Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Eliminating War to Eradicate Polio

    This article was originally published by Common Dreams.

    Robert DodgePolio, once a global scourge, was on the verge of eradication in 2012. Since that time, it has reemerged as a global public health emergency according to the World Health Organization. Why has it now spread from its final strongholds in Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan to at least 10 countries spanning Asia, Africa and the Middle East? It is not because of changes in the virus or ineffective vaccines. The answer is war, and as we all know, “truth is the first casualty of war.”

    The Taliban claims that immunizations can cause infertility or worse, and violently obstructs the polio vaccinators while vilifying them as part of a U.S. plot. In years past, the U.S. CIA did a great disservice when it disguised its officers as polio vaccine workers in efforts to capture Bin Laden, which has given fuel to the Taliban in its initiatives.

    Efforts to reclaim the momentum in eradicating polio will require a renewed global effort, and ultimately the elimination of war itself. In our ever shrinking world, it is only a matter of time before we see this scenario play out with a resurgence of polio in the U.S. and West as more and more young families avoid vaccinating their children against polio thinking it is a disease of generations past and in some cases a disease they have never heard of.

    How and where will the global effort to eliminate war in order to eradicate polio arise?

    There may be no organization in the world better suited to take on the challenge than Rotary International with its longstanding mission of peace and peace building, and a dedicated membership of 1.2 million Rotarians joined together in service work though Rotary clubs in 220 countries of the world including China and Russia.

    In our nuclear-armed, polio-infected world, President Kennedy’s statement that “mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind” remains true today.

    We must not be naïve in this effort. Self defense and international peacekeeping will always be needed. Peacekeeping and preventing war is much harder than fighting war.

    There will always be conflict – it is the tools of resolving conflict without war that must become the cultural norms. These are tools that already exist and that have been used to resolve every conflict that has ever been fought. These include:

    1. Diplomacy;
    2. Cooperation and collaboration on international programs like polio eradication;
    3. Appropriate foreign aid emphasizing the meeting of essential human needs of food, water, shelter, education, health care and a healthy environment and, finally;
    4. Adherence to international law, not unilateral action.

    We must abandon unexamined assumptions. Assumptions that war will always exist, that we can continue to wage war and survive, and that we are separate and not connected. When we awaken to the reality of interconnectedness we see that polio cannot be eradicated without ending war.

    As a ground up organization, Rotary International has had a university level peace fellows program for over 10 years pursuing understanding and international peace building. Individual Rotarians joined together to form a growing and active Rotarian Action Group for Peace in 2012. Eliminating nuclear weapons is an important step in this process. The Rotary Action Group for Peace has collaborated with the Nobel Peace Prize group Physicians for Social Responsibility and their international affiliate International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War to educate on the humanitarian consequences of even a very limited nuclear war. This has resulted in developing an international physician Rotary speaker’s bureau of 79 physicians in 21 countries speaking and engaging Rotary clubs the world over.

    This type of remarkable collaboration may be just the prescription for our very survival.

  • France Responds to Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    french_flagOver the past few weeks, French elected officials have posed questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands in April 2014. France is one of nine countries being sued by the Marshall Islands for failure to negotiate for nuclear disarmament.

    The three French politicians are all members of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND). PNND is a non-partisan forum for parliamentarians nationally and internationally to share resources and information, develop cooperative strategies and engage in nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament issues, initiatives and arenas.

    For more information on the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

    Written Question 55528 (National Assembly)
    Mme Danielle Auroi, Green Party
    Original French Version

    Question (published on May 13, 2014): Ms. Danielle Auroi asks for the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on the case filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands.  This island nation served as a site of nuclear tests starting in the 1950s.  Over a period of twelve years, 67 nuclear tests were carried out there by the United States.  Many of the inhabitants of this archipelago still suffer from high levels of radiation.  Rather than demand compensation, on April 24 2014 the Republic of the Marshall Islands chose to file a case in the International Court of Justice for “flagrant violations” of international law against the nine nuclear weapons states, including France.  Notably, the Republic of the Marshall Islands accuses France of neglecting its nuclear disarmament obligations agreed to in 1992 by ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Also, she asks how France will respond to these allegations and by extension how it plans to ensure compliance with its nuclear disarmament obligations, in accordance with Article VI of the NPT.

    Answer (published on June 3, 2014): France has noted the request introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice.  It is currently examining the next steps to take.  France is committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a fundamental instrument in collective security, and its Article VI on disarmament which it (France) fully complies with.  It frequently presents in international gatherings the measures it has taken to carry it (the treaty) out effectively, unilaterally and in the framework of international treaties such as the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which it (France) ratified.  It has, for example, at the recent preparatory committee for the Examination Conference of 2015, made public a report published by the United Nations presenting in detail and full transparency its doctrine and its track record in nuclear disarmament.  It will continue to do so at the next session of the UN General Assembly and, most certainly, at the NPT Examination Conference next year in New York.  Acting on this track record, do note that France possesses today less than 300 nuclear warheads and no arms in reserve.  This number translates into a very significant reduction of French forces due to the evolution of the strategic context.  France has thereby diminished by half its arsenal in nearly 20 years.  It is the first nation not only to cease producing fissile materials for its arms but also to dismantle its production installations.  France sees the ban on fissile material production for arms as the next step in nuclear disarmament and has made ambitious proposals for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament at the international level in this vein.

