Author: David Krieger

  • 2013 Sadako Peace Day

    Welcome to Sadako Peace Garden.  On this day, August 6, we remember Hiroshima, Sadako of the 1,000 paper cranes, and all innocent victims of war.

    Today we commemorate the 68th anniversary of the first use of an atomic weapon.  The weapon was created by the United States and was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.  It killed some 90,000 people that day and some 145,000 by the end of 1945.  Three days later another atomic weapon was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki, taking another 70,000 lives.

    The creation and use of these weapons, said Albert Einstein, “has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation exists to change those modes of thinking and assure a human future.

    The 68 years of the Nuclear Age is but a blip in geological time or even in the human record on Earth, but it is a critical period of time because within it we have achieved the technological capacity to destroy ourselves and most complex life.  It is a peril that confronts humanity daily, constantly present, whether we choose to recognize it or not.

    Many leaders of nuclear-armed states believe that security can be built on the threat to annihilate other countries.  This is a highly dangerous and unreliable approach to security.  Nuclear policies, like other policies based upon high technologies, are subject to human fallibility and system failures.  That there are not foolproof humans, nor human systems, should be clear to any observer.

    The good news is that the number of nuclear weapons in the world has been reduced by over 53,000 weapons, from over 70,000 in 1986 to about 17,000 now.  This is cause for gratitude, as is the fact that nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since Nagasaki, but the job of ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity remains unfinished.

    There is the only one safe number of nuclear weapons in the world, and that is zero.  Zero must be our goal.  Not a distant goal, as some leaders of nuclear-armed states would have it, but an urgent goal.  No country – not the US, not any country – has the right to hold the world hostage with nuclear weapons.

    As the first country to create nuclear weapons, the first country to use them, and the country with the most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, the US should be the country to lead the way out of the Nuclear Age.  To accomplish this, the people will need to lead their leaders.  That is why the role of each of us is so important.

    Today, at the close of our ceremony, we will plant a tree for peace, a sapling from a survivor Ginkgo biloba tree from Hiroshima.  Thank you to Nassrine Azimi, a founder of Green Legacy Hiroshima, for bringing this remarkable sapling to us for planting in Sadako Peace Garden.

    Thank you to each of you for taking this time to reflect upon the meaning of nuclear weapons for our world and our common future.  Close your eyes for a moment and imagine the immense and terrible power of a nuclear blast.

    Now imagine the power of people everywhere coming together and saying a resounding No to these weapons until we have succeeded in eliminating them from the planet.

    This is not just an exercise.  It is a possibility that we can choose to make happen.  We who are here on our planet now have the opportunity to contribute to ending the nuclear era, preserving our humanity and exercising responsible stewardship of the only planet we know of in the universe capable of supporting and nurturing life.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
  • In Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park

    David KriegerThe heat of summer is oppressive.

    Children pass by in groups, chattering.
    They wear school outfits –
    black pants or skirts and white shirts.

    Some groups are wearing yellow caps.
    They stop at Sadako’s statue and,
    in lilting voices, sing songs with words
    I cannot understand.

    When they finish their songs, they bow,
    paying tribute to one of their own, Sadako,
    forever young, a child of the bomb.

    Though nearly seven decades have passed,
    I feel guilty for what my country did here.

    To whom can I apologize?  To whom must
    I apologize?  It doesn’t matter.
    They have already forgiven, long ago.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
  • 1914 – 2014: Lecciones aprendidas para la paz

    1914 – 2014: Lecciones aprendidas para la paz

    Traducción por Ruben Arvizu.

     

    Click here for the English version (originally published by Truthout).

    Las guerras del siglo pasado han ofrecido lecciones importantes para la paz. Entre ellas se encuentran:

    Las guerras nacen en la mente de los hombres (y mujeres) y se basan a menudo en las mentiras de los líderes.

    Las guerras se producen cuando no son esperadas en absoluto.

    Los políticos y los generales mandan a los jóvenes a luchar y morir.

    Las guerras pueden consumir generaciones enteras de jóvenes.

    Las guerras no son heroicas, son sangrientas y aterradoras.

    Las guerras de ahora matan más civiles que combatientes.

    Matanzas a larga distancia  y drones hacen que las guerras sean mucho menos personales.

    Cualquier guerra de hoy conlleva el riesgo de una conflagración nuclear y el omnicidio (la muerte de todos).

    Los términos de la paz después de una guerra pueden plantar las semillas de la paz o las semillas de la próxima guerra.

    Las mejores maneras de prevenir la guerra ilegal son la lucha no violenta y hacer a nuestros  líderes responsables de los crímenes de Nuremberg: crímenes contra la paz (la guerra de agresión), los crímenes de guerra, y crímenes contra la humanidad.

    Desgraciadamente las lecciones dadas, no se traducen necesariamente en experiencia adquirida. Los filósofos han advertido que debemos aprender las lecciones del pasado, si vamos a aplicarlas en el presente y cambiar el futuro. En un mundo con armas nucleares, el problema se hace aún más urgente. Como Einstein advirtió: “El poder desencadenado del átomo ha cambiado todo excepto nuestra forma de pensar y por lo tanto vamos a la deriva hacia una catástrofe sin precedentes.” Hoy en día, el aprendizaje de estas lecciones para la paz y el cambio de nuestros modos de pensar para ponerlas en práctica son necesarias para asegurar de que exista un futuro.

