Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

  • The Joint Understanding: Disappointing Progress on Nuclear Disarmament

    President Obama raised expectations for achieving a world without nuclear weapons when he said in Prague on April 5, 2009, “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” But he only succeeded in moving the world a very small fraction of the way toward this goal when he met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow on July 6, 2009 to announce the outcome thus far of US-Russian negotiations on nuclear disarmament. A Joint Understanding signed in Moscow by the two presidents gave little cause for celebration for those who share President Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons.

    Until now, the two presidents had not revealed the numbers they had in mind for nuclear arms reductions. The Joint Understanding, however, provided these numbers for the first time. “Within seven years after this treaty comes into force, and in future, the limits for strategic delivery systems should be within the range of 500-1,100 units and for warheads linked to them within the range of 1,500 to 1,675 units,” the statement said. These numbers cut the size of the strategic delivery systems by about a third and the deployed strategic warheads to just slightly below levels set by Presidents Bush and Putin in 2002.

    The agreement deals only with strategic offensive weapons, making no provisions for non-strategic or tactical weapons, which are left outside the count. These may prove to be the most worrisome and uncontrollable of the weapons. The agreement also makes no provisions for warheads held in storage. The two presidents dealt separately with missile defense forces in Europe, which the Russians have vehemently opposed, agreeing to carry out a joint threat assessment and make recommendations.

    It is expected that the new arms agreement will be finalized before the end of 2009 and will replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), which expires December 5, 2009. This means that the new numbers set forth in the Joint Understanding will not need to be achieved before 2016, which would coincide with the end of a potential second Obama administration.

    In addition to the slow progress in reductions of warheads, the Joint Understanding also fails to deal with other important issues, such as the dangers of the weapons remaining on high alert status, pledges of No First Use of the weapons, or a commitment to achieving a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of the weapons.

    The Joint Understanding is a step in the right direction, but it is a step far smaller than might have been hoped. It is a step that is unlikely to indicate to the non-nuclear weapons states parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that the nuclear weapons states are fulfilling their obligations for good faith negotiations for a world free of nuclear weapons. Now that the numbers are revealed, it appears that the US and Russia are not making major strides, but rather creeping very slowly, even reluctantly, toward President Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear weapons remain the only weapons that could destroy US or Russian cities and threaten the future existence of the two countries. Since neither US nor Russian nuclear weapons can deter non-state extremists, there is zero tolerance for these weapons getting into the hands of such extremist groups. It is highly unlikely that the level of reductions that they now envision can assure that these weapons will not end up in the hands of extremists committed to doing harm to either country or to other countries.

    While surely this is only a first step in nuclear disarmament efforts by the two leaders, President Obama needs to press harder for more serious reductions in nuclear arms, reductions that will be sufficient to bring the other nuclear weapons states to the table to collectively seek a world without nuclear weapons. On the positive side, the two presidents are discussing having a global nuclear summit in 2010. Such a summit would allow for additional perspectives, those from nuclear as well as non-nuclear weapons states, to be placed on the table for a larger discussion of nuclear threats and security.

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

  • 2009-10 Action Plan

    2009-10 Action Plan

    (In June 2009 the Board of Directors of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation adopted the following five-point Action Plan to guide the Foundation’s work through the end of 2010. We provide it here to share the focus of the Foundation’s work with our members and supporters. Thank you for caring and for your support of the Foundation’s continuing efforts to abolish nuclear weapons, strengthen international law, and empower new peace leaders. – David Krieger, President, NAPF)

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation seeks a world free of nuclear weapons. We believe that nuclear arms reductions and the stabilization of nuclear dangers are not ends in themselves, but must be viewed in the context of achieving the total elimination of nuclear weapons. This is required by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Court of Justice. It is a matter that affects the future well-being, even survival, of the human race. In this light, the Foundation is pursuing a five-point program with tangible goals that it seeks to accomplish over the next 12 to 18 months. These goals will guide our efforts in providing leadership toward achieving a world without nuclear weapons. They are consistent with President Obama’s pledge regarding “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

    1. Support a meaningful replacement treaty for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia, which expires in December 2009.

    The only treaty that provides for verification procedures for nuclear disarmament measures between the US and Russia is the 1991 Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty. This treaty expires in December 2009. Under President Obama’s leadership, the US and Russia have embarked upon negotiations for a replacement treaty. The Foundation will press for a replacement treaty that has deep and verifiable reductions in the number of nuclear weapons on each side, one that reduces the high-alert status of the weapons on each side, and one that includes a legally binding commitment to No First Use of nuclear weapons. To this end, we will seek to form a coalition of like-minded organizations to put forward recommendations for a new treaty, to educate the public on the importance of such a treaty, and to lobby the Senate for the treaty’s ratification.

    2. Secure a No First Use commitment from the United States.

    President Obama has called for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, but he has not referred to the possibility of making a legally binding commitment to No First Use of nuclear weapons. We believe that such a commitment would be an essential step in downplaying the role of nuclear weapons in military strategy. We will educate the public and lobby the Obama administration to make a legally binding commitment to No First Use of nuclear weapons and to seek such commitments from other nuclear weapons states.

    3. Achieve US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

    The US has signed but not ratified the CTBT. President Obama has said, “To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.” The Foundation will work with other national organizations to achieve Senate ratification of the treaty.

