Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • The World After 9/11

    If anything the horrid events of 9/11 have accentuated the religious divisions around the world giving one side the license to regard the other side as a “terrorist” and use repressive means to suppress and oppress the minority.

    Since the “terrorists” in the WTC event happened to be Muslims and the United States is a Christian country the conclusion is that the attack is religiously motivated – and that this is a war between Muslims and Christians.

    I don’t think the United States was attacked because it is a Christian country. Given the circumstances that exist in the United States today and its relationships with the world, the US would have been attacked even if it were a predominantly non-Christian country by a non-Muslim group of “terrorists.” We have become so embroiled in the religious fervor that we have overlooked the non-religious aspects of this conflict. The fact is the attack was motivated more by our selfish relationships rather than religious commitment.

    Our volatile reaction to the World Trade Center tragedy has had several consequences: First, we jumped to the conclusion that this is a religious war; second, it has given many countries the right to brand all disaffected groups in their countries as “terrorists”; third, to look at all Muslims as potential terrorists and, fourth, it has given the world the right to use repressive and violent methods to eliminate “terrorists” within their borders.

    Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Ariel Sharon, used the same language as President Bush to justify the action he is now taking against the Palestinians and President Bush, more recently and rather thoughtlessly, condemned the Palestinian “sacrificial” bombing as motivated by Muslim religion. The fact is the Palestinian young people are not sacrificing their lives simply because their religion tells them to nor, as the American media will have us believe, are they sacrificing their lives because they are told they will enjoy luxuries and sex with beautiful women in heaven. If that is the motivation one may ask why are Muslims in so many other countries of the world with grievances not sacrificing their lives for the same purpose?

    The US response to the events of 9/11 was motivated by anger. It was natural for the nation to feel anger but it was not right for the nation, as it is not right for individuals, to respond in a moment of madness. When a nation or an individual acts in a moment of madness it is always violent with violent repercussions.

    I am often asked how would Gandhi react to the events of 9/11? There is a parallel in Indian history, which is very relevant. On April 19, 1919 , soon after Mohandas K. Gandhi, my grandfather, launched a peaceful, nonviolent struggle against British repression, the British Military Governor of the northern state of Punjab declared martial law, severely curtailing the rights of citizens. In fact his law demanded that Indian citizens crawl on their stomachs every time they passed a British citizen on the streets or a British owned establishment. If one dared to disobey the order one would be publicly flogged, even to death.

    The citizens of Punjab , inspired by grandfather’s teachings of nonviolent action, peacefully protested. Ten thousand men, women and children responded to the call and assembled in the Jullianwala Garden in the heart of the city. The crowd stood peacefully listening to their leaders speak about nonviolent civil action against repression. General Dyer, the British Military Governor of Punjab , was incensed by what he considered a flagrant disregard for British authority. He assembled his troops, marched to the garden, surrounded the people and ordered the troops to open fire. In a matter of minutes hundreds of men, women and children lay dead and several thousand were grievously injured. The troops stopped firing only when they ran out of ammunition. General Dyer did not allow anyone to take care of the wounded and the dying. He said later he wanted to teach the Indians a lesson.

    When the news of this mindless tragedy spread in the country the Indians were as enraged as the Americans were after September 11. If their anger was allowed to be expressed the Indians could have massacred every British person in India because in 1919 the Indians outnumbered the British 4000 to 1. This is when grandfather intervened to turn the Indian anger into positive nonviolent action for peace. Grandfather realized he had to liberate the British from their own imperialism as much as liberate the Indians. With words of wisdom and moral leadership he turned the memory of the massacre into nonviolent power for constructive action.

    Obviously, we in the United States lacked the words of wisdom and moral leadership to help us deal with the anger of September 11. Our anger was fanned into flames so that we are now embroiled in a “war on terrorism,” a war that we cannot win, because terrorists are scattered all over the world and are difficult to identify. There are terrorists in the United States as well.

