Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • A Nuclear Weapons Convention by Majority Vote at the UN

    The election of Mogens Lykketoft as the new President of the United Nations General Assembly has opened the door to the solution of several of world’s most pressing problems. For example, it may now be possible to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention by a direct majority vote.

    On June 15, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously elected Mogens Lykketoft, Denmark’s former parliament speaker and foreign minister, as president of its 70th anniversary session. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that this anniversary year offers Lykketoft “an extraordinary opportunity to shape history”. In September, just before the annual General Assembly ministerial meeting, world leaders will hold a special summit to adopt new goals. Their aims will be to further reduce poverty, promote economic development, and tackle the roots of climate change.

    Also among the aims will be the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Mogens Lykketoft has for many years been a prominent member of  the worldwide organization Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND).

    I vividly remember visiting M.P. Mogens Lykketoft at the Danish Parliament, together with Alyn Ware, the Global Coordinator of PNND, and with a member of the Danish branch of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. We talked with  Mr. Lykketoft for about an hour, and he was willing to help with the work of PNND in every possible way. We can certainly expect that as the new President of the UN General Assembly, he will be willing to work hard for nuclear abolition.

    http://www.pnnd.org/article/pnnd-member-mogens-lykketoft-elected-president-un-general-assembly

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogens_Lykketoft

    One important possibility for progress on the seemingly intractable issue of nuclear disarmament would be for a nation or group of nations to put forward a proposal for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for direct vote on the floor of the UN General Assembly. It would almost certainly be adopted by a massive majority.  I believe that such a step would be a great achievement, even if bitterly opposed by some of the nuclear weapons states.

    http://www.unfoldzero.org/nuclear-weapons-convention

    There are several precedents for such a step: On April 2, 2013, a historic victory was won at the United Nations, and the world achieved its first treaty limiting international trade in arms. Work towards the ATT was begun in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, which requires a consensus for the adoption of any measure. Over the years, the consensus requirement has meant that no real progress in arms control measures has been made in Geneva, since a consensus among 193 nations is impossible to achieve.

    To get around the blockade, British U.N. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant sent the draft treaty to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and asked him on behalf of Mexico, Australia and a number of others to put the ATT to a swift vote in the General Assembly, and on Tuesday, April 3, it was adopted by a massive majority.

    The success achieved by moving discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty from the Conference on Disarmament (where it had remained blocked for decades) to the UN General Assembly points the way to progress on many other issues, especially the adoption of a Nuclear Weapons Convention. In my opinion, it is highly desirable to make a motion for the adoption of a Nuclear Weapons Convention on the floor of the General Assembly, following exactly the same procedure as was followed with the ATT. If this is done, the NWC (a draft of which is already prepared) would certainly be adopted by a large majority.

    It might be objected that the nuclear weapon states would be offended by this procedure, but I believe that they deserve to be offended, since the threat or use of nuclear weapons is illegal according to the 1996 ruling of the International Court of Justice, and in fact the threat or use of force in international relations is a violation of the UN Charter. The adoption of the NWC would make clear the will of the great majority of the world’s peoples, who consider the enormous threat which nuclear war poses to human civilization and the biosphere to be completely unacceptable.

    It is not only the ATT that forms a precedent, but also the International Criminal Court, whose establishment was vehemently opposed by several militarily powerful states. Nevertheless, the ICC was adopted because a majority of the peoples of the world believed it to be a step forward towards a stable, peaceful and just global society.

    In 1998, in Rome, representatives of 120 countries signed a statute establishing a International Criminal Court, with jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

    Four years were to pass before the necessary ratifications were gathered, but by Thursday, April 11, 2002, 66 nations had ratified the Rome agreement, 6 more than the 60 needed to make the court permanent. It would be impossible to overstate the importance of the International Criminal Court. At last international law acting on individuals has become a reality! The only effective and just way that international laws can act is to make individuals responsible and punishable, since (in the words of Alexander Hamilton), “To coerce states is one of the maddest projects ever devised.”

    Although the ICC is in place, it has the defect that since it opposed by powerful states, it functions very imperfectly. Should the Nuclear Weapons Convention be adopted by the UN General Assembly despite the opposition of the nuclear weapon states, it would have the same defect. It would function imperfectly because despite the support of the vast majority of the world’s peoples, a few powerful opponents would remain.

    Another precedent can be found in the Antipersonnel Land-Mine Convention, also known as the Ottawa Treaty. In 1991, six NGO’s organized the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, and in 1996, the Canadian government launched the Ottawa process to ban landmines by hosting a meeting among like-minded anti-landmine states. A year later, in 1997, the Mine Ban Treaty was adopted and opened for signatures. In the same year, Jody Williams and the International Campaign to ban Landmines were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. After the 40th ratification of the Mine Ban Treaty in 1998, the treaty became binding international law on the 1st of March, 1999.

    The adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty is a great step forward; the adoption of the ICC, although its operation is imperfect, is also a great step forward, and likewise the Antipersonnel Land-Mine Convention is a great step forward. In my opinion, the adoption of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, even in the face of powerful opposition, would also be a great step forward. When the will of the majority of the world’s peoples is clearly expressed in an international treaty, even if the treaty functions imperfectly, the question of legality is clear. Everyone can see which states are violating international law. In time, world public opinion will force the criminal states to conform with the law.

    In the case of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, world public opinion would have especially great force. It is generally agreed that a full-scale nuclear war would have disastrous effects, not only on belligerent nations but also on neutral countries. Mr.Javier Pérez de Cuéllar , former Secretary-General of the United Nations, emphasized this point in one of his speeches:

    “I feel”, he said, “that the question may justifiably be put to the leading nuclear powers: by what right do they decide the fate of humanity? From Scandinavia to Latin America, from Europe and Africa to the Far East, the destiny of every man and woman is affected by their actions. No one can expect to escape from the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war on the fragile structure of this planet. …”

    “No ideological confrontation can be allowed to jeopardize the future of humanity. Nothing less is at stake: today’s decisions affect not only the present; they also put at risk succeeding generations. Like supreme arbiters, with our disputes of the moment, we threaten to cut off the future and to extinguish the lives of innocent millions yet unborn. There can be no greater arrogance. At the same time, the lives of all those who lived before us may be rendered meaningless; for we have the power to dissolve in a conflict of hours or minutes the entire work of civilization, with all the brilliant cultural heritage of humankind.”

    “…In a nuclear age, decisions affecting war and peace cannot be left to military strategists or even to governments. They are indeed the responsibility of every man and woman. And it is therefore the responsibility of all of us… to break the cycle of mistrust and insecurity and to respond to humanity’s yearning for peace.”

    The eloquent words of  Javier Pérez de Cuéllar express the situation in which we now find ourselves: Accidental nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, insanity of a person in a position of power, or unintended escalation of a conflict, could at any moment plunge our beautiful world into a catastrophic thermonuclear war which might destroy not only human civilization but also much of the biosphere.

