Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Shifting the Mindset (Executive Summary)

    To download a full copy of this briefing booklet, click here.

    Executive Summary

    Throughout the Nuclear Age, leaders of the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, known as the P5 – have been locked in old ways of thinking about security.  They believe that nuclear deterrence in a two-tier structure of nuclear haves and have-nots can hold indefinitely without significant nuclear proliferation and further use of nuclear weapons.  This way of thinking continues to place not only the P5 and their allies in danger of nuclear annihilation, but threatens global catastrophe for civilization, the human species and most forms of life. 

    The policies of the nuclear weapon states have favored going slow on achieving a world free of nuclear weapons, preferring arms control and non-proliferation measures to nuclear disarmament.  They have placed emphasis on small steps rather than taking a comprehensive approach to the elimination of nuclear weapons.  While reducing their nuclear arsenals, they have simultaneously modernized them, and thus have demonstrated their continued reliance upon these weapons in their security policies.

    However, cracks in this old and dangerous way of thinking have begun to show in the statements of former high-level policy makers in the United States and other countries and in the vision of a nuclear weapon-free world expressed by U.S. President Barack Obama.

    This briefing booklet explores new ways of thinking in relation to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference.  It presents the case that nuclear weapons abolition is the only rational and sane position to adopt toward current nuclear threats.  In light of the overwhelming threat posed by nuclear weapons, all conference participants are urged to bear in mind the following in preparing for their deliberations:

    •    Nuclear weapons continue to present a real and present danger to humanity and other life on Earth.

    •    Basing the security of one’s country on the threat to kill tens of millions of innocent people, perhaps billions, and risking the destruction of civilization, has no moral justification and deserves the strongest condemnation.

    •    It will not be possible to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons without fulfilling existing legal obligations for total nuclear disarmament. 

    •    Preventing nuclear proliferation and achieving nuclear disarmament will both be made far more difficult, if not impossible, by expanding nuclear energy facilities throughout the world. 

    •    Putting the world on track for eliminating the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons will require a shift in thinking about this overarching danger to present and future generations. 

    The briefing sets forth a spectrum of perspectives on nuclear weapons, from Nuclear Believers at one end to Nuclear Abolitionists at the other.  Between them are three other groups, the largest being the Nuclear Disempowered.  This group is composed of most of the general public who are often ignorant, confused and apathetic about nuclear weapons as a result of government secrecy and manipulation of information about the role of these weapons in security policies and the consequences of persisting plans for their use.  It is this critical group that must be made more aware of the nuclear threats to our common future and must make their voices heard in a new and vigorous global dialogue on nuclear policy. 

    The booklet reviews a number of proposals to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and sets forth five priorities for agreement at the 2010 NPT Review Conference:

    1.    Each signatory nuclear weapon state should provide an accurate public accounting of its nuclear arsenal, conduct a public environmental and human assessment of its potential use, and devise and make public a roadmap for going to zero nuclear weapons.

    2.    All signatory nuclear weapon states should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies by taking all nuclear forces off high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapon states and No Use against non-nuclear weapon states.

    3.    All enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium – military and civilian – and their production facilities (including all uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technology) should be placed under strict and effective international safeguards.

    4.    All signatory states should review Article IV of the NPT, promoting the “inalienable right” to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in light of the nuclear proliferation problems posed by nuclear electricity generation.

    5.    All signatory states should comply with Article VI of the NPT, reinforced and clarified by the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion, by commencing negotiations in good faith on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons, and complete these negotiations by the year 2015.

    The briefing then considers issues of double standards and concludes that such standards will result in predictable catastrophes.  A more just and secure future for humanity will require leaders of all countries, and especially those in the nuclear weapon states, to exercise sound judgment and act for the benefit of all humanity.  A thorough rethinking of nuclear policy is needed, with the goal of moving from minimal acceptable change to a comprehensive plan for achieving a nuclear weapon-free future.

    A full copy of the briefing booklet can be downloaded
    from our website at https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/goto/nptbooklet. To request a
    hard copy, please call our office at (805) 965-3443.

  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Shifting the Mindset

    2010_03_19_npt_briefing.pdf

  • A Nuclear Weapons Convention

    This speech was delivered by David Krieger to the 4th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

    A Nuclear Weapons Convention is a treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.  Such a treaty does not yet exist, except in the form of a model treaty developed by non-governmental organizations and introduced by Costa Rica and Malaysia to the United Nations General Assembly.  The model treaty shows that a Nuclear Weapons Convention is possible from a technical perspective.  What it does not demonstrate is its feasibility from a political perspective.  

    If the goal is a world free of nuclear weapons, then a Nuclear Weapons Convention is the best vehicle for achieving this goal.  When speaking about a Nuclear Weapons Convention, I generally add “a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.”  Let’s discuss those qualifiers.

    Many leaders express concern about nuclear disarmament occurring too rapidly, without sufficient preparation, and thus being potentially dangerous and destabilizing.  Of course, that concern must be compared to the considerable dangers of current nuclear weapons policies, including proliferation, terrorism, and inadvertent or intentional use.  However, to avoid destabilization in the process of nuclear disarmament, the proposal is for phased elimination of nuclear weapons, which would allow for confidence building in each phase.  As certain steps were accomplished in each phase, confidence in the system would be strengthened.  For example, reductions in numbers of weapons can be set out for the various phases.  Safeguards can be strengthened in phases, and so forth.  There are many ways in which the phases can be designed, related to the number of phases, their length, and what is to be accomplished in each phase.

    A principal concern related to nuclear weapons abolition is cheating.  Thus, any disarmament system must be subject to verification.  Ronald Reagan famously said, “Trust, but verify.”  There need to be systems of inspection and verification so that there is confidence that cheating is not occurring.  Individual states should not be allowed to control the methods of inspection and verification on their territories.  Verification must not have limiting factors.  It must allow for full inspections.  Countries must be prepared to open their facilities to challenge inspections at any time and in any place.  The right to full inspections to assure against cheating must be understood as a basic requirement for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  There are many ways in which verification procedures can be organized and designed, related to issues such as what entities would authorize and conduct inspections, and the timing and scope of the inspections.

