Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • The Nobel War Lecture

    In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, President Obama, one of the world’s great orators and purveyors of hope, gave a speech that must reflect the divisions within himself and his personal struggles to reconcile them.  It was a surprising speech for the occasion.  Rather than a speech of vision and hope, it was a speech that sought to justify war and particularly America’s wars.  The speech was largely an infomercial for war, touting not only its necessity but its virtues, and might well be thought of as the “Nobel War Lecture.”

    How troubling it is to see this man of hope bogged down by war, not only on the ground but in his mind.  As he put it, “I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars.”  One of these wars he seeks to end, but the other he has made his own by recently committing 30,000 additional troops and justifying it as “an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.”  The president persists despite his recognition that “[i]n today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflicts are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.” 

    Where was the vision that was so hopeful in Barack Obama the campaigner for the presidency?  Has a year in office reduced him to a “reality” from which he cannot raise his sights to envision a more peaceful future – one without war or Predator drone attacks, one in which international cooperation in intelligence gathering and law enforcement could bring terrorists to justice? 

    The president tells the world, “I did not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.”  This is certain.  He tells his audience, “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.  There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”    Perhaps his decision to bow to the generals and increase the US presence in the war in Afghanistan is weighing heavily on him.  Perhaps he seeks a way to find it both “necessary” and “morally justified.” 

    President Obama acknowledges his debt to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., leading proponents of nonviolence, but he cannot find a way to follow their example.  He finds instead that “as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.”  From the lofty visions and practical actions of Gandhi and King, the president brings us down to earth, to his reality that in his position he is fated to carry on with war.  “So yes,” he tells us, “the instruments of war have a role to play in preserving the peace.”

    What does he offer in the stead of peace?  He argues that there must be standards governing the use of force.  Yes, this is long established, although not often adhered to.  One such standard is no use of force without the approval of the United Nations, except in self-defense to repel an imminent attack.  But America and its NATO allies often take war into their own hands, ignoring this rule of international law to which all states are bound.

    Having justified war, the president offers three paths to building “a just and lasting peace.”  First, he argues for “alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior.”  This makes sense so long as it is applied to all states equally without double standards.  Second, he argues that peace must be based upon human dignity and human rights.  Of course, this is so.  Of course, America should stand for human rights rather than torture and the worst abuse of all – aggressive war.  Third, he makes the point that a just and lasting peace must also be based upon freedom from want.  There is nothing to argue with here.  Why not use our resources to help eliminate poverty and hunger and expand education and healthcare throughout the world, rather than pour these resources into waging war?

    President Obama barely mentioned nuclear disarmament in his speech.  When he did, he reiterated his commitment to upholding the Non-Proliferation Treaty, calling it “a centerpiece” of his foreign policy.  He then moved quickly to pointing a finger at Iran and North Korea.  “Those who seek peace,” he said, “cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.”  He is right; no nation should arm itself for nuclear war, including the United States and the other eight nations that have already done so.

    The President might have built a strong, positive and hopeful speech on the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons, instruments of omnicide, but he chose instead to offer up a laundry list of reasons for war.  When it came to peace, his message, sadly, was No, we can’t.

  • Is It Just War?

    This article was originally published on the Waging Peace Today blog

    In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize today in Oslo, Norway, President Obama invoked the idea of “just war” to rationalize his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and the continued drone attacks against the people of Pakistan. The president rightly stated that certain criteria must be met for a war to be considered “just,” but did not proceed to examine his criteria as they relate to the wars he is continuing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    President Obama’s definition of a “just war,” according to his Nobel acceptance speech is a war that:

    1. Is waged as a last resort or in self-defense;
    2. Uses proportional force;
    3. Spares civilians from violence whenever possible.

    Even a cursory glance at this definition of a “just war” shows that what the US is doing in Afghanistan falls far short.

    Waged as a last resort or in self-defense

    This criterion was a stretch when the US invaded in 2001, but eight years later it’s downright silly. No other means of putting an end to this conflict have been reasonably attempted. Ongoing refusal by the United States to pursue a diplomatic solution through negotiations with the Taliban shows that this war has never been a “last resort.”

    Uses proportional force

    Since the 2001 invasion, the US Air Force has dropped around 31 million pounds of bombs on Afghanistan. There are countless examples of disproportionate force used, such as an aerial bombing raid in response to celebratory gunfire at a wedding.

    Spares civilians from violence whenever possible

    Sending drones to fire missiles at Pakistani villages, a strategy that has increased dramatically under President Obama’s watch, is a sure way to injure, traumatize and kill many civilians. In Afghanistan, estimates range from 12,000 to 32,000 civilians killed as a result of the current war. Over 200,000 are known to be living in Internally Displaced Persons camps in Afghanistan. With the upcoming escalation of US and NATO troops, deaths of both Afghan civilians and foreign troops are certain to rise.

    A war of choice with diplomacy “off the table” is not just. War is not peace, regardless of how you spin it.

  • Abolishing Nuclear Arms: It Can Be Done

    This article was originally published on CNN Opinion

    When President Obama called for a world free of nuclear weapons in Prague, Czech Republic, this spring, many dismissed this part of his speech as idealistic rhetoric.

    But the abolition of nuclear weapons is not an unrealistic fantasy. It is a practical necessity if the American people are to have a secure future. President Obama should use his Nobel speech this week to reaffirm his commitment to this essential and obtainable goal.

    It is essential because a world armed with nuclear weapons is simply too dangerous for us to countenance. Since the end of the Cold War we have tended to act as though the threat of nuclear war had gone away. It hasn’t. It is only our awareness of this danger that has faded. In fact, there are some 25,000 nuclear weapons in the world today; 95 percent of them are in the arsenals of the United States and Russia.

    Just this past weekend, the START treaty limiting the number of U.S. and Russian warheads expired. Negotiators in Geneva, Switzerland, have not yet been able to work out the details of a follow-up treaty.

    We must hope they will be able to agree to deep reductions. A recent study by Physicians for Social Responsibility showed that if only 300 of the weapons in the Russian arsenal attacked targets in American cities, 90 million people would die in the first half hour. A comparable U.S. attack on Russia would produce similar devastation.

