Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • U.S. Government Files Official Notice of Appearance

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsOn May 29, 2014, the United States government filed the required “Notice of Appearance” with the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. on April 24, 2014 for breaches of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Similar lawsuits were filed against all nine nuclear-armed nations (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea) in the International Court of Justice.

    The Notice of Appearance names three lawyers that will be defending the United States in the case in U.S. Federal District Court. They are:

    • Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General
    • Anthony J. Coppolino, Deputy Branch Director
    • Eric R. Womack, U.S. Department of Justice Trial Attorney

    This filing demonstrates that the United States will indeed be appearing to defend itself and its agencies in court in this unprecedented lawsuit.

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

  • June: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    June 3, 1983 – Director John Badham’s frightening motion picture “War Games,” starring actor Matthew Broderick, premiered at U.S. theaters. The antiwar film was released in a period during which U.S.-Soviet nuclear tensions were at their highest point since the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Some of the contributing factors included:

    • The September 1, 1983 Soviet shoot down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 near Sakhalin Island;
    • A September 26, 1983 Soviet false nuclear alert;
    • The November 1983 NATO Able Archer military exercise that Soviet leadership widely misinterpreted as a warm-up for an eventual U.S. First Strike nuclear attack; and
    • The August 11, 1984 off-the-cuff sound check gaffe by President Ronald Reagan (“We begin bombing Russia in five minutes.”)

    Another terrifyingly realistic look at nuclear war occurred just five months after “War Games” was released when Nicholas Meyer directed a made-for-TV film “The Day After” which aired nationally on ABC-TV that November. This starkly realistic movie portrayed the horrendous human impact of a Soviet nuclear attack on Lawrence, Kansas. In “War Games,” movie-goers learned that accidental or unintentional nuclear war through human or computer error was entirely conceivable. In point of fact, hundreds of U.S. false alerts or nuclear Broken Arrow accidents have occurred over the last few decades, in addition to an unknown number of such incidents impacting the arsenals of the other eight nuclear-weapon armed states. (Sources:  Eric Schlosser.  “Command and Control:  Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.” New York:  Penguin Press, 2013 and Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. “The Untold History of the United States.”  New York:  Gallery Books, 2012.)

    June 10, 1963 – President John F. Kennedy made his seminal, historic American University speech in which he said:

    “I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in World War II. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by the wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations unborn…What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war…not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.”

    On this exact same day in history, after the world has just barely avoided a devastating nuclear war over Cuban missiles placed there by the Soviet Union the previous October, the 35th President was working earnestly in concert with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to push against tremendous opposition by the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex as well as the Politburo for a long-term resolution of the Cold War as well as permanent prevention of a Hot War. For on this date, the U.S., U.K., and the Soviet Union formally announced that high-level talks would be held in Moscow to seek a nuclear test ban.  And, in an amazingly short period of time, in a span of only seven weeks, on August 5, 1963, the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) outlawing nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater was signed and later entered into force on October 10, 1963.  (Source:  American University Archive, www1.media.american.edu/speeches/Kennedy.htm, accessed May 2, 2014 and Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology” Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, p. 1.)

    June 18, 1979 – The United States and Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Limitation (SALT II) Treaty in Vienna.  It built on the successful SALT I Treaty, cutting strategic offensive nuclear weapons even further.  However, after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, it became impossible, according to U.S. policymakers, for the U.S. to ratify the treaty.  Today, the Ukraine-Crimea Crisis has begun to undermine U.S.-Russian cooperation and follow-through regarding nuclear arms control treaty reductions.  Other critical and vitally essential military cooperation paradigms and confidence-building measures between the two nations have been negatively impacted as well.  Accordingly, it can be credibly argued that the chances of accidental or unintentional nuclear war have incrementally increased due to the crisis. (Source:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, p. 2.)

    June 19, 1957 – The Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor of today’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as part of Project Plowshare, a U.S. government-focused effort to persuade the American people to support nuclear power and weapons because of their supposedly “peaceful, beneficial uses,” announced a number of future projects.  A year later, in June of 1958, one of those projects was revealed publicly for the first time.  Project Chariot was announced as a plan to create a 300-foot wide harbor at the mouth of the Ogotoruk Creek near Cape Thompson on the Chukchi Sea coastline of Alaska.  Four hydrogen bombs were to be exploded to create the artificial harbor.  Thankfully, extensive bioenvironmental studies, possibly the first example of a federal government environmental impact statement in American history, described the overwhelmingly negative consequences of such a Strangelovian experiment.  (Source:  Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. “The Untold History of the United States.”  New York:  Gallery Books, 2012, p. 283 and Douglas Vandergraft.  “Project Chariot:  A Visual Presentation.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, May 6, 1993, Anchorage, Alaska.)

