|
On the death of the 500th American soldier in Iraq
|
Blog
-
Yet Another Farewell
-
Bush Plays with Fire: Launching a Dangerous Space Policy
George W. Bush is playing with fire. He is expected to soon make a major space policy announcement that could include a return mission to the moon, the establishment of permanent bases on the moon, and an aggressive program to take humans to Mars. Estimates for these space projects range from $50 – $150 billion. That is of course before cost overruns set in.
In order to make the trip to Mars feasible (the normal year-long trip would take a toll on any human being because of space radiation) Bush is expected to commit to using a nuclear rocket – what is now known as “Project Prometheus,” named after the God of Fire. The nuclear rocket would cut in half the amount of time it would take to get to Mars, and would have military applications as well. The Bush administration a year ago announced the Nuclear Systems Initiative, a $3 billion research and development effort to expand the number of launches of deadly nuclear powered systems into space.
NUCLEAR DANGERS
One scientist who has publicly expressed grave concern about the Nuclear Systems Initiative is Dr. Michio Kaku, Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics at the CUNY Graduate Center. According to Dr. Kaku, “The exploration of outer space is indeed one of humanity’s great adventures. Perhaps one of the greatest risks facing this ambitious program is the use of dangerous, unproven technologies which could backfire, eroding public confidence in the space program.”
“One such dangerous technology is the nuclear rocket, which is nowseriously being reconsidered after being rightly rejected for the past several decades. The recent disaster involving the Columbia shuttle crew was bad enough. If it had contained a nuclear rocket, it would have been the death blow to the space program. Having radioactive uranium reactor parts sprayed over Texas and much of the southwest would have doomed the entire space program. The nuclear booster rocket has gone through many stages of development in the past, and all of them have been cancelled with good cause.”
WHY THE MOON?
The U.S. never signed the 1979 Moon Treaty that was created at the United Nations to prevent a rush of land claims and military bases on the planetary body. In fact, in a 1959 U.S. Army study entitled “The Establishment of a Lunar Outpost” the once secret plan stated that “The lunar outpost is required to develop and protect potential U.S. interests on the moon; to develop techniques in moon-based surveillance of the earth and space…to serve as a base for exploration of the moon, for further exploration into space and for military operations on the moon if required.” The Army study went on to conclude that with U.S. bases on the moon the U.S. could “extend and improve space reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities and control of space.”
Scientists have discovered valuable resources on the moon including helium 3, a fuel that is seen as a replacement for the dwindling supply of fossil fuels back here on Earth. In a New York Times op-ed, written by science writer Lawrence Joseph in 1995, he says that “If we ignore the potentialof this remarkable fuel; the nation could slip behind in the race for control of the global economy, and our destiny beyond.” In the piece Joseph asks, “Will the moon become the Persian Gulf of the 21st Century?”
Again in a New York Times op-ed piece called “A New Pathway to the Stars,”space writer Timothy Ferris wrote on December 21, 2003 that “Another possible energy source of the future – nuclear fusion reactors burning clean, safe helium 3 – has its own lunar connection. Helium 3, rare on Earth, is abundant on the moon. When fusion reactors start coming on line, lunar entrepreneurs may stand to make the kind of money their predecessors raked in during the gold rush and the oil boom.”
Harrison Schmitt, the former Apollo astronaut who also served a term as U.S. Senator from New Mexico, is not ignoring the issue. In an op-ed published in the aerospace industry publication Space News entitled, “The Moon Treaty: Not a Wise Idea,” Schmitt stated “The mandate of an international treaty regime would complicate private commercial efforts >and give other countries political control over the permissibility, timing and management of all private commercial activities…The strong prohibition on ownership of ‘natural resources’ also causes worry.”
The ideas of U.S. control of the moon have interesting origins. In the book Arming the Heavens: The Hidden Military Agenda for Space, author Jack Manno told the story of former Nazi Maj. Gen. Walter Dornberger (the man who recruited Werner Von Braun to come to work for Hitler to build the V-1 and V-2 rockets.)
After the end of World War II the U.S. military recruited Von Braun and 1,500 other Nazi scientists to come to the U.S. under the top secret Operation Paper Clip. Von Braun, along with Dornberger and 100 others from the German rocket team, were brought to create the U.S. space program at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Dornberger eventually became a Bell Aviation Corporation Vice-President and helped the company make enormous profit building helicopters for the war effort in Vietnam.
Before a congressional hearing in 1958, Dornberger insisted that America’s top space priority out to be to “conquer, occupy, keep and utilize space between the Earth and the moon.”
