Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Taxes and the End of the Nuclear Age

    This article was originally published by Common Dreams.

    Robert DodgeFollowing the arrival of spring each year, on Tax Day, April 15, our nation renews its commitment to our priorities from education to health care to infrastructure to national defense.

    Included among these expenditures are billions of dollars for nuclear weapons programs—for weapons that must not ever be used. The funding for these programs, while more transparent than in the past, is still quite secretive. From the beginnings of our nuclear program in 1940, we have spent in excess of $6 trillion on them. This Tax Day, we are slated to spend $56.3 billion more on these same programs. From Ventura County, California at $177 million, to Los Angeles County’s expenditure of $1.785 billion, to our nation’s capital at $107 million, these are monies that we can ill afford to spend. The squandering of these dollars, while continuing to inadequately fund national programs on infrastructure, education, health care and the environment, speaks to who we are as a nation. No logical person would argue against spending the entirety of these monies to secure, dismantle and clean up the existing environmental legacy of these weapons. Thereafter, these monies could be more appropriately allocated to programs that benefit all.

    This year’s expenditures come at a critical time. Just when international efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons through the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the remarkable and long-sought controls over Iran’s capability to acquire a nuclear weapon are coming to fruition, some of our leaders propose these massive expenditures. Is this the best we can do to lead by example?

    This month’s preliminary accord between the P5+1 and Iran, for Iran to remove its capability to build a nuclear weapon, would significantly enhance security of the region and the world. It needs the support of anyone who wishes to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war. Yet this, too, is being held in abeyance by political hardliners in Iran and in the U.S. Congress.

    Seventy years after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we continue to maintain and modernize our nuclear arsenals as though locked in a Cold War time warp.  Our president, held hostage by Congressional leadership, proposes to spend an additional $1 trillion over the next 30 years just on the modernization of our arsenals. This is in spite of being bound, along with the other nuclear states, by Article VI of the NPT to work in good faith toward complete disarmament. The NPT Review Conference will begin this month in New York City at the U.N. This year’s conference comes at a critical time as the non-nuclear states have grown impatient with the lack of progress of the nuclear states in meeting their legal obligations. Failure to make real progress threatens the entire treaty and will likely shift the focus to a nuclear weapons ban convention similar to conventions on other weapons of mass destruction, like chemical and biological weapons.

    The world must come together this 70th year of the Nuclear Age and speak with one voice for humanity and the future of our children. Now is the time to end the insanity that hangs over us, the threat of nuclear annihilation. We must move forward with a shared sense of tomorrow. Our children deserve this.

    Robert Dodge is a family physician practicing full-time in Ventura, California. He serves on the board of Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angles, serving as a Peace and Security Ambassador and at the national level, where he sits on the security committee. He also serves on the board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions. He writes for PeaceVoice.

  • Marshall Islands to U.S. – Keep Your NPT Promises

    Update: Marshall Islands to U.S. – Keep Your NPT Promises
    As the NPT Review Conference approaches, the Marshall Islands take the next step

    April 9, 2015 – The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed its Court ordered Mediation Questionnaire today in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, taking the next step in the appeal of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit.

    The lawsuit, brought by the RMI against the U.S., claims the U.S. is in breach of its legal obligations under Article VI of the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. The U.S. has refused to negotiate and is instead modernizing its nuclear arsenal.

    The case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds on February 3, 2015 by the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, before the U.S. filed an Answer or submitted any evidence, and without any analysis of the merits of the claims.

    In the Mediation Questionnaire, the RMI cites a statement made by the U.S. Embassy in the Marshall Islands on February 5, 2015 which asserted that “the U.S. commitment to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons is unassailable.” Taking the Embassy’s statement at face value, the RMI goes on to say, “If the U.S. were willing to demonstrate that commitment by calling for and convening negotiations for cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament under the NPT (which is the very relief sought by the Marshall Islands), then this case could have strong potential for a successful mediation.”

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and consultant to the RMI in their case, commented, “The RMI has set forth a means by which mediation could be successful. If the U.S. were acting responsibly, they’d simply do what they promised to do 45 years ago when the NPT entered into force – fulfill their obligation to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. It’s ironic that while the U.S. is focusing world attention on the progress being made on nonproliferation with Iran, there has been zero progress on initiating negotiations for cessation of the nuclear arms race or nuclear disarmament.”

    With the filing of this Mediation Questionnaire coming just two weeks prior to the 2015 NPT Review Conference to be held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, there will likely be heightened attention paid by those attending the conference to the status of the Marshall Islands lawsuits. This year’s Review Conference will mark the 20-year anniversary of the NPT’s indefinite extension agreed to in 1995.

    Click here to read the Mediation Questionnaire in its entirety. For more information about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, visit nuclearzero.org.

    #   #   #

    Note to editor: to arrange interviews with David Krieger (President of NAPF) or Laurie Ashton (head of RMI legal team for U.S. case), please call Sandy Jones or Rick Wayman at (805) 965-3443 or (805) 696-5159.

    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.

  • To the Americans Who Died in the Vietnam War

    Perhaps you thought you were doing the right thing, fighting in a small distant country for president and country.  It is the way we were all indoctrinated.  When the country calls, you must answer.  But the leaders of the country were dead wrong about fighting in Vietnam, and this wall with your names etched on it speaks to the terrible loss of each of you in that savage, brutal and unnecessary war.  I mourn your loss.  I mourn the loss of possibilities that were cut off when your lives ended in that war.  You might have stayed home to live and love, to have children and grandchildren, to follow your dreams, but for that war.

    David KriegerThe war was so wrong in so many ways.  It was wrong for you, for the people you were ordered to kill, and for the soul of America.  It was a war that was neither legal nor moral and, as such, set the tone for future US wars.  After that war, I don’t see how we can ever be proud of our country again.