    Further, these attacks would destroy the entire economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on which the rest of the population depends for survival. In the ensuing months the vast majority of people who survived the initial attacks in both countries would die of disease, exposure and starvation.

    The destruction of the United States and Russia would be only part of the story. An attack of this magnitude would lift millions of tons of soot and dust into the upper levels of the atmosphere, blocking out sunlight and dropping temperatures across the globe.

    In fact, if the entire Russian and U.S. strategic arsenals were involved in the fighting, average surface temperature worldwide would fall 10 degrees Centigrade to levels not seen on Earth since the depth of the last ice age 18,000 years ago.

    For three years there would not be a single day in the Northern Hemisphere free of frost. Agriculture would stop, ecosystems would collapse and many species, perhaps even our own, would become extinct. This is not just some theoretical scenario; it is a real and present danger.

    On January 25, 1995, we came within minutes of nuclear war when Russian military radar mistook a Norwegian-U.S. scientific rocket for a possible attack on Moscow. President Yeltsin, a man reportedly suffering from alcoholism and other major medical problems, was notified and given five minutes to decide how to respond.

    Then as now, both the United States and Russia maintained a policy of “launch on warning,” authorizing the launch of nuclear missiles when an enemy attack is believed to be under way. We don’t know exactly what happened in the Kremlin that morning, but someone decided not to launch Russian missiles and we did not have a nuclear war.

    January 25, 1995, was five years after the end of the Cold War. There were no unusual crises anywhere in the world that day. It was a relatively good day in a time much less dangerous than our own. And we almost blew up the world. That was 15 years ago and the United States and Russia still maintain more than 2,000 warheads on high alert ready to be launched in 15 minutes and to destroy each other’s cities 30 minutes later.

    Nuclear weapons are the only military threat from which U.S. armed forces cannot protect us. It is urgently in our national security interest to eliminate these instruments of mass annihilation from the arsenals of potential adversaries. If we have to get rid of our own nuclear weapons to achieve this, it is a deal well worth making.

    Make no mistake, the elimination of nuclear weapons is an attainable goal. These bombs are not some force of nature. They are the work of our hand. We built them and we can take them apart.

    Some governments falsely see these weapons as safeguards of their security. It will not be easy to convince them that true safety requires that we abolish them. Nor will it be easy to design the verification regime needed to assure that the weapons are dismantled and that no new weapons are built. Yet national security experts in the United States and around the world say that it can be done and it must be done.

    If politics is the art of the possible, then statesmanship is the art of the necessary. And if ever there was a time that cried out for statesmanship it is now.

    There are many important issues that demand our attention — health care reform, energy policy, creating more jobs — but none is as urgent as eliminating the threat of nuclear war.

  • Afghanistan: War Is Not the Answer

    Statement of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    President Obama’s recent decision to send 30,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan is part of a larger trend of escalating violence in a country renowned for being a graveyard of empires. After adding 21,000 US troops to Afghanistan in March 2009, the months of July, August and October 2009 were the deadliest months for US troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Continued attacks against civilians have stoked anger and resentment among the people of Afghanistan.

    The US invasion and occupation of Iraq have shown that true stability and democracy cannot be imposed through violence. Even with a US force of over 100,000 troops, Iraq remains an extremely dangerous place, with daily bombings, kidnappings and killings. Many people in Iraq still lack basic necessities such as electricity and clean drinking water. By some estimates, more than one million Iraqis have been killed in the war and more than four million have become refugees.

    The president’s decision to add nearly 50 percent more US troops to the occupation of Afghanistan will, together with troops from other NATO countries, bring total troop levels to around 150,000 – approximately the same number of troops deployed by the Soviet Union in their failed war in the 1980s.

    According to US intelligence agencies, there are fewer than 100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, and there are serious tensions between al Qaeda and the Taliban.  Even if the Taliban were to prevail in Afghanistan and offer al Qaeda a “safe haven,” it would be unlikely that al Qaeda would accept it, preferring instead to maintain the “invisibility” of a non-state network.

    Therefore, it is reasonable to ask the question, “Will the president’s decision to increase US troop levels in Afghanistan make the United States more secure?” For the following reasons, we believe this question must be answered in the negative.

    Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will lead to more US casualties. The war in Afghanistan has already claimed the lives of nearly 1,000 US troops and has severely impacted the lives of countless others through repeated deployments, serious injuries and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

    Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will create more casualties among the Afghan people. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion are estimated at between 12,000 and 32,000. More than 200,000 Afghan people have been displaced. Increased US troop numbers in Afghanistan are likely to result in increased civilian deaths, injuries and displacements.

    Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will breed more extremists. A US intelligence report in early 2009 showed that only one-tenth of enemy fighters in Afghanistan are ideologically-motivated Taliban; the vast majority are fighting against foreign occupiers or for personal economic gain. The continued war in Afghanistan will perpetuate conditions conducive to recruiting by al Qaeda and other extremist groups. Civilian casualties, indefinite detentions and destruction of property only create more extremists.

    Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will lead to increased financial burden. It is estimated that it will cost an additional $1 million per year for each individual troop sent to Afghanistan. According to the National Priorities Project, total US costs for the war in Afghanistan in 2010 are estimated at $325 billion. Especially at a time of high unemployment, economic hardship and a massive federal budget deficit in the US, this spending is not responsible.

    Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will weaken US military readiness. By adding more troops in Afghanistan, President Obama will stretch the US military even thinner, leaving fewer troops in reserve, causing more repeated tours of duty, and reducing our capacity and readiness to respond should other conflicts arise.

    Conclusion and Recommendations

    The military is the wrong tool for solving our problems in Afghanistan. It is akin to using a chainsaw for surgery rather than a scalpel. The most effective ways to deal with extremist groups, such as al Qaeda, are through international cooperation in intelligence gathering and law enforcement. A recent study by the RAND Corporation shows that only seven percent of terrorist groups were defeated by military force in the past 40 years.