Interestingly enough this same theme reemerged in a 1989 study written forthe U.S. Congress by John Collins. The study, published in book form was called Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years and the forward to the book was signed by seven leading political leaders at the time including Sen. John Glenn (D-OH) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL).
Congressional staffer Collins reported that the U.S. would need to have military bases on the moon in order to control the pathway, or “gravity well,” between the Earth and moon. “Military space forces at the bottom of Earth’s so-called gravity well are poorly positioned to accomplish offensive/defensive/deterrent missions, because great energy is needed to overcome gravity during launch. Forces at the top, on a space counterpart of ‘high ground,’ could initiate action and detect, identify, track, intercept, or otherwise respond more rapidly to attacks.” Collins went on to conclude that with U.S. bases on the moon, “Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return.” Obviously the author was envisioning the day when aerospace corporations would be hard >at work “mining the sky” for profit.
NO COMEPTITORS IN SPACE
The Bush administration and his aerospace allies have been in a state of despair ever since China launched her first man into space in 2003. China has also publicly proclaimed that they hope to send a man to the moon in the near future. Imagine if some other nation, besides the U.S., was able to set up bases and mining colonies on the moon or began mining gold from asteroids. This would never be allowed.
Within hours after Chinese “taikonaut” Yang Liwei made his historic venture into space, the U.S. military was warning of severe consequences. Speaking at a space conference, Lt. Gen. Edward Anderson, deputy Commander of U.S. Northern Command, told the assembled that, “In my view it will not be long before space becomes a battleground.”
Speaking at the same conference, Rich Haver, Vice-President for intelligence strategy at Northrup Grumman Corporation, responding to a question about the implications of China’s space voyage said, “I think the Chinese are telling us they’re there, and I think if we ever wind up in a confrontation again with any one of the major powers who has a space capability we will find space is a battleground.”
STAKES ARE TOO HIGH
The prospects for eventual profit and control of the new space frontier are too high to be left to chance. Clearly, since the end of World War II, the U.S. military has been planning and is now vigorously developing space technologies that will give them control of the pathways on and off the planet Earth.
Just as the Spanish Armada and British Navy were created to protect the “interests and investments” in the new world, space is viewed today as open territory to be seized for eventual corporate profit.
The United Nations, to their credit, created the Moon Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty as ways to circumvent the warlike tendencies of humankind as we step out into the cosmos. These treaties hoped to ensure that conflict over “national appropriation” of the planetary bodies could be avoided. Maybe for once earthlings could join hands as we launched into space and explored the heavens for the good of all humankind.
The U.S. appears to be heading in the direction of creating enormous danger and conflict with the current Nuclear Systems Initiative that will expand nuclear power and weapons into space – all disguised as the noble effort to hunt for the “origins of life” in space. Only a lively and growing global debate about the ethics and morality of current space policy will save us from lighting the harsh fires of Prometheus in the heavens.
*Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.
-
Toward Nuclear Abolition: A Book Review
This is the third volume of an epic work. The first two One World or None and Resisting the Bomb covered antinuclear activity worldwide up to 1970. Now, the detailed, fascinating pages of Toward Nuclear Abolition take us almost up to the present day. The scholarship is clear. There are nearly 100 pages of references at the end, as well as a bibliography, an index, and an explanation of abbreviations. . . .
Every group should buy at least a paperback copy and circulate it among their members. It should also be put on the “please buy” hardback list at all local libraries. We need to take the long view of our work, and we need our share of encouragement. This substantial volume provides both.
For starters, have a look at the sixteen photographs in the middle of the book. They start with the Seabrook protests of 1977 and continue with a wonderful picture of the New Zealand Peace Squadron obstructing a US nuclear submarine. Then comes the Venerable Nichidatsu Fujii and fellow Buddhists, at the first 1978 UN Special Session on Disarmament. . . . Mary Kaldor of END, Randall Forsberg of the US Freeze campaign, and the leaders of the Moscow Trust group, as it was in the 1980s, are all there. So are Edward Thompson and Helen Caldicott, passionate in front of their microphones. . . .
The book is a realistic, detailed account of the immense activity undertaken by tens of thousands of ordinary people worldwide, which over the years has had a significant effect on the policies of politicians. The unilateral Gorbachev pause on nuclear testing, the World Court ruling of 1996, and the Canberra Commission Report did not come out of thin air. They were all the result of hard work. That citizens’ campaigns actually matter is the overall message of the book. Says the author: “Recounting the history of nuclear arms control and disarmament without referring to the antinuclear movement, is like telling the story of civil rights legislation without referring to the civil rights movement.” . . .
