Blog

2019 Fundraising and Development Intern
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is hiring a Fundraising and Development Intern for Summer 2019.

Interns will join our dedicated team of seven staff at our Santa Barbara headquarters to work on meaningful projects that advance our mission of educating, advocating, and inspiring action for a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons.

We don’t expect our interns to have detailed knowledge of the physics behind nuclear weapons, nor to have years of relevant work experience. What we are looking for are highly-motivated, enthusiastic individuals who are dedicated to our mission and who want to make a real, lasting difference in the world.

Our Development & Fundraising Intern will assist in raising funds for the Foundation’s projects and daily functions. It’s ideal in development to be a people-person who can communicate clearly and comfortably with people of many backgrounds. We highly value collaboration at NAPF, and this intern will work closely with the Director of Development on a day-to-day basis.

Projects will include:
- Writing concisely and creatively: Helping to write appeal letters and grant applications;
- Researching strategically: Interviewing donors and researching potential funding sources;
- Planning and organizing: Helping to plan a summer party in Santa Barbara and our 36th Annual Evening for Peace;
- Being a supporter extraordinaire: helping with more routine tasks such as mailing letters and logging donor info into our fundraising database.
Skills/Qualifications:
- Studying marketing, communication, or business a plus;
- Ability to write clearly and persuasively is essential;
- Self-motivation, organization, and the ability to stick to deadlines is essential;
- Ability to take ownership of a project by thinking critically and independently, while also following instructions;
- Experience with event planning, fundraising, or special project campaigns;
- Comfort speaking with and relating to people in highly social situations.
For more details on our internship program and for application instructions, visit our Paid Internships page.

You can also view the position descriptions for our other summer internships:

Research/Writing Intern

Communications Intern

Peace Literacy Intern
December 20, 2018
2019 Research and Writing Intern
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is hiring a Research and Writing Intern for Summer 2019.

Interns will join our dedicated team of seven staff at our Santa Barbara headquarters to work on meaningful projects that advance our mission of educating, advocating, and inspiring action for a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons.

We don’t expect our interns to have detailed knowledge of the physics behind nuclear weapons, nor to have years of relevant work experience. What we are looking for are highly-motivated, enthusiastic individuals who are dedicated to our mission and who want to make a real, lasting difference in the world.

Our Research & Writing Intern will assist NAPF staff members – primarily President David Krieger and Deputy Director Rick Wayman – in research and writing on key issues related to nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament. The Research & Writing Intern will also be encouraged to pursue self-directed projects that contribute to the Foundation’s goals.

Projects will include:
- Writing articles for the Sunflower Newsletter;
- Writing articles for wagingpeace,org and other publications;
- Monitor relevant policy, current events, and legislative developments;
- Updating the content on nuclearfiles.org;
- Reviewing new articles and books.
Skills/Qualifications:
- Exemplary analytical and writing skills;
- Understanding of international law and international disarmament processes;
- Ability to meet deadlines;
- Self-directed and highly motivated.
For more details on our internship program and for application instructions, visit our Paid Internships page.

You can also view the position descriptions for our other summer internships:

Fundraising/Development Intern

Communications Intern

Peace Literacy Intern
December 20, 2018
Three Beliefs Guiding NAPF’s Work

Three beliefs have guided, motivated and propelled the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) from its creation in 1982 to the present.

First, peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. In an era when any war could become a nuclear war, peace is not only desirable; it is essential. In this regard, we have developed a program to teach Peace Literacy in schools, churches and social service organizations. The initiator and director of this program, Paul Chappell, gives lectures and workshops on Peace Literacy throughout the US and abroad. More information on the Peace Literacy Movement can be found at www.peaceliteracy.org.

Second, nuclear weapons must be abolished before they abolish us. The only way to be secure from a nuclear war,by accident or design, is to abolish these monstrous weapons. In this regard, the Foundation has initiated and provided leadership for many international coalitions and projects,including Abolition 2000, the Middle Powers Initiative, and the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility. NAPF has been a partner organization in the Nobel Peace Prize winning coalition International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). The Foundation has also been a major critic of reliance on nuclear deterrence for security. More information on the Foundation’s efforts for abolition can be found at www.wagingpeace.org.

Third, change will come about by extraordinary ordinary people leading their leaders to choose peace and a world free of nuclear weapons. It seems clear that the political leaders of the nuclear-armed countries are not likely to fulfill their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for total nuclear disarmament. None of the nuclear-armed states have indicated support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was adopted by the United Nations in 2017. It will require ordinary citizens to demand that their leaders take action to rid the world of nuclear weapons. To learn more about what you can do to help change the world, visit www.wagingpeace.org,and sign up to be an NAPF member and receive our Sunflower e-newsletter and periodic Action Alerts.

The Foundation’s work is aimed at changing the world, person by person, community by community, and nation by nation. Our work is a matter of the heart, of doing the right thing for the children of the world and all generations to follow.

David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and has served as its president since 1982.

December 19, 2018
Why Green New Deal Advocates Must Address Militarism

In the spirit of a new year and a new Congress, 2019 may well be our best and last opportunity to steer our ship of state away from the twin planetary perils of environmental chaos and militarism, charting a course towards an earth-affirming 21st century.

The environmental crisis was laid bare by the sobering December report of the UN Climate panel: If the world fails to mobilize within the next 12 years on the level of a moon shot, and gear up to change our energy usage from toxic fossil, nuclear and industrial biomass fuels to the already known solutions for employing solar, wind, hydro, geothermal energy and efficiency, we will destroy all life on earth as we know it. The existential question is whether our elected officials, with the reins of power, are going to sit by helplessly as our planet experiences more devastating fires, floods, droughts, and rising seas or will they seize this moment and take monumental action as we did when the United States abolished slavery, gave women the vote, ended the great depression, and eliminated legal segregation.

Some members of Congress are already showing their historic mettle by supporting a Green New Deal. This would not only start to reverse the damage we have inflicted on our collective home, but it would create hundreds of thousands of good jobs that cannot be shipped overseas to low wage countries.

Even those congresspeople who want to seriously address the climate crisis, however, fail to grapple with the simultaneous crisis of militarism. The war on terror unleashed in the wake of the 911 terrorist attack has led to almost two decades of unchecked militarism. We are spending more money on our military than at any time in history. Endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria and elsewhere are still raging, costing us trillions of dollars and creating humanitarian disasters. Old treaties to control nuclear arms are unraveling at the same time that conflicts with the major powers of Russia and China are heating up.

