Blog
-
The Abolition of Nuclear Weapons and US Vulnerability
At a recent meeting a question came up concerning how to respond to someone who asks, “Won’t the abolition of nuclear weapons leave the United States vulnerable?” Here is my response.
First, it is important to make clear that we are not asking for the US alone to disarm its nuclear arsenal. Rather than seeking unilateral disarmament, we are calling for the US to lead a multilateral process for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. We are convinced that all countries, and especially the US, would be safer and more secure in a world without nuclear weapons.
Second, we are not calling for going to zero nuclear weapons overnight. Rather, it would be done cautiously over time and in phases. The term “phased” in the disarmament process is very important. By proceeding in phases, it means there would be a plan in place that allows for confidence building in discrete steps. Each phase would need to be completed before moving on to the next phase. US military and security professionals would be involved in designing the phases. If problems arise in a phase, attention can be given to working them out before proceeding to the next phase.
Third, there would need to be means built into the disarmament process by which there is confidence that cheating is not occurring. This would require verification of the disarmament process. President Reagan reached the conclusion that “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” He supported the abolition of nuclear weapons, but understood the necessity of verification procedures. He said, “Trust, but verify.” This makes sense and would be a key element of the disarmament plan.
Verification procedures would need to include not only technical means, such as remote sensing and satellite imagery, but also the ability to hold on-site inspections, including unscheduled challenge inspections. All sides would have to feel sufficiently comfortable with the verification procedures to move forward into new phases of the disarmament process.
Fourth, the process would be designed to be irreversible. It would include provisions that weapons that are dismantled could not later be converted back to weaponry. Verification procedures would ensure the irreversibility of the process.
Fifth, transparency would be another key element of the disarmament process. Countries would reveal what weapons and delivery systems they possess in their nuclear arsenals, and the process would be subject to confirmation by means of inspections and verification. The US has recently taken an important step toward transparency by revealing that its nuclear arsenal contains 5,113 weapons deployed and in reserve (plus several thousand more awaiting dismantlement).
Sixth, the question itself implies that currently the US nuclear arsenal prevents the country from being vulnerable to nuclear attack. This is clearly not the case. Nuclear weapons do not provide physical protection to their possessors. Their power to defend against nuclear attack is based upon their ability to deter by threat of nuclear retaliation. But deterrence is only a theory and one that cannot be proven. Deterrence cannot protect against accidents or miscalculations. Nor can it protect against nuclear armed terrorists. Additionally, nuclear deterrence may simply fail if the threat of retaliation is not believed. Nuclear deterrence theory requires leaders to behave rationally, and not all leaders do at all times.
Seventh, the nuclear status quo of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots” supports double standards that encourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries. Such proliferation makes accidents and proliferation to terrorist groups more likely, diminishing security for all. The United States and the world would be safer and more secure in a world without nuclear weapons.
Finally, in a world without nuclear weapons, the US, with its strong conventional military forces, would be far more secure than in a world with many nuclear weapons states and the threat of nuclear terrorism. Achieving a world without nuclear weapons would leave the US more secure and less vulnerable than it is at the present when the country remains subject to being destroyed by a nuclear attack.
The choice before the US now is to continue to live with the vulnerability of the threats posed by weapons capable of destroying cities, countries, civilization and the human species along with other complex forms of life, or to proceed cautiously on the path to nuclear weapons abolition. The nuclear status quo is filled with extreme risks. The path to zero nuclear weapons may also contain risks, but of the options available, it is the safer and more secure path not only for the US but for the world. To follow this path, which has legal, moral and practical imperatives, will require US leadership and the commitment of US citizens.
-
It’s Time to Rid the World of Nuclear Weapons
This article was originally published by the Sunday Observer (UK)
This year the nuclear bomb turns 65 – an appropriate age, by international standards, for compulsory retirement. But do our leaders have the courage and wisdom to rid the planet of this ultimate menace? The five-yearly review of the ailing nuclear non-proliferation treaty, currently under way at the United Nations in New York, will test the strength of governments’ commitment to a nuclear-weapon-free world.
If they are serious about realising this vision, they will work now to shift the focus from the failed policy of nuclear arms control, which assumes that a select few states can be trusted with these weapons, to nuclear abolition. Just as we have outlawed other categories of particularly inhuman and indiscriminate weapons – from biological and chemical agents to anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions – we must now turn our attention to outlawing the most iniquitous weapons of all.
Gains in nuclear disarmament to date have come much too slowly. More than 23,000 nuclear arms remain in global stockpiles, breeding enmity and mistrust among nations, and casting a shadow over us all. None of the nuclear-armed countries appears to be preparing for a future without these terrifying devices. Their failure to disarm has spurred nuclear proliferation, and will continue to destabilise the planet unless we radically alter our trajectory now. Forty years after the NPT entered into force, we should seriously question whether we are on track to abolition.
Disarmament is not an option for governments to take up or ignore. It is a moral duty owed by them to their own citizens, and to humanity as a whole. We must not await another Hiroshima or Nagasaki before finally mustering the political will to banish these weapons from global arsenals. Governments should agree at this NPT review conference to toss their nuclear arms into the dustbin of history, along with those other monstrous evils of our time – slavery and apartheid.
