Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Olympic Inspiration for Peace

    Olympic Inspiration for Peace

    The world has again witnessed two weeks of extraordinary beauty and talent by young athletes gathered from throughout the world. The athletes met in Beijing for the XXIXth Olympic Games of modern times and competed on a global stage. They inspired me and I believe they must have inspired billions of human beings in every part of the world by the amazing feats of speed, strength, agility and teamwork of which we humans are capable.

    The athletes of these Olympic Games demonstrated their concentration and grace under pressure. Some won medals, but most did not. Their crowning common achievement was to come together in the spirit of friendship and peaceful competition, and demonstrate to the world the incredible beauty not only of their skills and talents but of peace in action.

    The Olympic Games show us that peace and goodwill are possible. The flags of nations are raised in honor of the achievements of the athletes. The flags symbolize victory in peaceful competition, not the failure of war. What a different ground of competition the Olympics provides than does the battlefield of war. A person can be the best in the world regardless of the size of one’s country, the color of one’s skin, or the riches one has amassed. Victory is determined on a peaceful and level playing field, without weapons of violence or undue influence.

    The Olympics value human life in all its variety. There are no exclusions from the human family. Victory is celebrated, but it is also recognized as transient. One can be a champion, but there will always be new champions. Some champions compete against each other, while others compete against the records of champions of the past. The valor is in the competition, the glory is in being part of it.

    How can one not be thrilled by watching the athletes in their native costumes entering the great arena of the Olympic stadium? How can one not be overwhelmed with the beauty of the pageantry that surrounds the opening and closing ceremonies of the games? How can one not be struck with the thought that this is what life on our precious planet could be, not just for two weeks but for all time?

    Of course, there cannot be continuous year-round Olympics, but the Olympics show just one facet of human greatness, that of athletic prowess. There could be other great festivals and celebrations of human achievement in the areas of music, poetry, dancing and drama. We could celebrate those who work to save the environment and its precious resources, those who protect endangered species, those who create alternative energy sources, those who work for peace and justice. There is so much cause for celebration, starting with the miracle of our very existence.

    The Olympics give us a glimpse of what is possible for our species and our world. They demand that we be more than quiet (or even noisy) observers. They challenge us to re-envision our world, and imagine the paradise that our planet could be. Do we really need to settle our differences by war and violence rather than by law and diplomacy? Do we really need to divide up the earth’s resources so inequitably, so that some live in overabundance while others cannot meet their basic needs? Do we really need to keep destroying the Earth as though future generations are of no concern to us?

    We have an Earth, a water planet, which supports life and is endlessly interesting and beautiful. We have a sun that powers our planet. We have the Olympic Games to thrill and inspire us. We have talented human beings across the planet. The Olympics, so fresh in our minds, should embolden us to say: “We can do better, much better.” In a democracy, the fault for not doing better lies not just with our leaders, but with our own apathy. After the Olympics, we can get up off the couch and do more to help our Earth stay green and healthy in a just world without war. In the Nuclear Age, it’s actually up to all of us to build a better world and assure that there is a future.

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

  • US Missile Defense: The Magic Pudding that Will Never Run Out

    Article originally appeared in the Guardian Comment is Free

    It’s a novel way to take your own life. Just as Russia demonstrates what happens to former minions that annoy it, Poland agrees to host a US missile defence base. The Russians, as Poland expected, respond to this proposal by offering to turn the country into a parking lot. This proves that the missile defence system is necessary after all: it will stop the missiles Russia will now aim at Poland, the Czech Republic and the UK in response to, er, their involvement in the missile defence system.

    The American government insists that the interceptors, which will be stationed on the Baltic coast, have nothing to do with Russia: their purpose is to defend Europe and the US against the intercontinental ballistic missiles Iran and North Korea don’t possess. This is why they are being placed in Poland, which, as every geography student in Texas knows, shares a border with both rogue states.

    They permit us to look forward to a glowing future, in which missile defence, according to the Pentagon, will “protect our homeland … and our friends and allies from ballistic missile attack”; as long as the Russians wait until it’s working before they nuke us. The good news is that, at the present rate of progress, reliable missile defence is only 50 years away. The bad news is that it has been 50 years away for the past six decades.

    The system has been in development since 1946, and so far it has achieved a grand total of nothing. You wouldn’t know it if you read the press releases published by the Pentagon’s missile defence agency: the word “success” features more often than any other noun. It is true that the programme has managed to hit two out of the five missiles fired over the past five years during tests of its main component, the ground-based midcourse missile defence (GMD) system. But, sadly, these tests bear no relation to anything resembling a real nuclear strike.

    All the trials run so far – successful or otherwise – have been rigged. The target, its type, trajectory and destination, are known before the test begins. Only one enemy missile is used, as the system doesn’t have a hope in hell of knocking down two or more. If decoy missiles are deployed, they bear no resemblance to the target and they are identified as decoys in advance. In order to try to enhance the appearance of success, recent flight tests have become even less realistic: the agency has now stopped using decoys altogether when testing its GMD system.

    This points to one of the intractable weaknesses of missile defence: it is hard to see how the interceptors could ever outwit enemy attempts to confuse them. As Philip Coyle – formerly a senior official at the Pentagon with responsibility for missile defence – points out, there are endless means by which another state could fool the system. For every real missile it launched, it could dispatch a host of dummies with the same radar and infra-red signatures. Even balloons or bits of metal foil would render anything resembling the current system inoperable. You can reduce a missile’s susceptibility to laser penetration by 90% by painting it white. This sophisticated avoidance technology, available from your local hardware shop, makes another multibillion component of the programme obsolete. Or you could simply forget about ballistic missiles and attack using cruise missiles, against which the system is useless.

    Missile defence is so expensive and the measures required to evade it so cheap that if the US government were serious about making the system work it would bankrupt the country, just as the arms race helped to bring the Soviet Union down. By spending a couple of billion dollars on decoy technologies, Russia would commit the US to trillions of dollars of countermeasures. The cost ratios are such that even Iran could outspend the US.

    The US has spent between $120bn and $150bn on the programme since Ronald Reagan relaunched it in 1983. Under George Bush, the costs have accelerated. The Pentagon has requested $62bn for the next five-year tranche, which means that the total cost between 2003 and 2013 will be $110bn. Yet there are no clear criteria for success. As a recent paper in the journal Defense and Security Analysis shows, the Pentagon invented a new funding system in order to allow the missile defence programme to evade the government’s usual accounting standards. It’s called spiral development, which is quite appropriate, because it ensures that the costs spiral out of control.

