Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Peace Leadership in Maine

    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 Center for Global Humanities in Portland, Maine.

    “He teaches us how to both understand and strengthen that which already lies within us for the change to occur which can heal the way we dehumanize ourselves, one another, and the planet.” As a young adult in Alabama, Tilla Durr had marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Her mother was a good friend of Rosa Parks, and Tilla Durr found herself ostracized by the Montgomery, Alabama white community.

    “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.”

    One local minister at the training reflected, “As a pastor, I will be able to teach peace with more authority and spread more seeds of peace.” Another minister commented, “I will take away a better vision.”

    Pax Christi member Sally Chappell (no relation to Paul) who met Paul Chappell at the previous peace leadership training in Maine said, “My plan is to be more positive and more respectful of opponents…. I will try to be more courageous in speaking to a group that dismisses my values…. I am less fearful as a result of participating in Paul’s workshop.”

    She wrote in the local newspaper, “Remarkably candid about the trauma he endured as a child, Chappell used his own life story as well as historical examples of human advancements like the abolition of state-sponsored slavery, civil rights and women’s rights to argue that humans are not inherently violent and that ending war is necessary and possible. ‘I’m not an optimist; I’m a realist,’ Chappell revealed, urging his listeners to opt for a paradigm shift of nonviolent action that provides people with hope, meaning, belonging and purpose.”

    The Center for Global Humanities at the University of New England is a public forum dedicated to the study of human destiny in the 21st century. Previous speakers have included Bill McKibben, Helen Caldicott, and Noam Chomsky.

  • 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.

    David KriegerThere are children growing up today who have never known peace.  Can you imagine what this 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.

    Peace is a dynamic balance in which human needs are met and human rights are upheld.  It is a way of resolving conflicts without resorting to violence.

    Peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age.  It is beyond reason to threaten each other with nuclear weapons.  Civilization and complex life hang in the balance.

    To achieve peace, we must believe in peace and follow the path of peace.  A.J. Muste said, “There is no way to peace; peace is the way.”

    It is not reasonable to prepare for war and expect peace.  War is far too costly in terms of lives, resources and lost hopes and opportunities.  If we want peace, we must prepare for peace.

    To stand up for peace, one must believe that peace is worth standing for.  To fight for peace, one must believe that peace is worth fighting for.  Both require courage.

    The world needs peace, and peace requires courageous peace leaders.

    That is why the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation exists.  That is why its institutional stability and outreach are so important.  We cannot just sit back and relax, and expect that war and preparations for war will diminish.  The world is too small and too dangerous for such complacency.

    Our vision is a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear threat.  Our programs all aim toward these ends.  We work with courageous countries, organizations and individuals throughout the world to eliminate nuclear weapons and end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and other forms of life.

    We train peace leaders throughout the world through our exceptional Peace Leadership Program.  We also honor courageous peace leaders with our annual Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.  Past honorees include Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the XIVth Dalai Lama, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Jody Williams and Helen Caldicott.

    The 2014 recipient of the NAPF Distinguished Peace Leadership Award is Medea Benjamin.  She is a cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK.  She is the author of eight books about peace.  She is an American who stands at the front lines of peacemaking throughout the world.  Where peace is endangered, she is there.  When members of Congress or the administration shout out for war, she makes her presence known for peace.  She is courageous and committed.

    Join us on November 16, 2014 in honoring Medea Benjamin as our 2014 Distinguished Peace Leader.  For information, contact the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at 805-965-3443, or visit us online at www.wagingpeace.org.

  • 2014 Evening for Peace to Honor Medea Benjamin

    Please join us as we honor Medea Benjamin at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 31st Annual Evening for Peace on November 16, 2014, in Santa Barbara, California. Medea Benjamin is co-founder of the social justice organization CODEPINK and the international human rights organization Global Exchange.

    For more information on the Evening for Peace, click here. To purchase tickets securely online, click here. If you prefer, you can also call the NAPF office at 805-965-3443.