    This worldwide witch-hunt for terrorists will lead to more violence that could make the 20th century look peaceful. Israel has already branded all Palestinians as “terrorists” and has launched a campaign to eliminate them. The fundamentalists in India have begun to look at local Muslims as “terrorists” and are building a case for harsher treatment. If the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was savage and unlawful then this “lawful” ethnic cleansing is no better.

    I have often been asked what would I do if I was President of the United States and, unfortunately, it is precisely because of what I would do that I would never be elected President of the United States . I would have spoken to the nation and calmed the people with words of wisdom. I would have gone to the United Nations as an equal member and sought world sympathy and support to deal with “terrorists” in a humane way through dialogue rather than hunting them down. I would definitely not have told members of the United Nations that you are either “with us or against us in this fight against terrorists.” I would have dismissed that as a very arrogant statement, which is why most of the world despises us. We have long since proved to the world that we are a super-power in terms of our military strength can we now prove to them that we can also be a super-power in terms of our moral strength ?

    As President I would have asked for a complete review of our foreign policy that has for too long been based on what “is good for the United States .” I think we can now afford to look at what is good for the world and do the right thing so that people in the world can aspire to live in peace and harmony. We may think it is none of our business and that we cannot go around the world and help everyone who is in need. But it is equally true that we cannot live in isolation and cannot preserve our security and sanity while the rest of the world falls apart. As individuals and as nations we are inter-related, inter-connected and inter-dependent and the sooner we realize and respect this fact the better it will be for all of us.

    It is not enough that we give government-to-government aid because much of the aid is consumed by corrupt officials. It is essential that we build community-to-community relationships and build a bond with a community while helping them in whatever way we can. We helped a community in Jamtland , Sweden , build a relationship with a community in Amravati , India , in 1978. This relationship is going strong and both communities have benefited immensely from this interaction. We need to do this on a large scale. To begin with the communities in the United States can start a “Hope for Humanity Fund” – saving a coin every day to help a community in a Third World country. The reason why we need to save a coin everyday is because we must be conscious every day of the need to help someone, somewhere in the world. Writing a check at the end of the year does not create the consciousness that is necessary to build a relationship. Saving a coin everyday also gets children involved in the process and they learn early that life is about giving and helping and not just about amassing and consuming.

    Arun Gandhi is the fifth grandson of India’s peace and spiritual leader, Mahatma Gandhi. He is an accomplished author and activist for peace who co-founded the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonciolence in Tennessee. For more information please visit: http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/wafter911.html

  • Supporting Active Citizenship Among Youth: Discussion Notes

    On Thursday, September 25, 2003, the Foundation hosted a dialogue entitled “Supporting Active Citizenship among Youth.” Numerous local organizations with an interest in better serving youth were represented: Santa Barbara County Education Office, Endowment for Youth Committee, Future Leaders of America, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, La Casa de Maria, and PAX 2100. Similarly, a strong contingency of students and parents from Santa Barbara Middle School enriched the dialogue.

    Foundation Board Member, Marc Kielberger, shared pictures from his recent trip to Sierra Leone, reflecting on the experience while incorporating lessons learned as Executive Director of Free the Children (the largest network of children helping children in the world). Similarly, Marc referred to his efforts as founder of Leaders Today (an international youth development organization) and author of Take Action! A Guide to Active Citizenship (a text used annually by 17,000 school children in Toronto alone). The presentation began with startling statistics about Sierra Leone. At 147 infant deaths per 1,000 births, Sierra Leone has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Life expectancy is 45 year of age for women and 40 years for men. While minerals are the Sierra Leone’s main export, Marc explained how many of the individuals he met during his travels view diamonds as one compounding factor fueling civil strife and extreme cases of human rights abuses. Still, Marc found hope on his trip. He visited a primary school built by Free the Children. He met and talked with numerous former child soldiers who had forgiven themselves and their former enemies, choosing to work for peace instead. He renewed his own passion for helping others in need.

