Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • On the Abolition 2000 Statement

    Introduction

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review and Extension Conference in April and May 1995 provided an opportunity for the nuclear weapons states to commit themselves to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. These states, however, were unwilling to make this commitment, and were intent only on the indefinite extension of the NPT.

    Many citizen action groups gathered at the Conference viewed the position of the nuclear weapons states on indefinite extension as the equivalent of an indefinite extension of the status quo, one that provided special nuclear status to the five declared nuclear weapons states (U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China). These citizen action groups from throughout the world formed themselves into an Abolition Caucus. From this Caucus came the Abolition 2000 Statement calling for “definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.”

    This Statement became the founding document of the Abolition 2000 Network. This Network has now grown to over 600 citizen action groups on six continents. These groups are actively working in ten working groups to accomplish the 11-point program. The Statement is set forth below.

    Abolition 2000 Statement

    A secure and livable world for our children and grandchildren and all future generations requires that we achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and redress the environmental degradation and human suffering that is the legacy of fifty years of nuclear weapons testing and production.

    Further, the inextricable link between the “peaceful” and warlike uses of nuclear technologies and the threat to future generations inherent in creation and use of long-lived radioactive materials must be recognized. We must move toward reliance on clean, safe, renewable forms of energy production that do not provide the materials for weapons of mass destruction and do not poison the environment for thousands of centuries. The true “inalienable” right is not to nuclear energy, but to life, liberty and security of person in a world free of nuclear weapons.

    We recognize that a nuclear weapons free world must be achieved carefully and in a step by step manner. We are convinced of its technological feasibility. Lack of political will, especially on the part of the nuclear weapons states, is the only true barrier. As chemical and biological weapons are prohibited, so must nuclear weapons be prohibited.

    We call upon all states particularly the nuclear weapons states, declared and de facto to take the following steps to achieve nuclear weapons abolition. We further urge the states parties to the NPT to demand binding commitments by the declared nuclear weapons states to implement these measures:

    1) Initiate immediately and conclude by the year 2000 negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Abolition Convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.*

    2) Immediately make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

    3) Rapidly complete a truly comprehensive test ban treaty with a zero threshold and with the stated purpose of precluding nuclear weapons development by all states.

    4) Cease to produce and deploy new and additional nuclear weapons systems, and commence to withdraw and disable deployed nuclear weapons systems.

    5) Prohibit the military and commercial production and reprocessing of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

    6) Subject all weapons-usable radioactive materials and nuclear facilities in all states to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards, and establish a public international registry of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

    7) Prohibit nuclear weapons research, design, development, and testing through laboratory experiments including but not limited to non-nuclear hydrodynamic explosions and computer simulations, subject all nuclear weapons laboratories to international monitoring, and close all nuclear test sites.

    8) Create additional nuclear weapons free zones such as those established by the treaties of Tlatelolco and Raratonga.

    9) Recognize and declare the illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons, publicly and before the World Court.

    10) Establish an international energy agency to promote and support the development of sustainable and environmentally safe energy sources.

    11) Create mechanisms to ensure the participation of citizens and NGOs in planning and monitoring the process of nuclear weapons abolition.

    A world free of nuclear weapons is a shared aspiration of humanity. This goal cannot be achieved in a non-proliferation regime that authorizes the possession of nuclear weapons by a small group of states. Our common security requires the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Our objective is definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.

    * The Convention should mandate irreversible disarmament measures, including but not limited to the following: withdraw and disable all deployed nuclear weapons systems; disable and dismantle warheads; place warheads and weapon-usable radioactive materials under international safeguards; destroy ballistic missiles and other delivery systems. The Convention could also incorporate the measures listed above which should be implemented independently without delay. When fully implemented, the Convention would replace the NPT.

    Analysis

    The Abolition 2000 Statement was a major achievement of the citizen action groups supporting the elimination of nuclear weapons at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference. It has provided a point of focus and agreement for these citizens groups from throughout the world.

    The 11-point program to be implemented by the nuclear weapons states is discussed below.

    1. Initiate immediately and conclude by the year 2000 negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Abolition Convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, with provisions for verification and enforcement.

    Entering into a Nuclear Weapons Convention by the year 2000 is the key point in the Statement. This doesn’t mean that all nuclear weapons will be eliminated by the year 2000. It means that the commitment to their total elimination will be made in the form of a treaty, similar to the treaties that have outlawed biological weapons (Biological Weapons Convention, 1972) and chemical weapons (Chemical Weapons Convention, 1995) by the year 2000. The opportunity should not be missed to begin the new millennium with a commitment to a nuclear weapons free world. The year 2000 is a turning point for humanity, a point by which we should leave behind us forever the threat of nuclear annihilation.

    In a footnote to the Abolition 2000 Statement, some direction for the proposed Convention is provided: “The Convention should mandate irreversible disarmament measures, including but not limited to the following: withdraw and disable all deployed nuclear weapons systems; disable and dismantle warheads; place warheads and weapon-usable radioactive materials under international safeguards; destroy ballistic missiles and other delivery systems. The Convention could also incorporate the measures listed above [that is, points 2 through 11 of the Statement] which should be implemented independently without delay. When fully implemented, the Convention would replace the NPT.”

    Joseph Rotblat, the 1995 Nobel Peace Laureate, has been calling for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, similar in form to the Chemical Weapons Convention, for many years. In his Nobel Lecture, he argued, “Entering into negotiations does not commit the parties. There is no reason why they should not begin now. If not now, when?”1

    The nuclear weapons states did not begin negotiations toward a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons in 1995. Instead, they succeeded in having the Non-Proliferation Treaty extended indefinitely with very few conditions. It is not too late, however, to complete negotiations for a new treaty by the year 2000. We must encourage them to begin; we must demand that they begin. As Professor Rotblat states with simple eloquence: “If not now, when?”

    Professor Rotblat continued his Nobel Lecture with an appeal to the nuclear weapons states: “So I appeal to the nuclear powers to abandon the out-of-date thinking of the Cold War and take a fresh look. Above all, I appeal to them to bear in mind the long-term threat that nuclear weapons pose to humankind and to begin action towards their elimination. Remember your duty to humanity.”2

    2. Immediately make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

    It has been argued by distinguished military leaders and security analysts that nuclear weapons have no other purpose than to deter a nuclear attack.3 If nuclear weapons states accept this position, then it should not be difficult for them to make a pledge not to be first to use nuclear weapons. If all states agreed not to use nuclear weapons first, this would be equivalent to a pledge not to use these weapons. Yet, at present, only China has made an unconditional pledge not to use nuclear weapons first.

    A similar point was also made by Professor Rotblat in his Nobel Lecture. “Several studies, and a number of public statements by senior military and political personalities, testify that except for disputes between the present nuclear states all military conflicts, as well as threats to peace, can be dealt with using conventional weapons. This means that the only function of nuclear weapons, while they exist, is to deter a nuclear attack. All nuclear weapons states should now recognize that this is so, and declare in Treaty form that they will never be the first to use nuclear weapons. This would open the way to the gradual, mutual reduction of nuclear arsenals, down to zero.”4

    The Abolition 2000 Statement calls for nuclear weapons states to go beyond a no first use pledge, and make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. However, even if nuclear weapons states would agree to an unconditional “no first use” pledge, that would be an important step forward.

