Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • The Story of Sadako

    Sadako was two years old when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. She was two kilometers away from where the bomb exploded. Most of Sadako’s neighbors died, but Sadako wasn’t injured at all, at least not in any way people could see.

    Up until the time Sadako was in the seventh grade (1955) she was a normal, happy girl. However, one day after an important relay race that she helped her team win, she felt extremely tired and dizzy. After a while the dizziness went away leaving Sadako to think that it was only the exertion from running the race that made her tired and dizzy. But her tranquillity did not last. Soon after her first encounter with extreme fatigue and dizziness, she experienced more incidents of the same.

    One day Sadako became so dizzy that she fell down and couldn’t get up. Her school-mates informed the teacher. Later Sadako’s parents took her to the Red Cross Hospital to see what was wrong with her. Sadako found out that she had leukemia, a kind of blood cancer. Nobody could believe it.

    At that time they called leukemia the “A-bomb disease”. Almost everyone who got this disease died, and Sadako was very scared. She wanted to go back to school, but she had to stay in the hospital where she cried and cried.

    Shortly thereafter, her best friend, Chizuko, came to visit her. Chizuko brought some origami (folding paper). She told Sadako of a legend. She explained that the crane, a sacred bird in Japan, lives for a hundred years, and if a sick person folds 1,000 paper cranes, then that person would soon get well. After hearing the legend, Sadako decided to fold 1,000 cranes in the hope that she would get well again.

    Sadako’s family worried about her a lot. They often came to visit her in hospital to talk to her and to help her fold cranes. After she folded 500 cranes she felt better and the doctors said she could go home for a short time, but by the end of the first week back home the dizziness and fatigue returned and she had to go back to the hospital.

    Sadako kept folding cranes even though she was in great pain. Even during these times of great pain she tried to be cheerful and hopeful. Not long afterwards, with her family standing by her bed, Sadako went to sleep peacefully, never to wake up again. She had folded a total of 644 paper cranes.

    Everyone was very sad. Thirty-nine of Sadako’s classmates felt saddened by the loss of their close friend and decided to form a paper crane club to honor her. Word spread quickly. Students from 3,100 schools and from 9 foreign countries gave money to the cause. On May 5, 1958, almost 3 years after Sadako had died, enough money was collected to build a monument in her honor. It is now known as the Children’s Peace Monument, and is located in the center of Hiroshima Peace Park, close to the spot where the atomic bomb was dropped.

    Many of the children who helped make the Children’s monument a reality participated in the ceremony. Three students, including Sadako’s younger brother Eiji Sasaki pulled the red and white tape off the statue to symbolize its completion, while Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony was played. The little bell, contributed by Dr. Yukawa, inscribed with “A Thousand Paper Cranes” on the front and “Peace on Earth and in Heaven” on the back, rang out and the sound carried as far as the A-bomb Dome and the Memorial Cenotaph.

    Children from all over the world still send folded paper cranes to be placed beneath Sadako’s statue. In so doing, they make the same wish which is engraved on the base of the statue:

    “This is our cry, This is our prayer, Peace in the world.”

  • Nelson Mandela: The United States of America is a Threat to World Peace

    Originally Published in Newsweek

    In a rare interview, the South African demands that George W. Bush win United Nations support before attacking Iraq

    Nelson Mandela, 84, may be the world’s most respected statesman. Sentenced to life in prison on desolate Robben Island in 1964 for advocating armed resistance to apartheid in South Africa, the African National Congress leader emerged in 1990 to lead his country in a transition to non-racial elections. As president, his priority was racial reconciliation; today South Africans of all races refer to him by his Xhosa clan honorific, Madiba. Mandela stepped down in 1999 after a single five-year term. He now heads two foundations focused on children. He met with NEWSWEEK’S Tom Masland early Monday morning in his office in Houghton, a Johannesburg suburb, before flying to Limpopo Province to address traditional leaders on the country’s AIDS crisis.

    Excerpts:

    NEWSWEEK: Why are you speaking out on Iraq? Do you want to mediate, as you tried to on the Mideast a couple of years ago? It seems you are reentering the fray now.

    NELSON MANDELA: If I am asked, by credible organizations, to mediate, I will consider that very seriously. But a situation of this nature does not need an individual, it needs an organization like the United Nations to mediate.

    We must understand the seriousness of this situation. The United States has made serious mistakes in the conduct of its foreign affairs, which have had unfortunate repercussions long after the decisions were taken. Unqualified support of the Shah of Iran led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979.

    Then the United States chose to arm and finance the [Islamic] mujahedin in Afghanistan instead of supporting and encouraging the moderate wing of the government of Afghanistan. That is what led to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    But the most catastrophic action of the United States was to sabotage the decision that was painstakingly stitched together by the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America]is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that France, Germany Russia, China are against this decision. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United tates of America. If you look at those factors, you’ll see that an individual like myself, a man who has lost power and influence, can never be a suitable mediator.

    NEWSWEEK: What about the argument that’s being made about the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s efforts to build a nuclear weapons. After all, he has invaded other countries, he has fired missiles at Israel. On Thursday, President Bush is going to stand up in front of the United Nations and point to what he says is evidence of…

    NELSON MANDELA: SScott Ritter, a former United Nations arms inspector who is in Baghdad, has said that there is no evidence whatsoever of [development of weapons of] mass destruction. Neither Bush nor [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such weapons exist. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that. Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white.

    NEWSWEEK: So you see this as a racial question?

    NELSON MANDELA: Well, that element is there. In fact, many people say quietly, but they don’t have the courage to stand up and say publicly, that when there were white secretary generals you didn’t find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations. But now that you’ve had black secretary generals like Boutros Boutros Ghali, like Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it. This is not my view, but that is what is being said by many people.

    NEWSWEEK: What kind of compromise can you see that might avoid the coming confrontation?

    NELSON MANDELA: There is one compromise and one only, and that is the United Nations. If the United States and Britain go to the United Nations and the United Nations says we have concrete evidence of the existence of these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we feel that we must do something about it, we would all support it.

    NEWSWEEK: Do you think that the Bush administration’s U.N. diplomatic effort now is genuine, or is the President just looking for political cover by speaking to the U.N. even as he remains intent on forging ahead unilaterally?