    June 25, 2008 – An article published on this date titled, “Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor’s Massive Safety Vessel Installed.” is authored by T.S. Subramanian and appears in the Indian periodical The Hindu.  It is one of many past and current positive media portrayals of today’s global inventory of about 20 fast neutron reactors that have been operating since the 1950s in Russia, France, Japan, India, and the U.S. with some supplying commercial electrical power according to the World Nuclear Association website.  Although some designs are net consumers of fissile material including U-235, Pu, and other fission products, the fast breeder variant are designed to produce more plutonium than they consume. However, Stanford professor, Dr. Robert Laughlin’s 2011 book, “Powering the Future” (page 59) points out the starkly negative impact of fast breeder reactors,  “…After we run these [breeder] reactors a long time, the world becomes awash in highly dangerous plutonium (half-life of decay:  24,000 years), all for the sake of allowing nuclear fuel to last for thousands of years.”  This represents yet another overwhelmingly powerful reason why global citizenry are increasingly pushing for the dismantlement of some 400 global commercial nuclear power reactors, with breeders at the top of the list!

  • After Mexico: Why an “Ottawa Process” for a Legal Ban of Nuclear Weapons Deserves Our Enthusiastic Support

    Alice SlaterThe 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),  extended indefinitely in 1995 when it was due to expire, provided that five nuclear weapons states which also happened to hold the veto power on the Security Council (P-5)– the US, Russia, UK, France, and China– would  “pursue negotiations in good faith” 1 for nuclear disarmament.  In order to buy the support of the rest of the world for the deal, the nuclear weapons states “sweetened the pot” with a Faustian bargain promising the non-nuclear weapons state an “inalienable right” 2  to so-called “peaceful” nuclear power, thus giving them the keys to the bomb factory. 3 Every country in the world signed the new treaty except for India, Pakistan, and Israel, which went on to develop nuclear arsenals.  North Korea, a NPT member, took advantage of the technological know-how it acquired through its “inalienable right” to nuclear power and quit the treaty to make its own nuclear bombs. Today there are nine nuclear weapons states with 17,000 bombs on the planet, 16,000 of which are in the US and Russia!

    At the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, a new network of NGOs, Abolition 2000, called for immediate negotiations of a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons and a phase out of nuclear power. 4  A Working Group of lawyers, scientists and policy makers drafted a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention 5 laying out all the necessary steps to be considered for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  It became an official UN document and was cited in Secretary General Ban-ki Moon’s 2008 proposal for a Five Point Plan for Nuclear Disarmament.6 The NPT’s indefinite extension required Review Conferences every five years, with Preparatory Committee meetings in between.

    In 1996, the NGO World Court Project sought an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the bomb.  The Court ruled unanimously that an international obligation exists to “conclude negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects”, but disappointingly said only that the weapons are “generally illegal” and held that it was unable to decide whether it would be legal or not to use nuclear weapons “when the very survival of a state was at stake.”7 Despite the NGOs best efforts at lobbying for continued promises given by the P-5 at subsequent NPT reviews, progress on nuclear disarmament was frozen. In 2013, Egypt actually walked out of an NPT meeting because a promise made in 2010 to hold a conference on a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East (WMDFZ) had still not taken place, even though a promise for a WMDFZ was offered to the Middle East states as a bargaining chip to get their vote for the indefinite extension of the NPT nearly 20 years earlier in 1995.

    In 2012, the International Committee of the Red Cross made an unprecedented breakthrough effort to educate the world that there was no existing legal ban on the use and possession of nuclear weapons despite the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from nuclear war, thus renewing public awareness about the terrible dangers of nuclear holocaust.8 A new initiative, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)9 had been launched to make known the disastrous effects to all life on earth should nuclear war break out, either by accident or design, as well as the inability of governments at any level to adequately respond.  They are calling for a legal ban on nuclear weapons, just as the world had banned chemical and biological weapons, as well as landmines and cluster munitions.  In 1996, NGOs in partnership with friendly nations, led by Canada, met in Ottawa, in an unprecedented circumvention of the blocked UN institutions to negotiate a treaty to ban on landmines.  This became known as the “Ottawa Process” which was also used by Norway in 2008, when it hosted a meeting outside the blocked UN negotiating fora to hammer out a ban on cluster munitions.10

    Norway also took up the call of the International Red Cross in 2013, hosting a special Conference on the Humanitarian Effects of Nuclear Weapons. The Oslo meeting took place outside of the usual institutional settings such as the NPT, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and the First Committee of the General Assembly, where progress on nuclear disarmament has been frozen because the nuclear weapons states are only willing to act on non- proliferation measures, while failing to take any meaningful steps for nuclear disarmament. This, despite a host of empty promises made over the 44 year history of the NPT, and nearly 70 years after the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The P-5 boycotted the Oslo conference, issuing a joint statement claiming it would be a “distraction” from the NPT!  Two nuclear weapons states did show up—India and Pakistan, to join the 127 nations that came to Oslo and those two nuclear weapons states again attended this year’s follow-up conference hosted by Mexico, with 146 nations.

