Place: Bolton Conference Centre Time: Friday--Sunday, 8-10 March, 1996 PRESENT TEL or e-mail Alcock, Norman 519-795-7326 Alcock, Pat 705-789-6334 Burkhardt, Helmut
Dorn, Trudy 705-295-4533 Dorn, Walter Farlinger, Shirley Fawcett, Eric Gardner, Connie 416-485-3522 Gardner, Terry 416-485-3522 Gotlieb, Calvin Newcombe, Hanna 905-628-2356 Paul, Derek Phillips, Alan Russell, Ian Smith, Jean 416-535-6605 Spencer, Metta Stroyman, Herschel 416-533-7664 Valleau, John Vise, Joe Wilcock, Ross Wiseman, Henry 519-822-9922 REGRETS (partial list) Abah, Patience; Creighton, Phyllis; Crowell, George; Ellen, Richard; Gombay, Brydon; Hathaway, George; Gordon, Myron; Guttman, Irwin; Holloway, Clive; Larsen, Ellen; Lees, Ronald; Lorch, Lee; Mandy, Margot; Meisel, John; Michalos, Alex; Newton, John; Purdy, Gary; Rapoport, Anatol; Robinson, Bill; Runte, Roseann; Slavin, Alan; Snieckus, Vic; Summers, Craig; Thompson, Jon; Thompson, Paul. CONTRIBUTORS by e-mail, Fax, Tel or Canada Post Baxter, Bob; Bloom, Myer; Creery, Ray [AC = Advisory Council Member]; Dwivedio, O. P.; Fischer, Gaston; Korol, Robert; McLaren, Digby [AC]; Miller, Joanna [AC]; Miller, Morris; Pearson, Geoffrey [AC]; Polanyi, John [AC]; Powles, Cyril; Rudmin, Floyd; Russell, Peter; Sakeris, John; Simpson, Ed; Smith, Michael [AC]; Santa-Barbara, Joanna [AC]; Soskolne, Colin; Trainor, Lynn; Vijh, Ashok; Vorst, Jesse; Weatherley, Alan & Robena; Woolfson, David; Zessner, Walter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND MATERIAL 1] Members Proposals sent by the CONTRIBUTORS listed above are attached to this e-mail; 2] Working Groups (12, including 3 in the planning stage); 3] Public Lectures in 1995 (14 including 3 Roundtable Discussions); 4] Science for Peace Books (11 in print); 5] Peace Magazine 1995: articles in the Science for Peace section; 6] Letters to Government in 1995 (subjects only); 7] Projects planned for 1996/97: a) Conference on Lessons of Yugoslavia b) Technology of Peace (and other research projects with student interns) proposed by Walter Dorn; 8] Franz Blumenfeld Peace Fund: background and terms; 9] Hiroshima-Nagasaki Exhibit: a description; 10] Appeal for new members: a sample letter; 11] International Peace Bureau (SfP is a member) Report for December 1995; 12] International Network os Scientists and Engineers (SfP is a member) Report for December 1995; ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AGENDA After an evening of discussion of the proposals of members, both present and absent, the following topcs were chosen by a show of hands for further more extended discussion: A-list 1] Societal Verification (whistle-blowing) 2] Global Environment and Economy 3] Educational activities of SfP B-list 4] International Law: justice in intl affairs 5] Offshore peace: Chechnya, Bosnia.... 6] New ideas for the U.N. 7] Weapons Control: nuclear, landmines... Other topics proposed for discussion that did not however lead to decisions to act include: * Abolition 2000 (continuation of World Court Project) * Canadian Unity * Contractual research (think-tank) * technology transfer and copyrights * monolithic global culture (see topic 2] above) * NATO--expansion or abolition? Housekeeping items discussed include: * Fund-raising (including Franz Blumenfeld Fund) * Recruiting new members * Increasing the commitment of members * Collaboration with other peace groups Discussion of these topics will not be described here, but decisions to take action are given in the next section, q.v. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DECISIONS for ACTION (item numbers refer to the list above) 1] Societal Verification: a Roundtable Discussion will be organized by the Working Group on U.N. Reform in the early summer of 1996. 2] Educational activities: * Reactivate the Science for Peace Media Contact List (now under way); * Start a Film Club; * Promote the SfP World-Wide-Web Home Page. 3] Retreat (or "Thought-Fest") in the Fall of 1996 with the principal theme: " From Barbarism to Civility". 4] Conference on "Lessons from Yugoslavia" is now in planning, and funding is being sought. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: [AC] denotes a member of the Advisory Council
Through our Working Group, I believe it would be to the advantage of SfP if we became active, in the broad professional sense, by being available to educate and/or just stimulate discussion, on invitation, to any interested professional group on the topic of Philosophy, Ethics and Values in Science. I believe that if SfP advertised this "service", it might encourage membership growth. On the other hand, it would help to foster better understanding of these topics and would provide the opportunity to carry forward the elements of The Toronto Resolution in helping specialty groups in revising/developing their own codes of professional ethics/conduct. In addition, this service would help bridge the gap between the professions and better ensure that broader social consequences were considered as part of any specialized group's activity. Advertising this service on SfP literature as well as on the WWW would be helpful for promoting the service.
