Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • The Bush Administration’s Nuclear Policies and the Response of Citizens

    The Bush Administration’s Nuclear Policies and the Response of Citizens

    The Bush administration came into office with the clear intention to strengthen US military dominance, including its nuclear dominance, and it has been true to this major policy goal. While the Bush administration views nuclear weapons as central to US security, it has a larger vision of US military dominance as a principal means for serving US national security interests. The administration has shown scant concern for US treaty obligations, particularly in the area of arms control. Most prominently, the administration has disavowed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, arguing it is no longer relevant in a post-Cold War environment.
    The US Nuclear Posture Review

    The clearest statement of US nuclear policy can be found in the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review Report, a classified document mandated by Congress, which was leaked to the press in March 2002. This report lays out a “New Triad,” composed of offensive strike systems (nuclear and non-nuclear), defenses (active and passive), and a revitalized defense infrastructure to meet emerging threats. The old strategic triad of land-based missiles, sea-based missiles and long-range bombers now fits into the nuclear branch of the New Triad’s offensive strike systems.

    The Nuclear Posture Review states, “Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends. They provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and large-scale conventional military force. These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that give the United States options to hold at risk classes of targets [that are] important strategic and political objectives.” This is an extraordinary admission of the benefits that US leaders attribute to nuclear weapons in US defense policy, benefits that they are clearly reserving for themselves and a small group of other nuclear weapons states.

    The report also finds utility in the use of nuclear weapons under certain circumstances: “Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand a non-nuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities).” The report further calls for development of contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven countries, five of which are non-nuclear: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Russia and China. Such threat to use nuclear weapons violates the negative security assurances that the US gave to the non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the time of that Treaty’s Review and Extension Conference in 1995.

    The report calls for strengthening the “U.S. Nuclear Warhead Infrastructure.” It states, “The need is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that will: …be able, if directed, to design, develop, manufacture, and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground nuclear testing if required.”

    In sum, the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review is a strategy for indefinite reliance on nuclear weapons with plans to improve the capabilities of the existing arsenal and to revitalize the infrastructure for improving US nuclear forces in the future. The Nuclear Posture Review promotes a nuclear strategy of maximum flexibility as opposed to measures for irreversible nuclear disarmament as agreed to at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

    As a candidate for president in 2000, Mr. Bush announced that he wanted to reduce the level of strategic nuclear weapons in the US arsenal to the lowest number compatible with US security. Based on military studies, that number was placed at between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed strategic nuclear weapons. According to the Nuclear Posture Review, “Based on current projections, an operationally deployed force of 1700-2200 strategic nuclear warheads by 2012…will support U.S. deterrence policy to hold at risk what opponents value, including their instruments of political control and military power, and to deny opponents their war aims.”

    The upper end of 2,200 strategic nuclear weapons is nearly identical with the 2,500 strategic nuclear weapons that Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin had agreed upon for START III, when the method of counting is taken into consideration. Under the counting system proposed in the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, the weapons aboard submarines being overhauled are not counted. Even the lower end figure of 1,700 strategic nuclear weapons was above the level of 1,500 (or less) that President Putin had proposed.

    As a candidate, Bush also promoted development and deployment of a National Missile Defense to protect the United States against nuclear attacks by so-called rogue states, a proposal that would have been prohibited under the ABM Treaty. Upon assuming the presidency, Bush dealt with the impediment of the ABM Treaty by withdrawing from it. He gave the six months’ notice required by the Treaty for withdrawal on December 13, 2001, and US withdrawal became effective on June 13, 2002.

    Prior to providing notice of withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, both the Chinese and Russians attempted to dissuade Mr. Bush from taking this step. Chinese officials told the Bush administration that deployment of a US missile defense system would necessitate an increase in the Chinese nuclear arsenal capable of reaching the US in order for China to maintain an effective although minimal deterrent force. The response of the Bush administration was that it had no problem with a build-up of Chinese nuclear forces capable of threatening US territory since the US missile defense system was aimed at “rogue” nations and not at China.
    Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty

    In Spring 2002, Mr. Bush also reached agreement with President Putin on a Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). The two presidents signed this treaty in Moscow on May 24, 2002. In the treaty, the two governments agreed to reduce the actively deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side to Bush’s preferred numbers, as set forth in the US Nuclear Posture Review, of between 1,700 and 2,200 by the year 2012. The treaty made no provisions for interim reductions, and thus, despite SORT, it remains possible for either or both sides to actually increase the size of their arsenal between the inception of the treaty and 2012, so long as the reductions to the agreed numbers occur by 2012. The treaty is also set to terminate, unless extended, in 2012.

    The treaty also made no provision for the nuclear warheads that were removed from active deployment. The US has announced that it intends to put many or most of these warheads into storage in a reserve status, where they will remain available to be reintroduced to active deployment should this decision be taken in the future. Presumably Russia will follow the US lead on this, thus making many of its strategic nuclear weapons more prone to theft by criminal organizations, including terrorists.