    4. Promote a broad agenda for President Obama’s proposed Global Summit on Nuclear Security.

    President Obama has pledged to hold a Global Summit on Nuclear Security within the next year. He has called for this Global Summit in the context of preventing nuclear terrorism. We will seek to broaden the agenda of this Summit to include a full range of nuclear security issues beyond only the issue of nuclear terrorism. This would include consideration of the security risks of the current nuclear arsenals and the need to open negotiations on a treaty banning all nuclear weapons. The Foundation will engage in public education, including interviews and op-eds, and networking with other organizations to lobby the Obama administration.

    5. Strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by assuring a successful NPT Review Conference in 2010.

    The NPT is at the heart of efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The treaty also requires the nuclear weapons states to engage in good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. We believe that the key to achieving the goals of the NPT rests upon the commitment of the nuclear weapons states to take meaningful actions to achieve their Article VI nuclear disarmament obligations. Following the 2009 Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, the five nuclear weapons states parties to the treaty, (US, Russia, UK, France and China), also known as the P5, issued a joint statement in which they said, “Our Delegations reiterate our enduring and unequivocal commitment to work towards nuclear disarmament, an obligation shared by all NPT states parties.” These P5 states expressed their commitment to a new US-Russian agreement to replace the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty and to the entry into force of the CTBT, as well as negotiations for a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. We believe that their case for strengthening the NPT will be far more persuasive if they also join in assuring a broad agenda for a Global Summit on Nuclear Security and join in making legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons. Thus, the prospects for a successful NPT Review Conference in 2010 will be considerably enhanced if the first four points of the Foundation’s action plan are successful.

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

  • A Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone

    A Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone

    The Middle East has been and remains one of the most volatile and violent regions of the world. It is a region, however, that could grow exponentially more dangerous with a nuclear arms race. Although Israeli leadership sticks to the ambiguous refrain that it will “not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East,” it is widely understood that Israel has 100 to 200 nuclear weapons.

    In1981, an unfinished Iraqi nuclear research reactor, Osirak, was destroyed by Israel, and in 2007, Israel destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor, both on the grounds that these facilities would contribute to nuclear weapons development. Iraq was attacked and its regime toppled by the US in 2003 on the false grounds that it had a nuclear weapons program.

    Iran is currently enriching uranium that could be used for a nuclear weapons program. Other countries in the region, including Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, have the potential to become nuclear weapons states.

    Neither the initiation of a war nor military attacks against nuclear facilities is a sustainable way of maintaining the nuclear dominance of one state in the Middle East. The current imbalance can only be resolved by nuclear proliferation with the potential for nuclear conflagration or by the achievement of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.

    When President Obama spoke recently in Cairo, he said, “It is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is…about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.”

    The good news is that every country in the Middle East, with the sole exception of Israel, is a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the parties to this treaty agreed in 1995 to exert their utmost efforts to establish a “Middle East zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.” The bad news is that this commitment was made 14 years ago, and to date there has been no progress.

    It does not bode well for the region or the world that Israel remains outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel’s status as a non-party to the treaty and its possession of nuclear weapons is provocative to the other countries in the region. It is also clear that the United States is employing double standards in continuing its silence about Israel’s nuclear weapons, while at the same time seeking sanctions against Iran, a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, for its uranium enrichment program.

    Applying double standards is a dangerous game that is likely to end in a breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, regional nuclear proliferation and possible nuclear war. It is a path, as President Obama emphasized, that we do not want to travel. This path will only become more probable and dangerous if action is not taken now to prevent it. There are many more countries in the Middle East that are now seeking to develop nuclear energy programs, which could provide a backdoor entrance to becoming nuclear weapons states.

    What is needed is US leadership in support of regional negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East. Such negotiations were the reasonable expectation of the states in the region in 1995 when they voted for the indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones already cover the territory of most of the Southern hemisphere of the globe, including in Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia and Africa. Recently a Central Asian Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone was established. These Zones have worked well to promote regional security and diminish the dangers of regional nuclear arms races.

    A Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone will be advantageous for all countries in the region, including Israel and Iran. No country will have the insecurity of worrying about a possible nuclear war in the region, which would be destructive for all concerned.

    American leadership in this effort will be critical. It is an essential step toward achieving President Obama’s stated goal of “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” A possible venue for opening discussions on this important security issue is the Global Summit on Nuclear Security that President Obama pledged to convene within the next year. Progress on achieving a regional ban on nuclear weapons in the Middle East will also help assure success at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2010, and move the world closer to the goal of zero nuclear weapons.

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

  • North Korea’s Bomb Test Message

    David KriegerWhen a country tests a nuclear weapon, it is sending a message. It is not always clear, however, what that message is. In the case of the recent nuclear test by North Korea, some commentators have argued that the North Koreans are sending a “pay attention to me” message to the international community and particularly the United States. Other commentators have argued that the nuclear test was carried out for domestic purposes, to inspire the country with a display of technological prowess. A short statement from North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency suggests that both international and domestic audiences were relevant to the bomb testing message.

    The North Korean announcement indicated that the test had several purposes, including to “bolster up its nuclear deterrent for self-defense”; “settle the scientific and technological problems arising in further increasing the power of nuclear weapons”; “inspiring the army and people of the DPRK”; “contribute to defending the sovereignty of the country”; and “ensuring peace and security of the Korean Peninsula and the region around it….” These are worth examining.

