Blog

  • Acceptance Speech for the Sean MacBride Peace Prize

    On December 5, 2014, the International Peace Bureau awarded the Sean MacBride Peace Prize the people and government of the Marshall Islands. Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum accepted the award. His speech is below. Video of the award ceremony is available here.

    tony_debrumI am deeply honored to receive this, to accept this award, on behalf of the people and the government of the Marshall Islands. I accept it on behalf of President Christopher Loeak and his government, who have been very supportive of all our efforts in every faction on the floor of Parliament, in the cabinet, throughout the ministries and the public service, through the education system, through the public live broadcast system and in all of our encounters with the young people of the country – educational meetings, graduation speeches, and the like.

    I accept it with humility on behalf of all the people of the Marshall Islands, for all the fathers of the many families, both those that remain in their homelands, and those that are so sadly separated from the land which nurtured their parents and their grandparents and which gives them the soul to be Marshallese persons.

    I accept it on behalf of the women of the Marshall Islands who have had to quietly suffer through the years the indignation, the shame, the hardship of being cast aside as different or as deserving of their fate because they happened to not know what it was that affected them. I accept it on behalf of those women, especially of the community of Rongelap, who on the morning of Bravo – two days after Bravo actually was still the morning of Bravo in Rongelap – had to withstand the shame of being stripped naked in front of their village, in the village square, to be hosed down to get rid of the radioactive powder on their bodies, in front of their children, their sons, and their male relatives.

    I accept it on behalf of all the children who were born partly human: jellyfish babies, children who were born without arms, or without heads, brains, but with a heart that beat nevertheless for some reason.

    I accept it on behalf of children who have died because they had no access to medical care, proper medical care, whose diseases and sicknesses and anomalies could not be properly diagnosed because we were told that we could not hire doctors for the dead when we were struggling to employ doctors for the living.

    I accept it on behalf of those women who were accused of having illicit relationships which caused their children to become jelly babies, being accused of incestuous relationships and therefore not being capable of having proper babies.

    I accept it on behalf of the children who have survived, like my granddaughter whose two year battle with leukemia has resulted in a healthy nine-year-old in the fourth grade who is doing well, thank you, for now.

    I accept it on behalf of all the people of Bikini who cannot return home, but must stay in two split societies, one in Kili, one in Ejit, while they still call themselves Bikinians, and are proud to say “I come from KBE,” – Kili, Bikini, Ejit – because Kili is where one half of them stay, Ejit is where the other half, and Bikini is the place where they long to stay.

    My colleague, Obet Kilon, is from Bikini. He’s a young, up-and-coming Foreign Service officer in our government, and he will carry this banner long after I am dead and gone, I am sure. I accept it on behalf of Kilon and his family, and all the other people of Bikini.

    The people of Enewetak, who must now live as one society, when in truth, they are really two societies in one atoll, who always refer to themselves as the people of Engebi and of Enewetak living in Enewetak Atoll, unfortunately must live on one island in that atoll because it is contaminated, and the people of Engebi cannot return to Engebi. I accept it on behalf of the people of Enewetak who must witness the breakup of the dome at Runit with tons and tons and tons of plutonium-contaminated material.

    I accept it on behalf of the children of the Marshalls who will be born next year, and the year after, and the decade after who, for God’s sakes, must have a better life than their parents did.

    I accept it on behalf of all of those who have contributed to make it happen that we are recognized for filing the cases against the nuclear states in the ICJ. Without your support, without your counsel, without your confirmation that what we wanted to do was the right thing to do, it would have been difficult for us to step forward and carry out this very, very important step in bringing peace to the world in getting rid of nuclear weapons once and for all.

    I accept it on behalf of all those who have sent support for our efforts. I accept it on behalf of our friends from Japan, some of whom are here tonight, who have suffered more directly than we have.
    If there was one thing that we could point to and accept as perhaps a wish that no one could possibly deny exists in the heart of every Marshallese, it is that this madness be nipped at the bud, that it not be allowed to happen again, that war with nuclear weapons must be recognized for what it is: an evil end to civilization. It is no longer bombs being tested, it is no longer select cities where bombs will be dropped, and then things will be over. It is a final, a very final, act of insanity.

    And as someone earlier said, “How can we be sure that nuclear weapons will not be used again?” The only way to be sure that nuclear weapons are not used again is to make sure we don’t have any nuclear weapons to use. And the small islands of the Marshall Islands, barely 70,000 people, are maybe small islands but a big ocean country: we believe that firmly, and we want to share that belief with the world.

    I will take this medal back with me to the President and his cabinet, to Parliament in the January session, which begins the first Monday of January, and then we will pass it around to all the islands of the Marshalls for them to see, for the children to feel it, for the children to see that, yes, there are smart and concerned people in the world that believe like we do.

    The most rewarding part of doing what we do in spreading the word of nuclear peace is to see the eyes of children light up when they understand what is being done. Because the bad side of the story has been told to them, what we are trying to do is to tell them the good side of the story, and this will be a milestone in the telling of that story.

    Thank you very much.

  • Restocking the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Would Send a Terrible Message

    This letter to the editor was published by the Los Angeles Times on December 4, 2014.

    LA TimesTo the Editor: The U.S. can lead in modernizing its nuclear arsenal, resuming nuclear testing and, in general, continuing to demonstrate the perceived military usefulness of nuclear weapons. Or, the U.S. can lead in pursuing negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and achieve complete nuclear disarmament. (“New nuclear weapons needed, many experts say, pointing to aged arsenal,” Nov. 29)

    The first path will cost $1 trillion over the next three decades, encourage nuclear proliferation and keep the nuclear arms race alive through the 21st century. The second path will demonstrate U.S. global leadership, allow precious resources to be used for meeting basic needs and fulfill U.S. legal obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    We have a choice about what kind of country we wish to be and what kind of world we will pass on to our children and grandchildren.

