Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

The Next Nuclear Disarmament Moment

President Obama will be meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for the first time on April 1st, on the eve of the upcoming G-20 meeting. As with previous Russian and American leaders in the Nuclear Age, the future of life on the planet may rest upon their chemistry and ability to work together.

These two men will have the chance to change the course of global nuclear policy, setting their two countries and all humanity on a far less dangerous path. Both men have called for such change. Both have expressed support for the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. Their opening dialogue on issues of nuclear disarmament will likely set the tone for their work over the next few years.

On July 24, 2008, then candidate Obama stirred a huge crowd in Berlin with these words: “This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons…. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.”

President Medvedev, in a statement shared at a recent plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, emphasized that “Russia is open to dialogue and is prepared for negotiations with the new US administration.” His message continued, “I fully share the commitment of the US President Barack H. Obama to the noble goal of saving the world from the nuclear threat and see here a fertile ground for a joint work.”

What can we reasonably expect as outcomes in the area of nuclear disarmament from their upcoming meeting? The most important outcome is likely to be a joint statement of commitment to move the world away from the nuclear precipice with the goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons.

This statement of commitment will be important in publicly recognizing the obligations of the two countries under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in finally putting to an end the dangerous residual dynamics of the Cold War. But more tangible signs of their intentions will also be needed.

The two leaders should pledge their cooperation and common effort in controlling nuclear weapons and loose nuclear materials throughout the world, keeping these out of the hands of terrorists. This is absolutely essential for the future security of both countries and for the rest of the world.

The two men should also agree to end the dangerous Cold War legacy of keeping thousands of their nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. Nearly two decades after the end of the Cold War, this practice allows virtually no time for rational decision making and invites potential accidental launches based on faulty information or computer error.

Another matter ripe for agreement is the extension of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), which is scheduled to expire in December 2009. This is the only active agreement between the two countries that has provisions for accounting and verification, and these provisions will be needed as the two countries move forward in making deeper cuts in their arsenals.

Surely the two men will also have some figures in mind for the next step in moving toward nuclear disarmament. Currently, both sides are committed under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) to reduce their deployed strategic warheads to between 2,200 and 1,700 by the end of the year 2012. A serious next step, which could supersede the SORT agreement, would reduce the arsenals on each side to approximately 1,000, including both deployed and reserve weapons. This is still far too many, but it would demonstrate that the two sides are taking seriously their obligations for nuclear disarmament.

Other issues related to nuclear policy that may come on the table include the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, a ban on new nuclear weapons, reductions in ballistic missiles, controlling the nuclear fuel cycle and commitments of No First Use. The Russians are also deeply concerned about US missile defense plans in Europe, reaching an agreement to prevent the weaponization of space, and refraining from substituting conventional warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles from which nuclear warheads have been removed.

Many hopes for the future rest upon President Obama and President Medvedev working together to achieve the bold vision of ridding the world of the only weapon capable of ending the human presence on our planet. Their vision is aligned. Now the world awaits their action.

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

March 27, 2009
Letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama,

In your upcoming meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia you have an incredible opportunity to set a new course toward a nuclear weapons-free world, an opportunity initially made possible by the end of the Cold War nearly two decades ago. As you said in your Berlin speech on July 24, 2008, “This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.” We agree that this is the moment to reverse decades of mistrust and danger, and to set a new course for humanity.

President Medvedev appears to share your vision. He said recently, “Today, we are facing a pressing need to move further along the road of nuclear disarmament. In accordance with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Russia is fully committed to reaching the goal of a world free from these most deadly weapons.”

President Medvedev went further, emphasizing that Russia “is open to dialogue and is prepared for negotiations with the new US administration.” He said that he fully shares your commitment “to the noble goal of saving the world from the nuclear threat and see here a fertile ground for a joint work.”

In the midst of the acute economic and environmental problems in the world, a joint statement of intent from you and President Medvedev, committing yourselves and your countries to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons within a reasonable time span, would provide tangible evidence that a new era of hope has begun. You would awaken hope and appreciation in every corner of the globe.

We urge you to join with President Medvedev in making such a statement and setting in motion a course of concrete actions such as those called for by former senior statesmen from the United States and throughout the world.