    First, the rationale for virtually all nuclear tests by all states has been to bolster a country’s nuclear deterrent for the purpose of self-defense. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, all nuclear powers, have tested nuclear weapons in total more than 2,000 times. The US alone has tested over 1,000 times. That means that North Korea, which has conducted two nuclear tests, has tested one thousandth the number of times as the five recognized nuclear weapons states have tested and one five-hundredth the number of times the US has tested. It is, of course, dead wrong that deterrence provides a country with protection. In fact, it may lead to a country being attacked by nuclear arms.

    Second, learning more scientifically about the characteristics of nuclear detonations is another principal reason the nuclear weapons states have used to justify testing their weapons. The North Koreans are unusually blunt in stating that they are looking at problems arising from developing more powerful nuclear weapons. Their first test in 2006 had a force of about one kiloton. Their recent test had a force some four times greater, roughly one-third the power of the Hiroshima bomb.

    Third, the North Koreans sought to inspire their army and people with their bomb test. It is unfortunate, but true that nuclear tests seem to inspire and promote nationalism. When the Indians and Pakistanis tested in 1998, their respective populations came into the streets celebrating the “achievement.” The US inspired its people by conducting over 1,000 nuclear tests, including 67 atmospheric tests in the Marshall Islands, then US Trust Territories, the equivalent of one Hiroshima bomb a day for 12 years.

    Fourth, the belief that nuclear tests contribute to defending the sovereignty of a country seems wildly wrong. It may send a message regarding deterrence capability, but it is more relevant that it now isolates a country and makes it a pariah state. This wasn’t always the case.

    Fifth, it is also far from assured that North Korea’s test and continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability will ensure peace on the Korean Peninsula and beyond. There may be an argument that nuclear weapons assured peace between the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War, but this remains unproven and not subject to proof.

    So taking the North Koreans at their word, they have done little more than demonstrate their technological prowess for domestic consumption and recaptured the attention of the world in a most negative way. President Obama responded to the latest nuclear and missile tests by saying that they posed “a grave threat to the peace and security of the world and I strongly condemn their reckless action.”

    North Korea’s nuclear test is pushing it deeper into isolation from the international community. The tests may play well at home, but not on the world stage. At the same time, North Korea’s justifications for its tests are no better nor worse than those of the other countries that have tested. They are modeling their testing behavior on the nuclear weapons states that went before them.

    The United States and other members of the United Nations Security Council, which are so strong in their condemnation of North Korea’s nuclear testing, are not doing enough to resolve important security issues with North Korea by diplomacy, the only sensible solution. Nor are the permanent members of the Security Council setting the right example by adhering to their own obligations under international law for “good faith” negotiations for total nuclear disarmament.

    North Korea’s nuclear testing is a manifestation of a deeper problem in the international system, that of continuing to have a small group of countries possess and implicitly threaten the use of nuclear weapons for deterrence or any other reason.

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

  • A Roadmap to Abolition

    A Roadmap to Abolition

    A plan to achieve a world without nuclear weapons must be built upon a roadmap or outline of what needs to be accomplished. The principal concerns in moving to zero are that all nuclear weapons are accounted for, that the weapons are verifiably and irreversibly dismantled, that all states have confidence in the system, and that there is an effective way to stop potential cheaters. The roadmap will need a proposed timeframe, but one that is sufficiently flexible to allow for necessary verification and confidence building in the system. The roadmap will thus have to be built on a phased and transparent approach as well as one that is verifiable and irreversible.

    President Obama stated during his campaign for the presidency, “A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America’s interest and the world’s interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality.” (1) He then went further in his Prague speech in April 2009, committing America “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” and setting forth a number of steps to move the world in this direction. (2)

    President Obama and others have suggested that the path to a world free of nuclear weapons could be a long one, beyond his own life. This is possible, but it could also happen much more rapidly with strong political will and leadership from the United States. The Roadmap proposed below suggests that the goal could be achieved within a timeframe of 10 to 17 years, that is, between 2019 and 2026. This is a goal that the United States cannot achieve alone, but that cannot be achieved without the United States. President Obama has provided a vision and the political will to begin the process in a serious way. He has made possible what has seemed impossible.

    The steps outlined by President Obama form the basis for Phase 1 of a Roadmap to Abolition. The three additional phases can take us to a world without nuclear weapons. If we take the year 2009 as the opening of Phase I, we can outline a world without nuclear weapons in four phases as follows:

    Phase 1 (1 to 2 years)

    US commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. (Prague speech) (3)

    US and Russia begin bilateral negotiations on the reduction and elimination of their nuclear arsenals. (Joint Statement) (4)

    US and Russia complete negotiations on new START agreement, reducing the number of nuclear weapons in their respective arsenals to under 1,000 weapons, deployed and in reserve. The agreement must contain effective measures of verification, including challenge inspections. (In Prague speech, agreed to complete negotiations within 2009, but provided no details on numbers)

    US and Russia launch global effort to gain control of all loose nuclear weapons and materials. (Joint Statement)

    US host Global Summit on Nuclear Security and other measures to prevent nuclear terrorism. (Prague speech) Initiate negotiations at this Global Summit for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, banning research, development, manufacture, possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons. (5)

    Negotiate new global treaty to cut off production of nuclear weapons and weapons-grade materials. (Prague speech)

    Seek universal adherence to International Atomic Energy comprehensive safeguards, including the Additional Protocol. (Joint Statement)

    Provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with adequate resources to do provide comprehensive safeguards. (Prague speech)

    US and Russia convene arms reduction negotiations with the other three nuclear weapons states recognized in the NPT (UK, France and China).