    Making disarmament irreversible is an important element of the process of moving to zero nuclear weapons.  It is one of the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  Irreversibility is a matter of principle in order to hold on to the gains that are made in the process of disarmament and not allow for the possibility of backsliding.  Some technical questions may be involved, including the determination of what constitutes irreversibility.  

    The final element I would stress is transparency.  A Nuclear Weapons Convention should make the process of nuclear disarmament transparent so that all parties will have confidence that the required steps are actually being taken.  This is an element that must be carefully thought through, however, so as not to increase the vulnerability of states as the number of weapons is reduced.  There is a delicate balance between security and transparency that must be considered.  

    I view these four elements – phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent – as being essential for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  They are necessary for building confidence that the abolition of nuclear weapons can be accomplished.  They will be guideposts in negotiating the treaty, but before there can be a treaty we must first get to the negotiating table.

    Over the years, there have been many calls for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  In 1995, when the Abolition 2000 Global Network was formed following the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, they called in their founding statement for the NPT nuclear weapon states to “[i]nitiate immediately and conclude…negotiations on a nuclear weapons abolition convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.”

    In 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.  The Court stated unanimously: “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.”  In effect, the Court said there is a legal obligation to pursue a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  

    On the opening day of the of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation published an Appeal in the New York Times signed by, among others, 35 Nobel Laureates, including 14 Nobel Peace Laureates.  The Appeal called upon the nuclear weapon states to “[c]ommence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.”

    In 2008, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued an Action Plan for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament, emphasizing that the two are strongly interrelated.  The first of his five actions is “[a] call for all NPT parties to pursue negotiations in good faith – as required by the treaty – on nuclear disarmament either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.”

    The Mayors for Peace Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol calls for negotiations for a Nuclear weapons Convention or a comparable Framework Agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons by the year 2020.  They have promoted this among their 3,500 member cities.

    The most important issue confronting us is not the elements of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  These can be worked out through negotiations.  The most important issue is how to generate the political will to commence negotiations.  I believe that such political will must come from demands by the people.  I also believe that the United States should lead the way, and this places a special responsibility upon the shoulders of Americans.  If the US does not lead, it is hard to imagine the Russians joining; if the Russians don’t join, it is hard to imagine the Chinese joining, and so forth.

    President Obama has called for the US, as the only country to have used nuclear weapons, to lead on achieving a nuclear weapons-free world.  Unfortunately, though, he doesn’t believe the goal can be achieved in his lifetime.  It is up to people everywhere to make their voices heard on this issue and to encourage him to convene negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention with a sense of urgency.  President Obama has expressed strong concern about nuclear terrorism.  He must be convinced that the threat of nuclear terrorism will only be eliminated when nuclear weapons are eliminated.

    If the United States does not act in convening negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, Japan could take the lead.  As the victims of the first atomic attacks, Japan has an equal, if not more valid, claim to leadership and responsibility on this issue.  Most important, the voices of the bomb survivors, the hibakusha, must be ever present in the debate on achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.  

    In a Briefing Booklet that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is preparing for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, we describe a spectrum of perspectives toward nuclear weapons.  At one end of the spectrum are the Nuclear Believers, those who believe the bomb has been a force for peace.  At the other end of the spectrum are the Nuclear Abolitionists, those who believe that nuclear weapons threaten the annihilation of the human species and most forms of life.  In the center is the category of the Nuclear Disempowered, those who are confused, ignorant and apathetic.  People in this category are often fatalistic and are inclined to defer to “experts.”  It is this enormous group of disempowered individuals that must be awakened, empowered and engaged in seeking a world free of nuclear weapons.   This is our challenge as abolitionists.  If we can succeed in building a solid base of support for nuclear weapons abolition, a Nuclear Weapons Convention will be the vehicle to take us to the destination.

  • A Message to Youth: Live to Your Full Capacity and Save the Planet

    This speech was delivered to the youth of Soka Gakkai International in Japan on February 8, 2010.

    I want to talk with you as youth, as a group of youth who care about our world.  One thing is certain: You will inherit the world.  It will not be either the strong or the meek who will inherit the Earth; for better or for worse, it will be the youth.  You will inherit what we, the older generation, leave to you, and you will hopefully do better than we have done in preserving this beautiful planet and the diversity of its life forms.  You will hopefully do better in achieving and maintaining peace on our planet.  You will also have the eventual responsibility, as each generation does, to pass the world on in tact to the next generation.  

    New generations of youth keep coming, like waves against the shore.  Now it is your turn to reach the shore.  As animals once left the sea for the land, you now come of age to take responsibility in the world.  And you come of age at a time of great challenge.  The generations of your parents and grandparents have left you a world that is fraught with dangers and inequities.  The test of your generation will be in the way you create a more just and decent world.  But you will have another challenge as well.  You will have to navigate the dangers of nuclear weapons – weapons capable of ending civilization and destroying most life on Earth.

    The human future is not guaranteed.  That is the most profound meaning of the Nuclear Age.  It is an era in which we have created weapons that are capable of omnicide, the destruction of all.  Omnicide is an extension of suicide and genocide to the entire world.  We live in a time when it is possible to destroy everything.  We have proven our cleverness in creating tools of destruction.  Now it is up to us, and to you as youth in particular, to find the means to assure that these tools are not used and are abolished.

    How will you do this?  To start with, you must recognize the nature of the problem.  This is no ordinary problem that can be left to work itself out.  It requires a plan.  Who will create and implement such a plan?  Who will take the lead in assuring that we are progressing toward zero nuclear weapons?  The problem could become much worse than it is today.  Instead of nine nuclear weapon states, imagine a world in which there are 20 or 50 or 100.  What kind of world would that be?  