  • Open Letter in Support of the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    Dear President Christopher Loeak,

    Dear Foreign Minister Tony de Brum,

    Dear People and Parliament of the Marshall Islands,

    The world salutes your initiative in taking legal action for negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law against the nine nuclear-armed “Goliaths” (the United States, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea).

    We hope that you will be joined in these lawsuits by as many governments as possible, and we will urge them to do so.

    In taking this action, you, and any governments that choose to join you, are acting on behalf of all the seven billion people who now live on Earth and on behalf of the generations yet unborn who could never be born if nuclear weapons are ever used in large numbers.

    You are also acting on behalf of all our ancestors throughout tens of millennia who will have their intellectual, cultural and scientific achievements cancelled should humanity terminate itself through the inadvertent or deliberate use of nuclear weapons.

    In addition, you are acting on behalf of untold thousands of other species who will surely perish in the catastrophic global climatic effects of a nuclear conflict.

    Win or lose in the coming legal arguments, what you, and any who join you, will do has the deepest moral significance, going far beyond the specific interests of any country or government and beyond the usual calculations of national self-interest.

    The unprecedented outburst of resounding applause that Foreign Minister Tony de Brum received in the plenary of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting on 28 April 2014 shows that, for the world, you are all heroes.

    If you stay the course, alone or with a host of others, then what you will be doing is – to recycle a phrase already well-used – “not so much making history, as making history possible.”

    All people and all governments that have the welfare and survival of humanity and the planet at heart must support you wholeheartedly in your courageous legal action.

    (For further information see www.nuclearzero.org)

    Signed:

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate, South Africa

    Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate, Northern Ireland

    Oscar Arias, Nobel Peace Laureate, Costa Rica

    Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate, United States

    Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Laureate, Iran

    Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Laureate, Argentina

    John Hallam (Letter coordinator), People for Nuclear Disarmament/Human Survival Project, Australia

    Prof. Peter King, Human Survival Project, Australia

    David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, United States

    Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director, Greenpeace International, Netherlands

    Aaron Tovish, Mayors For Peace 2020 Vision Campaign, Austria

    Colin Archer, Secretary-General, International Peace Bureau, Switzerland

    Ingeborg Brienes, Co-President, International Peace Bureau, Switzerland

    Jayantha Dhanapala, former UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs (Personal Capacity)

    Helen Caldicott, M.D., Founder, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Australia

    Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute, United States

    Senator Scott Ludlam, Australia

    Jill Hall MP, Australia

    Judy Blyth, People for Nuclear Disarmament, Australia

    Jenny Grounds, President, Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Australia

    Chris Hamer, World Citizens Association / Scientists for Global Responsibility, Australia

    Nick Deane, Marrickville Peace Group, Australia

    Father Claude Mostowyk, MSC, Missionaries of the Sacred Hearth Justice and Peace Centre, Australia

    Ruth Russell, Convenor, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Australia

    Dennis Doherty, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Australia

    Hanna Middleton, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Australia

    Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Sydney University, Australia

    Barney Richards, President, New Zealand Peace Council, New Zealand

    Bob Rigg, former Chair, National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament, New Zealand

    John Hinchcliffe, President, NZ Peace Foundation, New Zealand

    Dr. Kate Dewes,Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand

    Commander Robert Green (Royal Navy, Ret.), Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand

    Dave Webb, Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, United Kingdom

    Bill Kidd MSP, United Kingdom

    Jenny Maxwell, Hereford Peace Council, United Kingdom

    Rae Street, Greater Manchester Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, United Kingdom

    Godrick Ernest Scott Bader, Life-President, Scott Bader Ltd, United Kingdom

    Arthur West, Chair, Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, United Kingdom

    Tony Simpson, Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, United Kingdom

    Prof. Emeritus Kirsten Osen, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Norway

    Prof. John Gunnar Maeland, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Norway

    John Scales Avery, Ph.D., Chairman, Danish National Group, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Denmark

    Ingrid Schittich, Chairperson, Association of World Citizens, Germany

    Xanthe Hall, Disarmament Campaigner, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Germany