    US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (Prague speech)

    Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Joint Statement)

    Limitations on missile defense installations reinstituted.

    Phase 2 (3 to 5 years)

    The five NPT recognized nuclear weapons states agree to provide accurate and verifiable accounting of their nuclear arsenals and weapons-grade materials.

    US and Russia agree to reduce their nuclear arsenals to under 300 weapons each, deployed and reserve.

    UK, France and China agree to freeze production of nuclear materials and weapons and cut their arsenals in half, not to exceed 100 nuclear weapons each.

    The four non-NPT nuclear weapons states (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) and all nuclear capable states agree to provide accurate and verifiable accounting of their nuclear arsenals and material.

    The four non-NPT nuclear weapons states agree to freeze production of nuclear materials and weapons and cut their arsenals to under 25 nuclear weapons each.

    The nine nuclear weapons states continue negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention banning the research, development, manufacture, possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons and prepare a draft treaty.

    Complete the required ratifications of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty so that it enters into force.

    Achieve universal adherence to IAEA comprehensive safeguards.

    Complete process for gaining control of all loose nuclear weapons and weapons-grade materials.

    Implement strict international controls on all weapons-grade nuclear materials and the technologies to create such materials.

    New treaty to cut off production of weapons-grade fissile materials enters into force.

    US-Russian agreement to ban intermediate-range missiles extended to become global ban on intermediate-range and long-range missiles.

    Phase 3 (3 to 5 years)

    Global conference held to complete and sign Nuclear Weapons Convention.

    Nuclear Weapons Convention ratified by all nuclear capable states and enters into force.

    US and Russia reduce their arsenals to under 100 weapons each, deployed and reserve.

    UK, France and China reduce their arsenals to under 25 weapons each.

    Non-NPT nuclear weapons states reduce their nuclear weapons to under 10 weapons each.

    Phase 4 (3 to 5 years)

    The end game: final steps are taken in accord with the Nuclear Weapons Convention to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the planet with sufficient safeguards and punishments for violators to assure that they will not be recreated.

    (1) “2008 Presidential Candidate Quotes,” Web site of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/menu/resources/surveys/2008_pres_cand/cand_quotes_page.php.

    (2) “Speech on Nuclear Issues delivered in Prague,” April 5, 2009, Web site of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation:   https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/2009/04/05_obama_prague_speech.php.

    (3) All reference to “Prague Speech,” refer to the citation in footnote 2.

    (4) All references to “Joint Statement,” refer to “Joint Statement by President Dmitriy Medvedev of the Russian Federation and President Barack Obama of the United States of America,” Web site of The Associated Press, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVZVQZKurqCWMUl_tMQk8_IatXKAD979LOBG4.

    (5) The Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy/International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation created a Model Nuclear weapons Convention in 1997 and updated it in 2007.  The Model Nuclear Weapons Convention has been submitted to the United Nations by the Republic of Costa Rica and Malaysia.  See the Web site of the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy: http://lcnp.org/mnwc/.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Daisaku Ikeda’s 2009 Peace Proposal and the Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

    Daisaku Ikeda’s 2009 Peace Proposal and the Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

    Daisaku Ikeda has always been a staunch advocate of nuclear weapons abolition. In his 2009 Peace Proposal, his 27th annual Peace Proposal, Ikeda makes “sharing of efforts for peace toward the abolition of nuclear arms” one of the three major pillars he proposes “for transforming the current global crisis into a catalyst for opening a new future for humanity….” The other two pillars are “sharing of action through tackling environmental problems” and “sharing of responsibility through international cooperation on global public goods.” Ikeda makes a powerful case for humanity rising out of necessity to a new level of global cooperation to overcome the shared threats to our common future.

    As always, Ikeda’s view of nuclear weapons is unambiguous. He refers to these weapons, as did his mentor Josei Toda, as an “absolute evil.” He is clear that these weapons “are incompatible not only with the interests of national security but with human security.” This understanding forms the basis for his uncompromising commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    At the governmental level, Ikeda proposes action at three levels. First, he suggests the prompt convening of a US-Russia summit, at which “basic agreement for bold nuclear arms reduction plans could be reached” in advance of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. I agree with him fully on this point, and it would seem that President Obama, who has already sent Henry Kissinger to Russia for preliminary talks, does as well.

    What might be accomplished at a US-Russia summit? I would argue for four needed outcomes. First, announce that the common goal of both countries is a world free of nuclear weapons. Second, agree as a next step toward this goal to reduce the arsenals of each side, deployed and reserve, to no more than 1,000 nuclear weapons by the year 2010. Third, commit to taking the nuclear weapons on both sides off hair-trigger alert. Fourth, extend the provisions of the 1991 START I agreement, which is set to expire in December 2009, so that its provisions for verification are retained.