    There is transformation in the air and a shift in the zeitgeist in how nations and civil society are addressing nuclear disarmament. They are meeting in partnership in greater numbers and with growing resolve to negotiate a nuclear ban treaty which would prohibit the possession, testing, use, production and acquisition of nuclear weapons as illegal, just as the world has done for chemical and biological weapons. The ban treaty would begin to close the gap in the World Court decision which failed to decide if nuclear weapons were illegal in all circumstances, particularly where the very survival of a state was at stake. This new process is operating outside of the paralyzed institutional UN negotiating structures, first in Oslo, then in Mexico with a third meeting planned in Austria, this very year, not four years later in 2018 as proposed by the non-aligned movement of countries which fail to grasp the urgent need to move swiftly for nuclear abolition, and has not received any buy-in from the recalcitrant P-5. Indeed, the US, France and UK didn’t even bother to send a decent representative to the first high level meeting in history for heads of state and foreign ministers to address nuclear disarmament at the UN’s General Assembly last fall.  And they opposed the establishment of the UN Open Ended Working Group for Nuclear Disarmament that met in Geneva in an informal arrangement with NGOs and governments, failing to show up for a single meeting held during the summer of 2013.

    At Nayarit, Mexico, the Mexican Chair sent the world a Valentine on February 14, 2014 when he concluded his remarks to a standing ovation and loud cheers by many of the government delegates and the NGOs in attendance saying:

    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. It is the view of the Chair that the Nayarit Conference has shown that time has come to initiate a diplomatic process conducive to this goal. Our belief is that this process should comprise a specific timeframe, the definition of the most appropriate fora, and a clear and substantive framework, making the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons the essence of disarmament efforts. It is time to take action. The 70th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks is the appropriate milestone to achieve our goal. Nayarit is a point of no return. (emphasis added)

    The world has begun an Ottawa process for nuclear weapons that can be completed in the very near future if we are united and focused!    One obstacle that is becoming apparent to the success of achieving a broadly endorsed ban treaty is the position of “nuclear umbrella” states such as Japan, Australia, South Korea and NATO members. They ostensibly support nuclear disarmament but still rely on lethal “nuclear deterrence”, a policy which demonstrates their willingness to have the US incinerate cities and destroy our planet on their behalf.

    Achieving a ban treaty negotiated without the nuclear weapons states would give us a cudgel to hold them to their bargain to negotiate for the total elimination of nuclear weapons  in a reasonable time by shaming them for not only failing to honor the NPT but for totally undermining their “good faith” promise for nuclear disarmament. They continue to test and build new bombs, manufacturing facilities, and delivery systems while Mother Earth is assaulted with a whole succession of so-called “sub-critical” tests, as these outlaw states continue to blow up plutonium underground at the Nevada and Novaya Zemlya test sites.  The P-5’s insistence on a “step by step” process, supported by some of the nuclear “umbrella states”, rather than the negotiation of a legal ban demonstrates their breathtaking hypocrisy as they are not only modernizing and replacing their arsenals, they are actually spreading nuclear bomb factories around the world in the form of nuclear reactors for commercial gain, even ”sharing” this lethal technology with India, a non-NPT party, an illegal practice in violation of the NPT prohibition against sharing nuclear technology with states that failed to join the treaty.

    With a follow up meeting coming in Austria, December 8-9 of this year, we should be strategic in pushing the impetus forward for a legal ban. We need to get even more governments to show up in Vienna, and make plans for a massive turnout of NGOs to encourage states to come out from under their shameful nuclear umbrella and to cheer on the burgeoning group of peace-seeking nations  in our efforts to end the nuclear scourge!

    Check out the ICAN campaign to find out how you can participate in Vienna.

    Endnotes

    1. “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 on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.”

    2. Article IV: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination…”

    3. http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html

    4. www.abolition2000.org

    5. Securing Our Survival: http://www.disarmsecure.org/pdfs/securingoursurvival2007.pdf

    6. http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/sg5point.shtml

    7. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=e1&p3=4&case=95

    8. http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/weapons/nuclear-weapons/overview-nuclear-weapons.htm

    9. www.icanw.org

    10. http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/treatystatus/

  • We Must End the Madness of Nuclear Weapons

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsSome five decades ago, world leaders came together on an urgent mission to avert “the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind” in the event of a nuclear war. The five then-existing nuclear weapon states – the United States, Soviet Union (now Russia), United Kingdom, France and China – signed the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They agreed to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.