    3. Rapidly complete a truly comprehensive test ban treaty with a zero threshold and with the stated purpose of precluding nuclear weapons development by all states.

    The nuclear weapons states promised a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty. This promise was made again in the non-binding agreement that supplemented the decision to extend the NPT indefinitely in 1995. This agreement committed the nuclear weapons states to completing a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 1996. On September 10, 1995 the CTBT was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, and was opened for signatures on September 24, 1956. It has been signed by over a hundred countries including the five declared nuclear weapons states. India, however, has said that it will not sign the Treaty until the nuclear weapons states commit themselves to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, and India’s ratification of the Treaty is required for the Treaty to enter into force.

    The Treaty agreed upon will still allow for laboratory and sub-critical tests. Thus, it cannot be expected to be fully successful in “precluding nuclear weapons development by all states.” To do this, the Treaty would have had to go beyond prohibiting underground nuclear weapons tests, and have prohibited testing in all environments, including the nuclear weapons laboratories.

    4. Cease to produce and deploy new and additional nuclear weapons systems, and commence to withdraw and disable deployed nuclear weapons systems.

    In the Non-Proliferation Treaty the nuclear weapons states promised to pursue good faith negotiations for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. Clearly, to produce and deploy new and additional nuclear weapons systems at this point would be in violation of that promise. It would also be unnecessary and provocative. The nuclear weapons states have already begun the process of withdrawing and disabling nuclear weapons systems. Missiles have been removed from their silos, and destroyed with much fanfare. This process needs to continue, and should not be undermined by the deployment of any new or additional nuclear weapons systems.

    5. Prohibit the military and commercial production and reprocessing of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

    Far too much weapons-usable nuclear material already exists in the world. It takes only a few pounds of plutonium to produce a nuclear weapon, and perhaps 20 pounds of highly enriched uranium. While the required amounts of weapons-grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium needed to make nuclear weapons can be measured in pounds, the stockpiles of these materials can now be measured in metric tonnes.

    As of 1990, globally there was some 250 metric tonnes of plutonium in the military sector, of which 178 tonnes was in nuclear warheads. There was some 1300 metric tonnes of highly enriched uranium in the military sector, including 810 tonnes in warheads. In the civilian sector, there was over 600 metric tonnes of plutonium and 20 tonnes of highly enriched uranium. Of the civilian sector plutonium, 532 tonnes was in spent reactor fuel, and thus not readily converted to weapons use without reprocessing.5

    A study by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War pointed out that “Operation of nuclear power plants is rapidly increasing the world’s stocks of civilian plutonium. The cumulative stock of plutonium discharged from reactors worldwide is projected to reach about 1,400 metric tonnes at the end of the year 2000 and about 2,100 metric tonnes at the end of 2010.”6

    If we are to have any hope of ending the nuclear weapons era, we must gain control of all weapons-grade radioactive materials. The first step in doing this is to halt the production and reprocessing of such materials. To be effective, this must be done in both the military and civilian sectors.

    6. Subject all weapons-usable radioactive materials and nuclear facilities in all states to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards, and establish a public international registry of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

    To end the nuclear weapons era, all weapons-usable nuclear materials must be accounted for, monitored, and protected against diversion. The study by the International Physicians on this subject stated, “Present arrangements for controlling fissile material are clearly inadequate. They place no limits on any of the fissile material activities of the nuclear-weapons states. They limit the civilian fissile material activities of some small and relatively weak states on a discriminatory, ad hoc basis, while allowing more powerful states to accumulate large amounts of fissile material.”7

    To be effective in controlling weapons-usable fissile materials, all states must be subject to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards. The most powerful states, including the nuclear weapons states, can no longer reserve for themselves the special “privilege” of keeping their nuclear weapons materials outside the bounds of international inspections and controls.

    7. Prohibit nuclear weapons research, design, development, and testing through laboratory experiments including but not limited to non-nuclear hydrodynamic explosions and computer simulations, subject all nuclear weapons laboratories to international monitoring, and close all nuclear test sites.

    To stop the further development of new nuclear weapons systems will require an end to researching, designing, developing and testing nuclear weapons in every way, including in laboratory experiments. When the French conducted a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific in 1995 and early 1996, the reason they gave for doing so was to gather information for future laboratory tests. The U.S. has said all along that it is planning to conduct non- nuclear tests and, in fact, is planning to spend many billions of dollars in building new, sophisticated, and expensive equipment for future nuclear testing. The only way to close this loophole is by international agreement and international monitoring of nuclear weapons laboratories and test sites. The test sites themselves should be closed down. The former Soviet test site in Kazahkstan, and the French test site in Polynesia have both been closed. The only remaining test sites are in Novaya Zemlya (Russia), Lop Nor (China) and Nevada (U.S. and Britain).

    8. Create additional nuclear weapons free zones such as those established by the treaties of Tlatelolco and Raratonga.

    Since the Abolition 2000 Statement was adopted in April 1995, nuclear weapons free zones have been established for Southeast Asia and Africa. Following the completion of a series of six French nuclear weapons tests on the Pacific atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa, the U.S., U.K. and France have all agreed to abide by the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. A treaty signed in December 1995 by Southeast Asian countries declares an area stretching from Myanmar to the west, Philippines in the east, Laos and Vietnam in the north and Indonesia in the south as a nuclear free zone. The Treaty of Pelindaba, signed in Cairo in June 1996, made Africa a nuclear weapons free zone. These zones, covering most of the Earth’s southern hemisphere, prohibit the development, manufacturing, acquisition, possession, testing, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons within the designated areas. What they have not prohibited is transit of nuclear weapons by submarines and surface ships through international waters in their regions.8

    9. Recognize and declare the illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons, publicly and before the World Court.

    On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice in the Hague rendered its opinion on the illegality of nuclear weapons.9 The Court concluded that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles of humanitarian law.” It also declared that “there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    The Court found, however, that in “view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal,” that it was unable to reach a definitive conclusion with regard to “an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake.” Thus, the Court left open only the slimmest possibility of an exception to the general illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons.

    Based on the Court’s decision, Commander Robert Green, a retired Officer of the British Royal Navy and a member of the World Court Project that promoted the World Court decision, said, “With this remarkable decision, I could never have used a nuclear weapon legally. This places a duty on the military to review their whole attitude toward nuclear weapons, which are now effectively in the same category as chemical and biological weapons.”

    10. Establish an International Energy Agency to promote and support the development of sustainable and environmentally safe energy sources.

    One of the important missing agencies in the international system is an International Sustainable Energy Agency that promotes and supports development of sustainable and environmentally safe forms of energy. The sun provides a virtually inexhaustible source of energy. Further development of the technology to harness the sun’s energy in a cost-effective manner must become a major international priority as well as technologies to develop wind, tidal, and biomass resources. An International Sustainable Energy Agency could oversee these efforts.

