Blog

  • His Holiness the Dalai Lam’s Message to George Bush

    Your Excellency,

    I am deeply shocked by the terrorist attacks that took place involving four apparently hijacked aircrafts and the immense devastation these caused. It is a terrible tragedy that so many innocent lives have been lost and it seems unbelievable that anyone would choose to target the world trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. We are deeply saddened. On behalf of the Tibetan people I would like to convey our deepest condolence and solidarity with the American people during this painful time. Our prayers go out to the many who have lost their lives, those who have been injured and the many more who have been traumatized by this senseless act of violence. I am attending a special prayer for the United States and it’s people at our main temple today.

    I am confident that the United States as a great and powerful nation will be able to overcome this present tragedy. The American people have shown their resilience, courage and determination when faced with such difficult and sad situation.

    It may seem presumptuous on my part, but I personally believe we need to think seriously whether a violent action is the right thing to do and in the greater interest of the nation and people in the long run. I believe violence will only increase the cycle of violence. But how do we deal with hatred and anger, which are often the root causes of such senseless violence? This is a very difficult question, especially when it concerns a nation and we have certain fixed conceptions of how to deal with such attacks. I am sure that you will make the right decision.

    With my prayers and good wishes

    The Dalai Lama September 12, 2001 Dharamsala, India

  • Message to the People of the United States

    We are deeply shocked and saddened by the horrible terrorist attacks that took place in your country on September 11. We send our deepest sympathy to all who have suffered and victimized and to their family members, by the unforgivable attacks.

    As citizens of Nagasaki who experienced the horror of WWII, especially the atomic bombing for the first time in human history, we have strongly rejected all kinds of violence, including terrorism, as a means to settling disputes. The terrorists’ use of commercial aircrafts boarded with innocent civilians as their weapons is the worst kind of act imaginable and has showed us how cruel violence can be. We believe that violence cannot be justified no matter what form it may take.

    Our heart is with you in your grief and we join you in your efforts for seeking a resolution through thorough and reasonable investigation on the matter, without hasty recourse to retaliatory military actions, which should draw world public support.

  • Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Statement on 9-11 Terrorist Attacks

    Our hearts go out to the victims and families of the vicious and premeditated terrorist attacks against the people of the United States.

    These attacks make clear that people everywhere are vulnerable to fanatics, propelled by hatred, who are determined to inflict terrible injuries, even at the cost of their own lives.

    President Bush has vowed to bring the attackers to justice, but revenge is not sufficient. It is also not effective in dealing with people who are suicidal. We are faced with the dilemma of how to prevent future attacks by suicidal people without becoming a police state.

    Not military strength, nor nuclear weapons, nor missile defenses can protect us from such attackers, willing to die in the perpetration of their terrorist acts.

    Since we cannot end our vulnerability, we must find new policies that will restore an atmosphere free from violence in our world. The challenge we now face is to find the wisdom to develop new policies, based on justice and human dignity, to end the threats before us.

  • Declaration of NaturwissenschaftlerInnen-Initiative

    Statement Against violence – for prudence

    Speechless and horror-stricken, with our deepest regret and compassion for all victims and their relatives, we have to take note of this most unbelievable act of terrorism in history. We would like to express our sympathy to all citizens of the United States of America.

    As part of the peace-movement, the Initiative of Engineers and Scientists rejects all forms of terrorism and violence. We are shaken by this insane act of unrestricted violence that will solve none of our problems, but drive us further into desperation and a circle of violence.

    This crime was not necessary to prove the vulnerability of highly technologized industrial nations – they are not to be technologically secured against their own high end technology.

    There is no way to escape from this helplessness, merely political and humanitarian steps to minimize it. Acts of revenge and military retaliation will not solve the problem. We appeal for prudence, particularly for those who are in political charge.

    We would like to propose to the United Nations: The United Nations shall invite all head of states and governments of the world, all parliaments and NGO´s – immediately – to gather for a world – peace – conference, in order to work on courageous steps (in the spirit of the frequently cited New Thinking) to solve wars and conflicts, and to work against such senseless outbreak of violence.

    Dortmund, Sept. 11th 2001, 6:30 p.m. +49 (0) 231 – 57 52 02 Reiner Braun, Executive Director

  • Individual Responsibility in Building a Culture of Peace

    “He aha te nui mea o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.” A Maori Saying (Translation: “What is the most important thing in the world? It is the people, the people, the people.”)

    If there is light in the soul, there will be beauty in the person. If there is beauty in the person, there will be harmony in the house. If there is harmony in the house, there will be order in the nation. If there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world. -Chinese Proverb

    The Twentieth Century will be remembered as a century of wars. Despite opportunities such as the end of the Cold War between the US and the former USSR, human beings have moved further away from creating a world where they can live in harmony with one another and all life on Earth. Such a world is possible, but it requires active participation and cooperation from every individual to respect life and take action to create such a world.

    Peace begins with the individual. We must realize that, as individuals, we are not powerless and that the power of one can make a difference. As individuals we must accept the responsibility to end the scourge of war and culminate a culture of peace. We must realize that peace is more than the absence of war. War is a drain on both human and financial resources and as history proves, is not an effective means of resolving conflict. Peace involves a process of individual and communal participation. It requires justice, equal rights and equal opportunities.