     

    Written Question 11666 (Senate)
    M. Richard Tuheiava, Socialist Party
    Original French Version

    Question (published May 15, 2014): Mr. Richard Tuheiva asks for the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on the legal case introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against France before the International Court of Justice for “flagrant violations” of international law.  On April 24 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed a case against the nine UN-member nuclear weapons states, including France, which possesses an arsenal of under 300 nuclear warheads.  The government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands is thereby accusing France of not respecting its nuclear disarmament obligations, according to its 1992 promise made by ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, via Article 6, requires it to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures to cease the nuclear arms race at an early date and on nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty for general and total disarmament under strict and effective international control.”  France has not respected this obligation and, as the judicial inquiry by the Marshal Islands makes clear, is tirelessly pursuing the modernization of its arsenal through nuclear simulation programs and M51 ballistic missiles.  This modernization process goes against the spirit and the letter of the NPT.  Upon examination of the introductory document to the case filed by the Republic of the MarshalI Islands, it appears that it does not seek financial compensation from these proceedings, but that it is asking the International Court of Justice to order France “to take all necessary measures to meet, within a year from the pronouncement of the judgment, the obligations due according to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law, among which are pursuing good faith negotiations, so as necessary in engaging them to conclude a convention on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects effected under strict and effective international control.”  He asks therefore what judicial and diplomatic follow-up the Government plans to give before this accusation by the small Pacific state.

    Answer (published June 26, 2014): France has noted the request introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice.  It is currently examining the next steps to take.  France is committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a fundamental instrument in collective security, and its Article VI on disarmament which it (France) fully complies with.  France has also subscribed to resolution 1887 of the Security Council made on September 24 2009, which commits “to work towards a world more secure for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the objectives stated in the NPT, in a manner that promotes international stability, and on the basis of the principal of security undiminished for all.”  France contributed greatly to efforts in the domain of nuclear disarmament.  It has taken unilateral decisions that led it, in nearly twenty years, to diminish its nuclear arsenal by half.  It possesses today less than 300 nuclear warheads and has no arms in reserve.  Furthermore, France was the first state not only to cease producing fissile materials for its arms, but also acted to irreversibly dismantle its production installations.  In a multilateral framework, France signed the Complete Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and was among the very first states to ratify this treaty.  In this framework, it put an end to nuclear tests and irreversibly dismantled its test center in the Pacific.  Finally, it pleads tirelessly in international meetings for the quick starting of negotiation for a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, which represents the logical next step in nuclear disarmament.  This treaty, which would quantitatively limit the development of nuclear weapons, would in effect complete the CTBT, which already imposes a qualitative limit to the development of nuclear arsenals.  None of the programs that the France has put into action to guarantee the security, feasibility, and maintenance of the capacities of its nuclear weapons contradict its international obligations. France abstains from developing new types of arms, or assigning new missions to its nuclear arms.

     

    Written Question 57699 (National Assembly)
    M. Philippe Plisson, Socialist Party
    Original French version

    Question (published June 17, 2014): Mr. Philippe Plisson asks for the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on the (legal) process set into motion by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against France in the International Court of Justice for “flagrant violations” of international law.  On April 24 2014 the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed a case against the nine nuclear weapons states, including France, which possesses an arsenal of less than 300 nuclear warheads. The Republic of the Marshall Islands is accusing France of not respecting its nuclear disarmament as promised in 1992 by ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which according to Article 6 commits “to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures to cease the nuclear arms race at an early date and on nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty for general and total disarmament under strict and effective international control.”  France has not respected this obligation and, as the judicial inquiry by the Marshal Islands makes clear, is tirelessly pursuing the modernization of its arsenal through nuclear simulation programs and M51 ballistic missiles. This modernization process also goes against the spirit and the letter of the NPT.  He asks what judicial and diplomatic follow-up France plans to do regarding this accusation.

    Answer (published July 22, 2014): France has taken note of the request introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice.  It is currently examining the next steps to take.  France is committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a fundamental instrument of collective security, and its Article VI on disarmament to which it (France) fully conforms.  Furthermore, France subscribed to Resolution 1887 of the Security Council on September 24, 2009 which requires it “to work towards a world more secure for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the objectives stated in the NPT, in a manner that promotes international stability, and on the basis of the principal of security undiminished for all.”  France has greatly contributed to efforts in the domain of nuclear disarmament.  It made unilateral decisions that lead it, in nearly twenty years, to diminish its nuclear arsenal by half.  Today France possesses less than 300 nuclear warheads and no weapons in reserve.  In addition, France was the first state to not only cease production of fissile materials for nuclear arms but also to set about irreversibly dismantling its production installations.  In a multilateral framework, France has signed the Complete Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and was among the very first states to ratify this treaty.  In this framework, it has put an end to nuclear tests and irreversibly dismantled its test center in the Pacific.  It pleads tirelessly in international meetings for the quick onset of the negotiation for a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear arms, which represents the next step in the matter of nuclear disarmament.  This treaty, which would limit the quantitative development of nuclear arms, would in effect complete the CTBT, which already poses a qualitative limit on the development of nuclear arsenals.  None of the programs that France is putting into action to guarantee the safety, the reliability and the maintenance of its nuclear arms contradicts its international obligations.  France has abstained from developing new types of arms, or assigning new missions to its nuclear arms.