     

  • Sunflower Newsletter: December 2014

    Issue #209 – December 2014

     

    Facebook Twitter Addthis

    We at NAPF work diligently because peace requires leadership, and because every man, woman and child deserves to live free from the threat of nuclear devastation.  But we can’t do it alone.  Please consider making a donation today to support this important work, including The Sunflower.  Every dollar counts toward creating a safer, more secure world.

    • Perspectives
      • On Modernizing the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal by David Krieger
      • Wage Peace, End Racism by Paul K. Chappell
      • Nuclear Weapons and the International Security Context
    • Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
      • Greenpeace Champions the Marshall Islands
      • Vienna Forum Features the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
      • NuclearZero.Org Now Available in Spanish
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • More Firings in Air Force Nuclear Ranks
      • United States Will Attend Vienna Conference
    • Nuclear Proliferation
      • Iran Nuclear Negotiations Miss Another Deadline
    • Nuclear Testing
      • French Polynesia to Sue France Over Nuclear Tests
      • North Korea Threatens Fourth Nuclear Test
    • Resources
      • Don’t Bank on the Bomb
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • Dream of a Nation
    • Foundation Activities
      • Peace Leadership in Minnesota
      • NAPF Activities in Vienna
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    On Modernizing the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal

    The Los Angeles Times ran front-page articles on November 9 and 10, 2014, on modernizing the US nuclear arsenal. Both were long articles and the authors made the case that there is no choice but for the United States to modernize its nuclear arsenal, delivery systems and infrastructure at great expense to taxpayers, estimated at $1 trillion over the next three decades.

    The authors, reporters for the newspaper, write, “The Defense Department’s fleet of submarines, bombers and land-based missiles is also facing obsolescence and will have to be replaced over the next two decades, raising the prospect of further multibillion-dollar cost escalations.” This statement might be acceptable as a quote from a Defense Department official or in an opinion piece, but it hardly reflects the objectivity of professional reporters. It sounds more like an unattributed statement from a Defense Department official or from a “defense” corporation press release.

    To read more, click here.

    Wage Peace, End Racism

    If anyone doubts that attitudes toward race have improved in America, they should follow what is going on with the Ku Klux Klan. Being part black and from Alabama, I have been following this for a while now. The Ku Klux Klan is so desperate for new members that many people in the KKK are trying to reach out to people who are not traditionally considered white. When my African American father was born in the South in 1925, the KKK had millions of members (back then the United States had a little over 100 million people). Today it only has between 5,000 to 8,000 members in a country of over 300 million.

    To read more, click here.

    Nuclear Weapons and the International Security Context

    At the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, states parties reaffirmed their commitment to a “diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination.” Nearly five years have passed; another Review Conference is in the offing. Nuclear stockpiles of civilization-destroying size persist, and progress on disarmament has stalled.

    The commitment to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies assumed that de-coupling nuclear weapons from conventional military forces would help facilitate elimination of nuclear arsenals. Yet there has been little progress in reducing the role of nuclear weapons. All nuclear-armed states are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.

    To read more, click here.

    Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    Greenpeace Champions the Marshall Islands

    Greenpeace, the most inclusive, people-powered collective movement in the world, is lending its strong support to the Marshall Islands and the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits. In doing so, they are sending a clear message to the world that it is long past time for the nuclear Goliaths to begin negotiations for nuclear disarmament.

    Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, said, “We stand with the people of the Marshall Islands in their fight to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Having seen their land, sea and people poisoned by radiation, they are now taking to task the nine nuclear-armed nations for failing to eliminate this danger which threatens humanity at large. Greenpeace salutes their struggle and joins them in declaring that Zero is the only safe number of nuclear weapons on the planet.”

    Greenpeace Champions the Marshall Islands,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, November 19, 2014.

    Vienna Forum Features the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

     

    The International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation are co-sponsoring a public forum on Friday, December 5, at the Vienna University of Technology in Vienna, Austria. The forum will feature a wide array of speakers, including: Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands; Christopher Weeramantry, former Vice President of the International Court of Justice; Phon van den Biesen, co-agent of the Marshall Islands in the lawsuits before the ICJ; Marylia Kelley, Executive Director of Tri-Valley CAREs; and David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    The forum will take place from 2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. It is free and open to the public.

    Click here to download a flyer for the event.

    NuclearZero.Org Now Available in Spanish

    The nuclearzero.org website (including the petition in support of the Marshall Islands) is now available in Spanish at www.nuclearzero.org/es. Please pass it on to your friends and colleagues in Spanish-speaking countries so that they can express their support for the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits.

    The website is also available in French and Japanese.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    More Firings in Air Force Nuclear Ranks

     

    Continuing a long string of disciplinary actions, the U.S. Air Force fired two commanders from two of its nuclear missile bases in Wyoming and North Dakota. Col. Carl Jones was the No. 2 commander of the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming. He was in charge of 150 of the Air Force’s 450 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. He was dismissed “for a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership abilities.”

    Last March, nine officers were fired at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, which is the third of the three nuclear missile bases, in response to an exam-cheating scandal there. Last year, Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, commander of the entire ICBM force, was fired after an investigation into a drinking binge and other misconduct while he was in Russia as head of a visiting U.S. government delegation.

    Robert Burns, “2 Nuclear Commanders Fired, Another Disciplined,” Associated Press, November 3, 2014.

    United States Will Attend Vienna Conference

     

    The United States has announced that it will attend the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons, to be held on December 8-9 in Vienna, Austria. The U.S. openly boycotted the first two conferences on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons, held in Norway in 2013 and Mexico in 2014.