    David Krieger es presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Ruben Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
     
     
  • 1914-2014: Lessons Learned for Peace

    This article was originally published by TruthoutVaya aquí para la versión española.

    The wars of the last century have offered important lessons for peace.  Among these are:

    Wars begin in the minds of men (and women) and are often based on the lies of leaders.

    Wars can occur when they are not at all expected.

    Politicians and generals send the young to fight and die.

    Wars can consume entire generations of youth.

    Wars are not heroic; they are bloody and terrifying.

    Wars now kill more civilians than combatants.

    Long-distance killing and drones make wars far less personal.

    Any war today carries the risk of a nuclear conflagration and omnicide (the death of all).

    The terms of peace after a war can plant seeds of peace or the seeds of the next war.

    The best ways to prevent illegal war are nonviolent struggle and holding leaders accountable for the Nuremberg crimes: crimes against peace (aggressive war); war crimes; and crimes against humanity.

    Lessons offered unfortunately do not necessarily translate into lessons learned.  Philosophers have warned that we must learn the lessons of the past if we are going to apply them to the present and change the future. In a nuclear-armed world, the challenge is made all the more urgent.  As Einstein warned, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  Today, learning these lessons for peace and changing our modes of thinking to put them into practice are necessary to assure that there is a future.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
  • Continuing the Struggle

    David KriegerI have been working for a world free of nuclear weapons for over four decades. On occasion I am asked, “Why do you continue this struggle when change seems to come so slowly?” Here is my response.

    Nuclear weapons threaten the existence of civilization and the human species. We humans cannot continue to be complacent in the face of the nuclear dangers that confront us. Too many people are complacent and too many are ignorant of the threat posed by these weapons.

    Albert Einstein warned: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” The nature of the catastrophe was demonstrated first at Hiroshima and then at Nagasaki. We continue to face the possibility of a global Hiroshima.

    If even a few nuclear weapons were used today, the humanitarian consequences would be beyond our capacity to cope. There would not be enough surviving medical personnel available to aid the suffering of the victims. There would not be enough hospitals or burn wards. Water supplies would be contaminated. Infrastructure would be destroyed. The damage would not be containable in either time or space.

    Atmospheric scientists have modeled the effects of the use of nuclear weapons. They find that the use of only one hundred Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons in a regional war between India and Pakistan would trigger a nuclear famine that would lead to the deaths by starvation of some one billion people globally. That would be the result of a small nuclear war. How would this happen?  The weapons would destroy cities, putting massive amounts of soot into the stratosphere, blocking warming sunlight, shortening growing seasons, causing crop failures and food shortages.

    A large-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would, of course, be far worse, lowering temperatures on Earth to Ice Age levels. There would be few survivors.

    All this is to say that perhaps I know too much. I cannot stop struggling to end the nuclear weapons era. I am challenged to fight against ignorance and indifference. I know that this is not a problem that can be set aside with the expectation that it will take care of itself.

    There has been progress. By 1986, the number of nuclear weapons in the world had ballooned to 70,000. Today, the number is around 17,000. Over 50,000 nuclear weapons have been eliminated. That is worth celebrating, but not for too long. It hasn’t changed the fundamental proposition that nuclear war could destroy most complex life on the planet, and this planet remains the only place we know of in the universe where life exists. As Carl Sagan used to remind us, we live on a “pale blue dot,” our planetary home, one which is infinitesimally small in relation to the universe, but infinitely precious.

    President Obama, in a recent speech in Berlin, stated, “Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons – no matter how distant that dream may be.” Yes, we – all of us – need the security of a world without nuclear weapons, but why must the dream be distant? Why must we think of the dream as being distant? Why must President Obama frame it in this way? Is he not demonstrating a deficit of leadership in doing so? Whose interests are being served – those of corporate weapons makers or those of the people of the world?

    Nuclear deterrence does not protect us. If it did, there would be no need for missile defenses. Nor would we object to other countries developing nuclear deterrent forces. And, of course, nuclear deterrence does not even apply to terrorist organizations, which have no territory to retaliate against and may be suicidal.

    Nuclear weapons are actually suicidal weapons. Use them, and they will be used against you. Use them, and run the risk of nuclear famine or nuclear winter. They may also be omnicidal weapons, their use leading to the death of all.

    If we want to end the insecurity of a world with nuclear weapons, we must continue the struggle for a world without them. And we must realize that the nature of the weapons require that the struggle be approached with a sense of urgency and boldness.

    So, I continue the struggle – in the hope that you may join with me and many others to make the abolition of nuclear weapons an urgent – rather than distant – dream.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
  • Visiting Hiroshima

    David KriegerI recently visited Hiroshima to give a speech. It is a city that I have visited many times in the past, and I am always amazed by its resilience. The city represents for me the human power of recovery and forgiveness.

    The first thing one is likely to notice about Hiroshima is that it is a beautiful city. It has rivers running through it and many trees and areas of green space. Without the reminders that have been left in place, one would not know that it is a city that was completely destroyed and flattened in 1945 by the first atomic bomb used in warfare.

    I was the guest of the Hiroshima Peace Media Center of the Chugoku Shimbun, the largest newspaper in the region with a circulation of some 600,000. Walking from my hotel to the newspaper headquarters, I entered the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and passed the famous Atomic Bomb Dome, one of the few buildings that survived the bombing. The Dome was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1996.