     

    Translations to English by NAPF Intern Jeremie Robins.

  • Could We Stumble Into World War III?

    We’ve stumbled into war before.  We could certainly do it again.  But doing it in a world with nuclear weapons could be even more devastating than World War I or, for that matter, World War II.

    David KriegerI wrote the short poem below to mark the 100th anniversary on June 28th of the assassination that set in motion what became known as the “Great War” and later came to be referred to as World War I. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand should remind us how easy it is for leaders of countries to stumble into wars that no one seems to want, and the grave and unforeseen consequences of doing so.  The U.S. wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq also serve as good reminders, as should the civil wars now going on in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.  We should also not be complacent about the U.S.-Russia standoffs that occurred over the country of Georgia in the past and the one now unfolding over Ukraine.

    Since the possibility of stumbling into war is always with us, it seems foolish in the extreme to fail to do all in our power to eliminate nuclear weapons – as soon as possible.  The national leaders of nuclear-armed states are failing badly in this regard, despite their obligations under international law.  There is one country, however, that is doing all it can to move forward on fulfillment of the unkept promises and unmet obligations to achieve a Nuclear Zero world: that is, the small Pacific Island country of 70,000 inhabitants, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), whose people still suffer from 12 years of nuclear testing (1946 – 1958) and whose land remains contaminated by radioactive fallout.

    The world owes a collective debt of gratitude to the people and government of the RMI for bringing lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice, and a separate lawsuit against the United States in U.S. Federal District Court.  The RMI is acting on behalf of humanity.  It is not seeking monetary compensation for itself, but rather to assure that no other people now or in the future suffer as it has.  This small island country seeks to hold the nuclear-armed states accountable for breaching their obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law to pursue and complete negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. The Republic of the Marshall Islands deserves our support.  More information on these Nuclear Zero lawsuits can be found at www.nuclearzero.org.

    We have not had a nuclear war since nuclear weapons were used at the end of World War II, but that is no guarantee that there will not be one in the future.  So long as nuclear weapons exist, they pose a threat to the future of civilization and the human species. The possession of these weapons of mass annihilation is premised on nuclear deterrence, the threat of nuclear retaliation, but nuclear deterrence is not a law of nature.  It is a construct of humans, and it is subject to human failure in the same way that fallible humans have experienced major technological failures of nuclear reactors and have stumbled into past wars.  We are fallible creatures and we would be wise to eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us.

    ARCHDUKE FRANZ FERDINAND

    Archduke Franz Ferdinand
    with no troops at his command
    was brought down by an assassin’s hand.
    That’s how the war began.

    No one thought it would last long,
    but they were all sadly wrong,
    as with alliances and patriotic song
    they moved the war along.

    From the very start
    the men in trenches did their part
    until shot through the head or heart
    to be taken away on a medic’s cart.

    As history has taught before
    the fighting gave us only blood and gore.
    If not to stop the next great war,
    what are lessons for?

    One wonders if in time we’ll learn
    to put away our weapons, to discern
    the true value of a human life, to turn
    from war to peace before we burn.

    A century past the Archduke’s time
    the game of war is still a crime.
    A century past the Archduke’s time
    The arts of peace are still sublime.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).  He is the author of ZERO: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition.  He has written or edited many other books on achieving Nuclear Zero and several books of peace poetry.

  • July: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    July 1, 1946 – The U.S. conducted its first “peaceful” nuclear weapons test at Bikini Atoll – one of 315 nuclear test explosions by the U.S., U.K., and France during the half century, 1946-96 (the last atmospheric test was a French nuclear explosion on January 27, 1996), in the Pacific Region according to a 2014 report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).  Over this period of time, tens of thousands of Pacific Islanders were forcibly removed from their ancestral islands by the nuclear powers.  The resulting short- and long-term radioactive fallout from these tests have negatively impacted generations of these peoples.  (Source:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002.)

