Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • The Role of Civil Society

    There’s a very simple reason for focusing on the nuclear issue. Many, many issues are of supreme importance in one way or another, but if we blow ourselves up with nuclear weapon no other issue is really going to matter. Quite possibly there would be no other human beings left to be concerned about anything else.

    There are many obstacles to nuclear weapons abolition and many opportunities, too many to run through a laundry list. Let me just comment on a bare few. I think one of the major obstacles to advancing the cause of nuclear abolition lies in what Lee Butler calls the “nuclear priesthood,” people who have built their lives and their careers upon nuclear weapons or nuclear doctrine. They are spreading the gospel – and some of them are in very high and influential places – that we need nuclear weapons, and we need them forever.

    A Failure of Leadership

    Another obstacle lies in the present so-called “leadership.” Leaders today are under-creative, over-cautious, distracted by day-to-day demands. Their destinations are determined by polls that change and bounce around from day-to-day. Yes, polls do indicate that something like 85 percent of the American people and people in many other countries believe we should eliminate nuclear weapons. However, that is not a passionate conviction.

    People pay more attention to immediate matters that concern them in their lives in one way or another. They’ve become a little bit complacent. The Cold War is over. The Soviet Union vanished from the face of the Earth. President Clinton and President Yeltsin announced, with considerable fanfare, that we no longer target each other, which is symbolically pleasant but substantively doesn’t mean very much because we can re-target in a matter of seconds. There’s more likelihood now than during the more stable days of the Cold War that nuclear weapons will be used. Bill Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, said that it’s not a matter of if – it is a matter of where and when – weapons of mass destruction will be used.

    Ambassador Robert Gallucci negotiated nuclear weapons with North Korea and with Iraq. He is now the Dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, a very prestigious position. He recently made a speech – which got no attention anywhere – in which he flatly stated it is likely that a nuclear weapon will destroy an American city sometime in the next ten years.

    He described how it might happen. He said a “rogue state” fabricates a couple of nuclear weapons and turns them over to a terrorist organization. The terrorist organization sends one into Baltimore on a ship and takes another down to Pittsburgh in a truck. Then a message arrives in the White House: “Alteryour Middle East policies or on Tuesday you lose Baltimore and on Wednesday you lose Pittsburgh.” On Tuesday we lose Baltimore. “What does America do?” Gallucci asks. What does any nation do?

    Two hundred years ago in our country some giants emerged at a time that is very relevant to today. They did some remarkable things, achieved what most people felt was impossible. Their names were Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and a few others. Much more recently, also relevant to our time, a giant named Jean Monnet provided the leadership in Europe that has led to the development, now underway, of the European Union, and has brought peace to a part of Europe that was the origin of so many terrible, bloody wars.

    Leadership from Civil Society

    The world needs leaders like that on the world stage, but we can’t wait for them much longer. Perhaps they’re not in the wings. Perhaps it’s going to fall to civil society to provide the leadership and demand the leadership. Civil society should say to present leaders that they want them to truly lead and tell them the common people want uncommon acts. They are needed in our time.

    Civil society, represented by gatherings like this one, includes some truly remarkable people banding together in the cause of nuclear abolition. It may well provide the leadership in an imperceptible and almost virtually unseen way. This is the way leadership sometimes works and the leaders sometimes emerge. That sort of leader was described 2,000 years ago by Lao Tsu in the following words: “A leader is best when people barely know that he exists; less good when they obey and acclaim him; worse when they fear and despise him. Fail to honor people and they fail to honor you; but a good leader, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will all say we did this ourselves.”

    Reinvigorating Civil Society

    Two thousand years after those words were written, that could be civil society coming to life in our country and in our endangered world and in our endangered species. The people, for the most part, seem to be slumbering, or cynical, or angry, or overwhelmed by a sense of futility, inability, irrelevance. They are waiting for the opportunity to live in a different world and to help to make that world. That opportunity exists in a civil society. I think it is represented in what quite clearly seems to be a growing yearning for a greater meaning in life, for spirituality, for morality in a world that seems bereft of those characteristics at the present time.

    It is unworthy of what we call civilization to base today’s fleeting security needs on the threat of genocidal attacks, one upon another. This generation’s fleeting needs that put in jeopardy all generations waiting to come to their place on Earth is again unworthy of humanity. I believe that it’s going to take civil society, with emerging leaders like Lee Butler, to achieve what we must achieve. That’s the excitement of working in civil society.

  • Radiation Fallout Exposures: Demand for Full Disclosure

    It is a little known fact amongst members of the public that people who were alive, and particularly, who were in childhood, during the late l940s, the 1950s, and into the l960s, were subjected involuntarily to multiple radioactive fallout exposures right here in the United States. Even worse, these radioactive fallout exposures added on top of one another, coming from several sources.