Where is the call for the New Peace Deal that would free up hundreds of billions from the overblown military budget to invest in green infrastructure? Where is the call to close a majority of our nation’s over 800 military bases overseas, bases that are relics of World War II and are basically useless for military purposes? Where is the call for seriously addressing the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons?

With the crumbling phenomenon of outdated nuclear arms control treaties, it is unconscionable not to support the recently negotiated UN treaty, signed by 122 nations, to prohibit and ban nuclear weapons just as the world has done for chemical and biological weapons. The US Congress should not be authorizing the expenditures of one trillion dollars for new nuclear weapons, bowing to corporate paymasters who seek a larger arms race with Russia and other nuclear-armed countries to the detriment of our own people and the rest of the world. Instead, Congress should take the lead in supporting this treaty and promoting it among the other nuclear weapons states.

Environmentalists need to contest the Pentagon’s staggering global footprint. The US military is the world’s largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels and the largest source of greenhouse gasses, contributing about 5 percent of global warming emissions. Almost 900 of the EPA’s 1,300 Superfund sites are abandoned military bases, weapons-production facilities or weapons-testing sites. The former Hanford nuclear weapons facility in Washington state alone will cost over $100 billion to clean up.

If climate change is not addressed rapidly by a Green New Deal, global militarism will ramp up in response to increases in climate refugees and civil destabilization, which will feed climate change and seal a vicious cycle fed by the twin evils militarism and climate disruption. That’s why a New Peace Deal and a Green New Deal should go hand in hand. We cannot afford to waste our time, resources and intellectual capital on weapons and war when climate change is barreling down on all of humankind. If the nuclear weapons don’t destroy us than the pressing urgency of catastrophic climate will.

Moving from an economic system that relies on fossil fuels and violence would enable us to make a just transition to a clean, green, life-supporting energy economy. This would be the quickest and most positive way to deal a death knell to the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about so many years ago.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

December 12, 2018
Reviving the Nuclear Disarmament Movement: A Practical Proposal

In late November 2018, Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned public intellectual, remarked that “humanity faces two imminent existential threats: environmental catastrophe and nuclear war.”

Curiously, although a widespread environmental movement has developed to save the planet from accelerating climate change, no counterpart has emerged to take on the rising danger of nuclear disaster. Indeed, this danger―exemplified by the collapse of arms control and disarmament agreements, vast nuclear “modernization” programs by the United States and other nuclear powers, and reckless threats of nuclear war―has stirred remarkably little public protest within the United States and even less public debate during the recent U.S. midterm elections.

Of course, there are U.S. peace and disarmament organizations that challenge the nuclear menace. But they are fairly small and pursue their own, separate antinuclear campaigns. Such campaigns―ranging from cutting funding for a new nuclear weapon, to opposing the Trump administration’s destruction of yet another disarmament treaty, to condemning its threats of nuclear war―are certainly praiseworthy. But they have not galvanized a massive public uprising within the United States against the overarching danger of nuclear annihilation.

In these circumstances, what is missing is a strategy that will rouse the general public from its torpor and shift the agenda of the nuclear powers from nuclear confrontation to a nuclear weapons-free world.

The Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, launched decades ago in another time of nuclear crisis, suggests one possible strategy. Developed at the end of the 1970s by defense analyst Randy Forsberg, the Freeze (as it became known) focused on a simple, straightforward goal: a Soviet-American agreement to stop the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons. As Forsberg predicted, this proposal to halt the nuclear arms race had great popular appeal (with polls showing U.S. public support at 72 percent) and sparked an enormous grassroots campaign. The Reagan administration, horrified by this resistance to its plans for a nuclear buildup and victory in a nuclear war, fought ferociously against it. But to no avail. The Freeze triumphed in virtually every state and local referendum on the ballot, captured the official support of the Democratic Party, and sailed through the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority. Although the Reaganites managed to derail it in the Senate, the administration was on the defensive and, soon, on the run. Joined by massive antinuclear campaigns in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world, the Freeze campaign forced a reversal of administration priorities and policies, leading to previously unthinkable Soviet-American nuclear disarmament treaties and an end to the Cold War.

How might a comparable strategy be implemented today?

The campaign goal might be a halt to the nuclear arms race, exemplified by an agreement among the nuclear powers to scrap their ambitious nuclear “modernization” plans. Although the Trump administration would undoubtedly rail against this policy, the vast majority of Americans would find it thoroughly acceptable. An alternative, more ambitious goal―one that would probably also elicit widespread public approval―would be the ratification by the nuclear powers of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This UN-brokered treaty, signed in July 2017 by the vast majority of the world’s nations and scorned by the governments of the United States and other nuclear-armed countries, prohibits nations from developing, testing, producing, acquiring, possessing, stockpiling, using, or threatening to use nuclear weapons.

The second stage of a current campaign strategy, as it was in the strategy of the Freeze, is to get as many peace groups as possible to endorse the campaign and put their human and financial resources behind it. Working together in a joint effort seems feasible today. Some of the largest of the current organizations―such as the American Friends Service Committee, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Veterans for Peace―are already thoroughly committed to building a nuclear weapons-free world.

The third stage of an effective strategy is winning the battle for public opinion. In the case of the Freeze, this entailed not only distributing crucial information to members of the general public, but introducing Freeze resolutions at local gatherings or national conventions of religious denominations, unions, professional associations, and the vast panoply of voluntary organizations, where they almost invariably passed.

A final stage involves turning the objective into government policy. The Freeze campaign found that many politicians were quite willing to adopt its program. Similarly, at present, some key Democrats, including the chair of the incoming House Armed Services Committee and likely Democratic presidential candidates, are already attacking the Trump administration’s nuclear “modernization” program, its withdrawal from disarmament treaties, and its eagerness to launch a nuclear war. Consequently, if a major public campaign gets rolling, substantial changes in public policy are within reach.

To be fully effective, such a campaign requires international solidarity—not only to bring domestic pressure to bear on diverse nations, but overseas pressure as well. The Freeze movement worked closely with nuclear disarmament movements around the world, and this international alliance produced striking results in both East and West. Today, a new international alliance, enhanced by the current strong dissatisfaction of non-nuclear nations with the escalation of the nuclear arms race and the related dangers of nuclear war, could help foster significant changes in public policy.

