Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • How Hawkish Are Americans?

    Lawrence Wittner


    This article was originally published by History News Network.


    In the midst of a nationwide election campaign in which many politicians trumpet their support for the buildup and employment of U.S. military power around the world, the American public’s disagreement with such measures is quite remarkable. Indeed, many signs point to the fact that most Americans want to avoid new wars, reduce military spending, and support international cooperation.


    The latest evidence along these lines is a nationwide opinion survey just released as a report (Foreign Policy in the New Millennium) by the highly-respected Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Conducted in late May and early June 2012, the survey resulted in some striking findings.


    One is that most Americans are quite disillusioned with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of the past decade. Asked about these conflicts, 67 percent of respondents said they had not been worth fighting. Indeed, 69 percent said that, despite the war in Afghanistan, the United States was no safer from terrorism.


    Naturally, these attitudes about military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan fed into opinions about future military involvement. Eighty-two percent of those surveyed favored bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan by 2014 or by an earlier date. Majorities also opposed maintaining long-term military bases in either country. And 71 percent agreed that “the experience of the Iraq war should make nations more cautious about using military force to deal with rogue states.”


    Certainly Americans seem to believe that their own military footprint in the world should be reduced. In the Chicago Council survey, 78 percent of respondents said that the United States was playing the role of a world policeman more than it should. Presented with a variety of situations, respondents usually stated that they opposed the use of U.S. military force. For example, a majority opposed a U.S. military response to a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Or, to take an issue that is frequently discussed today – Iran’s possible development of nuclear weapons — 70 percent of respondents opposed a U.S. military strike against that nation with the objective of destroying its nuclear facilities.


    Yes, admittedly, a small majority (53 percent) thought that maintaining superior military power was a “very important goal.” But this response was down by 14 points from 2002. Furthermore, to accomplish deficit reduction, 68 percent of respondents favored cutting U.S. spending on the military — up 10 points from 2010. Nor are these opinions contradictory. After all, U.S. military spending is so vast – more than five times that of the number 2 military spender, China – that substantial cuts in the U.S. military budget can be made without challenging U.S. military superiority.


    It should be noted that American preferences are anti-military rather than “isolationist.” The report by the Chicago Council observes: “As they increasingly seek to cut back on foreign expenditures and avoid military entanglement whenever possible, Americans are broadly supportive of nonmilitary forms of international engagement and problem solving.” These range from “diplomacy, alliances, and international treaties to economic aid and decision making through the UN.”


    For example, the survey found that 84 percent of respondents favored the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (still unratified by the U.S. Senate), 70 percent favored the International Criminal Court treaty (from which the United States was withdrawn by President George W. Bush), and 67 percent favored a treaty to cope with climate change by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. When asked about China, a nation frequently criticized by U.S. pundits and politicians alike, 69 percent of respondents believed that the United States should engage in friendly cooperation with that country.


    The “isolationist” claim falls particularly flat when one examines American attitudes toward the United Nations. The Chicago Council survey found that 56 percent of respondents agreed that, when dealing with international problems, the United States should be “more willing to make decisions within the United Nations,” even if that meant that the United States would not always get its way.


    Overall, then, Americans favor a less militarized U.S. government approach to world affairs than currently exists. Perhaps the time has come for politicians to catch up with them!

  • Review of Richard Falk’s and David Krieger’s The Path to Zero: Dialogues on Nuclear Dangers

    Lawrence WittnerAbout a third of the way through The Path to Zero, David Krieger, one of the authors, suggests a Zen koan — a mind-bending riddle designed to foster enlightenment — that runs as follows: “What casts a dark shadow when dormant and a fiery cloud of death when brought to life?” The answer is nuclear weapons, the subject of this book.

    It is certainly a crucial subject. The contradiction between the potential of nuclear weapons to destroy the world and the determination of nations to possess them is a central dilemma of modern times. More than sixty-seven years after U.S. atomic bombs killed much of the population of two Japanese cities, some 20,000 nuclear weapons — thousands of them on alert — remain housed in the arsenals of nine countries. The United States and Russia possess about 95 percent of them. Moreover, despite a rhetorical commitment to building a nuclear weapons-free world, some nations are undertaking multi-billion dollar programs to modernize their nuclear weapons production facilities, while others appear to be en route to becoming nuclear powers.

    Faced with this disastrous indifference by national governments to the fate of the earth, the people of the world would do well to study The Path to Zero, an extended conversation on the nuclear dilemma by two of its most brilliant, knowledgeable, and profound analysts. Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice Emeritus at Princeton University and currently a research professor at the University of California-Santa Barbara. Krieger is co-founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara and a Councilor on the World Future Council.

    In this outstanding book, Falk and Krieger address with great eloquence a broad range of issues, including nuclear weapons dangers, nuclear power, international law, the strength of militarism, public apathy, nuclear proliferation, nuclear arms control, and nuclear disarmament.

