Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

International Peace Bureau Nominates de Brum and the Nuclear Zero Legal Team for Nobel Peace Prize

Geneva, 26 January 2016
Norwegian Nobel Institute
Henriks Ibsens gate 51
0255 Oslo

Dear Sir/Madam

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE NOMINATION 2016: Tony de Brum and the legal team of the
Republic of the Marshall Islands.

The International Peace Bureau is pleased to convey to you its nomination for the 2016 Prize: former Foreign Minister Tony de Brum and the legal team appointed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) to handle its nuclear weapons cases.

On April 24, 2014, the RMI filed landmark lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed nations for failing to comply with their obligations under international law to pursue negotiations for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. As the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation underlines: “The Republic of the Marshall Islands acts for the seven billion of us who live on this planet to end the nuclear weapons threat hanging over all humanity. Everyone has a stake in this.”

The RMI has made a courageous step in challenging nine of the world’s most powerful states at the International Court of Justice. The tiny Pacific nation has launched a parallel court case against the USA at the Federal District Court (1). RMI argues that the nuclear weapons‐possessing countries have breached their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non‐Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and customary international law by continuing to modernize their arsenals and by failing to pursue negotiations in good faith on nuclear disarmament.

RMI’s former Foreign Minister Tony de Brum has played the key political role in gaining support and approval for this initiative. He in turn has been supported by a highly effective legal team. De Brum and RMI have already received at least two important international prizes for their action.

The Marshall Islands were used by the USA as testing ground for nearly 70 nuclear tests from 1946 to 1958. These tests gave rise to lasting health and environmental problems for the Marshall Islanders. Their first‐hand experience of nuclear devastation and personal suffering gives legitimacy to their action and makes it especially difficult to dismiss.

The Marshall Islands are presently working hard on the court cases. Hearings on preliminary issues in the International Court of Justice will take place in March 2016, and an appellate hearing in the case in the US court will take place in 2016 or possibly 2017. The award of the Nobel Peace Prize would do much to draw public attention to this extremely important initiative and to help ensure a successful outcome.

It is certainly not the case that the RMI, with its some 53,000 inhabitants, a large proportion of whom are young people, have no need of compensation or assistance. Nowhere are the costs of a militarized Pacific better illustrated than there. The country is burdened with some of the highest cancer rates in the region following the 12 years of US nuclear tests. Yet it is admirable that the Marshall Islanders in fact seek no compensation for themselves, but rather are determined to end the nuclear weapons threat for all humanity.

The world still has around 16,000 nuclear weapons, the majority in the USA and Russia, many of them on high alert. The knowhow to build atomic bombs is spreading, largely due to the continued promotion of nuclear power technology. Presently there are 9 nuclear weapon states, and 28 nuclear alliance states; and on the other hand 115 nuclear weapons‐free zone states plus 40 non‐nuclear weapons states. Only 37 states (out of 192) are still committed to nuclear weapons, clinging to outdated, questionable and extremely dangerous ‘deterrence’ policies.

IPB has a long history of campaigning for disarmament and for the banning of nuclear weapons (http://www.ipb.org). The organisation was, for instance, actively involved in bringing the nuclear issue before the International Court of Justice in 1996. The IPB sincerely believes that the Marshall Islands initiative will prove to be a significant and decisive step in ending the nuclear arms race and in achieving a world without nuclear weapons.

Further details about the lawsuits and the campaign are available at www.nuclearzero.org

Yours sincerely

Colin Archer
Secretary‐General

The International Peace Bureau is dedicated to the vision of a World Without War. We are a Nobel Peace Laureate (1910), and over the years 13 of our officers have also been recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. Our 300 member organisations in 70 countries, and individual members, form a global network bringing together expertise and campaigning experience in a common cause. IPB has UN Consultative Status since 1977 and is the Secretariat for the NGO Committee for Disarmament (Geneva). Our main programme centres on Disarmament for Sustainable Development, of which the Global Campaign on Military Spending is a key part.

www.ipb.org
www.gcoms.org
www.ipb2016.berlin
www.makingpeace.org

January 28, 2016
Doce Posibles Nombres Para la Tercera Guerra Mundial

Por David Krieger. Traducción de Rubén Arvizu. Click here for the English version.

La Guerra del Gran Incendio.

La Guerra de la Tarde Larga.

La Guerra del Fin de la Civilización.

La Guerra Indeseada.

La Guerra del Fracaso de la Disuasión.

La Guerra Hacia la Edad de Hielo.

La Guerra de los Sin Héroes.

La Guerra Creadora del Mutante.

La Guerra de los Cielos Oscuros.

La Guerra de los Escombros sin Fin.

El Resplandor Verde de la Guerra Derrotada.

La Guerra de los No Ganadores.

David Krieger es Presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
Rubén Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

January 27, 2016
Twelve Possible Names for World War Three

[January 27, 2016]

The Great Fire War.

The Long Afternoon War.

The End of Civilization War.

The Unwanted War.

The Failure of Deterrence War.

The Ice Age Trigger War.

The No Heroes War.

The Mutant Creation War.

The Dark Skies War.

The Unending Fall-Out War.

The Green Glow of Defeat War.

The War of No Winners.

January 27, 2016
Ecocidio en Cancún

En la muy publicitada Cumbre climática de Paris COP21, cerca de 200 naciones se comprometieron a reducir sus emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero y hacer sus mejores esfuerzos para reforzar las leyes ambientales.