Sceptics tell us, and have told us for many years, that we are wasting our time pursuing the dream of a world without nuclear weapons, as it can never be realised. But more than a few people said the same about ending entrenched racial segregation in South Africa and abolishing slavery in the United States. Often they had a perceived interest in maintaining the status quo. Systems and policies that devalue human life, and deprive us all of our right to live in peace with each other, are rarely able to withstand the pressure created by a highly organised public that is determined to see change.
The most obvious and realistic path to a nuclear-weapon-free world is for nations to negotiate a legally binding ban, which would include a timeline for elimination and establish an institutional framework to ensure compliance. Two-thirds of all governments have called for such a treaty, known as a nuclear weapons convention, and UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has voiced his support for the idea. Only the nuclear weapon states and Nato members are holding us back.
Successful efforts to prohibit other classes of weapons provide evidence that, where there is political momentum and widespread popular support, obstacles which may at first appear insurmountable can very often be torn down. Nuclear abolition is the democratic wish of the world’s people, and has been our goal almost since the dawn of the atomic age. Together, we have the power to decide whether the nuclear era ends in a bang or worldwide celebration.
Last April in the Czech capital, Prague, President Barack Obama announced that the United States would seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, but he warned that nations probably would not eliminate their arsenals in his lifetime. I am three decades older than the US president, yet I am confident that both of us will live to see the day when the last nuclear weapon is dismantled. We just need to think outside the bomb.
-
NAPF Report on the 2010 NPT Review Conference and Related Events
The 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference comes at a key time for the future of nuclear disarmament. The 2005 NPT Review Conference ended in failure. The nuclear weapon states have yet to fulfill their Article VI obligations to negotiate in “good faith” for complete nuclear disarmament in the 40 years since the NPT entered into force in 1970.
Despite these failures, there are signs of hope. The New START agreement recently signed by the US and Russia represents the beginning of a new era of bilateral cooperation. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has repeatedly stated his uncompromising dedication to achieving the abolition of nuclear weapons. Most important, support for a world without nuclear weapons is gaining momentum among the people of the world, as represented by polling data and by the 1,700 NGO delegates attending NPT proceedings at the United Nations this year.
David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and Rick Wayman, NAPF Director of Programs, traveled to New York to take part in many events around the 2010 NPT Review Conference.
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Conference
On Friday, April 30, Rick Wayman attended the Second Conference of States Parties and Signatories to Treaties that Establish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones and Mongolia. He attended as a NGO observer at the invitation of the Chilean UN Mission.
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) cover all of Antarctica, Latin America, the South Pacific, Africa, Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Mongolia. A consistent theme throughout the conference was support for a Middle East NWFZ, which many believe will provide a needed measure of security in a volatile and dangerous region of the world.
Speakers, including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Sergio Duarte and Mayor of Hiroshima Tadatoshi Akiba affirmed their strong support for the continued expansion of NWFZs around the world as a welcome step toward the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
International Conference for Peace and Disarmament
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, together with many organizations around the world, co-organized a weekend conference at historic Riverside Church in New York City. Over 1,000 people from 25 countries participated in workshops and plenary sessions designed to educate, inspire and build lasting partnerships among people dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons.
The Foundation organized a workshop on May 1 together with the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy entitled Debunking Nuclear Deterrence. The workshop, moderated by Acronym’s Executive Director Rebecca Johnson, featured NAPF President David Krieger; Randy Rydell, Senior Political Affairs Officer at the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs; and retired British Navy Commander Robert Green.
David Krieger argued that nuclear deterrence is a theory that cannot be proven. The assumptions on which nuclear deterrence are based, such as leaders acting rationally at all times, are themselves irrational and dangerous. Randy Rydell encouraged members of the audience to examine the logic and rationality of nuclear deterrence proponents and the motivations they have for using this flawed concept. Commander Robert Green discussed the indoctrination that he experienced as a nuclear weapons commander in the British Navy. He called nuclear deterrence “state-sponsored nuclear terrorism,” “unlawful,” and detrimental to national and global security.
In the afternoon, there was an emotional workshop featuring the testimony of survivors of nuclear weapon explosions. Junko Kayashige, a survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing who visited the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 2008, recounted her experience of the atomic bombing and the great losses she suffered on August 6, 1945 and in subsequent years. Matashichi Oishi told the audience of over 300 people about his experience on a fishing boat in the Pacific Ocean on March 1, 1954. His boat was in the vicinity when the United States conducted its massive Bravo nuclear test. Fourteen of the 20 crew members on the boat died from radiation-related conditions. Abbacca Anjain Madison of the Marshall Islands told of the devastation brought to the islands by the hundreds of nuclear weapon tests the United States conducted in the area. Countless Marshallese have lost their livelihoods, land and lives at the hands of these nuclear tests. Claudia Peterson, a resident of southern Utah, told a heart wrenching story about the effects US nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site have had on her family. Parents, siblings and even her children have died due to the radiation that came from hundreds of nuclear tests in Nevada. To conclude her tearful speech, she said, “My story never changes; I just add more loved ones to it each time I tell it.”
Other workshops at the conference included “Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East,” “Youth Lobbying and Messaging,” “The Nuclear Cycle: The Negative Effects from Mining to Militarism,” “Modernization of the Nuclear Weapons Complex” and “Disarmament, Climate Change and Justice.”