    If one were to question a cross section of the public, chances are that few people would be aware of the fact that Nevada Test Site (NTS) fallout drifted across many portions of the United States. Adding to those NTS fallout exposures which began in l951 were further radioactive clouds from global fallout- fallout from atomic tests conducted in the l950s in the Marshall Islands, Chinese tests, and nuclear tests conducted in the former Soviet Union in the early l960s.

    Most people are aware of the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear reactor accident and its resulting offsite radiation emissions which released an estimated 12-15 curies of I-131 (radioactive iodine) onto surrounding communities.

    These exposures have been followed by reports of health problems in TMI exposed populations, by questions as to the validity of “official” I-131 release estimates, and inquiries as to whether other radioactive substances were also released. The Three Mile Island accident woke many Americans up to the possibility of health hazards of environmental radiation exposure from nuclear facilities close to home.

    I now ask the reader to sit down- the following figures are shocking. Twelve to fifteen curies of I-131 is bad enough, particularly when exposures were suffered by infants and children, during their most radiosensitive period of life. Now try somehow to conceive of the fact that the Nevada Test Site atomic tests released 150 million curies of I-131, which deposited throughout many portions of the US, and into Canada. Add to that the 8 billion curies of I-131 from US tests conducted in the Marshall Islands in the l950s, some of which drifted over the US, and the 12 billion curies of I-131 which were released in the early 1960s from tests in the former Soviet Union. Add to that releases from individual former Atomic Energy Commission sites such as Oak Ridge, Hanford (released 900,000 curies of I-131), Savannah River, Idaho National Engineering Lab and others, all part of the Manhattan Project’s atomic bomb building factory, for those who lived within the downwind areas of these sites. Then, once again, add to that staggering total, exposures to other radioactive substances within fallout which are known to be health harming (or, “biologically significant”).

    Perhaps the most disturbing part of this picture is the ethical/human rights issue involved. We have the right to expect a proper and adequate response from our government for these government-caused involuntary exposures and the painful health problems which may have resulted from these exposures. We should, at the very least, demand full disclosure of the extent of exposures- that is, our government should provide to us our added doses, and translation of these combined doses into health risk. This, at a very minimum.

    The national media has paid much attention to the unprecedented efforts bythe Department of Energy (DOE) to gain compensation for certain nuclear workers who suffered exposures on the job which have resulted in health problems. I applaud Secretary Richardson, DOE Secretary, for doing the right thing for at least some of the nuclear workers.

    And, now it is time for the public to know that one did not have to be a nuclear worker to receive significant, health damaging, combined exposures to radioactive substances, in this case, contained within fallout. Anyone who was alive during the period of atmospheric testing at the Nevada Test Site, in the Marshall Islands, and during Chinese and Russian tests, got the combined exposures to the range of radioactive substances which were airborne and deposited within the US.

    If you were in childhood during that period of time, you were dosed even more than an adult due to increased radiation uptake of a developing child. If you drank milk (whether cow’s or goat’s milk), your dose was substantially increased over that which you inhaled or ingested due to I-131 deposits on your food. Some peoples’ exposures, when the doses are added, were truly substantial, some peoples’ were not as high. Right now, the public has no idea what their true dose from these combined radioactive substances was, or what health risk these fallout doses present. In fact, most Americans do not even know they were exposed. We don’t even have an effort underway by the government to calculate the doses of those at greatest health risk from combined exposures to just one of the radioactive substances, I-131.

    Why hasn’t our government told us of these exposures? There is a program under development by the National Cancer Institue (NCI) to inform people of their I-131 exposures from the NTS, but that program will not provide combined I-131 doses and health risk from NTS I-131 plus other sources of exposure to the public. Neither will that program let people know their exposures to the other potentially health damaging radioactive substances released within NTS fallout.

    From this NCI I-131 communications program, we will be given just one part of the picture- I-131 exposures, and just from NTS testing. There may not be translation of these I-131 NTS doses into health risk. Representative doses (not individual doses) that people may have received from just one of the radionuclides released, I-131, and from just one I-131 exposure source, NTS, are posted on the National Cancer Institute website, without health risk information. It’s a start, but this is only one small part of the big picture of fallout exposures and radiation induced disease that these exposures may have caused in this country.

    Approximately $1.85 million was appropriated by Congress, thanks to the efforts of Senator Harkin’s (D-IA) office, to address fallout issues- this has turned into what is called a “feasibility” study- that is, an assessment of whether it is possible to add doses from multiple exposures, and to translate that information into health risk. Congress mandated this report to be released by last year and it still isn’t out, an obvious attempt to stall until the next administration is in power, an administration that might be far more industry friendly.