    As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon remarked, the General Assembly’s new President, Hon. Mr. Mogens Lykketoft, has an extraordinary opportunity to influence history and to solve the most pressing problems that humanity faces today. I believe that he has the courage and idealism to do just that. In particular, I believe that he can provide the leadership needed for the world to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention by direct majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly.

  • Hibakusha Thoughts on the 70th Anniversary of the Nuclear Age

    Shigeko Sasamori“This year, 2015, commemorates the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, yet I will always remember the horrible tragedy.

    “During this year, in particular, the mass media covered many peace organizations that held anti-war and anti-nuclear events. I hope many people will participate in and learn from these events to cooperate for promotion of peace.

    “People cannot live forever. People die from natural causes such as illness and disease and from natural disasters such as floods, fires, and earthquakes, but war claims the most lives. People start wars. People should stop wars.

    “People worldwide still suffer from the aftermath of war.

    “To have world peace, everybody in the world must cooperate.”

    — Shigeko Sasamori, age 83, survivor of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima

    Setsuko Thurlow“The first thought that comes to me is the image of my four-year-old nephew Eiji transformed to a charred, blackened child who died in agony. Had he not been a victim of the atomic bomb, he would have been 74 years old this year. This shocked me. Regardless of the passage of time, he remains in my memory as a four-year-old child, who came to represent all the innocent children of the world. This has been the driving, compelling force for me to continue my struggle against the ultimate evil of nuclear weapons. His image is burned into my retina.

    “Many survivors have been passing in recent years with their dream of the abolition of nuclear weapons unfulfilled. Yes, their motto was, ‘Abolition in our lifetime.’ This reality intensifies the sense of urgency more than ever, with firmer commitment.”

    — Setsuko Thurlow, age 83, survivor of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima

  • Are Nuclear Arms Control and Disarmament Agreements of Any Value?

    Confronting the BombThe recent announcement of a nuclear deal between the governments of Iran and other major nations, including the United States, naturally draws our attention to the history of international nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements. What accounts for their advent on the world scene and what have they accomplished?

    Ever since 1945, when the atomic bomb was built and used by the U.S. government in a devastating attack upon Japanese cities, the world has lived on the brink of catastrophe, for nuclear weapons, if integrated into war, could cause the total destruction of civilization.

    To cope with this ominous situation, the Truman administration, in 1946, turned to promoting the world’s first nuclear arms control agreement through a U.S. government-crafted proposal, the Baruch Plan. Although the Baruch Plan inspired enthusiasm among nations friendly to the United States, America’s emerging rival, the Soviet Union, rejected this proposal and championed its own. In turn, the U.S. government rejected the Soviet proposal. As a result, the nuclear arms race surged forward, with the Soviet government testing its first nuclear weapons in 1949, the U.S. government testing additional nuclear weapons and expanding its nuclear weapons stockpile, and the British government scrambling to catch up. Soon all three nations were building hydrogen bombs―weapons that had a thousand times the destructive power of the atomic bombs that had annihilated Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    But this escalation of the nuclear arms race, combined with growing popular protest against it in the United States and around the world, led to new international efforts to forge a nuclear arms control agreement. In 1958, the Eisenhower administration joined the governments of the Soviet Union and Britain in halting nuclear weapons testing and began serious negotiations for a test ban treaty. In 1963, the Kennedy administration, along with its Soviet and British counterparts, negotiated and signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which banned nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere.

    In subsequent years, Democratic and Republican presidents, anxious to reduce nuclear dangers and to pacify a restive public, uneasy about nuclear weapons and nuclear war, signed numerous nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements. These included: the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Lyndon Johnson); the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the SALT I Treaty (Richard Nixon); the SALT II Treaty (Jimmy Carter); the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (Ronald Reagan); the START I and START II treaties (George H.W. Bush); the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (Bill Clinton); the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (George W. Bush); and the New START Treaty (Barack Obama).

    These agreements helped dissuade the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations from developing nuclear weapons. Many nations had the scientific and technological capability to build them, and in the early 1960s it was assumed that they would do so. But, given the new barriers, including international treaties banning further nuclear testing and discouraging nuclear proliferation, they refrained from becoming nuclear powers.

    Nor was this the only consequence of the agreements. Even the small number of nuclear nations agreed not to develop or to maintain particularly destabilizing nuclear weapons and to reduce their nuclear stockpiles substantially. In fact, thanks largely to these agreements, more than two-thirds of the world’s nuclear weapons were destroyed. Also, to enforce these nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements, extensive inspection and verification mechanisms were developed.

    Perhaps most significant, nuclear war was avoided. Wouldn’t that nuclear catastrophe have been more likely to occur in a world bristling with nuclear weapons―a world in which a hundred or so nations, many of them quite unstable or led by fanatics, could draw upon nuclear weapons for their armed conflicts or sell them to terrorists eager to implement their fantasies of destruction? Only the NRA or a similarly weapons-mad organization would argue that we would have been safer in such an environment.

    To be sure, nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements have always had their critics. During the debate over the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, Edward Teller―the prominent nuclear physicist who is sometimes called “the father of the H-bomb”―told U.S. senators that “if you ratify this treaty . . . you will have given away the future safety of this country.” Phyllis Schlafly, a rising star in conservative politics, warned that it would put the United States “at the mercy of the dictators.” A leading politician, Barry Goldwater, spearheaded the Republican attack upon the treaty in the Senate and during his 1964 presidential campaign. Nevertheless, there turned out to be no adverse consequences of the treaty to the United States―unless, of course, one views the rapid decline of the U.S.-Soviet nuclear confrontation as an adverse consequence.

    Placed in the context of over a half century of nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements, the Iran nuclear deal does not seem at all outlandish. Indeed, it seems downright practical, merely ensuring that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is implemented in that major nation. Toward this end, the agreement provides for Iran’s sharp reduction of its nuclear-related materials that, potentially, could be used to develop nuclear weapons. Moreover, this process will be accompanied by extensive monitoring and verification. It is hard to imagine what more today’s critics could want―except, perhaps, another unnecessary Middle East war.

    Dr. Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

  • Marshall Islands Appeals U.S. Court’s Dismissal of Nuclear Zero Lawsuit

    Marshall Islands Appeals U.S. Court’s Dismissal of Nuclear Zero Lawsuit

    Small Island Nation Fights On. Archbishop Desmond Tutu Lends Support.

    July 13, 2015 – The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) submitted its Appeal Brief today to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, appealing the dismissal of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit. The case was dismissed in Federal District Court on February 3, 2015 by Judge Jeffrey White.

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsThe lawsuit calls upon the U.S. to fulfill its legal obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and for total nuclear disarmament.

    Upon learning of the impending Appeal, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former Nobel Peace Prize laureate and well-known human rights activists, stated, “An obligation to negotiate in good faith has real legal meaning and is not merely a theoretical ideal. The United States’ breach of NPT Article VI has serious consequences for humankind and the Marshall Islands appeal is of critical importance.”

