Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • A Bipartisan Plea For Nuclear Weapons Abolition

    A Bipartisan Plea For Nuclear Weapons Abolition

    An amazing and important commentary appeared in the January 4, 2007 issue of the Wall Street Journal, co-authored by four high-level architects of the Cold War: George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn. The article, entitled “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” was amazing not so much for what it proposed, but for who was making the proposal. The four prominent former US officials reviewed current nuclear dangers and called for US leadership to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons. Their argument was as follows:

    1. Reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.
    2. Terrorist groups are outside the bounds of deterrence strategy.
    3. We are entering a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, disorienting and costly than was Cold War deterrence.
    4. New nuclear weapons states lack the safeguarding and control experiences learned by the US and USSR during the Cold War.
    5. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty envisioned the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
    6. Non-nuclear weapons states have grown increasingly skeptical of the sincerity of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
    7. There exists an historic opportunity to eliminate nuclear weapons in the world.
    8. To realize this opportunity, bold vision and action are needed.
    9. The US must take the lead and must convince the leaders of the other nuclear weapons states to turn the goal of nuclear weapons abolition into a joint effort.
    10. A number of steps need to be taken to lay the groundwork for a world free of nuclear threat, including de-alerting nuclear arsenals; reducing the size of nuclear arsenals; eliminating tactical nuclear weapons; achieving Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and encouraging other key states to also do so; securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable materials everywhere in the world; and halting production of fissile materials for weapons, ceasing to use enriched uranium in civil commerce and removing weapons-usable uranium from research reactors.

    For many of us committed to the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons, there is nothing new in their arguments. They are arguments that many civil society groups have been making since the end of the Cold War. Other former officials, such as Robert McNamara and General George Lee Butler, former head of the US Strategic Command, have also made such arguments. What is new is that these former Cold Warriors have joined together in a bipartisan spirit to publicly make these arguments to the American people. This means that the perspectives of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the Global Security Institute, the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and other dedicated civil society groups are finally being embraced by key former officials who once presided over Cold War nuclear strategy.

    The bipartisan advice of Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn to abolish nuclear weapons will require a full reversal of the current Bush administration nuclear policies. The Bush administration has thumbed its nose at the other parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, behaving as though the US had no obligations to fulfill its commitments for nuclear disarmament under the treaty. The administration has largely opposed the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to by consensus at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

    If the administration wants to demonstrate leadership toward nuclear weapons abolition, it could immediately submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification; call for negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; reach an agreement with Russia to begin implementing deeper cuts in the nuclear arsenals of the two countries, which Russia supports; and call for a summit of leaders of all nuclear weapons states to negotiate a new treaty for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    If the United States becomes serious about leading the way to a world free of nuclear weapons, as called for by the former US officials, it can assume a high moral and legal ground, while improving its own security and global security. Each day that goes by without US leadership for achieving a nuclear weapons-free world undermines the prospects for the future of humanity. There is no issue on which US leadership is more needed, and there is no issue on which the US has more to gain by asserting such leadership.

    The 19th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” The truth that if we are to have a human future the US must lead the way in abolishing nuclear weapons has been frequently ridiculed and violently opposed. The commentary by Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn suggests that this truth may now be entering the stage of being self-evident.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • India’s Nuclear Disarmament Gets Critical

    In October 2006, eight years after India and Pakistan crossed the nuclear threshold, the world witnessed yet another breakout, when North Korea exploded an atomic bomb and demanded that it be recognised as a nuclear weapons-state. Talks aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons, in return for security guarantees and economic assistance, collapsed last week.

    In 2006, the ongoing confrontation between the Western powers and the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear programme got dangerously aggravated. The United Nations Security Council imposed harsh sanctions on Iran but these may prove counterproductive.

    Tehran dismissed the sanctions as illegal and vowed to step up its “peaceful” uranium enrichment programme. It added one more cascade of 164 uranium enrichment centrifuges during the year and is preparing to install as many as 3,000 of these machines within the next four months. (Several thousands of centrifuges are needed to build a small nuclear arsenal.)

    Developments in South Asia added to this negative momentum as India and the United States took further steps in negotiating and legislating the controversial nuclear cooperation deal that they inked one-and-a-half years ago. The deal will bring India into the ambit of normal civilian nuclear commerce although it is a nuclear weapons-state and has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

    Meanwhile, India and Pakistan continued to test nuclear-capable missiles and sustained their long-standing mutual rivalry despite their continuing peace dialogue. Looming large over these developments in different parts of Asia are the Great Powers, led by the U.S., whose geopolitical role as well as refusal to undertake disarmament has contributed to enhancing the global nuclear danger in 2006.

    According to a just-released preliminary count by the Federation of American Scientists, eight countries launched more than 26 ballistic missiles of 23 types in 24 different events in 2006. They include the U.S., Russia, France and China, besides India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.

    “One can list other negative contributing factors too,” says Sukla Sen, a Mumbai-based activist of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, an umbrella of more than 250 Indian organisations. “These include U.S. plans to find new uses for nuclear armaments and develop ballistic missile defence (“Star Wars”) weapons, Britain’s announcement that it will modernise its “Trident” nuclear force, Japan’s moves towards militarisation, and a revival of interest in nuclear technology in many countries.”

    “Clearly,” adds Sen, “61 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has learnt little and achieved even less so far as abolishing the nucleus scourge goes. The nuclear sword still hangs over the globe. 2006 has made the world an even more dangerous place. The time has come to advance the hands of the Doomsday Clock.” The Doomsday Clock, created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published from Chicago in the U.S., currently stands at seven minutes to midnight, the Final Hour. Since 1947, its minute hand has been repeatedly moved “forward and back to reflect the global level of nuclear danger and the state of international security”.

    The Clock was last reset in 2002, after the U.S. announced it would reject several arms control agreements, and withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits the development of “Star Wars”-style weapons.

    Before that, the Doomsday Clock was advanced in 1998, from 14 minutes to midnight, to just nine minutes before the hour. This was primarily in response to the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in May that year.

    The closest the Clock moved to midnight was in 1953, when the U.S. and the USSR both tested thermonuclear weapons. The Clock’s minute hand was set just two minutes short of 12.

    The lowest level of danger it ever showed was in 1991, following the end of the Cold War and the signature of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Clock then stood at 17 minutes to midnight.

    “The strongest reason to move the minute hand forward today is the inflamed situation in the Middle East,” argues M.V. Ramana, an independent nuclear affairs analyst currently with the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore.

    “Iran isn’t the real or sole cause of worry. It’s probably still some years away from enriching enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb. But there is this grave crisis in Iraq, which has spun out of Washington’s control. And then there is Israel, which is a de facto nuclear weapons-state and is seen as a belligerent power by its neighbours in the light of the grim crisis in Palestine. All the crises in the Middle East feed into one another and aggravate matters,” adds Ramana.

    At the other extreme of Asia, new security equations are emerging, partly driven by the North Korean nuclear programme.

    “Today, this is a key factor not only in shaping relations between the two Koreas, but the more complex and important relationship between North Korea, China, Japan and the U.S.”, holds Alka Acharya, of the Centre of East Asian Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University here. Adds Acharya: “The U.S. has failed to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis diplomatically. North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme will spur Japan and South Korea to add to their military capacities. There is a strong lobby in Japan which wants to rewrite the country’s constitution and even develop a nuclear weapons capability. Recently, Japan commissioned a study to determine how long it would take to develop a nuclear deterrent.”

    Japan has stockpiled hundreds of tonnes of plutonium, ostensibly for use in fast-breeder reactors. But with the fast reactor programme faltering, the possibility of diversion of the plutonium to military uses cannot be ruled out. Similarly, South Korea is likely to come under pressure to develop its own deterrent capability. “Driving these pursuits are not just nuclear calculations, but also geopolitical factors,” says Prof. Achin Vanaik who teaches international relations and global politics at Delhi University. “The U.S. plays a critical role here because of its aggressive stance and its double standards. It cannot convincingly demand that other states practise nuclear abstinence or restraint while it will keep it own nuclear weapons for ‘security’. Eventually, Washington’s nuclear double standards will encourage other countries to pursue nuclear weapons capabilities too.”

