Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • September: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    September 6, 2007 – On the same day that Israeli warplanes bombed a site near al-Kibar, Syria where an allegedly not yet operational uranium-fueled nuclear reactor capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium for nuclear weapons and supposedly modeled on North Korea’s Yongbyon facility was located, in another part of the world renewed Cold War tensions were flaring.   Eight Russian Tu-95 nuclear-capable bombers flew from the Barents Sea into the north Atlantic Ocean shadowed by 20 NATO fighter aircraft, some of which flew within 20 feet of the wingtips of the Russian planes.  Comments:  Most Americans and many Europeans mistakenly believe that the possibilities of a large-scale nuclear war are long past.  Unfortunately this is wishful thinking.  However, concrete steps including a Nuclear Weapons Convention, Senate ratification of the U.S.-signed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, negotiating a fissile material cut-off treaty, an international arms sale prohibition agreement, and a permanent two-state Israeli-Palestinian peace accord will go far toward decreasing tensions and circumventing an increasingly likely 21st century nuclear apocalypse.  (Source:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, p. 17.)

    September 14, 1987 – A long-respected and admired Canadian military figure – Major General Leonard Johnson – a veteran of World War II, a 1966 graduate of the U.S. Armed Forces Staff College, and commandant of the Canadian National Defense College, joined with representatives of the Group of 78 nonaligned nations in releasing a letter that called for the creation of a nuclear war prevention center, the dissolution of NATO and NORAD, establishment of a Nordic nuclear-weapons-free-zone, and the promotion of global security through increased Allied nations’ support of U.N. disarmament actions.  After retiring from the military, Major General Johnson served as Chairman of the Board of Project Ploughshares from 1989-94.  (Sources:  Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. “The Untold History of the United States.”  New York:  Gallery Books, 2012 and www.ploughshares.ca/pl_ publications/len-johnson-a-general-for-peace, accessed August 8, 2014.)

    September 18-19, 1980 – At nuclear launch complex 374-7 located near Little Rock Air Force Base, in Southside, a few miles north of Damascus, Arkansas, a maintenance accident involving a Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) resulted in three separate explosions that caused a W53 nine megaton nuclear warhead to be thrown several hundred feet from its silo.  A technician from the 308th Strategic Missile Wing of the U.S. Air Force, while manipulating an airborne disconnect pressure cap, accidentally dropped a socket wrench which fell 70 feet and ricocheted off the Titan II missile causing a fuel leak that later triggered the explosions that killed or injured several airmen.  Thankfully fail-safe devices on the warhead prevented an unintended nuclear explosion.  Comments:  Hundreds of nuclear incidents including Broken Arrow accidents, involving many armed nuclear devices, have occurred over the decades despite some innovative safety measures pushed on the Pentagon by U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories and nongovernmental experts.  Nevertheless, the safest long-term solution to preventing an accidental or unintentional nuclear war is the total or near-total global elimination of these weapons of mass destruction.  (Source:  Eric Schlosser.  “Command and Control:  Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.”  New York:  Penguin Press, 2013.)

    September 20, 1963 –  At a speech before the United Nations General Assembly in New York, his last, President John F. Kennedy pronounced, “The science of weapons and war has made us all one world and one human race with one common destiny.  We have the power to make this the best generation of mankind in the history of the world or to make it the last.”  Comments:  Fifty one years later, the 35th President’s speech still resonates in a world today suffering from a reborn Cold War II, renewed sectarian religious-ethnic-political strife, Israeli-Palestinian struggles, a continuing number of civil wars raging in many regions such as the Ukraine, and, critically, a world that includes global arsenals of thousands of nuclear weapons!  (Sources:  Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick.  “The Untold History of the United States.”  New York:  Gallery Books, 2012 and www.jfklibrary.org accessed August 8, 2014.)

    September 23, 2007 – Journalists Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick published an article in The Washington Post, “Missteps in the Bunker,” which reported that four years previously half of U.S. Air Force Strategic Command units responsible for nuclear weapons command and control failed their safety inspections despite being notified 72 hours in advance of such inspections.   Comments:  An increase in recent U.S. military nuclear safety incidents has reportedly occurred during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations convincing many arms control and deterrence experts that excessive secrecy has insulated the military not only from justified criticism but from receiving vital constructive suggestions regarding the need to improve nuclear weapons handling and safety.   (Sources:  Press reports from mainstream media such as the Washington Post and New York Times as well as alternative media such as Democracy Now.)

    September 24, 1996 – Almost four years to the day (September 23, 1992) after the United States conducted its last nuclear weapons test, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was opened for signature.  U.S. President Bill Clinton was the first head of state to sign, followed by the other four declared nuclear powers, and a number of other nonnuclear states.  However, in October 1999, the U.S. Senate rejected treaty ratification over concerns that the prohibition of nuclear testing could not be reliably verified.   Comments:  Over the last several years, a number of journalists (see Joby Warrick. “Built to Detect Nuclear Test, System Has Knack for Science.”  Washington Post, January 7, 2014) and arms control experts (see pronouncements by Thomas Muetzelburg, a CTBTO spokesperson, and Dr. Rose Gottemoeller, the U.S. State Department’s assistant secretary for arms control, verification, and compliance) have noted that the evolution of an extensive International Monitoring System involving over 270 global detection sites, which detected North Korea’s secret nuclear tests in 2006 and 2013 along with other related nuclear incidents such as the Fukushima nuclear accident’s massive radiation release beginning in March 2011, justifies the Senate and other governmental agencies reversing their earlier opposition to the ratification and implementation of the paramountly important CTBT.  (Source:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.”  Washington, DC:  The Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 4, 15.)