    Some three million Vietnamese were killed in the war.  Some were fighting for their independence.  Others were innocent civilians.  Many were women and children.  You and other Americans were sent half way around the world because American leaders feared the communists, feared that countries in Southeast Asia would fall like dominoes to the communists.  But Ho Chi Minh was more than a communist.  He was a nationalist, leading his country to independence from colonial rule.  He was a nationalist who admired Thomas Jefferson, and he had once asked the United States for help in seeking that independence.  We turned him down, turning our backs on our own history and on your future.

    Once Lyndon Johnson became president it was all escalation in Vietnam.  General Westmoreland always wanted more men.  He kept upping the ante in his calls for more American soldiers, and LBJ and McNamara kept obliging him.  They kept pulling young Americans from their lives and dreams to fight in the jungles of Vietnam.  You know better than I do that it was a hopeless war, a war in which you were sent to kill and die for no good reason, for the delusions of American leaders who didn’t want to lose a war.  Of course, that’s exactly what happened in the end, and by that time Nixon and Kissinger had joined the Johnson and Westmoreland team in failure.  According to the rigged body counts on the nightly news, we were winning the war, but that was only until we lost.

    One slogan stands out in my mind, “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”  We’ll never know how many there were, but there were many.  The war drove LBJ from office, but it brought in Richard Nixon.  He said he had a plan to end the war.  This turned out to be massive bombing of North Vietnam, and secret and illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia.  It was shameful, but not as shameful as Kissinger receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the shape of the table for peace talks with the Vietnamese.

    What kind of a country could pursue such a war against peasants fighting for their freedom?  Answer: The same kind of country that could drop atomic bombs on civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Sadly, in the years since you’ve been gone, our country has learned little about compassion.  We have fought new wars, including one in Iraq, based upon presidential lies having to do with illusory weapons of mass destruction.

    America has continued to waste its treasure in fighting wars around the world, as well as its dignity, its goodwill, its youth and its future.  I wish I could give you a more positive report on what America learned from the Vietnam War, but most of what it has learned seems intended to make wars easier to prosecute, such as ending conscription, relying on a poverty-driven volunteer army, embedding reporters with the troops, and not allowing photographs of returning coffins.  Incidentally, no dominoes ever fell.

    America has yet to learn that war is not the answer, that bombs do not make friends and military power does not bring peace.  Our military budget is immense.  When all is added in, it amounts to over a trillion dollars annually.  Imagine what a difference even a fraction of those funds would make in fulfilling basic human needs for Americans and people throughout the world.

    I wish you were here to stand up and speak out for peace and justice, for a better, more peaceful country and world.  We need you.

  • Mediation Questionnaire

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands filed a Mediation Questionnaire at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, April 9, 2015. To read the pdf document, click here.

  • Sunflower Newsletter: April 2015

    Issue #213 – April 2015

    Follow David Krieger on twitter

    Click here or on the image above to follow NAPF President David Krieger on Twitter.
    • Perspectives
      • Nuclear Weapons and Possible Human Extinction: The Heroic Marshall Islanders by David Krieger
      • Why We Need Peace Heroes by Paul K. Chappell
    • Nuclear Zero Lawsuits
      • Marshall Islands Appeals to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
      • Marshallese Can Rightfully Claim a Victory
    • U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
      • U.S. Pressures Allies to Reject Austrian Pledge
    • Nuclear Insanity
      • U.S. Finally Admits that Israel Has Nuclear Weapons
      • GOP Senators Send Letter to Iran in Attempt to Undermine Nuclear Negotiations
    • Nuclear Proliferation
      • Iran Nuclear Negotiations Continue
      • Why Is China Modernizing Its Nuclear Arsenal?
    • Nuclear Disarmament
      • Russia Calls on U.S. to Remove Nuclear Weapons from Europe
    • Nuclear Testing
      • Russia and U.S. Test ICBMs
    • Resources
      • NPT Action Plan Monitoring Report
      • This Month in Nuclear Threat History
      • Consequences of Limited and Large-Scale Nuclear War
      • Nuclear Weapons in Your Backyard
      • Global Wave on April 26
    • Foundation Activities
      • NAPF at Peace and Planet Mobilization
      • Event on Nuclear Zero Lawsuits at the United Nations
      • New Booklets Now Available
      • Peace Leadership and Civil Rights
      • Upcoming NAPF Lectures
      • NAPF Peace Poetry Contest
    • Quotes

    Perspectives

    Nuclear Weapons and Possible Human Extinction: The Heroic Marshall Islanders

    by David Krieger

    Extinction is a harsh and unforgiving word, a word that should make us shiver. Time moves inexorably in one direction only and, when extinction is complete, there are no further chances for revival. Extinction is a void, a black hole, from which return is forever foreclosed. If we can imagine the terrible void of extinction, then perhaps we can mobilize to forestall its occurrence, even its possibility.

    The brilliant American author Jonathan Schell, who wrote The Fate of the Earth and was an ardent nuclear abolitionist, had this insight into the Nuclear Age: “We prepare for our extinction in order to assure our survival.” He refers to the irony and idiocy of reliance upon nuclear weapons to avert nuclear war.

    To read more, click here.

    Why We Need Peace Heroes

    by Paul K. Chappell

    The art of living requires us to understand what it means to be human, because the art of living works with the medium of our shared humanity, just as painting works with color and music works with sound. The art of living also requires us to learn the art of waging peace, because peace is the process and product of living well. Instead of saying our society is illiterate in peace, a more accurate phrase is “preliterate in peace.” Three thousand years ago, there were many brilliant Greeks and Trojans who did not understand the importance of becoming literate in reading. And today, there are many brilliant people in our society who do not yet understand the importance of becoming literate in living well, waging peace, and our shared humanity.