    Falk rests his case against “nuclearism” on morality and law. He explains: “It is unacceptable to kill or threaten to kill innocent people on the basis of a weaponry and a strategic doctrine that is indiscriminate in targeting and would almost certainly result in inflicting mass destruction.” At a later point, he adds: “In a democracy, we should be able to insist that our elected government uphold the law and behave ethically in relation to an issue as important as the role of nuclear weaponry. And when that insistence is met with evasion and silence for decades, we are obliged to expose these deficiencies of national governance and, perhaps, extend the discussion to the deficiencies of a world order built on geopolitical premises of hard-power capabilities and the nonaccountability of nuclear weapon states to international law or the UN Charter.”

    Like Falk, Krieger makes a powerful case against nuclear weapons. It is not at all clear that nuclear deterrence is effective, he observes. Indeed, “missile defenses are, in effect, an admission that nuclear deterrence is insufficient to prevent a nuclear attack.” Furthermore, the deployment of such defenses by country A “is an incentive for country B to improve the quality and increase the quantity of its nuclear arsenal.” Opposition to preparations for nuclear war, Krieger argues, serves as “a voice of conscience … thereby awakening and engaging others in the struggle for a more decent world.”

    Falk and Krieger are not always in agreement. In general, Falk is more dismissive of past nuclear arms control and disarmament activities by governments and somewhat more pessimistic about progress in the future. Not surprisingly, then, while Krieger favors taking a more ameliorative path, Falk calls for a total break with past arms control and disarmament efforts. Indeed, he argues for what he calls “a politics of impossibility” — one focused on a “prudent and rationally desirable end” rather than its apparent political feasibility.

    Nonetheless, both individuals share the belief that a nuclear weapons-free world is essential for global survival and concur on specific steps that should be taken toward that goal. Krieger sums up their consensus nicely. “First, we agree that U.S. [government] leadership may be needed but … is unlikely to be forthcoming without considerable pressure from the people. Second, such pressure from below is not currently on the horizon, but we should not give up in our educational efforts to awaken the American people and engage them in a movement to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.” Third and fourth, observes Krieger, given the absence of U.S. government pressure for disarmament, “we will have to look elsewhere for leadership.” This leadership “could come from the non-nuclear weapon states that are parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.” In asserting such leadership, “they would have to band together and make strong demands on the nuclear weapon states” – demands that “might have to be in the form of … delivering an ultimatum to withdraw from the NPT” under the provisions of the treaty’s Article X — unless the nuclear weapon states finally agree to a concrete plan for full-scale nuclear disarmament. They recommend “an initial demand” on the nuclear nations of No First Use, but argue that “the strongest litmus test” of their sincerity would be convening negotiations on a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons.

    At the moment, as both men concede, this program does not seem likely to be implemented. Even so, Krieger notes, “the future is always undetermined and subject to change. The currents of history can be redirected by committed individuals and the formation of new institutions. … Creativity and persistence, rooted in hope, can change the world.”

    The Path to Zero — a work of great insight and wisdom — is an important part of that global transformation.

  • Nuclear Fallout in the Marshall Islands

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), an international non-profit, non-partisan international education and advocacy organization, welcomes the discussion about the conditions and consequences of nuclear fallout from U.S. nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands, an island country composed of 34 coral atolls.

    Beginning in 1946, Bikini, Enewetak, Rongelap and Utrik and other atoll communities in the Marshall Islands were subject to fallout and severe radiation from the US nuclear tests. In the most serious incident of fallout, the March 1, 1954 launch of the Bravo hydrogen bomb at the Bikini Atoll, the detonation occurred in spite of weather forecast reports that the winds were blowing towards the populated atolls of Rongelap and Utrik. As a result, residents immediately downwind were exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation, which have caused a great number of severe long-term health problems, including cancer and thyroid problems.

    Reassessment of radiation released in the Bravo test by the US scientists concluded that the people of Rongelap absorbed more that three times the estimated dose in the most heavily exposed individuals near the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986.

    The total tonnage of US tests in the Marshall Island was 100 times greater than the total tonnage of US atmospheric nuclear tests at the Nevada Test site, and by the 1980s, the health effects of fallout and radiation exposure from a total of 67 bombs dropped in the Marshall Islands were evident with cancer rates among the Marshallese that were 2-30 times higher than among U.S. citizens, as documented in a 1985-1989 independent health survey by Dr. Rosalie Bertell and the International Institute of Concern for Public Health.  By the mid-1990s, when doctors from Tohuku University in Japan conducted several medical surveys, an unusual high amount of thyroid disorders were documented as occurring throughout the Marshall Islands, not simply in the northern atoll communities of Rongelap and Utrik where US scientists had focused their medical research efforts.