    September 27, 1991 – President George H. W. Bush announced a Presidential Nuclear Initiative (PNI) calling for the unilateral U.S. withdraw from overseas bases and operational deployment of all land- and sea-based tactical nuclear weapons.   Weeks later, the Soviet Union responded with unilateral nuclear reductions of its own.   Comments:  Today President Obama could enact similar unilateral initiatives to de-alert a portion of U.S. land-based ICBMs and challenge the Russians to meet or exceed those initiatives expanding de-alerting, over a period of weeks or months, to require a minimum of 72 hours or more for either side to fire nuclear weapons in anger.  Other possibilities include U.S. unilateral moves to publicly call for Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and announce their nuclear weapons stockpile, as well as accelerating moribund negotiations to establish a two-state Mideast peace treaty that includes a nuclear-free-zone in the region  (Source:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.”  Washington, DC:  The Center for Defense Information, 2002, p. 3.)

    September 29, 1957 – A massive explosion, equivalent to 70-100 tons of TNT, at the Mayak nuclear weapons processing facility in central Russia, at the Chelyabinsk-65 site, which impacted a plutonium weapons production reactor and nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, resulted in the release of 20MCi of radioactive products into the environment, severely contaminating the hundreds of thousands of residents in the region centered on the nearby town of Kyshtym.  (Source:  Craig Nelson.  “The Age of Radiance:  The Epic Rise and Dramatic Fall of the Atomic Era.”  New York:  Scribner, 2014.)

  • Amicus Curiae Briefs Support Marshall Islands Lawsuit

    On August 21, 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in its lawsuit against the United States in U.S. Federal District Court. The lawsuit, filed in April 2014, accuses the U.S. of breach of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by continuing to engage in a nuclear arms race and a failure to negotiate for nuclear disarmament.

    On the same day that RMI submitted its Opposition, three amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of RMI’s position. All of these organizations are part of the Nuclear Zero campaign to support the lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands against all nine nuclear-armed nations.

    Tri-Valley CAREs (TVC) argues in its amicus brief that the venue of Northern California is appropriate because the district contains Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), one of the United States’ two major sites for nuclear weapons research, design, development and modernization. TVC should know; they have been working since 1983 to clean up LLNL’s pollution and convert the lab to engage in socially beneficial activities.

    Nuclear Watch New Mexico (NWNM) argues in its amicus brief that future funding levels for nuclear weapon modernization programs indicate that the U.S. is not committed to its NPT Article VI obligation. NWNM further argues that the United States is creating new military capabilities for U.S. nuclear weapons.

    Pax Christi International, Physicians for Social Responsibility and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War submitted a joint amicus brief. In it, they argue that the risk of nuclear catastrophe is substantial and that even a small regional nuclear war would put two billion people at risk of famine.

  • Letter: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Make Us Safer

    This letter to the editor of the Washington Post was published on August 22, 2014.

    Are NATO-based nuclear weapons really an advantage in a dangerous world, as Brent Scowcroft, Stephen J. Hadley and Franklin Miller suggested in their Aug. 18 op-ed, “A dangerous proposition”? They are not. They make the world a far more dangerous place.

    Nuclear deterrence is not a guarantee of security. Rather, it is a hypothesis about human behavior, a hypothesis that has come close to failing on many occasions. Additionally, nuclear weapons are not “political weapons,” as the writers asserted. They are weapons of mass extermination.

    The United States and the other nuclear-armed countries are obligated under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and/or customary international law to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and complete nuclear disarmament. This is the substance of the Nuclear Zero lawsuits brought by the Marshall Islands against the nine nuclear-armed countries at the International Court of Justice and in U.S. federal court. The United States continues to evade its obligations.

    Rather than continuing to posture with its nuclear weapons in Europe, the United States should be leading the way in convening negotiations to eliminate all nuclear weapons for its own security and that of all the world’s inhabitants.

    David Krieger, Santa Barbara, Calif.

    The writer is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Global Problems Call for Global Solutions

    Lawrence WittnerSometimes, amid the heated political debate about what should done by the U.S. government in world affairs, a proposal cuts through the TV babble of the supposed experts with a clear, useful suggestion.

    That proposal came on August 17, when Pope Francis told journalists how he thought the world should cope with the challenge posed by ISIS, the Islamic militant group engaged in murderous behavior in Syria and Iraq.  “One nation alone cannot judge how you stop this,” he said, in an apparent reference to U.S. action against ISIS crimes.  Instead, the United Nations is the proper forum to “discuss ‘Is there an unjust aggression’ ” and “ ‘How should we stop it?’  Just this.  Nothing more.”

