Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Preserving the ABM Treaty and Promoting International Security

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    It gives me great pleasure to attend this conference in the beautiful city of Ottawa, to exchange views with our Canadian friends on some important issues related to international security and arms control. To my knowledge, this is one of a series of seminars on National Missile Defense (NMD) Canada has organized in recent months. I hope, and I am convinced, that these open discussions will help deepen people’s understanding on this issue. Now, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some of my personal observations.

    I. Negative Consequences of NMD for International Peace and Security

    The relentless development of an NMD system by the United States is, undoubtedly, a major event in today’s international politics, which will have far-reaching negative impacts on international security environment. Recently, some key members of the Bush administration have reiterated on different occasions that they will, as promised during the election campaign, intensify this program. This is very disturbing.

    Firstly, the development and deployment of NMD by the United States will jeopardize global strategic balance and stability, and undermine mutual trust and cooperation among major powers. To develop and deploy NMD, the United States has to first overcome a legal “barrier”, namely, the ABM treaty concluded between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union in 1972, which explicitly prohibits the deployment of a nationwide missile defense system. For the past decades, this treaty has served as a corner stone of global strategic balance and stability. The compliance of this treaty has been the prerequisite for the strategic nuclear weapons reductions as claimed by the two nuclear superpowers. During the Cold War, it played a pivotal role in preventing the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union from getting out of control. As a matter of fact, in the post-Cold War era today, the treaty still provides a security framework for multilateral nuclear disarmament, and for further bilateral reductions of nuclear arsenals by the U.S. and Russia. Though bilateral in nature, the strategic significance of the treaty goes far beyond the scope of the U.S.-Russia bilateral relationship. It has been universally recognized as playing an indispensable role in maintaining global strategic stability, promoting nuclear disarmament and enhancing international security. If, however, the treaty is amended, as requested by the U.S., it would certainly lose all its significance, and the global strategic balance and stability would be the victim.

    Over the years, the international situation has undergone drastic changes, but the basic international strategic configuration has remained relatively unchanged in one important aspect, i.e. the strategic balance and mutual deterrence between major powers. This is due, in no small measure, to the existence of the ABM treaty. It must be pointed out that “strategic balance” and “strategic parity” are two different concepts. A strategic balance can exist between a small nuclear-weapon state and a nuclear superpower, so long as the former possesses a second strike capability, that is, the capability to inflict unbearable damage on the latter after sustaining the first nuclear attack. The significance of the ABM treaty lies in the fact that, by prohibiting the deployment of a nationwide missile defense system, it has maintained the strategic balance between the two nuclear superpowers, by extension, has maintained to a lesser degree the strategic balance among all the nuclear-weapon states, including small nuclear powers vis-a-vis the nuclear superpowers. No matter the U.S. like it or not, the fact is that, it is precisely because of this global strategic balance that the major powers have felt compelled to address global and regional security issues through peaceful means and avoid direct confrontation with each other. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the preservation of the global strategic balance is a prerequisite for the maintenance of international peace and security. The U.S. development and possible deployment of NMD poses a serious challenge to the already fragile global strategic balance. Such a move will disrupt the existing strategic equilibrium among major powers, and jeopardize the security interest of other countries. This will undoubtedly arouse suspicion and mistrust among major powers, hampering their coordination and cooperation in international security affairs.

    Secondly, the U.S. NMD program will severely hinder the international arms control and disarmament process and even trigger a new round of arms race. The balance of power among major countries, and the global strategic balance based thereon, constitutes the prerequisite for progress in the international arms control and disarmament process. Once this strategic equilibrium is disrupted, the arms control and disarmament process will inevitably become stagnated and even reversed. If the ABM treaty is amended as insisted by the U.S. and the deployment of NMD legitimated, the basis of global strategic stability will be removed. This will bring about fundamental changes to the international security environment. Against this background, who can be sure the existing arms control treaties will continue to be complied with? And who can guarantee that the new arms control negotiations will go smoothly?

    The reductions of their nuclear arsenals by the U.S. and Russia through bilateral agreements and/or unilateral initiatives are welcome and should be encouraged. However, we should also recognize that reduction of surplus nuclear weapons with “overkill” capabilities, is little more than the rationalization of their nuclear force structure, and is a far cry from nuclear disarmament in its real sense. As the only superpower, the U.S. already possesses the strongest military force and most advanced nuclear arsenal, and pursues a nuclear deterrence policy based on the first use of nuclear weapons. On top of all this, this country is trying to break the taboo that has been maintained for the last 30 years in the strategic field by building a nationwide missile defense system. In this sense, NMD will become a multiplier of the U.S. strategic offensive force. And the NMD program is in essence an U.S. program of unilateral nuclear expansion, which contains the inherent danger of triggering an arms race at a higher level. In specific terms, it may start off an arms race in outer space, and may also extend the arms race from offensive weapons to defensive weapons. It is true that, at current stage, the U.S. enjoys military and technological superiority, and other countries are not in a position to compete with it. From a long-term perspective, however, it will be unrealistic to expect other countries sit on their hands while the U.S. develops NMD. They will certainly take all sorts of counter measures to safeguard their national security.

    Thirdly, the U.S. NMD program will undermine the international non-proliferation regime and efforts. The U.S. claims that its development of missile defense systems is intended to counter the increasing threats posed by missile proliferation. I for one, and I don’t think I am alone here, do not share the U.S. assessment of the missile threats it is faced with. To say the least, the U.S. has over-exaggerated the missile threats from so-called “countries of concern”. Judging from their economic and technological strength, it is difficult to conclude that these countries will be able to develop, much less to deploy, missiles capable of reaching the U.S. territory in the foreseeable future. Even if, a very big “if”, these countries were capable of acquiring such capabilities, they would certainly not lose sight of the massive retaliatory capabilities from the U.S., both nuclear and conventional, not to mention the inevitable strong reactions from the international community. With all this and the fact that chemical and biological weapons have been banned by international treaties, and moreover, the NPT has been extended indefinitely, there is virtually no possibility that these countries may launch a first strikes against the U.S. In addition, the U.S. relations with these countries are not immutable. We all know that, the missile threat that the U.S. was faced with during the Cold War was many times greater than that today. If the U.S. did not find it necessary to amend and scrap the ABM treaty, there is, in my view, certainly less reason to do so today. Even if we conclude there is a danger of missile proliferation, NMD is not a solution to this problem. On the contrary, it can only aggravate it. Now, an international regime of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has by and large been established and proven. With regard to the prevention of missile proliferation, MTCR has played a certain role. With MTCR and a series of other initiatives and proposals in this field, one may say that this issue has been half-resolved. If major powers can work together, and in collaboration with the whole international community, the issue of missile proliferation can be resolved, step by step, through political and diplomatic means. The development of NMD is tantamount to “drinking poison to quench thirst”. It cannot solve the problem. Instead, it will undercut the very foundation of the international non-proliferation regime, and even stimulate further proliferation of missile.

    Fourthly, the development and deployment of NMD by the U.S. will increase the weight of the military factor in international relation in detriment to international peace and security. In essence, the international debate on the NMD issue is about what kind of international order should be established, and a choice between unipolar and multipolar world. This is also a debate between two security concepts: seeking one’s own absolute security at the expense of others’ security, or seeking universal security based on international cooperation. In fact, more and more people in the world have come to realize that, the real motive behind the U.S. NMD program is to seek its own absolute military superiority and absolute security. Once NMD is deployed, no matter whether it is really effective or not, it would further strengthen the U.S. tendency toward unilateralism and the tendency to use or threaten to use force. People can imagine, after the deployment of NMD, the U.S. would not sit idly in this impregnable “Fortress America”, enjoying the clear and peaceful sky above. Its omnipresent “national interests” and its zealous “sense of mission”, will drive this NMD-shielded superpower, to embark on a crusade to seek and strike at “countries of concern” all around the world with even higher enthusiasm and adventurism. This will create more instability in the world.

