Blog

  • An Unecessary War

    This article first appeared in the Washington Post

    I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.

    After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action.

    Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.

    We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

    Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.

    After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.

    Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel’s withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).

    We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel’s unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.

    On another visit to Syria in mid-December, I made an effort for the impending six-month deadline to be extended. It was clear that the preeminent issue was opening the crossings into Gaza. Representatives from the Carter Center visited Jerusalem, met with Israeli officials and asked if this was possible in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. The Israeli government informally proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be possible if Hamas first stopped all rocket fire for 48 hours. This was unacceptable to Hamas, and hostilities erupted.

    After 12 days of “combat,” the Israeli Defense Forces reported that more than 1,000 targets were shelled or bombed. During that time, Israel rejected international efforts to obtain a cease-fire, with full support from Washington. Seventeen mosques, the American International School, many private homes and much of the basic infrastructure of the small but heavily populated area have been destroyed. This includes the systems that provide water, electricity and sanitation. Heavy civilian casualties are being reported by courageous medical volunteers from many nations, as the fortunate ones operate on the wounded by light from diesel-powered generators.

    The hope is that when further hostilities are no longer productive, Israel, Hamas and the United States will accept another cease-fire, at which time the rockets will again stop and an adequate level of humanitarian supplies will be permitted to the surviving Palestinians, with the publicized agreement monitored by the international community. The next possible step: a permanent and comprehensive peace.

     

    Jimmy Carter was President of the United States from 1977 to 1981. He founded the Carter Center, a non-governmental organization advocating peace and health worldwide, in 1982.

  • Understanding the Gaza Catastrophe

    For eighteen months the entire 1.5 million people of Gaza experienced a punishing blockade imposed by Israel, and a variety of traumatizing challenges to the normalcy of daily life. A flicker of hope emerged some six months ago when an Egyptian arranged truce produced an effective ceasefire that cut Israeli casualties to zero despite the cross-border periodic firing of homemade rockets that fell harmlessly on nearby Israeli territory, and undoubtedly caused anxiety in the border town of Sderot. During the ceasefire the Hamas leadership in Gaza repeatedly offered to extend the truce, even proposing a ten-year period and claimed a receptivity to a political solution based on acceptance of Israel’s 1967 borders. Israel ignored these diplomatic initiatives, and failed to carry out its side of the ceasefire agreement that involved some easing of the blockade that had been restricting the entry to Gaza of food, medicine, and fuel to a trickle.

    Israel also refused exit permits to students with foreign fellowship awards and to Gazan journalists and respected NGO representatives. At the same time, it made it increasingly difficult for journalists to enter, and I was myself expelled from Israel a couple of weeks ago when I tried to enter to carry out my UN job of monitoring respect for human rights in occupied Palestine, that is, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as Gaza. Clearly, prior to the current crisis, Israel used its authority to prevent credible observers from giving accurate and truthful accounts of the dire humanitarian situation that had been already documented as producing severe declines in the physical condition and mental health of the Gazan population, especially noting malnutrition among children and the absence of treatment facilities for those suffering from a variety of diseases. The Israeli attacks were directed against a society already in grave condition after a blockade maintained during the prior 18 months.

    As always in relation to the underlying conflict, some facts bearing on this latest crisis are murky and contested, although the American public in particular gets 99% of its information filtered through an exceedingly pro-Israeli media lens. Hamas is blamed for the breakdown of the truce by its supposed unwillingness to renew it, and by the alleged increased incidence of rocket attacks. But the reality is more clouded. There was no substantial rocket fire from Gaza during the ceasefire until Israel launched an attack last November 4th directed at what it claimed were Palestinian militants in Gaza, killing several Palestinians. It was at this point that rocket fire from Gaza intensified. Also, it was Hamas that on numerous public occasions called for extending the truce, with its calls never acknowledged, much less acted upon, by Israeli officialdom. Beyond this, attributing all the rockets to Hamas is not convincing either. A variety of independent militia groups operate in Gaza, some such as the Fatah-backed al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade are anti-Hamas, and may even be sending rockets to provoke or justify Israeli retaliation. It is well confirmed that when US-supported Fatah controlled Gaza’s governing structure it was unable to stop rocket attacks despite a concerted effort to do so.

    What this background suggests strongly is that Israel launched its devastating attacks, starting on December 27, not simply to stop the rockets or in retaliation, but also for a series of unacknowledged reasons. It was evident for several weeks prior to the Israeli attacks that the Israeli military and political leaders were preparing the public for large-scale military operations against the Hamas. The timing of the attacks seemed prompted by a series of considerations: most of all, the interest of political contenders, the Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in demonstrating their toughness prior to national elections scheduled for February, but now possibly postponed until military operations cease. Such Israeli shows of force have been a feature of past Israeli election campaigns, and on this occasion especially, the current government was being successfully challenged by Israel’s notoriously militarist politician, Benjamin Netanyahu, for its supposed failures to uphold security. Reinforcing these electoral motivations was the little concealed pressure from the Israeli military commanders to seize the opportunity in Gaza to erase the memories of their failure to destroy Hezbollah in the devastating Lebanon War of 2006 that both tarnished Israel’s reputation as a military power and led to widespread international condemnation of Israel for the heavy bombardment of undefended Lebanese villages, disproportionate force, and extensive use of cluster bombs against heavily populated areas.