Como documento escrito está bien, así como las imágenes de los sonrientes participantes. Pero por desgracia, es un Acuerdo y no un Tratado, por lo que no es obligatorio y sobre todo va a depender de la buena voluntad de los gobiernos.

Los seres humanos somos parte de este maravilloso mundo que compartimos con otros animales y plantas. Nos hemos autonombrado “Reyes de la Creación”, pero nuestra conducta no ha sido la mejor para el planeta ni nuestros prójimos. Seguimos con la espada de Damocles de las armas nucleares pendiendo sobre nuestras cabezas. Sabemos bien que el poder para vaporizar toda la vida en la Tierra existe con el simple toque de un botón. Pero al mismo tiempo, otras formas de lograr desaparecer nuestra presencia en esta hermosa Burbuja Azul continúan sin parar, con o sin acuerdos.

El 20 de enero de 2016, la NASA hizo el anuncio en forma conjunta con la NOAA, la Administración Nacional Oceánica y Atmosférica, que el 2015 destrozó el récord de 2014 para convertirse en el año más caluroso jamás registrado. Esto es otra señal de que la Tierra se está calentando y provocando el innegable Cambio Climático. Pero incluso con todos estos datos indiscutibles, la destrucción de los bosques, ríos, lagos y zonas verdes avanza sin cesar.

Photo credit: LoQueSigue.

Como muestra de lo que estamos diciendo, en el famoso balneario de Cancún, Quintana Roo, México, un ecocidio acaba de cometerse con el apoyo y la conformidad de las autoridades.

En una rápida operación en la madrugada del 16 de enero, enormes excavadoras y equipos de movimiento de tierra comenzaron destruir la vibrante y llena de vida ciénaga de manglares de Tajamar, un oasis en medio de un mar de cemento y cristal. Fuerzas policiales antidisturbios contuvieron a ciudadanos que protestaban por la destrucción desoladora. Hubo escenas de enormes proporciones similares a las de la Amazonía donde sus habitantes se han enfrentado a las excavadoras. En Cancún, las personas con sus hijos trataron en vano de detener el ecocidio. Sus armas eran sus voces y sus cuerpos, y los niños portaban carteles con la pregunta: “¿Qué quedará para nosotros”

Photo credit: LoQueSigue.

El Gobernador del Estado de Quintana Roo, Roberto Borge, justificó la devastación de los manglares. Él afirma que FONATUR (Fondo Nacional para el Turismo) tiene permiso de SEMARNAT (Secretaria de Ecología) para continuar con el plan de desarrollo urbano “para garantizar la sostenibilidad y el crecimiento ordenado.”

Ese desarrollo incluirá condominios, tiendas, hoteles y hasta una basílica que albergaría a 1500 personas. El obispo de Cancún, Pedro Elizondo, ha promovido activamente la construcción de esta obra. Esto sería parte de las fuerzas destructivas que están aniquilando una ancestral y vital zona verde. Es una total contradicción a lo que predica el Papa Francisco sobre la protección del medio ambiente en su Encíclica ”Laudatto-Si”- “El Cuidado de nuestra casa común”. En ella, el Papa nos dice: “hay una creciente sensibilidad hacia el medioambiente y la necesidad de proteger a la naturaleza, junto con una mayor preocupación, genuina y angustiante, por lo que está pasando en nuestro planeta.”

Photo credit: LoQueSigue.

El diario mexicano El Economista ha publicado la lista de las empresas y particulares, entre ellos el Ayuntamiento, quienes reclaman la propiedad de este espacio natural. Esta área es de gran importancia no sólo para la flora y la fauna que hasta hace unos días existían allí, sino también como una zona de amortiguamiento para los huracanes.

El Dr. David Krieger, presidente de NAPF comentó: “Las fotos de este lamentable suceso muestra un microcosmos de la forma en que los seres humanos estamos contaminando nuestro hogar y destruyendo el planeta. Es terrible y muy preocupante. Y tenemos que preguntarnos: ¿Qué pasa con nosotros? ¿Cuándo vamos a aprender? Cuando se reemplazará la codicia con el amor y la compasión?

Rubén D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Embajador del Pacto Climático Global de Ciudades y Director General para América Latina de la organización de Jean-Michel Cousteau, Ocean Futures Society.

January 22, 2016
Ecocide in Cancun

In the very well publicized COP21 Climate Summit in Paris, nearly 200 Nations committed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions and make their best efforts to reinforce the environmental laws.

On paper and in photo ops all reads and looks terrific, but unfortunately it is an Agreement and not a Treaty, therefore it is not mandatory and mostly will depend on the goodwill of Governments.

We humans are part of this wonderful world that we share with other animals and plants. As the self proclaimed “King of Creation”, our conduct has not been the best for the Planet and our fellow earthlings. We continue with the Damocles sword of Nuclear weapons hanging over our heads. We know well that the power to vaporize all life on Earth exists with the touch of a button. But at the same time, other ways to vanish our presence on this beautiful Blue Marble continues with no stop, with or without Agreements.

On January 20, 2016, NASA made the announcement jointly with NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that 2015 shattered 2014’s record to become the hottest year ever recorded. Revealing another sign that Earth is heating up causing the undeniable Climate Change. But even with all the indisputable data, the destruction of forests, rivers, lakes and green areas advance without stop.

The area prior to the destruction. Photo credit: LoQueSigue.