    In particular, the joint planned development of ballistic missile defence weapons by the U.S. and Japan is likely to be seen by China as a threat to its security and impel Beijing to add to its nuclear arsenal. Adds Vanaik: “The real danger is not confined to East Asia or West Asia alone. The overall worldwide impact of the double standards practised by the nuclear weapons-states, and especially offensive moves like the Proliferation Security Initiative proposed by the U.S. to intercept ‘suspect’ nuclear shipments on the high seas, will be to weaken the existing global nuclear order and encourage proliferation. The U.S.-India nuclear deal sets a horribly negative example of legitimising proliferation.” “A time could soon come when a weak state or non-state actor might consider attacking the U.S. mainland with mass-destruction weapons. The kind of hatreds that the U.S. is sowing in volatile parts of the world, including the Middle East, could well result in such a catastrophe,” Vanaik said.

    The year 2006 witnessed a considerable weakening of the norms of nuclear non-proliferation. Until 1974, the world had five declared nuclear weapon-states and one covert nuclear power (Israel). At the end of this year, it has nine nuclear weapons-states — nine too many.

    No less significant in the long run is the growing temptation among many states to develop civilian nuclear power. Earlier this month, a number of Arab leaders met in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and decided to start a joint nuclear energy development programme.

    “Although this doesn’t spell an immediate crisis, nuclear power development can in the long run provide the technological infrastructure for building nuclear weapons too,” says Ramana. “The way out of the present nuclear predicament does not lie in non- or counter-proliferation through ever-stricter technology controls. The only solution is nuclear disarmament. The nuclear weapons-states must lead by example, by reducing and eventually dismantling these weapons of terror.”

     

    The writer is a Delhi-based researcher, peace and human rights activist, and former newspaper editor.

  • Apartheid in the Holy Land

    In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

    What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I’ve been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

    On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

    I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said:”Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.”

    My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

    Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won’t let ambulances reach the injured.

    The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.

    Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or — I hope — to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.

    We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land?

    My brother Naim Ateek has said what we used to say: “I am not pro- this people or that. I am pro-justice, pro- freedom. I am anti-injustice, anti-oppression.”

    But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?

    People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful — very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

    Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: what is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.

    We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God’s dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers.

     

    Desmond Tutu is the former Archbishop of Cape Town and chairman of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission. This address was given at a conference on Ending the Occupation held in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. A longer version appears in the current edition of Church Times.

  • Journeying With Active Nonviolence

    Dear Friends,

    I am very happy to be here and would like to thank the Irish School of Ecumenics and Kevin Cassidy, Peace People, for inviting me to give this talk. Also to thank Chairperson, Dr. Johnston McMaster, and respondees, Baroness May Blood, and Rob Fairmichael of INNATE.

    In a Society such as ours, coming as we do out of over 35 years of violent ethnic/political conflict, I believe, the question must be asked ‘Is it possible to move beyond violence in Ireland? Build communities of Nonkilling, Nonviolence, and live nonviolently together? From my own experience, I believe, the answer is YES.

    However, in our situation and where violence and division is endemic, it is so easy to be apathetic. You hear remarks so often “This place will never change”. And not just here but in other places where I have been, the almost constant violence in the lives of the people, have led many to give up hope.

    But, we should never give up hope. If we continue in this negative frame of mind, to accept violence, it will seriously threaten our quality of life, our economic recovery, and our security. The bad news is that all violence, be it bullying, homicide, violent crime, terrorism, violent revolution, armed struggles, suicide bombs, hunger strikes to the death, nuclear weapons, war, tragically take human lives, cause much suffering, and adds to a culture of violence. And all violence, State and Nonstate, is a form of injustice. The good news is that we are not born violent, most humans never kill, and the World Health Organization says Human Violence is a “preventable disease”. So happily we can be cured! Prevention starts with peace in our own hearts and minds. Prevention also starts by us, choosing to change to a more positive, self-acceptance and loving mindset, having confidence in ourselves and others, and continuing the hard work of tackling the root causes of our own violence, and others.

    Nowadays we hear a lot of talk about security. The greatest power on earth, the United States, decided that the way to achieve security was through shock and awe, destruction of countries, and the multiple deaths of people including her own young men and women transformed into soldiers. Such violent actions endorse a culture of violence, rather than a culture of dialogue with its citizens and perceived enemies. In Northern Ireland, we have been through all of that. And we know that it doesn’t work. Violence does not prevent violence. The failure of militarism, and Para militarism, in Northern Ireland is now mirrored in Iraq. Should it not be obvious that we are now at a point of human history where we must abolish the culture of violence and embrace a culture of nonviolence for the sake of our children and the children of the world? Embrace the idea of a nonkilling society. But is such a quantum leap of thinking possible? Nothing is possible unless we can imagine it. So what is meant by such a society?

    Prof. Paige in his book ‘Nonkilling Global Political Science’ (1) says: “a nonkilling society can be defined as a human community from the smallest to the largest in which (l) there is no killing of humans and no threats to kill, (2) there are no weapons for killing humans and no ideological justifications for killing – in computer terms, no “hardware” and no “software” for killing, and (3) there are no social conditions that depend, for maintenance or change, upon the threat or use of killing force”. I would add that it is not enough to decide not to kill, but we need to learn to live nonviolently in our lives and families. Nonviolence is a decision to protect and celebrate life, to love oneself, others, and ones enemies, and to bring wisdom, compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation into our relationships. It is a way of living in harmony with each other, the environment, and all of creation.

    To move towards such a culture, we need first to move away from dependence upon threat and use of killing force for security, and by that I mean armies and all imitations of armies. Second, we must stop using our economic resources for the unholy alliance of arms dealers and warmongers but use them instead to deal with the root cause of violence, i.e. poverty and injustice. If we provide education, health care, environmental protection, if we uphold human rights and the dignity of the human being, we will soon realize that a just society is its own security. Thirdly, we must deal with the social and psychological problems which we have inherited after 35 years of violent conflict, and a history of prejudice, sectarianism and discrimination.

    We have moved a long way already from the violent mindset. Happily too we have learned that we have a choice between, fight and flight, and that is the way of active nonviolence. As a pacifist I believe that violence is never justified, and there are always alternatives to force and threat of force. We must challenge the society that tells us there is no such alternative. In all areas of our lives we should adopt nonviolence, in our lifestyles, our education, our commerce, our defense, our governance. Also the Political Scientists, and academics, could help this cultural change by teaching Nonviolence as a serious Political Science.

    That is an ideal that has seldom been explored. But it’s not an impossible ideal. History is littered with examples of nonviolent resistance, many of successful. For example, Norway’s teachers at great cost to them prevented the Nazification of Norway’s educational system by simply refusing to implement it. Gandhi and Martin Luther King successfully used nonviolence for human rights issues; Jesus successfully used it in founding Christianity. St. Francis, a Mystic/Ecologist/Environmentalist, is a model to us of how we need to apply a holistic approach to living nonviolently, especially in a world where climate change is one of the greatest challenges to humanity’s future!

    We must make choices. Martin Luther King once said “The choice is between Nonviolence and Non-existence”. Again at this point in our Northern Irish history we face this choice as a society when we must not be complacent about our Peace Process but busy and involved in securing and building up the ground we have gained in justice and peace, fully conscious that in a political vacuum when all people cannot participate in just democratic politics, there is a danger that anger and frustration builds and violence is let loose again.