    July 2, 1945 – On this date, U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson’s memorandum to President Harry S. Truman concluded that, “…we have enormous factors in our favor and any step which can be taken to translate those advantages into a prompt and successful conclusion of the war should be taken.”  Stimson reiterated to President Truman his earlier belief that the Japanese would react positively to a warning or ultimatum for conditional surrender which also offered appropriate assurances that the Japanese emperor Hirohito (considered by almost the entirety of the Japanese people as the godhead of their Shinto religion – the 124th in direct line of descent from the sun goddess Amaterasu – in other words, a divine being or Son of Heaven) would not be charged with war crimes, deposed, or subjected to imprisonment or execution.   Also critical was the Emperor’s almost unprecedented secular intervention in the form of cables (intercepted and translated by the Allies) that were sent from the Japanese Foreign Minister Togo to Ambassador Sato in Moscow on July 13-14 which stated, “His Majesty, the Emperor…desires from his heart that it [the war] may be quickly terminated.”   These and related facts could have created momentum for the U.S. and its allies (with the possible exception of the Soviet Union which was bound by agreements signed with the U.S. and Britain to enter the war with Japan [which it did on August 8, 1945] spurred on in part by its desire to reacquire territory it lost in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War) to end the war with Japan before the August 6 and 9 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.   Instead, the excuse of dropping the bombs to prevent huge hypothetical casualties (both American and Japanese) in an upcoming invasion of Japan, an argument made largely irrelevant by the Soviet declaration of war against Imperial Japan, which convinced the Japanese that continued fighting was even more pointless, held sway both then and today.   The President, Secretary of State James Byrnes, Manhattan Project director General Leslie R. Groves, a majority of the Congress (incensed with the possibility that two billion dollars were spent for a superweapon that would not be used), and other hardliners felt it was essential to demonstrate the destructiveness of the Bomb and press America’s atomic diplomatic strength in its future postwar dealings with the Soviet Union.   (Source:  Gar Alperovitz.  “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of An American Myth.”  New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1995, pp. 35, 232-35, 667-68.)

    July 8, 1996 – The International Court of Justice, also known as The World Court, in The Hague, issued an advisory opinion that concluded that, “…the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and states are obliged to bring to a conclusion negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.”  In effect, the advisory opinion held that the entire nuclear deterrence system represented a war crime.  (Source:  International Court of Justice, The Hague, www.icj-cij.org accessed on June 9, 2014.)

    July 9, 1955 – The Bertrand Russell – Albert Einstein Manifesto was signed by the principal authors and nine other prominent world scientists including a total of nine Nobel Laureates.  It warned of “universal death by nuclear world war if war is not renounced.”  (Source:  Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. “The Untold History of the United States.”  New York:  Gallery Books, 2012.)

    July 16-22, 1994 – 21 fragments of the shattered comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, the largest of which was approximately 2.5 miles in diameter, impacted the planet Jupiter with an approach speed of sixty kilometers a second (130,000 miles-per-hour).  The explosions that followed were estimated to total in the range of six to twenty million megatons of TNT, hundreds of times more powerful than all of the world’s nuclear weapons.  Temperatures rose as high as the surface of the sun (10,000+ degrees centigrade) and fireballs 5,000 miles across spewed out through chimneys the comet fragments drilled into the gas giant planet’s atmosphere.   Comment:  In retrospect, humanity should realize that the tremendous chaos and violence of the Cosmos, including not only comet/asteroid impacts, but immense stellar explosions, entire galaxies wracked by deadly gamma ray bursts, and huge black holes and quasars, all pervade this gigantically large universe.  Cannot humans with their intellect, wisdom, and morality recognize that our planet was always meant to be an oasis from this violence.  That one purpose of our species’ evolution is to preserve, protect, and expand this zone of stability and peace.  For, in our ego and superego, should we choose nuclear violence, our intellect knows that our puny efforts pale before the violence of nature.  Therefore, we choose peace!  (Sources:  James R. Asker.  “Jupiter Comet is a Smash Hit.”  Aviation Week & Space Technology.  July 24, 1994, pp. 20-22, and James Reston, Jr. “Collision Course:  Jupiter is About to be Walloped by a Comet.”  Time, May 23, 1994, pp. 54-61.)

    July 20, 1969 – U.S. Apollo astronauts became the first humans to land on another heavenly body placing a plaque on the lunar surface that read, “We Came in Peace for All Mankind.”  Approximately a decade before this event, the U.S. Strategic Command’s General Thomas Power envisioned a Deep Space Force consisting of 20 manned spaceships armed with nuclear weapons to remain in orbit near the Moon for a period of several years.  The spaceships would be propelled by the detonation of small atomic bombs.  This proposal spawned a research and development program known as Project Orion (1958-65).  Although nuclear space weaponry was circumvented by U.S. negotiation, signature, and entry into force of the October 10, 1967 Outer Space Treaty, there are still active U.S. and other nations’ military plans to weaponize outer space.  Also, nuclear weapons are considered by some as a last ditch option to divert asteroids or comets that may one day threaten to collide with our planet. (Source:  Eric Schlosser.  “Command and Control:  Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.”  New York:  Penguin Press, 2013, p. 529.)

    July 29-30, 2009 – U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) held its First Annual Strategic Deterrence Symposium, “Waging Deterrence in the 21st Century” at the Qwest Center Convention Hall in Omaha, Nebraska.  Open source literature on these and subsequent U.S. military conferences have revealed that participants at such colloquia rarely consider the health, environmental, and global humanitarian impacts if deterrence, in fact, fails.  Deterrence, bolstered by nearly seventy years of “success” is usually considered so robust and flexible that failure is not considered a credible scenario.  However, human infallibility, when combined with the horrendously destructive nuclear force, is a prescription for unprecedented and possibly species-ending global disaster. (Source:  U.S. STRATCOM, www.stratcom.mil/events/ accessed June 9, 2014.)