    Five decades later, the nuclear threat has only increased. Four more states – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – now have nuclear weapons. The world is more dangerous because the signatories of the NPT have failed to keep their promises and have undermined the rule of law.

    Until now, no one has held them accountable. Last month, the Republic of the Marshall Islands courageously took the nine nuclear weapons-wielding Goliaths to the International Court of Justice to enforce compliance with the NPT and customary international law.

    This tiny Pacific nation’s firsthand experience with nuclear devastation compelled it to take a stand. The United States exploded 67 nuclear weapons there between 1946 and 1958, including a bomb 1,000 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. Marshall Islanders still suffer high cancer rates and environmental poisoning as a result. They are not seeking compensation; in fact, their bold stance could potentially jeopardize the essential funding and protection the US provides them. Yet their desire to protect their fellow humans from the pain and devastation wrought by nuclear weapons outweighs fear of retribution.

    Nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral because they have only one purpose: to indiscriminately destroy human life at the push of a button, without regard for whether they kill innocents or combatants, children or adults. In 1996, the International Court of Justice warned, “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.”

    No government, army, organization or individual should have the ability to impose nuclear devastation on other humans. This truth is enshrined in Article VI of the NPT: “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 on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

    The five original nuclear weapon states signed onto this statement, but have failed to honor their commitments. The four more recent nuclear weapon states – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – have followed their lead in defying international legal obligations.

    Instead of working to end the insanity of the nuclear age once and for all, these nine countries waste trillions of dollars on their nuclear arsenals, in violation of both the treaty and customary international law. We can no longer afford this perilous game of nuclear roulette. Every day that world leaders delay action on disarmament, they impose the unacceptable menace of nuclear devastation upon every human on the planet.

    Addiction to nuclear weapons costs us all in other ways as well. The price of these weapons keeps rising. The nuclear nations spend a combined $100 billion on them every year. Imagine how far this amount could take us in providing access to education, health care, food and clean water for the people of the world.

    The people of the Marshall Islands are standing up to say that it’s time to end the era of nuclear madness. They are joined by Nobel Peace Laureates, and leaders and experts from every field who support this historic legal action.

    We call on President Obama and the leaders of the other nuclear weapon states to fulfill their legal obligation to negotiate in good faith to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. It is not unrealistic to ask that the world’s most powerful governments start obeying the law and keeping their promises.

    Nothing good has ever come of nuclear weapons. Nothing good ever will. For the sake of all humanity, current and future, it’s time to respect the law and keep the promise.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits: Who Will Speak for the People?

    This article was originally published by The Hill.

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsThe U.N. just concluded the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee with representatives from the 189 signatory nations and of civil society. The meeting was in preparation for next year’s NPT conference and to discuss the current status of fulfilling the obligations under the treaty and in particular, the mandate of the nuclear weapons states for global disarmament. The outcome was a continued foot dragging by the nuclear states motivating a demand for meaningful steps and progress toward disarmament by the other 184 nations in view of current international events.

    Recent scientific studies by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War on the humanitarian consequences of limited nuclear war have shed additional light on the danger these weapons pose.  Describing a hypothetical conflict between India and Pakistan using less than ½ of 1 percent of the global nuclear arsenals, the studies confirm 2 billion people would be at risk of dying due to global climatic change.

    Combined with recent scandals involving U.S. ICBM missile controllers and a growing accounting of nuclear mishaps and near misses in our nuclear forces over the years, the sense of urgency for disarmament is greater than ever. It has become a question of who will step forward and speak for humanity.

    On April 24, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits in the International Court of Justice against all nine nuclear-armed nations, as well as against the United States in U.S. Federal District Court. RMI claims that the nuclear weapon states are in breach of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force 16,121 days prior to the filing. In this David vs. Goliath action this tiny island nation has found the voice to speak on behalf of the world and the other nations signatory to the Treaty.

    The case for the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit comes directly from the NPT where Article VI 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 on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

    This was the grand bargain that convinced many non-nuclear weapon states to sign the treaty and agree not to develop nuclear weapons of their own. Forty-four years later, with no meaningful negotiations on the horizon and no end in sight to the “step-by-step” process heralded by the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (P5), the RMI has stepped in to change the discourse on nuclear disarmament.

    RMI is seeking declaratory relief from the courts that will compel the leaders of the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) to initiate good-faith negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament. They are challenging the leaders of the NWS to answer, on the record, why 44 years have passed and nuclear arsenals continue to be modernized, national security strategies continue to place nuclear weapons at the top of the list, and the P5 don’t even expect to have a “Glossary of Key Nuclear Terms” to talk about nuclear disarmament until 2015.

    In addition to the five Nuclear Weapon States named in the NPT, the lawsuit also includes the four nuclear weapon states that are not parties to the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – which, RMI argues, are bound to Article VI obligations under customary international law.

