Blog

  • Medea Benjamin Receives NAPF’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award

    On November 16, 2014, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation awarded its Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to Medea Benjamin. Her acceptance speech is below.

    Medea Benjamin and David KriegerThank you so much for the beautiful introduction, David, and thank you so much for this honor. I’ve been reading David Krieger’s writings for many years and have always a tremendous admirer of the work of the Foundation, so to be here tonight getting this award is almost surreal for me.

    To hear you talk about the children who live their lives in a state of war, I think about the children right here in this country. They might not know it as directly as children in other countries, but especially people who were born after 9/11, they think that war is the norm because it has been with them since they were born. And so it is extremely sad to think that we, the older folks in this room, have tolerated a situation where war has become the norm. To think that we live in a warfare state.

    Now, this predates 9/11 but it’s gotten way worse after 9/11. Let’s recognize that we’re a country that has over 800 military bases around the world; a country that spends more on the military than almost the rest of the world combined; a country that has been, along with Russia, the leader in this insane nuclear weapons race; a country that has refined the technology of drone warfare, where you can kill from the luxury of a US base, sitting in an air-conditioned room in an ergonomic chair and press a button and annihilate somebody thousands of miles away. And let’s just recognize that something like beheadings are absolutely disgusting. But when I travel around the world, people say to me, “What’s the difference between that and incinerating someone from the sky with a hellfire missile?” I was told that by a young man whose grandmother was working in the fields, a 68-year-old woman picking okra, when suddenly a drone came from the sky and incinerated her and all they could find of her was a couple of pieces of flesh laying in the field. And he said to me, “Is that any worse than beheadings? What did my grandmother ever do to anybody?”

    We are also a country that glorifies war. I was getting onto the airplane last week on US Airways, and they said, “Whoever is in the military, please come forward, and you get preferential seating on the plane. We want to thank you for your service.” And I stood up and I said, “Are there any teachers in the room, we’d like to thank you for your service as well! Are there any health care workers in the room, we would also like to thank you for your service.” And let’s face it, if we really want to help the veterans, it’s not about getting on the plane sooner than other people. It’s about getting the proper treatment they deserve when they come home-both physical and mental- so we don’t have 22 veterans a day killing themselves. And most important, if you want to help, is to not send them off in wars of choice that we should not be in.

    Not only are we dealing with warfare overseas, but we also have warfare here at home. Let’s recognize that in probably two days, there will be a verdict coming down from the grand jury in Ferguson. And the verdict will probably be not to indict the police officer who killed Michael Brown. And imagine the message that will be sent to every young black man across this country, to people of color throughout this country who have been the victims of police abuse, of a system that has failed them. We have to be ready for what is to come. And not ready to condemn people who might throw a stone in a store, but to condemn a system that doesn’t hold police accountable, to condemn a system that has militarized our police forces, including right here in Santa Barbara, where you have an MRAP, where you have a tank in your own community, reflective of all the military materiel, the billions of dollars worth of materials that is being dumped in our communities because it benefits the military-industrial complex. It benefits the war-makers. It benefits people who make their profits by selling not only tanks, but selling grenade launchers, and selling M-16s to our police departments. We have to rise up as a community and say we don’t want the police to treat us like the enemy, we don’t want our police to be militarized, we want our police to serve and protect. Let’s get all that military hardware out of our communities.

    At a hearing I attended just last Thursday, they started it out on this issue of all the military hardware in our communities, and they said, “But we’ve saved the police five billion dollars by giving them this.” Well, that’s our taxpayer money. No savings there. These very companies that are pushing this equipment here at home are continuing to profit from never-ending war overseas. So let me just take a moment to go through what has been the results of thirteen years of warfare, because we are getting right back into it now, and people are very confused about it.

    Afghanistan. Thirteen years in Afghanistan. Yes, there are some more young girls going to school, but they drop out after about the second year because they are too poor. Still one of the poorest countries in the world; opium, the largest crop ever; the Taliban, waiting to come back in. Really, after thirteen years of being occupied by the United States, Afghanistan is now tied in last place with North Korea and Somalia for the most corrupt place in the world, according to Transparency International. Libya is a place we invaded because it was a humanitarian intervention to get rid of a dictator there, but people don’t really look at what has happened since then. Yes, Gaddafi is out of power, but people long for the days when he was in power, because now it is being ruled by a bunch of fiefdoms, and no central government is functioning at all. Yemen. It’s interesting that President Obama said, when he talked about starting the bombing in Syria and Iraq, that we were going to use the same kind of policy we used in Yemen as a positive example. Well, having just returned from Yemen, I have no idea what he’s talking about. Because in Yemen, when the US started the drone attacks, there were maybe 200 members of an extremist group called Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and now there are over 1,000 of them. Today, Yemen is an ungovernable place. So wherever the US has gone in with the military, things are worse off.

    So let’s go back to Iraq for a minute – a place the US should never have invaded in the first place, where George Bush dragged us into war based on lies. I have a friend who works in Iraq. She’s Iraqi. Her father was Sunni, her mother was Shia. I said, “What has been the result of the US invasion?” And she said, “I never knew my parents were Sunni and Shia. We lived in a mixed neighborhood. What the US invasion did was teach us to hate each other.” This unleashed a wave of sectarian violence that has opened the way for ISIS to come in. And ordinary Sunnis who were disenfranchised after we took out Saddam Hussein and put in the sectarian Shia government are looking to ISIS and saying, “This is better than the Shia-dominated government that the United States put in place.”

    So this is the result of the US invasion. The US spent over ten years training the Iraqi army. Thirty-six billion dollars of our tax money was spent to train the Iraqi army. When they went in to try and fight ISIS in Mosul, what happened? The Iraqi army put down their weapons and ran away. And now we are supposed to believe that we can go in and train the Iraqi army and things will be different? The US military involvement in Iraq and Syria is counterproductive and yes, we have to find ways to counter ISIS, and yes it is a brutal group, but we already see that since the US got involved militarily, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported 6,000 more recruits to ISIS. The US is also strengthening the dictatorship of Assad and strengthening other Arab monarchies like the Saudis. If you want to count one country that is responsible for the ideology of Al Qaeda and ISIS, it is our great ally Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia teaches the Wahhabi ideology. Saudis have been funding not only the hijackers that attacked us on 9/11, but Saudi Arabia has also been funding Al Qaeda and ISIS.

    So, military intervention is not the answer. But people say to us, “Oh, you are so naïve if you think there can be a political solution to this.” But I say, “Look what we have done for thirteen years. It is insane to think that there is a military solution to what is now very powerful sectarian violence not only between Sunni and Shia, but also with Kurds.”

    There are political solutions. Those political solutions are things like going back to Geneva talks between the Assad regime and the rebels. I was there for the beginning of those talks, and you know those weren’t real talks. Do you know why? There was no peacemaker allowed at the table. It was only the guys with the guns. I was there with forty women representing civil society who said, “We risk our lives every day in Syria nonviolently! We know that solutions put us at the peace table.” They were not allowed to be there. So we have to go back to the peace table, but with peacemakers there, with civil society represented, with women represented. And then, maybe then, we will get some truces, we will get some results.

    In Iraq, we have to say we will withhold support for the Iraqi government until the Iraqi government proves that it is not a sectarian government, but a government that represents the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds. We have to support the civil society efforts in Iraq, as well. And with the winter coming on and millions of refugees, and the World Food Program where I used to work saying they don’t have nearly the funds they need, we could take the money that we are using to put even more weapons into an over-weaponized area, and use that to help the poor, suffering refugees. Lastly, we need to take two countries that we have been demonizing – Russia and Iran – and incorporate them into the process of trying to find solutions, because it is absolutely necessary that we have their perspective in the mix. But what we have now is Obama not only bombing Syria and Iraq, but while he is promising us that there won’t be troops on the ground, he is sending troops on the ground! First 1,500, then another 1,600, and we’re up to 3,200. There has been no vote in Congress over this and Congress is supposed to be the entity that declares war. And we are indeed on a slippery slope when the generals tell us that 3,200 troops will not be enough. So here we start all over again, and I look back at the young people who are here and say, “We do not want you to live in a state of perpetual war.” And what this means is that we have to rebuild a peace movement. We had a peace movement under the Bush years. We were able to get hundreds of thousands of people out into the streets, and as soon as Obama came in, the peace movement just…dissolved. We had people who said, “I put my hopes in Obama, he’s going to do it for us.” We had people who said, “I’m exhausted from eight years of fighting the Bush administration, I need to take a break.” We had people who said, “There’s an economic crisis right now, I have to figure out how to hold onto my home, how to help my family, how to replace a job that I just lost.” Students saying, “I have to figure out how to afford college.” People who focused, and rightly so, on the devastation of the economic crisis in their communities. And then people who said, “I am not going to second guess a Democratic president.” And you saw that a lot of the movement was about partisan issues because, if it had been George Bush who was going around with drones, killing thousands of people in places where we are not at war, like Yemen and Pakistan and Somalia, playing the role of prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, and lying to the American people that innocent people were not being killed, there would have been a huge uprising. But there wasn’t, because it was a Democratic administration. So we have to rebuild a movement.