    In the Peace Memorial Park there is a Children’s Peace Monument, a statue dedicated to Sadako Sasaki and the thousands of child victims of the bombing. Sadako, who was two years old when the bomb was dropped, lived a normal life until she came down with radiation-induced leukemia at the age of twelve and was hospitalized. Sadako folded paper cranes, which Japanese legend says will give one health and longevity if one folds 1,000 of them. On one of her paper cranes Sadako wrote: “I will write peace on your wings, and you will fly all over the world.”

    Unfortunately, Sadako died without recovering her health, but her cranes have indeed flown all over the world. In Santa Barbara, for example, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and La Casa de Maria Retreat Center have created a beautiful Sadako Peace Garden, where each year on August 6th, the anniversary of the day Hiroshima was bombed, a commemoration is held comprised of music, poetry and reflections.

    In the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, groups of students visit the Children’s Peace Monument. I watched several groups of students pause in front of the statue to sing and pay their respects to the memory of Sadako and other child victims. All around the statue were brightly-colored strands of paper cranes, brought in honor of Sadako and other innocent children.

    The Peace Memorial Cenotaph in the park contains a listing of all the people known to have died as a result of the bombing. Inscribed on the cenotaph are these words: “Let all souls here rest in peace for we shall not repeat the evil.” Many people come to the cenotaph, bow and pray for those who died as a result of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Through the cenotaph one can see a Peace Flame first lit in 1964. When all nuclear weapons are abolished, the flame will be extinguished.

    On the grounds of the Peace Memorial Park is a museum, which tells the story of the bombing of Hiroshima from the perspective of the victims – those who were under the bomb, the people of the city. With the city rebuilt and beautiful, the museum is an important reminder of the tragedy of the bombing, which caused some 70,000 deaths immediately and some 140,000 by the end of 1945.

    The most impressive part of the experience of being in Hiroshima, though, is not the statues, the cenotaph, the peace flame or the museum exhibits. It is the survivors of the bombing with their remarkable spirit of forgiveness. Many of the survivors have mastered English and other languages so as to be able to travel the world and share their memories of the bombing. They do so in order to prevent their past from becoming someone else’s future. Though the survivors are growing elderly, their good will and their concern for the future is evident. They deserve our respect and our commitment to creating a world without nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
  • Hiroshima: City of Hope

    David Krieger delivered this speech on May 25, 2013 in Hiroshima, Japan.

    David KriegerI am honored to be back in Hiroshima with you for this occasion, and I congratulate the Chugoku Shimbun on the fifth anniversary of its Hiroshima Peace Media Center.  I am a strong supporter of this Center, and of other efforts to use the media to awaken people to the necessity of achieving a durable peace in the Nuclear Age.

    I extend a special greeting to former Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, who did such important work in building the Mayors for Peace into a global organization of more than 5,000 members.  He currently serves as the chair of the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of eight international civil society organizations that work with middle power countries in seeking to apply pressure for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    The room we are in today is called “Himawari,” which means sunflower.  This is an appropriate place to meet, since sunflowers are the symbol of a world free of nuclear weapons.  What could stand in starker contrast than natural, beautiful, brightly-colored sunflowers, which, bursting with life, grow toward the sun, and the metallic, manmade instruments of massive murder that are nuclear weapons and their delivery systems?

    Hiroshima is a place made sacred by pain, suffering, forgiveness and perseverance in the cause of peace of its hibakusha (survivors of the atomic bombing).   I would like to say to the hibakusha at the symposium that your efforts and your messages matter, that your words and deeds have touched people’s hearts throughout the world, including my own, and continue to do so.  You have the power of truth and compassion on your side.

    To the young people at the symposium, I want to stress how important it is to have hope and to carry on working for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons in the spirit of the hibakusha.  I would like to impress upon you that Hiroshima is a city of hope and it is, at least in part, your responsibility to carry forward that hope.  Without hope, our way would be lost and our future bleak.

    Hiroshima

    The bombing of Hiroshima was the kind of atrocity that can only be created in the cauldron of war, a human institution that has become totally dysfunctional.  The destruction of Hiroshima split the 20th century nearly in half and, more importantly, provided a dividing line in human history.  Before Hiroshima, nearly all of human experience and history unfolded.  Much of it was creative and beautiful – the beauty of song, art, literature, friendship and love – but there were certainly grave atrocities and vivid examples of man’s inhumanity to man.

    After the bombing of Hiroshima, man’s inhumanity to his fellow man took on a deeper and darker meaning, as it became possible to destroy everything.  With the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, genocide gave way to the potential for omnicide, the death of all.  Genocide – the destruction of a people based upon race, religion or ethnicity – was bad enough, but omnicide made possible the end of human and other complex life on the planet.  We humans must rapidly increase our capacity for learning, tolerance and love, or face the dire and devastating consequences of nuclear war.

    Hiroshima is both a city and a symbol.  It is a modern city and one that is quite beautiful.  But it is also a city recognized throughout the world as a universal symbol of the strength of humans to overcome adversity.  The hibakusha of Hiroshima have said clearly: “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.”  This is a deep insight that we need to collectively internalize.  Those of us alive on the planet today must decide whether we continue to tolerate nuclear weapons and those who promote them, or whether we draw the line at the potential for human extinction and work to abolish these weapons.