  • Use of Pilotless Drones for Assassinations Violates the Rule of Law

    A secret US government legal memo, prepared for President Obama, was recently ordered to be released to the public by a Federal Court responding to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.  The Administration’s legal reasoning clearly fails to justify the use of pilotless drones, controlled by a killer operator, sitting behind a desk somewhere in the US, aiming his computer joy stick at  human targets on the ground,  thousands of miles away.  The heavily edited “legal” rationale has only highlighted the disgraceful lack of respect for the very laws and constitutional protections that America has always proclaimed as its unique contribution to world order and the advancement of civilization.

    More than 4,000 people have been murdered by drones, many of them civilians– old people, and children as well– in attacks aimed at people selected for assassination by the President of the United States in weekly meetings with intelligence and military officials without benefit of charges, evidence, or trial.   The President of the United States, a former Constitutional professor at one of America’s most prestigious schools of law, Harvard University, acts as judge, jury and executioner all in one—a terrible violation of the US Constitution’s promise to protect the rights of individuals.

    Shortly after the court-ordered release of the memo a new bipartisan commission of former military and security officials issues a report warning that US drone policy had put us on a “slippery slope” towards a proliferation of similar actions by other countries.  They made a whole series of recommendations to help America avoid “blowback” from its unregulated use of this lethal new technology, which is easily capable of being replicated by other countries who may wish to wreak similar harm and havoc upon the US.

    There is a growing lawlessness at the highest levels of government, justified by the criminal destruction of the World Trade towers in 2001.   Instead of treating that tragic catastrophe as a criminal act, punishable in a court of law, a phony “war on terror” was declared that enabled the obscene growth of the US military-industrial complex, and a flagrant disregard for traditional American rights.  With the continued incarceration of suspects in Guantanamo prison in Cuba, America has suspended the common law tradition of the ancient Magna Carta, in which it was held that the British king had no right to lock someone away in a dungeon and throw away the key without evidence, charges, and an opportunity for a trial. This latest secret memo, now partially revealed by a court decision, which attempts to justify illegal assassinations by drones, serves only to highlight how far America has strayed from its own ideals and professed respect for the rule of law.

  • U.S. Conference of Mayors Adopts Bold Resolution on Nuclear Disarmament

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

    U.S. Conference of Mayors Adopts Bold Resolution Calling for Constructive Good
    Faith U.S. Participation in International Nuclear Disarmament Forums; Commends Marshall Islands for bringing lawsuits against U.S. and 8 other Nuclear-Armed States

    Santa Barbara, CA – The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), a non-partisan association of America’s big cities, on June 23, 2014 unanimously adopted a sweeping new resolution Calling for Constructive Good Faith U.S. Participation in International Nuclear Disarmament Forums at its 82nd annual meeting in Dallas, Texas. According to USCM President Kevin Johnson, Mayor of Sacramento, California, “These resolutions, once adopted, become official USCM policy.”

    The resolution notes that on April 24, 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed landmark cases in the International Court of Justice against all nine nuclear-armed nations, claiming that they failed to comply with their obligations under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law to pursue negotiations for the global elimination of nuclear weapons. They also filed a companion case in U.S. Federal District Court.

    In its resolution, the USCM “commends the Marshall Islands for calling to the world’s attention the failure of the nine nuclear-armed states to comply with their international obligations and calls on the U.S. to respond constructively and in good faith to the lawsuits brought by the RMI.”

    The resolution states that “the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands continue to suffer from the health and environmental impacts of 67 above-ground nuclear weapons test explosions conducted by the U.S. in their islands between 1946 and 1958, the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima-sized bombs detonated daily for 12 years.”

    Upon hearing news of the USCM resolution, RMI foreign minister Tony de Brum stated, “We appreciate very much the US Conference of Mayors supporting our modest efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.  This endorsement is acknowledged with deep gratitude on behalf of the Government and the People of the Marshall Islands, and most especially those who have lost loved ones in the mad race for nuclear superiority, and those who continue to suffer the scourge of nuclear weapons testing in our homeland.”

    The U.S. based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a consultant to the Marshall Islands on the lawsuits. David Krieger, President of the Foundation, stated, “It is extremely reaffirming that the U.S. Conference of Mayors is supporting the Marshall Islands in its legal cases against the nine nuclear-armed nations. Their resolution reflects an understanding that every city in the world is a potential target for the devastation that would be wrought by the use of nuclear weapons.”

    Krieger continued, “We hope the U.S. government will take to heart this resolution and use this as an opportunity to move forward in fulfilling its legal and moral obligations to achieve nuclear disarmament.”