    Fear I believe that one of the barriers to progress is our fear. We can be glad that all Parties in Northern Ireland are agreeing that nonviolence is the way forward, and as the guns begin to fall silent (and hopefully loyalist paramilitary guns will soon too fall silent) we are given space to study our changing identities, and politics. However it is a sobering thought, and worth remembering, that there was no Army, no active Irish Republic Army, no loyalist paramilitaries, on the streets in Northern Ireland in l969, yet we had such a deep ethnic fear amongst a divided community that when the genie of violence was released, what became known as ‘the troubles’ became unstoppable for over 35 years. That fear, (and in some cases deep sectarian hatred) remains and it is this which we must recognize and work to remove if there is to be real change. As humans we each carry fear inside us. It’s alright to be afraid, but we must have the courage to face our fears and do what is right. People are afraid of many things. Fear of death, fear of embarrassment, fear of ethnic annialiation. Understanding and acknowledging this often irrational fear is the first step to dealing with it. In Northern Ireland where we have two main identities, and thankfully many others as we welcome new emigrant groups, we must learn to mellow our identities and put our common humanity above these diverse traditions and divisions. If we put too much into our identities, i.e. defining ourselves as against the other, ‘I’m Irish, Catholic, Nationalist, NOT British, Protestant, Unionist, and if we perceive this identity to be threatened in any way we can become violent. I believe, it’s time in Northern Ireland, we begun more to think of ourselves firstly, as part of the human family and remembered above all our common humanity.

    In l998 the UN declared this to be the Decade of a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World (2001-201O). Introducing nonviolence across the curriculum will help build a new culture. The media, who seem mesmerized by violence, have an important role to play. I was struck by how quickly the change took place from an accepting culture of smoking to the culture of nonsmoking. The Government and media agreed that smoking was bad for our health, and helped change the culture. We can all agree Violence is bad for our health, and the media can play its role by helping to stop the glorification and promotion of violence in our culture, i.e., through mass media, war games, etc., all means of desensitizing our children to what is cruel and inhumane. Those of us, who have lived the troubles, have a particular responsibility not to ever allow violence, war, and armed struggles, to be romanticed, glorified, or culturally accepted as ways of solving our problems.

    All Faith traditions can play a role in building this new culture, as each has their own prophets of nonviolence. All faiths can agree to teach the Golden Rule of ‘Do unto others as you would have them do to you’ I myself came into pacifism and nonviolence in the early l970. Facing State violence, I asked myself “as a Christian can I ever use violence”? I studied and rejected the ‘Just war’ theory and went to the cross where I believe Jesus’ message of love your enemies, do not kill is most clearly shown. I also agree with the American theologian, the late Fr. John L. McKenzie, who said: “You cannot read the gospels and not know that Jesus was totally nonviolent.” I believe too that Jesus with a machine gun does not come off as an authentic figure. But until the Christian Church begins to seriously live and teach the nonviolent message of Jesus, to abolish the Just War theory, to denounce nuclear bombs and war, it behooves those of us who are Christian (and those who follow other spiritual paths or none) to seek truth in our own life, and live out of that with as much integrity as possible, respecting others right to their truth, their faith, and their way of life.

    Reconciliation and Integration of Our society: In a polarized Society such as ours, we need to increase cross-community efforts and develop new ways of integration. Much work is being done, such as community, inter-church, interfaith, integrated education, – especially integrated schools – sports, cultural events, etc., We can each choose to be part of integrating our community and building friendships and trust or we can remain in the old mindsets and pass onto our children the distrustful concepts of ‘one of the other kind’ or ‘one of your own’. In Northern Ireland, we can move away from seeing each other in terms of flags and religions, and rather see each other, as flawed human beings, needing each other, and needing to love and be loved, as we each struggle to cope with the joy and the suffering of life’s journey.

    Forgiveness is the key to peace. Many people have suffered violence. We have all suffered and bear the scars of violence. This leaves us with yet another choice. We can get stuck in recrimination and blame, and feed the seeds of our own anger and hatred, or we can choose to forgive and move on with our lives, determined to be happy and live each moment fully alive and celebrating this beautiful gift of life. If we get stuck in the past it can destroy our creativity and imagination, necessary to make a difference. Which do we want to choose? However, some people have said to me they find it hard to forgive. They feel too traumatized and they want to see justice done. This is very understandable. The process of forgiveness takes time, and it needs the support of family, friends, and often trained people to help people deal with the trauma and suffering involved. I commend the great efforts of many people helping in this area of suffering, and hope resources will continue to be provided to help the healing process of many people affected by the troubles.

    Trust: A legacy of the Northern Irish conflict is our evident lack of trust. When the Good Friday Agreement was signed, for many it was not signed with ‘grace’ and there was not a conscious choice to trust others, nor a willingness to power sharing, nor a real commitment to work for the implementation of equal rights and full recognition of all national identities. I believe this lack of trust is still deep and is one of the causes of our political stalemate. Yet, we the people must make choices. I am asking now that we really start to trust one another. Although we have come a long way since the Good Friday agreement, we have yet to achieve our power sharing executive and working Assembly. I believe the civil community needs to unite its voice in insisting our Political Leaders sit down in a shared executive, and Assembly. Direct rule is not an option, and indeed is insulting and humiliating to the people of Northern Ireland as it questions our maturity and ability as civilized adults to run our own affairs and our own Parliament. One of the ideas we might consider is the establishment of a Ministry of Peace in our own Northern Irish Parliament, and also in the Dail. Also by devolving power and resources to local communities empowering them to fulfill their rights and responsibilities as Citizens, will ensure that we, the Northern Irish people, can build a vibrant, nonviolent democracy right across the whole community, thus breaking down the divisive green and orange politics we have tragically inherited, and at the moment are dangerously trapped within.

    I have great hope for the future. I believe in the goodness and kindness, of the people of Ireland, both North and South. This was evidenced throughout the troubles with the many thousands of people, who every time there was serious violence, and it looked like we could go over the edge into civil war, they marched to say ‘no to violence’ ‘yes to peace’. It must always be remembered the tremendous role the civil community played, particularly in Northern Ireland, in building the peace. Many of those people are still there, and it is in them, and their children, that I rest my hope for a better future in our country.

    As World Citizens too, I think we can join with millions of our brothers and sisters, working where they are, for nonviolent transformation. This will mean building a demilitarized Ireland and Britain (with no armies) building neutral and nonaligned countries in Europe and around the world, developing unarmed Policing and nonmilitary forms of defense. It will also mean changing Patriarchal and Hierarchical systems which are unjust and under which women suffer from oppressive structures and institutions. It will not be easy, but is necessary and it is possible together to build a new world civilization with a compassionate and just heart.

    Peace and happiness to you all,

  • Arthur N.R. Robinson and the Power of One

    I believe in the Power of One, the capacity of a single individual to make an important difference in our world. In many ways, this may seem like an article of faith, rooted in hope. But, in fact, it is more than an article of faith, for there are indeed individuals whose lives have made a significant difference in improving our world. One such individual is Arthur N.R. Robinson, who has served as both Prime Minister and President of his country. He has had a remarkable and charmed life, and he has altered the course of history by his extraordinary leadership in the creation of an International Criminal Court.

    In the 1980s, I became a supporter of the creation of an International Criminal Court, having been introduced to the idea by Robert Woetzel, a man who was also a close and long-time friend of President Robinson. I made many trips to the United Nations to encourage progress on this lofty idea of creating a court that would follow in the Nuremberg tradition of holding individual leaders to account for the commission of heinous crimes: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Although it was clear that this was a much needed innovation to the international system of institutions, it seemed quite unlikely at that time that it would be possible to gain the requisite international support for this bold conception.

    And yet, by 1998, the countries of the world gathered in Rome and established a Treaty to create this new Court, a court that would give life to the Principles of Nuremberg as we moved into a new century. It is certain that this essential innovation in international institution building could not have occurred were it not for a single individual, Arthur N.R. Robinson, who as the Prime Minister of Trinadad and Tobago put the United Nations on track to achieve this goal. Of course, many other people played important roles as well, but without this head of government taking bold action to put the matter on the agenda of the United Nations it could not have happened.

    Some people believe that only the big and powerful countries can influence the international system and the course of history. They are wrong. Trinidad and Tobago, under the leadership of a man of vision and determination, led the way to the establishment of an International Criminal Court, an institution that holds the promise of restoring integrity to world affairs. President Robinson and Trinidad and Tobago should be justly proud of what they have accomplished. By this effort and accomplishment Trinidad and Tobago has earned a vaulted place on the international map.

    A.N.R. Robinson, even as he enters his ninth decade of life, has not chosen to rest upon his laurels, as much as he may deserve to do so. Rather, he has recently accepted the responsibility to join the distinguished five-member Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims of International Crime, and in that capacity he continues to play an important role in working for justice in the international system.