    Because environmental destruction, nuclear weapons, and war can drive humanity extinct, this new kind of literacy I am describing is necessary for human survival. Just as people today recognize that illiteracy in reading is a serious problem, we must create a future where people recognize that illiteracy in the art of living and the art of waging peace is also a serious problem. To take their society to the next level, a civilization such as the ancient Greeks had to prioritize literacy. To take our global society to the next level, we must prioritize literacy in living well, waging peace, and our shared humanity.

    To read more, click here.

    Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    Marshall Islands to Appeal to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

    The lawsuit brought by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) against the United States is not going away anytime soon. While the case was dismissed on February 3, 2015 by the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, on April 2, 2015, this small island nation took the important step of formally filing its Notice of Appeal.

    Earlier this year, U.S. Federal District Court dismissed the case on the jurisdictional grounds of standing and political question doctrine without getting to the merits of the case. Laurie Ashton, lead attorney for the RMI, expressed strong disagreement with the court’s ruling, saying, “We believe the District Court erred in dismissing the case. The Marshall Islands, like every party to the NPT, is entitled to the United States’ fulfillment of its NPT promise – negotiations for nuclear disarmament. Further, the U.S. President does not enjoy exclusive purview to determine the U.S. breach of its treaty obligations. Instead, the judiciary has an obligation to rule in this treaty dispute.”

    “The Marshall Islands Will Not Back Down,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, April 2, 2015.

    Marshallese Can Rightfully Claim a Victory

     

    In Embassy, one of Canada’s top publications on foreign affairs issues, Cesar Jaramillo and Debbie Grisdale describe the main details of the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits.

    Speaking particularly to their Canadian audience, they write, “However the court rules, the effort by the RMI to hold nuclear armed states accountable is worthy of support in Canada and beyond. Canada recognizes the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction and has historically aligned with the rule of law.”

    Cesar Jaramillo and Debbie Grisdale, “Marshallese Can Rightfully Claim a Victory,” Embassy, March 25, 2015.

    U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    U.S. Pressures Allies to Reject Austrian Pledge

     

    The United States has pressured Japan, Norway and likely many other allied countries to reject the Austrian Pledge, which calls for efforts to “stigmatise, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.” While Japan sponsors a resolution annually at the United Nations General Assembly calling for states to take action towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, the Japanese government felt pressured by the United States to reject the Austrian Pledge.

    According to a Japanese government official, Japan’s reliance on the U.S. nuclear “umbrella” is more important than supporting an effort to negotiate a treaty banning and eliminating nuclear weapons.

    “Because of U.S. Nuclear Umbrella, Japan Not to Support Austrian Document Seeking Atomic Weapons Ban,” Kyodo, March 13, 2015.

    Nuclear Insanity

    U.S. Finally Admits that Israel Has Nuclear Weapons

     

    A report prepared for the Pentagon in the late 1980s has been released under the Freedom of Information Act. The report describes Israel as having nuclear weapon development and production facilities “equivalent to our Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.”

    While it has been widely known for years that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, the United States government has played along with Israel’s position of “strategic ambiguity” for decades. This document’s release marks the first time that the U.S. government has officially disclosed its knowledge of Israeli nuclear weapons programs.

    William Greider, “It’s Official: The Pentagon Finally Admitted that Israel Has Nuclear Weapons, Too,” The Nation, March 20, 2015.

    GOP Senators Send Letter to Iran in Attempt to Undermine Nuclear Negotiations

     

    Forty-seven Republican Senators have sent a letter to Iran’s leadership in an attempt to undermine negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. The letter, written by Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, states that the signers view any negotiated agreement as an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. It goes on to state that future U.S. Presidents could “revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

    In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”

    “Part II: Iran Responds to GOP Letter,” United States Institute of Peace, March 9, 2015.

    Nuclear Proliferation

    Iran Nuclear Negotiations Continue

     

    The latest self-imposed deadline of March 31 has passed in the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1. Negotiations have mostly been portrayed as positive, but important points of disagreement remain.

    The Americans want to establish quantitative limits: how many centrifuges can spin, how much nuclear fuel can be produced, etc. The Iranians, on the other hand, are focused on maintaining sovereignty and reassuring Iranian citizens that they are standing their ground. Additionally, the pace of sanctions relief is an unresolved issue.

    Joe Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund, recently published an article entitled “How to Know if the Iran Deal Is a Good Deal.” Click here to read it.

    Michael Gordon, “Iran Nuclear Talks Are Extended for Another Day,” The New York Times, April 1, 2015.

    Why Is China Modernizing Its Nuclear Arsenal?

     

    China’s nuclear modernization program often receives more attention than the programs of other nuclear-armed nations, even though its nuclear arsenal is far inferior to that of Russia or the United States. Chinese analysts often point to concerns about the United States’ first strike capability as a reason for modernizing. The analysts also say that China believes it must modernize its nuclear arsenal to remain viable against massive U.S. nuclear and conventional weapon modernization.

    Chinese analysts also point to the disparity in numbers of nuclear weapons. Despite the New START Treaty between the United States and Russia, which has reduced the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons those two countries can have, the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States are still nearly 20 times larger than China’s. Interestingly, under the definition of “deployed” in the New START Treaty, China would be considered to have zero nuclear weapons.

    Gregory Kulacki, “Why Is China Modernizing Its Nuclear Arsenal?” All Things Nuclear, April 1, 2015.

    Nuclear Disarmament

    Russia Calls on U.S. to Remove Nuclear Weapons from Europe

     

    Russia has called on the United States to remove its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. Currently, the United States has approximately 180 nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under a NATO nuclear sharing agreement. Russia claims that this arrangement is “in direct contradiction to the letter and spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty” because it involves the use of military equipment and personnel of non-nuclear weapon states.