In a concluding and optimistic chapter, he gives his own ideas about future progress at a time when the current Washington regime seems bent on tearing up every nuclear arms control agreement that it can get its hands on. The author asks if the people of the world are “ready for the new thinking about international relations necessitated by the nuclear age”? His answer is yes. “Another world is possible” is the theme of current anti-globalization campaigns. So too is a more intelligent and a more moral approach to international security, and that is the direction in which our efforts are moving us.
*Bruce Kent is vice president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
The Struggle Against the Bomb Volume 3, Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971 to the Present by Lawrence S. Wittner, Stanford University Press, 2003, 657 pp., illustrated. Paperback, $32.95. Cloth, $75.00.
-
Imagining Martin Luther King, Jr. At 75: A Day For Reflection
Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been 75 years old today had he lived to grow older. At 75, he certainly would have been a wise man. He was already wise well beyond his years at 39 when he was assassinated. How valuable it would have been for our country and the world to have had him here to speak and take action on the issues of the day.
Above all else, Dr. King was a man of justice and peace. One can imagine how, were he able to see us today, he would have recoiled at the increasing gap between rich and poor in our country and the world; at the tax cuts for the rich and the deceptions by political leaders to achieve them; at the abuses of corporate leaders who cheated both their shareholders and their employees; and, most of all, at the lies of political leaders to take the country to war yet again.
He certainly would have remembered the Vietnam War that he spoke out against so eloquently, and he would have been struck by the similarities between that war and the war in Iraq. He would have been deeply saddened to see that America had built its military on the backs of the poor, and that US soldiers were still coming home in body bags.
Dr. King’s 75th birthday is a time for reflection about who we are as a people and who we want to be. It is a time to strengthen our resolve to work, as he did, for justice, peace and human dignity. It is a time to strengthen our resolve to create a just and decent country that upholds civil and human rights for all. It is a time to recognize our responsibilities to lead by example, not by force. It is a time to work to end the double standards of “do as I say, not as I do” policies that shame our country and tarnish it in the eyes of the world.
What would he have said about our Congress giving away its Constitutional authority to make war to the President? What would he have said about the President leading the country to war against Iraq illegally and without the approval of the United Nations Security Council?
What would he have said about our continued reliance on nuclear weapons long after the end of the Cold War, and our plans to conduct research on mini-nukes and “bunker-busting” nuclear weapons? What would he have said about the allocation of nearly half of our discretionary income as a society to prepare for and engage in war? What would he have said about our lack of universal health care, the breakdown of our educational system and the growing number of homeless in the streets?
Dr. King is not here to speak out and take action, but I can imagine that he would have been angered and deeply saddened by the state of our country and the world. He likely would have been disgusted by the poor quality of leadership and the continued prevalence of greed in our nation. He would have wanted us to do more and give more of ourselves. He would have called upon us to strengthen our efforts to build a peaceful and just world. Although he is not here to inspire us, that should not stop us from hearing the echoes of his deep, resonant voice. Although he is not here to lead, that should not stop us from acting.
The best birthday present we could give to Martin Luther King, Jr. is our commitment to his dream the dream of a more just and decent America, a country that could lead in justice and decency rather than military expenditures and number of billionaires. Remembering him helps us to realize how far we have strayed from our course and far we have to go.
YOU ARE NOT ONE BUT MANY
Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr.
Your deep voice still hangs in the air,
Melting the cowardly silence.
You are the one standing solidly there
Looking straight in the face of violence.You are the one who dreams
That this nation will honor its creed.
You are the one who steps forward.
You are the one to bleed.You are not one but many
Unwilling to cower or crawl.
You are the one who will take no less
Than a world that is just for all.David Krieger
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is the co-author of Choose Hope: Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age and Peace: 100 Ideas. For more information on Martin Luther King’s 75th birthday click here.
-
A Symposium on Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: The Challenge of Prevention and Enforcement
Convened by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Simons Centre
for Peace and Disarmament Studies, December 5-6, 2003On 5-6 December 2003, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament Studies convened a symposium entitled “Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: The Challenge of Prevention and Enforcement,” enabling constructive dialogue among academics and leaders of civil society organizations about the role of the United Nations in enforcing measures to protect civilians from genocide and other gross violations of human rights.