    For the reasons set forth above, we urge Congress not to fund additional troops in Afghanistan. Instead, Congress should help in funding the rebuilding of Afghanistan’s infrastructure and support the Afghan people in building institutions of social justice such as schools, courts and health care clinics. Respect for the US in Afghanistan and around the world would increase significantly by providing even a small fraction of the resources currently being spent on the war in Afghanistan for these constructive purposes.

  • World March for Peace and Nonviolence

    This speech was delivered to a rally during the World March for Peace and Nonviolence in Los Angeles, CA on December 2, 2009.

    Great thanks to the marchers traveling the world for peace and nonviolence.  You bring us the gift of hope.  How special it is to see so many people gathered together joined in commitment to achieving a peaceful and nonviolent world.

    In his speech committing 30,000 more American troops to the war in Afghanistan, President Obama spoke of seeking “a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.”  Unfortunately, he missed the point that his policy in Afghanistan, like the policies of the previous US administration in both Iraq and Afghanistan, will be one that continues to kill innocents, as well as sacrificing more of our own youth at the altar of war.  Those who stand up for peace, prosperity and human dignity are those who say No to war.  You cannot at the same time seek peace and wage war.  You cannot continue to kill innocents in war and uphold human dignity. 

    David krieger and blase bonpaneWar is an organized way of slaughtering other human beings.   It is a means of justifying murder — a monstrous conception, unworthy of the human spirit.  Over time, war has become less discriminate and more lethal.  In World War I, about 40 percent of those killed were civilians.  The percentage of civilian deaths in World War II increased to two-thirds.  In post-WWII wars, the number has increased to over 90 percent civilians.

    Improved technology allows mass killing to take place from greater distances.  Bomber pilots from 30,000 feet in the air can see only dim outlines of their targets.  The operators of missile-bearing drones sit in safe havens far from where the drones will do their damage.  With nuclear-armed missiles, you can press a button on one continent and murder millions of people on another continent.   The button pusher may not even know where the missile is aimed. 

    Militaries train soldiers to kill with small arms and bayonets.  They turn young soldiers into killers.  We traumatize and sacrifice our youth in war.  For those who survive, we scar their lives forever.  Of course, without conscription, we now only sacrifice the less advantaged youth.  It is the children of the poor who have become the mainstay of our military force.  As we dehumanize the enemy we dehumanize ourselves. 

    The countries of the world now spend some $1.5 trillion annually on their military forces.  Over 40 percent of this is spent by one country alone — the United States.   Only ten countries account for 74 percent of the total.  All but two of these, China and the Russian Federation, are US allies.

    While some 25,000 children continue to die daily of starvation and preventable diseases, the US spends some $680 billion annually on its military.  Each minute the US spends $1.9 million on its military.  Each soldier sent to Afghanistan, that graveyard for empires, will cost $1,000,000 per year.

    The Millennium Development Goals call for reducing poverty by cutting in half the number of people who live on less than $1 per day and who suffer from hunger; achieving universal education and eliminating gender disparity in education; promoting health by reducing by two-thirds the under five mortality rate, by three-quarters the maternal mortality rate, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS; and achieving environmental sustainability by halving the number of people without access to potable water and improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers (out of the some one billion slum dwellers now existing on the planet).  All of this could be done for between five and ten percent of what the world spends annually on its militaries. 

    There are still over 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world, on average eight to 100 times more powerful than the atomic weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  In our hubris, we seem to believe that we can control this unnatural fire.  At least, many of our political and military leaders seem to believe this. The MAD in Mutually Assured Destruction has taken on a new meaning, Mutually Assured Delusions. 

    But let us have no delusion that nuclear weapons are safe or that they can protect us.  They are instrument of annihilation, portable incinerators, which undermine our humanity.  They go beyond suicide and genocide to omnicide, the destruction of all. 

    Here are ten reasons to oppose nuclear weapons:

    1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.   As such, they are instruments of dehumanization as well as annihilation.

    2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists.  Nuclear war could cause deadly climate change, putting human existence at risk. 

    3. They threaten to foreclose the future, negating our common responsibility to future generations.

    4. They make cowards of their possessors, and in their use there can be no decency or honor.  This was recognized by most of the leading generals and admirals of World War II, including Dwight Eisenhower, Hap Arnold, and William Leahy. 

    5. They divide the world’s nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing false and unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them. 

    6. They are a distortion of science and technology, siphoning off our scientific and technological resources and twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes.  

    7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power.  The International Court of Justice has ruled that the threat of use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and any use that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal.  It is virtually impossible to imagine a threat or use of nuclear weapons that would not violate international humanitarian law (fail to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, cause unnecessary suffering or be disproportionate to a preceding attack). 

    8. They waste our resources on the development of instruments of annihilation.  The United States alone has spent over $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the onset of the Nuclear Age.

    9. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals and, in doing so, undermine democracy.

    10. They are morally abhorrent, as recognized by virtually every religious organization, and their mere existence corrupts our humanity. 

    To end the nuclear weapons era, we need only vision, leadership and persistence.  The vision has always been present, from men like Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and Joseph Rotblat – the latter being the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project as a matter of conscience and 50 years later being honored with the Nobel Peace Prize.  All of these men believed fervently that the advent of nuclear weapons made necessary not only the abolition of these weapons, but the abolition of war.

    Now we have a president of the US who has called for a world free of nuclear weapons, only he doesn’t think it can happen within his lifetime.  We must convince him that there is urgency to eliminating these weapons.  In a world of human fallibility there are no foolproof systems. 

    The needed persistence must be not only that of leaders, but of all of us.  Persistence in seeking a nuclear weapons-free world is both a gift and a responsibility to ourselves and to future generations.  The overriding importance of the goal demands that people everywhere be awakened and empowered to end the false security, as well as the ignorance and apathy, which has surrounded nuclear weapons for far too long. Nuclear weapons and war must be made taboo, as incest, cannibalism and slavery have been made taboo.

    You can help by taking three steps. 

    First, become engaged with this issue.  Visit the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation website at www.wagingpeace.org, and sign up as a member to receive our free monthly newsletter, The Sunflower.