    Herman Spanjaard, M.D., Chair, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Netherlands

    Dr. Peter van den Dungen, General Coordinator, International Network of Museums for Peace, Netherlands

    Dominique Lalanne, Co-chair, Armes nucléaires STOP, France

    Jean-Marie Matagne, President, Action des Citoyens pour le desarmement nucleaire, France

    Pep Puig, Ph.D., Group of Scientists and Technicians for a Non-Nuclear Future, Spain

    Josep Puig, President, Eurosolar, Spain

    Santiago Vilanova, Journalist, Green Alternative, Spain

    Maria Arvaniti Sotiropoulou, President, Greek Medical Association for the Protection of the Environment and against Nuclear and Biochemical Threat, Greece

    Dr. Mubashir Hasan, President Punjab, Pakistan People’s Party, Pakistan

    Sharon Dolev, Director, Israeli Disarmament Movement, Israel

    Sukla Sen, EKTA, India

    J. Narayana Rao, Secretary, Centre For Cultural, Educational, Economics and Social Studies, India

    Wilfred D’Costa, Indian Social Action Forum, India

    Dr. Ranjith S. Jayasekhara, Vice-President, Sri Lankan Doctors for Peace and Development, Sri Lanka

    Ronald McCoy, Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility, Malaysia

    Dr. Syed Husain Ali, Senator, Malaysia

    Hiro Umebayashi, Special Adviser, Peace Depot, Japan

    Hiroshi Taka, Representative Director, Japan Council against A & H Bombs (Gensuikyo), Japan

    Steve Leeper, Research Centre for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University, Japan

    Hideyuki Ban, Citizens Nuclear Information Centre, Japan

    Tadatoshi Akiba, Former Mayor of Hiroshima, Japan

    Joan Russow, Global Compliance Research Project, Canada

    Gordon Edwards Ph.D., President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Canada

    Martha Goodings, No2 Nuclear Weapons, Canada

    Vivian Davidson, President, World Federalist Movement – Vancouver Branch, Canada

    Patti Willis, Pacific Peace Working Group, Canada

    Phyllis Creighton, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, Canada

    Larry Kazdan, CGA, Vancouver, Canada

    Saul Arbess, Director, Canadian Peace Initiative, Canada

    Global Alliance of Ministries for Peace

    Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment), United States

    Kathy Wanpovi Sanchez, Tewa Women United, United States

    Alfred L. Marder, President, US Peace Council, United States

    Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action, United States

    Stephen Vincent Kobasa, Coordinator, Trident Resistance Network, United States

    Lawrence Wittner, Professor Emeritus of History, SUNY/Albany, United States

    Ralph Hutchison, Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, United States

    Blase Bonpane, Co-Director, Office of the Americas, United States

    Theresa Bonpane, Co-Director, Office of the Americas, United States

    Prof. Martin Hellman, Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, United States

    Alice Slater, New York Director, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Dr. Ruby Anne Chirino, Program Coordinator, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Mexico

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

    Ray AchesonThis article was originally published by Reaching Critical Will.

    “It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances.” This is the view of the 155 states that endorsed the joint statement delivered by Ambassador Dell Higgie of New Zealand. “The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination.”

    The majority of states and their publics share this view. It is only a handful of states, generally among the most wealthy in the world, that have consistently resisted progress in this area.

    Another 20 countries signed onto a separate statement calling on states to address the “important security and humanitarian dimensions of nuclear weapons.” Delivered by the Australian delegation, this statement suggested that working “methodically and with realism” is the way to “attain the necessary confidence and transparency to bring about nuclear disarmament.”

    By this, the 20 countries refer to the “step-by-step” or “building blocks” approach. As outlined by an all-male panel hosted by Japan and the Netherlands last week, the blocks include, among other things, entry into force of the Comprehensive nuclear Test Ban Treaty, negotiation of a fissile materials cut-off treaty, reducing the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, increasing transparency of and de-alerting nuclear forces, and arsenal reductions.