    Respected and conservative Israeli commentators go further. For instance, the prominent historian, Benny Morris writing in the New York Times a few days ago, relates the campaign in Gaza to a deeper set of forebodings in Israel that he compares to the dark mood of the public that preceded the 1967 War when Israelis felt deeply threatened by Arab mobilizations on their borders. Morris insists that despite Israeli prosperity of recent years, and relative security, several factors have led Israel to act boldly in Gaza: the perceived continuing refusal of the Arab world to accept the existence of Israel as an established reality; the inflammatory threats voiced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad together with Iran’s supposed push to acquire nuclear weapons, the fading memory of the Holocaust combined with growing sympathy in the West with the Palestinian plight, and the radicalization of political movements on Israel’s borders in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas. In effect, Morris argues that Israel is trying via the crushing of Hamas in Gaza to send a wider message to the region that it will stop at nothing to uphold its claims of sovereignty and security.

    There are two conclusions that emerge: the people of Gaza are being severely victimized for reasons remote from the rockets and border security concerns, but seemingly to improve election prospects of current leaders now facing defeat, and to warn others in the region that Israel will use overwhelming force whenever its interests are at stake.

    That such a human catastrophe can happen with minimal outside interference also shows the weakness of international law and the United Nations, as well as the geopolitical priorities of the important players. The passive support of the United States government for whatever Israel does is again the critical factor, as it was in 2006 when it launched its aggressive war against Lebanon. What is less evident is that the main Arab neighbors, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, with their extreme hostility toward Hamas that is viewed as backed by Iran, their main regional rival, were also willing to stand aside while Gaza was being so brutally attacked, with some Arab diplomats even blaming the attacks on Palestinian disunity or on the refusal of Hamas to accept the leadership of Mamoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority.

    The people of Gaza are victims of geopolitics at its inhumane worst: producing what Israel itself calls a ‘total war’ against an essentially defenseless society that lacks any defensive military capability whatsoever and is completely vulnerable to Israeli attacks mounted by F-16 bombers and Apache helicopters. What this also means is that the flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, as set forth in the Geneva Conventions, is quietly set aside while the carnage continues and the bodies pile up. It additionally means that the UN is once more revealed to be impotent when its main members deprive it of the political will to protect a people subject to unlawful uses of force on a large scale. Finally, this means that the public can shriek and march all over the world, but that the killing will go on as if nothing is happening. The picture being painted day by day in Gaza is one that begs for renewed commitment to international law and the authority of the UN Charter, starting here in the United States, especially with a new leadership that promised its citizens change, including a less militarist approach to diplomatic leadership.

     

    Richard Falk is Chair of the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories.

  • Let’s Commit to a Nuclear-Free World

    This article was originally published in the Wall Street Journal

    When Barack Obama becomes America’s 44th president on Jan. 20, he should embrace the vision of a predecessor who declared: “We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”

    That president was Ronald Reagan, and he expressed this ambitious vision in his second inaugural address on Jan. 21, 1985. It was a remarkable statement from a president who had deployed tactical nuclear missiles in Europe to counter the Soviet Union’s fearsome SS-20 missile fleet.

    President Reagan knew the grave threat nuclear weapons pose to humanity. He never achieved his goal, but President Obama should pick up where he left off.

    The Cold War is over, but there remain thousands of nuclear missiles in the world’s arsenals — most maintained by the U.S. and Russia. Most are targeted at cities and are far more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Today, the threat is ever more complex. As more nations pursue nuclear ambitions, the world becomes less secure, with growing odds of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    The nuclear aspirations of North Korea and Iran threaten a “cascade” of nuclear proliferation, according to a bipartisan panel led by former U.S. Defense Secretaries William J. Perry and James R. Schlesinger.

    Another bipartisan panel has warned that the world can expect a nuclear or biological terror attack by 2013 — unless urgent action is taken.

    Nuclear weapons pose grave dangers to all nations. Seeking new weapons and maintaining massive arsenals makes no sense. It is vital that we seek a world free of nuclear weapons. The United States should lead the way, and a President Obama should challenge Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to join us.

    Many of the world’s leading statesmen favor such an effort. They include former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, former Defense Secretary Perry, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, and former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn.

    Unfortunately, for eight years the Bush administration moved in another direction, pushing aggressive policies and new weapons programs, threatening to reopen the nuclear door and spark the very proliferation we seek to prevent.

    President Bush made it the policy of the United States to contemplate first use of nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attack — even against nonnuclear states.

    He changed the “strategic triad” — which put nuclear weapons in a special category by themselves — by lumping them with conventional weapons in the same package of battlefield capabilities. This blurred the distinction between the two, making nuclear weapons easier to use.

    And he advocated new types of weapons that could be used in a variety of circumstances against a range of targets, advancing the notion that nuclear weapons have utility beyond deterrence.

    Mr. Bush then sought funding for new weapons programs, including:

    – A 100-kiloton “bunker buster” that scientists say would not destroy enemy bunkers as advertised, but would have spewed enough radiation to kill one million people.

    – The Advanced Concepts Initiative, including developing a low-yield nuclear weapon for tactical battlefield use.

    – The Modern Pit Facility, a factory that could produce up to 450 plutonium triggers a year — even though scientists say America’s nuclear triggers will be good for years.

    – Pushing to reduce time-to-test readiness at the Nevada Test Site in half — to 18 months — signaling intent to resume testing, which would have broken a test moratorium in place since 1992.

    – A new nuclear warhead, called the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which could spark a new global arms race.

    I opposed these programs, and Congress slashed or eliminated funding for them.

    But President Bush had sent dangerous signals world-wide. Allies could conclude if the United States sought new nuclear weapons, they should too. Adversaries could conclude acquiring nuclear weapons would be insurance against pre-emptive U.S. attack.

    Here’s how President-elect Obama can change course. By law he must set forth his views on nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy, in his Nuclear Posture Review, by 2010. In it, he should commit the U.S. to working with Russia to lower each nation’s arsenal of deployed nuclear warheads below the 1,700-2,200 the Moscow Treaty already calls for by 2013.

    It would be a strong step toward reducing our bloated arsenals, and signal the world that we have changed course.