    Fallout and bioaccumulation in the food chain has forced residents of a number of severely contaminated atolls to leave their home islands, effectively becoming nomads in their nation. Bikini people were evacuated from their homes in 1946, moved to Rongerik Atoll where lack of resources created brought them to the brink of starvation, were relocated again to Kili where, by 1955 lack of access to critical resources again resulted in near-starvation .In search of food and water, a portion of the community moved to nearby Jaluit Atoll in 1957.

    By the 1960s, with assurances that conditions were safe, the US announced plans to return Bikini people to their home islands. In 1972, people began to move back to a “rehabilitated” island. By 1975, alarming levels of plutonium were found present in urine samples from Bikini people.  However, after several more years of tests and findings of high-levels of strontium, cesium and other isotopes in the water, environment, food chain and human body, Bikini was again evacuated.

    In 1985, scientists determined that the levels of contamination in the Rongelap Atoll were comparable to Bikini atoll. Thus, the citizens of Rongelap were forced to evacuate their atoll after, without the assistance and support of the US government.

    As an indigenous island nation, the Marshallese enjoyed a self-sufficient sustainable way of life before nuclear weapons testing. US compensation and remediation has been insufficient to fully attend to the healthcare and socioeconomic needs of the Marshallese people.

    Due to the inadequate response from the U.S. government, it has been difficult for the Republic of the Marshall Islands to uphold the indigenous people`s human rights obligations related to environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste.  These rights include the following:

    • Right to adequate health and life
    • Right to adequate food and nutrition
    • Right to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation
    • Right to the enjoyment of a safe, clean and healthy sustainable environment

    These rights are elaborated in the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights obligations related to environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste as contained in A/HRC/21/48.

    Because there are persisting unresolved problems related to the U.S government`s treatment of the indigenous citizens of the Marshall Islands, NAPF aligns itself with the U.N. Special Rapporteur’s suggestion that the international community, the United States, and the Government of the Marshall Islands must develop long term strategic measures to address the effects of the nuclear testing program and specific challenges in each atoll. As such, it is imperative that the U.S. government and the international community implement human rights measures to provide adequate redress to the citizens of the Marshall Islands.

  • NAPF Statement to UN Human Rights Council

    UN Human Rights Council: 21st Session
    Speaker: NAPF Geneva Representative, Christian N. Ciobanu
    13 September 2012
    Agenda Item 3: Cluster ID with Special Rapporteur on Hazardous Substances and Waste
    Click here to read NAPF’s supplementary written statement


    Dear Madame President,


    A nuclear explosion on Bikini Atoll in the Marshall IslandsThe Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) welcomes the report by the Special Rapporteur on Hazardous Substances and Waste in which he elaborates upon the conditions and consequences of the nuclear fallout in the Marshall Islands from U.S. nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands, an island country composed of 34 coral atolls.


    As a traditional island nation, the Marshallese enjoyed a self-sufficient sustainable way of life before nuclear weapons testing. U.S. compensation and remediation has been insufficient to fully attend to the healthcare and socioeconomic needs of the Marshallese people.



    Madame President,


    Due to the inadequate response from the U.S. government, it has been difficult for the Republic of the Marshall Islands to uphold the indigenous people’s human rights related to environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste.  These rights include the following:


    1. Right to adequate health and life

    2. Right to adequate food and nutrition

    3. Right to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation

    4. Right to the enjoyment of a safe, clean and healthy sustainable environment



    These rights are elaborated in the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights obligations related to environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and waste as contained in A/HRC/21/48.


    Because there are persisting unresolved problems related to the U.S. government’s treatment of the indigenous citizens of the Marshall Islands, NAPF aligns itself with the U.N. Special Rapporteur’s suggestion that the international community, the United States, and the Government of the Marshall Islands must develop long term strategic measures to address the effects of the nuclear testing program and specific challenges in each atoll. As such, it is imperative that the U.S. government and the international community implement human rights measures to provide adequate redress to the citizens of the Marshall Islands.


    Thank you, Madame President.

  • Nuclear Weapons and World Peace – Could Malta lead the way?

    This article was originally published by the Malta Independent.


    Martin HellmanHuman beings are so adaptable that we have often accomplished what we previously thought ourselves incapable of achieving. The idea that men could fly was seen as absurd until the Wright brothers, Santos Dumont and others defied conventional wisdom. Because they had the courage to consider what everyone around them “knew” was impossible, today we fly higher and faster than any bird, and have even walked on the moon. Human slavery and the subjugation of women, once seen as immutable aspects of human nature, are now banned in every civilized nation.


    But one dream has eluded us: beating our swords into ploughshares, and learning to make war no more. In this instalment of this series of articles, I argue that we may be close to realising that age-old dream of Isaiah, and that nuclear weapons can be the catalyst for doing so, if only we will view them from the proper perspective.