    Rather than allowing the case to be argued on its merits, the District Court dismissed the suit on the jurisdictional grounds of standing and political question doctrine. Today’s Appeal Brief directly challenges the Court’s decision, stating, “The District Court misapplied the law, misconstrued the harm alleged and the relief sought by the Marshall Islands, and inappropriately construed inferences in the Executive’s [the Executive Branch of the U.S. government] favor.”

    The Marshall Islands suffered catastrophic and irreparable damages to its people and land when the U.S. conducted 67 nuclear weapons tests on its territory between 1946 and 1958. These tests had the equivalent power of exploding 1.6 Hiroshima bombs daily for 12 years. The devastating impact of these nuclear detonations continues to this day. For more information, visit www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-pacific-radioactive-waste.

    Despite these damages, the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit does not seek compensation. Rather, the Appeal Brief states, “The Marshall Islands seeks a declaration of the meaning of the NPT Article VI obligation; a legal determination of whether the Executive’s conduct satisfies the obligation, and an order requiring future compliance with the obligation, unless the U.S. chooses to withdraw from the Treaty.”

    Laurie Ashton, lead attorney for the Marshall Islands in the U.S. case, commented, “This case asks the question whether the President of the United States is above the law – and the law here is Article VI of the NPT, a legally binding treaty. The Marshall Islands, like every NPT party, is entitled to the fulfillment of the United States’ promise to negotiate complete nuclear disarmament. But while the United States has the world focused on nonproliferation measures across the globe, it is in flagrant breach of its obligation to negotiate complete nuclear disarmament. It refuses to discuss any timetable whatsoever to achieve nuclear disarmament, and is instead actually modernizing its nuclear arsenal with new capabilities to last decades into the future at a budget of approximately $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion dollars). The lawsuit brings these breaches to Court, forcing the U.S. to respond in public.”

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and consultant to the RMI, noted,

    “The Marshall Islands is the most courageous country on the planet. It is standing up to the nuclear-armed nations, demanding that they fulfill their legal obligations for nuclear disarmament. Its Appeal Brief in the U.S. case makes strong sense and shows that it is a country that will not give up or give in.”

    The United States has one month to respond to the Marshall Islands Appeal Brief and then the Marshall Islands will have two weeks to reply to the U.S. Response Brief. To read the Appeal Brief in its entirety, visit www.wagingpeace.org/documents/rmi-appeal.pdf.

    For more information about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

    #      #       #

    Note to editor: to arrange interviews with David Krieger or Laurie Ashton, please call Sandy Jones or Rick Wayman at (805) 965-3443.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation was founded in 1982. Its mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. The Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations and is comprised of individuals and groups worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • Sunflower Newsletter: July 2015

    Issue #216 – July 2015

     

    Follow David Krieger on twitter

    Click here or on the image above to follow NAPF President David Krieger on Twitter.
    • Perspectives
      • The Nuclear Age at Seventy by David Krieger
      • Not Just Apologies but Repentance by Nassrine Azimi
      • UK Trident Discredited by Whistleblower by Commander Robert Green
    • Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
      • Marshall Islands Take India to Court
      • The Marshall Islands Are Trying to Keep the World’s Nuclear Powers Honest
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • U.S. Spending Increases to Counter Russian Nuclear Modernization
    • War and Peace
      • NATO to Review Nuclear Weapons Policy as Attitude to Russia Hardens
      • Seeking Peace in Ukraine
    • Nuclear Testing
      • The Golden Rule Sails Again
      • The Rainbow Warrior: 30 Years On
      • Livermore Lab Plutonium Tests Challenged
    • Nuclear Disarmament
      • U.S. Mayors Call for “Effective Implementation” of NPT
    • Resources
      • July’s Featured Blog
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • American University Exhibit Commemorating Hiroshima and Nagasaki
    • Foundation Activities
      • Sadako Peace Day is August 6
      • Peace Leadership in Tijuana
      • NAPF President David Krieger to Speak in Maui
    • Quotes

     

    Perspectives

    The Nuclear Age at Seventy

    by David Krieger

    The first explosion of a nuclear device took place at Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16, 1945. Just three weeks later, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima and three days after that on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. The new weapons had devastating power, killing approximately 100,000 people immediately in the two cities and another 100,000 people by the end of 1945.

    Since these bombings brought the world into the Nuclear Age, the human future and that of other forms of life have been at risk. Never before did humankind have the power to destroy itself, but that completely changed in the Nuclear Age. By our own scientific and technological cleverness, we humans had created the means of our own demise. Our technological capacity for destruction had exceeded our spiritual capacity to work together and cooperate to end the threat that these weapons posed to our common future.

    To read more, click here.

    Not Just Apologies but Repentance

    by Nassrine Azimi

    Frequently asking a single country to apologize tends to turn the gaze upon others, and the sight is hardly flattering: a roll-call of nations having admitted to or atoned for past wrong-doings falls pitifully short.

    Most Western colonial powers have a stained record when it comes to apologizing for their colonial era plunders. Too many still make believe that their colonialism had less to do with greed and more with the spread of “civilization.” Quite a few still perpetuate the myth of “The White Man’s Burden.”

    By any measure the leader of the no-apologies category, in a league all its own, must be the United States of America. Few countries have been as mired in as much warfare within as brief a period of history as the United States. Since WWII, the number of revolutions, coups d’état, invasions and wars it has directly or indirectly instigated has been staggering. The United States has yet to apologize for unleashing nuclear terror on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only has there been no apology, but past governments have gone to extraordinary lengths, to convince a gullible public that the two atomic bombs saved a million American lives (notwithstanding historical research proving this story was promoted by a PR team after the bombings.)

    To read more, click here.

    UK Trident Discredited by Whistleblower

    by Commander Robert Green

    On 17 May, the Scottish Sunday Herald revealed that a whistleblower, 25-year-old Able Seaman William McNeilly, had released online an 18-page report containing serious allegations surrounding the safety and security of the British Trident ballistic missile-equipped submarine force.

    The Royal Navy is out of its depth operating the existing Trident system, starved of resources and trying to get by on the cheap. This dangerous situation – which the courageous actions of a patriotic young whistleblower have exposed – can only get worse if the UK Submarine Service has to take on whatever replacement the US is prepared to let the British have.

    To read more, click here.

    Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    The Marshall Islands Are Trying to Keep the World’s Nuclear Powers Honest

    On paper, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a strong treaty. The agreement among most nations aims to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, disarm existing weapons and encourage the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

    In reality, many of the countries who signed it either weasel out of its obligations or simply ignore them. “For far too many years, these circular negotiations on nuclear non-proliferation have failed to listen closely to those voices who know better,” Tony deBrum, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Marshall Islands — a tiny republic in the Pacific Ocean — said.

    The Marshall Islands brought litigation against the world’s nine nuclear-armed countries — including the U.S., UK and Russia —in 2014. The island republic filed nine separate cases in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, as well as one in U.S. Federal Court.