    Second, become active.  While you are at the website, you can also sign up for the Foundation’s Action Alert Network to receive timely suggestions of messages you can send to the President and your representatives in Congress.

    Third, become a Peace Leader.  You can start on this by ordering our free DVD on “US Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World,” watching it and showing it to your friends and colleagues over the next year.

    Let me conclude with a quotation and a poem.

    The quotation is by Albert Camus, the great French writer and existentialist, and it was written immediately after the bombing of Hiroshima.  Camus wrote:

    “Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests.  Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging. This is no longer a prayer but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments — a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason.”

    The poem is from my book Today Is Not a Good Day for War.  It is entitled, “Hibakusha Do Not Just Happen.”  Hibakusha are survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  They are growing older.  The youngest of the hibakusha, those in utero at the time of the bombing, are now in their mid-sixties.  The hibakusha have worked very diligently to assure that their past will not become our future. 

    HIBAKUSHA DO NOT JUST HAPPEN

    For every hibakusha there is a pilot
    For every hibakusha there is a planner
    For every hibakusha there is a bombardier
    For every hibakusha there is a bomb designer
    For every hibakusha there is a missile maker
    For every hibakusha there is a missileer
    For every hibakusha there is a targeter
    For every hibakusha there is a commander
    For every hibakusha there is a button pusher
    For every hibakusha many must contribute
    For every hibakusha many must obey
    For every hibakusha many must be silent          

    We must end the silence, each of us.  That is why this World March is so important.  That is why our sustained commitment and persistent actions are needed.  Ending the silence is at the heart of what is needed to save our amazing, miraculous world, and pass it on intact to the next generation.  And at the heart of this effort is the abolition of nuclear weapons and of war, and the reallocation of resources to meeting the needs of social and environmental justice.

  • Acceptance Speech on Receiving Erasmus Prize

    Your Majesty, your Royal Highnesses, distinguished guests and friends,

    You honor me by your presence and I am deeply moved. Allow me to convey my gratitude by sharing some personal experiences which may reflect the values of Erasmus, whose name we here commemorate.

    My life was shaped in the crucible of wars. The First World War caused my family to flee to America. My destiny was shaped by the impact of the Second World War. Three goals became the focus of my life:

    • trying to bring perpetrators of war crimes to justice
    • caring for survivors
    • trying to prevent future wars

    As soon as my studies were completed, I enlisted in the United States army. In due course, I landed on the beaches of Normandy and participated in every major battle. As a war crimes investigator in the army of General Patton, I joined in the liberation of many Nazi concentration camps and witnessed indescribable horrors. After the war ended, I was discharged as a sergeant of infantry and awarded five battle stars for not being killed or wounded. Not all wounds are visible.

    I never speak of “winning” a war. I learned that the only victor in war is death.

    The next phase of my life was helping to bring to justice some of those responsible for the aggressions and atrocities. The famous Nuremberg trial by the international military tribunal was followed by twelve subsequent trials. I was appointed chief prosecutor in what was probably the biggest murder trial in history. Twenty-two Nazi leaders of extermination squads called Einsatzgruppen were convicted of deliberately murdering over a million innocent men, women and children. I was then 27 years old and it was my first case.

    The victims were slain because they did not share the race, faith or ideology of their executioners. I thought murdering thousands of children and all their relatives for such cruel reasons was a very terrible thing. I have never lost that feeling. Punishing criminals must not obscure the need to care for their innocent victims. In 1948, I became the director of restitution programs to recover heirless properties for the benefit of needy survivors. That led to an additional assignment as counsel in negotiating a very sensitive “reparations treaty” between West Germany, Israel and major Jewish charitable organizations. Millions of Nazi victims, regardless of persuasion, Jews and non-Jews alike, have benefited from the unprecedented indemnification laws which were negotiated in secret here in The Hague in Kasteel Oud Wassenaar in 1952.

    Appreciation belongs primarily to German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, who, as a devout catholic, proclaimed that amends had to be made for the terrible crimes committed in the name of the German people.

    My files dealing with my war crimes and restitution have been donated to the US Holocaust Museum in Washington. My books and lectures are available free on my website and the internet under a new United Nations audio-visual program. My Erasmus prize will all go for peace purposes.

    Let me spend the few remaining minutes on what I consider the most important phase of my life and that is trying to prevent war-making itself. At Nuremberg war-making ceased to be regarded as a national right but was condemned as “the supreme international crime”. There has never been a war without atrocities. Illegal war-making is the biggest atrocity of all.

    The best way to protect the brave young people who serve in the military of all nations is to try to eliminate war. The UN charter prohibits the use of armed force except under very limited circumstances. It is high time for the powerful nations that control the Security Council to remember and respect their basic legal obligations to all nations.

    It was made crystal clear at Nuremberg, and affirmed by the UN General Assembly, that law must apply equally to everyone. It is very dangerous when any person, or any nation, takes the law into its own hands. In a world seething with incredible destructive capabilities, there is no international dispute so overwhelming that it could justify the illegal use of armed force. Law is always better than war.

    Many well-intentioned people believe that war can never be stopped since it is ordained as part of some eternal plan. From the unbelievable horrors of war that I have personally witnessed, I cannot believe the cruelties I have seen were divinely inspired. I share the view of Erasmus and religious leaders of many faiths who hold that we are all members of one human family and must learn to live in peace and dignity regardless of our race or creed. I recall the words of my supreme military commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, when he became president of the United States: “The world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law.”

    It is difficult and takes time to change the heart and mind of persons with deeply entrenched and cherished ideals for which they are ready to kill and die. But it can surely be done. The early United States constitution denied all women the right to vote or own property. White men felt they had a right to own black people as slaves; not long ago, it would have been unthinkable that the United States would elect a non-white president, but take note: The world has changed!

    The world has changed and is ever-changing. National laws are being changed to conform to international obligations. There has been a gradual awakening of the human conscience.

    Whether aggression is punishable by an international court will be challenged at the International Criminal Court review conference next April. I believe we owe it to the future and to the memory of all who perished in wars, to go forward from Nuremberg and not backward. Even if only a small number of wars are deterred by the threat of punishment, it will surely be worthwhile.