Of course, this proposal suggests only one of numerous possible ways to develop a broad nuclear disarmament campaign. But there should be little doubt about the necessity for organizing that public mobilization. The alternative is allowing the world to continue its slide toward nuclear catastrophe.

[This is a revised version of an article published by Foreign Policy in Focus on December 7, 2018.]

Lawrence Wittner (http://www.lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

December 10, 2018
Auckland Statement on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

5-7 December 2018 Auckland, New Zealand

The TPNW and the Pacific

1. Pacific countries (Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu) came together in Auckland from 5-7 December 2018 to discuss the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), to take stock of the Treaty from a regional perspective, to assess its prospects for advancing nuclear disarmament and global security, and to canvass progress toward its entry into force.

2. The Conference took place at a time of increasing concern in the Pacific region, and globally, regarding the slow pace of progress toward a nuclear weapon-free world and the serious implications of this (including for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)) in view of the lack of progress in implementation of the nuclear disarmament obligation of Article VI.

3. Rising tensions, the modernisation of nuclear arsenals, the continued reliance on nuclear weapons in military and security concepts as well as on high alert postures, and threats regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons are widely seen as increasing the risk of a deliberate or accidental nuclear detonation.

4. For its part, the Pacific is only too well aware of the catastrophic consequences of any nuclear detonation as a result of its own experience with over 300 nuclear weapon tests carried out over many years and which has resulted in long-term humanitarian and environmental harm to parts of the region. Efforts by Pacific countries to stop this testing; to “promote the national security of each country in the region and the common security of all”; and, so far as lies within the region’s power, to retain “the bounty and beauty of [its] land and sea”; were key factors in the adoption of the Treaty of Rarotonga in 1985 and its establishment of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.

5. Pacific countries continued after the end of testing in the region in 1996 to show leadership in efforts to advance nuclear This reflected their awareness that all regions and peoples have a stake in international security and an important part to play in efforts to advance International Humanitarian Law and the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction.

6. Building on their full support for the NPT as the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament, and for other aspects of the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), many Pacific countries took an active part in the Humanitarian Initiative on Nuclear Weapons with Pacific voices bearing witness to the horrors of nuclear weapon testing. Many Pacific countries were active, too, in the subsequent negotiations which resulted in the adoption of the TPNW on 7 July In this, they were giving reality to the words of the Pacific Conference of Churches that nuclear weapons “are no good for the Pacific, and no good for the world”.

7. Five Pacific countries had already ratified the TPNW (Cook Islands, New Zealand, Palau, Samoa, and Vanuatu), and three others had signed it (Fiji, Kiribati, and Tuvalu) by the time of the convening in Auckland of the Pacific Conference.

The Pacific Conference

8. The Pacific Conference on the TPNW was hosted by New Zealand with an opening reception and welcome remarks given by the New Zealand Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, Deputy Prime Minister, Rt Hon Winston Noting the increasing risks which nuclear weapons entail, Minister Peters expressed his hope that the region would be as strong in its support for the TPNW as it had been for the Treaty of Rarotonga. He conveyed New Zealand’s willingness to partner with its Pacific neighbours in carrying forward priority topics identified for action in the UN Secretary-General’s recent “Agenda for Disarmament”.

9. A “Global Youth Forum on Nuclear Disarmament and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” was held concurrently with the Conference attendees welcomed the opportunity to engage with youth participants from NZ and from the wider Pacific, as well as further afield.

10. In a video message to the Conference at its outset, New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, described the TPNW as a significant first step towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. She invited Pacific countries to join together in supporting it and taking the Treaty of Rarotonga global.

11. A statement was also delivered on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Vanuatu, Hon Ralph Regenvanu, highlighting the two key issues for Pacific countries of nuclear disarmament and climate change. Pacific Island nations must “continue to work in unity against the use of nuclear weapons for our good and, most importantly, for the good of our future generations”.

12. Keynote speaker, Beatrice Fihn – Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize laureate – conveyed ICAN’s pride in standing with Pacific nations to advance the Noting that “voices from the Pacific continue to bear witness to the horrors of nuclear weapon testing”, she attributed the awarding of the Nobel Prize in part to ICAN’s work with Pacific survivors of testing. She stressed the lack of an effective response capacity to any use of nuclear weapons, and observed that “the only way to prevent nuclear weapons from harming us is by getting rid of them – no other solution is realistic.”

13. The participation at the Conference of representatives from Austria, Brazil, Ireland and South Africa – members of the Core Group which led the adoption of the TPNW – was welcomed by all The Conference also benefitted from presentations by colleagues from Auckland and Princeton Universities and input from the New Zealand Red Cross on behalf also of the Red Cross Movement.

14. Participants noted that the TPNW was fully consistent with the existing nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime including the NPT and Equally, they emphasised the consistency of the TPNW with regional instruments, most notably the Treaty of Rarotonga, but also the recent Boe Declaration on Regional Security which reaffirms the importance of the rules-based international order founded on the UN Charter, and adherence to international law, and which outlines an expanded concept of security inclusive of human security and humanitarian assistance. It was also highlighted that the TPNW, and efforts to advance nuclear disarmament, support progress in attainment of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, in particular SDG 16 with its focus on peace, justice and strong institutions.

15. Conference participants accepted the clear moral and humanitarian rationale for joining the Recalling the words of a former UN Secretary-General that “there are no right hands for wrong weapons”, the advantage of the TPNW’s unambiguous prohibition of nuclear weapons was noted both in advancing disarmament and in reducing the incentive for proliferation. A number of those who had already ratified the TPNW conveyed their pride at their country’s leadership on this issue. Palau had led the way for the region, being the first to ratify the Treaty.

16. Participants exchanged views on key provisions of the Discussion on Article 1 of the TPNW centred on the range of prohibitions which were included in that Article as well as those activities (such as military co-operation and transit) which were not prohibited. Discussion on Article 2 revealed that one country, with praise-worthy promptness, had already forwarded its declaration to the UN Secretary-General.

17. The discussion under Article 3 highlighted the region’s commitment to meeting its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards In this regard, it was noted that almost all Pacific countries (and all attendees at the Pacific Conference) do have a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement in place and a considerable number have also adopted the Additional Protocol. Under the TPNW, if a State has the Additional Protocol in place at the time of entry into force of the Treaty, it must retain this as its minimum standard.

18. Discussion on Article 7 served to emphasise the region’s strong interest in its provisions for victim assistance and environmental remediation of contaminated Access to such assistance was recognised as being of importance in the region in view of the legacy of nuclear testing.