    The Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty was announced with considerable fanfare. It gave the public a sense of progress toward nuclear disarmament, when in fact it was far more of a public relations effort than an actual arms reduction treaty. Although it did provide for removing several thousand nuclear weapons on both sides from active deployment, and in this sense it was a de-alerting measure, it did not make these reductions irreversible as agreed to by the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

    The Bush administration’s nuclear policies have not been favorable to nuclear disarmament. Many of its policies have been contrary to the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament set forth in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Not only has the Bush administration withdrawn from the ABM Treaty, the President has made it clear that he does not intend to send the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty back to the Senate for ratification. His administration has given indications that it wishes to shorten the time needed to resume underground nuclear testing, and is developing more usable nuclear weapons and contingency plans for their use.

    In sum, the Bush administration is not taking seriously, nor attempting to fulfill, US obligations for nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT. Nor has it shown good faith in fulfilling the 2000 NPT Review Conference’s 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament, including pursuing the promised “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals….” And without US leadership to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, there is not likely to be significant progress.
    The Role of the Anti-Nuclear Movement

    The effectiveness of the anti-nuclear movement in reaching the US public and policy makers seems to have diminished under the Bush administration. While the promise of this movement seemed bright in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, this promise has not been realized and at the moment is receding. In part, this is because the ideologues in the Bush administration are not receptive to proposals, no matter how reasonable, to reduce nuclear arsenals or even nuclear risks. Another factor in the diminished effectiveness of the US anti-nuclear movement is that the issues of terrorism and war have moved to the forefront and taken precedence over nuclear weapons issues in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the US.

    In the aftermath of September 11th, public receptivity to challenging Bush’s nuclear policies became highly restricted. The concern and fear generated by the terrorist attacks created a greater willingness to use force for protection of the US civilian population and foreclosed possibilities for public consideration of any reductions in armaments, nuclear or conventional, other than those proposed from above, such as the SORT agreement. The attacks also strengthened Bush’s position of leadership in the US, a fact that was reconfirmed in the recent US elections.

    One current challenge to the Bush administration’s defense policy is being mounted by 31 members of Congress, led by Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). Kucinich and his fellow members of Congress are challenging in federal court the president’s authority under the Constitution to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without congressional approval. The lawsuit is based on the theory that the Senate must ratify a treaty for it to enter into force, and that once it does enter into force the treaty becomes the “supreme Law of the Land” under Article 6(2) of the Constitution. The congressional challengers argue that once a treaty becomes law under Article 6(2), it is not within the president’s unilateral authority to terminate that law and that the president must seek congressional approval before acting to terminate a treaty.

    Many important proposals from non-governmental organizations, including ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, agreement on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, and de-alerting of the deployed nuclear arsenal, were simply taken off the table as the administration focused its efforts on rooting out terrorists, the war in Afghanistan, and now the threat of war against Iraq. But, while the anti-nuclear movement in the US has receded, the peace movement has grown, and this has been particularly so in relation to the administration’s threatened war against Iraq.

    The reemergence of an active peace movement is a hopeful sign. In recent weeks the numbers have grown to tens of thousands of people, even hundreds of thousands in large cities, taking to the streets. In California in the small city of Santa Barbara where I live, there have been hundreds of people taking to the streets each Saturday to protest a war against Iraq. Should a war against Iraq actually begin, the number of protestors throughout the country will likely swell into the millions.
    The Logic of War Against Iraq

    The Bush administration has premised its case for war against Iraq on the need for regime change, primarily because Saddam Hussein may be trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. It is conceded that Hussein does not presently have nuclear weapons, but may be able to develop one or more in the future. The logic of the war from the perspective of the Bush administration is that Hussein must be stopped from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which he might use or pass on to a terrorist organization. Thus, we have the irony of a country with some 10,000 nuclear weapons seeking to go to war to achieve nuclear disarmament of a country that has yet to acquire a nuclear weapon. Surely this irony cannot be entirely lost on the American people or the people of the world, despite the official rhetoric of the Bush administration justifying our possession of a huge nuclear weapons arsenal.

    This could be an educable moment for Americans. There are many inconsistencies in US nuclear policies that carry with them significant attendant dangers. Should terrorists obtain nuclear weapons, they might kill 300,000 or three million inhabitants of a US city rather than the 3,000 that were killed in the terrorist attacks of September 1l, 2001. And yet, US policy is to spend some seven to eight times more on developing missile defense systems than on eliminating the threat of “loose nukes” in the former Soviet Union. A bipartisan Department of Energy Task Force on Russia, headed by former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, concluded that the US should be spending some $3 billion annually for the next ten years to keep Russia’s nuclear arsenal out of danger of terrorists. Instead, however, the US is spending only some $1 billion annually on this, while spending $7.5 billion on missile defenses. If the US goes to war against Iraq, that could cost some $200 billion and require a continuing US military occupation of Iraq, while increasing the threat of new incidents of terrorism.
    Global Dangers

    Throughout the world nuclear dangers are increasing. In South Asia, India and Pakistan continue to posture and threaten each other with their relatively new nuclear forces. These two countries continue their periodic outbreaks of violence in their long-standing dispute over Kashmir. In Northeast Asia, on the volatile Korean peninsula, North Korea, according to the CIA, may have developed a few nuclear weapons. North Korean representatives have recently admitted to enriching uranium, which may be used to develop nuclear weapons. In the Middle East, the Israeli nuclear arsenal of some 200 nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems, including submarines, continues to provoke attempts by other countries in the region, including Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, to develop or acquire their own nuclear arsenals. The security of the Russian nuclear arsenal cannot be guaranteed, and the US is developing more usable nuclear weapons and contingency plans to use them. Should terrorists succeed in obtaining nuclear weapons, anything could happen. These alarming circumstances create an incendiary set of conditions that could explode suddenly and without warning into nuclear holocaust.