    History has shown that security is both mutual and relative. Real security can only be achieved if a country builds its own security on the basis of common security for all. It is a truly effective way to seek security within a framework of collective security through dialogue and cooperation on the basis of equality. Any attempt to build its own security to the detriment of the security of others, will only undermine global strategic balance and stability, thus resulting in the loss of sense of security for all. In a world where all countries feel insecure, they would seek every means to protect themselves. As a result, military factor will play a bigger role in international relations, and huge amount of financial resources and materials that would otherwise be devoted to economic development will be diverted to arms buildup. Under such circumstances, how can a country truly enjoy real security? How can the world remain stable? As a matter of fact, today and in the foreseeable future, the U.S. has and will continue to enjoy more security than any other countries.

    II. NMD is not conductive to peace and security in Asia and the Pacific

    Both Canada and China are located in the Pacific region, and thus are naturally more concerned about the security situation in the region. With the end of the Cold War, the situation of the region on the whole has been moving towards relaxation. Most countries in the region take the development of national economy and the improvement of living standard of people as their priority task. To that end, they have made great efforts in building a peaceful and stable regional environment. Thanks to joint efforts of countries concerted, the ASEAN Regional Forum, the “Shanghai Five” and other mechanisms of dialogue and cooperation on regional security are in the steady process of development. They have played an active role in promoting mutual understanding and trust among countries concerned and in safeguarding regional peace and stability. Meanwhile, bilateral exchanges and consultations between countries of the region have also gradually increased. It has become the main trend of the region to strengthen dialogue, promote understanding, build mutual trust, and resolve issues through bilateral and multilateral coordination and cooperation. In particular, with the relaxation of tension in the Korean Peninsula, the situation in this region is further evolving toward peace.

    At the same time, however, factors detrimental to peace and development in Asia and the Pacific still exist. As an important component of global security structure, security in this region is closely related to the overall international security situation. The implementation of NMD program by the U.S. will not only undermine global strategic balance and stability, but also disrupt efforts for security in the Asia-Pacific region. Moreover, the U.S. also intends to deploy Theatre Missile Defense (TMD) in the region. Research and development of TMD per se may not necessarily constitute a violation of the ABM Treaty. But, the crucial question is how large is the scale and what are the nature and function of TMD that the U.S. is prepared to deploy in Asia. If this TMD can be used as part of NMD and constitute the front deployment of NMD in the region, then its adverse impact on regional security and stability will be no less than the NMD itself.

    It is obvious that countries in Asia and the Pacific have many common or similar views on the issue of missile defense and have much at stake. It is the aspiration of most countries in the region that global and regional strategic balance and stability should be maintained; that mutual trust and cooperation among major powers will be enhanced; that common security for all countries will be ensured; that individual country should not seek absolute security for itself at the expense of others; that existing arms control achievements will be consolidated and cooperation in this area will be strengthened; that the U.S.-Russia bilateral nuclear disarmament process will not be reversed; that non-proliferation issue will be resolved through political and diplomatic means; and that the tendency towards unilateralism in international relations should be held at bay.

    III. China’s position on Missile Defense

    China needs peace and is eager to see the maintenance of global and regional peace and security. For that reason, China is firmly opposed to the proposed NMD

    What I want to emphasize here is that China does not want to see a confrontation between China and U.S. on the NMD issue nor an arms race between two countries. We oppose the NMD because we hope that the existing mutual deterrence between the two countries can be preserved. This does not in any way imply that we intend to threaten the security of the U.S. with our nuclear weapons. But, on the other hand, China should have the necessary and sufficient means of self-defense, so that we will not be bullied and blackmailed by any other countries again. China will not allow its legitimate means of self-defense to be weakened or even taken away by anyone in anyway. This is one of the most important aspects China’s national security.

    Since the 1960’s, China has been forced to develop its own limited nuclear force due to the repeated nuclear blackmails it has encountered. During the Korean War, the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1958 and the border conflict between China and the Soviet Union in 1969, the U.S. and the Soviet Union respectively threatened for several times to strike China with nuclear weapons. To survive, China had no other choice. Because China developed its own nuclear weapons against such a special historical backdrop, China has never intended to threaten other countries with nuclear weapons. For that reason, on the very first day when China came into possession of nuclear weapons, China solemnly declared that under no circumstance would China be the first to use nuclear weapons. As is known to all, though China’s nuclear arsenal is the smallest and least advanced among the five nuclear powers, China is the first to pursue the policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, we have been pursuing an independent foreign policy of peace, consistently developed good relationship with its neighbors and followed the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in handling its relations with other nations. History has demonstrated that China’s possession of nuclear weapons has not changed its peaceful foreign policy.

    In the past two years, the UN General Assembly has twice adopted the resolution on “Preservation of and Compliance with the ABM Treaty” with an overwhelming majority. This fully demonstrates the international community’s political will against the deployment of NMD and the amendment of the ABM treaty. It is particularly regrettable that, despite the widespread international and domestic opposition, the new U.S. administration would still stick to the NMD program. We sincerely hope that the U.S. government could heed the appeal of the international community, abandon the NMD program, return to the framework of collective security and join the international efforts to maintain the global strategic balance and stability as well as the system of international arms control treaties.

    Thank you.

    *Sha Zukang is Director-General of the Department of Arms Control & Disarmament and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China.

  • Crisis and Opportunity

    In every crisis there is opportunity. But before the crisis can be converted to opportunity, it is necessary to recognize that the crisis exists. If we are unaware of the crisis, assign it too low a level of priority among our concerns, or are in denial about it, we cannot act to prevent it or turn it to opportunity.

    Humanity today faces more than one crisis. Among these are some that are familiar — the human population explosion, global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, the pollution of our oceans and atmosphere, epidemic diseases such as AIDS, and the deleterious effects of poverty on the health, well-being and mortality of some one-third of the human species. Each of these crises present major problems for humanity. Most of them are interactive; they affect each other. If we were to address these problems in a coordinated way, we could perhaps save millions, perhaps billions, of lives, while creating better living conditions for humans everywhere.

    An important common characteristic of each of these crises is that none can be solved by any one country, no matter how rich and powerful. The most serious crises we face today are species-wide crises. The problems cannot be contained within national borders, nor can they be resolved without global cooperation. National sovereignty is an obstacle to the resolution of a global crisis. If today’s crises cannot be solved at the national level, then we must reconsider the manner of global organization that has sustained the world for the past four centuries. One opportunity inherent in these crises is that of shedding a rapidly deteriorating and increasingly obsolete form of social organization, the nation-state, a form of social organization that contributes to our malaise.

    The list of crises articulated above in not complete. There are many more. In fact, I have not yet listed what I consider the most important crisis facing humanity: the crisis of nuclear arms. The reason that I rank this one above all others is that it has the potential to bring swift and universal death to humanity and to most other forms of life. It has the potential to reverse the evolutionary process by destroying most higher forms of life. All of the other crises listed above, as well as others not listed, inflict their damage more slowly, thus leaving more time to resolve them. This does not mean, of course, that with each of these crises there is not a point of no return, a point at which the damage becomes irreversible. With nuclear arms, this point could be reached at any time, and there have been a number of occasions where humanity has nearly stumbled past the point of no return.

    One evening in 1995 Boris Yeltsin, then the President of Russia, was awakened in the middle of the night and told that Russian radar had detected a US missile launched from Norway at Moscow. Yeltsin was told that he had only a few minutes to decide whether Russia should retaliate. The missile could be aimed at destroying the Russian command and control system, and if Yeltsin did not act quickly it might not be possible to give the order to retaliate against the US after the nuclear detonation had occurred. Yeltsin hesitated and deferred his decision beyond the few minutes given him by the military command. It became clear that the missile was not aimed at Russia, and the world was spared a nuclear exchange.

    It was widely reported that Boris Yeltsin drank too much. The evening he was awakened in the night to decide on the fate of humanity, he might have been drunk. These are not the best of circumstances in which to decide humanity’s future. It is worth reflecting on our current global system of nuclear controls that would result in a man with a highly publicized drinking problem being in charge that evening of our common future. If Boris Yeltsin had acted more hastily and launched what he believed was a counter-attack at the United States, the United States would certainly have countered the Russian attack. The results are almost too catastrophic to contemplate. Tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of people could have died that night. The survivors might have envied the dead.