The evening plenary session featured a keynote address by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The Secretary-General opened his speech by thanking the grassroots activists and NGO representatives in the audience for their strong commitment and leadership for nuclear disarmament. Mr. Ban reminded the audience that “from my first day in office as Secretary-General, I made clear that nuclear disarmament is my top priority.” He lamented that “the world is over-armed and peace is under-funded.” The Secretary-General concluded his speech with words of encouragement for those in attendance. He said, “What I see on the horizon is a world free of nuclear weapons. What I see before me are the people who will help make it happen…We will rid the world of nuclear weapons. And when we do, it will be because of people like you. The world owes you its gratitude.” He was speaking to all of us committed to this goal.
March and Rally for Nuclear Abolition
On Sunday, May 2, over 15,000 people gathered in New York’s Times Square for a rally calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. They then marched to Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, across the street from the United Nations, for a peace festival.
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation distributed hundreds of briefing booklets and DVDs and talked to many Foundation members who made the trip to New York for this inspiring event.
Panel Discussion Inside the United Nations
On Monday, May 3, the Foundation organized a panel discussion entitled From Omnicide to Abolition: Shifting the Mindset. The panel, which took place on the first day of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, was designed to set a progressive and positive tone for the four-week conference. It stressed the omnicidal dangers of nuclear weapons as a motivating force to achieve progress toward a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.
The event started out with a screening of the short video The Nuclear Family by Angela How. The video was the winner of the Foundation’s 2010 Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest. All of the winning videos from the 2010 contest can be viewed here.
Speakers on the Foundation’s panel included NAPF President David Krieger, NAPF Associate Steven Starr, NAPF Associate Alice Slater, NAPF Associate Commander Robert Green and Kate Dewes. A report on the panel can be found here.
Action Inside the NPT Review Conference
At the same time as our panel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to the plenary session. Among the proposals he made are:
- Evolve the NPT to the “DNPT” – the Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Treaty;
- Establish an independent group to oversee the disarmament process outlined in Article VI of the NPT;
- Introduce legally-binding comprehensive security guarantees to non-nuclear weapon states;
- Terminate all research and production of nuclear weapons worldwide;
- Explicitly outlaw the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and
- Implement the Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone as agreed at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.
Ahmadinejad was also critical of the United States and Israel during his speech, which resulted in many delegates walking out on his talk. The full text of his speech is available here.
On the afternoon of the first day of the Review Conference, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke. She was strong on non-proliferation initiatives such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, and promised further bilateral reductions with Russia. Clinton indicated that the US would seek to ratify the nuclear weapon-free zones in Africa and the South Pacific and was now ready to consult with other parties on the nuclear weapon-free zones in Central Asia and Southeast Asia. For the first time, the US revealed that the exact number of nuclear weapons in its deployed and reserve arsenal is 5,113 (plus “several thousand” more awaiting dismantlement). The full text of Secretary Clinton’s speech is available here. The document outlining the number of US nuclear weapons is available here.
The US delegation interacted much more with NGOs this year than in years past. They gave a major briefing on May 5 with Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher and other senior administration officials and answered questions after the briefing. David Krieger asked three questions:
- How much plutonium and highly enriched uranium exists in the world, and how much remains “loose” after the accomplishments you described?
- You describe the need for the US nuclear arsenal to be “safe, secure and effective.” I can understand the terms “safe” and “secure,” but what do you mean by the term “effective?”
- Would you consider conducting an Environmental Impact Statement on the use of nuclear weapons to increase awareness among Americans of the potential damage that would be caused in order to increase support for the president’s goal of zero nuclear weapons?
Their answers were as follows, with Thomas D’Agostino responding to the first two questions and Assistant Secretary of State Tauscher responding to the third:
- There is more nuclear material out there. That is why we need the rest of the world to join us in securing it.
- “Effective” means that the weapon will work as designed.
- We have no intention of doing this.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made himself available to various NGO events and was very strong in his commitment to nuclear disarmament. Mr. Ban spoke at events by Mayors for Peace, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization and hibakusha (survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings). As mentioned earlier, he also delivered the keynote address at the conference that the Foundation co-sponsored on May 1.
The Foundation’s NPT briefing booklet was distributed to all UN country missions one month before the start of the Review Conference. We also distributed copies of the briefing booklet to delegates during events and plenary meetings inside the UN during the Review Conference.
Greenwich Forum on War & Peace
On Wednesday, May 5, David and Rick traveled to Greenwich, CT at the invitation of the Greenwich Forum on War & Peace. To begin the evening, David and Rick met at an informal dinner with Board members of the Greenwich Forum to get to know one another and talk about issues of mutual interest. After the dinner, approximately 45 people at the Greenwich Library came to hear a lecture by David entitled Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Changing Our Modes of Thinking.
The lecture was followed by a lively question and answer session, which focused in part on perspectives on the decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. David challenged the conventional way the atomic bombings are taught in American schools; he said that typically Americans are taught to think of the bombs from above – that is, as a technological innovation that resulted in ending World War II in the Pacific. The Japanese, on the other hand, view the bombings from below – that is, the massive death and severe physical, psychological and environmental effects wrought upon those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the US atomic bombings in August 1945. David also encouraged greater US leadership to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.