    Spiral development means, in the words of a Pentagon directive, that “the end-state requirements are not known at programme initiation”. Instead, the system is allowed to develop in whatever way officials think fit. The result is that no one has the faintest idea what the programme is supposed to achieve, or whether it has achieved it. There are no fixed dates, no fixed costs for any component of the programme, no penalties for slippage or failure, no standards of any kind against which the system can be judged. And this monstrous scheme is still incapable of achieving what a few hundred dollars’ worth of diplomacy could do in an afternoon.

    So why commit endless billions to a programme that is bound to fail? I’ll give you a clue: the answer is in the question. It persists because it doesn’t work.

    US politics, because of the failure by both Republicans and Democrats to deal with the problems of campaign finance, is rotten from head to toe. But under Bush, the corruption has acquired Nigerian qualities. Federal government is a vast corporate welfare programme, rewarding the industries that give millions of dollars in political donations with contracts worth billions. Missile defence is the biggest pork barrel of all, the magic pudding that won’t run out, however much you eat. The funds channelled to defence, aerospace and other manufacturing and service companies will never run dry because the system will never work.

    To keep the pudding flowing, the administration must exaggerate the threats from nations that have no means of nuking it – and ignore the likely responses of those that do. Russia is not without its own corrupting influences. You could see the grim delight of the Russian generals and defence officials last week, who have found in this new deployment an excuse to enhance their power and demand bigger budgets. Poor old Poland, like the Czech Republic and the UK, gets strongarmed into becoming America’s groundbait.

    If we seek to understand American foreign policy in terms of a rational engagement with international problems, or even as an effective means of projecting power, we are looking in the wrong place. The government’s interests have always been provincial. It seeks to appease lobbyists, shift public opinion at crucial stages of the political cycle, accommodate crazy Christian fantasies and pander to television companies run by eccentric billionaires. The US does not really have a foreign policy. It has a series of domestic policies which it projects beyond its borders. That they threaten the world with 57 varieties of destruction is of no concern to the current administration. The only question of interest is who gets paid and what the political kickbacks will be.

  • A Path to Peace in the Caucasus

    Article originally appeared in the Washington Post

    The past week’s events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all.

    The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia’s separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia’s territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force — both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar — it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries.

    Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.

    Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia’s territorial integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way.

    The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle.

    What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against “small, defenseless Georgia” is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.

    Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a “blitzkrieg” in South Ossetia.

    In other words, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was expecting unconditional support from the West, and the West had given him reason to think he would have it. Now that the Georgian military assault has been routed, both the Georgian government and its supporters should rethink their position.

    Hostilities must cease as soon as possible, and urgent steps must be taken to help the victims — the humanitarian catastrophe, regretfully, received very little coverage in Western media this weekend — and to rebuild the devastated towns and villages. It is equally important to start thinking about ways to solve the underlying problem, which is among the most painful and challenging issues in the Caucasus — a region that should be approached with the greatest care.

    When the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia first flared up, I proposed that they be settled through a federation that would grant broad autonomy to the two republics. This idea was dismissed, particularly by the Georgians. Attitudes gradually shifted, but after last week, it will be much more difficult to strike a deal even on such a basis.

    Old grievances are a heavy burden. Healing is a long process that requires patience and dialogue, with non-use of force an indispensable precondition. It took decades to bring to an end similar conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, and other long-standing issues are still smoldering. In addition to patience, this situation requires wisdom.

    Small nations of the Caucasus do have a history of living together. It has been demonstrated that a lasting peace is possible, that tolerance and cooperation can create conditions for normal life and development. Nothing is more important than that.

    The region’s political leaders need to realize this. Instead of flexing military muscle, they should devote their efforts to building the groundwork for durable peace.

    Over the past few days, some Western nations have taken positions, particularly in the U.N. Security Council, that have been far from balanced. As a result, the Security Council was not able to act effectively from the very start of this conflict. By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its “national interest,” the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone’s interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region.

    The international community’s long-term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the region’s countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too — but only if they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus.

    Mikhail Gorbachev was the last president of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and is president of the Gorbachev Foundation, a Moscow think tank.

  • Assessing the Georgian Crisis

    After delays, the Russian promise to withdraw its military forces from Georgia seems to be taking shape. By the terms of the French-brokered ceasefire Russian troops will remain in South Ossetia, plus occupy a security belt of undisclosed width in South Ossetia. The situation remains fluid and far from resolved. The South Ossetian leadership has indicated its unwillingness to have international monitors on its territory as was agreed in the ceasefire arrangement. There are also new indications of breakaway intentions on the part of Abkhasia, the other ethnic enclave hostile to Georgian claims of sovereignty, including the seizure of the Kodori Ridge, a strategic strip of land by Abkhas soldiers in the Caucasus Ridge. There is no doubt that at this point the territorial unity of the Georgian state has been shattered on a de facto basis as a result of the crisis, and that Russia power will act as a guarantor of South Ossetian and Abkhasian autonomy, which will achieve at minimum de facto independence for these two ethnic enclaves.

    Without qualification the scope and intensity of Russian military moves against Georgia deserve legal, moral, and political condemnation, but at the same time Georgian and United States responsibility for the crisis is significant, and should not be overlooked. Russia violated the core norm of the UN Charter by sending its military forces beyond its borders to attack a small neighbor on August 12, doing heavy damage in the densely inhabited capital city of Tskhinvali by firing a flurry of rockets and missiles, including cluster munitions. There are unconfirmed media reports that as many as 2000 civilians died from the combined Georgian and Russian attacks on South Ossetia, with the bulk of these being caused by Georgia. The violence has also displaced tens of thousands, fleeing both the war zone and fearful of being caught in the ethnic crossfire. It has been established that Russia was especially targeting several villages in the region populated by Georgians, which adds an ethnic cleansing element to the accusations of aggression being made against Russia. These violations of Georgian sovereignty amount clearly to a crime against the peace and the military tactics deployed by Moscow are flagrant violations of the laws of war. Beyond this, if the charges of ethnic cleansing hold up, this would seem to make Russia guilty of crimes against humanity.