    Over the past three years there has been a new round of nuclear disarmament initiatives by governments not possessing nuclear weapons, both within and outside the United Nations. Yet the U.S. has been notably absent from this process. The USCM resolution calls on the U.S. administration to participate constructively in negotiations to achieve a nuclear weapons free world, noting that “forty-four years after the NPT entered into force, an estimated 16,400 nuclear weapons, most held by the U.S. and Russia, pose an intolerable threat to humanity, and there are no disarmament negotiations on the horizon.”

    Further, the resolution states that “The U.S. and the eight other nuclear-armed states are investing an estimated $100 billion annually to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals while actively planning to deploy nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future.”  The resolution “calls on the President and Congress to reduce nuclear weapons spending to the minimum necessary to assure the safety and security of the existing weapons as they await disablement and dismantlement, and to redirect those funds to meet the urgent needs of cities.”

    The complete Mayors Resolution can be found at: www.wagingpeace.org/mayors-resolution/

            #                #                #

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation was founded in 1982. Its mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. The Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations and is comprised of individuals and groups worldwide who recognize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • Archduke Franz Ferdinand

    Archduke Franz Ferdinand
    with no troops at his command
    was brought down by an assassin’s hand.
    That’s how the war began.

    No one thought it would last long,
    but they were all sadly wrong,
    as with alliances and patriotic song
    they moved the war along.

    Archduke Franz Ferdinand
    Archduke Franz Ferdinand
    From the very start
    the men in trenches did their part
    until shot through the head or heart
    to be taken away on a medic’s cart.

    As history has taught before
    the fighting gave us only blood and gore.
    If not to stop the next great war,
    what are lessons for?

    One wonders if in time we’ll learn
    to put away our weapons, to discern
    the true value of a human life, to turn
    from war to peace before we burn.

    A century past the Archduke’s time
    the game of war is still a crime.
    A century past the Archduke’s time
    The arts of peace are still sublime.

    David Krieger
    June 2014

    This poem was originally published by Truthout.

  • U.S. Conference of Mayors Calls for Nuclear Disarmament

    The U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted this resolution at its 82nd annual meeting in Dallas, Texas, in June 2014.

    Resolution No. 119: Calling for Constructive Good Faith U.S. Participation in International Nuclear Disarmament Forums

    US Conference of Mayors logoWHEREAS, Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, and is part of the supreme law of the land pursuant to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, states: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”; and

    WHEREAS, in 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial branch of the United Nations (UN) and the highest court in the world on questions of international law, issued an authoritative interpretation of Article VI, unanimously concluding: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”; and

    WHEREAS, forty-four years after the NPT entered into force, an estimated 16,400 nuclear weapons, most held by the U.S. and Russia, pose an intolerable threat to humanity, and there are no disarmament negotiations on the horizon; and

    WHEREAS, the U.S. and the eight other nuclear weapon possessing states are investing an estimated $100 billion annually to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals while actively planning to deploy nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future; and

    WHEREAS, the U.S.-Russian conflict over the Ukraine may lead to a new era of confrontation between nuclear-armed powers, and nuclear tensions in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and on the Korean peninsula remind us that the potential for nuclear war is ever present; and

    WHEREAS, in December 2012, the UN General Assembly established a working group open to all member states (the “Open-Ended Working Group”) “to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons,” and scheduled for September 26, 2013 the first-ever High-Level meeting of the UN General Assembly devoted to nuclear disarmament; and

    WHEREAS, in December 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution which: “Calls for the urgent commencement of negotiations, in the Conference on Disarmament, for the early conclusion of a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons to prohibit their possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer and use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction;”…. “Decides to convene, no later than 2018, a United Nations high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament to review the progress made in this regard;” and “Declares 26 September as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons devoted to furthering this objective, including through enhancing public awareness and education about the threat posed to humanity by nuclear weapons and the necessity for their total elimination;” and

    WHEREAS, delegations representing 146 States, the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and civil society organizations participated in the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Nayarit, Mexico, February 13-14, 2014, to discuss global and long-term consequences of any nuclear detonation, accidental or deliberate, including impacts on public health, humanitarian assistance, the economy, the environment, climate change, food security and risk management; and

    WHEREAS, Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo, Mexico’s Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, Chair of the Nayarit Conference, concluded: “The broad-based and comprehensive discussions on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons should lead to the commitment of States and civil society to reach new international standards and norms, through a legally binding instrument … [The] time has come to initiate a diplomatic process conducive to this goal… compris[ing] a specific timeframe, the definition of the most appropriate fora, and a clear and substantive framework … The 70th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks is the appropriate milestone to achieve our goal”; and

    WHEREAS, August 6 and 9, 2015 will mark the 70th anniversaries of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed more that 210,000 people by the end of 1945, while the remaining “hibakusha” (A-bomb survivors) continue to suffer from the physical and psychological effects of the bombings; and

    WHEREAS, the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) continue to suffer from the health and environmental impacts of 67 above-ground nuclear weapons test explosions conducted by the U.S. in their islands between 1946 and 1958, the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima-sized bombs detonated daily for 12 years; and