    While the U.S. claims that it fully understands “the serious consequences of nuclear weapons use and gives the highest priority to avoiding their use,” it continues to possess thousands of nuclear weapons, many of which are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired at a moment’s notice.

    United States Will Attend the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons,” U.S. State Department, November 7, 2014.

    Nuclear Proliferation

    Iran Nuclear Negotiations Miss Another Deadline

     

    Negotiators have missed the deadline of November 24 to reach a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, giving themselves an additional seven months to strike a deal. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that “we would be fools to walk away” since temporary restrictions curbing Iran’s nuclear program would stay in place while negotiations continue.

    Negotiations are scheduled to resume before the end of the year.

    David Sanger and Michael Gordon, “U.S. and Allies Extend Iran Nuclear Talks by 7 Months,” The New York Times, November 25, 2014.

    Nuclear Testing

    French Polynesia to Sue France Over Nuclear Tests

     

    The French Polynesia Assembly is preparing to sue the French government for nearly $1 billion in compensation for damage caused to the islands by nuclear weapons tests.

    The Tahoera’a Huiraatira party committee, acting independently of Polynesian President Edouard Fritch, seeks $930 million for environmental damage caused by 210 French nuclear tests conducted from 1966 to 1996 off secluded atolls in the South Pacific.

    Rose Troup Buchanan, “South Pacific Islands Prepare to Sue French Government for $1 Billion Over Nuclear Tests,” The Independent, November 24, 2014.

    North Korea Threatens Fourth Nuclear Test

     

    Reacting to “political provocation” from the United Nations, North Korean officials said that the country had no option but to consider an additional nuclear test so that their “war deterrent will be strengthened infinitely in the face of the United States’ plot for armed interference and invasion.” North Korea has conducted three nuclear tests since 2006, all of which were factors in the UN committee vote urging the Security Council to refer North Korean leaders to the International Criminal Court.

    Choe Sang-Hun, “North Korea Threatens to Conduct Nuclear Test,” The New York Times, Nov. 20, 2014.

    Resources

    Don’t Bank on the Bomb

     

    Don’t Bank on the Bomb identifies financial institutions that invest heavily in companies involved in the US, British, French, Indian and Israeli nuclear weapon programs. The report is published by PAX, a partner of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

    The nuclear-armed nations spend a combined total of more than USD 100 billion on their nuclear forces every year. This money goes towards assembling new warheads, modernizing old ones, and building missiles, launchers and the supporting technology to use them. While the majority of that comes from taxpayers in the nuclear-armed countries, this report shows that private sector investors from many non-nuclear-armed countries also provide financing that enables the production, maintenance and modernization of nuclear arsenals.

    With this report, PAX, together with partners in ICAN, aims to increase transparency about the financing behind the bomb, and stimulate support for the stigmatization, outlawing and elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Click here for more information and to read the report.

    This Month in Nuclear Threat History

     

    History chronicles many instances when humans have been threatened by nuclear weapons. In this article, Jeffrey Mason outlines some of the most serious threats that have taken place in the month of December, including U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s comments in 2008 that the U.S. President can order a nuclear attack at any moment without discussing it with anyone first.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

    For more information on the history of the Nuclear Age, visit NAPF’s Nuclear Files website.

    Dream of a Nation

     

    The Dream of a Nation Education Initiative is reaching hundreds of thousands of students across the United States. Based on the inspiring book Dream of a Nation, the classroom set is now being used in courses ranging from English Language, to American History, Economics and Environmental Studies.

    NAPF President David Krieger wrote a chapter entitled “Creating a World Without Nuclear Weapons” for Dream of a Nation. The book includes contributions from many other top thinkers and activists dedicated to making the world a better place.

    Copies of the book are now available for only the cost of shipping. Click here for more information and to order.

    Foundation Activities

    Peace Leadership in Minnesota

     

    Despite unseasonable record cold and early snow, Paul K. Chappell, Peace Leadership Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, inspired a crowd of activists, students, veterans, and concerned citizens in a five-day tour though Minneapolis and St. Paul. Events included a one-day peace leadership workshop at the First Unitarian Church, a public forum at Plymouth Congregational Church, university talks at Augsburg College and the University of St. Thomas, and a keynote speech at the 19th annual celebration of the Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers with about 300 people in attendance.

    To read more about Paul Chappell’s recent trip to Minnesota, click here.

    NAPF Activities in Vienna

     

    In addition to participating in the ICAN Civil Society Forum in Vienna, Austria (see Resources, above), David Krieger, Rick Wayman and Alice Slater of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will be involved in many other activities in Vienna in early December.

    On December 5, NAPF is co-sponsoring a public forum with the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits. The forum will feature Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum, NAPF President David Krieger, Judge Christopher Weeramantry, Phon van den Biesen of IALANA, and Marylia Kelley of Tri-Valley CAREs.

    On December 8 and 9, the NAPF representatives will attend the Third Conference on the Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons, hosted by the Foreign Ministry of Austria. Around 150 countries are expected to send representatives to the conference.

    Quotes

     

    “I think any honest person with an ounce of common sense realizes that the only real path to higher morale in the nuclear weapons business lies in gradually shutting it down, starting with the most stupid parts first.  The hope that the nuclear sword of Damocles can finally be lifted, reinforced by gradual progress, is what can bring higher morale — and only that.”

    Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group, commenting on U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s plan to increase the Pentagon’s investment in nuclear weapons by 10%.

     

    “I believe that peace is a basic human right for every individual and all people.  War is a negation and deprivation of all human rights, for life, property, liberty, and should be abolished.”

    Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate and NAPF Advisor, speaking at Fondazione Patrizio Paoletti and Commune of Assisi on November 23, 2014.

     

    “One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but that it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means.”

    Martin Luther King, Jr. This quote is featured in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, available from the NAPF Peace Store.

    Editorial Team

     

    Christian Hatchett

    David Krieger

    Grant Stanton

    Carol Warner

    Rick Wayman

     

  • Peace Leadership in Minnesota

    Despite unseasonable record cold and early snow, Paul K. Chappell, Peace Leadership Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, inspired a crowd of activists, students, veterans, and concerned citizens in a five day tour though Minneapolis and St. Paul. Events included a one-day peace leadership workshop at the First Unitarian Church, a public forum at Plymouth Congregational Church, university talks at Augsburg College and the University of St. Thomas, and keynote speaker at the 19th annual celebration of the Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers with about 300 people in attendance.

    “When I heard Paul speak, I realized why his message could literally feed the masses with that controversial thing called ‘hope,’” said Kate Towle, educational consultant to the Minneapolis public schools. “Paul understands profoundly that peace demands a culture of living and a language for which there are few translations, and he is our primary interpreter.”

    “This workshop is essential, “said Dick Bernard, past president of the Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers. “Chappell’s presentation was very stimulating. He is a great teacher.”

    “Paul just kept light shaking us with his wise rhetoric,” said Elaine Wynne, licensed psychologist, site coordinator, Veterans Resilience Project of Minnesota. “Paul has deeply affected people in our community. His presence is provocative and powerful.”

    “His speech is one of the best and most hopeful talks that I have ever heard,” said Bill Monahan, MD, executive director at Minnesota Holistic Medicine Group. “Now I have to hear him again.”

    Mike Madden, Veterans for Peace member, commented, “His perspective, that every war is a civil war if your highest affiliation is to the human race, is one I’ve always shared but never heard expressed so simply and memorably. Thank you, NAPF. Thank you, Paul Chappell. What were people thinking back in the day when violence was accepted as a natural human tendency?”

    “The workshop was phenomenal,” said Elaine Klaassen, writer for Spirit and Conscience, Southside Pride newspaper. “I really liked Chappell’s compassion about where people are coming from, which I believe is the heart of peacemaking…Of course, if everyone in the world looked at everyone else in this way, no one would be able to demonize or dehumanize another soul. And war would be impossible.”

  • December: This Month In Nuclear Threat History

    December 1-12, 2014 – The United Nations Climate Change Summit, COP20/CMP10, a meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol of December 11, 1997 will be held in Lima, Peru. More than 90 percent of world climatologists, ecologists, and environmental scientists have established a strong consensus that climate change – global warming — is an ongoing human-caused catastrophe in the making. While some news media outlets, pundits, and scientists such as The New York Times, James Hansen, Tom Wigley, Ken Caldeira, and organizations like the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions have argued that nuclear power is one alternative to dirty carbon emissions generated by coal-fired plants and dirty Alberta tar sands oil burning, many other experts vehemently disagree. Distinguished climatology professor Alan Robock of Rutgers University has joined a growing chorus of voices that say ‘No’ to the ‘nuclear alternative.’ Robock and others argue that: the position that once switched on, nuclear reactors have absolutely no carbon footprint, is technically correct but factually wrong. The mining and remediation of uranium, a serious environmental and health risk, and the building of large containment domes and the accompanying support and waste storage and transportation requirements result in nuclear power carbon emissions 10-20 times that of wind power. Also, the risk of catastrophic accidents and the unsafe routine operation of nuclear plants has been seen in at least 20 major core melt events (as well as a plethora of other incidents, leaks, and shutdowns) including well-publicized accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, in addition to more obscure but deadly serious events like those that occurred at Lelieveld, Kunkel, and Lawrence.   Dealing with the tremendous amount of highly radioactive waste including reactor cores and spent fuel rods, the vulnerability of plants to terrorist targeting, and the incredible economic unsustainability of nuclear energy, represent key arguments against the so-called ‘nuclear alternative’ to global warming. But, the nuclear proliferation risk of 400+ global nuclear power plants as well as dozens of other military and research nuclear facilities may be the trump card that makes nuclear power not only a false solution to climate change, but a deadly catastrophe-in-waiting that currently threatens our global civilization’s present and future just as much if not more than global warming. (Sources: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change website accessed November 7, 2014: unfccc.int/meetings/lima_dec_2014 and Alan Robock, “Nuclear Energy is Not a Solution for Global Warming.” Huffington Post Blog, May 12, 2014: www.huffingonpost.com/alan-robock/nuclear-energy-is-not-a-solution_b_5305594.html )

    December 1, 1959 – In Washington, DC, the Antarctic Treaty was signed by the United States, Soviet Union, and ten other nations to internationalize and demilitarize the Antarctic continent in what became the world’s first nuclear-weapons-free-zone (NWFZ). The treaty entered into force on June 23, 1961.   This treaty was an important precedent for other follow-on treaties of a similar vein such as the January 27, 1967 Outer Space Treaty, prohibiting the placement of weapons of mass destruction in orbit, on the moon, or on any celestial body. Nuclear-weapon-free-zones were also established in Latin America (The Treaty of Tlatelolco, 1967), the South Pacific (The Raratonga Treaty, 1985), Southeast Asia (The Bangkok Treaty, 1995), Africa (The Pelindaba Treaty, 1996), and elsewhere.   (Source: Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors. “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC: Center for Defense Information, 2002, p. 1-4, 62.)