    State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons on the territories of NATO allies “is consistent with the NPT” because the NATO nuclear sharing agreement was in place before the NPT entered into force in 1970.

    Tony Halpin, “Russia Calls on U.S. to Remove Its Nuclear Weapons from Europe,” Bloomberg Business, March 24, 2015.

    Nuclear Testing

    Russia and U.S. Test ICBMs

     

    In March, both Russia and the United States conducted tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles – land-based missiles that carry nuclear warheads. Russia tested its SS-26 Rubezh missile on March 18, while the U.S. conducted tests of its Minuteman III missile on March 23 and 27.

    Speaking about the March 27 Minuteman III launch, Lt. Col. Daniel Hays, commander of the 341st Missile Wing Task Force, said, “These launches are a visible reminder to both our adversaries and our allies of the readiness and capability of the Minuteman III weapon system.”

    To read NAPF President David Krieger’s response to the U.S. tests from Vandenberg Air Force Base, click here.

    Brian Everstine, “Missile Crews Complete Two Successful Test Launches in One Week,” Air Force Times, March 27, 2015.

    Resources

    NPT Action Plan Monitoring Report

     

    In advance of this month’s Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, Reaching Critical Will has published a new report that examines progress that countries have made toward implementing the 2010 Action Plan agreed to at the 2010 NPT Review Conference. The 64-point action plan was intended to further the implementation of the NPT.

    Reaching Critical Will’s monitoring report provides a straightforward review and assessment of the Plan’s implementation. In addition to actions on nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the report covers the initiatives related to the Middle East weapons of mass destruction free zone and the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

    Many of the 64 action points, particularly those relating to nuclear disarmament, continue to receive a failing mark.

    To read the report, click here.

    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 April, including the April 11, 1950 crash of a B-29 Superfortress strategic bomber in New Mexico, in which 13 crew members died. The plane was carrying a nuclear weapon on board, but the nuclear warhead did not detonate.

    To read Mason’s full article, click here.

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

    Consequences of Limited and Large-Scale Nuclear War

     

    Dr. Ira Helfand, co-President of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, delivered an important overview of the consequences of limited and large-scale nuclear war at a planning meeting for the upcoming World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates in Atlanta.

    Dr. Helfand explained that even in a limited regional nuclear war, the consequences would be global. Soot from burning cities would block sunlight and prevent crops from growing in many parts of the planet, leading to widespread famine that could kill up to two billion people.

    To watch the 10-minute video of Ira Helfand’s presentation, click here.

    Nuclear Weapons in Your Backyard

     

    Physicians for Social Responsibility has created an interactive map showing U.S. nuclear facilities and the locations of many mishaps involving nuclear weapons throughout history. Many readers of The Sunflower may be surprised to discover that a nuclear weapon accident has taken place near their home.

    To see the map and read more information about the project, click here.

    Global Wave on April 26

     

    The Global Wave will involve a simple public action in cities around the world in a timed fashion over 24 hours just before the 2015 NPT Review Conference in New York City. Starting at a major peace rally in New York City on April 26, and then proceeding westward through each time zone every hour, humanity will “Wave Goodbye to Nuclear Weapons” through symbolic Wave events.

    The action will engage parliamentarians, mayors, religious leaders, youth, environmentalists, human rights activists, sports clubs, celebrities and other representatives of civil society. The action in some places will be small and symbolic – in other places it will be larger and more celebratory.

    Global Wave 2015 is part of Peace and Planet: Mobilization for a Nuclear Free, Just and Sustainable World. To get involved in this exciting global action, click here.

    Foundation Activities

    NAPF at Peace and Planet Mobilization

     

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is involved in many activities around the upcoming Peace and Planet Mobilization in New York City on April 24-26. NAPF is co-sponsoring a workshop at the Peace and Planet conference entitled “Small Islands, Big Threats: The Marshall Islands Tackle Nuclear Weapons and Climate Change.” The Foundation will also have a booth at the Peace Festival from 3-6 p.m. on Sunday, April 26 in Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza.

    If you are in the New York area, please join us for these important events. For more information on the Peace and Planet Mobilization and to register, click here.

    Event on Nuclear Zero Lawsuits at the United Nations

     

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms is co-sponsoring a lunchtime event on the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits at the United Nations on April 27, the first day of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Speakers at the event include: Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands; Laurie Ashton, lead counsel for the Marshall Islands in the lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court; and David Krieger, NAPF President and member of the legal team working on the lawsuits at the International Court of Justice.

    The event is inside United Nations headquarters and is only open to government and NGO representatives with building passes.

    New Booklets Now Available

     

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has just published two new booklets to raise awareness around the urgent need for the abolition of nuclear weapons. The first booklet is based on NAPF President David Krieger’s list of 15 moral reasons to abolish nuclear weapons. The second booklet, entitled “Nuclear Zero: Believe,” contains quotes from leaders of many different faith traditions that support the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    Click here to view the 15 moral reasons booklet. Click here for the “Nuclear Zero: Believe” booklet. To order hard copies of these booklets for distribution in your area, please email rwayman@napf.org.

    Peace Leadership and Civil Rights

     

    NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell touched a part of civil rights history on March 29 as keynote speaker for the Durr Lecture Series at Auburn University in Montgomery, Alabama. Chappell, who grew up in Huntsville, helped to bring closure to a time period of remembering. Only several days earlier, at the reenactment of the conclusion of the civil rights march from Selma to the steps of the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery, Bernice King, daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Peggy Wallace Kennedy, daughter of Governor George Wallace, hugged and held hands in prayer.