    WHEREAS, the RMI on April 24, 2014 filed landmark cases in the ICJ against the U.S. and the eight other nuclear-armed nations claiming that they have failed to comply with their obligations, under the NPT and customary international law, to pursue negotiations for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and filed a companion case in U.S. Federal District Court; and

    WHEREAS, the Administration’s FY 2015 budget request for maintenance and modernization of nuclear bombs and warheads, at more than $8.7 billion, in constant dollars exceeds the amount spent in 1985 for comparable work at the height of President Reagan’s surge in nuclear weapons spending, which was the highest point of Cold War spending; and

    WHEREAS, this enormous commitment to modernizing nuclear bombs and warheads and the laboratories and factories to support those activities does not include even larger amounts of funding for planned replacements of delivery systems – the bombers, missiles and submarines that form the strategic triad; in total, according to the General Accounting Office, the U.S. will spend more than $700 billion over the next 30 years to maintain and modernize nuclear weapons systems; the James Martin Center places the number at an astounding one trillion dollars; and

    WHEREAS, this money is desperately needed to address basic human needs such as housing, food security, education, healthcare, public safety, education and environmental protection; and

    WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has adopted resolutions each year since 2010 calling for deep cuts in nuclear weapons spending and redirection of those funds to meet the needs of cities and adopted an additional resolution in 2011 “Calling on Congress to Redirect Military Spending to Domestic Needs”; and in 2013 called on the U.S. to participate in good faith in the UN Open-Ended Working Group and High-Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament, and the Nayarit Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons; and

    WHEREAS, Mayors for Peace continues to advocate for the immediate commencement of negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2020 and its membership has grown ten fold since the “2020 Vision Campaign” was launched in 2003, surpassing 6,000 members in 158 countries, representing one seventh of the world’s population; and Mayors for Peace, with members in the U.S. and Russia; India and Pakistan, and Israel, Palestine and Iran can be a real force for peace.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that U.S. Conference of Mayors expresses its deep concern that the UN Open-Ended Working Group on nuclear disarmament and the Nayarit Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons took place without the participation of the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China; that at the September 26, 2013 UN High-Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament, the U.S. joined with France and the UK in a profoundly negative statement, delivered by a junior British diplomat: “While we are encouraged by the increased energy and enthusiasm around the nuclear disarmament debate, we regret that this energy is being directed toward initiatives such as this High-Level Meeting, the humanitarian consequences campaign, the Open-Ended Working Group and the push for a Nuclear Weapons Convention”; and that the U.S. voted against the 2013 UN General Assembly resolution calling for urgent commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament for the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. to participate constructively and in good faith in the Third Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons to be hosted by Austria in Vienna, December 8-9, 2014, and to press the other nuclear weapon states to do likewise; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. to participate constructively and in good faith in urgent commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament for the early conclusion of a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons, and to press the other nuclear weapon states to do likewise; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors commends the Republic of the Marshall Islands for calling to the world’s attention the failure of the nine nuclear-armed states to comply with their international obligations to pursue negotiations for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and calls on the U.S. to respond constructively and in good faith to the lawsuits brought by the RMI; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. to demonstrate a good faith commitment to its disarmament obligation under Article VI of the NPT by commencing a process to negotiate the global elimination of nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, under strict and effective international control, at the May 2015 NPT Review Conference, and to press the other nuclear weapon states to do likewise; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors urges President Obama to engage in intensive diplomatic efforts to reverse the deteriorating U.S. relationship with Russia; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the President and Congress to reduce nuclear weapons spending to the minimum necessary to assure the safety and security of the existing weapons as they await disablement and dismantlement, and to redirect those funds to meet the urgent needs of cities; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on its membership to proclaim September 26 in their cities as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and to support activities to enhance public awareness and education about the threat posed to humanity by nuclear weapons and the necessity for their total elimination; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors welcomes the appointment of Akron, Ohio and Mayor Donald Plusquellic as a Mayors for Peace regional lead city, and encourages all U.S. mayors for join Mayors for Peace; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors expresses its continuing support for and cooperation with Mayors for Peace.

    Submitted by:

    The Honorable Donald L. Plusquellic
    Mayor of Akron, Ohio

    The Honorable William D. “Bill” Euille
    Mayor of Alexandria, Virginia

    The Honorable Denny Doyle
    Mayor of Beaverton, Oregon

    The Honorable Mark Kleinschmidt
    Mayor of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