    The Georgian government of Mikheil Saakashvili is far from innocent. It did its irresponsible best to provoke the crisis, militarily attacking the Russian peacekeeping presence in the minority republic of South Ossetia five days earlier, and doing serious damage to the resident population, even generating Russian claims of a genocidal Georgian acts and intentions. The apparent objective of this major use of force by Georgia was to disrupt the ceasefire arrangements that had been in place there since 1992, which had allowed a limited number of Russian troops to remain in South Ossetia along with contingents from Georgia and South Ossetia as a tripartite peacekeeping force. Saakashvili made no secret of his goal to drive the Russians out and bringing about a regime change in South Ossetia that would install Georgian leaders compliant with the will of his Tiblisi government in place of the current leader, Eduard Kokoity, who is popular with the local population and enjoys the backing of Russia.

    The South Ossetians had voted overwhelmingly in a 2006 referendum to join their brethren in North Ossetia, which enjoys a high degree of autonomy within the Russian state. The disputed sovereignty of South Ossetia poses a delicate issue of self-determination that was just beneath the surface of the current phase of the struggle before the crisis erupted. It has now been brought to the surface by Russia’s formal diplomatic recognition of the political independence of South Ossetia (and Abkhasia), allegedly in response to the Georgian provocation of August 7th that killed South Ossetian civilians and Russians military personnel present in their peacekeeping roles. By taking this step Russia is further antagonizing the West that has seemed so inept in responding to this challenge directed at its Georgian ally. The actual status of South Ossetia is likely to remain contested for the foreseeable future, with Russia, possibly joined by other states, recognizing the de facto independence of the breakaway enclave, and the West continuing to insist that this political entity remains part of Georgia.

    This claim is not as simple as it might seem for several reasons. First of all, it had been the understanding that claims of self-determination that fragmented the unity of existing states had no validity in international law, but this consensus was set aside without much hesitation by European countries eager to facilitate the breakup of former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. Secondly, the ugly realities in this small enclave of 70,000 or so raise questions about its legitimacy as a political entity, taking into account its small size and considering the prevalence of gangsterism, ranging from money laundering to human trafficking. At this point there is no comfortable solution for the future of South Ossetia or Abkhasia squeezed in a tight geopolitical vise between Russia and the United States/Georgia, and lacking an acceptable self- governing process of its own.

    Thirdly, the Russian principled claim that Georgia’s abuse of South Ossetians and Abkhasians resulted in the forfeiture of its sovereign rights contradicts Russia’s brutal and bloody suppression of Chechnya’s secessionist movement. At the same time, the NATO approach to Kosovo’s independence claims, in the face of Russian opposition, was no less state-shattering than what Moscow is seeking to achieve in Georgia, and resting on the same combination of forfeiture and consensus arguments, that is, Serbia’s violation of human rights forfeited their sovereign rights and the Kosovar consensus favored political independence. As with Russia, NATO led by the United States, fought a war to ensure that Serbia would be divested of its sovereign rights in Kosovo, initiated without any prior approval by the UN Security Council. Such a precedent played a role in seeming to establish a precedent for the sort of unilateralism exhibited in 2003 when the United States and the United Kingdom invaded Iraq, and made a variety of claims, including liberating the Iraqi people from tyrannical rule.

    Our understanding of this seemingly local struggle cannot get very far without an appreciation of these complex geopolitical forces that are at play. There is to begin with the geopolitics of oil, the strong desire of the West to have pipelines from the Caspian Sea area that pass through a friendly country, and somewhat lessen dependency on Middle Eastern oil. This gives the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline a major strategic importance, as well as directly engaging Turkey’s interest in the conflict. This helps to explain why both Russia and the United States are so interested in controlling the outlook of the Georgian government. Here again Saakashvili, and his backers in Washington that include President Bush, have taken a militaristic approach to security for Georgia that was bound to agitate a leadership in Moscow newly preoccupied with Russian border security and international status. The United States has poured military assistance and training units into Georgia ever since Saakashvili came to power, as well as exerted great pressure a few months ago to gain NATO membership for the country, ignoring warnings from the Russian leadership such a move was unacceptable, and would cause trouble. The major European powers, including France and Germany, were quite sensible in opposing membership in Georgia, being unwilling to accept a future commitment that would include an obligation to defend Georgia in a situation such as now exists. The events of August are quite likely to put NATO membership on hold, perhaps indefinitely, although NATO formally did indicate before the recent crisis that Georgia and Ukraine could become members at some future time. From a Russian perspective recent American moves and rhetoric are bound to be troublesome, especially in the wider context of American plans to deploy an anti-missile interceptor system on Polish soil as well as to locate an elaborate military radar system in the Czech Republic. These recent American moves seem coordinated efforts to threaten Russia with hostile encirclement, although they can be interpreted as gestures of support for the governments along Russia’s borders that are disturbed by this obvious effort by Moscow to reassert its will at the expense of the sovereign rights of its neighbors.

    It is impossible to overlook the timing that set off the destabilizing chain of events. The aggressive Georgian posture toward South Ossetia was struck just as Russia was beginning to flex its post-Soviet muscles having apparently regained its geopolitical confidence and ambition. This probably reflects the effects of its sustained rapid economic growth in recent years that has been given added weight as a result of the rising monetary value of its vast energy reserves. Even if Vladimir Putin were a more moderate leader with a better human rights record, Georgian violent provocations in South Ossetia on August 7th would almost certainly produced some sort of show of Russian force, although the extreme rapidity of such a major and organized Russian response raises suspicions that Moscow was waiting for an opportunity for a show of force to challenge Georgia’s sovereign rights. Of course, Saakashvili’s overt hostility to the Putin/Medvedev government seems in this sense to have played into Russia’s hands, especially given the inability of the United States to back Georgia up with any support more tangible than strong words and humanitarian relief. Taking all these considerations into account makes it tragically clear that South Ossetia, and even Georgia, are hapless pawns in the larger geopolitical chess game that is beginning to assume alarming proportions reminiscent of the worst days of the Cold War era.