    I have had the opportunity in my life to meet many of the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I have found that their lives are filled with purpose, that is, to assure that their past does not become someone else’s future.  The hibakusha have been to the depths of Hell and survived to reflect upon and share what they experienced on the fateful day of the bombing of Hiroshima and during the days, weeks, months and years of suffering that followed the bombing.  They returned from that place of horror with hope in their hearts.  By their willingness to forgive and by their constant efforts to end the nuclear weapons era, they have nurtured hope and kept it alive for all these years.

    Poems

    Over the years, I have written a number of poems and reflections about Hiroshima and the hibakusha.  These have been published in Japan by Coal Sack Publishers in a book in Japanese and English entitled God’s Tears, Reflections on the Atomic Bombs Dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I would like to share two of these poems with you.  I share them because I want to reach your hearts.  Logic is not enough.  The heart must be engaged to save our world.  The first poem is dedicated to Miyoko Matsubara, a very committed hibakusha of Hiroshima who came to Santa Barbara and worked with us at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in developing her presentation skills in English.

    THE DEEP BOW OF A HIBAKUSHA
    for Miyoko Matsubara

    She bowed deeply.  She bowed deeper than the oceans.  She bowed from the top of Mt. Fuji to the bottom of the ocean.  She bowed so deeply and so often that the winds blew hard.

    The winds blew her whispered apologies and prayers across all the continents.  But the winds whistled too loudly, and made it impossible to hear her apologies and prayers.  The winds made the oceans crazy.  The water in the oceans rose up in a wild molecular dance.  The oceans threw themselves against the continents.  The people were frightened.  They ran screaming from the shores.  They feared the white water and the whistling wind.  They huddled together in dark places.  They strained to hear the words in the wind.

    In some places there were some people who thought they heard an apology.  In other places there were people who thought they heard a prayer.

    She bowed deeply.  She bowed more deeply than anyone should bow.
    GOD RESPONDED WITH TEARS

    The plane flew over Hiroshima and dropped the bomb
    after the all clear warning had sounded.

    The bomb dropped far slower than the speed of light.
    It dropped at the speed of bombs.

    From the ground it was a tiny silver speck
    that separated from the silver plane.

    After 43 seconds, the slow falling bomb exploded
    into mass at the speed of light squared.

    Einstein called it energy.  Everything lit up.
    For a split-second people could see their own bones.

    The pilot always believed he had done the right thing.
    The President, too, never wavered from his belief.

    He thanked God for the bomb.  Others did, too.
    God responded with tears that fell far slower

    than the speed of bombs.
    They still have not reached Earth.

    The Nuclear Dilemma

    Nuclear weapons create a dilemma.  If some countries continue to rely upon nuclear weapons for their perceived security, sooner or later these weapons will be used again.  The use of nuclear weapons could result in the extinction of the human species and other forms of complex life.  Nuclear weapons place humans on the Endangered Species list.

    And yet, although we humans should be mobilizing against the threat posed by these weapons of mass annihilation, we remain remarkably indifferent to them.  This suggests one of four possibilities or some combination of them:

    1. we are ignorant of the destructive power of nuclear weapons;
    2. we don’t believe that the weapons will actually be used;
    3. we have fear fatigue;
    4. we believe that there is little that can be done by individuals to influence nuclear policy.

    It is unlikely that many of us are actually ignorant of the destructive power of nuclear weapons.  Most people on the planet know what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the relatively small nuclear weapons of the time.  In each case, one bomb destroyed one city.  The terrible destructive power of these bombs has been vividly conveyed by the hibakusha.

    It is possible that, having lived with nuclear weapons for more than two-thirds of a century, many individuals believe they will not be used again.  But this is a denial of possibilities.  So long as the weapons exist in the arsenals of some nations, neither their use nor their proliferation can be ruled out.  Martin Hellman, a professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford University, finds there is a one-in-six chance of a child born today dying of nuclear war during his or her 80-year lifespan.  This is the equivalent of playing Nuclear Roulette with the life of that child – and all children.  Psychologically, it may be more comfortable to live in denial, but it is not more secure.

    When one is fearful for a long period of time, fatigue sets in.  A person may be viewed as a prophet at a later time for having given warnings about survival threats in his or her own time, but in one’s own time one may be seen as crazy for continuing to shout warnings about such threats.  For most people, fear fatigue sets in and they move on to take care of other areas of life.  Thankfully, this isn’t the case for the hibakusha and for many abolitionists who continue to fight for a world free of nuclear weapons.

    There are few people who can influence the course of human events by themselves, but collectively we can wield considerable influence.  To assure that nuclear weapons are not used again, they must be abolished.  We must join with others to achieve this goal – in the largest coalitions possible.  I am deeply grateful to the hibakusha for their leadership in this effort.

    Nuclear weapons are a technological triumph of the worst possible sort.  We humans must triumph over our destructive technologies.  We have created ever more powerful tools and these tools exert power over us.  Our tools must be designed to aid us constructively rather than to threaten our very existence.

    We must regain power over our tools if humankind is to survive.  We can only do this collectively.  We must unite rather than divide.  We must cross borders in our minds and in our hearts.  We must care for each other, and we must begin by eliminating the overriding threat of nuclear annihilation.  The solution is not technological; it is human.  It requires us to think about what really matters to us and to act accordingly.