    I wonder if the people of Trinidad and Tobago recognize how significant their contribution to building this new international institution has been. Perhaps they appreciate President Robinson’s efforts, but do they embrace these efforts with a sense of national pride? And, most important, do they join in the commitment to strengthening the structure of international criminal law so that the world may be spared future aggressive wars, genocides and crimes against humanity by having in place a mechanism to hold individual leaders to account for the commission of such crimes?

    There remains an important role for the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago to play on this issue – both at the government level and also at the level of civil society – that is so critical for humanity’s future. I hope that the government of Trinidad and Tobago will not give up its efforts to further the system of international criminal justice represented by the International Criminal Court. Perhaps, though, the government of this country, like most governments, will need a push from below, from its citizens, if it is to rise to a higher plane.

    I would like to propose that citizens of Trinidad and Tobago create a civil society organization that will provide creative ideas and assert public pressure for strengthening the International Criminal Court. The work of such a civil society organization could connect with the United Nations and with like-minded citizens throughout the world. It could carry forward the vision of A.N.R. Robinson and build upon his work. And I would hope that for many years to come he would be a wise and patient mentor to the youthful participants in such an organization.

    There is much still to be done. Sadly, I must recognize that my country, a country of enormous economic and military power but presently lacking a sound moral foundation, has refused to join the International Criminal Court and has actively opposed it. The United States government has forced other countries throughout the world to sign bilateral agreements with it, stating that they will never turn over US citizens to the International Criminal Court, regardless of the crimes committed. This is a very different United States government than the one that supported and encouraged the Nuremburg Tribunals following World War II. It is a government that is unfortunately seeking to protect its own high authorities from scrutiny and accountability for their own wrongdoing.

    We know that changing the world is not an easy matter. There is no magic wand. It takes the determination of great leaders of vision like A.N.R. Robinson, but it also takes the commitment and persistence of many people who join together for a noble cause. I think it would be extremely significant for Trinidad and Tobago and useful for the world to establish here the civil society organization I have mentioned with the purpose of forwarding the goal of an International Criminal Court that will be universal in its jurisdiction and by its legal force will raise the moral standards of humankind. Personally, I would like to see this organization originate in Trinidad and Tobago and be called, the A.N.R. Robinson Center for International Criminal Justice. It could be an institute within the newly established A.N.R. Robinson Museum, Library and Ethics Center that will be located in Castara on the island of Tobago.

    A.N.R. Robinson’s life strengthens my faith in the power of an individual to make a difference in our world. He is a man of rock solid principles. Integrity and courage have been the hallmarks of his life and career. As a political leader, he understood clearly the need for all leaders to be held to high standards if we are to have justice. And thus, in pursuing an International Criminal Court, A.N.R. Robinson acted for the benefit of all humanity.

    The number of people of whom this can be said is not large, and includes some of the greatest peace leaders of our time. I believe that it is a high badge of honor. At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we honored President Robinson with our Distinguished Peace Leadership Award in 2002, and he was kind enough to come to Santa Barbara to receive the award. This is only one of the many awards he has received for his efforts to establish an International Criminal Court.

    When a man of such great accomplishments in the world as A.N.R. Robinson is kind and humble, it reveals a nobility of spirit. I feel very fortunate to count among my friends a man of such bright and noble spirit, sterling character and significant achievements as Arthur N.R. Robinson.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.
  • Teaching Peace

    Teaching Peace

    Peace is a dynamic process of nonviolent social interaction that results in security for all members of a society.

    Peace is not a subject matter taught in many schools. I have often heard it said that the curriculum is too full to add more, but what could be more important than learning about making peace? I think the “full curriculum” is a justification for not wanting to challenge the status quo and teachers are not rewarded for bringing new material into the classroom. I am a proponent of bringing peace into every classroom. Basic questions need to include: How can this problem be solved peacefully? Or, how could this problem have been solved peacefully?

    Blase Bonpane, who received the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2006 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award, suggested that when students study wars in history the only meaningful question is: How could this war have been avoided? We need to stop glorifying war in our cultures and our classrooms. If we want to support our troops, we don’t send them to kill and be killed. If politicians choose war, shouldn’t they also participate in the war? Why are there so few children of political leaders participating in the wars they initiate?

    We live in a culture of militarism that takes war as the norm. How can we change this norm? How can we make peace the norm and war the aberration? Why does our society allocate so much of its resources to the military? Does the money that goes for “defense” really defend us?

    Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of the 20th century, was among the intellectual leaders who understood that nuclear weapons made war too dangerous to continue. Einstein was among those who called not only for the abolition of nuclear weapons, but for the abolition of war. In the Nuclear Age, war puts the future of civilization and the human species at risk. The Earth could go on without humanity, but we cannot go on if we do not bring our dangerous technologies, most prominently nuclear weapons, under strict and effective international control.

    Our schools teach nationalism and they do so at a historical junction when the world needs global citizens. How many students understand, for example, that there is no global problem that can be solved by any one country, no matter how powerful that country is? How many teachers understand this? Think about it, every global problem – ranging from global warming to terrorism to the nuclear arms race – requires international cooperation.

    The United Nations takes a serious beating in the US media, and of course it has its shortcomings, but if we didn’t have the United Nations we’d have to invent it. Its major purpose is to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war….” It is a safe environment where representatives of countries have a chance to talk to each other. It is a place where representatives of governments can deliberate on the great problems facing humanity, where they can plan for the future and speak for future generations.

    An important question to ask is: Who has the responsibility to create and maintain peace? The answer, most obviously, is that “we” do, we being all of us. It is easy, though to become lost in the collective “we,” and therefore it must include each of us. Beyond responsibility, there are questions of accountability. That was the great lesson of the Nuremberg Tribunals following World War II, where individual leaders were held to account under international law for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. With leadership goes accountability. This is the principle on which the International Criminal Court was established – to bring Nuremberg into the Nuclear Age.

    In teaching peace, there are three documents with which every student should be familiar: the United Nations Charter, the Principles of Nuremberg and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Without a firm grasp of these 20th century innovations, one cannot be considered educated in the 21st century.

    Let me suggest ten ways of teaching peace that hopefully will make the lessons more compelling and real to the students.

    1. Tell stories. One of the stories, a true one, that I like best is the story of the Christmas Truce during World War I. The British and German soldiers came out of their trenches, shared food and drink, showed each other photos of their families and sang Christmas carols together. They saw each other as human beings, and only returned to their trenches, resuming the fighting, after being threatened by their officers.

    Another story is that of Sadako Sasaki, a young girl who was exposed to radiation poisoning when the US bombed Hiroshima. Ten years later Sadako came down with Leukemia. She tried to regain her health by folding 1000 paper cranes, a Japanese symbol of longevity. On one of the cranes she wrote, “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.” Unfortunately, she died before she finished folding the cranes. Her classmates finished the folding and today there is a statue in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park dedicated to Sadako and other children who died in the atomic blasts. The statue is always surrounded by tens of thousands of paper cranes sent from all over the world.

    2.Use Peace heroes as role models. There are many amazing peace heroes, living and dead, who have made significant contributions to peace during their lives. You can read sketches of some of these heroes at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s website: www.wagingpeace.org. You can also study such leaders as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Caesar Chavez, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa and others in greater depth. When examining problems of peace, it is always helpful to ask the question: What would Gandhi do? Or, fill in the name of your favorite peace hero.

    3.Infuse drama, art and poetry. Through literature, art and poetry there is much to be learned about peace and war. Lists of books, movies and poems can be found in the Peace Issues section of www.wagingpeace.org. Some of the classic books are All Quiet on the Western Front, Johnny Got His Gun, and Dr. Strangelove. My favorite anti-war movie is The King of Hearts. Such books and movies can open the door to important discussions.

    4.Teach critical thinking. Young people have to learn how to ask questions and probe deeply, rather than just accepting the word of authority figures. They also have to learn how to gather evidence, how to evaluate the source of information, how to apply logic, and so on.