    The fallout “feasibility” study will finally be released for public comment in February. This feasibility study was led by CDC (within its National Center for Enviromental Health), using experts from NCI and past DOE scientists. One question asked by these agencies, of public representatives like me is- why spend more money to provide added doses and health risk to the public? In response I ask, why hasn’t this already been done? We have endured these exposures and the health consequences that often develop from these exposures which, for some, end in death. Why do we not, at a very minimum, have the right to know the full extent of our involuntary exposures, and the health risk accompanying these exposures? I should know- I have lost my entire family to what are believed to be radiation exposure induced cancers and other exposure health effects.

    It is of significance to note that there are those within the scientific community who feel that doses can be added NOW, without a dragged out “feasibility assessment”, and that health risk can be provided NOW. Why do exposed populations deserve any less? Why so much foot dragging by the government, keeping the public from essential information with direct impact upon their lives?

    The reason that it is important to understand the full extent of combined exposures and health risk from multiple fallout exposures, is that people need to know whether they are at significant enough health risk from their exposures that they should be monitored and treated for radiation induced cancers and other debilitating and sometimes life threatening diseases which are plausibly linked to these exposures to I-131 or the other radionuclides released in fallout.

    Some 300 radioactive substances were released from NTS atomic tests, some of which can cause cancers far more frequently lethal than thyroid cancer, which has been linked to I-131 exposure. People, once exposed, remain at lifetime risk for radiation induced cancers and other diseases linked to these exposures. Why hasn’t the public been given this essential, lifesaving information on the other radioactive substances to which we have been exposed from fallout sources?

    ACTION ALERT: Now is truly the time to let the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and your representatives in Congress, know that the American public demands, at the very least, to be informed openly and honestly of the full extent of combined exposures and health risk from these exposures, from combined fallout sources. If we don’t act now, fallout exposures will become a topic which some officials will be very very glad to see “swept under the rug.”

    Please contact your congressional delegations, or send an email, fax, or letter to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, at wagingpeace@napf.org, and your communication will be forwarded to CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services.

  • An Alternate Approach to US and Global Security

    Missile Defense Aimed at Potential Threats

    The stated security concerns underlying current US interests in developing and deploying a Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system focus on a small number of states with future potential to launch ballistic missile attacks against the US. These states (North Korea, Iran and Iraq) are described by the US as “states of concern” (formerly “rogue states”). The Rumsfeld Commission unanimously concluded in 1998: “Concerted efforts by a number of overtly or potentially hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with biological or nuclear payloads pose a growing threat to the United States, its deployed forces and its friends and allies.”

    The US claims to restrict its targets of missile defense to these states of concern, and has stated that its missile defense efforts are not meant to prevent missile attacks by Russia or China. These assurances have not been convincing to either Russia or China, and both countries have expressed strong concerns about US BMD plans. The US has focused its concerns on relatively weak states that currently present no ballistic missile threat to the US but may in the future. By moving forward with a missile defense system to protect against these states, the US is antagonizing much more powerful potential adversaries. US leaders have even expressed a willingness to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with Russia, a treaty widely considered to be a foundation of strategic stability in allowing the possibility of continued major reductions in nuclear armaments.

    Categories of Deterrence

    The US plan to proceed with a BMD system is an admission that deterrence cannot be trusted for security. The US is in effect stating that deterrence is insufficient to assure security – at least against these states of concern. The US is, therefore, creating deterrence categories. One category includes states that the US believes can be deterred by nuclear threat (Russia and China), and one category that the US believes cannot be deterred by such means (North Korea, Iran and Iraq). This categorization of deterrence into those who might or might not be deterred should raise fundamental questions about the value and reliability of all deterrence.

    The US plan to build a BMD system may be viewed as a secondary line of defense. If deterrence fails (but only against a small power), the US would be prepared to shoot down the attacking missiles. This would offer the US the benefit of greater degrees of freedom in its relations with the potentially offending states. If, for example, North Korea had ballistic missiles capable of threatening US territory, troops or allies, the US might be reluctant to initiate an attack against North Korea for fear of retaliation. This threat of retaliation by a smaller power would be nullified, or at least perceived to be nullified, by a BMD system. Thus, the deployment of a BMD system would provide the US with a wider range of options in dealing with a smaller hostile nation armed with a small number of ballistic missiles.