    The fact that it didn’t happen that night or at any other time since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki does not mean that it could not happen with swift and massive destruction. That night in 1995 was not the only time that a close call with nuclear weapons occurred. The world came even closer to all-out nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. There are many other documented instances when the use of nuclear weapons has been contemplated. Today there are still some 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and the United States and Russia each maintain some 2,250 of these on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired on a moment’s notice. It is like sitting on a powder keg of dynamite and playing with matches. We are all in danger.

    Nuclear weapons pose a crisis to humanity of unprecedented magnitude. This crisis began some five and a half decades ago when nuclear weapons were created. In short succession nuclear weapons were used twice at the end of a terrible war. Since then they have been mostly sheathed, but have posed an ongoing and unprecedented threat to humanity. Most of humanity has been complacent in the face of this danger. This must change. We are facing an evolutionary test. We humans have created the means of our own demise as a species. We hold our fate in our own hands. Yet, our fears and our social organization into nations seem to be working against finding a solution to this test. Our first step must be to recognize that we are facing a crisis. Then we can explore our capacity to cooperate to find a solution – a solution that can turn the crisis into an opportunity. We have the crisis. It is up to us resolve it and find the opportunity inherent in it to create a better human future.

    *David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Battle Lines Are Being Drawn over the International Criminal Court

    The battle lines are being drawn between those who believe in the rule of law and those who do not. A powerful and respected American voice that has been raised to support the establishment of the International Criminal Court. It rebuts the ill-informed and misguided views of those who denounce the proposed court as a threat to American interests and military personnel. It deserves the widest possible dissemination by those who support the ICC.

    Monroe Leigh has been Legal Adviser to both the State and Defense Departments. He is a past President of the American Bar Association and the American Society for International Law and is an outstanding authority. On Feb. 21, 2001, he wrote to Chairman Hyde, of the House Committee on International Relations, that the Bill introduced by Senator Jesse Helms (The American Service Member’s Protection Act S.2726, June 14, 2000) as a preemptive strike against the ICC, (and opposed by the State and Defense departments) was replete with misconceptions . Nonetheless, the Senator had managed to obtain signatures from, a dozen distinguished American leaders, including ex- Secretaries of State, CIA and National Security Advisers, in opposition to the ICC. Leigh, ever the gentleman, said the signatories were simply misinformed. In fact, assured Leigh, the ICC would offer greater protection to Americans in military service than now exits at home or abroad.

    Leigh warned that persistent efforts by U.S. negotiators to exempt American military personnel from legal restraints that other nations were being asked to accept could only exacerbate relations with our allies. To rebut the signatories assembled by Helms, ten former Presidents of the America Society of International Law, including its Honorary President Stephen Schwebel, added their names to the Leigh memo. These very distinguished American jurists – in their personal capacities – concluded that the U.S. should accept the Treaty for an ICC “without change in the text.”

    To top it off, Monroe Leigh wrote a COMMENT that will appear in the next issue of the prestigious American Journal of International Law (Vol.95.No.1, A. 2001). He analyzes the arguments put forward by those who would reject the ICC – described by Leigh as “the most important international juridical institution that has been proposed since the San Francisco Conference of 1945.” He notes that under existing international law the sovereign of the territory where a crime is committed has jurisdiction to try the captured offender. The notion that U.S. nationals cannot be tried for war crimes if their government is not a party to the ICC treaty is not supported by existing international law as recognized by the highest U.S. courts. Strident demands for exceptionalism can only reinforce suspicions about American hegemonic ambitions. Leigh notes ICC provisions that give national courts absolute priority to try the accused in a fair trial. He ridicules “the specter of the politically motivated Prosecutor” and spells out the many safeguards that will prevent abuse and protect the rights of the accused. He dismisses the criticism that the ICC might deny due process to U.S. service personnel as “totally misplaced.” His conclusion: “In sum, the United States can most effectively protect its national-security interests, as well as the individual interests of U.S. nationals, by accepting the Statute of Rome – better sooner than later.”

    Many others, of course, have spoken out in favor of the Court, including the excellent survey of legal experts by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.. The conclusion of that comprehensive study, articulated by Harvard Law Professors Abram Chayes and Anne-Marie Slaughter: “The United states should be taking the lead in shaping these new institutions. It is not too late.” Opponents of the ICC do not speak for the United States. Leigh, a conservative “establishment” man of impeccable credentials, has raised a respected voice in opposition to unsound harangues coming from uninformed adversaries.. (I am grateful to Heather Hamilton of the World Federalist Association for drawing my attention to the Leigh correspondence.)

    Despite the organized and vocal opposition to the ICC, President Clinton directed Ambassador Scheffer (who represented the U.S. at the U.N. with distinction) to sign the Treaty at the last moment. It was an important symbolic act – showing that the outgoing Administration favored the goals of the ICC, despite need for improvements. Opponents of the ICC howled with anger and threatened to erase the signature – a rather bizarre suggestion. The U.S. now sits silent at the U.N. deliberations. The new Republican Administration will have to be persuaded that the ICC is in our national interest. Let the voice of the informed public now be heard

  • Notes From the Road

    On Saturday March 10, 2001, I participated in World Peace through Human Revolution at the SGI-USA Santa Barbara Community Center. The event exposed attendees to Buddhist practices and allowed local non-profit organizations the opportunity to discuss our respective missions and programs with SGI members and event participants. Event organizers treated participants to a historical overview of Buddhism, brief discussion of the main figures who shaped present day Soka Gakkai International, and recitation of the Lotus Sutra. The program debuted Changing Society by Changing Ourselves, a captivating visual chronicle of the major figures and events shaping war and peace in the 20th century. Talented SGI members not only showcased their theatrical skills through a skit entitled Changing Poison to Medicine, which portrayed a day in the life a young women in the process of changing her life for the better by overcoming greed, foolishness, and anger, but also their musical skills through an inspirational piece combining turntable, spoken word, and vocal stylings. Many participants experienced the Victory Over Violence exhibit, learning whether it was their first time or viewing the exhibit as a reminder of our need to wage peace. Also, Nonviolence International Founder and local high school educator, Leah Wells, donated her own facilitation skills to a workshop on conflict resolution. Initiated and led by students, World Peace through Human Revolution relayed Gandhi’s message of be(ing) the change that you want to see in the world. I commend all of those who contributed to the success of the afternoon festivities.

    The video Changing Society by Changing Ourselves features Foundation President David Krieger. Video narrators reiterate his belief that the collaborative and organizational efforts among those of us working to affirm and expand the just and humane components of our society must equal and exceed the efforts among individuals, organizations, and corporations organized around preparing for and mounting war. This concept remains a rallying point today! Case in point – approximately three years ago, SGI youth collected 13 million signatures from Japanese citizens calling for both an international treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons within a fixed time period and for the reallocation of resources from military purposes to social services. David Krieger accepted the signatures on behalf of the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons at a ceremony at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Being that the United States is twice the size of Japan, I believe it is possible to collect 26 million signatures through our current Appeal to End the Nuclear Threat to Humanity. Please join with me and voice our commitment to transforming society for the better starting with ourselves.

    *Michael Coffey is the Youth Outreach Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Globalization and the End of Nuclear Weapons

    Nuclear weapons will only be abolished when the moral consciousness of humanity is raised, just as it was raised by the moral re-assessment and rejection of slavery, colonialism and apartheid.

    The Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) would not be able to so blithely carry on with their nuclear weapons programs if world consciousness, raised to a new recognition of this continued affront on humanity, demanded abolition. But world consciousness has been dulled. We have lived with the bomb so long that it has insinuated itself into our thinking.

    Why are some in the abolition movement now saying that the abolition of nuclear weapons is a remote, receding, and unrealistic goal?

    Why are governments still being allowed to claim that the outmoded strategy of nuclear deterrence has even a shred of credibility or morality?

    Why are the nuclear retentionists not being driven to obscurity by the sheer force of the legal, moral, political, and military arguments against the possession of nuclear weapons?