    I was 12 when atomic bombs flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 200,000 people. The horrific images that went around the world have stayed with me all my life.

    Today, there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world hundreds of times. And we now face the chilling prospect of nuclear terrorism.

    The bottom line: We must recognize nuclear weapons for what they are — not a deterrent, but a grave and gathering threat to humanity. As president, Barack Obama should dedicate himself to their world-wide elimination.

    Dianne Feinstein is a Democratic Senator from California.

  • Making Peace a Priority

    Making Peace a Priority

    The election of Barack Obama has brought a new spirit of hope to the United States and the world. We now have the opportunity to chart a new course for US foreign policy and provide leadership to restore peace under international law, promote justice and reestablish America’s credibility in the world. Our time demands such leadership from the United States, which could be demonstrated by taking the following ten steps:

    1. Commit to US leadership to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. Enter into negotiations with the Russians and then the other seven nuclear weapons states to create a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    2. End the war in Iraq, withdraw American troops, close US military bases in Iraq and provide reparations to the people of Iraq for the damage we have caused there.

    3. Pursue and bring to justice the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, using police and intelligence to address counterterrorism, and cease the US war against the Taliban.

    4. Close Guantanamo, bring the prisoners to trial in US courts or release them, and provide assurances that the US will never again be a party to torture.

    5. Increase the US role in brokering peace in areas of conflict, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    6. Reduce the military budget by 25 to 50 percent, eliminating wasteful and unneeded military expenditures, and reducing our foreign military bases and our global naval presence; and apply the savings to meeting human needs and revitalizing our economy.

    7. Cease US plans to put weapon systems in outer space, and join Russia and China in a treaty prohibiting the weaponization of outer space.

    8. Pledge US respect for the United Nations Charter and international law, including fulfilling the noble goals of the Charter of ending “the scourge of war” and formulating plans for “the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.”

    9. Re-sign the Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court and give full US support to holding individuals accountable under international law for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

    10. Establish a Department of Peace with a cabinet level Secretary of Peace, so that peace has a permanent place at the table in the councils of government.

    We have the opportunity to change our country and the world. Now is the time to seize the moment.

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

  • Denying Access to a United Nation Official: An Issue of Human Rights

    Denying Access to a United Nation Official: An Issue of Human Rights

    Richard Falk is a soft-spoken and reflective man. He is a scholar, the author or editor of more than 50 books, including important books on human rights. For 40 years he was a professor of international law and practice at Princeton University. After becoming emeritus at Princeton, Falk moved to California, and became a distinguished visiting scholar at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He continues to maintain a busy schedule of teaching at various universities, writing books and articles, and lecturing throughout the world.

    I have known him as a friend and colleague for more than three decades. Despite his mild and scholarly manner, he can be tough on issues of human rights. He has dedicated his life to upholding and strengthening international law and has held human rights as central to international law. With regard to international law in general, and to human rights in particular, he has been a proponent of universal responsibility for upholding human rights and of individual accountability for egregious failures to do so.

    Earlier this year, Falk was appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council as the Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories. In this capacity, he is the key person in the United Nations system to report on potential human rights abuses in the Palestinian territories. Falk was chosen by the UN Human Rights Council for this position out of 184 potential candidates.

    This past Sunday, Falk attempted to enter Israel on his way to the Palestinian territories. He was denied entry, detained at the Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv by Israeli officials for 20 hours, and expelled from the country the next day.

    Israeli officials defended their position in denying Falk entry on the grounds that he was hostile to Israel, having said in 2007 that the Israeli blockade of Gaza was a “Holocaust in the making” and for having said this year that Israel’s imposition of collective punishment against the entire population of Gaza is a “crime against humanity.”

    Israeli officials are angry that Falk’s UN mandate as Special Rapporteur focuses solely on Israeli abuses in the Palestinian territories and does not call for reporting on Palestinian abuses of the human rights of Israelis. They also accused Falk of coming into the country on a tourist visa in June 2008 for an academic conference and of having used the occasion to gather information for work in his UN capacity.

    It is clear that Israeli officials do not like the positions that Falk has taken with regard to Israeli actions affecting the Palestinian territories. The Israelis are not, however, taking action against Falk as an individual. They are refusing him entry to their country in his capacity as a United Nations official. In doing so, they are denying him access to the Palestinian territories and making it impossible for him to effectively do the job that has been assigned to him by the United Nations. This is unacceptable.

    Upon his return to the United States, Falk commented on his experience, “My detention and denial of entry into Israel is part of a broader pattern designed to obscure the realities of the occupation by keeping qualified observers from getting out and, in my case, from getting in. Israel has been shifting attention as much as possible to the observer and away from what is observed. In doing so, they have distorted my views. The main point is not balance, but truth, and it is the rendering of what is true in Gaza, the harsh collective punishment, that gives the impression of imbalance. This isn’t about me. It’s about the Palestinian people.”

    If we are to have an international community governed by international law, no state should be allowed to act against the interests of the whole, as Israel is doing in denying Falk the ability to do his work as Special Rapporteur. Sovereignty cannot trump the interests of the international community at large, and the interests of the community lie in the ability of Special Rapporteurs, such as Falk, being able to visit the territories of their responsibility and report on what they find.

    Israel can, of course, take exception to Falk and continue their allegations of his bias, but they should not be allowed to deny him access to the territories where his responsibility lies. Israeli officials can counter the UN Special Rapporteur’s reports with their own facts and positions, but they should not be able to prevent the work of an agent of the United Nations.

    Israel’s position on this matter is an affront not so much to Falk personally as to the United Nations system and to the Palestinian people. This is a situation on which the Secretary General of the United Nations should be speaking out in protest and his protests should be backed by both the General Assembly and the Security Council. This is not an issue of politics. It is an issue of human rights that demands the attention of the world.