    NELSON MANDELA: Well, there is no doubt that the United States now feels that they are the only superpower in the world and they can do what they like. And of course we must consider the men and the women around the president. Gen. Colin Powell commanded the United States army in peacetime and in wartime during the Gulf war. He knows the disastrous effect of international tension and war, when innocent people are going to die, young men are going to die. He knows and he showed this after September 11 last year. He went around briefing the allies of the United States of America and asking for their support for the war in Afghanistan. But people like Dick Cheney’s I see yesterday there was an article that said he is the real president of the United States of America, I don’t know how true that is. Dick Cheney, [Defense secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, they are people who are unfortunately misleading the president. Because my impression of the president is that this is a man with whom you can do business. But it is the men who around him who are dinosaurs, who do not want him to belong to the modern age. The only man, the only person who wants to help Bush move to the modern era is Gen. Colin Powell, the secretary of State.

    NEWSWEEK: I gather you are particularly concerned about Vice President Cheney?

    NELSON MANDELA: Well, there is no doubt. He opposed the decision to release me from prison (laughs). The majority of the U.S. Congress was in favor of my release, and he opposed it. But it’s not because of that. Quite clearly we are dealing with an arch-conservative in Dick Cheney.

    NEWSWEEK: I’m interested in your decision to speak out now about Iraq. When you left office, you said, “I’m going to go down to Transkei, and have a rest.” Now maybe that was a joke at the time. But you’ve been very active.

    NELSON MANDELA: I really wanted to retire and rest and spend more time with my children, my grandchildren and of course with my wife. But the problems are such that for anybody with a conscience who can use whatever influence he may have to try to bring about peace, it’s difficult to say no.

  • On Bradley Manning and America

    I am posting on this blog two important texts that deserve the widest public attention and deep reflection in the United States and elsewhere. I would stress the following:

    –the extraordinary disconnect between the impunity of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, and others who authorized and vindicated the practice of torture, were complicit in crimes against humanity, and supported aggressive wars against foreign countries and the vindictive rendering of ‘justice’ via criminal prosecutions, harsh treatment, and overseas hunts for Snowden and Assange, all individuals who acted selflessly out of concern for justice and the rights of citizens in democratic society to be informed about governmental behavior depicting incriminating information kept secret to hide responsibility for the commission of crimes of state and awkward diplomacy; a perverse justice dimension of the Manning case is well expressed in the statement below of the Center of Constitutional Rights “It is a travesty of justice that Manning who helped bring to light the criminality of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, is being punished while the alleged perpetrators are not even investigated.” And “We fear for the future of our country in the wake of this case.”

    –the vindictive punishment of Bradley Manning, a historically stiff imprisonment for the unlawful release of classified documents, a dishonorable discharge from military service that is a permanent stain, a demotion to the lowest rank, and imprisonment for 35 years;

    –the failure of the prosecution or the military judge or the national leadership to acknowledge the relevance of Manning’s obviously ethical and patriotic motivations and the extenuating circumstance of stress in a combat zone that was producing observable deteriorations in his mental health;

    –an increasingly evident pattern of constructing a national security state that disguises its character by lies, secrecy, and deception, thereby undermining trust between the government and the people, creating a crisis of legitimacy; it is part of the pattern of ‘dirty wars’ fought on a global battlefield comprehensively described in Jeremy Scahill’s book with that title;

    –the mounting challenge directed at President Obama to grant Manning’s request for a presidential pardon, and to reverse course with respect to the further authoritarian drift that has occurred during his time in the White House; ever since Obama’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech when he claimed American adherence to the rule of law, it has been evident that such a commitment does not extend to high level governmental violators at home (“too important to prosecute”) or to the sovereign rights of foreign countries within the gunsights of the Pentagon or the CIA or to the crimes of America’s closest allies; international law is reserved for the enemies of Washington, especially those who resist intervention and occupation, or those who dare to be whistle-blowers or truth-tellers in such a highly charged atmosphere that has prevailed since the 9/11 attacks; the opening of Manning’s statement below suggests the relevance of such a context to the evolution of his own moral and political consciousness;

    –read Bradley Manning’s statement and ask yourself whether this man belongs in prison for 35 years (even granting eligibility for parole in seven years), or even for a day; imagine the contrary signal sent to our citizenry and the world if Manning were to be awarded the Medal of Freedom! It is past time that we all heeded Thomas Jefferson’s urgent call for ‘the vigilance’ of the citizenry as indispensable to the maintenance of democracy.

    STATEMENT BY BRADLEY MANNING ON BEING SENTENCED

    The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war. We’ve been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life.

    I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing. It was at this time I realized in our efforts to meet this risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity. We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians. Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability.

    In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

    Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown our any logically based intentions [unclear], it is usually an American soldier that is ordered to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

    Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy—the Japanese-American internment camps to name a few. I am confident that many of our actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

    As the late Howard Zinn once said, “There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

    I understand that my actions violated the law, and I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intention to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.

    If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.

    STATEMENT OF THE CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

    August 21, 2013 – Today, in response to the sentencing of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement.

    We are outraged that a whistleblower and a patriot has been sentenced on a conviction under the Espionage Act. The government has stretched this archaic and discredited law to send an unmistakable warning to potential whistleblowers and journalists willing to publish their information. We can only hope that Manning’s courage will continue to inspire others who witness state crimes to speak up.

    This show trial was a frontal assault on the First Amendment, from the way the prosecution twisted Manning’s actions to blur the distinction between whistleblowing and spying to the government’s tireless efforts to obstruct media coverage of the proceedings. It is a travesty of justice that Manning, who helped bring to light the criminality of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, is being punished while the alleged perpetrators of the crimes he exposed are not even investigated.  Every aspect of this case sets a dangerous precedent for future prosecutions of whistleblowers – who play an essential role in democratic government by telling us the truth about government wrongdoing – and we fear for the future of our country in the wake of this case.

    We must channel our outrage and continue building political pressure for Manning’s freedom. President Obama should pardon Bradley Manning, and if he refuses, a presidential pardon must be an election issue in 2016.

    This article was originally published on Richard Falk’s blog.

    Richard Falk is Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and NAPF Senior Vice President.

  • Los protectores del Medio Ambiente

    Click here for the English version.

    La principal misión y el compromiso de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation es educar y abogar por la paz y un mundo libre de armas nucleares y apoyar a los líderes de la paz, así como la preservación del medio ambiente y garantizar los derechos de las generaciones futuras. A través de seminarios, programas de sensibilización, libros y los medios de comunicación, llegamos a mucha gente y unimos nuestra voz a otras organizaciones que luchan para lograr ese momento anhelado, la eliminación total de todas las armas nucleares.