    The stubborn belief that the human mind is incapable of creating an improved social order is a self-defeating prophecy of doom. It ignores the potential of new technologies. Holland has become the international law capital of the world. But it is a work in progress, the values which inspired Erasmus to speak out against abuses by vested authority are still needed today. Fear and hatred that fuels violence can best be conquered by reason, tolerance, compassion and a willingness to compromise that should be taught everywhere at every level of learning, the glorification of war must be replaced by the glorification of peace.

    I have tried to carry forward the main lesson of Nuremberg that aggression is the supreme international crime. I consider myself a realistic optimist: realist because I see the problems; optimist because I see the progress. The international community is still in its formative stage and there has been more progress in the last half century than in all of human history.

    I am aware that I will not live to see the goal of abolishing all wars. But I will be content to know that perhaps I will have helped to move closer to that ideal. To young people I say: “Never give up. Try harder.” Have the courage to speak up for what you know is right. You will find contentment in the knowledge that you have done your best to make this a more humane and peaceful world.

    I thank you all for the honor and privilege of addressing you.

  • What Should the President Say in Oslo?

    What Should the President Say in Oslo?

    President Obama will soon be traveling to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, one of the highest honors that can be bestowed upon an individual or organization. In Alfred Nobel’s will, he stated that the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who “during the preceding year…shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction or standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

    The president will be receiving the award while America remains engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to make drone incursions in a third country, Pakistan. While he seeks to disengage from the war in Iraq, he has recently announced his decision to expand the war in Afghanistan by sending an additional 30,000 American troops.

    Against this background, what might the president say in Oslo? He will, of course, have his own ideas, but here are some thoughts.

    First, acknowledge that militarism globally is making the world less secure for a majority of the inhabitants of the planet. The nearly $1.5 trillion spent for military purposes is taking food from the hungry, shelter from the homeless, healthcare from the impoverished, and education from hundreds of millions of the world’s children. He should pledge to reduce the military budget of the United States by half by the year 2015, and call upon other countries to do the same.

    Second, recognize the role of inequality in generating conflicts throughout the globe and pledge to use the savings from military budgets in the US to help meet the eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015, starting with dramatically reducing poverty and hunger and promoting education and health care.

    Third, call for major reductions in arms transfers that fuel wars throughout the world and pledge that the US will reduce its arms transfers by half by the year 2015.

    Fourth, reiterate his and America’s commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons, announcing new and urgent steps to reduce the reliance of the US on nuclear arms, including de-alerting the weapons currently on high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons, and convening the nine nuclear weapons states to begin negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

    Fifth, recognize, as did Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, that the Nuclear Age demands not only the abolition of nuclear weapons, but the abolition of war. For too long, the US and other countries have sought to prevent war by preparing for it. Now, the time has come to prevent war by preparing for peace. Cultures of peace must be built upon foundations of justice and human dignity. This means that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the international law that supports these rights, must be respected and adhered to. It also means that human institutions must uphold these rights, and there must be accountability for leaders who violate international law.

    Finally, introduce the concept of trusteeship of the earth and its resources as a vital element of building cultures of peace. All of us share in the responsibility to pass the earth on intact to the generations that will follow us on the planet. We are trustees for future generations. We cannot allow global warming to change the climate, the ozone layer to be further damaged, our soil to be depleted, or our atmosphere, rivers and oceans to be polluted beyond recovery.

    President Obama might conclude his Nobel Lecture by noting that peace is a sacred right for children everywhere and that all countries, starting with his own, should end the barbaric practice of sacrificing their children at the altar of war. He might observe that if politicians cannot refrain from choosing war, they should themselves go off to fight and leave the young men and women at home to pursue their lives in peace. It would follow that if politicians were to fight their own wars, the institution of war would soon end, and peace would cease to be the intervals between wars. It would be celebrated in all seasons across the globe.

    Of course, these ideas and commitments are unlikely to be in the president’s Nobel Lecture and have been made more so by his recent announcement of his intention to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan. It is pleasant to dream, though, that this young president might make such a speech and carry out a commitment truly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor on the World Future Council.
  • A Dialogue Between Socrates and Einstein

    A Dialogue Between Socrates and Einstein

    Socrates was taking a walk through the countryside and he came across Professor Einstein. After the two men greeted each other, Socrates asked Einstein about his famous quotation concerning the atomic bomb: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

    Socrates: I’ve often wondered about this statement. What exactly did you mean by “modes of thinking”?

    Einstein: I meant that the new weapons we have created require us to think in a new way. We can no longer continue to use our old ways of thinking that have brought us this far. Our thinking must change.

    Socrates: How must it change?

    Einstein: To start with, we must recognize that these weapons have the power to destroy everything, including most life on the planet. We must make greater use of our imaginations, and imagine the outcome of a nuclear war. We must be able to imagine the outcome of a war that would end civilization and cause the death of all humans.

    Socrates: This may be difficult for many people to imagine.

    Einstein: I have no doubt that it is difficult to imagine. We tend to project the past into the future, but in the Nuclear Age the future could be very different from the past. But imagining a future without human life, or even all life, may be easier to imagine than it is to prevent such a future from occurring.

    Socrates: You mean imagining a future without a human presence on the planet is the easier part of changing our modes of thinking?

    Einstein: Exactly so, Socrates. But it is very important.

    Socrates: Why do you find it so important?

    Einstein: If you can imagine that we could have a world without human beings, then it should be motivating to do something to prevent this from happening.

    Socrates: Yes, Einstein. I can see that this would be motivating. But why aren’t more people motivated?

    Einstein: First, they aren’t motivated because they can’t really imagine such a world. Second, even if they can imagine it, they can’t figure out what to do.

    Socrates: I think the first problem, the failure of imagination, could be helped with education.

    Einstein: Yes, I think the right kind of education would help greatly.

    Socrates: And what would be the right kind of education?

    Einstein: Education that shows how devastating the use of these weapons would be. I have always felt that scientists should lead in providing this education, but political leaders should also educate in this regard. And also teachers in classrooms must help educate a new generation.