    I want to give a couple of positive examples in which it is happening, and one of them is the drones. Despite the fact that we didn’t get the support of the Progressive caucus in Congress, or that of the Democratic party, we have been building a movement that has organized and protested at every single Air Force base in the country where drones are being operated, had weekly vigils, outside the CIA and the Pentagon and the White House. We have gone into the faith-based communities and have gotten resolutions passed against the usage of drone warfare; we’ve reached out to the countries where they’re using the drones and helped form an association of drone victims and places like Yemen and Pakistan. We’ve gone to Europe and said, “Don’t allow your countries to start buying these weaponized drones,” and we’ve gone to the United Nations to say, “Help, we need some regulations about how this technology is being used.” We are changing the minds of the American people, who just two years ago said – 83% of them – that it is okay to use drones to kill terrorist suspects, who are just people who were never convicted of anything – and that included Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – to today where approval has dropped by 25 percentage points. We almost have a majority on our side, so we have done a lot of work to change the landscape on the use of drone warfare.

    Another example is Iran. In the case of Iran, we had very hawkish, Republicans, but some Democrats as well; we had the Israeli government that was pushing for a military option to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities; we had the strongest lobby group in the United States around foreign policy issues, AIPAC, saying we want a military solution. And because there was a strong grassroots base in the United States, we have been able to support President Obama in the good example of using diplomacy instead of war. On November 24th, coming up very soon, these negotiations are supposed to come to a conclusion. There are a lot of people in this country who don’t want to see that going through, and it is important that we put pressure on our senators – including Boxer and Feinstein – to say “diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy; let the negotiations go through.” Let’s show the world that we can use diplomacy instead of war in disagreements with our adversaries.

    Another example I want to give is something that happened a year and a half ago. Do you remember when President Obama said that he was going to take us to war with Syria, this time to overthrow Assad? We had a spontaneous uprising in the United States like I had never seen before. I live in Washington, D.C. right now, and when I heard that I said, “We are going to demand that there be a vote in Congress about this.” Now, I don’t have a lot of faith in Congress because they usually vote for any war that any president wants to do. But this time we said, “Let’s slow down the process by calling for a vote in Congress,” and people were able to do that, and stopped it in Britain, which was a great inspiration for us. So living in Washington, D.C. we decided to camp out in front of Congress, and we were there 24/7 calling a peace insurrection. Every day we had a big whiteboard where we wrote every undecided vote in Congress, and we called on people to come, and we would send them to the Congress people to lobby them. It was fascinating because at the time there was a big Tea Party convention. And we said, “Who knows, let’s go over to the Tea Party and see if we can convince some of those people.” So we went over to the Tea Party, and I’m very used to getting up on the stage when I’m not invited and taking the mic, and I did that. I said, “Did you know that President Obama wants to drag us into another war in the Middle East?” And because it was President Obama who wanted to drag us in the war, they said “Boo!” I said, “We are outside of Congress, come join us, and lobby Congress to stop this war.” Well, hundreds of them started flooding out of the convention. Now, who knows their motivation; it may have been more anti-Obama than it was anti-war, but they came out and they said, “We really do not like Code Pink [which is my organization], and we really do not like anything you stand for, but could you please tell us what congressional offices we should go to, because we want to stop this war.” It is an example of how we can reach out and find some strange bedfellows at this moment in history, but we have to do that. What’s more important, really, is building an anti-war movement that’s tied to people we agree with on lots of issues. One of those is the environmental movement.

    When there was the big march in New York, we organized a very large anti-war contingent under the banner “War is Not Green,” saying the biggest polluter in the world is the US military, saying that most of the wars going on around the world are wars for resources like oil and more and more for resources like water, and we were extremely well received by the people in the environmental movement who understand those connections. Another connection is people working around money and politics, because one of the reasons we have this perpetual state of war is that there are such strong lobby groups for the weapons manufacturers and the contractors that make so much money from the perpetual state of war. If we can join with people who want to overturn Citizens United and get big money out of politics, we have to make those connections to the war machine. In California, you have one of your state representatives here tonight who has been working on the issue of mass incarceration and how we have to do something to stop the tremendous levels of incarceration of our youth, which we have to tie into the military machine as well. We really need to have a youth component to the antiwar movement that has mostly been people who grew up during the Vietnam war years, like myself. We will never have a dynamic, effective peace movement unless it brings young people in who understand that they are the ones who will be paying for these wars for decades to come. They are the ones who are already paying for them. Young people have to become leaders in this movement, to say, “We, the youth, will not tolerate living in a state of perpetual war.”

    So now is the time to think boldly about how to seize this moment to roll back the militarization of our communities, of our nation, of our planet; to explore on a much larger scale the nonviolent alternatives, like people-to-people diplomacy, international peace teams, weapons embargos, people’s tribunals, global boycotts, cross-border caravans, and flotillas to help people who are the victims of these wars. It’s time to stop glorifying the warriors and the wars; it’s time to stop funding murder and free up the vast resources that we need to address the really critical issues that are affecting our planet, like the possibility of nuclear annihilation, and get rid of the world’s nuclear weapons. It’s time to start working together to address our common critical issues like poverty, like finding cures to diseases like Ebola, and to address the issue that really could end life on this planet, in addition to nuclear weapons, which is the global climate crisis. So I feel inspired by this award that you’ve given me tonight. I feel inspired by the people who are in this room that I’ve met who do such wonderful work on so many issues. I feel inspired by seeing young people in this room who care about these issues and wanted to come here tonight, and I take this award as a tremendous inspiration for the hard work ahead. I want to quote a wonderful songwriter who you might know, especially the younger people, Michael Franti, who says, “You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can’t bomb the world to peace. What we need is power to the peaceful.” Thank you so much.

  • 2014 Evening for Peace Introduction

    Good evening and thank you for being part of this Evening for Peace. It is a privilege to share this evening with all of you.

    Will all the students in the room please stand. The work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is for you and the generations to follow you. Peace matters, and we’d like to help you all to become Peace Leaders.

    David KriegerWe live in a time of war, and in a world that sacrifices its children at the altar of violence. There are children growing up today who have never known peace. Can you imagine what that must be like?

    Within the living nightmare of war, some of these children may dream of peace. While their dreams may be beautiful, peace must be more than a dream.

    There are many perspectives on peace. Here is mine. Peace is a dynamic balance in which human needs are met and human rights are upheld. Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the commitment to resolving conflict without resort to violence.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we believe that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. We believe it is beyond reason to threaten each other with nuclear weapons – weapons of indiscriminate mass slaughter. Civilization and complex life hang in the balance.

    We believe it is not reasonable to prepare for war and, at the same time, to expect peace. If we want peace, we must prepare for peace. And we must be willing to stand up for peace. We cannot sit back and expect that war and preparations for war will diminish. The world is too small and too dangerous for such complacency.

    We believe that the United States, rather than leading the world in the modernization of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, should be engaged in negotiating the abolition of these weapons, as it is required to do under international law. That is why we are consulting with the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a courageous small Pacific Island country, in their lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries.

    Rather than planning to spend $1 trillion over the next three decades on modernizing its nuclear arsenal, the US should be using those funds to meet human needs and uphold human dignity. That is the kind of peace leadership that is called for in our time.

    On this, the occasion of our 31st annual Evening for Peace, we come together to celebrate all that peace means to each of us and to honor a courageous Peace Leader. Among the many outstanding Peace Leaders we have honored over the years are the XIVth Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Jody Williams, Jacques Cousteau, Daniel Ellsberg, Walter Cronkite and Helen Caldicott.

    Tonight we honor a woman who stands solidly for peace, a woman who lives peace and breathes justice. Where peace needs an advocate, she is there, whether it be in the sweatshops of Asia, the streets of the Middle East or the halls of the US Congress. She has won victories from corporations on fair trade, human rights and human dignity. She has challenged Presidents, Secretaries of Defense and Secretaries of State. She has protested war-making on a bipartisan basis, protesting against leading figures in Republican and Democratic administrations, arguing that the US had no legitimate justification for invading Iraq or for continuing the war against Afghanistan.

    She holds two Master’s degrees, one in public health from Columbia University and one in economics from The New School. She has worked in Africa and Latin America for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and for the World Health Organization. She is the co-founder of two important civil society organizations, Global Exchange and CODEPINK. She is the author of eight books, the latest being, Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.

    She has received many awards, including the Martin Luther King, Jr. Peace Prize from the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Gandhi Peace Award from Promoting Enduring Peace.

    On May 23, 2013, she interrupted a foreign policy speech by President Obama. Her comments as she was forcibly led out of the room were recorded by Slate Magazine. She asked the President a series of questions:

    “Can you tell the Muslim people their lives are as precious as our lives?

    “Can you take the drones out of the hands of the CIA?

    “Can you stop the signature strikes that are killing people on the basis of suspicious activities?

    “Will you apologize to the thousands of Muslims that you have killed?

    “Will you compensate the innocent family victims?”

    She also shouted out: “I love my country.”

    When she had been removed from the room, President Obama said, “The voice of that woman is worth listening to.”

    That woman, Medea Benjamin, is our honoree this evening, and her voice is indeed worth listening to. I am very pleased, on behalf of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, to present her with the Foundation’s 2014 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • Wage Peace, End Racism

    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 awhile 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.

    It’s more difficult for the Ku Klux Klan to recruit today when support for interracial marriage went from 4 percent in 1958 to 87 percent in 2013, and some of the biggest Tea Party rockstars are African Americans such as Allen West and Ben Carson. Racism is certainly not gone today, and many people are joining sites such as Stormfront, but the violent rhetoric of white supremacist groups scares a lot of potential members away, so many white supremacists now advocate nonviolent solutions.