The Core Group (Kelly, Eric, Craig and Colin) would be in a position to ensure that a qualified speaker or panel of speakers were made available on request. The professional group requesting such a service might be expected to at least cover the costs of the speaker(s); an honorarium also might be appreciated and a token contribution to SfP if the requester(s) was/were not members of SfP .. ?
Care is needed in wording any advertisement to indicate that only a limited service is available ... I mean, what would we do if we were inundated with requests ???
SfP should do what scientists are best qualified for, e.g., nuclear weapons contol, environmental issues, etc.
I guess I am fundamentally antisocial. My idea of a useful retreat would be one built around some specific idea or suggestion, rather than a free-for-all which tends toward a lot of interesting discussion and socialization but little focus and usually broad consensus on issues, but little action. (I should talk!!). Maybe its my farm background, but I am inclined toward doing specific things, with less navel gazing. For example, I have in the past suggested forming a sort of Science and Society Think Tank which takes on contracts to research or recommend on specific issues of national or even international significance, and which gradually gets a "name" in the public forum. Initial funding might come from a once only foundation grant, but would expect to sustain itself in the long run through contracts. Such an organization might have one or two paid positions of a functional type, like an Executive Secretary, stenographer, computer programmer, whatever, but would depend to a great extent on voluntary commitments from its members. I suppose, one advantage of such a thing is that it has a tangible aspect to build around, to focus interest and activity. Well its probably a lousy idea, especially when I am not prepared at this time to do much about putting it into existence. But if someone like Walter Dorn (youth and energy and enthusiasm) were to take it on as his/her baby and lifelong ambition, it might very well fly. I tend to believe that while ideals are great, one has to be realistic in connecting with where people are at and not necessarily with where you wish they were at. Science for Peace has been a remarkable organization and I am proud of the work that it has done but I am not sure what the final reckoning is. Would the world be any different today if Science for Peace had never existed? Perhaps, these things are too subtle to measure, and that one has to proceed on faith.
You asked about the issues we should be focussing. Although topics listed by you are good, I would like to suggest the followings for your consideration: (1) Trading Blocks (such as EC, NAFTA) and the Third World; (2) Transfer of Intellectual Technology: should it be free from the bondage of copy-right?; (3) The advent of One Culture and One Form of Governance (ie the American brand), and its impact on world cultures, religions and traditions; (4) The denial by researchers of the North about the inherent rights of the Traditional Environmental Knowledge; and (5) Science for Environmental Stewardship. I have done research/publication on some of the above issues; and I shall be interested in seeing one of these being considered for the next conference/retreat, etc.
I have one observation that might turn into a SFP project. Here, for the first time, we have cable TV. We have one science network in our package. It is called the Discovery Channel and is produced in England. As a "science" channel it is very weird, I think, because half of the programming is Arthur C. Clarke investigating ghost stories, spontaneous combustion, UFO sightings, levitation, etc., and the other half is all military technology programming, with much of it derived from the Persian Gulf War, in which they pick a weapons system (AWACS, or British leopard tank) or a type of force (helicopter gun ship crews, or various special forces commando groups) and show how they performed well in the Persian Gulf war, with lots of real shots of people doing their killing, and lots on interviews with combat personnel, praising the weapons and commenting that war is not nice, but if you must have war, then this is the weapon to use, etc. Is this typical of science TV programming? There is not very much of what I would call science in it. To be fair, there is an occasional show on dinosaurs, but that is the extent of it. Nothing on environment. Nothing on current science activity. Nothing on science fairs. Nothing from medical science. The Toronto Star's weekly science page has more science than 50 hours of weekly science programming on this station. There is nothing even beginning to approach Quirks and Quarks on CBC radio.