    Among many topics, Chappell discussed how, from a military perspective, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. were strategic geniuses, more brilliant and innovative than any general in history. They were courageous warriors who advanced a more effective method than waging war for providing national and global security. “Gandhi said, ‘I am a soldier, but a solider of peace.’ Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ‘In the nonviolent army, there is room for everyone who wants to join.’”

    To read more about Paul’s recent trip to Alabama, click here.

    Upcoming NAPF Lectures

     

    In the coming weeks, NAPF representatives will be giving public lectures around the United States. If you are in the area of any of these lectures, we would be pleased to see you there. For more information on these events, please call NAPF at (805) 965-3443.

    On April 27 at 7:30 p.m., NAPF President David Krieger will deliver a lecture in New York City as part of the SGI Culture of Peace Lecture Series.

    On May 3-4, NAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul K. Chappell will speak at Kent State University to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the killing of four students by National Guard troops during a protest against the Vietnam War. Paul will be joined by Dick Gregory and many others.

    NAPF Peace Poetry Contest

     

    The deadline for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s annual Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards is July 1. The contest encourages poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit. The Poetry Awards include three age categories: Adult, Youth 13-18, and Youth 12 & Under. Cash prizes of up to $1,000 will be awarded to the winners.

    April is National Poetry Month, so it is a great time to submit your poems. For full details on the poetry contest, click here.

    Quotes

     

    “There’s an increasing urgency on the part of those countries that do not have nuclear weapons to say to the nuclear weapons powers: ‘You need to disarm, you need to fulfill your side of the bargain.’”

    — Angela Kane, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. Ms. Kane recently announced her decision to step down from her position after serving for three years.

     

    “We are robbing America’s future to pay for unneeded weapons of the past.”

    — Senator Edward Markey (D-MA), introducing the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act on March 23, 2015.

     

    “The hope of humankind is that compassion and compromise may replace the cruel and senseless violence of armed conflicts.”

    — Benjamin B. Ferencz, American attorney and prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal. This quote is featured in the book Speaking of Peace: Quotations to Inspire Action, available from the NAPF Peace Store.

    Editorial Team

     

    Keanna Cohen
    David Krieger
    Grant Stanton
    Carol Warner
    Rick Wayman

  • The Marshall Islands Will Not Back Down

    Contact:
    Sandy Jones or Rick Wayman
    (805) 965-3443 / (805) 696-5159
    sjones@napf.org / rwayman@napf.org

    The Marshall Islands Will Not Back Down
    The Marshall Islands appeals dismissal of lawsuit against United States

    April 2, 2015 – The lawsuit brought by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) against the United States is not going away anytime soon. While the case was dismissed on February 3, 2015 by the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, this small island nation today took the important step of formally filing its Notice of Appeal.

    The lawsuit, referred to as the Nuclear Zero lawsuit, claims the U.S. is in breach of its legal obligations under Article VI of the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.  This is especially important as there is a growing awareness in the world that the continued possession and modernization of nuclear arsenals constitutes a clear and continuing threat to our planet. This threat is now magnified by the deteriorating relationships between Russia and the U.S., which between them control over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

    Earlier this year, U.S. Federal District Court dismissed the case on the jurisdictional grounds of standing and political question doctrine without getting to the merits of the case. Laurie Ashton, lead attorney for the RMI in the U.S. case, expressed strong disagreement with the court’s ruling, saying, “We believe the District Court erred in dismissing the case. The Marshall Islands, like every party to the NPT, is entitled to the United States’ fulfillment of its NPT promise – negotiations for nuclear disarmament. Further, the U.S. President does not enjoy exclusive purview to determine the U.S. breach of its treaty obligations. Instead, the judiciary has an obligation to rule in this treaty dispute.”

    Marshall Islanders suffered catastrophic and irreparable damages to their people and homeland when the U.S. conducted 67 nuclear tests on their 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 to health and well-being of the Marshall Islanders and to their land continues to this day.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and consultant to the RMI in the case, made the following statement. “Knowing how high the stakes are, the Marshall Islands will not give up. They are a resilient and heroic people who have taken bold action against the nuclear giants of the world. They will continue to struggle on behalf of all humanity until the nuclear-armed nations have fulfilled their obligations to abolish every last one of their nuclear weapons.”

    RMI Foreign Minister Tony de Brum said of the appeal, “We are in this for the long haul. We remain steadfast in our belief that nuclear weapons benefit no one and that what is right for humankind will prevail. We place great importance in and hold high respect for the American judicial process and will pursue justice in that spirit, using every available legal avenue to see that Nuclear Zero is achieved in my lifetime.”

    For more information about the Nuclear Zero lawsuits, visit nuclearzero.org. To read the Notice of Appeal, click here.

    #      #     #

    Note to editor: to arrange interviews with David Krieger (President of NAPF) or Laurie Ashton (head of RMI legal team for U.S. case), please call Sandy Jones or Rick Wayman at (805) 965-3443 or (805) 696-5159.

    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.

  • Vandenberg ICBM Tests Are Not Innocuous

    Regarding the second ICBM test from Vandenberg within a week, it has become tedious to read time after time that the tests “are a visible reminder to both our adversaries and our allies of the readiness and capabilities of the Minuteman III weapon system.”

    We certainly know by now that these missiles, when armed with nuclear weapons, can destroy cities and, in a nuclear war, contribute to human extinction.  We also know that nuclear deterrence is only a hypothesis about human behavior that has not and cannot be proven to be effective.  In the 70 years of the Nuclear Age there have been many close calls when nuclear deterrence came close to failing.

    General Lee Butler, a former commander-in-chief of the US Strategic Command, who was once in charge of all US strategic nuclear weapons, has said, “Nuclear deterrence was and remains a slippery intellectual construct that translates very poorly into the real world of spontaneous crises, inexplicable motivations, incomplete intelligence and fragile human relationships.”