    Problems with BMD Deployment

    There are many problems related to the deployment of a US BMD system. These include:

    • it will be plagued with uncertainties as to its reliability;
    • it will undermine arms control in general and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in particular;
    • it will in all likelihood stimulate new nuclear arms races with Russia and China by undermining their deterrence capabilities;
    • it will not prevent the possibility of hostile countries delivering weapons of mass destruction by means other than ballistic missiles;
    • it will be divisive among US allies;
    • it will be a major diversion of monetary and scientific resources from other security and social priorities; and
    • it will undermine adherence to the promises made at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.”

    Alternative Means of Dealing with Security Risks

    Realistic and credible means of dealing with the security risks posed by North Korea, Iran, Iraq and other potentially hostile nations include:

    1. US leadership in developing an effective ballistic missile control regime to prevent the spread of this technology. This would require concessions by the nuclear weapons states to the phased dismantlement of their current arsenals of ballistic missiles.

    2. Cooperative agreements between the US and the states of concern. Negotiations have already had positive results in the relationship between the US and North Korea. Negotiations with the other states of concern can begin by simply opening discussions on problem areas. Mediation by neutral states or by the UN may be needed.

    3. The US and other nuclear weapons states must take steps to diminish the political importance of their nuclear arsenals. Such steps should include de-alerting all nuclear weapons, adopting clear policies of No First Use of these weapons, withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters, and the opening of negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention.

    US plans to develop and deploy a ballistic missile defense system are rooted in fear. It is worth noting that the US, the most militarily and economically powerful nation on Earth, fears from far smaller nations what it itself threatens to do to others. If the US would make a firm commitment to leadership in a global effort to eliminate nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other weapons of mass destruction, it could forego the limited system of ballistic missile defense that it has been pursuing. This course of action would also have risks, but on balance it would be a more meaningful and decent course of action, one that could inspire its own people and people everywhere and one that could free up important resources to build a more solid future for all humanity.

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

  • Mr. Bush, The World Doesn’t Want to be American

    MOSCOW -Dear Mr. Bush:

    I am writing to you as a citizen of our planet and someone who beholds the last remaining superpower. Can there be any doubt that the United States plays a major role in guiding our world? Only a fool could disregard that fact. To acknowledge this is a given, even though American spokesmen are perhaps somewhat overly inclined to press the point home to the rest of the world.

    For while America’s role is acknowledged throughout the world, her claim to hegemony, not to say domination, is not similarly recognized. For this reason, I hope, Mr. Bush, as the new American president, that you will give up any illusion that the 21st century can, or even should, be the “American Century.” Globalization is a given – but “American globalization” would be a mistake. In fact, it would be something devoid of meaning and even dangerous.

    I would go even further and say it is time for America’s electorate to be told the blunt truth: that the present situation of the United States, with a part of its population able to enjoy a life of extraordinary comfort and privilege, is not tenable as long as an enormous portion of the world lives in abject poverty, degradation and backwardness.

    For 10 years, U.S. foreign policy has been formulated as if it were the policy of a victor in war, the Cold War. But at the highest reaches of U.S. policy-making no one has grasped the fact that this could not be the basis for formulating post-Cold War policy.

    In fact, there has been no “pacification.” On the contrary, there has been a heightening of inequalities, tension and hostility, with most of the last directed toward the United States.

    Instead of seeing an increase in U.S. security, the end of the Cold War has seen a decline. It is not hard to imagine that, should the United States persist in its policies, the international situation will continue to deteriorate.

    It is also difficult to believe that, under present circumstances, relations between the United States, on the one hand, and China, India and all the rest of the earth that lives in abject poverty, on the other, could develop in a positive direction. Nor is it possible, on the basis of its present posture, for the United States to establish effective, long-term cooperation with its traditional allies, Europe first and foremost.

    Already we see numerous trade disputes, evidence of the conflicting interests separating the United States and the European Union. At the recent conference in The Hague, where the participants were supposed to come up with a common policy on limiting greenhouse effects, U.S. positions were far removed from those of all others. As a result, no decision was taken. This is clearly an example of a failure of “world governance.”

    From the standpoint of the Old World, the post-Cold War period ushered in hopes that now are faded. Over the past decade, the United States has continued to operate along an ideological track identical to the one it followed during the Cold War.

    Need an example? The expansion of NATO eastward, the handling of the Yugoslav crisis, the theory and practice of U.S. rearmament – including the utterly extravagant national missile defense system, which, in turn, is based on the bizarre notion of “rogue states.”

    Isn’t it amazing that disarmament moved further during the last phase of the Cold War than during the period after its end? And isn’t that because U.S. leadership has been unable to adjust to the new European reality? Europe is now a new, independent and powerful player on the world scene. To continue to regard it as a junior partner would be a mistake.