    If such an Agency succeeds in its mission, it will not be necessary for states to rely upon the continued use of energy from nuclear reactors, thereby eliminating a major source of the radioactive materials that endanger human and other life forms and that could be reprocessed for use in the creation of nuclear weapons.

    11. Create mechanisms to ensure the participation of citizens and NGOs in planning and monitoring the process of nuclear weapons abolition.

    Citizens and non-governmental organizations have a role to play in planning and monitoring the process of eliminating nuclear weapons. This is not a job for governments alone. Citizens and citizen action groups have been active and creative in calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons. There will undoubtedly be ways in which individual citizens and groups of citizens can play a role in advancing the cause of a nuclear weapons free world.

    The President of the NPT Review and Extension Conference, Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka, praised the work of NGOs in that Conference and called for a more active role by these groups in the three preparatory meetings leading up to the next NPT Review Conference in the year 2000.

    Citizen groups from all over the world could begin now to inventory all nuclear materials in their country or region, thereby educating themselves about local hazards and providing a genuine service to the international community.

    The Nuclear Weapons Convention working group of the Abolition 2000 Network has been meeting to draft a treaty that takes into consideration all of the elements enumerated in the Abolition 2000 Statement.

    Joseph Rotblat has called for an active role for citizens from throughout the world in monitoring compliance with a Nuclear Weapons Convention. In addition to technological verification of compliance, he has called for what he calls “societal verification.” Professor Rotblat has the following to say about “Societal verification”:

    As the name implies, all members of the community would be involved in ensuring that a treaty signed by their own government is not violated. The main type of societal verification is what we call `citizen reporting.’ Underthis, every citizen would have the right and the duty to notify an office of theinternational authority in the country about any attempt to violate the treaty. In order to be effective, this right and duty would have to be written into the national law of the country.

    “We propose that whenever we have an international treaty but particularly relating to nuclear weapons it should contain a specific clause demanding that all the signatory states enact this type of law, and so make it the obligation of the citizens to carry out this task. We believe that this would be particularly effective in the case of nuclear weapons, partly because people instinctively abhor nuclear weapons, and partly because in almost every country there are anti-nuclear campaigns. We are convinced there will be enough people in every country who will make sure that the treaty is not being violated.10

    Conclusion

    The Statement concludes, “A world free of nuclear weapons is a shared aspiration of humanity. This goal cannot be achieved in a non-proliferation regime that authorizes the possession of nuclear weapons by a small group of states. Our common security requires the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Our objective is definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.”

    This conclusion juxtaposed the demand of the nuclear weapons states for an indefinite and unconditional extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty with the need for a definite and unconditional commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons states prevailed at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in getting an indefinite extension of the Treaty. Whether the initiators of the Abolition 2000 Statement will prevail in attaining the “definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons” will depend upon how many committed individuals throughout the world will work together to achieve this goal.

    The Abolition 2000 Statement provides a guideline for actions to be taken to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. The primary responsibility for taking these actions lies with the nuclear weapons states, but the responsibility for assuring that the nuclear weapons states take these actions lies with citizens. Each of us has a role to play.

    __________________

    Notes

    1. Rotblat, Joseph, “The Nobel Lecture Given by the Nobel Peace Laureate 1995 Joseph Rotblat,” The Nobel Foundation, Stockholm, 1995.

    2. Ibid.

    3. See, for example, “A Four-Step Program to Nuclear Disarmament” by the Henry L. Stimson Center, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 52, No. 2, March/April 1996, pp. 52-55.

    The report states: “The only necessary function for nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear threats to the population and territory of the United States, to U.S. forces abroad, and to certain friendly states.”

    Members of the Stimson Center project include General Andrew J. Goodpaster, General William F. Burns, General Charles A. Horner, and General W. Y. Smith.

    4. Rotblat, Op. cit.

    5. Albright, David, Frans Berkhout, and William Walker, World Inventory of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1992, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 197.

    6. Thompson, Gordon, “Opportunities for International Control of Weapons-Usable fissile Material,” International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, ENWE Paper #1, January 1994, p. 7.

    7. Thompson, op. cit. p. 10.

    8. See, Krieger, David, “Denuclearization of the Oceans: Linking Our Common Heritage with Our Common Future,” Global Security Study, No. 21, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, March, 1996.

    9. Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,” July 8, 1996.

    10. Rotblat, Joseph, “The Feasibility of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World,” Global Security Study, No. 16, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, August 1993.

  • Nuremberg and Nuclear Weapons

    David KriegerThe principal message of the Nuremberg trials is that individuals are responsible for what they do, and will be held accountable for committing serious crimes under international law. At Nuremberg, these serious crimes included crimes against peace (that is, planning, preparing for, or participating in acts of aggressive warfare), war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

    One of the great ironies of history or perhaps it is not such a great irony is that the Charter establishing the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg was signed on August 8, 1945. That was just three months after the German surrender. More importantly, it was just two days after the first nuclear weapon was used in warfare on the city of Hiroshima, and one day prior to a nuclear weapon being used on the city of Nagasaki. The nuclear weapon used on Hiroshima, with an equivalent force of some 15 kilotons of TNT, killed some 90,000 people immediately and some 140,000 by the end of 1945. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki, with an equivalent force of some 20 kilotons of TNT, killed some 40,000 people immediately and some 70,000 by the end of 1945.

    It has been pointed out that the number of people who died immediately from the use of each of these nuclear weapons was less than the number of people who died in Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945 as a result of U.S. bombing raids. This number is estimated at approximately 100,000. The major difference between the Tokyo bombings and those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the former took nearly a thousand sorties to accomplish, while the destruction of the latter two cities took only one bomb each.

    I think it is reasonable to speculate that if the Germans had had two or three atomic bombs, as we did at that time, and had used them on European cities prior to being defeated in the Second World War, we would have attempted to hold accountable those who created, authorized, and carried out these bombings. We would likely have considered the use of these weapons on cities by the Nazi leaders as among the most serious of their crimes.

    The irony of history, of course, is that the Germans did not develop nor use atomic weapons, and thus this issue never came before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, or before any other international tribunal. The record of the past 50 years reflects the consequences of this lack of accountability, namely, the nuclear arms race pursued by the United States and the former Soviet Union, which lasted until the end of the Cold War in approximately 1990.

    The question which I want to address is not whether war crimes were committed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Under the rules of international humanitarian law they were, and they were also committed by the bombings of London, Coventry, Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo. The primary targets of all these bombings were civilians, and the indiscriminate killing of civilians has always in modern times been understood to be a clear violation of the laws of war.

    Nuclear Weapons and International Law

    The more relevant question has to do with where we stand today. Not long ago, on July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice in the Hague issued an opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Actually, two questions were placed before the Court for advisory opinions. The first question, posed by the World Health Organization in May 1993, asked: “In view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a state in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law?”

    The second question, put to the Court by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1994, asked: “Is the threat or the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law?”