    We are also witnessing a collision of two contrasting geopolitical logics the interplay of which pose great dangers for regional and world peace, as well as to the wellbeing of the peoples of the world. Russian behavior seems mainly motivated by a traditional spatially limited effort to establish a friendly and stable security belt in countries near its borders. It is reasserting an historic sphere of influence that has always been at odd with the sovereign rights of its neighbors, sparking their fear and hostility. We can interpret Russia’s behavior in this respect as seeking indirect control over its so-called ‘near abroad’ that was mainly lost after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1992. In light of NATO expansion to incorporate the countries of Eastern Europe, the assertion of Russian primacy in relation to its former Soviet republics is a high priority for which Moscow seems willing to pay a considerable price, including a deep chilling of relations with the United States. Russia’s behavior in Georgia undoubtedly is meant to serve as a warning to other governments on its Southern border, especially Ukraine, not to opt for strong ties with Washington. The clash arises with the United States, which especially during the Bush presidency, has stressed its intention to encourage the democratization of the former Soviet republics. Georgia was treated as the shining example of the success of this policy. From Moscow’s viewpoint, what was proclaimed as democratization was surely perceived as Americanization, with only a slightly disguised anti-Russian agenda. In this sense, Saakashvali was the ideal leader as far as Washington was concerned, being so avowedly committed to the United States, even sending 2,000 troops to aid the American effort in Iraq, but the worst possible leader from the Russian viewpoint. He spoke of Russia in derogatory terms, and was eager to do what Russia feared, join in a dynamic process of military encirclement as part of the American global security project that has pushed so hard during the neoconservative presidency of George W. Bush.

    In comparison with Russia, Washington considers that the entire world has become its geopolitical playing field in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, and as an aspect of the global war on terror. The United States follows a global imperial logic rather than Russia’s pursuit of a limited regional sphere of interest logic. Thinking along these lines means that Georgia falls dangerously within both Russia’s sphere of influence and is a battlefield in the American attempt to build an informal global empire that acknowledges no geographic limits. The whole world is Washington’s ‘near abroad.’ This tension if allowed to persist is likely to produce a revival of an arms race reminiscent of the Cold War, and could easily lead to a horrifying renewal of the East-West conflict, even reviving risks of great power warfare fought with nuclear weapons. It is not a happy moment, perhaps the most ominous time from the perspective of world peace since the 9/11 attacks.

    There is also much to worry about of a less grandiose character. Russia now joins the United States as a major power willing to use non-defensive force in world politics without authorization from the United Nations, and hence in violation of international law. It adds its irresponsibility to the recklessness of the United States proceeding in 2003 to invade Iraq despite the refusal of the UN Security Council to support the claim of the Bush presidency that the basis for a defensive ‘preemptive war’ existed due to Iraq’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and Baghdad’s demonstrated willingness to use force aggressively against foreign states. In this respect, the crisis surrounding the events in South Ossetia puts at greater risk the grand design adopted after World War II, never either fulfilled or renounced, resting on governments foregoing the war option as a matter of foreign policy discretion except in situations of self-defense.

    There is much to be learned and much to be feared in relation to these recent events. The Russian resurgence means, above all, that the central rivalry of the last half century again must be treated with utmost seriousness. It can no longer be ignored. Ideally, this should encourage countries threatened by the dangerous geopolitical maelstrom to work toward respect for international law and the authority of the United Nations. If such an effort fails, as it likely will, then it becomes more important than at any time since the breaching of the Berlin Wall that both Moscow and Washington exhibit sensitivity to each other’s fundamental interests as great powers. It will not be possible to avoid encounters arising from this clash between regional and imperial geopolitics, but at least diplomacy can do a far better job of avoiding showdowns than has happened in relation to South Ossetia and Georgia. In the end, prospect for peace and justice in the 21st century depend on respect for sovereign rights, and eventually on the repudiation of geopolitics, but we are not nearly there yet. And these developments suggest that the world may be drifting anew into the most dangerous form of geopolitics, namely, reliance on force to resolve international disputes.

    Richard Falk is Chair of the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • NATO Nuclear Weapons: Power Without Purpose

    David KriegerEurope is heavily armed with nuclear weapons. Both Britain and France possess their own nuclear forces and the United States has a long history of keeping nuclear weapons on European soil. Britain’s nuclear force is estimated at under 200 weapons, with approximately 150 deployed on four Vanguard submarines and the remainder kept in reserve. France is thought to have approximately 350 nuclear weapons in its Force de frappe (strike force). The US keeps some 200-350 nuclear weapons in six countries: Belgium, Germany, Holland, Italy, Turkey and the UK. Recent unconfirmed reports indicate that the US has pulled its nuclear weapons out of the UK. If this is correct, approximately 240 US nuclear weapons remain in five European countries.

    On the NATO website, it states, “NATO has radically reduced its reliance on nuclear forces. Their role is now more fundamentally political, and they are no longer directed towards a specific threat.” This is a rather enigmatic statement, leaving one to ponder how nuclear weapons are used in a “fundamentally political” role. The NATO website adds, “NATO’s reduced reliance on nuclear forces has been manifested in a dramatic reduction in the number of weapons systems and storage facilities. NATO has also ended the practice of maintaining standing peacetime nuclear contingency plans and as a result, NATO’s nuclear forces no longer target any country.”

    Given the fact that NATO does not target any other country with nuclear weapons, one wonders what role they still serve. Again, the NATO website provides an answer, which is “to maintain only the minimum number of nuclear weapons necessary to support its strategy of preserving peace and preventing war.” But this still leaves one wondering with whom one is “preserving peace and preventing war.” Although nothing is stated, it would seem that the answer is likely to be Russia. This might explain why NATO has expanded up to the Russian western border, despite earlier US promises to Russia not to do so, and also why the US continues to pursue the placement of missile defense installations in new NATO states Poland and the Czech Republic, despite continuing Russian protests.

    NATO reasoning for maintaining nuclear weapons seems very flimsy. If there is anything that is clear about nuclear weapons, it is that they cannot protect their possessors. All of the nuclear weapons in Europe cannot protect any European city from a nuclear attack by an extremist organization. Reliance upon these weapons provides an incentive for nuclear proliferation, increasing the possibilities that these weapons will fall into the hands of such an organization and will be used.

    If European nations want to provide true security to the citizens of their countries, they should end NATO’s reliance upon nuclear weapons by taking the following steps:

    • Call for the removal of all US nuclear weapons from Europe.
    • Call for the US to remove its missile defense installations from the Russian border
    • Negotiate the removal of all tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and the western regions of Russia.
    • Create a global treaty to bring all weapons-grade fissile material under strict and effective international control.
    • Call for the NATO nuclear weapons states (US, UK and France) to fulfill their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.
    • Take a leading role in initiating negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, setting forth a roadmap for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.
    • Join Russia and China in negotiating a ban on space weaponization.
    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), and a councilor of the World Future Council (www.worldfuturecouncil.org).