    The RMI is a small sovereign nation, among the smallest in the world. However, their courage could not be greater. Having been a testing ground for 67 nuclear tests between 1946 and 1958, the Marshall Islanders have seen their land, sea and people poisoned from radiation. These tests had an equivalent explosive force greater than 1.5 Hiroshima bombs being detonated daily for 12 years.  The Marshall Islanders paid a heavy price in terms of their health and well-being for these destructive tests. They have experienced firsthand the horrible destruction caused by nuclear weapons and those that possess them. They are willing to stand up to the nine nuclear giants and say, “Never again. We have seen the destructive impact of these horrific weapons and vow to do all we can so the world never sees such atrocities again.”

    The RMI does not act alone in this action. A consortium of NGOs working to highlight the legal and moral issues involved in the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit has come together around the world coordinated by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara.  Respecting the courage of the plaintiff in bringing these lawsuits against some of the most powerful nations in the world they have developed a call to action.

    The consortium urges everyone to join them by raising your voice in support of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit. Go to www.nuclearzero.org, where you can read more about the lawsuits and sign the petition encouraging leaders of the Nuclear Weapon States to begin good-faith negotiations.

    Williams received the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work with the International Committee to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and is chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative. Dodge is a family physician on the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Physicians for Social Responsibility – the U.S. affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War – recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.

  • Voices in Support of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    Below is a selection of quotes in support of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, filed on April 24, 2014 by the Marshall Islands against all nine nuclear-armed nations. You can sign the petition supporting the Marshall Islands and learn more about the lawsuits at www.nuclearzero.org.

     

    David Krieger
    President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    David KriegerThe Republic of the Marshall Islands has acted boldly and courageously in standing up to the nine nuclear-armed nations, and through its lawsuits asserting that all nations are required to follow the dictates of international law.  Justice delayed is justice denied.  In the case of nuclear arsenals, justice delayed increases the threat that nuclear weapons will be used by accident or design.Marshall Islanders know the pain and suffering caused by nuclear weapons, and they have taken legal action to assure that no country or individual will suffer in the future as they have suffered in the past and continue to suffer in the present.  Before the law, all countries stand on even footing – the small and the large, the weak and the powerful.

    The Marshall Islands seeks no compensation through these lawsuits.  They have acted out of noble intentions.  All Marshall Islanders should be proud that their country stands on the side of reason, justice and sanity.  In these lawsuits, the Marshall Islands has taken a stand for all humanity.  May the Marshalls prevail for the sake of us all and for the future of humanity and the planet.

    Setsuko Thurlow
    Survivor of U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima

    Setsuko ThurlowI deeply admire the courage and conviction shown by the Marshall Islands, plaintiff in the case against known nuclear weapon states to “pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.”

    Although we hibakusha have spent our life energy to warn people about the hell that is nuclear war, in nearly 70 years there has been little progress. In fact it is progress for proliferation that wins out — with very nuclear possessor nation currently modernizing their arsenals.  We urgently need a new path, one that recognizes the utterly unacceptable humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons — weapons that in this moment threaten all life on earth.

    But David has once again mounted his offense against Goliath, and those states that do not want to get rid of nuclear weapons are running out of excuses.  Non nuclear weapons states and NGOs are working for a ban treaty that would establish new international norms and standards through a legally binding instrument to abolish nuclear weapons.  And now, the Marshall Islands are standing up and challenging the nuclear weapon states — countries that have been insincere for more than 44 years since the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty entered into force.

    It is our hope that this new movement to ban nuclear weapons together with the Marshall Islands case against nuclear weapon possessor nations will finally lead us to nuclear disarmament.  Congratulations to the Marshall Islands for taking up this call!

    Kate Hudson
    General Secretary
    Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

    An Open Letter to President Loeak of the Marshall Islands

    Dear Mr. President,

    Kate HudsonI am writing on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to express our great appreciation for your decision to institute legal proceedings against the nine nuclear weapons states. We sincerely welcome your decision to take them to the International Court of Justice for their failure to comply with Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: 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’.

    We feel a debt of gratitude to you, in particular, for instituting proceedings against our own country, the United Kingdom, the governments of which we have challenged since our foundation in 1958. Your principled and courageous stand will assist our current struggle to prevent the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system. It will expose the hypocrisy of our government as it claims to support the goals of the NPT yet plans to spend vast sums on building new nuclear weapons; it will reveal the obstructionism of our government as it boycotts and derails sincere initiatives towards global abolition; and it will lay bare our government’s contempt for the fundamental NPT bargain – that non-proliferation and disarmament are inseparable.