    The International Court of Justice found that the question asked by the World Health Organization, as a legal question, fell outside the scope of activities of the organization, and thus declined to accept jurisdiction. On the question posed by the United Nations General Assembly, however, the Court did find jurisdiction, and issued an advisory opinion.

    In a multi-part answer to the question, the Court found the following: “…that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.

    “However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

    In reaching this opinion, the Court dramatically reduced the possible circumstances in which nuclear weapons could be threatened or used in conformity with international law. The Court left open only the slim possibility of legality under “an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.” Even in this circumstance, the Court did not say that such use would be legal; it said only that it could not determine legality under these conditions. Judge Bedjaoui, the president of the Court, said in his declaration upon releasing the Court’s opinion, “I cannot insist strongly enough on the fact that the inability of the Court to go beyond the statement it made can in no way be interpreted as a partially-opened door through which it recognizes the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.”

    Judge Bedjaoui went further to describe nuclear weapons as “blind weapons” that “destabilize, by their very nature, humanitarian law, the law of distinguishing in the use of weapons.” He continued, “Nuclear weapons, absolute evil, destabilize humanitarian law in so far as the law of the lesser evil. Thus, the very existence of nuclear weapons constitutes a great defiance (challenge) to humanitarian law itself…. Nuclear war and humanitarian law seem, consequently, two antithesis which radically exclude each other, the existence of one necessarily supposing the non-existence of the other.”

    Where does this leave us today? Although the opinion of the Court is an advisory opinion, it is the most authoritative statement of international law on this question, and must be taken seriously. Thus far, however, there have been no statements made by any of the declared or undeclared nuclear weapons states indicating that they plan any changes in their nuclear policies as a result of the Court’s opinion.

    Individual Accountability

    We know what the Principles of Nuremberg tell us about individual accountability. The primary principle is that “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.” The fact that there is no penalty for the act under internal law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law. Nor does the fact that the person acted as a Head of State or as a responsible government official relieve that person of responsibility. Nor does the fact that the person acted pursuant to superior orders, so long as a choice was in fact possible to him, relieve him of responsibility.

    It was the United States, along with the U.K., France, and Russia, that created the Nuremberg Principles after the Second World War by holding Nazi and other Axis leaders accountable for their crimes under international law. I submit that if we want to create a world community that lives under international law in the 21st Century, we must apply the Nuremberg Principles to one and all, equally and without prejudice. That means we must apply these Principles to ourselves as well as to others. If the threat or use of nuclear weapons is, in fact, illegal under international law in virtually every conceivable circumstance, then we must act accordingly and neither use nor threaten the use of these weapons. Instead, we must dismantle our nuclear arsenal subject to agreement with other nuclear weapons states. In the meantime, we must explain to all military personnel with responsibilities for nuclear weapons the criminality under international law attendant to the threat or use of these weapons.

    Military organizations must operate under the law, and that clearly includes the international law of armed conflict. If military organizations do not operate under the law, then are they any better than state-organized thugs? It was for violating the laws of war at My Lai that Lt. Calley was tried and convicted. Lt. Calley’s crimes, terrible though they were, would pale in comparison to the crime of again using nuclear weapons on cities filled with innocent people.

    The International Court of Justice added to their opinion a clarification of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Court unanimously found that: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    The Court has clearly indicated that the nuclear weapons states have an obligation to negotiate in good faith not only for nuclear disarmament, but for nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects” and to bring these negotiations to a conclusion. In the aftermath of the Cold War, we have been moving far too slowly to attain this goal. It is a necessary goal so that no other city will ever again have to face the consequences of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the future of humanity will not be jeopardized.

    The Need for a Permanent International Criminal Court

    Even if the threat or use of nuclear weapons is unlawful under international law, however, there currently exists no tribunal where persons committing such acts can be brought to account. One of the great shortcomings of the current international institutional structure is the lack of a permanent International Criminal Court. Two Ad Hoc Tribunals have been created by the United Nations Security Council one for the former Yugoslavia and one for Rwanda. The jurisdiction of both of these tribunals, however, is limited by time and space. It is perhaps ironic that while the effects of nuclear weapons are unlimited by either time or space, the jurisdiction of our international criminal tribunals is so limited.

    Were nuclear weapons to be used by accident or design, the consequences would be horrible beyond our deepest fears. Nazis and other war criminals were convicted and punished in part for bringing human beings to the incinerators of the Holocaust. Nuclear weapons may be conceived of as portable incinerators portable crematoria, if you will that bring incinerators to the people. In my view, the silence of the American, Russian, British, French, and Chinese people in the face of these potentially genocidal or omnicidal weapons is as disquieting as the silence of the Germans in the face of Nazi atrocities. Yet none of the people in countries possessing nuclear weapons today are facing the same fearful authoritarian rule that the Nazis imposed upon the Germans during World War II.

    For many, perhaps most, people in nuclear weapons states today, nuclear weapons are not perceived as a critical issue. They are largely ignored. However, if they were to be used again, I think future historians if there were any would be very critical of our lack of commitment to ridding the world of these terrible weapons.

    We have the opportunity, in fact the responsibility under the Nuremberg Principles, to speak out against these genocidal weapons, but for the most part we do not do so. We must break the silence that surrounds our reliance upon these weapons of mass destruction. A hopeful sign recently occurred at the State of the World Forum in San Francisco when General Lee Butler, a former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, broke his personal silence and made a ringing plea to abolish nuclear weapons. “We can do better,” he said, “than condone a world in which nuclear weapons are enshrined as the ultimate arbiter of conflict. The price already paid is too dear, the risks run too great. The nuclear beast must be chained, its soul expunged, its lair laid waste. The task is daunting but we cannot shrink from it. The opportunity may not come again.”

    It is within our grasp to end the nuclear weapons era, and begin the 21st Century with a reaffirmation of the Nuremberg Principles.

    Steps That Need To Be Taken

    1. The following confidence building measures proposed by the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons:
      • Taking nuclear forces off alert;
      • Removal of warheads from delivery vehicles;
      • Ending deployment of non-strategic nuclear weapons;
      • Initiating negotiations to further reduce United States and Russian nuclear arsenals; and
      • Agreement amongst the nuclear weapons states of reciprocal no-first-use undertakings, and of a non-use undertaking by them in relation to the non-nuclear weapons states.
    2. International agreement by the year 2000 on a Nuclear Weapons Convention that, under strict international control, would eliminate all nuclear weapons within a reasonable period of time and prohibit their possession.
    3. The establishment by treaty of a permanent International Criminal Court to hold all individuals, regardless of their rank or nationality, accountable for acts constituting crimes under international law. Considerable progress has been made in preparing such a treaty at the United Nations. It may be hoped that this treaty will be ready to be opened for signatures in 1998, and certainly by 1999 when a third International Peace Conference is convened in the Hague.

  • Sadako Peace Garden

    The Sadako Peace Garden in Santa Barbara was dedicated on August 6, 1995, the 50th anniversary of the Hiroshima tragedy, as a project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, in cooperation with La Casa de Maria. It honors all who work for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Two distinguished Santa Barbara artists, Isabelle Greene and Irma Cavat, gave of their time and skills to create the landscaping and the artistry of this magic location.