    También somos conscientes de otras situaciones que ponen en peligro el futuro y la salud de nuestro planeta.  Con el fin de disfrutar del mundo de paz que deseamos, tenemos que tener en primer lugar, un mundo con la naturaleza y todas sus maravillas. Y ese mundo está bajo el asedio por las actividades humanas implacables que saquean nuestra casa común sin tener en consideración las consecuencias de la codicia y el egoísmo.

    Nuestros recursos naturales están disminuyendo rápidamente, tratamos a nuestro mundo como un banco, retirando todos los días la riqueza, pero sin hacer depósitos o inversiones.

    Es innegable que el cambio climático está ocurriendo y muy rápido. Mientras escribo estas notas, estoy leyendo que un panel internacional de científicos ha llegado a la conclusión de que el nivel del mar podría elevarse un metro a finales de este siglo, con todas sus catastróficas consecuencias.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-human-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html?ref=global-home&_r=0

    Otra noticia inquietante que afectará a todos nosotros son los continuos asesinatos impunes de los defensores y protectores del medio ambiente. Ellos mismos se están convirtiendo en una especie en peligro de extinción, al igual que los animales y las plantas que tratan de salvar.

    Esos crímenes atroces no respetan las fronteras nacionales o continentes. En particular, en América Latina, con sus vastos recursos naturales han ocurrido muchas de esas acciones perturbadoras.

    En el pequeño y hermoso país que es Costa Rica, una vez llamada la “Suiza de América” y nombrada por Jacques Cousteau, “Isla de paz”, la protección de las especies animales y las reservas naturales ha disminuido dramáticamente.

    En mayo pasado un joven conservacionista, Jairo Mora, dedicado a la protección de las tortugas laúd y sus nidos en las playas de la costa atlántica de Costa Rica, fue asesinado cobardemente en una de sus rondas de patrullaje. Junto con cuatro mujeres voluntarias extranjeras, tres estadounidenses y una española, fueron emboscados y secuestrados la noche del 31 de mayo. Los hombres encapuchados ataron a las mujeres en una casa abandonada en una área remota de la provincia de Limón. Jairo fue obligado a ir con sus captores y pocas horas después su cuerpo fue encontrado en una de sus queridas playas con signos de tortura y asfixia. Este no es un hecho aislado en un país que ha sido distinguido con el reconocimiento del mundo por sus esfuerzos para proteger sus ricos recursos naturales y la eliminación de su ejército en 1948. Es una de las 15 naciones de todo el mundo que no mantiene fuerzas militares. Ahora, la situación es muy diferente en el país de Oscar Arias, ganador del Premio Nobel de la Paz y en dos ocasiones Presidente de Costa Rica.

    Como un claro ejemplo de la forma en que ha cambiado la antigua “Isla de paz”, su actual presidente, Laura Chinchilla, en una de sus primeras declaraciones públicas el 30 de octubre de 2010, pidió – “la colaboración para hacer frente a los grupos radicales de las ONG del medio ambiente, que no les gusta el desarrollo y quieren ver a Costa Rica como un museo de historia natural “.
    www.noalamina.org/mineria-latinoamerica/mineria-costa-rica/presidenta-de-costa-rica-llama-a-combatir-a-grupos-ambientalistas-2

    Con ese tipo de mentalidad, no son de sorprender acontecimientos como el asesinato de Jairo y las enormes dificultades que los defensores del medio ambiente están enfrentando en Costa Rica.

    En la inmensidad de América del Sur, Brasil alberga el ecosistema más grande del planeta, la Amazonia y el poderoso río Amazonas.   Durante muchos años, numerosos protectores de la flora y la fauna han sido acosados e incluso asesinados. El legendario Chico Méndez, también conocido como “El Gandhi de la Amazonia” luchó incansablemente tratando de salvar la selva tropical. Fue ejecutado en diciembre de 1988, hecho que provocó un movimiento mundial en contra de la destrucción de la mayor selva tropical en la Tierra. Después de Chico, muchos otros activistas y periodistas, verdaderos héroes que trabajan a menudo en el anonimato, han pagado con su vida por haberse atrevido a oponerse a la aniquilación del medioambiente que podría alterar la faz del planeta. Esa larga lista incluye a una monja estadounidense de 72 años, Dorothy Stang, asesinada el 12 de febrero de 2005.  Dorothy luchó tenazmente contra la industria maderera y su deforestación de la selva amazónica.

    Ahora tenemos que añadir otro nombre, el biólogo español Gonzalo Alonso Hernández. Gonzalo fue asesinado el 6 de agosto de este año, su cuerpo torturado fue arrojado a las aguas de una región que amaba y protegía.  Aquí tenemos a un alto ejecutivo de una empresa de telefonía española, Telefónica, que llegó a Brasil en 2003 y dejó la compañía en 2005 después de enamorarse de la selva que lo rodeaba, dedicando su vida exclusivamente a la labor ambiental. Se destacó por su defensa de los ríos, las plantas y animales en peligro de extinción, denunciando a los cazadores furtivos y pirómanos que abren espacios para ranchos y granjas.

    En otro país importante, México, bendecido por la naturaleza, esa peligrosa situación es similar para los ecologistas y activistas. La lista de crímenes en contra de los defensores del medio ambiente es impresionante. En los últimos dos años por lo menos trece defensores han perdido la vida luchando contra las grandes empresas mineras, madereras, los mega-desarrolladores e incluso los carteles de la droga.  Es una lucha desigual, debido a la corrupción del sistema legal mexicano.

    Noé Vázquez Ortiz, fue asesinado a pedradas el 2 de agosto de este año a causa de su oposición a la represa hidroeléctrica de El Naranjal, en el estado de Veracruz, un estado ya plagado por los continuos asesinatos de periodistas. Él era el líder de los campesinos que tratan de detener la privatización del agua que afecta a los ríos y lagos y amenaza sus costumbres y forma de vida.

    Sólo para citar otro caso, en octubre de 2012, Ismael Solorio y su esposa Manuela Solís, fueron asesinados debido a su defensa y apoyo a los derechos de los mineros que se oponen a la poderosa empresa canadiense, Mag Silver en San José del Progreso, Oaxaca. Las condiciones de trabajo de los mineros son miserables. La destrucción del medio ambiente es enorme. Unos días antes de su muerte, Ismael había denunciado la posibilidad de derramamiento de sangre si el Gobierno no intervenía. Sus advertencias fueron totalmente ignoradas.

    Nosotros en NAPF creemos que es nuestro deber moral denunciar estos y muchos otros crímenes en contra de los que dedican su vida en beneficio de sus semejantes. Exigimos justicia y que mantengamos vivo el nombre y la memoria de estos héroes caídos.