    Yet as the Irish delegation pointed out, these actions—while welcome to the extent that they lead to concrete disarmament—do not constitute implementation of article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Article VI calls for an effective multilateral framework for nuclear disarmament and the end to the nuclear arms race. “Until we put in place the framework,” argued Breifne O’Reilly of Ireland, “we all stand accused of failing to implement our NPT obligations.”

    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.

    So far, none of these states have been open to articulating a clear legal prohibition against nuclear weapons, even though, as Costa Rica noted, the prohibition of weapons with unacceptable humanitarian impacts has typically preceded their elimination. The Irish delegation pointed out that without the clear prohibition against chemical weapons, these weapons would probably not now be so universally condemned and subject to a specified programme of elimination.

    Maritza Chan expressed Costa Rica’s willingness to join a diplomatic process to negotiate a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, even if the nuclear-armed states are unwilling to participate. She argued that such a treaty would establish a strong legal norm against the use, possession, and deployment of nuclear weapons and represent a significant step towards their complete elimination.

    Palau’s delegation agreed with the utility of this approach, noting that such a treaty could compel states to reject any role for nuclear weapons in their military doctrines, prevent nuclear sharing, and prohibit investments in nuclear weapons production. The Thai delegation, among others, expressed a firm conviction that is time to “initiate negotiations on a legal instrument to comprehensively ban nuclear weapons.”

    The countries resisting this approach argue that the “security context” is not ripe for pursuing such an effective measure. Australia continues to demand that “we” need to address the security dimensions of nuclear weapon possession. The nuclear-armed states of course want to focus on their own perceived security interests. France asserted that disarmament cannot move forward if it “ignores” the “strategic context.” The United Kingdom argued that “we do not yet have the right political and security conditions for those without nuclear weapons to feel no need to acquire them, nor for those who do have them to no longer feel the need to keep them. Nor is it possible to identify a timeframe for those conditions.” The UK even argued that “nuclear weapons are not per se inherently unacceptable” and that they have “helped to guarantee our security, and that of our allies, for decades.”

    This is a dangerous narrative, noted Ireland. In effect, it makes an argument in favour of proliferation. “Every state on earth has a strategic context,” noted Mr. O’Reilly. Arguing that nuclear weapons are good for some is the same as arguing they are good for all. They either provide security or they don’t. Their consequences are either acceptable or unacceptable.

    The majority of states, international organisations, and civil society groups have articulated clearly that nuclear weapons do not provide security and that the consequences of their use are wholly unacceptable. There is no ambiguity here. But the narrative of “conditions” ensures that nuclear disarmament is perpetually punted down the road to some unknown, possibly unattainable future state of affairs in which the world is at peace and security is guaranteed through some other imagined means.

    Most states reject this utopian view. The majority considers the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons to be a key step in the pursuit of peace, global justice, and security for all.

    Some states have already put this approach into practice. Sweden’s delegation explained that it discontinued its nuclear weapons research and development programme in the 1960s because it believed that abolition was the safest option both for its people and for the rest of the world. Focusing on preconditions, Sweden argued, will not help overcome challenges nor uphold commitments.

    At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, Sweden noted, the nuclear-armed states committed themselves unequivocally to eliminate their nuclear arsenals without any preconditions. Today, however, the nuclear-armed states and their allies have retracted from this commitment and from any other that rejects the legality or utility of nuclear weapons. They continue to pursue a path that has proven incapable of addressing the core obligation to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    The continued stalemate in pursuing the “building blocks” specified by nuclear weapons dependent governments suits their interests only. It supports and even seeks to legitimise the continued possession of nuclear weapons by a select few. These states reject the most feasible, practical, and meaningful “building block” available under current circumstances—the prohibition of nuclear weapons—precisely because it would be an effective measure for nuclear disarmament.