    We have a Non-Proliferation Treaty that seeks to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons.  That treaty has a provision for nuclear disarmament, so that there will not be permanent classes of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.”  Everyone recognizes that such a world would not be fair, so Article VI of the treaty requires that the nuclear weapon states engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.  The International Court of Justice interpreted this clause in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.  They said, “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.”

    I would like to share with you some additional reasons to abolish nuclear weapons:

    1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.   As such, they are instruments of dehumanization as well as annihilation.

    2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists.  Nuclear war could cause deadly climate change, putting human existence at risk.  Here is what one researcher, Steven Starr, concluded from reviewing the recent literature on nuclear weapons and climate change: “The detonation of a tiny fraction of the operational nuclear arsenals within cities would generate enough smoke to cause catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of the protective stratospheric ozone layer.  Environmental devastation caused by a war fought with many thousands of strategic nuclear weapons would quickly leave the Earth uninhabitable.”

    3. They threaten to foreclose the future, negating our common responsibility to future generations.

    4. They make cowards of their possessors, and in their use there can be no decency or honor.  This was recognized by most of the leading US generals and admirals of World War II, including Dwight Eisenhower, Hap Arnold, Omar Bradley, and William Leahy.  Admiral Leahy, chief of staff to President Truman, said: “The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

    5. They divide the world’s nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing false and unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them.  

    6. They are a distortion of science and technology, siphoning off our scientific and technological resources and twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes.  On the 50th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a senior Manhattan Project scientist, Hans Bethe, called upon “…all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons – and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.”  

    7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power.  The International Court of Justice has ruled that the threat of use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and any use that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal.  It is virtually impossible to imagine a threat or use of nuclear weapons that would not violate international humanitarian law by failing to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, causing unnecessary suffering or being disproportionate to a preceding attack.  

    8. They waste our resources on the development of instruments of annihilation.  The United States alone has spent over $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the onset of the Nuclear Age.

    9. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals and, in doing so, undermine democracy.  They give over to a few individuals, usually men, greater power of annihilation than at any previous time in history.

    10. They are morally abhorrent, as recognized by virtually every religious organization, and their mere existence corrupts our humanity.  If we are willing to tolerate these weapons and their indiscriminate power of annihilation, then who are we?  What do these weapons say about our humanity, our human decency?

    I think it should be clear that one primary goal for youth should be to act and to lead in abolishing nuclear weapons.  

    Later this year, in May, there will be an eighth Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  This is the only treaty that has provisions requiring the nuclear weapon states to pursue the goal of nuclear disarmament.  It will be an important meeting after the failure of the last NPT Review Conference in 2005.  To give you an idea of how much there is to accomplish, I want to share with you the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s priority recommendations for the conference:

    1. Each signatory nuclear weapon state should provide an accurate public accounting of its nuclear arsenal, conduct a public environmental and human assessment of its potential use, and devise and make public a roadmap for going to zero nuclear weapons.

    2. All signatory nuclear weapon states should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies by taking all nuclear forces off high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapon states and No Use against non-nuclear weapon states.

    3. All enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium – military and civilian – and their production facilities (including all uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technology) should be placed under strict and effective international safeguards.

    4. All signatory states should review Article IV of the NPT, promoting the “inalienable right” to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in light of the nuclear proliferation problems posed by nuclear electricity generation.

    5. Each nuclear weapon state should comply with Article VI of the NPT, reinforced and clarified by the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion, by commencing negotiations in good faith on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons, and complete these negotiations by the year 2015.

    The problems may seem complex, but the bottom line is this: Nuclear weapons threaten the human future, and they must be abolished.  This is a human issue that is every bit as consequential as was the movement to abolish slavery in the 19th century.  There are some acts that cannot be tolerated, and slavery and the threat of nuclear omnicide are among them.

    You can be a voice for abolition by learning more, supporting the hibakusha, and speaking out for a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons.  Don’t be satisfied with anything less than a clear commitment to a world with zero nuclear weapons, and demand more from political leaders who say that the goal is too difficult or cannot be achieved within their lifetime.  

    In addition to working for the abolition of nuclear weapons, your generation faces many other challenges as well.  There is no major international problem in our world that does not require international cooperation to solve.  Thus, we need to work together.  With modern communications and transportation, your generation is well equipped to cooperate across all borders.  Really, borders exist primarily in our minds.  They are not drawn upon the Earth, only on maps.  And all borders are permeable to ideas and trade, as well as to pollution and disease.  The bottom line is that we live in a single unitary world.  We all share one Earth, and we can make of it a paradise or a nightmare.  We choose – by our actions or inaction.    

    We live in a world of some 200 nation states.  Most of these spend far too much on their military forces, so that in total the world spends some $1.5 trillion a year on its militaries.  We know that for a relatively small proportion of this amount – five or ten percent – it would be possible to make enormous progress on the eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals.  These goals include ending poverty and hunger, universal education, gender equality, child health, maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development.  The achievement of these goals would reflect real advances in human security, and with relatively small reductions in global military expenditures we could make them happen.

    As you go through life, you will have many challenges.  Each of you will have to find your own way in the world.  I want to share with you 12 ideas on how to meet these challenges.  These involve using all your miraculous gifts to live to your full capacity as human beings.

    1.    Learn from others, but think for yourself.  (Use your mind and judgment.)

    2.    Decide for yourself what is right or wrong.  (Use your conscience.)

    3.    Speak out for what you believe in.  (Use your voice.)

    4.    Stand up for what is right. (Use your power as an individual.)

    5.    Set goals and be persistent in working for them.  (Use your vision and determination.)

    6.    Live by the Golden Rule.  That is, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  (Use your feelings as a point of reference.)