    Prior to our general discussion, Lauren Peikert, a 7th grade student at Santa Barbara Middle School, made a special presentation of $2,500 to Free the Children’s School Building Campaign. Lauren was inspired to help others when Free the Children’s Embracing Cultures Tour visited her school last year. The tour featured three powerful young speakers and artists from different cultural backgrounds who invited Lauren and her classmates to be leaders in their school, community, and the world. Lauren sold drinks at sports events, spoke at her church, and organized numerous other creative ways toward building a school and hiring teachers for children in Sierra Leone.

    The discussion that followed contained numerous insightful comments and revelations, all focused on better identifying and meeting the needs of Santa Barbara youth so that they may have the will and skills to help others. A number of participants who were born and raised in Santa Barbara cited a sense of neighborhood as a key factor in coming of age, building self-confidence, and resolving conflict. Many participants agreed that this sense of neighborhood has been replaced with a certain degree of segregation, exclusion, and isolation. We asked ourselves, how can we restore this sense of community? How can we teach compassion in an extremely competitive culture? Marc commented that young girls often develop an interest in leadership and community service before their male counterparts. His trainings tend to focus and mobilizing this core group and challenging them to inspire and instruct their peers. Following these trainings, the school culture often shifts from one of competition to one where social consciousness is cool. Numerous parents agreed and added that parents must set a good example for their children to become compassionate leaders.

    Toward the end of the dialogue, three follow-up actions were proposed. Foundation President, David Krieger, challenged all of the Santa Barbara Middle School students present to raise enough money to build another school. When they achieve their goal, they will have the opportunity to present the check at the Foundation’s upcoming 20th Anniversary Evening for Peace, honoring Harry Belafonte and Jonathan Schell. In addition, the organizations present expressed an interest in collaborating toward creating a series of opportunities for young people to speak out and participate in informative, empowering events. This series would culminate in a summer leadership camp.

    If you are interested in contributing toward the successful completion of these actions or for more information about this event, please contact Michael Coffey, the Foundation’s Youth Outreach Coordinator, at youth@napf.org. 

  • WMD’s and UC?

    One critical sleeper issue in California’s gubernatorial dilemma involved weapons of mass destruction, specifically the continued development of nuclear weapons by the University of California. The UC system has been a partner in the US nuclear weapons industry since the Manhattan Project. While many of us may be very familiar with the Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSB campuses, the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories may not evoke any immediate images or emotions. While these labs conduct cutting-edge research in numerous fields, nuclear weapons development is their core mission. As governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger will nominate five new UC Regents’ by the end of his term, probably selecting from among wealthy campaign supporters. These Regents will influence whether or not UC will bid to continue managing nuclear weapons laboratories owned by the Department of Energy. The recent security lapses, employee fraud, and espionage allegations at Los Alamos do not help UC’s chances. Reports indicate that Lockheed Martin, Bechtel, and the University of Texas plan to bid. This issue is bigger than the UC Regents. As UC students, alumni, faculty and community members, we must have input on the decision. This issue is bigger than California. The question is not which research institution is best suited to manage the labs, but can we redefine national security emphasizing education, environmental sustainability, food security, and health care?

    *Michael Coffey, is the Youth Outreach Coordinator of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • Is a Nuclear 9/11 in Our Future?

    Is a Nuclear 9/11 in Our Future?

    Sooner or later there will be a nuclear 9/11 in an American city or that of a US ally unless serious program is undertaken to prevent such an occurrence. A terrorist nuclear attack against an American city could take many forms. A worst case scenario would be the detonation of a nuclear device within a city. Depending upon the size and sophistication of the weapon, it could kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.

    Terrorists could obtain a nuclear device by stealing or purchasing an already created nuclear weapon or by stealing or purchasing weapons-grade nuclear materials and fashioning a crude bomb. While neither of these options would be easy, they cannot be dismissed as beyond the capabilities of a determined terrorist organization.