An example of this, at the famous beach resort of Cancun, in the State of Quintana Roo, Mexico, an ecocide was committed with the support and compliance of the authorities. In a quick operation in the early dawn of January 16, enormous excavators and earth moving equipment started leveling the vibrant and full of life ancient mangrove swamp of Tajamar, an oasis in the middle of a sea of cement and glass. Riot police forces barricaded citizens protesting the appalling destruction. There were daunting scenes similar to the ones in the Amazon where people confronted the excavators. In Cancun, people with their children tried in vain to stop the ecocide. Their weapons were their voices and their bodies, and the children carrying signs with the question: “What will be left for us?”

Protestors were blocked from the site. Photo credit: LoQueSigue.

The Governor of the State of Quintana Roo, Roberto Borge, justified the devastation of the mangroves. He states that FONATUR (National Funds for Tourism) has permission from SEMARNAT (Secretary of Ecology) to continue with the plan of urban development “to ensure sustainability and orderly growth.”

That development will include condominiums, shops, hotels and even a Basilica that will house 1500 people. The Bishop of Cancun, Pedro Elizondo, has promoted the construction. It will be part of the destructive forces that are annihilating an ancient and vital green area. This is a total contradiction of what Pope Francis stated for the protection of the environment in his Encyclical letter “Laudatto-Si” “On care of Our Common Home.” In the letter the Pope states: “there is a growing sensitivity to the environment and the need to protect nature, along with a growing concern, both genuine and distressing, for what is happening to our planet.”

The area after the destruction. Photo credit: LoQueSigue.

The Mexican newspaper El Economista has published the list of the companies and individuals, including the Municipality who claimed ownership of this natural area. This area was vital not only for the flora and fauna that existed there but also as a buffer zone for hurricanes.

Dr. David Krieger, NAPF President commented: “The photos of this unfortunate event shows a microcosm of how we humans are fouling our nest and destroying our planet. It is appalling and very disturbing. One is left asking: What is wrong with us? When will we ever learn? When will greed be replaced with love and compassion?”

Ruben D. Arvizu is Director for Latin America of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Ambassador of the Global Cities Covenant on Climate and Director General for Latin America of Jean-Michel Cousteau’s Ocean Futures Society.

January 22, 2016
Robert M. Hutchins: Building on Earlier Foundations

Much of our current work for a more just and peaceful world builds on the thinking and efforts of earlier foundations. An important foundation is the leading role of Robert M. Hutchins, long-time President of the University of Chicago (l929 -1951) whose birth anniversary we mark on 17 January.

Hutchins’ father, William,was President of Berea, a small but important liberal arts college, so Robert Hutchins (1899-1977) was set to follow the family pattern. He went to Yale Law School and stayed on to teach. He quickly became the Dean of the Law School and was spotted as a rising star of US education. When he was 30 years old, he was asked to become President of the University of Chicago, a leading institution. Hutchins was then the youngest president of a US university.

In the first decade of his tenure, the 1930s, his ideas concerning undergraduate education − compulsory survey courses, early admission after two years of secondary school for bright and motivated students, a concentration on “Great Books” – an examination of seminal works of philosophy in particular Plato and Aristotle − divided the University of Chicago faculty. There were strong and outspoken pro and anti Hutchins faculty groups. Moreover Hutchins’ abolition of varsity football and ending the University’s participation in the “Big Ten” university football league distressed some alumni whose link to the university was largely limited to attending football games. For Hutchins, a university was for learning and discussion, not for playing sports. As he famously said “ When I feel like excercizing, I sit down until the feeling goes away.”

It is Hutchins’ creation and leadership of the Committee to Frame a World Constitution in 1945 which makes him one of the intellectual founders of the movement for world federation and world citizenship. After the coming to power of Hitler in Germany in 1933 and his quick decision to ban Jewish professors from teaching in German universities, many Jewish scientists and professors left Germany and came to the USA. Some of the leading natural scientists joined the University of Chicago. Thus began the “Metallurgy Project” as the work on atomic research was officially called.

The University of Chicago team did much of the theoretical research which led to the Atom Bomb. While Hutchins was not directly involved in the atomic project, he understood quickly the nature of atomic energy and its military uses. He saw that the world would never return to a “pre-atomic” condition and that new forms of world organization were needed.

On 12 August 1945, a few days after the use of the atom bombs, Hutchins made a radio address “Atomic Force: Its Meaning for Mankind” in which he outlined the need for strong world institutions, stronger than the UN Charter, whose drafters earlier in the year did not know of the destructive power of atomic energy.

Several professors of the University of Chicago were already active in peace work such as Mortimer Adler, G.A. Borgese, and Richard McKeon, Dean of the undergraduate college. The three approached Hutchins saying that as the University of Chicago had taken a lead in the development of atomic research, so likewise, the university should take the lead in research on adequate world institutions. By November 1945, a 12-person Committee to Frame a World Constitution was created under Hutchins’ chairmanship. The Committee drew largely on existing faculty of the University of Chicago − Wilber Katz, Dean of the Law School and Rexford Tugwell who taught political science but who had been a leading administrator of the Roosevelt New Deal and Governor of Puerto Rico. Two retired professors from outside Chicago were added − Charles McIlwain of Harvard, a specialist on constitutions, and Albert Guerard of Stanford, a French refugee who was concerned about the structure of post-war Europe.

From 1947 to 1951, the Committee published a monthly journal Common Cause many of whose articles still merit reading today as fundamental questions concerning the philosophical basis of government, human rights, distribution of power, and the role of regions are discussed. The Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution was published in 1948 and reprinted in the Saturday Review of Literature edited by Norman Cousins and in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists some of whom were in the original “Metallurgy Project”. The Preliminary Draft raised a good deal of discussion, reflected in the issues of Common Cause. There was no second draft. The Preliminary Draft was as G.A. Borgese said, quoting Dante “…of the True City at least the Tower.”

