Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: A. Stanley Thompson

  • U.S. Government Files Official Notice of Appearance

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsOn May 29, 2014, the United States government filed the required “Notice of Appearance” with the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. on April 24, 2014 for breaches of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Similar lawsuits were filed against all nine nuclear-armed nations (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea) in the International Court of Justice.

    The Notice of Appearance names three lawyers that will be defending the United States in the case in U.S. Federal District Court. They are:

    • Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General
    • Anthony J. Coppolino, Deputy Branch Director
    • Eric R. Womack, U.S. Department of Justice Trial Attorney

    This filing demonstrates that the United States will indeed be appearing to defend itself and its agencies in court in this unprecedented lawsuit.

    For more information on the Nuclear Zero lawsuits, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

  • United States and Russia Respond to Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsThe “Nuclear Nine” – U.S., Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – were sued five days ago by the Republic of the Marshall Islands for breach of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and related provisions of customary international law. Very little has been said thus far by representatives of the offending nations. Below is a summary of the statements of Russia, the U.S. and Israel along with some commentary.

    Russia

    “As a result … Russia has reduced its strategic (long-range) nuclear potential by more than 80 percent and its non-strategic nuclear weapons by three-quarters from their peak numbers.”

    An eighty percent reduction of a huge number is still a huge number. Russia continues to possess up to 8,500 nuclear weapons. Given what is now widely known about the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, it is inexcusable for any nation to act as if it is ok to maintain an arsenal of any size. Perhaps Russia does not realize this because it actively chose to boycott the conferences on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons organized by Norway in 2013 and Mexico in 2014. Their continued boycotting of multilateral initiatives for nuclear disarmament clearly demonstrates Russia’s lack of good faith efforts to fulfill Article VI of the NPT.

    Laurie Ashton, counsel to the Marshall Islands on these lawsuits, said, “A country that agrees to reduce antiquated nuclear stockpiles while spending hundreds of billions to make other categories of nuclear weapons more lethal is clearly still arms racing.  In a November 23, 2011 speech, the then Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, stated that Russia’s ‘new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defense penetration systems and new highly-effective warheads.’ The people of the world know when they are being played, and can see right through any argument that responsibility for stalled nuclear disarmament rests elsewhere.”

    “We are convinced that filing baseless suits does not foster a favorable conditions [sic] for further steps by the international community in the area of arms control and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

    Of course the Russian Foreign Ministry is not going to welcome a lawsuit for breach of an important international treaty. But calling these lawsuits “baseless” is disingenuous and outrageous. Regardless of one’s position on what the outcome of the lawsuits should be, it is quite clear that the Marshall Islands has a valid complaint that deserves to be heard in the courts.

    I’m unsure what Russia might consider “favorable conditions” or “further steps,” but I can guess based on the tone of this statement and their decades of inaction on nuclear disarmament. “Favorable conditions” are conditions in which the non-nuclear weapon states continue to be silent and accept the continued existence of thousands of nuclear weapons by a small group of countries. “Further steps” are pretending that the Conference on Disarmament will ever accomplish anything after a nearly two decade deadlock, modernizing its nuclear arsenal while making token reductions in total numbers of weapons, and sidestepping questions about why good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament are not on the agenda.

    “For past 45 years, the international community has made no serious efforts [to fulfill the treaty’s obligation that signatories seek a pact on] complete disarmament under strict and effective international  control.”

    This is an obvious attempt to re-direct the blame to the non-descript and unaccountable “international community.” The lawsuit clearly spells out the allegations against Russia. It has not negotiated in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date – the NPT has been in force for over 44 years and Russia continues, along with other nuclear-armed nations, to modernize its nuclear arsenal. Russia has not negotiated in good faith for nuclear disarmament. These are violations not only of Article VI of the NPT, but also of customary international law as defined in 1996 by the International Court of Justice.

    Phon van den Biesen, co-agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the cases before the International Court of Justice, replied effectively to Russia’s position yesterday when a member of Russia’s delegation to the NPT brought up the point about complete disarmament. Phon said, perhaps only half-jokingly, “You’re talking about the next lawsuit.”

    “The Russian Federation is open to interaction with its NPT partners with the aim of seeking the most effective paths to realization of the Treaty.”