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

  • Renewed Hope for Peace

    With so much sadness around the Santa Barbara/Montecito fires, I’m deeply grateful to see so many here tonight.

    I am also very delighted to share tonight’s honors with Stanely Sheinbaum. We have been friends, colleagues and co-workers for justice and peace for over three decades. What a great man. I love him dearly. I’ve known David Krieger and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation throughout your courageous history. What important, innovative, challenging work you have done over all these critical years. Twenty-five yeas and still going strong; what a great achievement.

    It is a profound honor to follow people like the Dalai Lama, Jody Williams, Desmond Tutu, King Hussein of Jordon, and Walter Cronkite. And coming after last years honorees, the incomparable singing trio, Peter, Paul and Mary, I feel like I should begin by singing “Blowin’ in the Wind” or “If I Had a Hammer” – but I will spare you.

    This Distinguished Peace Leader Award means so very much to me and I’m very grateful. I will cherish it. That wonderful introduction by Mark Asman and Anna Grotenhuis warmed my heart. But it does remind me of a story. One day a speaker was introduced to his audience with these words: “Listen to this man. He is a most gifted person, which is evidenced by the fact that he made a million dollars in California oil. So listen to him.”

    The speaker responded with thanks, but he was somewhat confused and embarrassed. Many items were essentially there, but a little misinterpreted. He said:

    “First, it wasn’t oil – it was coal. Second, it wasn’t California – it was Pennsylvania. Third, it was not a million dollars – it was $100,000. Fourth, it was not me, but my brother. Fifth, it didn’t make it; he lost is. But facts aside, I’m glad to be here.”

    Well, I am George Regas and I, too, am glad to be here. I don’t know much about making a million dollars – but I do know something about peacemaking.

    PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA AND PEACEMAKING

    There is a deep, deep rejoicing with the election of Barack Obama. All over the world, Obama’s election has sent the message that hope is viable, that change is really possible, that peace is on its way.

    President elect Obama – hear us. Your first decision as President must be to instruct The Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare a sensible plan for ending the Iraq war and occupation. Get us out of Iraq. No more arguments about time tables. And if you establish a Peace Department and let Rabbi Leonard Beerman and George Regas head it up – Peace just might have a chance!!

    When both John McCain and Barack Obama, during the Presidential Campaign, would say, “we are the greatest country in the world…the ‘city shining on the hill’, that America with our history is exceptional” – that rhetoric always pushed me away. Not that I don’t love America because I love my country dearly. But this kind of thinking, this exceptionalism, is central to the Iraq tragedy.

    At the grave, we are all equal, and the suffering of one is not more important than the suffering of another. This reality is tragically missing from the American psyche. I think of all those children killed in Iraq as a result of our war; I think of those 30,000 children across the globe who die every day of malnutrition and hunger — and my heart is broken. Very clearly, modern war is total war. With the lethality of modern weapons, there can be no discrimination between combatants and civilians. Some studies say more than 1 million Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war. We need to proclaim as loudly as possible that war with the face it wears today is sin itself. Jesus would bless Howard Zinn when he says, “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

    The sin and evil at the heart of this war in Iraq is the belief that an American child is more precious than an Iraqi baby. Therefore, a reaffirmation of our common humanity and our equality in joy and in pain must be given primacy if there is ever to be peace in our world.

    Barack Obama must restore American moral credibility. Closing Guantanamo, banning all torture and ending the Iraq war and occupation will provide a start but only that. He must inspire the world as he has America that great things are possible; we can have a world without war.

    NOW LOOK AT ECONOMICS

    The world wide economic crises are overwhelming. There are significant moral issues surrounding this bleak situation.

    Larry Bartels of Princeton University and one of the country’s leading political scientists says some provocative things in his book, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Guilded Age. He indicates that from the 1940s to the 1970s the real income of the poorest fifth of Americans more than doubled, advancing faster than any other quintile. Since 1974 the pattern has been skewed significantly toward the rich.

    The years 1979 through 2008 have been calamitous for poor and middle class people in the U.S.

    Larry Bartels writes that he was surprised to find in his research how profoundly partisan differences affected economic outcomes.

    It is true there are many causes for the growing inequality in our globalized economy. But it is unwise to assume there is no cause and effect relationship between government policies and income distribution. Professor Bartels asserts “economic inequality is, in substantial part, a political phenomenon.”

    The war system is deeply embedded in this nation: in education, in government, in industry.

    Joseph Stiglitz, nobel laureate for economics, is saying in a new book that the Iraq war will eventually cost the U.S. $3 – $5 trillion. 40% of the 1.65 million people who have been deployed are coming home with disabilities – some very serious disabilities. That’s an obligation we must honor and we will be paying this for decades to come. We have borrowed every dime for the Iraq war. George Bush has tried to pretend that you can have a war and not pay the price. What a tragedy. The war system is a criminal mismanagement of humanity’s resources.

    NUCLEAR WEAPONS

    The political reality that nuclear war still remains an option for America, Russia, China, Britain, France, Pakistan, India and Israel – that reality is the paramount moral issue of our time.

    James Carroll, a great peace leader, writing in the Boston Globe October 13, 2008 says that the word “meltdown” came naturally to the lips last week, referring to the collapse of the financial markets. But Carroll talks about another meltdown which is the purpose of a nuclear bomb.

    He says the economic meltdown caused us to ignore a much greater problem. That very week over the signatures of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, the government released the statement “National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century.” The two officials argue that the time has come for the development of a new nuclear weapon, the so called Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). Because “nuclear weapons remain an essential and enduring element” of American military strategy, the aging arsenal of several thousand deployed nukes (and many more “stored” nukes) must be replaced.

    Obviously, President Bush will not succeed in getting new nuclear weapons approved in Congress. What Gates and Bodman are doing at the urging of the nuclear establishment is putting this item at the very top of the next President’s agenda.