    Many people who are drawn to white supremacist groups are what Martin Luther King Jr. called the “forgotten white poor,” which is why toward the end of his life he became an advocate not only for black people, but also poor white people. He believed that African Americans need to find common cause with poor white people in order to tackle the problem of poverty that affects all races (if only more poor white people realized how much they have in common with poor immigrants). Poverty and pain are the best recruiting ground for white supremacist groups, and if we continue to ignore the suffering of poor white people, we will continue to put our country at risk. I am half Korean, a quarter black, and a quarter white, and attitudes toward race in America are better in 2014 than in 1914 or 1814 (interracial marriage was illegal in almost all Southern states until the late 1960s). But will attitudes toward race be better in 2114 than in 2014? It depends on how well we wage peace.

    According to an article on NPR:

    “After some residents in a South Carolina county woke up last spring to find anti-immigrant literature on their doorsteps, a local Klan leader explained the group’s reasoning. ‘I mean, we can’t tell who lives in a house, whether they’re black, white, Mexican, gay, we can’t tell that,’ he said. ‘And if you were to look at somebody’s house like that, that means you’d be pretty much a racist.’ (Ahem.)”

    “John Abarr, a Klan leader in Montana, is going even further. Last week, Abarr said his newly formed Klan group — the Rocky Mountain Knights — would not discriminate on the basis of race or sexual orientation. ‘The KKK is for a strong America,’ Abarr told a local newspaper. ‘White supremacy is the old Klan. This is the new Klan.’”

    “[In the 1920s the Ku Klux Klan] was an incorporated entity with millions of members across the country. The Klan held huge marches in Washington, D.C., and its influence swung elections. President Warren G. Harding was often alleged to be a member, while Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said he joined to further his political career. Of course, all this was happening as the Klan conducted or participated in hundreds of lynchings, which were themselves mainstream, heavily attended celebrations in many towns. It was as mainstream as terrorist organizations got.
    Today, Klan groups are fractured and scattered — the Southern Poverty Law Center puts the number of Klan members across the country at between 5,000 and 8,000. That’s a far cry from the millions of Klansmen of the 1920s, or the tens of thousands the group boasted during the 1960s.”

    “Today’s Klan groups have been riven by internal conflicts over territory and personality, and by operating in an environment much less welcoming to their political goals. But Cunningham said they’ve also been hurt by the many other groups encroaching on their ideological turf. Folks with strong anti-immigration views can find many more organizations to affiliate with today, both in the political mainstream and on the fringes. Given this expanded menu of options, there’s an ever-smaller pool of people who might be willing to hear the Klan out.”

  • The 69th United Nations First Committee

    During the 69th Session of the First Committee, states discussed effective measures or rather the lack of effective measures associated with nuclear disarmament. In her opening statement to the First Committee, Ms. Rose Gottemoeller, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security of the US, claimed that the US is committed to Article VI of the NPT. She specified that the US is striving to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, and it would be a mistake for states to question the US’ commitments. She further cited that the US “has made clear of its readiness to discuss further nuclear reductions with the Russian Federation, but progress requires a willing partner and a good environment.”

    If the US and the other Nuclear Weapon States were truly committed to their Article VI commitments, then they would demonstrate their convictions on engaging in good faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament. However, many states and NGOs have argued that the US and other Nuclear Weapon States are not following through with their commitments as detailed in the legal arguments set forth by the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

    Expressing the importance of the lawsuits by the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the delegation of Fiji, on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, reminded delegations that the “Republic of the Marshall Islands is taking action before the International Court of Justice aimed at holding all nuclear-armed states to account for their failure to engage in good-faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament, as required by the NPT and customary international law.” In addition, the delegation of Palau proclaimed that it “stands in solidarity with the Republic of the Marshall Islands – a nation heavily affected by these tests – in its legal proceedings before the International Court of Justice aimed at compelling the nuclear-armed states to fulfill their legal obligation to disarm.”

    Conveying the lack of progress in implementing Article VI commitments, Mr. Breifne O’Reilly of the Irish delegation noted that the continuing failure to achieve progress on nuclear disarmament militates against our efforts to pursue non-proliferation. Moreover, he referred to the New Agenda Coalition’s working paper to the 2014 NPT PrepCom on effective measures related to nuclear disarmament to illustrate the different possible paths associated with nuclear disarmament. He further questioned whether the Nuclear Weapon States’ decisions to upgrade and modernize their nuclear weapons are consistent with their commitments set forth in the 2010 NPT Action Plan.

    Interestingly, the delegation of Palau announced that it is time for the international community to support a ban on nuclear weapons. A ban treaty would “put nuclear weapons on the same legal footing as chemical and biological weapons, which have been comprehensively prohibited. A nuclear weapons ban would also be an effective measure towards the fulfillment of Article VI.” In addition, the delegate claimed that negotiations on a ban treaty could even begin without the nuclear-armed states. Finally, this treaty could establish a normative effect and represent a step towards creating a world free of nuclear weapons.

    As states discussed effective measures on nuclear disarmament, New Zealand presented a joint statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons on behalf of 155 states. H.E. Ambassador Dell Higgie of New Zealand noted that there is a growing amount of political support amongst states and civil society for a humanitarian focus on nuclear disarmament.

    For the first time ever, Sweden joined New Zealand’s joint statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. In a surprisingly strong statement, H.E. Ambassador Grunditz informed delegations that Sweden “firmly believes that the humanitarian perspective can contribute to next year’s NPT Review Conference by providing new energy to the debate, impetus to accelerate disarmament, and information to new generations on the dangers of nuclear weapons.”

    Although numerous states endorsed New Zealand’s joint statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, 20 states signed Australia’s statement. In contrast to New Zealand’s joint statement, the Australian joint statement noted that the elimination of nuclear weapons is only possible if states were to engage in constructive engagements with the Nuclear Weapon States. Moreover, the delegation of Australia argued that several practical contributions to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons would include: unblocking the Conference on Disarmament, begin negotiations for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), and bring into the entry of force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

    Key Resolutions

    The First Committee approved several key resolutions related to nuclear disarmament. These resolutions include the following:

    1. A/C.1/69/L.21 Taking Forward Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations, Lead Sponsors: Austria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Slovenia and Switzerland
    1. A/C.1/69/L.22 Decreasing the Operational Readiness of the Nuclear Weapons Systems, Lead Sponsors: Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, and Switzerland
    2. A/C.1/69/L.44 Follow-up to the 2013 high-level Meeting of the General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament, Lead Sponsor: Indonesia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement
    3. A/C.1/69/L.47 Women, Disarmament, Non-proliferation and Arms control: Leader Sponsors: Australia, Austria, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Finland, France, Guatemala, Guyana, Ireland, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and United States of America

    In regards to L. 21 entitled Taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament

    Negotiations, this resolution focused on the work of the Opened-Ended Working Group on Nuclear Disarmament, which was held in Geneva throughout 2013. The resolution specified that the 70th UN General Assembly would examine whether it would be necessary to reconvene the group. 152 states voted in favor of it, 4 voted against it, and 22 abstained from voting on the resolution. Among the states, which voted against the resolution were the US, UK, France, and the Russian Federation, which also boycotted the 2013 Session of the OEWG in Geneva. Moreover, in the US, UK, and France’s joint statement against the resolution, the states claimed that they were concerned about the resolution’s inconsistency to the 2010 NPT Action Plan. In addition, they argued that the resolution contains limited references to the urgency for the early commencement of the FMCT and detracted from the consensus approach, which was embodied in the 2010 NPT Action Plan. They were further displeased that the OEWG solely focused on nuclear disarmament instead of examining nonproliferation issues as well.

    In terms of L. 22 entitled Decreasing the Operational Readiness Status of the Nuclear Weapons System, this resolution focused on nuclear de-alerting. 163 states voted in favor of the resolution, 10 states abstained from voting, and 4 voted against the resolution. In a joint statement against the resolution, the US, UK, and France strongly argued that the dynamic relationship between security and alert status of the nuclear weapons systems is much more complicated than the co-sponsors of the resolution suggested in the resolution. They further asserted that their command and control systems are robust and safeguarded. Thus, they claimed that the risks of accidental launch or mistakes are minimum.

    Regarding L. 44 on the follow-up to the 2013 high-level meeting on nuclear disarmament in the General Assembly, this resolution requires the UN General Assembly to establish an international conference on nuclear disarmament by 2018 and calls for the establishment of a nuclear weapons convention. 135 states voted in favor of the resolution, 24 voted against it, and 18 abstained from it. As part of their joint statement against the resolution, the delegations of UK, France, and US noted that the HLM did not engage in substantive discussions on neither nuclear nonproliferation nor noncompliance issues. They were further concerned about the lack of references to the 2010 NPT Action Plan in the resolution. The states also claimed that if the conference were to be convened in 2018, then it may detract from the success of the upcoming 2015 NPT Review Conference. Finally, the three states contended that all states should engage in the steps-by-steps approach, which includes negotiations and early commencement of the FMCT, and the immediate entry into force of the CTBT.

    The First Committee further adopted L.47 entitled Women, Disarmament, Non-proliferation and Arms Control. The resolution requires the UN General Assembly “to provide equal opportunities for women in all decision making, as related to the prevention and reduction of armed violence and armed conflict. It also urges states to strengthen the effective participation of women in disarmament-related organisations at the local, national, subregional and regional levels.”

    Originally, preambular paragraph 8 contained the phrase “serious acts of violence against women and children.” This section was deleted and orally revised to “noting the imminent entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty and therefore encourages States parties to fully implement all the provision of the Treaty including the provisions on serious acts of gender-based violence.”