    Matthew Gault, “The Marshall Islands Tried to Keep the World’s Nuclear Powers Honest,” War Is Boring, June 9, 2015.

    Marshall Islands Take India to Court

    The Marshall Islands feels strongly that the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan could pose a huge danger to world peace since both are non-signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Last month, the International Court of Justice accepted India’s request for an extension to reply to the Marshall Islands’ application, giving it until September 16.

    Dhananjay Mahapatra, “N-disarmament: Tiny Island of 70.000 People Takes India to Court,” Times of India, June 25, 2015.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    U.S. Spending Increases to Counter Russian Nuclear Modernization

    To maintain nuclear “superiority” and counter increases in Russia’s defense budget, the United States must ramp up its own spending on defense and nuclear weapons, according to Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. According to Thornberry, U.S. defense spending has been cut 21% over the last four years, while Russia’s defense spending has increased by 10% and includes modernization of ICBMs and long-range cruise missiles. Thornberry warned, “We’ve let the infrastructure deteriorate.”

    However, United States military spending is still approximately seven times greater than Russia’s. The United States also plans to completely rebuild its nuclear arsenal and infrastructure at a cost of at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years.

    Alissa Tabirian, “HASC Chair: Increase U.S. Defense Spending to Counter Russian Nuke Modernization,” Defense Daily, June 23, 2015.

    War and Peace

    NATO to Review Nuclear Weapons Policy as Attitude to Russia Hardens

    At a two-day ministerial meeting in Brussels, NATO officials discussed reevaluating their nuclear weapons policies in response to increasing tension with Russia over Ukraine. Some NATO leaders do not feel that current NATO nuclear policy is aggressive enough, and view Russia’s rhetoric on nuclear weapons, involvement of the weapons in military exercises, and announced acquisition of new missiles as signaling an increased nuclear threat. Approximately 180 U.S. nuclear bombs are currently stationed on the territories of five NATO member countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey).

    In addition to NATO discussions on hardening its nuclear policy, diplomats and scientists have voiced concern over a “new nuclear arms race” between the U.S. and Russia. Both countries are engaging in nuclear weapon “modernization” programs in violation of their legal obligation under Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date.

    Ewen MacAskill, “Nato to Review Nuclear Weapons Policy as Attitude to Russia Hardens,” The Guardian, June 24, 2015.

    Seeking Peace in Ukraine

    In a “long and constructive” phone call between US President Obama and Russian President Putin, the two leaders discussed a plethora of issues including the need to counter Islamic State fighters, negotiations to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and the situation in the Middle East. President Obama also called on President Putin to remove Russian troops and military equipment from Ukraine.

    In an op-ed in TIME magazine, former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley outlines five features of a deal that could bring peace in Ukraine. The deal would include a promise from Ukraine never to join NATO, lifting of economic sanctions against Russia, and more.

    Toluse Olorunnipa, “Obama Tells Putin Russia Needs to Remove Troops From Ukraine,” Bloomberg, June 25, 2015.

    Nuclear Testing

    The Golden Rule Sails Again

    On June 20, the ship Golden Rule was officially re-launched. Veterans for Peace took on the task of restoring the ship, famous for its attempt in 1958 to stop U.S. nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands. The ship will sail from its current home in northern California to San Diego in time for the Veterans for Peace national convention in early August, which has the theme of “peace and reconciliation in the Pacific.”

    Mark Larson, “Re-Christening the Golden Rule,” North Coast Journal, June 21, 2015.

     

    The Rainbow Warrior: 30 Years On

    Henk Haazen provides a firsthand account of his experience as a crewmember of the Rainbow Warrior, a vessel that served the campaigns of the global environmental organization Greenpeace. The Rainbow Warrior and its crew were dispatched to relocate Marshall Islanders whose land and livelihood had been affected by U.S. nuclear testing. Upon witnessing the devastating effects of the testing on the islanders and their homeland, the crew of the Rainbow Warrior was compelled to launch their next big campaign: to bring an end to French nuclear testing in French Polynesia.

    This plan was thrown off track in 1985 when the French Secret Service blew up the Rainbow Warrior in a New Zealand harbor. This act of terrorism, however, would not thwart the efforts of Greenpeace in the following decades. In the mid-1990s, Greenpeace boats formed a flotilla around the French Polynesian Islands: a chain of boats that served as a symbolic barrier to nuclear testing, pressuring the French to end their testing shortly afterwards.

    Hank Haazen, “The Rainbow Warrior: 30 years on,” Stuff.co.nz, June 26, 2015.

    Livermore Lab Plutonium Tests Challenged

    A series of controversial experiments taking place at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in Livermore, California are being challenged by local and national environmental organizations. The tests consist of zapping tiny samples of the intensely radioactive element plutonium with powerful laser beams. The stated goal of the tests is to ensure that the thousands of nuclear weapons stockpiled in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are still in working condition.

    Leaders of NIF insist that the tests are safe and that the program is essential to assure the “safety, security, and reliability” of the warheads in America’s nuclear stockpile. Critics of the plutonium tests, including Livermore-based group Tri-Valley CAREs, have raised concerns about the lack of a containment plan for airborne plutonium particles and the likely contamination of the facility.

    David Perlman, “Safety of Warhead-Related Tests at Livermore Lab Challenged,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 28, 2015.

    Nuclear Disarmament

    U.S. Mayors Call for “Effective Implementation” of NPT

    At the close of its 83rd Annual Meeting, the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), adopted a strong resolution in support of Mayors for Peace, calling for the “effective implementation” of the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty obligations. Also, the USCM expressed its support for the successful conclusion of Iran Nuclear Deal negotiations. With the 70th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki coming up, the USCM urged policymakers to visit the cities to see the reality of the consequences of atomic bombings with their own eyes.

    The resolution “calls on the President and Congress to reduce nuclear weapons spending to the minimum necessary to assure the safety and security of the existing weapons as they await disablement and dismantlement, and to direct those funds to address the pressing needs of cities.”

    To read the full resolution, click here.

    Resources

    July’s Featured Blog

    This month’s featured blog is Strategic Security, written by Hans Kristensen of Federation of American Scientists. Kristensen is an expert on a vast array of nuclear weapons issues, and writes authoritatively on nuclear modernization programs around the world and the details of the nuclear-armed nations’ nuclear stockpiles.

    Recent titles by Kristensen include “Pentagon Report: China Deploys MIRV Missile” and “Obama Administration Releases New Warhead Numbers.”

    This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    History chronicles many instances when humans have been threatened by nuclear weapons. In this article, Jeffrey Mason outlines some of the most serious threats that have taken place in the month of July, including the July 27, 1956 incident in which a U.S. B-47 bomber crashed into a storage bunker holding three Mark 6 nuclear bombs.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

    For more information on the history of the Nuclear Age, visit NAPF’s Nuclear Files website.

    American University Exhibit Commemorating Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    In commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a powerful exhibit at American University in Washington, DC will take place through August. The show will include 20 artifacts collected from the debris of the 1945 atomic bombings as well as six 24-foot folding screens that depict the horrors of the event.