Keynote speaker Lloyd Axworthy, Director and CEO of the Liu Institute for Global Studies at the University of British Columbia and former Foreign Minister of Canada (1995-2000), was joined by Richard Falk, professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University and Chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and a range of panelists with varying backgrounds in peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. The resulting discussions were constructive and cutting edge as the participants shared their ideas on how to engage the UN in facing the challenges posed by humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect civilians from avoidable catastrophe.
The Politics of Intervention
On 5 December, Richard Falk set the tone with his address entitled: “The Politics of Prevention and Enforcement in a Time of Mega-Terrorism” during the public morning session. Professor Falk spoke of the need to learn from past experiences such as Rwanda, East Timor and Kosovo. He then proceeded to describe the present context of intervention as shaped by the selective response of leading states (primarily the US) to humanitarian crises that reflect their political and strategic interests. In order for the international community to effectively and reliably prevent and protect civilians from genocide and crimes against humanity, Falk identified the need for the UN to detach considerations of humanitarian intervention from geo-politics and state interests.
In highlighting the degree to which state sovereignty can insulate a government from external accountability for human right violations within its national borders, Falk also addressed the need for the UN Security Council to resolve the tension between the protection of human rights and respect for state sovereignty.
Falk ended his initial remarks by encouraging the resumption of efforts by the global justice movement during the 1990s prior to 9/11. Under the pretext of the “war against terrorism,” the US has imposed its global security interests on the rest of the world, resulting in unilateral action without the consent of the international community. In order to overcome this, Falk called for the establishment of a “necessary and desirable” long-term vision by the global justice community.
Saul Mendlovitz, co-founder of Global Action to Prevent War, commented on Falk’s remarks by drawing a parallel between the challenges addressed by the symposium and South Africa’s success in abolishing both the apartheid and nuclear weapons, which illustrated the ability of the global social justice movement to influence normative shift in social paradigms. Similarly, the establishment of the Ottawa Landmine Treaty and the International Criminal Court were achieved over time through successful cooperation within the global civil society. Mendlovitz concluded by recognizing the current state of the political climate as timely for mobilizing the global justice movement to develop standing forces to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity.
Options for a Prevention and Enforcement ForcePeter Langille, Senior Research Associate and Human Security Fellow at the Center for Global Studies, University of Victoria, discussed “Options for a United Nations Prevention and Enforcement Force.” Langille provided a historical review of lessons learned from previous attempts and diverse proposals to develop a dedicated UN mechanism for diverse peace operations. He supported the need for the UN to develop a suitable mechanism for securing present and future generations from genocide and crimes against humanity. In the event of a crisis, Langille highlighted the need for the immediate deployment of a UN emergency service. This would serve to prevent further atrocities during the four to six months when the UN encounters difficulties deploying multinational contingents.
Langille shared his thoughts on workable rapid deployment proposals. First, he argued for a multi-dimensional and multi-functional capability, including military, police and civilian services. This sophisticated and comprehensive approach would provide a combination of promising incentives and disincentives to deter violence and promote peace. Langille’s second argument was that any new UN emergency service should not be confined solely to preventing genocide and crimes against humanity, to attract wider support it should also be able to promptly manage diverse assigned tasks in preventing armed conflict, protecting civilians and providing robust peace operations, including those that entail modest enforcement. Third, Langille warned against the failures of overly ambitious proposals in the past, calling instead for a more focused approach.
Langille also discussed the current efforts of the multinational ‘Stand-by’ Readiness Brigade. (SHIRBRIG), and called for the establishment of a “UN Emergency Service,” consisting of independently recruited volunteers comprised of 13,200 individuals, a static headquarters, and two mobile units.
Commenting on Langille’s proposal, Professor Robert Johansen, Senior Fellow and Professor of Political Science at the Kroc Center at Notre Dame University, reminded the audience that positive institutional changes occurred slowly throughout history. He cited the normative shift on racial discrimination and equality, which occurred during the period between the drafting of the charters by the League of Nations after World War I and the UN after World War II. Furthermore, Johansen remarked on the reluctance of many governments to embrace past proposals due to issues related to costs, intervention and control over the UN. In order to overcome this reluctance, Johansen proposed an initial capability with limited intervention powers, a narrow political agenda and uncontroversial laws. Johansen stated that Langille’s proposal was the most sophisticated to date. He left the audience with several questions to ponder: Should the proposal address terrorists? What is the potential for the abuse of power of a UN Force?
The Responsibility to ProtectIn his keynote address, Lloyd Axworthy spoke of his involvement in “The Responsibility to Protect: A Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.”