So, what might science for peace do? Maybe we should instigate an accounting of the programming on science channels in North America and Europe and Japan, and in the Third World. If it is as bad as my indications suggest, if only on some channels, then that should be made public and made known to National governments and their regulatory agencies, and we should instigate coalitions of organizations to lobby to have science programming not be a promotion of weapons systems, and not be a promotion of pseudo-science or anti-scientific thinking.
I generally have noticed that within the undergraduate and high school teachers communities, there is little understanding of what science is. My children have participated in Science Fairs, from Grade 4 up to Grade 10, and have taken part in special summer science programming at Queen's, run by undergraduates. There is very much a sense that science is playing with technology. That science is doing what has already been done. Not creative thinking and not checking whether your hunch is right or wrong. Also there is no mention of the need for painstaking, detailed, accurate recording of data. I once showed my teenaged daughter some simple probability theory (binomial) and how it is used in science. So, she did a study to see if calling something low fat influenced people's judgement of fatiness. She took slices of the same cheese, cut so me in triangles and some in squares, and told people that one was regular cheddar and one low fat cheddar. They were to judge which tasted more fat. Her results were something like, 58% said that "fat" cheese tasted more fat, and 42% said that there was no difference. Her statistics showed this to be within a presumption of 50-50 guessing. And she correctly concluded that people were not biased by the label of "low-fat" in their judgement. But her teacher gave her a low grade because he did not understand statistical inference and said that her study showed that people were biased by the label. She asked me please not to pursue the matter with the teacher. And she will never again trust her dad 's advice on science.
I think the concept is a very good one. I would promote broader terms of reference for the organization. I floated the idea of Science for Survival years ago but that didn't catch the collective imagination at the time. Perhaps now, there is more of an appreciation of how our natural capital is running down at an alarming rate, and a year or so ago we had Howard Hampton, our then NDP Natural Resources minister promote more logging in Ontario without having an appreciation (or should I say having indifference) for what clear cutting is doing to our province. And if that is NDP policy, is Mike Harris' bunch going to provide better stewardship of these resources? Hardly! I also worry about the apparent indifference about the fed's failure to live up to the Bio-Diversity treaty which was signed at the Rio Conference. And, there is the obligation to ensure a complete elimination of CFC's by 2000. How are we doing there? (In my mind woefully). Or, how about our commitment to cutting down on global warming gases by 2000? There is also talk about allowing mining companies to dump their processing wastes in the oceans? etc. etc. Now I know that peace and war issues have not gone away, and indeed the whole business of land mines is sickening! But, the environmental crisis that looms in the future is a magnitude more important in my mind. A nd so I'm into things like sustainable development, and a variety of battles in the Hamilton area are currently taking up what spare time I have had. (One such is the RedHill Creek Expressway that will cost taxpayers in Ontario an d H-W 240 million dollars and in the process destroy a valley which provides the only green space in east Hamilton.)
I am afraid I cannot attend the Bolton retreat. That very weekend I will be in Ottawa with a group working on Confederation 2000 who are concerned about arresting the movement towards breaking up our country. I am just back from a weekend meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Yellowknife with a similar agenda. This issue is pretty well taking up all my spare time these days - ie keeping the peace in Canada.
I appreciate what you are continuing to do via S.f.P. and that the struggle for survival of the species is still going on even without apparent IMMEDIATE danger of a larger war with nuclear weapons. Still, I find myself without the will to play a leadership role on such matters.
I am still active in research a couple of years into my retirement and enjoying it. However, it seems to take a little longer to do things, an experience common to people of my age. The thought of channeling my energies such as they are into a type of political action in which I am not proficient and unlikely to help much is not attractive to me.
For these reasons, I am not responding to your message other than to express my appreciation to those such as you who are trying to do something useful on these important matters.