    The idea that the responsibility for dealing with global problems lies with the world community rather than with individual nations is not a popular one among the governments of the major military powers.  Indeed, they seem to believe that they are justified in doing whatever they want in the world if it serves what they consider their “national interest.”  The Russian government, angered at NATO’s eastward expansion and at political developments in Ukraine, annexed Crimea and armed pro-Russian separatists.  The Israeli government, attempting to incorporate Palestinian territory it conquered 47 years ago into greater Israel, has moved 500,000 settlers onto the land and staged bloody military invasions of Gaza to crush resistance.  Anxious to control the oil-rich Middle East, the U.S. government launched a military invasion and occupation of Iraq that led to enormous bloodshed in that country and the destabilization of the entire region.  And numerous other governments with powerful military forces have behaved in much the same manner, thereby helping to foster a chaotic and violent world.

    This aggressive use of military force is not a new phenomenon.  Indeed, it’s been par for the course throughout the history of nations and, before that, the history of competing territories.  It’s what brought the world to the brink of total disaster during World Wars I and II.

    What is new is the dawning recognition that the world can no longer continue down this destructive path―that the competition among nations must be handled within the framework of an international security system.  After all, there is no reason to assume that any individual nation can divorce itself from its own special “interests” and adopt an impartial stance when it comes to world affairs. Despite the claims of rabid nationalists and theocrats, God has not decreed that their nation should rule the world.  Instead, an institution representing all nations should speak for the international community.

    Based on this recognition―one helped along by two world wars―numerous governments reluctantly agreed in the twentieth century to develop the League of Nations and, when this new institution proved too weak to be effective, the United Nations.  In the words of the UN charter, the United Nations was founded “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” as well as to “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,” “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained,” and “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”

    In the immediate aftermath of World War II―which left 60 million dead and a world in ruins―the governments of powerful nations paid lip service to the United Nations and to the international security system it represented.  Sometimes, they even fell into line with its decisions.

    But, unfortunately, they were soon back at their old game.  The United States and the Soviet Union occupied other nations, launched military invasions, and staged covert operations around the world in their bitter Cold War conflict with one another.  France fought vicious colonial wars to subdue independence struggles in Indochina and Algeria.  Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt.  China annexed Tibet and invaded India and Vietnam.  India and Pakistan squared off to fight numerous border wars.  In the context of this persistent flouting of international law by the great powers and some others, the United Nations managed to remain the conscience of the world and to engage in humanitarian projects, but was gradually drained of its power to enforce world security.

    Clearly, this is a profoundly dangerous situation, especially when the nations of the world spend $1.75 trillion a year on war and preparations for war.  An array of global problems―including not only national insecurity, but climate change, disease, and poverty―cry out for global solutions.  But we are not likely to see these solutions in a world of international anarchy, one in which the “national interest” continues to trump the human interest.

    It’s time―indeed, long past time―for governments to strengthen the United Nations and, as Pope Francis has reminded us, to respect its authority as the voice of the world community.

  • The Marshall Islands Will Not Give Up

    For Immediate Release

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

    The Marshall Islands will not give up
    The Marshall Islands files Opposition to U.S. motion to dismiss Nuclear Zero lawsuit.

    Santa Barbara –The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) continued its efforts to compel the United States government to comply with its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), asking a Federal Court judge to reject the U.S. government’s claim that the treaty cannot be enforced.

    On April 24, 2014, the Marshall Islands filed a lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court, alleging the United States has violated its moral and legal obligations under the NPT by refusing to negotiate in good faith toward complete nuclear disarmament.

    On July 21, the U.S. responded to these allegations by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the issue of U.S. compliance with the treaty is not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. The U.S. position fundamentally asks the Court to look the other way or, otherwise interpreted, takes the position that the U.S. is above the law.

    Yesterday, the RMI filed an Opposition to the U.S. motion to dismiss, explaining why the Court cannot and should not look the other way.

    “If the United States’ position is that in treaty disputes ‘might makes right,’ then I ask you, what does it mean—really—when a nation enters into a treaty with the United States?” said Laurie Ashton, attorney with the law firm Keller Rohrback LLP who serves as lead council for the Marshall Islands. “And what does the United States’ position say about its attempts to enforce other treaties, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention (recently against Syria), or, even more recently, the United States’ allegation that Russia is in breach of certain cruise missile test bans?”

    The Opposition filed by the Marshall Islands explains, among other points:

    • The Marshall Islands is not asking the Court to decide whether the United States should enter into the NPT, or whether the NPT is a good or a bad treaty for the United States. Instead, the Marshall Islands makes the legally grounded argument that while the Non-Proliferation Treaty is in effect and the U.S. is a party to it, there is no choice but for the U.S. to comply with it.
    • Prior rulings in U.S. courts make it clear that it is the courts that determine compliance with the law, not the Executive.
    • The U.S. Constitution says “ALL” treaties are the supreme law of this nation. Not just some treaties, or the treaties the current President happens to prefer at any particular time.
    • The NPT is a treaty, and under the plain language of our Constitution, the federal courts are charged with interpreting it, and resolving disputes involving it, such as this dispute.

    “The U.S. position in this suit has very poor implications for treaty enforcement—and those implications affect us all,” said Ashton.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) is a consultant to the Marshall Islands on the legal and moral issues involved in bringing this case.