In addressing the challenges of humanitarian intervention, the report wrestled with issues concerning state sovereignty, the duty to protect civilians against human rights violations and the current opposition to providing the UN with the autonomy and resources to act in the interest of preventing genocide and crimes against humanity.In its recommendations, the report proposed to establish the principle of humanitarian intervention on the basis of international law and to redefine state sovereignty through its right to national security and defense as well as its responsibility to protect its civilians. The failure of any state in fulfilling its obligations to protect its citizens would trigger international action for intervention. The decision to intervene should not rely on decisions from elite states but should instead be based on established procedures that determine whether the violation of human rights would justify intervention. With the primary objective of preventing and stopping genocide and crimes against humanity, humanitarian intervention should, therefore, not necessarily include regime change and/or winning a war.
In recognizing the failure of current efforts in protecting civilian security, Axworthy spoke of the need to reestablish the integrity of the international community and to reform the UN and its decision making procedures in the Security Council. This can be achieved by enabling progressive voices to formulate, disseminate and elaborate an effective prescription to generate global public support, as well as by empowering the younger generation with the ability to bring the issue to the fore of the international arena.
Global or Regional?Bill Pace, Executive Director of the World Federalist Movement, discussed the “Next Steps in Creating a UN Prevention and Enforcement Force.” Pace identified governments as the weakest link in the responsibility to protect civilians due to their reluctance to respond to circumstances with potential political and strategic risks. At the regional level, however, alliances such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and SHIRBRIG have proved their ability to move forward by establishing rapid deployment forces, yet lack the ability to adequately train and equip their troops.
Pace therefore suggested a “three-legged” approach for effective protection action, in which the UN, a regional organization and, more controversially, the US or another leading power are involved in creating a robust force. Furthermore, Pace reiterated the importance of terminology and issue framing in order to minimize opportunities for criticism from opponents of the project. In advocating for the shift of present discussions from “the right to intervene” to the “responsibility to protect,” Pace supported the expansion of constituencies of peace organizations to effectively tackle the issue.
Don Kraus, Executive Director of the Campaign for UN Reform, commented on Pace’s discussion on political viability by focusing on the need to counteract US resistance to the proposal. He emphasized the need to replace the idea of preemption with that of prevention and protection. Furthermore, Kraus recommended the empowerment of the UN through increasing its role in post-conflict reconstruction and shifting its current zero financial growth to a policy of sound fiscal management. Kraus agreed with Pace on the necessity to reach out to new constituencies, and identified the need to frame the issue as attractive to the media.
Next StepsThe participants proceeded to discuss ways forward during the working sessions following the symposium. Throughout the afternoon portion of December 5, the participants discussed preferred models for UN prevention and enforcement. Langille’s second presentation elaborated on the current status of the Brahimi report, the expansion of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the UN Standby Arrangements System, the SHIRBRIG and the related, recent efforts to enhance rapid deployment. Kraus spoke about HR1414, the International Rule of Law and Anti-Terrorism Act of 2003. This bill calls on the US to support negotiations on creating a UN Civilian Police Corps. Mendlovitz proposed a UN Constabulary Force as part of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Based on the Rome Statute of the ICC, Mendlovitz envisions a standing force to intervene in the event of genocide or crimes against humanity. James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum, provided his perspective on the role of the Security Council in moving forward.
On December 6, the participants extended their discussion of preferred models for a UN force to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. The scope and responsibilities of a potential UN force was discussed, and a consensus on a working title, a UN Emergency Peace Service, was reached.
Following this, the working group deliberated on contents for a draft proposal, agreeing to use and adapt material from “The Responsibility to Protect”; “Building the Commitment-Capacity Gap”; as well as the Brahimi Report. A drafting committee was established to prepare a proposal and participants proceeded to consider logistical measures to enable an effective Emergency Service under UN auspices.
The working session ended on a high note, as participants collectively brainstormed ways to promote the Emergency Service, making initial arrangements for future steps to be taken. Proposals included the establishment of an international coalition of civil society organizations, encouraging an annual meeting with DPKO, and approaching sympathetic governments to play an active role.
For further information, contact Justine Wang, Research and Advocacy Coordinator, at advocacy@napf.org. -
The Human Right to Peace: A Book Review
For those concerned about the issues of peace and our prospects for survival, Douglas Roche provides a very compelling case for re-considering conventional wisdom and the prevailing security system. At the outset, Senator Roche writes that, “the world faces no greater challenge today than the challenge to end its relentless march to war”. (p.11) He argues that a combination of innovative thinking, educational work and action will be needed to help humanity replace the current culture of war with a culture of peace. Peace, he asserts, is a commonly shared ‘sacred right’, albeit one that ‘we the peoples’ have yet to secure and one that will require the ongoing, concerted efforts of civil society.