    We Must Change our Thinking

    Albert Einstein was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century.  He changed the way we look at the universe.  His theories described the relationship between energy and matter that led to releasing the power of the atom.  Einstein was not only intelligent; he was wise.  Early in the Nuclear Age, he pointed out, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”  He saw clearly that the Nuclear Age had opened a new era in human history, an era in which the destructive power of nuclear weapons made peace an imperative.

    The opening curtain of the Nuclear Age, which occurred here at Hiroshima, started the clock ticking on a race between finding new ways to forge friendships across borders and succumbing to the old patterns of war, but now with weapons incapable of being controlled in time or space. Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein and 9 other prominent scientists issued the Russell-Einstein Manifesto on July 9, 1955.  It is one of the most important documents of the 20th century and now for the 21st century.  It states, “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?  People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.”

    Yes, it is difficult to abolish war, but it is made necessary by the terrible devastation that occurred here in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, and that occurred again at Nagasaki three days later.  Nuclear weapons have made possible the extinction of the human race and other forms of complex life.  In this sense, they have made us one world, a global Hiroshima, uniting us in danger and in the opportunity to change.

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto concluded: “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom.  Shall we, instead choose death because we cannot forget our quarrels?  We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.  If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    The organization that I founded and where I have served as president for the past 30 years is called the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  The name means that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age.  I hope that we are carrying on in the tradition of Russell and Einstein.  Our mission is “to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.”

    We are motivated in our efforts by the spirit of Hiroshima and its hibakusha. In Santa Barbara, we have created a peace garden named for Sadako Sasaki.  Each year on or around Hiroshima Day we hold a ceremony of remembrance with music, poetry and reflections in this beautiful and tranquil garden.  Sadako’s paper cranes have indeed flown all over the world.

    Each year we give a Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to an outstanding peace leader.  Recipients have included the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Jody Williams and Dr. Helen Caldicott.  Two years ago, our award was presented to Mayor Akiba and, at the same time, we presented a World Citizen Award to Shigeko Sasamori on behalf of all hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

    Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires the parties to the treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, for nuclear disarmament, and for a treaty on general and complete disarmament.  Such negotiations have not taken place.  The International Court of Justice in interpreting the treaty stated, “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.”  This obligation has existed since the NPT entered into force in 1970.  For 43 years, this obligation has been largely ignored by the five nuclear weapon states that are parties to the treaty (US, Russia, UK, France and China).  In addition, the negotiations have been ignored by three states not parties to the treaty that have developed nuclear arsenals (Israel, India and Pakistan), and by North Korea, which withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and also developed and tested nuclear weapons.

    Each day the nuclear weapon states act illegally under international law by failing to fulfill their obligations to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament and to bring these negotiations to a conclusion.  In addition to acting illegally, they are behaving in a way that threatens the human future.  Their inaction is intolerable and unworthy of the responsibility they have accepted.

    I was recently in Geneva at the Second Preparatory Meeting of the parties for the 2015 NPT Review Conference.  I found the conference to be notable for five reasons:

    First, there was virtually no progress on the nuclear disarmament goal of the treaty.

    Second, there was enthusiasm among the non-nuclear weapons states that carried over from the Oslo conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.  In relation to this, 80 countries signed on to a Joint Statement introduced by South Africa to underline the severe humanitarian consequences of nuclear war and to call for a ban on nuclear weapons.  Unfortunately, Japan was not one of these 80 countries.  This statement said in part, “The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination.”  I think this is a statement that would resonate with the hibakusha of Hiroshima.  Nonetheless, the Japanese government continues to support US nuclear policy rather than the reasonable aspirations of the hibakusha for significant progress toward a world without nuclear weapons.  The Japanese government needs to bring its policies in line with the spirit of the hibakusha.

    Third, the failure to hold a conference, as promised, on the establishment of a Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone in the Middle East became a point of serious contention.  The Egyptian Ambassador to Geneva, Hisham Badr, walked out of the conference expressing disappointment with the failure of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to convene the conference, which had been scheduled to be held in Finland in December 2012.  He stated, “Egypt and many Arab countries have joined the NPT with the understanding that this would lead to a Middle East completely free of nuclear weapons.  However, more than 30 years later one country in the Middle East, namely Israel, remains outside the NPT.”  The Secretary-General of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), described the postponement of the conference, along with the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament, as “alarming factors.”  She called for replacing “nuclear deterrence doctrines with more effective measures, with truly safe measures for humanity as a whole.”

    Fourth, the US and Russia were busy patting themselves on their respective backs for their 2010 New START agreement to reduce the number of their deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 on each side by 2018.  However, when asked whether their new relationship made possible a pledge of No First Use of nuclear weapons, both countries had little to say.

    Fifth, despite claims to the contrary, all of the NPT nuclear weapon states continue to be engaged in modernizing their respective nuclear forces.  The US, for example, said in its Working Paper for the conference, “On modernization, the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review made clear that the United States will not develop new nuclear warheads nor will its Life Extension Programs support new military missions or provide new military capabilities.”  However, the US is planning to spend upwards of $10 billion for upgrading its B61 gravity bombs that are now stockpiled in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey and giving them new tailfins that will turn them into guided weapons.