    The likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used in the next five to ten years is greater today than at any time since the end of World War II. Yet, at the present moment, the world seems to be preoccupied with other issues, while critical issues of nuclear control and disarmament are removed from the public mind and agenda. Rather than distracting the world from nuclear disarmament, the increasingly grave threats of terrorism should be providing additional impetus for fulfilling the already well-established obligations to achieve complete nuclear disarmament.

    It should also give us pause to consider the relationship of nuclear weapons to terrorism. In the end, nuclear weapons may serve the poor and disenfranchised better than they serve the rich and powerful. The rich and powerful countries have far more to lose, and their cities are extremely vulnerable to nuclear, radiological, chemical or biological terrorism. In a more rational world, such considerations would lead the most powerful nuclear weapons states to act in their own interests by leading the world toward nuclear disarmament. Alas, this lesson has yet to be grasped by leaders in the United States and other powerful nations. In the meantime, it is these powerful nations that threaten the use of nuclear weapons, and this must be seen by objective viewers to constitute its own form of terrorism.

    An active and effective nuclear disarmament movement has never been more needed. Our best hope is that this movement will reemerge with renewed energy and spirit from the anti-war activities in the US and throughout the world. It is extremely important now that the nuclear implications of the current global crisis not be lost on the anti-war movement, nor on the citizens of the world’s most powerful nations. The failure to make these connections and to act upon them could result in tragedies beyond our greatest fears.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. His recent books include Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age and Missile Defense: The Great Illusion, both available in Japanese language.

  • US Defense Bill Funds Study for a New Nuclear Weapon

    On November 12, 2002 Congress approved the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2003, H.R. 4546; a bill that authorizes funds for the Defense Department and for the nuclear weapons activites of the Energy Department. Though the final version of this defense bill still contains some serious setbacks for nuclear disarmament, several dangerous aspects of the original version of the bill that was originally approved by the House of Representatives were ultimately removed.

    The defense bill funds a request by the administration for $15 million to begin the first year of a three-year feasibility study on another new nuclear warhead, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), or “bunker buster.” Though the Senate had deleted the funds in its original version of the defense bill, the funding was ultimately approved in conference. The proposed study of this new weapon is chilling because creating more “usable” tactical nuclear weapons increases the chance that the United States will eventually break the taboo on nuclear weapons use.

    The bill does require the Defense Department to submit a report before it will have access to the funds. The National Academy of Sciences will conduct a study for Congress on the short-term and long-term effects of using a nuclear earth penetrator on the nearby civilian population and on U.S. military personnel who may carry out operations in the area after such use.

    The final authorization bill fully preserves the current prohibition on developing nuclear weapons with yields of less than five kilotons, also known as “mini-nukes.” The original House version of the defense bill threatened to weaken the 1993 Congressional ban and would have allowed research to begin on developing these new nuclear weapons.

    The final bill also toned down language originally approved by the House that would have required the Energy Department’s Nevada Test Site to be able to resume nuclear testing within 12 months. Instead, the final bill simply requires the administration to prepare cost estimates of being able to resume testing within 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Test readiness continues to be an issue of great concern, particularly as Defense Secretary Edward Aldridge has recently urged the nuclear weapons laboratories to reassess the need for nuclear testing.

    The significant initiative for advancement of nuclear weapons technologically over the course of this defense bill’s negotiation was startling. That the Democratically controlled Senate had a clear impact on toning down the nuclear weapons language of this year’s defense bill is of equal concern. The Republican-controlled Senate may not have the same influence on the 2004 military spending bills.

  • A Citizens Weapons Inspection

    On November 11, 2002 (Veteran’s Day), a Citizens Weapons Inspection Team and over 200 supporters gathered outside the gates of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), a key facility in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. Their presence emphasized the need for reciprocity given the recent United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for Iraqi compliance with weapons inspectors.

    A Notice of Intent was served to LLNL Director Michael Anastocio, detailing the lab’s near 50-year history of creating weapons of mass destruction and questioning plans for new weapon development. The letter cites U.S. disregard for sentiments among the international community opposing the proliferation on weapons of mass destruction, specifically the Biological Weapons Convention, International Court of Justice, and Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Student leaders from numerous campuses shared their views. Some of the campuses represented were UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, UC Santa Barbara, and UC Davis.