19. Emphasis was given to the obligation in Article 12 to promote universal adherence of all states to the Treaty.

Next Steps on the TPNW

20. It was recognised that the Pacific region has a role to play in adding its voice to the global effort to strengthen the norm against these inhumane weapons and to increase their In the Pacific, “we are small, but we can have a big impact.”

21. Participants acknowledged the need to expedite the Treaty’s entry into force and lend weight to efforts to advance its A range of options were discussed for taking the TPNW forward in the region, as well as the potential to work with other regions around the world. Wider ratification in the Pacific region would be assisted by greater awareness-raising and by ensuring capacity for its implementation.

22. In this regard, the range of offers of assistance to regional countries in moving forward with the Treaty – including from New Zealand, Core Group countries, the New Zealand Red Cross and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as well as by Auckland and Princeton Universities, and by ICAN – were welcomed by participants.

23. Participants were also encouraged to make use of the existing assistance tools including the Signature and Ratification Kit for the Treaty published by the ICRC as well as the Information Kit on Signature and Ratification published by the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs (ODA). Use could also be made of the recent publication entitled “The TPNW: Setting the Record Straight” produced by the Norwegian Academy of International Law, and a range of other resources.

24. Many participants agreed to work toward signature and ratification (as applicable) of the Participants agreed to stay in close touch in the lead-up to entry into force of the TPNW and to continue to engage actively, including in all appropriate regional contexts.

December 7, 2018
A Message to Today’s Young People: Put an End to the Nuclear Weapons Era
1. Nuclear weapons were created to kill indiscriminately. That means women, men, children – everyone. Even during war, under the rules of international law, that kind of mass killing is illegal. It is also immoral.
1. The nuclear weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were small by comparison with today’s far more powerful nuclear weapons.
1. There are currently about 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The use of just a tiny fraction of these is more than enough to kill most, if not all, humans on the planet. Nuclear weapons make human beings an endangered species.
1. The U.S. and Russia have more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. The other seven countries that have them are: the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
1. Atmospheric scientists say that a “small” nuclear war, in which each side used 50 nuclear weapons on the other side’s cities, would result in putting enough soot into the stratosphere to limit sunlight from reaching the earth, shorten growing seasons and cause crop failures. That translates into some two billion people dying globally from starvation related to diminished food production.
1. A “major” nuclear war, using only some 300 nuclear weapons, would be even worse. It could send the world spiraling into a cold, dark ice age that would destroy civilization and lead to the death of most complex life on the planet.
1. A nuclear war could be started by malice, madness, mistake or miscalculation. Nuclear deterrence – the threat of nuclear retaliation – can’t protect against malice with any degree of certainty, nor can it protect at all against madness, mistake or miscalculation.
1. Nuclear weapons put us all in jeopardy. There hasn’t been a nuclear attack since the end of World War II, but there have been many close calls. The world may not be so fortunate going forward.
1. Each generation has a responsibility to pass the world on intact to the next. It’s time for your generation to step up and deal with the nuclear dangers that continue to threaten all humanity.
1. As young people, you have a unique ability to influence today’s political and military leaders throughout the world to put an end to the nuclear era. For your own future, and that of all humanity, will you accept the challenge and join in advocating for a Nuclear Zero world?
December 5, 2018

Sunflower Newsletter: December 2018

Issue #257 – December 2018

Our work doesn’t happen without generous and committed supporters. And so, as 2018 draws to a close: Will you share in our vision for a just and peaceful world by making a gift to the Foundation? In 2019 we have big things to do—let’s do them together.

Perspectives

Withdrawing from the INF Treaty: A Massive Mistake by David Krieger
How The New York Times Deceived the Public on North Korea by Tim Shorrock
The Myth of the Middle by Ray Acheson
The Fate of the Earth Depends on Women by Beatrice Fihn

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

U.S. Outlines Nuclear Weapon Production Plans for Next 25 Years
Groups Challenge U.S. Plutonium Pit Production Plans
U.S. Conducts Another Nuclear-Capable Missile Test

Nuclear Disarmament

ICAN Launches Cities Appeal

War and Peace

U.S. Military Spending Set To Rise Even Higher

Nuclear Insanity

U.S. Plans to Solve High-Level Radioactive Waste Problem by Calling It Low-Level
Southern California Wildfire Burns Area of 1958 Nuclear Meltdown

Resources

Responding to the Unique Challenge of Nuclear Weapons
U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces

Foundation Activities

Holiday Gifts for Your Peace-Loving Friends and Family
Peace Literacy Team at Work in Canada
Women Waging Peace
Letter in the Washington Times

Take Action

Congress Must Act to Save the INF Treaty

Quotes

Perspectives

Withdrawing from the INF Treaty: A Massive Mistake

by David Krieger

It would be a mistake of significant proportions for the U.S. to unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. It would end an important arms limitation treaty, one that eliminated a whole category of nuclear-armed missiles with a range from 500 km to 5,500 km.

The treaty eliminated 846 U.S. nuclear missiles and 1,846 Soviet nuclear missiles, for a combined total of 2,692 nuclear missiles. President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty in 1987. It was an agreement that followed their realization, “A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought.”

To read the full article, which was originally published by The Hill, click here.

How The New York Times Deceived the Public on North Korea

by Tim Shorrock

Like many of his North Korea stories over the years, David Sanger’s account of what he basically described as a betrayal by Kim Jong-un seemed perfectly timed to interject public skepticism of the North at a crucial moment for the U.S. negotiations with both Koreas to resolve the nuclear standoff and pave the way for a final peace settlement on the Korean Peninsula.

Over the past month, while the two Koreas have made spectacular leaps in reducing military tensions along their border, the U.S. dialogue with North Korea has stalled. The primary issues dividing them are Trump’s insistence on keeping his pressure campaign of economic sanctions in place until the North denuclearizes, and the North’s demand that Trump join the two Koreas in publicly declaring an end to the Korean War.

To read the full article in The Nation, click here.

The Myth of the Middle

by Ray Acheson

Amidst all this tension [at this year’s UN First Committee], it’s no surprise that appeals for a “middle ground” are also on repeat. It sounds rational: so many cracks and fissures have begun to split wide open, and a number of delegations are keen to “build bridges.” But this impulse for the middle is misguided and dangerous.

What is the middle ground on nuclear weapons? What is in between those who categorically reject the bomb and those who say it is instrumental to (their) security and for maintaining “stability” in the world?

To read more, click here.