    To address the paramount issue of our time with these searching questions brings us face to face with the hardest question of all: Does 21st century humanity have the vision, the courage, the strength, the perseverance to abolish the very instruments that can obliterate humanity itself? To that question we must give a resounding “yes”.

    Public Priorities: A Common Ground For All Humanity

    The first and perhaps over-arching requirement in building a world free of nuclear weapons is to have the confidence that it can be done. The doubters have had their way long enough. Having shown our anger at mis-placed public priorities where we prepare for war to preserve a fragile peace, let us now display our confidence that enough of us making a difference in the circumstances of our daily lives can indeed make a difference in the world as a whole.

    Let us demand of our governments that they stop their duplicitous conduct and move beyond the traditional approaches of preventing war, which have failed disastrously. Today billions are spent on arms and militarization, while worthwhile peace initiatives and programs for human security are starved for lack of funds. These priorities must be reversed.

    Globalization is a moment for us to express a vision of the kind of world we want in the 21st century.

    Let me tell you my vision.

    I want a world that is human-centered and genuinely democratic, a world that builds and protects peace, equality, justice and development. I want a world where human security, as envisioned in the principles of the United Nations Charter, replaces armaments, violent conflict and wars. I want a world where everyone lives in a clean environment with a fair distribution of the Earth’s resources and where human rights are protected by a body of international law.

    But it is hard to obtain such a world. As U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has reminded us, the century just ended was disfigured time and again by ruthless conflict. Grinding poverty and striking inequality persist within and among countries amidst unprecedented wealth. Nature’s life-sustaining services are being seriously disrupted and degraded. These diverse challenges to human security carry a powerful message.

    Globalization must bring a new understanding of the world as a single community.

    Globalization must mean more than creating bigger markets.

    Globalization must use the sweeping power of technology to raise all of humanity to higher levels of civilization under a common global ethic.

    By “global ethic,” I do not mean a global ideology or a single unified religion, and I certainly don’t mean the domination of one religion at the expense of others. Rather, I mean a fundamental consensus on binding values, irrevocable standards, and personal attitudes. This ethic is the expression of a vision of peoples living peacefully together, of peoples sharing responsibility for the care of the planet. The abolition of nuclear weapons must become a central part of this new global ethic of enlightened realism.

    Because of massive transformations in technology, communication and transportation humanity can now see itself, its unity and disunity, as no generation before could do. Humanity must also see not only its coexistence but also its commonality and the need for cooperation with one another.

    Beyond all else, one great fact must stand out – the whole of the Earth is greater than the parts. Global security is of a higher order than national security – security at the expense of others.

    Violence, injustice, war, oppression and poverty are seen not as the inevitable consequences of greed and aggression, but as symptoms of a world disorder caused by putting the parts before the whole. A globalized world of peace and justice can only be achieved by fostering this global ethic. This is an ethic that is not disloyal to community or country, rather, it lifts up the consciousness of one’s surroundings to a new recognition, never possible in the pre-technological age of globalization, of the interdependence of nations and systems making up the whole.

    To address the human security agenda there needs to be an infusion of values-based principles into public policy that would establish and reinforce a common ground for all humanity: One that would emphasize the core values of respect for life, freedom, justice and equity. Sadly, this common ethic remains elusive in public policy. Consider:

    The world’s nuclear arsenals have thus far cost over $8 trillion and counting. The U.S. alone has spent $5.5 trillion on its nuclear weapons and American taxpayers expend about $100 million a day in order to maintain them.

    Despite the end of the Cold War, the world still spends $781 billion a year on armaments. Contrast this preparation for war with the $1.3 billion it spends on maintaining United Nations programs for peace.

    For every dollar that all governments spend on military activities, less than a quarter-of-a-cent is spent on U.N. peacekeeping. Contrast this reality with the following: At least one-quarter of the world’s people live in extreme poverty, meaning they do not get enough food, access to clean water, proper sanitation, are subject to rampant disease, and are deprived of proper education.

    Across the world nearly one billion people, two thirds of them women, will enter the 21st century unable to read a book or so much as write their names. This total includes more than 130 million primary school-aged children who are growing up without access to basic education.

    Despite the purported goal of universal primary education, OXFAM argues that if current trends continue an estimated 75 million children will be out of school in the year 2015. These facts are not indicative of some tragic twist of fate, but are the result of the choices our governments have made, a testament to a deliberate turning of heads away from the poor. We must give meaning and value to all life.

    It is not the resources that are lacking, but the political will. Let us remember such contrasts when we think of globalization and building a common ethic for a culture of peace. Elimination of the instruments of violence, beating swords into plougshares, making the transition from a culture of war, maintained and advanced by the huge war machine human industry has built up over many centuries, would be the greatest legacy we could ever leave to future generations. This must be our resolve.

    Policy-makers must rid themselves of the idea that peace and security can be bought only with weaponry. We need to foster and promote the transition from a culture of war, violence, and discrimination to a culture, an ethic, of non-violence, dialogue, and tolerance. It will have to be based on collective efforts from a variety of partners inside and outside of government. It will depend upon the ability to raise people’s awareness of the fundamental human security needs and rights affecting the daily lives of millions.

    A transformation of human consciousness, as great as the transformative power of globalization itself, must occur.

    The Political Will To Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    The single biggest impediment to successful globalization – that is peaceful and just – is the maintenance of nuclear weapons.

    With the proliferation of nuclear and of other weapons of mass destruction, the weapons themselves have become the main enemy. Because an increasing number of nations will not tolerate the possession of nuclear weapons by some to the exclusion of others, the abolition of nuclear weapons is the indispensable condition for peace in the 21st century. Their abolition must be the focal point to the deep social change required for a global ethic of peace, since there is not hope for an equitable world as long as a handful of powerful States retain and rely on nuclear weapons while trying to prevent others from acquiring them.

    The adherents of nuclear weapons say that their abolition will be the end result of the solidification of peace. They are putting the cart before the horse; the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) – through maintaining their nuclear weapons as instruments of power – are the catalysts for the spread of nuclear weapons and thus destabilizing the regions of the world. Of course, a security architecture must be built to support the abolition of nuclear weapons, but it is the outright refusal of the NWS to enter comprehensive negotiations for elimination that is worsening international relations.

    The maintenance of nuclear weapons into the 21st century is not to fight wars, although that can never be excluded, but to perpetuate power. This power flows from the structures of greed by which the rich think they have a right to the lion’s share of the world’s resources, after which they will, in the right mood and setting, share superfluous largesse. What are the real concerns of the nuclear retentionists? The ability to maintain a free hand to coerce and impose their will globally; ergo the decision to construct a National Missile Defence system in order to preserve asymmetrical power between themselves and the rest of the world.

    Proponents of missile defence claim they will not allow the United States to be black mailed by smaller nuclear powers. But because the U.S. intends to continue do just that with its own nuclear arsenal, it merely postpones the inevitable. Eventually either most nations will possess their own nuclear deterrent for self-defence or no one will.

    The public seems precariously unaware of the present nuclear danger. Let us bring the basic facts into sharp focus. Today, eight nations possess some 32,000 nuclear bombs containing 5,000 megatons of destructive energy, which is the equivalent of 416,000 Hiroshima-size bombs. This is enough to destroy all major cities of 500,000 population or greater in the United States, Canada, Europe, Russia, Japan, China, India, Pakistan, Korea, Vietnam, Australia, South Africa, and Cuba.

    U.S. and Russian nuclear-weapons systems remain on high alert despite the fact they ceased to be formal enemies a decade ago. Many Americans, as I know many Canadians, do not realize that the U.S. and Russia still rely on the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This doctrine purportedly made the use of nuclear weapons unthinkable during the Cold War by threatening the launch “on warning” of nuclear arsenals to counter any pre-emptive strike from the enemy, thus ensuring the devastation of all in any scenario.

    The Cold War is supposed to be over, we have entered a new century and a new millennium, yet we still retain the ways and means to destroy ourselves. Indeed those means are spreading to other countries. This fact, combined with the aging and weakness of Russian technical systems, which the Kursk submarine disaster illustrated, has increased the risk of accidental nuclear attack. The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that an accidental intermediate-sized launch of weapons from a single Russian submarine would result in the deaths of 6,838,000 persons from firestorms in eight U.S. cities. A similar catastrophic toll of death would result in Russia from a U.S. accident.