    Europe’s experience must serve as a lesson for future relations, but it can do so only if America and Europe build a genuine, equal partnership.

    Finally, it is hardly a secret that relations between the United States and Russia have deteriorated over recent years. Responsibility for this must be shared between Russia and America. The present leadership of Russia appears ready to cooperate with the United States in framing a new agenda for relations. But it is unclear what your orientation will be.

    What we heard during the electoral campaign did not sound encouraging. If we truly want to build a new world order and further European unity, we have to recognize that this will not be possible without an active role for Russia. This recognition is the necessary basis for setting future Russian-American relations on the right path.

    The world is complicated, it contains and expresses a variety of interests and cultures. Sooner or later, international policy, including that of the United States, will have to come to terms with that variety. ‘

    *Mikhail Gorbachev was the last president of the former Soviet Union.

  • Millenial Message

    We are at the beginning of a new century and millennium. If there was ever a time for reflection, this should be it. In the spirit of Ernest Hemingway, who said that he always wrote about the truest things that he knew, I would like to make three points that I believe are true, obvious, and seriously under-appreciated.

    First, the future matters. Life is not only for today. We are linked to all that has preceded us and to all that will follow. What we do today will affect the future. If we live only for ourselves, we cut off possibilities for the future. If we think only about ourselves, we will undoubtedly shortchange the future.

    We cannot afford to leave decisions about the future to our political leaders. They are not wise enough. The system that puts them into positions of leadership is corrupted by money and power. Concern for the future is not the criteria of selection of our leaders.

    If the future matters, we must live as though it matters. We must live with concern for those who will follow us on this Earth. We must be advocates for their rights. We must not plant landmines of destruction that will explode in the future.

    We must live as if the future matters not only for our children and grandchildren and for all generations to follow us, but for ourselves as well. We have a responsibility to the future – I would say a sacred responsibility – to pass on a better world than we inherited to the next generation or, at a minimum, to pass the world on intact to the next generation. It is not assured that we will do this. In fact, unless we radically change our behavior, it is almost assured that we will not do so.

    Second, nuclear weapons are an absolute evil. This is the truest thing that can be said about them. It was said by the president of the International Court of Justice when the court gave its advisory opinion on the illegality of nuclear weapons. These weapons are instruments of mass destruction. Their effects cannot be limited in time or space. The harm that they do goes on long after the explosions of the weapons. They affect the living and those yet to be born. They affect the genetic structure of life. They have the potential to destroy most of life on Earth, including the human species. These instruments of genocide are also illegal under international law because they cannot discriminate between civilians and combatants and they cause unnecessary suffering. The mere possession of nuclear weapons affects our souls.

    To be silent in the face of evil is itself evil and also cowardly. In our own historical reckoning, we hold the Germans accountable for their silence in the face of the Nazi evil. Yet, we are unwilling to examine our own complicity with the evil of nuclear arms. This is an affront to the future. How do you imagine those of the future will judge us for our silence in the face of the evil of nuclear weapons?

    We need to change our policy with regard to nuclear weapons. Rather than holding out the threat or use of these weapons as a cornerstone of our security, we should be leading the world toward their elimination. Anything less than this is an abdication of our responsibility to ourselves and to the future.

    Third, life is a miracle. Each of us is a miracle. There is no other way to explain our existence. We don’t know where our lives come from or where we go when we die. Existence is a simple miracle, which we should appreciate more. How can we harm another miracle? How can we even threaten to harm another miracle? How can we tolerate policies of our government that threaten the wanton mass destruction of the miracle of life?

    If we could live each day in the full understanding that life is a miracle, we would live differently. We would be more attentive and we would take less for granted. We would see more beauty and we would see greed for what it is. We would be more involved. We would care more. We would live as if the future mattered, and we would confront the evil of nuclear weapons more directly.

    There has never before been a time in human history in which one species has had the ability to destroy all species. But this is the time, and we are the species. The question we face as we enter this new century and millennium is whether we can meet the unique challenge that confronts us: Can we come together to overcome nuclear arms, an evil of our own creation? This is a threshold challenge. If we can meet it, then we can go forward to meet the many other challenges confronting us of inequities, human rights abuses, overpopulation, environmental degradation, poverty, disease, managing our common heritage, and resolving our conflicts without violence.

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

  • Statement by the President on Signing the International Criminal Court Treaty

    The United States is today signing the 1998 Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court.In taking this action, we join more than 130 other countries that have signed by the December 31, 2000 deadline established in the Treaty. We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. We do so as well because we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of impartial and effective justice in the years to come.