    East Asia

    The situation in East Asia remains dangerous.  North Korea joined the nuclear weapons “club” in 2006.  Other nuclear weapon states active in the region are the US, Russia and China.  Japan, although not a nuclear weapon state, has enough reprocessed plutonium to become a nuclear-armed state within months and to make a few thousand nuclear weapons in a relatively short time.  While Japan has consistently said that it will not do this, it must be viewed as a virtual nuclear weapon state.  At the same time, Japan has placed itself under the nuclear umbrella of the United States and has tended to support US nuclear policy in international forums.  Japan’s dependence upon the US for nuclear deterrence seems likely to be the reason that Japan has been supportive of US nuclear policy and has not been more supportive of the position of the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Most Americans are not attentive to the position of the Japanese government on nuclear issues.  However, US leaders view Japan as an important element in its security plan for East Asia.  Because Japan is a close ally of the US, Japan could potentially assert an influence over US nuclear policy if Japan were to support the position of the hibakusha, take a strong stand for nuclear weapons abolition, and step out from under the US nuclear umbrella.  It would have to do so while at the same time assuring the world that it would continue its policy of renouncing war and not itself developing a nuclear arsenal.  Japan would be the most appropriate country to lead the world, including the US, toward good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.  In doing so, it would be keeping faith with international law as well as with the hibakusha.

    A Time for Boldness

    The nuclear weapon states have put off their obligations to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament for too long.  They have proven that they are not serious about fulfilling their obligations under international law.  The non-nuclear weapon states have warned of the dangers of continuing with the status quo, but to no avail.  Meek warnings have not been sufficient and are no longer acceptable.  It is a time for boldness and an assertion of hope that change is possible.

    There have been no good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament – only excuses.  Enough is enough.  It is time for action to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity – action reflecting that nuclear deterrence is a hypothesis about human behavior rather than a reliable defense.  It is not a defense at all.

    Action is needed that ends the two-tier structure of nuclear haves and have-nots.  The Non-Proliferation Treaty calls for leveling the playing field by eliminating all existing nuclear weapons.  If the nuclear weapon states fail to fulfill their obligations, the playing field may well be leveled in the wrong direction by the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    Examples of Bold 

    One possibility would be a boycott of the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference if the nuclear weapon states have not yet begun to fulfill their obligations for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament called for in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Another possibility would be for countries to set a deadline for withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty if sufficient progress toward nuclear disarmament obligations is not achieved.

    Still another bold move would be for non-nuclear weapon states to begin negotiating among themselves for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons – and call upon the nuclear weapons states to join them.  This is the call of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), and I strongly endorse it.

    Hope

    Despair is a recipe for giving up, while hope keeps us energized to achieve what may seem like impossible goals.  Hope is a choice.  It keeps us going to achieve what is necessary.  Nuclear weapons have had their day, and it has been a dangerous and destructive day.  That day is over, both because these weapons are inequitable and because they are cruel and indiscriminating as between civilians and combatants.  They are 20th century dinosaurs.

    Hope is related to boldness.  It gives us the power to think in a new way, to speak truth to power, and to act resolutely, as the circumstances require.

    Conclusion

    Over the years, the US and Russia relied upon a strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction with the acronym MAD (meaning crazy).  Now, it has become clear that with the use of nuclear arsenals there is also the possibility of Self-Assured Destruction with the acronym SAD.  It is Self-Assured Destruction because the attacking side, even without retaliation from the other side, may destroy its own side due to nuclear famine and nuclear winter.  But SAD has another meaning as well.  It can also stand for Stupid Arrogant Denial.  This may be said of leaders and countries that do not take seriously their obligations for nuclear abolition.

    Our greatest challenge now is to move from MAD and SAD (in both its meanings) to PASS, which stands for Planetary Assured Security and Survival.  This is the path that the hibakusha have walked and they have led the way in making Hiroshima a city of hope.  Now, it is up to us to join the hibakusha in carrying forward the torch of truth that will end the nuclear weapons era.  Our task is to assure human survival and that of other creatures on the only planet we know of in our vast universe that supports the miracle of life. This remains the greatest challenge of our time.

    It is a noble challenge and an urgent one.  It demands our best efforts.  We must act as though the very future depended upon our compassion, commitment and courage.  It does.  Let us follow the path of the hibakusha.  I will end with a final poem.

    Hibakusha Do Not Just Happen
    For every hibakusha
    there is a pilot
    for every hibakusha
    there is a planner
    for every hibakusha
    there is a bombardier
    for every hibakusha
    there is a bomb designer
    for every hibakusha
    there is a missile maker
    for every hibakusha
    there is a missileer
    for every hibakusha
    there is a targeter
    for every hibakusha
    there is a commander
    for every hibakusha
    there is a button pusher
    for every hibakusha
    many must contribute
    for every hibakusha
    many must obey
    for every hibakusha
    many must be silent

    We must respect and honor the existing hibakusha with our voices and our acts of peace.  The best way we can do this is by assuring that no new hibakusha are created.  The best way we can do this is by achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
  • Two Perspectives on Nuclear Weapons

    David KriegerThere are two basic and quite disparate ways in which nuclear weapons are viewed.  The first is that these weapons provide security and power to their possessors.  I would call this the view of the Nuclear Nine – the nine countries that possess nuclear weapons – and their allies.  The second is that nuclear weapons undermine the security of their possessors and must be abolished.  I would call this the humane view of the hibakusha (survivors of the atomic bombings).