    The current environment might not seem conducive to that hope, with constant reports of wars, and threats of war. Yet a deeper look also shows signs of promise. Two books that appeared last year, Prof. Joshua Goldstein’s Winning the War on War, and Prof. Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature, both argued that the numbers paint a very different picture, with deaths due to war dropping from roughly 150,000 per year in the 1980s to 100,000 per year in the 1990s, and to 55,000 per year in the first decade of this century. While 55,000 deaths per year is a tragedy, that is far less than the number of deaths from road accidents!


    In earlier writings, Prof. John Mueller argued that war was going out of style, much as duelling did in the 19th century: compare the millions of civilian deaths that were planned and actually celebrated during World War II, with the revulsion that even a few accidental ones produce today. Think of London, Coventry, Hamburg, Dresden, Nanking, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki – or the siege of Malta – and compare them with the understandable outcry today when an attack on al Qaeda inadvertently kills a few women and children. There are also signs of hope on the nuclear front: the world’s arsenals have fallen several-fold, from a peak of over 70,000 weapons to roughly 20,000 today.


    This data provides hope, but we should not become complacent about the threat posed by nuclear weapons – as Mueller, Goldstein, and to a lesser extent Pinker, tend to do. Part 3 in this series presented evidence that a child born today has at least a 10 per cent chance of being killed by nuclear weapons during his or her 80-year expected life – equivalent to playing Russian roulette with a 10-chambered revolver pointed at that child’s head. This level of risk may be lower than during the Cold War, but it is still unacceptably high. Now is not the time for complacency. Each generation is responsible for passing on a better world to their children. Now is the time to focus and help build the momentum towards eliminating this risk that could otherwise destroy the future.


    A race is on between “the better angels of our nature” and the risk that a mistake, an accident, or simply a miscalculation, will bring on a final, nuclear war. By properly integrating the nuclear threat into the quest for world peace, we can motivate our better angels to run a bit faster, thereby increasing their chance of winning the race. To do that, we need to recognise that every small war – and even the mere threat of war – has some chance of escalating out of control, much as a terrorist act in Sarajevo was the spark that set off the First World War. The only real difference is that World War III would not have a successor.


    The best-known example of a spark that nearly set off the nuclear powder keg is the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Both superpowers were taken by surprise when a minor conflict suddenly erupted into a crisis that had them teetering on the brink of the nuclear abyss. Afterwards, President Kennedy estimated the chance of war as having been “somewhere between one out of three and even.” In Kennedy’s estimation, that crisis was equivalent to playing nuclear roulette – a version of Russian roulette in which the whole world is at stake – with a 2- or 3-chambered revolver.


    Lesser crises have more chambers in the gun, but it doesn’t matter whether there are two chambers or two hundred. If we continually pull the trigger, it is only a matter of time before the gun goes off and civilization is destroyed. We have played this macabre game more often than is imagined. So long as we pretend that the potential gains from war outweigh the risks, each of our actions has some chance of triggering the final global war. Every “small” war – even those in Syria, or Libya, or Kashmir, or Georgia – pulls the trigger; each threat of the use of violence pulls the trigger; each day that goes by in which a missile or computer can fail pulls the trigger.


    The only way to survive Russian roulette is to put down the gun and stop playing that insane game. The only way to survive nuclear roulette is to move beyond war in the same sense that the civilized world has moved beyond human sacrifice and slavery.


    In the past, when it was merely moral and desirable, it might have been impossible to beat swords into ploughshares. Today, in our interdependent and interconnected global village, it is necessary for survival.


    Gen. Douglas MacArthur recognised that reality in his 1961 address to the Philippines Congress: “You will say at once that, although the abolition of war has been the dream of man for centuries, every proposition to that end has been promptly discarded as impossible and fantastic. But that was before the science of the past decade made mass destruction a reality. The argument then was along spiritual and moral lines, and lost. But now the tremendous evolution of nuclear and other potentials of destruction has suddenly taken the problem away from its primary consideration as a moral and spiritual question and brought it abreast of scientific realism.”


    There is potential for this to be the best of times, or the end of time, depending on which direction we take at this critical juncture. Technology has given a new, global meaning to the biblical injunction: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live.”


    Choosing life is not a passive decision, and requires an appropriate outward expression.


    To remove this risk of extinction, we must shift from an old mode of thinking, which justifies war as being necessary for survival, to a new mode of thinking, which recognises war as the ultimate threat to our survival. When it was merely moral and desirable, it might have been impossible to beat swords into ploughshares, but today the lives of our children and grandchildren – and quite possibly our own – depend on our once again doing what we previously thought ourselves incapable of achieving. And, as outlined in earlier essays in this series, Malta is an ideal candidate for leading the way in an outward expression of this changed thinking, by becoming the first nation to treat the nuclear threat with the respect and attention it deserves. That would be a game changer, which would give our better angels a second wind in the race against oblivion.


