Blog

Mother’s Day Proclamation

Julia Ward Howe issued this proclamation in the year 1870.

Arise, then, women of this day! Arise, all women who have hearts, whether your baptism be that of water or tears!

Say firmly: “We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have taught them of charity, mercy and patience. We women of one country will be too tender of those of another to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.”

From the bosom of the devastated earth, a voice goes up with our own. It says, “Disarm, Disarm!”

The sword of murder is not the balance of justice. Blood not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession. As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women, to bewail & commemorate the dead. Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesars but of God.

In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a general congress of women without limit of nationality may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.

Biography of Julia Ward Howe

US feminist, reformer, and writer Julia Ward Howe was born May 27, 1819 in New York City. She married Samuel Gridley Howe of Boston, a physician and social reformer. After the Civil War, she campaigned for women rights, anti-slavery, equality, and for world peace. She published several volumes of poetry, travel books, and a play. She became the first woman to be elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters in 1908. She was an ardent antislavery activist who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic in 1862, sung to the tune of John Brown’s Body. She wrote a biography in 1883 of Margaret Fuller, who was a prominent literary figure and a member of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Transcendentalists. She died in 1910.

May 9, 2014
War Makes Us Poorer

When I began my senior year at West Point in August 2001, I took a class on national security that greatly influenced me. It was the first time I had seriously questioned the size of the U.S. military budget. My professor was a West Point graduate, Rhodes scholar, and major in the army. One day he walked in the classroom and wrote the names of eighteen countries on the board. He then looked at us and said, “The United States spends more on its military than the next eighteen countries in the world combined. Why do we need that much military spending? Isn’t that insane?”

My professor then explained that immense war spending impoverishes the American people. None of the students in the class said anything. I was shocked by what he told us and did not know how to respond. Disturbed by our silence, he said, “I’m surprised you all aren’t more outraged by this. Why do we need that much military spending?”

This week, I read an article written by Stanford professor Ian Morris, which was featured on the Washington Post website. The article was titled, “In the long run, wars make us safer and richer.” His article suggests that war is good for humanity because it makes us richer (I will also address his argument that war makes us safer later in this piece). Is this true? Was my professor incorrect? Studying the reality of military history—in addition to my experiences as an active duty soldier—has given me abundant evidence that war makes most people poorer, not richer.

Over two thousand years ago, Sun Tzu recognized that war impoverishes most people in a society. In The Art of War, he said, “When a country is impoverished by military operations, it is because of transporting supplies to a distant place. Transport supplies to a distant place, and the populace will be impoverished. Those who are near the army sell at high prices. Because of high prices, the wealth of the common people is exhausted. When resources are exhausted, then levies are made under pressure. When power and resources are exhausted, then the homeland is drained. The common people are deprived of seventy percent of their budget, while the government’s expenses for equipment amount to sixty percent of its budget.” (1)

Over two thousand years after Sun Tzu lived, the nature of war has not changed. War still impoverishes most people today. Writing in the twentieth century, war veteran George Orwell said, “The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.” (2)

Also realizing that war harms humanity in many ways, General Dwight Eisenhower compared war spending to crucifixion: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children . . . Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” (3)

Gandhi said people can have a piece of the truth, and Professor Morris certainly has a piece of the truth. He is partially correct, because war does make some people richer. Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most decorated Marines in U.S. history, witnessed the harmful aspects of war that are hidden from the public. He said, “War is a racket . . . A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.” (4)

If we want evidence to support General Butler’s claim that war “is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many,” we can look at all of military history.

Professor Morris is correct that humanity has made progress, but he mistakenly attributes this progress exclusively to war. He says, “By many estimates, 10 to 20 percent of all Stone Age humans died at the hands of other people . . . Over the [20th] century . . . just 1 to 2 percent of the world’s population died violently. Those lucky enough to be born in the 20th century were on average 10 times less likely to come to a grisly end than those born in the Stone Age. And since 2000, the United Nations tells us, the risk of violent death has fallen even further, to 0.7 percent . . . Ten thousand years ago, when the planet’s population was 6 million or so, people lived about 30 years on average . . . Now, more than 7 billion people are on Earth, living more than twice as long (an average of 67 years) . . . This happened because about 10,000 years ago, the winners of wars began incorporating the losers into larger societies.” (5)

Even if we believe the assumption that “10 to 20 percent of all Stone Age humans died at the hands of other people” (this assumption is based on speculation because people back then did not keep records of homicide rates and there are not enough skeletal remains to make such a judgment), there are many reasons why violent deaths have decreased, which Professor Morris does not mention in his article. A major reason why fewer people today die from violence is because medical technology has improved significantly.

Professor Morris’s argument is suspect, because he makes the mistake of using murder rates to claim that violence is decreasing. Because medical technology has improved so dramatically, however, we must instead look at aggravated assault rates. In his DVD The Bulletproof Mind, Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman explains:

From this point on, anytime anybody talks to you about violent crime in terms of the murder rate, completely ignore the data. The murder rate completely misrepresents the problem across any period of time. Why? Because medical technology is saving ever more lives every year . . . If we had 1930s level technology in America today, the murder rate would easily be ten times what it is. 1930s level evacuation technology, no ambulance services, no cars for most people. 1930s notification technology, no 911 systems, no phones for most people. 1930s level medical technology, no penicillin [penicillin was first discovered in 1928 but was not used widely until the late 1930s and early 1940s], no antibiotics . . . What if every gunshot wound, every knife wound, every trauma wound, there were no phones, there were no cars, and when you finally got the guy to the hospital, there were no antibiotics or penicillin? How many more would die? Easily ten times as many.