    Socrates: But many people still think that nuclear weapons make them safer.

    Einstein: This is an old mode of thinking. It must be changed through education. Nuclear weapons, rather than making us safer, make the world more dangerous.

    Socrates: But many leaders say that the threat to use nuclear weapons prevents other states from using nuclear weapons against you.

    Einstein: That, too, is an old mode of thinking. It is called deterrence, and it relies upon the rationality of other leaders. I’ve always believed in rationality, but I cannot believe that it makes sense to risk the future of humanity on the assumption that all leaders will act rationally at all times and under all circumstances.

    Socrates: I can’t imagine leaders who are rational all the time.

    Einstein: It would be irrational to believe that all leaders are rational at all times.

    Socrates: Yes, surely there are times when even the most rational leaders act irrationally. This is true of all humans.

    Einstein: Then surely we should not risk the future of the human species due to an unwarranted belief in the nature of rationality.

    Socrates: Do you find spirituality to be more important than rationality?

    Einstein: I find both are important human capacities requiring further development, and such development requires that we should not put the human species at risk of nuclear annihilation.

    Socrates: There is much we can imagine, but also much that is beyond our ability to imagine.

    Einstein: Of course, Socrates. But we must expand our capacity to imagine. Nuclear weapons make this necessary.

    Socrates: You said that even for those who could imagine a world without humans due to our nuclear arsenals, they still may not be able to imagine a way out of the dilemma.

    Einstein: Yes, to imagine a world without humans is only a way to understand that we must act to prevent this.

    Socrates: But some humans may view a world without humans as a positive outcome.

    Einstein: It would mean not only the end of the present and the future – that is bad enough – but also the eradication of all memory of the past, the end of every beautiful thing ever created by humans. There would be no one to appreciate music and poetry, art and architecture, no memory of great or small human triumphs of the past.

    Socrates: There would be no one to remember the heroism and heroes of the past.

    Einstein: It would be a world without humans. It would destroy the mirror of self-awareness that humans hold up to the universe.

    Socrates: That would indeed be a great loss. How can we prevent this from happening?

    Einstein: It will require us to summon our creativity and discipline, perhaps more than we have ever done before.

    Socrates: This is indeed a great challenge.

    Einstein: It is the challenge made necessary by the creation of nuclear weapons.

    Socrates: So it is one burst of creativity that brings on the need for new creativity.

    Einstein: Exactly so. We need new creative thinking. This problem is solvable. It just needs our best thinking.

    Socrates: What do you recommend, Professor Einstein?

    Einstein: We must be bold and meet this new danger with a new way of thinking. War can no longer be a way to settle differences between competing powers.

    Socrates: So you would do away with war?

    Einstein: We must. There is no choice. In a nuclear armed world, war has become too dangerous.

    Socrates: Even though I was a soldier and am proud of it, I understand that wars must end. War was never a healthy way to solve conflicts between contending parties.

    Einstein: You have a far more positive view of war than I do, but I’m glad we agree that nuclear weapons have made war far too dangerous to continue.

    Socrates: For a long time, countries have tried to achieve peace by preparing for war.

    Einstein: But this has never worked as they had hoped. Preparing for war has always led to war. Now we must change this paradigm and seek peace by preparing for peace.

    Socrates: This makes sense. This is the way forward.

    Einstein: There is more. Strong states can no longer prevail in war, as was once the case. With nuclear weapons, even a small extremist group will be able to destroy a powerful country.

    Socrates: All the more reason to end war and to do away with nuclear arms.

    Einstein: There is no global problem that can any longer be solved without global cooperation. That is also an essential new way of thinking that is necessary for global survival.

    Socrates: So we must learn to think as global citizens, owing our allegiance to humanity.

    Einstein: I believe this with all my heart. We must also end double standards, and have a single standard that applies to all countries and all people.

    Socrates: All of what you say makes sense to me, Einstein, but how can it come to pass?

    Einstein: It won’t come from our leaders. They are still leading in the old modes of thinking based on arms and force. They still believe in double standards, and the strong countries seek to impose their will on the weak. Leaders of nuclear armed states won’t give up their weapons without being pressed to do so by their people.

    Socrates: Then the people must be awakened, and they must demand an end to war, and a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Einstein: Yes, Socrates, you are a wise man. You understand the changes in thinking that are necessary.

    Socrates: I doubt that I am a wise man, Einstein, but you restore my belief in humanity. I will help you to awaken humanity to the dangers that now confront us. I will help you to change our modes of thinking.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor on the World Future Council.

  • Breaking Down Walls for a World With Peace and Justice

    The Nobel Peace Laureates, representatives of non-governmental organizations and youth representatives, gathered in Berlin on 10-11, November, 2009, having considered the historical implications of the fall of the Berlin Wall and global developments during the 20 years since then, call on the international community to break down the national, international, personal, and institutional walls,

    Walls that stand in the way of a nuclear weapons free world by:

    • achieving a paradigm shift from counter-productive and excessive militarization to collective security based on cooperative initiatives to address global threats;
    • fully implementing the non-proliferation and disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and all other international agreements on nuclear weapons by all members of the international community;
    • negotiating a new convention for the universal and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons;
    • supporting the successful conclusion of the initiative of President Obama and President Medvedev of adopting a new agreement on  nuclear disarmament and its successful implementation;
    • supporting the UN Secretary-General’s five-point plan on nuclear disarmament;
    • respecting the rules of international humanitarian law and adopting the conventions banning indiscriminate weapons such as landmines and cluster bombs; and
    • addressing the root causes of regional and global conflicts to assure that the security of all states can be safeguarded without nuclear weapons.

    Walls between rich and poor by:

    • mobilizing all necessary national and international resources to achieve the full implementation of the Millennium Development Goals, and by
    • using the current financial crisis to construct a new global economic system that will be fair for all mankind and that lays the foundation for a strong, sustainable and balanced growth through the creation of decent work.

    Walls between cultural, religious, and ethnic communities by:

    • calling on the UN General Assembly to convene an international conference on minority rights, with a view to strengthening protections of the rights of religious, cultural and linguistic minorities.