    Through supporting this series of articles, the ICT Gozo Malta project is seeking to create awareness that this is a global issue that can affect every one of us, including our children and their children. This is an issue that can be addressed in a meaningful way in a small country such as Malta. We in Malta have no desire to own or build weapons of mass destruction. We can leave a legacy for a safer world. Because of our small population and certain other advantages, it is easier for us to build a tipping point of public interest and for Malta to take a leadership stance, just as we already have in the area of nuclear power when Malta participated in the anti-nuclear Vienna Declaration, 25 May 2011. To begin this next process of change, and to ask our leaders to be more proactive in this cause, we require numbers! To make an outward expression, you can register your personal support on the online petition page, asking our government to make this issue a higher priority: www.change.org/petitions/global-nuclear-disarmament-malta.


    If you would like us to keep you posted on new developments and ways you might participate in this effort to make Malta a beacon unto the nations of the world, please contact David Pace of the ICT Gozo Malta Project (dave.pace@ictgozomalta.eu).

  • PSR Peacemaker Award to Bob Dodge

    David Krieger delivered this speech at an event sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles on September 9, 2012.


    David KriegerIt’s great to be in a room filled with health care professionals who take seriously the challenge of healing their patients, their country and their planet. 


    Before I present the Peacemaker Award to Bob Dodge on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility, I’ve been asked to make a few remarks about the continuing dangers of nuclear weapons.


    The most important thing I can tell you is this: Nuclear weapons haven’t gone away.  They still threaten the very foundations of civilization.  There are still over 19,000 of them in the world.  The only acceptable number is zero.


    Even a small nuclear war between regional powers would have global consequences.  Scientists have modeled a nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which each country used 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons on the other side’s cities.  Using less than half of one percent of the nuclear weapons on the planet would lead to putting enough soot into the stratosphere to reduce warming sunlight, lower the surface temperatures on the planet to the lowest in 1,000 years, shorten growing seasons, cause crop failures, and bring on a global famine that would kill hundreds of millions of people, perhaps a billion people, throughout the world.


    This would be a nuclear war totally beyond our control.


    It is only one of the risks we run every day that we rely upon nuclear weapons to protect us.  Incidentally, these weapons cannot and do not protect us.  Deterrence is not defense and it is not protection.  All that can be done with nuclear weapons is to threaten retaliation.  And if there were a nuclear war between the US and Russia, we’re talking about an extinction event for most or all complex life on the planet.


    Fifty years ago, we had the Cuban Missile Crisis and, in that crisis, we came far too close to nuclear war.


    Today, we are tempting fate by moving NATO membership to the Russian borders and placing US/NATO missile defenses near the Russian borders.  When Russia tells us this undermines their deterrent capability and worries them, we tell them, in essence, “Don’t worry, be happy.”  This is needless provocation. 


    What is needed is to work together with Russia as partners to help solve the world’s great problems: climate change, environmental degradation, poverty, terrorism, human rights abuses and, of course, the abolition of nuclear weapons and deep reductions in military budgets. 


    No matter how powerful a country is, no one country can solve these problems alone.  We need to come together as a world to solve these problems.


    I could go on talking about nuclear problems with Iran, North Korea and terrorist organizations.  But I won’t.  I just want to leave you with the thought that nuclear weapons still have the potential to do what Physicians for Social Responsibility recognized early on – to cause “The Last Epidemic.”



    Now, I want to talk about Bob Dodge.  What a fantastic human being you’ve chosen for your Peacemaker Award.  He is a Peacemaker with every fiber of his being.


    Growing up, his father helped him to recognize that war simply does not work.  The birth of his son, David, crystallized in him a passion to work for peace.  He considers this work both a responsibility and an opportunity.


    As far back as high school, he stood up against the Vietnam War and he has never stopped standing up and speaking out against war. 


    Many outstanding leaders in the anti-nuclear movement inspired him and instilled in him a sense of urgency to work for a world without nuclear weapons.


    He practices family medicine in Ventura.  The people of Ventura know him not only as a great family doctor.  They know him, as you do, as a Peacemaker.


    Every year, he informs his community how much taxpayers in Ventura are paying for nuclear weapons while basic needs for many go unmet. 


    Bob has been a leader in the Ventura chapter of PSR since 1985.  He is a leader in Beyond War.  He is a founder and leader of Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions.


    He is a man of firm character and boundless enthusiasm.  He is also tenacious.  He doesn’t give up.  He demonstrates in his life the values I most admire – compassion, commitment and courage. 


    I think Bob Dodge must be an amazing physician.  I know from my experiences working with him over many years for a world without nuclear weapons that he is an extraordinary Peacemaker.


    It’s a great pleasure to join you in honoring him tonight.