    If terrorists succeeded in obtaining a nuclear weapon, they would also have to bring it into the US, assuming they did not already obtain or create the weapon in this country. While this would not necessarily be easy, many analysts have suggested that it would be within the realm of possibility. An oft-cited example is the possibility of bringing a nuclear device into an American port hidden on a cargo ship.

    Another form of terrorist nuclear attack requiring far less sophistication would be the detonation of a radiation weapon or “dirty bomb.” This type of device would not be capable of a nuclear explosion but would use conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials within a populated area. The detonation of such a device could cause massive panic due to the public’s appropriate fears of radiation sickness and of developing cancers and leukemias in the future.

    A bi-partisan task force of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board, headed by former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, called upon the US in 2001 to spend $30 billion over an eight to ten year period to prevent nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union from getting into the hands of terrorists or so called “rogue” states. The task force called the nuclear dangers in the former USSR “the most urgent unmet national security threat facing the United States today.” At present, the US government is spending only about one-third of the recommended amount, while it pours resources into paying for the invasion, occupation and rebuilding of Iraq as well as programs unlikely to provide effective security to US citizens such as missile defense.

    The great difficulty in preventing a nuclear 9/11 is that it will require ending the well-entrenched nuclear double standards that the US and other nuclear weapons states have lived by throughout the Nuclear Age. Preventing nuclear terrorism in the end will not be possible without a serious global program to eliminate nuclear weapons and control nuclear materials that could be converted to weapons. Such a program would require universal agreement in the form of an enforceable treaty providing for the following:

    • full accounting and international safeguarding of all nuclear weapons, weapons-grade nuclear materials and nuclear reactors in all countries, including the nuclear weapons states;
    • international tracking and control of the movement of all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade materials;
    • dismantling and prohibiting all uranium enrichment facilities and all plutonium separation facilities, and the implementation of a plan to expedite the phasing out all nuclear power plants;
    • full recognition and endorsement by the nuclear weapons states of their existing obligation pursuant to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for an “unequivocal undertaking” to eliminate their nuclear arsenals;
    • rapidly dismantling existing nuclear weapons in an orderly and transparent manner and the transfer of nuclear materials to international control sites;
    • and criminalizing the possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons.

    While these steps may appear extreme, they are in actuality the minimum necessary to prevent a nuclear 9/11. If that is among our top priorities as a country, as surely it should be, the US government should begin immediately to lead the world in this direction. Now is the time to act, before one or more US cities are devastated by nuclear terrorism.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the co-author of Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • Gandhi’s Birthday

    Gandhi’s Birthday

    Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was born on October 2, 1869, was one of the great spiritual and peace leaders of the 20th century. He was a staunch advocate of non-violent social change, first in South Africa and later as the leader of the movement for Indian independence from British colonial rule.

    Throughout his life, Gandhi stood for the dignity of all people, even those who fought against him. He was a champion of the rights of the “untouchables” in India and a persistent opponent of the Indian caste system. Gandhi also worked to peacefully resolve the conflicts between Hindus and Muslims and prevent the break up of India into Hindu and Muslim countries.

    Gandhi believed that non-violence has great spiritual power and that spiritual power is reflected in non-violence. He was influenced in his philosophy of non-violence by the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy and, in turn, influenced the American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.

    When asked his opinion in 1949 of the 1945 US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Gandhi replied, “What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation is yet too early to see. Forces of nature act in a mysterious manner.”

    Gandhi was a great peace hero. On this anniversary of his birth, it is worthwhile to reflect upon how Gandhi’s philosophy and life of non-violence has changed the world and given us a model to aspire to as individuals and as a human community. Here are a few of Gandhi’s statements for reflection:

    “You have to stand against the whole world although you may have to stand alone. You have to stare the world in the face although the world may look at you with bloodshot eyes. Do not fear. Trust that little thing that resides in your heart.”

    “As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world that is the myth of the ‘atomic age’ as in being able to remake ourselves.”

    “Consciously or unconsciously, every one of us does render some service or other. If we cultivate the habit of doing this service deliberately, our desire for service will steadily grow stronger, and will make not only for our own happiness, but that of the world at large…all of us are bound to place our resources at the disposal of humanity.”