    Physical walls or barriers that separate or isolate people in various parts of the world and limit freedom of movement and the possibilities of communication by:

    • breaking down walls and barriers such as those that divide Palestinians and Israelis, North and South Koreans, and the people of Kashmir; as well as by
    • addressing the reality and perception of the fears of aggression and terrorism upon which such walls and barriers have been constructed.

    Walls that stand in the way of the crucial need to combat climate change by:

    • ensuring the success of the upcoming Copenhagen conference in securing firm international commitment to effective global action as expressed in the (attached) special statement of the Summit; and
    • assuring sustainable development that will enable mankind to live in harmony with the fragile global environment and with each other.

    Walls that stand in the way of inter-generation justice by:

    • including youth and youth-led organizations effectively in the decisions concerning their future; and by
    • ensuring active dialogue and communication between generations.

    The Summit also calls on the international community to build bridges based on our shared values, vision and humanity. It also calls on all people to show love, compassion and toleration in their relations with one another. In this spirit we recommit ourselves to the Charter for a World Without Violence which articulates our vision for a world with peace and justice.

  • Daredevils for Peace

    This is a transcript of a speech given by Dr. Mayotte after receiving the Foundation’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award at the 26th Annual Evening for Peace

    Thank you, each of you of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation for the critically important work you continue to do. I am humbled in receiving this World Citizenship Award and do so in the name of the millions of women around the world who work tirelessly to make our world more just and peaceful. Thank you Riane Eisler for your extraordinary life of commitment to world peace.

    When I think of the World Citizenship Award, I immediately think of a 1933 quote of one of our greatest 20th century women for peace, Eleanor Roosevelt. She exclaims: “Peacetime can be as exhilarating to the daredevil as wartime. There is nothing so exciting as creating a new social order.” Today, you and I are sitting, with the whole of humankind, on the cusp of a potentially new world order. Hovering between the now and the not yet, we quiver with the excitement that comes with the opportunity to journey toward a new horizon – toward the possibilities to build and create – to re-imagine and re-envision – a world in which the earth and all its peoples can live sustainably and peacefully. At the same time, in our comfort with the status quo or fear of the unknown, we firmly plant our feet in the here and now, hesitant to boldly embrace the challenges of the not yet.

    Another great woman for peace, Marian Wright Edelman nudges us towards the not yet in these words: “We are living in a time of unbearable dissonance between promise and performance: between good politics and good policy; …between calls for community and rampant individualism and greed; and between our capacity to prevent and alleviate human deprivation and disease, and our political and spiritual will to do so.”

    “We are also living at an incredible moral moment in history,” Edelman continues. “How will we say thanks for the life, earth, actions, and children God has entrusted to our care? What legacies, principles, values, and deeds will we stand for and send to the future through our children to their children and to a spiritually confused, balkanized, and violent world desperately hungering for moral leadership and community?”

    “…The answers,” she says, “lie in the values we stand for and in the actions we take today.” (1) “In the values we stand for and in the actions we take today.”

    In calling us to be daredevils for peace, we are challenged anew to change the very “borders of our minds.” (2) We are living at a moment when powerful tectonic shifts challenge us as never before to change the way we think about and act with one another and toward the whole of creation.

    Historian/theologian that I am by training, I have come to realize that no human-devised historical event has to take place. We are rational people who choose what does and does not happen. We humans can use, and we have used, this tremendous power of choice to create catastrophe on a vast scale as well as to promote those things that bring peace and stability. We can choose to impoverish humanity and decimate Mother Earth or enrich our human family and together “make peace with our planet.” (3) We can redirect our thinking and our choices – reshape our future – for this is our world and the choices for solutions to the world’s problems will be ours as well.

    Over a period of years my life took me into the world of “inhuman time,” as George Steiner would name it, where some of the most horrible atrocities against humanity have occurred because some chose to perpetrate them and others of us let them take place.(4) I have entered war zones and camps where people have fled to find refuge in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. In the ruins of towns and villages people once called home, I held children almost dead from starvation, saw people very freshly blown up by land mines, and conversed with women and children left alone, exploited and abused in their search for food. Among the ruins of a number of war-torn nations, I became tangibly aware of the centuries it takes to build a culture and a nation and the few months or years it takes to obliterate the land and split apart the people who gave spirit and life to that particular culture and nation.

    With flight, the continuum of the lives of refugees is interrupted. The old is no more, the new, not yet. They carry within themselves, as do we, both peace and war, love and hate, strength and fragility. They are forced to rethink and reshape their lives. Stagnated in the present, they continue to live with hope for a future that does not include bombs, torture, killing, flight, or economic meltdown due to failed and callous leadership. They dream of return to their farms, villages, and towns, where they will resurrect their songs and dances and their lives.

    Those individuals, whose lives have been torn apart, suffer physically and spiritually. Listen for a moment to the words of two women. The first voice is that of an internally displaced, southern Sudanese woman, a midwife who did not have even a clean razor blade with which to cut the umbilical cord in the birthing process. When I asked her what message she would like for me to carry beyond her borders for others to understand the plight of forced displacement, she said: “Tell them we are tired of running – running from bombardments, massacres, and starvation. We gather our children and try to find a place to hide. Sometimes we stay in the bush for months. We look for water and try to stay a while. But guns break the silence, and we have to run again.”

    The second voice is that of a Bosnian Muslim woman, one of a group who were held in a schoolroom by members of the Bosnian Serb military and raped over and over again. Her words haunt me to this day. She said very simply: “We have lost the picture of ourselves. We have lost the picture of ourselves.”

