Blog

  • Letter From Iraqi Foreign Minister to the U.N.

    The following letter was delivered to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan from the Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Saberi Ahmed.

    In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful Go thou to Pharaoh, for he has indeed transgressed all bounds. But speak to him mildly; perchance he may take warning or fear (Alla).”

    (Allah’s is the Word of Truth)

    His excellency
    Mr. Kofi Annan,
    The Secretary-General of the United Nations,
    New York, N.Y.

    Your Excellency
    Assalamu Alaykum,

    You may recall the huge clamour fabricated by the President of the United States administration, in the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq, supported in malicious intent, and spearheaded in word and malevolence, by his lackey Tony Blair, when they disseminated the claim that Iraq had perhaps produced, or was on its way to produce, nuclear weapons, during the time when the United Nations inspectors had been absent from Iraq since 1998. Then they returned to stress that Iraq had in fact produced chemical and biological weapons. They both know, as well as we do, and so can other countries, that such fabrications are baseless. But, does the knowledge of the truth constitute elements for interaction in the politics of our day, which has witnessed the unleashing of the American administration’s evil to its fullest extent, dashing away all hope in any good? Indeed, is there any good to be hoped for, or expected, from the American administrations, now that they have been transformed by their own greed, by Zionism as well as by other known factors, into the tyrant of the age.

    Let’s go back to say that Iraq, having seen this fabrication work perhaps with some countries and amongst public opinion, while others maintained silence, confronted them with its agreement to the return of the UN inspectors, having agreed on this first with you, as UN chief, in New York on 16 September, 2002, and later in a press statement issued jointly in Vienna following a meeting on 30th September-1st October between an Iraqi technical delegation headed by Dr. Amer Al-Sa’di, Chief Inspector Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But after Iraq’s acceptance of the return of the UN inspectors had become an established fact including the agreement of 19 October, 2002, on the date of their return, and only a few hours this agreement was reached, Collin Powell, the US Secretary of Sate, declared that he would refuse to accept the inspectors’ return to Iraq. In the meantime, the gang of evil returned to talking about adopting a new resolution, or new resolutions, in order to create something for the world to talk about, other than following the work of the inspectors and then seeing the fact already stated by Iraq, which was that Iraq neither had produced or was in possession of any weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical or biological, throughout the time of the inspectors’ absence from Iraq. However, representatives at the United Nations and its agencies, especially those from permanent member-states, instead of fellowship up on this and, hence, expose those responsible for the dissemination of lies and fabrications, were busy discussing the type and wording of the new resolution. They were indulged in what word or letter to add here or omit there, until they adopted a text under the pretext that is would be better to take the kicks of a raging bull in a small circle than to face its horns in an open space. The text was adopted under the American Administration’s pressure and threat that is would leave UN, if it did not agree to what America wanted, which is, to say the least, extremely evil and shameful to every honest member of the United Nations who recalls the provisions of its Charter, and sees that some people feel ashamed on behalf of those who are shameless.

    Mr. Secretary-General,

    We have said to the member of the Security Council whom we have contacted, or who have contacted us, when they told us about the pretexts of the Americans and their threat to perpetrate aggression against our country, whether unilaterally or with participated from others, if the Council were not to allow them to have their way, that we preferred, if it ever became necessary to see America carry out its aggressions against us unilaterally, when we would have to confront it relying on Allah, instead of seeing the American government obtaining an international cover with which to camouflage its falsehood, partially or completely, bringing it closer to the truth, so that it may stab the truth with the dagger of evil and confronted the United States before when it looked as it does now, and this was one of the factors of its isolation in the human environment on the globe at large.

    The aggressionism of the United States of America and its single-handed infliction of injustice and destruction on those subjected to its inequity, in the forefront of whom are the Muslims and Arab believers, is the basic reason why America has withdrawn its ambassadors and other staff, close its embassies, and restrict its interests in many parts of the world, while reaping the hatred of the peoples of the world due to its policies and aggressive objectives. This is a situation which no other country in the world has experienced before, including the fathers of old colonialism. The Security Council, however, or indeed those who can basically play an influential role in it, have, instead of leaving the American administration and its lackey reap the result of their evil, saved wrong-doing rather than halted it. We shall see when remorse will not do any good for those who bite on their fingers.

    Mr. Secretary-General,

    The strength of influence of any internation organization rests on the belief of the human environment in which the organization exists and which places its trust in it, once the organization declares that is has been founded to achieve goals important to mankind. We fear the United Nations Organization may lose the trust and attachment of peoples, that is if it has not fallen to that place already. This is due to the exploitation of the organization be powerful interests, whenever their greedy ambitions converge at the expense of the interests of other peoples. It may also be due to the expediency and compromise amongst those interests in falsehood at the expense of truth. So the United Nations Organization and its agencies will collapse in the same way as did its predecessor, the league of Nations. Then the responsibility for this will not rest with the American administrations alone, but will also be due to the weakness of the timid who allow themselves to work for American interests, under the threat, lure or promises of the American administration.

    He who remains silent in the defence of truth is a dumb devil. Nothing seems more reprehensible than the silence maintained by those who represented their nations in the security Council, as they discussed the American draft resolution, in the face of a question raised by the representative of Mexico regarding the possibility of lifting the blockade imposed on Iraq. The Mexican representative said, during consultations at the Security Council over SCR 1441 on 8 November 2002, that he did not find convincing the explanations presented by the American Permanent Representative, regarding the absence of any reference to the lifting of sanctions and the establishment in the Middle East region of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, and that he would convey this to his government in order to receive instructions. The British Representative responded by saying that he has listened to the statements made by the delegations of Syria and Mexico regarding the inclusion in the draft text of a paragraph on the lifting of sanctions. He went on to say that Iraq had been provided with the opportunity to dispose of its weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq had ignored that opportunity and decided to keep possession of those WMDs. Hence, he added, it would be inappropriate to include a reference to the lifting of sanctions as long as Iraq remained in possession of those weapons, even though an indirect reference to that effect was being accommodated.

    We ask here, why is it that none of the representatives of SC member-states asked their British counterpart when, where and how such an alleged decision was taken by Iraq to keep possession of the weapons of mass destruction. They treated the claim made by the British representative as if it were of no significance to them: Or, rather, as it were of no concern to them to say the truth. Does not this instance, along with other things and the decline of this type of international organizations point to the possibility of the collapse of this international organization which was founded in order to preserve world peace and security, but has now been transformed into a kitchen-house for big-power bargaining, providing cover for war, destruction, blockades and starvation to be inflicted upon peoples.

    The future will be determined in the light of the possibility for reform, or the inability to achieve reform. The future of the United Nations is no exception to this. Hence, all those who are truly concerned about the well-being of this organization, in deeds not only in words, and about its work on the basis of the UN Charter, so that stability, justice and fairness will prevail in the world, providing a road-map for peace, freedom and cooperation to flourish amongst peoples, are called upon to be careful and to adhere to the UN Charter and international law, and not to the whims and incontrolable instincts of those who threaten the world with their evil schemes weaponry and those who seek to achieve their interests narrow-mindedly by resorting to the bargaining at the expense of truth, justice and fairness.

    Mr. Secretary-General,

    We know that those who pressed the Security Council to adopt resolution No. 1441 have other objectives than making sure that Iraq had not developed mass destruction weapons in the absence of the inspectors since 1998. You are aware of how and who stood behind their absence. We also know that there are no true, just, or fair reasons behind the adoption of this resolution in the name of the security council, after the well-known understanding agreement between the representatives of Iraq and the UN Secretary-General and the press statement issued jointly by Blix, ElBaradei, and the Iraqi representatives. We hereby inform you that we will deal with resolution 1441, despite its bad contents, if it is to be implemented according to the premeditated evil of the parties of ill- intent, the important thing in this is trying to spare our people from any harm. But we will not forget, nor should others do, that safeguarding our people’s dignity, security, independence, and protecting our country, its sovereignty and sublime values, is as a sacred duty in our leadership’s and government’s agenda. Therefore, and as we said in the foresaid agreement and press statement, we are prepared to receive the inspectors, so that they can carry out their duties, and make sure that Iraq had not developed weapons of mass destruction, during their absence since 1998.