We believe that another figure that carefully parallels and tracks to give us an indicator of what it might be like is the child mortality rate. And the child mortality rate in the year 1900 was 30 times what it is today . . . So what you’ve got to look at is not the murder rate, but you’ve got to look at the rate at which people are trying to kill one another off. And that is best represented by the aggravated assault rate. And aggravated assault in 1957 was 65 per 100,000. By the early 1990s, it has gone up to almost 450 per 100,000, a seven-fold increase. Seven times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than we were in the 1950s. Now, it went down a little bit throughout the 1990s . . . but even with that little downtown in the 1990s, we’re still five times greater than we were in the 1950s.(6)

Professor Morris also suggests that war has created societies with a higher standard of living that are more peaceful, organized, and inclusive, but again he mistakenly attributes this progress to war. Did war accomplish all of this progress, or did nonviolent struggle play a crucial role? For example, America’s Founding Fathers rebelled against the British Empire because they felt unfairly treated. They believed it was unjust to be controlled or taxed without the opportunity to participate in the political process. They also believed that those who govern must gain the consent of the governed. The motto “No taxation without representation” echoed their grievances and became a call to arms, leading to the American Revolution.

Decades after the war ended, however, less than 10 percent of Americans could vote in national elections. Women could not vote (or own property or graduate from college). African Americans could not vote. And most white people could not vote unless they owned land. During the early nineteenth century “No taxation without representation” only seemed to apply to a minority of rich landowners.

How did so many Americans increase their liberties during the past two hundred years? Did non-landowners fight a war to achieve the right to vote? Did women fight a war to get the right to vote? Did African Americans fight a war to attain their civil rights? Did American workers fight a war to gain their rights? Was a war fought for child labor laws? These victories for liberty and justice were achieved because people waged peace, but most of us are not taught this important part of our history.

Although the American Civil War kept our country together, it took a peaceful movement—the civil rights movement—before African Americans truly got their human rights. And how many European countries fought a civil war to end slavery? Zero.

A person can make an informed argument that war was needed to stop Hitler in the 1940s or end American slavery in the nineteenth century, but that is not Professor Morris’s point. He claims that war makes humanity richer, even though military history contains countless examples of conquerors turning conquered peoples into slaves or second-class citizens, exploiting the resources of conquered nations, and neglecting the basic needs of their own people in order to fund a rapidly growing war machine.

It is difficult to debunk all the myths in Professor Morris’s article in this short piece, because these myths were not created by him, but are deeply entrenched in societies around the world. Recent research shows that another commonly believed myth in our society is also harming us. Professor Morris echoes this myth by saying, “People almost never give up their freedoms—including, at times, the right to kill and impoverish one another—unless forced to do so; and virtually the only force strong enough to bring this about has been defeat in war or fear that such a defeat is imminent.” (7)

The groundbreaking research of Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan debunks the myth that war is the only way to overcome oppression by showing that nonviolence has become more effective than violence at combating injustice. Erica Chenoweth explains, “From 1900 to 2006, nonviolent campaigns worldwide were twice as likely to succeed outright as violent insurgencies. And there’s more. This trend has been increasing over time, so that in the last fifty years, nonviolent campaigns are becoming increasingly successful and common, whereas violent insurgencies are becoming increasingly rare and unsuccessful. This is true even in those extremely brutal authoritarian conditions where I expected nonviolent resistance to fail.” (8)

Before learning from my West Point professor in 2001, I would have agreed with Professor Morris’s arguments, but then I learned about the deeper reality of war, and studied how nonviolence has become more effective than war as a way of solving our problems in the twenty-first century.

What are some of the problems we must solve today? The 2009 U.S. Army Sustainability Report lists several threats to national security, which include severe income disparity, poverty, and climate change. The report tells us: “The Army is facing several global challenges to sustainability that create a volatile security environment with an increased potential for conflict . . . Globalization’s increased interdependence and connectivity has led to greater disparities in wealth, which foster conditions that can lead to conflict . . . Population growth and poverty; the poor in fast-growing urban areas are especially vulnerable to antigovernment and radical ideologies . . . Climate change and natural disasters strain already limited resources, increasing the potential for humanitarian crises and population migrations.” (9)

When the U.S. Army states that “greater disparities in wealth . . . poverty . . . and climate change” are dangerous, these are some of the same concerns expressed by the Occupy movement. War cannot protect us from any of these dangers, and if we keep believing the myth that war is the only way, we will not be able to solve the problems that threaten human survival in the twenty-first century. Because we have the ability to destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, if we keep believing the myth that war is the only way, we will keep pursuing war despite the clear evidence that it threatens human survival. If we keep believing the myth that war is the only way, we will continue to create conditions that make us less safe.

What could humanity achieve if we end war? According to a study conducted by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, an economy focused on peaceful priorities would employ many more Americans than an economy that wages war. In their study they said: “This study focuses on the employment effects of military spending versus alternative domestic spending priorities, in particular investments in clean energy, health care and education . . . We show that investments in clean energy, health care and education create a much larger number of jobs across all pay ranges, including mid-range jobs and high-paying jobs. Channeling funds into clean energy, health care and education in an effective way will therefore create significantly greater opportunities for decent employment throughout the U.S. economy than spending the same amount of funds with the military.” (10)

What else could humanity achieve if we end war? General Douglas MacArthur, who had a deep understanding of war that we can all learn from, said, “The great question is: Can global war now be outlawed from the world? If so, it would mark the greatest advance in civilization since the Sermon on the Mount. It would lift at one stroke the darkest shadow which has engulfed mankind from the beginning. It would not only remove fear and bring security—it would not only create new moral and spiritual values—it would produce an economic wave of prosperity that would raise the world’s standard of living beyond anything ever dreamed of by man. The hundreds of billions of dollars now spent in mutual preparedness [for war] could conceivably abolish poverty from the face of the earth.” (11)

Endnotes

1. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. Thomas Cleary (Boston: Shambhala, 1988), 25-27.

2. George Orwell, 1984, (New York: Signet Classics, 1977), 157.

3. Dwight D. Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,” speech delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 1953.

4. Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, War Is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America’s Most Decorated Soldier (Los Angeles: Feral House, 2003), 23.

5. Ian Morris, “In the long run, wars make us safer and richer,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-long-run-wars-make…icher/2014/04/25/a4207660-c965-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html.