    *David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003). 

  • Declaration of the Ministers of the New Agenda Coalition

    1. The Foreign Ministers of Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and Brazil met at the 58th session of the United Nations General Assembly to review developments on nuclear disarmament and to renew their commitment to achieve a world free from nuclear weapons.

    2. The Ministers paid tribute to the memory of Anna Lindh, Foreign Minister of Sweden, on the occasion of her sad passing away, and deplored the loss of a devoted colleague who had been a driving force in the common cause.

    3. The Ministers expressed their deep concern at the lack of progress to date in the implementation of the thirteen steps on nuclear disarmament to which all States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

    4. The Ministers stressed that each article of the NPT is binding on the respective States parties, at all times and in all circumstances, and that all States parties must be held fully accountable with respect to the strict compliance of their obligations under the Treaty, and reiterated that the implementation of undertakings therein on nuclear disarmament remains the imperative.

    5. The Ministers recalled that a fundamental pre-requisite for promoting nuclear non-proliferation is the continuous irreversible progress in nuclear arms reduction. In this context, they called upon the Russian Federation and the United States of America to make the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (“the Moscow Treaty”) irreversible and verifiable and to address non-operational warheads, thus making it a nuclear disarmament measure.

    6. The Ministers stressed that the recent international debate on weapons of mass destruction has only highlighted that the sole guarantee against the use of any weapon of mass destruction anywhere, including nuclear weapons, is their total elimination and the assurance that they will never be used or produced again.

    7. The Ministers reiterated their deep concern at emerging approaches to the broader role of nuclear weapons as part of security strategies, including rationalizations for the use of, and the development of new types of nuclear weapons.

    8. The Ministers urged the international community to intensify its efforts to achieve universal adherence to the NPT. They called on India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States and to place their facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. They recalled the commitment of all NPT States parties to promote the universality of the NPT.

    9. The Ministers expressed their deep concern with the announcement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of its intention to withdraw from the NPT and related developments. In this connection they called upon the DPRK to reconsider and supported all efforts for an early, peaceful resolution of the situation, leading to the DPRK’s return to full compliance with the provisions of the NPT.

    10. The Ministers stressed that the International Atomic Energy Agency must be able to verify and ensure that nuclear facilities of the States Parties of the NPT are being used for peaceful purposes only, and called upon States to cooperate fully and immediately with the International Atomic Energy Agency in resolving issues arising from the implementation of their respective obligations towards the Agency.

    11. The Ministers reaffirmed their conviction that the establishment of internationally recognized nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the regions concerned enhances global and regional peace and security, strengthens the nuclear non-proliferation regime and contributes towards realizing the objective of nuclear disarmament, and in this regard they expressed their hope that more regions would follow this path.

    12. The Ministers underlined the significance of the current NPT review process to assess progress in implementation and to consider actions needed on nuclear disarmament. They stressed the importance that the Third Preparatory Committee of the 2005 NPT Review Conference submits substantive recommendations regarding nuclear disarmament, as well as on the matter of security assurances to the Review Conference.

    13. The Ministers highlighted that multilateralism must remain at the forefront of all international security efforts and, with the purpose of contributing further to the objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world, stressed that their initiative will continue to be pursued with determination and announced their intention to submit two draft resolutions – entitled “Towards a nuclear weapon free world: a new agenda” and “Reductions of non-strategic nuclear weapons”- to the 58th session of the General Assembly.

    — Declaration issued by the Foreign Ministers of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), United Nations Headquarters, New York, 23 September 2003

  • The Second Nuclear Age

    The Second Nuclear Age

    “The world has entered a new nuclear age, a second nuclear age. The danger is rising that nuclear weapons will be used against the United States. Just as bad, the danger is rising that the United States will use nuclear weapons against others….”