    Similarly, event sponsors and endorsers included Tri-Valley CAREs, Western State Legal Foundation, California Peace Action, Veterans for Peace, Livermore Conversion Project, Global Exchange, Alameda County Peace and Freedom Party, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Circle of Concern, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and Grandmothers for Peace.

    Links:

    Notice of Intent.
    URL: http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/citinspletllnl.htm

    UCSB Daily Nexus, Californians Protest Weapon Development.
    URL: http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2002/3910.html

    Contra Costa Times, Who Will Disarm America?
    URL: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/4500387.htm

  • Military Recruiting Law Puts Burden on Parents

    Originally Published in the Washington Post

    Christopher Schmitt is careful to protect his son from companies that want to give the teenager credit cards or sell him sneakers. So at this year’s parents night at his son’s Fairfax County high school, Schmitt was dismayed to see a new form in the usual stack of permission slips and reminders.

    This one invited him to sign if he wanted his son’s name, address and telephone number withheld from the Pentagon. Otherwise, the information would be included in a directory of the school’s juniors and seniors that will be given upon request to military recruiters.

    Schmitt signed the form — quickly.

    “Most people probably missed [the form], and it’ll probably be too late,” Schmitt said. “There is a commodity with your consumer history. With the military, the commodity happens to be your children’s information. . . . Once there’s a point of entry, you don’t know where the information is going to go.”

    High schools across the nation must provide the directory — what one school official called “a gold mine of a list” — under a sleeper provision in the new No Child Left Behind Act, which was enacted this year. Military officials pushed for it to counter a steady decline in the number of people who inquire about enlisting.

    Many schools already allow military recruiters on campus, sponsor ROTC programs or provide student information to the Pentagon if parents give permission. But many school officials say the mandatory provision — which puts the burden on parents to opt out rather than in — has them in an uncomfortable position.

    Part of their role as educators, they say, is to minimize intrusions so students can learn. Now, they risk losing federal funds if they don’t hand over students’ names to recruiters who, in the words of Chantilly High School Principal Tammy Turner, “want to capitalize on our captive audience.”

    Michael Carr, spokesman for the 38,000-member National Association of Secondary School Principals, said: “Student privacy is a big, big issue with schools. There are a lot of people trying to get identities of students — to get to that market.”

    There has been no uprising against the provision. Many parents and teachers see the armed forces as a possible career path and say that recruiters should have a chance to make their pitch.

    “There are great opportunities for these kids in the military,” said Donna Geren, a retired Navy commander whose son, Kyle, is a senior at West Potomac High School in Fairfax. “A lot of times, kids don’t find out about the scholarships they offer if schools are not allowed to share this information. I don’t see any downside to this.”

    Fairfax School Superintendent Daniel A. Domenech said that few parents have returned opt-out forms, but he thinks it may reflect a lack of attention rather than lack of opposition. “It makes me believe parents basically glossed over it,” he said. “I’m sure I’ll start getting calls from parents when they hear from the recruiters.”

    Although the number of military enlistees has remained fairly constant, the pool of prospective recruits continues to shrink, according to William Carr, director of military personnel policy for the Defense Department.

    More students are going to college, and in the 1990s, the tech boom created plenty of jobs, so the military was no longer the employer of last resort. Even students who express an interest say their parents don’t approve, especially as talk of war with Iraq escalates.

    In the past decade, the number of high school graduates who said they intended to join the military dropped from 32 percent to 25 percent, Carr said. At the same time, one-third of the nation’s 22,000 high schools refused recruiters’ requests for students’ names or access to campus, and the cost of recruiting one person rose from $6,000 to $12,000.

    After the military took its complaints to Congress, Rep. David Vitter (R-La.) sponsored an amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act, a sweeping federal measure passed last year that makes schools accountable for student achievement. Vitter said that military recruiters, who offer scholarships and jobs, deserved to be on par with college recruiters.

    The student directories will be used to contact students by phone and mail, William Carr said. The recruitment effort should not be compared to telemarketing in any way, he said, and it would be illegal to use the data for any purpose other than recruiting.

    “You cannot equate military readiness to a free baseball cap,” Carr said. “There’s a considerable difference.”

    The provision isn’t a perfect solution for recruiters, said Charles Moskos, a professor and military recruiting expert at Northwestern University, but it is more realistic than trying to persuade Jenna Bush — or, better yet, rap star Eminem — to join the Marines.

    “That would change people’s minds,” said Moskos, who was in the Army in 1958 when photographs of a newly drafted Elvis Presley in uniform gave the military a Cold War boost. When he asks recruiters whether they would rather have their advertising budget tripled or see Chelsea Clinton enlist, he said, “they unanimously choose the Chelsea option.”

    The directory, Moskos said, is partly aimed at improving the quality of enlistees, seeking to attract students who stay in school and have other career options. But he isn’t sure it will work. “I don’t think the prime market is high school anymore,” Moskos said. “My research says the most effective recruiter is a friend or family member who made it a career.”

    Rick Jahnkow, program director for the California-based Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft, said the measure misplaces the responsibility. Recruiters “had a lot of pressure to meet their quotas, so they decided to pass the buck to schools,” he said. “Now it’s a huge hammer over the heads of schools, parents and students who will have their privacy invaded.”