    On behalf of these women and all those who become the detritus of war, the seemingly disposable people, South African Patricia Schonstein in her book Skyline pleads as she gazes on “… the newly arrived, the sad and broken people [who] behind torn garments and the dusty dreams of Africa…whisper: Turn our desolation into something memorable. That it may not have been in vain to lose what little we owned. Make for our lost children a chime of gentle sound that they might follow it and escape, one day, from the plateau of war.”(5)

    We have lived long in a war and weapons mentality with tremendous cost in human lives, environmental degradation, and economic waste. Yet, today, in these young years of the 21st century, we are gifted with myriad opportunities to become daredevils for peace and to ring out “chimes of gentle sound” for coming generations. Amid our many pressing and massive problems, we are called to live courageously and practically anew in our fragile yet beautiful world, interconnected with all earth’s inhabitants. As engaged, responsible, global citizens and leaders, we can find solutions through collective, positive action in addressing the world’s common needs and problems. And we can address these issues with a healthy combination of idealism – a vision of what ought to be – and realism, for we have the necessary scientific knowledge and technology as well as keen imaginations. We know there are threats to our global security that loom as large as or larger than a nuclear conflagration or terrorist actions – environmental consequences of climate change that include, for example, lack of access to clean, fresh water, creeping deserts impairing agricultural productive capacity, rampant deforestation, and proliferation of hazardous wastes; then there are the issues of population density, increased mass migration due to life-threatening circumstances, human health challenges, lack of women’s advancement, unabashed racism, disparities in educational opportunities, and a pervasive poverty that has created an underclass of nations to name a few. These threats are the result of human choices on the part of ordinary citizens as well as at the highest levels of government and business the world over. If we are to survive as a species and if we are to live sustainably on our planet, we must tackle these threats. Actually, we don’t have a choice not to tackle these threats.

    While there has been controversy over the decision by the Nobel Committee to award President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, I believe the intent of the committee was to call us all to live and act in a new way. In that spirit President Obama accepted the award, in his words, “as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.” Nobel Laureate Shimon Peres praised the Nobel Committee for its choice in these words: “Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. [President Obama has] provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth.” Peres then urges all of us to move together to create a new reality. President Obama calls each of us to action on many fronts, including to continue the critically important effort of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to stem nuclear proliferation and more, to bring about nuclear disarmament, beginning with calling on the U.S. and Russia to commit to deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals so that others will follow as well as engaging in nuclear dialogue with Iran and North Korea. Obama calls us to become seriously committed to halting global warming and rescuing the long-term future of Mother Earth and its peoples from a catastrophic point-of-no-return in climate change. Obama calls us to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights…” (6) that Eleanor Roosevelt championed through her involvement in bringing about the ratification of The International Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent human rights documents. He calls us to work tirelessly to ensure that all peoples enjoy the most basic human rights – the right to shelter, food, clean water, basic health care, education, and governance by rule of law.

    Following immediately upon the Oslo ceremony, President Obama, with other world leaders, will turn vital attention to the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change. Just as the United States must step up to the plate first in nuclear disarmament, so too must the U.S., with the greatest urgency, lead the way in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Finding solutions to climate change belongs to each of us, so that we can avert climatic disasters such a rising oceans that submerge low-lying islands, cyclones and hurricanes that make cities uninhabitable, and parched, drought-stricken farmlands that fail to provide sustenance. Climate change will loom larger as a factor among the already complex and complicated causes of violent conflict and will cause millions more to be on the move as migrants and refugees. If, however, we garner the moral and political will to act collectively, we will know that polar bears will have solid ice flows, Silverback gorillas will thrive in lush forests, all creatures will breathe fresh air, and “the fragile balance of life on earth will be preserved.” (7)

    Njabulo Ndebele, former Vice Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and a committed global citizen, notes of his home country: “Although we have built millions of new houses, we did not build communities.” (8) The wonderful African notion of ubuntu leads us to building community. The lives and actions of both Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, champions of South African reconciliation and building cultures of peace, have been profoundly influenced by the notion of ubuntu, wherein a person is a person only in relation to other persons. This world-view values affirmation and acceptance of the other, interdependence, participation, openness, and concern for the common good. To live in a world of ubuntu assumes forgiveness, reconciliation, and building cultures of peace within oneself and among all the peoples of the world and the whole of creation. Desmond Tutu, whom you have honored here, in his book, No Future Without Forgiveness, says: “[T]his universe has been constructed in such a way that unless we live in accordance with its moral laws we will pay the price for it. One such law is that we are bound together in what the Bible calls ‘the bundle of life.’ Our humanity is caught up in that of all others. We are human because we belong. We are made for community, for togetherness, for family, to exist in a delicate network of interdependence.”(9)

    May we live in a world of ubuntu, joining together as a human community, as engaged, responsible global citizens, so that we might move toward creating a peace and openness that can take root and flourish in our homes, our communities, and our world. May we make “chimes of gentle sound.” We can effect change if we envision that we do belong to one another; if we are willing to be ‘daredevils’ for peace, and if we see, in the words of poet Archibald MacLeish, that “we are brothers [and sisters], riders on the earth together.” (10)

    1. Marian Wright Edelman, “Standing Up for the World’s Children: Leave No Children Behind,” Architects of Peace: Visions of Hope in Words and Images, Edited by Michael Collopy (Novato, CA: New World Library, 20000), 33.

    2. Warren Zimmerman, Origins of a Catastrophe: Yugoslavia and Its Destroyers – America’s Last Ambassador Tells What Happened and Why (New York: Times Books, 1996), 238.

    3. Ingrid Washinawatok El-Issa in Architects of Peace, op.cit., 102.

    4. George Steiner, Language and Silence (London: Faber and Faber, 1967), as cited in William Shawcross, The Quality of Mercy: Cambodia, Holocaust and Modern Conscience (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 13.

    5. Patricia Schonstein Pinnock, Skyline (Cape Town, David Philip Publishers, 2000), 9.

    6. Center for the Study of Human Rights, “United Nations Charter,” Twenty-Five Human Rights Documents (New York: Columbia University, 1994), 1

    7. BBC Film, Earth (2009).

    8. Njabulo Ndebele, “Of pretence and protest,” Mail and Guardian, September 23, 2009, 20-21.

    9. Desmond Mpilo Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 196.

    10. Archibald MacLeish, Riders on the Earth (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978), xiii-xiv.

     

    Judith Mayotte is the 2009 recipient of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s World Citizenship Award. She is a refugee advocate and a visiting professor at the Desmond Tutu Peace Centre and The University of the Western Cape.