    — Jonathan Schell

    With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union, many Americans gave a deep sigh of relief and pronounced the nuclear threat at an end. It was a heady time. I can remember being asked, “What will the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation do now that the nuclear threat is gone?” My response was that the nuclear threat was still with us despite these momentous changes in the geopolitical landscape. It was far too soon to pronounce the Nuclear Age dead.

    In retrospect, from a vantage point of more than 12 years after these tectonic shifts in geopolitics, we can see that the Nuclear Age, with new and growing dangers, is still with us. The first half-century of the Nuclear Age was marked by a mad arms race between the United States and the former Soviet Union that resulted in the development and deployment of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons capable of destroying civilization and most life on Earth.

    While the nuclear standoff between the US and former USSR is no longer the extraordinary danger it was, new nuclear dangers have arisen that have led many astute observers to the conclusion that we have entered a second Nuclear Age. Among these new dangers are:

    • the nuclear standoff between nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, two countries that have more than a fifty-year history of warfare and serious tensions;
    • the partial breakdown of command and control systems that protect nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials in the former Soviet countries, giving rise to the increased possibility that these weapons and materials could fall into the hands of other countries and terrorist organizations;
    • the pursuit of nuclear weapons programs and the development of nuclear arsenals by countries, such as North Korea and Iran, that feel threatened by the Bush administration’s policy of preemptive war;
    • the impetus that Israel’s nuclear arsenal gives to other countries in the Middle East to develop their own nuclear arsenals;
    • the provocative policies of the Bush administration to pursue smaller, more usable nuclear weapons and those with a specific use in warfare such as the so-called “bunker busters,” blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear arms; and
    • the possibility that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has already lost its first member, North Korea, could fall apart due to the failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty to engage in good faith efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    The United States, as the world’s sole surviving superpower, has had the opportunity to lead the world toward a nuclear weapons free future. It is an opportunity that our country has largely rejected, and has done so at its own peril. Political leaders in the United States have yet to grasp that nuclear weapons make us less secure rather than more so, and their policies have reflected this failure to comprehend the dangers of the second Nuclear Age.

    In the year 2000, the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the United States, agreed to 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament. These included “[a]n unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals,” along with specific steps such as ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), preserving and strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and applying the principle of irreversibility to nuclear disarmament.

    In each of these areas the United States, under the Bush administration, has led in the opposite direction. The administration’s policies have sent a message to the world that the world’s strongest military power finds nuclear weapons useful for its national security and plans to maintain its nuclear arsenal for the indefinite future. The Bush administration has opposed ratification of the CTBT and has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty. Its approach to nuclear disarmament has been to employ maximum flexibility and make reductions fully reversible.

    The US pact with Russia, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), signed by Presidents Bush and Putin in May 2002, calls for reductions in deployed strategic nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 weapons on each side by the year 2012. The treaty has no timetable other than the final date to achieve these reductions, and there is no requirement to make these reductions irreversible. The Bush administration has already announced that it plans to put the weapons it takes off active deployment status into storage ready for redeployment on short notice. Thus, these weapons will be put into storage. The Russians are likely to follow suit, creating more opportunity for the stored nuclear weapons in both countries to fall into the hands of terrorists. In the meantime, the US and Russia are each maintaining over 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, subject to being launched accidentally.

    In addition, the Bush administration pursued an illegal preventive war against Iraq because of its purported, but never found, weapons of mass destruction. This action sent a message to North Korea, Iran and other states that if they want to be more secure from US attack, they had better develop nuclear forces to deter the US.

    North Korea has repeatedly made a simple request of the US. They have asked for security assurances from the US that they will not be attacked. This is not unreasonable considering that the Korean War has never officially ended, that the US maintains some 40,000 troops near the Demilitarized Zone that separates the two Koreas, that the US keeps nuclear-armed submarines in the waters off the Korean Peninsula, and that the Bush administration has pursued a doctrine of preemption. In return for a Non-Aggression Pact from the US, the North Koreans have indicated that they would give up their nuclear weapons program and rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    It would be a great shame if Americans only awakened to the dangers of the second Nuclear Age with the detonation of one or more nuclear weapons somewhere in the world. Given the increased threats associated with terrorism and the dangers that nuclear weapons or bomb-grade nuclear materials could fall into the hands of terrorists, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the next detonation of a nuclear weapon or other weapon of mass destruction could take place in a city in the United States.