    David Krieger, President of NAPF, commented, “The Marshall Islands is a small, gutsy country. It is not a country that will be bullied, nor is it one that will give up. It knows what is at stake with nuclear weapons and is fighting in the courtroom for humanity’s survival. The people of the Marshall Islands deserve our support and appreciation for taking this fight into U.S. Federal Court and to the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world. In similar lawsuits filed in the International Court of Justice, the RMI has sued all nine nuclear-armed countries for breaching their nuclear disarmament obligations.”

    The RMI was used as the testing ground for 67 nuclear tests conducted by the United States from 1946 to 1958. These tests – equivalent to 1.7 Hiroshima bombs being exploded daily for 12 years – resulted in lasting health and environmental problems for the Marshall Islanders. The RMI Nuclear Zero lawsuit against the U.S. seeks no compensation, but rather, seeks action to commence and conclude negotiations for complete nuclear disarmament by 2020, thus ending the nuclear weapons threat for all humanity, now and in the future.

    Tony de Brum, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Marshall Islands, emphasizes that the Marshallese people “have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damage of these weapons, and we vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again experience these atrocities.”

    To read the Opposition in its entirety, visit www.wagingpeace.org/documents/rmi-response.pdf. For the latest updates on the Nuclear Zero lawsuit, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

    #                 #            #

    For further information, or if you would like to interview David Krieger or Laurie Ashton, 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.

  • The Atomic Bomb, Then and Now

    Dennis Kucinich - Frank Kelly LectureThis article was originally published by the Huffington Post.

    Sixty-nine years ago, the United States dropped the first atomic bombs on Japan — Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 — killing over a quarter of a million people.

    General Dwight D. Eisenhower and other government leaders said at the time that the atomic bomb was not necessary militarily and that Japan was already facing certain defeat by the US and the Soviet Union.

    Despite these warnings, the bombs were used and were wrongfully credited with ending the war. The atomic bomb ushered in an age of warfare that gave nations the ability to annihilate other nations and to commit environmental suicide, as Jonathan Schell related in his masterpiece The Fate of the Earth.

    The ability to split the atom also legitimatized a nuclear industry which poisons our land and our water as shown in the new documentary film Hot Water, produced by Liz Rogers and Elizabeth Kucinich, which will be released late 2014.

    Two years ago, Congress brought forward a proposal to create a new national park to honor those who developed the bomb. I opposed the bill because I felt the effects of the bomb were nothing to celebrate or glorify and was instrumental in the proposal’s defeat in the House in 2012. A transcript of the debate in the house can be found here. In the 2014 Congress, this bill (S. 507 by Senator Cantwell) passed the House, but is unlikely to pass the Senate.

    Our problem isn’t simply our nuclear past, but is our present addiction to nuclear weapons which threaten humanity’s future. Professor Francis A. Boyle observed that in 2013 the Obama administration changed the United States nuclear posture. The United States has historically positioned its nuclear arsenal for the purposes of “deterrence,” yet under President Obama’s administration they are for brandishing. “In today’s security environment” the United States now reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against any country (first strike policy).

    Lest anyone forget that nuclear is a big business, the United States is the leader in the global nuclear energy market. Nuclear energy technology is one of our biggest exports and is promoted as a boon to the environment, forget Fukushima. Forget that dozens of nuclear reactors in the US are operating way past their original licensing permits and that the aging reactor vessels are in late stages of embrittlement.

    Forget that nuclear utilities are pleading with Wall Street to give them a break. We have come full circle, back to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the United States struck first with nuclear weapons. The most recent nuclear posture, the White House claimed, is necessary to eventually get rid of nuclear weapons! Read Professor Boyle’s analysis and the White House document.

    During this time of commemoration of man’s inhumanity, visited upon the people of Japan three generations ago, let us resolve that we shall demand leaders who will resist the impulse to solve political and security problems through weapons of mass destruction.

    Such leaders already exist in an organization known as the Parliamentarians for Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament, or PNND. Additionally, The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation promotes citizen action for nuclear abolition.

    We must work together to support all efforts to get rid of nuclear weapons, not through appeals to violence but through the instinct to celebrate life. Let us find a path to love so that we can dismantle the destructive forces within our own hearts, which paralyze any sense of compassion necessary for the survival of all life on this planet. Let us build technologies for sustainability, and peace.

  • 2014 Nagasaki Peace Declaration

    Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue delivers thAt this precise moment, 69 years ago, the sky over this hill was covered with a pitch black nuclear cloud. The single atomic bomb, dropped by a United States bomber, blew away houses and engulfed the city in flames. Many fled for their lives through streets littered with charred bodies. 74,000 precious lives were lost to the terrible blast, heat rays and radiation. A further 75,000 people were wounded. Those who narrowly survived were inflicted with deep mental and physical wounds that will never heal, even though 69 years have now passed.

    Today, there are more than 16,000 nuclear warheads in existence. The hibakusha, atomic bomb survivors, who personally know the horror of nuclear weapons, have continued to desperately warn us that they must never be used again. The hibakusha and their appeal have prevented the repeated use of nuclear weapons since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    What would happen to the world if nuclear weapons were to be used in war today?
    In February, the “Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons” was held in Mexico. There, representatives of 146 states examined the impact of nuclear weapons from various perspectives, such as the human body, the economy, the environment, and the climate. Their findings revealed just how inhumane these weapons are, and they made terrifying predictions regarding the consequences of a nuclear war. Not only would it be impossible to save the injured, but the advent of a “nuclear winter” would cause food supplies to run out. This means that more than 2 billion people around the world would starve.