    7.    Recognize the miracle that you are.  You are unique in the universe.  (Be spiritually aware.)

    8.    Never harm another miracle.  Choose to solve conflicts without resort to violence.  (Be nonviolent.)

    9.    Believe in yourself.  (Be trustworthy, even to yourself.)

    10.    Help others.  (Be giving.)

    11.    Be a citizen of the world.  (Be inclusive and embrace all life.)

    12.    Be a force for peace and justice.  (Be courageous and committed.)

    I hope you will find joy in life and also contribute to creating a more just and decent world.  If you care about life and recognize its preciousness, you are needed to create a better future.  Albert Camus, the great French writer and philosopher, said: “Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present.”

    Camus responded to the first atomic bombing in this way: “Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests. Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging. This is no longer a prayer but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments – a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason.”  I stand with Albert Camus in choosing to wage peace.  I hope you will as well.

    As you may know, I engaged in a dialogue with SGI President Daisaku Ikeda.  We espoused the principle of choosing hope, rather than succumbing to ignorance, apathy or despair.  Hope gives rise to action, and action, in turn, gives rise to hope.  Our shared hope includes the goal of building a more peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons – a daunting but essential goal.  I stand with Daisaku Ikeda in choosing hope.  I’m sure that you stand with him as well.

    You are the future.  May each of you choose hope, wage peace, and live your lives fully and with a full measure of joy.  I wish you all much success.

    Let me conclude with a poem that I wrote for a Soka High School graduation some years ago.  I think its message remains valid today.

    ADVICE TO GRADUATES

    Always remember this:
    You are a miracle
    Made up of dancing atoms
    That can talk and sing,
    Listen and remember, and laugh,
    At times even at yourself.

    You are a miracle
    Whose atoms existed before time.
    Born of the Big Bang, you are connected
    To everything – to mountains and oceans,
    To the winds and wilderness, to the creatures
    Of the sea and air and land.
    You are a member of the human family.

    You are a miracle, entirely unique.
    There has never been another
    With your combination of talents, dreams,
    Desires and hopes.  You can create.
    You are capable of love and compassion.

    You are a miracle.
    You are a gift of creation to itself.
    You are here for a purpose, which you must find.
    Your presence here is sacred – and you will
    Change the world.

  • Omnicide and Abolition

    This speech was delivered by David Krieger to the 4th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on February 6, 2010.

    It is a great pleasure to be again in Nagasaki.  Thank you all for welcoming us so warmly to your beautiful city.  I have always been struck by the chance nature of the bombing of Nagasaki.  The target of the bomb that fateful day was another city, Kokura, but clouds prevented the bombing of that city.  If it hadn’t been for those clouds, Nagasaki might never have been bombed.  If there had not been a break in the clouds over Nagasaki, the city might never have been bombed.  Something as ordinary as clouds can change our lives in profound ways.  But so can our actions to build a world of peace and to eliminate nuclear weapons from our planet.  

    Over the years I have written a number of poems about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I would like to share one of these, entitled Echoes in the Sky.  It begins with a quote by the former mayor of Nagasaki, Iccho Itoh.

    ECHOES IN THE SKY

    “Today the bells of Nagasaki echo in the sky…”
    — Mayor Iccho Itoh

    The sky, bitter, blue, unyielding, holds promise.  The city, so welcoming,
    deserved far better.  Clouds opened making space for devastation.  Before
    anyone expected, the flowers returned.  Memories are painful, sometimes
    unbearable.  Words of apology never came.  Survivors grow old and feeble. 
    Generations pass.  The air above the sea is thick with sorrow.  The bells ring
    out for peace, echo in the sky.

    This is the first time I have been in Nagasaki since the tragic death of Mayor Itoh. I remember him vividly as a man of great charm and warmth.  He had a deep commitment to ending the nuclear weapons era and to assuring that Nagasaki’s past does not become any other city’s future.  Many of us throughout the world feel a debt of gratitude for the leadership he provided on this most critical issue of our time.

    Nagasaki is a city at once magical and poetic.  From the ashes of atomic devastation nearly 65 years ago, Nagasaki has arisen to become a leading global city in the movement for a world free of nuclear threat.  These Citizens’ Assemblies are models of engagement to involve ordinary citizens in the task of abolishing nuclear weapons.  The bells of Nagasaki echo in the sky’s embrace.  These bells send forth a call to people everywhere to awaken to the spirit of peace, to global cooperation and the transformative powers of forgiveness and love.  Nagasaki has always been an entry point for foreigners into Japan.  It has also been a gateway outward to the world, and your message is one that is critical for the world to hear.  

    I have worked for nuclear disarmament for four decades, and have done so with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation since its founding in 1982.  Our first and most important goal at the Foundation is the abolition of nuclear weapons.  We also seek to strengthen international law and to empower new generations of peace leaders.  These goals go together hand-in-hand.  We will not achieve abolition without strengthening international law and empowering new generations of peace leaders.  So we need to be firm in our demands for the total abolition of these monstrous weapons in accord with international law, and new generations of peace leaders must join in this demand and stand with us shoulder-to-shoulder.  We need to educate and mentor young leaders to carry forward this struggle until the last nuclear weapon is dismantled and destroyed.  

    I would like to talk to you about Omnicide and Abolition.  Omnicide is a term coined by the philosopher John Somerville.  It is an extension of the concepts of suicide and genocide.  It means the destruction of all, of everything.  Nuclear weapons have the potential for omnicide.  They could destroy everything — civilization, the human species, other forms of life, art, music, memory, poetry, literature, the past, the future.   Anything you can imagine can be destroyed by nuclear weapons, even imagination itself.  How clever we humans are.  We are a tool-creating species, and we have created tools with which we are capable of annihilating ourselves and other forms of life.  This should be a frightening thought to all of us.  

    There is no doubt that the number of nuclear weapons on our planet is sufficient to end human life.  What can justify this risk?  Is it not insane to continue to run this risk?  Why does this seem to be something that our political leaders cannot see?  Where is the leadership for change?  