    The perspective of the Nuclear Nine and their allies is based upon nuclear deterrence, which is a hypothesis about human communications and behavior.  Nuclear deterrence is the threat to retaliate with nuclear weapons if another country commits a prohibited act.  Such an act might be a nuclear attack, but it could encompass a much broader range of prohibited acts.  One major problem with nuclear deterrence is that it is unproven to work under all circumstances.  It requires rational leaders, and not all leaders are rational at all times.  Further, it requires a territory to retaliate against, thus making it inapplicable to terrorist organizations.  The bottom line with nuclear deterrence is that it might or might not work.  There are no guarantees, and it could fail spectacularly.

    Nations rely upon nuclear deterrence at their peril.  It is a concept that is intellectually bankrupt.  I would equate nuclear deterrence to the French Maginot Line. Prior to World War II, the Maginot Line was highly praised for its high-tech defensive capabilities.  However, when the Germans chose to invade and occupy France, they simply went around the Maginot Line and it provided no defense to France.  Nuclear weapons are a Maginot Line in the Mind; that is, they provide a false sense of security based on a belief in the effectiveness of threatening mass murder.  I fear this will not be understood by political and military leaders until nuclear deterrence fails and that line in the mind proves useless for defense, as surely it will if the status quo continues.

    The hibakusha perspective, on the other hand, is based upon the immorality and illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as well as the uncertainty and unreliability of nuclear deterrence.  Can there be any doubt that weapons that cannot differentiate between civilians and combatants and that cause suffering to generations yet unborn are immoral and illegal?  Further, if nuclear deterrence were to fail, as it has come close to doing on numerous occasions, there would be catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

    At the relatively mild end of the spectrum (but, of course, not mild at all), cities and countries would be destroyed, as happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  At the most severe end of the spectrum, nuclear war could be an extinction event for human beings and other forms of complex life.  To describe the destructive potential of nuclear weapons, philosopher John Somerville coined the word omnicide, meaning the death of all.  In between these degrees of nuclear annihilation, there is the possibility of global nuclear famine, which atmospheric scientists predict would result from a relatively “small” nuclear war using only 100 Hiroshima-size weapons that could lead to a billion deaths by starvation.

    Which is the better perspective?  The perspective of the Nuclear Nine and their allies is not sustainable.  It may provide a false security for some countries, but it provides insecurity for the vast majority of countries as well as for all humans, including those living in Nuclear Nine countries and their allies.  This perspective encourages nuclear proliferation, nuclear brinkmanship, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war.  The perspective of the hibakusha, on the other hand, would level the playing field and fulfill the obligation for nuclear disarmament, which is an important element in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  It is a far more sensible, decent, humane and prudent perspective.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
  • Lessons from the U.S.-Korea Nuclear Crisis

    David KriegerThe high-profile nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, pitting the reigning heavyweight nuclear champion, the United States, against the bantamweight nuclear contender, North Korea, is not finished and is deadly serious.  The posturing and exchanges that the world has been witnessing are capable of spiraling out of control and resulting in nuclear war.  Like the Cuban Missile Crisis more than half a century ago, this crisis demonstrates that nuclear dangers continue to lurk in dark shadows across the globe.

    This crisis, for which the fault is shared by both sides, must be taken seriously and viewed as a warning that nuclear stability is an unrealistic goal.  The elimination of nuclear weapons, an obligation set forth in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and confirmed by the International Court of Justice, must be a more urgent goal of the international community.  The continued evasion of this obligation by the nuclear weapon states makes possible repeated nuclear crises, nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war.

    Lessons can be drawn from this most recent crisis about the dangerous reliance by nuclear-armed states on nuclear deterrence and the unrealistic quest for security through nuclear deterrence and nuclear crisis management.  Here are ten lessons:

    1. Nuclear deterrence encourages threatening words and actions that can escalate into a full-blown crisis.  For nuclear deterrence to be effective between nuclear-armed countries, each country must believe that the other is prepared to actually use nuclear weapons against it in retaliation for behavior considered prohibited (and this may not be clear).  Thus, the leader of each country must convince the other side that he is irrational enough to retaliate against it with nuclear weapons, knowing that the other will then retaliate in kind.  For each side to convince the other, threatening words and actions are employed.

    2. Nuclear deterrence requires leaders to act rationally, but also makes it rational to behave irrationally.  This is a conundrum inherent in nuclear deterrence.  A leader of a nuclear-armed country must be sufficiently rational to be deterred by a threat of nuclear retaliation; but he also must behave sufficiently irrationally to make the other side believe he is actually prepared to use nuclear weapons in retaliation against it.

    3. While deterrence theory requires that leaders be perceived as irrational enough to retaliate with nuclear weapons, they cannot be perceived as so irrational that they would mount a first-strike attack with nuclear weapons.  Should leaders of Country A be perceived by Country B as being ready to launch a preventive nuclear attack, it could lead to an earlier preventive attack by Country B.

    4. “War games” by Country B, held near Country A’s borders, are not-so-subtle threats, particularly when they involve nuclear capable delivery systems.  The US and South Korea conducted joint war games near the border of North Korea.  North Korean leaders became angry and threatening, escalating the crisis.  If a country conducted “war games” near the US border, one can only imagine the response.  To demonstrate how little countries appear to learn from such crises, the US cancelled a Minuteman III missile test in April at the height of the crisis, but has now rescheduled the provocative test for a date in May.