    Rubén Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation y Embajador Global del Pacto Climático de Ciudades. Él colabora con la organización de Jean-Michel Cousteau, Ocean Futures Society, como Director para América Latina y productor de cine.

  • Nukes Are Nuts

    When asked by a reporter why nuclear weapons are useless, Colin Powell, former US secretary of state and four-star general said: “Because they’re such horrible weapons. And so no sane leader would ever want to cross that line to using nuclear weapons. And, if you are not going to cross that line, then these things are basically useless.” In other words, one could say, nukes are nuts.

    There are innumerable global security issues that need to be addressed, some of which are poverty, terrorism, the climate crisis, pollution of the oceans, loss of biodiversity and forest depletion. Not one of these issues can be addressed with nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons draw much-needed resources away from solving these global problems. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons are justified by their possessors for nuclear deterrence, but nuclear deterrence is only a hypothesis about human behavior. While “no sane leader would ever want to cross that line,” even the best of political and military leaders can be less than rational at times, particularly when they are under stress. Nuclear deterrence is only as sound as the craziest political or military leader with a finger on the nuclear button. Does the name Kim Jong-un raise any concerns? Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons are weapons of vast overkill. They are equal-opportunity destroyers of men, women and children. The radioactive effects of these weapons cannot be contained in time or space. They affect not only the living, but generations yet to be born. Their radioactive material will affect countless future generations. Even a small regional nuclear war could result in a global nuclear famine, killing a billion people. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons can destroy everything we hold dear and love most. They can destroy every special thing, every sacred thing that has ever been created. Nuclear weapons are anti-human weapons: they threaten us all, even their possessors, and place all of humanity at risk of annihilation. But they also place all of complex life at risk of destruction. The possession of these weapons makes us irresponsible stewards of our environment and of all the creatures dependent upon our stewardship. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons are extremely costly, with anticipated global expenditures for the next decade at over $1 trillion. The US plans to modernize its B61 bombs, which it deploys in five European countries, at a cost that is more than two times that of building them out of solid gold. Nuclear weapons take away resources from the education of the world’s children, medical treatment from the world’s sick and infirm and food from the world’s hungry. Nukes are nuts.

    Nuclear weapons divide us when we need to unite to find cooperative, diplomatic and nonviolent solutions to the great global issues of the 21st century. Only nine countries have nuclear weapons and, of these, only two countries, the US and Russia, possess more than 90 percent of the more than 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Nukes are not useful, nor are they status symbols. Nukes are nuts.

    Every man, woman and child on the planet can understand that nukes are nuts. So, if we understand that, what are we going to do about it? My answer is to wage all-out peace with a sense of urgency until the last nuclear weapon is eliminated from the planet. We would be nuts to settle for anything less.

    This article was originally published on Truthout.

  • Buenos Aires Declaration on Nuclear Disarmament

    The Senior Officials of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), having met on August 20, 2013 in the city of Buenos Aires, Republic of Argentina, aware of the historical commitment of the Community towards nuclear disarmament, issued the following Declaration:

    1. Highlighted the relevance and full validity of the Special Communiqué on the Complete Elimination of Nuclear Weapons adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the CELAC, on December 3, 2011 in Caracas, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  In this context, they reiterated their grave concern at the threat that the ongoing existence of nuclear weapons and their potential use or threat of use poses for mankind.

    2. Highlighted also the full validity of the Declaration of the 33 Member States of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), adopted in September 2011, reaffirming, inter alia, the urgent need to advance towards the primary goal of nuclear disarmament and achieve complete and general elimination of nuclear weapons, and in this regard, agreed to join the efforts of the International Community in making progress towards the negotiation of a universal and legally binding instrument banning nuclear weapons.

    3. Reaffirmed that the region grants the highest priority to the achievement of a complete and verifiable nuclear disarmament and reiterated that the only guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is their complete elimination.

    4. Reiterated that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons constitutes a crime against humanity and a violation of international law, including international humanitarian law, and of the Charter of the United Nations.

    5. Highlighted the importance of active participation by CELAC Member States in drafting concrete proposals to achieve universal nuclear disarmament, in accordance with a multilaterally agreed clear, irreversible, and verifiable timeframe.

    6. Identified as a legitimate interest of non-nuclear-weapon States, which includes all CELAC Member States, the unequivocal and legally binding assurance by nuclear weapon States against the use or threat to use such weapons.  CELAC Member States called for a start to the negotiation and adoption, as soon as possible, of a universal and legally binding instrument on negative security assurances.

    7. Called on all States, in particular Nuclear Weapon States, to eliminate the role of nuclear weapons in their doctrines, military strategies and security policies or as a prospective approach for the management of conflicts in order to achieve the total elimination of this armament regardless of its type or geographical location.

    8. Stressed that the establishment of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones strengthens international peace and security as well as the non-proliferation regime, and is an important contribution to nuclear disarmament.

    9. Expressed Latin America and the Caribbean’s pride in being the first densely populated area in the world to be declared a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ), under the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco). Reaffirmed that the establishment of a NWFZ in the Latin American and Caribbean region has contributed to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as to regional and global peace and security.

    10. Emphasized that the Tlatelolco Treaty and the OPANAL have constituted a political, legal and institutional reference in the establishment of other Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) in different regions of the world. Today OPANAL’s experience, together with that of the other four existing NWFZs and Mongolia as a single State unilaterally declared free of nuclear weapons, constitutes an important heritage of the international community to inspire the establishment of new NWFZs and advance towards the goal of a nuclear weapons free world.

    11. Urged nuclear powers to withdraw all interpretative declarations to the Protocols I and II of the Tlatelolco Treaty that constitute actual reservations prohibited by this Treaty, thus contributing to eliminate the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons against the countries of the region. Expressed their commitment to continue working with those States Parties to the Protocols in order to convince them to withdraw or modify such declarations.

    12. Regretted the failure to implement the agreement on the convening in 2012 of an International Conference for the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Reiterated that the convening of this Conference is an important and integral part of the final outcome of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Expressed that the outcomes of this Conference will be an important contribution to achieve the nuclear disarmament goal and reiterated their firm conviction that the establishment of said Zone would represent a significant step towards the peace process in the Middle East region. Urged the convening of this Conference as soon as possible.

    13. Urged Nuclear-Weapon States to fulfill their commitments under Article VI of the NPT, and to advance towards the complete elimination of those weapons.  Urged them to fully and immediately implement the thirteen (13) practical steps towards nuclear disarmament agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, as well as the Plan of Action adopted at the 2010 Review Conference.