I regret my inability to attend your splendid retreat. I believe the most urgent problem for action and discussion is:THE WEAPONS TRADE in all its aspects,namely:
I had hoped to be able to manage time enough to attend but have to excuse myself from this important discussion. We have to find a way out of this sad anomalous global condition where the potential has never been greater and the forces of reaction are exercising their repressive policies, almost with impunity. The countervailing forces have to be mobilized and SfP is one such organization that has a role to play in conjunction with others. (As you know I'm for realizing the synergy of collaborative programs of action with organizations such as Pugwash). As for the issues, I would opt for efforts that reach the public, such as articles in popular journals and op-ed pieces in newspapers. (The right-wing campaign of two decades forced progressive voices off the radio talk shows and off the columns of almost every newspaper in the U.S.) Conferences, books and occasional papers help but are only read by the converted. Political action is needed and the NDP is the only avenue open despite Rae's legacy and failure of leadership with a mission for equity at almost all levels of governance.
As for the topics: I'd opt for focussing on the implications of the globalization process and what can be done re governance at the international level. UN reform is a non-starter (modification, perhaps, but with respect to policies, esp. for the World Bank and the IMF that the really powerful players). Well, that's my stand for now - as I've written often in books and articles . (Why don't progressive books get reviews and, thus, greater sales? Perhaps that's another approach to for us to focus on to reach the public). Sorry I can't make it but I wish you have a successful event (enjoyable in the short term and having impact over the longer haul).
I am still negligent in the other matter (SFP & ECAAR), so should
not take on anything else. I have been extremely busy with the
Alternative Federal Budget (I attach a letter).
For the second year, The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the social-action group Choices have developed an Alternative Federal Budget. I ask you to endorse this initiative.
The AFB was drawn up with the help and input from hundreds of people -- activists, trade-unionists, researchers, academics -- and reflects the views of many more Canadians. They and I reject the slash-and-burn approach of the present government in Ottawa. We believe in the need for a strong social sector in the economy: a sector that supports those who cannot support themselves and that lays the foundation for a better and more equitable society.
The AFB is a twenty-page document. This (and a shorter version) may also be found on the following web site:
Paper is costly and not everybody has access to web sites. I sent copies of the budget to some of you but at $2 per mailing it was an expensive proposition. While you may not have seen the full document (several media did report on it) I feel that I can ask for your support for the Alternative Federal Budget without going into details.
What counts now is that we send a clear message to the people and the politicians of our country that we, as present and future researchers, as activists and as members of our communities, have a better way of solving Canada's economic problems.
On Wednesday 6 March Paul Martin will deliver the federal budget. Please, send by MONDAY 4 MARCH your statement of support to CCPA:
phone 613-563-1341 ** fax 613-233-1458 ** internet firstname.lastname@example.org
A simple message will do but, please, give your name and indicate your affiliation, status and field of education, research or expertise.
Do feel free to relay this message (email, paper, phone, fax) to others!
Canadians need this budget now. Thank you for your support.
Globalization and the weapons trade seem to be areas in need of further exploration and sfp could do it. I think that both these areas could be explored together and separately and could offer insights into the world situation that go beyond the arms trade and offer insight into general societal destabilization ... I find that I get most of my info from ploughshares and the cdi in the u.s...and they are both invaluable in providing me with concise info that helps me out as an educator...could sfp do something similar?...public lectures are still necessary but i must confess that i have been quite lax in attending (i do post bulletins though!)..courses are a great idea but with cutbacks in education who will fund them? could sfp do them?
Issues: nuclear disarmament, abolition of landmines, weapons trade (particularly to areas of conflict like Yugoslavia, Middle East..) and relation of militarism to global trade institutions
Promotion: conferences, submissions to government. the present govt, with its overwhelming obsession with intl trade, needs to have constant pressure kept on it to see that issues of peace and human rights are kept in mind and not bypassed in the interest of short-term profits.
My first concern is the title and a consequence of amending it. The rider "Toward a just and sustainable world" implies a broadening of interest and purpose for SfP. Broad interest is not new, but displaying it formally may carry with it responsibility for definition and program. What do we mean, and how should we get there?