    Due to the changes in the preambular paragraph, delegates called for a vote instead of adopting the resolution without a vote. 139 states voted in favor of the revised text and 24 abstained from voting. As a result of the section about the Arms Trade Treaty, Iran, India, Syria and Armenia abstained from the vote. Luckily, as a whole, 171 states approved the resolution, and numerous states commended the resolution.

    Overall, substantial discussions were held on nuclear disarmament by progressive states and the Nuclear Weapon States. In addition, drawing upon US, France and the UK’s responses to several substantial resolutions on nuclear disarmament, there are concerns on whether the P5 will continue to impede the process of establishing a world without nuclear weapons. The discourse about building blocks merely shows their unwillingness to support any bold steps and fulfill their Article VI commitments. Therefore, the non-nuclear weapon states and members of civil society are tasked with creating a ban treaty.

     

  • Towards Vienna: The Role of Education to Further Advance the Discussion on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons

    On 20 October 2014, Ban All Nukes generation (BANg), with the cooperation of the the NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and Peace Boat, convened a side event entitled Towards Vienna: The Role of Education to Further Advance the Discussion on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons. The speakers were Ms. Caroline Woergoetter, Disarmament Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Austria to the Conference on Disarmament; Mr. John Ennis, ‎Chief of Information and Outreach at the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs; and Mr. Akira Kawasaki, Executive Committee Member of Peace Boat. Mr. Christian N. Ciobanu, the US Coordinator of BANg, moderated the event.

    Expressing the vital importance of establishing a world free of nuclear weapons, Mr. Christian N. Ciobanu opened the event by discussing the need for the international community to educate and teach young people about the significant dangers of nuclear weapons. He conveyed his disappointment that education is often undermined and underexplored within the high-level discussions on international peace and security. For instance, there is a limited number of submissions by states to the biennial reports of the UN Secretary-General’s report (A/57/124). There is also a lack of progress towards implementing the recommendations set forth in the United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education. Nevertheless, the organizers of the event firmly believe that education can serve as a driving force to advance discussions on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

    He also stated that the panel and subsequent discussion should address the following:

    1. What are the lessons learned from educational initiatives and efforts within the context of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons?
    2. What can we accomplish at the Vienna Conference in the context of education?
    3. How can we achieve those objectives?

    As the first panelist, Ms. Caroline Woergoetter, Disarmament Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Austria to the Conference on Disarmament, underscored the significance of education within the context of nuclear weapons. Specifically, she drew upon the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Nonproliferation, a joint collaborative centre between the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and the Federal Ministry of Europe, Integration, and Foreign Affairs’ key recommendations on education as outlined in its report and international workshop on disarmament and non-proliferation education and capacity development.

    She further provided a general overview about the Third Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, which will be in Vienna, Austria. She noted that, building upon the previous conferences in Oslo and Nayarit respectively, the upcoming conference aims to provide a greater awareness and knowledge about the impact of nuclear weapons. In addition, she elaborated that the conference will explore risks factors, norms, international law, and international humanitarian law. She further underscored the importance of including members of civil society and young people in the discussions.

    Following Ms. Woergoetter’s discussion, Mr. John Ennis, Chief of Information and Outreach of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, illustrated UNODA’s efforts in promoting nuclear disarmament educations. Some of UNODA’s noteworthy projects featured the hibaksusha, survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He also described several public projects, such as the 2011 Poetry for Peace and the 2012 Art for Peace, which provided opportunities for a wider audience to share their views on the need to abolish nuclear weapons.

    The final panelist, Mr. Akira Kawasaki, the Executive Committee Member of Peace Boat, touched upon civil society’s perspectives on the role of education to advance the discussions on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. He concentrated his discussions on Peace Boat’s work on connecting the hibakusha’s stories with the stories from survivors of other atrocities in order for them to engage in discussions with one another. He further underscored that, due to the advance ages of the hibakusha, it is vital to educate young people about the testimonies of the hibakusha and the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons.

    Notably, Peace Boat’s projects include: training youth communicators, who share the testimonies of the hibakusha with the public, and “I was her Age,” a new project with Mayors for Peace, which would connect the hibakusha with specific age groups of youth. He further declared that education must be connected to advocacy to generate political will.

    In terms of Vienna, Mr. Kawasaki remarked about the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)’s civil society forum and the civil society’s marketplace. At the marketplace, members of civil society will have opportunities to discuss their views with another one.

    At the conclusion of the discussion, Mr. Ciobanu invited remarks from the audience. A granddaughter of a hibakusha, described the importance of second and third generation hibakusha to help raise awareness about the need to eliminate nuclear weapons. In addition, audience members shared their views about the significance of forming linkages between issues to help the public understand and actively contribute to the discussions on nuclear weapons. For instance, the recent People’s March for Climate Change highlighted not only the significant interest of the public in climate issues, but also the linkage between the environmental protection movement and nuclear disarmament movement.

    Members of the audience members pointed out that in order to involve the youth, we need to involve the media and popular culture items, such as comic books. In addition, to meaningfully engage with the public, one must be aware on whether the citizens are living in a nuclear-armed state or a non-nuclear weapon state.

    Finally, the panelists acknowledged that civil society is helping to advance the linkages between education and the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapon in order to educate young people.

  • Las Marchas en Mexico: Los ríos humanos que nutren el Océano de la Democracia

    Click here for the English version.

    Con paso seguro, firme, debido a la convicción de su causa, la multitud llena las céntricas calles de la gran metrópoli mexicana que es la capital del país. Sus rostros reflejan dolor, desesperanza, angustia, pero al mismo tiempo resolución en que sus voces sean escuchadas ¡por fin! en sus demandas exigiendo que aparezcan 43 estudiantes para maestros secuestrados hace ya más de 40 días. Muchos son padres y familiares de esos jóvenes que en la noche del 26 de septiembre pasado desaparecieron por una acción policial coordinada y ordenada por la oficina del Alcalde de la ciudad de Iguala, Guerrero. Esta ciudad es la cuna de la bandera mexicana y del Plan de Iguala, que el 24 de febrero de 1824 consolidó la independencia de México. Se localiza a unos 160 kilómetros del famoso puerto turístico de Acapulco y a una distancia similar de la capital de la nación. En una información dada el 8 de noviembre por el Procurador General de la República, Jesus Murillo Karam, se dice que es posible que los estudiantes ya estén muertos, asesinados por los grupos criminales. Que sus cuerpos fueron incinerados y arrojados en bolsas a un río. Pero que a la vez no puede asegurar la identidad de esos restos humanos. La terrible incertidumbre sigue golpeando a las familias de esos jóvenes, y se niegan a aceptar estas declaraciones hasta no tener asegurada la identificación de los restos.

    Este es un caso inaudito, sino una secuela de sucesos repetidos por decenios en la historia moderna de México. Durante los últimos veinticinco años el terror y la injusticia ha imperado en el País escalando cada vez más hasta llegar a cifras realmente impresionantes. Desde el sexenio de Felipe Calderón (2006-2012) hasta este segundo año de la administración de Enrique Peña Nieto, más de 100 mil personas han muerto en forma violenta y se cuenta en más de 30 mil los desaparecidos. Esta cifra puede ser mayor pues muchos no hacen la denuncia debido al terror y a la complicidad de las autoridades. Estos números de víctimas son dignas de países con guerras intestinas y hasta internacionales, no de una nación que se precia de ser un régimen democrático y emergente en el ámbito internacional.

    Human Rights Watch – HRW (Observatorio de Derechos Humanos) ha dicho que la situación de los derechos humanos en México es crítica. “La regla en México es la impunidad y el caso Iguala es de gravedad extrema, pero es un síntoma de una crisis profunda que arrastra México en materia de derechos humanos”, denunció José Miguel Vivanco, director para las Américas de HRW.

    Las protestas no sólo atiborran las amplias avenidas y plazas de la antigua capital azteca; en la mayoría de ciudades y pueblos mexicanos los ciudadanos han salido a expresar su enojo e insatisfacción por la forma como las autoridades municipales, estatales y federales han respondido a estos hechos violentos. En muchas ciudades de otros países, incluyendo Londres, Paris, Berlín, Chicago, Nueva York, Buenos Aires se han escuchado voces de protesta y apoyo, exigiendo que el gobierno mexicano actúe sin más dilaciones ni excusas o pretextos.

    La inseguridad en México permea por todas partes a pesar de las campañas orquestadas por costosas relaciones públicas gubernamentales que durante meses han proyectando la imagen del “Momento Mexicano”, el gran salto de México hacia la conquista de los grandes mercados. Promueven un México moderno, activo, amistoso y con las puertas abiertas a las inversiones extranjeras en el campo energético, turístico y de grandes obras portuarias y de comunicaciones.

    Tan sólo en el pasado mes de marzo, la revista TIME mostró en su portada internacional al joven presidente mexicano con el encabezado “El Salvador de México. Esto causó controversias y críticas en México y muchas voces acusaron a TIME de haber vendido la portada y el muy favorable artículo que lo acompañó. Nueve meses después, la misma revista en su número de octubre destaca en un encabezado: “La aparente masacre de docenas de estudiantes expone la corrupción en el corazón de México”   Un cambio muy drástico en su línea editorial.