    5. When a nuclear crisis escalates, it can spin out of control.  In an environment of escalating threats, one side may believe its best option is to launch a preventive attack, thus setting in motion a nuclear war.

    6. Nuclear weapons are military equalizers; they provide greater benefit to the militarily weaker country.  A relatively small and weak country, such as North Korea, can hold a much more powerful country, such as the US, at bay with the threat to use nuclear weapons against it, its troops, and/or its allies.  On the other hand, when countries such as Iraq and Libya gave up their nuclear weapons programs, they were attacked by the US and its allies, their regimes were overthrown and their leaders killed.

    7. Nuclear power plants are attractive targets, since they can be turned into radiological weapons.  South Korea has 23 nuclear reactors within striking range of North Korea.  These plants could be intentionally or accidentally destroyed, leading to reactor and spent-fuel meltdowns, and the spread of radiation throughout the Korean Peninsula and beyond.

    8. The value of nuclear weapons, to the extent they have value, lies only in the bluff to use them.  If the nuclear bluff is called, it may lead to catastrophic results – “Game Over.”  That dangerous potential is always present in the bluff to use nuclear weapons.

    9. Cutting off communications increases the risks of misinterpreting an act or intention of the other side.  The two sides stopped speaking to each other except in the language of threat.  North Korea shut down the Crisis Hot Line, a communications device set up to prevent misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the acts of the two Koreas.

    10. Leaders in a nuclear crisis situation need to talk to each other and demonstrate rationality to reverse the escalation.  Leaders on both sides of the crisis should be making overtures to talk through their differences and resolve them rather than continuing to posture in threatening ways at a distance.

    One final lesson that applies to all nuclear crises is that the only way to assure that nuclear weapons are not used again is to abolish them.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Nuclear Roulette Has No Winners

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

    David KriegerThe United States and North Korea are playing a dangerous game of Nuclear Roulette.  The US is taking actions that threaten North Korea, such as conducting war games with US ally South Korea, including practice bombing runs that send nuclear-capable B-2 bombers from Missouri to the Korean Peninsula.  The North Koreans, in turn, are blustering, declaring they are in a state of war with South Korea, which technically is true since a truce and not a peace agreement ended the Korean War in 1953.  North Korean leaders have also cancelled the “hot line” with Seoul and are threatening nuclear attacks on the US, its troops and its allies.

    North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and has since tested nuclear devices on three occasions (2006, 2009 and earlier this year).  It has also tested medium- and long-range missiles and is developing capabilities to threaten the US and its allies with nuclear weapons.  The US has responded to the North Korean tests by holding talks with other countries in Northeast Asia and putting increasingly stringent sanctions on North Korea.  The US also continues to regularly test its long-range, nuclear-capable missiles from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.  Tensions in Northeast Asia continue to rise.

    Nuclear threats are an integral part of nuclear deterrence.  For nuclear deterrence to work effectively, it is necessary for an opponent to believe a nuclear threat is real.  When the US joins South Korea in playing war games with nuclear-capable aircraft on the Korean Peninsula, the message of threat is clear to the North Korean leaders.  Equally clear is the message from North Korea to the US with its nuclear tests and bluster: North Korea has a nuclear capability that could cause unacceptable harm to the US, its troops and its allies.

    From an objective perspective, each country has the capability to cause the other (or its troops or allies) horrific damage.  While they are pounding on their chests and demonstrating that they are in fact crazy enough to use nuclear weapons, they are engaged in a drama that hopes to dissuade the other side from actually doing so.  Both countries should take note of this.

    The dangerous game of Nuclear Roulette is built into the nuclear deterrence paradigm.  Each time the hammer of the gun is cocked and the gun is pointed at the other side’s head, the barrel of the opponent’s gun is also pointed at one’s own head.  An accident or miscalculation during a time of tension could trigger a nuclear holocaust.

    Yes, of course the United States is the stronger of the two countries and would fare better, perhaps far better, in a nuclear war, but that isn’t good enough.  Yes, North Korea could be destroyed as a functioning country, but at what cost?  In addition to the terrible cost in lives of North Koreans, the US and its allies would also pay a heavy price: first, in the deaths of US troops stationed in the Northeast Asian region; second, in the deaths and devastation of US allies, South Korea and Japan, and possibly of the US itself; and third, in the loss of stature and credibility of the US for having engaged in nuclear warfare that destroyed the lives of potentially millions of innocent North Koreans.

    Nuclear Roulette has no winners.  It is a game that no country should be playing.  But the leaders of countries with nuclear weapons tend to believe these weapons make their own country more secure.  They do not.  They risk everything we hold dear, all we love, and they undermine our collective sense of decency.  The only way out of the Nuclear Roulette dilemma is to unload the gun and assure that it cannot be used again by any side.

    We can do far better than we are doing.  For the short term, the US should stop conducting provocative war games in the region and instead offer some diplomatic carrots rather than sticks.  The US would go far to defuse a dangerous situation by again offering to support North Korea in providing food and energy for its people.  For the longer term, the US should lead the way forward by using its convening power to commence negotiations for a new treaty, a global Nuclear Weapons Convention, to achieve the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.