    Nuclear weapons are a continuing danger that threatens the present and future of our entire world. The terror that they bring is not confined to Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s past.

    The nations which are focusing on the inhumanity of these weapons have begun to consider treaties, such as a nuclear weapons convention, which would have them banned. However, nuclear weapon states, and those that are under a nuclear umbrella, have been unable to relinquish the idea that they can protect their national security with nuclear weapons. They are attempting to postpone the ban. If we cannot overcome this opposition, then next year’s “Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)”, which is held every 5 years, will come to nothing.

    I appeal to the nuclear weapon states, and to all states that are under a nuclear umbrella, to take the first step in overcoming this conflict. I ask that you create a forum for discussion with those countries which seek to legally ban nuclear weapons. Please discuss what has to be done, and by when, in order to realize a “world without nuclear weapons”. As the country that best understands the inhumanity of nuclear weapons, I ask that the government of Japan take the lead in these efforts.

    One regional method of protecting the future from nuclear war is the creation of “Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones”. Currently, more than half of our Earth’s landmass is already covered by such a Zone. I suggest that along with enacting the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, Japan should investigate a “plan for a Northeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone”. This would be one method for protecting the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Japan from nuclear weapons. The leaders of more than 500 Japanese local governing bodies support this concept, and this circle of agreement will continue to grow.

    Due to the debate over the right to collective self-defense, there are currently many opinions being exchanged regarding ways to guarantee Japan’s national security as a “Nation of Peace”.

    Nagasaki has continued to cry, “No more Nagasaki!” and “No more war!” The oath prescribed in the Japanese Constitution that Japan shall “renounce war” is the founding principle for post-war Japan and Nagasaki; a country and a city which suffered the atomic bomb.

    The hibakusha have continued to communicate this principle of pacifism by speaking of their personal experiences. However, the rushed debate over collective self-defense has given rise to the concern that this principle is wavering. I urgently request that the Japanese government take serious heed of these distressed voices.

    In Nagasaki, young people are thinking about nuclear weapons for themselves, conducting discussions, and initiating new activities. Our university students have begun spreading networks overseas. Our high school students have collected over one million signatures for a petition which they presented to the United Nations calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. These high school students have a motto; “We are weak but not powerless”. These words remind us that civic society, which is made up of many individuals, is a source of great strength. As a member of civic society, we, Nagasaki, will increase the number of our partners and continue our activities towards realizing a world free of nuclear weapons. We will join forces with NGOs, and cooperate with the UN and other countries that share our goal. Citizens of the world, let us give the next generation a “world without nuclear weapons”.

    Three years have passed since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc. Even today, there are many people being forced to live their lives in unease. Nagasaki continues to provide various forms of support to Fukushima in the hope that the region will achieve full recovery as soon as possible.

    Next year will be the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the hibakusha continue to age, we desire support befitting their present situation, such as improvement of the recognition system for atomic bomb diseases.

    We pray that between now and the 70th anniversary that we will make great advances towards our goal, which is shared by all peace-loving people, to achieve “a world without nuclear weapons”. We also offer our most heartfelt condolences to those who lost their lives to the atomic bomb.

    I declare that together with the city of Hiroshima, we shall continue to strive to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, and to achieve everlasting world peace.

  • 2014 Hiroshima Peace Declaration

    hiroshimaSummer, 69 years later. The burning sun takes us back to “that day.” August 6, 1945. A single atomic bomb renders Hiroshima a burnt plain. From infants to the elderly, tens of thousands of innocent civilians lose their lives in a single day. By the end of the year, 140,000 have died. To avoid forgetting that sacred sacrifice and to prevent a repetition of that tragedy, please listen to the voices of the survivors.

    Approximately 6,000 young boys and girls died removing buildings for fire lanes. One who was a 12-year-old junior high student at the time says, “Even now, I carry the scars of war and that atomic bombing on my body and in my heart. Nearly all my classmates were killed instantly. My heart is tortured by guilt when I think how badly they wanted to live and that I was the only one who did.” Having somehow survived, hibakusha still suffer from severe physical and emotional wounds.

    “Water, please.” Voices from the brink of death are still lodged in the memory of a boy who was 15 and a junior high student. The pleas were from younger students who had been demolishing buildings. Seeing their badly burned, grotesquely swollen faces, eyebrows and eyelashes singed off, school uniforms in ragged tatters due to the heat ray, he tried to respond but was stopped.

    “‘Give water when they’re injured that bad and they’ll die, boy,’ so I closed my ears and refused them water. If I had known they were going to die anyway, I would have given them all the water they wanted.” Profound regret persists.

    People who rarely talked about the past because of their ghastly experiences are now, in old age, starting to open up. “I want people to know the true cruelty of war,” says an A-bomb orphan. He tells of children like himself living in a city of ashes, sleeping under bridges, in the corners of burned-out buildings, in bomb shelters, having nothing more than the clothes on their backs, stealing and fighting to eat, not going to school, barely surviving day to day working for gangsters.