    December 2, 1960 – Without requesting any major revisions, President Dwight Eisenhower approved the first SIOP – Single Integrated Operational Plan – to become effective in April of 1961. One thousand ground zeroes in the Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, and North Korea were to be targeted with 3,423 nuclear warheads with 80 percent of those strikes directed against military sites.   The resulting fatalities were estimated to be 54 percent of the entire population of the Soviet Union and 16 percent of the People’s Republic of China with a grand total of 220 million enemy dead. The TTAPS nuclear winter study of the early 1980s and subsequent build-on analyses have proven the likelihood that if as few as several dozen nuclear warheads were exploded in a U.S.-Russian nuclear exchange or even a so-called limited nuclear war, such as India vs. Pakistan, the global impact of tremendous nuclear firestorms and millions of tons of dust and debris thrown into Earth’s atmosphere by these explosions would cause a significant drop in world temperatures triggering a mass starvation. Billions would die with a strong possibility of accelerated human extinction if larger numbers of nuclear weapons were exploded.   (Source:   Eric Schlosser. “Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.” New York: Penguin Press, 2013, p. 206 and Carl Sagan and Richard Turco. “A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race.” New York: Random House, 1990.)

    December 8, 1987 – U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty to eliminate all ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, which represented an important step toward the denuclearization of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in Europe. The treaty entered into force on June 1, 1988 and was fully implemented on June 1, 1991. Even a fervent Cold Warrior like President Reagan was able to achieve a significant nuclear arms control milestone in his last 14 months in office. Despite the ongoing Crimea-Ukraine Crisis, let’s hope that President Barack Obama, with Congressional support, can finalize an agreement to prevent the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, convince the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (reversing its October 13, 1999 51-48 vote that rejected ratification of the treaty), and push for a more accelerated Global Zero agenda. (Source: Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors. “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC: Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 2, 22.)

    December 10, 1950 – In the midst of the Cold War and the Korean Conflict, William Faulkner, an American recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature, in his acceptance speech at the City Hall in Stockholm on this date noted, “Our tragedy today is a general and universal fear [of the Bomb]…There is only one question – When will I be blown up?” In the Cold War era, an impressive number of politicians, educators, scientists (Thor Heyerdahl: “We must lose faith in arms as the only means of security, for this time, the risks are total”), authors, celebrities, and actors (Martin Sheen: “Until we begin to fill the jails with protest, our governments will continue to fill the silos with weapons.”), from East and West, spoke out against nuclear weapons. And while the end of the Cold War (1945-91) did bring a substantially reduced risk of nuclear war, especially in terms of popular perceptions, the danger obviously still exists.   While some believe that there are fewer public voices calling for further reductions and the near-term elimination of nuclear weapons, in fact, more and more global citizens are joining the movement.   Recently actor Michael Douglas declared, “The only way to eliminate the global nuclear danger is to eliminate all nuclear weapons.” Queen Noor of Jordan has also promoted Global Zero, “The sheer folly of trying to defend a nation by destroying all life on the planet must be apparent to anyone capable of rational thought.”   (Source: Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech of William Faulkner: www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1949/faulkner-speech.html, accessed November 7, 2014 and Global Zero website accessed November 9, 2014: www.globalzero.org.)

    December 18, 1974European Stars and Stripes featured an article, “Ex-GI Says He Used Hashish at German Base,” detailing Corporal Don Meyers’ comments to a Milwaukee Journal reporter while serving at the 74th U.S. Army Field Artillery detachment in the early 1970s, that almost every one of the 200 personnel in his unit were high while handling nuclear weapons. The warheads, 10 to 20 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, were deployed as the payload component for a squadron of Pershing missiles deployed on that NATO base in West Germany. While military drug use is not as serious a problem as it once was, there still exist serious concerns about U.S. and foreign military personnel’ handling of nuclear weaponry and, in broader terms, about the command and control of these potential doomsday weapons. (Source: Eric Schlosser. “Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and Illusion of Safety.” New York: Penguin Press, 2013.)

    December 22, 2008 – Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News TV, “The President is followed at all times by a military aide carrying the nuclear codes that he would use in the event of a nuclear attack on the U.S. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.” While the facts about the President’s 24-7-365 access to the nuclear “football” have been well established by many news media sources as well as being dramatized on stage, in films, and on television for some time, it is nevertheless highly disconcerting to realize that miscalculation, false nuclear alerts, irrational decision-making, combined with human infallibility under the dictates of extremely short time constraints, can, despite a plethora of safeguards, fail safes, and verification protocols, credibly result in what the late Jonathan Schell (“The Fate of the Earth”) called, “A republic of insects and grass” – the possibility of human extinction. A short-term mitigating solution, until Global Zero is achieved, is to de-alert U.S., Russian, Chinese, European, Israeli, Pakistani and Indian nuclear arsenals. Give the human race at least 72 hours to think about it and change course before unleashing a nuclear Armageddon. (Source: Numerous news media outlets including Fox News and Democracy Now, 2008 to present.)

    December 26, 1975 – The United States realized the implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention, signed on April 10, 1972 and ratified by the U.S., U.K., and Soviet Union on March 26, 1975, on this date when it completed the destruction of its entire stock of biological weapons.   This is one of many precedents for the hoped for future date when Global Zero successfully results in the mutually verified destruction of the last of thousands of nuclear warheads in global arsenals.   (Source: Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors. “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC: Center for Defense Information, 2002, p. 100.)

  • On Modernizing the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal

    The Los Angeles Times ran front-page articles on November 9 and 10, 2014, on modernizing the US nuclear arsenal. The first article was titled, “Costs rise as nuclear arsenal ages.” The second article was titled, “Arsenal ages as world rearms.” Both were long articles and the authors made the case that there is no choice but for the United States to modernize its nuclear arsenal, delivery systems and infrastructure at great expense to taxpayers, estimated at $1 trillion over the next three decades.