In 1951, Hutchins retired from the presidency of the University of Chicago for the Ford Foundation and then created the Ford Foundation-funded Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions where he gathered together some of his co-workers from the University of Chicago.

Two ideas from The Preliminary Draft are still part of intellectual and political life for those concerned with a stronger UN. The first is the strong role of regional organizations. When The Preliminary Draft was written the European Union was still just an idea and most of the States now part of the African Union were European colonies. The Preliminary Draft saw that regional groups were institutions of the future and should be integrated as such in the world institution. Today, the representatives of States belonging to regional groupings meet together at the UN to try to reach a common position, but regional groups are not part of the official UN structure. However, they may be in the future.

The other lasting aspect of The Preliminary Draft is the crucial role that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should play. The then recently drafted UN Charter had created a “consultative status” for NGOs, but few of the UN Charter drafters foresaw the important role that NGOs would play as the UN developed. The Preliminary Draft had envisaged a Syndical Senate to represent occupational associations on the lines of the International Labour Organization where trade unions and employer associations have equal standing with government delegates. In 1946, few people saw the important role that the NGOs would later play in UN activities. While there is no “Syndical Senate”, today NGOs represent an important part of the UN process.

Hutchins, however, was also a reflection of his time. There were no women as members of the Committee to Frame a World Constitution, and when he created the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions with a large number of “fellows”, consultants, and staff, women are also largely absent.

The effort to envisage the structures and processes among the different structures was an innovative contribution to global institution building at the time, and many of the debates and reflections are still crucial for today.
************************************************
Notes

For an understanding of the thinking of those involved in writing The Preliminary Draft see:

Mortimor Adler. How to think about War and Peace (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944)
Rexford Tugwell. Chronicle of Jeopardy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)
G.A. Borgese. Foundations of the World Republic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1953)
Scott Buchanan. Essay in Politics (New York: Philosophical Library, 1953)
For a life of Hutchins written by a co-worker in the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions:
Harry Ashmore. Unreasonable Truths: the Life of Robert Maynard Hutchins (Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1989)
*********************************************
Rene Wadlow is President of the Association of World Citizens.

January 21, 2016
Controlling the Media, Narrowing the Conversation

The mainstream media has great power to influence the public conversation about national and international policies. Not only are they able to choose the news and opinion pieces that they feature in their newspapers and news broadcasts, but they also choose the slant they put on the news and which letters they run in response to their articles.

I recently responded with letters to two articles in The New York Times. Since the paper chose not to print either of these letters, I am sharing them on the websites of alternative media, including the website of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (wagingpeace.org).

My first letter concerns North Korea’s fourth nuclear test on January 6, 2016.

In “Stopping North Korea’s Nuclear Threat” (January 8, 2016), the authors argue, “North Korea’s leaders still believe that nuclear weapons will prevent others from attacking them…This is fanciful.” But is it? Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi both gave up their respective country’s nuclear weapons programs and their countries were subsequently attacked and they were overthrown and killed. These are inducements to nuclear proliferation that have not been lost on the North Korean regime.

The best way to assure that nuclear weapons are not transferred or used by North Korea or by any of the other nuclear-armed countries, is for all nine of them to negotiate in good faith for complete nuclear disarmament. The U.S. can’t assure the success of these negotiations, but it can use its convening power to initiate and lead them. All nine nuclear-armed countries need to be at the table and have their voices heard. Unless this happens and the negotiations are successful, no one in the world will be secure.

The second letter concerns the planned modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

U.S. security officials, past and present, are taking positions on the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, as reported in “As U.S. Modernizes Nuclear Weapons, ‘Smaller’ Leaves Some Uneasy” (January 11, 2016). What is glaringly absent from their arguments, however, is the U.S. legal obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for complete nuclear disarmament. The modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal (and its delivery systems and infrastructure) directly violates the treaty obligation to end the nuclear arms race and will also spur other nuclear-armed countries to modernize their nuclear arsenals. Further, the failure to negotiate for complete nuclear disarmament encourages nuclear proliferation, which could lead to nuclear terrorism and nuclear war.

Nuclear modernization, expected to exceed $1 trillion, not only violates our legal obligations under the NPT, but diverts billions away from providing food, shelter, education and health care to those in need. Nuclear modernization will benefit only the arms merchants and is a trapdoor to nuclear catastrophe.

If the United States does not recognize its own responsibility for nuclear weapons proliferation and fulfill its obligations for nuclear disarmament under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it should expect countries such as North Korea to pursue their nuclear options. Further, if the U.S. continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal rather than fulfill its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is making not only nuclear proliferation more likely, but also nuclear war and nuclear terrorism. These are issues that deserve a hearing and a conversation among the American people, especially in this election year when we are electing, arguably, the most powerful leader in the world. His or her views on nuclear policy must be part of our national debates. The lack of a national conversation about U.S. nuclear policy adversely affects the security of every American and every citizen of the world.

January 20, 2016
Modernizing the Opportunities for Nuclear War

A fight now underway over newly-designed U.S. nuclear weapons highlights how far the Obama administration has strayed from its commitment to build a nuclear-free world.