  • Putting U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policies on Trial in the Court of Public Opinion

    David KriegerThe International Court of Justice, the highest and most authoritative court in the world, has stated that the use of nuclear weapons would be illegal if such use violated international humanitarian law.  Failing to distinguish between civilians and combatants would be illegal, as would any use resulting in unnecessary suffering.  Additionally, the Court found that any threat of such use would also be illegal.  It is virtually impossible to imagine any use or threat of use that would not violate international humanitarian law.


    US nuclear weapons policy fails to meet the standards of international humanitarian law and to live up to its treaty obligations in the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Until the issue of US nuclear weapons policy can be properly litigated in in a US domestic court, US policies related to the threat or use of nuclear weapons need to be put on trial in the most important court in the world, the court of public opinion.  It is US citizens who may well determine the fate of the world, by their action or inaction on this most critical of all issues confronting humanity.


    The Charges 


    1. The US has failed to fulfill its obligation to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.


    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligates the parties not only to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, but also obligates good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament by the five nuclear weapons states parties to the treaty: the US, Russia, UK, France and China.  In interpreting this part of the treaty, the International Court of Justice stated in a 1996 Advisory Opinion, “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.”  It has not been the policy of the United States to pursue such negotiations despite the passage of more than 40 years since this treaty entered into force and more than 20 years since the Cold War came to an end.


    2. The US has failed to fulfill its obligation to engage in good faith negotiations to achieve a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date.


    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty also obligates parties to the treaty to engage in good faith negotiations for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date.  But rather than negotiating to bring an end to the nuclear arms race, the US has continued to modernize its nuclear weapons, their delivery systems and the infrastructure that keeps the arms race alive.  Doing so has been costly, provocative and illegal under international law.


    3. The US threatens the mass annihilation of the human species (omnicide).


    The consequence of a large-scale nuclear war could be the extinction of most or all of the human species, along with other forms of complex life.  This would be a most egregious violation of international humanitarian law.  In fact, it would undermine the very foundation of the law, which is the protection of innocent individuals from harm.  The indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons and policies that threaten their use, such as nuclear deterrence policy, cannot be made to conform to the law, since any use of these weapons would cause a humanitarian disaster beyond our capacity to respond to the ensuing suffering and death.


    4. The US is recklessly endangering life.


    Certain policies of the United States may be viewed as recklessly endangering life on the planet.  These policies include reliance on its land-based missile force, maintaining nuclear weapons on high-alert status, launch-on-warning and first use of nuclear weapons.  Land-based missiles are attractive targets for attack in a time of tension between nuclear powers.  Maintaining the weapons on high alert and a policy of launch-on-warning could result in a launch in response to a false warning, with all attendant consequences of retaliation and nuclear war.  Although not well known to US citizens, their government has always maintained a policy of possible first use of nuclear weapons, rather than a policy of no first use. 


    5. The US is committing crimes against the environment (ecocide).


    The effects of nuclear war and its preparations cannot be contained in either time or space.  Radiation knows no boundaries and will affect countless future generations by poisoning the environment that sustains life.  The effects of nuclear war on the environment would be severe and long lasting and would include – in addition to blast, fire and radiation – global nuclear famine, even from a regional nuclear war.


    6. The US is committing crimes against future generations.


    The future itself is put at risk by nuclear weapons policies that could lead to nuclear war, and where there are nuclear weapons the possibility of nuclear war cannot be dismissed.  A nuclear war would, at best, deprive new generations of the opportunity for a flourishing and sustainable life on the planet.  At worst, such a war would end civilization and foreclose the possibility of human life on Earth.


    7. The US has contaminated indigenous lands.


    Nuclear weapons production, testing and the storage of long-lived nuclear waste have largely taken place on the lands of indigenous peoples.  The Hanford Nuclear Reservation, located on the reservation of the Yakama Indian Nation, is where the US produced the plutonium for some 60,000 nuclear weapons.  It is one of the most environmentally contaminated sites on the planet and the Yakama Indians, who were granted hunting and fishing rights in perpetuity in an 1855 treaty, have suffered disproportionately.  The US has also contaminated the lands of the Western Shoshone Nation and the Marshall Islands with nuclear and thermonuclear weapons tests.


    8. The US has breached the trust of the international community.
     
    The Marshall Islands were the Trust Territory of the United States from the end of World War II until they gained their independence in 1986.  Between 1946 and 1958, the US tested 67 nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands with the equivalent explosive power of one-and-a-half Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons every day for 12 years.  The people of the Marshall Islands who endured these tests and their offspring have suffered grave injuries, premature deaths, and displacement from their island homes, which can only be construed as a most serious breach of trusteeship of these islands.  The US continues to test nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, which is on the land of the Chumash Indians, and targets most of these missiles at the Ronald Reagan Missile Defense Test Range in the Marshall Islands.