    The exhibition is intended to deepen understanding of the damage wrought by nuclear weapons, and to inspire peace in the 21st century. For more information, click here.

    Foundation Activities

    Sadako Peace Day is August 6

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will hold its 21st Annual Sadako Peace Day commemoration event on Thursday, August 6. This year’s event, which falls on the 70th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima, remembers the victims of the U.S. atomic bombings and all innocent victims of war. NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell will deliver this year’s keynote address.

    The program also includes music, poetry and reflection. Click here to view the invitation.

    The event will take place at 6:00 p.m. at the Sadako Peace Garden at La Casa de Maria – 800 El Bosque Road, Montecito, California. The event is free and open to the public.

    Peace Leadership in Tijuana

    Paul K. Chappell, Peace Leadership Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, gave a panel presentation on “Waging Peace Today” to 400 attendees at the Playas de Tijuana inaugural event for the international exhibit, “From a Culture of Violence to a Culture of Peace: Transforming the Human Spirit,” on Thursday, June 18th, at the Casa de Cultura Playas as part of the Municipal Art and Culture Institute of Tijuana, Mexico. Other speakers included Dr. Jorge Astiazaran, the mayor of Tijuana, and Robert Rios, General Director of Soka Gakkai of Mexico.

    “Paul’s powerful message, the seeds he planted, resonated strongly in many hearts and minds,” said exhibit coordinator Susan Smith.

    To read more about this event, click here.

    NAPF President David Krieger to Speak in Maui

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, will be the featured speaker at an event commemorating the 70th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The event will take place on August 6 at 5:30 pm at the University of Hawaii Maui College. It is organized by Maui Peace Action.

    For more information, email mauipeaceaction@earthlink.net.

    Quotes

     

    “If forced into war by India, Pakistan will respond in a befitting manner; our [nuclear] arms are not meant for decoration.”

    — Khwaja Asif, Defense Minister of Pakistan

     

    “We must teach an elemental truth: that status and presige belong not to those who possess nuclear weapons, but to those who reject them.”

    — Ban Ki-moon, South Korean diplomat and 8th United Nations Secretary-General. This quote is featured in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, available online in the NAPF Peace Store.

     

    “Nuclear weapons are not ordinary munitions and the conditions for eliminating them do not exist in today’s world.”

    — Ambassador Adam Scheinman, head of the United States delegation to the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Click here to read his full op-ed in The Hill.

    Editorial Team

     

    Fiona Hayman

    McKenna Jacquemet

    David Krieger

    Lauren Pak

    Carol Warner

    Rick Wayman

     

  • July: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    July 1, 1968 – The U.S., U.K., the Soviet Union, and 58 other nations signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  The Preamble of the agreement, which today includes 191 state parties, referred explicitly to the need for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which has not yet been realized due mostly to the U.S. Senate’s unwillingness to ratify the treaty (as manifested by that body’s rejection of the CTBT on October 13, 1999 by a vote of 51-48).   Comments:  While the NPT’s focus on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been only marginally successful, the other purpose of the treaty, to seek negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and achieve nuclear disarmament has been a dismal failure.  There does not appear to be much light at the end of the tunnel after the conclusion of another NPT Review Conference on May 22, 2015 in which the United States and Britain blocked a consensus agreement to establish a deadline date to hold a conference on mandating a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in the Middle East and Canada objected as well on the basis that the agreement does not include participation by Israel – a nonsignatory to the NPT that possesses an unacknowledged secret arsenal of approximately 100-200 nuclear weapons.  Nevertheless, one positive trend resulting from this year’s review conference was what the Washington Post called, “an uprising of 107 states and civil society groups that are seeking to reframe the disarmament debate as an urgent matter of safety, morality, and humanitarian law,” and are committing to dramatically step up efforts to work toward Global Zero.   (Sources:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.”  Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 10-11, 22 and Dan Zak. “U.N. Nuclear Conference Collapses Over WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East.” Washington Post.  May 22, 2015.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wmd/national-security/un-nuclear-conference-collapses-over-wmd-free-zone-in-the-middle-east/2015/05/22/8c568380-fe39-11e4-8c77-bf274685e1df_story.html.)

    July 4, 1999 – At a Blair House meeting on this holiday morning, President Bill Clinton met with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan at a time when India and Pakistan (which had fought each other in three wars:  1947, 1965, and 1971) were fighting again, this time in an undeclared war (later referred to as the Kargil Conflict) over Northern Kashmir.  Tensions were high as top Indian leaders warned the U.S. that their nation was convinced that Pakistan was ‘operationalizing’ its nuclear missiles and that they intended to blockade the Pakistani port of Karachi.   President Clinton later testified that, “I knew my only real job on the Fourth of July was to get Pakistan back across the line of control…because otherwise, we’re just out there rolling the dice, hoping to goodness that nothing terrible would happen.”   Comments:  Although this crisis did not escalate into a nuclear conflict, it is just one of many global close calls as nuclear Armageddon was yet avoided again.  However, recent events reveal ongoing nuclear tensions between the two nations.   The United States and the larger international community must redouble its efforts to persuade India and Pakistan to reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear arsenals.  (Sources:  “Avoiding Armageddon:  Our Future, Our Choice.”  PBS-TV, Ted Turner Documentaries, 2003.  www.pbs.org/avoidingarmageddon and Tim Craig and Annie Gowen.  “Indian Border Operation Rattles Nuclear Neighbor.”  Washington Post. June 12, 2015.  www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-38395110.html. )

    July 7, 1961 – Former Harvard University economics professor and Rand Corporation analyst Carl Kaysen sent a memorandum on this date to President John Kennedy’s National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy reporting that a Soviet nuclear strike of just 100 warheads (a very small portion of today’s Russian nuclear arsenal) against U.S. cities, in the absence of large-scale civil defense bunkers and shelters, would kill an estimated 62-100 million of the total (then) U.S. population of 180 million people.   Comments:  More than half a century later, with a current U.S. population of over 300 million people and with each side possessing thousands of nuclear weapons, the figures for U.S. and global nuclear war deaths dramatically exceed Kaysen’s calculations.  Including the paramount factor of resulting nuclear winter global climate impacts, a major nuclear war would kill billions and seriously threaten our species’ existence.  Civil defenses and missile defenses would not significantly alter this calculus of megadeath. (Source:  Eric Schlosser.  “Command and Control:  Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.”  New York:  Penguin Press, 2013, p. 547.)