    Carroll writes that for 20 years the United States has been ambivalent about its nuclear arsenal. The indecision was enshrined in the policy that America would “lead” the post Cold War world in the ongoing reduction of nuclear weapons, aiming at the ultimate abolition called for by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. However, at the same time we would maintain a sizable nuclear force, both deployed and stored, as a protection, a “hedge”, against the re-emergence of some Cold War-style threat.

    This nuclear policy was a deadly contradiction. It simply made U.S. leadership on meaningful nuclear weapons reduction impossible.

    Today nuclear nations want to renew and expand their arsenals, keeping their own nuclear advantage, and non-nuclear states, especially Iran, are moving towards acquiring nuclear weapons.

    The Gates-Bodman recent proposal is saying that if the policy of deterrence fails there will be an actual use of nuclear weapons to “defeat” an enemy. That is incomprehensible. Once nuclear war begins, all notions of victory and defeat are meaningless.

    During the days of the Interfaith Center to Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race, organized by Rabbi Leonard Beerman and Leo Baeck Temple and All Saints Church, Dr. Marvin Goldberger, distinguished physicist and former Cal Tech President, spoke at an event in the mid 1980s. I can still hear his words: “Those who use the rhetoric that suggests we can survive and win a nuclear war are certifiably insane. Such rhetoric is the greatest illusion of our day. It points to the moral bankruptcy of our age”.

    The Non Proliferation Treaty has integrity only if we are committed to the centerpiece of that treaty – a movement toward nuclear abolition.

    In the United States the public has been manipulated to focus almost exclusively on nuclear proliferation. And so there is no attention given to the possession and continued development of nuclear weapons and the thinly disguised reliance on their threatened use.

    When we deal with Iran, we are using a nuclear double standard. We only discuss proliferation. The U.S. must commit to nuclear disarmament if we are to have integrity. The reason Iran should not have nuclear weapons is because no country should have them. The only way to prevent Iran and other aspiring countries acquiring those deadly, world destroying nuclear weapons is for this country and Russia to disarm.

    Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2005, says we must always remember the goal of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a world free from nuclear weapons. So we must move on two fronts: Non-proliferation and equally the disarmament front. To deal with Iran with any integrity we must build an effective system of collective security that doesn’t rely in any way on nuclear weapons.

    GRASS ROOTS ORGANIZING

    None of this will happen without us. If there is to be a progressive agenda, Barack Obama must use his bully pulpit to continue to inspire and educate America to move this country in a new direction. But he needs a grass roots movement for peace at the center of the Obama agenda if he is to succeed.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized his ability to push legislation through Congress depended on the pressure generated by protestors and organizers. He once told a group of activists who sought his support for legislation, “you’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do it.”

    There were many factors contributing to Obama’s great victory, but the real key to his success was grass roots organizing.

    Now Obama’s supporters will need to transform that electoral energy into grassroots movements for change.

    Winning the election was only the beginning, the first stage, of a broader movement to help America become a nation of compassion, justice and peace.

    Do you remember during the Vietnam War the Newsweek cover in 1971 of a naked 9 year old Vietnamese girl running down the road screaming – her skin on fire from a napalm bomb? The picture epitomized the horrific tragedy of the Vietnam War. Americans began rather miraculously to identify with that child. She was just like our own children. She, too, was precious to a mother and father, and precious to God. That realization of the sacredness of all life was central to the mobilization and final victory of the peace movement during the Vietnam War. The same motivating experience of compassion can help us build a peace movement today.

    Virtually every meaningful social transformation in the history of the United States has resulted from nonviolent movements that have mobilized grass roots “people power.” “Together,” as Jody Williams said when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, “we are a superpower. It’s a new definition of superpower. It’s not one of us; it’s all of us.” All of us can fuel a new movement – to free the world of nuclear weapons, to bring justice to the world’s poor, to end the ways of war and destruction and see peace reign across the globe.

    As I close, I want us to remember there is such a thing as being too late. Will we learn about the perils of revenge, violence and war soon enough to act and change our ways? Will we learn before it is too late?

    Of all Michelangelo’s powerful figures, none is more poignant than the man in the Last Judgment being dragged down to hell by demons, his hand over one eye and in the other eye a look of dire recognition. He understood, but all too late.

    Michelangelo was right: Hell is truth seen too late.

    The call goes out to all of us to join the movement for peace. The call to act before it is too late.

    So hold on to hope. Cynicism and despair are deathblows to any movement for peace and disarmament. Good people will do nothing if they have lost hope. Teillard de Chardin said, “the world of tomorrow belongs to those who gave it its greatest hope.” I love that.

    My sisters and brothers don’t give up. It’s not too late yet. God needs you and me to save this wondrous creation and calls us to share this mission. What a privilege.

    The Rev. Dr. George Regas is Rector Emeritus of All Saints Church in Pasadena, California, and the recipient of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2008 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. He delivered these remarks at the 2008 Evening for Peace in Santa Barbara, California.
  • Speedy Ratification of the Treaty Banning Cluster Weapons

    In a remarkable combination of civil society pressure and leadership from a small number of progressive States, a strong ban on the use, manufacture, and stocking of cluster bombs was signed in Oslo, Norway on 3 December 2008. However, all bright sunlight casts a dark shadow, and in this case the shadow is the fact that the major makers and users of cluster munitions were deliberately not there: Brazil, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, USA.