    One ray of hope is Barack Obama assuming the presidency of the United States.  He seeks “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  But he tells us that he is not naive, and that this is not likely to be achieved in his lifetime.  He tells us we must be patient.  But if he knew that patience might make nuclear proliferation more likely and lead to further nuclear catastrophes, would he not instill his goal with a greater sense of urgency?

    Another ray of hope is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has called for all parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty “to pursue negotiations in good faith – as required by the treaty – on nuclear disarmament either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.”  This is important leadership coming from the top international civil servant.

    Our task as global citizens is to become a strong enough voice that leaders seeking abolition, like President Obama and Ban Ki-moon, will feel a solid base of support behind them, providing them with the strength to seek to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity with a sense of urgency.    

    We have our work cut out for us.  There is no doubt it will be difficult to achieve our goal.  We face powerful forces.  We must make our demands heard.  As the 19th century anti-slavery abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, said: “Power concedes nothing without a demand.  It never has and it never will.”  

    We must encourage President Obama to act with greater urgency, but we must also encourage Kim Jong-Il to come to the negotiating table, give up his nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances and development assistance, and join a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone.  We must also bring the spirit of the hibakusha to the negotiating table.  If we can do this, we can use the transforming powers of forgiveness and love to infuse the negotiations with a new energy reflective of the changed “modes of thinking” that Albert Einstein saw as essential to avert “unparalleled catastrophe.”  

    The hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have given testimony to enough pain and suffering for many lifetimes.  Let their voices echo in the sky and throughout the Earth.  I would ask you to take five actions from this Citizens’ Assembly.  

    First, invite President Obama and other world leaders to visit your city.  Help them to see at first hand the nature of the nuclear power of annihilation and compare that to the transformative powers of forgiveness and love.  

    Second, send a strong delegation of hibakusha to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and lobby each of the delegates to the conference, encouraging them to approach the elimination of nuclear weapons with a sense of urgency.  

    Third, send delegations of hibakusha throughout the world to tell their stories to young people, to share with them the Appeal that will come from this Assembly, and to encourage their leadership in the struggle for a world without nuclear weapons.

    Fourth, lobby the Japanese government to step out from under the US nuclear umbrella and to end its reliance on extended nuclear deterrence.  

    Fifth, continue to lobby for a Nobel Peace Prize for the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  President Obama received the prize for what he might do; the hibakusha deserve the prize for what they have done in powerfully spreading the message, “Never again!”  

    Now I would like to focus on the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which will take place in May.  In their deliberations, states parties to the conference should bear in mind the following in seeking a comprehensive solution to the threat of nuclear weapons rather than narrow advantage:

    • Nuclear weapons continue to present a real and present danger to humanity and other life on Earth.
    • Basing the security of one’s country on the threat to kill tens of millions of innocent people, perhaps billions, and risking the destruction of civilization, has no moral justification and deserves the strongest condemnation.
    • It will not be possible to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons without fulfilling existing legal obligations for total nuclear disarmament.  
    • Preventing nuclear proliferation and achieving nuclear disarmament will both be made far more difficult, if not impossible, by expanding nuclear energy facilities throughout the world.  
    • Putting the world on track for eliminating the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons will require new ways of thinking about this overarching danger to present and future generations.  

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation supports the following five priority actions for agreement at the 2010 NPT Review Conference:

    1. Each signatory nuclear weapon state should provide an accurate public accounting of its nuclear arsenal, conduct a public environmental and human assessment of its potential use, and devise and make public a roadmap for going to zero nuclear weapons.
    2. All signatory nuclear weapon states should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies by taking all nuclear forces off high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapon states and No Use against non-nuclear weapon states.
    3. All enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium – military and civilian – and their production facilities (including all uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technology) should be placed under strict and effective international safeguards.
    4. All signatory states should review Article IV of the NPT, promoting the “inalienable right” to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in light of the nuclear proliferation problems posed by nuclear electricity generation.
    5. All signatory states should comply with Article VI of the NPT, reinforced and clarified by the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion, by commencing negotiations in good faith on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons, and complete these negotiations by the year 2015.

    The most important action by the NPT Review Conference would be an agreement to commence good faith negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  Such an agreement would demonstrate the needed political will among the world’s countries to move forward toward a world without nuclear weapons.  If the United States fails to lead in convening these negotiations, I would urge Japan to do so.  Regardless of which countries provide the leadership, however, I would propose that the opening session of these negotiations be held in Hiroshima, the first city to have suffered nuclear devastation, and the final session of these negotiations be held in Nagasaki, the second and, hopefully, last city to have suffered atomic devastation.

    If agreement could be reached to begin these negotiations for a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, we would be on a serious path toward a nuclear weapons-free world, one that would allow the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to know that their pleas have been heard.

    I would like to conclude by sharing another poem, “The Bells of Nagasaki.”

    THE BELLS OF NAGASAKI

    The bells of Nagasaki
    ring for those who suffered
    and those who suffer still.

    They draw old women to them
    and young couples
    with love-glazed eyes.

    They draw in small children
    walking awkwardly
    toward the epicenter.

    The Bells of Nagasaki,
    elusive as a flowing stream,
    ring for each of us, ring
    like falling leaves.

    Thank you, and let’s make sure that the echoes of the Nagasaki bells are heard throughout the world.  Never lose hope, and never give up the struggle for a safer and saner world, free of all nuclear weapons.

  • William Stafford: A Voice for Peace

    Poet William Stafford was a conscientious objector
    during World War II.  A wonderful 32
    minute documentary video, “Every War Has Two Losers,” has been done of his life
    as a writer and man of peace.  The video,
    directed by Haydn Reiss, includes commentary by Robert Bly, W.S. Merwin and Alice Walker,
    among others. 

    Stafford, who lived from 1914 to 1993, is revealed as a
    down to earth man and artist, who was a voice for peace and simple decency.  The video is available online from Amazon, as
    are many of Stafford’s poetry
    books.