    Yet at the same time, they insist they do not have a predetermined course for action. “Each step builds on past steps and provides a foundation for future action,” argued the US delegation. “The temporary inability to make progress in one area does not preclude progress in others or prevent us from putting in place the building blocks for a comprehensive approach to disarmament.”

    This is a compelling argument for pursuing a treaty banning nuclear weapons. While the nuclear-armed states and their allies resist negotiations on the comprehensive elimination of these 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.

  • The Mouse that Roared: Stand With the Marshall Islands

    The Marshall Islands is “the mouse that roared.”  It is a small island country standing up to the nuclear-armed bullies of the world saying, “enough is enough.”  It is in effect saying to the nuclear-armed countries, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk (on the false power and prestige of nuclear weapons).”  The Marshall Islands is acting with courage, compassion and commitment, taking risks for all humanity.  It is seeking to restore global sanity and end the overarching threat of nuclear omnicide.

    marshall_islands_flagThe Nuclear Zero Lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands against the nine nuclear-armed “Goliaths” have the potential to awaken the public to the current status of nuclear weapons dangers.  For the most part, the public appears ignorant of or apathetic to these dangers.  Awakening the public may be an even more important function of the lawsuits than the legal rulings of the courts.

    The lawsuits raise the following issues:

    First, the nuclear-armed countries party to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the US, Russia, UK, France and China) are obligated “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament . . . ”  The four nuclear-armed countries that are not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) have the same obligations under customary international law.

    Second, all nine nuclear-armed countries are in breach of their obligations to negotiate a cessation of the nuclear arms race.

    Third, all nine nuclear-armed countries are in breach of their obligations to negotiate for nuclear disarmament.

    Fourth, all nine nuclear-armed countries are in breach of their obligations to act in good faith.  They are not engaged in negotiations.  Rather, they are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.  The United States alone has plans to spend $1 trillion over the next three decades modernizing its nuclear arsenal.

    Fifth, these breaches undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and international law itself.

    Sixth, continued reliance on nuclear weapons keeps the door open to nuclear proliferation by other countries and by terrorist organizations, and to nuclear weapons use, by accident or design.

    According to atmospheric scientists, even a small regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, in which each side used 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons on the other side’s cities, would result in putting enough soot into the upper stratosphere to block warming sunlight, shorten growing seasons and cause crop failures that could lead to a global nuclear famine resulting in the death by starvation of some two billion people.  It would be a heavy price to pay for the broken promises and breached obligations of the nine nuclear-armed countries.

    There are still over 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with some 94 percent of these in the arsenals of the United States and Russia.  A war between these two countries could trigger an ice age that would end civilization and potentially all complex life on Earth.

    In sum, the nuclear-armed countries have obligations under international law that they are breaching, and these breaches raise serious threats to the people of the world, now and in the future.  The Marshall Islands has brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries in an attempt to compel them to do what the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty promised to do long ago, and what all nine nuclear-armed countries are required to do under international law.

    The people of the world should follow the lead of the Marshall Islands, one of the smallest but most courageous countries in the world.  We should stand with the Marshall Islands and support them in their legal action.  The dream of ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity should be not only the dream of the Marshall Islands, but our dream as well.  You can find out more about the Nuclear Zero lawsuits and sign a petition supporting the Marshall Islands at www.nuclearzero.org.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • Alice Slater: China Is the Only Country that Promised Not To Use Nuclear Weapons First

    This article was originally published by RIA Novosti.

    Alice Slater, New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told Rossiya Segodnya about the current situation with the nuclear weapons in China. 50 years ago China detonated its first nuclear test, nearly 20 years after the US dropped their bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are nine countries that have nuclear weapons today: the US,  Russia, UK, France,  and China, who signed the Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) in 1970.

    China’s first nuclear test took place 50 years ago. How would you assess the current situation with the nuclear weapons in the country? Does it represent any potential danger?