    Martin Luther King, Jr. Stated, “Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly”. We must be cognizant of the inter-relatedness of all communities and peoples. Though cultures and traditions may vary, and though we are all individually unique, we are united by our humanity. We are all brothers and sisters of one human family and we must learn to live with each other and respect our differences. We must keep our impoverished brothers and sisters who live in the developing world in our conscience. Everyone is entitled to Human Rights, not just those who live in industrialized or developed nations. On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly declared Resolution 217, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The preamble begins, “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…” The Universal Declaration further establishes human rights by stating that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Article 1), that ” Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person” (Article 3) and that ” All are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law” (Article 7).

    In a world that has become so globalized, with advanced technologies that bring us the internet and mass global communication, with news available to us 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we are responsible to remain aware of what is going on in our communities, in our country and in our world. We must maintain a global conscience and think before we make decisions that affect our families, our communities, our environment, and those all around the world. We live in a consumer-oriented world that capitalizes on a need for “things”. We must ask ourselves, “how does each purchase I make affect others?”

    I believe that young people have a tremendous responsibility to effectuate the change needed to create a world where human beings live in harmony with one another and all life on earth. Peace and security are age-old issues that have been around since the advent of war. The existence of war, nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction evidence our insecurity and our inability to understand how our actions affect others. As human beings, we desire to be secure, yet we have some how deemed it in our nature to live in fear of each other and therefore we try to justify our urge to resolve conflicts through violent means.

    Knowledge may give individuals power, but it also obligates responsibility. As young people we are responsible to share what we know about peace and security issues with our friends, our families, our communities and all those with whom we come in contact. We must realize that as individuals, the knowledge we have gives us the power to make a difference and we must not be afraid to stand up and be a voice for positive change. As Mahatmas Ghandi said, “We must be the change we wish to see in the world.” Learning about an issue is the first step to realizing the responsibility we have as young people, but knowing is simply not enough. We must also actively work to achieve the secure and peaceful world we envision.

    We are the given an inalienable right when we are born into this world and that is the right of choice and will. The right of governments to govern is based on the will of the people. It must be our will as individuals to achieve peace and we must hold our governments responsible to ensure the maintenance of peace for all peoples.

    Simple actions that individuals can take now include: -Maintaining a global awareness and conscience by educating self and others -Writing to elected officials and governmental representatives and holding them responsible for making the right decisions on issues -Becoming involved in local and international peace efforts. – Only purchasing goods of whose origins one is certain. One can write to vendors to find out where products are made or simply ask a store clerk in order to ensure that goods made by child laborers or by laborers paid unfair wages are not purchased.

    As individuals, we must learn to respect all life on the planet and fundamentally redefine security in terms of human and environmental needs. Security can no longer be defined by military superiority because it enshrines a structure of perpetual violence, promoting war and weapons as the principle means of solving conflict. By changing how we define security, it will create conditions leading to a world where conflicts can be solved non-violently, where humans can live with dignity and in harmony with each other and the Earth. It is very easy to be apathetic to peace and security issues as, unfortunately, many young people are, but even taking the smallest action will make a world of difference. As youth, we have the greatest challenge, but also the greatest potential to create a world that is just and secure for all.

  • Why I Am Fasting For Ten Days

    I have begun a ten-day fast from 21-30 September for many reasons.

    After returning from the Middle East in mid-August, I realized that I would have to do some soul-searching to come to terms with the amount of destruction and suffering among Iraqis. During the Gulf War, the United States intentionally destroyed national infrastructure which provided clean water to civilians and which sanitized sewage. The United States bombed electrical plants, and thus during the 140-degree summer days in Basrah, the air conditioning for average, middle class citizens works in three-hour intervals. The United States bombed a shelter for women and children in Baghdad.

    I lost nearly fifteen pounds during my three-week trip to the Middle East. When I returned and went grocery shopping for the first time, I cried in the produce department as I remembered the pitiful vegetables spread on various tables before me. So I began fasting today to remind me of the atrocious water conditions which made the vegetables inedible during my trip. I began fasting today to keep me mindful of the suffering of people who are in Iraq, who are victims of my country’s foreign policy.

    Since my return, life has not been the same. Not usually an emotional person, I have found myself unusually moved by the thoughtful words and actions by my fellow activists and friends and conversely by the negative mail and often hateful responses by people who cannot understand the humanitarian crises ongoing in our world. I have felt that lump in my throat reading the AP reports of bombing in the Middle East. I have been more sensitive in tending to my own spirituality as well as my body’s responses to trauma. Things like socializing, keeping up with my laundry and correspondences have fallen aside in the last few weeks.

    I am fasting as an expression of hopelessness at what can be done on a national level for peace and for the beautiful diverse lands which potentially will be destroyed by my country’s military. Even if the entire country, elected representatives included, were crying together for a peaceful solution to the problem, I am not certain that the outcome would change. The weapons manufacturers, the large corporations who devalue individual human life, and the political machinery which allows the level of militarism in our country have such a strong momentum that I cannot hope to change any aspect of U.S. policy through my decision to take only water for ten days. I can, however, remind myself that awareness of others’ suffering is a primary duty of peacemakers. I desire to be a peacemaker in my own life and to set a good example for my family, friends, co-workers and students.