  • For a Nuclear Weapon Free World

    This article was originally published in Italian by Corriere della Serra

    Dear Editor, an article published in the Wall Street Journal entitled “A
    world without nuclear weapons”, signed by George Schultz and Henry
    Kissinger, former Secretaries of State under Republican Presidents
    Reagan and Nixon, and by Bill Perry and Sam Nunn, the former Defence
    Secretary under President Clinton and the Democratic chairman of the
    Senate Defence Committee, in January 2007 opened up an extremely
    important debate for the future of humanity. In that article, the four
    American statesmen proposed the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
    Their argument, taken up again in a second article in January 2008, is
    that, unless the nuclear-weapon States – and there are now 8 of them –
    and especially the two main ones, United States and Russia, take the
    lead   in launching a process aimed at their total elimination, it will
    become increasingly difficult to prevent other countries from acquiring
    them, with the risk that sooner or later these weapons may be used, and
    that would have catastrophic consequences for the world.

    The importance of their article lies in the fact that, for the first
    time, the issue of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons was being
    addressed, in the United States, by politicians who represent the
    mainstream of American stategic policy, from both parties, stressing the
    fact that this is an objective to be pursued in the interests of both
    the nation and the world. Several very important statements followed
    their Op-ed. The two US presidential candidates have substantially
    agreed with this aim, as have the majority of those who, in the past,
    held positions of major responsibility in the USA in this field. In
    Russia, there was a positive reaction by Gorbachev and a more cautious,
    but not negative, reaction by the Government. In Britain, Gordon Brown
    spoke out favourably; the Defence Minister proposed hosting experts from
    United States, Russia, England, France and China in the English nuclear
    labs, in order to establish the methodologies of verification for the
    elimination of nuclear weapons; recently, the Times carried an article
    by another bipartisan quartet, including three former Foreign Ministers
    and a former Secretary General of Nato, expressing agreement.  In
    France, the Defence White Paper indicates that the objective to be
    pursued is the elimination of nuclear weapons. In Australia, the
    Government has established a new international Commission of Experts,
    whose task is to chart the road towards the elimination of all nuclear
    weapons. There have been innumerable positive reactions among
    non-governmental groups.

    We think it is important that Italy, too, should give indications that
    go in that same direction. Our joint signatures, like those on the
    Op-eds in other countries, are evidence of the fact that in both main
    political camps, and in the scientific community, there is a shared
    common opinion on the importance of this issue and this aim. We wish to
    suggest the main steps along this road. The first is the entry into
    force of the Treaty banning all forms of nuclear testing, including
    underground tests, thus enshrining into a treaty the current moratorium.
    The second is to set in motion the stalled negotiations, within the
    Disarmament Conference in Geneva, on the FMCT, which prohibits the
    production of highly enriched uranium and of plutonium with the isotope
    composition necessary for the production of nuclear weapons. Here, too,
    there is a de facto moratorium, but without any formal agreement and
    without verification measures. The entry into force of these two
    Treaties would be appreciated by non-nuclear-weapon States and would
    prepare a more favourable ground for the periodical Conference of the
    Non-Proliferation Treaty planned for 2010, strengthening the world’s
    non-proliferation regime, including the monitoring of the actual
    observance of the commitments – in both letter and spirit – envisaged by
    the NPT.

    We are fully aware that the road that will lead us to the elimination of
    nuclear weapons is long. It will call for certain political conditions.
    The first is an actual improvement in the relations between the nuclear
    superpowers, United States and Russia, who still maintain – despite
    recent reductions – over nine tenths of all nuclear weapons in the
    world. This would help the other nuclear weapon States recognized by the
    NPT – Britain, France and China – to do their part. It is also
    necessary to reduce the tensions in those parts of the world where the
    risk of nuclear weapons actually being used is highest, perhaps even by
    terrorist groups. We refer here to South-east Asia (India and Pakistan)
    and to the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab problem in the Middle East. In both
    these contexts, moves by the nuclear weapons States indicating that they
    are progressing towards a nuclear weapons free world would undoubtedly
    have a positive effect. Italy and Europe can and must do what they can
    to promote the path towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It
    is clear that this final result will be achieved only with the
    commitment of the major protagonists, United States and Russia, and of
    the other nuclear weapon States. But the spread of a new way of thinking
    – of a new “shared wisdom” – is a fundamental step along this path, and
    Italy too must contribute. It is necessary that on these fundamental
    issues for the very survival of humanity, despite our legitimate –
    indeed necessary – political differences, we join together in
    recognizing a superior, common interest.

  • A Short Message to the UC Regents: Get Out of the Nuclear Weapons Business

    A Short Message to the UC Regents: Get Out of the Nuclear Weapons Business

    Designing and developing weapons of mass annihilation should not be business as usual, especially for a great university. And yet, for the UC, it is business as usual. Since the beginning of the Nuclear Age, the UC has been in the business of providing management and oversight to the nation’s principal nuclear weapons laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The UC is now in that business with corporate partners such as Bechtel.

    Your involvement with the weapons labs is arguably illegal under international law, is certainly immoral and, from a security perspective, perpetuates US reliance on nuclear weapons, which undermines US and global security. It also sends exactly the wrong message to the young people who are educated at the University of California. It suggests to them that it must be acceptable to create weapons capable of destroying civilization when a great university engages in doing so.

    The UC shares in the responsibility for creating all nuclear weapons in the US arsenal. Should these weapons ever be used, by accident or design, the responsibility and accountability for that use will rest not only upon decision makers in the US government, but upon the UC system – including upon those who remained indifferent or apathetic in the face of the UC oversight of the weapons labs.

    Some at the UC refer to its work on nuclear weapons as a “national service.” I would say it is a disservice, both to the nation and to the University.

    The most important thing that can be said about nuclear weapons is that they do not and cannot protect their possessors. By continuing to rely upon these weapons, a prospect furthered by the nuclear weapons laboratories, the US upholds nuclear double standards that encourage nuclear proliferation.

    I suggest to you that a day will come when the UC will deeply regret having sold its good name to provide respectability to the creation and maintenance of nuclear weapons. In the interests of the UC and the country, I would urge you to take the following three actions:

    First, support the Student Department of Energy Lab Oversight Committee, which has already demonstrated serious intent and done important research on the weapons laboratories and how their work negatively impacts national and global security.

    Second, follow the example of the Norwegian government pension fund and divest the UC investment portfolio of corporations involved in creating nuclear weapons and their component parts.