    Alice Slater: Every country’s nuclear bombs represent a danger to the world. It is estimated that there are 16,300 nuclear bombs on the planet with all but a thousand of them in the US and Russia. China is estimated to have about 250 of them. China is the only country among the NPT signers who has promised not to be the first to use them. But essentially, just the possession of a nuclear arsenal is a form of use. When a bank robber walks into a bank and points a gun at people, even if the gun is never shot, it is still being used by the robber to bully and intimidate. That is what the possession of nuclear weapons means, by any country possessing, them, even China with its modest arsenal.

    Is it true, in your view, that possessing nuclear weapons increases the country’s diplomatic credibility on the international arena? Do nuclear weapons provide important security benefits to China and generally to the countries possessing nuclear weapons?

    Alice Slater: It is an illusion to think that there are any security benefits to possessing nuclear weapons. We are learning now of the  many near-accidents with airplane crashes carrying nuclear weapons, misplaced missiles flown unknown to distant bases carrying unaccounted nuclear weapons, missing and lost nuclear weapons in the US. Undoubtedly similar situations exist in Russia. Perhaps not in China since they never built the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that the US and Russia competed with to show who was stronger, when it actually made us weaker and more vulnerable to accidents, hazardous waste issues, not to mention possible miscalculations. We were very lucky not to have experienced an accidental nuclear war.  While laboring under the illusion that nuclear weapons provide security, it isn’t so for the major nuclear powers. Of course the fact that Saddam Hussein wound up in a hole in the ground and Muammar Gaddaffi in a sewer pipe after they gave up or were forced to turn over their nuclear technology, may give cause to isolated nations like North Korea to cling to their nuclear “deterrent”.

    Do you think it is important to continue the development of nuclear weapons or should the countries work on its elimination?

    Alice Slater: With the planet facing catastrophic climate change, droughts, hurricanes, tsunamis, forest fires, from the excessive carbon emissions from the industrial age, we can little afford to spend our national treasures of money and intellectual power on nuclear technology – both for weapons and power. The nuclear waste lasts 250,000 years and we don’t know how to safely isolate it from the environment for that inordinate length of time.  It is now reported that the US is contemplating expenditures of one trillion dollars over 30 years on its nuclear arsenal, laboratories, and delivery systems, with $300 billion budget for the next ten years. Russia and China, as well as India and Pakistan, have also been announcing new expenditures on this destructive and useless technology. Perhaps Asia can lead the way towards nuclear disarmament. The West is now caught up in a new cold war, having failed to contain NATO as promised to Gorbachev when the wall came down in Berlin and having expanded the missile program into eastern Europe after the US walked out of its Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.

    Given the current political situation in the world, is there a risk that any of Nuclear-Weapon States will use the weapons against another country? What are your estimates in this regard? What country could it be?

    Alice Slater: I don’t think any country would deliberately use nuclear weapons first, but we can’t be lucky forever on accidental launch or misjudgments. The world remembers Russia’s Colonel Petrov, in the Soviet bunker who disobeyed orders when a radar blip indicated a nuclear attack from the US and it was only a Norwegian weather satellite that had gone off course. We could have had a nuclear holocaust had he not done the right thing. We also came very close to miscalculating the presence of nuclear weapons during the Cuban missile crisis. We shouldn’t continue to push our luck! Some wise country, or group of countries should take the lead and start the talks for elimination under monitoring, verification and a tight timeline.

    Do you think any nuclear threat from Iran exists and what is your personal view on Iran’s nuclear program? Is it peaceful?

    Alice Slater: Iran is no more of a threat than other countries. Once you have the enrichment technology, you have the capacity to make the bomb, just as North Korea did. Every nuclear power plant is a bomb factory and the sooner we phase out nuclear power and rely on the abundant, clean, free energy of the sun, wind, water, geothermal we will all be safer, less poor, and may actually have some peace on earth. Over 400,000 people marched in NYC this month to make the links between poverty, war, and climate catastrophe. If Russia could put a man on the moon, surely it can work to end destructive technology and lead the way to a 21st century free of nuclear and fossil fuel.