    The flavor of Stafford’s poetic voice for peace can be found in his
    poem:

    At the
    Un-National Monument Along the Canadian
    Border

    This is the field where the battle did
    not happen,
    where the unknown soldier did not
    die.
    This is the field where grass joined hands,
    where no monument stands,
    and the only heroic thing is
    the sky.

    Birds fly here without any sound,
    unfolding their wings across the open.
    No people killed –
    or were killed – on this ground
    hollowed by the
    neglect of an air so tame
    that people celebrate it by forgetting its
    name.

  • Become a Peace Leader and Change the World

    I’d like you to learn the skills to do something great in your life, to make a difference in the world by becoming a peace leader.  What could be a greater or more satisfying challenge than working to make the world more peaceful and just?

    Leadership begins with thinking big, with having dreams and goals that are larger than one person can accomplish.  Nearly all important goals may seem like impossible dreams until someone comes along and dreams them.  Leadership requires a vision of a better future and at least a rough idea of a plan to achieve the vision.  It requires convincing others that the vision is worth pursuing and the plan makes sense.  Leadership is about moving people to action.  It is best accomplished by persuasion and by setting the right example for others.  Leadership has the power of mobilization.  

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) Peace Leadership Program is organized and led by Paul Chappell.  Paul is a dynamic young leader who graduated from West Point in 2002 and served in the Army until 2009.  He is deeply committed to building a peaceful world and training new peace leaders.  He has written an important book, Will War Ever End? A Soldier’s Vision of Peace for the 21st Century (Weston, Connecticut: Ashoka Books, 2009).

    NAPF Peace Leadership Program seeks to train people to be leaders working for a more just and peaceful world.  At the Foundation, we believe that each of us has leadership potential that can be developed and put into practice.  What does it take to become an effective peace leader?  First, a passion to change the world.  Second, a commitment to work toward the needed change.  Third, the ability to inspire others to join in the effort.  Finally and above all, leadership requires persistence.  

    Achieving any great goal cannot be done overnight.  It takes hard work.  There will undoubtedly be obstacles that must be overcome.  Someone must hold the vision and inspire others by rolling up his or her sleeves and working to make progress.  Someone must lead.  Why not you?  

    I encourage you to learn more about the Foundation’s Peace Leadership Program by signing up for the program and learning the skills that will allow you to contribute to creating a better world.  The world is waiting for you!

  • What Should the President Say in Oslo?

    What Should the President Say in Oslo?

    President Obama will soon be traveling to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, one of the highest honors that can be bestowed upon an individual or organization. In Alfred Nobel’s will, he stated that the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who “during the preceding year…shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction or standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

    The president will be receiving the award while America remains engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to make drone incursions in a third country, Pakistan. While he seeks to disengage from the war in Iraq, he has recently announced his decision to expand the war in Afghanistan by sending an additional 30,000 American troops.

    Against this background, what might the president say in Oslo? He will, of course, have his own ideas, but here are some thoughts.

    First, acknowledge that militarism globally is making the world less secure for a majority of the inhabitants of the planet. The nearly $1.5 trillion spent for military purposes is taking food from the hungry, shelter from the homeless, healthcare from the impoverished, and education from hundreds of millions of the world’s children. He should pledge to reduce the military budget of the United States by half by the year 2015, and call upon other countries to do the same.

    Second, recognize the role of inequality in generating conflicts throughout the globe and pledge to use the savings from military budgets in the US to help meet the eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015, starting with dramatically reducing poverty and hunger and promoting education and health care.

    Third, call for major reductions in arms transfers that fuel wars throughout the world and pledge that the US will reduce its arms transfers by half by the year 2015.

    Fourth, reiterate his and America’s commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons, announcing new and urgent steps to reduce the reliance of the US on nuclear arms, including de-alerting the weapons currently on high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons, and convening the nine nuclear weapons states to begin negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

    Fifth, recognize, as did Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, that the Nuclear Age demands not only the abolition of nuclear weapons, but the abolition of war. For too long, the US and other countries have sought to prevent war by preparing for it. Now, the time has come to prevent war by preparing for peace. Cultures of peace must be built upon foundations of justice and human dignity. This means that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the international law that supports these rights, must be respected and adhered to. It also means that human institutions must uphold these rights, and there must be accountability for leaders who violate international law.

    Finally, introduce the concept of trusteeship of the earth and its resources as a vital element of building cultures of peace. All of us share in the responsibility to pass the earth on intact to the generations that will follow us on the planet. We are trustees for future generations. We cannot allow global warming to change the climate, the ozone layer to be further damaged, our soil to be depleted, or our atmosphere, rivers and oceans to be polluted beyond recovery.

    President Obama might conclude his Nobel Lecture by noting that peace is a sacred right for children everywhere and that all countries, starting with his own, should end the barbaric practice of sacrificing their children at the altar of war. He might observe that if politicians cannot refrain from choosing war, they should themselves go off to fight and leave the young men and women at home to pursue their lives in peace. It would follow that if politicians were to fight their own wars, the institution of war would soon end, and peace would cease to be the intervals between wars. It would be celebrated in all seasons across the globe.

    Of course, these ideas and commitments are unlikely to be in the president’s Nobel Lecture and have been made more so by his recent announcement of his intention to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan. It is pleasant to dream, though, that this young president might make such a speech and carry out a commitment truly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor on the World Future Council.
  • A Dialogue Between Socrates and Einstein

    A Dialogue Between Socrates and Einstein

    Socrates was taking a walk through the countryside and he came across Professor Einstein. After the two men greeted each other, Socrates asked Einstein about his famous quotation concerning the atomic bomb: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

    Socrates: I’ve often wondered about this statement. What exactly did you mean by “modes of thinking”?

    Einstein: I meant that the new weapons we have created require us to think in a new way. We can no longer continue to use our old ways of thinking that have brought us this far. Our thinking must change.