    As well as the undoubted legal weight of your case, we believe that the case you have put to the International Court of Justice also carries extraordinary moral weight. We are well aware of the terrible suffering and damage inflicted on your people. We recall with horror that between 1946 and 1958, the US tested 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, earning your country the description ‘by far the most contaminated place in the world’, from the US Atomic Energy Agency.

    Together with our support for your legal proceedings and our recognition of the intense suffering from which this was born, I would like to say that we also feel a strong and long lasting bond with the people of the Marshall Islands. Our movement, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, was founded in large part as a response to the H-bomb testing of the 1950s, so much of which was carried out in your islands. In our early years we campaigned strenuously for the abolition of nuclear weapons testing until the achievement of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963.

    The test on Bikini Atoll, in your country, in March 1954, with its terrible radiation impact on the people of Rongelap, moved countless people around the world to action. The tragic consequences for the Lucky Dragon, caught in the impact, stirred a whole generation of activists to oppose nuclear weapons. The experience of your country and your people is at the very heart of our movement.

    We pledge our support to you and wish you every success in this most crucial of struggles.

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu
    Nobel Peace Laureate

    desmond_tutuThe failure of the United States to uphold important commitments and respect the law makes the world a more dangerous place. President Obama has said that ridding the world of these devastating weapons is a fundamental moral issue of our time. It is time for the United States to show true leadership by keeping the promises set forth in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Bianca Jagger
    Social and Human Rights activist

    Bianca JaggerI wholeheartedly support the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, in their courageous decision to file The Nuclear Zero Lawsuit against the nine nuclear-armed nations in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, and against the U.S. in Federal District Court in San Francisco. The Marshall Islanders seek to hold these countries accountable for failing to fulfill their obligations as set out in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law, to pursue negotiations for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons.

    After 60 years of exposure to nuclear radiation, the Marshall Islanders know first-hand the disastrous consequences of living in a nuclear world; irresponsible nuclear detonations have caused death, prolonged suffering, damage to their health and irreparable environmental destruction. The plight of the Marshall Islanders reflects the experience of many people across the world, as corporations and military enterprises overstep the boundaries of their influence, committing grave human rights violations.

    I am a great believer that individuals can make a difference. By filing these lawsuits, the inspirational people of the Marshall Islands show us that we have both the right and the power to hold governments accountable for their actions.

    As the brave Marshall Islanders stand up against nine of the most powerful nuclear countries across the globe, this is not just about justice for the local people but also for all of humanity, and for generations to come. Marshall Islands is not looking for compensation, but injunctions to ensure that present and future generations will not have to experience this unconscionable atrocity. As Judge Weeramantry said in his Advisory Opinion, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case, “At any level of discourse, it would be safe to pronounce that no one generation is entitled, for whatever purpose, to inflict such damage on succeeding generations.”

    We must work towards a world which is not organized around strategic military objectives, a world where we are not threatened by the possibility of nuclear disasters. I therefore add my voice to that of the Marshall Islanders and call upon the nuclear weapon nations to immediately fulfill their moral and legal obligation to begin serious negotiations for a nuclear-free world.

    Yasuaki Yamashita
    Survivor of the U.S. atomic bombing of Nagasaki

    Yasuaki YamashitaI had not known anything about nuclear testing in the Pacific.  I was in high school in Nagasaki, and it was still a very tough time.  Then in 1954, there was big news in Japan that the Bikini Islands were experiencing nuclear testing.  The Lucky Dragon crew came home sick and dying.  Hibakusha know about radiation.  My father died from radiation exposure. Many people thought that nuclear radiation was only a problem for atomic bomb survivors, but when we learned about Pacific Islanders, we realized they suffered the same way we suffered: by becoming sick without knowing what had happened.  We must work together, seeing the future to reach a peaceful world.  We must learn from the Pacific Islanders.  It is really important to support the Nuclear Zero campaign. We must work together to bring the nuclear weapon states to the International Court of Justice.

    Daniel Ellsberg
    Former US military analyst

    daniel_ellsbergThis suit is long overdue.  The U.S. has been in continuous violation of its Article VI obligations under the NPT since ratification nearly 45 years ago.

    Helen Caldicott
    Australian physician, author and anti-nuclear advocate

    Dr. Helen CaldicottThe people of the Marshall Islands have suffered from a grievous crime committed by the US military with their nuclear weapons. And these deeply traumatized people now demonstrate to the world immense courage by taking the mighty government of the United States and the other nuclear-armed nations to the International Court of Justice.May we pray that their immense suffering and courage will open the hearts of the international community to finally, once and for all, move toward rapid total nuclear disarmament.

    Ben Ferencz
    Prosecutor of Nazi war crimes

    Benjamin FerenczCurrent nuclear expenditures and policies are genocidal, suicidal and insane. The use of nuclear weapons, knowing that large numbers of civilians will be killed, is a crime against humanity for which responsible leaders would be held accountable, civilly and criminally, in a national or international criminal court.