    We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable. The parties concerned should bear in mind that we are in our holy month of Ramadan which means that the people are fasting, and this holy month will be followed by the Muslum’s Eid. Nevertheless, we will cooperate with the concerned UN bodies and officials on the background of all this, and of the tripartite, French-Russia-China, statement. Dealing with the inspectors, the government of Iraq will, also, take into consideration, their way of conduct, the intentions of those who are ill-intentioned amongst them and their improper approach in showing respect to the people’s national dignity, their independence and security, and their country’s security, independence and sovereignty. We are eager to see them perform their duties in accordance with the international law as soon as possible. If they do so, professionally and lawfully, without any premeditated intentions, the lairs’ lies will be exposed to public opinion, and the declared objective of the Security Council will be achieved. It will then become the lawful duty of the Security Council to lift the blockade and all the other unjust sanctions on Iraq. If it does not, all the peoples of good will in the world, in addition to Iraq, will tell it to do so. The SC will be compelled before the public opinion and the law to activate paragraph 14 of its resolution No. 687, by applying it to the Zionist entity (Israel), and then, to all the Middle East region, to make it a region void of mass destruction weapons. The number of just people will, then, increase in the world, and Iraq’s possibility to drive away the cawing of the crows of evil that daily raid its land, and kill Iraqis and destroy their property by their bombs. This will help the stability of the region and the world, if it is accompanied by a resolution that will not be based on double standards, to put an end to the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and other occupied Arab territories, and if the warmongers stop their aggressions on the Muslums and the world.

    Therefore, through you, we reiterate the same words to the Security Council: Send your inspectors to Iraq to make sure of this, and everyone will be sure, if their way of conduct is supervised so that it becomes legal and professional, that Iraq has not developed weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical, or biological, as claimed by evil people. The lies and manipulations of the American administration and British government will be exposed, while the world will see how truthful and adequate are the Iraqis in what they say and do. But if the whims of the American administration, the Zionist desires, their followers, intelligence services, threats, and foul temptation, were given the chance to play and tamper with the inspection teams or some of their members, the colors would be then confused and the resulting commotion will distort the facts and push the situation into dangerous directions which is something fair-minded people do not wish for, as well as the people who, including my government, want to bring forward the facts as they are. The fieldwork and the implementation will be the decisive factors that will reveal whether the intentions were really for the Security Council to make sure that Iraq is void of those alleged weapons, or whether the whole thing was nothing but an evil cover by those who were behind the resolution who have no scruples to utter debased slander and to tell lies to the public opinion including to their own peoples.

    So, let the inspectors come to Baghdad to carry out their duties in accordance with the law, and then we will hear and see along with those who want to hear, see and move according to each one’s responsibility and rights. The final word and reference will still be resolution No.687 with its obligations on both the Secretary general and Iraq, along will the code of conduct agreed upon in the agreement signed by thee Secretary-General in New York on 16th September, 2002, and the press statement of Hans Blix and ElBaradei in Vienna in 30/9- 1/10/2002.

    Mr. Secretary-General,

    Please assume your responsibilities, by saying and advising the unfair people that their unfairness to Muslims, faithful Arabs, and to all, will be of dire consequences, and that God, the Almighty is capable of doing everything. Tell them that the proud Iraqi people are faithful and Mujahid and who had fought the old colonialism, imperialism and aggression, including the tyrant’s aggression, for years and years. The price this courageous people paid to safeguard their independence, dignity, sublime principles was rivers of blood, with a lot of deprivation and loss of their riches, along with their eternal achievements and record of which they are proud. Therefore, we hope, that you will, Mr. Secretary General, advise the ignorants not to push things to the precipice, in the implementation, because the people of Iraq will not choose to live at the price of their dignity, country, freedom or sanctities, and they would rather make their lives the price if that was the only way before them to safeguard what they must safeguard.

    I wish to inform your Excellency before I conclude this letter, that I intend to forward another letter to you on a later date, in which I shall state our observations the measures and procedures, contained in SCR 1441 that are contrary to international law, UN Charter, the facts already established and the measures contained in previous relevant resolutions of the Security Council.

    “Do ye secure He Who is in Heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes”

    (Allah’s is the Word of Truth)

    Allah is the Greatest.

    Naji Saberi Ahmed
    Minister of Foreign Affairs
    Republic of Iraq

  • Unsolicited Advice About the Future of Peacemaking

    Originally Published by CommonDreams.org

    Why doesn’t our society see peace as a viable option? We relegate peacemakers to the footnotes in our history books and all but ignore the important role nonviolence has played throughout history.

    Many of my students think that nonviolence means just laying down or getting stepped on, a passive act rather than a powerful active stance for justice. We are taught to compartmentalize our lives, to put things in neat categories whose boundaries don’t touch. Fight or flight, we’re taught.

    Violence is a simple dichotomy: good versus evil, right versus wrong, you versus me.

    So how do we deal with that?

    By teaching young people about strategic, organized nonviolent strategy. Peace is an inside job I was recently told. It starts with taking a deep look at authenticity. Is our education authentic? Are standardized tests making us smarter and more well-equipped to deal with the real problems we encounter everyday?

    How do we feel about our career options? Is work exciting? Can we work in a way that nourishes our talents and skills and preserves the planet for the seventh future generation? Are we autodidactic?

    How do we even get to the point where we can think of how we can enjoy our lives when problems like police brutality, racism, classism, gentrification, verbal violence, environmental injustice, neo-fascism, globalization, capitalism, misogyny, structural and institutional violence, militarism and the ever-expanding academic-prison-industrial complex are rampant. Not to mention the ongoing global threat of nuclear weapons…

    It all seems so overwhelming when we stop to think about it.

    Fortunately, I received some words of comfort from a friend of mine who spent a month at the Findhorn Foundation in Scotland. She said, “Leah, there is enough of everything. Enough time, enough love, enough energy, enough resources and enough money to build and meet the needs of the entire planet.” Those words are not utopic.

    It starts with a paradigm shift. The problems we face are a result of a crisis of perception of “us” versus “them” where we retain the good qualities and they embody the evil ones. Life is not that simple. Dr. King said that there’s some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. Hate the sin, not the sinner, he said.

    For my part, I have chosen to address the injustices in the world through education. I believe in peace education because it is proactive – it is its own agenda. It is a response, not a reaction.

    Peace education corrects the version of history that deems mankind is a violent and vicious species and instead tells the stories of where the anonymous, unsung peacemakers have quietly changed millions of lives. It is the patient coursework that advocates reading the literature of peace, the words of Tolstoy and Dorothy Day, of Einstein and of Joan Baez. It is the classroom instruction that encourages students to start learning in the real world. Peace education advocates community service and a view of the world where the personal, local, national and global issues are interconnected.

    At this point, peace education is its own semester-long class where students venture daily to learn about how nonviolence applies to them. They are in a Patch Adams-style learning environment where every student is a teacher and every teacher is a student. When I am absent, my students teach the class.

    It’s more than just one class, though. Peace must be a balance between content and process, where the material students learn in every class – French, History, Science, Math – is geared at promoting peace and responsible citizenship, and where the process is also nonviolent where administrators, teachers and students share power rather than reinforcing the traditional patriarchal “power-over” structure.

    So what are you waiting for? It starts with you. Run don’t walk to get Grace Llewellyn’s book “The Teenage Liberation Handbook: How to Quit School and Get a Real Life and Education.” Grab William Upski Wimsatt’s book “No More Prisons.” Watch “A Bug’s Life” and learn about the power dynamics that keep the ‘powerful few’ in power over the ‘powerless many’ and make the connections between that film and real life.

    Talk with your friends and your enemies you probably have a lot in common. Get organized. You have power even though you might not be able to vote yet. Take back this world and make it what you want it to be.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She credits her high school “Issues and Themes” teacher Mr. Jackson with her love for teaching.