This book is a very powerful challenge to the proponents of militarism, nuclear weapons and the notion that violence is an inevitable way of life. He elaborates upon the ‘culture of war’, supported by the ascendance of a powerful military-industrial-scientific complex, with enormous wealth and privilege accorded to a small minority who exploit fundamentalist, simplistic yearnings for quick, violent responses. He notes that the purported ‘clash of civilizations’ is better explained as a ‘clash of extremists’, waged primarily between those who now prompt fears of an enemy to sustain their control. His case, buttressed by an overview of the attendant risks, will be difficult for critics to dispute. Once again, we are on a very dangerous trajectory; one that jeopardizes our fragile planet; undermines the prospects of those who struggle to meet their basic needs; and, one that no country can afford to sustain.
Yet, rather than another message of despair, this author provides hope for wider human security and moving on to a ‘culture of peace’ with a promising sequence of alternatives. Through creative, patient efforts, there is the prospect of empowering the United Nations to effectively maintain peace and security. By recognizing the commonality of all religions, particularly the universally-shared principle that ‘we should do unto others as we would wish them to do to us’, we could reverse the recent propaganda driving ‘fear of others’ and begin to overcome an increasingly divided, heavily-armed world. With a serious commitment to peace education, directed at all levels, we could begin to appreciate the importance of conflict resolution, reconciliation, critical reflection, disarmament, non-violent options and our increasing interdependence.
Some may question whether this will diminish the credence of those media and ‘defence’-funded academics who have produced a catalogue of articles and ‘reports’, ‘crying wolf’ for more war-fighting systems and less, if any, arms control or UN peacekeeping. However, in one of the final sections of the book, Roche points to civil society as not only increasingly active, but also as an increasingly powerful entity, demanding a more humane, peaceful world. Diverse non-governmental organizations are mobilizing to influence the global agenda. Already, some have had a profound influence over the Treaty to Ban Anti-personnel Landmines and the new International Criminal Court. Of course, many governments will still attempt to oppose, discredit and co-opt their demands, but they will be increasingly difficult to ignore.
Roche correctly concedes that, “we have not yet reached sufficient maturity of civilization to enforce the right to peace.” (p. 230) A few may contend that it is simply a ‘wish dressed up as a fact’ when he claims that, “this situation will not prevail forever”. History can be used to bolster the case for continuity, with war and the latest weaponry as the recurring, if not preferred approach for advancing national objectives. Alternatively, the unprecedented pace of change, accompanied by the rise of a transnational civil society suggests it would be premature to dismiss the new circumstances underlying the author’s point. In his words, the strength of opposing governments,“… will give way to those who demand the right to peace, just as the forces of slavery, colonialism and apartheid gave way when the opposition became strong enough. That is why developing the elements of a culture of peace…is so important. A culture of peace will not only make the world a more humane place, it will lead inexorably to the acquisition of the human right to peace.” (p.230)
The Human Right to Peace is a very timely and relevant book that addresses many critical global issues – issues that will determine our future and those of succeeding generations.
Aside from the 1997 Carnegie Commission Report on the Prevention of Deadly Conflict and numerous, occasionally tedious, UN documents, there has been insufficient attention in any systematic study on the steps necessary to develop a ‘culture of peace’. In this respect, Roche has filled an enormous void in the available literature. This book was not written solely for a select, expert audience. It stands out for being a clear, concise, and easy read. It should be required reading for students, teachers, parents, activists, officials and, hopefully, politicians.*The Human Right to Peace, by Douglas Roche. Ottawa: Novalis, 2003. 261 pp, $24.95 paper (ISBN 2-89507-409-7) .
*H. Peter Langille, PhD, is Senior Research Associate & Human Security Fellow, Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria.
-
Ethics and Policy 4th Global Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates
Final Statement*
We are the first generation making decisions that will determine whether we will be the last generation. We have an ethical responsibility to future generations to ensure that we are not passing on a future of wars and ecological catastrophe. For policies to be in the interest of humanity, they must be based on ethical values.
We express our profound anxiety that current policies are not creating a sufficiently secure and stable world for all. For this reason, we need to reset our course based on strong ethical foundations.
Compassion and conscience are essential to our humanity and compel us to care for one another. Cooperation amongst nations, multilateralism, is the logical outgrowth of this principle. A more equitable international order based on the rule of law is its needed expression.