The fight, as a recent New York Times article indicates, concerns a variety of nuclear weapons that the U.S. military is currently in the process of developing or, as the administration likes to say, “modernizing.” Last year, the Pentagon flight-tested a mock version of the most advanced among them, the B61 Model 12. This redesigned nuclear weapon is the country’s first precision-guided atomic bomb, with a computer brain and maneuverable fins that enable it to more accurately target sites for destruction. It also has a “dial-a-yield” feature that allows its handlers to adjust the level of its explosive power.

Supporters of this revamped weapon of mass destruction argue that, by ensuring greater precision in bombing “enemy” targets, reducing the yield of a nuclear blast, and making a nuclear attack more “thinkable,” the B61 Model 12 is actually a more humanitarian and credible weapon than older, bigger versions. Arguing that this device would reduce risks for civilians near foreign military targets, James Miller, who developed the nuclear weapons modernization plan while undersecretary of defense, stated in a recent interview that “minimizing civilian casualties if deterrence fails is both a more credible and a more ethical approach.”

Other specialists were far more critical. The Federation of Atomic Scientists pointed out that the high accuracy of the weapon and its lower settings for destructiveness might tempt military commanders to call for its use in a future conflict.

General James E. Cartright, a former head of the U.S. Strategic Command and a retired vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that possessing a smaller nuclear device did make its employment “more thinkable.” But he supported developing the weapon because of its presumed ability to enhance nuclear deterrence. Using a gun as a metaphor, he stated: “It makes the trigger easier to pull but makes the need to pull the trigger less likely.”

Another weapon undergoing U.S. government “modernization” is the cruise missile. Designed for launching by U.S. bombers, the weapon—charged William Perry, a former secretary of defense—raised the possibilities of a “limited nuclear war.” Furthermore, because cruise missiles can be produced in nuclear and non-nuclear versions, an enemy under attack, uncertain which was being used, might choose to retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Overall, the Obama administration’s nuclear “modernization” program—including not only redesigned nuclear weapons, but new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based missiles, weapons labs, and production plants—is estimated to cost as much as $1 trillion over the next thirty years. Andrew C. Weber, a former assistant secretary of defense and former director of the interagency body that oversees America’s nuclear arsenal, has criticized it as “unaffordable and unneeded.” After all, the U.S. government already has an estimated 7,200 nuclear weapons.

The nuclear weapons modernization program is particularly startling when set against President Obama’s April 2009 pledge to build a nuclear weapons-free world. Although this public commitment played a large part in his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize that year, in succeeding years the administration’s action on this front declined precipitously. It did manage to secure a strategic arms reduction treaty (New START) with Russia in 2010 and issue a pledge that same year that the U.S. government would “not develop new nuclear warheads.” But, despite promises to bring the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification and to secure further nuclear arms agreements with Russia, nuclear disarmament efforts ground to a halt. Instead, plans for “nuclear modernization” began. The president’s 2016 State of the Union address contained not a word about nuclear disarmament, much less a nuclear weapons-free world.

What happened?

Two formidable obstacles derailed the administration’s nuclear disarmament policy. At home, powerful forces moved decisively to perpetuate the U.S. nuclear weapons program: military contractors, the weapons labs, top military officers, and, especially, the Republican Party. Republican support for disarmament treaties was crucial, for a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate was required to ratify them. Thus, when the Republicans abandoned the nuclear arms control and disarmament approach of past GOP presidents and ferociously attacked the Obama administration for “weakness” or worse, the administration beat an ignominious retreat. To attract the backing of Republicans for the New START Treaty, it promised an upgraded U.S. nuclear weapons program.

Russia’s lack of interest in further nuclear disarmament agreements with the United States provided another key obstacle. With 93 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons in the arsenals of these two nations, a significant reduction in nuclear weapons hinged on Russia’s support for it. But, angered by the sharp decline of its power in world affairs, including NATO’s advance to its borders, the Russian government engaged in its own nuclear buildup and spurned U.S. disarmament proposals.

Despite these roadblocks, the Obama administration could renew the nuclear disarmament process. Developing better relations with Russia, for example by scrapping NATO’s provocative expansion plan, could smooth the path toward a Russian-American nuclear disarmament agreement. And this, in turn, would soften the objections of the lesser nuclear powers to reducing their own nuclear arsenals. If Republican opposition threatened ratification of a disarmament treaty, it could be bypassed through an informal U.S.-Russian agreement for parallel weapons reductions. Moreover, even without a bilateral agreement, the U.S. government could simply scrap large portions of its nuclear arsenal, as well as plans for modernization. Does a country really need thousands of nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear attack? Britain possesses only 215. And the vast majority of the world’s nations don’t possess any.

Given the terrible dangers and costs posed by nuclear weapons, isn’t it time to get back on the disarmament track?

January 19, 2016
Carta Abierta al Pueblo Estadounidense: Responsabilidad Política en la Era Nuclear

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

Queridos conciudadanos:

Por su supuesta prueba de una bomba de hidrógeno a principios de 2016, Corea del Norte recordó al mundo que el peligro nuclear no es algo abstracto, sino una amenaza continua que los gobiernos y los pueblos del mundo ignoran su alcance . Incluso si la prueba no fue de una bomba de hidrógeno, sino de un arma atómica más pequeña, como muchos expertos sugieren, debemos recordar que vivimos en la Era Nuclear, una edad en la que un accidente, un error de cálculo, la locura o algo intencional podría conducirnos a una devastadora catástrofe nuclear.

Lo más notable de la Era Nuclear es que nosotros, los humanos, por nuestro ingenio científico y tecnológico, hemos creado los medios para nuestra propia desaparición. Actualmente, el mundo se enfrenta a muchas amenazas para el bienestar humano, e incluso la supervivencia de la civilización, pero aquí nos centramos en los graves peligros particulares que plantean las armas nucleares y la guerra nuclear.