    Once in class last year, I had great difficulty in getting my students’ attention; they were talking and paying no attention to the fact that I was standing at the front of the class. They were so noisy that they could not hear my calls for them to quiet down. I had no resolve to yell at them and participate on their level. So I sat down. At first only a few people at the front of the classroom noticed. They all quieted down. Pretty soon I started hearing people at the back of the classroom wonder aloud where I had gone. Still I sat, not answering any questions, simply sitting. After a few more minutes, every eye in the classroom was on me and every mouth was silent. In a very quiet voice I announced I was ready to begin class and invited them to join me. It is for the same reason I sat down that I am fasting.

    When everyone else is talking over each other, be still. When other voices are yelling to be heard, be still. When the violence reaches such egregious proportions that you feel the system will collapse under its own weight, be still. So I am fasting not to be heard but to be still, and quiet.

    I am fasting to find some solace in the stillness and the quiet. It is so important to know where my heart is, to know where my soul is and to attend to the many emotions which might overtake my life if I did not take some time out to listen. I am fasting because I can do other things to promote peace in the world and in my life like writing a letter to my Congressperson, preparing a good lesson plan for school or praying during my lunch and dinner breaks. I am fasting because I do not know what else to do. Nothing in the world makes much sense right now, so I will take a break and be mindful and listen to the responses I hear in my conscience.

    I seek clarity. I desire to be a patient and compassionate person. I am reflecting on the chaos of war and on the best way to tend to the needs of other people who are actively suffering. I hope that this ten-day break will keep me focused on what I hold important in my life and help me act in the ways of nonviolence in response to the violence in my country and my world.

    *Leah C. Wells is Peace Education Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • “The White Rose”: Student Resistance in Germany During WWII

    On Friday, August 17, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation was honored with the presence and words of Dr. George Wittenstein, a “core” member of a group of very close friends that later became known as “The White Rose” resistance group. In the past decade there has been a revival in the attention given to “The White Rose,” which promoted the resistance to Nazi ideology during Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. According to Dr. Wittenstein, much of the published accounts regarding “The White Rose” contain inaccuracies, in some cases being entirely incorrect. It is for this reason that Dr. Wittenstein has made it a goal for the remainder of his life to contribute whatever he can to aid in setting the record straight.

    An exhibit on resistance in Germany at UCLA sponsored by the German government at which Dr. Wittenstein was invited to speak was an example of insufficient historical research. Before the exhibit was opened to the public, he was given a chance to see it for himself. To his dismay, pictures of his friends in “The White Rose” had been mislabeled and the only successful military putsch (revolt) against Hitler was not even mentioned (another fact that often goes unmentioned is that “The White Rose” was the only group which addressed the treatment and extermination of Jews). At the last minute, Dr Wittenstein changed his original speech to address these inaccuracies. A reporter approached him that day after his revised speech from the LA Times who remarked, “once a rebel, always a rebel.”

    Dr. Wittenstein stressed the fact that in most democratic societies today it is impossible for people to even begin to comprehend the oppressive nature of Hitler’s total dictatorship, which makes it difficult to explain. The Nazi party was extremely efficient in establishing itself as the new government and within days of Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor, the Nazis had taken control over every aspect of public life. Every city block had an informer who reported any “suspicious” activity to the Gestapo (secret police). Communication was monitored to such an extent that in one case, Dr Wittenstein recalled, while sitting in a theater watching the news, a man was arrested by the Gestapo. No doubt he must have made a negative comment about the regime.

    Under these conditions, any form of resistance was extremely dangerous and finding allies was impossible for all practical purposes. Without open communication resistance groups had no way of knowing if other groups even existed. It was not until after the war that Dr. Wittenstein discovered that approximately three hundred other groups had been operating in Germany at the time. In the early years of Hitler’s regime, there were youth groups (similar to the US Boy Scouts) called “Buendische Jugend” throughout Germany and Europe until the mid-1930s when Hitler banned them and forced their members into the ranks of his new “Hitler Youth.” To add to the difficulty of mobilizing an opposition against a total dictatorship, the majority of the German people had been indoctrinated with Nazi propaganda. This “education” began as early as age four, and was intensified for the older children in the “Hitler Youth” program, in which membership became mandatory in the late 1930s. What must be noted though, is that it was not until near the war’s end that the truth of the atrocities being committed by the Nazis was known. Instead, the German public was presented with lies and false hope in the form of propaganda glorifying Hitler.

    The friends of “The White Rose” were middle-class students with parents who shared their anti-Nazi sentiment. They had access to the “truth,” as Dr. Wittenstein explained, in the form of radio broadcasts and literature from Switzerland (which was politically neutral) and the BBC. Once the war had started, listening to foreign radio stations was punishable by death. Since all communication in Germany was monitored, as well as any literary or artistic works deemed by Hitler as “degenerate” being forbidden, resistance groups relied on “underground” sources of information.

    In 1938, the year he considers the true beginning of “The White Rose,” Dr. Wittenstein met Alexander Schmorell while serving his two-year mandatory military training. In their barracks the two 19-year-olds discussed resistance as well as common academic interests and became close friends. One of the few accounts that Dr. Wittenstein acknowledged as correctly stated throughout all books written about “The White Rose,” was this quote by Alexander Schmorell: “Maybe ten years from now there will be a plaque on this door [of the barracks] which will read: ‘This is where the revolution began’.”