    Yet as arms negotiations go, the cluster bomb ban has been swift. They began in Oslo, Norway in February 2007 and were thus often called the “Oslo Process.” The negotiations were a justified reaction to their wide use by Israel in Lebanon during the July-August 2006 conflict. The UN Mine Action Coordination Centre (UNMACC) working in southern Lebanon reported that their density there is higher than in Kosovo and Iraq, especially in built up areas, posing a constant threat to hundreds of thousands of people, as well as to UN peacemakers. It is estimated that one million cluster bombs were fired on south Lebanon during the 34 days of war, many during the last two days of war when a ceasefire was a real possibility. The Hezbollah militia also shot off rockets with cluster bombs into northern Israel.

    Cluster munitions are warheads that scatter scores of smaller bombs. Many of these sub-munitions fail to detonate on impact, leaving them scattered on the ground, ready to kill and maim when disturbed or handled. Reports from humanitarian organizations and mine-clearing groups have shown that civilians make up the vast majority of the victims of cluster bombs, especially children attracted by their small size and often bright colors.

    The failure rate of cluster munitions is high, ranging from 30 to 80 per cent. But “failure” may be the wrong word. They may, in fact, be designed to kill later. The large number of unexploded cluster bombs means that farm lands and forests cannot be used or used with great danger. Most people killed and wounded by cluster bombs in the 21 conflicts where they have been used are civilians, often young. Such persons often suffer severe injuries such as loss of limbs and loss of sight. It is difficult to resume work or schooling.

    Discussions of a ban on cluster weapons had begun in 1979 during the negotiations in Geneva leading to the Convention on Prohibition on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects — the “1980 Inhumane Weapons Convention” to its friends.

    The indiscriminate impact of cluster bombs was raised with the support of the Swedish government by the representative of the Quaker United Nations Office in Geneva and myself. My NGO text of August 1979 for the citizens of the world on “Anti-Personnel Fragmentation Weapons” called for a ban based on the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration and recommended that “permanent verification and dispute-settlement procedures be established which may investigate all charges of the use of prohibited weapons whether in inter-State or internal conflicts, and that such a permanent body include a consultative committee of experts who could begin their work without a prior resolution of the UN Security Council.”

    I was thanked for my efforts but left to understand that world citizens are not in the field of real politics and that I would do better to stick to pushing for a ban on napalm — photos of its use in Vietnam being still in the memory of many delegates. Governments always have difficulty focusing on more than one weapon at a time. Likewise for public pressure to build, there needs to be some stark visual reminders to draw attention and to evoke compassion.

    Although cluster munitions were widely used in the Vietnam-Indochina war, they never received the media and thus the public attention of napalm. (1) The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research recently published a study on the continued destructive impact of cluster bombs in Laos noting that “The Lao People’s Democratic Republic has the dubious distinction of being the most heavily bombed country in the world” (2). Cluster-bomb land clearance is still going on while the 1963-1973 war in Laos has largely faded from broader public memory.

    The wide use by NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict again drew attention to the use of cluster bombs and unexploded ordnance. The ironic gap between the humanitarian aims given for the war and the continued killing by cluster bombs after the war was too wide not to be noticed. However, the difficulties of UN administration of Kosovo and of negotiating a “final status” soon overshadowed all other concerns. Likewise the use of cluster bombs in Iraq is overshadowed by the continuing conflict, sectarian violence, the role of the USA and Iran, and what shape Iraq will take after the withdrawal of US troops.

    Thus, it was the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs against Lebanon in a particularly senseless and inconclusive war that has finally led to sustained efforts for a ban. Cluster weapons were again used by both Georgia and Russia in the 5 days of the August 2008 conflict— a use which was totally unnecessary from a strategic point of view. This use in the Georgia-Russia- South Ossetia conflict proves that as long as such weapons are available to the military, they will be used with little thought of their consequence.

    The ban on cluster bombs follows closely the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction which came into force in March 1999 and has been now ratified by 152 States. Many of the same NGOs active on anti-personnel mines were also the motors of the efforts on cluster bombs — a combination of disarmament, humanitarian, and human rights groups.

    States signed the treaty on 3 December in Oslo where the negotiations began. If the momentum can be kept up, parliaments should ratify the treaty quickly, and it could come into force by mid-2009. It is important for supporters to contact members of parliament indicating approval of the ban and asking for swift ratification. A more difficult task will be to convince those States addicted to cluster bombs— the Outlaw Seven: Brazil, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, USA. The ban may discourage their use by these States and the USA has a recent export ban on the sale of most cluster weapons, but a signature by them would be an important sign of respect for international agreements and world law. Pressure must be kept up for speedy ratification and for signature on those States outside the law.

    René Wadlow is Representative to the United Nations in Geneva for the Association of World Citizens.
  • Need Cash? Cut Nuclear Weapons Budget

    This article was originally published in the Boston Globe

    President-elect Barack Obama needs money. “To make the investments we need,” he said last week, “we’ll have to scour our federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices, as well.”

    There is no better place to start than the nuclear weapons budget. He can cut obsolete programs and transfer tens of billions of dollars per year to pressing conventional military and domestic programs.

    Transfers to domestic programs will help jumpstart the economy. Military spending provides some economic stimulus but not as much as targeted domestic spending. This is one reason Representative Barney Frank has called for a 25 percent reduction in military budgets that have exploded from $305 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $716 billion in fiscal year 2009, including the $12 billion spent every month for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    We must, of course, spend what we need to defend the country. But a good part of the military budget is still devoted to programs designed for the Cold War, which ended almost 20 years ago. This is particularly true of the $31 billion spent each year to maintain and secure a nuclear arsenal of almost 5,400 nuclear weapons, with 1,500 still deployed on missiles ready to launch within 15 minutes.

    We can safely reduce to 1,000 total weapons, as recommended by Senator John Kerry and other nuclear experts. That reduction would save over $20 billion a year, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

    The reductions could be done without any sacrifice to US national security, particularly if the Russians did the same (as they indicated they’d be willing to do) either by a negotiated treaty or the kind of unilateral reductions executed by former presidents George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991.