Among the concrete actions we would particularly urge you and President Medvedev to initially take are: agreeing to extend the 1991 START agreement beyond its expiration in December 2009 in order to retain its verification provisions; taking nuclear arsenals on both sides off hair-trigger alert; and agreeing to make dramatic cuts in the arsenals of both sides to below 1,000 nuclear weapons each, deployed and in reserve, as a next step toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

On behalf of tens of thousands of our members and supporters throughout the world, we call upon you to act boldly in moving to rid the world of its greatest existential threat, that of nuclear omnicide. We urge you to lead the world in achieving this decisive victory for humanity.

Sincerely,

David Krieger
President
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

March 23, 2009
Silence Is Indefensible

Arundhati Roy, the great Indian writer and activist, has said, “There’s nothing new or original left to be said about nuclear weapons.” Nonetheless, she speaks out because, in her words, “silence would be indefensible.” Silence is the norm. We live our day-to-day lives with these weapons capable of destroying our cities, our countries, our civilizations, even our species. How can silence be the norm?

This is what Roy herself says about nuclear weapons: “Whether they’re used or not, they violate everything that is humane. They alter the meaning of life itself. Why do we tolerate them? Why do we tolerate the men who use nuclear weapons to blackmail the entire human race?”

Do we really trust our political leaders and those leaders who might come to power in the future to never unleash the fury of nuclear war? Do we believe that all leaders under all conditions, no matter how rushed or stressed, will refrain from using this power of annihilation? Perhaps we do, and this would explain the widespread complacency and silence.

Perhaps we just feel impotent to change the situation. This resignation is often summed up with the phrase, “the genie cannot be put back into the bottle.” So, we have loosed the genie of atomic might on the world, and we appear content to let it roam. We seem to lack the cleverness or motivation even to try to trick the genie back into the bottle.

What were the odds of sudden economic collapse of powerful financial institutions? What were the odds of the collapse of the former Soviet Union, or the odds that the Berlin Wall would be peacefully dismantled? Why does virtually no one see big changes such as these on the horizon? While they are rarely foreseen, in hindsight they seem perfectly understandable.

What about the odds of two nuclear armed submarines colliding in the ocean? The chances of this occurring are infinitesimally small. Yet, it happened. Such rare occurrences happen. What are the odds of a nuclear war being unleashed on our planet? Could such a war begin by accident? Could it occur by miscalculation or overreaching? Perhaps the odds are small, but they are not zero and therefore they are above the acceptable level.

Are we silent because we believe that nuclear weapons actually keep us safer? This wouldn’t be surprising because we have been taught to believe that we are protected by nuclear weapons, but this isn’t the case. Nuclear weapons cannot protect their possessors. They can only be used to inflict massive retaliation and such retaliation is not protection. If nuclear weapons protected their possessors, missile defenses would not be needed. But they do not, and missile defenses are faulty tools for protection as well. In fact, those that possess nuclear weapons are guaranteed to be targeted by someone else’s nuclear weapons.

The only safe number of nuclear weapons is zero, and to reach this level will require international cooperation, like every significant global problem. It will also require leadership and, as the possessors of over 95 percent of the nuclear weapons on the planet, the countries that must lead are the US and Russia. If they fail to lead, the nuclear genie will continue to roam.

Why do we waste our resources on such weapons? Why do we use our scientists in such dehumanizing ways? Why do we debase ourselves with our implicit threats of mass murder?

Are we silent because we are numb? Have we become so distracted that we will not raise our voices because we cannot imagine consequences so horrific? Have we become so fearful of giving voice to our fears that we are dumb as well as numb?

Nuclear weapons diminish our humanity, and our silence condemns us in the eyes of those who will follow us on this planet.

I and others have said all of this before. Like Arundhati Roy, I continue to speak out, often repeating myself, in the belief that silence is indefensible.

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

March 6, 2009
Creating a World Free of Nuclear Weapons: A Speech for President Obama

(This is a speech that President Obama might give to educate and encourage American citizens to support him in seeking a world free of nuclear weapons and to alert the world to America’s new proactive stance on nuclear disarmament.)

My Fellow Citizens,

I want to talk with you about an issue of the utmost importance for our common future and that of our children, grandchildren and generations to follow us on our planet.