    14. Reaffirmed the inalienable right of States to develop research, production and peaceful use of nuclear energy without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I, II, III and IV of the NPT.  Reiterated the commitment of all Parties to the Treaty to facilitate participation in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

    15. Expressed their total rejection to the enhancement of existing nuclear weapons and the development of new types of nuclear weapons, which is inconsistent with the obligation of complete nuclear disarmament.

    16. Called on all States to refrain from nuclear weapon test explosions, other nuclear explosions or any other relevant non-explosive experiments, including subcritical experiments, for nuclear weapons development purposes. Such actions are contrary to the object and purpose of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), its spirit, if not the letter, undermining its desired impact as a nuclear disarmament measure.

    17. Reiterated the demand for a comprehensive nuclear test ban and urged those States in Annex II whose ratification are essential for the entry into force of the CTBT to accelerate the process of signing and/or ratifying this instrument, as a matter of priority and an indication of their political will and commitment to international peace and security.

    18. Reaffirmed the importance of initiating negotiations for an international legally binding instrument banning nuclear weapons and commitment towards this primary goal.

    19. Recalled that the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament (SSOD-I) established the Conference on Disarmament (CD) as the single multilateral negotiating body on disarmament. Urged the CD to demonstrate the necessary political will in order to ensure the commencement without delay of substantive work through the adoption and implementation of a balanced and comprehensive program of work that advances the agenda of nuclear disarmament.

    20. Recognized the work of the Open-ended Working Group established by Resolution A/RES/67/56 of the United Nations General Assembly, with the mandate to put forward proposals to foster multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament, as well as the proposals and contributions made in this Group by the CELAC Member Countries.

    21. Reiterated the firm commitment of the CELAC to work on convening an International High-Level Conference as soon as possible to identify ways and methods to eliminate nuclear weapons, aimed at agreeing on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specific timeframe.  This program would ban the development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and stipulate their destruction.

    22. Emphasized the intention of CELAC Member States to actively participate in the High-Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament to be held in New York on September 26, 2013, as well as in the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to be held in New York in 2014.

    23. Expressed their greatest concern at the humanitarian impact of vast proportions and global effects of any accidental or intentional nuclear detonation. Called upon the International Community to reiterate its concern on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons whenever the debate on this type of weapons takes place. Welcomed the Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, held in March 2013, and, in this regard, called all States to participate in the Second International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons to be held in Mexico, on February 13-14, 2014.

    24. Agreed to continue coordinating positions and contributing to the implementation of practical actions as a follow-up to the above mentioned High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly, including the adoption of a resolution on the matter in the First Committee, during the 68th regular session of the United Nations General Assembly.

    25. Agreed to distribute this Declaration as an official document of the High-Level Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament and as an official document of the OPANAL General Conference.

    26. Expressed appreciation to the Government and People of the Republic of Argentina for the warm hospitality and the successful organization of the Meeting.

  • Declaración de la CELAC sobre Desarme Nuclear

    Los Altos Funcionarios de la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC), reunidos el 20 de agosto en la ciudad de Buenos Aires, República Argentina,  conscientes del  compromiso histórico de la Comunidad con el desarme nuclear,  emitieron la siguiente Declaración:

    1.    Destacaron la relevancia y plena vigencia del Comunicado Especial sobre la Eliminación Total de las Armas Nucleares, adoptado  por los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de la CELAC, el 3 de diciembre de 2011, en Caracas, República Bolivariana de Venezuela. En ese contexto, reiteraron su profunda preocupación ante la amenaza contra la humanidad que representa la continua existencia de armas nucleares y su posible uso o amenaza de uso.

    2.    Enfatizaron la plena vigencia de la Declaración de los 33 Estados Miembros del OPANAL, aprobada en septiembre de 2011, en la cual, entre otras cosas, reafirmaron la necesidad urgente de avanzar hacia el objetivo prioritario del desarme nuclear y de lograr la eliminación total y general de las armas nucleares, y en ese sentido, acordaron sumarse a los esfuerzos de la comunidad internacional para avanzar hacia la negociación de un instrumento universal jurídicamente vinculante que prohíba las armas nucleares.

    3.    Reafirmaron que la región confiere la más alta prioridad a alcanzar el desarme nuclear, completo y verificable, y reiteraron que la única garantía contra el empleo o la amenaza del uso de las armas nucleares, es su total eliminación.

    4.    Reiteraron que el uso o amenaza de uso de armas nucleares constituye un crimen contra la humanidad y una violación al derecho internacional,  incluido el derecho internacional humanitario, y la Carta de Naciones Unidas.

    5.    Subrayaron la importancia de la activa participación de los Estados miembros de la CELAC en la elaboración de propuestas concretas para alcanzar el desarme nuclear universal, de acuerdo con un cronograma multilateralmente acordado, transparente, irreversible y verificable.

    6.    Identificaron como  un interés legítimo de los Estados no poseedores de armas nucleares, entre los que se incluyen todos los miembros de la CELAC,  que los Estados poseedores de armas nucleares brinden garantías inequívocas y jurídicamente vinculantes de no usar ni amenazar con el uso de esas armas. Los Estados Miembros de la CELAC instaron a trabajar en la negociación y adopción, en el plazo más breve posible, de un instrumento universal jurídicamente vinculante en materia de garantías negativas de seguridad.

    7.    Llamaron a todos los Estados, particularmente a los Estados poseedores de armas nucleares a eliminar la función de las armas nucleares en sus doctrinas, políticas de seguridad y estrategias militares, o como un enfoque prospectivo para el manejo de conflictos, con el fin de alcanzar la total eliminación de este armamento independientemente de su tipo o ubicación geográfica.

    8.    Destacaron que el establecimiento de Zonas Libres de Armas Nucleares fortalecen la paz y la seguridad internacional y regional, así como el régimen de no proliferación, siendo una importante contribución para lograr el desarme nuclear.

    9.    Expresaron el orgullo de América Latina y el Caribe por ser la primera área densamente poblada en el mundo que se declaró como Zona Libre de Armas Nucleares (ZLAN), por medio del Tratado para la Proscripción de las Armas Nucleares en la América Latina y el Caribe (Tratado de Tlatelolco). Reafirmaron que la creación de una ZLAN en la región de América Latina y el Caribe, ha contribuido con el desarme y la no proliferación nuclear, así como con la paz y la seguridad regional y global.