    General Butler’s wisdom makes the colonels from Vandenberg who are quoted sound like naïve school children.  Of course, these officers are only doing their job and repeating a simplistic message about the value of nuclear deterrence.  Unfortunately, their perspective endangers the lives of all school children, and the rest of us, now and in the future.

    There are more reasons to oppose ICBM tests from Vandenberg than that they are too expensive and violate treaty agreements, although these are certainly valid.  The tests are a waste of resources and they violate US obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date.

    Other reasons include: attempting to justify the “use them or lose them” nature of the Minuteman III missile force; the incentives for proliferation that US missile testing provide; the dangers to Santa Barbara County due to the proximity of Vandenberg; and the immorality of threatening to use nuclear-armed missiles that together could result in billions of deaths of humans and other forms of life.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has a new booklet entitled, “15 Moral Reasons to Abolish Nuclear Weapons,” available on its website.

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

  • April: This Month in Nuclear Threat History

    April 3, 1978 – Norwegian scholar and explorer Thor Heyerdahl (1914-2002), as a protest against warfare and the nuclear threat, particularly in the Middle East, burned his reed ship “Tigris” after his fourth and final transoceanic voyage, in which his crew of ten sailed from the Tigris River to the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, and back, some 4,200 miles in five months.  Afterward, at a press conference he stated, “We must wake up to the insane reality of our time.  We are all irresponsible unless we demand from the responsible decision makers that modern armaments must no longer be made available to people whose former battle axes and swords our ancestors condemned.  Our planet is bigger than the reed bundles that have carried us across the seas, and yet small enough to run the same risks unless those of us alive open our eyes and minds to the desperate need of intelligent collaboration to save ourselves and our common civilization from what we are about to convert into a sinking ship.”  (Source:  Heyerdahl Burns “Tigris” Reed Ship to Protest War.”  Azerbaijan International, Spring 2003.  http://www.azer.com accessed March 6, 2015.)

    April 5, 2009 – In a speech in Prague, the newly elected, first ever African-American President of the United States, Barack Obama, announced his administration “is seeking a world without nuclear weapons.”  The rhetoric was stirring and powerful:  “If we believe the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we’re admitting that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.”   Comments:  While several other U.S. presidents, including most prominently Jimmy Carter, have pronounced similar sentiments, either while in office or after leaving the presidency, President Obama’s speech was so heralded globally, that he later won the Nobel Peace Prize.  However, as the years passed since this speech, it became clear that the President has not followed through on this promise.  His overall record in the Global Zero imperative is not particularly impressive.  His administration’s nuclear cooperation agreement with India, a continued embrace of dangerous, cost-ineffective, and environmentally hazardous civilian nuclear power (which does actually generate greenhouse gases during the production and decommissioning phases of plant operations, in addition to representing a deadly proliferation and terrorism risk), and the unwillingness to de-alert a small portion of the U.S. nuclear triad as a challenge to Russia to follow suit, are just some of the examples of these failures.  In an era when new, more efficient and entirely reliable international sensing technologies make verification 100 percent certain, it is extremely disappointing that the President has not pushed for Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signed by President Clinton in 1996 and ratified by the Russian Duma thereafter.   This administration has not lobbied for a fissile materials cutoff agreement, or pushed the envelope for more accelerated strategic warhead reductions below the 1,550 level of the 2010 new START I Treaty.  While President Obama has held nuclear security summits and resisted calls to bomb North Korean or alleged Iranian nuclear weapons sites, he has recently surrendered to neo-con hardliner’s calls to spend a trillion dollars or more by 2045 to build a new generation of nuclear weapons including new launch platforms, upgrade the nuclear laboratories, and generally continue the seventy year old nuclear arms race along with Russia and China.  (Source:  “Remarks by President Barack Obama in Prague.”  April 5, 2009.  http://www.whitehouse.gov accessed March 6, 2015.)

    April 7, 1958 – Four years after announcing the U.S. policy of massive retaliation, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was concerned that the U.S. had become “prisoners of our strategic concept” and “caught in a vicious circle.”  It was the beginning of a U.S. strategic shift of a new, less provocative policy of flexible response and counterforce strategy.   Yet, key military leaders thought that the current strategy hadn’t gone far enough.   General Curtis LeMay, head of the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC), wanted to deploy higher yield nuclear warheads on his aircraft – a sixty megaton bomb as powerful as 4,000 Hiroshima-sized weapons.   (Source:  Eric Schlosser.  “Command and Control:  Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident, and the Illusion of Safety.” New York:  Penguin Press, 2013, pp. 199-202.)

    April 11, 1950 – Thirteen crew members aboard a U.S. B-29 Superfortress strategic bomber died when the plane crashed near Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico shortly after takeoff.  The aircraft was carrying a nuclear warhead with its core component stored separately.  On impact a fire destroyed the outer casing of the bomb and its high explosives detonated when exposed to the burning fuel.   Comments:  This is just one of dozens of acknowledged as well as a potentially greater number of still classified nuclear accidents and Broken Arrows that have occurred involving the arsenals of the Nuclear Club nations.  (Source:  Aerospace Web, http://www.aerospaceweb.org accessed March 8, 2015.)

    April 11, 1963 – Pope John XXIII, in an encyclical pronouncement, “Pacem in Terris,” stated that, “Nuclear weapons must be banned…While it is difficult to believe that anyone would dare to assume responsibility for initiating the appalling slaughter and destruction that war would bring in its wake, there is no denying that the conflagration could be started by some chance and unforeseen circumstance…Hence justice, right reason, and the recognition of man’s dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race.”  (Source:  “Encyclical ‘Pacem in Terris’ of John XXIII” http://w2.vatican.va accessed March 6, 2015.)