    The United States has a long history of commitment to the principle of accountability, from our involvement in the Nuremberg tribunals that brought Nazi war criminals to justice, to our leadership in the effort to establish the International Criminal Tribunals for the FormerYugoslavia and Rwanda. Our action today sustains that tradition of moral leadership.

    Under the Rome Treaty, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will come into being with the ratification of 60 governments, and will have jurisdiction over the most heinous abuses that result from international conflict, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The Treaty requires that the ICC not supercede or interfere with functioning national judicial systems; that is, the ICC Prosecutor is authorized to take action against a suspect only if the country of nationality is unwilling or unable to investigate allegations of egregious crimes by their national. The U.S. delegation to the Rome Conference worked hard to achieve these limitations, which we believe are essential to the international credibility and success of the ICC.

    In signing, however, we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the Treaty. In particular, we are concerned that when the Court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the Treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not. With signature, however, we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the Court. Without signature, we will not.

    Signature will enhance our ability to further protect U.S. officials from unfounded charges and to achieve the human rights and accountability objectives of the ICC. In fact, in negotiations following the Rome Conference, we have worked effectively to develop procedures that limit the likelihood of politicized prosecutions. For example, U.S. civilian and military negotiators helped to ensure greater precision in the definitions of crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction.

    But more must be done. Court jurisdiction over U.S. personnel should come only with U.S. ratification of the Treaty. The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the Court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.

    Nonetheless, signature is the right action to take at this point. I believe that a properly constituted and structured International Criminal Court would make a profound contribution in deterring egregious human rights abuses worldwide, and that signature increases the chances for productive discussions with other governments to advance these goals in the months and years ahead.

  • Notes from the Road

    Earlier this month, I participated in Make Our World 2000, a joining of minds between international youth peace activists. The event was held at a scenic retreat center just outside of Malibu, California. A group of remarkable, concerned southern California residents — and activists in their own right — convened the event and enlisted the assistance of the Global Youth Action Network to encourage young activists to attend, facilitate discussion, and develop a plan of action.

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.

                                                                       -Margaret Mead

    Much was accomplished in the few days we spent together, and a number of larger themes surfaced. We spent valuable time getting to know one another, summarizing our purpose for heeding the call to attend, sharing meals, and hiking together in the Malibu hills. We brainstormed on how we could combine forces, better support one another, and create an international youth platform addressing and linking multiple social justice issues. We recognized the accomplishments of previous meetings with similar goals, yet seized the moment at hand to synthesize, organize, and contribute our individual and collective energies to the youth movement.

    Diversity is a cornerstone in building this movement! Unfortunately, a number of our allies experienced difficulties in securing the proper approval and means to attend the event. Their presence was sorely missed! In their absence, the group acknowledged a relationship between structural, global, macro-level injustice and individual, micro-level suffering.[1] As a means to find solutions to identify and act on solutions to end such suffering, the group recommitted itself to having a greater representation of indigenous peoples, people of African descent, and people of Asian descent at our next gathering, tentatively scheduled for June 2001.

    The facilitators and the group as a whole created and maintained a comfortable and flexible environment that allowed for changes to the agenda. One such change and subsequent discussion validated the point that often times activists work in isolation and/or lack adequate mentorship and support. Knowing this, all individuals working for a sane and safe world must better support one another, expand our network, and use new technologies to reinforce the sense of community.

    [Together we can be] 1,000 candles burning as bright as the sun.

    -Jimmy Hurrell

    I will spare you the specifics on the proposed projects out of respect for group members as we continue to discuss appropriate action steps and with the realization that Make Our World 2000 was just one very important step out of many more to come. Please check back with us soon at https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com for an update on Foundation efforts to develop a network of other youth organizations around the world working on issues complimentary to our own. Don’t worry. You won’t have to wait long!

     

    [1] Jonathan White, a sociology professor at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, visited the Foundation in November 2000 and discussed one example of such injustice – hunger – with area high school and college students.

     

  • National Missile Defense: Just Say No!

    Ballistic missile defense sounds on the surface like a good idea. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could just make those nasty nuclear weapons harmless? That is, their nuclear weapons, not ours. We don’t worry much about the threat posed by our own nuclear weapons, but these, of course, are not aimed at us. They are aimed at others or, more accurately, they are presently aimed at the oceans if we are to believe Mr. Clinton. They can, however, be reprogrammed to strike anywhere on only a moment’s notice.

    Our nuclear weapons still pose a security problem to us because relying on nuclear weapons for security means that there will be other countries that will do so as well, and the result will be that we are targeted by their nuclear weapons. Ballistic missile defense, if we are to believe its proponents, offers a technological solution to this dilemma. It is, however, an unproven and unprovable solution and comes at a high price, both monetarily and in terms of security.