    The Honorable William E. “Bill” Gluba
    Mayor of Davenport, Iowa

    The Honorable T.M. Franklin Cownie
    Des Moines, Iowa

    The Honorable Luigi Boria
    Mayor of Doral, Florida

    The Honorable Roy D. Buol
    Mayor of Dubuque, Iowa

    The Honorable William V. “Bill” Bell
    Mayor of Durham, North Carolina

    The Honorable Salvatore J. Panto, Jr.
    Mayor of Easton, Pennsylvania

    The Honorable Kitty Piercy
    Mayor of Eugene, Oregon

    The Honorable Ed Malloy
    Mayor of Fairfield, Iowa

    The Honorable Joy Cooper
    Mayor of Hallandale Beach, Florida

    The Honorable Alex Morse
    Mayor of Holyoke, Massachusetts

    The Honorable Mark Stodola
    Mayor of Little Rock, Arkansas

    The Honorable Paul Soglin
    Mayor of Madison, Wisconsin

    The Honorable McKinley Price
    Mayor of Newport News, Virginia

    The Honorable Chris Koos
    Mayor of Normal, Illinois

    The Honorable Frank Ortis
    Mayor of Pembroke Pines, Florida

    The Honorable Michael Brennan
    Mayor of Portland, Maine

    The Honorable Gayle McLaughlin
    Mayor of Richmond, California

    The Honorable Ardell Brede
    Mayor of Rochester, Minnesota

    The Honorable Stephen Cassidy
    Mayor of San Leandro, California

    The Honorable Pam O’Connor
    Mayor of Santa Monica, California

    The Honorable Neil King
    Mayor of Taos Ski Valley, New Mexico

    The Honorable Laurel Lunt Prussing
    Mayor of Urbana, Illinois

    The Honorable Geraldine Muoio
    Mayor of West Palm Beach, Florida

  • Stop Calling the Iraq War a Mistake

    Dennis Kucinich - Frank Kelly LectureAs Iraq descends into chaos again, more than a decade after “Mission Accomplished,” media commentators and politicians have mostly agreed upon calling the war a “mistake.” But the “mistake” rhetoric is the language of denial, not contrition: it minimizes the Iraq War’s disastrous consequences, removes blame, and deprives Americans of any chance to learn from our generation’s foreign policy disaster. The Iraq War was not a “mistake” — it resulted from calculated deception. The painful, unvarnished fact is that we were lied to. Now is the time to have the willingness to say that.

    In fact, the truth about Iraq was widely available, but it was ignored. There were no WMD. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The war wasn’t about liberating the Iraqi people. I said this in Congress in 2002. Millions of people who marched in America in protest of the war knew the truth, but were maligned by members of both parties for opposing the president in a time of war — and even leveled with the spurious charge of “not supporting the troops.”

    I’ve written and spoken widely about this topic, so today I offer two ways we can begin to address our role:

    1) President Obama must tell us the truth about Iraq and the false scenario that caused us to go to war.

    When Obama took office in 2008, he announced that his administration would not investigate or prosecute the architects of the Iraq War. Essentially, he suspended public debate about the war. That may have felt good in the short term for those who wanted to move on, but when you’re talking about a war initiated through lies, bygones can’t be bygones.

    The unwillingness to confront the truth about the Iraq War has induced a form of amnesia which is hazardous to our nation’s health. Willful forgetting doesn’t heal, it opens the door to more lying. As today’s debate ensues about new potential military “solutions” to stem violence in Iraq, let’s remember how and why we intervened in Iraq in 2003.

    2) Journalists and media commentators should stop giving inordinate air and print time to people who were either utterly wrong in their support of the war or willful in their calculations to make war.

    By and large, our Fourth Estate accepted uncritically the imperative for war described by top administration officials and congressional leaders. The media fanned the flames of war by not giving adequate coverage to the arguments against military intervention.

    President Obama didn’t start the Iraq War, but he has the opportunity now to tell the truth. That we were wrong to go in. That the cause of war was unjust. That more problems were created by military intervention than solved. That the present violence and chaos in Iraq derives from the decision which took America to war in 2003. More than a decade later, it should not take courage to point out the Iraq war was based on lies.

  • Statement Against Nuclear Air-Launched Cruise Missile

    Rep. Earl BlumenauerToday, the House of Representatives voted on my amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2015 that would have prevented a $3.4 million down payment on a new nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) and redirect that funding towards the cleanup and removal of unexploded military ordinance that litters every state in the country.

    This amendment looks modest, only redirecting $3.4 million. Allowing this seed money to go forward, however, commits us to billions down the road, without a reason or rationale for doing so.  The new ALCM does not yet have an official price tag, but estimates range from $20 to $30 billion.  A rebuilt nuclear warhead to go on it adds another $12 billion. That’s over $40 billion. Based on our past experience with runaway costs for nuclear weapons development, it is very likely that cost is going to increase over time.

    We don’t need a new nuclear cruise missile, especially when our current arsenal is good through the mid-2030s. We certainly don’t need both a bomber armed with new air-dropped nuclear bombs that taxpayers just finished paying for, and a nuclear cruise missile to meet our deterrence requirements and those of our allies.

    What’s worse, a mass U.S. deployment of new nuclear cruise missiles could renew an arms race we’ve already agreed to end, pushing China, Pakistan and others to seek this capability.

    This $3.4 million is just the beginning.  My amendment would have stopped the momentum for this wasteful program that does nothing to keep America secure. It would have instead used that money for the accelerated cleanup of unexploded bombs on US soil, something that would actually keep our families and communities safe, while returning land to productive economic use at the same time.

    My amendment to rein in spending on nuclear weapons didn’t pass, which is disappointing, but I’m not going to stop working to convince Congress and the American people that we need to get our priorities straight, make our communities safer, and stop expanding our already bloated nuclear programs.