    After their service ended in 1939, the two men attended the University of Munich where they met Hans Scholl and Hellmut Hartert. Christoph Probst, a student and father of two (very uncommon for students at the time) joined later and became Dr. Wittenstein’s closest friend. This “tightly knit” group of friends was for the most part apolitical medical students, discussing more academic issues such as philosophy and art. After the war, in an effort to memorialize her siblings, Inge Scholl, the elder sister of Hans and Sophie, wrote mostly about them in her book entitled “The White Rose”. This led to the now commonly accepted perception that the others who contributed equally and who were also executed played insignificant roles. As the group of friends became more aware of the horrific deeds of the Nazis, they realized the need for action. The only method possible was by writing and distributing leaflets, which was much more dangerous than one would think. Purchasing mass amounts of paper and stamps immediately roused suspicion. In 1942 the first four leaflets were written by Schmorell and Scholl, the first and fourth almost entirely by Scholl, Wittenstein edited the third and fourth leaflets. These leaflets were very idealistic and implied a more passive approach to resistance. Quoting many famous philosophers, they were targeted toward the intellectual community.

    After a philosophy professor missed two lectures with no explanation, Wittenstein and a painter friend led about fifty fellow students to the university President’s office to demand the whereabouts of the teacher. The President, who was visibly disturbed and frightened, because such action was unheard of in Nazi Germany, denied any knowledge Dr. Wittenstein and his friend then led the group of students on a “sympathy demonstration” through the streets of Munich to the professor’s apartment. Such an open protest (in broad daylight) was until then unthinkable. The student unrest was growing.

    As was true for all medical students, the friends were drafted into the military but permitted to continue their studies in uniform. In the summer of 1942 they were sent to serve at the Russian front where they gained a new member and friend, Willi Graf. While in Russia, they were exposed to the true extent of the atrocities being committed by the Nazis. Because of Schmorell’s ability to speak the language, they had frequent interaction with the Russian people and came to realize that they were genuinely good-natured, despite Hitler’s propaganda describing them barbaric animals. Upon their return from Russia, Wittenstein felt that the passive, philosophical approach was not enough and pushed for more active resistance. A fifth leaflet was written that took this new approach, but it unfortunately required an enormous sacrifice. The group now realized that in order to save their beloved country, Germany must lose the war as soon as possible.

    As more students became aware of the true intentions of Hitler’s plan, the resentment increased. At the University of Munich one event sparked an almost total riot. The Gauleiter (a Nazi appointed head-of-state) of Bavaria delivered a speech at the university in which he berated the female students for continuing their studies, while instead they should be producing children for Hitler’s “master race.” He went so far as to offer access to his male staff if they were unable to find a boyfriend on their own. Obviously outraged, the female students attempted to walk out but were stopped and arrested by Gestapo guards. The male students revolted and took the stage, holding the leader of the Nazi student organization hostage until the women were allowed to leave.

    After the disappearance of his first professor, Dr. Wittenstein found a new mentor for his Ph.D thesis in psychology in Professor Kurt Huber, who agreed with the ideals of “The White Rose” and active resistance. In February of 1943 came the fall of Stalingrad and the printing of the sixth and final leaflet. In another example of misrepresentation, many sources claim that the students wrote the sixth leaflet, when in fact Professor Huber himself wrote it.

    On February 18, 1943, the final leaflet was distributed. Hans Scholl and his younger sister, Sophie (who had joined the group despite Hans’ insistence on her safety), clandestinely placed the leaflet throughout the University of Munich. As they left the building they must have realized that they had a few copies remaining and went back inside to drop them into the courtyard from above. They were spotted by a janitor and were immediately arrested. In the following months all but one suspected of being associated with “The White Rose” were arrested.

    During his arrest, a draft leaflet written by Christoph Probst was found in Hans Scholl’s pocket, which he tried in vain to tear up and swallow. Christoph Probst was promptly arrested and stood trial with the Scholl siblings. Hitler’s “Peoples Court,” which was established to eliminate his enemies (usually by death sentences), flew to Munich from its usual venue in Berlin only four days after the arrests to hold the trial. After a very brief trial, Hans and Sophie Scholl and Christoph Probst were immediately executed by guillotine. Alexander Schmorell, Willi Graf, and Professor Kurt Huber were tried by the People’s Court in April of the same year and executed later. In his defense, Huber gave a speech in which he stated, “…I demand the freedom of the German people…”

    Having been warned that the Gestapo was once again tracking him Dr. Wittenstein requested transfer to the Italian front, which was out of the range Gestapo jurisdiction and saved him from prosecution. He had already been involved with the “Freiheitsaktion Bayern,” a Bavarian resistance group that later carried out the only successful putsch against Hitler (as mentioned above, this is yet another historical fact that has been distorted, in this case being completely omitted). Dr. Rupprecht Gerngross, a commander of an unarmed interpreters unit, managed to weed out Nazi supporters under his command, whom he promptly sent to Russia. The unit obtained a huge arsenal of light weapons (grenades, rifles, etc.). It was in Italy, that Dr. Wittenstein collected diverse weapons and had them transported to this group in Munich. With the help of a like-minded tank commander and his unit, this group overtook the main radio station and disarmed all bridges leading into the city. As the US forces reached Munich, the resistance group announced over the radio that the citizens must wave white flags in surrender and arrest all the “little Nazis” before they could escape. In this way, Munich was spared total destruction by resisting Hitler’s order that every city must be defended to the last man.