    Why then is there no real action for elimination on the part of all the Nuclear Weapon States? Because the political will has not yet been developed.

    The actual year in which the last nuclear weapon is dismantled or the precise time when the international community recognizes that war is no longer a viable means of resolving disputes is less important than the decision taken today to start down that road. The refusal of States to recognize that war is outmoded and a new architecture of global security must be built leaves the world in an increasingly dangerous condition.

    The opportunity opened up by the end of the Cold War has been squandered. The nuclear retentionists have succeeded in sowing doubts that the abolition goal is feasible, in insisting that regional security everywhere is a precondition, in claiming that the technicalities of compliance and verification are overwhelming. They get away with this intellectual corruption because neither the political order, the media, nor the public has yet summoned up the wrath to denounce the retentionists for the deceit, charlatanry, greed, and power they represent.

    The Right To Peace And The Abolition Of Nuclear Weapons

    Society accepts the maintenance, indeed the reliance, of nuclear weapons because we accept violence. Nuclear weapons are the reflection of society’s willingness to commit violence. It is violence when great sections of humanity are economically discriminated against and even robbed of their right to basic human needs. It is violence when we sell arms to governments to intimidate, if not wage war against, their neighbours and even their own people. Violence is so endemic in our culture that it has become routine. It is the ultimate violence to threaten to use nuclear weapons against other human beings — against people we do not even know and to place in jeopardy not only their own survival as a people but the natural structure upon which all civilization rests.

    The moral, legal and political challenge to nuclear weapons must be reinvigorated. Civil society, by this I mean communities, churches, citizens’ groups, all have a most pivotal role to play in heightening the pressure on governments to begin effective negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. It is essential that non-governmental leaders speak, with one voice, that nuclear weapons are unacceptable. Nuclear planners would then be deprived of any claim to moral legitimacy.

    We must speak out to decry these very instruments that attack humanity. This is not “moralism,” it is not “rhetoric,” it is not “simplism.” It is, rather, the strengthening of a teaching that human conscience must assert itself in any understanding of right and wrong. To fail to do this is to consign humanity to denigration of intellect and loss of will, to deny it the very essence of humanity. I have stressed in this lecture the possibilities of globalization to promote attitudinal change in society so that it seeps into moral and legal thinking to both stimulate and sustain new government policies. A whole new way of thinking about nuclear weapons is required to effectuate change. This is the goal of UNESCO in promoting knowledge of a culture of peace.

    A culture of peace is the set of values, attitudes, traditions, modes of behaviour and ways of life that inspire respect for all life, rejection of violence, and promotion of all human rights. A culture of peace is a process of individual, collective and institutional transformation. It grows out of beliefs and actions of the people themselves and develops in each country within its specific historical, socio-cultural and economic context. Mobilizing public opinion and developing new education programs, at all levels, are essential.

    The themes of a culture of peace are the architecture for the human right to peace. The protection of the right to life and bodily security are at the heart of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When a weapon has the potential to kill millions of people in one blast, human life becomes reduced to a level of worthlessness that totally belies human dignity as understood in any culture. No weapon invented in the long history of warfare has so negated the dignity and worth of the human person as has the nuclear bomb.

    The most devastating attack on the Declaration of Human Rights comes from those who would assault the very existence of human life on the planet.

    We are yet some distance from a general societal recognition that the right to peace demands the abolition of nuclear weapons. But let us have a vision that morality and law, fully developed, will bring us to this vision. While we must bring our head to this matter, we must also bring our heart.

    I reject the thinking of those who hold that the end of nuclear weapons is at least 100 years away and that until then “we must live with nuclear weapons as responsibly and quietly as we can.” That is dangerous pessimism. The world does not have 100 years to stamp out this pernicious cancer that is eroding human security.

    There are too many people suffering, too much political frustration, too much potential for global devastation, to allow a mood of passivity. The abolition of nuclear weapons will not, by itself, bring peace, but it will allow the international community to deal more effectively with other threats to peace.

    All great historical ideas for change go through three stages: first, the idea is ridiculed; then it is vigorously objected to; finally, it is accepted as conventional wisdom. The movement to abolish nuclear weapons has entered the second stage.

    The time for those who understand the threat to humanity posed by nuclear weapons to make their voices heard, to wake up the public, to shake up governments is now. My hope lies in the blossoming of human intelligence and the emergence of a caring, activist civil society working along side of like-minded governments. We do not have the luxury of despair. We must believe that, with the application of our minds and hearts, we can overcome the nuclear retentionists.

    When leaders in civil society work with like-minded governments, powerful results can be obtained. It is now the responsibility of civil society to put a worldwide spotlight on the recalcitrance of the NWS governments and show them that human consciousness has moved beyond them.

  • Missile Defense and the Maginot Line

    Following World War I, the French decided to build a line of defense that would make them invulnerable to future attack by Germany. They created a 400-mile stretch of defensive installations known as the Maginot Line. It was considered quite high-tech for the time, and the French took great pride in it. When the Germans invaded and quickly defeated France in World War II, they simply went around the Maginot Line. One wonders if there is a lesson here that might apply to the current US plans to develop and deploy a missile defense system to protect against ballistic missiles launched by small hostile nations.

    Imagine this scenario. The United States proceeds with its plans to create a National Missile Defense system. The system employs the latest technology considered capable of shooting and destroying a ballistic missile launched at the United States. The system costs some $100 to $200 billion that might have been used to provide health care and education for America’s youth. Nonetheless, proponents of the system are proud of their accomplishment. They have built a defensive system that will protect the United States against missile attacks by countries such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq — should these countries ever acquire nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States.

    Let’s further imagine that a decade into the future Saddam Hussein succeeds in obtaining a few nuclear warheads and a ballistic missile delivery system capable of reaching the US. The proponents of the National Missile Defense system feel justified in their vision because their system will protect the US from a nuclear-armed missile attack by Saddam Hussein. Now, Hussein may be belligerent, aggressive and hostile to the United States, but he is not suicidal. He decides against attacking an American city by means of a missile attack, which could be traced back to him. Instead he arranges for a nuclear weapon to be smuggled into the US by ship, truck or plane. Of course, only a few trusted accomplices know that it is him who has made these arrangements. In this modern-day Maginot Line-type scenario, a determined enemy would simply go around the defense or, in this case, under it.

    In a different scenario, incoming missiles from a potential enemy might go right through the missile shield. Many experts believe that it will not be difficult to develop offensive measures to overcome the defensive shield. MIT scientists Theodore Postol and George Lewis write: “The Pentagon claims that the warhead and the ineffective large balloon decoy it is testing against are representative of the missile threat from an idealized imagined adversary an adversary presumed to be capable of building intercontinental range ballistic missiles, and nuclear warheads that are sufficiently light and compact to be mounted on such missiles, but at the same time so bungling as to be unable to hide the warhead inside a Mylar balloon decoy released along with empty balloons or to build warhead-shaped cone decoys.” In other words, it is quite possible that after spending upwards of $100 billion to create a missile defense, the shield will prove to be ineffective against an adversary sophisticated enough to develop decoys along with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads.

    Unfortunately, the fact that the planned National Missile Defense is likely to be wasteful and ineffective is not the worst of it. The truly dangerous aspect of moving forward with deployment of missile defenses is what it will do to our relations with Russia and China. Both countries are strongly opposed to a US defensive shield because of their fear that it will create a US first-strike potential. From the Russian and Chinese point of view, the shield would allow the US to attack them in a surprise first-strike, and then use the shield to destroy any of their remaining missiles that might be launched at the US in response. Their planners, like ours, must think in terms of worst-case scenarios.

    In 1972 the US and the former Soviet Union entered into a treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, prohibiting the development of a national missile defense. Both countries understood that the development of defensive systems would further spur offensive arms races, and that limitations on defense would create the conditions necessary to reduce offensive nuclear arsenals. The ABM Treaty has provided the basis for progress on nuclear disarmament through the START I and II treaties.