Nearly everyone in attendance picked up copies of Foundation materials, including the NPT briefing booklet, the 2009 annual report and the DVD.
Other Notable Events
A key outcome of the trip to New York for the Foundation was strengthening the ties we have with other NGOs. We strengthened our existing ties with groups such as the Middle Powers Initiative, Mayors for Peace, Abolition 2000, INES, INESAP, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and the World Future Council. We created stronger ties with many key NGOs including Peace Action, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament and the Disarmament & Security Centre.
On May 5, David served as moderator on a panel organized by INES on nuclear weapons in Europe. Panelists included Dave Webb (UK), Peter Becker (Germany) and Yves-Jean Gallas (France).
On May 6, David and Rick had lunch with Foundation representatives Vernon Nichols and Masako London. The lunch was sponsored by Foundation supporters and UN representatives Frank and Nancy Colton, who were unable to attend due to health reasons.
On May 6, David participated in a meeting of the International Steering Committee of the Middle Powers Initiative. Rick represented the Foundation at the Abolition 2000 Global Council dinner and the Abolition 2000 Annual General Meeting.
During the conference, David did a television interview with NPT-TV, which can be viewed here and here.
The Foundation strengthened its ties with Commander Robert Green, a retired member of the British Royal Navy who was in charge of nuclear weapons. Green was a panelist at the Foundation’s workshop during the May 1 conference and again at the Foundation’s panel discussion at the UN on May 3. His new book, Security Without Nuclear Deterrence, was released during the first week of the Review Conference. Commander Green accepted the invitation to become an Associate of the Foundation.
Foundation Associates Jonathan Granoff, Alice Slater and Steven Starr were also active participants in panels and other activities at the 2010 Review Conference.
Conclusion
The NPT Review Conference will continue through May 28. There is no strong sense yet of the outcome, but there is a general sense of hopefulness that the outcome will be more positive than the failed 2005 Review Conference, and that perhaps countries will return to the 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.
During the first week of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) Review Conference there was a much more positive tone than in previous
such conferences. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon participated in
many civil society events during the conference, continuing to shine a light on
the need for a concrete plan for nuclear disarmament. The United States was
also more forthcoming with information on its nuclear arsenal, specifically in
releasing details of the size of its nuclear arsenal (5,113 nuclear weapons
deployed and in reserve plus several thousand awaiting dismantlement).The draft of the final document, to be released at the
conclusion of the conference on May 28, contains some highly promising
provisions. The draft document states, “The nuclear-weapon states shall convene
consultations not later than 2011 to accelerate concrete progress on nuclear
disarmament in a way that promotes international stability and is based on the
principle of undiminished security for all.”The draft document continues, “Based on the outcome of these
consultations, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is invited to
convene an international conference in 2014 to consider ways and means to agree
on a roadmap for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified
timeframe, including by means of a universal legal instrument.”If these provisions make it into the final document of the
NPT conference, they could pave the way for a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons
Convention, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent
elimination of nuclear weapons – one of the goals long sought by the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation and other civil society organizations. -
Review of From Omnicide to Abolition: Shifting the Mindset
This article was originally published in Reaching Critical Will’s News In Review.
Organized by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) and moderated by Rick Wayman, the panel consisted of five speakers who discussed the goal of shifting paradigms on nuclear weaponry and energy.
David Krieger, NAPF President, defined “omnicide,” as the ability to destroy humanity and other complex life forms, calling it the most compelling reason to abolish nuclear weapons. He argued that because of the possibility for total destruction, nuclear weapons are not useful for war, only for political uses such as dominance and prestige.
Mr. Krieger and fellow panelist Steven Starr both challenged nuclear deterrence in their statements. Mr. Starr pointed out that deterrence involves the assumption that leaders are rational, and Mr. Krieger added that omnicide was an incredibly high risk to take when tested against that assumption. Mr. Krieger also pointed out that there have been numerous near misses at nuclear war. Mr. Starr noted that deterrence has to work perfectly to justify nuclear weapons, and that it has to fail only once to cause a worldwide catastrophe.
Mr. Starr and Alice Slater also discussed the environmental effects of nuclear technology. Mr. Starr concentrated upon the effects of usage of nuclear weapons, noting that a scientific modeling of a possible nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan using only low-yield weapons found that atmospheric pollution would block sunlight, lowering temperatures in North America by 2.5-4 degrees Celsius; this would limit crop viability in Canada and the United States. Mr. Starr argued that even the low-yield weapons used would cause the starvation of nearly one billion people.
In addition to the 32 states with plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, states with nuclear power programs are also able to develop weapons in months without significant technological adaptation.
Ms. Slater quoted former CIA Director George Tenet, who noted that the difference between a power program and a weapons program is “time and intent, not technology.” Ms. Slater, who argued against nuclear energy altogether, noted that renewable energy sources were sufficient to power the planet without usage of nuclear, coal or oil-based power. She noted that while there was an “inalienable right” to nuclear power in Article IV of the NPT, it could be overruled in future agreements as renewable power arrangements such as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) replaced nuclear power.