    Third, withdraw from the management and oversight of the weapons labs on the grounds of legality, morality and human security. By doing so, you would be setting an invaluable example for UC students and for institutions of higher education in our country and throughout the world.

    Such acts of conscience by the UC Regents would help spark a national discussion on the need for US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). On July 17, 2008, members of the public were allotted one minute each to express their views in the public comment portion of the UC Regents’ meeting.
     

  • Comparing the Positions of Senators Obama and McCain on Nuclear Disarmament

    David KriegerNuclear weapons do not and cannot protect their possessors. They can only be used to threaten or carry out massive retaliation. Retaliation does not constitute protection. It constitutes retribution of the worst sort, killing large numbers of innocent people. Further, when powerful states continue to rely upon nuclear arsenals for their security, they create an incentive to nuclear proliferation. When nuclear weapons proliferate to other countries, the chances are increased that they will end up in the hands of terrorist organizations that are suicidal, not locatable, and thus not subject to being deterred.

    A major goal of the next president of the United States should be to achieve a clear path to the elimination of all nuclear weapons. This will require making a commitment to the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world; bringing US policy in line with this commitment; and convening negotiations with the other nuclear weapon states to achieve this goal.

    Both leading presidential candidates have articulated a commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. Senator Obama has said, “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.”

    On another occasion, Senator Obama stated, “Here’s what I’ll say as President: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons. We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we’ll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons.” For the United States to keep its commitment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty would mean that it would enter into “good faith” negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Senator Obama asserts that this will be a “long road,” but with the requisite leadership and political will, it need not be so long a road as he now perceives.

    Senator Obama elaborated, “We’ll work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material. We’ll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we’ll set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”

    Senator McCain has said, “A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, ‘our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.’ That is my dream, too.” Having said this, however, Senator McCain made it clear that the goal was not close at hand. He referred to it as “a distant and difficult goal,” one that “we must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically, and with a focused concern for our security and the security of allies who depend on us.” Again, the requisite leadership and political will would make this a far less “distant and difficult goal.”

    Senator McCain continued, “But the Cold War ended almost twenty years ago, and the time has come to take further measures to reduce dramatically the number of nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals. It is time for the United States to show the kind of leadership the world expects from us, in the tradition of American presidents who worked to reduce the nuclear threat to mankind. […] I believe we should reduce our nuclear forces to the lowest level we judge necessary, and we should be prepared to enter into a new arms control agreement with Russia reflecting the nuclear reductions I will seek.” Senator McCain’s goal is ambiguous when he talks about “the lowest level we judge necessary….” One might ask: Who is the “we” that judges and what is the criteria for “necessary”?

    Bringing US policy into line with the commitment to obtain a nuclear weapons-free world requires a number of steps to dramatically reduce nuclear risks as well as the size of nuclear arsenals. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has proposed seven steps to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. These will be discussed below, along with the positions of the two major party candidates for US president on each of these steps.

    • De-alert. Remove all nuclear weapons from high-alert status, separating warheads from delivery vehicles. There remain some 3,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert in the arsenals of the US and Russia, elevating the risks of accidental launches.

    Senator Obama states on his campaign website that he would “work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert.” He has also said, “If we want the world to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example. President Bush once said, ‘The United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status – another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation.’ Six years later, President Bush has not acted on this promise. I will. We cannot and should not accept the threat of accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch.”

    Senator McCain has not stated his position on de-alerting nuclear arsenals.

    • No First Use. Make legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons and establish nuclear policies consistent with this commitment. Among the nuclear weapons states, only China and India currently have policies of No First Use. The other states, including the US, maintain the option of using nuclear weapons preemptively.

    Neither candidate has taken a position specifically on No First Use of nuclear weapons. Senator Obama, however, has said that the US should lead an effort to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons.

    Senator McCain has said, “It’s naïve to say that we will never use nuclear weapons.” If he believes it is naïve to say that nuclear weapons will never be used, it seems unlikely that he would be willing to rule out their first use.

    • No New Nuclear Weapons. Initiate a moratorium on the research and development of new nuclear weapons, such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The Bush administration has been pushing for new nuclear weapons, but Congress has wisely resisted this path.

    Senator Obama has said, “We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads. I do not support a premature decision to produce the RRW [Reliable Replacement Warhead].” He has also stated, “We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads.”

    Senator McCain has said, “I would only support the development of any new type of nuclear weapon that is absolutely essential for the viability of our deterrent that results in making possible further decreases in the size of our nuclear arsenal, and furthers our global nuclear security goals. I would cancel all further work on the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a weapon that does not make strategic or political sense.” McCain’s statement leaves a loophole by using language similar to that used by the proponents of the Reliable Replacement Warhead, that is, that the RRW is essential for the viability of the US deterrent and will make possible a decrease in the US nuclear arsenal.

    • Ban Nuclear Testing Forever. Ratify and bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In 1999, the Senate with a Republican majority voted along party lines against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Bush administration has not resubmitted the treaty for further Senate consideration.

    Senator Obama has stated, “I will make it my priority to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.”

    Senator McCain was among the Senators voting against ratification of the Treaty in 1999. He has indicated that he would reconsider his earlier decision, stating that he would take another look “to see what can be done to overcome the shortcomings that prevented it from entering into force.”

    • Control Nuclear Material. Create a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty with provisions to bring all weapons-grade nuclear material and the technologies to create such material under strict and effective international control. In a world with few or no nuclear weapons, it is essential to have strong international controls of nuclear materials that could be used for developing nuclear weapons.

    Senator Obama has said, “I will work to negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.” He has further stated, “I will secure all loose nuclear materials around the world in my first term.”

    Senator McCain has stated that the US “should move quickly with other nations to negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to end production of the most dangerous nuclear materials.”

    • Nuclear Weapons Convention. The Non-Proliferation Treaty requires “good faith” negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Such good faith negotiations should be applied to reaching a multilateral international treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. This treaty would set forth a confidence-building roadmap to a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Neither candidate has spoken about negotiating a new treaty for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, although both have talked about the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Both candidates have called for reductions in nuclear arsenals. While reductions can be taken unilaterally or bilaterally with the Russians, the critically important step of a Nuclear Weapons Convention will require multilateral negotiations with all of the world’s states.

    Senator Obama’s website states that he will “seek dramatic reductions in US and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material.” He has also promised to “seek deep cuts in global nuclear arsenals.”