    The new US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has been dismissive of the ABM Treaty referring to it as “ancient history,” and publicly suggesting that the treaty is no longer relevant because the Soviet Union no longer exists. At a recent meeting on European security policy in Munich, Rumsfeld, referring to the ABM Treaty, stated: “It was a long time ago that that treaty was fashioned. Technologies were noticeably different. The Soviet Union, our partner in that agreement, doesn’t exist any more.”

    The Russians, however, continue to view this treaty as the foundation of all current and future arms control agreements. The Russian security chief, Sergei Ivanov, responded at the same meeting, “Destruction of the ABM treaty, we are quite confident, will result in the annihilation of the whole structure of strategic stability and create prerequisites for a new arms race including one in space.” Jacques Chirac, the President of France, agrees, having stated that a US missile defense “cannot fail to re-launch an arms race in the world.” This eventuality stands in dramatic contrast to the Russian proposal by President Putin to reduce nuclear arsenals to 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons or below in START III negotiations.

    Sha Zukang, the Director of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, has described the Chinese position on US missile defenses in this way: “To defeat your defenses we’ll have to spend a lot of money, and we don’t want to do this. But otherwise, the United States will feel it can attack anyone at any time, and that isn’t tolerable. We hope [America] will give this up. If not, we’ll be ready.”

    Thus, US plans for missile defenses are a high-stakes game. While they aim at providing security against an improbable future attack by a small nation, they antagonize the other major nuclear powers in the world and are likely to lead to new arms races. While this may be beneficial for weapons producers, it is likely to undermine rather than enhance the security of people everywhere, including Americans.

    The United States agreed with more than 185 other nations at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference that it was necessary to preserve and strengthen the ABM Treaty “as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons.” We also agreed, along with the other declared nuclear weapons states to an “unequivocal undertaking” to achieve the total elimination of nuclear weapons. By proceeding with plans to deploy a National Missile Defense system, the US is turning these promises made in the context of preventing nuclear proliferation into empty rhetoric.

    If the US is serious about keeping these promises and achieving the elimination of nuclear weapons from the world, it should take the following steps:

    • Reaffirm its commitment to the 1972 ABM Treaty;
    • Provide leadership in developing an effective ballistic missile control regime to prevent the spread of this technology;
    • Continue negotiations with states of concern such as North Korea in an effort to find solutions to outstanding problems;
    • Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement;
    • Take steps to diminish the political importance of nuclear weapons such as de-alerting nuclear weapons, separating warheads from delivery vehicles, adopting clear policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons, and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    Security from nuclear threat does not reside in building a Maginot Line in the Sky. Rather, it lies in making the good faith efforts promised long ago to seek the total elimination of nuclear weapons from the world. There is only one way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again, and that is to abolish them.

    *David Krieger is the President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Downwinders Eligible for Worker Compensation and Health Care

    As seen in media accounts posted onto Downwinders onelist, the Hanford offsite exposure health hearings were held the last week of January in Kennewick, Washington. Almost 200 people were in attendance.

    In spite of numerous requests, the Department of Energy has refused thusfar to hold site hearings (like the worker site hearings held over the last two years) on offsite exposures and health problems. This hearing was therefore convened by the Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

    The verbatim transcript and videotape of the testimony made during this hearing provide clear evidence of significant health problems amongst offsite exposed populations, as requested by the DOE. To many, of course, provision of further evidence would seem unnecessary, as many family members of nuclear workers, who themselves suffer today from cancers, autoimmune thyroiditis, other autoimmune disorders, and other serious health problems, testified during the DOE site hearings on worker health problems held over the past two years. This evidence of offsite exposure health problems, and serious health problems amongst Nevada Test site exposed populations who are not currently eligible for any kind of help within the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) is already out there. Why are we asked by the DOE for even further evidence to be provided?

    We want to be clear that we are very supportive of compensation and health care for those within the DOE nuclear complex who have developed cancers and other serious health problems which are more likely than not caused by their exposures on site. But, there are those exposed outside the site fenceline who have developed the same cancers and other health problems as have developed in workers, and who have been subjected to the same exposure health risk as workers.

    If these individuals were nuclear workers, rather than offsite exposed persons, they would be eligible under the new DOE compensation and health care initiative. To deprive these eligible individuals of government help based on the fact that they were exposed outside rather than inside the site fenceline is not only illogical but entirely unjust.

    EQUAL EXPOSURE HEALTH RISK, UNEQUAL TREATMENT

    THE TEST CASE: The only radionuclide for which “official” reconstructed doses have been provided by the government, is radioiodine, or I-131. Currently, estimated, reconstructed I-131 doses are available for those exposed to Hanford nuclear reservation historic offsite airborne releases, for Nevada Test Site atomic test fallout releases, and for Oak Ridge offsite plus Nevada Test Site I-131 releases, combined.

    It is for this reason, that radioiodine logically serves as the test case for inclusion within the DOE health care and compensation initiative, of offsite exposed persons who qualify within the eligibility criteria defined for that initiative.

    DOWNWINDERS MEET ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

    Under the DOE nuclear worker compensation and health care initiative, the exposure to the worker in question must fall within guidelines for determining whether the worker’s cancer was at least “as likely as not” to have been caused by his or her exposure on the job.

    The determination of exposure dose received for workers provides workers with a range of possible doses, when worker exposure records are not available. Eligibility under the new law requires that the specified cancer be “at least as likely as not” related to exposure on the job. This is based upon a reconstructed radiation dose at the upper 99% confidence limit of the estimate of probability of causation in the published radioepidemiological tables. Probability of causation refers to the probability that an exposure resulted in the cancer or other health outcome that a person now has.

    Where is the logic or the justice in depriving involuntarily exposed members of offsite populations (which includes, of course, those exposed to Nevada Test Site fallout, which contained I-131 as well as a range of other biologically significant radionuclides) of this compensation or health care if certain offsite exposed persons (“downwinders”) have cancers or any other health problems which are within the recognized list of health problems of the DOE nuclear worker initiative, and if these individuals also have reconstructed doses which, when translated to probability of causation, would qualify them for compensation and health care if these individuals were nuclear workers?

    These were involuntary exposures. These were very often childhood exposures. These infants and children were exposed before they even had a chance to say NO.

    People who were children in the l950s and l960s were exposed involuntarily to several significant sources of I-131:

    l. Nevada Test Site: (1951-1957) released 150 million curies of I-131, along with a range of other biologically significant radionuclides.

    2. Marshall Islands (l952-1958) thermonuclear tests released 8 billion curies of I-131.

    3. Former USSR- ( 1958-62) thermonuclear tests released 12 billion curies of I-131, much of which deposited globally.

    These doses must be added together, each within an uncertainty range, in order to obtain a person’s total exposure dose, for a particular radionuclide (in this test case, I-131). It is well known that one predictor of radiogenic thyroid disease is the size of the thyroid as vs the size of the dose. A baby’s or child’s tiny thyroid absorbs virtually all of the radioiodine over its decay time, delivering therefore a dose twenty times the dose to an adult thyroid.

    Note that radioiodine is only one of a range of biologically significant radionuclides released from local DOE sites, released within Nevada Test Site fallout, from Marshall Islands tests, and from tests in the former Soviet Union. All of these sources contributed to the overall dose, and exposure health risk to which people were involuntarily subjected.

    Thusfar, only one radionuclide, I-131, has been addressed by our government. There is significant danger than, unless the public loudly and repeatedly demands that the other biologically significant radionuclides be addressed as well, through government funded provision of estimated, added doses and health risk from exposure to these other radionuclides, that I-131 is the only radionuclide for which we will EVER have any sort of dose information. Dose information is required before dose can be translated into probability of causation for offsite populations who have existing potentially radiogenic disease. If only I-131 doses are provided (at the present time, Marshall Island and former USSR I-131 fallout doses have NOT been provided), those exposed offsite will forever be kept from the knowledge of their true exposures, and from knowing how those exposures may have damaged their health. Why should workers be given this information, and helped by our government, while their children, friends and neighbors who were subjected to the same exposure health risk, are left out in the cold?