    Ikeda’s second proposal for action at the governmental level is, building on the US-Russia agreements, to convene a five state summit for nuclear disarmament, composed of the five initial nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France and China). He sees their mandate being to create “a roadmap of truly effective measures to fulfill their disarmament obligation stipulated in Article VI of the NPT.” Thus, he seeks to keep the nuclear weapons states that are parties to the NPT focused on their obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    The third Ikeda proposal for government action is pursuing the challenge of concluding a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC), a new treaty that would “comprehensively prohibit the use, manufacture, possession, deployment and transfer of nuclear weapons.” Ikeda realizes, though, that action by governments is unlikely to succeed in this effort without the involvement of civil society. “To realize an NWC,” he states, “it is vital that people of the world raise their voices and strengthen solidarity in the manner seen in the campaigns for the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but on an even greater scale.”

    Awakening the people of the planet to the peril that nuclear weapons pose to them and their loved ones may be the most important single effort that can be made by those of us currently inhabiting the planet. Thus, I am particularly encouraged by Daisaku Ikeda’s call for a People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition. It is critical that people everywhere embrace this issue and take positive action for a world free of nuclear weapons. Governments have been too slow to act on their own, regardless of the dangers nuclear weapons pose to humanity and the human future.

    Even more enlightened governments, such as the Obama administration, need outspoken support from their citizens if they are going to meet the challenges of nuclear weapons abolition. With concerted global action during a People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition, it may be possible to move governments with unprecedented speed so as to reach the goal set forth by the Mayors for Peace of a world free of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

    Daisaku Ikeda’s 2009 Peace Proposal is an inspirational statement from a man who has chosen hope. Realizing the goals of the proposal for peace and nuclear abolition will require the active engagement of committed individuals and groups across the globe.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a Deputy Chair of the World Future Council.

  • The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: A Time for Boldness

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: A Time for Boldness

    Today, nearly four decades since the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force, there are nine nuclear weapons states in the world and five of these are parties to the NPT. There are not as many nuclear weapons states today as was feared in the 1960s, but there are still nine too many. These nine states appear proud of their nuclear arsenals, when they should be shamed by the nearly unlimited indiscriminate destructive power that these weapons represent. Nuclear weapons of these states put at risk the future of the human species and most life on the planet.

    The NPT has a basic bargain. The non-nuclear weapons states agree not to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons and, in return, the nuclear weapons states agree to pursue “good faith” negotiations for nuclear disarmament. All parties to the treaty agree that there is an “inalienable right” to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. President Obama has referred to this “basic bargain” of the NPT as “sound.” He has called for establishing a structure capable of ensuring consequences for any country party to the treaty that breaks its rules.

    Up to now, however, the rules have only been brought to bear against the non-nuclear weapons states, those without nuclear weapons. It has not been possible, within the structure of the treaty, to enforce its rules against the countries that never signed it (Israel, India and Pakistan) or those that have withdrawn from the treaty (North Korea). There has also been a lack of enforcement of the treaty against the five nuclear weapons states that are parties to the treaty (US, UK, France, Russia and China).

    The NPT is the only treaty in which there is a legally binding commitment to nuclear disarmament. It provided the International Court of Justice with the legal basis to conclude: “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.”

    President Obama argued in Prague, “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons.” But it is not only the spread of nuclear weapons that must be prevented. It is also the research, development, manufacture, possession, threat and use of the weapons that must be prohibited. The attention of the world has largely focused on the proliferators or potential proliferators, such as North Korea or Iran. It is desirable to try to prevent proliferation by new states, but this is no more important than eliminating the arsenals of the existing nuclear weapons states. President Obama has, in fact, provided hope that the US is ready to lead in moving toward a nuclear weapons-free world.

    The United States was established because a colonial power sought to impose taxation without representation. How much worse is what is imposed on all humanity by the nuclear weapons states? It is the threat of destruction of cities, countries, civilization and the human species without representation. No one votes on our nuclear future. The best structure we have at the moment for controlling and eliminating nuclear weapons is the NPT, a treaty in which the people of the world deserve a voice.

    Representatives of civil society will gather at the United Nations in New York in May 2009 for the Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2010 NPT Review Conference. It is appropriate that they should make their voices heard among the delegates of the governments represented. It is also right that civil society representatives should be critical of measures taken there that fall short of the clear obligation of “nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.”

    So let this NPT meeting not focus on seeking sanctions for North Korea and Iran without also seeking unambiguous commitments from the nuclear weapons states to achieve the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Three critical questions face the parties to the NPT. Civil society as well as governments must demand answers to these questions.

    First, what is the plan of the NPT nuclear weapons states to move from 25,000 nuclear weapons to zero? Such a plan is overdue. If the nuclear weapons states are not prepared to offer such a plan, they should be requested to engage in the “good faith” negotiations required of them and to present an agreed upon plan next year at the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

    Second, how can the NPT be made universal? This question boils down to how can Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea, all non-NPT nuclear weapons states, be brought under its jurisdiction. If it is not possible to obtain the consent of these states to the rules of the NPT, then the United Nations Security Council needs to act to assure that these states will be bound by an agreed upon roadmap to rid the world of nuclear arms.

    Third, is it possible to achieve a world without nuclear weapons while at the same time promoting the spread of nuclear energy and, if so, what conditions would be required?