    David KriegerThe authors, reporters for the newspaper, write, “The Defense Department’s fleet of submarines, bombers and land-based missiles is also facing obsolescence and will have to be replaced over the next two decades, raising the prospect of further multibillion-dollar cost escalations.” This statement might be acceptable as a quote from a Defense Department official or in an opinion piece, but it hardly reflects the objectivity of professional reporters. It sounds more like an unattributed statement from a Defense Department official or from a “defense” corporation press release.

    In fact, there is a viable option that was not touched upon in the articles. The United States could choose instead to fulfill its legal obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. This would not be easy, but it would be far preferable to continuing the nuclear arms race through the 21st century. For the United States to convene such negotiations would demonstrate leadership in moving the world away from nuclear Armageddon and toward compliance with international law.

    In pursuing this option, “defense” corporations would likely suffer shortfalls in their profits, but the huge sums proposed to be spent on the modernization of the US nuclear arsenal could be shifted to providing for the basic needs of the poorest citizens and for restoring the country’s deteriorating infrastructure. The truth is that nuclear weapons are obsolete for providing 21st century security against terrorist organizations, failed states, environmental destruction or climate chaos.

    Do we really want to pass along the threat of nuclear warfare, by accident or design, which could destroy civilization, to our grandchildren and their grandchildren? Enough is enough. It is time, as Einstein argued more than a half century ago, to change our modes of thinking or face “unparalleled catastrophe.”

    No country has the right to threaten the future of civilization and complex life with weapons of massive destructive power. Modernization of the US nuclear arsenal is not the only choice we have. A far better and saner choice is to end the nuclear weapons era, and that can only be done by diplomacy and negotiations for a nuclear weapons-free world.

    Rather than creating a financial feeding frenzy for “defense” contractors and essentially throwing away a trillion dollars over the next three decades in the illegal pursuit of nuclear modernization, the United States could choose now to lead the world in seeking planetary nuclear zero. This would be a worthy pursuit for a great nation.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • Violence: We Are All Ayotzinapa

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    in our streets, our schools, our homes.

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    in Mexico and Nigeria, in Iraq and Syria.

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    in our cities, our towns, everywhere.

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    with guns and knives, bombs and drones.

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    with starvation, disease and pollution.

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    east and west, north and south.

    Violence, you are killing the future,
    threatening children not yet even on the planet.

    Violence, is there no reasoning with you?
    Enough is enough.

    Violence, you are a monster that must be stopped.
    Who will stand up? Who will speak out?

     

    VIOLENCIA: TODOS SOMOS AYOTZINAPA

    Violencia, estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    en nuestras calles, nuestras escuelas, nuestros hogares.

    Violencia estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    en México y Nigeria, en Irak y Siria.

    Violencia, estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    en nuestras ciudades, nuestros pueblos, en todas partes.

    Violencia, estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    con pistolas y cuchillos, bombas y aviones no tripulados.

    Violencia, estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    con hambre, las enfermedades y la contaminación.

    Violencia, estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    en el este, el oeste, el norte y el sur.

    Violencia, estás matando el futuro,
    amenazando a los niños que todavía ni siquiera han arribado al planeta.

    Violencia, ¿no podemos racionalizar contigo?
    Esto ya es demasiado.

    Violencia, eres un monstruo que debe detenerse.
    ¿Quién será el defensor? ¿Quién será el que hable?

     Traducción/adaptación de Rubén Arvizu

  • ISIS, Ebola, Ferguson

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    Did you notice? Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel just announced plans to massively “upgrade” the US nuclear arsenal. It might have been swallowed by other breaking and ongoing news: ISIS and another beheading, Ebola, Ferguson, or the historic comet landing of Philae – at least one positive story. In addition to local news, stories in my own community of Hood River, Oregon include the transport of coal and construction of coal terminals, blast zone determination for oil trains, or the legacy of the Hanford nuclear production complex, which was part of the Manhattan Project.

    Those unique or ongoing events certainly have their place in the news cycle and matter to us at different levels. Does that mean that we should numbly accept new plans by our government to revitalize systems which without doubt are the greatest threat to human survival? Did we forget that our President told the world in Prague in 2009 that America is committed to seek peace and security by creating a world without nuclear weapons, and for that announced intention received a Nobel Peace Prize?

    The concerns outlined by Secretary Hagel could have provided an excellent opportunity to significantly implement the needed steps away from nuclear weapons. Cheating scandals on qualification tests or misconduct by top officers overseeing key nuclear programs certainly are worrisome. Even more worrisome is the fact that nuclear weapons still exist and are not considered an abnormality. The more troubling aspect of Hagel’s announcement is the broader nuclear modernization program. Making sure the so-called triad of strategic deliver systems grows, the Pentagon can plan for plenty of new missile submarines, new bombers and new and refurbished land-based missiles. The Monterey Institute of International Studies sums up their well-documented report: “Over the next thirty years, the United States plans to spend approximately $1 trillion maintaining the current arsenal, buying replacement systems, and upgrading existing nuclear bombs and warheads.”

    Even the most doubtful among us will see the contradiction between the commitment of seeking a world without nuclear weapons and “revamping the nuclear enterprise” as Hagel noted in his keynote speech at the Reagan National Defense Forum last week.