    China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States are  officially recognized as possessing nuclear weapons by the Non – Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Three states – India, Israel, and Pakistan – never joined the NPT and are known to possess nuclear weapons. What other countries could potentially possess nuclear weapons or facilities to create such weapons?

    Alice Slater: Any country with a nuclear reactor has the capacity to develop a bomb.  Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, were on the way to making bombs and changed course. Japan has the capacity and every now and then its generals say it should use its tons to enriched plutonium to make bombs.   Brazil is enriching plutonium. We are planning to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia but they won’t give us assurances that they won’t enrich uranium.

    How can you describe relations between China and the United States in the nuclear weapons development sphere?

    Alice Slater: I don’t know if the US and China even discuss nuclear weapons. The two main players are the US and Russia. Right now there is a push from the military industrial complex and the unregulated corporations to make an enemy of Russia over Ukraine. We should be clearing up the events that occurred in the Ukraine as the corporate dominated media in the US doesn’t report events accurately and Russia is being blamed by our government and press without evidence. We still don’t know what happened. Some members of Civil Society called for an investigation, but nothing has happened. I think Russia should bring this up in the Security Council and in the First Committee of the UN that is meeting this week and next week. Let’s get all the facts out on the table.

    Finally, Russia and China should come to the meeting in Vienna on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons this December.  India and Pakistan came to the last two in Mexico and Oslo which the p-5 boycotted. This is the time for China and Russia to join the Asian nuclear weapons states and call for a treaty to ban the bomb, just as we’ve banned chemical and biological weapons. It would give the Western states pause, and empower civil society to press more effectively for nuclear disarmament in the US, UK, and France, as well as in the five European states that are part of NATO’s nuclear sharing – Italy, Belgium, Turkey, Netherlands and Spain.

  • Open Letter Supports Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    Recently, 78 civil society leaders from around the world released an Open Letter in Support of the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits.  I am proud to be among the signers of that letter supporting a courageous small Pacific Island country, one with only 70,000 inhabitants.  The Marshall Islanders are seeking to make the world a far more secure place, free of the nuclear threat that has hung over the collective head of humanity for some seven decades.

    David KriegerThe Open Letter was addressed to Christopher Loeak, President of the Marshall Islands; Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands; and the People and Parliament of the Marshall Islands.  They all deserve credit for their courage.  They are much like David in “David vs. Goliath,” but they carry court papers rather than a slingshot.

    The Open Letter salutes the initiative of the Marshall Islanders in seeking enforcement of international law by bringing lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed “Goliaths” for their failure to fulfill their obligations to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament.  These obligations derive from Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and from customary international law.

    The Open Letter praises the Marshall Islands for acting on behalf of all humanity and generations yet unborn in bringing the issue of the broken promises and breached obligations of the nuclear-armed countries to the International Court of Justice and to the U.S. Federal District Court.  In their lawsuits the Marshall Islands seeks no compensation.  Rather, it seeks an injunction by the Court requiring the fulfillment of legal obligations to negotiate for nuclear disarmament by the nuclear-armed countries.

    The letter concludes, “All people and all governments that have the welfare and survival of humanity and the planet at heart must support you wholeheartedly in your courageous legal action.”

    The Open Letter was coordinated by John Hallam, an Australian civil society leader working with People for Nuclear Disarmament and the Human Survival Project.  Other signers of the letter include Nobel Peace Laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mairead Maguire; and former Mayor of Hiroshima Tadatoshi Akiba.

    To read the Open Letter, click here.  To find out more about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits and add your support, go to www.nuclearzero.org.

  • Marshall Islands’ Lawsuits Gain Momentous Support

    For Immediate Release
    Contact:     
    Sandy Jones
    (805) 965-3443
    sjones@napf.org

    Marshall Islands’ Lawsuits Gain Momentous Support
    Leaders from 22 Nations Offer Support for Humanity in Open Letter

    Santa Barbara – Some 73 civil society leaders from 22 countries around the world have lent their support to the people and government of the Marshall Islands and the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits.