    ALERTING CONGRESS, THE MEDIA, AND THE PUBLIC

    We must alert the media, Members of Congress, and others concerned with the welfare of people whose lives have been damaged by the legacy of bomb production and testing in this country, to the need to include offsite exposed people who meet the eligibility criteria for exposed workers within the DOE nuclear workers compensation and health care initiative, to the importance of providing these offsite exposed individuals (including Nevada Test Site exposed) with the health care and government funded help they need and deserve.

    These individuals exposed outside the fenceline have sacrificed and suffered for our country no less than those who were exposed within the fenceline.

    Trisha Pritikin

    Daughter of Hanford nuclear workers

  • Ben Ferencz Sound the Alarm

    Dear Friends:

    Thanks to all of you who have disseminated information that should sound the alarm regarding a new threat designed to abort the establishment of an international criminal court I refer to House Concurrent Resolution 23, submitted by Republican Representative Ron Paul of Texas and colleagues on Feb. 8, 2001. (He was the only member of Congress who voted against House Res. 34 on Feb, 13, 2001, calling for peace in the Middle East.)

    H.C.R. 23 expresses “the sense of Congress that President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty… and the signature of President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.” . An organization called “The Liberty Committee” (boasting that it has some 50,000 members representing every district in the USA) has launched a nationwide campaign and has reported that some 20,000 people have already signed their petition to President Bush to rescind the signature to the treaty authorized by President Clinton on Dec. 31, 2000. The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee led by Representative Hyde who is reported to have denounced the treaty as “an assault on our sovereignty.”

    Everyone, of course, is entitled to express their own views regarding the court. But it should be cause for grave concern to see the Petition of “The Liberty Committee”, displaying the American flag and the heading AMERICAN JUSTICE FOR AMERICANS, list on their website a host of press releases and articles, editorial and position papers denouncing the court for reasons that are palpably false and misleading. This is part of a well organized attempt to frighten and stampede the American public into believing that the new court would pose a threat to the United States, its military personnel and all its citizens . The arguments and goals are similar to those made in connection with the pending U.S. Servicemembers Protection Act introduced by Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, the most outspoken critic of the Court.

    No one argues that the treaty is perfect – far from it – but it is a important new institution to deter major international crimes against humanity by bringing leading perpetrators to justice. The recent careful study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences contains views of leading scholars from academia, the government and the military that support the conclusion that signing the treaty would be in the interest of the United States.

    The views of the so-called “Liberty Committee,” are reminiscent of the “America First” positions prior to World War II. Isolationism and unilateralism can only exacerbate the growing feeling abroad that the U.S. seeks to lay down rules for the rest of the world that it is not willing to accept for itself. That would be a flagrant repudiation of legal principleslaid down by the United States and its allies at Nuremberg and hailed by the entire General Assembly of the United Nations. Helen Brady’s fine article of Feb. 13, circulated by the CICC, made plain that the ICC would not diminish national sovereignty but would reinforce a nation’s “commitment to a peaceful and just world and the rule of law.” NGO’s in the coalition, and nations, including America’s leading allies, that have signed on for the court, have made plain that they share the same view. We must continue to make our voices heard if this great hope is to be kept alive until a more favorable climate for its ratification by the U.S. can be created. Please see my website for more detailed comments.

    Now is the time for all good men, and women, to come to the aid of their country.

    Benjamin B. Ferencz

  • Last Message to Mankind

    Dear Brothers,

    We have met here to fight against war. War, the thing for the sake of which all the nations of the earth – millions and millions of people – place at the uncontrolled disposal of a few men or sometimes only one man, not merely milliards of rubles, talers, francs or yen (representing a very large share of their labor), but also their very lives.

    And now we, a score of private people gathered from the various ends of the earth, possessed of no special privileges and above all having no power over anyone, intend to fight – and as we wish to fight we also wish to conquer – this immense power not only of one government but of all governments, which have at their disposal these milliards of money and millions of soldiers and who are well aware that the exceptional position of those who for the governments rests on the army alone: the army which has a meaning and a purpose against which we wish to fight and which we wish to abolish.

    For us to struggle, the forces being so unequal, must appear insane. But if we consider our opponent’s means of strife and our own, it is not our intention to fight that will seem absurd, but that the thing we mean to fight will still exist. They have millions of money and millions of obedient soldiers; we have only one thing, but that is the most powerful thing in the world – Truth.

    Therefore, insignificant as our forces may appear in comparison with those of our opponents, our victory is as sure as the victory of the light of the rising sun over the darkness of night.

    Our victory is certain, but on one condition only – that when uttering the truth we utter it all, without compromise, concession, or modification. The truth so simple, so clear, so evident, so incumbent not only on Christians but on all reasonable men, that it is only necessary to speak it out in its full significance for it to be irresistible.

    The truth in its full meaning lies in what was said thousands of years ago (in the law accepted among us as the Law of God) in four words: “Thou shalt not kill.” The truth is that man may not and should not in any circumstances or under any pretext kill his fellow man. The truth is so evident, so binding, and so generally acknowledged, that it is only necessary to put it clearly before men for the evil called war to become quite impossible.

    And so I think that if we who are assembled here at this Peace Congress should, instead of clearly and definitely voicing this truth, address ourselves to the governments with various proposals for lessening the evils of war or gradually diminishing its frequency, we should be like men who having in their hand the key to a door, should try to break through walls they know to be too strong for them.

    Before us are millions of armed men, ever more and more efficiently armed and trained for more and more rapid slaughter. We know that these millions of people have no wish to kill their fellows and for the most part do not even know why they are forced to do that repulsive work, and that they are weary of their position of subjection and compulsion; we know that the murders committed from time to time by these men are committed by order of the governments; and we know that the existence of the governments depends on the armies.

    Can we then who desire the abolition of war, find nothing more conducive to our aim than to propose to the governments which exist only by the aid of armies and consequently by war – measures which would destroy war? Are we to propose to the governments that they should destroy themselves?

    The governments will listen willingly to any speeches of that kind, knowing that such discussions will neither destroy war nor undermine their own power, but will only conceal yet more effectively what must be concealed if wars and armies and themselves in control of armies are to continue to exist.

    ‘But’, I shall be told, ‘this is anarchism; people never have lived without governments and States, and therefore governments and States and military forces defending them are necessary for the existence of nations.’

    But leaving aside the question of whether the life of Christian and other nations is possible without armies and wars to defend their governments and States, or even supposing it to be necessary for their welfare that they should slavishly submit to institutions called governments (consisting of people they do not personally know), and that it is necessary to yield up the produce of their labor to these institutions and fulfill all their demands – including the murder of their neighbors – granting them all that, there yet remains in our world an unsolved difficulty.

    This difficulty lies in the impossibility of making the Christian faith (which those who form the governments profess with particular emphasis) accord with armies composed of Christians trained to slay. However much you may pervert the Christian teaching, however much you may hide its main principles, its fundamental teaching is the love of God and one’s neighbor; of God – that is the highest perfection of virtue, and of one’s neighbor – that is all men without distinction.

    And therefore it would seem inevitable that we must repudiate one of the two, either Christianity is love of God and one’s neighbor, or the State with its armies and wars.

    Perhaps Christianity may be obsolete, and when choosing between the two – Christianity and love of the State and murder – the people of our time will conclude that the existence of the State and murder is more important than Christianity, we must forgo Christianity and retain only what is important: the State and murder.

    That may be so – at least people may think and feel so. But in that case they should say so! They should openly admit that people in our time have ceased to believe in what the collective wisdom of mankind has said, and what is said by the Law of God they profess: have ceased to believe in what is written indelibly on the heart of each man, and must now believe only in what is ordered by various people who by accident or birth have happened to become emperors and kings, or by various intrigues and elections have become presidents or members of senates and parliaments – even if those orders include murder. That is what they ought to say!