    5.Global perspective. Young people need to break the bonds of nationalism and think globally. Applying a global perspective allows one to see the world as a whole, rather than from the narrow vantage point of a single country. We badly need education for global citizenship. Just as many symbols are used that connote nationalism (the flag, monuments, historical perspectives, etc.), we need to also use symbols that connote global citizenship, such as the flag with the beautiful representation of the Earth from outer space.

    6.Reverse the Roman dictum. The Roman dictum says, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The human species has followed that dictum for the past 2,500 years, and it has always resulted in more war. We need to reverse the Roman dictum and prepare for peace if that is what we truly desire. We prepare for peace by building a culture of peace, within our nations and in the world. Peace is not only the absence of war, but also positive actions to improve health, education and human rights.

    7.Reexamine historical myths. Most countries have developed myths about their own goodness which are not historically accurate. History is told through stories of battles, but there is far more to history than this. These myths need to be exposed to the fresh air of investigation. We will likely find that wars are not glorious and victories are often built on unacceptable atrocities.

    8.Teach peace as proactive. Many people confuse peace with solitude, meditation and contemplation, but peace is not passive. It is a dynamic set of forces kept in balance by individuals and institutions committed to solving conflicts without violence. Peace requires action. You cannot sit back and wait for peace to arrive. Individuals must proactively work for peace. It is not a spectator sport. Anything that one does to build community and cooperation is a contribution to peace.

    9.Engender the ability to empathize. Young people must learn to empathize with others, to feel their pain and sorrow. One way of killing empathy is to brand members of a group, including whole countries, as enemies, and dehumanize the members of that group. Empathy begins with the realization that each of us is a miracle, unique in all the world. How can one miracle kill another or wage war, committing indiscriminate mass murder?

    10.Teach by example. To the extent that a teacher can model peace in their own life, their lessons will be more authentic. As well as teaching peace, we should try to live peace, making empathy, cooperation and nonviolent conflict resolution part of our daily lives.

    I hope that some of these ideas may be helpful in making peace a subject of study, concern and action, both in the classroom and beyond. Peace has never been more important than in our nuclear-armed world, and we each have a responsibility to study peace, live peace and teach peace. We should also keep in mind that peace is a long-term project that once achieved must be maintained. Peace requires persistence and a commitment to never giving up.

    Suggested Reading

    Hamill, Sam (ed.), Poets Against the War, New York: Nation Books, 2003.

    Ikeda, Daisaku and David Krieger, Choose Peace, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age, Santa Monica, Middleway Press, 2002.

    Krieger, David (ed.), Hold Hope, Wage Peace, Santa Barbara: Capra Press, 2005.

    Krieger, David, Today Is Not a Good Day for War, Santa Barbara: Capra Press, 2005.

    Krieger, David (ed.), Hope in a Dark Time, Santa Barbara: Capra Press, 2002.

    McCarthy, Colman, I’d Rather Teach Peace, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002.

    Rees, Stuart, Passion for Peace, Exercising Power Creatively, Sidney, Australia: University of New Wales Press, 2003.

    Wells, Leah, Teaching Peace, A Guide for the Classroom and Everyday Life, Santa Barbara: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 2003.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • Reflections on War and Its Consequences

    The shift of the Iraq War from what its early proponents claimed would be a cakewalk to what most current observers—including the small group of neocons who originally championed it—consider a disaster suggests that war’s consequences are not always predictable.

    Some wars, admittedly, work out fairly well—at least for the victors. In the third of the Punic Wars (149-146 B.C.), Rome’s victory against Carthage was complete, and it obliterated that rival empire from the face of the earth. For the Carthaginians, of course, the outcome was less satisfying. Rome’s victorious legions razed the city of Carthage and sowed salt in its fields, thereby ensuring that what had been a thriving metropolis would become a wasteland.

    But even the victors are not immune to some unexpected and very unpleasant consequences. World War I led to 30 million people killed or wounded and disastrous epidemics of disease, plus a multibillion dollar debt that was never repaid to U.S. creditors and, ultimately, fed into the collapse of the international financial system in 1929. The war also facilitated the rise of Communism and Fascism, two fanatical movements that added immensely to the brutality and destructiveness of the twentieth century. Certainly, World War I didn’t live up to Woodrow Wilson’s promises of a “war to end war” and a “war to make the world safe for democracy.”

    Even World War II—the “good war”—was not all it is frequently cracked up to be. Yes, it led to some very satisfying developments, most notably the destruction of the fascist governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan. But people too often forget that it had some very negative consequences. These include the killing of 50 million people, as well as the crippling, blinding, and maiming of millions more. Then, of course, there was also the genocide carried out under cover of the war, the systematic destruction of cities and civilian populations, the ruin of once-vibrant economies, the massive violations of civil liberties (e.g. the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps), the establishment of totalitarian control in Eastern Europe, the development and use of nuclear weapons, and the onset of the nuclear arms race. This grim toll leaves out the substantial number of rapes, mental breakdowns, and postwar murders unleashed by the war.

    The point here is not that World War II was “bad,” but that wars are not as clean or morally pure as they are portrayed.

    Curiously, pacifists have long been stereotyped as sentimental and naive. But haven’t the real romantics of the past century been the misty-eyed flag-wavers, convinced that the next war will build a brave new world? Particularly in a world harboring some 30,000 nuclear weapons, those who speak about war as if it consisted of two noble knights, jousting before cheering crowds, have lost all sense of reality.

    This lack of realism about the consequences of modern war is all too pervasive. During the Cuban missile crisis, it led Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to warn top U.S. national security officials against their glib proposal to bomb the Soviet missile sites. That’s not the end, he insisted. That’s just the beginning! After the crisis, President Kennedy was delighted that war with the Soviet Union had been averted—a war that he estimated would have killed 300 million people.

    How do we account for the romantic view of war that seems to overcome portions of society on a periodic basis? Certainly hawkish government officials, economic elites, and their backers in the mass media have contributed to popular feeble-mindedness when it comes to war’s consequences. And rulers of empires tend to become foolish when presented with supreme power. But it is also true that some people revel in what they assume is the romance of war as a welcome escape from their humdrum daily existence. Nor should this surprise us, for they find similar escape in romantic songs and novels, movies, spectator sports, and, sometimes, in identification with a “strong” leader.

    Of course, war might just be a bad habit—one that is difficult to break after persisting for thousands of years. Even so, people will give it up only when they confront its disastrous consequences. And this clear thinking about war might prove difficult for many of them, at least as long as they prefer romance to reality.

    Dr. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York, Albany. His latest book is Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971 to the Present (Stanford University Press).

     

    First published on the History News Network.

  • Kofi Annan’s Clarion Call for Nuclear Sanity

    Kofi Annan’s Clarion Call for Nuclear Sanity

    Nearing the end of his second term as Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan went to Princeton University on November 28, 2006 to make what may well be remembered as the most important speech of his tenure. He began by talking about the general sense of insecurity in our world today related to a broad range of issues, including poverty, environmental degradation, disease, war and terrorism. He concluded that “the greatest danger of all” may well be “the area of nuclear weapons.” He gave three reasons for this conclusion:

    “First, nuclear weapons present a unique existential threat to humanity. “Secondly, the nuclear non-proliferation regime faces a major crisis of confidence….

    “Thirdly, the rise of terrorism, with the danger that nuclear weapons might be acquired by terrorists, greatly increases the danger that they will be used.”

    He pointed to the two significant failures by governments in 2005 to achieve progress on the twin issues of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament: first, at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference; and second, at the World Summit, which brought together heads of governments from throughout the world.

    Annan attributed the current stalemate, which he termed “mutually assured paralysis,” to the deadlock between those who put nuclear disarmament first and those who put non-proliferation first. He urged both sides to come together and tackle both issues “with the urgency they demand.”

    He called upon the nuclear weapons states “to develop concrete plans – with specific timetables – for implementing their disarmament commitments.” He also urged them “to make a joint declaration of intent to achieve the progressive elimination of all nuclear weapons, under strict and effective international control.”

    He concluded his remarks by appealing to young people: “Please bring your energy and imagination to this debate. Help us to seize control of the rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked, and bring it to a safe landing before it is too late.”