    “I ask you to come up and submerge your hands into the water and then bless this space before you leave.”

    -Don George, Director, La Casa de Maria.

    “Hundreds of residents and visitors of Santa Barbara, young and old, have come to the Sadako Peace Garden to reflect and to commit, or recommit themselves to the task of peacemaking.

    The Garden is open to the public. Please feel free to come back at any time, and spread the word among your friends.”

    — Walter Kohn, Co-Chair, Education Committee, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    Sadako Peace Garden, La Casa de Maria, 800 El Bosque Road, Santa Barbara CA 93108-2794

  • Hans Bethe’s Appeal to Scientists to Cease Work on Nuclear Weapons

    On the 50th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, Hans Bethe, a senior Manhattan Project scientist, issued the following statement.

    As the Director of the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos, I participated at the most senior level in the World War II Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic weapons.

    Now, at age 88, I am one of the few remaining such senior persons alive. Looking back at the half century since that time, I feel the most intense relief that these weapons have not been used since World War II, mixed with the horror that tens of thousands of such weapons have been built since that time – one hundred times more than any of us at Los Alamos could ever have imagined.

    Today we are rightly in an era of disarmament and dismantlement of nuclear weapons. But in some countries nuclear weapons development still continues. Whether and when the various Nations of the World can agree to stop this is uncertain. But individual scientists can still influence this process by withholding their skills.

    Accordingly, I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons – and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.

  • Un Regalo Para El Capitán Cousteau en su 85 Cumpleaños

    Un Regalo Para El Capitán Cousteau en su 85 Cumpleaños

    ¿Qué se le puede dar a un hombre
    que ha dado tanto?

    Ciertamente no compasión o compromiso,
    Porque eso ya lo tiene

    Ciertamente no es coraje, porque eso ya lo tiene

    Ciertamente no es dignidad, porque eso ya lo tiene

    Ciertamente no es sabiduría, pues eso él ya tiene

    Ciertamente no son aventuras, porque éstas las ha tenido.

    Si pudiera elegir un regalo para el Capitán Cousteau,
    sería una canción de los océanos

    una canción de las olas sobre las costas
    de los pájaros, de los delfines, de las estrellas.

    La canción terminaría diciendo:
    “Te amamos, Capitán Cousteau,

    tu sueño es también nuestro sueño
    tu sueño de preservar la tierra y los océanos,

    tu sueño de justicia y decencia
    tu sueño de belleza “.

    Traducción de Rubén Arvizu. Click here for the English version.

  • A Gift for Captain Cousteau on His 85th Birthday

    A Gift for Captain Cousteau on His 85th Birthday

    What can you give to a man
    who has given so much?

    Certainly not compassion or commitment,
    for these he has.

    Certainly not courage, for this he has.

    Certainly not dignity, for this he has.

    Certainly not wisdom, for this he has.

    Certainly not adventures, for these he has had.

    If I could choose a gift for Captain Cousteau,
    it would be a song of the oceans,

    a song of the waves upon the shores,
    of the birds, of the dolphins, of the stars.

    The song would end by saying,
    “We love you, Captain Cousteau,

    your dream is also our dream,
    your dream of preserving the earth and oceans,

    your dream of fairness and decency,
    your dream of beauty.”

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • Nuclear War: The Perspectives of a Planetary Astronomer

    https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/wagingpeaceseries/sagan.pdf

  • Graduates: Take Global Responsibility

    “I pledge allegiance to the Earth, and to its varied life forms; one world, indivisible, with liberty, justice and dignity for all.”

    We need more people to take the pledge, and live their lives as though the Earth and its myriad of creatures mattered.

    We all know at some level that the world–this beautiful, unique world we inhabit–is in a precarious state, and not enough is being done to save it. The environment is under attack. The quality of our air and water is deteriorating, the ozone layer is being depleted as are our forests, desertification is expanding, and global warming continues. Too many people are starving and too many are hungry; too many are homeless and without adequate medical care; too many children die of preventable diseases. While some people live in obscene abundance, others barely survive and many don’t survive. Population is on an exponential rise, leading to a doubling of global population in the next 50 years. Throughout the world human rights are routinely abused by governments that torture and murder their own citizens. Wars rage on, and nuclear weapons threaten to spread to nations that seek to flex their technological muscles as the existing nuclear weapons states have done for decades.

    What is to be done about all of this? The choices are these: ignore the problems, allow yourself to be paralyzed by fear or despair, or roll up your sleeves and take responsibility for changing the world. The first two choices are akin to giving up–giving up your humanity. The only hope for making a difference is to choose responsibility–global responsibility.

    Responsibility is an underrated concept. Without responsibility very little would get done. With responsibility, almost anything is possible.

    Global responsibility can become a way of life characterized by awareness, beliefs and commitment–the A-B-C of global change. The starting point is awareness of the serious problems which confront us. Awareness comes from education, in class and out. Beliefs reflect values, for example, the belief that change is possible, that you can make a difference, that all persons are entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Commitment is what impels you to action, the willingness to give of yourself, to sacrifice, to make a difference in the world.

    Each generation has a responsibility to pass the world on in tact to the next generation. We are stewards of the abundance and beauty of our unique planetary home. Our generation and the one before us haven’t done such a good job–we’ve lost control of too many powerful technologies and been too greedy and power-seeking. I believe that your generation can do better. In fact, your generation must do better, for yourselves and for posterity.

    If your commitment to global responsibility should falter because you think the task is too big or you don’t have enough time for it or for a thousand other reasons, remember that you are the link to the future. Without your active involvement, there may not be a future. If each of us does not personally accept global responsibility, we have no right to expect someone else to accept it. Is it fair to ask that others pull our weight for us?

    We all believe in human rights, but without human responsibility there cannot be human rights. They are two sides of a coin. In today’s interlinked and interdependent world, human rights demand global responsibility.

    John Donne, writing some four centuries ago, reminded us that “no man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; everyman is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine….” In today’s language we should say, “No human is an island….” We are all in this together, all five and a half billion of us. We are all one species, all relatives, all members of the human family–egardless of our race, color, gender or creed. We can join with John Donne in recognizing that “any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde….”

    We share a common responsibility for safeguarding this unique planet where life flourishes, this small blue dot in a vast universe which is our home. The threats we face demand that we put aside selfishness, and step forward to accept responsibility for creating a peaceful and just world. We can do better than solving our problems by means of technological violence, and we can do more for each other. We can take seriously that “all men [and women] are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights….”

    We can live by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which recognizes that “the inherent dignity and… the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world….” We can accept personal responsibility for upholding these rights. We can speak out and act in behalf of our unique Earth and its many life forms that cannot give voice to the impending disasters that surround us. We can take responsibility– global responsibility — for creating a better world. Now is the time to begin.