    Immediately after the bombing, a 6-year-old first grader hovered on the border between life and death. Later, she lived a continual fearful struggle with radiation aftereffects. She speaks out now because, “I don’t want any young people to go through that experience.” After an exchange with non-Japanese war victims, she decided to convey the importance of “young people making friends around the world,” and “unceasing efforts to build, not a culture of war, but a culture of peace.”

    The “absolute evil” that robbed children of loving families and dreams for the future, plunging their lives into turmoil, is not susceptible to threats and counter-threats, killing and being killed. Military force just gives rise to new cycles of hatred. To eliminate the evil, we must transcend nationality, race, religion, and other differences, value person-to-person relationships, and build a world that allows forward-looking dialogue.

    Hiroshima asks everyone throughout the world to accept this wish of the hibakusha and walk with them the path to nuclear weapons abolition and world peace.

    Each one of us will help determine the future of the human family. Please put yourself in the place of the hibakusha. Imagine their experiences, including that day from the depths of hell, actually happening to you or someone in your family. To make sure the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki never happen a third time, let’s all communicate, think and act together with the hibakusha for a peaceful world without nuclear weapons and without war.

    We will do our best. Mayors for Peace, now with over 6,200 member cities, will work through lead cities representing us in their parts of the world and in conjunction with NGOs and the UN to disseminate the facts of the bombings and the message of Hiroshima. We will steadfastly promote the new movement stressing the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and seeking to outlaw them. We will help strengthen international public demand for the start of negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention with the goal of total abolition by 2020.

    The Hiroshima Statement that emerged this past April from the ministerial meeting of the NPDI (Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative) called on the world’s policymakers to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Obama and all leaders of nuclear-armed nations, please respond to that call by visiting the A-bombed cities as soon as possible to see what happened with your own eyes.

    If you do, you will be convinced that nuclear weapons are an absolute evil that must no longer be allowed to exist. Please stop using the inhumane threat of this absolute evil to defend your countries. Rather, apply all your resources to a new security system based on trust and dialogue.

    Japan is the only A-bombed nation. Precisely because our security situation is increasingly severe, our government should accept the full weight of the fact that we have avoided war for 69 years thanks to the noble pacifism of the Japanese Constitution. We must continue as a nation of peace in both word and deed, working with other countries toward the new security system. Looking toward next year’s NPT Review Conference, Japan should bridge the gap between the nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states to strengthen the NPT regime. In addition, I ask the government to expand the “black rain areas” and, by providing more caring assistance, show more compassion for the hibakusha and all those suffering from the effects of radiation.

    Here and now, as we offer our heartfelt consolation to the souls of those sacrificed to the atomic bomb, we pledge to join forces with people the world over seeking the abolition of the absolute evil, nuclear weapons, and the realization of lasting world peace.

  • A Small Republic with Big Principles

    Robert LaneyWhen one is called upon to speak on Sadako Peace Day concerning the necessity of peace in the nuclear age, what can one say that has not been said many times before by speakers more knowledgeable and eloquent than oneself? In this connection I am fortunate that the year 2014 is witnessing a little publicized but unique and potentially historic development in the long campaign for nuclear disarmament. But before we discuss this development, let us consider the meaning of Sadako Peace Day and our purpose in gathering at this lovely spot every year on August 6th.

    Of course you know that August 6, 1945 was the day that the U. S. Army Air Corps dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This was the first use of this new and most dreadful form of weaponry in war. Please forgive a few gruesome statistics which I hope will add some context to our gathering today. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima caused approximately 90,000 deaths immediately and an additional 50,000 deaths by the end of the year. You also know that three days later on August 9th, the Army Air Corps dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki. This bombing caused approximately 40,000 deaths immediately and an additional 35,000 deaths by the end of the year.

    [Parenthetically you may not realize that during the three day period between these two events, the victorious allies in Europe – the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France – agreed to put certain Nazi leaders on trial at Nuremberg for war crimes. Whether the irony of this timing occurred to any of the allies at the time is a question I shall leave to the historians.]

    In any case at the time of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, a little two-year-old girl by the name of Sadako Sasaki was living in the city with her family. Although Sadako was not overtly hurt at the time of the bombing, nine years later in November of 1954 she developed swellings on her neck and behind her ears. By January of 1955 purple spots had formed on her legs. By February Sadako, then age 12, had been diagnosed with leukemia and was hospitalized at the Red Cross Hospital in Hiroshima. During that summer Sadako’s best friend came to visit her. Her friend brought a square piece of gold paper and reminded Sadako of the ancient Japanese legend that promises to anyone who folds a thousand paper cranes that she will be granted a wish. So Sadako began folding cranes. On one of the cranes she wrote the words, “I shall write peace on their wings, and they will fly all over the world.” The story goes that Sadako was able to fold 644 cranes before she passed away in October of that year at the age of 12. Her many friends and schoolmates then took upon themselves to complete the 1,000 cranes and buried them with her.

    Sadako was among many Japanese citizens, especially children, who developed leukemia after the atomic bombings. By the early 1950s it was clear that this unusually high incidence of leukemia had been caused by radiation exposure.