    This speech is a parting gift from the Secretary General to humanity. I urge you to read it and to demand far more serious action on these critical issues by the leaders of the nuclear weapons states, those who are attempting to control the hijacked “rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked….”

    Read the Kofi Annan Speech

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • Lecture at Princeton University

    Let me begin by saying how delighted I am to have been invited to give this address by a School named after Woodrow Wilson, the great pioneer of multilateralism and advocate of world peace, who argued, among other things, for agreed international limits on deadly weapons.

    Princeton is indissolubly linked with the memory of Albert Einstein and many other great scientists who played a role in making this country the first nuclear power. That makes it an especially appropriate setting for my address this evening, because my main theme is the danger of nuclear weapons, and the urgent need to confront that danger by preventing proliferation and promoting disarmament, both at once. I shall argue that these two objectives — disarmament and non-proliferation — are inextricably linked, and that to achieve progress on either front we must also advance on the other.

    Almost everyone in today’s world feels insecure, but not everyone feels insecure about the same thing. Different threats seem more urgent to people in different parts of the world.

    Probably the largest number would give priority to economic and social threats, including poverty, environmental degradation and infectious disease.

    Others might stress inter-State conflict; yet others internal conflict, including civil war. Many people – especially but not only in the developed world — would now put terrorism at the top of their list.

    In truth, all these threats are interconnected, and all cut across national frontiers. We need common global strategies to deal with all of them — and indeed, Governments are coming together to work out and implement such strategies, in the UN and elsewhere. The one area where there is a total lack of any common strategy is the one that may well present the greatest danger of all: the area of nuclear weapons.

    Why do I consider it the greatest danger? For three reasons:

    First, nuclear weapons present a unique existential threat to all humanity.

    Secondly, the nuclear non-proliferation regime now faces a major crisis of confidence. North Korea has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while India, Israel, and Pakistan have never joined it. There are, at least, serious questions about the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. And this, in turn, raises questions about the legitimacy, and credibility, of the case-by-case approach to non-proliferation that the existing nuclear powers have adopted.

    Thirdly, the rise of terrorism, with the danger that nuclear weapons might be acquired by terrorists, greatly increases the danger that they will be used.

    Yet, despite the grave, all-encompassing nature of this threat, the Governments of the world are addressing it selectively, not comprehensively.

    In one way, that’s understandable. The very idea of global self-annihilation is unbearable to think about. But, that is no excuse. We must try to imagine the human and environmental consequences of a nuclear bomb exploding in one, or even in several, major world cities — or indeed of an all-out confrontation between two nuclear-armed States.

    In focusing on nuclear weapons, I am not seeking to minimize the problem of chemical and biological ones, which are also weapons of mass destruction, and are banned under international treaties. Indeed, perhaps the most important, under-addressed threat relating to terrorism — one which acutely requires new thinking — is the threat of terrorists using a biological weapon.

    But, nuclear weapons are the most dangerous. Even a single bomb can destroy an entire city, as we know from the terrible example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and today, there are bombs many times as powerful as those. These weapons pose a unique threat to humanity as a whole.

    Forty years ago, understanding that this danger must be avoided at all costs, nearly all States in the world came together and forged a grand bargain, embodied in the NPT.

    In essence, that treaty was a contract between the recognized nuclear-weapon States at that time and the rest of the international community. The nuclear-weapon States undertook to negotiate in good faith on nuclear disarmament, to prevent proliferation, and to facilitate the peaceful use of nuclear energy, while separately declaring that they would refrain from threatening non-nuclear-weapon States with nuclear weapons. In return, the rest committed themselves not to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons, and to place all their nuclear activities under the verification of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Thus, the treaty was designed both to prevent proliferation and to advance disarmament, while assuring the right of all States, under specified conditions, to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

    From 1970 — when it entered into force — until quite recently, the NPT was widely seen as a cornerstone of global security. It had confounded the dire predictions of its critics. Nuclear weapons did not — and still have not — spread to dozens of States, as John F. Kennedy and others predicted in the 1960s. In fact, more States have given up their ambitions for nuclear weapons than have acquired them.

    And yet, in recent years, the NPT has come under withering criticism — because the international community has been unable to agree how to apply it to specific crises in South Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Middle East; and because a few States parties to the treaty are allegedly pursuing their own nuclear-weapons capabilities.

    Twice in 2005, Governments had a chance to strengthen the Treaty’s foundations — first at the Review conference in May, then at the World Summit in September. Both times they fai— essentially because they couldn’t agree whether non-proliferation or disarmament should come first.

    The advocates of “non-proliferation first” — mainly nuclear-weapon States and their supporters — believe the main danger arises not from nuclear weapons as such, but from the character of those who possess them, and therefore, from the spread of nuclear weapons to new States and to non-state actors (so called “horizontal proliferation”). The nuclear-weapon States say they have carried out significant disarmament since the end of the cold war, but that their responsibility for international peace and security requires them to maintain a nuclear deterrent.

    “Disarmament first” advocates, on the other hand, say that the world is most imperilled by existing nuclear arsenals and their continual improvement (so called “vertical proliferation”). Many non-nuclear-weapon States accuse the nuclear-weapon States of retreating from commitments they made in 1995 (when the NPT was extended indefinitely) and reiterated as recently as the year 2000. For these countries, the NPT “grand bargain” has become a swindle. They note that the UN Security Council has often described the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as a threat to international peace and security, but has never declared that nuclear weapons in and of themselves are such a threat. They see no serious movement towards nuclear disarmament, and claim that the lack of such movement presages a permanent “apartheid” between nuclear “haves” and “have-nots”.

    Both sides in this debate feel that the existence of four additional States with nuclear weapons, outside the NPT, serves only to sharpen their argument.

    The debate echoes a much older argument: are weapons a cause or a symptom of conflict? I believe both debates are sterile, counterproductive, and based on false dichotomies.

    Arms build-ups can give rise to threats leading to conflict; and political conflicts can motivate the acquisition of arms. Efforts are needed both to reduce arms and to reduce conflict. Likewise, efforts are needed to achieve both disarmament and non-proliferation.

    Yet, each side waits for the other to move. The result is that “mutually assured destruction” has been replaced by mutually assured paralysis. This sends a terrible signal of disunity and waning respect for the Treaty’s authority. It creates a vacuum that can be exploited.

    I said earlier this year that we are “sleepwalking towards disaster”. In truth, it is worse than that — we are asleep at the controls of a fast-moving aircraft. Unless we wake up and take control, the outcome is all too predictable.

    An aircraft, of course, can remain airborne only if both wings are in working order. We cannot choose between non-proliferation and disarmament. We must tackle both tasks with the urgency they demand.

    Allow me to offer my thoughts to each side in turn.

    To those who insist on disarmament first, I say this:

    — Proliferation is not a threat only, or even mainly, to those who already have nuclear weapons. The more fingers there are on nuclear triggers, and the more those fingers belong to leaders of unstable States — or, even worse, non-State actors — the greater the threat to all humankind.

    — Lack of progress on disarmament is no excuse for not addressing the dangers of proliferation. No State should imagine that, by pushing ahead with a nuclear-weapon programme, it can pose as a defender of the NPT; still less that it will persuade others to disarm.

    — I know some influential States, which themselves have scrupulously respected the Treaty, feel strongly that the nuclear-weapon States have not lived up to their disarmament obligations. But, they must be careful not to let their resentment put them on the side of the proliferators. They should state clearly that acquiring prohibited weapons never serves the cause of their elimination. Proliferation only makes disarmament even harder to achieve.

    — I urge all States to give credit where it is due. Acknowledge disarmament whenever it does occur. Applaud the moves which nuclear-weapon States have made, whether unilaterally or through negotiation, to reduce nuclear arsenals or prevent their expansion. Recognize that the nuclear-weapon States have virtually stopped producing new fissile material for weapons, and are maintaining moratoria on nuclear tests.

    — Likewise, support even small steps to contain proliferation, such as efforts to improve export controls on goods needed to make weapons of mass destruction, as mandated by Security Council resolution 1540.