    Part of the burden is turning out to be administrative. Shannon Tully, director of student services at South Lakes High School in Fairfax, said a recruiter came to ask for a computer disk with the names on it before she had time to prepare it. “We told him we didn’t have it, and a week later we get an e-mail saying we were a non-cooperating school.

    “They didn’t even let us know” he was coming, Tully said. “What are we supposed to be — a fast-food restaurant?”

    William Carr, of the Defense Department, said he was unaware of that incident and could not comment on it.

    John Porter, principal of T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, said he doesn’t see any problems with the law. In the past, the school gave the Pentagon the names of students whose parents opted in, and now it will reverse the process.

    “I see it as one of many opportunities for kids to consider post-graduation,” said Porter, who opposes directories being released to any other group. “It’s a good career choice for some people.”

    Arlington’s assistant superintendent, Alvin Crawley, said that until now, the district has refused to release student directories to anyone, including military recruiters. This year, opt-out forms were sent to all 2,500 of the county’s juniors and seniors, he said, and 130 were returned. So far, he said, recruiters have requested the student directory for only one of the district’s three high schools, Yorktown.

    Jack Parker, principal of Potomac High School in Prince William County, said his school already was in the habit of giving names to military recruiters and letting them recruit on campus during lunch periods.

    “They are not trying to solicit anything,” Parker said. “And if a student doesn’t want to be called, we strike them off the list.”

    Christine Boehm, 17, who attends Washington-Lee High School in Arlington, is less concerned about privacy than about the expense of the unsolicited mailing she received from recruiters. “It’s a waste of government money,” she said. “I’m not planning on going into the military.”

    Kyle Geren, 17, said he has already been contacted by a military recruiter at home — and went to visit him. “I think it’s a good idea the recruitment office knows how to get hold of students before they leave school,” Geren said. “I’m keeping it open as an option.”

  • “Strike against Terror”

    “Strike against terror” is a misleading expression. What we are striking against is not the real cause or the root of terror. The object of our strike is still human life. We are sowing seeds of violence as we strike. Striking in this way we will only bring about more hatred and violence into the world. This is exactly what we do not want to do.

    Terror is in the human heart. We must remove this terror from the heart. Destroying the human heart, both physically and psychologically, is what we must absolutely avoid. The root of terrorism should be identified, so that it can be removed. The root of terrorism is misunderstanding, intolerance, hatred, revenge and hopelessness. This root cannot be located by the military. Bombs and missiles cannot reach it, let alone destroy it. Only with the practice of looking deeply can our insight reveal and identify this root. Only with the practice of deep listening and compassion can it be transformed and removed.

    Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness. More darkness will make darkness thicker. Only light can dissipate darkness. Violence and hatred cannot be removed with violence and hatred. Rather, this will make violence and hatred grow a thousand fold. Only understanding and compassion can dissolve violence and hatred.

    Hatred, and violence are in the hearts of human beings. A terrorist is a human being with hatred, revenge, violence and misunderstanding in his or her heart. Acting without understanding, acting out of hatred, violence and fear, only helps sow more terror, bringing terror to the homes of others and ultimately bringing terror back to the homes of the attacker. The philosophy of “an eye for an eye,” only creates more suffering and bloodshed and more enemies. One of the greatest casualties we may suffer results from this wrong thinking and action. Whole societies are living constantly in fear with their nerves being attacked day and night. Such a state of confusion, fear and anxiety is extremely dangerous. It can bring about another world war, this time extremely destructive in the worst possible way.

    We must learn to speak out for peace now, so that our spiritual voice can be heard in this dangerous and pivotal moment of history. Those of us who have the light should display the light and offer it so that the world will not sink into total darkness. Everyone has the seed of awakening and insight within his or her heart. Let us help each other touch these seeds in ourselves so that everyone can have the courage to speak out. We must ensure that the way we live our daily lives does not create more terrorism in the world, through intolerance, hatred, revenge and greed. We need a collective awakening to stop this course of self­-destruction.

    Spiritual leaders in this country need to be invited to raise their voice strongly and speak up for peaceful solutions to the world problems and bring about the awareness of the teaching of compassion and non-violence to the American nation and the people.

    By understanding the nature and cause of the suffering of humanity, we will then know the right method to begin to heal the great problems on this planet.
    * This Article was written by Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist monk and peace activist: 
    “Thich Nhat Hanh is a holy man, for he is humble and devout. He is a scholar of immense intellectual capacity. His ideas for peace, if applied, would build a monument to ecumenism, to world brotherhood, and to humanity.” –Spoken by The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., in nominating Thich Nhat Hanh for the Nobel Peace Prize.

  • A Dangerous Face

    A Dangerous Face

    It is a weak and fleshy face,
    A face with furtive eyes
    That snake along the ground, refusing
    To rise and face forward.

    He chews his words well,
    Mixing them with venom,
    Words that dart like missiles
    From the side of his malformed mouth.