    Today there is a statue of Sadako at the Peace Park in Hiroshima which depicts her holding a golden paper crane. At the foot of the statue is a plaque that reads: “This is our cry. This is our prayer. Peace in the world.” Sadako’s story is famous among the Japanese, who regard her as a symbol of all the children who died from the effects of the atomic bombs. Today people all over Japan celebrate August 6th as their annual peace day. We at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation believe it only fitting that we follow their example by gathering at this little peace park for our own remembrance of those events and to ponder their meaning for us today.

    Of course many of the survivors of the atomic bombs are still living today. In Japan these survivors are known as “Hibakusha,” which means “explosion-affected people.” Some of these Hibakusha have devoted their lives to raising public awareness of the dangers of nuclear war and of the potential effects of nuclear weapons. [If there are any Hibakusha here today, would you please rise so that we may recognize you and express our appreciation?]

    Now let me explain why I believe the abolition of nuclear weapons is so important. In a nutshell, I believe that a world without nuclear weapons – a world of “Nuclear Zero,” as we say at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation – would be far more safe and secure for everyone than the world we live in today. It seems to me that this proposition is unassailable because there is no threat that any nation faces from any other nation or group for which the use of nuclear weapons would not make the problem worse – far worse – even for the nation using the weapons. Let me repeat: a world with zero nuclear weapons would be far more safe and secure for everyone than the world we live in today.

    This brings me to my second proposition: nuclear weapons are simply too dangerous to be in the possession of fallible human beings. We all know that military forces, like all human organizations, are prone to accidents, mistakes, misperceptions, and mental and emotional disorders. The recent destruction of the civilian airliner over eastern Ukraine is only one of a long train of tragic examples that we could point to. To mention a comparable tragedy, in 1988 the U.S. Navy destroyed a civilian airliner by mistake over the Persian Gulf, causing a total loss of life similar to that in the Ukraine tragedy. With respect to nuclear weapons, for those who are not convinced that we are living on borrowed time after a series of narrowly averted catastrophes during the nuclear age, the history to read is Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. In our hubris as a society and as a species, we are living with the illusion that human beings have a god-like capacity to maintain and deploy nuclear weapons without serious risk of accidents, mistakes, misperceptions, and mental and emotional disorders.

    Now let me switch gears and tell you about a small but proud nation in the northwestern Pacific known as the Republic of the Marshall Islands. This small island nation consists of 24 coral atolls and is home to approximately 70,000 people. During the 12-year period from 1946 through 1958 the U. S. Government used the Marshall Islands as a testing ground, first for atomic weapons, and later for far more powerful thermonuclear weapons. During this period the Government exploded a total of 67 of these weapons in the Marshall Islands. The horrific environmental and health effects of these tests are still a daily experience for many in these Islands today.

    Fast forward to 1962, when the Cuban missile crisis brought the United States and the Soviet Union so close to nuclear war that they saw the need to bring this potentially catastrophic risk under control. The result was a grand, worldwide treaty, imprecisely known as the “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” which came into force in 1970. By this Treaty the great majority of nations of the world promised not to seek or acquire nuclear weapons. Further, those nations and the few nations then in possession of nuclear weapons – the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China – agreed to negotiate in good faith to terminate the nuclear arms race and to eliminate nuclear weapons from the planet.

    Now, 44 years later, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a state party to the Treaty, is standing up to the nuclear giants and by its actions is saying to them,

    “Enough is enough. More than forty years ago you, the nuclear giants, promoted and engineered this grand bargain by which the nations without nuclear weapons agreed not to seek or acquire them, and in return you promised to negotiate for nuclear disarmament. Now after more than four decades, the world still waits for these negotiations to begin. Having kept our end of the bargain, we the Republic of the Marshall Islands are taking action against you, the nuclear giants, by initiating lawsuits in the International Court of Justice by which we seek to hold you accountable for your respective failures to negotiate for nuclear disarmament. For jurisdictional purposes we also have initiated a separate lawsuit against the United States in U.S. federal court in San Francisco. Although Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are not parties to this Treaty, we also have initiated lawsuits against them in the International Court of Justice for their failures to negotiate for nuclear disarmament as required by customary international law. The time has come for you to answer in court for your failures to negotiate for disarmament. We seek no financial compensation from these legal proceedings. We seek only that you be required by the courts to perform your end of the bargain, that is, to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament.”

    That is the effective message of the Republic of the Marshall Islands to the nuclear giants. These lawsuits may seem like something out of Don Quixote – a small country challenging the nuclear giants in courts of law over their failures to negotiate for disarmament. Can small countries really do this? We shall see; like the Apollo moon landings, lawsuits like these have never been attempted before. But when the vast majority of countries enter into a grand bargain in which they promise not to acquire nuclear weapons, and in return the relatively few nuclear giants promise to negotiate for nuclear disarmament, and then more than four decades pass without negotiations for disarmament, to what institutions can the non-nuclear countries turn for help other than the courts? Is enforcing bargains, even grand, multi-national treaties, not a role of the courts? If not, then what is the value of this Treaty, or for that matter any treaty, in world affairs? Our Government likes to speak of “the rule of law” as a necessary feature of a free and just society. And yet if nations do not allow courts of law to judge their performance of their mutual legal obligations, then what does that imply for the rule of law among nations? And in the case of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, what would that imply for the long-term survival of our species?