We reiterate our conviction that international politics need to be reformed to address effectively three critical challenges: ending wars and violence, eliminating poverty, and saving the environment.
We call upon everyone to join us in working to replace the culture of war with a culture of peace. Let us ensure that no child is ever again exposed to the horrors of war.
Recent events, such as the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, bloodshed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya, as well as in parts of Africa and Latin America, confirm that problems with deep economic, social, cultural or religious roots cannot be resolved unilaterally or by armed force.
International terrorism is a threat to peace. Multilateral cooperation and the promotion of human rights under the rule of law are essential to address terrorism and its underlying sources.
The threat of weapons of mass destruction remains with us. We call for an immediate end to the newly resurgent arms race, which is being fueled by a failure to universally ratify a treaty banning nuclear testing, and by doctrines that lower the threshold of use and promote the creation of new nuclear weapons. This is particularly dangerous when coupled with the doctrine of pre-emption.
For some to say that nuclear weapons are good for them but not for others is simply not sustainable. The failure of the nuclear weapons states to abide by their legal pledge to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons, contained in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, is the greatest stimulus to their proliferation.
Nuclear weapons are immoral and we call for their universal legal prohibition. They must be eliminated before they eliminate humanity.
We support the treaty to ban landmines and call for effective agreements to limit conventional weapons and arms trade.
Trillions of dollars have been spent since the end of the Cold War in developing military approaches to security. Yet, the daily lives of billions remain bereft of adequate health care, clean water, food and the benefits of education. These needs must be met.
Humanity has developed sophisticated technologies for destruction. Appropriate social and human technologies based on cooperation are needed for survival.
The international community has a proven tool, the universality of the United Nations. Its work can and must be improved and this can be done without undermining its core principles.
We assert that unconditional adherence to international law is essential. Of course, law is a living institution that can change and grow to meet new circumstances. But, the principles that govern international relations must not be ignored or violated.
Ethics in the relations between nations and in government policies is of paramount importance. Nations must treat other nations as they wish to be treated. The most powerful nations must remember that as they do, so shall others do.
Economic hardship is often the result of corruption and lack of business ethics, both internationally and locally.
Through utilizing more effective ethical codes of conduct the business community can contribute to protecting the environment and eliminating poverty. This is both a practical and moral necessity.
The scientific community could serve human interests more fully by affirmatively adopting the ethical principle of doing no harm.
The international community has recently recognized the importance of establishing an ethical framework. Leaders of States issued the Millennium Declaration at the United Nations and set forth common values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared responsibility. From these values, a plan to address sustainable development and poverty, the Millennium Development Goals, emerged. We urge all to join in implementation of these goals and prevent any retreat from specific commitments. Moreover, we share the principles of the Earth Charter and urge governments at all levels to support this important document.
For globalization to enhance sustainable development, the international community needs to establish more democratic, transparent, and accountable forms of governance. We advocate extending the benefits of democracy and self governance but this goal cannot be achieved through coercion or force.
After a special session, the Nobel Peace Prize Winners have agreed that the death penalty is a particularly cruel and unusual punishment that should be abolished. It is especially unconscionable when imposed on children.
We affirm the unity of the human family. Our diversity is an enrichment, not a danger. Through dialogue we gain appreciation of the value of our differences. Our capacity to work together as a community of peoples and nations is the strongest antidote to violence and our reason for hope.
Our commitment to serve the cause of peace compels us to continue working individually and together on this path. We urge you to join us.
*FInal Statement released November 30, 2003.
-
The Christmas Truce
On Christmas Day, 1914, in the first year of World War I, German, British, and French soldiers disobeyed their superiors and fraternized with “the enemy” along two-thirds of the Western Front. German troops held Christmas trees up out of the trenches with signs, “Merry Christmas.””You no shoot, we no shoot.” Thousands of troops streamed across a no-man’s land strewn with rotting corpses. They sang Christmas carols, exchanged photographs of loved ones back home, shared rations, played football, even roasted some pigs. Soldiers embraced men they had been trying to kill a few short hours before. They agreed to warn each other if the top brass forced them to fire their weapons, and to aim high.