The Fate of the Earth Depends on Women

by Beatrice Fihn

Recognizing the threat to humanity from climate change, ecological destruction, and nuclear weapons, we ask: “What is the fate of the earth?” I’d answer that by borrowing from former secretary of state Hillary Clinton: “The fate of women is the fate of the earth, and the fate of the earth is the fate of women.” To state this more explicitly: The survival of the human species depends on women wresting power from men. For too long, we have left foreign policy to a small number of men, and look where it has gotten us.

I should be careful here to make a distinction. I often say, “The leaders are not the problem; the weapon is.” This is a key point: While we might feel safer with Theresa May or Hillary Clinton in charge of our nuclear arsenals, we are not in fact safe. I don’t believe that having these weapons in the hands of women is a solution. That is not what I mean by wresting power from men. When you are concerned about the ease of one person’s access to world-destroying firepower, the answer is not to choose the most level-headed person; the answer is to remove the possibility that anyone could be in that position in the first place. That is the power we must wrest from men and the feminist foreign policy we need.

To read the full article in The Nation, click here.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

U.S. Outlines Nuclear Weapon Production Plans for Next 25 Years

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has published its fiscal 2019 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan, which lays out the investments that it says it will need. NNSA is part of the Department of Energy, and only deals with the development, maintenance, and “disposal” of nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense manages the delivery systems, such as missiles, submarines, and bomber aircraft.

President Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review has piled on an extra load of work on top of what NNSA already had planned from President Obama’s plan to overhaul the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

Aaron Mehta, “Here’s When All of America’s New Nuclear Warhead Designs Will Be Active – and How Much They’ll Cost,” Defense News, November 2, 2018.

Groups Challenge U.S. Plutonium Pit Production Plans

Three environmental safety and nuclear watchdog groups have joined together to challenge the U.S. government’s plans to produce 80 plutonium pits per year at sites in New Mexico and South Carolina. The groups are demanding that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) halt its plans because it is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

“NEPA clearly requires that proposed major federal actions be subject to public environmental review,” a letter from the three organizations said.

Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Savannah River Site Watch, and Tri-Valley CAREs believe that without the proper environmental analysis, plutonium pit production at these high levels cannot begin.

“Nuclear Groups Challenge Pit Program Expansion,” Los Alamos Monitor, November 5, 2018.

U.S. Conducts Another Nuclear-Capable Missile Test

On election day in the U.S., November 6, the U.S. test-fired a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base. The previous test, on July 31, ended in failure when the nuclear-capable missile self-destructed over the Pacific Ocean.

While the U.S. claims that these missile tests are benign, U.S. officials regularly express outrage when countries such as North Korea or Iran conduct missile tests.

Janene Scully, “Air Force Says Minuteman III Missile Test Launch from Vandenberg AFB Hit Target,” Noozhawk, November 7, 2018.

Nuclear Disarmament

ICAN Launches Cities Appeal

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) launched a new appeal entitled “ICAN Save My City,” which calls on cities to take steps to support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Cities are also urged to cease business with financial institutions that support the nuclear weapons industry.

Major cities have already signed the appeal, including Los Angeles, Toronto, Sydney, Manchester (England), and many others.

Tony Robinson, “ICAN Launches Its New Cities Appeal in Support of the Nuclear Ban Treaty in Madrid,” Pressenza, November 8, 2018.

War and Peace

U.S. Military Spending Set To Rise Even Higher

The bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission has concluded that the nation’s astronomical spending on the military is insufficient, and that the country should slash “domestic entitlement programs” and “interest payments on the national debt” and instead funnel that additional money to weapons development.

The U.S. military budget is already ten times larger than Russia’s and four times larger than China’s.

The co-chair of the National Defense Strategy Commission, Admiral Gary Roughead, served as chief of Naval operations in 2007 and now sits on the board of Northrup Grumman, a weapons company that profits greatly from U.S. military contracts.

Matt Taibbi, “Trump’s Defense Spending Is Out of Control, and Poised to Get Worse,” Rolling Stone, November 15, 2018.

Nuclear Insanity

U.S. Plans to Solve High-Level Radioactive Waste Problem by Calling It Low-Level

The U.S. Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State in an attempt to clean up millions of gallons of highly-radioactive waste from the production of nuclear weapons. The liquid waste is stored in leaking underground tanks, and the government has yet to devise a solution to the environmental catastrophe.

Instead of continuing to work on a meaningful solution, the Department of Energy now proposes to simply re-classify the waste as “low-level,” which would allow them to fill the leaking tanks with grout, cover them, and leave them in place.

Ari Natter, “Plan to Leave Buried Nuclear Bomb Waste Underground Draws Fire,” Bloomberg, November 29, 2018.

Southern California Wildfire Burns Area of 1958 Nuclear Meltdown

The Woolsey Fire, which started in southern California on November 8, burned over 100,000 acres and killed three people. The fire is likely to have started on the grounds of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, the site of a partial nuclear meltdown in 1958.

Dr. Bob Dodge, President of Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles, said, “The Woolsey Fire has most likely released and spread both radiological and chemical contamination that was in the Santa Susana Field Laboratory’s soil and vegetation via smoke and ash.”

Dahr Jamail, “California Wildfire Likely Spread Nuclear Contamination from Toxic Site,” Truthout, November 26, 2018.

Resources

Responding to the Unique Challenge of Nuclear Weapons

The Parliament of the World’s Religions has adopted a strong statement in opposition to nuclear weapons and in favor of efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide. The statement reads in part, “The destructive capacity of nuclear weapons is beyond imagination, poisoning the Earth forever. These horrific devices place before us every day the decision whether we will be the last human generation.”

The statement continues, “We thus make a passionate plea to the leaders of all religions, all people of good will, and all leaders of nations both with and without nuclear weapons to commit to work to eliminate these horrific devices forever.”

To read the full statement, click here.

U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces

The Congressional Research Service has published a report entitled “U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues.”

The report examines U.S. nuclear weapons force structure during the Cold War and the present day, and raises issues for Congress to consider in the future.

To read the full report, click here.

Foundation Activities

Holiday Gifts for Your Peace-Loving Friends and Family

The NAPF Peace Store has books, t-shirts, tote bags, and more. There’s something for every peace lover on your holiday shopping list.

There are original NAPF books like “Speaking of Peace,” as well as our “Nukes Are Nuts” tote bags, t-shirts, and onesies.

Click here to go to the NAPF Peace Store.