    July 16, 1945 – The top secret U.S. Manhattan Project culminated with the successful test of the world’s first nuclear weapon in the desert near Alamogordo, New Mexico before dawn.  Code-named Trinity, it was the rehearsal for the August 6-9 atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it represented the first of 1,030 nuclear tests conducted by the United States and one of over 2,000 such tests conducted by the nine Nuclear Weapons Club members in the last seventy years.   President Truman’s personal journal of July 25 recorded that, “We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world…An experiment in the New Mexico desert…caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater six feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked down a steel tower half a mile away and knocked down men 10,000 yards away.  The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.”  Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson’s report to the president noted that, “I estimate that the energy generated to be in excess of the equivalent of 15,000 to 20,000 tons of TNT…there were tremendous blast effects…there was a lighting effect within a radius of 20 miles equal to several suns in midday; a huge ball of fire was formed which lasted for several seconds.  This ball mushroomed and rose to a height of over 10,000 feet.”   Physicist Ernest O. Lawrence, an eyewitness to the blast, described his experience of a, “gigantic ball of fire rising rapidly from the earth…The grand, indeed almost cataclysmic proportion of the explosion produced a kind of solemnity in everyone’s behavior immediately afterwards.  There was a restrained applause, but more a hushed murmuring bordering on reverence in manner as the event was commented upon…”   Comments:  While many U.S. military and scientific observers celebrated the beginning of the Nuclear Age, others realized that this event may have represented the beginning of the end of the human species.  (Sources:  Jack Mendelsohn and David Grahame, editors.  “Arms Control Chronology.”  Washington, DC:  Center for Defense Information, 2002, pp. 5, 24. and Gar Alperovitz.  “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb:  And the Architecture of An American Myth.”  New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1995, pp. 250-251.)

    July 27, 1956 – During a training exercise, a U.S. B-47 bomber crashed into a storage bunker holding three Mark 6 nuclear bombs at Lakenheath Air Force Base near Suffolk, England killing the entire crew.  Bomb disposal experts later determined that it was a miracle that one Mark 6 bomb (with a potential yield in the range of 6-180 kilotons) with an unprotected, exposed nuclear detonator did not explode.  If it had, this “Broken Arrow” nuclear accident might have inadvertently triggered World War III!   Many years later, Sandia National Laboratory reported that at least 1200 nuclear weapons were involved in significant accidents just in the period between 1950-1968.  By 1968 approximately seventy missiles armed with nuclear warheads had been struck by lightning.   Comments:  If global nuclear arsenals are not dramatically reduced and eliminated as soon as possible, an accidental, unintended, or unauthorized nuclear detonation will likely trigger a nuclear Armageddon.  (Source:  Eric Schlosser.  “Command and Control:  Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.”  New York:  Penguin Press, 2013, pp. 170, 327-329, 556.)

    July 28, 2012 – The alleged airtight security of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, promulgated over the decades by numerous U.S. government representatives from the Oval Office, the nuclear weapons laboratories, to include the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that unauthorized access to and theft of U.S. nuclear weapons was virtually impossible suffered yet another blow when a small group of Christian pacifists belonging to the anti-nuclear Ploughshares movement (an organization involved in dozens of protests over the years at the Nevada Test Site and other components of the U.S. nuclear complex) breached the Y-12 National Security Complex  in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  On this Saturday evening, Sister Megan Rice, 82 years old, Michael Walli, 63, and Gregory Boertje-Obed, 57, cut through the barbed-wire fences at the Oak Ridge complex, which holds enough highly-enriched uranium to make thousands of nuclear warheads, and proceeded to splash human blood on the windowless uranium processing building’s walls, spray-paint peace symbols, and drape the access doors with crime-scene tape.   After being convicted in May 2013, Sister Rice and the two men spent two years in prison before a May 8, 2015 appellate court ruling held that the U.S. government had overreached in charging them with sabotage and ordered them released.  Comments:  Sister Rice follows in the footsteps of a long line of other nonviolent anti-nuclear activists, both religious and secular, who feel that the U.S. and other Nuclear Club members are violating global disarmament pledges and unwittingly threatening the world with nuclear disaster.  “It’s making countries feel compelled to have weapons.  If you have them, we have to have them.  We don’t want to end the (nuclear) industry.  We want to transition it into something that’s useful.  What could be better than making something that’s life-enhancing rather than life-destroying?”

    (Source:  William J. Broad.  “Sister Megan Rice, Freed From Prison, Looks Ahead to More Anti-Nuclear Activism.”  New York Times. May 26, 2015.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/science/sister-megan-rice-anti-nuclear-weapons-activist-freed )

  • Peace Leadership in Nuclear-Free Tijuana

    Peace Leadership in Nuclear-Free Tijuana

    Paul K. Chappell, Peace Leadership Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, gave a panel presentation on “Waging Peace Today” to 400 attendees at the Playas de Tijuana inaugural event for the international exhibit, “From a Culture of Violence to a Culture of Peace: Transforming the Human Spirit,” on Thursday, June 18th, at the Casa de Cultura Playas as part of the Municipal Art and Culture Institute of Tijuana, Mexico. Other speakers included Dr. Jorge Astiazaran, the mayor of Tijuana, and Robert Rios, General Director of Soka Gakkai of Mexico.

    “Paul’s powerful message, the seeds he planted, resonated strongly in many hearts and minds,” said exhibit coordinator Susan Smith.

    The exhibit highlights the synergy between goals of security for humanity and disarmament, particularly nuclear weapons abolition. Developed by Soka Gakkai International, and hosted by the Municipal Institute of Art and Culture of Tijuana (IMAC) in collaboration with Soka Gakkai of Mexico (SGMEX), the exhibit has been shown in 230 cities throughout four continents, including the parliament of New Zealand, the Oslo City Hall, the Senate of Mexico, numerous universities around the world, and at the headquarters of the United Nations in Vienna and Geneva. The exhibit was created to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the calling for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons by the second Soka Gakkai president, Josei Toda, on September 8, 1957.

    Playas de Tijuana is the northernmost point of the Latin American and Caribbean nuclear free zone protected by the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, signed in Mexico City on February 14, 1967).

    According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI): “On 23 October 2002, the Tlatelolco Treaty came into full force throughout the region when Cuba, the only state which had not ratified the treaty, deposited its instrument of ratification. Currently, all 33 states in the region of Latin America and the Caribbean have signed and ratified the treaty. The Tlatelolco Treaty has served as a model for all future nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ) agreements.”

  • The Nuclear Age at Seventy

    The first explosion of a nuclear device took place at Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16, 1945. Just three weeks later, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima and three days after that on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. The new weapons had devastating power, killing approximately 100,000 people immediately in the two cities and another 100,000 people by the end of 1945.

    David KriegerSince these bombings brought the world into the Nuclear Age, the human future and that of other forms of life have been at risk. Never before did humankind have the power to destroy itself, but that completely changed in the Nuclear Age. By our own scientific and technological cleverness, we humans had created the means of our own demise. Our technological capacity for destruction had exceeded our spiritual capacity to work together and cooperate to end the threat that these weapons posed to our common future. 

    After the bombings of the two Japanese cities, the United States almost immediately entered into a nuclear arms race with itself. In 1946, when the US was the only nuclear-armed country in the world, it began atmospheric nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands, then a United Nations Trust Territory that the US had agreed to administer. The US broke the bond of trust by testing 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, with an explosive power equivalent to detonating 1.6 Hiroshima bombs daily for 12 years. 