Justice may not be a scientific subject, but it's too important to be left to the lawyers. What could be a just world society? Whatever its makeup, justice rests on an acceptance of the rule of law. International law is coming out of an infancy of sporadic regulation of international disputes to include sporadic regulation of human rights. What law courts and process should be developed to provide a permanent, perceptible framework for the settlement of international disputes, establishment of human rights, and suppression of major international crime? Should such development correspond with UN Reform and growth of world governance?
It's a truism, but often overlooked, that a law is as good as its enforcement. How should international law--and Security Council decisions- be enforced? Is there, or at what point will there be, a case for a UN Police Force?. What should Canada's role be? Is this a job for police or soldiers? What is a peacekeeper? (Neither!). What is the relationship between police and armed forces, and should it be the same on the international scene as on the national? What lessons can be learned from the current experience in Haiti?
Turning to specific matters, SfP should congratulate Axworthy and Collenette on the Government's decision to support the UN force in Haiti; and to apply a unilateral moratorium on landmines. Could SfP help improve technical means of landmine detection and clearance? Important as it is to outlaw landmines, the urgent need is to remove the 100 million or so already in the ground. Canada has the capacity in money, scientific and technical expertise, and civilian resources to do more than it does.
On the question of how we can be more effective, we should not overlook coordination with the like-minded. The joint effort of a number of groups to promote the World Court Project towards the outlawing of nuclear weapons mustered considerable public support. A combined effort directed towards the removal of the murderous curse of landmines might be persuasive.
CHRONOLOGY OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ON EARTH
(published in French in SEBES 1995, pp. 97 -98)
Gaston FISCHER, Rue de Rugin 1A, CH-2034 PESEUX, Switzerland
(The author requested that the text be presented also in French, since that is the language in which he wrote it.)
The author (1,2) recently published an analysis of the demographic evolution over the past four centuries and also discussed some of the projections made for the future. His most striking conclusion was that between about 1600 and 1960 the rate of growth had always been "super-exponential". In other words, at any time during that entire period it was always possible to say : never has the world's population been so numerous and never was its rate of growth so high. This observation had already been made by others [for references see (1,2)], especially by Meyer (3-5), who showed that this seems to be the manifestation of a fundamental principal guiding the entire biological evolution.
The chronological table which follows is a perfect confirmation of Meyer's (3-5) hypothesis. This chronology sets the age of the Earth (about 4.55 billion years) in parallel with the solar year and retraces the historical development of the biology of our planet. What is striking in this calendar is the steady acceleration of the rate of increase in biological complexity with time. Biological development quite evidently follows the same rules as technological development, where the successive stages are completed ever more rapidly. As the quality and efficiency of the tools increase, it becomes ever easier to devise new ones that are better than the old. Pondering this observation for a while leads to an inescapable conclusion : it is apparently impossible for us to forgo these improvements. An inherent biological code seems to push us faster and faster towards an inevitable finality, or rather towards an ultimate goal. Absorbed in making a success of our daily endeavours, the majority of us are incapable of perceiving what is happening to humanity as a whole. The few enlightened individuals (or are they just "visionaries" ?) predicting a catastrophic outcome are scarcely accorded a hearing.
This table could give the impression that the phases of massive extinctions at the P-Tr and K-T boundaries represented set-backs to the evolutionary process. But precisely the opposite is true. Before these transitions the dominant species appeared to be on narrow evolutionary tracks, with very limited prospects for future improvements. Their extinction made it possible for other species with greater potential to take over. At the K-T boundary, for example, the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs allowed an accelerated development of the order of mammals. This order already existed, but was dominated by the saurians.
1. G. Fischer, "The population explosion : where is it leading ?", in Population and Environment : A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 139-153, New York.
2. G. Fischer, "Ou nous conduit l'évolution démographique", in SEBES (1993-1994), pp. 23-32, Geneve.
3. F. Meyer, "Une démographie paradoxale", in SEBES (1993-1994), pp. 17-2 1, Geneve.
4. F. Meyer, Problématique de l'évolution, Presses Universitaires de France , Paris, 1954.
5. F. Meyer, La surchauffe de la croissance, Fayard, Paris 1974. If unavailable, see "L'accélération de l'Évolution", in Encyclopédie Française 20, Larousse, Paris 1958.