    Russia boycotted last year’s Open-Ended Working Group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament initiatives. As mentioned earlier, they have also actively worked against the humanitarian initiative led by Norway, Mexico and Austria.

    United States

    “The U.S. is dedicated to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, consistent with our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.”

    When I dedicate myself to achieving something, I aim to do it within my lifetime, and preferably much sooner than that. This statement from the U.S. Department of State might be the first time the Obama administration has written the words “peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” without immediately following it with some version of “not in my lifetime.”

    If I am dedicated to losing weight, I am not going to remodel my kitchen and install a new deep fryer and replace the essential components of my soda machine. If the U.S. is indeed dedicated to a world without nuclear weapons, why is it modernizing its nuclear arsenal and planning which nuclear weapons will be deployed in the 22nd century?

    “We have a proven track record of pursuing a consistent, step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament – the most recent example being the New START Treaty.”

    The New START Treaty was signed four years ago. The treaty made modest cuts to the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons, but was only ratified by the U.S. at a steep cost – an agreement to modernize nuclear weapons and build new nuclear weapon facilities. The New START Treaty has proven at best to be a step forward in arms control, but certainly not in nuclear disarmament.

    It is painfully obvious that the step-by-step approach so loved by the P5 is little more than a delaying tactic to placate those who are either not paying attention or satisfied with the daily threats to humanity posed by nuclear weapons. At this rate, complete nuclear disarmament will not be achieved in this lifetime or, as former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believes, “in successive lifetimes.”

    Israel

    Paul Hirschson, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said he was unaware of the lawsuit, however “it doesn’t sound relevant because we are not members of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.”

    “It sounds like it doesn’t have any legal legs,” he said about the lawsuit, adding that he was not a legal expert.

    I’m not a legal expert either, but just a cursory reading of the application against Israel submitted by the Marshall Islands shows that the lawsuit relates to customary international law. Israel may think it is fine to continue to pretend that they do not possess nuclear weapons, but by filing this lawsuit, the Marshall Islands is calling on Israel to come clean and do the right thing – to negotiate along with all other nuclear-armed states for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

  • Nuclear Zero Lawsuits Launched This Morning

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsBig news today – April 24, 2014 – out of The Hague and San Francisco. The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) has filed unprecedented lawsuits against all nine countries that possess nuclear weapons for their failure to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament, as required under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The suits were filed against all nine nations at the International Court of Justice, with an additional complaint against the United States filed in U.S. Federal District Court.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation applauds the courage of the RMI’s leaders in bringing lawsuits against the nuclear-armed nations. The people of the RMI continue to suffer today from U.S. nuclear weapon tests that took place on their territory in the 1940s and 1950s, and they want to ensure that such devastation – or worse – is never brought on anyone ever again.

    NAPF is playing a key role in the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits campaign, which just launched this morning. Please go to www.nuclearzero.org, where you can learn more about the specifics of the lawsuits and show your support by signing a petition supporting the RMI’s bold, non-violent action.

    We’ll be bringing you much more news about these lawsuits in the coming days and weeks. But right now, there are two things I’d like for you to do:

    1. Go to nuclearzero.org and sign the petition, and then share it with your friends.

    2. Share / re-tweet announcements about the lawsuits from our Facebook and Twitter pages.

    These lawsuits could be the thing that finally breaks the nuclear weapon states’ shameful decades of inaction on nuclear disarmament. Please take a moment to add your voice to the campaign today.

  • NAPF and SGI: Working Together for a Nuclear Weapon-Free World

    On March 25, 2014, a delegation from Soka Gakkai International (SGI) visited the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s headquarters in Santa Barbara, California, for a discussion and strategy meeting. Many of the participants in the meeting were from the youth division of Soka Gakkai Japan.

    NAPF and SGI

    One of the main things we discussed during the meeting was the SOKA Global Action plan, which has three objectives:

    • Advance the culture of peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons;
    • Strengthen ties of friendship within Asia through cultural exchanges;
    • Further SGI’s reconstruction efforts following the Great East Japan earthquake.