Incluso un relativamente pequeño intercambio nuclear entre India y Pakistán, con cada país utilizando 50 armas nucleares como la usada en Hiroshima y lanzadas entre sus ciudades, podría dar lugar a una hambruna nuclear, matando a unas dos mil millones de personas de las más vulnerables del planeta. Una guerra nuclear entre los EE.UU. y Rusia podría destruir la civilización en una sola tarde y enviar las temperaturas de la Tierra en picada hacia una nueva edad de hielo. Tal guerra podría destruir la más compleja vida en el planeta. A pesar de la gravedad de este tipo de amenazas, están siendo ignoradas, lo que es moralmente reprobable y políticamente irresponsable.

Estados Unidos está en medio de las campañas más reñidas para determinar los candidatos de los dos principales partidos políticos rumbo a la carrera presidencial de 2016, y sin embargo, ninguno de los principales candidatos para las nominaciones han expresado la menor preocupación acerca de los peligros que enfrentamos de una guerra nuclear Se trata de un descuido terrible. Refleja la negación y la complacencia que desconecta al pueblo estadounidense de los riesgos del uso de las armas nucleares en los años venideros. Esta desconexión amenazante se ve reforzada por los medios de comunicación, que no han logrado que los candidatos expresen durante los debates su pensar sobre ese armamento apocalíptico y ha ignorado el tema en su cobertura de televisión y prensa, incluso hasta el punto de excluir a voces que expresan la preocupación de su páginas de opinión. Consideramos que es urgente poner estas cuestiones de nuevo en la pantalla del radar de la conciencia pública.

Estamos consternados de que ninguno de los candidatos para el cargo de más poder en la Tierra no ha presentado aún ningún plan o estrategia para poner fin a las actuales amenazas de aniquilación nuclear, ninguno ha desafiado los gastos previstos de 1 trillón de dólares para modernizar el arsenal nuclear de Estados Unidos, y ninguno ha destacado que EE.UU. está en incumplimiento de sus obligaciones de desarme nuclear en virtud del Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear. En los debates presidenciales ha sido un tema inexistente, y escandaliza que los candidatos no planteen la cuestión en sus muchos discursos públicos y los medios de comunicación por no traer el tema a debate. Como sociedad, después de décadas de mal manejo, estamos fuera de contacto con el más aterrador desafío para el futuro de la humanidad.

Hay nueve países que actualmente poseen armas nucleares. Cinco de ellos son partes en el Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear (Estados Unidos, Rusia, Reino Unido, Francia y China), y están obligados por ese tratado de negociar de buena fe para el cese de la carrera armamentista nuclear y el desarme nuclear. Los otros cuatro países con armas nucleares (Israel, India, Pakistán y Corea del Norte) están sujetos a las mismas obligaciones en virtud del derecho internacional consuetudinario. Ninguno de los nueve países con armas nucleares se ha involucrado en este tipo de negociaciones, una realidad a la que deberíamos de reaccionar con ira y frustración, y no, como es ahora el caso, con indiferencia. No es sólo Estados Unidos el responsable de la situación actual de la negación y la indiferencia. En todo el mundo hay una falsa confianza en que, debido a que la Guerra Fría ha terminado y las armas nucleares no se han utilizado desde 1945, los peligros que antes asustaban y preocupaban a la gente ahora pueden ser ignorados.

En lugar de cumplir con sus obligaciones de desarme nuclear negociado, todos los nueve países con armas nucleares dependen de la disuasión nuclear y se dedican a programas de modernización que mantendrán sus arsenales activos a través del siglo 21 y tal vez más allá. Por desgracia, la disuasión nuclear en realidad no proporciona seguridad a los países con arsenales nucleares. Más bien, es una hipótesis sobre el comportamiento humano, que es poco probable que se mantenga con el tiempo. La disuasión nuclear ha estado a punto de fracasar en numerosas ocasiones y sería totalmente ineficaz, si un grupo terrorista tomara posesión de una o más armas nucleares, ya que no teme a las represalias y de hecho las desea. Además, ahora que el mundo está embarcado en una nueva carrera armamentista nuclear, inquietante recuerdo de la Guerra Fría, al aumentar los riesgos de enfrentamientos y crisis entre los principales estados que poseen armas nucleares también se incrementa la posibilidad de su uso.

Como ciudadanos de un país con armas nucleares, también somos víctimas de ellas. John F. Kennedy vio claramente que “Todo hombre, mujer y niño vive bajo una espada de Damocles nuclear, colgada por el más delgado de los hilos, capaz de ser cortado en cualquier momento por accidente o error de cálculo, o por la locura. Las armas de guerra deben ser abolidas antes de que nos desaparezcan.” Lo que el presidente Kennedy expresó claramente hace más de 50 años sigue siendo cierto hoy en día, y más aún que las armas proliferan y grupos extremistas se acercan a la posibilidad de adquirirlas.

Los que tienen el poder y el control sobre las armas nucleares podrían convertir este planeta, con su maravillosa variedad de vida, en una carbonizada Hiroshima global. ¿Debería cualquier líder político o gobierno mantener tanto poder? ¿Deberíamos permitir que tal poder absoluto esté al alcance de alguien?