    This is, of course, only a brief overview of the story of “The White Rose,” as Dr. Wittenstein explained, but for myself it had a significant impact, as my mother was born in 1939 near Munich. As a child she witnessed the bombing of her hometown and still recalls running for shelter amidst the flames and destruction. Because of the emotional nature of the topic, she, like Dr. Wittenstein, is usually somewhat reluctant to discuss the past. Both her older brother and father served in the German military, but only her father, an interpreter, survived. Her older brother, Otto, was a fighter pilot for the “Luftwaffe” (German Airforce) and was killed in battle in 1944. As a young boy, I was passionate about flying, so too was my uncle. I remember my mother sitting me down and showing me photos of her older brother when he was close to my age at the time and how emotionally difficult it was for her. He and his friends, being only 13 or 14 years old, had built full-scale gliders that they would launch and pilot from the hilltops of Bavaria. These same friends, only four or five years later were flying warplanes, most of them never returning.

    It was not until recently, when I told her that Dr. Wittenstein was coming to speak about “The White Rose,” that I really discussed the war again with my mother. After looking through the old photos again, I realized that my uncle and his friends probably built those gliders as part of their training in the “Hitler Youth” (after noticing the swastikas painted on the planes and the officer accompanying them). As impressionable young boys, they were undoubtedly filled with enthusiasm as they built and flew their own aircraft. As they began flying for the “Luftwaffe” as trained fighter pilots, the faces in the pictures began to change. In a matter of a few years, the enthusiastic young boys began to look like weary old men. According to my mother, my uncle in particular became disillusioned as he realized the futility of Hitler’s war.

    As Dr. Wittenstein talked about the female students’ revolt at the University of Munich, it reminded me of stories my mother told me of Hitler’s plans for the German women to provide him with as many offspring as possible. Hitler declared that he would be the Godfather of every family’s fourth child, and upon bearing a fifth child, the mother would receive a gold medal.

    After speaking with my mother and hearing Dr. Wittenstein, I can only hope that I have gained some further understanding of the hardships endured by those living under Hitler’s dictatorship. I do realize though, now better than before, that resisting oppression may be life threatening, but in extreme circumstances it is the only way to protect one’s freedom. The truth must be told and the people must listen.

  • Facing the Children of Iraq

    Despite the reports from every United Nations organization dealing with health, agriculture and children, the United States has maintained unwavering support for continuing the economic embargo on Iraq. On my first visit to Iraq in July and August, I traveled with Chicago-based Voices in the Wilderness to experience the effects on the people of Iraq who are suffering needlessly at the hands of our government. As many people know, travel to Iraq is illegal and those undertaking the trip do so at the risk of twelve years in prison and over one million dollars in fines. For me, to meet teachers, students, families, doctors, patients, mothers and ordinary people whose lives have been irreversibly altered as a result of the mean-spirited policies of my government, the risk is worth it.

    Before I left I had viewed the excellent documentary by John Pilger and had participated in the cross-country educational Remembering Omran Bus Tour, named for a shepherd boy from a farming community near Najaf who was killed in May 2000 by coalition bombs. I had already taken a public stand against the sanctions through written articles as well as in my classroom where I teach high school classes on nonviolence. Having returned from Iraq after seeing for myself the squalor that children play, learn and live in, seeing for myself the pathetic conditions of health care and education, and seeing the indomitable spirit of the Iraqi people, I realize that I know nothing. I know nothing about patience, about hopefulness and hopelessness, about just getting by, and about forgiveness. I realize that we Americans have so much privilege, time, and resources and that our lives have gone on since the Gulf War. We are able to forget about the Iraqi people because our media does not present us with images from families who boil sewer water for tea, with images from inside a morgue where babies are kept in flimsy boxes until their families can come pick them up, with images from car accidents on hot asphalt roads caused by blowouts because the people can’t afford new tires.

    I realize that I know nothing about life under siege. Voices in the Wilderness founder Kathy Kelly describes our world as a train: some people travel first class, riding with comfort and ease, some people travel in cramped third class conditions, and some people are under the train, and the people of Iraq are under the US foreign policy train which is rolling full speed ahead toward annihilation. To stop this runaway policy of genocide, I can figuratively lay myself down on the tracks. I can lay down the stories of the people I know from Iraq. I can lay down the stories whose raw truth can compel more Americans, more young people like me, to get involved.

    Every day since I returned I have thought about a mother and her twelve-year-old son and sitting at his beside while she cried uncontrollably. He was unconscious, a victim of leukemia caused by toxic exposure to depleted uranium. I gave her some tissues and sat with her as long as I could before our delegation continued on to other sweltering rooms filled with sick kids and their helpless mothers. It was at the Saddam Teaching Hospital that I realized kids cry in the same language and that inconsolable mothers worldwide feel the burden of responsibility when their kids won’t get well. The situation in Iraq is compounded because of the crippling lack of medicine and hospital supplies, like refined oxygen. We witnessed some men unloading industrial oxygen tanks into a hospital hallway which were to be used on even the most fragile babies because refined oxygen is unavailable.