Panelist Rob Green, who served as a commander in the British Navy before authoring Security Without Nuclear Deterrence, focused on the ‘indoctrination’ of military personnel and diplomats into the fallacy of nuclear deterrence. Green turned away from military leaders as a pilot in the 1960s, when he carried nuclear weapons until he realized that he would “destroy myself if I dropped it […] I was ordered to become a suicide bomber.”
Multiple panelists noted the risk to democracy that nuclear weapons pose. Mr. Green warned that deference to leaders was a major obstacle to challenging the status quo and achieving total nuclear disarmament. Ms. Slater noted that the military and conservative allies in parliaments have provided universal “push-back” to disarmament, which limits debate and democratic decision-making.
The final panelist, Kate Dewes, focused on current initiatives. Ms. Dewes, the Co-Director of the Disarmament and Security Centre, highlighted the Secretary-General’s 5-Point Plan on elimination of nuclear weapons and called upon civil society to continue pressuring the UN to proceed on the plan, which includes negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) and creation of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones. Joining Ms. Dewes in calling for negotiations to create a NWC, Mr. Starr also recommended that nuclear weapon states conduct health and environmental assessments. Mr. Green called for openness in discussion of nuclear weapons as a way of continuing this discussion. All five of the panelists highlighted the present NPT Review Conference as one of many places to continue the discussion, including delegates of governments, civil society and peace activists in the process.
-
Shifting the Paradigm: Time to Replace Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Shifting the Paradigm: Time to Replace Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty with Universal Membership in the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
These are the remarks prepared by Alice Slater for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s panel discussion at the United Nations on May 3, 2010.
While the world applauds the growing recognition that the abolition of nuclear weapons seems to be an idea whose time has finally come—from the calls by rusty cold warriors and former statesmen and generals to eliminate nuclear weapons—to the recent modest START negotiated by President Obama and Medvedev to cut nuclear arsenals under new verifications procedures, there are appalling countervailing forces, born from the old 20th century paradigm of war and terror, that undercut the growing positive pressures to end the nuclear scourge. In addition to the pushback from the military and the Republican party in the US Congress to hold the START agreement hostage to billions of new dollars for the weapons labs to build new plutonium cores for the atom bombs, continue sub-critical explosions of plutonium and chemicals at the Nevada test site, and erect new buildings in the weapons complex, as well as continued expansion of destabilizing missile “defenses” and space warfare programs, there is a growing global proliferation of so-called “peaceful” nuclear reactors, metastasizing around the planet and spreading their lethal technology as incipient bomb factories.
Ironically as new calls come from the nuclear sophisticated “haves” to control the nuclear fuel cycle, there has been an explosion of interest from nations that never sought “peaceful” nuclear power before to achieve the technical know-how that will allow them to play in the nuclear club with the big boys. Thus we see countries like El Salvador, Ghana, Burma and Indonesia declaring their intention to build nuclear power plants as well as hearing expressions of interest from Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman Qatar, Saudi Arabia Sudan Syria Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen!
Fueled by commercial interests, the western patriarchal network of industrialized nations is now vigorously promoting a “nuclear renaissance” of civilian power. There has been an explosion of interests in licensing new uranium mines around the world, in Africa, Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, India, the United States—even at the very the rim of the sacred land surrounding the awesome Grand Canyon, despite the known tragic consequences of mining on the health of indigenous peoples who bear the brunt of the toxic activity with higher birth defects, cancer, leukemia and mutations in every community where uranium is mined.
The nuclear crisis we face today is a direct result of the export of peaceful nuclear technology to countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Indeed, every nuclear reactor enables a country to develop its own nuclear weapons, as we have seen in the case of India, Pakistan, and Israel, who never joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty and now North Korea, which exploited the fruits of “peaceful” technology and then quit to develop its own deterrent against US bullying. Under the guise of “peace”, other countries, such as South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, and Libya were also well on their way to developing nuclear bombs, which they later abandoned. Former IAEA Director, Mohammed ElBaradei stated “We just cannot continue business as usual that every country can build its own factories for separating plutonium or enriching uranium. Then we are really talking about 30, 40 countries sitting on the fence with a nuclear weapons capability that could be converted into a nuclear weapon in a matter of months.”
The signers of the CTB were well aware that by having a nuclear reactor, a nation had been given the keys to a bomb factory and would need to be included in any effort to ban nuclear tests, regardless of whether they proclaimed any intention to develop weapons. And former US CIA Director, George Tenet, said, “The difference between producing low-enriched uranium and weapons-capable high-enriched uranium is only a matter of time and intent, not technology.”
There are nearly 200 million kilograms of reactor wastes in the world—with only 5 kilograms needed to make one nuclear bomb. The US is planning to build 50 more reactors by 2020; China plans 30; with 31 more now under construction–to churn out more toxic poisons; on tap for bomb-making, with no known solution to safely containing the tons of nuclear waste that will be generated over the unimaginable 250,000 years it will continue to threaten life on earth. Countless studies report higher incidences of birth defects, cancer, and genetic mutations in every situation where nuclear technology is employed—whether for war or for “peace.” A National Research Council 2005 study reported that exposure to X-rays and gamma rays, even at low-dose levels, can cause cancer. The committee defined “low-dose” as a range from near zero up to about… 10 times that from a CT scan. “There appears to be no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless,” said one NRC panelist. Tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste accumulate at civilian reactors with no solution for its storage, releasing toxic doses of radioactive waste into our air, water and soil and contaminating our planet and its inhabitants for hundreds of thousands of years.