6. The Bulletproof Mind, DVD, 2008, Dave Grossman and Gavin de Becker.

7. Ian Morris, “In the long run, wars make us safer and richer,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-long-run-wars-make…icher/2014/04/25/a4207660-c965-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html.

8. “The Success of Nonviolent Civil Resistance: Erica Chenoweth at TEDxBoulder,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w.

9. U.S. Army Sustainability Report 2009, http://www.aepi.army.mil/docs/whatsnew/ FinALArmySustainabilityreport2010.pdf.

10. The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities: An Updated Analysis by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier, http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/spending_priorities_Peri.pdf.

11. General MacArthur: Speeches and Reports: 1908-1964, Edward T. Imparato, ed. (Paducah, KY: Turner Publishing, 2000), 237.

May 1, 2014
Comments from a Nuclear Zero Lawyer

Phon van den Biesen delivered these comments during the NGO presentations at the 2014 Non-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom.

Introduction

It is a great honor for me to address this distinguished meeting. I am an attorney in Amsterdam and Vice-President of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms.

Last Thursday, in my capacity as Co-Agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), I submitted nine Applications to the International Court of Justice against each of the nine states possessing nuclear weapons.(1) The legal team advised the RMI that this was an entirely responsible thing to do given the state of the law today.

In litigation breach of contract is one of the common grounds to sue. This is not different in international litigation. If any one State is not getting what it is entitled to, based on a contract, a treaty or norms of customary international law, in spite of the clarity of the language in which the obligations are stated, there comes a day that such a State will stop requesting politely and will bring the State that is not delivering to Court. Since July 1996, some three quarters of the UN General Assembly have, indeed and over and over again, been asking politely for a beginning of negotiations leading to leading to an early conclusion of a convention prohibiting and eliminating nuclear weapons.(2) However, most of the nuclear armed States wouldn’t have it and ignored the polite request. And so these cases are now in Court.

Jurisdiction of the Court

Three of the nuclear-armed States have accepted the general compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (UK, India and Pakistan). The other six have not done so and are, therefore, in accordance with the rules regulating the World Court, invited to accept the Court’s jurisdiction in the cases brought by the RMI. These six states maintain they are committed to the international rule of law and the at least eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. They should come before the Court and explain their positions, and give the Court a wider opportunity to resolve the deep divide of opinion concerning compliance with obligations of nuclear disarmament.

The 1996 Advisory Opinion

In its Advisory Opinion of July 1996 the World Court provided an extensive answer to the question posed by the General Assembly with respect to the legality or illegality of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Besides that and in the context of the question posed by the UNGA, the Court provided additional analysis:

“98. (…)In the long run, international law, and with it the stability of the international order which it is intended to govern, are bound to suffer from the continuing difference of views with regard to the legal status of weapons as deadly as nuclear weapons. It is consequently important to put an end to this state of affairs: the long-promised complete nuclear disarmament appears to be the most appropriate means of achieving that result.” (para. 98. of the Advisory Opinion)

From that starting point the Court went ahead and stated that it “appreciates the full importance of the recognition by Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of an obligation to negotiate in good faith a nuclear disarmament.” (para. 99 of the Advisory Opinion) And then the Court went on to – unanimously –conclude:

“F. 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.” (para. 105(2)F, concluding section of the Advisory Opinion)

So, the Court provided this additional analysis; the existing obligation is formulated in no uncertain terms.

Contents of the applications

In each of the nine Applications – which serve as a mere introduction to the proceedings – the RMI provides the relevant facts with respect to the nuclear arsenals as well as the nuclear policy of the Respondent State and sets out the main points of our legal position.(3) Among other things we argue that upgrading and modernizing a State’s nuclear arsenal is not particularly providing evidence of respect for the legal obligation to bring the nuclear arms race to an early cessation, but rather it demonstrates that the Respondent State is not performing its legal obligations in good faith. The RMI also argues that the continued refusal of most of the nuclear-armed States to permit the commencement of negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament or even to participate in an Open-Ended Working Group aimed at facilitating such negotiations is evidence of their breaching the central obligation “to pursue and bring to a conclusion”.

What RMI asks from the Court

The RMI requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Respondent is, in performing its obligations, not acting in good faith, and also to adjudge and declare that the Respondent breaches its obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. Obligations that flow from Article VI of the NPT and also from the requirements developed under customary international law. Also, in each of these cases the RMI requests the Court to Order the Respondent to pursue, by initiation if necessary, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.

David and Goliath

The steps taken by the RMI have been characterized through the David and Goliath metaphor. That picture, certainly, is useful especially when one is aware that in the fight between these two men David prevailed. But we should not forget that in Court cases the respective actual powers of the two parties to “the fight” are not a relevant factor. All parties are equal before the law; all parties are equal before the World Court. Each State is entitled to demand that promises made are kept.

All State Parties to the NPT are under the obligation to pursue these negotiations. A situation in which less than two hands full of States are frustrating the expectations, yes, the rights of the great majority of States is not sustainable and needs to be put to an end, not by the law of force, but rather by the force of law.

Endnotes

1. Three of the cases are on the Court’s General List: Proceedings instituted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 24 April 2014; Proceedings instituted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on 24 April 2014; Proceedings instituted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the Republic of India on 24 April 2014. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3

2. Most recently, A/RES/68/42, adopted 5 December 2013

3. UK: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/160/18296.pdf; Pakistan: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/159/18294.pdf; India: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/158/18292.pdf. Applications filed against the other six nuclear-armed states are available at www.nuclearzero.org, which also has contact information for the International Legal Team.

May 1, 2014

Sunflower Newsletter: May 2014

Issue #202 – May 2014

On April 24, 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed lawsuits against all nine nuclear-armed nations for failure to negotiate nuclear disarmament. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has stood by the side of the Marshall Islands and played an important role as their consultant in the “Nuclear Zero Lawsuits.” This issue of The Sunflower is intended to give readers more in-depth information about the lawsuits and is dedicated to the courageous leaders of the Marshall Islands who filed these lawsuits.