    The answers to these questions will have powerful implications for actually achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. As the delegates to the NPT Preparatory Committee meet at the United Nations, let us hope that they will do more than continue to posture and mark time. Nuclear weapons are genocidal, if not omnicidal, weapons. They threaten, but do not protect. Their use or threat of use is illegal under international law. We share a moral responsibility to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity. Now is the time for boldness.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a Councilor of the World Future Council.

  • A 100-Day Nuclear Disarmament Agenda: President Obama Scores High

    A 100-Day Nuclear Disarmament Agenda: President Obama Scores High

    At the end of 2008, following President Obama’s election but prior to his inauguration, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation put forward “A Nuclear Disarmament Agenda for President Obama,” focusing on his first 100 days in office (100-Day Agenda). During his campaign for the presidency, candidate Obama had spoken about a nuclear weapons-free world being in the interests of America and the world. The Foundation put forward the 100-Day Agenda to encourage President Obama to keep the issue of nuclear disarmament high on his agenda. The Foundation urged the president to act boldly and take a number of steps during his first hundred days in office. The steps that were proposed were divided into three categories: public commitment, bilateral engagement, and global action.

    President Obama has, in fact, acted quickly and boldly on a nuclear disarmament agenda. He assumed office on January 20, 2009 and almost immediately posted on the www.whitehouse.gov website a series of steps that he and Vice President Biden intended to take on nuclear policy issues. These fell into three areas: secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and move toward a nuclear free world. In the latter area, it stated, “Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it.”

    President Obama met for the first time with Russian President Dimitriy Medvedev in London on April 1, 2009. Following their meeting, the two presidents issued a Joint Statement in which they reaffirmed “that the era when our countries viewed each other as enemies is long over….” They pledged their resolve “to work together to strengthen strategic stability, international security, and jointly meet contemporary global challenges, while also addressing disagreements openly and honestly in a spirit of mutual respect and acknowledgement of each other’s perspective.”

    They discussed “nuclear arms control and reduction” and made a number of specific pledges, including “working together to fulfill our obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and demonstrate leadership in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world.” Article VI of the NPT contains the treaty’s nuclear disarmament obligation. The two presidents also committed their countries “to achieving a nuclear free world,” while recognizing that this would be a “long-term goal.”

    A few days later, on April 5, 2009, President Obama spoke in Prague, devoting his speech almost entirely to “the future of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.” President Obama called this an issue that is “fundamental to the security of our nations and to the peace of the world.” In his speech, he struck a moral tone, unusual for a US president when discussing US responsibilities. “[A]s the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon,” he said, “the United States has a moral responsibility to act.” He recognized that the US cannot succeed in achieving nuclear disarmament alone, but that it can lead. The speech was historic in accepting moral responsibility for nuclear disarmament and setting forth a commitment for US leadership to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. President Obama took a far different approach to nuclear disarmament than had been seen from the two most recent past presidents, Clinton and Bush, who had preceded him in office.

    Below in bold are the major points made in the Foundation’s 100-Day Agenda on Nuclear Disarmament. Following each point there is an indication of what President Obama has said regarding it. As can be seen, most of the 100-Day Agenda has been fulfilled, although there are some points that he has not spoken to or that raise some concerns. These include his indication that the timeframe for achieving a world without nuclear weapons may be a long one, perhaps not in his own lifetime; his emphasis on nuclear deterrence in the interim, although without indicating who is being deterred; and his general support for nuclear power, which is likely to draw societal subsidies away from truly sustainable forms of energy and make a world without nuclear weapons far more difficult to achieve.

    Three specific issues called for in the 100-Day Agenda that President Obama failed to address were a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons; specific numbers related to the next round of bilateral reductions with the Russians; and a timeframe for convening the other nuclear weapons states to negotiate further reductions. It is not necessary that any of these be achieved within President Obama’s first hundred days in office, but they would be valuable and, in the case of numbers related to the next round of reductions, will be essential to address as the US and Russia proceed with their bilateral negotiations.

    On balance, President Obama’s oft-stated commitment to a world without nuclear weapons appears genuine and he is off to a strong start in his first 100 days in office. Perhaps most important, he has changed the tone of US nuclear policy, so that the US has become a leader for nuclear disarmament rather than the principal obstacle to its achievement, as it was under the Bush administration.

    Public Commitment

    Make a major foreign policy address, affirming US commitment to initiate a global effort to achieve a world with zero nuclear weapons. (Speech in Prague on April 5, 2009: “[T]he United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it. So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” WhiteHouse.gov website: “Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it.”)

    Deemphasize reliance on nuclear weapons in US military policy. (Speech in Prague: “To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same.”)

    Commit to not developing new nuclear weapons. (WhiteHouse.gov website: “[Obama and Biden] will stop the development of new nuclear weapons….”)

    Seek Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Speech in Prague: “To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.”)

    Launch a major global initiative to assure control of all nuclear weapons and the material to construct them. (Speech in Prague: “So today I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.”)

    Points of concern

    Timeframe: The president offered no timeframe for achieving “a world without nuclear weapons.” Rather, he stated in Prague, “I’m not naïve. The goal will not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence.” Shifting direction again, he said, “But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, ‘Yes, we can.’”