Shipping rates are automatically available for shipping within the United States. For shipping outside the United States, please contact rwayman@napf.org for a quote.

Peace Literacy Team at Work in Canada

NAPF Peace Literacy Director Paul K. Chappell, and three others who are a part of the Peace Literacy international team of educators, recently completed a week-long trip to Canada, with events in the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba. Highlights included a Peace Literacy Jumpstart Day at Olds High School, a UNESCO school in Olds, Alberta; a keynote at a Winnipeg youth summit on nuclear weapons abolition; and a day-long Peace Literacy Workshop with the Manitoba Teachers’ Society.

To read more about this action-packed trip, click here.

Women Waging Peace

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s online campaign, Women Waging Peace, highlights the outstanding work of women for peace and nuclear disarmament. Though progress is made every day, women’s voices are still often ignored, their efforts stonewalled and their wisdom overlooked regarding issues of peace and security, national defense, and nuclear disarmament.

Our fourth profile features Christine Ahn, founder and international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ, and a member of the NAPF Advisory Council.

Click here to read our interview with Christine Ahn.

Letter in the Washington Times

On November 8, the conservative Washington, DC-based newspaper Washington Times published a letter to the editor written by NAPF Deputy Director Rick Wayman. His letter was in response to an op-ed that encouraged the U.S. to resume nuclear weapons testing.

Wayman wrote, “There is a good reason that no country except North Korea has conducted a
nuclear weapon test in the 21st century. It is the behavior of a rogue
nation that cares not for the hostile message that nuclear weapon tests
send, nor for the cascade of nuclear proliferation such tests could
cause.”

To read the full letter, click here.

Take Action

Congress Must Act to Save the INF Treaty

President Trump has announced plans to withdraw the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a key nuclear arms control pact with Russia signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and approved by the U.S. Senate.

Congress must take action to keep the United States in the treaty. Click here to email your Representative and your two Senators.

Quotes

“War is an invention of the human mind. The human mind can invent peace with justice.”

— Norman Cousins. This quote appears in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, which is available to purchase in the NAPF Peace Store.

“The government has set up a religion of nuclearism. It is terrifying and dead, dead wrong. It is a form of idolatry in this culture, spoken about with a sense of awe. It’s a total contradiction to our faith. It puts trust in weapons, not trust in God.”

— Elizabeth McAlister, a member of the Kings Bay Plowshares, on trial for breaking into Naval Station Kings Bay in Georgia to non-violently protest U.S. nuclear weapons at the site. An update on the Kings Bay Plowshares case is here.

“Nuclear weapons should be understood as suicide bombs. Even the ‘successful’ use of our own nuclear weapons against an enemy that doesn’t fire back could potentially destroy the world as we know it.”

— Dr. Ira Helfand, co-President of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and a member of the NAPF Advisory Council, writing in an op-ed for CNN.

Editorial Team

Katie Conover
David Krieger
Louisa Kwon
Carol Warner
Rick Wayman

December 3, 2018

Responding to the Unique Challenges of Nuclear Weapons

The following statement, developed by Jonathan Granoff of the Global Security Institute, with the supportive consultations of our esteemed Parliament presenters former Canadian Prime Minister Right Honorable Kim Campbell, General Romeo Dallaire, Senator Douglas Roche, Parliament Chairperson-Elect Audrey Kitagawa, Bishop William Swing, and Kehkashan Basu, has been adopted by the Parliament of the World’s Religions in November, 2018 for release worldwide:

Responding to the Unique Challenge of Nuclear Weapons:
A Passionate Call From The Parliament of the World’s Religions

The destructive capacity of nuclear weapons is beyond imagination, poisoning the Earth forever. These horrific devices place before us every day the decision whether we will be the last human generation. The power to unleash this destruction is in the hands of a small number of people. No one should be holding such power over the very creation, which we regard as a sacred gift for all today and for future generations.

At present, there are over 14,000 of these devices, with hundreds on hair trigger alert. Nine nations* claim that they can responsibly pursue global security by daily making thousands of people ready to use these weapons on a moment’s notice, by relying on machines to determine whether a threat is actual or mistaken, by spending trillions of dollars in the weapons designs and deployments, by demonizing other peoples and nations, by spending vast sums to convince populations that the weapons make them safe and secure, by demonstrating a present readiness to use the weapons to deter others from acquiring them or others with them from using them first, and by threatening to use them as an exercise of aggressive political will.

This conduct is immoral, ignores the legal obligations contained in treaties and the unanimous ruling of the World Court to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons, and is practically unsustainable. It is claimed that the readiness to use nuclear weapons under the military doctrine of deterrence is justifiable. Such reasoning is unrealistic and flawed. The possession of nuclear weapons relies on the alleged infallibility of men and machines not to use the weapons by mistake, miscalculation, madness, or design. Such arrogance is foolish. The possession of nuclear weapons is immoral, illegal, and must be rectified by prompt action.

Scientific findings now demonstrate that if less than 1% of today’s arsenal were to be used, even in a first strike, the consequences would be millions of tons of soot in the stratosphere, which would lower the earth’s temperature, create dramatic ozone depletion, and render agriculture unable to sustain civilization. This would destroy the nation that used them first.

Such a posture is unworthy of civilization, insults the dignity of life, is an impediment to all ethical and moral norms of all the world’s religions. To ignore the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons by exalting nationalism as higher principle raises moral corrosion to unprecedented levels. The ongoing possession and threat to use nuclear weapons is a gross affront to a culture of peace and an impediment to obtaining realistic security based on protecting our planet home, eliminating poverty, and basing the conduct of nations on the rule of law.

For some nations to claim the weapons are good for them but not others violates the Golden Rule of Nations: Nations must treat other nations as they wish to be treated.

Nuclear weapons promote the culture of ultimate violence claiming implicitly that the pursuit of security by one state can rightfully place the right to existence of all future generations at risk.

The nine nations of the world placing this sword over the life of every person on the planet must change their conduct. Nuclear weapons states should take the weapons off of alert status, lower their numbers, bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force by ratifying it, lower the operational status of the weapons, decouple the warheads from delivery vehicles, strengthen the treaty verification and inspection institutions, expand the current nuclear weapons free zones, which make the Southern Hemisphere virtually nuclear weapons-free, and commit to explicitly accept the logic so clearly stated decades ago: “A nuclear war can never be won and thus must never be fought.”