    Las multitudinarias marchas de los últimos dos meses, por una extraña razón, no han sido reportadas por las grandes cadenas de televisión en Estados Unidos, ABC, CBS y aún FOX, han guardado un ominoso silencio. NBC presentó el 9 de noviembre un brevísimo reportaje de dos minutos que no aclara al espectador la verdadera situación en México. Univisión y TeleMundo han cubierto los acontecimientos con bastante imparcialidad. CNN ha publicado algunos reportajes menores, la excepción han sido The New York Times, Washington Post, The New Yorker, USA Today y un par de notas en Time. La noticia ha sido dada por AP, Reuters y otras agencias informativas. Periódicos europeos como The Guardian, Le Monde, El País, han publicado grandes reportajes. El Parlamento Europeo hizo una declaración sobre el tema de las desapariciones y creciente violencia en México, e hizo ”recomendaciones al gobierno mexicano”. En Alemania se han levantado muchas voces exigiendo al gobierno de Ángela Merkel que revise las condiciones de tratos comerciales con México que se firmarían en diciembre, así como la suspensión de ventas de armamento para México.

    Figuras de renombre internacional han unido sus voces de protesta pidiendo una solución inmediata a la desaparición de los jóvenes estudiantes y un alto a la violencia e inseguridad en México, así como el respeto a la libertad de expresión. El asesinato y desaparición de periodistas y defensores de causas sociales y ambientales continúa produciéndose en México como cuenta corriente, haciéndolo un país peligroso para ejercer esas libertades.

    En la marcha del 5 de noviembre en la ciudad de México, participó la Premio Nobel de la Paz 1997, Jody Williams quien dijo “la crisis que vive México no es sólo humanitaria, sino política y económica, esto demuestra, de una forma muy dolorosa, toda la corrupción de alcaldes y políticos”. Informó que la organización

    Mujeres Premio Nobel de la cual ella es miembro y agrupa a las mujeres laureadas con el Nobel de la Paz, enviarán una carta al Presidente Enrique Peña y a organizaciones internacionales pidiendo la urgente solución a estos problemas.

    Entre las muchas consignas que se escuchan en estos ejercicios democráticos de protesta, reproducimos una que refleja los grandes problemas que México ha enfrentado a través de su historia, la apatía e indiferencia secular debido sobre todo a la corrupción galopante y la falta de un sistema eficiente de justicia.

    “No tenemos miedo a lo que venga solo tenemos miedo a que la gente siga callada”.

    Nosotros, en NAPF, nos unimos a esas protestas y levantamos la voz porque las autoridades mexicanas escuchen el clamor de sus ciudadanos y de muchos otros países que piden una solución pacífica pero real y efectiva a los graves problemas que enfrenta la nación mexicana.

    Rubén D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Embajador del Pacto Global Climático de Ciudades y Director para América Latina de la organziación de Jean-Michel Cousteau Ocean Futures Society. Tweeter @RubenDArvizu

    Para mayor información sobre la situación en México, recomendamos la lectura de estos artículos.

    http://fusion.net/story/25683/the-call-for-mexicos-president-to-resign-is-growing-louder/

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/crisis-mexico-forty-three-missing-students-spark-revolution

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/03/mexico-president-pena-nieto-reputation-founders-failure-find-43-students

    http://aristeguinoticias.com/0711/mexico/investigaciones-del-caso-ayotzinapa-apuntan-al-homicidio-de-un-amplio-grupo-de-personas-murillo/

    http://noticias.univision.com/video/541627/2014-11-06/edicion-nocturna/videos/padre-de-ayotzi-le-sugirio-renunciar-a-pena?cmpid=Tweet:video

    http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=386781

  • The Demonstrations in Mexico: Human Rivers that Feed the Ocean of Democracy

    Vaya aqui para la version espanola.

    With a firm pace, due to the conviction of their cause, the crowd fills the streets of the great Mexican metropolis, Mexico City that is the capital of the country. Their faces reflect pain, despair, anguish, but at the same time hope that their voices will be heard at last!  They are demanding the return of 43 students kidnapped more than 40 days ago. Many are parents and families of these young, soon to be teachers that on the night of September 26, 2014, disappeared by a coordinated and orderly police action taken by the office of the Mayor of the city of Iguala, Guerrero. This city is the cradle of the Mexican flag and the Plan of Iguala, of February 24, 1824, that consolidated the independence of Mexico. It is located about 100 miles from the famous tourist port of Acapulco and a similar distance from the capital of the nation.

    In a report read on 8 November, the Attorney General, Jesus Murillo Karam, says that the students may already be dead, killed by criminal groups. Their bodies were cremated and dumped in bags in a river. But at the same time he cannot guarantee the identity of these human remains. The terrible uncertainty is hurting deeply the families of these young people, and they refuse to accept these statements until the Government has secured the identification of the remains.

    This is not an unheard of event, but a sequel repeated for decades in the history of modern Mexico.  During the last 25 years this kind of terror and injustice has prevailed in the country climbing to impressive numbers.  From the time of the presidency of Felipe Calderon (2006-2012) up to the second year of the current president, Enrique Peña Nieto, more than 100,000 people have died violently and those that have disappeared reach more than 30,000.

    This figure may be higher because many do not complain due to the terror and the complicity of the authorities. These numbers are worthy of revolutions and even international wars, but not of a nation that prides itself on being a democratic regime emerging into the world arena.

    Human Rights Watch (HRW) has said that the situation of human rights in Mexico is critical. “The rule in Mexico is impunity and Iguala’s case is extremely serious, but it is a symptom of a deeper crisis that drags Mexico in human rights,” complained José Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director at HRW.

    Protests not only crowd the wide avenues and squares of the former Aztec capital; in most Mexican cities and towns citizens have come to express their anger and dissatisfaction with the way the municipal, state and federal authorities have responded to the violence and corruption. Insecurity permeates everywhere and everything.  All this continues despite the orchestrated governmental PR campaigns that have invested large sums of money for months projecting the image of the Mexican Moment, the leap of Mexico to conquer worldwide markets.

    Just last March, the TIME magazine international cover showed the young Mexican president, calling him “The Savior of Mexico”.  This caused controversy and criticism in Mexico and many voices accused TIME of having sold the cover and the very favorable article that accompanied it.  Nine months later, the same magazine in its October issue highlighted in a headline: “The apparent slaughter of dozens of students exposed corruption in the heart of Mexico”. This is a drastic change in its editorial.

    The major television networks in the United States have not reported the massive marches of the past two months. For some strange reason, ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX still have kept an ominous silence.  CNN has published some minor stories and the exception has been The New York Times, Washington Post, The New Yorker, USA Today and a couple of notes in Time. AP, Reuters and other news agencies have reported the news. European newspapers including The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, published major reports. The European Parliament issued a statement regarding the disappearances and growing violence in Mexico and made “recommendations to the Mexican government”.  In Germany, many voices were raised demanding that the government of Angela Merkel review the treaty for business with Mexico to be signed in December and the suspension of arms sales to Mexico.

    Internationally renowned figures have joined their voices in protest demanding an immediate answer to the disappearance of the young students and to put an end to violence and insecurity in Mexico, as well as respect for freedom of expression.  The murders and disappearances of journalists and advocates for social and environmental causes in Mexico continue to occur every other day, making the country a dangerous place to exercise those freedoms.

    During the march of November 5, 2014, in the city of Mexico, Jody Williams, the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, said, “The crisis in Mexico is not only humanitarian but political and economic. It shows in a very painful way, the political corruption”.   She reported that the organization, Nobel Women Initiative, created by the women Nobel Laureates of Peace, of which she is a member, would send a letter to President Enrique Peña and international organizations requesting the urgent solution to these problems.

    Among the many slogans heard in these democratic protests, one stands out which reflects one of the big problems that Mexico has faced throughout its history, a secular apathy and indifference due mainly to corruption and the lack of an efficient judicial system. “We are not afraid to demonstrate, we only fear that people will continue keeping silent.”

    We at NAPF join these protests and raise our voice.  We hope the Mexican Government will hear the cries of its citizens and of many other countries calling for a peaceful and effective solution to the serious problems facing the Mexican nation.

    Rubén D. Arvizu is Director for Latin America of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  Ambassador  Global Cities Covenant on Climate  and  Director to Latin America for Jean-Michel Cousteau’s Ocean Futures Society.  Tweet @RubenD.Arvizu

    For more information on the situation in Mexico, we recommend reading these articles.

    http://fusion.net/story/25683/the-call-for-mexicos-president-to-resign-is-growing-louder/

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/crisis-mexico-forty-three-missing-students-spark-revolution

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/03/mexico-president-pena-nieto-reputation-founders-failure-find-43-students

    http://aristeguinoticias.com/0711/mexico/investigaciones-del-caso-ayotzinapa-apuntan-al-homicidio-de-un-amplio-grupo-de-personas-murillo/

    http://noticias.univision.com/video/541627/2014-11-06/edicion-nocturna/videos/padre-de-ayotzi-le-sugirio-renunciar-a-pena?cmpid=Tweet:video

    http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=386781

  • Nuclear Weapons and the International Security Context

    This statement, signed by over 100 civil society organizations, was delivered at the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee on October 28, 2014.

    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.”[i] 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.[ii]

    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. Modernization efforts include development by the leading nuclear weapons states of new nuclear-capable missiles, aircraft, and submarines that will incorporate advances in stealth and accuracy.[iii]   Publicly available information shows that nuclear weapons continue to have a central role in security policies, and in the case of the United States, the integration of conventional and nuclear forces in current war planning.[iv] Potential adversaries of the United States see its advantage in long-range conventional forces as a rationale for retaining and modernizing their nuclear arsenals.

    The decoupling of nuclear from conventional military forces is further impeded by arms-racing in non-nuclear weapons of strategic significance. These include missile defenses, more accurate and powerful stand-off weapons, and concepts such as “prompt global strike” that aim to hit targets anywhere on earth with a non-nuclear payload in an hour or less. The United States has taken the lead, but many others are participating in this accelerating new arms race which is not constrained to a bi-polar confrontation.