    During my time in Iraq, I thought about why my country has made it illegal for me to visit the cradle of civilization. My only explanation is so that we cannot see the soul-wrenching, pervasive damage our government has perpetrated there. I wondered if people in my government feel any shame for what they have done to ravage these ancient sites in this beautiful country. The foundation for disrespecting pre-existing cultures is nothing new for my country, though, and I was struck by the similarity of how millions of Native Americans were killed by European diseases and uprooted from their native lands in the name of Western progress.

    Yet as I stood at the convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates where they become the Shatt al-Arab, I felt so privileged to be in a place very few Americans will ever see. I felt the timelessness of Iraq and the historical and religious significance which lies within the boundaries. Standing on the top of the ziggurat at Ur and holding seashells which still rest there from the “Great Flood”, I knew the infinite importance of Iraq. And I saw the hurt in our guide’s eyes as as I watched him pull a piece of shrapnel out of the side of the ziggurat where it stuck after a coalition bomb struck a few hundred yards from this temple.

    Americans largely misunderstand the Arab culture. I encountered a country full of generous and hospitable people, welcoming me into their homes even though my country still bombs them many times each month. Yet anti-Arab attitudes promote such discrimination and racism in our country, attitudes fostered by movies and media which portray them as terrorists and suicide bombers. Iraqis especially are shown as hating Americans, burning our flag and cursing our democratic and freedom-loving nation. The Iraqis I met all said that they understand that the American people have good hearts and that we are not our government or military. Can the average American say that about the people of Iraq, or do we equate an entire nation of 23 million people with one leader? In addition to lifting the economic sanctions, we need to eliminate the institutionalized hatred of Iraqis which enables the good people of America to sit by and let our government destroy a beautiful nation.

    Iraq does not need to be bombed another time, and it does not need smarter sanctions. The economic embargo needs to be lifted because it violates the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically Article 24 which pertains to healthcare for children, including prenatal care for expectant mothers. Each month nearly 5,000 children die as a result of sanctions, according to the World Health Organization, and 1 in 10 children will not live to see their first birthdays. Prior to sanctions, citizens of Iraq enjoyed quality comprehensive healthcare, but today over 90 percent of pregnant women are severely anemic.

    Additionally, in the past eleven years under sanctions, the international community has rendered the Geneva Convention protocol protecting victims of armed conflicts ineffective because of the intentional, preconceived and flagrant human rights abuses perpetrated in Iraq by the United Nations sanctions supported by our government. This protocol exists to protect not just Westernized countries, but all humans. I live every day knowing that policies of my government dispassionately kill Iraqis, and as a U.S. citizen I bear responsibility for their enduring consequences. We as Americans are guilty of genocide in the cradle of civilization through our inaction and inattention to the needless suffering that has transpired over the last eleven years; we must hold ourselves and our government accountable and mobilize to create more just policies toward Iraq.

    *Leah C. Wells is Peace Education Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Treaties Don’t Belong to Presidents

    New Haven– President Bush has told the Russians that he will withdraw from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which gives both countries the right to terminate on six months’ notice. But does the president have the constitutional authority to exercise this power without first obtaining Congressional consent?

    Presidents don’t have the power to enter into treaties unilaterally. This requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and once a treaty enters into force, the Constitution makes it part of the “supreme law of the land” just like a statute.

    Presidents can’t terminate statutes they don’t like. They must persuade both houses of Congress to join in a repeal. Should the termination of treaties operate any differently?

    The question first came up in 1798. As war intensified in Europe, America found itself in an entangling alliance with the French under treaties made during our own revolution. But President John Adams did not terminate these treaties unilaterally. He signed an act of Congress to “Declare the Treaties Heretofore Concluded with France No Longer Obligatory on the United States.”

    The next case was in 1846. As the country struggled to define its northern boundary with Canada, President James Polk specifically asked Congress for authority to withdraw from the Oregon Territory Treaty with Great Britain, and Congress obliged with a joint resolution. Cooperation of the legislative and executive branches remained the norm, despite some exceptions, during the next 125 years.

    The big change occurred in 1978, when Jimmy Carter unilaterally terminated our mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. Senator Barry Goldwater responded with a lawsuit, asking the Supreme Court to maintain the traditional system of checks and balances. The court declined to make a decision on the merits of the case. In an opinion by Justice William Rehnquist, four justices called the issue a political question inappropriate for judicial resolution. Two others refused to go this far but joined the majority for other reasons. So by a vote of 6 to 3, the court dismissed the case.

    Seven new justices have since joined the court, and there is no predicting how a new case would turn out. Only one thing is clear. In dismissing Senator Goldwater’s complaint, the court did not endorse the doctrine of presidential unilateralism. Justice Rehnquist expressly left the matter for resolution “by the executive and legislative branches.” The ball is now in Congress’s court. How should it respond?

    First and foremost, by recognizing the seriousness of this matter. If President Bush is allowed to terminate the ABM treaty, what is to stop future presidents from unilaterally taking America out of NATO or the United Nations?