To learn more about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, click here.

Perspectives
- The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits: Taking Nuclear Weapons to Court by David Krieger
- Speech at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee by Tony de Brum
- Russia and the US Respond to Nuclear Zero Lawsuits by Rick Wayman
- Comments from a Nuclear Zero Lawyer by Phon van den Biesen
Selected Media Coverage of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
- Television: Fox News
- Newspaper: Associated Press
- Radio: Voice of Russia
- Online: Slate
Resources
- Be a Hero for Nuclear Zero – Sign the petition
- A Guide for NGOs and Campaigners
- Copies of All Ten Lawsuits
Quotes

Perspectives

The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits: Taking Nuclear Weapons to Court

by David Krieger

Given the extreme dangers of nuclear weapons, we might ask: why isn’t more being done to eliminate them? There has been talk and promises, but little action by the nine nuclear-armed nations – United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. All nine countries are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.

One small Pacific nation, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, has decided to take legal action against the nine nuclear-armed countries, which are threatening our common future. As Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands, points out, “The continued existence of nuclear weapons and the terrible risk they pose to the world threatens us all.”

The Marshall Islands is taking its case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and, in addition, filing against the U.S. separately in U.S. Federal District Court in San Francisco. The lawsuits argue that the nuclear disarmament obligations apply to all nine nuclear-armed states as a matter of customary international law. The courts are being asked to declare that the nuclear weapon states are in breach of their obligations under international law and order them to begin negotiating in good faith to achieve a cessation of the nuclear arms race and a world with zero nuclear weapons.

To read more, click here.

Speech at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee

by Tony de Brum

Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands, delivered this speech at the opening session of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee on April 28, 2014.

Ministers and Disarmament Ambassadors and experts have gathered here from around the world with the serious responsibility to achieve ultimate disarmament under the NPT – but I must ask how many people in this room, here today, have personally witnessed nuclear detonations?

I, for one, have – I am a nuclear witness and my memories from Likiep atoll in the northern Marshalls are strong. I lived there as a young boy for the entire 12 years of the nuclear testing program, and when I was 9 years old, I remember vividly the white flash of the Bravo detonation on Bikini atoll, 6 decades ago in 1954, and one thousand times more powerful than Hiroshima – and an event that truly shocked the international community into action.

Disarmament is only possible with political will – we urge all nuclear weapons states to intensify efforts to address their responsibilities in moving towards an effective and secure disarmament. The Marshall Islands affirms important bilateral progress amongst nuclear powers – but further underscores that this still falls short of the NPT’s collective and universal purpose. International law – and legal obligations – are not hollow and empty words on a page, but instead the most serious form of duty and commitment between nations, and to our collective international purpose.

It is for this reason why I have participated as a co-agent in recent filings at the International Court of Justice and elsewhere against the world’s major nuclear powers. Those that make binding obligations within international treaties, and those who are bound by customary international law, must and will be held accountable for the pursuit of those commitments and obligations.

To read more, click here.

You can also watch a video of Tony de Brum’s speech that he delivered later the same day during NAPF’s lunchtime event at the United Nations in New York. Click here to watch the video.

Russia and the U.S. Respond to Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

by Rick Wayman

Very little has been said thus far about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits by representatives of the offending nations. However, the Russian Foreign Ministry did issue a statement about the lawsuit. One excuse they made is: “Russia has reduced its strategic nuclear potential by more than 80 percent and its non-strategic nuclear weapons by three-quarters from their peak numbers.”

Given what is widely known about the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, it is inexcusable for any nation to maintain an arsenal of any size. Perhaps Russia does not realize this because it actively chose to boycott the conferences on humanitarian impacts organized by Norway in 2013 and Mexico in 2014. Russia’s continued boycotting of multilateral initiatives for nuclear disarmament (including the Open-Ended Working Group) demonstrates a lack of good faith effort.

The U.S. State Department also released a short statement about the lawsuits, saying, “The U.S. is dedicated to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, consistent with our obligations under the [NPT].”

This might be the first time the Obama administration has written the words “peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” and not immediately followed it with some version of “not in my lifetime.” If the U.S. is dedicated to a world without nuclear weapons, why is it modernizing its nuclear arsenal and planning which nuclear weapons it will deploy in the 22nd century?

To read more, click here.

Comments from a Nuclear Zero Lawyer

by Phon van den Biesen

On April 24, in my capacity as Co-Agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), I submitted nine Applications to the International Court of Justice against each of the nine states possessing nuclear weapons. The legal team advised the RMI that this was an entirely responsible thing to do given the state of the law today.

In litigation, breach of contract is one of the common grounds to sue. This is not different in international litigation. If any one State is not getting what it is entitled to, based on a contract, a treaty or norms of customary international law, in spite of the clarity of the language in which the obligations are stated, there comes a day that such a State will stop requesting politely and will bring the State that is not delivering to Court. Since July 1996, some three quarters of the UN General Assembly have, indeed and over and over again, been asking politely for a beginning of negotiations leading to leading to an early conclusion of a convention prohibiting and eliminating nuclear weapons. However, most of the nuclear armed States wouldn’t have it and ignored the polite request. And so these cases are now in Court.

To read more, click here.

Click here to watch a video of Phon van den Biesen’s comments at the NAPF lunchtime event at the United Nations on April 28, 2014.

Selected Media Coverage of Lawsuits

Television: Fox News

On April 24, Laurie Ashton, Counsel to the Republic of the Marshall Islands on the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, appeared on Fox News with Shepard Smith. Fox News has the largest viewing audience of any U.S. news station during the middle of the day when this report aired.

“Marshall Islands Launch Lawsuit Against Nuclear Nations,” Fox News, April 24, 2014.

Newspaper: Associated Press

The tiny Pacific nation of the Marshall Islands is taking on the United States and the world’s eight other nuclear-armed nations with an unprecedented lawsuit demanding that they meet their obligations toward disarmament and accusing them of “flagrant violations” of international law.