  • Building a Peaceful World

    The end of the Cold War and recent arms reduction agree ments are encouraging signs for peace. In order to fur ther help in building a peaceful world, this paper identifies five major peace forces. In this paper, we attempt to show why these five modern forces are major factors for peace and how they can be used by policy makers in building a sustainable peaceful world. The five factors are equally significant and closely interrelated and have a cumulative impact.

    As with the force of gravity, we are little aware of the forces for peace until they are called to our attention. To better understand and use them we need to think about them on a large-scale and long-term basis.

    Peace Force No. 1 DEMOCRACY *

    Democracy is a powerful force for peace because there has never been a war between independent freely-elected democracies.1 Therefore, if all of the countries of the world became democracies, it is possible we could have a world without war.

    Not only do democracies not fight one another, they fight many fewer wars than nondemocracies. All nations that were independent from 1950 through 1991 and did not change from democracy to nondemocracy or vice versa during the study period were assessed. It was found that only 23 percent of the democracies compared with 72 percent of the nondemocracies were involved in foreign wars. It was also found that there were no internal wars or coups in the democracies, while 90 percent of the nondemocracies had internal wars or violent military coups.2

    R. J. Rummel in his five volume study was able to rigorously show further that not only do democracies not fight one another but that democracies are far less violent than other governments. He wrote, “Of the more than 119 million victims of genocide, killed in cold blood in our century, virtually all were killed by nondemocracies, especially totalitarian ones.” 3

    It is encouraging, therefore, to know that the number of democratic countries in the world has grown from none two centuries ago to a majority (89) now. In addition, there are 32 countries in transition. 4

    Examples of how to help more countries become democratic:

    • Providing economic aid to poorer countries can im prove their economic well-being. In general, as the health, ed u ca tion and economic well-being of a country’s citizens improve, the probability of the nation becoming a democracy increases.5
    • In a 1991 retreat, leaders of the 50-nation Common wealth promised to promote democracy and just gov ern ment. This is a weak commitment, and an effort should be made to have all nations link foreign aid to the human rights records of developing countries, as Britain and Canada have indicated their intent to do. 6
    • Former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto proposes an association of emerging democracies. She suggests that an association could share political experience to help members develop democratic methods and exert moral pres sure on nations that violate human rights. 7
    • The U.S. Congress has created and funded the Na tion al Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-private group, to openly help the growth of democracies. This organization and similar organizations have been more effective in helping countries develop democractic governments than the covert and violent activities of the CIA. 8

    *Democracy, in the Studies cited here, includes only independent countries whose legislative bodies and head of government are elected by majority vote from two or more opposing choices by secret ballot, where there is freedom of speech.

    Peace Force No. 2 EQUITABLE COMMERCE

    International trade and investments can be a force for peace if they are based on long-term fairness and mutual trust. If international trade is based on economic exploitation or is based mostly on arms trade it can be a force for war as described in the latter part of this section.

    Modern mass marketing is a powerful force for peace because such commerce is much more profitable when the world is peaceful. Continental markets are much more ef fi cient for mass marketing than small, divided ones. Modern commerce, because of its highly technical nature, can require dependable, long-term, large-scale commitments.

    Most of us are unaware that prosperous modern day living is dependent upon international trade and in vest ment for a vast array of parts for use in agriculture, industry, medicine, communication, and computers. For example, probably few people are aware that British farmers only produce enough food by themselves to support 12 million of Britain’s 56 million people. 9 The research costs and risks of creating and using new highly technical products has become so great that companies look to long-term in ter na tion al partnerships to carry out the work.

    International investments, built on international trade, are a further force for harmony. A vast number of large and small businesses are involved in foreign investments and no one likes to lose their investments. In order to illustrate how large international investments have become, consider the amount invested in the United States by 1990 by the fol low ing countries: Britain, $108 billion; Japan, $83 billion; Neth er lands, $64 billion; Germany, $28 billion; France, $20 billion; and Switzerland, $17 billion. 10

    Paralleling the growth of modern commerce in the world has been the development of vast regions that are at peace with each other. For example, in the 1800s the growing area of internal peace on the North American continent paralleled the growth of railroads as they made mass marketing possible. The growing zone of internal peace started in the Northeast and moved south then westward as large scale trade grew.

    Having a large area, such as the North American continent, with no battles within any of its parts is new to the long history of the world. For instance, prior to the current long peace, the United States fought nearly 2,000 battles in its first hundred years. And now there have been no battles fought on the North American continent for more than 100 years. 11

    The large zone of peace in North America was no accident. It is significant that ethnic and religious groups that are fighting one another in various parts of the world generally are not fighting one another where they live together in more economically developed areas, e.g. North America, Western Europe, Australia.

    Since World War II, there has been an explosive increase in global trade. World trade has increased more than 10 times.12 As world commerce has grown, the number of countries at peace with each other has grown accordingly. Countries at peace with each other for the past 40 years or longer include Canada, the United States, Mexico, Costa Rica, Japan, Tai wan, Australia, New Zealand and the countries of Western Europe. All of these countries have developed a high level of commerce among themselves.

    A peaceful world can be built with the already large number of countries with no wars between them. These countries do not even have a threat of war between them. Where they share a common border, the borders are unarmed and they share in a well-established common defense system.

    Examples of how to increase the growth of equitable commerce:

    • Most wars since World War II have occurred in developing countries where the people have few of the necessities to sustain life and are desperately poor. Some modern large-scale farming uses vast land-holdings to operate. To meet this need, giant corporations have acquired many small farms leaving local people with little. For example, in Honduras 67 percent of the population are limited to only 12 percent of the arable land. Nearly 61 percent of the population is malnourished.13 In such situations, if large corporations fail to understand and meet local needs, the danger of civil unrest and war is increased.
    • Economic depressions can drive desperate people in severely depressed countries to support leaders who promise extreme measures, e.g. Hitler. Current efforts to help the Soviet Union economically reflect this concern.
    • International trade agreements can help build friendly relations between countries if they are fair. Hostility is generated if the agreements are not fair, like allowing com panies in some countries to sell for less by ignoring uncon trolled pollution of the environment, paying starvation wages, maintaining unhealthy and unsafe plants. 14
    • Howard Brembeck in his book, The Civilized Defense Plan, tells how nations can collectively use international trade sanctions and/or incentives to cooperatively build security systems against threatening nations. 15

    Peace Force No. 3 WORLDWIDE COMMUNICATION

    A shrinking world allows the public to better observe, un der stand, and respond to global dangers. Today, what seems commonplace, such as daily watching and par tic i pat ing in world events, would not have been possible a few decades ago. Due to rapid growth in the number of television sets, communication satellites, computers, fax machines and tele phones, significant events around the world can be seen, heard, or read about daily by hundreds of millions of people. Jet airplanes allow travel to most places in the world within hours, making it easier to talk directly to others.

    Turner Cable News Network (CNN), with its reporters throughout the world, provides TV news to millions of people around the globe, around the clock. It gives everyone the same basis for discussion by providing the same information at the same moment. CNN has compelled rivals to increase live coverage of international news. This situation allows viewers greater opportunity to form their own opinions of world events.16 World news, however, can still be misleading at times, such as during the Gulf War when large-scale slaughter was shown mostly as a video game.