    Socrates: How must it change?

    Einstein: To start with, we must recognize that these weapons have the power to destroy everything, including most life on the planet. We must make greater use of our imaginations, and imagine the outcome of a nuclear war. We must be able to imagine the outcome of a war that would end civilization and cause the death of all humans.

    Socrates: This may be difficult for many people to imagine.

    Einstein: I have no doubt that it is difficult to imagine. We tend to project the past into the future, but in the Nuclear Age the future could be very different from the past. But imagining a future without human life, or even all life, may be easier to imagine than it is to prevent such a future from occurring.

    Socrates: You mean imagining a future without a human presence on the planet is the easier part of changing our modes of thinking?

    Einstein: Exactly so, Socrates. But it is very important.

    Socrates: Why do you find it so important?

    Einstein: If you can imagine that we could have a world without human beings, then it should be motivating to do something to prevent this from happening.

    Socrates: Yes, Einstein. I can see that this would be motivating. But why aren’t more people motivated?

    Einstein: First, they aren’t motivated because they can’t really imagine such a world. Second, even if they can imagine it, they can’t figure out what to do.

    Socrates: I think the first problem, the failure of imagination, could be helped with education.

    Einstein: Yes, I think the right kind of education would help greatly.

    Socrates: And what would be the right kind of education?

    Einstein: Education that shows how devastating the use of these weapons would be. I have always felt that scientists should lead in providing this education, but political leaders should also educate in this regard. And also teachers in classrooms must help educate a new generation.

    Socrates: But many people still think that nuclear weapons make them safer.

    Einstein: This is an old mode of thinking. It must be changed through education. Nuclear weapons, rather than making us safer, make the world more dangerous.

    Socrates: But many leaders say that the threat to use nuclear weapons prevents other states from using nuclear weapons against you.

    Einstein: That, too, is an old mode of thinking. It is called deterrence, and it relies upon the rationality of other leaders. I’ve always believed in rationality, but I cannot believe that it makes sense to risk the future of humanity on the assumption that all leaders will act rationally at all times and under all circumstances.

    Socrates: I can’t imagine leaders who are rational all the time.

    Einstein: It would be irrational to believe that all leaders are rational at all times.

    Socrates: Yes, surely there are times when even the most rational leaders act irrationally. This is true of all humans.

    Einstein: Then surely we should not risk the future of the human species due to an unwarranted belief in the nature of rationality.

    Socrates: Do you find spirituality to be more important than rationality?

    Einstein: I find both are important human capacities requiring further development, and such development requires that we should not put the human species at risk of nuclear annihilation.

    Socrates: There is much we can imagine, but also much that is beyond our ability to imagine.

    Einstein: Of course, Socrates. But we must expand our capacity to imagine. Nuclear weapons make this necessary.

    Socrates: You said that even for those who could imagine a world without humans due to our nuclear arsenals, they still may not be able to imagine a way out of the dilemma.

    Einstein: Yes, to imagine a world without humans is only a way to understand that we must act to prevent this.

    Socrates: But some humans may view a world without humans as a positive outcome.

    Einstein: It would mean not only the end of the present and the future – that is bad enough – but also the eradication of all memory of the past, the end of every beautiful thing ever created by humans. There would be no one to appreciate music and poetry, art and architecture, no memory of great or small human triumphs of the past.

    Socrates: There would be no one to remember the heroism and heroes of the past.

    Einstein: It would be a world without humans. It would destroy the mirror of self-awareness that humans hold up to the universe.

    Socrates: That would indeed be a great loss. How can we prevent this from happening?

    Einstein: It will require us to summon our creativity and discipline, perhaps more than we have ever done before.

    Socrates: This is indeed a great challenge.

    Einstein: It is the challenge made necessary by the creation of nuclear weapons.

    Socrates: So it is one burst of creativity that brings on the need for new creativity.

    Einstein: Exactly so. We need new creative thinking. This problem is solvable. It just needs our best thinking.

    Socrates: What do you recommend, Professor Einstein?

    Einstein: We must be bold and meet this new danger with a new way of thinking. War can no longer be a way to settle differences between competing powers.

    Socrates: So you would do away with war?

    Einstein: We must. There is no choice. In a nuclear armed world, war has become too dangerous.

    Socrates: Even though I was a soldier and am proud of it, I understand that wars must end. War was never a healthy way to solve conflicts between contending parties.

    Einstein: You have a far more positive view of war than I do, but I’m glad we agree that nuclear weapons have made war far too dangerous to continue.

    Socrates: For a long time, countries have tried to achieve peace by preparing for war.

    Einstein: But this has never worked as they had hoped. Preparing for war has always led to war. Now we must change this paradigm and seek peace by preparing for peace.

    Socrates: This makes sense. This is the way forward.

    Einstein: There is more. Strong states can no longer prevail in war, as was once the case. With nuclear weapons, even a small extremist group will be able to destroy a powerful country.

    Socrates: All the more reason to end war and to do away with nuclear arms.

    Einstein: There is no global problem that can any longer be solved without global cooperation. That is also an essential new way of thinking that is necessary for global survival.

    Socrates: So we must learn to think as global citizens, owing our allegiance to humanity.

    Einstein: I believe this with all my heart. We must also end double standards, and have a single standard that applies to all countries and all people.

    Socrates: All of what you say makes sense to me, Einstein, but how can it come to pass?

    Einstein: It won’t come from our leaders. They are still leading in the old modes of thinking based on arms and force. They still believe in double standards, and the strong countries seek to impose their will on the weak. Leaders of nuclear armed states won’t give up their weapons without being pressed to do so by their people.

    Socrates: Then the people must be awakened, and they must demand an end to war, and a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Einstein: Yes, Socrates, you are a wise man. You understand the changes in thinking that are necessary.