    — And please support the efforts of the Director-General of the IAEA and others to find ways of guaranteeing that all States have access to fuel and services for their civilian nuclear programmes without spreading sensitive technology. Countries must be able to meet their growing energy needs through such programmes, but we cannot afford a world where more and more countries develop the most sensitive phases of the nuclear fuel cycle themselves.

    — Finally, do not encourage, or allow, any State to make its compliance with initiatives to eliminate nuclear weapons, or halt their proliferation, conditional on concessions from other States on other issues. The preservation of human life on this planet is too important to be used as a hostage.

    To those who insist on non-proliferation first, I say this:

    —True, there has been some progress on nuclear disarmament since the end of the cold war. Some States have removed many nuclear weapons from deployment, and eliminated whole classes of nuclear delivery systems. The US and Russia have agreed to limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons they deploy, and have removed non-strategic ones from ships and submarines; the US Congress refused to fund the so called “bunker-buster” bomb; most nuclear test sites have been closed; and there are national moratoria on nuclear tests, while three nuclear-weapon States — France, Russia and the UK — have ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

    — Yet, stockpiles remain alarmingly high: 27,000 nuclear weapons reportedly remain in service, of which about 12,000 are actively deployed.

    — Some States seem to believe they need fewer weapons, but smaller and more useable ones — and even to have embraced the notion of using such weapons in conflict. All of the NPT nuclear-weapon States are modernizing their nuclear arsenals or their delivery systems. They should not imagine that this will be accepted as compatible with the NPT. Everyone will see it for what it is: a euphemism for nuclear re-armament.

    — Nor is it clear how these States propose to deal with the four nuclear-weapon-capable States outside the NPT. They warn against a nuclear domino effect, if this or that country is allowed to acquire a nuclear capability, but they do not seem to know how to prevent it, or how to respond to it once it has happened. Surely they should at least consider attempting a “reverse domino effect”, in which systematic and sustained reductions in nuclear arsenals would devalue the currency of nuclear weapons, and encourage others to follow suit.

    — Instead, by clinging to and modernizing their own arsenals, even when there is no obvious threat to their national security that nuclear weapons could deter, nuclear-weapon States encourage others — particularly those that do face real threats in their own reg— to regard nuclear weapons as essential, both to their security and to their status. It would be much easier to confront proliferators, if the very existence of nuclear weapons were universally acknowledged as dangerous and ultimately illegitimate.

    — Similarly, States that wish to discourage others from undertaking nuclear or missile tests could argue their case much more convincingly if they themselves moved quickly to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty into force, halt their own missile testing, and negotiate a robust multilateral instrument regulating missiles. Such steps would do more than anything else to advance the cause of non-proliferation.

    — Important Powers such as Argentina, Brazil, Germany and Japan have shown, by refusing to develop them, that nuclear weapons are not essential to either security or status. South Africa destroyed its arsenal and joined the NPT. Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up nuclear weapons from the former Soviet nuclear arsenal. And Libya has abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons programmes. The nuclear weapon States have applauded all these examples. They should follow them.

    — Finally, Governments and civil society in many countries are increasingly questioning the relevance of the cold war doctrine of nuclear deterrence — the rationale used by all States that possess nuclear weap— in an age of growing threats from non-State actors. Do we not need, instead, to develop agreed strategies for preventing proliferation?

    — For all these reasons, I call on all the States with nuclear weapons to develop concrete plans — with specific timetables — for implementing their disarmament commitments. And I urge them to make a joint declaration of intent to achieve the progressive elimination of all nuclear weapons, under strict and effective international control.

    In short, my friends, the only way forward is to make progress on both fronts — non-proliferation and disarmament — at once. And we will not achieve this unless at the same time we deal effectively with the threat of terrorism, as well as the threats, both real and rhetorical, which drive particular States or regimes to seek security, however misguidedly, by developing or acquiring nuclear weapons.

    It is a complex and daunting task, which calls for leadership, for the establishment of trust, for dialogue and negotiation. But first of all, we need a renewed debate, which must be inclusive, must respect the norms of international negotiations, and must reaffirm the multilateral approach — Woodrow Wilson’s approach, firmly grounded in international institutions, treaties, rules, and norms of appropriate behaviour.

    Let me conclude by appealing to young people everywhere, since there are — I am glad to see — so many of them here today.

    My dear young friends, you are already admirably engaged in the struggle for global development, for human rights and to protect the environment. Please bring your energy and imagination to this debate. Help us to seize control of the rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked, and bring it to a safe landing before it is too late.

     

    Kofi A. Annan is Secretary General of the United Nations.

  • A Nonkilling, Nonviolent World for the 21st Century

    Dear Friends,

    I am delighted to be attending this Summit, and I would like to thank President Gorbachev, Mayor Veltroni, and the City of Rome for hosting this event. Thank you for inviting me to make this contribution towards the Nobel Peace Laureates Charter for a Nonviolent World.

    I believe that, one of our greatest challenges as the human family, is to transform our violent cultures into a nonkilling, nonviolent culture for the World. This journey from violence to nonviolence will be long and difficult, but human beings mimic each other, and as increasingly more people reject violence, and use the alternatives available, others will follow their example, and change will happen. Already many people are asking, ‘Is it possible to move beyond violence? To build Nonkilling, Nonviolent societies, and World?’ I believe, the answer is YES! However, where violence is endemic, it is easy to be apathetic. Also, particularly in our current world political situation, faced as we are, with an ethical and moral crisis, brought about by many Governments’ abuse of their power, especially those Governments’ who have the most temporal power, often civil society feel disempowered and hopeless.

    But we should never give up hope. If we continue in a negative frame of mind, to accept violence, it will seriously threaten our quality of life, and our security. The bad news is that all violence, be it bullying, torture, homicide, violent crime, terrorism, violent revolution, armed struggles, suicide bombings, hunger strikes to the death, nuclear weapons, militarism, and war, tragically often take human life, and add to the culture of violence. And all violence, State and Non-state, is a form of injustice, which demeans us all.

    Killings by Governments, and nongovernmental armed groups, and threats to kill, underlie all other threats to the survival of humanity, damaging peoples’ physical, psychological, economic, social, cultural, and environmental, well-being. If we are to reverse this downward spiral of violence, we need to uphold the Principal that, everyone has a right not to be tortured, or killed, and a responsibility not to torture, kill, or support the killing of others. These are basic human rights enshrined in national and international laws and we all must stand firm on the upholding of these Rights by our Governments and by ‘armed revolutionaries’ or ‘armed insurgency groups’.

    The good news is that we are not born violent, most humans never kill, and the World Health Organization says Human Violence is a ‘preventable disease’. So happily we can be cured! Prevention starts in our own minds, with us choosing to reject negativity, changing to a positive, disarmed mindset, cultivating love of ourselves and others, and choosing not to kill. Prevention, also starts in our own conscience where we know what is right and refuse to be morally blinded in our mind and heart by nationalism and militarism, a moral disease which continues to destroy many people. For example, in Iraq, where the USA Government has carried out war crimes, in Chechnya where the Russian Government continues to commit war crimes, the Israel Government’s massacre in the occupied Palestinian terroritories, and State and non-state killings in many other places around our world.

    Nowadays we hear a lot of talk about security, The greatest power on earth, the United States, decided that the way to achieve security was through shock and awe, destruction of countries, and the multiple deaths of people including her own young men and women transformed into soldiers. Over 654,000 Iraqi civilians and over 2,800 USA soldiers have needlessly died. Such violent reactions endorse a culture of violence, rather than a culture of dialogue with its citizens and perceived enemies. In Northern Ireland, we have been through all of that. And we know that it doesn’t work. Violence does not prevent violence. The failure of militarism, paramilitarism, in Northern Ireland is mirrored in Iraq. Should it not be obvious that we are now at a point of human history where we must abolish the culture of violence and embrace a culture of nonviolence for the sake of our children and the children of the world? But is such a quantum leap of thinking possible? Nothing is possible unless we can imagine it. So what is meant by such a society?