    9. The US has conspicuously wasted public funds.


    The public funds used to develop, manufacture, test, deploy and maintain the US nuclear arsenal and its delivery systems have been estimated to exceed $7.5 trillion.  Even now, more than 20 years after the end of the Cold War, the government continues to spend $60 to $70 billion annually and plans to maintain this level for the next decade.  These funds have been taken from the resources that could have been used to feed the hungry, house the homeless, provide education for our children and help restore our infrastructure and our economic well-being. 


    10. The US has conspired to commit international crimes and to cover them up by silence.


    US nuclear weapons policy threatens each of the three major Nuremberg Tribunal crimes: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.  The US government and major US media have conspired to prevent a full and open public discussion of nuclear weapons crimes.  Why are the US government and US mainstream media silent about these crimes?  Why is the mainstream media so accepting of US nuclear weapons policy, which threatens the destruction of civilization?  This conspiracy of silence has helped to assure the complacency of the American people.


    Conclusion


    Current US nuclear weapons policy is illegal, immoral and runs a high risk of resulting in nuclear catastrophe.  We cannot wait until there is a nuclear war before we act to rid the world of these weapons of mass annihilation.  The US should be the leader in this effort, rather than an obstacle to its realization.  It is up to the court of public opinion to assure that the US asserts this leadership.  The time to act is now. 

  • The World Is Over-Armed and Peace Is Under-Funded

    This article was originally published by Eurasia Review.


    Ban Ki-moonLast month, competing interests prevented agreement on a much-needed treaty that would have reduced the appalling human cost of the poorly regulated international arms trade. Meanwhile, nuclear disarmament efforts remain stalled, despite strong and growing global popular sentiment in support of this cause.


    The failure of these negotiations and this month’s anniversaries of the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki provide a good opportunity to explore what has gone wrong, why disarmament and arms control have proven so difficult to achieve, and how the world community can get back on track towards these vitally important goals.


    Many defence establishments now recognize that security means far more than protecting borders. Grave security concerns can arise as a result of demographic trends, chronic poverty, economic inequality, environmental degradation, pandemic diseases, organized crime, repressive governance and other developments no state can control alone. Arms can’t address such concerns.


    Yet there has been a troubling lag between recognizing these new security challenges, and launching new policies to address them. National budget priorities still tend to reflect the old paradigms. Massive military spending and new investments in modernizing nuclear weapons have left the world over-armed ― and peace under-funded.


    Last year, global military spending reportedly exceeded $1.7 trillion ― more than $4.6 billion a day, which alone is almost twice the U.N.’s budget for an entire year. This largesse includes billions more for modernizing nuclear arsenals decades into the future.


    This level of military spending is hard to explain in a post-Cold War world and amidst a global financial crisis. Economists would call this an “opportunity cost.” I call it human opportunities lost. Nuclear weapons budgets are especially ripe for deep cuts.


    Such weapons are useless against today’s threats to international peace and security. Their very existence is de-stabilizing: the more they are touted as indispensable, the greater is the incentive for their proliferation. Additional risks arise from accidents and the health and environmental effects of maintaining and developing such weapons.


    The time has come to re-affirm commitments to nuclear disarmament, and to ensure that this common end is reflected in national budgets, plans and institutions.


    Four years ago, I outlined a five-point disarmament proposal highlighting the need for a nuclear weapon convention or a framework of instruments to achieve this goal.


    Yet the disarmament stalemate continues. The solution clearly lies in greater efforts by States to harmonize their actions to achieve common ends. Here are some specific actions that all States and civil society should pursue to break this impasse.


    Support efforts by the Russian Federation and the United States to negotiate deep, verified cuts in their nuclear arsenals, both deployed and un-deployed.


    Obtain commitments by others possessing such weapons to join the disarmament process.


    Establish a moratorium on developing or producing nuclear weapons or new delivery systems.


    Negotiate a multilateral treaty outlawing fissile materials that can be used in nuclear weapons.


    End nuclear explosions and bring into force the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.


    Stop deploying nuclear weapons on foreign soil, and retire such weapons.


    Ensure that nuclear-weapon states report to a public U.N. repository on nuclear disarmament, including details on arsenal size, fissile material, delivery systems, and progress in achieving disarmament goals.
    Establish a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.


    Secure universal membership in treaties outlawing chemical and biological weapons.


    Pursue parallel efforts on conventional arms control, including an arms trade treaty, strengthened controls over the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, universal membership in the Mine Ban, Cluster Munitions, and Inhumane Weapons Conventions, and expanded participation in the U.N. Report on Military Expenditures and the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms.


    Undertake diplomatic and military initiatives to maintain international peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons, including new efforts to resolve regional disputes.


    And perhaps above all, we must address basic human needs and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Chronic poverty erodes security. Let us dramatically cut spending on nuclear weapons, and invest instead in social and economic development, which serves the interests of all by expanding markets, reducing motivations for armed conflicts, and in giving citizens a stake in their common futures. Like nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, such goals are essential for ensuring human security and a peaceful world for future generations.