    The arsenal of 1,000 warheads could be deployed on 10 safe and secure Trident submarines, each with enough weapons to devastate any nation. In total, the smaller, cheaper arsenal would still be sufficient to destroy the world several times over. Further reductions would generate further savings over time.

    Additional savings are available in the related anti-missile programs created during the Bush administration. Total spending is now $13 billion a year – up from $4 billion in 2000. Bush and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld exempted the agency from the normal checks of Pentagon tests and procurement rules in an effort to institutionalize the program, locking in the next president. Obama will inherit half-built facilities in Alaska and California, along with plans to build new sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, but no assurance that the interceptors actually work -and a huge bill to pay. If Obama were to continue the program as is, he would spend an estimated $62 billion through 2012.

    In a congressional review of these programs, Representative John Tierney of Massachusetts concluded, “Since the 1980s, taxpayers have already spent $120 to $150 billion – more time and more money than we spent on the Manhattan project or the Apollo program, with no end in sight.” Tierney recommends refocusing the program to concentrate on defenses against the short-range weapons Iran and other nations currently field, and restoring realistic testing and realistic budgeting. Doing so could save $6 billion or more a year.

    Further savings can be found by stopping a planned expansion of nuclear weapons production facilities pushed by contractors and some government nuclear laboratories. The facilities would cost tens of billions of dollars and produce hundreds of new nuclear warheads. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates strongly backs the expansion. In a direct challenge to Obama’s plans to reduce nuclear weapons and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Gates said in October, “there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.” Obama will have to back him down or pony up billions to pay Gates’s nuclear tab.

    What will the new president do? He comes to office with a comprehensive nuclear policy that could save billions. Obama will now have to show that his new security team will implement the change he promised, not their own parochial agendas.

    Joe Cirincione is President of the Ploughshares Fund and author of “Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons.”

  • US Leadership for Global Zero

    US Leadership for Global Zero

    Barack Obama recognizes the importance for US and global security of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. His election opens the door to US leadership to achieve the goal of zero nuclear weapons.

    He has promised: “I will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of US nuclear policy.” He has also stated, “A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America’s interest and the world’s interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality. That’s what I’ve done as a Senator and a candidate, and that’s what I’ll do as President.”

    All of us on our planet share in this responsibility. It is a responsibility to ourselves, to each other, and to future generations.

    The United States created and used nuclear weapons during World War II. They are the most powerful weapons ever created. A single nuclear weapon can destroy a city, as we know from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With today’s more powerful nuclear weapons, we can readily surmise that a few nuclear weapons could destroy a country, and a nuclear war could destroy civilization and threaten most life on the planet.

    Nuclear weapons are now in the arsenals of nine countries: the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea.

    Humanity’s challenge is to control and eliminate these weapons globally. Nuclear weapons are illegal, immoral, impractical and costly. We must keep the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons clearly before us: Zero nuclear weapons. Zero is both the safest and most stable number of nuclear weapons. But how do we move from a world with 26,000 nuclear weapons to global zero?

    We need to let the new US President know that Americans and people throughout the globe seek his leadership on this issue, reversing past US policy that has relied upon nuclear weapons and threatened their first use. We must call upon President-elect Obama to make his intentions known to the world, taking the following five steps to forge a path to a world free of nuclear weapons.

    First, make an unambiguous commitment on behalf of the United States to global zero and seek this commitment from all other nuclear weapons states. This is the simplest and most direct of the five steps and can be accomplished in a major foreign policy address.

    Second, pledge that the US government will deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons in military policy by taking the weapons off high alert status and by committing to No First Use of nuclear weapons, and seeking this commitment from all other nuclear weapons states. This will demonstrate to the world that the US commitment is more than mere rhetoric.

    Third, negotiate with the Russians, as a matter of high priority, major reductions in nuclear arsenals. Reach an agreement to reduce our respective nuclear arsenals to under 1,000 nuclear weapons, deployed and in reserve, by the year 2010. This agreement will likely require the US to abandon its plans for deployment of its unworkable and provocative missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

    Fourth, launch a major global effort to assure control of all nuclear weapons and the fissile materials to construct new nuclear weapons. This will be necessary for gaining confidence that a nuclear weapons-free world is attainable, particularly as the current nuclear weapons states move to lower and lower levels.

    Fifth, use the convening power of the United States to bring together the nine nuclear weapons states to negotiate a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention similar to the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. When the existing nuclear weapons states have reached agreement, the Nuclear Weapons Convention should be opened for signature and ratification of all the world’s countries.

    With strong US leadership, the kind that Barack Obama has pledged, a nuclear weapons-free world could be achieved by the year 2020, and this should be the goal of those seeking a more secure world. It still would be far from a perfect world, but it would be a great triumph for humanity. It would pave the way to building a more peaceful and secure future for all inhabitants of earth.

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

  • New Deal on South Asian Nukes

    This article was originally published on www.truthout.org

    Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari came out last Saturday with yet another series of statements to cause more than mere ripples in South Asia. He did so especially with pronouncements on the nuclear weapons issues between India and Pakistan that have made many sections in the subcontinent sit up and take notice.

    Do these statements, however, add up to a real promise of a new deal for the region, which has continued to be a dangerous place ever since the two rival nations became nuclear-armed neighbors in May 1998?

    Addressing India from Islamabad, at a video-conference in New Delhi at “Summit 2008,” organized by the leading daily The Hindustan Times, Zardari offered nothing less than Pakistan’s cooperation in turning South Asia into a nuclear-weapon-free zone, an objective to be achieved through a “non-nuclear treaty.” As he put it challengingly, “I can get around my parliament to this view, but can you get around the Indian parliament to this view?”