    The point that came across most strongly was a plan to hold a youth summit for nuclear weapons abolition in Hiroshima in 2015, around the 70th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This idea was proposed in SGI President Daisaku Ikeda’s 2014 Peace Proposal, as well as in NAPF President David Krieger’s speech to the Student Movement for Nuclear Disarmament at Soka University of America in November 2013.

    NAPF and SGI will continue to work together closely for a world free of nuclear weapons, including at the upcoming Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meetings in New York, starting on April 28.

  • Good Faith

    This article was originally published by NPT News In Review.

    A new paper by Judge Christopher G. Weeramantry looks deeply at the concept of good faith, an extremely important concept included in Article VI of the NPT and a central principle of international law. Judge Weeramantry, who served as Vice President of the International Court of Justice when it ruled on the illegality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons in 1996, is uniquely qualified to address this topic.

    The Court reinforced the importance of good faith in 1996 when it pronounced: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    According to Weeramantry, “No higher legal pronouncement on a question of international law is possible than the unanimous opinion of the world’s highest court. No greater issue can come to a court than one involving the survival of humanity. No more all-embracing and respected concept exists in international law than the concept of good faith. The obligation spelled out by the Court straddled all these aspects of fundamental importance.”

    Modernization of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, comprehensively detailed in Reaching Critical Will’s report Still Assuring Destruction Forever, brings front and center the concept of good faith. Weeramantry does not mince words when he identifies these modernization programs as breach of good faith. He asks readers to consider whether “there has been not merely a violation of good faith but an actual manifestation of bad faith in this matter.”

    This breach of good faith through modernization programs is a shameful endless circle, with one country’s actions prompting the other nuclear powers to do likewise, escalating the level of departures from the duty of good faith. Such action has also, according to Weeramantry, prompted non-nuclear powers to seek to acquire nuclear weapons.

    In the context of the NPT, good faith would start with an immediate halt to the modernization of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Good faith efforts must continue until the obligation of nuclear disarmament is achieved. As Judge Weeramantry concludes, “There can be no basis for the disregard or incomplete performance of an obligation so deeply ingrained in international law, so clearly undertaken by the nuclear powers, so carefully pronounced by the International Court of Justice and so definitely determining whether humanity will flourish or perish.”

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s briefing paper by Judge Weeramantry, Good Faith: Essential to Nuclear Disarmament and Human Survival, is available online atwww.wagingpeace.org/goto/goodfaith

    Rick Wayman is the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Director of Programs and Operations.

  • What Is Ethical?

    This article was originally published by Pressenza.

    During the lunch hour on the final day of the ICAN Civil Society Forum in Oslo, around 150 people attended a panel discussion on “Ethics in International Politics.”

    At the end of the panel discussion, Fr. John Dear briefly brought up an important example that shocked many in the audience. He said that many of the employees of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), near where he lives in New Mexico, believe that they are engaged in an ethical – perhaps the most ethical – line of work.

    The definition of “ethics” through which I view the issue of nuclear weapons is this:

    That branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

    How can LANL employees possibly believe their work is ethical? Each nuclear weapon that LANL employees have created, monitored and modernized from the dawn of the Nuclear Age until today have the capacity to destroy hundreds of thousands – or more – lives in a flash. The resulting nuclear famine from even a relatively small regional exchange of nuclear weapons would kill hundreds of millions more people around the world.

    The answer to this question lies in their belief in nuclear deterrence – that the threat of massive retaliation by Country B prevents Country A from initiating hostilities. Therefore, nuclear weapons keep the peace and will never be used.

    As a signatory to the Santa Barbara Declaration against nuclear deterrence, I do not believe that this idea about human behavior holds in all cases or can be relied on to keep us safe. A conscious effort must be made by nuclear weapons proponents to ignore the well-documented catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in order to consider nuclear weapons “ethical.”

    At the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, NAPF President David Krieger asked U.S. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher whether the U.S. would be willing to conduct a “human impact statement” on the use of nuclear weapons. Ms. Tauscher’s answer was simple: “We have no intention of doing this.”

    This willful ignorance continues today: the P5 (U.S., Russia, U.K., France and China) made a collective decision to avoid the Norwegian Foreign Ministry’s conference on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, which begins on March 4. To participate in it would shatter their carefully-crafted illusion that the “motive” and the “end” of maintaining even one nuclear weapon is ethical.