    It is of critical importance that Americans be made aware of these dangers and reverse our policies before we are confronted by such tragedy. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has set forth a series of needed steps that have been widely endorsed by prominent leaders, including 38 Nobel Laureates, in its Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity and All Life. These steps are de-alerting all nuclear weapons, reaffirming commitments to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, commencing good faith negotiations on a treaty to eliminate all nuclear weapons, declaring a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons and reallocating resources from nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    Our challenge is to translate this program into action. It will require a sea change in the thinking of US political leaders. This cannot happen without a grassroots movement from below, that is, from ordinary citizens, who hold the highest office in the land. The starting point is the recognition that the Nuclear Age did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and that we are now living in the second Nuclear Age. We ask for your support in this fight for the future of humanity and all life on our planet.

    *David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003).

  • Wallace Drew (1917 – 2003)

    Wally was a dear friend, a mentor and a wonderful human being.

    In a world filled with suffering, Wally lived compassionately. In a world awash in apathy and complacency, Wally lived with commitment. And in a world too often marked by the cowardice of inaction, Wally consistently acted with courage.

    These lines from Shakespeare come to mind when I think about Wally:

    His life was gentle; and the elements
    So mixed in him that Nature might stand up
    And say to all the world ‘This was a man!’

    Wally was true and loyal in his friendships, and kind and generous to all who knew him. He had an unshakable instinct for fairness and decency and cared deeply about the plight of those less fortunate than himself. He was constantly looking for ways in which he could help make life better for those in need, and his many successes were victories for our community and for humanity.

    Wally would have been 86 this week. He was born in the small town of Wausau, Wisconsin in 1917. Much of his youth was spent with the great depression as a backdrop, something that left a lasting impression on him. In 1937, at the age of 20, Wally graduated with a degree in journalism from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He was proud of having served as editor of the school newspaper.

    After graduating, Wally went on to take jobs in advertising. This took him throughout Latin America, where he met, among others, the great Mexican muralist Diego Rivera and artist Frida Kahlo.

    Wally joined the army in 1940 and was assigned to the Corps of Engineers. He was among those who landed at Normandy and fought his way across France, earning the Bronze Star and seven battle stars. He was there at the liberation of Paris and was among the first American soldiers to enter the concentration camp at Buchenwald and see first-hand this terrible human tragedy. Wally’s experience in war, including the death of a younger brother, deepened his lifelong commitment to peace.

    After the war, Wally returned to his career in advertising, rising to become the managing director of Revlon International in Europe. In 1971, Wally retired to Santa Barbara with his wife Kay, but it was to prove a short retirement. He soon became active as a stockbroker and began helping community organizations.

    Wally believed that a person should spend the first half of their adult life accumulating resources to support one’s family, and the second half giving back to the community and the world. It was Santa Barbara’s great gain that the second half of Wally’s life was lived here.

    Wally was an extraordinary leader and took pride in raising funds to support worthy causes in which he believed. The number of organizations he helped to achieve their goals is too numerous to list, but among these groups were the Boys and Girls Clubs of Santa Barbara, United Way, the Lobero Theater Foundation, the Santa Barbara Symphony, Sansum Research Institute, Santa Barbara City College, All Saints by the Sea Episcopal Church, and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    Wally was a humble man who never sought recognition for himself, but for his efforts, he received many awards. These included a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Santa Barbara News Press, a Community Service Award from the Anti-Defamation League, and a Community Hero Award from Sansum Clinic.

    Wally and I, along with Frank Kelly and Charles Jamison, founded the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 1982. Wally’s help was critical to getting our fledgling organization off the ground, and to its continued success for the past 20 years. Wally wanted to build a world in which young people would not have to experience what he did in war.