  • Election Day in America

    Election Day in America

    Most Americans chose not to vote.
    By their absence they voted against the system.
    They thumbed their nose at democracy
    And democracy thumbed its nose back at them.

    By staying away from the polls
    They assured the continuation of corporate power,
    Privilege for the few, and obscene military might
    To defend this power and privilege.

    Most Americans who did vote
    Cast their votes for one of our two military parties,
    The Democrats and Republicans, assuring
    The continuation of our country’s war machine.

    By our absence and by our votes
    We again ratified power over reason,
    Privilege over justice, and corporate greed over
    Fundamental human rights and dignity.

    Surely, if only we had thought more about our world,
    So weighted down by weaponry, war and poverty,
    We could have done better by our democracy
    Than we did this election day in America

  • Going to War? Ask Yourself Some Critical Questions About Bush Plan

    Originally Published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

    Before our nation commits itself to an invasion of Iraq, to war and its aftermath, I urge my fellow Americans to think ahead for a moment and soberly question some popular assumptions:

    Is this really the project that we want to rally the world around?

    Is this really the best way to prevent future terrorism?

    Do we really know where this path is going to take us?

    Is this really how we want to jump-start our ailing economy?

    Is this really how we want to fuel our SUVs?

    Is this really a fitting tribute to the victims of 9/11?

    Is this really what will make us feel better?

    Are these really the values we want to impart on our children?

    Is this really what we want to pledge allegiance to when we pledge allegiance to the flag?

  • The Children of Iraq Have Names

    The Children of Iraq Have Names

    The children of Iraq have names.
    They are not the nameless ones.

    The children of Iraq have faces.
    They are not the faceless ones.

    The children of Iraq do not wear Saddam’s face.
    They each have their own face.

    The children of Iraq have names.
    They are not all called Saddam Hussein.

    The children of Iraq have hearts.
    They are not the heartless ones.

    The children of Iraq have dreams.
    They are not the dreamless ones.

    The children of Iraq have hearts that pound.
    They are not meant to be statistics of war.

    The children of Iraq have smiles.
    They are not the sullen ones.

    The children of Iraq have twinkling eyes.
    They are quick and lively with their laughter.

    The children of Iraq have hopes.
    They are not the hopeless ones.

    The children of Iraq have fears.
    They are not the fearless ones.

    The children of Iraq have names.
    Their names are not collateral damage.

    What do you call the children of Iraq?
    Call them Omar, Mohamed, Fahad.

    Call them Marwa and Tiba.
    Call them by their names.

    But never call them statistics of war.
    Never call them collateral damage.
    *David Krieger is a founder and president of The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Un-Remembered Origins of “Nuclear Holocaust”: World’s First Thermonuclear Explosion of Nov. 1, 1952

    National and media anniversaries of signal events like Sept. 11th are important in helping to form the collective memory that over time and across generations shapes what a society remembers — or what it forgets. An anniversary that serves as a news peg for journalists re-ignites powerful emotional connections for those who lived through the event, communication scholar Jill Edy writes, and may be even more influential for those who did not live through the event because it “creates a world they never experienced.” Even more important, Edy notes, anniversary journalism “impacts whether we remember our past at all.”

    An un-remembered part of the U.S. past occurred on Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands, some 3,000 miles west of Honolulu and 4,800 miles from the West Coast. On Nov. 1, 1952, at 7:15 a.m., the U.S. government detonated the world’s first thermonuclear device, codenamed “Mike,” the most powerful man-made explosion in history up to that time. In layperson’s terms, it was the prototype for the “hydrogen bomb.”

    Mike unleashed a yield of 10.4 megatons, an explosive force 693 times more powerful than the atomic bomb that had annihilated Hiroshima in 1945 and the fourth most powerful shot of the 1,054 acknowledged nuclear tests in U.S. history. Ushering in the thermonuclear era, the Mike shot raised to a new level the capacity for mass destruction that had been inaugurated by humans with atomic weapons only seven years earlier. Because of this new dimension in the power of nuclear weapons, President Eisenhower observed in 1956, “Humanity has now achieved, for the first time in its history, the power to end its history.”

    The Mike shot was controversial. Debate raged within the scientific community over detonating the so-called super bomb. One camp warned that the atmospheric chain reaction from the thermonuclear explosion would immolate the entire planet, the University of Hawaii’s environmental coordinator John Harrison reports; or “drive the radioactive dust into outer space!,” health and environmental scientist Merril Eisenbud notes. Calling such fears farfetched, those in the second camp, led by influential physicist Edward Teller, prevailed. The public was not told about the shot at the time for fear that it would influence the presidential election held just three days later. Sixteen days after the Mike shot, U.S. officials announced a thermonuclear experiment, but provided no details.

    Mike was a proto-bomb; in fact, it was more like a building, Harrison explains as he studies a sepia-toned photograph of the cylindrical Mike device, about 20 feet in height and eight to 10 feet in diameter. Weighing 82 tons and standing vertically like the shiny innards of a giant thermos bottle, the cylinder dwarfs in the photo a scrawny, shirt-less man sitting in a chair, elbows cocked on his knees, and staring at the earth on Elugelab Island of Enewetak Atoll. The cylinder is attached to king-size tubes to keep its contents of hydrogen fuel, liquid deuteride, refrigerated below its boiling point of -417.37 degrees fahrenheit.

    More than 11,000 civilians and servicemen worked on or near Enewetak to prepare for the blast. They left Enewetak by ship before the Mike device was remotely detonated on the earth’s surface from 30 miles away. The energy from the splitting of atoms with heavy nuclei like plutonium produced temperatures on the order of those at the core of the sun that were necessary to kick-start the fusion of the liquid deuteride with other lightweight hydrogen nuclei. This fusion produced even greater energy, so much that, as physicist Kosta Tsipis writes, “An exploding nuclear weapon is a miniature, instantaneous sun.”

    The Mike test vaporized the island of Elugelab. Researcher Leona Marshall Libby wrote at the time that Mike’s detonation created a fireball that swooshed outward and upward for three miles in diameter and turned millions of gallon of lagoon water to steam. It left behind a 1.2-mile-wide crater and a deeply fractured reef platform. Harrison notes that in the aftermath of a subsequent, adjacent thermonuclear test — the Koa shot in 1958 — the weakened seaward wall of the reef next to the Mike crater cleaved away and plummeted into the ocean depths.

     

    EPIPHANY OF A “NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST”

    Harrison, who lived at Enewetak for five years beginning in 1978 while serving as a UH administrator and senior research scientist there, says the destructiveness of the Mike shot defies human comprehension. He recalls the scores of times he guided his outboard motorboat across segments of the choppy aquamarine waters of Enewetak’s 388-acre lagoon encircled by the 42 made-by-coral islands so pristine and lovely “they are God’s gift to the entire world.” His boat would slice into the shallower turquoise waters that overlay the close-in reefs and “then all of a sudden into the deeper, more cloudy waters that delineated or that filled this enormous, enormous round circle that was the Mike crater.”

    Each time Harrison made that journey, he says, “it changed my life.” The experience overwhelmed his senses every time he crossed that threshold into the darker, murkier blue waters within the crater. He would struggle to understand the cataclysm of that instant that had transformed an island into a massive hole in the reef. “Then and now and to the day I die,” he says, “I could not, I can not and I will never wrap my mind around the significance of that.”

    “There is no way that the mind can grasp that amount of force,” he elaborates. “We have nothing to compare it with.” Even so, once in the middle of the Mike crater, he sensed that he had experienced “the ultimate epiphany of what a nuclear holocaust is all about.”