We thus make a passionate plea to the leaders of all religions, all people of good will, and all leaders of nations both with and without nuclear weapons to commit to work to eliminate these horrific devices forever. We support the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the duty explicitly stated in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to obtain a nuclear weapons-free world. We call upon the nine nations with the weapons to promptly commence negotiations to obtain a legal instrument or instruments leading to the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

* United States, Russia (with over 90% of the weapons), China, France, the United Kingdom (Five Permanent Members of the Security Council and members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) and India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.

December 3, 2018
Christine Ahn | In Her Own Words

Tell us about your journey as an activist and Korean expert.

I was born in South Korea and immigrated to the U.S. when I was three. Like many immigrants, I think the process of becoming American is the process of not knowing where you come from. Before heading to Georgetown for my graduate degree, I spent time working at the intersection of anti-globalization, environmental, social and racial justice issues. I had lived in developing countries where I could see the impact of U.S. policies. A few years later, while taking a course at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, Robert Gallucci came to speak about his time as Chief U.S. Negotiator with North Korea during the 1994 nuclear crisis under the Clinton Administration. He spoke about a proposed U.S. first strike on Yongbyon meant to destroy North Korea’s nuclear reactors. I sat there astounded – I had no idea the U.S. was so close to war with North Korea. He then shared the remarkable story of how Jimmy Carter went to North Korea with a CNN camera crew and interrupted Clinton’s plans to go to war, ultimately leading to the agreed upon framework which froze North Korea’s nuclear program for over a decade.

Diving into research on North Korea, I wrote a paper that semester that led me to an NPR interview with Peter Hayes of the Nautilus Institute. He had a quixotic project that analyzed North Korea’s famine in the 1990s. His analysis was that the famine was due to an energy crisis rather than a food crisis. Having a background in sustainable agriculture and the industrialized agricultural system, this analysis made a lot sense to me. That was my gateway into studying, re-learning and understanding North Korea.

Through connecting with Korean Americans, I got a fuller perspective of Korea that is not present in mainstream media or literature. I saw a movement of activists that were part of the pro-democracy movement in South Korea; activists that had been to North Korea, while it’s illegal to do so; activists that were part of the leading edge of so many movements and with a variety of goals. I continue to learn from those who have been involved in struggle, whether it’s advancing the democracy of South Korea, challenging the U.S. militarization of the Korean Peninsula or seeking greater human rights and peace for North Korea.

I think it’s a very special role that Koreans in the diaspora play – we have the fortunate view of having been to North Korea and having family in North Korea and/or South Korea, but we also have access to a bird’s eye view – being in the U.S., within the ‘belly of the beast’. I developed a critical education about U.S. foreign policy while working in other countries and seeing the impact of U.S. foreign policies on those countries.

You focus specifically on the inclusion of women within the Korean peace movement. Why is this so critical for you?

The work I’m doing now is the marriage of two areas of work that I’ve dedicated my life to. I’m the youngest of 10 children – 9 girls and 1 boy. My mother was the breadwinner of the family and kept the family together. Despite being born in Korea’s period of Japanese colonial rule, only receiving a sixth-grade education, living through the war and dictatorship, my mother believed so much in advancing opportunities for her children, especially girls under a very patriarchal society. And so, from a very early age, I developed an awareness of the power of women.

I spent most of my career working in women’s organizations, such as the Women of Color Resource Center in Oakland and the Global Fund for Women. By day, I was working in amazing organizations advancing the rights and power of women and gender equality; by night, I was a Korean peace activist. I really felt the importance for there to be Korean voices, not just white men voices, but voices that provide a historical perspective and reveal things we don’t often hear about such as division of families and the humanitarian impact of this war and sanctions. I wanted to put a human face to the repression in South Korea, in addition to North Korea, as a result of the unresolved war.

In 2009 I was working at the Global Fund for Women, managing a project called, “Women Dismantling Militarism”. The project raised money to support grassroots women working in conflict zones. We had just screened the film “Pray the Devil Back to Hell” about Leymah Gbowee’s peace activism in Liberia. It was so inspiring, and it planted a seed in me. A few nights after, I woke up in the middle of the night and turned on my computer to see an article about the flooding of a river called the Imjin River, which flows through the heart of the Korean Peninsula. There are songs and poems written about this river and a famous poem asks, ‘how come birds can fly over the Imjin River, but I can’t see my loved one?’ North Korea had lifted the floodgates without telling South Korea as all communication between the North and South had shut down and now the river had flooded into South Korea, killing about a dozen people –all because one guy can’t pick up the phone and tell the other guy, ‘we have to lift the floodgates because of food shortages here in North Korea, and if we don’t lift the dam then it’s going to flood our farms in the North, and people are going to die here’ – but they just couldn’t do that. I went back to sleep but I was so angry…and that’s when I had this dream…

…I was waiting in the river. It was right before dawn, there was this glow of light and people were coming down the river – it was such a beautiful scene of family reunions. I wanted to bypass it all and find out where the source of light was coming from. I kept going up the river, and that’s when I came to the source – a circle of women. They were stirring something and whatever it was, they poured it into vessels that became the light that floated on the river. I woke up at that moment, and I said to my husband, “Oh-my-god, I know who will end the war. Women will end the war.” And then I thought, but how are we going to do that? I’m not on the Korean Peninsula, I’m in the U.S. and the U.S. is the largest obstacle to a peace treaty between North Korea and the U.S. And that dream, about the power of women, is never far from my mind.

How have women been involved historically in the conflict on the Korean Peninsula – either from the peninsula or in the diaspora?

I got a fellowship at the University of Michigan to study the efforts of North and South Korean women who were building peace across the DMZ – the most fortified border in the world. I was looking at how these women were going to communicate with each other – it’s illegal on both sides. While studying these efforts I interviewed women in South Korea and found that the first meeting of North and South Korean women was convened in 1989 by a Japanese woman of the Diet Parliament who had heard the plea of a South woman who said, “At the root of this arms race is the unresolved Korean War. We need to meet with North Korean women to figure out how to stop this madness.” This woman parliamentarian convened the first meeting in Tokyo in 1991.

When I learned of this, I said, “There is a role. There is a role for women outside of the Korean Peninsula to play, especially in times of impasse.” In 2015, when we did the DMZ walk, there was an impasse. There was no dialogue between North and South Korea. In fact, the end of the sunshine era was really in 2008 when Lee Myung-bak came into power – it was a precipitous fall off a cliff that dropped to no exchanges between the two countries.