    Deterrence: Following his commitment to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national security strategy, he stated in Prague, “Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies….” He leaves it unclear, however, which potential adversaries require being deterred. He also makes a common error in equating deterrence with defense.

    No First Use: The president talked about reducing the role of nuclear weapons in national security strategy, but made no commitment to a policy of No First Use. Such a policy would mark a major change of course in US nuclear policy, and would be the surest way to deemphasize reliance on nuclear weapons. If all countries committed to No First Use, and backed this up with appropriate nuclear policies, the possibility of any use would be dramatically reduced.

    US nuclear weapons in Europe: President Obama emphasized US commitment to NATO, while making no reference to removing the US nuclear weapons currently stored in five NATO countries.

    Missile defenses: President Obama framed missile defenses in Europe as being set up against a potential attack from Iran, although these defenses are still perceived by the Russians to threaten them with a US first-strike potential. The president said in Prague, “As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.” Of course, “cost effective and proven” may be a very large, if not impossible, hurdle for the missile defense program to achieve.

    Bilateral Engagement

    Open negotiations with Russia on a range of nuclear policy issues. (Speech in Prague: “To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts….”)

    Negotiate to take both sides’ ballistic missiles off high alert status. (WhiteHouse.gov website: “[Obama and Biden will] work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert….”)

    Negotiate extending the verification provisions of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). (Joint Statement by President Medvedev and President Obama, April 1, 2009: “We agreed to pursue new and verifiable reductions in our strategic offensive arsenals in a step-by-step process, beginning by replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with a new, legally-binding treaty.”)

    Agree to the verifiable reduction to under 1,000 nuclear weapons each (deployed and reserve) by the end of 2010. (“WhiteHouse.gov website: “[Obama and Biden will] seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material….” Joint Statement by President Medvedev and President Obama: “We committed our two countries to achieving a nuclear free world, while recognizing that this long-term goal will require a new emphasis on arms control and conflict resolution measures, and their full implementation by all concerned nations.”)

    Points of concern

    Reductions: The president referred to reducing the size of nuclear arsenals when he stated in Prague, “But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.” He gave no specifics, however, on what level of reductions could be expected. Currently both countries are obligated under the SORT agreement to lower their nuclear arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed strategic weapons by the year 2012. Whatever next step is agreed upon by the two leaders should be bold and substantially lower than the existing agreement and should include all nuclear weapons, not only those that are deployed and strategic.

    Global Action

    Organize to convene a meeting of all nuclear weapons states prior to the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to negotiate a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. (Speech in Prague: After calling for further cuts in US and Russian arsenals, President Obama stated, “…and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.”)

    Additional promises for global action (not in the NAPF 100-Day Agenda)

    Strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Speech in Prague: “Together we will strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation…. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause. And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation.” WhiteHouse.gov website: “Obama and Biden will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.”)

    Convene a global meeting of states to cooperate in preventing nuclear terrorism. (Speech in Prague: “[W]e must ensure that terrorists never acquire nuclear weapons…. We should start by having a Global Summit for Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year.”)

    Ban the production of weapons-grade fissile materials. (Speech in Prague: “And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons.” WhiteHouse.gov website: “Obama and Biden will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.”)

    Create a global ban on intermediate-range missiles. (WhiteHouse.gov website: “[Obama and Biden will] set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”)

    Points of concern

    Timeframe: President Obama gave no indication of when he would move to convene all nuclear weapons states in negotiations for nuclear disarmament.

    Nuclear energy: President Obama supported the right of countries, including Iran, to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy “with rigorous inspections.” It remains questionable, however, whether even with rigorous inspections it will be possible to create an impermeable wall between nuclear energy and weapons.

    Ban on missiles: While calling for a ban on intermediate-range missiles, President Obama fails to mention long-range missiles, the kind of missiles more likely to be used by many of the existing nuclear weapons states.

    In his first 100 days, President Obama has set forth a vision of a world without nuclear weapons, begun negotiations with Russia on a new treaty to replace the START I agreement that expires in December 2009, and provided the first indications that the US will seek to involve all nuclear weapons states in negotiations to create a world without nuclear weapons. Committing to the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world is the first step toward achieving the goal. President Obama has done this. The next steps are developing a full plan to achieve the goal and implementing that plan. Developing and implementing such a plan will no doubt be extremely difficult, but it is not impossible and this work must begin.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a Councilor of the World Future Council.

  • President Obama Calls for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

    President Obama Calls for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

    In a remarkable speech for any American leader, President Obama, speaking in Prague on April 5, 2009, provided new hope for a world free of nuclear weapons. “I state clearly and with conviction,” he said, “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” He told his audience that America, as the only country to have used nuclear weapons, “has a moral responsibility to act.”

    For many years the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been calling for US leadership for a nuclear weapons-free world, based on the understanding that if the US does not lead, significant progress will not be possible. For the past two presidencies this leadership has been largely lacking. During the George W. Bush presidency, the US was the leading obstacle to nuclear disarmament. Now, with President Obama, there is a dramatic shift and the goal of US leadership for a nuclear weapons-free world that once seemed far distant, if not impossible, appears at hand.

    President Obama’s speech in Prague was a world changing moment, a promise of unprecedented historical change on the most profoundly dangerous issue confronting not only America but the world. In this speech he recognized the imperative for our common security of eliminating nuclear weapons and of America’s unique moral responsibility to lead this effort.