The island group that was used for dozens of U.S. nuclear tests after World War II filed suit Thursday against each of the nine countries in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. It also filed a federal lawsuit against the United States in San Francisco, naming President Barack Obama, the departments and secretaries of defense and energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration.

“I personally see it as kind of David and Goliath, except that there are no slingshots involved,” David Krieger, President of the California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told The Associated Press. He is acting as a consultant in the case.

The country is seeking action, not compensation. It wants the courts to require that the nine nuclear-armed states meet their obligations.

Cara Anna, “Tiny Pacific Nation Sues Nine Nuclear-Armed Powers,” The Associated Press, April 24, 2014.

Radio: Voice of Russia

Rick Wayman, NAPF Director of Programs, and Laurie Ashton, Counsel to the Marshall Islands, appeared on Voice of Russia radio to discuss the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits. Ashton explained that the premise of the Marshall Islands’ claims is that the nuclear-armed nations have failed to engage in negotiations to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and have not had negotiations about complete nuclear disarmament. She said, “In fact, in the 44-year history of the treaty such negotiations have never been convened.”

Wayman said that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation along with other prominent anti-nuclear weapons organizations had started an advocacy campaign to support the Marshall Islands called “Nuclear Zero.”

Sean Nevins, “Marshall Islands Sue Nuclear States for Complete Disarmament,” Voice of Russia, April 25, 2014.

Online: Slate

In an intriguing case, the Marshall Islands – a Pacific Island nation of about 68,000 people – filed suit in the International Court of Justice at the Hague against the world’s nine nuclear-armed nations over their failure to work toward eliminating these weapons. A separate U.S. federal lawsuit was also filed in a court in San Francisco against President Barack Obama, the secretaries of defense and energy, and the National Nuclear Security Administration.

“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,” said Marshallese Foreign Minister Tony de Brum.

Laurie Ashton, one of the American attorneys representing the country in the suit, said that measures such as the New START Treaty, under which the United States and Russia agreed to reductions of their nuclear arsenals, don’t pass muster.

“Reducing certain categories of arms does not satisfy the obligation to cease the nuclear arms rate,” she said. “If you’re reducing certain categories of your arms while you are modernizing and creating weapons in other categories, you’re still arms racing. Secondly, the Non-Proliferation Treaty calls for good-faith negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament, and the United States as refused to even call for such negotiations.”

Joshua Keating, “Why the Marshall Islands Is Suing the World’s Nuclear Powers,” Slate, April 25, 2014.

Resources

Be a Hero for Nuclear Zero: Sign the Petition

Add your voice to support the courageous action by the Marshall Islands to hold the nine nuclear-armed nations accountable for nuclear disarmament. Go to www.nuclearzero.org, where you can sign the petition, learn more about the Marshall Islands and the lawsuits, and share the good news with your friends.

Zero is the only safe number of nuclear weapons in the world. The leaders of many nations know this, but until now, no country has been willing to stand up to the “Nuclear Nine.” Let the Marshall Islands know that you think they made the right decision, and let the leaders of the Nuclear Nine know that you demand that they negotiate for nuclear disarmament.

A Guide for NGOs and Campaigners

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has published a 12-page guide as a resource for non-governmental organizations and campaigners around the world who support the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits. The guide contains a summary of the lawsuits, frequently asked questions, a sample article and press release, and suggested social media content.

To download a copy of the guide, click here.

Click here to watch a short video of NAPF President David Krieger explaining how individuals and organizations can help support the Marshall Islands in this campaign.

Copies of All Ten Lawsuits

The Marshall Islands filed nine separate applications in the International Court of Justice – one for each of the nine nuclear-armed nations. They filed an additional lawsuit against the United States in U.S. Federal District Court.

Click here to download all of the filings.

Quotes

“The failure of these nuclear-armed countries to uphold important commitments and respect the law makes the world a more dangerous place. We must ask why these leaders continue to break their promises and put their citizens and the world at risk of horrific devastation. This is one of the most fundamental moral and legal questions of our time.”

— Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate and member of the NAPF Advisory Council, speaking about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits.

“The continuing recalcitrance displayed by the nine nuclear weapon states not to disarm as promised in the NPT places life on earth on the cusp of annihilation every second of every day. The world is in a perpetual state of psychic numbing edging unconsciously as lemmings towards the cliff of nuclear extinction.”

— Dr. Helen Caldicott, member of the NAPF Advisory Council, speaking about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits.

“These applications to the International Court of Justice constitute an action by one friend to remind another to abide by its legal obligations to secure a world of peace, free of nuclear weapons. It is the least we can do for our children and other living things on Earth.”

— Tony de Brum, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, speaking about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits.

“Nuclear weapons – the antithesis of humankind’s yearning for peace – should have no place in a world community determined to achieve mutual security on a global scale.”

— H.E. Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, in a statement delivered at the 2014 Non-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom.

Editorial Team

David Krieger

Carol Warner

Rick Wayman

May 1, 2014

May: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

May 3, 1983 – The U.S. Catholic Bishops Pastoral Letter on War and Peace, promulgated by sixty distinguished bishops, noted that, “Nuclear weaponry has drastically changed the nature of warfare and the arms race poses a threat to human life and human civilization which is without precedent.” In their conclusions the bishops asserted that, “The [nuclear] arms race is one of the greatest curses on the human race.” The letter called for the elimination of nuclear weapons and global militarization. Today, there still exists tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the world including strategic, tactical, reserve, and standby warheads. The arms race may not be growing uncontrollably as it did during the Cold War, but it is not inexorably moving toward Global Zero either. Recent tensions in Russian-American relations hint that a renewed Cold War may be possible. (Source: Philip Louis Cantelon, Richard Hewitt, and Robert C. Williams, editors. “The American Atom: A Documentary History of Nuclear Policies from the Discovery of Fission to the Present.” University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991, second edition, pp. 267-68.)