A recent study released by the New York Academy of Sciences, authored by noted Russian scientists concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died of cancer caused between 1986 by the Chernobyl accident through 2004. The industry-dominated IAEA, has been instrumental in covering up the disastrous health effects of the Chernobyl tragedy, understating the number of deaths by attributing only 50 deaths directly to the accident. This cover-up was no doubt due to the collusive agreement between the IAEA and the World Health Organization, which under its terms provides that if either of the organizations initiates any program or activity in which the other has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult with the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement. Thus our scientists and researchers at the WHO are required to have their work vetted by the industry’s champion for “peaceful” nuclear technology, the IAEA.
The industrialized nations have the hubris to think they can manage a whole new regime of nuclear apartheid, despite their recent and most welcome acknowledgement by their leadership of the breakdown of the nuclear weapons arms control regime. They’re planning a top-down, hierarchical, central control of the nuclear fuel cycle, in a mad plan to reprocess the irradiated fuel rods in the “nuclear have” countries, such as the US, Russia, China, UK, France, Japan and India, who are to be members of a new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The Partnership will ship toxic bomb-ready materials to the four corners of the world and back, in a nightmare scenario of plutonium in constant transit, subject to terrorist theft and negligent accidents on land and on sea, while creating a whole new class of nuclear “have nots” who can’t be trusted not to turn their “peaceful” nuclear reactors into bomb factories. It’s just so 20th century! Time for a paradigm shift to safe, sustainable energy.
Every 30 minutes, enough of the sun’s energy reaches the earth’s surface to meet global energy demand for an entire year. Wind can satisfy the world’s electricity needs 40 times over, and meet all global energy demands five times over. The geothermal energy stored in the top six miles of the earth’s crust contains 50,000 times the energy of the world’s known oil and gas resources. Tidal, wave and small hydropower, can also provide vast stores of energy everywhere on earth, abundant and free for every person on our planet, rich and poor alike. We can store hydrogen fuel in cells, made from safe, clean energy sources, to be used when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. When hydrogen fuel is burned, it produces water vapor, pure enough to drink, with no contamination added to the planet. Iceland plans to be completely sustainable by 2050, using hydrogen in its vehicles, trains, busses and ships, made from geothermal and marine energy.
Last year the governments of Germany, Spain and Denmark launched the International Renewal Energy Agency, IRENA, which would empower developing countries with the ability to access the free energy of the sun, wind, marine, and geothermal sources, would train, educate, and disseminate information about implementing sustainable energy programs, organize and enable the transfer of science and know-how of renewable energy technologies, and generally be responsible for helping the world make the critical transition to a sustainable energy future. IRENE is the Greek word for peace, so this new initiative is especially well named.
While the NPT purports to guarantee to States who agree to abide by its terms an inalienable right to so-called peaceful nuclear technology, it is highly questionable whether such a right can ever be appropriately conferred on a State. Inalienable rights are generally distinguished from legal rights established by a State because they are moral or natural rights, inherent in the very essence of an individual. The notion of inalienable rights appeared in Islamic law and jurisprudence which denied a ruler “the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being” and “become Rights by reason of the fact that they are given to a subject by a law and from a source which no ruler can question or alter”. John Locke, the great Enlightenment thinker was thought to be influenced in his concept of inalienable rights by his attendance at lectures on Arabic studies.
During the Age of Enlightenment natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings. The US Declaration of Independence spoke of “self-evident truth” that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights …life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Where does “peaceful nuclear technology” fit in this picture? Just as the Comprehensive Test Ban cancelled the right to peaceful nuclear explosions in Article V of the NPT, a protocol to the NPT mandating participation in IRENA would supercede the Article IV right to “peaceful” nuclear technology. There are now 143 nations participating in IRENA. www.irena.org We urge you to insure that your nation joins as well.
-
For a Nuclear Free, Peaceful, Just and Sustainable World
For a Nuclear Free, Peaceful, Just and Sustainable World
Declaration of the Conference International Planning Committee
New York, New York
April 30-May 1, 2010Our world is facing crises on an unprecedented scale – global warming, poverty, war, hunger and disease – which both threaten the very future of life as we know it, and bring, on a daily basis, death and extreme sorrow and suffering to the majority of our people.
Despite the global economic crisis, we face a situation in which global military spending – money for killing – far outstrips all other spending, at the expense of addressing urgent human needs. Arms races in many parts of the world are escalating. More and larger foreign military bases are being built and space is being used for war. NATO is being enlarged to dominate the world. All life is threatened by tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that can destroy our planet hundreds of times over. Aggressive nuclear strategies remain the brutal reality:
- Despite its non-proliferation diplomacy, the United States has reaffirmed the central role of nuclear weapons in its defense policy, as has Russia, and increased spending for its nuclear weapons programs to an all-time high;
- All of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nuclear weapon states – the U.S., Russia, U.K., France and China — are modernizing their nuclear arsenals;
- While pledging to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. foreign and military policies, the Obama Administration has repeated its threats of first strike nuclear attacks first against North Korea and second, with Israel against Iran by reiterating that “all options are on the table;”
- Dangerously since they are not signatories, India, Israel and Pakistan are not obligated under the NPT to abolish their nuclear weapons.