    Senator McCain has said, “I believe we should reduce our nuclear forces to the lowest level we judge necessary, and we should be prepared to enter into a new arms control agreement with Russia reflecting the nuclear reductions I will seek.”

    • Resources for Peace. Reallocate resources from the tens of billions currently spent on nuclear arms to alleviating poverty, preventing and curing disease, eliminating hunger and expanding educational opportunities throughout the world. Plans should be made for reallocating the large sums of money currently used to maintain and improve nuclear arsenals.

    Senator Obama has said that he will “cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending,” giving as an example that he will “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

    Senator McCain has not stated his position on reallocating resources from the defense budget in general or nuclear weapons programs in particular to meeting human needs.

    The Candidates’ Positions on Other Key Issues Affecting Nuclear Disarmament

    An important issue affecting the US ability to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons is the tension created between the US and Russia over US implementation of missile defenses, particularly in Eastern Europe. The US missile defense program has been viewed as a threat by Russia since the US unilaterally abrogated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. The Russians have viewed US missile defenses as threatening their deterrent capability despite US assurances to the contrary, and if this issue is not resolved it could be a deal breaker for further progress on nuclear disarmament. An important step in clearing the path with Russia for major reductions in nuclear weapons would be for the US to reverse course on deployment of missile defenses and open negotiations with the Russians to reinstate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

    Senator Obama has said, “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

    Senator McCain voted Yes on deploying National Missile Defense in 1999, and more recently stated, “The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia (sic) and Poland, and I don’t care what his [Putin’s] objections are to it.”

    Another potential stumbling block is space weaponization. Russians and the Chinese have both promoted a draft treaty to reserve outer space for peaceful purposes, including a ban on space weaponization. The US has not been willing to even discuss such a ban, and was the only country in the United Nations to vote against such a ban in the 2007 UN General Assembly. The US should join with the other countries of the world in assuring that space is reserved for peaceful purposes only.

    Senator Obama has said flatly, “I will not weaponize space.”

    Senator McCain has stated, “Weapons in space are a bad idea. A treaty that increases space security is a good idea, but it is likely to take a long time to negotiate. There is a simpler and quicker way to go: a Code of Conduct for responsible space-faring nations. One key element of that Code must include a prohibition against harmful interference against satellites.”

    Another concern in bringing US policy in line with a commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world is the control of the spread of nuclear power. While the promotion of nuclear power is a tenet of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it adds significantly to the complications of controlling nuclear materials and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power and research reactors, as Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea have demonstrated, are a pathway to nuclear weapons, and the US should shift its policy of promoting these nuclear materials factories. Even more dangerous are facilities to enrich uranium or separate plutonium, which could be used in weapons programs.

    Senator McCain has sponsored legislation that would provide subsidies for the nuclear power industry. McCain has said that “nuclear power, for all kinds of reasons, needs to be part of the solution.” In a speech on the environment, Senator McCain referred to nuclear energy as “a proven energy source that requires zero emissions.” After referencing the plans of China, Russia and India to build new nuclear reactors, he asked, “And if they have the vision to set and carry out great goals in energy policy, then why don’t we?” McCain is calling for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors in the US by the year 2030.

    Senator Obama has adopted a far more cautious approach to nuclear energy. In his energy plan on his website, it states, “Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.” Although Senator Obama does not seem to have directly said so himself, Senator McCain has said that Senator Obama “doesn’t support new nuclear plants.” Possibly Senator McCain was extrapolating from the difficulty of the nuclear power industry providing satisfactory solutions to the four key issues that Senator Obama raised.

    Analysis

    On the issue, so critical to humanity’s future, of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons, there is much we still don’t know about the candidates’ positions. Both state in general terms that they favor the goal. Neither of them, however, has discussed seeking to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty that would set forth a roadmap for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Between the two candidates, Senator McCain’s positions seem more cautious. He has defined the goal as “distant.” He has also used language that could leave open the door to developing new nuclear weapons, if they meet certain criteria. A most serious obstacle to Senator McCain achieving progress is his strong support for missile defenses, which have led the Russians to consider backtracking on nuclear disarmament by, for example, bolstering its offensive nuclear capabilities and pulling out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. Further, McCain has stated that it is “naïve to say that we will never use nuclear weapons,” which seems to suggest that he would not support ruling out First Use of nuclear weapons.

    Senator Obama has articulated a more detailed position on achieving the goal of a nuclear weapons free world than has Senator McCain. Senator Obama has said that he wants to be the President that leads the way to a nuclear weapons-free world, although he, too, sees it as a “long road.” He has come out in favor of removing US nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert, not developing new nuclear weapons, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, achieving a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material and making deep cuts in global nuclear arsenals. He is also more cautious about nuclear energy, seeks to cut funds from unproven missile defense systems, and opposes the weaponization of space.

    The World Set Free

    In the seventh decade of the Nuclear Age, there is a glimmer of hope that new leadership in the United States may pave the way forward toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Such leadership would be a great gift to the people of the United States and to the world. If humans together can rid the world of its greatest human-created threat, we can also join together to accomplish other great feats – eliminating poverty, hunger and disease, protecting the environment and averting the potential disasters arising from climate change, and opening new channels of creativity and communication that can bind us all closer together in peace, justice and human dignity.

    ***This article is for educational purposes. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan organization and does not support particular candidates or political parties.

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

  • Saving Humanity from the Fiery Threat of Nuclear Annihilation, Through the Power of Women

    In my youth, I wrote stories about the possible destruction of the beautiful planet on which I lived, deceiving readers into thinking that I was an embittered old man. I leaped into the future as far as I could see, and I saw creatures coming from other worlds with the weapons to destroy the world around me. I was haunted by the screams of my father, who had to kill other men in hand-to-hand combat in the global war that ranged from 1914 to 1918.

    In 1943, I was drafted into the American army to stop Hitler and his murderous followers from conquering Europe. I was trained to shoot and stab other men, just as my father had been trained in his generation. I was selected as a war correspondent to write about the atrocities suffered by other men in bloody battles where they had lost their arms and legs, and sometimes their brains and testicles. I lived through glorious days after I came home unwounded, but I had to face the grim realities created by scientists who had acted on the wild possibilities I had envisioned in my science fiction stories.

    In 1932, I had published a story titled “Red April 1965” about a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union—and I was confronted early in April of 1965 by a madman who rushed into my office screaming about the imminent occurrence of such a war on the very date when I had predicted it. The war did not happen then, but I still had a deep fear that atomic bombs would destroy our civilization.