    A rare snapshot of the havoc caused by the Mike shot is provided by a before-and-after survey made of Enewetak by a scientific research team from the University of Washington and written up in a one-of-kind report archived by Harrison. Just eight days after the Mike shot, the team found water, plankton, sponges, starfish, snails, clams and 22 kinds of fish contained much more radioactivity than samples collected before the Mike shot on Oct. 21-28, with the highest levels found in those collected closest to Ground Zero. After the Mike shot, the few live rats found were “ill and lethargic” and the sole bird found on one islet “had been blown to bits by the shock wave,” suggesting that animals had little chance to survive the blast. The report notes, “A large number of dead and dying fish were seen in and close to the turbid water flowing from the target area westward inside the lagoon.” The greatest radioactivity in fish was later found to be concentrated in the digestive tract, followed by the liver and muscle; in rats and some birds radioactivity was concentrated in bones. Even algae that had been scrubbed with a brush and detergent retained “specks” of fallout, the report says, indicating most of the “radioactivity is actually present within the alga.” Lastly, spotlighting the significance of color in absorbing the heat of the fireball, the team notes, “Birds with dark colored feathers were burned more severely than were the white fairy terns.”

    A 1978 study of 476 Enewetak rats by environmental scientists from Bowling Green State University, M. Temme and W. B. Jackson, noted possible genetic effects caused by radiation. They hypothesized that radiation effects may have caused deformations in an important inherited marker of some rats — the ridge of the roof of the mouth. The scientists described these ridges as exemplifying “expressions of genes affecting development.” Since 1978, Jackson told Honolulu Weekly on Oct. 21, followup studies have supported the notion of possible radiation-induced genetic effects.

    HIDING 8,580 HIROSHIMA-SIZE BOMBINGS IN 16 YEARS

    Most of the atmospheric testing on the U.S. side was conducted in the Pacific, but the full extent of these tests has become clear only in the past decade with the lifting of official secrecy. Only since December 1993 has the explosive force of 44 of the 66 U.S. nuclear weapons tests in the Marshall Islands been revealed to Marshallese officials and others.

    In 1994 the most relevant, comprehensive list of all 1,054 U.S. nuclear weapons tests worldwide was made public, allowing scholars to calculate for the first time the full extent of the entire U.S. nuclear testing program that ceased in 1992. These documents show that nearly three-quarters of the yield of all 1,054 U.S. nuclear tests worldwide occurred during only 82 tests conducted in the U.S.-administered Pacific Islands or the Pacific waters during the 16 years of the U.S. Pacific nuclear testing from 1946 to 1962. This prolonged secrecy, even beyond the collapse of the Soviet Union, hid for decades the yield of Pacific tests amounting to at least 128,704 kilotons during the 16-year period, a destructive force equal to detonations of 8,580 Hiroshima-size bombs.

    The atolls of Bikini, Enewetak and Johnston plus Pacific waters served as sites for nuclear weapons experiments far too powerful and unpredictable to be conducted on the U.S. mainland. The yield of what the New York Times described as the mightiest nuclear explosion within the continental United States, which was the explosion of the first hydrogen device in Nevada in 1962, was but .0069 of the magnitude of the most powerful Pacific test, later disclosed as the 15-megaton Bravo shot of 1954. In serving as sites for such immense infernos, these Pacific atolls and their people contributed enormously to U.S. superpower status today. And, they contributed to restraint, and the retreat from overt nuclear hostilities during decades of the most dangerous political confrontation in history, the Cold War. Recent revelations regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis are chillingly reflective of that nuclear brink.

    OMIT “THERMONUCLEAR” FROM PRESS RELEASES

    Ten months after the Mike detonation, in August 1953, U.S. officials detected the first Soviet hydrogen explosion and announced the event to the world. The Eisenhower Administration then set up a deliberate policy to confuse the public about the escalating order of magnitude in destructiveness between atomic and thermonuclear weapons, Jonathan Weisgall writes in his pathbreaking book titled Operation Crossroads. “Keep them confused,” Eisenhower told the Atomic Energy Commission. “Leave ‘thermonuclear’ out of press releases and speeches. Also ‘fusion’ and ‘hydrogen.’” The agency complied. Only decades later, in 1979, did the public learn of this obfuscation.

    Six months after the Soviet H-bomb, on March 1, 1954, U.S. bomb-makers caught up by unleashing from Bikini Atoll a deliverable hydrogen weapon, code-named Bravo, its 15 megatonnage making it nearly one and a half times the yield of the Mike shot. Bravo was the most powerful U.S. bomb ever detonated and one equivalent to 1,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs, according to U.S. government documents released in 1994. Weisgall observes, “Hiroshima paled in comparison to Bravo, which represented as revolutionary an advance in explosive power over the atomic bomb as the atomic bomb had over the conventional weapons of World War II.”

    NUCLEAR VICTIMIZATION OF “OUR OWN PEOPLE”

    Bravo also introduced the word fallout to everyday language worldwide when snow-like radioactive particles dusted 236 residents of nearby Rongelap Island, 28 U.S. servicemen and 23 crewman of a Japanese fishing trawler. In fact, the thermonuclear era produced radioactive components and fallout that encircled the globe, settling silently from the heavens. Beginning particularly with the Mike shot, “the chemical signature of our bones changed,” Harrison told Honolulu Weekly last month. The atmospheric weapons tests that proliferated in scale with the Mike shot dispersed radioactive forms of iodine, cesium, strontium and other elements. As a result, Harrison notes, all organisms, including humans, carry the watermark of the nuclear era woven into their tissues.

    The Mike shot marked an acceleration of the man-made proliferation and escalation of mass destruction and the ensuing nuclear age transformed the planet and its inhabitants. As award-winning journalist Eileen Welsome writes in her book The Plutonium Files: “The radioactive debris found its way into starfish, shellfish, and seaweed. It covered alfalfa fields in upstate New York, wheat fields in North Dakota, corn in Iowa. It seeped into the bodies of honeybees and birds, human fetuses and growing children. The atom had split the world into ‘preatomic’ and ‘postatomic’ species.”

    Moreover, the “postatomic” species must live with the effects of the nuclear age for centuries and generations to come. Environmental radioactivity derived from some nuclear weapons components like plutonium will persist for up to 500,000 years and may be hazardous to humans for at least half that time.

    Fallout and other residual radioactivity from atmospheric nuclear testing conducted by all nations have caused or will cause through infinity an estimated three million cancer fatalities, researchers Arjun Makhijani and Stephen I. Schwartz wrote in the Brookings Institution’s 1998 monumental study titled Atomic Audit. That number of casualties is nearly five times the 617,389 U.S. servicemen killed in World War I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War combined.

    In 1980 a Congressional oversight committee report titled “The Forgotten Guinea Pigs” concluded, “The greatest irony of our atmospheric nuclear testing program is that the only victims of U.S. nuclear arms since World War II have been our own people.” The House report included in its conclusion — but only in an obscure footnote — mention of Pacific Islanders, whose ancestral homelands had sustained the most U.S. nuclear firepower.

    EXODUS AND A 33-YEAR EXILE

    U.S. Pacific nuclear testing that began in July 1946 required U.S. officials to evacuate 170 Bikinians and 142 Enewetakese, thus transforming them into so-called “nuclear nomads,” which the Bikinians remain today.

    The Enewetakese, when evacuated from their homeland in December 1947, were told by a senior official, Capt. John P.W. Vest, that they would be able to return to their atoll within three to five years. Instead, for the next 33 years they were exiled on the smaller, desolate Ujelang Atoll, 150 miles to the southwest.

    Other official U.S. commitments made then are contained in documents once classified as top secret that attorney Davor Pevec uses in representing these islanders. The Enewetakese “will be accorded all rights which are the normal constitutional rights of the citizens under the Constitution, but will be dealt with as wards of the United States for whom this country has special responsibilities,” according to a memorandum from the Atomic Energy Commission attached to President Truman’s Directive of Nov. 25, 1947 to the Secretary of Defense.

    The Enewetakese on Ujelang suffered greatly because of logistical problems, inclement weather, bureaucratic negligence and the island’s desolation. Even the Department of Interior, in a letter dated Jan. 13, 1978, acknowledged that during their 33-year exile on Ujelang the Enewetakese “have suffered grave deprivations, including periods of near starvation.”

    An anthropologist who lived among them on Ujelang and spoke Marshallese, Laurence M. Carucci, wrote that the stories of this period told to him over and over by elders focused on famine and hunger, near starvation and death from illness, poor fishing conditions, epidemics of polio and measles and rat infestation.