- While Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs are the focus of broad international condemnation, the world continues to turn a blind eye to Israel’s large, sophisticated nuclear arsenal.
- The South Asian nuclear arms race continues unabated;
There is an urgent need for real change.
We share a vision of a world free from war and nuclear weapons, a world built on a foundation of global justice, supporting a sustainable environment. Our priority is to ensure genuine human security for all peoples.
This vision is realisable, but to achieve it requires concerted nonviolent and practical action by those who seek it. Popular pressure on the world’s political leaders will be required to move them to value human security over militarism and the war systems that are sources of their power and privilege.
Our responsibility is to identify those steps needed to achieve our vision and to discern the means to create the political will necessary to prevail.
To achieve a world free of nuclear weapons: Building on the groundswell of international public opinion, we call on all governments to begin negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention to ban all nuclear weapons by 2020.
To achieve a world free of war: Seeking, as expressed in the UN Charter, to end the scourge of war that has blighted succeeding generations, we will work to end all military conflicts and support peaceful dialogue and conflict resolution based on international law. International conflicts must be prevented and solved through diplomacy:
- We call for an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the withdrawal of all foreign troops from those regions.
- We call on Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories occupied since June 1967, to dismantle the settlements and to recognize the national rights of the Palestinian people.
- We call on the U.S. to sign a peace treaty to finally end the Korean War, formalize diplomatic relations, lift sanctions and encourage meaningful exchange.
- We call on the international community to normalize relations with Iran and North Korea.
- We call for the blockade of Cuba to end.
We will work for the end of military alliances and the closing of all foreign military bases, to end the militarization of space, and to greatly reduce the world’s military spending. Torn by the deaths of countless thousands of people as a result of the arms trade, we call for that trade in death to be banned. Putting people first, we call on governments with militarized economies to begin industrial conversion programmes so that our resources and energy are organized to meet human needs, not to end human lives. Let goverment structures promote peace instead of war. With imagination and creativity we will build relations between all countries on the basis of equality and respect.
To achieve a world where our collective resources are managed and distributed to meet the needs of all peoples: We will work to transform the current social structures, so that people come before profit, and economic enterprises provide for genuine human security rather than imposing a tyranny of debt and deprivation. We are in solidarity with the indigenous people around the planet who are standing up for their rights.
To end the despoliation of our planet, the poisoning of our lands and water and the air we breathe: We will educate and organise to halt and reverse global warming. To create a sustainable future, we will work in our communities and nations to end the commodification of nature. We will strive to establish a worldwide moratorium on uranium mining, which has taken a terrible toll in human lives, and to phase out nuclear power whose poisons persist for tens of thousands of years. We will promote sustainable, renewable energy production as an alternative to nuclear energy and a way to mitigate climate change and we encourage our governments to join the International Renewable Energy Agency. Protecting our environment is one of our greatest imperatives. We call on the major industrial powers to significantly address the existing and impending global climate crisis.
We welcome the increased international cooperation amongst our movements which has enabled the success of this conference and commit to the continuation of this international dialogue and coordination. To deepen the social involvement necessary to achieve our goals, we will work to include other civil society organisations – such as trade unions and faith groups – whose visions include a more peaceful and just society.
Martin Luther King observed that, “all too many people find themselves living amid a great period of social change, and yet they fail to develop the new attitudes, the new mental responses, that the new situation demands“ We are in a similar moment, a time of great dislocation and upheaval. We need a new conversation amongst ourselves about how to re-order our societies and economies if humanity is to survive and prosper. It is past time to kick the habit of looking to those in power to deliver the changes we so urgently need. A world-wide movement for peace and global justice in solidarity is our aim and our commitment.
Time is short – we must seize the moment!
1 May 2010
International Planning Committee: Ray Acheson – Reaching Critical Will; Colin Archer – International Peace Bureau; Reiner Braun – International Network of Engineers andScientists for Global Responsibility; Jackie Cabasso – Western States Legal Foundation, United for Peace and Justice; Arielle Dennis – Le Mouvement de la Paix;Bruce Gagnon – Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space;Joseph Gerson – American Friends Service Committee; Socorro Gomes – Centro Brasileiro de Solidariedade aos Povos e Luta pela Paz; Kate Hudson – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Akira Kawasaki – Peace Boat; Hans Lammarent – Bombspotting; Margo LaZaro – Global Family; Thomas Magnusson – International Peace Bureau; Judith LeBlanc – Peace Action; Narae Lee – Peace Boat; Dominique Lalanne – Aboliton 2000; Henry Lowendorf – Greater New Haven Peace Council; Issam Makhoul – Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian and Israeli Studies; Al Marder – International Association of Peace Messenger Cities; George Martin – Peace Action; Kevin Martin – Peace Action; Alice Slater – Abolition 2000; Susi Snyder – Abolition 2000; Hiroshi Takakusaki – Gensuikyo; Yayoi Tsuchida – Gensuikyo; Pierre Villard – Le Mouvement de la Paix; Alyn Ware – Abolition 2000; Rick Wayman – Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Dave Webb – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Cheryl Wertz – Peace Action NYS
-
Speech to the International Conference for Peace and Disarmament
This is the transcript of a speech delivered by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the peace and disarmament conference co-organized by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and many other organizations around the world on May 1, 2010 at Riverside Church in New York City.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Reading the list of organizations and individuals with us this evening, I want to say what an honour it is to be here. I know of your hard work and dedication. I know how much you have sacrificed in standing for your principles and beliefs. I know how much courage it takes to speak out, to protest, to carry the banner of this most noble human aspiration … world peace. And so, most of all, I am here tonight to thank you.