    10.    Destacaron que el Tratado de Tlatelolco y el Organismo para la Proscripción de las Armas Nucleares en la América Latina y el Caribe (OPANAL) han sido un referente político, jurídico e institucional en la creación de otras Zonas Libres de Armas Nucleares (ZLANs) en diferentes regiones del mundo. La experiencia del OPANAL constituye hoy, junto a las otras cuatro ZLANs existentes y Mongolia como Estado declarado unilateralmente libre de armas nucleares, un importante patrimonio de la comunidad internacional para inspirar la creación de nuevas ZLANs para avanzar hacia el objetivo de un mundo libre de armas nucleares.

    11.    Instaron a las potencias nucleares a que retiren las declaraciones interpretativas a los Protocolos I y II del Tratado de Tlatelolco, que constituyen verdaderas reservas prohibidas por el Tratado, contribuyendo así a eliminar la posibilidad del uso de armas nucleares contra los países de la región. Expresaron su compromiso de continuar trabajando con los Estados Parte en los Protocolos a fin de lograr el retiro o la adecuación de esas declaraciones.

    12.    Lamentaron el incumplimiento del acuerdo sobre la celebración en 2012 de la Conferencia Internacional para el establecimiento en el Medio Oriente de una Zona Libre de Armas Nucleares y otras Armas de Destrucción Masiva. Reiteraron que la celebración de esta Conferencia es parte importante e integral del resultado final de la Conferencia de Revisión del Tratado de No Proliferación de las Armas Nucleares (TNP) de 2010. Expresaron que los acuerdos que resulten de esta Conferencia serán una contribución importante para alcanzar el objetivo del desarme nuclear, y reiteraron su  firme convencimiento de que el establecimiento de dicha Zona significaría un paso trascendental para el proceso de paz en la región del Medio Oriente. Instaron  a que esta Conferencia se efectúe Io más pronto posible.

    13.    Urgieron a los Estados poseedores de armas nucleares a cumplir con sus compromisos asumidos en virtud del Artículo VI del TNP y avanzar hacia la eliminación total de esas armas. Los instaron a la plena e inmediata aplicación de las 13 medidas prácticas hacia el desarme nuclear acordadas en la Conferencia de Examen del TNP del año 2000, así como el Plan de Acción aprobado en la Conferencia de Examen de 2010.

    14.    Reafirmaron el derecho inalienable de los Estados a desarrollar la investigación, la producción y el uso pacífico de la energía nuclear sin discriminación y de conformidad con los Artículos I, II, III y IV del TNP. Reiteraron el compromiso de todas las Partes del Tratado de facilitar la participación en el intercambio más completo posible de equipos, materiales e información científica y tecnológica para el uso pacífico de la energía nuclear.

    15.    Expresaron su total rechazo al perfeccionamiento de las armas nucleares existentes y al desarrollo de nuevos tipos de esas armas, lo que es inconsistente con la obligación de un completo desarme nuclear.

    16.    Llamaron a todos los Estados a que se abstengan de efectuar explosiones de prueba de armas nucleares, otras explosiones nucleares o cualquier otro experimento no explosivo relevante, incluyendo experimentos subcríticos, para fines de desarrollo de armas nucleares. Estas acciones son contrarias al objeto y propósito del Tratado de Prohibición Completa de los Ensayos Nucleares (CTBT), su espíritu, si no la letra, socavando su impacto deseado como una medida de desarme nuclear.

    17.    Reiteraron la exigencia de que se prohíban completamente los ensayos nucleares de todo tipo e instaron a los Estados del anexo II, cuya ratificación es imprescindible para la entrada en vigor del CTBT, a que aceleren su proceso de firma y/o ratificación de dicho instrumento, como una cuestión prioritaria, y una muestra de su voluntad política y de su compromiso con la paz y la seguridad internacionales.

    18.    Reafirmaron la importancia de que se inicien las negociaciones para un instrumento internacional jurídicamente vinculante que prohíba las armas nucleares y su compromiso en favor de este objetivo prioritario.

    19.    Recordaron que la Primera Sesión Extraordinaria de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas dedicada al Desarme (SSOD-I) estableció la Conferencia de Desarme (CD) como único órgano de negociación multilateral de desarme. Instaron a la CD a demostrar la voluntad política necesaria para asegurar el inicio sin más demora de labores sustantivas a través de la adopción e implementación de un programa de trabajo equilibrado e integral que avance la agenda de desarme nuclear.

    20.    Reconocieron la labor del Grupo de Trabajo de Composición Abierta creado por la Resolución A/RES/67/56 de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, con el mandato de elaborar propuestas para hacer avanzar las negociaciones multilaterales de desarme nuclear, así como las propuestas y contribuciones presentadas en ese Grupo por Estados  miembros de la CELAC

    21.    Reiteraron el firme compromiso de la CELAC de trabajar en la convocatoria de una Conferencia Internacional de Alto Nivel para identificar las vías y métodos de eliminar las armas nucleares en el plazo más corto posible, con el objetivo de acordar un programa por fases para la eliminación completa de las armas nucleares en un período de tiempo específico, que prohíba su desarrollo, producción, adquisición, prueba, almacenamiento, transferencia, uso o amenaza del uso, y estipular su destrucción.

    22.    Enfatizaron la intención de los Estados Miembros de la CELAC de participar de manera activa en la Reunión de Alto Nivel de la Asamblea General de la ONU sobre Desarme Nuclear, que tendrá lugar en Nueva York, el 26 de septiembre de 2013, así como en la Tercera Sesión  del Comité  Preparatorio de la Conferencia de Examen  del Tratado de No Proliferación de Armas Nucleares, a realizarse en Nueva York el año 2014.

    23.    Expresaron su más alta preocupación por las consecuencias humanitarias de enormes proporciones y los efectos globales de cualquier detonación nuclear accidental o intencional. Exhortaron a la comunidad internacional a reiterar su preocupación sobre las consecuencias humanitarias de las armas nucleares, donde sea que se lleve a cabo el debate sobre este tipo de armas. Dieron la bienvenida a los resultados de la Conferencia de Oslo sobre el Impacto Humanitario de las Armas Nucleares, celebrada en marzo de 2013 y, en este sentido, hicieron un llamado a todos los Estados a participar en la segunda Conferencia Internacional sobre el Impacto Humanitario de las Armas Nucleares que se celebrará en México, los días 13 y 14 de febrero de 2014.

    24.    Acordaron continuar coordinando posiciones y contribuir a la implementación de acciones prácticas en  seguimiento a la mencionada Reunión de Alto Nivel de la Asamblea General, incluyendo la adopción de una resolución sobre el tema en la Primera Comisión durante el 68 período ordinario de sesiones de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas.