    One Enewetak woman in her forties told Carucci in 1978 about these difficult days. She described the stomachs of children as being “stuck out like they were bloated and you would never think they were hungry,” but in fact they were. Then, she continued: “They would get hot fevers, then cold chills; hot fevers, then cold and sweaty. And then, in just a moment, they would be gone. Dead, they would never move again. Their life was gone. And, in those days, the wailing across the village was constant.”

    Their hardship was so severe that in 1969 they commandeered a supply ship and demanded they be returned home. Their ancestral atoll was too contaminated with radioactivity for their return, but the U.S. government did begin an extensive clean-up and rehabilitation so that on Oct. 1, 1980 some islanders returned home.

    Upon their return, they found a far different Enewetak. The Mike shot and 42 other detonations had devastated Enewetak so severely that more than half of the land and pockets of the lagoon today remain contaminated by radiation. The islanders who do reside there cannot live off of much of their land but must rely on imported food.

    THE MOONSCAPING OF ENEWETAK

    The Mike shot was the eighth of 43 nuclear weapons tests at Enewetak that transformed a placid atoll into a moonscape. Its people are still pleading with the U.S. government for $386 million in land and hardship damages and other compensation awarded to them two years ago by an official panel established by the U.S. and Marshallese governments.

    This panel ruled in April 2000 that after serving as Ground Zero for 43 weapons tests and receiving fallout from other shots, Enewetak:

    • was uninhabitable on 49 percent of its original land mass, or 949.8 acres of l,919.49 acres
    • was habitable on only 43 percent of its land area or 815.33 acres
    • was vaporized by eight percent or 154.36 acres.

    The lingering effects of U.S. Pacific nuclear tests are visible today in the numerous kinds of cancers and other diseases and the degraded homelands that are determined by an official panel established by the U.S. and Marshallese governments to result from the U.S. experiments of decades ago. Compensation for these damages is paid for from a $150 million trust fund that is now too depleted to pay fully current personal and property claims. Since 1946, researchers write in Atomic Audit, the U.S. government has paid at least $759 million in nuclear-related compensation to the Marshallese. But medical, cleanup and resettlment costs continue to mount, and Marshallese want more U.S. funding.

    The Marshallese prospects for immediate help from U.S. officials in Washington seem dim, Congressional sources in Washington, D. C. told Honolulu Weekly. Enewetak’s $386 million in land claims is not included in the budget Congress is considering for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1, 2002. Nor are funds for a medical program that in 2001 ceased to address Marshallese health needs that are urgent enough to warrant sending a six-person delegation to Washington last month to plead with Congressional leaders and staff. Provisions of the Compact of Free Association set to definitely expire next year are being negotiated with the Bush Administration but any agreement must then be acted on by Congress, which is soon to adjourn. Arguing that U.S. assistance provided in past agreements is “manifestly inadequate,” Marshallese officials in September 2000 petitioned Congress for increased U.S. medical and other assistance to meet the mounting costs of damages to persons and property presumed to be caused by U.S. nuclear testing; that petition is still being studied by the Bush Administration and no Congressional measure on it is pending.

    FROM CRATER TO CRYPT

    Much of the plutonium-contaminated soil removed in the operation to clean up Enewetak was dumped into one of the atoll’s smaller craters on Runit Island and then encrypted into a massive dome-like structure. This crater was created May 5, 1958, during the 18-kiloton test shot code-named Cactus. The crater, 30-foot-deep and 350-foot-wide, was filled with about 111,000 cubic yards of radioactive soil and other materials and then entombed beneath a dome of 358 concrete panels, each 18 inches thick. Researchers in Atomic Audit calculate that the unprecedented job, completed in 1980, took three years and about $239 million.

    Soon afterward, a delegation from the National Academy of Sciences inspected the dome and, Harrison recalls, issued a report noting the inadequacies of the dome, specifically that the predicted longevity of the containment structure was at best 300 years. Yet, the plutonium-laced debris encased in the dome will remain radioactive for 500,000 years and hazardous to humans for at least 250,000 years.

    The Runit Island entombment is of special interest because a nuclear-waste crypt is now being finished 800 miles from Honolulu to bury plutonium-laced materials under a cap of coral soil at Johnston Island, where four failed nuclear-tipped missile shots in 1962 showered the atoll and waters with radioactive debris.

    From test site to dump site, the Runit Island crypt eerily symbolizes the legacy of the thermonuclear age that has caused the Marshallese to suffer greatly and continue to suffer disproportionately in adverse health, environmental and cultural conditions.

    The Mike shot of Nov. 1, 1952 and its aftermath begs for reflection from a nation so riveted on a purported nuclear threat in the Middle East and North Korea that it ignores the era of mass destruction introduced by the United States on Enewetak with the world’s first thermonuclear explosion.

  • Address on the International Criminal Court Delivered by His Excellency Arthur N.R. Robinson, President of Trinidad and Tobago

    At a Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Symposium entitled International Law and the Quest for Security held at the University of California at Santa Barbara

    Thank you, Dr. Krieger, for this exposition on the basis on which the International Criminal Court came into being. You had, I understand, a very enlightening discussion on aspects of International Law, International Criminal Law specifically, this morning and that, together with what Dr Krieger has said, will form a very informative, useful background against which I will speak.

    I will deal more with the historical aspect of the attempts at unified action by the International Community to establish rules of behavior and in saying so, I recall the words of a notorious Nazi criminal. He was Hitler’s most gifted technician who did more than anyone else to assist Hitler in his ravages and destruction of different parts of Europe and other parts of the world. He was caught along with others, both military and business (people). He was tried by the Tribunal of Nuremberg, as it has come to be known, convicted and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment in Spandau. It was after his conviction, when reality dawned upon him, Albert Speer bared his soul to the tribunal and said, among other things, that “It is necessary that rules must be devised whereby mankind can learn to live with one another because, with the advances that would take place in science and technology, a new war of this kind will result in the destruction of civilization.”

    And that is what, fundamentally, an International Criminal Court is about: the creation of rules by the International Community, establishing standards of behaviour where anyone will be held accountable for violation of such standards where the most egregious offences are involved.

    With the tremendous advances that Albert Speer foresaw in science and technology, it is clear that what is before us now, and I speak particularly to the youth in this audience, what is evolving before our very eyes and in our very presence, is a new civilization which science and technology have developed around us, the beginnings of a new civilization in which we humans are involved whether we like it or not.

    How are we going to make use of this tremendous advance in science and technology is a matter not so much for the scientists like Albert Speer, it is a matter for all of us. For the consequences of abuse of this new power that is being placed in the hands of some would have enormous results for all. So what touches all, as was said decades ago in a different context, must be approved by all. And this is how you are brought into the picture to be involved in the decision: shall we establish rules which will apply to all, rich and poor, high and low, powerful and powerless? Shall we establish rules whereby we all can abide and learn to live with one another? Or shall we allow this enormous power that is being placed in the hands of some by science and technology to run away and act in accordance with its own rules?

    I give an illustration of centuries ago: A country in the region of Alsace in Europe where a ruler by the name of Peter Von Hagen Bach got out of control and he wreaked havoc among the villagers of the region of Alsace and there were no rules and there was no established power to bring him to account. So what did they do? They made use of their numbers. That was the power that they had, numbers. They gathered together in their numbers from everywhere they could collect. They captured him. They brought him to the market place, and they executed him. After that, there were efforts towards creating such rules of behaviour. There were the Geneva Conventions of 1864 and 1865. And then, after the First World War, the victims of the war got together. There was a proposal to establish a permanent court to try Kaiser Wilhelm. That proposal, however, was rejected in favor of an ad hoc tribunal. But before the tribunal could be established, Kaiser Wilhelm escaped to a neutral country, The Netherlands. In those days you could not take action against countries. You could not bring a country to court for harboring a man who had committed the most egregious crimes against humanity. And if you managed to bring the country to court and convicted the country, you could not send the country to jail. And so the people were powerless because countries stood in the way to defend their sovereignty.