May 5, 1962 – Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, at a speech before NATO ministers in Athens warned the representatives that “NATO should never be forced to choose between suffering a military defeat or starting a nuclear war.” He also expressed concern that the existence of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe increased the threat of nuclear war. In 2014, especially with increased tension levels with the Russian Federation over the Crimea-Ukraine Crisis, there remain serious concerns about U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. There are still about 200 U.S. nuclear weapons stored in Turkey, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands for use by NATO aircraft. And, of course, Russia also has tactical nuclear weapons deployed close to their borders with Europe and Turkey. (Source: Eric Schlosser. “Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.” New York: Penguin Press, 2013, pp. 287, 476-77.)

May 15, 1957 – The United Kingdom tested its first thermonuclear weapon at a Christmas Island test site in the Pacific. The Grapple 1/Short Granite test produced a yield of 200-300 kilotons. It was one of 45 nuclear weapons tests by Britain in the Pacific region along with another 24 conducted in the U.S. at the Nevada Test Site. Those tests were a small sample of thousands of nuclear weapons tests conducted by the U.S., Russia, China, and other members of the Nuclear Club. As of this writing, according to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization’s website, 183 nations have signed and 162 countries have ratified a treaty that bans all nuclear testing. The CTBT was initially signed by the U.S., U.K., and almost seventy other nations on September 24, 1996. (Source: Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors. “Arms Control Chronology” Washington, DC: Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 4, 6, and CTBT Organization’s website, www.ctbto.org accessed April 14, 2014.)

May 16, 2000 – New York Times journalist William Broad reported the release of declassified documents relating to a staff study by the U.S. Air Force Special Weapons Center conducted in January of 1959. One of the participants in the study, the late astronomer-physicist Carl Sagan, was among several scientists tasked to assess the feasibility of conducting a nuclear weapons test on the lunar surface. Sagan and the other participants concluded that the blast would “ruin the pristine environment of the moon.” On January 27, 1967, the multilateral Outer Space Treaty was signed and the agreement was later entered into force on October 10 of that same year. The treaty prohibits the placement of weapons of mass destruction in orbit, on the moon, or on any celestial body. The only recent dilution of the international consensus to prevent nuclear weapons from being deployed or exploded outside Earth’s atmosphere has been debate about utilizing nuclear weapons, as a last resort, to prevent a possible future asteroid or comet collision with our planet. (Source: B612 Foundation, www.b612foundation.org accessed April 14, 2014.)

May 22, 2011 – Islamic militants attacked, penetrated the defensive perimeter, and seized at least one building at a naval aviation base, PNS Mehran, outside Karachi, Pakistan. It took approximately one day for Pakistani military forces to kill or capture the assailants. While it is believed that there were no nuclear weapons stored at this base, a similar attack staged about 15 miles away at a suspected nuclear weapons storage facility near Masroor could result in the theft of nuclear warheads or materials which could be used in a future WMD attack on Pakistan, India, or any nation including the United States. Nuclear terrorism represents perhaps the most likely threat that would be dramatically reduced or eliminated if global nuclear arsenals were reduced to less than 200-500 warheads. (Source: Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY, www.ctc.usma.edu accessed April 14, 2014.)

May 26, 1972 – In Moscow, President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I) Interim Agreement which placed a ceiling on strategic offensive nuclear weapons. Also signed was the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM-I) which limited strategic anti-ballistic missile defenses. More recently, building on the SALT I and II as well as START and SORT agreements, the two nations signed on to the New START Treaty on April 8, 2010. That treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011. This agreement limited the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 while also limiting each side’s deployed strategic missiles and bombers to 700. However, President George W. Bush’s December 13, 2001 announced withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, which was culminated six months later, combined with deployments of missile defense systems in Europe during the Bush and Barack Obama administrations has helped introduce a significant level of strategic instability into nuclear relations between Russia and America. The U.S. and NATO have justified ABM systems as a way to circumvent breakout by Iran and the possible launching of future nuclear-capable ballistic missiles by that nation. However, Russia views U.S. plans for missile defenses in Europe as a threat to Moscow. Recently, because of the Crimea-Ukraine Crisis, both sides have either delayed or cancelled planned future discussions/negotiations on the matter leading many to believe that a possible Cold War II may be eminent. (Source: Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors. “Arms Control Chronology.” Washington, DC: Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 2, 4.)

May 1, 2014
Peace Leadership in Washington DC

In April, members of Pax Christi Metro DC-Baltimore arranged for NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell to give presentations at three area high schools: Bishop McNamara High School (pictured here), Gonzaga High School, and St. John’s High School. One administrator wrote:

“…your arguments and examples are clear, realistic, and rational, and they ask us to use our hearts in decision-making…”

Paul Chappell also addressed volunteers for Little Friends for Peace, a D.C. organization that reaches out to middle school students to curb violence. He was also the keynote speaker for the 29th annual conference for Maryland United for Peace and Justice.

When asked about the best way for the peace movement to move forward (a question Paul is often asked), he discussed the need to go deeper into the philosophy of nonviolence and train ourselves to wage peace.

Paul has been asked to give a peace leadership training in Washington, D.C. on Friday, Sept. 12 and Saturday, Sept. 13. For more information on the D.C. training, please email jdeck@napf.org.

May 1, 2014
United States and Russia Respond to Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

The “Nuclear Nine” – U.S., Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – were sued five days ago by the Republic of the Marshall Islands for breach of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and related provisions of customary international law. Very little has been said thus far by representatives of the offending nations. Below is a summary of the statements of Russia, the U.S. and Israel along with some commentary.

Russia

“As a result … Russia has reduced its strategic (long-range) nuclear potential by more than 80 percent and its non-strategic nuclear weapons by three-quarters from their peak numbers.”

An eighty percent reduction of a huge number is still a huge number. Russia continues to possess up to 8,500 nuclear weapons. Given what is now widely known about the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, it is inexcusable for any nation to act as if it is ok to maintain an arsenal of any size. Perhaps Russia does not realize this because it actively chose to boycott the conferences on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons organized by Norway in 2013 and Mexico in 2014. Their continued boycotting of multilateral initiatives for nuclear disarmament clearly demonstrates Russia’s lack of good faith efforts to fulfill Article VI of the NPT.