    25.    Acordaron distribuir la presente Declaración como documento oficial de la Reunión de Alto Nivel de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas sobre Desarme Nuclear y como documento oficial de la Conferencia General del OPANAL.

    26.    Agradecieron al Gobierno y al Pueblo de la República Argentina por la cálida hospitalidad y la exitosa organización de la Reunión.

  • Clinging to Mass Violence

    Is the human race determined to snuff itself out through mass violence? There are many signs that it is.

    The most glaring indication lies in the continued popularity of war. Despite well over a hundred million deaths in World Wars I and II, plus the brutal military conflicts in Korea, Indochina, Hungary, Algeria, Lebanon, Angola, Mozambique, the Philippines, the Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, wars continue to rage across the globe, consuming vast numbers of lives and resources. In 2012, worldwide military spending reached $1.75 trillion. Moreover, the most lavish spenders for weaponry, war, and destruction were the supposedly “civilized” nations of NATO, with $1 trillion in military expenditures. By far the biggest military spender in 2012 was the United States, which accounted for 39 percent of the world total.

    Nor has this pattern shifted since that time. Currently, the U.S. government is pouring $7 billion a month into its twelve-and-a-half-year-long war in Afghanistan. Elsewhere, drones are rapidly becoming the U.S. weapons of choice in the worldwide “War on Terror,” with America’s largest spy drone, the Global Hawk, costing $220 million each. In recent months, as the U.S. House of Representatives voted to end food stamps for the poor, continued the sequestration that slashed meals for sick and homebound seniors, and moved toward ending Saturday mail delivery, it rejected a 1 percent cut in military spending and, then, voted for a national defense authorization that provided for billions of dollars more than the Pentagon requested.

    Furthermore, a nation’s armed forces often engage in violent behavior quite unrelated to their national security. Commanded by military officers viewing themselves as the saviors of their countries, they have staged bloody coups against own governments, terrorizing and massacring civilians in large numbers, as they did in Indonesia, Burma, Nigeria, Brazil, Greece, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and many other countries. At the moment, in fact, the Egyptian armed forces, having deposed a democratically-elected, civilian government, are busy gunning down thousands of Egyptians.

    In fairness to the official armed forces, it should be noted that the mass violence in many societies goes far beyond them. Terrorism, gang wars, and religious massacres continue to plague nations around the globe. In the United States, lynching has declined dramatically, but gun-related killings are quite common. More than 30,000 Americans die in gun violence each year and – in a society with over 300 million firearms in the hands of civilians – it seems unlikely that such violence will decline. Indeed, massacres by gunmen – for example, the murder of 20 children and 6 teachers at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – have become almost routine.

    Admittedly, the Sandy Hook massacre was the work of a mentally-deranged individual. But the NRA’s response to a series of mass killings – opposition to all gun control legislation and a stubborn insistence that wider availability of guns will reduce violence – makes the Newtown maniac look relatively sane. And what is one to say about the mental state of the pro-gun zealots who, this August, made plans to turn up, fully-armed, at a Starbucks in Newtown — and were foiled only when the horrified management shut down the coffee house?

    The acceptability of mass violence is demonstrated on a much larger scale by national governments’ ongoing preparations for nuclear war. Sixty-eight years after the U.S. government employed atomic bombs to exterminate the populations of two Japanese cities and it became clear to all but the mentally feeble that nuclear war meant global annihilation, over 17,000 nuclear weapons remain in existence, with 94 percent of them in the arsenals of the U.S. and Russian governments. Despite numerous claims by national leaders that they are committed to building a nuclear weapons-free world, the United States, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan are currently modernizing their nuclear weapons, with the United States and Russia spending about $75 billion a year between them on this project. Meanwhile, the North Korean government threatens to attack the United States with its small nuclear arsenal, while the Iranian government continues a uranium enrichment process that might enable it to enter the nuclear club. Appropriately enough, the famous “Doomsday Clock” of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientistsstands at five minutes to midnight.

    There are, of course, important countervailing trends. Responding to the development of modern, mechanized warfare, mass-based peace movements began to appear in the nineteenth century. During the twentieth century, these movements grew even larger, particularly after the advent of nuclear weapons. In place of war, they championed international arbitration, global cooperation, arms control and disarmament, and the development of global governance. The World Court, the United Nations, and other international institutions owe much to this public pressure. Within individual nations, as well, critics of mass violence fostered new, more cooperative modes of education, non-violent resistance, conflict resolution, innovative therapies, peace studies programs, and gun control campaigns.

    But resorting to violence is a long-term, deeply-ingrained habit in human history, and is not easily discarded. To shake it probably requires less attention to a royal childbirth or the latest sex scandal and more attention to the dangers of mass violence in an age of modern weaponry and war. This was certainly what the French writer, Albert Camus, meant when, in the immediate aftermath of World War II and the first use of nuclear weapons, he offered a simple but powerful challenge: “All I ask is that, in the midst of a murderous world, we agree to reflect on murder and to make a choice.”

    Lawrence S. Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university life, What’s Going On at UAardvark? (Solidarity Press).

  • Nagasaki Peace Declaration 2013

    Sixty-eight years ago today, a United States bomber dropped a single atomic bomb directly over Nagasaki. The bomb’s heat rays, blast winds, and radiation were immense, and the fire that followed engulfed the city in flames into the night. The city was instantly reduced to ruins. Of the 240,000 residents in the city, around 150,000 were afflicted and 74,000 of them died within the year. Those who survived have continued to suffer from a higher incidence of contracting leukemia, cancer, and other serious radiation-induced diseases. Even after 68 years, they still live in fear and suffer deep psychological scars.

    Humankind invented and produced this cruel weapon. Humankind has even gone so far as using nuclear weapons on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Humankind has repeatedly conducted nuclear tests, contaminating the earth. Humankind has committed a great many mistakes. This is why we must on occasion reaffirm the pledges we have made in the past that must not be forgotten and start anew.

    I call on the Japanese government to consider once again that Japan is the only country to have suffered a nuclear bombing. At the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, held in Geneva in April 2013, several countries proposed a Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons to which 80 countries expressed their support. South Africa and other countries that made this proposal asked Japan to support and sign the statement.

    However, the Japanese government did not sign it, betraying the expectations of global society. If the Japanese government cannot support the remark that “nuclear weapons [should never be] used again under any circumstances,” this implies that the government would approve of their use under some circumstances. This stance contradicts the resolution that Japan would never allow anyone else to become victims of a nuclear bombing.