Let me begin by saying how humbling it is to speak to you in this famous place, Riverside Church. It was here that Martin Luther King Junior spoke against the war in Vietnam. Nelson Mandela spoke here on his first visit to the United States after being freed from prison. Standing with you, looking out, I can see what they saw: a sea of committed women and men, who come from all corners to move the world. It reminds us that of what matters most in life… is not so much the message from the bully pulpit, but rather the movement from the pews. From people like you. And so I say: keep it up.
Our shared vision is within reach … a nuclear-free world. On the eve of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference … beginning on Monday … we know the world is watching. Let it heed our call: Disarm Now!
Ladies and gentlemen,
From my first day in office, I have made nuclear disarmament a top priority. Perhaps, in part, this deep personal commitment comes from my experience as a boy in Korea, growing up after the war. My school was rubble. There were no walls. We studied in the open air.
The United Nations rebuilt my country. I was lucky enough to receive a good education. But more than that, I learned about peace, solidarity and, above all, the power of community action. These values are not abstract principles to me. I owe my life to them. I try to embody them in all my work.
Just a few weeks ago, I travelled to Ground Zero — the former test site at Semipalatinsk, in Kazakhstan, where the Soviet Union detonated more than 450 nuclear explosions. It was strangely beautiful. The great green steppe reached as far as the eye could see. But of course, the eye does not immediately see the scope of the devastation. Vast areas where people still cannot go. Poisoned lakes and rivers. High rates of cancer and birth defects.
After independence, in 1991, Kazakhstan closed the site and banished nuclear weapons from its territory. Today, Semipalatinsk is a powerful symbol of hope … it is a new Ground Zero for disarmament, the birth-place of the Central Asian nuclear-weapon-free zone.
In August, I will travel to another Ground Zero — Mayor Akiba’s proud city of Hiroshima. There, I will repeat our call for a nuclear free-world. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – and especially the hibakusha – know too well the horror of nuclear war. It must never be repeated!
Yet 65 years later, the world still lives under a nuclear shadow. How long must we wait to rid ourselves of this threat? How long will we keep passing the problem to succeeding generations?
We here tonight know that it is time to end this senseless cycle. We know that nuclear disarmament is not a distant, unattainable dream. It is an urgent necessity, here and now. We are determined to achieve it. We have come close in the past.
Twenty-four years ago, in Reykjavik, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev came within a hair’s breath of agreeing to eliminate nuclear weapons. It was a dramatic reminder of how far we can go — as long as we have the vision and the will.
Today’s generation of nuclear negotiators must take a lesson from Reykjavik: Be bold. Think big … for it yields big results.
And that is why, again, we need people like you. People who understand that the world is over-armed and that peace is under-funded. People who understand that the time for change is now.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The NPT entered into force 40 years ago. Ever since, it has been the foundation of the non-proliferation regime and our efforts for nuclear disarmament. To quote you, Mr. Gerson: It is one of the seminal agreements of the 20th century. Let’s not forget. In 1963, experts predicted that there could be as many as 25 nuclear powers by the end of the last century. It did not happen, in large part because the NPT guided the world in the right direction.
Today, we have reason for renewed optimism. Global public opinion is swinging our way. Governments are looking at the issue with fresh eyes. Consider just the most recent events:
- Leading by example, the United States announced a review of its nuclear posture … forswearing the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, so long as they are in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
- In Prague, President Obama and President Medvedev signed a new START treaty, accompanied by serious cuts in arsenals.
- In Washington, the leaders of 47 nations united in their efforts to keep nuclear weapons and materials out of the hands of terrorists.
- And on Monday, we hope to open a new chapter in the life of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In 2005, when leaders gathered for the last review of the NPT, the outcome did not match expectations. In plainer English, it failed — utterly. We cannot affor d to fail again. After all, there are more than 25,000 nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals. Nuclear terrorism remains a real and present danger. There has been no progress in establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. The nuclear programs of Iran and the DPRK are of serious concern to global efforts to curb nuclear proliferation…
To deal with these and other issues, I have set out my own five-point action plan, and I thank you for your encouraging response. I especially welcome your support for the idea of concluding a Nuclear Weapon Convention. Article VI of the NPT requires the Parties to pursue negotiations on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under international control. These negotiations are long overdue. Next week, I will call on all countries – and most particularly the nuclear-weapon states – to fulfil this obligation. We should not have unrealistic expectations for the conference. But neither can we afford to lower our sights.
What I see on the horizon is a world free of nuclear weapons. What I see before me are the people who will help make it happen. Please keep up your good work. Sound the alarm, keep up the pressure. Ask your leaders what they are doing – personally – to eliminate the nuclear menace. Above all, continue to be the voice of conscience.
We will rid the world of nuclear weapons. And when we do, it will be because of people like you. The world owes you its gratitude.
Thank you.