Es hora de poner fin a la era de las armas nucleares. Estamos viviendo un tiempo prestado. EE.UU., como el país más poderoso del mundo, debe jugar un papel de liderazgo en la convocatoria de las negociaciones. Para que ese liderazgo sea eficaz en lograr el cero nuclear, los ciudadanos estadounidenses deben despertar a la necesidad de actuar y presionar a su gobierno para actuar y animar a los otros ocho países con armas nucleares, que presionen a sus gobiernos para lograr esa meta. No se debe ser apático, conformista, ignorante o vivir en la negación. Todos debemos tomar medidas si queremos salvar a la humanidad y todas las formas de vida, de la catástrofe nuclear. Bajo este espíritu, estamos en una etapa en la que necesitamos un movimiento de solidaridad mundial que se dedique a crear conciencia sobre la creciente amenaza nuclear, y la urgente necesidad de actuar a nivel nacional, regional y mundial para revertir las fuertes corrientes militaristas que están empujando el mundo cada vez más cerca del precipicio nuclear.

Las armas nucleares son la amenaza más inmediata para la humanidad, pero no son la única tecnología que está haciendo estragos en el futuro de la vida. La escala de nuestro impacto tecnológico sobre el medio ambiente (principalmente la extracción de combustibles fósiles y su uso) también está provocando el calentamiento global y el caos climático, con aumentos previstos en los niveles del mar y muchas otras amenazas – acidificación de los océanos, el clima extremo, los refugiados por los cambios climáticos y las constantes sequías – causarán la muerte masiva y el desplazamiento de poblaciones humanas y animales.

Además de las amenazas tecnológicas para el futuro humano, muchas personas en nuestro mundo sufren de hambre, enfermedades, la falta de vivienda y la falta de educación. Cada persona en el planeta tiene derecho a una nutrición adecuada, salud, vivienda y educación. Es profundamente injusto permitir que los ricos se hagan más ricos mientras que la gran mayoría de la humanidad se hunde en la pobreza más profunda. Es inmoral gastar nuestros recursos en la modernización de las armas de exterminio masivo, mientras que un gran número de personas siguen sufriendo los estragos de la pobreza.

Hacer todo lo posible para mover el mundo a un cero nuclear, sin dejar de ser sensibles a otros peligros apremiantes, es nuestra mejor oportunidad para asegurar un futuro benevolente para nuestra especie y su entorno natural. Podemos empezar por cambiar la apatía por la empatía, la conformidad con el pensamiento crítico, la ignorancia con la sabiduría, la negación con el reconocimiento, y el pensamiento a la acción para responder a las amenazas que representan las armas nucleares y las tecnologías asociadas con el calentamiento global, y la necesidad de terminar el sufrimiento humano derivado por la guerra y la pobreza.
Los países más ricos están siendo desafiados por los flujos migratorios de personas desesperadas que se cuentan por millones y por el hecho de que más de mil millones de personas en el planeta sufren de hambre crónica y otros dos mil millones están desnutridas, lo que resulta en el generalizado retraso en el crecimiento entre los niños y causa de otras enfermedades . Mientras que librar al mundo de las armas nucleares es nuestro principal objetivo, estamos conscientes de que la institución de la guerra es responsable del caos y que también debemos desafiar la mentalidad militarista si alguna vez vamos a disfrutar de una paz duradera y seguridad en nuestro planeta .

El destino de nuestra especie está en la balanza como nunca antes. La cuestión que se nos plantea es si la humanidad tiene la visión y la disciplina necesaria para renunciar a los deseos superfluos, principalmente los lujos materiales y la dominación de nuestros semejantes, permitiendo así que todos nosotros y las generaciones venideras tengan existencias dignas de ser vividas. Es incierto si la especie humana superará este desafío. Las evidencias actuales no son tranquilizadoras.

El tiempo es corto y lo que está en riesgo es la civilización y cada cosa pequeña y grande, que cada uno de nosotros ama y atesora en nuestro planeta.

Los autores están afiliados a la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation con base en Santa Bárbara, California. (www.wagingpeace.org)

Rubén D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

January 14, 2016
Political Responsibility in the Nuclear Age: An Open Letter to the American People

This article was originally published by The Nation.

Dear fellow citizens:

By their purported test of a hydrogen bomb early in 2016, North Korea reminded the world that nuclear dangers are not an abstraction, but a continuing menace that the governments and peoples of the world ignore at their peril. Even if the test were not of a hydrogen bomb but of a smaller atomic weapon, as many experts suggest, we are still reminded that we live in the Nuclear Age, an age in which accident, miscalculation, insanity or intention could lead to devastating nuclear catastrophe.

What is most notable about the Nuclear Age is that we humans, by our scientific and technological ingenuity, have created the means of our own demise. The world currently is confronted by many threats to human wellbeing, and even civilizational survival, but we focus here on the particular grave dangers posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

Even a relatively small nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, with each country using 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons on the other side’s cities, could result in a nuclear famine killing some two billion of the most vulnerable people on the planet. A nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could destroy civilization in a single afternoon and send temperatures on Earth plummeting into a new ice age. Such a war could destroy most complex life on the planet. Despite the gravity of such threats, they are being ignored, which is morally reprehensible and politically irresponsible.

We in the United States are in the midst of hotly contested campaigns to determine the candidates of both major political parties in the 2016 presidential faceoff, and yet none of the frontrunners for the nominations have even voiced concern about the nuclear war dangers we face. This is an appalling oversight. It reflects the underlying situation of denial and complacency that disconnects the American people as a whole from the risks of use of nuclear weapons in the years ahead. This menacing disconnect is reinforced by the media, which has failed to challenge the candidates on their approach to this apocalyptic weaponry during the debates and has ignored the issue in their television and print coverage, even to the extent of excluding voices that express concern from their opinion pages. We regard it as a matter of urgency to put these issues back on the radar screen of public awareness.