    We are also concerned about the resumption of negotiations concerning the Japan-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. Cooperating on nuclear power with India, who has not signed the NPT, would render the NPT meaningless as its main tenet is to stop the increase of the number of nuclear-weapon states. Japan’s cooperation with India would also provide North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT and is committed to nuclear development, with an excuse to justify its actions, hindering efforts toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

    I call on the Japanese government to consider once again that Japan is the only country to have suffered a nuclear bombing. I call on the Japanese government to enact the Three Non-Nuclear Principles into law and take proactive measures to exert its leadership by creating a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, thus fulfilling its duty as the only nation to have suffered an atomic bombing.

    Under the current NPT, nuclear-weapon states have a duty to make earnest efforts towards nuclear disarmament. This is a promise they’ve made to the rest of the world. In April of 2009, United States President Barack Obama expressed his desire to seek a nuclear-free world during a speech in Prague. In June this year, President Obama stated in Berlin that he would work towards further reduction of nuclear arsenals, saying, “So long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.” Nagasaki supports President Obama’s approach.

    However, there are over 17,000 nuclear warheads still in existence of which at least 90% belong to either the United States or Russia. President Obama, President Putin, please commit your countries to a speedy, drastic reduction of your nuclear arsenal. Rather than envisioning a nuclear-free world as a faraway dream, we must quickly decide to solve this issue by working towards the abolition of these weapons, fulfilling the promise made to global society.

    There are things that we citizens can do to help realize a nuclear-free world other than entrusting the work to leaders of nations only. In the preface of the Constitution of Japan, it states that the Japanese people have “resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government.” This statement reflects the firm resolution of the Japanese people to work for world peace. In order not to forget this original desire for peace, it is essential to impart the experiences of war and atomic devastation to succeeding generations. We must continue to remember war has taken many lives and caused the physical and mental anguish of a great many more survivors. We must not forget the numerous cruel scenes of the war in order to prevent another one.

    People of younger generations, have you ever heard the voices of the hibakusha, survivors of the atomic bombings? Have you heard them crying out, “No more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis, no more wars, and no more hibakusha”?

    You will be the last generation to hear their voices firsthand. Listen to their voices to learn what happened 68 years ago under the atomic cloud. Listen to their voices to find out why they continue to appeal for nuclear abolition. You will find that, despite much hardship, they continue to fight for nuclear abolition for the sake of future generations. Please consider whether or not you will allow the existence of nuclear weapons in the world today and in the future world of your children. Please talk to your friends about this matter. It is you who will determine the future of this world.

    There are many things that we can do as global citizens. Nearly 90% of Japanese municipalities have made nuclear-free declarations to demonstrate their residents’ refusal to become victims of a nuclear attack and their resolution to work for world peace. The National Council of Japan Nuclear Free Local Authorities, comprising of these municipalities, celebrates its 30th anniversary this month. If any members of such municipalities plan to take any action in accordance with the declaration they have made, they shall have the support of the National Council, as well as that of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

    In Nagasaki, the Fifth Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons will be held this coming November. At this assembly, residents will play the key role in disseminating the message for nuclear abolition to people around the world.

    Meanwhile, the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc. has yet to be resolved and radioactive contamination continues to spread. In an instant, this accident deprived many residents in Fukushima of their peaceful daily lives. They are still forced to live without a clear vision as to their future. The residents of Nagasaki truly hope for the earliest possible recovery of Fukushima and will continue to support the people of Fukushima.

    Last month, Mr. Senji Yamaguchi, a hibakusha who called for nuclear abolition and for better support for hibakusha, passed away. The number of hibakusha continues to decrease with their average age now exceeding seventy-eight. Once again, I call for the Japanese government to provide better support for these aging hibakusha.

    We offer our sincere condolences for the lives lost in the atomic bombings, and pledge to continue our efforts towards realizing a nuclear-free world, hand-in-hand with the citizens of Hiroshima.

    Tomihisa Taue is Mayor of Nagasaki.

  • 2013 Sadako Peace Day

    Welcome to Sadako Peace Garden.  On this day, August 6, we remember Hiroshima, Sadako of the 1,000 paper cranes, and all innocent victims of war.

    Today we commemorate the 68th anniversary of the first use of an atomic weapon.  The weapon was created by the United States and was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.  It killed some 90,000 people that day and some 145,000 by the end of 1945.  Three days later another atomic weapon was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki, taking another 70,000 lives.

    The creation and use of these weapons, said Albert Einstein, “has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation exists to change those modes of thinking and assure a human future.

    The 68 years of the Nuclear Age is but a blip in geological time or even in the human record on Earth, but it is a critical period of time because within it we have achieved the technological capacity to destroy ourselves and most complex life.  It is a peril that confronts humanity daily, constantly present, whether we choose to recognize it or not.

    Many leaders of nuclear-armed states believe that security can be built on the threat to annihilate other countries.  This is a highly dangerous and unreliable approach to security.  Nuclear policies, like other policies based upon high technologies, are subject to human fallibility and system failures.  That there are not foolproof humans, nor human systems, should be clear to any observer.

    The good news is that the number of nuclear weapons in the world has been reduced by over 53,000 weapons, from over 70,000 in 1986 to about 17,000 now.  This is cause for gratitude, as is the fact that nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since Nagasaki, but the job of ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity remains unfinished.

    There is the only one safe number of nuclear weapons in the world, and that is zero.  Zero must be our goal.  Not a distant goal, as some leaders of nuclear-armed states would have it, but an urgent goal.  No country – not the US, not any country – has the right to hold the world hostage with nuclear weapons.

    As the first country to create nuclear weapons, the first country to use them, and the country with the most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, the US should be the country to lead the way out of the Nuclear Age.  To accomplish this, the people will need to lead their leaders.  That is why the role of each of us is so important.

    Today, at the close of our ceremony, we will plant a tree for peace, a sapling from a survivor Ginkgo biloba tree from Hiroshima.  Thank you to Nassrine Azimi, a founder of Green Legacy Hiroshima, for bringing this remarkable sapling to us for planting in Sadako Peace Garden.

    Thank you to each of you for taking this time to reflect upon the meaning of nuclear weapons for our world and our common future.  Close your eyes for a moment and imagine the immense and terrible power of a nuclear blast.

    Now imagine the power of people everywhere coming together and saying a resounding No to these weapons until we have succeeded in eliminating them from the planet.

    This is not just an exercise.  It is a possibility that we can choose to make happen.  We who are here on our planet now have the opportunity to contribute to ending the nuclear era, preserving our humanity and exercising responsible stewardship of the only planet we know of in the universe capable of supporting and nurturing life.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.