    He made an even greater impact by his answer to a question about the no-first-strike nuclear policy of India and the possibility of Pakistan adopting the same stand. His response was prompt and positive. He did not stop with saying that Pakistan would not use its nuclear weapons first. He went on to declare that he was opposed to these weapons anyway and to assert: “We do not hope to get into any position where nuclear weapons have any use.”

    The official Indian reaction was that Zardari’s statements were not quite official. Voices from India’s establishment, echoed in various media reports, wondered: Whom was the Pakistani president speaking for, anyway? Tauntingly, they asked whether he had the tacit support of Pakistan’s army on this subject.

    They had a point. By all accounts, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has remained mainly under the control of the army, which is possessively proud of them. Officially, up to now, Pakistan has not altered its policy by which it has retained the right of first nuclear strike. While India has made much play about its renunciation of this option, Pakistan has maintained from the outset that it could not do so because it lacked parity with its bigger neighbor in conventional weapons.

    Pakistan’s new democratic dispensation has apparently kept its distance from the army but not demonstrated its dominance over the generals. Quite the reverse is the message sent out by the government’s attempt sometime ago to acquire control of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the army’s infamous and important arm, and Islamabad’s hasty retreat from the reform under obvious pressure.

    Rather surprisingly, there has been no other serious Indian response, not even from the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), whose leadership may have to do business with Zardari with the party’s return to power in the general elections due early next year. The statements, however, elicited more reactions within Pakistan.

    Zardari has drawn much flak in his country before for statements considered overly friendly to India. He and the government of his Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) also had to beat a retreat after his statement in a media interview suggesting that the Kashmir issue could be kept on the back burner. In the video conference, he did not say the same thing about Kashmir but repeated his other controversial remark about seeing no “threat” from India. He may come in for criticisms again on these counts. His stand on the nuclear issue, however, has attracted no opposition offensive for the moment.

    Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League(N), the main opposition, in fact, was quick to claim that he had made the proposals for nuclear peace first. Sharif, who had presided over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons tests a decade ago, let his party clarify: “This was Nawaz Sharif’s proposal as prime minister. On the Pakistan side, the position has always been consistent. But because India refuses to abandon its nuclear weapons, this proposal has been in the doldrums.”

    The PML(N) also claimed that the proposal was contained in the Lahore Declaration signed between Sharif and former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on February 1, 1999. While the claims are open to question, observers in Pakistan actually expect the opposition to unleash an offensive against the government on the presidential pronouncements. Front-ranking newspaper The Daily Times, for example, forecasts that a “chorus of criticism will now most probably overwhelm Mr. Zardari’s overtures to India and make them look like ‘concessions.’ “

    As for the reactions from uncommitted quarters, they are asking the same questions as India’s establishment. Lieutenant-General (retired) Talat Masood, a political commentator and head of the Pakistani chapter of Pugwash says:”The big question is, can President Zardari take along Pakistan’s ruling establishment, especially the military?” He adds, “Even if (Zardari) was not fully familiar with the nuclear vocabulary, what he possibly meant was that there has to be a strategic restraint regime between the two countries.”

    The fact is, the ruling establishments of the two countries have never been ready to consider any “strategic restraint regime” that envisages any reduction of their nuclear arsenals or any reversal of their nuclear weapons programs. They have been ready, in other words, to cooperate only in order to present a picture of “responsible” nuclear armed neighbors to the rest of the world.

    This, actually, was the larger purpose also of the Lahore Declaration, signed just nine months after nuclear weapons tests in both countries. The declaration recognizes “that the nuclear dimension of the security environment of the two countries adds to their responsibility for avoidance of conflict between the two countries.” The document voices commitment, not to regional peace as such, but to the “objective of universal nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.”

    The declaration calls upon the two countries only to “take immediate steps for reducing the risk of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons and discuss concepts and doctrines with a view to elaborating measures for confidence-building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at prevention of conflict.”

    India and Pakistan are said to have made much progress in their “peace process” initiated in 2004. New Delhi and Islamabad, however, have made sure that the nuclear part of the process made no advance beyond what the declaration mandated. The confidence-building measures (CBMs) – which have never gone beyond steps like notification of each other before tests of nuclear-capable missiles – were somehow supposed to create confidence that the people of the two countries were safe even when such missiles stayed in military deployment.

    Setting up a hotline between designated officials of the two armies, in order to avert chances of nuclear accidents among other things, has not exactly made the people of the subcontinent safer than before. It has not done so because the nuclear hawks of the two countries have not desisted from threatening use of the weapons by design. Terrifying nuclear threats have been traded, as we have recalled more than once in these columns, between the two countries during the Kargil conflict of 1999 (following on the heels of the Lahore Declaration) and the fearsome confrontation of 2002.

    The peace process has not prevented the nuclear militarists in both countries from pursuing their projects. The period since the declaration has seen both participating in a missile race, displaying no coyness about its nuclear dimension at all. In 2004, former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf boasted: “My government has spent more money in the last three years on enhancing Pakistan’s nuclear capability than (spent for this purpose) in the previous 30 years.” We do not know whether the country’s current economic crisis has made any difference in this regard. Successive Indian governments may not have been forthcoming with similar figures. There is little doubt, however, that under the shroud of secrecy, they have swelled with the same pride over their misuse of taxpayers’ money to build weapons of mass-murder.

    At one point In the course of talks on CBMs, the rulers of India and Pakistan even agreed to seek “parity” with nuclear powers (P5), “consultations” with them “on matters of common concern,” and development of a “common nuclear doctrine.” The idea has not been pursued seriously, but has not been abandoned officially.

    This strange partnership of sworn nuclear rivals does not make the proposal from Pakistan’s president sound like a reliable promise for the peace-loving people of the region.

    J. Sri Raman is a freelance author and peace activist in India. He is the author of ” Flashpoint.”