    He made it clear that while America cannot do it alone, it will lead by its actions. He called for “concrete steps,” including reducing the role of nuclear weapons in US national security strategy and urging other nuclear weapons states to do the same, reducing the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal, working aggressively for US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, seeking a new treaty to end production of fissile materials for weapons, strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty, creating an international fuel bank to reduce the risks of proliferation, assuring that nuclear weapons will not be acquired by terrorists, leading an international effort to gain control of vulnerable nuclear materials throughout the world within four years, and hosting a Global Summit on Nuclear Security within the year.

    President Obama recognized that a world without nuclear weapons “will not be reached quickly.” He cautioned that such a world may not occur within his lifetime, and that achieving it will require “patience and persistence.” But this was not a speech about timeframes or deadlines. It was a speech setting forth a much needed vision and providing a promise of US leadership. He has taken an important step toward the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world by articulating this vision and committing to work toward it. Now a more comprehensive plan must be formulated and implemented.

    With the political will that President Obama has provided, it is possible that we could move far more rapidly toward a world of zero nuclear weapons than could previously be imagined. Political will and US leadership have been the most significant missing elements for achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. Now that these elements are in place, we may be surprised by how quickly the planning and implementation process can proceed toward the total global elimination of these unconscionable weapons.

    President Obama is a man of great vision, a leader that sees beyond the horizon. When he encounters a problem requiring change, he addresses it and proposes solutions. His leadership on the issue of a nuclear weapons-free world comes none too soon. In his speech, he has faced the threat of nuclear weapons squarely. The vision and the initial steps toward achieving it that he has articulated deserve our strong support.

    As President Obama noted, there will be many who will say that it cannot be done. But these naysayers cannot steal the future from those who seek a world free of nuclear threat or those committed to building a world at peace. The President will need the American people standing with him and saying, “Yes, we can.”

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

  • The Joint Statement of Obama and Medvedev: Pursuing a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

    The Joint Statement of Obama and Medvedev: Pursuing a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

    On April 1, 2009, the presidents of the United States and Russia, Barack Obama and Dmitriy Medvedev, issued a Joint Statement, promising “a new tone” and a far more constructive working relationship between the two countries. Relations had dramatically deteriorated under the leadership of George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. The Joint Statement announced to the world that Obama and Medvedev are “ready to move beyond Cold War mentalities and chart a fresh start in relations between [the] two countries.”

    The Joint Statement covered a wide range of issues, but gave greatest attention to issues related to nuclear weapons. The two leaders pledged to fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which calls for good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. This will be welcome news to the non-nuclear weapon states that are parties to the NPT and have committed to not acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Presidents Obama and Medvedev committed their two countries “to achieving a nuclear free world.” This is an important promise, and these leaders must be supported by their citizens and people throughout the world in seeking its fulfillment. The promise is tempered, however, by the recognition of the two leaders that it is a “long-term goal” that will require “a new emphasis on arms control and conflict resolution measures, and their full implementation by all concerned nations.” The two leaders set no timeframe for achieving the goal.

    They further agreed “to pursue new and verifiable reductions in…strategic offensive arsenals in a step-by-step process.” They pledged to have their negotiators begin talks immediately on replacing the START I agreement, set to expire in December 2009, “with a new, legally-binding treaty.” This is an important step in preserving the verification provisions of the START I agreement and reducing the size of existing nuclear arsenals.

    The statement calls for reductions in strategic offensive weapons, but gives no numbers indicating the thinking of the two leaders regarding the next step down. Some reports have suggested that the next reductions are likely to be relatively modest, to the level of 1,500 deployed strategic weapons, continuing the past practice of allowing no controls on additional nuclear weapons held in reserve.

    The two leaders acknowledged differences related to the deployment of missile defense systems in Europe, while recognizing that there were possibilities to work together on assessing “missile challenges and threats.” They also promised to work together to secure loose nuclear materials, promote the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, and bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force (Russia has ratified, while the US has signed but not ratified).

    They also agreed to promote “international cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.” While many nations of the world may favor this, the promotion of nuclear energy has serious drawbacks. It will reduce emphasis on societal investment in truly sustainable forms of energy, and it will make it more difficult to achieve nuclear disarmament. The more that nuclear power is promoted and developed throughout the world, the more difficult it will be to assure that nuclear weapons do not proliferate to other countries or to terrorist organizations.

    Achieving a world free of nuclear weapons will require both a commitment and a detailed plan to provide a roadmap. The commitment has now been made. The plan will reveal the realism of the commitment. Reductions in nuclear arsenals demonstrate progress, but it is important that reductions be tied to the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons from all arsenals within a reasonable timeframe.

    The intentions of the two leaders expressed in their Joint Statement are far ahead of the limited vision of their recent predecessors. It is real progress. The world is too dangerous, however, to think that it will be possible to muddle through to zero. The stakes are far too high. As President Obama pointed out recently in Strasbourg, “Even with the Cold War now over, the spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet.”

    Achieving a world of zero nuclear weapons will require the creation and implementation of a well-conceived plan. To assure our common future, Presidents Obama and Medvedev must assure a workable plan with a reasonable timeframe. They must now spend time at their drawing boards developing this plan.

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