A shudder ran through the high command on either side. Here was disaster in the making: soldiers declaring their brotherhood with each other and refusing to fight. Generals on both sides declared this spontaneous peacemaking to be treasonous and subject to court martial. By March, 1915 the fraternization movement had been eradicated and the killing machine put back in full operation. By the time of the armistice in 1918, fifteen million would be slaughtered. Not many people have heard the story of the Christmas Truce. Military leaders have not gone out of their way to publicize it. On Christmas Day, 1988, a story in the Boston Globe mentioned that a local FM radio host played “Christmas in the Trenches,” a ballad about the Christmas Truce, several times and was startled by the effect. The song became the most requested recording during the holidays in Boston on several FM stations. “Even more startling than the number of requests I get is the reaction to the ballad afterward by callers who hadn’t heard it before,” said the radiohost. “They telephone me deeply moved, sometimes in tears, asking, `What the hell did I just hear?’”
I think I know why the callers were in tears. The Christmas Truce story goes against most of what we have been taught about people. It gives us a glimpse of the world as we wish it could be and says, “This really happened once.” It reminds us of those thoughts we keep hidden away, out of range of the TV and newspaper stories that tell us how trivial and mean human life is. It is like hearing that our deepest wishes really are true: the world really could be different.
*Excerpted from David G. Stratman, We CAN Change the World: The Real Meaning of Everyday Life (New Democracy Books, 1991)
-
A Conspiracy of Decency
We will conspire to keep this blue dot floating and alive,
To keep the soldiers from gunning down the children,To make the water clean and clear and plentiful,
To put food on everybody’s table and hope in their hearts.We will conspire to find new ways to say
People matter. This conspiracy will be bold.Everyone in this conspiracy will dance
At wholly inappropriate times and places.They will burst out singing non-patriotic songs.
Anyone can join this conspiracy, anyone.It will be a conspiracy of, by and for the people
And the not-so-secret password will be Peace.* David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation(www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003).
-
What To Do With Saddam Hussein Now
The apprehension and arrest of Sadism Hussein, the former President of Iraq, offers new opportunities to advance the rule of law. Vengeance begets vengeance. As was demonstrated at Nuremberg after World war Two, even the vilest criminal deserves a fair trial. The world legal order is gradually moving toward a tribunal competent to try all international criminals but, unfortunately, we are not yet there. What should be done now? Let us consider certain basic principles that should be respected.
The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power range from the supreme international crime of aggression, to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, and a long list of atrocities condemned by both international and national laws. It may be anticipated that the accused, will maintain his innocence and will try to justify all of his actions as being lawful and necessary in the national interest. He will seek to implicate the United States and its allies. References to the Deity will be asserted to gain support of his follower at home and abroad.
A fair trial would achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced.
The existing temporary tribunals created by the United Nations Security Council to cope with the genocide and atrocities committed in Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the early 1990s (to the everlasting shame of the world community) have very restricted temporal and territorial jurisdictions. Iraq is beyond their legal reach. A new interim Security Council court is conceivable but unlikely to be able to overcome political obstacles quickly. The new permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, faced with misguided opposition by the United States, lacks jurisdiction over crimes committed before July 2002. It cannot intervene in Iraq.
Perhaps the most tempting, but probably the worst, alternative would be for the United States to subject its captive to summary judgment and prompt execution by a military court. It would make a martyr of the criminal whose loyal supporters would likely be enraged to increase assaults on Americans wherever possible. The Nuremberg Principles, which honored the US and the rule of law, would be undermined.
The best hope for a speedy trial seems to lie with the Coalition Provisional Authority which on December 10, 2003, a few days before Saddam Hussein’s capture, issued a “Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal.” Here too, certain cautions are in order. A fundamental principle of the ICC, already set up in the Hague but not yet operational, makes clear that the nation state of the accused shall always be given priority if it is able and willing to provide a fair trial. The wording of the Iraqi statute calls for war crimes trials run completely by Iraqis but also allows the use of non-Iraqi judges if the Governing Council deems it necessary. It should be possible for expert help to be recruited not merely as judges but also to assist the prosecution, defense and administration so that it is obvious to all that trials and judgment will be fair in every way.
Following the Nuremberg precedent, the first trial should include leading accomplices either in custody or in absentia. Speed is important but the proceedings must be carefully prepared and time limits set on both prosecution and defense to present their case. Not every crime need be included in the indictment. There will be enough evidence readily on hand to justify any sentence. Trials of lesser offenders can follow.
Whether a remorseless mass killer should be sentenced to death is a difficult question. There can never be a balance between the lives of a few mass murderers and the lives of their countless victims. Humanitarian law has moved away from imposing death as a penalty. It should be left to Iraqi judges to decide what is most appropriate to bring peace and reconciliation to their war-ravaged country.
*Benjamin B. Ferencz was a U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg. He is a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council. His web site is www.benferencz.org.