Laurie Ashton, counsel to the Marshall Islands on these lawsuits, said, “A country that agrees to reduce antiquated nuclear stockpiles while spending hundreds of billions to make other categories of nuclear weapons more lethal is clearly still arms racing. In a November 23, 2011 speech, the then Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, stated that Russia’s ‘new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defense penetration systems and new highly-effective warheads.’ The people of the world know when they are being played, and can see right through any argument that responsibility for stalled nuclear disarmament rests elsewhere.”

“We are convinced that filing baseless suits does not foster a favorable conditions [sic] for further steps by the international community in the area of arms control and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

Of course the Russian Foreign Ministry is not going to welcome a lawsuit for breach of an important international treaty. But calling these lawsuits “baseless” is disingenuous and outrageous. Regardless of one’s position on what the outcome of the lawsuits should be, it is quite clear that the Marshall Islands has a valid complaint that deserves to be heard in the courts.

I’m unsure what Russia might consider “favorable conditions” or “further steps,” but I can guess based on the tone of this statement and their decades of inaction on nuclear disarmament. “Favorable conditions” are conditions in which the non-nuclear weapon states continue to be silent and accept the continued existence of thousands of nuclear weapons by a small group of countries. “Further steps” are pretending that the Conference on Disarmament will ever accomplish anything after a nearly two decade deadlock, modernizing its nuclear arsenal while making token reductions in total numbers of weapons, and sidestepping questions about why good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament are not on the agenda.

“For past 45 years, the international community has made no serious efforts [to fulfill the treaty’s obligation that signatories seek a pact on] complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

This is an obvious attempt to re-direct the blame to the non-descript and unaccountable “international community.” The lawsuit clearly spells out the allegations against Russia. It has not negotiated in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date – the NPT has been in force for over 44 years and Russia continues, along with other nuclear-armed nations, to modernize its nuclear arsenal. Russia has not negotiated in good faith for nuclear disarmament. These are violations not only of Article VI of the NPT, but also of customary international law as defined in 1996 by the International Court of Justice.

Phon van den Biesen, co-agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the cases before the International Court of Justice, replied effectively to Russia’s position yesterday when a member of Russia’s delegation to the NPT brought up the point about complete disarmament. Phon said, perhaps only half-jokingly, “You’re talking about the next lawsuit.”

“The Russian Federation is open to interaction with its NPT partners with the aim of seeking the most effective paths to realization of the Treaty.”

Russia boycotted last year’s Open-Ended Working Group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament initiatives. As mentioned earlier, they have also actively worked against the humanitarian initiative led by Norway, Mexico and Austria.

United States

“The U.S. is dedicated to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, consistent with our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.”

When I dedicate myself to achieving something, I aim to do it within my lifetime, and preferably much sooner than that. This statement from the U.S. Department of State might be the first time the Obama administration has written the words “peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” without immediately following it with some version of “not in my lifetime.”

If I am dedicated to losing weight, I am not going to remodel my kitchen and install a new deep fryer and replace the essential components of my soda machine. If the U.S. is indeed dedicated to a world without nuclear weapons, why is it modernizing its nuclear arsenal and planning which nuclear weapons will be deployed in the 22nd century?

“We have a proven track record of pursuing a consistent, step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament – the most recent example being the New START Treaty.”

The New START Treaty was signed four years ago. The treaty made modest cuts to the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons, but was only ratified by the U.S. at a steep cost – an agreement to modernize nuclear weapons and build new nuclear weapon facilities. The New START Treaty has proven at best to be a step forward in arms control, but certainly not in nuclear disarmament.

It is painfully obvious that the step-by-step approach so loved by the P5 is little more than a delaying tactic to placate those who are either not paying attention or satisfied with the daily threats to humanity posed by nuclear weapons. At this rate, complete nuclear disarmament will not be achieved in this lifetime or, as former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believes, “in successive lifetimes.”

Israel

Paul Hirschson, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said he was unaware of the lawsuit, however “it doesn’t sound relevant because we are not members of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.”

“It sounds like it doesn’t have any legal legs,” he said about the lawsuit, adding that he was not a legal expert.

I’m not a legal expert either, but just a cursory reading of the application against Israel submitted by the Marshall Islands shows that the lawsuit relates to customary international law. Israel may think it is fine to continue to pretend that they do not possess nuclear weapons, but by filing this lawsuit, the Marshall Islands is calling on Israel to come clean and do the right thing – to negotiate along with all other nuclear-armed states for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

April 29, 2014
An Open Letter to President Loeak of the Marshall Islands

Dear Mr President,

I 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.

In peace,

Kate Hudson

General Secretary

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

April 28, 2014
Marshall Islands Statement to 2014 NPT PrepCom

Republic of the Marshall Islands

Hon. Mr. Tony de Brum
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the Marshall Islands
Statement at the General Debate of the
3rd Meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the
2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
United Nations, New York 28 April 2014

Mr. Chairman, Excellencies, Colleagues, Distinguished Ambassadors, Ladies & Gentlemen,

I have the honor to speak on behalf of the Marshall Islands.

The Marshall Islands wishes to thank Mexico for holding the recent Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, and the Marshall Islands is also proud to have joined 124 other nations in the Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons, delivered by New Zealand before the UN General Assembly’s First Committee last October.

Mr. Chairman,

The Marshallese people have one of the most important stories to tell regarding the need to avert the use of nuclear weapons, and one which should spur far greater efforts for nuclear disarmament.