    At least 132 countries will come together in Oslo on March 4-5 to examine the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons. The scientific evidence is beyond doubt. No one could hide from the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons should a nuclear exchange take place.

    The P5 cannot hide forever from the fact that humanity demands the abolition of nuclear weapons. A Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, transparent and irreversible elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide is the only ethical option.

    Rick Wayman is Director of Programs & Operations at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • What Obama Did and Did Not Say

    This article was published on the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s blog Waging Peace Today

    President Obama’s first speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday was all about the economy. Even when he was talking about education, national security or energy, he was talking about the economy.
    There were two things that really struck me in his speech: one thing that he said, and one thing that he didn’t say.
    The president recognizes that we need to slash the bloated Pentagon budget, though whether he’ll adopt Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) plan to cut the Pentagon budget by 25% or more is unlikely. But, on Tuesday, Obama said, “We’ll…reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.”
    This statement was sufficiently vague to keep all but the most rabid militarists from immediately criticizing his position. I think that some proof of what exactly Obama was referring to came today in the draft 2010 Department of Energy budget: ZERO dollars for new nuclear weapons (currently called the Reliable Replacement Warhead program).
    The other thing that really struck me in his speech was the very noticeable omission of nuclear power as a critical part of our energy future. Solar? Check. Wind? Check. Efficiency? Check. “Clean” coal? Um…check. Nuclear power? No thanks.
    Let’s ignore for a moment that “clean coal” is about as asinine as calling nuclear power “clean, safe and reliable.” Barack Obama comes from the state of Illinois, the state with the most nuclear power plants and arguably the strongest base of the nuclear power lobby. Obama accepted campaign money from nuclear power pushers. He campaigned on an energy platform that included nuclear power as part of the energy mix.
    What has he discovered in his first 40 days in office? Hopefully all of the following:

    • There is still no “permanent” solution to the nuclear waste problem, and there is no solution in sight;
    • The nuclear power industry cannot survive without massive government subsidies;
    • New nuclear power plants take so many years to approve and construct that they cannot help us to meet our immediate carbon reduction requirements;
    • Once you take into account the lifecycle carbon footprint of nuclear power (uranium mining, construction, operation, waste storage, decommissioning), it doesn’t look so carbon-free;
    • Investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency are more economically sensible and will eliminate CO2 emissions more effectively.

    With continued public pressure, it is possible for the evil twins of the 20th century, nuclear power and nuclear weapons, to be eliminated for good.

     

    Rick Wayman is Director of Programs at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • Interview on Civil Resistance at Vandenberg Air Force Base

    David Krieger, Fr. Louis Vitale, Daniel Ellsberg after their arrest at VandenbergRICK WAYMAN: What made you decide after 30 years of working as President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to get arrested protesting this missile launch?


    DAVID KRIEGER: I felt it was necessary. The leaders in charge of our nuclear policies aren’t reacting swiftly enough and with serious determination to end the intolerable threat posed by these weapons of mass annihilation, and so more is needed from citizens. This is an action I took as a citizen, which I hope says to the members of the NAPF and to the public that more is needed – that words are not sufficient. We must speak with our actions as well.


    It’s far past time that we stop accepting nuclear weapons as part of our national security strategy. Nuclear weapons do not make us more secure. They undermine the security of their possessors, and the security of innocent people throughout the world. What we know now from scientific studies is that the use of a few hundred thermonuclear weapons on cities would lead to putting smoke into the stratosphere that would block a significant percentage of sunlight from reaching the earth for 10 years or more. This would lead to crop failures and mass starvation that could result in the extinction of the human species and most other complex forms of life. How could anyone who cares about the future and cares about their children and grandchildren be indifferent to that?


    RICK WAYMAN: How did you feel when you were approaching the green line and in the act of being arrested?


    DAVID KRIEGER: I felt really good to be a part of a community of individuals willing to take risks to end the insanity of nuclear testing, nuclear threats and the ever-present danger of nuclear weapons use by accident or design. I also felt good to be taking this action with my wife and my good friend Daniel Ellsberg. Also Fr. Louis Vitale, who has set a great example as a religious and moral leader by being arrested hundreds of times for this cause; and Cindy Sheehan, a spirited woman whose son died in the Iraq War.