    In 1948, I wrote speeches for President Harry Truman, who had used nuclear weapons on Japan to save the lives of thousands of civilians and end the Second World War as quickly as possible. After his action, the world embarked on a nuclear arms race, which has continued for many years. Life on earth is under the fiery threat of annihilation.

    In 1982, David Krieger asked me to join him in founding the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a nonprofit educational organization, which has become a voice of conscience for the community, the nation, and the world. Its message is that nuclear weapons threaten the future of all life on our planet, and that it is the responsibility of all of us, working together, to end this threat forever. Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and they must be abolished by us. Peace in a world free of nuclear weapons is everyone’s birthright. It is the greatest challenge of our time to restore that birthright to our children and all future generations.

    In 1983, I was invited to go to Moscow by the Council of Citizens, a nonpartisan organization based in New York. In Russia, I was given an opportunity to speak to 77 Soviet leaders in the Kremlin. I urged them to take the initiative in getting rid of nuclear weapons. I said that I hoped my own government—the U.S. government—would do that, but I was afraid that American leaders would not do it.

    The Soviets listened to me, and my speech was quoted in Pravda. I was interviewed by Radio Moscow, but the Soviets told me that if they discarded their nuclear weapons, they would be regarded as “weak” in many parts of the world. I felt that my mission to Moscow did not have the positive results I had hoped for.

    Now, I believe that a worldwide initiative by women has the best possibilities of ending the nuclear threat. Courageous women are making a difference in all nations; in fact, many countries have elected women to the highest offices in their governments.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has many notable women on its board of directors, its council of advisors, its associates, and staff. Its development and progress is largely due to the generosity and activities of these women.

    The Foundation’s financial survival was largely dependent on the gifts of Ethel Wells, a Santa Barbara resident. In the 1980s, the Foundation coordinated an International Week for Science and Peace. Mrs. Wells reasoned that scientists were at the heart of creating constructive or destructive technologies, so she contributed $50,000 for a prize for the best proposal for a scientific step forward. The winning proposal came from the Hungarian Engineers for Peace and called for the formation of an International Network of Engineers for Peace. A short time later, the engineers joined with a group of like-minded scientists and established the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility. That organization continues to thrive with a large list of supporters.

    In 1995, friends of Barbara Mandigo Kelly, my wife, established an annual series of awards through the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to encourage poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit. These awards are offered to people in three categories—adults, young persons 13 to 18 years old, and youth 12 and under. Thousands of poems have been received from people of all ages, from all over the world. The prize-winning poems have been published in book form, in anthologies and on the Foundation’s website.

    For many years, the Foundation offered prizes, financed by Gladys Swackhamer, awarded for essays by high school students all over the world, who shared their thoughts on nuclear policy and peace issues. Many of these essays have been published in magazines in many places, and the authors include many young women from a wide variety of backgrounds.

    The necessity for cooperative action was highlighted recently in an article published in the Wall Street Journal signed by four men who have served in high positions—George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Senator Sam Nunn. They expressed the belief that “We have arrived a dangerous tipping point in the nuclear era, and we advocate a strategy for improving American security and global security….We are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe.” [Emphasis added.]

    I think the time has come for the formation of a Women’s Task Force for Nuclear Peace, composed of leaders of women’s organizations with millions of members around the world. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is prepared to work in cooperation with these organizations to awaken humanity to the urgent need of preserving life on earth.

     

    Frank K. Kelly is a co-founder and senior vice president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • Time to Let Vanunu Go Now

    In l986 a young Israeli man, called Mordechai Vanunu, followed his conscience and told the World that Israel had a nuclear weapons program. He was convicted of espionage and treason and given an 18-year sentence. After serving this (12 of which were in solitary confinement) Mordechai Vanunu was released. In April 2004 about 80 people from around the world went to welcome him out of prison. Unbelievably, upon his release Mordechai was served with severe restrictions, which forbade him many basic civil liberties including his right to leave Israel, to speak to foreigners and foreign media and his travel within Israel restricted.

    Each year around the 2lst April, he receives a letter from the Prime Minister renewing restrictions, and Mordechai starts, yet again, the process of appealing these restrictions through the Israeli court. Most recently he has been charged with breaking the restrictions, by talking to foreign media, and given a 6 months prison sentence, which when he appealed, was set as community service. On 8th July, 2008, he will appear before an Israeli court regarding this service and his case.

    Four years since leaving Ashkelon prison, (and 22 years since he told about Israeli nuclear weapons) Mordechai Vanunu lives in modest accommodation in East Jerusalem, confined within a few miles radius, unable to earn a living, unaware of what to do to gain his freedom, unable to leave Israel, his life in danger, and left wondering if the Israeli Security will ever agree to let him leave the country. They say he is a threat to National Security, but everyone know that it is 22 years since Mordechai worked in Dimona Nuclear Plant, and the Nuclear industry has moved on. A well-known Israeli Nuclear scientist has testified that Mordechai can know nothing after such a long period, yet Israeli Security insists he is a risk to National Security, and Israeli Court and Government, refuse to let him go thereby compounding an injustice, and breaking international laws.

    Governments around the world have let Mordechai Vanunu down. They remain silent when they should be demanding the Israeli government uphold its obligations under UNDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and allow Vanunu to leave. (Everyone has the right to leave any country including their own and to return to their country – Article 13 – 2 UNDHR).

    So will Mordechai remain in Israel until he dies, or can anything be done to gain his freedom? I believe now Mordechai Vanunu’s freedom rests in the hands of the Israeli people themselves. Some years ago I asked a young Israeli friend why she thought Israel was holding Mordechai. She replied simply, “Because our Government does not trust its own people.” She added, “If the Israeli people would demand his release, it might be possible that he would be free to leave Israel and get on with his life.” I don’t know if she is right or wrong, I don’t know the Israeli mind or politics well enough to guess, but what I do know is that in the Jewish faith and tradition, there is a great deal of emphasis put on justice and doing what is right. I can now only hope and pray that on 8th July, 2008, that some Israeli voices will be raised to call for justice for Mordechai Vanunu, who has paid the high price of 22 years of his life for following his conscious, and whether you hate or love Mordechai Vanunu, to be fair you have got to admit that he has suffered enough and it’s time to let him go NOW.

    Mairead Maguire is a Nobel Peace Laureate and is Honorary President of the Peace People (www.peacepeople.com). She is also a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council.