    Nuclear war will not come as a bolt from the blue. It will come when national elites misjudge one another’s interests in a conflict on the borderlands of some nuclear-armed country, and “conventional” warfare escalates out of control. This is all the more likely in the 21st century strategic context where stealthy, precision stand-off weapons and delivery platforms face sophisticated and increasingly capable air and missile defenses, while electronic warfare measures target sensors and data-dependent systems. These elements can interact at levels of speed and complexity that defy human comprehension, much less rational decision-making.

    For more than two decades, the political and military elites of the leading nuclear-armed states have engaged in perilous double-think about their arsenals. They have assured their publics that the continued existence of nuclear weapons in civilization-destroying numbers no longer presented a real danger because the risk of war among nuclear-armed states was a feature of the Cold War, now safely past. At the same time, they have done everything necessary to keep catastrophe-capable nuclear arsenals long into the future, as a hedge against the day when the most powerful states again might make war with one another.

    Today we see a new round of confrontations among nuclear-armed states, in economic and political circumstances that bear worrisome resemblances to those that brought about the devastating wars of the 20th century. Amidst one crisis after another from Ukraine to the Western Pacific, the world’s most powerful militaries brandish their nuclear arms, while claiming that “routine” exercises with weapons of mass destruction pose no danger, could never be misconstrued or get out of hand.

    To those who view the world from the heights of power and privilege in nuclear-armed states, all this only gives further reason to hold on to the weapons they have, and to develop more. For the vast majority of humanity, struggling just to get by in a world of immensely stratified wealth and power, it means a return to madness, to a world where at any moment the people can be annihilated to preserve the state. The lack of urgency on disarmament in the ruling circles of the most powerful states should shock the conscience of every person who still has one.

    The growing risks of great power war and use of nuclear weapons make the abolition of nuclear weapons all the more imperative. It is far more likely to succeed if linked to economic equity, democracy, climate and environmental protection, and dismantlement of highly militarized security postures. For our part, Abolition 2000 members and partner groups are organizing a large-scale civil society conference, march and rally on these themes on the eve of the 2015 NPT Review Conference, the presentation of millions of signatures calling for the total ban and elimination of nuclear weapons, and local actions around the world.[v]

    [i] 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Final Document, Volume I, NPT/CONF.2000/28 (Parts I and II), p.15; reaffirmed by 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Final Document, Volume I, p.19.

    [ii] See Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2014,”Bulletin of Atomic Scientists online, 2014.

    [iii] Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “Slowing Nuclear Weapon Reductions and Endless Nuclear Weapon Modernizations: A Challenge to the NPT,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2014 No.70 p.94.

    [iv] Nuclear weapons continue to be a core element of NATO’s strategic concept, with the nuclear arsenals of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom considered to be the “supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies.” Active Engagement, Modern Defence : “Strategic Concept For the Defence and Security of The Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation,” Adopted by Heads of State and Government in Lisbon, 19th November 2010. The 2014 Master Plan of the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, responsible for the missile and bomber elements of U.S. nuclear forces, states that “AFGSC [Air Force Global Strike Command] will maintain and improve its ability to employ nuclear weapons in a range of scenarios, to include integration with conventional operations….” U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, Strategic Master Plan 2014, p.9. Russia’s most recent publicly available military doctrine document states that “ [t]he Russian Federation reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons in response to the utilization of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat.” http://carnegieendowment.org/files/2010russia_military_doctrine.pdf

    [v] Call to Action: Spring 2015 Mobilization for a nuclear free, fair, democratic, ecologically sustainable and peaceful future was released on 26 September, 2014, the first International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. http://www.abolition2000.org/?p=3546

    — Statement coordinated by Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, USA, a member of the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. Endorsed by 100 international, national, regional and local civil society organizations in 11 countries (plus 8 individuals for organizational identification only).

    Statement endorsed by:

    Action AWE, London, United Kingdom

    Arab Human Security Network, Damascus, Syria

    Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility, USA

    Ban All Nukes generation (BANg, international)

    Basel Peace Office, Basel, Switzerland

    Beacon Presbyterian Fellowship, Oakland, California, USA

    Beyond Nuclear, Takoma Park, Maryland, USA

    Brooklyn for Peace, New York City, New York, USA

    Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, United Kingdom

    Christians For The Mountains, Dunmore, West Virginia, USA

    Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP), India

    CODEPINK, USA

    Code Pink Golden Gate Chapter (Bay Area Code Pink), California, USA

    Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

    Crabshell Alliance, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    Democratic World Federalists (international)

    Earth Action (international)

    Ecumenical Peace Institute/CALC (Clergy and Laity Concerned), Berkeley, California, USA

    Fairmont, MN Peace Group, Fairmont, Minnesota, USA

    Fellowship of Reconciliation, USA

    Western Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation, Washington, USA

    Friends Committee on National Legislation, USA

    Fukushima Response Bay Area, northern California, USA

    German chapter, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, Berlin, Germany

    Green Shadow Cabinet, USA

    International Network of Engineers and Scientists (INES)

    INND (Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders), Seattle, Washington, USA

    International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)

    International Peace Bureau

    Japan Council against A and H Bombs (Gensuikyo), Japan

    Jeannette Rankin Peace Center, Missoula, Montana, USA

    Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, New York City, New York, USA 

    Le Mouvement de la Paix, France

    LEPOCO Peace Center, Lehigh-Pocono Committee of Concern, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania,   USA

    Long Island Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives, Garden City, New York, USA

    Los Altos Voices for Peace, Los Altos, California, USA

    Metta Center for Nonviolence, Petaluma, California, USA 

    MLK (Martin Luther King) Coalition of Greater Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Montrose Peace Vigil, Montrose, California, USA

    Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center, Walnut Creek, California, USA

    Multifaith Voices for Peace & Justice, Palo Alto, California, USA 

    Nafsi Ya Jamii community center, Oakland, California, USA 

    Nevada Desert Experience, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

    No Nukes Action Committee, northern California, USA/Japan 

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, California, USA

    Silicon Valley Chapter, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Menlo Park, California, USA

    Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Takoma Park, Maryland, USA

    Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

    Nukewatch, Luck, Wisconsin, USA

    Oakland CAN (Community Action Network), Oakland, California, USA

    Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA 

    Office of the Americas, Santa Monica, California, USA

    Oregon PeaceWorks, Salem, Oregon, USA

    Our Developing World, Saratoga, California, USA

    Pacem in Terris, Wilmington, Delaware, USA

     Pax Christi International

    Pax Christi USA 

    Pax Christi Long Island, New York, USA 

    Pax Christi Metro New York, New York City, USA

    Peace Action, USA

    Peace Action West, California, USA

    Peace Action Staten Island, Staten Island, New York, USA 

    Peace Boat, Japan/international

    Peace Foundation, New Zealand

    Peaceworkers, San Francisco, California, USA

    People for Nuclear Disarmament, Australia

    Physicians for Social Responsibility, USA

    Physicians for Social Responsibility – Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, USA

    San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Physicians for Social Responsibility, California, USA

    Popular Resistance, USA

    Prague Vision Institute for Sustainable Security, Prague, Czech Republic

    Proposition One Campaign, Tryon, North Carolina, USA

    Rachel Carson Council, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

    Reach and Teach, San Mateo, California, USA

    Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    RootsAction.org, USA

    Scientists for Peace, Germany

    Sisters of Charity Federation, North America

    Sisters of Charity of New York, New York City, New York, USA

     Soka Gakkai International (SGI)

    Swedish Peace Council, Sweden

    The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, United Kingdom

    The Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Denver, Colorado, USA

    The Ecological Options Network, EON, Bolinas, California, USA

    The Human Survival Project, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    The Nuclear Resister, USA

    The Peace Farm, Amarillo, Texas, USA

    The United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society (international)

    Topanga Peace Alliance. California, USA

    Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment), Livermore, California, USA

    2020 Action, USA

    United for Peace and Justice, USA

    United Nations Association, San Francisco, California, USA

    US Peace Council, USA

    Veterans for Peace, USA

    War Prevention Initiative, Portland, Oregon, USA

    WarIsACrime.org, USA

    Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom – US Section (WILPF US)

    World Future Council (international)

    World Peace Now, Point Arena, California, USA

    Dr. Joseph Gerson, American Friends Service Committee, USA*

    Stephen McNeil, American Friends Service Committee, Wage Peace program, San Francisco, California, USA*

    Aaron Tovish, International Campaign Director, Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign*

    David McReynolds, former Chair, War Resisters International*

    Rev. Marilyn Chilcote, Parish Associate St. John’s Presbyterian Church, Berkeley, California, USA*

    Sarah H. Lorya, MA, School Outreach Coordinator, AFS-USA, Inc.*

    Don Eichelberger, Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse, San Francisco, California, USA*

    Libbe HaLevy, Nuclear Hotseat Podcast, USA*

    *for purposes of identification only

  • Sunflower Newsletter: November 2014

    Issue #208 – November 2014

    The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits are proceeding at the International Court of Justice and U.S. Federal District Court. Sign the petition supporting the Marshall Islands’ courageous stand, and stay up to date on progress at www.nuclearzero.org.
    • Perspectives
      • Peace Leadership by David Krieger
      • How We Learned to Stop Playing With Blocks and Ban Nuclear Weapons by Ray Acheson
    • Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
      • Sean MacBride Peace Prize to the People and Government of the Marshall Islands
      • Next Steps in International Court of Justice Lawsuits
      • Open Letter in Support of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • Which U.S. President Cut the Most Nuclear Weapons?
      • Catholic Bishop: Do Not Modernize Nuclear Arsenal
      • Lawsuit Spotlights U.S. Charities that Fund Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Program
    • Nuclear Disarmament
      • 155 Nations Sign Statement on Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons
    • Nuclear Testing
      • British Study Reveals High Birth Defect Rate
    • Military Industrial Complex
      • Weapons Companies’ Profits Soar Along with Global Conflict
    • Resources
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • Third Edition of Speaking of Peace
      • UN General Assembly’s First Committee
      • ICAN Civil Society Forum
    • Foundation Activities
      • 31st Annual Evening for Peace
      • Peace Leadership in Maine
      • NAPF Activities in Vienna
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    Peace Leadership

    We live in a time of war and in a world that sacrifices its children at the altar of violence.