    So it was necessary to establish rules and this was done for the first time in the Tribunal of Nuremberg where one of the principles established was: Since it is individuals who commit crimes, however powerful they may be—they may be kings, they may be presidents, they may be generals, they may be field marshals—they are individuals. Therefore you do not hold their countries to account, you hold them to account.

    Individuals must be brought to account. And there must be no impunity. No one must escape. So, even if they belong to a distant country, they can still be tried, if necessary, in absentia and convicted and sentence imposed and countries may be required to impose those sentences. Wherever those individuals went they would be subject to the charges and the sentences that were imposed. So they could be forever in search of a home because wherever they went, they would be subject to the sentence of the court and imprisoned.

    That is the importance of a permanent Court. One of the great principles that would apply in the case of a permanent Court is that it is no respecter of persons. Whoever you may be, you may be President, you may be Secretary for Foreign Affairs, you may be Secretary of Defence, you may be Commander in Chief, you will still be subject to trial and sentencing. So humans wherever you may be would then be able to have a sense of security that if anyone, however powerful that person may be, invades your security or destroys your humanity or commits any of these crimes against humanity, any of these egregious crimes, the permanent Court is there for the purpose of trial, conviction and sentencing.

    Nuremberg however, was a tribunal, an ad hoc tribunal formed by the victors of the First World War to try the vanquished, and there were many persons who felt it should have been a permanent court. I was a student at that time in the University of Oxford, engaging in debates in the Students’ Union and in one debate on the United Nations, the actual subject of the debate was “The United Nations has failed”, because it was clear that the United Nations had really no power to do anything to anyone; had no power of implementation of action, sentencing and imprisonment of persons.

    And in that debate also was another young man and he was from the Boston area- the University of Boston. He had a Doctorate in History and International Law and was reading for another Doctorate in International Law. His subject was the Nuremberg Trials in International Law. We had extensive discussions and after that debate, we were both recognized as the two best debaters in the debate and became very friendly after that. We had numerous discussions on International Affairs and felt that the way forward, at a time subsequent to the Second World War, when there were doubts about the future of the world, having regard to the experiences of the Nazis, (we were discussing in what direction the world should go, as young people and I hope that young people are engaging in these discussions these days) – we came to the conclusion that we should seek to establish that the world should go in the direction of universal human rights. And since there were no established institutions for the enforcement of those rights, we felt that in the most serious cases, an institution should be developed that has enforcement powers and therefore Nuremberg was the way to go.

    But Nuremberg was ad hoc; it was for the specific purpose and when it was done, it was finished. But what we felt was that there should be a permanent court, a court establishing that everybody should know it is there and if these crimes are committed they could be brought to account to that court and that would be a means of bringing some influence on persons in refraining, some deterrent influence, on persons against the commission of those crimes.

    If, for example, we had such a permanent court they would not have had to establish a tribunal in Bosnia Herzegovina, in Rwanda, and so on and maybe those crimes not have been committed because the persons who are now before those tribunals would have known that they could be brought to account for the commission of those crimes and the people around them would have known that those persons could be brought to account. So this could be a tremendous deterrent – if one is to have a permanent court, rather than have to resort to tribunals – to doing something after the act has been done rather than having provision so that action could be taken.

    Everyone should know that action could be taken. This would be a tremendous deterrent influence. And since the rules would apply to all, there would be no impunity for persons who feel, because of their positions or some special situation that; they could commit crimes and escape. So this is the position that is placed before us in building this new civilization. Whether we like it or not, the civilization is being built for us.

    Look at the tremendous developments taking place in communications. As I speak, I could be heard in Japan or in China on in India or in any of these places, even as I speak. That is the importance of the communications revolution where every individual could use the internet and express his opinion and that opinion could be known throughout the world. An individual is no longer isolated, which is a tremendous revolution that has developed around us and the question is, shall we or shall we not establish rules for the most egregious offences, for the worst forms of behaviour, that they could be dealt with in a manner provided for in law and according to justice, that is to say, all rules of justice should prevail. They should be heard, they should have the opportunity to be heard, to put up their defence against charges against them. For example, they should be tried, and tried in accordance with the principles of a court of law and no harsh penalties be imposed because of the conviction if they are guilty. They would have to be proven guilty in a court of law where all the principles in the civilized world that apply will be applied and no one would have punishments imposed because of his or her political conviction or because of their religious convictions.

    Those matters will not apply in an International Court. The Statute of the court makes that kind of provision. It gives protection. Whereas it provides for penalties which would apply in all cases, it also makes provision for protection of individuals so that they could not be subject to arbitrary rules and penalties according to the whims and fancies of those who possess the powers.

    So this innovation of a permanent court has been described as the second most important development in International Law since the United Nations Charter.

    It is true that I moved the motion in the United Nations in 1989, but as I said last night, there is a great deal of substance in the utterance of the most distinguished user of the English language, the most distinguished poet and playwright who made one of his characters say, “There is a divinity that shapes our ends rough hew them how we will.” And as I stand here, I can say there is a divinity that shaped my life. That is the only explanation for the fact that I stand here before you this afternoon and I speak. For it easily could have been otherwise; that I received the award that I received last night. For in the year 1990 there was a revolt in my country. I was the Prime Minister. A fanatical group of Muslims decided that they wanted to take over the government. They invaded the Parliament in which I sat and in which other members of Parliament, Ministers of Government were. They held us, they bound us. I was bound hand and foot and as I lay bleeding on the floor of the Parliament, they called on me to instruct the troops to withdraw from their assault and to lay down their arms, that is to say the Government troops, and tell them that the Government had fallen. And as they put the microphone to my mouth to carry out their instructions, I shouted in the microphone: “These are murderers and torturers. Attack with full force.” And this of course astonished my assailants. They were in shock; they withdrew; they pulled back. But one of them who was some distance away fired the gun. It caught me in the knee. I could have been lame for life. The doctor said half an inch in a different way and the main artery would have been severed and in minutes I would have gone. This was 1990. I made reference to the event last night and this morning, I awoke to hear my wife who is somewhat ill saying, “1990, 1990, 1990.” That is all she was saying.

    That reinforces what I said. How did I escape? There is a divinity that enabled those assailants, those villains to be caught and captured and tried. So when I stood in the United Nations and moved that motion, with all the background that I had and all the preparation, I was able to do it because I was then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago. I had great assistance from some of the most experienced and learned experts in the world in the field of International Law, including Dr Woetzel himself.

    I moved the motion. I brought them together and had the motion prepared and I moved the motion. How different it could have been. I happened to be Prime Minister. I was in the place to do it—in the United Nations. I was in the position to do it. I was Prime Minister and I was able to incorporate the expertise and experience of the most learned in the world. I was able to do it and that is why I am regarded as the person who is the virtual author, the father, as it is put, of the International Criminal Court. It so easily could have been someone else, but nobody else was in the position to do it.

    So University students, I emphasise this in order to let you understand how history is made and unless historians delve into the factors that produced events, the events describing the events themselves are of little use. True knowledge has to be based on understanding and evaluation of events, surrounding events, events that have led to the conclusion that is arrived at. So one has to be careful with one’s history and with what historians say. And it is of extreme importance that one should understand the meaning of an International Criminal Court and the nature of the opposition that comes for the International Criminal Court. It is important to delve into the origin of that opposition, for unless one understands the basis of that opposition and the manner in which that opposition has evolved and the situation that has led to that opposition, one would not understand and one would not be prepared for the necessary campaign to deal with any campaign of opposition. And as the people of Alsace dealt with Peter Von Hagen Bach by a combination of numbers—their power came from numbers, they did not have the influence that he had, they brought together numbers—in the same way, dealing with any campaign against the International Criminal Court, a necessary campaign must be a mobilization of the numbers in the world. The numbers in the world must speak and you have the internet. You have the communications revolution now which makes every individual a potent actor.

    So I am happy to speak to you in this University of California in Santa Barbara. It is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so and it is an occasion I can assure you I shall never forget, for the attentiveness with which you have listened. An occasion where clearly there has been a response which I understand. For all these reasons, I shall never forget this occasion and I wish you progress and prosperity in your lives as students and hope that you will be a decisive influence in anything that involves the benefit of humanity and there is no doubt about it, the International Criminal Court is a matter for the benefit of all humanity.