    But it is impossible to say it; and yet one of these two things has to be said. If it is admitted that Christianity forbids murder, both armies and governments become impossible. And if it is admitted that government acknowledges the lawfulness of murder and denies Christianity, no one will wish to obey a government that exists merely by its power to kill. And besides, if murder is allowed in war it must be still more allowable when a people seek its rights in a revolution. And therefore the governments, being unable to say either one thing or the other, are anxious to hid from their subjects the necessity of solving the dilemma. And for us who are assembled here to counteract the evil of war, if we really desire to attain our end, only one thing is necessary: namely to put that dilemma quite clearly and definitely both to those who form governments and to the masses of the people who compose the army.

    To do that we must not only clearly and openly repeat the truth we all know and cannot help knowing – that man should not slay his fellow man – but we must also make it clear that no considerations can destroy the demand made by the truth on people in the Christian world. Therefore I propose that our Meeting draw up and publish an appeal to all men, and especially to the Christian nations, in which we clearly and definitely express what everybody knows, but hardly anyone says: namely war is not – as most people assume – a good and laudable affair, but that like all murder, it is a vile and criminal business not only for those who voluntarily choose a military career but for those who submit to it from avarice, or fear of punishment.

    With regard to those who voluntarily choose a military career, I would propose to state clearly and definitely that not withstanding all the pomp, glitter, and general approval with which it is surrounded, it is a criminal and shameful activity; and that the higher the position a man holds in the military profession the more criminal and shameful his occupation.

    In the same way with regard to men of the people who are drawn into military service by bribes or by threats of punishments, I propose to speak clearly about the gross mistake they make – contrary to their faith, morality and common sense – when they consent to enter the army; contrary to their faith because when they enter the ranks of murderers contrary to the Law of God which they acknowledge; contrary to morality , because for pay or from fear of punishment they agreed to what in their souls they know to be wrong; and contrary to common sense, because if they enter the army and war breaks out they risk having to suffer any consequences, bad or worse than those they are threatened with if they refuse. Above all they act contrary to common sense in that they join that caste of people which deprives them of freedom and compels them to be soldiers.

    With reference to both classes I propose in this appeal to express clearly the thought that for men of true enlightenment, who are therefore free from the superstition of military glory, (and their number is growing every day) the military profession and calling not withstanding all the efforts to hide its real meaning, is as shameful a business as the executioner’s and even more so. For the executioner only holds himself in readiness to kill those who have been adjudged to be harmful and criminal, while a soldier promises to kill all who he is told to kill, even though they may be the dearest to him or the best of men.

    Humanity in general, and our Christian humanity in particular, has reached a stage of such acute contradiction between its moral demands and the existing social order, that a change has become inevitable, and a change not in society’s moral demand which are immutable, but in the social order which can be altered. The demand for a different social order, evoked by that inner contradiction which is so clearly illustrated by our preparations for murder, becomes more and more insistent every year and every day.

    The tension which demands that alteration has reached such a degree that, just as sometimes only a slight shock is required to change a liquid into a solid body, so perhaps with a slight effort or even a single word may be needed to change the cruel and irrational life of our time – with its divisions, armaments and armies – into a reasonable life in keeping with the consciousness of contemporary humanity.

    Every such effort, every such word, may be the shock which will instantly solidify the super cooled liquid. Why should not our gathering be the shock?

    In Andersen’s fairy tale, when the King went in triumphal procession through the streets of the town and all the people were delighted with his beautiful new clothes, a word from a child who said what everybody knew but had not said, changed everything. He said: ‘He has nothing on!’ and the spell was broken, and the king became ashamed and all those who had been assuring themselves that they saw him wearing beautiful new clothes perceived that he was naked! We must say the same. We must say what everybody knows but does not venture to say. We must say that by whatever name people may call murder – murder always remains murder and a criminal and shameful thing. And it is only necessary to say that clearly, definitely, and loudly, as we can say it here, and men will cease to see what they thought they saw, and will see what is really before their eyes.

    They will cease to see the service for their country, the heroism of war, military glory, and patriotism, and will see what exists: the naked, criminal business of murder!

    And if people see that, the same thing will happen as in the fairy tale: those who do the criminal thing will feel ashamed, and those who assure themselves that they do not see the criminality of murder will perceive it and cease to be murderers.

    But how will nations defend themselves against their enemies, how will they maintain internal order, and how can nations live without an army?

    What form of life men will take after they repudiate murder we do not and cannot know; but one thing is certain: that it is more natural for men to be guided by reason and conscience with which they are endowed, than to submit slavishly to people who arrange wholesale murders; and that therefrom the form of social order assumed by the lives of those who are guided in their actions not by violence based on threats of murder, but by reason and conscience, will in any case be no worse than that under which they now live.

    That is all I want to say. I shall be sorry if it offends or grieves anyone or evokes any ill feeling. But for me, a man eighty years old, expecting to die at any moment, it would be shameful and criminal not to speak out the whole truth as I understand it – the truth which, as I firmly believe, is alone capable of relieving mankind from the incalculable ills produced by war.

  • The Case for De-Alerting Nuclear Weapons

    “…the United States should work with other nuclear weapons nations to remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status- another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation- to reduce the risks the of accidental or unauthorized launch.”

    -Republican Platform 2000

    Although the Cold War ended more than a decade ago, estimates of the global nuclear stockpile range from a low of 24,700 to 33,307 suspected nuclear weapons. Nearly five thousand nuclear weapons in the US and Russian arsenals remain on high-alert, ready to be launched at a moment’s notice. Although the US and Russia have announced their formal “de-targeting” of one another, the agreement is meaningless as both countries maintain their weapons on “hair-trigger” alert and in “launch-on” warning posture. Also, the US Department of Defense stated in its “Annual Defense Report 2001” that although missiles on “hair-trigger” alert “are not targeted against any specific country,” these missiles “can be assigned targets on short notice.”

    Contrary to conventional thought, keeping nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert does not enforce the security of any nation. In fact, it actually has the adverse effect in that it makes every individual and nation less secure. The Canberra Commission concluded in its 1996 report that taking nuclear weapons off alert is an immediate action and practical step to reduce the risk of nuclear war and enhance the security of all states. The Canberra Commission also recommended de-alerting as a way to develop strategic stability and build trust between the US and Russia. De-alerting was also incorporated into the 1998, 1999 and 2000 text of the New Agenda Resolution passed in the UN General Assembly. In addition it has been the subject of two resolutions passed by the Australian Senate on 12 August and 20 September 1999.

    One of Russia’s greatest fears is the US nuclear submarines which house Trident missiles, capable of reaching Russia’s mainland in 10 minutes. On January 25, 1995 a Russian radar crew spotted a fast-moving object they couldn’t identify above the Barents Sea at Russia’s northern border. Suddenly, the missile separated into several parts, much like a Trident missile would do, and the Russian crew watching the radar immediately signaled the nuclear briefcases carried by then President, Boris Yeltsin and top defense officials.

    Orders were immediately issued to the Russian Strategic Forces to prepare for a missile launch order. For four minutes, Russian commanders stood by, ready to launch at command. Russian policy permits Strategic Forces to launch retaliatory missiles before enemy missiles hit Russian territory. Just eight minutes after the first warning was sent, the mysterious object disappeared into the sea and a retaliatory nuclear strike was averted. Later, Russians learned that the object was a scientific rocket launched from Norway to study the Northern lights. Although the Russian government was notified prior to the launch, no one passed on the information to the radar crew. The possibility of an accidental launch, such as this one, still exists today, even though the Cold War ended more than ten years ago.

    Miscommunication, volatile relations, mistrust, and computer and human errors could easily cause the US and Russia to fire by accident or miscalculation at each other. Of equal concern is the deterioration of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Due to a lack of financial resources, it has become increasingly difficult for Russia to maintain its arsenal. At any given time, only two of Russia’s nuclear submarines are at sea on patrol. Additionally, five of the eight radar stations which formed the Soviet system are outside of Russia.

    The US and Russia have come to the “brink” of launching their nuclear weapons on several occasions because of miscommunication, misunderstanding or poor data. Removing nuclear weapons from high-alert status would eliminate the risk of a global nuclear catastrophe caused by a hasty reaction from any nuclear weapons state.