The issue is nuclear weapons and the threat they pose to all humanity. As we learned more than six decades ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a single nuclear weapon can destroy a city, and the nuclear weapons today are far more powerful than those used in 1945. By implication, a few nuclear weapons could destroy a country and a nuclear war could end civilization as we know it.

We cannot rest comfortably or be complacent because nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare for over 60 years. There have been far too many accidents and miscalculations. We have come too close, too often, to nuclear devastation.

The threat that these weapons will be used is ever present. Today nine countries possess nuclear weapons. This number could grow dramatically should we continue with business as usual. There is also the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of non-state extremist groups, a threat that increases as nuclear weapons proliferate.

Many countries today believe that the nuclear weapons states have imposed a double standard on the world, and they are not content with this. Some of these countries refer to the current global situation as “nuclear apartheid.” We all know that double standards promote privilege for some, while creating resentment for many. Double standards cannot hold.

It is for this reason, compounded by the extreme dangers inherent in nuclear weapons, that the United States must lead the way to a world free of nuclear weapons. There are three important reasons that I now seek to assert this leadership. First, as long as nuclear weapons exist, they will threaten the security of our country. Second, unless we act now to control nuclear weapons and the material to create them, nuclear weapons may end up in the hands of terrorists with dire consequences. Third, we are the country that led the way into the Nuclear Age, and – due to our economic and military power – we are also the country that must lead the way out. In doing so, we would also be asserting moral leadership.

Creating a nuclear weapons-free world will not be an easy task, but it is a necessary one. I assure you that we will not disarm unilaterally, nor without the ability to verify the disarmament of other countries. We will proceed cautiously, but resolutely.

We have already begun negotiations with the Russians. Together our two countries possess over 95 percent of the nuclear weapons on the planet. Together we must take the lead in reductions. Our negotiations have three goals. First, to remove our arsenals from hair-trigger alert, making accidental launches far less likely. Second, to extend the 1991 START I agreement, so as to maintain its provisions for verification of reductions. Third, to reduce the number of nuclear weapons that each side possesses to 1,000 or less over the next two years.

These three steps will show the world that our two countries are serious about achieving the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world, a goal that all states party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are committed to under Article VI of the treaty.

Some of you will ask about the threats from nuclear-armed countries such as North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel. Others will ask about the dangers of potential nuclear weapons states such as Iran and Syria. My response to these concerns is that our country must lead the way, and we must assure by persuasion and positive incentives that these countries will follow our lead. In this, I believe that President Reagan had it right when he said, “Trust, but verify.” But first, we must begin negotiations.

At the level of approximately 1,000 nuclear weapons each in the arsenals of the United States and Russia, we would still have nuclear forces that would not be challenged by any rational leader, and no greater number would deter an irrational leader. When we reach 1,000 nuclear weapons each, it will be necessary to bring the other nuclear weapons states into the process to initiate negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty outlawing the possession of nuclear weapons and providing for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons from the planet.

We are embarked on a great venture, one more critical and difficult than putting a man on the moon. But we should take heart in the capacity for greatness in the human spirit. If we are capable of putting a man on the moon, as we did, we are also capable of controlling and eliminating a technology capable of ending our human presence on Earth. This is a problem that we must deal with now, and not pass it on to future generations, while running the risk of devastation in the interim.

My fellow citizens, this is an undertaking on which rests the future of our country and our planet. We are embarked upon a path that will free humanity from what President Kennedy called the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over our heads. To do so is a shared responsibility to each other and to the future generations that will follow us on Earth. It is a task from which we cannot shirk if we are to be responsible citizens of our country and our planet.

If we can succeed in eliminating nuclear weapons from our planet, we just may be inspired by our achievement to do even more: to build a future that is humane for all, in which poverty is eliminated, resource use is sustainable, human rights are upheld and war is no longer a means of settling disputes. Let us be bold and set our sights on what has never before been achieved in the firm conviction that we can create change on the fantastic journey of our lives that links us with the past and stretches to the future. The elimination of nuclear weapons will put aside one towering obstacle to assuring that there is a future.