    I thank you.

  • Measuring the Rule of Law Statement delivered by James Herman, President of the State Bar of California

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Symposium International Law and the Quest for Security held at the University of California at Santa Barbara

    I am honored to speak to a this group of activists dedicated not to peace in theory but peace in practice. I congratulate David Krieger on the good work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. As a 1971 graduate of this University, it is ironic I stand here more than thirty years after that time of turmoil to address a new generation studying old problems.

    Benjamin Franklin has said “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This was brought into special focus during a Peace Foundation gathering my wife, Judge Denise deBellefeuille, and I hosted shortly after the September 11 tragedy last year.

    I am a lawyer. The lawyers of the world are dedicated to the peaceful resolution of disputes between citizens and disputes between governments.

    I have dedicated my career to the rule of law. I have been to the Hague as a civil trial lawyer practicing under the Hague convention. I was a fellow of the New York University Law School’s Criminal Law Education and Research Center affiliated with the United Nations Crime Prevention Section. When I hear of the International Criminal Court, I know we are substituting law fare for warfare. Our work will be completed not only when weapons are beaten in to plowshares but when battlefields are converted to courtrooms.

    I recently—along with my wife, Judge deBellefuille who is a strong supporter of our organization—led a group of lawyers to the Peoples Republic of China. Although known for its human rights abuses, I was gratified that the Chinese Legal Profession is hungry for the rule of law. I was gratified that the government of China has opened over 2500 legal aid offices throughout the country. I was gratified the Women’s Legal Center at Beijing University is doing impact litigation throughout China on women’s and children’s legal issues. I was gratified when a Chinese lawyer said that perhaps China needed fewer party secretaries and more lawyers.

    This reminds me of the often repeated but misunderstood line from Henry the VI, part 2, “First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Many people, many lawyers think Shakespeare was being anti-lawyer. The context of this line is much different, however. Jack Cade, a would-be revolutionary is plotting to overthrow the government and is looking for suggestions from his gang. Dick the Butcher, recognizing the importance of the rule of law to social stability, responds, “First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

    Although there are those who say California could use more party secretaries and fewer lawyers, I say trial by jury is a far superior social safety valve than trial by combat. The rule of law is the original alternative dispute resolution.

    I was unhappy when the Presidential election was decided by the Supreme Court rather than the voters. But I have realized since that the Supreme Court’s decision was a triumph of the rule of law. Although there was both grumbling and celebration over the decision, there was no violent coup, there was no overthrow of the government by the politically disappointed. There was respect for the rule of law. And as the leader of 186,000 lawyers in this state, I am proud of the role lawyers play in making this a country ruled by law rather than by force.

    But I am concerned when we exchange liberty for safety. I am concerned when we deny basic due process to the least among us, to those whom we dehumanize and label as “the other.” I am concerned when we ignore international tribunals in favor of unilateral force. Beware when any government seeks to diminish the role of lawyers in any tribunal because that signals efficiency, not justice.

    Child advocate Marian Wright Edelman has written, “the future which we hold in trust for our own children will be shaped by our fairness to other people’s children.” Our fairness to other people’s children. This, above all else, is the measure of the rule of law.

  • We Can Stop This War Before It Begins: Statement at the European Parliament

    We Can Stop This War Before It Begins: Statement at the European Parliament

    Thank you for inviting me to speak today. I have come here to urge you all, individually and collectively, to do everything in your power to oppose a US war against Iraq – a war that can have no good end. I believe that we have within our reach the ability to stop this war before it begins.

    If we succeed, we will save the lives of innocent Iraqis who have suffered enough, and also the lives of young American soldiers, who enlisted in the military with the primary purpose of obtaining the resources to go to college. We will also prevent the creation of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of new terrorists, whose activities will undoubtedly affect Europe as well as the United States.
    AMERICA DOES NOT SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE

    The Bush administration would have the world believe that America speaks with one voice on the issue of war against Iraq. John Negroponte, the US Ambassador to the UN, recently said, referring to the Joint Congressional Resolution authorizing the president to use force, “This resolution tells the world that the United States speaks with one determined voice.”

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Large and growing numbers of Americans are saying “Not in our name.” They are saying it in full-page ads in major newspapers and they are saying it in the streets.

    They are making their voices heard and their presence felt. It is reminiscent of the period of the Vietnam War. The difference is that this war has not yet begun in earnest, which is not to say that the sanctions and the bombing in the no-fly zones have not already taken a large toll of victims.

    Only a few months ago, most Americans were not paying serious attention to the possibility of war. Now they are, and they are showing up in protest marches by the thousands. The number will swell to hundreds of thousands, even millions, if the bombs begin to fall on Baghdad.

    One recent ad in USA Today concludes: “Let us not allow the watching world today to despair of our silence and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.”

    Let me give you the example of the member of Congress from my district, Lois Capps. Just one month ago she was undecided on this issue, perhaps because the Democratic leadership in the Congress has been so timid with a few notable exceptions such as Senator Robert Byrd. Many of Capps’ constituents spoke to her in opposition to the war. When it came time for the vote on the war resolution, she was one of 133 members of the House of Representatives who voted No, along with 23 Senators.

    She stated: “I have not yet seen or heard any convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat to our national security. Military action should always be a last resort, and we should work in concert with our allies and the U.N. to exhaust every possible diplomatic and economic solution to this problem. At this time I do not believe that the case has been made that force is the only option left to us.”

    I am here to ask your support in rallying the European Parliament to stand together with the growing number of Americans who are saying an increasingly clear and powerful No to this war — Not In Our Names.
    CHILDREN OF IRAQ

    The Bush administration is attempting to paint the face of Saddam on the people of Iraq. The children of Iraq deserve more from us. We must not accept the simplistic and militaristic solutions of the Bush administration — Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others — who have their own agendas for war, including oil, dominance and revenge.

    If you visit the web site of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, you will find photographs of the children of Iraq, children who will become the collateral damage of this war just as they have been the collateral damage of US-led sanctions that have taken some one million lives. You will also find at this web site letters from Iraqi students to American students. These children do not deserve to be painted with the face of Saddam.
    PREEMPTIVE WAR

    Mr. Bush has put forward a doctrine of preemptive war. It is actually not a new doctrine, but it is dangerous and aggressive unilateralism at its most extreme.

    Preemptive war was once called “aggressive war,” and was described as a “Crime against peace” in the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals. Such war violates Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter. It includes “planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression.”

    At stake is the entire post World War II international order, including the United Nations system itself.
    A DEFINING MOMENT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

    The Bush administration has already cajoled the US Congress to authorize preemptive war. This authorization is false because it is illegal. Congress cannot give the president the power to commit illegal acts, and war against Iraq cannot be legal unless it is properly authorized by the United Nations after all peaceful means have failed. We are far from that point.

    There are only two circumstances in which force is authorized under the United Nations Charter. First, there is self-defense, but this only comes into effect when a country is under attack or an attack is imminent, and then only until the United Nations Security Council becomes seized of the matter. In the case of Iraq, there is not a current or imminent attack and the United Nations Security Council is already seized of the matter.

    The second circumstance in which force is authorized under the UN Charter is when the Security Council determines that all peaceful means of resolving a conflict have failed. The Security Council has not made this determination in the case of Iraq, despite the Bush administration’s efforts to push it in this direction.

    Mr. Bush also places the UN in jeopardy by his threats to act unilaterally if he decides it is necessary. One former US diplomat recently referred to the Bush administration as “hectoring radical unilateralists.” He means by this that the approach of the administration is that of a bully. We must stand up to this bully in the name of peace, justice and international law.