    Of course challenging the nuclear giants in court over their failures to negotiate for disarmament would entail political and economic risks for any country, large or small. No country can afford to challenge the nuclear giants lightly on such a sensitive and emotional issue. Therefore we at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, with our long-standing commitment to the universal, transparent, irreversible, and verifiable abolition of nuclear weapons from the planet, are especially proud to associate ourselves with this small Republic’s historic and courageous challenge to the continuing possession of nuclear weapons by a very few rogue nations.

    As you surely recognize, there is a sense in which the Marshall Islands represent not only their own citizens by these lawsuits, but in the final analysis all of humankind. When the Republic filed these lawsuits on April 24th, their Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tony de Brum, said, “Our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damage of these weapons, and we vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again experience these atrocities.” Although the Republic will receive no thanks from the nuclear giants, the rest of us may wish to convey to the Republic our humble gratitude, our admiration, and our moral support. And we might ponder what the example of this small republic with big principles can teach us about moral courage, leadership, the rule of law, and perhaps even the survival of our species.

    For your information the Foundation seeks to keep you current on the progress of these lawsuits through the Foundation’s website wagingpeace.org. In addition the Foundation has established another website, nuclearzero.org, which is dedicated solely to these lawsuits and invites you to sign a petition by which you may register your support. Of course if you have questions, please ask a member of the Staff, myself, or another member of the Board. Based upon our experience since the Marshall Islands filed these lawsuits on April 24th, you should not rely upon the major U.S. news media to keep you informed. Why this should be, I shall leave for you to determine.

    Many thanks for your kind attention.

  • Poems from 2014 Sadako Peace Day

    Below are the poems that were read as part of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 20th Annual Sadako Peace Day event on August 6, 2014 at La Casa de Maria Retreat Center in Montecito, California.

    World Peace
    by Tony Johansen

    World Peace
    When it comes
    Will be like buttercups
    Blooming, one at a time
    In an endless field
    Until there are so many buttercups
    You can’t imagine anything else
    So many buttercups
    In a field so endless
    That the boots that are left
    Will be compelled to walk gently
    And when they can’t
    They’ll say, “I’m sorry.”

    I Dream of Sadako
    by Susanna Johansen

    Lovely little girl
    delicate and graceful hands
    dark and shining eyes
    cheerful yet resolute –
    Death marches toward you
    and is slowed
    by the power of your intention
    as you fold paper
    into wings that fly.
    I like to imagine
    that I had no part
    in this drama
    which took place
    before my birth.
    I am from the land of Harry Truman.
    He spoke of his wife with honest admiration.
    He had a way of making a tuxedo look
    as comfortable as an old flannel shirt.
    It makes me feel better
    to imagine
    that we are good people
    who only go to war
    for good reasons.
    Sweet girl,
    I saw you in my dream last night.
    Your legs went weak beneath you
    and suddenly you sat down
    on the soft earth.
    You were amazed to look around you
    and notice
    in the last moments of your life,
    that the world was illuminated
    by a glow the color of rose quartz.
    “Do you see the light?”
    you asked.
    And we stepped toward you
    Silently imploring,
    asking you to stay.
    Your eyes were bright
    and full of forgiveness.
    “The love light is so beautiful,”
    you said with amazement.
    “Do not turn off the light.”

    CRANES on Sadako Peace Day
    by Bettina T. Barrett

    A crane   an orange paper crane
    I folded almost ten years ago
    to celebrate my 75th birthday
    now sits beside the figure of
    a meditating cat
    this crane in memory
    of a poet-friend who died
    and left me feeling very alone

    there are certain mornings when a shaft
    of sunlight strikes this crane
    lights up her color   that orange
    of fire  of dawn’s breaking

    and again I do the folding
    of words   of thoughts that fly
    attach themselves to trees
    gracefully drape over bushes  colors
    of rainbows   a thousand cranes folded
    the fingers of hope
    each one of us spread wide

    I look at my crane
    I look at all these cranes
    and see them again and again
    how that once-oh-so-bright-flare
    of light hit the ground   that heat
    that fire   that giant wound opened –
    and still it burns

    so I take the piece of paper
    fold and fold with now-stiffened fingers ….

    Intelligent Life
    by David Krieger

    When considering the possibilities
    of finding intelligent life in the universe
    I struggle not to become cynical
    and blurt out: shouldn’t we be searching
    for it here on our planet?  I refrain,
    for surely there is intelligent life on Earth.
    It can be found in the songs of birds,
    in the roar of lions, in the conversations
    of dolphins.  It can also be found
    in the songs and dances and literature
    of humans. I want to scream, it is here,
    here on Earth.  We’ve come so far,
    there’s no acceptable reason we won’t
    keep going, no reason we can’t solve
    the great problems that are engulfing us.
    Our ancestors solved problems far
    more difficult than the splitting of the atom
    or the extraction of fossil fuels from the earth.
    They tamed fire, invented the wheel,
    sailed across oceans navigating by the stars.
    Yes, there is intelligent life here,
    embedded in our history and our brains,
    intelligent life that just might see us through
    if we can keep our cynicism in check and
    our hope alive.