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

February 12, 2009
A New US Approach to Nuclear Disarmament

The states party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will hold a Preparatory Committee meeting in May 2009 for the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Many of the non-nuclear weapon states party to this treaty have been discouraged by the lack of progress by the nuclear weapons states in fulfilling their obligations for nuclear disarmament. These countries will be looking for positive signs that the new president of the United States is committed to progress on the NPT Article VI promise of the nuclear weapons states for good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament.

For the past eight years, under George W. Bush, the US has made scant effort to fulfill its NPT commitment to nuclear disarmament. In 2002, Bush pushed through a bilateral agreement with the Russians, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). The treaty calls for reductions in deployed strategic warheads from approximately 6,000 each to between 1,700 and 2,200 each by the end of the year 2012. It is a three page treaty with few details. The treaty places no limitations on reserve stockpiles and has no timeline and no provisions for either irreversibility or verifiability. On January 1, 2013 the treaty ends and, unless it is extended, both countries may redeploy their reserve weapons or new weapons to any level they choose. Bush also withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002, opening the door for deployment of ballistic missile defenses and space weaponization.

The Bush administration developed contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven countries, including states thought to be non-nuclear weapons states at the time. In addition, the Bush administration threatened preventive use of nuclear weapons and sought continuously, albeit unsuccessfully, the development of new nuclear weapons with new functions. It also sought unsuccessfully to replace the existing nuclear weapons in the US arsenal with a new warhead it called the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The Bush administration also undermined the non-proliferation regime by its arm twisting in support of the US-India nuclear deal, which gave special nuclear preferences to a state that never joined the NPT and developed nuclear weapons outside the framework of the treaty. Overall, the Bush administration appeared more concerned with assuring the reliability of its nuclear warheads and the financial profits for US corporations on nuclear deals than it was with the security of the American people or the stability of the non-proliferation regime.

With President Obama, the US has a new president who has repeatedly expressed a commitment to seeking a world free of nuclear weapons. Prior to his election, he stated, “I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

Upon assuming office, Obama posted the following goals on the White House website (www.whitehouse.gov) under the category of Nuclear Weapons. First, securing loose nuclear materials from terrorists within four years and negotiating a global ban on production of new nuclear weapons material. Second, strengthening the NPT by cracking down on countries that proliferate by assuring that the treaty provide strong sanctions for proliferators. Third, moving toward a nuclear free world by working with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert, and seeking dramatic reductions in the stockpiles of both sides’ nuclear arsenals and materials.

Securing loose nuclear materials and prohibiting the development of new material will require global cooperation, as will strengthening the NPT. These steps, however, will be viewed by many nations through the prism of how successful President Obama is in achieving the goal of moving toward a nuclear weapons-free world, and their cooperation will be to varying degrees dependent upon how successful the US and Russia are in reaching agreement to dramatically reduce their nuclear arsenals.

The May 2009 meeting of the NPT Preparatory Committee will take place shortly after President Obama completes his first 100 days in office. At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we believe there are three steps the President should take in advance of that meeting to demonstrate his commitment to the goals of the NPT.

First, he should publicly reaffirm his commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. This could be as simple as indicating in a major speech his intention to follow through on the goals he has publicly expressed in previous speeches and on his White House website.

Second, he should initiate bilateral negotiations with Russia to extend the 1991 Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START 1) so that its provisions, and particularly its verification provisions, will continue in force; agree to verifiable reductions in existing nuclear arsenals to under 1,000 nuclear weapons each (deployed and reserve) by the end of 2010; and take US and Russian nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.

Third, President Obama should announce his intention to convene a meeting of all nuclear weapons states to initiate negotiations on a global treaty for the phased, verifiable irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework. This treaty, which would outlaw nuclear weapons, would be a Nuclear Weapons Convention, similar to the already concluded Biological Weapons Convention and Chemical Weapons Convention.

The first step of reaffirming his commitment to nuclear disarmament is desirable but not essential, since Obama has already given strong signals of his commitment. The second step of initiating bilateral negotiations with the Russians is not only desirable but essential, as this is the next venue in which significant progress can and must be achieved. The third step is also desirable, but may not be essential until tangible progress is announced resulting from US-Russian negotiations.