First sedimentary rocks 3.8 Ga (billion years) end of February at Isua in Greenland Beginning of life, 3.4 Ga at the earliest beginning of April first cells Free oxygen in atmosphere, 1.9 to 2.2 Ga in August first photosynthetic plants and first differentiated cells Beginning of the fossil era 540 Ma (Million years) 9th November Strong increase of the oxygen 350 Ma 4th December 4/12 content in the atmosphere : living creatures can come out of the water, where they were protected from UV radiation Great crisis at Permian- 250 Ma 12 December 12/12 Triassic (P-Tr) boundary, with massive extinctions Extinction of the dinosaurs 65 Ma 26 December 26/12 and many other species at Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary Homo Erectus 1.5 Ma 31/12 at 9 pm Homo Sapiens Sapiens about 100 000 years 31/12 near 11.50 pm Ancient Egypt 5 000 years ago 35 s before midnight Beginning of the 50 - 80 years 0.3-0.5 s to midnight radiotechnological eraCHRONOLOGIE DE L'ÉVOLUTION BIOLOGIQUE SUR LA TERRE
Gaston FISCHER, Rue de Rugin 1A, CH-2034 Peseux, Suisse
Dans la précédente Édition de SEBES (1993-1994) l'auteur (1) a presenté une analyse de l'évolution démographique des quatre derniers siècles ainsi que quelques projections qui sont faites pour celui a venir. Le fait le plus marquant était qu'entre 1600 et 1960 environ, la progression avait toujours été "sur-exponentielle". En d'autres termes, on pouvait dire en tout temps : Jamais la population du globe n'a été aussi nombreuse et jamais elle n'a accusé un taux de croissance aussi fort. Cette constatation a déjà été faites par d'autres (voir la ref. 1), plus particulièrement par François Meyer (2-4), qui a montré qu'elle est manifestement l'émanation d'un principe fondamental de toute l'évolution biologique.
Le tableau chronologique qui suit confirme en tout points l'hypothèse de Meyer (2-4). Il met en correspondance une année solaire avec l'age de la Terre (environ 4,55 milliards d'années) et retrace le développement de la biologie sur notre planète. Ce qui frappe, dans ce calendrier, est l'accélération continuelle de la vitesse avec laquelle augmente la complexité biologique. De toute évidence la biologie fonctionne comme le développement technologique, dont les différentes étapes sont réalisées toujours plus rapidement : A mesure que les outils s'améliorent, c.-a-d. deviennent plus efficaces, il est plus facile d'en réaliser de nouveaux qui sont plus performants encore. Ici on pourrait même ajouter qu'il nous est apparemment impossible de renoncer a ces améliorations. Il y a une fatalité écrite dans la biologie qui nous pousse toujours plus vite vers une certaine finalité, voire même une finalité certaine. La majorité d'entre nous est si absorbée par la reussite de son quotidien qu'elle semble totalement insensible a ce qui se trame pour l'humanité entière. Quelques "illuminés" predisent la catastrophe, mais personne ne les entend. On pourrait penser, en considérant ce tableau, que les phases d'extinction massives aux limites P-Tr et K-T ont freiné le rythme de l'évolution. C'est précisement le contraire qui est vrai. A l'approche de ces limites les espèces dominantes étaient engagées sur des chemins évolutifs bornés, ou tout épanouissement semblait bloqué. Leur extinction a permis a des espèces mieux adaptées de prendre le relais. Ainsi, a la limite K-T la disparition des dinosaures a permis le développement accéléré de l'ordre des mammifères; cet ordre existait déjà, mais était dominé par celui des sauriens.
REFERENCES and TABLE: see the English language version above.
In that I have not participated in activities of SfP beyond the annual antinuclear arms walks in Vancouver over the years, it is hard for me to comment in a specific way on your agenda for the Retreat. All the topics that you list are worthy.... Clearly, no activities should be initiated that cannot be sustained over the long haul....As much as possible efforts should be directed at issues where scientists and the scientific approach have something unique to contribute. There must be two targets for SfP: first, all Canadian politicians, municipal,provincial and federal: and second, the media, by the use of facts that encourage magazines and newspapers to commission articles, and which encourage radio and TV to commission documentary programs.
Outmoded and derided as the term is, I still feel that the "New World Order" has meaning and merits study: the UN, Human Rights, International Law, Foreign Intervention, Foreign Aid, Illegality of Nuclear Weapons...