    Senator Robert Byrd, a wise octogenarian and a hero on this issue in the US Senate, said: “S.J. Resolution 46 would give the president blanket authority to launch a unilateral, pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States…. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president’s authority under the Constitution of the United States, not to mention the fact that it stands the Charter of the United Nations on its head.”
    HYPOCRISY

    The Bush administration is more inclined to practice hypocrisy than democracy. The administration’s hypocrisy takes many forms. The most pronounced forms are Nuclear hypocrisy, Compliance hypocrisy and Criminal Justice hypocrisy. In each of these areas the Bush administration practices a clear double standard.

    Nuclear Hypocrisy

    Joseph S. McGinnis, Acting Head of the US delegation to the First Committee of the UN, recently stated when introducing a resolution (L.54) on Compliance with Arms Limitation and Disarmament Agreements:

    “The US believes that every country in the world should be a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. We also believe that every country that has signed and ratified these agreements should comply fully with their provisions, and that States Parties must hold each other accountable and take appropriate steps to deter violations.”

    The US has been in standing violation of its Article VI obligations for nuclear disarmament since the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force in 1970.

    The Bush administration has shown no inclination to comply with obligations of the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences. It has failed to submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification, pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and entered into a fraudulent Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT) that will reduce some of the currently actively deployed strategic nuclear weapons but will not make these cuts irreversible. Rather, this treaty will allow for the deactivated weapons to be placed in storage, where they will actually be more likely to be available to terrorists.

    The Bush Nuclear Posture Review calls for retaining nuclear weapons in perpetuity, calls for contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, indicates a willingness to use nuclear weapons against chemical or biological weapons attacks, and outlines plans for more useable nuclear weapons such as bunker busters.

    Further, the Bush administration has formed alliances with Pakistan and India, although both have developed nuclear arsenals. The administration has never even raised the issue of Israel having developed a nuclear arsenal, despite long-standing calls for a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, including in Security Council Resolution 687, the resolution that laid down the terms of Iraqi disarmament.

    Regarding biological weapons, the Bush administration sabotaged six years of negotiations to add an inspection and verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention. The Bush administration also forced the resignation and replacement of Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). They disliked Bustani because he had encouraged Iraq to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and become part of its inspection regime, a step that would have made military action against Iraq even less justifiable.

    Compliance Hypocrisy

    The Bush administration is ready to go to war with Iraq to achieve compliance with UN Security Council resolutions. Yet, there are many other violations of Security Council resolutions by other nations, including US allies Israel and Turkey, for which the US shows little or no concern.

    Additionally, the Bush administration has indicated a willingness to engage in diplomatic efforts to seek a peaceful solution to the recent revelation by North Korea that it is developing nuclear weapons.

    Criminal Justice Hypocrisy

    Bush has withdrawn the US signature from the International Criminal Court and has sworn that US leaders will never be subject to the Court’s jurisdiction, yet he has threatened to bring Iraqi leaders to an International Tribunal should they use weapons of mass destruction if attacked by the US.
    CONCLUSIONS

    — The international community must stand firm in rejecting a US initiated preemptive war against Iraq.

    — The states of the European Union can help lead the way in preventing the Bush administration from standing the international system on its head with its plans for preemptive war. They can also engage in the hard work of negotiations and diplomacy to find a peaceful solution to the current compliance issues with Iraq and with other countries currently out of compliance with Security Council Resolutions and other multinational treaties such as the NPT.

    — Double standards in the international system must be ended, and a single standard must be applied to all, even the sole remaining superpower.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. His latest book is Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • North Korea and the Bush Administration’s Proliferation Folly: Nuclear Admission Demonstrates Militarism is not a Solution

    The Bush administration’s recent announcement of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) admission to developing a nuclear weapons program has thrust the fact that Iraq is not an isolated nuclear weapons proliferator into the center of the war debate. The announcement highlights startling questions as to the administration’s lack of a consistent and comprehensive nonproliferation strategy and has evoked serious accusations as to why Congress was not told about the DPRK’s admission prior to voting on the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

    The parallels between the DPRK and Iraq’s nuclear weapons program are undeniable. Both countries are known to have had programs to develop nuclear weapons and have been designated as members of the “axis of evil” by the Bush administration. The United States even came close to war with North Korea over their nuclear weapons program in 1994.

    In fact the DPRK’s weapons program may be far more advanced than Iraq’s. North Korea has enough plutonium to construct an estimated six nuclear weapons within six months, is pursuing technology to enrich uranium, and has consistently resisted the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) push for full inspections. Iraq, on the other hand, is not thought to have the materials necessary to build a nuclear weapon, and has stated that it will allow United Nations lead weapons inspections.

    Yet the administration has made clear its commitment to find a diplomatic solution to crisis with North Korea and to pursue the option to use force against Iraq, without providing convincing answers as to why its response to the two nations should differ so greatly.

    This glaring inconsistency puts a spot light on the fact that the Bush administration’s Iraq policy does not provide a comprehensive, long-term solution to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If we must wage war on Iraq because of the threat of nuclear weapons, why not Israel, which is thought to possess approximately 200 nuclear weapons? Why not Pakistan, which is nuclear capable and is thought to have provided North Korea with enrichment technology? Why not China which provided Pakistan with that technology in the first place? It is clear the United States cannot and should not take pre-emptive military action against each of these proliferators.

    On the other hand, if the Bush Administration is confident that diplomacy is the correct option for North Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan and other potential proliferators, why not Iraq? The very fact that the United States is treating Iraq differently from other proliferators is infuriating many countries, particularly Arab ones, and threatening US interests in the region. This was made very clear in the recent Security Council emergency session on Iraq where country after country condemned Iraq’s violation of disarmament obligations, but also opposed the US push for authorization for the use of force against Iraq.

    Though the administration claims that its militant Iraqi policy proves that it is hard on proliferation, the White House has, in fact, impeded effective arms control not only by thwarting multilateral treaties such as the CTBT and the protocol to the Biological weapons convention and but also by providing insufficient funds for efforts to control nuclear materials. The administration’s expectation that other nations will embrace disarmament and nonproliferation principles while the United States continues to disengage from multilateral solutions and advance its nuclear weapons technology seems clearly unreasonable.

    Congress Kept in the Dark

    Democrats in Congress have, through their aids, voiced criticism that they were not told of North Korea’s admission to its nuclear weapons program while they were considering the resolution authorizing the administration to use force against Iraq. The Washington Post quoted one aid as stating, “Senators are concerned and troubled by it…This cloud of secrecy raises questions about whether there are other pieces to this puzzle they don’t know about” (October 19, 2002).

    Informing Congress about the DPRK’s admission could have delayed the vote on the war resolution to allow further consideration of the precedent that would be set in Iraq and how that could affect US policy towards proliferators such as the DPRK. Congress would have been forced to address the Iraq situation in the broader context of global proliferation through the concrete example of North Korea.

    The White House’s explanation for the delay is that analysts were still considering a response to the DPRK. Yet when the announcement was eventually made no planned response was released, and the administration is clearly still in the process of consulting other nations.

    Though Congress had been briefed on evidence of North Korea’s nuclear weapons effort, the outright admission by the DPRK significantly increases pressure on the United States to deal with the program in a timely manner. Keeping such clearly relevant information from Congress during a debate on whether the United States should go to war is likely to damage even further the credibility of the administration’s intelligence claims.

    Solution Remains Unclear

    Exactly what the DPRK hoped to get out of the admission that it has an active nuclear weapons program is still far from clear. It may be that the Kim John Il felt he had little left to lose in relations with the United States besides nuclear power reactors its deteriorated electrical grid cannot accommodate and heating fuel shipments which make up less than five percent of the country’s yearly energy needs.

    North Korea has responded to criticism by pointing out that, by neglecting for years its commitment through the 1994 Agreed Framework to make significant efforts to end hostile relations and normalize diplomatic and economic ties, it was the United States that first violated the bilateral pact.

    Some analysts suggest that North Korea made the announcement in preparation to make significant concessions in dismantling its nuclear weapons program. Such negotiations will depend on the commitment of both the Kim regime and the Bush administration to finding a peaceful resolution to this looming conflict, and the ability of Bush administration to navigate diplomatic avenues without relying on military action.
    *Devon Chaffee is the Research and Advocacy Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.