    No development, no peace. No disarmament, no security. Yet when both advance, the world advances, with increased security and prosperity for all. These are common ends that deserve the support of all nations.

  • Duck and Cover: A Pictorial History of Nuclear Weapon

    Click here or on the image below to read “Duck and Cover: A Pictorial History of Nuclear Weapons” by Bob Farquhar.

     

  • Moving Back to Rongelap?

    This speech was delivered at the 2012 World Conference against A- and H- Bombs.


    Good morning. My name is Jelton Anjain. I bring warm lakwe (greetings) on behalf of the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Rongelap Atoll local government and especially the displaced people of Rongelap. I have the great honor and privilege to be here joining you throughout this week to commemorate all the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-Bombs. This conference is significant in that they bring us together from different parts of the world where we become one in friendship to fight for peace and justice and try to convince the world to eradicate the use of nuclear weapons.


    I would like to take this opportunity to give special thanks to the Organizing Committee for inviting me to join you this week. Last time I joined these rallies was when I escorted my uncle John Anjain back in 2004. Now my father Jeton Anjain and all my uncles who fought this nuclear injustice have passed away and we, the younger generations, still carry on their legacy. We are a small group of people, but we will never stop in our fight against this nuclear injustice that was brought upon us.


    I’d like to tell you a hypothetical story. We all know the importance of making a living from our natural resources.


    “If the islands were not used for testing of nuclear bombs and our islands remained clean today, and if I was a farmer, I would easily go into my field of crops and harvest, and afterwards, I’d take my spear gun and go spear fishing. For a day’s work, a normal farmer/fisherman would easily make over $500 if he takes his crops and fish to sell at any market. Now, since the islands are contaminated and we were forced to get sicknesses and to leave our homeland, those normal farmers/fishermen who are not fortunate enough to get educated and cannot find a decent job, they are forced to live on $75 for their quarterly compensations from the US government.”


    That has always been the situation of the Rongelapese over the years and that is the situation of the Rongelapese today.


    Just in 2010, the US Congress sent a letter to the US Department of Interiors’ office of Insular Affairs urging them to have the people of Rongelap move from Mejatto Island in the Kwajalein Atoll back to Rongelap. Despite the fact that the islands are not ready and still contaminated, US Congress is urging our people to move back. US government is telling our people that those who choose not to move to Rongelap will no longer receive compensation. We were given until October of 2011 to move back but are people are still uneasy about going back as we know the islands are still not clean. The US calls this relocation a necessity due to budgetary difficulties. Since the scientists have certified these islands as ready for resettlement, it is a legal and economic necessity. Now if the scientists are saying that these islands are safe to go back to, why are they urging our people to “consume 30% local diet from the land and 70% imported food.” This statement alone clearly indicates that the islands are still contaminated.


    Now they say it’s a “legal and economic necessity.” Our lives are worth more than their money, our lives are worth more than their legal system. We have a right to live a full and healthy life as human beings. Mejatto Island is only 60 miles away from the urban city of Ebeye. And Ebeye is the closest place our people on Mejatto get their imported food from, but transportation to and from Ebeye is hard to come by, especially when the weather and seas are not good. If we move back to our islands and are not allowed to eat from the land, how can our people get imported food from Ebeye when it is close to 200 miles away from Rongelap? And transportation is always a problem. People would have to rely on tri-annual ships that would come and bring them food, and if the ships don’t make their scheduled runs, they would be forced to eat off the land which is poisonous.


    The RMI national government does not support this relocation by the US government for the Rongelap people to move back even though the Rongelap local government and the US government are pushing for it. The Alap association of Rongelap, which I represent, does not support this resettlement at the moment, for we all know the islands are still not livable. We do not want to risk going back and have our people get sick again just like we did when the US told our people back in 1957 that the islands were safe to return to after three years of exile. We surely don’t want to take that risk again. The community is uncertain as to whether to go back home or not because our local leadership does not conduct public hearings to report on current status of the radiation, funds and reports on guaranteed better and safe life. People do not trust the Department of Energy (DoE), they are not truthful about the cleanup and safety of the islands and guaranteed health insurance for the people, especially the descendants of our hibakusha. Like you, we go through the same social, economic and health injustices caused by what the US did to our islands, for the so-called “good of mankind.” I tell you, slavery still exists today: we are slaves to the social and cultural instability. We are slaves to the limited educational skills we bear. We are slaves to the health problems our children and elders encounter every day. We are slaves for we lack the economic stability to prevent these causes of slavery in our lives.


    So I am here today, my friends, as their voice. I come to ask you to be our extended voice to the world. Let the world know of what we go through every day we wake up to greet the sun. I ask that we stand together to fight this injustice. Only then will we be able to overcome all of this.


    Komol.