    It is a dangerous, deceitful face,
    The face of a man with too many secrets.
    It is the face of one who quietly orders
    Torturers to torture and Assassins to kill.

    It is the face not of a sniper,
    But of one who orders snipers into action.
    It is the face of a Klansman behind his mask,
    The face of one who savors lynchings.

    It is the face of one who hides in dark bunkers
    And shuns the brightness of the sun.
    It is a frightened face, dull and without color,
    The face of one consumed by power.

    It is a weak and fleshy face,
    A face with furtive eyes,
    A face that falls hard and fast
    Like the blade of a guillotine.
    Responses to a Dangerous Face

    Thank you for your responses, which came from all over the world. The most popular responses to who the poem was describing were Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. Other responses were more general: “an enemy,” “hate,” “people who are threatening the fragile world,” “people who are fighting the modern war,” “the epitome of American fears,” “an evil human being.”

    Three people named Dick Cheney, who was the actual model for the poem. Although Cheney was the model, I believe the poem describes a certain kind of person who is lacking in compassion and committed to violence and militarism.

    I particularly liked the response of Laurel from Pierce: “This poem is describing terrorist leaders. Terrorist leaders do not care who they kill, maim and frighten. These people hide behind their followers. They delight in power over the minds of their victims and the men and women they draw into their plans. They spread hatred through lies and acts of hate. These people do not commit the acts of terror themselves; instead they command their minions to perform them, sometimes at the cost of these poor followers own lives. This poem describes all of these characteristics.” Of course, this description of “terrorist leaders” could also include leaders of countries.

    Surprisingly, no one named Henry Kissinger, who qualifies as one of the leading war criminals of the 20th century and who, despite his history of misleading Congress and the American people, was recently appointed by President Bush to head of the investigation of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
    *David Krieger is a founder and president of The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Bloodstained Path

    Originally Published in The Progressive

    Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.

    When Iraq possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, quite sad to say, it did so with the knowledge of, and sometimes with materials from, the United States. During the Administration of Ronald Reagan, sixty helicopters were sold to Iraq. Later reports said Iraq used U.S.-made helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons. According to The Washington Post, Iraq used mustard gas against Iran with the help of intelligence from the CIA.

    Iraq’s punishment? The United States reestablished full diplomatic ties around Thanksgiving of 1984.

    Throughout 1989 and 1990, U.S. companies, with the permission of the first Bush Administration, sent to the government of Saddam Hussein mustard gas precursors and live cultures for bacteriological research. U.S. companies also helped to build a chemical weapons factory and supplied the West Nile virus, fuel air explosive technology, computers for weapons technology, hydrogen cyanide precursors, computers for weapons research and development, and vacuum pumps and bellows for nuclear weapons plants. “We have met the enemy,” said Walt Kelly’s Pogo, “And he is us.”

    Unilateral action on the part of the United States, or in partnership with Great Britain, would for the first time set our nation on the bloodstained path of aggressive war, a sacrilege upon the memory of those who fought to defend this country. America’s moral authority would be undermined throughout the world. It would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf and Middle East region. And it would signal for Russia to invade Georgia; China, Taiwan; North Korea, the South; India, Pakistan.

    The United States must recommit itself to the U.N. Charter, which is the framework for international order. We have a right and a duty to defend ourselves. We also have an obligation to defend international law. We can accomplish both without going to war with Iraq.

    There is a way out.

    It must involve the United Nations. Inspections for weapons of mass destruction should begin immediately. Inspectors must have free and unfettered access to all sites. The time has come for us to end the sanctions against Iraq, because those sanctions punish the people of Iraq for having Saddam Hussein as their leader. These sanctions have been instrumental in causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Emergency relief should be expedited. Free trade, except in arms, must be permitted. Foreign investments must be allowed. The assets of Iraq abroad must be restored.

    And a regional zone free of weapons of mass destruction should be established.

    The only weapon that can save the world is nonviolence, said Gandhi. We can begin this practice today by calling upon the Administration in Washington to stop the talk of war, and stop the planning for war.

    In their heart of hearts, the American people do not want war on Iraq. The American people want peace.

    There is no reason for war against Iraq. Stop the drumbeat. Stop sending troops and supplies to Kuwait and Qatar. Pull back from the abyss of unilateral action and preemptive strikes.

    We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.

    We must drop the self-defeating policy of regime change. Policies of aggression and assassination are not worthy of any nation with a democratic tradition, let alone a nation of people who love liberty and whose sons and daughters sacrifice to maintain that democracy.

    The question is not whether or not America has the military power to destroy Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The question is whether we destroy something essential in this nation by asserting that America has the right to do so anytime it pleases.

    America cannot and should not be the world’s policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.

    We must work to bring Iraq back into the community of nations, not through destruction, but through constructive action worldwide. We can help negotiate a resolution with Iraq that encompasses unfettered inspections, the end of sanctions, and the cessation of the regime-change policy.

    We have the power to do this. We must have the will to do this. It must be the will of the American people expressed through the direct action of peaceful insistence.