    Kathleen Sullivan
    Program Director
    Hibakusha Stories

    Kathleen SullivanThe new legal challenge to nuclear-armed nations from the Marshall Islands is hugely inspiring. The Nuclear Zero campaign is another definitive step in the direction of nuclear abolition.

    Martin Sheen
    Actor and Social Justice Activist

    Martin SheenNuclear weapons are a clear reflection of fear and paranoia and project a false sense of security. I stand with the Marshall Islands in their pursuit of negotiations for Nuclear Zero, the only safe number of nuclear weapons on the planet.

    Steven Starr
    Senior Scientist
    Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Steven StarrThe people of the Marshall Islands, who – as a result of US nuclear weapons tests – watched their children die and saw their homeland turned into an uninhabitable radioactive exclusion zone, have full right to demand that the nuclear weapon states finally abolish their nuclear arsenals. Nuclear abolition is the central agreement of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Within the NPT, the nuclear weapon states agreed to act in good faith to abolish their nuclear arsenals, in exchange for the promise of the non-nuclear weapon states not to build their own nuclear weapons.

    Today, forty-four years after the NPT went into effect, the nuclear weapon states continue to modernize their nuclear weapons – while they boycott the humanitarian conferences sponsored by the non-nuclear weapon states, which call attention to the existential threat posed by existing nuclear arsenals.  The demand of the Marshall Islands should be echoed by all nations and peoples, who will perish if the strategic nuclear arsenals of the nuclear weapon states are detonated in conflict.

    Robert J. Lifton
    American psychiatrist and author

    Robert J. LiftonThe work on the Nuclear Zero lawsuits has profound value in a number of ways.  It responds humanely to the pain of Marshall Islanders, which Kai Erikson and I became acutely aware of in working with them.  The lawsuits are combating nuclearism, a still dangerous spiritual disease, and military stance.  They are also helping to combat climate falsification, which has demonstrable links to nuclearism.  And they are demonstrating a determination to take action on behalf of continuing life, rather than giving up on our planet.

    Alice Slater
    Member of the Coordinating Committee
    Abolition 2000

    Alice SlaterCongratulations to the Marshall Islands in their bold initiative to sue the nine nuclear weapons states in the International Court of Justice, together with a separate case against the US in Federal Court. The Marshall Islanders are seeking a court order that the nuclear outlaws comply with customary international humanitarian law as well as honor the promises that were made in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to conclude negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons on the planet. The announcement of this legal action was welcomed with applause and loud cheering in New York during the said proceedings of the NPT meeting at the UN. It is inspiring that this small island nation whose people bore the terrible catastrophic consequences of US nuclear testing in the Pacific, with genetic damage, cancer, leukemia and awful mutations caused by the radioactive fallout, has courageously challenged the unconscionable policies of the nuclear weapons states. Congratulations to the Marshall Islands for leading the way in this important new legal proceeding.

    Blase Bonpane
    Director
    Office of the Americas

    Blase BonpaneThe Marshall Islands.”The weak things of the earth shall confound the strong.”The poisoned and fractured Marshall Islands shout a “broken alleluia” to the planet. This nation of 68,000 people is a victim of “nuclearism,” a terminal pathology which endangers life on earth.Nuclear ovens have a potential of indiscriminate slaughter far greater than the madness of the Third Reich.

    Aside from atmospheric and underground testing there has been a plethora of serious nuclear accidents. Scientists are in awe that these events have not triggered a disaster.

    For allegedly sane political leaders to continue plotting, planning and conspiring to commit a nuclear holocaust is an ongoing crime.

    We must stop the race to biocide either with the help of the courts or with the outrage of a gentle, angry people.

    Thanks to the scholars, laureates and truth seekers who support this venture!

    Rich Appelbaum
    MacArthur Chair in Global and International Studies and Sociology
    University of California at Santa Barbara

    Richard ApplebaumI add my voice to the chorus of cheerleaders for the Marshall Islands in taking this on – they continue to fight the good fight, an inspiration to all of us.

  • Briefing Paper for the 2014 Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has published a briefing paper for the Third Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT PrepCom).

    The briefing paper opens with a description of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands against all nine nuclear-armed nations on April 24, 2014. The paper also includes the exact text of the application filed against the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice.

    To download a free copy of the briefing paper, click here or on the image below.

     

    2014 NPT PrepCom Briefing Paper

  • The Limits of Military Power

    Is overwhelming national military power a reliable source of influence in world affairs?