    April 13, 2014 – At a press conference in Berlin, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that the world has 15 years to stave off a devastating, inevitable, and deadly catastrophe caused by decades of continuing human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.   Comments:  Relying on increased use of flawed, dangerous, economically and environmentally unsustainable civilian nuclear power, instead of pushing for a dramatic increases in green energy sources like geothermal, solar, and wind power, as a solution to global warming, is analogous to arguing that human security is enhanced by ever-growing arsenals of nuclear weapons.  For Global Zero to be successful, the nuclear threat represented not only by nuclear weapons and their proliferation but also by civilian nuclear power, must be eliminated.  The nuclear peace dividend from this effort will not only be enough to clean-up thousands of global nuclear contamination zones but also to immediately increase government and nongovernment funding on accelerated global warming reversal.   Putting some of our eggs in the “nuclear basket” is not a viable insurance policy when it comes to climate change.   It is, in fact, a suicide pact.   (Source:  “Fifteen Year Climate Countdown.”  http://www.350nyc.org/15-year-climate-countdown accessed on March 6, 2015.)

    April 22, 2008 – On ABC-TV’s Good Morning America program, U.S. presidential candidate (and later President Obama’s Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton pledged that if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, the U.S. would retaliate against the Iranians, “In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”  Comments:  Risky, high-profile nuclear saber-rattling persists among leaders, American and otherwise, many of whom have also publicly professed a desire to see nuclear weapons eliminated some day.  But it is clear that such nuclear threats sabotage short- and long-term global efforts to build confidence that a world without nuclear weapons will include all nations without exception (even the closest U.S. ally – Israel) in a world that is also without war as a means to settle disputes.  (Source:  David Morgan.  “Clinton Says U.S. Could ‘Totally Obliterate’ Iran.”  Reuters News, April 22, 2008.  http://www.reuters.com accessed March 6, 2015.)

    April 24, 2014 – The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), located in the Pacific Ocean region, an area of the world where hundreds of nuclear weapons tests were conducted by the U.S., Great Britain, and France for half a century, 1946-96, brought a lawsuit against the nine nuclear-armed nations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest court, as well as in U.S. federal district court in northern California.   The lawsuit accused members of the Nuclear Club of violating their obligations under international law to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and to commit to total nuclear disarmament under the provisions of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other multilateral agreements.   While the case is still pending in the ICJ, on February 13, 2015 George H.W. Bush appointee Judge Jeffrey White granted the U.S. motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the RMI, although a party to the NPT, lacked standing to bring the case and that the lawsuit was barred by the political question doctrine.  Comments:   Fortunately, the history of jurisprudence illustrates that it is often true that judicial rulings lag behind public sentiment.   A growing global consensus that nuclear weapons represent a clear and present danger to the human species may yet convince those in charge to acknowledge their catastrophic violation of international legal norms and reverse course before it is too late.  It’s just a question of when.  (Sources:  NAPF’s Sunflower Newsletter and various news media outlets.)

    April 25, 1982 – In a New York Times Magazine article, retired U.S. Admiral Noel Gaylor warned that, “Everyone understands that nuclear weapons are the most deadly things ever invented by man.  If they were ever to be used, the chances are overwhelming that they would be used in great numbers.  And that would mean the slaughter of innocents in the hundreds of millions, the end of Western civilization, perhaps the end of a livable world.”

  • Who Are the Nuclear Scofflaws?

    This article was originally published by History News Network.

    Lawrence WittnerGiven all the frothing by hawkish U.S. Senators about Iran’s possible development of nuclear weapons, one might think that Iran was violating the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

    But it’s not. The NPT, signed by 190 nations and in effect since 1970, is a treaty in which the non-nuclear nations agreed to forgo developing nuclear weapons and the nuclear nations agreed to divest themselves of their nuclear weapons. It also granted nations the right to develop peaceful nuclear power. The current negotiations in which Iran is engaged with other nations are merely designed to guarantee that Iran, which signed the NPT, does not cross the line from developing nuclear power to developing nuclear weapons.

    Nine nations, however, have flouted the NPT by either developing nuclear weapons since the treaty went into effect or failing to honor the commitment to disarm. These nine scofflaws and their nuclear arsenals are Russia (7,500 nuclear warheads), the United States (7,100 nuclear warheads), France (300 nuclear warheads), China (250 nuclear warheads), Britain (215 nuclear warheads), Pakistan (100-120 nuclear warheads), India (90-110 nuclear warheads), Israel (80 nuclear warheads), and North Korea (10 nuclear warheads).

    Nor are the nuclear powers likely to be in compliance with the NPT any time soon. The Indian and Pakistani governments are engaged in a rapid nuclear weapons buildup, while the British government is contemplating the development of a new, more advanced nuclear weapons system. Although, in recent decades, the U.S. and Russian governments did reduce their nuclear arsenals substantially, that process has come to a halt in recent years, as relations have soured between the two nations. Indeed, both countries are currently engaged in a new, extremely dangerous nuclear arms race. The U.S. government has committed itself to spending $1 trillion to “modernize” its nuclear facilities and build new nuclear weapons. For its part, the Russian government is investing heavily in the upgrading of its nuclear warheads and the development of new delivery systems, such as nuclear missiles and nuclear submarines.

    What can be done about this flouting of the NPT, some 45 years after it went into operation?

    That will almost certainly be a major issue at an NPT Review Conference that will convene at the UN headquarters, in New York City, from April 27 to May 22. These review conferences, held every five years, attract high-level national officials from around the world to discuss the treaty’s implementation. For a very brief time, the review conferences even draw the attention of television and other news commentators before the mass communications media return to their preoccupation with scandals, arrests, and the lives of movie stars.