    Ballistic missile defense was pushed by the Reagan administration. In that early incarnation it was derided “Star Wars.” Since then, it has gone through many more incarnations, the latest of which is a land-based National Missile Defense (NMD) system that is intended to defend against an attack by relatively small and technologically unsophisticated countries such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq or Libya. None of these countries, however, currently has ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States. No matter, we are told by proponents of NMD; it is better to be prepared for any eventuality.

    Despite repeated assurances from our government that an NMD would not be designed to protect the US against a Russian attack, the Russians are not convinced. From their perspective, an NMD would undermine their deterrence capability. Even though the NMD would have only 100 to 200 interceptor missiles and the Russians would have more missiles than this aimed at the US, the Russians are concerned on two grounds. First, it would create the possibility that the US could initiate a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia and use the NMD simply to deal with the presumably small remaining number of Russian missiles that survived the attack. This scenario may sound far-fetched to us since we don’t envision ever doing such a thing. The Russians, however, cannot dismiss this scenario since they, like us, base their nuclear strategy on just such worst-case scenarios. The second reason for Russian concern about US deployment of a NMD system is that, although initially the system might have only 100 to 200 interceptor missiles, more could be added later.

    The Russians have made it clear that if the US goes forward in deploying an NMD system this could spell the end of arms control with the Russians. Implementation of an NMD system would require the US to abrogate or violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that was entered into between the US and Russia in 1972. The purpose of the treaty was to prevent a defensive arms race that could lead to a renewed offensive nuclear arms race. The ABM Treaty has been at the heart of arms control efforts between the two countries for most of the past three decades. If the treaty fails due to US plans to deploy NMD, the Russians have said that they will withdraw from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), will pull out of the START II agreements, in which the two countries have agreed to lower the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads on each side to 3,000 to 3,500, and will refuse to negotiate further nuclear reductions under proposed START III agreements.

    Under proposed START III agreements, the Russians have put forward a proposal for further reducing nuclear arsenals to 1,500 or less on each side. Thus far, the US has responded by saying that it is only willing to go down to 2,500 to 2,000 strategic nuclear weapons.

    The stakes of NMD deployment in our relationship with Russia are very high. They are no less so in our relations with China. Currently China has some 20 nuclear weapons capable of reaching US territory. If the US deploys an NMD with 100 to 200 interceptor missiles, the Chinese have indicated that they will proceed with building and deploying more nuclear-armed missiles capable of overcoming this system and reaching the United States.

    You might ask: why would Russia or China take these steps since it is highly likely that a US NMD system would be ineffective? The answer is that the Russian and Chinese planners must plan for the system to work as the US plans it to work; to do less would be viewed by their security establishments as being irresponsible. Thus, whether or not a US NMD system works, it would be viewed by Russia and China as provocative and would most likely lead to new arms races.

    The arms races would not be limited to the three countries in question. If China increases its strategic nuclear arsenal, India (which views China as a potential threat) would probably follow suit. If India increases its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan would certainly follow suit. There has also been talk of Theater Missile Defense in North Asia, which could have similar effects throughout Asia, and of deploying a Theater Missile Defense in the Middle East, which would underline the nuclear imbalance in the region.

    Will the deployment of an NMD system make the US more secure? It is doubtful. Because of the geopolitical implications described above, it will probably make the US less secure. If this is true, why is there such a strong push within the US government to deploy an NMD system? Why did the Congress vote overwhelmingly to deploy such a system “as soon as technologically feasible”? I think there are two reasons. First, a NMD system plays well in Peoria. It gives the impression of improving security even if it does just the opposite. Second, it provides a welfare program for the military-industrial complex in the aftermath of the Cold War. It provides a way of transferring substantial funding (ranging from $60 to $120 billion or even higher) from the American taxpayer to the defense industry. This is a cynical way for politicians to fulfill their obligations under the Constitution to provide for the common security of the American people.

    But could the system actually work? Anything is possible theoretically, but it is highly unlikely. Up to the present, tests of defensive missiles have failed to consistently and reliably shoot down incoming missiles, even when there is only one missile to destroy and it is known when and from where the missile will be launched. Many experts have argued that it will be far easier for offensive missile attacks to overcome defensive systems by using decoys to trick the defensive missiles.

    Rather than pursuing the delusion of missile defense, US officials would be better off pursuing another course of action. First, they could seek to develop policies that would make friends of potential enemies. There seems to be some progress on this front in relation to US-North Korean relations. Second, and most important, the US should take a leadership role in fulfilling its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty for good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice has stated that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and that all nuclear weapons states are obligated to achieve nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects.”