    In the decades that followed, other countries would develop nuclear arsenals. These included: the USSR (now Russia), UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. On numerous occasions the nuclear-armed countries came close to using nuclear weapons by accident, miscalculation or design. The most serious of these near disasters was the Cuban Missile Crisis, which went on for 13 days in 1962, while the world stood on the brink of nuclear war. 

    At the height of the nuclear arms race in 1986, there were more than 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world. There were more nuclear weapons than there were targets for them. With the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the number of nuclear weapons began to fall and since then the world, primarily the US and Russia, has shed over 50,000 nuclear weapons. 

    Today there are approximately 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with over 90 percent in the arsenals of the US and Russia. Some 1,800 of these remain on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired within moments. These are still insane numbers, with species- ending potential. Yet, strangely, most people on the planet do not think much about nuclear dangers. 

    One group of people, though, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, still think a lot about these dangers. These survivors, or hibakusha (as they are known in Japan), have witnessed the horrors of nuclear weapons at close hand. They have seen the death and destruction caused by the relatively small nuclear weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They speak out with the moral certainty that they do not want their past to become anyone else’s future. 

    All nine nuclear-armed countries are engaged in modernizing their nuclear arsenals. Together they are spending $100 billion annually on them. The US alone is planning to spend $1 trillion over the next three decades on modernizing its nuclear arsenal. It is a waste of precious resources that should be reallocated to meeting human needs for food, water, shelter, healthcare, education, a clean environment and repaired infrastructure. 

    The grand bargain of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is that the non-nuclear-armed states agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons, and the nuclear-armed states agreed to negotiate in good faith for the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The goal is a level playing field, with no countries possessing nuclear weapons. The problem with the bargain is that the nuclear-armed countries are not holding up their end. 

    Lawsuits against all nuclear-armed nations To set this right, the Republic of the Marshall Islands has brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries, calling on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to declare them in breach of their obligations and order them to commence the promised negotiations. Because the US is such an important player and does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, a separate lawsuit was brought against it in US federal court. 

    If the people of the Marshall Islands can demonstrate such boldness and courage, so can the rest of us. It is time for action to demand a nuclear weapons-free world. It is time to challenge hubris with wisdom, and complacency with compassion. Nuclear weapons are powerful, but the human heart is more powerful. As Pope Francis said, we need a “conversion of hearts.” 

    It is time to join with the hibakusha in demanding a world free of nuclear weapons. The world has waited for 70 years to end the nuclear weapons era. The next decades may not be so kind to humanity. We must act now, while we still can, to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and all life.

    This article was originally published by the Hiroshima Peace Media Center.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). 

  • NAPF Activities and Accomplishments

    The vision of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is “a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons.” The Foundation’s mission is “to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons, and to empower peace leaders.” The Foundation has been designated as a consultant to the United Nations Economic and Social Council and named by the United Nations as a Peace Messenger Organization. It has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Untitled 4

    Some of the Foundation’s most important current activities and accomplishments include:

     

    • Consulting with the Republic of the Marshall Islands in bringing its lawsuits in the International Court of Justice in The Hague and in US federal court for breaches by the nuclear-armed countries of their obligations to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law.
    • Building a consortium of civil society organizations from throughout the world in support of the Marshall Islands Nuclear Zero lawsuits and garnering significant national and international media attention to the obligations of the nuclear-armed countries, their breaches of those obligations and the lawsuits based on those breaches.
    • Empowering peace leaders throughout the US and abroad through our outstanding Peace Leadership Program that reaches some 3,000 people annually through lectures and workshops.

    Other important ongoing activities and accomplishments of the Foundation include:

     

    • Shining light on the importance of Peace Leadership, through our annual Distinguished Peace Leadership Award and other awards to some of the world’s greatest peace leaders.
    • Establishing a world-renowned Advisory Council, which includes, among other prominent peace leaders, the XIVth Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Daniel Ellsberg and Helen Caldicott.
    • Co-founding Abolition 2000, a network of over 2,000 organizations and municipalities seeking the abolition of nuclear weapons, and providing early leadership to the network.
    • Inspiring Soka Gakkai youth from Hiroshima to gather more than 13 million signatures on the Abolition 2000 International Petition, which called for ending the nuclear weapons threat, signing a new treaty to abolish nuclear weapons, and reallocating resources from maintaining nuclear arsenals to meeting human needs.
    • Participating in, organizing informational panels for, and distributing briefing papers at the five-year review conferences of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the preparatory conferences that take place between review conferences.
    • Awarding a $50,000 prize for the best proposal for using science for constructive purposes, which led to the creation of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES), and then working together with INES on many conferences and programs.
    • Co-founding the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of seven international civil society organizations that work closely with middle power governments to put pressure on the nuclear-armed countries to move toward abolishing their nuclear weapons.
    • Creating the Sadako Peace Garden on the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, and holding an annual public event there each year on or about August 6th to remember Sadako of the thousand cranes and all innocent victims of war, while rededicating ourselves to achieving peace and a world free of nuclear weapons.
    • Hosting an International Law Symposium that led to the establishment of a coalition to create a United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS), which could act as a first responder for stopping genocides, wars, human rights abuses and help to alleviate the suffering caused by natural disasters.
    • Convening an International Law Symposium on the dangers of nuclear deterrence and issuing the “Santa Barbara Declaration: Reject Nuclear Deterrence, An Urgent Call to Action.”
    • Initiating the annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future, and bringing outstanding thinkers and speakers – including Noam Chomsky, Dame Anita Roddick, Commander Robert Green and Robert Jay Lifton, among others – to our community to present the annual lecture.
    • Publishing timely and relevant information on the need to abolish nuclear weapons by key leaders in the abolition movement in the forms of books, book chapters, pamphlets, briefing papers, articles and letters to the editor in key media.
    • Creating and publishing a monthly online newsletter, The Sunflower, which provides regular and timely updates on nuclear weapons-related activities and issues.
    • Providing our members with the means to communicate with government officials on key nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation issues through our Action Alerts.
    • Bringing artistic expression to issues of peace and nuclear abolition through our annual Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards that “explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit,” and publishing the winning poems.
    • Educating many students at the University of California about the relationship of the University to the US nuclear weapons laboratories (the UC provides management and oversight to the weapons labs).
    • Continuing a vital student internship program, providing an opportunity for exceptionally bright and motivated students from around the US and abroad to contribute to the Foundation’s work program while learning about our issues and organization.

    While much that the Foundation does and accomplishes is set forth above, there is also much that is intangible, such as working daily for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and reaching countless people throughout the world with our messages. Every day, our efforts, large and small, are building an institution of strong integrity and credibility to confront the unprecedented threats to humans and other forms of life posed by nuclear weapons and to work steadily on the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • Not Just Apologies but Repentance

    hiroshimaThis article was originally published by Hiroshima Peace Media Center.