    If so, the United States should certainly have plenty of influence today.  For decades, it has been the world’s Number 1 military spender.  And it continues in this role.  According to a recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States spent $640 billion on the military in 2013, thus accounting for 37 percent of world military expenditures.  The two closest competitors, China and Russia, accounted for 11 percent and 5 percent respectively.  Thus, last year, the United States spent more than three times as much as China and more than seven times as much as Russia on the military.

     

    Proposed 2015 US military spending
    Image via National Priorities Project.

    In this context, the U.S. government’s inability to get its way in world affairs is striking.  In the current Ukraine crisis, the Russian government does not seem at all impressed by the U.S. government’s strong opposition to its behavior.  Also, the Chinese government, ignoring Washington’s protests, has laid out ambitious territorial claims in the East and South China Seas.  Even much smaller, weaker nations have been snubbing the advice of U.S. officials.  Israel has torpedoed U.S. attempts to forge an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, the embattled Syrian government has been unwilling to negotiate a transfer of power, and North Korea remains as obdurate as ever when it comes to scuttling its nuclear weapons program.

    Of course, hawkish critics of the Obama administration say that it lacks influence in these cases because it is unwilling to use the U.S. government’s vast military power in war.

    But is this true?  The Obama administration channeled very high levels of military manpower and financial resources into lengthy U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ended up with precious little to show for this investment.  Furthermore, in previous decades, the U.S. government used its overwhelming military power in a number of wars without securing its goals.  The bloody Korean War, for example, left things much as they were before the conflict began, with the Korean peninsula divided and a ruthless dictatorship in place in the north.  The lengthy and costly Vietnam War led to a humiliating defeat for the United States — not because the U.S. government lacked enormous military advantages, but because, ultimately, the determination of the Vietnamese to gain control of their own country proved more powerful than U.S. weaponry.

    Even CIA ventures drawing upon U.S. military power have produced a very mixed result.  Yes, the CIA, bolstered by U.S. military equipment, managed to overthrow the Guatemalan government in 1954.  But, seven years later, the CIA-directed, -funded, and -equipped invasion at Cuba’s Bay of Pigs failed to topple the Castro government when the Cuban public failed to rally behind the U.S.-instigated effort.  Although the U.S. government retains an immense military advantage over its Cuban counterpart, with which it retains a hostile relationship, this has not secured the United States any observable influence over Cuban policy.

    The Cold War confrontation between the U.S. and Soviet governments is particularly instructive.  For decades, the two governments engaged in an arms race, with the United States clearly in the lead.  But the U.S. military advantage did not stop the Soviet government from occupying Eastern Europe, crushing uprisings against Soviet domination in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, or dispatching Soviet troops to take control of Afghanistan.  Along the way, U.S. hawks sometimes called for war with the Soviet Union.  But, in fact, U.S. and Soviet military forces never clashed.  What finally produced a love fest between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev and ended the Cold War was a strong desire by both sides to replace confrontation with cooperation, as indicated by the signing of substantial nuclear disarmament agreements.

    Similarly, the Iranian and U.S. governments, which have been on the worst of terms for decades, appear to be en route to resolving their tense standoff — most notably over the possible development of Iranian nuclear weapons — through diplomacy.  It remains unclear if this momentum toward a peaceful settlement results from economic sanctions or from the advent of a reformist leadership in Tehran.  But there is no evidence that U.S. military power, which has always been far greater than Iran’s, has played a role in fostering it.

    Given this record, perhaps military enthusiasts in the United States and other nations should consider whether military power is a reliable source of influence in world affairs.  After all, just because you possess a hammer doesn’t mean that every problem you face is a nail.

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

  • Sunflower Newsletter: Special Lawsuit Edition

    The May 2014 issue of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Sunflower newsletter is dedicated to the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, filed by the Marshall Islands against all nine nuclear-armed nations on April 24, 2014.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a consultant to the Marshall Islands on these cases.

    Click here to read the special edition of the Sunflower.

  • Motion on Nuclear Zero Lawsuits in Scottish Parliament

    Bill Kidd MSP, who represents Glasgow Anniesland in the Scottish Parliament, introduced this motion on April 29, 2014. Bill Kidd is also Vice-President of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.

    Scottish flagThat the Parliament acknowledges the actions of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in filing lawsuits at the International Court of Justice against the nine nuclear powers, the UK, France, the USA, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel, for violations of international law under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; notes the details of the lawsuits, which include the continuing modernisation of these states’ nuclear arsenals and their failure to negotiate nuclear disarmament, in clear breach of the 1968 treaty and international law; echoes the sentiments of the Foreign Minister or the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Tony de Brum, in stating “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” when referring to the 67 nuclear weapons tests conducted in the Marshall Islands from 1946 to 1958, including the 1954 Castle Bravo nuclear test, which was 1,000 times greater than the bomb that destroyed the city of Hiroshima, and calls on the nations possessing nuclear weapons to fulfil their nuclear disarmament obligations.