    Until his stroke in 1998, Wally and I often took walks together. He had a keen and inquiring mind and enjoyed staying abreast of world affairs. He celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall, the breakup of the former Soviet Union, the end of Apartheid in South Africa, and the possibilities that these events appeared to open for the future.

    Wally was a dear friend. We grieved with him when his beloved Kay died in 1991, and we rejoiced with him when he found happiness and love again and married Ursula in 1993. One of the great honors of my life was to be Wally’s best man when he married Ursula.

    Wally’s stroke was debilitating, but with characteristic courage he struggled back from the brink of death and always retained his sense of humor and proportion.

    Wally was a realist who never lost his optimism, and he was committed to making his optimism about our world realistic. He persistently strove to leave the world a better place than he found it. In this, he did everything humanly possible to succeed.

    Wally was a loving husband and father, a dedicated community leader, and a wise elder. Wally, dear friend, I will miss your sage advice, your humor and your solid decency, but you live on in your myriad of good works and in our hearts.
    David Krieger
    September 19, 2003

    *David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003).

  • Wallace Drew, A Man Of Peace, (1917 – 2003)

    Wallace Drew, chair emeritus of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, died peacefully on September 7, 2003 at the age of 85. Wally was one of the Foundation’s founders and served as its first treasurer and later as the first chair of the Board. A disabling stroke in 1998 slowed Wally down considerably, but he fought back courageously and remained involved in the work of the Foundation until his death.

    During World War II, Wally served as a major in the Army Corps of Engineers. He landed at Normandy and fought in seven major battles across France. He was part of the US forces that liberated Paris and one of the first Americans to enter the Buchenwald concentration camp. Wally received a Bronze Star and seven battle stars. After the conclusion of the war in Europe, Wally was assigned to be part of the planning group for the invasion of Japan.

    His experiences in war as a young man strengthened Wally’s commitment to building a peaceful world. In a 1997 interview, Wally reflected upon these experiences, “I was one of four boys. One brother was killed in action, another was wounded. I wanted to do everything possible to prevent future wars.”

    Wally’s commitment to preventing future wars led him to join with David Krieger, Frank Kelly and Charles Jamison in the creation of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 1982. Wally served on the Foundation’s Board of Directors for the next 21 years.

    Wally was a humble man who did not seek recognition for himself, but for his efforts he received many awards. These included a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Santa Barbara News Press, a Community Service Award from the Anti-Defamation League, and a Community Hero Award from Sansum Clinic. Wally believed in giving back to his community and to the world, and he did so in many admirable ways.

    Foundation President David Krieger said of Wally in his Eulogy: “In a world filled with suffering, Wally lived compassionately. In a world awash in apathy and complacency, Wally lived with commitment. And in a world too often marked by the cowardice of inaction, Wally consistently acted with courage.”

    We will miss Wally’s determination and good humor, along with his compassion, commitment and courage, but we will carry forward his spirit in the work of the Foundation.

    In honor of Wally, the Foundation is establishing the Wallace T. Drew Internship for Peace and Disarmament. This internship will support the work of a summer intern to work on issues of peace and disarmament each year at the Foundation.

     

  • September 11th

    September 11th

    Each rising of the sun begins a day of awe, destined
    To bring shock to those who can be shocked.

    This day began in sunlit beauty and, like other days,
    Soon fell beneath death’s demon shadow.

    The darkness crossed Manhattan and the globe,
    The crashing planes, tall towers bursting into flame.

    The hurtling steel into solid steel endlessly played
    On the nightly news until imprinted on our brains

    People lurching from the burning towers, plunging Like shot geese to the startled earth beneath.

    The shock was painted on faces on the news,
    That such sudden death could be visited on us.

    But such death is not extraordinary in our world of grief,
    Born anew each brief and scarlet sunlit day.

    White flowers grow from blood stained streets
    And rain falls gently, gently in defiance, not defeat.

    *David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003).