I must remind this meeting that it was ultimately under the status and administration of the United Nations, as a UN Trust Territory, that the Marshall Islands was used as a nuclear testing ground. Indeed, the only instance I am ever aware of in which the UN specifically authorized testing and use of nuclear weapons is under UN Trusteeship Resolution 1082, adopted in 1954, and UN Trustee Resolution 1493 adopted in 1956. We experienced 67 nuclear tests between 1946 and 1958 – at a scale of 1.6 Hiroshima shots every day for twelve years. This is not only a historical issue but one whose consequences remain with us today as a burden which no nation, and which no people, should ever have to carry. It was the experience in the Marshall Islands of nuclear testing which ultimately served to shock the world into pursuing not only non-proliferation but ultimate disarmament.

I have not come here today with any intent to air out bilateral issues with the former UN administering power, the United States, which conducted these tests. The facts speak for themselves, they have been recognized by the leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum, and most importantly by the 2012 report of the UN Special Rapporteur. It will be rightly in Geneva at the UN Human Rights Council, including through its Universal Periodic Review, where human rights issues will be raised in full.

Rather, I have come here today to ask if it must be the Marshall Islands that again reminds the United Nations, and particularly its member states, of the risks and consequences of nuclear weapons?

Ministers and Disarmament Ambassadors and experts have gathered here from around the world with the serious responsibility to achieve ultimate disarmament under the NPT – but I must ask how many people in this room, here today, have personally witnessed nuclear detonations?

I, for one, have – I am a nuclear witness and my memories from Likiep atoll in the northern Marshalls are strong. I lived there as a young boy for the entire 12 years of the nuclear testing program, and when I was 9 years old, I remember vividly the white flash of the Bravo detonation on Bikini atoll, 6 decades ago in 1954, and one thousand times more powerful than Hiroshima – and an event that truly shocked the international community into action.

The UN Trusteeship resolutions and documents on the nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands are fading as the yellowing pages crumble in your fingers – some of them are missing altogether – but our Marshallese memories and experience have not faded. It is as though the world has lost true focus of this nuclear threat as if it is treated in passing as a casual risk, and not a dire and grave threat. I challenge the other NPT member states to prove wrong my skepticism.

Mr. Chairman,

Like so many other nations, the Republic of the Marshall Islands also believes that the awareness of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons must underpin all approaches and efforts towards nuclear disarmament. It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances – and the truly universal way to accomplish this is through the total elimination of such weapons, including through fulfilling the objectives of the NPT and achieving its universality. It should be our collective goal as the United Nations, and as Parties to the NPT, to not only stop the spread of nuclear weapons, but also to pursue the peace and security of a world without them.

The Marshall Islands urges all NPT members to achieve the treaty’s obligations – this is not an issue of bloc politics, it is an issue of collective security. If the treaty’s goal from over 45 years ago is no less relevant today, than it seems this relevance is not fully matched by political will and adequate progress. We have seen almost five decades of an endless cycle of promises and further promises.

The 2010 NPT Action Plan – adopted by consensus – is an important benchmark against which everyone is measuring progress in implementing the NPT through specific and often time-bound actions. But this Action Plan is also likely to reveal serious and grave shortcomings in implementation – it should be beyond any question that legal obligations remain unfulfilled, that under the NPT’s defining purpose, and after decades of diplomacy, we are all still so far from the end conclusion.

Disarmament is only possible with political will – we urge all nuclear weapons states to intensify efforts to address their responsibilities in moving towards an effective and secure disarmament. The Marshall Islands affirms important bilateral progress amongst nuclear powers – but further underscores that this still falls short of the NPT’s collective and universal purpose. International law – and legal obligations – are not hollow and empty words on a page, but instead the most serious form of duty and commitment between nations, and to our collective international purpose.

It is for this reason why I have participated as a co-agent in recent filings at the International Court of Justice and elsewhere against the world’s major nuclear powers. Those that make binding obligations within international treaties, and those who are bound by customary international law, must and will be held accountable for the pursuit of those commitments and obligations.

Further, while the Marshall Islands recognizes the valid right of all States Parties to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under relevant NPT articles, this is an obligation that only exists with the highest standards of safety and security. The Marshall Islands underscores that these rights exist not only in any false cover or inarguable abuse. Moreover, the NPT itself is not a light switch to be turned on and off at convenience – States must be held to full accountability for violations of the Treaty or in abusing withdrawal provisions – a matter of concern for every nation, and the wider global community that defines us all.

The Marshall Islands is not the only nation in the Pacific, nor the world, to be touched by the devastation of nuclear weapons testing. The support of the Republic of the Marshall Islands for a nuclear-free Pacific has long been clouded by other agreements, and we are encouraged that the United States has provided a new perspective on the Rarotonga Treaty’s protocols. We express again our aspirations to join with our Pacific neighbors in supporting a Pacific free of nuclear weapons in a manner consistent with international security.

Thank you, and kommol tata.

April 28, 2014
Nuclear Zero Lawsuits Launched This Morning

Big news today – April 24, 2014 – out of The Hague and San Francisco. The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) has filed unprecedented lawsuits against all nine countries that possess nuclear weapons for their failure to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament, as required under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The suits were filed against all nine nations at the International Court of Justice, with an additional complaint against the United States filed in U.S. Federal District Court.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation applauds the courage of the RMI’s leaders in bringing lawsuits against the nuclear-armed nations. The people of the RMI continue to suffer today from U.S. nuclear weapon tests that took place on their territory in the 1940s and 1950s, and they want to ensure that such devastation – or worse – is never brought on anyone ever again.

NAPF is playing a key role in the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits campaign, which just launched this morning. Please go to www.nuclearzero.org, where you can learn more about the specifics of the lawsuits and show your support by signing a petition supporting the RMI’s bold, non-violent action.

We’ll be bringing you much more news about these lawsuits in the coming days and weeks. But right now, there are two things I’d like for you to do:

1. Go to nuclearzero.org and sign the petition, and then share it with your friends.

2. Share / re-tweet announcements about the lawsuits from our Facebook and Twitter pages.

These lawsuits could be the thing that finally breaks the nuclear weapon states’ shameful decades of inaction on nuclear disarmament. Please take a moment to add your voice to the campaign today.

April 24, 2014