    President Eisenhower warned against the “military-industrial complex.”  He might well have added, “military-industrial-academic-congressional complex.”  All are implicated in the obscene sums spent on war and its preparation.

    There are children growing up today who have never known peace.  Can you imagine what this must be like?

    To read more, click here.

    How We Learned to Stop Playing With Blocks and Ban Nuclear Weapons

    It is the responsibility of all NPT states parties to pursue effective measures for nuclear disarmament. Yet supporters of the step-by-step or building blocks approach seem unwilling to put these “blocks” in place themselves. Some of them host US nuclear weapons on their soil, without acknowledging their presence. Most of these states include nuclear weapons in their security doctrines via NATO, which has not taken a collective decision to reduce the role of this weapon of mass destruction in its military doctrine.

    While the nuclear-armed states and their allies resist negotiations on the comprehensive elimination of nuclear weapons, the rest of the world can begin to establish the framework for this by developing a clear legal standard prohibiting these weapons for all. This will take courage. But it is a logical, feasible, achievable, and above all, effective measure for nuclear disarmament.

    To read more, click here.

    Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    Sean MacBride Peace Prize to the People and Government of the Marshall Islands

     

    The International Peace Bureau (IPB), the 1910 Nobel Peace Laureate, will present its annual Sean MacBride Peace Prize to the people and government of the Marshall Islands. The award ceremony will take place on December 5 in Vienna, Austria. Foreign Minister Tony de Brum will accept the award on behalf of the Marshall Islands. IPB chose the Marshall Islands for this year’s award because of its courageous legal actions against the world’s nine nuclear-armed nations.

    The event will take place on Friday, December 5 at 7:00 p.m. at the Vienna University of Technology. The event is free and open to the public.

    Click here to download a flyer for the event.

    Next Steps in International Court of Justice Lawsuits

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands, together with its international legal team, is hard at work on the next phase of the lawsuits before the International Court of Justice in the Hague. The United Kingdom, India and Pakistan are the three nuclear-armed nations that accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court. Those three cases are moving forward. The other six nuclear-armed nations (United States, Russia, France, China, Israel and North Korea) do not recognize the jurisdiction of the court and are not required to have the case against them heard, although they have been invited to do so.

    The next phase of the ICJ cases is “memorials,” which are in-depth arguments about the issues. The Marshall Islands will submit its memorial against Pakistan in December, against India in January, and against the United Kingdom in March. Each sued party will then have six months to reply to the memorial.

    To stay up to date on the Nuclear Zero lawsuits, visit www.nuclearzero.org regularly.

    Open Letter in Support of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    In an open letter to the people and government of the Marshall Islands, 82 advocates of disarmament and human rights from 22 nations, including two Nobel Peace Laureates, endorsed the federal lawsuit and a parallel suit the Marshall Islands have filed in the World Court against all nine nuclear weapons nations.

    “You, and any governments that choose to join you, are acting on behalf of all the 7 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,” read the letter.

    “Win or lose in the coming legal arguments, what you, and any who join you, will do has the deepest moral significance. …All people and all governments that have the welfare and survival of humanity and the planet at heart must support you wholeheartedly.”

    Bob Egelko, “Marshall Islands’ Nuke Suit Against U.S. Gets Nobel Winners’ Support,” SF Gate, October 16, 2014.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    Which U.S. President Cut the Most Nuclear Weapons?

     

    According to a new report by Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, President George W. Bush cut the largest percentage of the U.S. nuclear arsenal of any U.S. president. During his two terms, he cut the nation’s arsenal in half. His father, President George H.W. Bush, while serving a single term, came in a close second with reductions of 41 percent. Together, Mr. Kristensen noted, the two men cut “a staggering 14,801 warheads from the stockpile.”

    In contrast, President Obama has made only modest cuts to the U.S. nuclear arsenal and plans to implement major upgrades to its nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, a Washington-based network of organizations (including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation), recently condemned the administration’s plans as “the largest expansion of funding on nuclear weapons since the fall of the Soviet Union.”

    William J. Broad, “Which President Cut the Most Nukes?The New York Times, November 1, 2014.

    Catholic Bishop: Do Not Modernize Nuclear Arsenal

     

    Bishop Timothy Pates, Chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on International Justice and Peace, has written a letter to U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz urging the United States not to move forward with its plan to modernize its nuclear forces.

    Bishop Pates wrote, “The seeming indefinite reliance of the United States on a policy of nuclear deterrence, especially one that includes significant new investments in nuclear weapons, undermines President Obama’s stated goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. Excessive spending on nuclear weapons also undermines long-term initiatives to promote human security.”

    He also noted that the Catholic Church has called for a global ban on nuclear weapons since 1963, a goal reiterated by Pope Francis this year.

    Bishop Pates to Energy Secretary : Plan to Upgrade Nuclear Forces Undermines Quest for Disarmament,” U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, October 30, 2014.

    Lawsuit Spotlights U.S. Charities that Fund Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Program

     

    A federal lawsuit seeks immediate release of a closely held government report about how American branches of Israeli charitable and educational institutes fund secret nuclear weapons research and development programs.

    The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy filed suit for the report in the DC District Court as part of a public-interest drive to obtain long overdue enforcement of the Symington and Glenn Amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act.  The laws prohibit U.S. foreign aid to nuclear weapons states such as Israel that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Lawsuit Spotlights U.S. Charities that Fund Israel’s Secret Nuclear Weapons Program,” PR Newswire, October 28, 2014.

    Nuclear Disarmament

    155 Nations Sign Statement on Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons

     

    At the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, 155 nations signed on to the Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons, representing about 80% of the world’s countries.

    The statement reads in part, “It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again…. The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination.”

    The statement also cited the third conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons scheduled for December in Vienna and urged states with or without nuclear arsenals to take part. “We firmly believe that it is in the interests of all States to participate in that Conference,” it said.

    More Countries Back U.N. Statement on Nuclear Disarmament,” Kyodo News, October 20, 2014.

    Nuclear Testing

    British Study Reveals High Birth Defect Rate

     

    A peer-reviewed study by Dr. Christopher Busby, a University of Liverpool Fellow, has shown that British soldiers exposed to radiation during the 1950s were ten times more likely to bear children with defects. Veterans’ grandchildren are eight times more likely to be born with defects as well, and are twice as likely to develop childhood cancer. The Ministry of Defense has claimed otherwise in the past, noting “no statistical significance” in the existence of birth defects among veterans’ children compared to the greater population.

    Susie Boniface, “Britain’s Nuclear Test Veterans Are the Victims of a Genetic Curse, New Research Reveals,” Mirror, October 18, 2014.

    Military Industrial Complex

    Weapons Companies’ Profits Soar Along with Global Conflict

     

    Stocks of many major U.S. weapon manufacturers are trading at record prices, as conflicts around the world lead to an ever-increasing demand. Investors see rising sales for makers of missiles, drones and other weapons as the U.S. hits Islamic State fighters in Syria and Iraq, said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Chicago-based BMO Private Bank.

    Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest “defense” company, reached an all-time high stock price of $180.74 on September 19, when Northrop and Raytheon also set records. General Dynamics, the parent company of Maine shipbuilder Bath Iron Works, traded at $129.45 on that day, up from $87.74 a year ago. That quartet of companies and Chicago-based Boeing accounted for nearly $105 billion in federal contract orders last year.

    Richard Clough, “U.S. Defense Industry’s Profits Soaring Along With Global Tensions,” Bloomberg News, September 25, 2014.

    Resources

    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 November, including the “Training Tape Incident” in which the U.S. mistakenly believed it was under attack from Soviet nuclear missiles.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

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

    Third Edition of Speaking of Peace

     

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has published the third edition of Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action. The book, edited by NAPF President David Krieger, contains hundreds of inspirational quotes from throughout history.

    The quotes are divided into ten chapters: Lessons of History; War; Peace; Nuclear Weapons / Nuclear War; Earth Citizenship; Human Spirit; Commitment to Life; Individual Power; Individual Responsibility; and Hope.

    To order a copy of the new edition of Speaking of Peace from the NAPF Peace Store, click here.

    UN General Assembly’s First Committee

     

    Reaching Critical Will, a project of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, maintains a comprehensive record of statements and votes made at the UN General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmament and International Security.

    Click here to read countries’ statements, review voting records on disarmament-related resolutions and read analysis by leading voices in civil society.

    ICAN Civil Society Forum

     

    The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has announced a Civil Society Forum to take place in Vienna, Austria on December 6-7. The forum will take place in advance of a government conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, also in Vienna.