    In a press conference last week Tomiichi Murayama, the soft-spoken, elegant former prime minister of Japan urged his country’s current leaders to honor, on this 70th anniversary of the end of WWII, the nation’s past apologies. Murayama, whose independent streak may come from his origins in the laid-back, distant Prefecture of Oita, is among the last living politicians, to have personally experienced the Pacific War. Of his 1995 statement of contrition, still the official benchmark for recognition of Japan’s war-time aggressions, he has said that it was not merely an apology but a pledge — a pledge to think about the past, to admit historical facts, and to “not repeat mistakes.”

    Last month some 460 mostly Western scholars of Asian studies issued a letter of appeal, also urging the Abe Administration to uphold the truth of “Japan’s history of colonial rule and wartime aggression in both words and action.” Another statement, on the “Comfort Women” issue, was released by 16 associations of Japanese history scholars and educators.

    These pleas are timely. An unsavory air of opposition-bashing has been spreading here for some time. The silence of authorities and independent observers may bolden or give legitimacy to those ready to criticize scholars, media outlets or ordinary citizens they perceive as not patriotic enough by their small-minded standards.

    Nonetheless, frequently asking a single country to apologize tends to turn the gaze upon others, and the sight is hardly flattering: a roll-call of nations having admitted to or atoned for past wrong-doings falls pitifully short.

    Most Western colonial powers have a stained record when it comes to apologizing for their colonial era plunders. Too many still make believe that their colonialism had less to do with greed and more with the spread of “civilization.” Quite a few still perpetuate the myth of “The White Man’s Burden.”

    It took Belgium decades to face its shameful history in Africa. France has never formally apologized to Algeria nor Britain to India (neither has Britain apologized to China, for the 19th century Opium Wars, maybe one of the ugliest instances of state-sanctioned drug-trafficking). Netherlands waited a long time to apologize to its former colony Indonesia for mass executions in the 1940s and Indonesia itself had to be persuaded, to apologize to East Timor, which it had invaded and harshly misruled for almost 25 years.

    It is quite unlikely that the Chinese Communist Party will ever apologize for the horrors of the Cultural Revolution. The former Soviet Union never apologized for crimes in Eastern and Central Europe and, maybe just as tragically, for crimes against its own people under Stalin. Turkey still struggles to recognize the Armenian Genocide. And we must collectively and for long apologize, for watching on as the horrors of genocide spread across Cambodia and Rwanda, a mere few decades ago.

    The Iranian regime has yet to apologize for the arbitrary executions of thousands of opposition figures in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution. Israel claims that the great suffering endured by millions of Jews during the Holocaust somehow gives it carte blanche, to recognize no other suffering, especially not that of the Palestinians.

    There is a long list of despotic, unrepentant rulers across Africa, Asia and Latin-America, who have never apologized for any of their misdeeds – a sadly crowded field.

    Even the five permanent members of the Security Council, among themselves accounting for almost 80% of global arms exports, have yet to offer apologies to the rest of the human race, for failing to advance our collective peace and security or for achieving so little, as nuclear weapons states, to further the cause of nuclear disarmament.

    But by any measure the leader of the no-apologies category, in a league all its own, must be the United States of America.

    Few countries have been as mired in as much warfare within as brief a period of history as the United States. Since WWII, the number of revolutions, coups d’état, invasions and wars it has directly or indirectly instigated has been staggering.

    The United States has yet to apologize for unleashing nuclear terror on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only has there been no apology, but past governments have gone to extraordinary lengths, to convince a gullible public that the two atomic bombs saved a million American lives (notwithstanding historical research proving this story was promoted by a PR team after the bombings.)

    Neither has it apologized for usurping Iran’s genuine democratic movement in the 50s, or for propping up so many unsavory dictators across Latin America in the 60s and 70s. It has not apologized for the death and destruction it wrought upon Vietnam — and upon tens of thousands of its own youth who fought the unjust, unnecessary Vietnam War. And it has yet to apologize, for destroying a country called Iraq, unlocking a Pandora’s Box of conflict across the Middle East.

    Because George W. Bush and his top lieutenants have never apologized to the people of Iraq for the faked and failed 2003 invasion, and for bringing so much pain and suffering to so many, their lack of remorse and accountability has become impetus to further violence and injustice.

    An apology may not be meaningful or even meant, but true repentance can be felt. When the Emperor of Japan recently visited Palau in the Pacific and stood, frail and bowing, in front of memorials for Japanese and American soldiers killed on those horrific battlegrounds more than 70 years ago, people understood the depth and sincerity of his gesture.

    One of the most powerful apologies contained no words and took not even 30 seconds: it came from Chancellor Willy Brandt of Germany, falling to his knees at the Warsaw Ghetto Memorial on December 7, 1970. He later wrote in his memoirs “As I stood on the edge of Germany’s historical abyss, feeling the burden of millions of murders, I did what people do when words fail.” His historical gesture, repelled by many in his own country, became a turning point for German reconciliation not just with Poland but with the rest of Europe.

    Any Israeli prime minister who will one day have the courage to stand on the rubble of a Gaza neighborhood, look into the eyes of its once-dignified residents and pledge to work to end their plight, need not apologize — just act on that sense of repentance and responsibility, to start making a historical wrong right.

    The people of Hiroshima understood the significance, of both repentance and forgiveness, making theirs the rallying calls “To Forgive but not to Forget,” “Never Again” and “Transformation from a Military City to a City of Peace.” Without an understanding, of the invisible threads that weave together acceptance of sins and the struggle for forgiveness, could Hiroshima have stood today as a city symbolizing peace around the world? Every morning when bells toll in Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park at 8:15 a.m., the exact time of the atomic bombing, I am reminded, of how long this work may take.

    The great Japanese Nihonga painter Ikuo Hirayama travelled numerous times to Nanjing, site of atrocities committed by the Japanese military in the 1930s, to help rebuild the old Nanjing City Wall. He made personal donations to China’s historic heritage and trained countless Chinese artists in restoration. A survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing himself, Hirayama once said “I started to create my artwork as a requiem for those who lost their lives in the war. The wish for peace is at the core of my work.” Hirayama needed no apologies — his very life embodied faith in the powers of responsibility and redemption. Upon his death in December 2009, the Chinese government stopped its criticism of Japan momentarily, to pay tribute to a great artist and a courageous ambassador of peace.

    In the Nuclear Age apologies for historical wrongs are not some diplomatic niceties, to quickly offer and get over with. Rather, they should prod us to understand why we still live in such a violent world, spend so much money on arms or need 16,000 nuclear warheads — 2000 of them on trigger-hair alert – for our security. Why here, as in so many other nations, we have politicians who want us to believe that more warfare is the only way forward. And why, despite our great strides and achievements, we are unable to trust the powers of repentance and to solve our problems in a just, civilized manner. The stakes, of not understanding, have never been so high.

    Nassrine Azimi is co-founder and co-coordinator of Green Legacy Hiroshima Initiative.