    If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

  • Military Recruiters Getting a Foot in Door: Federal Education Bill Requires High Schools to Share Student Data

    Published by the Boston Globe

    WASHINGTON – A little-noticed provision in a new federal education law requires high schools to provide names, addresses, and phone numbers of students to military recruiters. Schools that refuse to comply face losing federal education funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

    We opposed it primarily on privacy grounds, that students or parents should be able to control access to directory information, such as names, addresses, ages. That information shouldn’t be sent out to military recruiters unless parents want it sent out.

    Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union Under the rule, part of the No Child Left Behind Act signed earlier this year, Pentagon recruiters are entitled to students’ contact information unless parents opt out of sharing the data, a requirement that has alarmed civil libertarians and school administrators.

    ”We don’t wish to appear antimilitary. The military is a great first step out of high school for a lot of kids, and it is a fine career for some people,” said Bruce Hunter, a lobbyist for the American Association of School Administrators.

    Nevertheless, the association opposed the provision because it took discretion away from local school boards. ”We weren’t happy because we’re a big local control outfit.”

    The law also requires high schools to allow military recruiters the same campus access as administrators give to colleges and job recruiters. Some schools, including those in San Francisco and Portland, Ore., had refused military recruiters access to their campuses on the grounds that the Pentagon discriminated against gays and lesbians.

    Education Secretary Rod Paige sent a letter last month to school administrators explaining the new regulations. Department spokesman Jim Bradshaw said the rationale for the rule was that the military ”felt this was needed to boost recruitment.”

    Major Sandy Troeber, a Defense Department spokeswoman, said the rules were ”brought about by congressional support for military recruiting efforts.” The Selective Service already requires men in the United States to register for the draft within 30 days of their 18th birthday.

    But a fact sheet provided by the Pentagon said that the cost of recruiting had doubled in the past decade and that ”access to students can significantly reduce the costs of recruiting.”

    The Pentagon had been trying for years to insert the recruitment provisions into education legislation to counter what they saw as a lack of cooperation from some high schools, according to lobbyists and congressional aides. But this year the education bill was so loaded with other contentious issues, such as school vouchers, funding matters, and testing standards, that lawmakers who might have fought the new recruitment rules had their energies focused on other provisions.

    ”It wasn’t on anybody’s radar. It was buried so deep in the legislation,” said Kathleen Lyons, spokeswoman for the National Education Association. The group has only recently begun studying the issue and hasn’t yet taken a position on it, she said.

    Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts and a major negotiator on the Leave No Child Behind Act, had fought successfully for several years to keep the military recruitment rules out of education bills, but couldn’t win the battle this year, especially since bigger education issues were dominating the debate, Hunter said. Senator Tim Hutchinson, Republican of Arkansas, engineered the inclusion of the new language, said a Kennedy staffer.

    ”All this provision does is provide military recruiters with the same access to directory information that colleges currently enjoy,” Kennedy said in a statement.

    Civil libertarians are concerned about the rule nonetheless.

    ”We opposed it primarily on privacy grounds, that students or parents should be able to control access to directory information, such as names, addresses, ages,” said Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. ”That information shouldn’t be sent out to military recruiters unless parents want it sent out.”

    Under federal privacy laws, schools generally must have written permission from parents or students to release any information about a student’s education record, according to the Education Department. Exceptions include handing records over to a transfer school, to law enforcement in some cases, and to officials who need the information in cases of health or safety emergencies.

    Schools may release what is called ”directory information,” such as names, addresses, phone numbers, and date and place of birth, but they must also give parents the option of refusing disclosure of their child’s information. Schools can decide on their own whether to provide the directory information to outside individuals or organizations.

    The difference under the new rule is that schools will not have the discretion to refuse to provide such information to the military; they must provide the information to recruiters and allow them on campus at the Pentagon’s request.

    Groups such as the American Friends Service Committee and the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, an antimilitary draft organization, have been fielding complaints about the new rules, but are not sure whether they can successfully challenge them, especially in the environment created by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Analysts are looking at whether the rules violate existing privacy law, said Oscar Castro, an AFSC official.

    Jill Wynns, president of the San Francisco Board of Education, said the board’s attorneys are looking at the law to see whether the Bay Area school system can keep any part of its current written policy, which prohibits military recruiters from coming on campus and bars the release of any student information to military recruiters ”or anyone who asks for it.”

    ”We are very upfront about being biased in favor of higher education. We’re telling our kids, `go to college, go to college,”’ said Wynns, adding that schools do not allow businesses to recruit on campuses, either. The military has not yet asked for students’ contact information, but recruiters have demanded and recently been given access to San Francisco high schools for the first time in 12 years, she said.

  • The Future of Peace: Let Students Know Non-Violence Works

    Published by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

    Whenever I write about non-violent theory and practice, I get several e-mails informing me that I’m dangerously naïve and, even worse, that I refuse to acknowledge there is evil in this world.

    It’s baffling, really. Not that most readers would know it but I grew up in East Oakland during the ’80s and early ’90s. That was during the peak of the crack and gang-banging era in urban America.

    I’ve seen human evil.

