know the big picture: bombs tested, people relocated from their islands, people exposed to nuclear fallout. We can’t change that. What we can do now is work on the details for the funding needed to mitigate the problems from the nuclear legacy.”

The U.S. State Department released a statement on Sept. 23 saying that Yun is prepared “to continue to advance the discussions” with the government of the Marshall Islands.

At a two-day summit in Washington that ended Sept. 29 between the United States and representatives from 14 Pacific Island states, including the Marshall Islands, participants agreed to strengthen their partnership. Although the United States had reportedly objected to such language in the run-up to the meeting, the joint summit statement acknowledged “the nuclear legacy of the Cold War” and stated that “the United States remains committed to addressing the Republic of the Marshall Islands’ ongoing environmental, public health…, and other welfare concerns.”

Under the existing agreement, the United States is responsible for providing radiation-related health care services and continued monitoring and environmental assessments on the affected atolls. One area of particular concern is Enewetak, where less than 1 percent of the plutonium and associated transuranic radionuclides from testing activities at the atoll are contained in the Runit Dome structure, meaning that the rest of the radioactive contamination remains in the Enewetak lagoon.

In a speech at the United Nations on Sept. 21, Marshall Islands President David Kabua said his nation has a “strong partnership” with the United States but “it is vital that the legacy and contemporary challenges of nuclear testing be better addressed.” Underscoring the importance of the issue for Pacific islanders, the Marshall Islands, with the backing of Fiji, Nauru, Samoa, Vanuatu, and Australia, advanced a formal resolution at the UN Human Rights Council on Oct. 6 requesting assistance “in the field of human rights and to provide humanitarian assistance and capacity building” to the Marshall Islands’ National Nuclear Commission in advancing its national strategy for nuclear justice.

India, the United Kingdom, and the United States countered by saying the rights council was not the appropriate forum to discuss the issue. The U.S. delegate asserted that “the United States has accepted and acted on its responsibility to the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands concerning nuclear testing” through the compact. Nevertheless, the resolution was adopted without a vote.

The Marshallese are pushing back against the U.S. failure to address problems resulting from U.S. nuclear tests.

Subscribe to RSS - Chris Rostampour