    Socrates: I doubt that I am a wise man, Einstein, but you restore my belief in humanity. I will help you to awaken humanity to the dangers that now confront us. I will help you to change our modes of thinking.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor on the World Future Council.
  • 2009 Evening for Peace President’s Message

    2009 Evening for Peace President’s Message

    Twenty years ago, almost to the day, the Berlin Wall fell. Before this happened, virtually no one thought it would be possible or that the Cold War would come to an end. And yet these seemingly impossible dreams occurred, and they did so not by magic but because there were largely unobserved efforts at work to bring about change. Marking this anniversary should remind us that change does happen and should give us added strength and incentive to carry on our work of seeking a world free of nuclear weapons.

    At the Foundation we educate and advocate for peace. We seek to overcome obstacles of ignorance, apathy and hostility. We seek a world free of domination and double standards. First and foremost, we seek a world free of the omnicidal threat posed by nuclear weapons.

    Our annual Evening for Peace is meant to accomplish three goals: to shine a light on peace leadership and world citizenship; to honor our deeply deserving awardees; and to inspire new peace leaders. We thank you all for being an important part of this Evening for Peace.

    I want to give you a brief report on the State of the Foundation as we approach our 28th year.

    Our membership has expanded to over 31,000 individuals and organizations.

    Our Action Alert Network now has over 26,000 participants, who send messages on key issues to members of Congress and the Administration.

    Our Sunflower e-Newsletter reaches people all over the world, keeping them abreast of important developments related to nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament.

    The Foundation’s latest DVD has been viewed more than 3,500 times online, and is now being shown in classrooms and on Public Access television stations across the country.

    Earlier this year, we transmitted to the White House more than 200,000 signatures on our Appeal for US Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons Free World.

    The Foundation’s websites, WagingPeace.org and NuclearFiles.org, have more than 750,000 unique visitors each year.

    The Foundation has had more than 300 articles in the press so far this year.

    The Foundation’s Swackhamer video contest this year drew more than 120 entries on the need for nuclear disarmament. These have been viewed online by more than 10,000 people.

    Our Kelly Peace Poetry Awards had more than 2,000 poems this year. The winning poems for this year and previous years may be viewed at the Foundation’s WagingPeace.org website.

    In the past two years we’ve edited and published two important anthologies on the need to abolish nuclear weapons: At the Nuclear Precipice: Catastrophe or Transformation? and The Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons.

    We also produce various other publications throughout the year, including our Annual Report, our annual Kelly Lecture, and briefing booklets and articles.

    This year we formed a new chapter of the Foundation in Silicon Valley, and we are excited about the enthusiasm they are bringing to their work.

    Fellows of the Foundation, Daniel Ellsberg and Martin Hellman, are engaged in important research and writing projects.

    We have a new Peace Leadership Program. Its director is Paul Chappell, a West Point graduate who is dedicated to building peace. Paul is doing an outstanding job in reaching out to people all over the country and encouraging them to engage in waging peace.

    The rest of our staff is quite extraordinary as well. I’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge their dedicated work day in and day out.

    Vicki Stevenson is our ever cheerful receptionist and my assistant. She makes everyone feel at home at the Foundation and is also a superb editor.

    Sharon Rossol is our talented and tireless office manager, who assures that our office runs smoothly.

    Rick Wayman is our Director of Programs. He oversees our programs, supervises our interns, works on chapter development, updates our websites, and much, much more.

    Steven Crandell is our Director of Development and Public Affairs. He is the person responsible for raising funds for the Foundation, and for our outreach to the media.

    In addition to having a superb staff, the Foundation also has many enthusiastic interns, volunteers and supporters, and a dedicated Board of Directors. I bow to you all, and thank you deeply. Without you the Foundation could not have existed and grown as it has over the past 27 years.

    In 2009, the Foundation has had a dramatically different environment in which to do our work. While we remain judiciously nonpartisan, we now have a US president who shares our vision. That is a major step forward. In Prague this year he said, “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” He also said that he wasn’t naïve and that this goal might not be reached in his lifetime. Nonetheless, our goals, if not our timeframe, are aligned. We will continue to urge the president to push forward toward a world free of nuclear weapons with a sense of urgency. This goal can be achieved over the next decade.

    So that is where we stand. I’d like make just a few remarks about our theme this evening of Women for Peace.

    First, it seems more natural for women, as child bearers, to protect and nurture life than to destroy it. We need their leadership in the areas of peace and nonviolence, and men need to do better at learning such perspectives.

    Second, what woman would not prefer for her children and all children to have the opportunity to be fed, sheltered, educated and provided with health care, rather than sacrificed on the altar of war? The world is still spending nearly $1.5 trillion annually on military might, funds that could be far better used in meeting basic human needs.

    Third, women have long been leaders in asserting themselves for a better and more peaceful world. In 1889, Bertha von Suttner wrote a book, Lay Down Your Arms. It was Suttner who convinced Alfred Nobel to establish the Nobel Peace Prizes, and who became the first female recipient of the prize in 1905. It was Eleanor Roosevelt who led the United Nations in creating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document that is foundational for a peaceful future.

    Fourth, a number of our sister organizations working for a peaceful world are women’s groups that have made a substantial contribution to building peace. A great example is Another Mother for Peace, which had the ironic and iconic tagline, “War is not healthy for children and other living things.”

    Finally, in the past, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has honored some truly outstanding women, including Nobel Peace Laureates Mairead Corrigan Maguire and Jody Williams. We have also honored Mary Travers, Hafsat Abiola, Queen Noor of Jordan, Bianca Jagger, Anne Erlich, Helen Caldicott, and Elisabeth Mann Borgese.

    We draw encouragement from the roles played by women in seeking to build a more decent world. Our 2009 honorees, Judith Mayotte and Riane Eisler, have made quiet but large and important contributions to building a better world. To all the young people who are with us for our Evening for Peace, please learn and take inspiration from these two extraordinary women, and know that your lives can make a true difference in our world.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor on the World Future Council.