Looking back now in South Korean history, I think about the news about “Park Geun-Hye” and the ‘security defense council’ within the Ministry of Defense, which had basically mobilized armored tanks to intentionally quash the candlelight revolution. Park Geun-hye had created a list of 10,000 artists, filmmakers and writers calling them “pro-north” and blacklisting them so that they couldn’t get any government funding. I landed on that list for a travel ban into South Korea. Looking back, that was such a dark period for South Korea, for inter-Korean relations and for U.S./DPRK relations. The ability for Women Cross DMZ to cross the DMZ at such a time was quite extraordinary, and it’s still remarkable to me that we were able to do it.

What do you think made it all possible?

It was because of the women that we were able to do it – the little ways in which we work. Gloria Steinem was a big factor. I called her “The Super” because she had the keys to open many doors and was a huge help. It took an extraordinary behind-the-scenes effort by so many women. That’s who made it all possible.

Do you think it’s critical that women play a unique role in the peace process between the U.S and North Korea?

Women bring up things that most men aren’t talking about. We talk about how to achieve true reconciliation, what kind of healing is needed and how trauma gets passed down generationally. There’s a whole world of things that we want to bring to the table. Women have been socialized to nurture and provide for our families today. For example, I am a feminist and yet I still do most of the nurturing of my daughter. I feel there are ways in which we’ve been socialized and thus think of things that maybe men don’t.

There are also times when women just do the work, which means less masculine energy. Right now, there’s an important conversation that needs to be had because when we say ‘just women need to be at the table’, that’s not true. I don’t want another Hillary Clinton hawkish approach to resolving conflict just to prove that we are masculine and tough with foreign policy and national security. We need to lift the conversation and ask, “what does national security really mean?” How do we define security and move it away from the current understanding of national security under the patriarchal white male gaze? We need to question if we are defending ourselves, or are we arming ourselves in perpetual preparation for war? We need a true feminist vision of national security.

The good news is that understanding is building and it’s based on research and the experiences of women’s peace groups that are mobilizing and active in peace processes and peace agreements. In 2017, the Women, Peace and Security Act, introduced by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), passed with bipartisan support in both the U.S. House and Senate, stating that women should be involved in conflict prevention. So there is an understanding of what should happen – it just hasn’t been implemented yet.

So that’s our challenge right now. We can hear all the niceties about [UN] 1325 and women’s inclusion in peace processes, but we’re still not included. Our theme for women crisis DMZ right now is, ‘From peace walk to peace talk’. We need to gain access to meaningful dialogue and it’s still a huge uphill battle because North Korea controls whether, who and how we have interaction. And the U.S. government has banned U.S. citizens from traveling to North Korea unless you get a very special exemption.

It’s 2018, nearly 70 years after the Korean War and still everything is so controlled by the governments. We have to keep pushing for women to have a seat at the table. That is the only way we’ll truly gain the understanding to finally resolve this conflict. Our goal is a peace treaty, but we also need to understand and actually hear each other. We need to come together with ideas about what the peace treaty should entail, and what will lead to true reconciliation and true people-to-people understanding.

How do you feel patriarchy has painted the conflict within the Korean Peninsula and the U.S.?

We’re dealing with the most patriarchal governments right now. The Trump administration doesn’t even try! You look at cabinet meetings – it’s all white men. Constantly we see these South Korean delegations – all men. Strangely enough, some of the leading figures from the North Korean side have been women, but still, we’re dealing with three patriarchal regimes in the U.S., South Korea and North Korea.

What gives you hope for women’s involvement?

It seems impenetrable right now, but I think we have a strategy to lean on. Some of the countries that are strong allies of the U.S. and South Korea – Canada, Norway, Sweden and of course the U.N – have feminists board policies to help push for women’s inclusion.

And there are some positive developments. The mere fact that Women Cross DMZ was in South Korea in May, calling for women’s inclusion Is one such development. Since then, the South Korean Women’s Peace Movement announced a Women’s Peace Network of national organizations to promote the inter-Korean peace process and women’s inclusion. Additionally, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs formed a Gender Advisory Committee to help define and commit to the Women, Peace and Security agenda. Twenty-one women were identified for that committee, including many of the women with whom we have been working closely.

There is some progress and we have yet to see what the North Koreans are proposing, but we are still going to march forward. We’re going to propose several meetings – Northeast Asia Women, Peace and Security Roundtables. We want to ensure the inclusion of women from the entire region because so much of progress in the Korean Peninsula is very much tied to progress in other nearby countries such as China, Russia, Japan and Mongolia. These conversations can offer a women-centered vision of what a peace treaty could and should look like while pressing for women’s inclusion. We’re in a new day – last year we were hoping to prevent a war and all of a sudden, we are in this new moment. Still, the process is fragile. We can’t put all of our hope in the ‘goodwill’ of our leaders to see through an end to this war or denuclearization.

It’s going to take a wider and more diverse process and we now have evidence that shows that when women are included, it leads to a peace agreement and a far more durable one. We have the ingenuity, the creativity and the wisdom. Now it’s time to roll up our sleeves and figure out how to intersect with the official process to demand a seat at the table.

What’s next for you?

Women Cross DMZ is launching a campaign for a woman-led peace treaty. We received $2 million from the NoVo fund’s global competition called “The Radical Hope Fund”. We were 1 of 17 awarded for a 2020 women-led peace treaty campaign. Women Cross DMZ, the Nobel Women’s Initiative and WILPF are launching this campaign together, targeting the U.S., the UN and other key countries.

Christine Ahn, a Korean-American now living in Hawaii, is a true expert on the conflict facing the Korean Peninsula. Spending her career committed to human rights and social justice, Ahn has addressed the United Nations, South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission, as well as the U.S. Congress. She is the founder and coordinator of Women Cross DMZ, the organization which serves as a global movement of women mobilizing to end the Korean War, reunite families, and ensure women’s leadership in peace building. With Women Cross DMZ, Ahn led an international delegation of women to march alongside 10,000 Korean women as they crossed the 38th parallel from North Korea to South Korea in 2015. She also co-founded the Korea Policy Institute, the National Campaign to End the Korean War and the Korea Peace Network. Her interviews and Op Eds have appeared in a wide variety of media sources including Democracy Now!, CNN, BBC, the New York Times, and many others. She continues to work to ensure that women are involved in the North Korean – U.S. peace building process and she is committed to achieving sustainable peace for the Korean peninsula that alleviates some of the devastating threats of nuclear war.

November 29, 2018