    The question is not whether such steps are wise, but how democratically they should be taken. America does not enter into treaties lightly. They are solemn commitments made after wide-ranging democratic debate. Unilateral action by the president does not measure up to this standard.

    Unilateralism might have seemed more plausible during the cold war. The popular imagination was full of apocalyptic scenarios under which the nation’s fate hinged on emergency action by the president alone. These decisions did not typically involve the termination of treaties. But with the president’s finger poised on the nuclear button, it might have seemed unrealistic for constitutional scholars to insist on a fundamental difference between the executive power to implement our foreign policy commitments and the power to terminate them.

    The world now looks very different. America’s adversaries may inveigh against its hegemony, but for America’s friends, the crucial question is how this country will exercise its dominance. Will its power be wielded by a single man ˜ unchecked by the nation’s international obligations or the control of Congress? Or will that power be exercised under the democratic rule of law?

    Barry Goldwater’s warning is even more relevant today than 20 years ago. The question is whether Republicans will heed his warning against “a dangerous precedent for executive usurpation of Congress’s historically and constitutionally based powers.” Several leading senators signed this statement that appeared in Senator Goldwater’s brief ˜ including Orrin Hatch, JesseHelms and Strom Thurmond, who are still serving. They should defend Congress’s power today, as they did in the Carter era.

    If they join with Democrats in raising the constitutional issue, they will help establish a precedent that will endure long after the ABM treaty is forgotten. Congress should proceed with a joint resolution declaring that Mr. Bush cannot terminate treaty obligations on his own. And if the president proceeds unilaterally, Congress should take further steps to defend its role in foreign policy.

    We need not suppose that the president will respond by embarking on a collision course with Congress. His father, for example, took a different approach to constitutionally sensitive issues. When members of Congress went to court to challenge the constitutionality of the Persian Gulf war, President George H. W. Bush did not proceed unilaterally. To his great credit, he requested and received support from both houses of Congress before making war against Saddam Hussein. This decision stands as one precedent for the democratic control of foreign policy in the post-cold war era. We are now in the process of creating another.

    *Bruce Ackerman is Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale Law School and co-author of “Is Nafta Constitutional?”

  • NAPF Response to the August 2001 Session of Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education

    Contemporary definition of disarmament education and training: An American perspective

    Very little comprehensive education on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons exists for students prior to entering college. Considering the natural audience of high school and the importance of reaching students at a young age, a focused curriculum for high school students would best serve the goal of creating a good foundation for lifetime commitment and involvement in these areas.

    In order that there be fuller participation in disarmament and non-proliferation from a wider variety of ages, races, classes, etc., the participants must be able to take ownership in the issue. This means that the terminology, access to information, and input credibility must exist in a more user-friendly version. The reason that younger generations are less invested in non-proliferation, disarmament and abolition is their lack of exposure to peace-oriented education. The standard American high school curriculum for history is chronicled from war to war, general to general, and battle to battle with little coverage of the pacifist contingency nor the strides made for humankind by nonviolent activists. In fact, they are generally dismissed as dangerous or destructive rather than principled, disciplined individuals trying to create dynamic changes toward equality and justice.

    Those with the greatest potential for power, our young people, are not treated as viable candidates in the process of peacemaking. Peacemaking itself is an afterthought, a hopeful goal once the objectives ridding the world of nuclear weapons, civil conflicts, and chemical and biological warfare have been attained. Peacemaking can no longer be viewed as tangential to disarmament, but must become the sustenance which propels the disarmament and non-proliferation movement. Nonviolence and education are not the goals at the end of the road; they are the road.

    Assessment of the current situation of disarmament and non-proliferation education

    Access to information on disarmament and non-proliferation is limited to a specific group of people, namely college and post-graduate students whose academic interests focus primarily on these topics. A program for educating a wider audience through high schools is limited in existence. Yet education on disarmament and non-proliferation should not be limited to the academic elite, but should be available to the rising voters and general public, because fundamentally the topics concern everyone. The well educated have a responsibility to widen the circle of public involvement in eliminating the threat of weapons proliferation, and this task mandates dialogue with young people. The nongovernmental organizations and academics must utilize high school venues and assist in classroom education for both teachers and students, being mindful of the current trends in American public education.

    Education in the United States is experiencing a period of review and increased “accountability” where teachers are disencouraged to explore curricula outside the standard material and adhere to rigid testing aimed to prove that students are learning. The standardized tests are largely disliked by teachers and administrators because of the limited practical knowledge they measure; these tests are indicative of whether or not students are learning how to be good test takers, rather than common sense thinkers. This phenomenon of multiple choice testing has many effects, both for classroom learning and for societal implications. First, teachers have little time to explore creative and diverse learning styles because the standardized tests cover specific information, the majority of which does not cover multi-dimensional thinking. Second, because of the time constraints of the school year and the financial incentives offered to teachers whose students succeed, teachers must rush through all the material to be covered on the examinations. Third, the current system of schooling school does encourage character development through service to others nor does it endear students to explore other contexts outside their own experiences, like becoming involved in any social movements or positive change for society.