    It appears that the absence of the Cold War and the soothing rhetoric about a world without nuclear weapons keeps us complacent–or can anyone imagine one million people demonstrating against nuclear weapons as they did in New York City in 1982? That same year was the largest exercise in direct democracy (voting on an issue rather than representatives to decide ‘our’ view) when voters in referenda in about half the states decided overwhelmingly to call for a freeze on research, development, production and deployment of nuclear weapons. I think we the people should make ourselves heard again. Conflict transformation experts help us articulate many, some of them are:

    First, nuclear deterrence is a myth and ought to be rejected by all people and governments. In the Santa Barbara Declaration by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation  the major problems outlined with nuclear deterrence are: (1) its power to protect is a dangerous fabrication; (2) the assumption of rational leaders; (3) the threatening of mass murder is illegal and criminal; (4) it is immoral; (5) it diverts badly needed human and economic resources; (6) its ineffectiveness against non-state extremists; (7) its vulnerability to cyber-attacks, sabotage and error; and (8) setting an example to pursue nuclear weapons as deterrence.

    Second, diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies. Once the “unthinkable” nuclear option no longer plays a central role in security planning, and once the nuclear weapons are de-coupled from conventional military forces, the elimination of nuclear arsenals can be facilitated.

    Third, don’t wait for conditions to be ripe. There is statistical certainty that a nuclear weapon will be used at some point. The only way to make sure it does not happen is to eliminate all.

    Fourth, encourage compliance with all international treaties and create new ones that will ban and eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide. We are at a time in history where a Global Peace System created conditions for global collaboration through international laws and treaties. It is time for the United States to meaningfully participate in this system.

    Fifth, move our government toward unilateral disarmament. Without a nuclear arsenal we are not making anyone less secure. What if the United States would take the lead in a global “disarmament race”? After decades of international military interventionism the United States might become a loved and respected country again.

    Sixth, recognize the role of nuclear weapons in the chain of global violence ranging from hand guns on the streets of Chicago to catastrophic environmental and humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use. Violence and the threat of violence on all levels perpetuates violence.

    No Russian take-over of the Ukraine, Chinese territorial claims, or even Pakistani expansion of nuclear arsenal makes it any more logical to revitalize our nuclear arsenals. We can reject the myth of nuclear deterrence and we can help the government shift the spending priorities to healthcare, education, infrastructure, the environment, renewable energy, low income housing and many more important areas. Currently our public conscience is lacking urgency with regard to nuclear weapons. We owe it to ourselves and our children to activate this urgency and make the elimination of nuclear weapons a step toward a world beyond war.

    Patrick. T. Hiller, Ph.D., Hood River, OR, is a Conflict Transformation scholar, professor, on the Governing Council of the International Peace Research Association, and Director of the War Prevention Initiative of the Jubitz Family Foundation.

     

  • Greenpeace Champions the Marshall Islands

    For Immediate Release

    Contact:
    Sandy Jones
    (805) 965-3443

    sjones@napf.org

    Greenpeace champions the Marshall Islands
    Declares zero the only safe number of nuclear weapons on the planet

    Santa Barbara – Greenpeace, the most inclusive, people-powered collective movement in the world, is lending its strong support to the Marshall Islands and the Nuclear Zero lawsuits. In doing so, they are sending a clear message to the world that it is long past time for the nuclear Goliaths to begin negotiations for nuclear disarmament.

    greenpeace_hiresKumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International said, “We stand with the people of the Marshall Islands in their fight to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Having seen their land, sea and people poisoned by radiation, they are now taking to task the nine nuclear-armed nations for failing to eliminate this danger which threatens humanity at large.” He continued, “Greenpeace salutes their struggle and joins them in declaring that Zero is the only safe number of nuclear weapons on the planet.”

    “We are thrilled to have Greenpeace on board in this unprecedented effort,” said Rick Wayman, Director of Programs at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. “Their commitment to peaceful solutions and a better world could not be stronger, their bandwidth is huge and their ability to communicate creatively is unparalleled. Having their support will mean a great deal to the Marshall Islanders in their efforts to bring the nuclear-armed nations to the negotiating table.”

    The Marshall Islands is a small island nation in the Pacific whose people have suffered greatly as a result of U.S. atmospheric and underwater nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s. Led by Foreign Minister Tony de Brum, this courageous nation is now at the forefront of activism for nuclear abolition. “After seeing what mere testing can do to human beings, it makes sense for the Marshallese people to implore the nuclear weapons nations to begin the hard task of disarmament. All we ask is that this terrible threat be removed from our world,” said Mr. de Brum.

    On April 24, 2014, The Marshall Islands filed unprecedented lawsuits in the International Court of Justice and U.S. Federal Court to hold the nine nuclear-armed nations accountable for flagrant violations of international law with respect to their nuclear disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law. The lawsuits do not seek monetary reparations. Rather, they seek a judicial order to require the nuclear-armed countries to cease modernizing their nuclear arsenals and to commence negotiations for complete nuclear disarmament.

    In a strong show of unity and strength, Mr. Naidoo has added his name to an open letter of support for the Marshall Islands lawsuits. The letter states, in part, “In taking this action, you [the Marshall Islands] and any governments that choose to join you, are acting on behalf of all the seven billion people who now live on Earth and on behalf of the generations yet unborn who could never be born if nuclear weapons are ever used in large numbers.” In addition to Mr. Naidoo, the letter is signed by Nobel Peace Laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Oscar Arias, Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi, and Adolpho Pérez Esquivel and some 80 other peace and social justice leaders from more than 25 countries around the world. To read the letter in its entirety, go to www.wagingpeace.org/rmi-open-letter.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has supported the Marshall Islands and their bold initiative since the project’s inception, serving as their strategic consultant while also assembling and coordinating a coalition of U.S. and international experts providing legal counsel to the Marshall Islands.

    “The Marshall Islands has given humanity a wake-up call. Each of us has a choice. We can wake up, or we can continue our complacent slumber,” said David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Founation. “The safety and security of every inhabitant of the planet, now and in the future, is at stake.”