    At the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, promises were made to preserve and strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty “as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons.” US plans to deploy ballistic missile defenses, either nationally or regionally, are at odds with these promises. Also, at this Review Conference, the nuclear weapons states promised an “unequivocal undertaking” to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. This is where the US, as the world’s economically and militarily most powerful country, must now provide needed leadership. Plans to deploy a US National Missile Defense will undermine this possibility. The results could be disastrous not only for US security but also for our credibility in the world.

    The articles that follow provide international perspectives on US plans to deploy ballistic missile defenses. They reinforce each other in the view that this would be a dangerous and foolhardy path for the United States to pursue.

     

  • We Could Learn from the Skeptics

    In a New York Times editorial on December 19, 2000, “Prelude to a Missile Defense,” they rightly point out that “no workable shield now exists” and that the diplomatic and financial costs are too high to begin construction of even a limited system “until the technology is perfected.”

    It is a great leap of faith to believe that this technology will ever be perfected. Experts repeatedly have warned us that even a moderately effective offense that includes decoys will always be able to overcome the type of defensive system we are capable of deploying.

    However, even if we were able to create a foolproof missile defense against Iraq, Iran and North Korea, we would still be at risk from nuclear weapons delivered by terrorist groups or nations by other means than missiles, such as by weapons carried into US harbors on boats. The geo-political damage that deployment of a National Missile Defense would do in our relations with Russia and China would also undermine any advantages such a system might provide.

    The editorial suggests that “Mr. Bush’s new foreign policy team should try to persuade skeptical countries that a limited defensive system can be built without wrecking existing arms control treaties or setting off a destructive new arms race.” To succeed in this persuasion, Mr. Bush’s new team will need either superhuman powers or excessive and dangerous arm twisting skills.

    They would be far wiser to listen carefully to the reasons why many of our closest allies, as well as Russia and China, are skeptical about our missile defense plans. By trying to understand rather than convert the skeptics, the Bush foreign policy team might learn that deploying a costly and unreliable Ballistic Missile Defense would create greater problems than it would solve.

    The new administration might more fruitfully concentrate its efforts on providing leadership in fulfilling the promises made by the nuclear weapons states at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference for an “unequivocal undertaking” to eliminate all nuclear weapons globally. Such leadership would be a true gift to humanity. It would also do far more to assure American and global security in the 21st century.

  • Letter to President Clinton from Nuremberg Chief Prosecutor Ben Ferencz

    President William Jefferson Clinton
    The White House, Pennsylvania Ave.
    Washington D.C. 20500

    December 6, 2000

    Dear Mr. President:

    Over 53 years ago, I was the Chief Prosecutor in a trial brought by the United States in Nuremberg against 22 SS leaders who were convicted of murdering over a million people in cold blood. I fought in every campaign in Europe in World War II and gathered evidence in Nazi death camps. Since then, my life has been dedicated to making this a more humane and peaceful world. On this, “Veteran’s Day” I appeal to you as President and Commander-in-Chief, to exercise your constitutional authority by signing the Rome Treaty for the creation of an International Criminal Court (ICC).

    I recall how thousands cheered at the Dodd Center in Connecticut in 1995, when you said: “Nuremberg was a crucial first step… Now it falls to our generation to make good on its promise..we have to do it,… we must do it…We have an obligation to carry forward the lessons of Nuremberg. ” When you addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations on Sept.22, 1997, you told the world:…: “before the century ends, we should establish a permanent international court to prosecute the most serious violations of humanitarian law.”

    After you sign the treaty, it will be up to your successor to determine whether further measures may be warranted before submission of the treaty to the Senate for its consent before it can be ratified. There will be ample time to debate the details. Your signing now will be an important affirmation that you have not abandoned principles you have so eloquently enunciated. It will help allay fears of small States that feel threatened by misguided Congressional proposals to impose sanctions against any nation that dares to support the ICC. It will uphold the integrity and reputation of our government as a leading champion of the rule of law.

    I am mindful and respectful of objections raised by some members of Congress and the Pentagon. As a 1943 Harvard law graduate and author of countless books and articles on this subject (See my web-site,) it is my considered judgment that such fears are exaggerated and misplaced. The treaty has been found acceptable by many of our staunchest allies. A comprehensive American Academy of Arts and Sciences study, including leading U.S. military and academic experts, concluded that failure to sign now “will miss an opportunity of serious dimensions. And the loss will have an impact on U.S. national interests far beyond the work of prosecuting war crimes.” With every good wish,

    Sincerely,
    Benjamin Ferencz