We are appalled that none of the candidates running for the highest office in the land has yet put forward any plans or strategy to end current threats of nuclear annihilation, none has challenged the planned expenditure of $1 trillion to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and none has made a point of the U.S. being in breach of its nuclear disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the presidential debates it has been a non-issue, which scandalizes the candidates for not raising the issue in their many public speeches and the media for not challenging them for failing to do so. As a society, we are out of touch with the most frightening, yet after decades still dangerously mishandled, challenge to the future of humanity.

There are nine countries that currently possess nuclear weapons. Five of these nuclear-armed countries are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (U.S., Russia, UK, France and China), and are obligated by that treaty to negotiate in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. The other four nuclear-armed countries (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) are subject to the same obligations under customary international law. None of the nine nuclear-armed countries has engaged in such negotiations, a reality that should be met with anger and frustration, and not, as is now the case, with indifference. It is not only the United States that is responsible for the current state of denial and indifference. Throughout the world there is a false confidence that, because the Cold War is over and no nuclear weapons have been used since 1945, the nuclear dangers that once frightened and concerned people can now be ignored.

Rather than fulfill their obligations for negotiated nuclear disarmament, the nine nuclear-armed countries all rely upon nuclear deterrence and are engaged in modernization programs that will keep their nuclear arsenals active through the 21^st century and perhaps beyond. Unfortunately, nuclear deterrence does not actually provide security to countries with nuclear arsenals. Rather, it is a hypothesis about human behavior, which is unlikely to hold up over time. Nuclear deterrence has come close to failing on numerous occasions and would clearly be totally ineffective, or worse, against a terrorist group in possession of one or more nuclear weapons, which has no fear of retaliation and may actually welcome it. Further, as the world is now embarking on a renewed nuclear arms race, disturbingly reminiscent of the Cold War, rising risks of confrontations and crises between major states possessing nuclear weapons increase the possibility of use.

As citizens of a nuclear-armed country, we are also targets of nuclear weapons. John F. Kennedy saw clearly that “Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.” What President Kennedy vividly expressed more than 50 years ago remains true today, and even more so as the weapons proliferate and as political extremist groups come closer to acquiring these terrible weapons.

Those with power and control over nuclear weapons could turn this planet, unique in all the universe in supporting life, into the charred remains of a Global Hiroshima. Should any political leader or government hold so much power? Should we be content to allow such power to rest in any hands at all?

It is time to end the nuclear weapons era. We are living on borrowed time. The U.S., as the world’s most powerful country, must play a leadership role in convening negotiations. For the U.S. to be effective in leading to achieve Nuclear Zero, U.S. citizens must awaken to the need to act and must press our government to act and encourage others elsewhere, especially in the other eight nuclear-armed countries, to press their governments to act as well. It is not enough to be apathetic, conformist, ignorant or in denial. We all must take action if we want to save humanity and other forms of life from nuclear catastrophe. In this spirit, we are at a stage where we need a robust global solidarity movement that is dedicated to raising awareness of the growing nuclear menace, and the urgent need to act nationally, regionally and globally to reverse the strong militarist currents that are pushing the world ever closer to the nuclear precipice.

Nuclear weapons are the most immediate threat to humanity, but they are not the only technology that could play and is playing havoc with the future of life. The scale of our technological impact on the environment (primarily fossil fuel extraction and use) is also resulting in global warming and climate chaos, with predicted rises in ocean levels and many other threats – ocean acidification, extreme weather, climate refugees and strife from drought – that will cause massive death and displacement of human and animal populations.

In addition to the technological threats to the human future, many people on the planet now suffer from hunger, disease, lack of shelter and lack of education. Every person on the planet has a right to adequate nutrition, health care, housing and education. It is deeply unjust to allow the rich to grow richer while the vast majority of humanity sinks into deeper poverty. It is immoral to spend our resources on modernizing weapons of mass annihilation while large numbers of people continue to suffer from the ravages of poverty.

Doing all we can to move the world to Nuclear Zero, while remaining responsive to other pressing dangers, is our best chance to ensure a benevolent future for our species and its natural surroundings. We can start by changing apathy to empathy, conformity to critical thinking, ignorance to wisdom, denial to recognition, and thought to action in responding to the threats posed by nuclear weapons and the technologies associated with global warming, as well as to the need to address present human suffering arising from war and poverty.

The richer countries are challenged by migrant flows of desperate people that number in the millions and by the realization that as many as a billion people on the planet are chronically hungry and another two billion are malnourished, resulting in widespread growth stunting among children and other maladies. While ridding the world of nuclear weaponry is our primary goal, we are mindful that the institution of war is responsible for chaos and massive casualties, and that we must also challenge the militarist mentality if we are ever to enjoy enduring peace and security on our planet.

The fate of our species is now being tested as never before. The question before us is whether humankind has the foresight and discipline necessary to forego some superfluous desires, mainly curtailing propensities for material luxuries and for domination of our fellow beings, thereby enabling all of us and succeeding generations to live lives worth living. Whether our species will rise to this challenge is uncertain, with current evidence not reassuring.

The time is short and what is at risk is civilization and every small and great thing that each of us loves and treasures on our planet.

The authors are affiliated with the Santa Barbara based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Vaya aquí para la versión española.

January 14, 2016