    Anyone wishing to support the Marshall Islanders can do so by signing the #NuclearZero petition calling on nuclear weapons nations to urgently fulfill their moral duty and legal obligation to begin negotiations for complete nuclear disarmament. Visit www.nuclearzero.org.

    You can read the Greenpeace blog, Marshall Islands takes on the nuclear-armed states, for all our sakes at bit.ly/gp-zero. Follow the Nuclear Zero lawsuits on Facebook and Twitter, and follow Greenpeace on Facebook and Twitter.

    #      #      #

    For further information, or if you would like to arrange interviews, contact Rick Wayman at rwayman@napf.org or call (805) 696-5159.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation – NAPF’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.  Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations.  For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

  • Do Wars Really Defend America’s Freedom?

    This article was originally published by History News Network.

    Lawrence WittnerU.S. politicians and pundits are fond of saying that America’s wars have defended America’s freedom. But the historical record doesn’t bear out this contention. In fact, over the past century, U.S. wars have triggered major encroachments upon civil liberties.

    Shortly after the United States entered World War I, seven states passed laws abridging freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In June 1917, they were joined by Congress, which passed the Espionage Act. This law granted the federal government the power to censor publications and ban them from the mail, and made the obstruction of the draft or of enlistment in the armed forces punishable by a hefty fine and up to 20 years’ imprisonment. Thereafter, the U.S. government censored newspapers and magazines while conducting prosecutions of the war’s critics, sending over 1,500 to prison with lengthy sentences. This included the prominent labor leader and Socialist Party presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs. Meanwhile, teachers were fired from the public schools and universities, elected state and federal legislators critical of the war were prevented from taking office, and religious pacifists who refused to carry weapons after they were drafted into the armed forces were forcibly clad in uniform, beaten, stabbed with bayonets, dragged by ropes around their necks, tortured, and killed. It was the worst outbreak of government repression in U.S. history, and sparked the formation of the American Civil Liberties Union.

    Although America’s civil liberties record was much better during World War II, the nation’s participation in that conflict did lead to serious infringements upon American freedoms. Probably the best-known was the federal government’s incarceration of 110,000 people of Japanese heritage in internment camps. Two-thirds of them were U.S. citizens, most of whom had been born (and many of whose parents had been born) in the United States. In 1988, recognizing the blatant unconstitutionality of the wartime internment, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, which apologized for the action and paid reparations to the survivors and their families. But the war led to other violations of rights, as well, including the imprisonment of roughly 6,000 conscientious objectors and the confinement of some 12,000 others in Civilian Public Service camps. Congress also passed the Smith Act, which made the advocacy of the overthrow of the government a crime punishable by 20 years’ imprisonment. As this legislation was used to prosecute and imprison members of groups that merely talked abstractly of revolution, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately narrowed its scope considerably.

    The civil liberties situation worsened considerably with the advent of the Cold War. In Congress, the House Un-American Activities Committee gathered files on over a million Americans whose loyalty it questioned and held contentious hearings designed to expose alleged subversives. Jumping into the act, Senator Joseph McCarthy began reckless, demagogic accusations of Communism and treason, using his political power and, later, a Senate investigations subcommittee, to defame and intimidate. The president, for his part, established the Attorney General’s List of “subversive” organizations, as well as a federal Loyalty Program, which dismissed thousands of U.S. public servants from their jobs. The compulsory signing of loyalty oaths became standard practice on the federal, state, and local level. By 1952, 30 states required some sort of loyalty oath for teachers. Although this effort to root out “un-Americans” never resulted in the discovery of a single spy or saboteur, it did play havoc with people’s lives and cast a pall of fear over the nation.

    When citizen activism bubbled up in the form of protest against the Vietnam War, the federal government responded with a stepped-up program of repression. J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI director, had been expanding his agency’s power ever since World War I, and swung into action with his COINTELPRO program. Designed to expose, disrupt, and neutralize the new wave of activism by any means necessary, COINTELPRO spread false, derogatory information about dissident leaders and organizations, created conflicts among their leaders and members, and resorted to burglary and violence. It targeted nearly all social change movements, including the peace movement, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the environmental movement. The FBI’s files bulged with information on millions of Americans it viewed as national enemies or potential enemies, and it placed many of them under surveillance, including writers, teachers, activists, and U.S. senators Convinced that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a dangerous subversive, Hoover made numerous efforts to destroy him, including encouraging him to commit suicide.

    Although revelations about the unsavory activities of U.S. intelligence agencies led to curbs on them in the 1970s, subsequent wars encouraged a new surge of police state measures. In 1981, the FBI opened an investigation of individuals and groups opposing President Reagan’s military intervention in Central America. It utilized informers at political meetings, break-ins at churches, members’ homes, and organizational offices, and surveillance of hundreds of peace demonstrations. Among the targeted groups were the National Council of Churches, the United Auto Workers, and the Maryknoll Sisters of the Roman Catholic Church. After the beginning of the Global War on Terror, the remaining checks on U.S. intelligence agencies were swept aside. The Patriot Act provided the government with sweeping power to spy on individuals, in some cases without any suspicion of wrongdoing, while the National Security Agency collected all Americans’ phone and internet communications.

    The problem here lies not in some unique flaw of the United States but, rather, in the fact that warfare is not conducive to freedom. Amid the heightened fear and inflamed nationalism that accompany war, governments and many of their citizens regard dissent as akin to treason. In these circumstances, “national security” usually trumps liberty. As the journalist Randolph Bourne remarked during World War I: “War is the health of the state.” Americans who cherish freedom should keep this in mind.

    Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and rebellion, “What’s Going On at UAardvark?”