    Thus, for young people to become active in disarmament and non-proliferation, they must first have the opportunity to come to some understanding and awareness that these two topics are global problems with personal implications. Students are not taught to be system-oriented, seeing the world as living organism and acknowledging the web of interconnections that span the globe. If our goal is to educate kids about disarmament and non-proliferation, then our first step is getting them to believe that our world is worth saving. The military now has direct access into high schools in America through programming called Channel One, which broadcasts “news” into schools for fifteen minutes every day. ROTC recruiters are allowed onto campuses, but conscientious objectors are thrown off school grounds. Specific classes in nonviolence education are few and far between in the United States, and many teachers are too overwhelmed with their current curriculum to believe that themes of peace and justice infused into their existing lesson plans could work.

    Furthermore, disarmament and non-proliferation are at the end of a long path of exploration into issues of economic and social justice. Schools must first provide kids with the tools to handle their own personal conflicts and more importantly must make the existing subject matter, and the way it is presented, less violent. Visual media shows terrorism, civil strife and full-scale war as a real-life video game. For students to have some ownership in the problem, they need to understand where the countries obtain their weapons, who profits, and who uses the weapons. We must not treat the loss of human life as the military does, calling it “collateral damage”. Education for young people on disarmament and non-proliferation has varying implications based on where it will be implemented, i.e. gun control laws in the United States require a unique strategy, as do the problems of disarmament in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe.

    Recommendation for promoting education

    First, we must make our American schools more nonviolent institutions. Nonviolence education should be a mandatory component in all high schools, and the corporations providing the “news” to ripe young audiences should be forced to remove any marketing by the military branches. Our classrooms are not corporate experiments. Additionally, nongovernmental organizations should utilize the “news” networks to encourage coverage of peace-friendly programming to an already captive audience. Second, nongovernmental organizations should interface the existing material on disarmament and non-proliferation and compile a “user-friendly” seminar, video and worksheet questionnaire as well as a framework for allowing student participation in this issue, i.e. how to write to a newspaper, congressperson, how to create press releases and petitions, and how to engage their creativity toward a positive goal. Fourth, students must be sent on study abroad delegations to experience firsthand effects of governmental policies on other countries. Other options for field trips are visiting sites of nuclear testing as well as the companies and factories where the many different weapons are produced, and touring countries whose young people actively participate in conflict. We need to encourage students to see a more complete, real picture of the problem rather than blaming the warring parties for their reliance on weapons to settle conflicts. American students need to know that the number one export in their country is weapons and that America sponsors nearly three-fourths of the ongoing conflicts worldwide.

    Examining pedagogic methods

    The Internet can be a powerful tool to relate stories and facilitate dialogue between students in different countries. Academics and nongovernmental organizations can serve as moderators for communication between cultures on the topics of disarmament and non-proliferation. In addition, the Internet may be used to display “video diaries” of firsthand experiences from students in regions like East Timor and Cambodia to enhance the personalization of distance learning. Through these “video diaries”, students in different countries can hear their counterparts’ stories in their own voices, making a more real connection between their cultures.

    The Internet can also be used to disseminate teacher training materials and resources while providing a network of educators who have elected to participate in disarmament and non-proliferation education. Through this network, teachers and administrators can secure guest speakers, classroom activities worksheets and background materials, and an array of videos for their students. Students and teachers may also pose questions directly to the nongovernmental organizations’ educational liaisons through email and online discussion forums.

    Recommendations for the United Nations Organizations

    If peace education toward the goals of disarmament and non-proliferation is to work, then adequate funding must be provided for its implementation. First, the United Nations can exert pressure on national governments to evaluate the compensation teachers receive for the demands of their jobs. Currently, the priorities of the government of the United States focus on war making and funding programs through the Department of Defense. Cushioning the budgets of the Department of Education and ensuring adequate grants for States and Local Municipalities will increase the viability as well as the legitimacy of disarmament and non-proliferation education. Second, the United Nations can suggest that nongovernmental organizations pertaining to disarmament and non-proliferation take their messages into school board meetings and classrooms, and provide classes at the college level for teachers-in-training as a part of a Credential program. Third, textbook writers and manufacturers must accept a new version of history, and nongovernmental organizations must begin consulting with writers of world and American history texts to ensure accuracy and fair and adequate coverage of nuclear and weapons-oriented themes. To acquire authenticity in the classroom, these ideas of disarmament and non-proliferation must be written and viewed in print by students.

    Introducing disarmament and non-proliferation in post-conflict societies: Aceh, Indonesia case study

    UNICEF currently funds a peace-building educational program in Banda Aceh, Indonesia for young people who have been exposed to war throughout their lives. This experimental program combines nonviolent theory with practical applications of peacemaking and disarmament. It provides a forum for people to tell their stories and heal from their experiences, as well as create for themselves a more peaceable society. Nonviolence trainers are currently conducting teacher trainings in Aceh, and beginning in early September, the teachers will begin classes for young people in the province.

    In addition, the concept of “peacekeeping forces” must be reevaluated to incorporate more than reassigning soldiers to forcibly keep the peace in a region. Peacekeepers must be unarmed as well as trained in conflict management and crowd dynamics. The concept of disarmament and non-proliferation must grow from citizen awareness to government and military implementation of more peaceable resolutions for global problems.

    *Leah C. Wells is Peace Education Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.