    The worldwide communication growth pace is in creasing. For example, starting November 1991 World Ser vice Tele vi sion (sponsored by BBC) began beaming news daily into 38 Asian countries with a combined population of 2.7 billion. 17 In India people bought six million TV sets in 1988, up from only 150,000 a decade before. 18

    Examples of how global communication can be a force for peace:

    • The world can see and act against common security threats. Acts of aggression, such as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, can be seen by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. This allows nations to respond to aggressive acts early. For example, more than 100 nations quickly joined in supporting political and economic sanctions, through the United Na tions, against Iraq. This was the largest number of nations in history to support economic sanctions at one time. 19
    • The world is an open stage. It is increasingly difficult for autocratic leaders to keep their people isolated from world events. For instance, the efforts of the leaders of the 1991 Soviet coup to control information failed. The Soviet people kept informed of events through cellular phones, fax machines, satellite television, international broadcasts and pocket radios, as well as computers reproducing messages for the public.
    • Worldwide communication can help the growth of democracy. An understanding of freedom is being spread to people who are not now free because TV allows them to see people in other countries experiencing freedom. As businessmen, government leaders, students and tourists travel between countries, they can observe various types of freedom and techniques of self-government.
    • The global public can respond together to worldwide dangers, e.g. ozone depletion, global warming, radiation fall out, etc.

    Peace Force No. 4 REDUCING MILITARISM

    Militaristic nations, those with an excessive arms build-up, are far more likely to go to war. Newcombe and Klaassen found, from 1950 to 1978, that nations with the greatest military expenditures as a percentage of per capita income were 30 times more likely to be involved in an international war than other countries. 20

    Iraq illustrates how a nation’s excessive arms build-up can be a warning signal. In 1984, long before Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Iraq was spending a far larger part of its national income for the military (42 percent) than any other country in the world. 21 “Between 1981 and 1988, Iraq purchased an estimated $46.7 billion worth of arms and military equip ment from foreign suppliers, the largest accumulation ever of mod ern weapons by a Third World country.” 22

    Military forces have established an influential political base throughout the developing world. They represent the largest single element in most government bureaucracies and the largest financial resource. They provide the visible trappings of prestige for political leaders, civilian or military: the req ui site honor guards, jet aircraft, helicopters, etc. They have a direct line to the world of wealth and business, the arms-producing corporations that are both beneficiaries of government lar gesse and contributors to political power. And they deal in matters of national security which can be made secret and inaccesible both to the public and to any of the usual checks and balances within the government. Countries under military control have suffered three times as many wars and 19 times as many deaths as in the rest of the Third World countries. 23

    Examples of how reducing militarism can help the growth of peace:

    • The less money developing countries spend on weapons the more chance they have to improve their standard of living, education, and health as well as to become a democracy. In a detailed comparison of 142 countries, it was found that when military spending is high, socio-economic well-being lags.24 In much of the developing world, military expenditures are almost four times the investment for health care and twice that for education.25
    • Among 142 countries in 1987, the United States was number one in military expenditures, military technology, military bases, military training of foreign forces, military aid to foreign countries, naval fleet, combat aircraft, nuclear reactors, nuclear warheads and bombs and nuclear tests, while at the same time, the U.S. ranked 18th in infant mortality rate, 13th in maternal mortality rate, and 18th in population per physician.26
    • While democracies do not fight one another, some de moc ra cies have strong militaristic tendencies. In the last decade, seven of the world’s ten top merchants of offensive weapons, mass destruction weapons parts and weapons fa cil i ties were Western democracies. In 1990, the U.S. was the world’s top weapons supplier. Since World War II there have been over 170 wars and conflicts, mostly involving countries which rely on foreign suppliers for their military needs. 27 De moc ra cies can do much for peace by reducing their sale of arms.

    Peace Force No. 5 COOPERATIVE SECURITY

    Robert McNamara, former U.S. Secretary of Defense from 1961-1968, said “[W]e should strive to move toward a world in which relations among nations would be based on the rule of law, a world in which national security would be supported by a system of co op er a tive security, with conflict resolution and peace-keeping functions performed by mul ti lat er al in sti tu tions – a reorganized and strengthened United Nations and new and expanded re gion al organizations, in clud ing an Asian counterpart.” 28

    The role of the U.N. is being forced to change from keeping peace to making peace, as more conflicts continue to erupt, more aid is delivered and more elections are monitored. With 13 current U.N. peacekeeping operations and over 52,000 U.N. troops and police officers on site, the added costs are threatening the U.N.’s continued scope of operations, unless delinquet members pay back dues immediately and make provisions to adequately fund the expanding needs. Also since in the past many worthy peacekeeping resolutions were vetoed by the major powers, the limination of this provision should be seriously coonsidered in the light of present day conditions.

    Randall Forsberg writes, “The end of the Cold War represents a turning point for the role of military force in international affairs. At this unique juncture in history, the world’s main military spenders and arms producers have an unprecedented opportunity to move from confrontation to cooperation. The United States, the European nations, Japan, and the republics of the former USSR can now replace their traditional security policies, based on detterence, nonoffensive defense, nonproliferation, and multilateral peacekeeping. In fact, they have already taken early steps in this direction.”

    Since the end of the Cold War, coun tries are be gin ning to put more em pha sis on work ing through the United Na tions. It is encouraging that the percentage of Americans who think the U.N. is doing a good job has risen from 28% in 1985 to 78% in December 1991.31

    Examples of how to increase cooperative security:

    A great stride forward in civility, human rights and co op er a tive security will occur as nations together create an In ter na tion al Criminal Court addressing these concerns. The atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and those in the former Yugoslavia have rekindled interest in such a court. A working group of the U.N. International Law Commission has recently released a report in which it rec om mends that an International Çriminal Court ‘be es tab lished by a Statute in the form of a treaty.’ 32 The value of an International Criminal Court would be its clear message that the in ter na tion al community is committed to enforcing in ter na tion al law, and that all individuals, no matter how high their position, will be held accountable for crimes under in ter na tion al law.

    Continued emphasis should be given to the U.N. resolution declaring the l990s the Decade of In ter na tion al Law. This resolution embraces four main purposes: (a) to promote acceptance and respect for principles of in ter na tion al law; (b) to pro mote means and methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States, in clud ing resort to and full respect for the International Court of Justice; (c) to en cour age the progressive development of in ter na tion al law and cod i fi ca tion; and (d) to encourage the teaching, study, dissemination and wider ap pre ci a tion of international law. 33

    The increased use of cooperative security will be assisted by the further growth of the other peace forces described in this paper. The more nations work together in cooperative security, the less will be the burden for all countries involved and the more secure will be each cooperating country.

    Ultimate Goal

    In order to build a sustained peaceful world, we need to consider the basic requirements of humanity. Dr. Hanna Newcombe, in a comprehensive paper, describes the fol low ing basic needs of humanity.