    Prof. Paige in his book ‘Nonkilling Global Political Science’ (l) says: “A nonkilling society can be defined as a human community from the smallest to the largest in which (l) there is no killing of humans and no threats to kill, (2) there are no weapons for killing humans and no ideological justifications for killing – in computer terms no ‘hardware’ and no ‘software’ for killing and (3) there are no social conditions that depend, for maintenance or change, upon the threat or use of killing force”. I would add that it is not enough to decide not to kill but we need to learn to live nonviolently in our lives and families. Nonviolence is a decision to protect and celebrate life, to love oneself, others, and ones enemies, and to bring wisdom, compassion, forgiveness, and reconciliation into our relationships. Nonviolence recognizes principled dissent against injustice and the misuse of power and upholds the right to civil disobedience as an integral part of a democratic society. Nonviolence is based on unconditional love, truth, equality, justice, and respect for life, and all of creation.

    To build such a nonviolent culture we need first to move away from dependence upon threat and use of killing force for security, and by that I mean armies and all imitations of armies. Second we must stop using our economic resources for the unholy alliance of arms dealers and warmongers. Currently there are over 20 million people under arms, and an annual military budget of one trillion dollars a year. According to one United Nations report, an investment of less than a fourth of the world’s collective annual expenditure on arms, would be enough to solve the major economic and environmental problems facing humanity. If this is true, and I believe that it is, isn’t it a crime against humanity that those who exercise power in our world continue to pour billions of dollars into so-called security enriching the arms dealers in the process, while neglecting the children who are dying every day of poverty and disease. Ending the military/industrial corporations stranglehold on many Governments’ policies, and introducing policies which meet the basic needs of the people would help remove many of the root causes of violence. We know what to do, but what is lacking is the will of economic and political leaders, who continue their policies to feed the death culture of war, nuclear weapons and arms. This then is just not a political, economic, and socio-cultural crisis but a deeply spiritual and moral one.

    The Human family is moving away from the violent mindset, and increasingly violence, war, armed struggles, violent revolutions, are no longer romanticed, glorified, or culturally accepted as ways of solving our problems. As a pacifist I believe that violence is never justified, and there are always alternatives to force and threat of force. We should challenge the society that tells us there is no alternative to violence. In all areas of our life we can adopt nonviolence, in our lifestyles, our education, our commence, our defense, our governance. Also the Political scientists and academics could help this cultural change by teaching nonviolence as a serious political science, and help too in the further development of effective nonviolence to bring about social and political change. Also by implementing the UN Decade for a Culture of Peace and nonviolence for the Children of the World, (2001-2010) and teaching it in educational establishments, can help evolve this new culture.

    Nonviolence is an ideal that has seldom been explored. But it is not an impossible ideal. History is littered with examples of nonviolent resistance, many of them successful. Gandhi and King successfully used nonviolence for human rights issues; Italy’s own St. Francis, a Mystic/Ecologist/Environmentalist, is a model to us of how to apply a holistic approach to living nonviolently, especially in a world where climate change is one of the greatest challenges to humanity’s future. Abdul Khaffer Khan, a great Muslim leader, demonstrated the power of courageous Islamic nonviolence through the unarmed Servants of God army and parallel government to liberate the Pathan people from British colonial rule in India’s North-West Frontier Province (now in Pakistan). Their example deserves to be known widely throughout the world (2).

    All Faith traditions can play a role in building this new culture, as each have their own prophets of nonviolence. They can teach the Golden Rule of ‘Do unto others as you would have them do to you’ and also to ‘love your enemies’, which, I believe, is necessary for humanity’s survival in this age of military madness. I speak from my own faith tradition which is Christian. I myself came into pacifism and nonviolence in the early l97O’s. Facing State Violence I asked myself ‘As a Christian can I ever use violence”? I studied and rejected the ‘Just War’ theory and went to the cross where Jesus’ message of love your enemies, do not kill, is most clearly shown. I also agree with the American theologian, the late Fr McKenzie, who said ‘You cannot read the gospels and not know Jesus was totally nonviolent.’ He also described the Just War theory as a phony piece of morality. How tragic, in light of Jesus’ example, to know that the American Catholic Hierarchy, with a couple of honorable exceptions, have blessed yet again Catholics going to participate in an unjust, immoral and illegal war, in Iraq, thus ignoring their own Pope’s guidance on this matter. But, I believe, until the Christian Churches resurrect from their longstanding moral malaise of blessing, ambiguity, or consent-bestowing silence, on violence, militarism, and war, and gives Spiritual guidance by abolishing the Just War theory, and developing a theology more in keeping with the nonviolence of Jesus, it behooves those of us who are Christian, and those who follow other spiritual paths, or none, to follow our own conscience in such matters.

    As world citizens working together in solidarity we can abolish nuclear weapons and war, demilitarize the World, build neutral and nonaligned countries, develop unarmed policing and nonmilitary forms of self-defense. We can establish or strengthen nonviolent institutions, such as: Global Nonkilling Spiritual Council: Global Nonkilling Security Council: Global Nonkilling Nonmilitary self-defense Security, such as the Nonviolent Peaceforce: Global Nonkilling Leadership Academies: Global Nonkilling Trusteeship Fund: Ministries of Peace by National Governments: (2) (All of these proposed nonviolent institutions are described at as addendum to this paper).

    To build a nonviolent culture will also mean changing Patriarchal and Hierarchical systems which are unjust and under which women, suffer from oppressive structures and institutions. It will mean in particular challenging violence and injustice in our own societies and extending our support to all humans who suffer injustice everywhere. To people who are suffering torture, the imates in Guantanamo and other such Guantanamos in whatever country, and supporting whistleblowers like Mordechai Vanunu who continues to suffer for telling the truth. It will not be easy but it is necessary, and it is possible together, in our interconnected, interdependent human family, to build a new world civilization with a nonviolent heart.

    Peace and happiness to you all,

    Mairead Corrigan Maguire (www.peacepeople.com)

    Note l: “Nonkilling Global Political Science” (Xlibris 2002) by Prof. Glenn D. Paige (Freely posted on web at www.globalnonviolence.org). It is being translated into 24 languages. Former Indian Prime Minister I.K. Gujral has advised, “This book should be read in every political science department and by the public”. In his introduction to the Russian edition, Prof. William Smirnov, Vice-President of the Russian Political Science Association and the International Political Science Association has written: “The basic idea in this unique book can and should become the basis of common values for humanity in the 2lst century as well as a programme for their realization”.

    Note 2. The Pathan Unarmed (Oxford University Press 2000) by Dr. Mukulika, Banerjee.

    Details of nonviolent institutions:

    Global Nonkilling Spiritual Council: Composed of men and women elected to represent faiths and philosophies committed to principled nonkilling. Serves as a continuing body to counsel the United Nations, governments, other institutions, and world citizens.

    Global Nonkilling Security Council. Composed of persons elected among distinguished contributors to the theory, strategy, tactics, and practice of nonkilling domestic and transnational defense. Serves as a continuing source of nonviolent security alternatives for consideration by all parties in potential or actual deadly conflicts that threaten physical, economic and ecological well-being.

    Global Nonkilling Service: Composed of locally rooted professional and volunteer workers in every country, trained in nonmilitary skills of security, conflict transformation, constructive service, and humanitarian and disaster relief. Builds upon nonviolent military and nongovernmental experience such as the Gandhi and Shanti Sena and the Nonviolent Peaceforce.

    Global Nonkilling Leadership Academies: Prepares local and transnational leaders, partly by biographical studies, to take nonkilling initiatives in response to the interdependent human needs for security, economic well-being, dignity, ecological sustainability and problem solving co-operation. Seeks to build mutually strengthening relationships based upon the nonkilling principles in co operation with the United Nations University Japan, the UNU International Leadership Academy in Jordan, the University of Peace in Costa Rica, and other peace-seeking educational and training institutions.

    Global Nonkilling Trusteeship Fund: Established in the Gandhian tradition of mutual trusteeship for the well-being of all, honors pioneers of nonkilling service to humanity, throughout the world. Collects voluntary and service contributions to support implementing institutions. Management board to be composed equally between representatives of the most and least wealthy global citizens.

     

    Mairead Corrigan Maguire received the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize and the 1991 Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. She recently participated in the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2006 International Law Symposium, “At the Nuclear Precipice: Nuclear Weapons and the Abandonment of International Law.”