    So when I get an e-mail that insists I see only the little bit of good in people, unless I decide to respond by sending a mini-autobiography, I have to shrug it off and say to myself: He or she doesn’t really know me.

    Who cares, right? You can’t expect people to know details about something they have no reason to care about.

    But what’s really baffling about the claim that the philosophy of non-violence overlooks evil is this: The most celebrated practitioners of peacemaking are famous precisely because they stared human wickedness dead in the face and moved forward with a courage even the bravest of the brave must admire.

    Jesus, Gandhi, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Bishop Desmond Tutu — to name just a handful — confronted more evil in a week than most of us have seen in a lifetime. The assertion that non-violence doesn’t candidly confront the demonic aspects of “real” life is clearly nonsense.

    One thing that’s so unsettling to the orthodox military mind about non-violence is that it raises a different set of questions than does conventional thinking on the use of force.

    Here’s a good example of one of those unsettling questions: Given the vast toll of human misery created by wars and violent conflicts, and given the potential (perhaps even the likelihood) that an escalating cycle of military attacks and counterattacks will eventually snuff out humanity in the fiery winds of a nuclear winter, is there an alternative to the fight-or-flight model?

    Or to put it another way: Can evil, or certain kinds of evil such as totalitarianism or fascism, be effectively fought with non-violence as a weapon? Must freedom always be defended with violence? These are the age-old questions of peace and, as a casual glance at the daily newspaper will confirm, it’s an inquiry more pressing now than ever.

    No doubt, peace is one of those things that everyone — and I mean everyone — is for. I suppose even Hitler wanted peace, which means we shouldn’t be too impressed if some political leader talks a lot about peace but does little about establishing justice. No justice, no peace.

    When it comes to peace, there are only two relevant questions: peace under what terms, and how do we get there from here?

    Our collective inability to even talk about peace in fruitful ways is largely because the subject, for all its professed importance, doesn’t get taken seriously by our education system.

    No, this isn’t a public school-bashing column. America is still a place with a proud tradition of educational excellence and a country full of able teachers.

    But I think social critic Neil Postman has it right: The biggest problem facing American education today is that our children are going into school as question marks and coming out as periods.

    In other words, most students are being taught to remember and regurgitate what Alfred North Whitehead called inert ideas. Meanwhile, teaching the art of inquiry, the skill of questioning and critical-thinking are no longer at the core of the curriculum.

    To ask well is to know much, says the ancient African proverb. A modern rendering of that proverb might read: To task well is to earn much.

    Parent-Teacher Associations, school committees, academics and politicians should be aware that standard curriculum ought to include peace studies — the history of non-violent theory and practice.

    Why? Because non-violence works. In many cases, non-violent political action has been more effective and less harmful to human life than military might. And students everywhere need to know that.

    Teachers should get their hands on Scott A. Hunt’s new book “The Future of Peace: On the Front Lines with the World’s Great Peacemakers.” Hunt gives us a glimpse of what it means to be a peacemaker in his book of profiles on living non-violent leaders.

    From the Dalai Lama to Vietnam’s leading dissident Thich Quang Do to Costa Rica’s Nobel Peace Laureate Oscar Arias, this collection of intimate conversations could serve as a textbook, introducing students to a history that is not taught in school.

    The book is well worth $25 for the inspiration it provides alone. Treat yourself. I plan to read it for the second time while I’m on vacation in Florida this week.
    *Sean Gonsalves is a columnist with the Cape Cod Times.

  • Cultivating Compassion to Respond to Violence: The Way of Peace

    All violence is injustice. Responding to violence with violence is injustice, not only to the other person but also to oneself. Responding to violence with violence resolves nothing; it only escalates violence, anger and hatred, and increases the number of our enemies. It is only with compassion that we can embrace and disintegrate violence. This is true in relationships between individuals as well as in relationships between nations.

    The violence and hatred we presently face has been created by misunderstanding, injustice, discrimination and despair. We are all co-responsible for the making of violence and despair in the world by our way of living, of consuming and of handling the problems of the world. Understanding why this violence has been created, we will then know what to do and what not to do in order to decrease the level of violence in ourselves and in the world, to create and foster understanding, reconciliation and forgiveness.

    Many people in America consider Jesus Christ as their Lord, their teacher. They should heed His teachings on non-violence, especially during critical times like this. Jesus never encouraged people to respond to acts of violence with violence. His teaching is, instead, to use compassion to deal with violence. The teachings of Judaism go very much in the same direction.

    Spiritual leaders of this country are invited to raise their voices, to bring about the awareness of this teaching to the American nation and people. What needs to be done right now is to recognize the suffering, to embrace it and to understand it. We need calmness and lucidity so that we can listen deeply to and understand our own suffering, the suffering of the nation and the suffering of others around the world. By understanding the nature and the causes of the suffering, we will then know the right path to follow to heal it.

    I have the conviction that America possesses enough wisdom and courage to perform an act of forgiveness and compassion, and I know that such an act can bring great relief to America and to the world right away.
    *Thich Nhat Hanh, the author and a Buddhist monk, has been a tremendous peace activist since the sixties and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Martin Luther King Jr.