    • The world’s population has to be balanced with a sustainable healthy global environment.
    • All people need democractic governments with basic freedoms assured. If all countries in the world were freely elected democracies, a world without war is possible.
    • A decent standard of living and quality of life is needed for all people, including those in the poorest countries. It is difficult to build a prosperous and peaceful world if there are gross inequalities between people.

    Dr. Newcombe points out that there are upper limits to the world’s physical resources and some sharing will be required. She says, however, there are no limits in the mental realm, and scientific advances can help us meet our long-term basic needs. 34

    Conclusion

    It is sometimes said that due to hate, fear, greed and corruption there will always be war. The fact that the North American continent, with nearly 300 million people living together from all parts of the world, has had no wars between any of its people for more than 100 years demonstrates that war is not inevitable. Up until the end of World War II there was never a year free of war in Europe 35 and since then there has not been a war in Western Europe. Yugoslavia is in Eastern Europe.

    This paper discusses five major forces that make for peace and the ways we can improve them so that we can better build a peaceful world. Much more research needs to be done. The amount of money spent on peace-fostering research by the U.S. government has been less than one percent of what has been spent on research to make weapons more deadly.36 The amount spent in the world for peace research is similarly small compared with the amount spent upon weapons de vel op ment.

    There remains a serious need for more research in the area of building a peaceful world. The more rigorously it can be demonstrated through research how peace-fostering activities and institutions add to our security, the more likely there will be more funds to support these activities and institutions.
    *Dean Babst is a retired government scientist and Coordinator of the Accidental Nuclear War Prevention Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; David Krieger, an attorney and political scientist, is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Bud Deraps is a member of the Board of Directors of the Lentz Peace Research Laboratory, St. Louis, Missouri.

    Acknowledgments

    For valuable suggestions to earlier drafts of this paper, we wish to thank: Dr. William Eckhardt, Lentz Peace Research Laboratory, Dunedin, Florida;. Jennifer Glick, Fourth Freedom Forum, Goshen, Indiana; Charles W. Jamison, Esq., Santa Barbara, California; Dr. Hanna Newcombe, Director, Peace Research Institute, Dundas, Canada; Dr. R. J. Rummel, Professor of Political Science, Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu; Dr. Leonard Starobin, Editor, World Peace Report, Elkins Park, Penn ylvania; Dudley Thompson, Grass Valley, California.

    References

    1.Babst, Dean V. “A Force for Peace,” Industrial Research, April 1972.

    2. Babst, Dean V. and Eckhardt, William. ‘How Peaceful Are Democracies Compared With Other Countries?,” Peace Re search, Aug. 1992.

    3. Rummel, R. J. “The Politics of Cold Blood,” Society, Nov./Dec. 1989, p. 40.

    4. Mathews, Tom, et. al. “Decade of Democracy,” Newsweek, 30 Dec. 1991.

    5. Babst, Dean V. “Building A World Without War Is Possible,” Global Security Study No. 10, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, Calif. June 1991.

    6. “Commonwealth Pledges to Promote Democracy,” Sacramento Bee, 21 Oct. 1991.

    7. Bigham, Joe. “Help for New Democratic Nations,” Sacramento Bee, 20 Sept. 1991.

    8. Ignatius, David. “The Good Guys Won Without CIA Secrecy,” Sacramento Bee, 6 Oct. 1991.

    9. Holsti, K. J. International Politics – A Framework For Analysis, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1977, p. 242.

    10. “U.S. is still largest debtor,” Sacramento Bee, 3 July 1991.

    11. Babst, Dean V. “Commerce: A Powerful Growing Force For Peace,” Global Security Study No. 9, Nuclear Age Peace Foun da tion, Santa Barbara, Calif., Sept. 1990.

    12. Nulty, Peter. “How the World Will Change,” Fortune, 15 Jan. 1990.

    13. Mead, Walter R. “Bushism Found,” Harper’s Magazine, Sept. 1992.

    14. Feldman, Jonathan. Universities in the Business of Repression, South End Press, 1989, p. 77.

    15. Brembeck, Howard S. The Civilized Defense Plan, Hero Books, Fairfax, Virgina, 1989.

    16. “Man of the Year,” Time, 6 January 1992.

    17. Privat, Pascal, et. al. “The BBC’s New Baby,” Newsweek, 28 Oct. 1991.

    18. Stewart, Thomas A. “How To Manage In The New Era,” Fortune, 15 Jan. 1991.

    19. Webster, William. “Sanctions in the Persian Gulf – Iraq: The Domestic Impact of Sanctions,” Congressional Record, S102, 10 Jan. 1991.

    20. Newcombe, Alan G. and Klaassen, Ruth. “The Pre dic tion of War Using the Tensionmeter,” Peace Research In sti tute, Dundas, Canada, 1983.

    21. Babst, Dean V. and Hardy, Marc. “Positive Power Of Trade,” Background Paper No. 1, Fourth Freedom Forum, July 1991.

    22. “Why can’t Arabs rescue Kuwait?” Sacramento Bee, 25 January 1991 (Quote from Michael Klare’s book, American Arms Supermarket, University of Texas Press)

    23. Sivard, Ruth L. World Military And Social Ex pen di tures, 14th Edition, World Priorities, Washington, D.C., 1991, p. 19.

    24. Ibid, p. 27.

    25. “We Arm the World: U.S. is Number One Weapons Dealer,” The Defense Monitor, Center for Defense In for ma tion, Wash. D.C.Vol. XX, No.4, 1991, p. 3.

    26. Sivard, op. cit. p 46.

    27. The Defense Monitor, Vol. XX, No.4, op. cit, pp. 2 & 3.

    28. McNamara, Robert S. “The Changing Nature of Global Security And Its Impact On South Asia,” Address to the Indian Defense Policy Forum, New Delhi, India on Nov. 20, 1992 published by Washington Council on Non-Pro lif er a tion, Washington D.C., Dec. 1992.

    29. Lewis, Paul. “Peacekeeper Is Now Peacemaker,” New York Times, 25 Jan. 1993.

    30. Forsberg, Randall. “Defense Cuts and Cooperative Se cu ri ty in the Post-Cold War World,” Boston Review, May-July 1992.

    31. Kay, Alan F., et. al. Perception of Globalization, World Structures and Security, Survey #17, Americans Talk Se cu ri ty, Washington, D.C. 25 Nov. – 2 Dec. 1991.

    32. “Report of the Working Group on the Question of In ter na tion al Criminal Jurisdiction,” Report of the In ter na tion al Law Commission, U.N. General Assembly Sup ple ment No. 10 (A/47/10), p. 144.

    33. U.N. General Assembly resolution 44/23, 17 November 1989.

    34. Newcombe, Hanna. “Pax Democratia: Reaching the High Plateau,” paper presented at International Peace Re search Association, Kyoto, Japan, 26-31 July 1992.

    35. Sorokin, Pitrim A. Social and Cultural Dynamics, Vol.III, American Book Co., N.Y., N.Y., 1957.

    36. Babst, Global Security Study No. 10, op. cit.

  • A Nonviolent Political Agenda for a More Humane World

    https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/wagingpeaceseries/maguire.pdf