    On April 24, 2014, The Marshall Islands (RMI) filed unprecedented lawsuits in the International
    Court of Justice and U.S. Federal Court to hold the nine nuclear-armed nations accountable
    for flagrant violations of international law with respect to their nuclear disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law.

    In a strong show of unity and encouragement, Nobel Peace Laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mairead Maguire, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Helen Caldicott and many other peace and social justice leaders have signed an open letter stating, “In taking this action, you, and any governments that choose to join you, are acting on behalf of all the seven billion people who now live on Earth and on behalf of the generations yet unborn who could never be born if nuclear weapons are ever used in large numbers.”

    The letter goes on to say, “Win or lose in the coming legal arguments, what you, and any who join you, will do has the deepest moral significance, going far beyond the specific interests
    of any country or government and beyond the usual calculations of national self-interest.”

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a consultant to the Marshall Islands on the legal and moral issues of the case, commented, “The Marshall Islanders are unselfishly acting for the good of all humanity. This small island nation is the true David standing up to the nine nuclear Goliaths. The Marshallese people have suffered irreparable damage from the U.S. nuclear testing program. Yet this lawsuit does not seek monetary reparations. Rather, it seeks the fulfillment of promises made for negotiations for the total elimination of nuclear weapons so that no other nation will suffer as they have. The courage of this small island nation is remarkable.”

    The open letter was presented in Parliament by Marshall Islands’ Foreign Minister Tony de Brum on the last day of their 2014 session. To read the letter in its entirety, go to wagingpeace.org/rmi-open-letter. To find out more about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, visit nuclearzero.org.

    #   #   #

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

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

  • Foundation Announces 2014 Peace Poetry Award Winners

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    CONTACT: Carol Warner, Poetry Award Coordinator
    (805) 965-3443
    cwarner@napf.org

    Santa Barbara, CA (October 15, 2014) – The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is pleased to announce the winners of its Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards. Since 1995, the Foundation has encouraged poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit through these Awards. The poetry awards are offered in three categories: Adult; Youth (13 to 18); and Children (12 and under).

    In the Adult category, Devreaux Baker, from Mendocino, California, was awarded the $1,000 First Place Prize for her poem “In the Year of the Drone.” Ms. Baker has published three books of poetry, with a fourth to be published in January 2015. She has taught poetry workshops in France, Mexico and the United States; and Poetry in the Schools through the California Poets In Schools Program. Her awards include the 2011 PEN/Oakland Josephine Miles Poetry Award, the Hawaii Council on Humanities International Poetry Prize, and the Women’s Global Leadership Poetry Award.

    The First Place Prize of $200 in the Youth (13 to 18) category was awarded to Sophia Marusic for her poem “Vietnam: January 28, 1973.” Ms. Marusic lives in St. Louis, Missouri, and is a sophomore at John Burroughs School. She is the art editor of her school literary magazine and is a member of the St. Louis Poetry Center.

    An Honorable Mention in the Youth (13 to 18) category was awarded to Alice Yanhong Lu for her poem “Free.” Ms. Lu lives in North Potomac, Maryland, and attends the University of Maryland, College Park.

    In the Children (12 and under) category, the First Place Prize of $200 was awarded to Leila Metres for her poem “Soil Soul.” Leila lives in University Heights Ohio, where she is home schooled.

    The Peace Poetry Awards are named for the late Barbara Mandigo Kelly, a poet, pianist and peace advocate.

    Two anthologies of winning poems in the annual Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards have been published. The first anthology, The Poetry of Peace, was published by Capra Press in 2003. The second anthology, Never Enough Flowers: The Poetry of Peace II, was published by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 2012. The winning poems since 1995 are also available to read at http://www.peacecontests.org/poetry/winners.pdf.

    For more information, including the 2015 Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards Guidelines, please visit the Foundation’s website at http://www.peacecontests.org/poetry/index.php or contact the Foundation at (805) 965-3443.

    # # #

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan international organization with consultative status to the United Nations. For 32 years, the Foundation’s mission has been to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons, and to empower peace leaders.