    Representatives of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, along with many other campaigners, activists, experts, public figures and survivors, will gather to learn and to teach, to energize and be energized, to demonstrate our unity and to demand the end of the era of nuclear weapons. Over a packed but fun-filled two days, we will engage in discussions with the best and brightest voices in the humanitarian disarmament field, hear testimonies from inspirational individuals who know the meaning of courage, develop our campaigning and advocacy skills and, of course, get up to speed on the ins and outs of the humanitarian imperative to ban nuclear weapons.

    To learn more about the Civil Society Forum and to register, click here.

    Foundation Activities

    31st Annual Evening for Peace

     

    On November 16, 2014, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will host its 31st Annual Evening for Peace. This year’s Distinguished Peace Leader is Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the social justice organization CODEPINK and the international human rights organization, Global Exchange.

    Medea Benjamin has been on the front lines for thirty years, shining light on the struggles of the world’s innocent and poor. She has written, “We have to build a movement that takes on the arrogance of power, the tyranny of greed, the politics of hypocrisy, the idolatry of national security, the cancer of hatred, racism, sexism, the hysteria of nationalism, the sin of torture, the crisis of the environment, the madness of war, and turn that all into a culture, a country, that shows love, compassion, caring for the planet, and with that, we have to lift the voices of the peacemakers.”

    For more information about the Evening for Peace, click here or contact the Foundation at (805) 965-3443.

    Peace Leadership in Maine

     

    “The most important work in the world,” is how Tilla Durr, the daughter of famed civil rights activists Clifford and Virginia Durr, described the work of NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell during his recent visit to Maine. Durr attended both the two-day Peace Leadership Training in Bridgton, Maine, and Paul’s lecture at the University of New England (UNE) Center for Global Humanities in Portland, Maine.

    “Paul does not just leave his audience with an intellectual understanding of the anatomy of aggression and the art of waging peace, but teaches us to see conflict as opportunity,” Durr commented about the training and the UNE lecture. “There was not a single person who attended who was not profoundly affected.”

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

    NAPF Activities in Vienna

     

    In addition to participating in the ICAN Civil Society Forum in Vienna (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, Austria, 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, 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 attend the conference.

    Quotes

     

    “A debate on the renewal of the MDA would be used by some as an opportunity to raise wider questions concerning the possible renewal of the nuclear deterrent … and our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.”

    — A 2004 internal document from the UK Ministry of Defense, explaining why the Mutual Defense Agreement (MDA) between the United States and the United Kingdom continues to be renewed in secret every 10 years.

     

    “Peace with a club in hand is war.”

    Portugese Proverb. 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
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman

     

  • November: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    November 1, 1952 – The U.S. exploded its first thermonuclear device, code-named “Ivy Mike,” near the island of Elugelab in the Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands.  It produced a yield of approximately 10 megatons – more than 700 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.  The blast left a crater deeper than the height of the Empire State Building.  Today, the victims of dozens of nuclear tests in the Pacific, evacuated and removed from their ancestral lands, then returned sometimes prematurely to suffer serious health and environmental impacts, have banded together with anti-nuclear scholars, activists, and sympathetic legal authorities to file the Nuclear Zero lawsuits against the nine members of the Nuclear Club.  In April of 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed the lawsuits against the nuclear armed powers, including the United States, in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands and in U.S. district court in San Francisco.  The resolutions, alleging that the nuclear powers have not fulfilled their international nuclear disarmament promises, have been endorsed by many governments, prominent individuals, and organizations including the June 23, 2014 Statement of Support from the U.S. Conference of Mayors.  (Source:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, p. 5 and “The Sunflower Newsletter” produced by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Issue #204, July 2014, www.wagingpeace.org)

    November 7-8, 1991 – As a result of a nuclear review announced in the July 1990 London Declaration, NATO unveiled a new strategic concept which specifically stated that, “the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated by [NATO] are remote.”  Comments:  Despite the later elimination of the Soviet Warsaw Pact anti-NATO alliance and accommodations made between NATO and Russia in the subsequent post-Cold War years, today both the Alliance and Russia still deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, which credibly might be inadvertently used by unauthorized individuals during ongoing crises such as the Ukraine-Crimea dispute of 2013-14.   False alerts might also trigger the unexpected use of these weapons, again during especially tense crisis situations occurring near the borders of Russia and NATO.   These factors explain the critical need to completely denuclearize Europe and the region.   (Source:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, p. 35.)

    November 9, 1979 – In the so-called “Training Tape Incident,” computers at NORAD’s National Military Command Center at the Cheyenne Mountain Complex as well as at the Alternate National Military Command Center at Fort Ritchie, Maryland showed that a massive Soviet missile attack had been launched against the United States triggering the U.S. land-based ICBM force to go on immediate alert and the president’s “doomsday plane” to be launched.  Thankfully, Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites were unable to confirm the fictional Soviet missile launches.  It was later determined that a training tape had inadvertently been loaded into NORAD’s computers.  TASS, the official Soviet press agency later criticized the error, warning that, “another such episode could have irreparable consequences for the whole world.”  (Source:   Eric Schlosser.  “Command and Control:  Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.”  New York:  Penguin Press, 2013.)

    November 15, 1957 – “We are facing a danger unlike any danger that has ever existed!” warned a full-page advertisement in the New York Times.  The warning was pronounced by a newly created organization – The National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) which was launched on this date.   By the summer of 1958, SANE grew to 130 chapters with 25,000 members and by the 1960s and 1970s the organization expanded its membership significantly.  In November 1987, SANE merged with the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign to form SANE/FREEZE (later called Peace Action).  Norman Cousins and Clarence Pickett were the first chairman and co-chairman, respectively, of the organization (1957-64).  Later chairman and directors included many prominent scholars and thinkers including Seymour Melman and Sanford Gottlieb, among others.  The latter went on to become the narrator of the Center for Defense Information’s documentary public television series:  “America’s Defense Monitor” which produced programs that explored anti-nuclear themes, military overspending, as well as the peaceful resolution of conflict.    (Source:  SANE, Inc. Records [Document Group 58] housed at the Swarthmore College Peace Collection, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania accessed online on October 7, 2014.)

    November 19, 2013 – The Dutch parliament adopted a resolution “to end the nuclear task,” in other words, to eliminate all NATO stocks of deployed or stored tactical or strategic nuclear weapons located on the territory of The Netherlands by the year 2023.  Comments:  Europeans are increasingly recognizing that nuclear deterrence may not be as stabilizing and permanent as they have been lead to believe by NATO and U.S. “experts.”  Increasingly, the momentum to denuclearize their national territories and circumvent a possible nuclear conflict, nuclear terrorist attack including the use of “dirty bombs,” or even a catastrophic nuclear accident, is growing.  (Source:  IKV, Pax Christi, “Netherlands Now on the Unstoppable Path toward Denuclearization.”  November 2013.)

    November 21-22, 1975 – The aircraft carrier U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, commanded by Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr. (who later became one of the directors of the Center for Defense Information, an organization that opposed excessive military expenditures and supported nuclear weapons reductions including Global Zero) and the cruiser Belknap collided off the coast of Sicily creating fires on both ships that killed eight sailors.   Admiral Carroll quickly declared a Broken Arrow nuclear incident when it was discovered that nuclear weapons were present on both ships.  The fires reportedly burned within 40 feet of several W-45 nuclear warheads, a weapon to be deployed on the Terrier SAM missile.  Although technical failsafe safeguards most probably would have prevented a nuclear explosion from occurring, had those warheads been engulfed by fire a conventional explosive detonation would have ruptured the warhead casings resulting in the radioactive contamination of the vessel.  This is yet another example of countless instances of nuclear accidents and incidents occurring during the last 70 years of the nuclear era. (Source:  Andrew Rosenthal.  “Fire Threatened A Ship’s A-Bombs.”  New York Times, May 25, 1989.)

    November 24, 1961 – The United Nations General Assembly’s 16th Session declared in Resolution No. 1653 that, “any state using nuclear or thermonuclear weapons is to be considered as violating the charter of the United Nations, acting contrary to the law of humanity, and as committing a crime against mankind and civilization.”  (Source:  Documents of the U.N. General Assembly, www.un.org/documents/ga/res/16/ares16.htm  accessed October 7, 2014.)

    November 29, 2007 – The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. had not given Pakistanis the technology to prevent unauthorized use of any of its then estimated arsenal of 50-60 nuclear warheads.   This technology, known as Permissive Action Links or PALs, had been used to safeguard U.S. nuclear weapons since the 1960s and 1970s.  U.S. Navy Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters, “I don’t see any indication right now that security of those weapons is in jeopardy.”   But, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, chairman of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, a large source of scientists for the Pakistani nuclear program, said, “It’s a source of worry that secret institutions are seized with religious fervor.”   Comments:  Because of extreme secrecy and lack of transparency regarding global nuclear weapons, it is not credibly known whether this information was, in fact, true.  It is even possible that this state of affairs exists today, at least for some of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.   (Source:  Peter Wonacott.  “Inside Pakistan’s Drive to Guard Its A-Bombs.”  Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2007.)

    November 30, 1950 – After Chinese entry into the Korean War, U.S. President Harry Truman threatened nuclear retaliation at a news conference on this date:  “There has always been active consideration of its [A-Bomb] use.  I don’t want to see it used.  It is a terrible weapon and it should not be used on innocent men, women, and children who have nothing to do with this military aggression.”  Comments:  But President Truman didn’t equivocally rule out the future use of the Bomb and presidential threats to use nuclear weapons continued into the Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, and other presidential administrations.  (Source:  Craig Nelson.  The Age of Radiance.  New York:  Simon & Schuster, 2014, p. 244.)