    RICK WAYMAN: How were you treated during your time in detention?


    DAVID KRIEGER: The young soldiers were like automatons – they were carrying out their orders to put handcuffs on us, search us and detain us, but they appeared to be ordered not to engage in conversation with us. For the most part, the soldiers were respectful, but the orders from their leaders left a lot to be desired; for example, after processing us, they dropped us off at 4:00 a.m. in an empty shopping center four or five miles from VAFB where our cars were located. This struck me as unnecessary harassment.


    RICK WAYMAN: Do you know what penalties you’re facing?


    DAVID KRIEGER: No. All I know is that they have charged us with entering military property and they told us we will be notified as to when we are to appear in federal court.


    RICK WAYMAN: Do you intend to plead guilty or not guilty?


    DAVID KRIEGER: My plan at this time is to plead not guilty by reason of necessity. I walked toward the base along with the others to try and stop a far greater crime, the reliance upon and potential use of weapons that can destroy cities, and potentially cause the extinction of complex life on the planet. With nuclear weapons we can do to ourselves what a meteor hitting the earth did to the dinosaurs. I hope that increasing numbers of people in the US and around the world will awaken to the necessity to speak out and act for nuclear weapons abolition.

  • What Obama Did and Did Not Say

    President Obama’s first speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday was all about the economy. Even when he was talking about education, national security or energy, he was talking about the economy.

    There were two things that really struck me in his speech: one thing that he said, and one thing that he didn’t say.

    The president recognizes that we need to slash the bloated Pentagon budget, though whether he’ll adopt Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) plan to cut the Pentagon budget by 25% or more is unlikely. But, on Tuesday, Obama said, “We’ll…reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.”

    This statement was sufficiently vague to keep all but the most rabid militarists from immediately criticizing his position. I think that some proof of what exactly Obama was referring to came today in the draft 2010 Department of Energy budget: ZERO dollars for new nuclear weapons (currently called the Reliable Replacement Warhead program).

    The other thing that really struck me in his speech was the very noticeable omission of nuclear power as a critical part of our energy future. Solar? Check. Wind? Check. Efficiency? Check. “Clean” coal? Um…check. Nuclear power? No thanks.

    Let’s ignore for a moment that “clean coal” is about as asinine as calling nuclear power “clean, safe and reliable.” Barack Obama comes from the state of Illinois, the state with the most nuclear power plants and arguably the strongest base of the nuclear power lobby. Obama accepted campaign money from nuclear power pushers. He campaigned on an energy platform that included nuclear power as part of the energy mix.

    What has he discovered in his first 40 days in office? Hopefully all of the following:

    • There is still no “permanent” solution to the nuclear waste problem, and there is no solution in sight;
    • The nuclear power industry cannot survive without massive government subsidies;
    • New nuclear power plants take so many years to approve and construct that they cannot help us to meet our immediate carbon reduction requirements;
    • Once you take into account the lifecycle carbon footprint of nuclear power (uranium mining, construction, operation, waste storage, decommissioning), it doesn’t look so carbon-free;
    • Investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency are more economically sensible and will eliminate CO2 emissions more effectively.

    With continued public pressure, it is possible for the evil twins of the 20th century, nuclear power and nuclear weapons, to be eliminated for good.

    This article was published on the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s blog Waging Peace Today

    Rick Wayman is Director of Programs at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • A World Free of Nuclear Weapons

    To the Editor:

    Re “New and Unnecessary” (editorial, Oct. 13):

    A big decision about nuclear weapons facing the next president will be “to build or not to build,” but there’s more to this story.

    The new president will need to decide whether to keep thousands of American nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired at a moment’s notice, or to eliminate this potentially catastrophic cold war posture.

    He must decide whether to retain the option of environmentally devastating nuclear testing, or to encourage the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He must decide whether to perpetuate the system of nuclear haves and have-nots, or to commence good-faith negotiations to achieve the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide.

    The next president must, for the sake of humanity’s future, make a world free of nuclear weapons an urgent priority and assure the United States’ leadership to realize this goal.

    Rick Wayman
    Director of Programs
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    Santa Barbara, Calif.

    This letter to the editor was originally published in the New York Times

    Rick Wayman is Director of Programs at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).