    This spring’s NPT review conference might be particularly lively, given the heightening frustration of the non-nuclear powers at the failure of the nuclear powers to fulfill their NPT commitments. At recent disarmament conferences in Norway, Mexico and Austria, the representatives of a large number of non-nuclear nations, ignoring the opposition of the nuclear powers, focused on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. One rising demand among restless non-nuclear nations and among nuclear disarmament groups is to develop a nuclear weapons ban treaty, whether or not the nuclear powers are willing to participate in negotiations.

    To heighten the pressure for the abolition of nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament groups are staging a Peace and Planet mobilization, in Manhattan, on the eve of the NPT review conference. Calling for a “Nuclear-Free, Peaceful, Just, and Sustainable World,” the mobilization involves an international conference (comprised of plenaries and workshops) on April 24 and 25, plus a culminating interfaith convocation, rally, march, and festival on April 26. Among the hundreds of endorsing organizations are many devoted to peace (Fellowship of Reconciliation, Pax Christi, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Veterans for Peace, and Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom), environmentalism (Earth Action, Friends of the Earth, and 350NYC), religion (Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, Unitarian Universalist UN Office, United Church of Christ, and United Methodist General Board of Church & Society), workers’ rights (New Jersey Industrial Union Council, United Electrical Workers, and Working Families Party), and human welfare (American Friends Service Committee and National Association of Social Workers).

    Of course, how much effect the proponents of a nuclear weapons-free world will have on the cynical officials of the nuclear powers remains to be seen. After as many as 45 years of stalling on their own nuclear disarmament, it is hard to imagine that they are finally ready to begin negotiating a treaty effectively banning nuclear weapons―or at least their nuclear weapons.

    Meanwhile, let us encourage Iran not to follow the bad example set by the nuclear powers. And let us ask the nuclear-armed nations, now telling Iran that it should forgo the possession of nuclear weapons, when they are going to start practicing what they preach.

  • Marshallese Can Rightfully Claim a Victory

    This article was originally published by Embassy.

    The radioactive fallout came down like snow on the island of Rongelap in the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

    It was March 1, 1954, and Castle Bravo—a nuclear device one thousand times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima—had just been detonated less than 100 miles away. “We kids were playing in the powder, having fun, but later everyone was sick and we couldn’t do anything” said Lijon Eknilang, a survivor who was eight at the time. After two and a half days, the United States military evacuated the residents of Rongelap to another Marshallese island.

    Six decades later, on April 24, 2014, the RMI filed landmark lawsuits at the International Court of Justice in The Hague against all nine nuclear-armed states for the blatant, continued breach of their nuclear disarmament obligations. Cited were states parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—the United States, Russia, France, China and the United Kingdom—plus India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

    The allegation in the lawsuits? Breach of Article VI of the NPT, which mandates states to “pursue negotiations in good faith” toward nuclear disarmament. Even the four states outside the NPT framework are under the obligation to disarm, says the plaintiff, as the norm against the possession of nuclear weapons has become entrenched in customary international law.

    The continued possession and modernization of nuclear arsenals constitutes a clear and constant threat to life on Earth. Awareness is growing that the risk posed by the current 16,300 nuclear weapons is exacerbated by deteriorating relations between the top nuclear powers―the United States and Russia―which together account for roughly 95 per cent of existing weapons.

    In each of the ICJ lawsuits, the RMI contends that “the long delay in fulfilling the obligations enshrined in Article VI of the NPT and customary international law constitutes a flagrant denial of human justice.” The RMI seeks no compensation, only prompt, tangible progress toward nuclear abolition.

    A second lawsuit was filed in US Federal District Court in San Francisco against the United States. It related to the 12 years between 1946 and 1958 when the United States detonated 67 nuclear weapons in the RMI. All nuclear detonations were conducted while the United States administered the RMI as a United Nations Trust Territory, with a clear mandate to act in the best interests of the inhabitants and of international peace and security.

    According to a 2012 report from Calin Georgescu, special rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council, the “devastating adverse impact” of those nuclear detonations on the health and ecosystem of the RMI continues to this day.

    Last month the US Federal Court lawsuit was dismissed. On Feb. 3, Judge Jeffrey White determined that allegations that the United States failed to comply with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty had no legal merit. At the same time, the path for the nine lawsuits before the ICJ is cluttered with legal technicalities and procedural hurdles—such as which countries might recognize the jurisdiction of the court.

    This is the first time the ICJ has been asked to address issues relating to nuclear weapons since its 1996 advisory opinion that “there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.” However the court rules, the effort by the RMI to hold nuclear armed states accountable is worthy of support in Canada and beyond.
    Canada recognizes the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction and has historically aligned with the rule of law. Moreover, thousands of Canadians supported the World Court Project that led to the ICJ 1996 advisory opinion.

    The RMI’s initiative has been likened to David and Goliath, the “mouse that roared” and a “near-quixotic venture.” However it is seen, it contributes to nuclear disarmament efforts. The lawsuits serve to return focus to the legal obligations relating to nuclear disarmament and to ensure that the ICJ’s 1996 opinion is not allowed to lie dormant and ignored.

    In the end, the Marshallese can rightfully claim a victory on the day they filed lawsuits against nuclear-armed states. They have taken concrete, creative action to pressure these states to move decisively toward the universal goal of nuclear abolition. They know that they are in the right, whatever the courts may decide.

    While the lawsuits alone will not bring about a world without nuclear weapons, they are clearly helping to pave the way there.

    Cesar Jaramillo is program officer at Project Ploughshares, a member organization of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Debbie Grisdale sits on Project Ploughshares’ governing committee representing the Anglican Church of Canada. More information can be found at nuclearzero.org.