To succeed in nuclear disarmament negotiations with the Russians, which would be strongly in the interests of the US, it will likely be necessary for the US to abandon its plans to place ballistic missile defenses in Europe. The Russians have long expressed concerns about US plans to deploy such defenses due to the potential first-strike advantage these defenses would provide. The Russians have also expressed concerns about the failure of the US to join other states in supporting a ban on space weaponization. The Russian concerns were met largely with a deaf ear and unsatisfactory explanations from the Bush administration. To make further nuclear disarmament attractive to the Russians will almost certainly require halting plans to deploy ballistic missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic and may also require the US to commit to banning the weaponization of space. The most satisfactory solution to these problems would be the reinstatement of the ABM Treaty and a global treaty banning space weaponization.

In summary, the eight years of the Bush administration have left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in a precarious state. To strengthen the treaty and assure its capacity to prevent further proliferation, it will be necessary to show progress toward nuclear disarmament. President Obama should continue to make declarative statements of his support for a world free of nuclear weapons. Such statements will signal to the world his intentions and will help educate the American people. But such statements, while important and perhaps necessary, are not sufficient.

Prior to the next Preparatory Committee meeting of the NPT parties in May 2009, President Obama should initiate negotiations with the Russians on a range of nuclear disarmament issues, including removing nuclear weapons on both sides from hair-trigger alert; extending the START I agreement; and agreeing to move rapidly, dramatically and verifiably to reduce nuclear stockpiles of weapons and materials on both sides. To succeed in negotiations on nuclear disarmament with the Russians will require concessions from the United States regarding ballistic missile deployments and space weaponization. But these “concessions” will assure greater US security. Finally, after achieving progress in US-Russian nuclear disarmament, the president should convene the nuclear weapons states to initiate negotiations for a phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Congress and the American people must support and encourage the president in taking these steps. Should the president fail in the near term in achieving concrete results with the Russians, it could result in a breakdown of the non-proliferation regime, nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. All of these would undermine US and global security in ways we must seek to imagine and prevent.

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

February 5, 2009
Nuclear Weapons After Bush: A Role for the People
“Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.”
— H.G. Wells

As with so many other areas of vital importance to the nation and the world, George W. Bush showed no interest in the abolition of nuclear weapons. Instead, he allowed for the possibility of first use of nuclear weapons by the United States, a policy conducive to nuclear war, nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. Treaties and international law in general were not high on the Bush agenda. The one nuclear disarmament treaty he concluded with the Russians during his tenure, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), has many flaws, most notably a lack of verification provisions. If the terms of the treaty are carried out, however, the result would be that the US and Russia would reduce the number of their deployed strategic warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 each by December 31, 2012. Many more nuclear warheads would be held in reserve. On January 1, 2013, the treaty will terminate and both countries will be free to deploy any number of nuclear weapons.

The prospects for nuclear weapons abolition under Barack Obama are much improved. Obama believes in the importance of international law, and he has spoken often of the need to pursue a course leading to a world free of nuclear weapons. On his White House website, he lists as goals of his administration: securing loose nuclear materials from terrorists, strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and moving toward a nuclear free world. In the latter category, it states, “Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it.”

The website goes on to say: “Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”

Obama is supportive of the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, but describes it as a “long road.” He also indicates that he will maintain a “strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist.” Thus, he is positive toward abolition, but cautious. To succeed in moving down that road, no matter how long, Obama will need support from the American people. In the past, opinion polls have shown such support to exist, but not to be a high priority for Americans. Obama will need to nurture and encourage such support, which in turn can help him to succeed on the path to abolition.

I will examine below eight reasons that the public has not been actively engaged in pressing for a world free of nuclear weapons.
1. Complacency. There has been a widespread belief that the issue is too big and too removed from the day-to-day pressures that we all face. There is a sense of powerlessness on nuclear disarmament issues that gives rise to complacency.
2. Deference to experts. There has been a strong belief among the American public that nuclear disarmament is an issue requiring political and technical expertise. While some expertise may be required, the general outlines of nuclear disarmament policy do not require such expertise. What is required is a commitment to ending the threat of nuclear devastation to all humanity.
3. A belief in deterrence. Much of the public has been taught to believe that the threat of nuclear retaliation keeps them safe. In fact, deterrence is only a theory and may not work under real world conditions. It requires rational leaders, and all leaders are not rational at all times. It also requires clear and effective communications, which are not always possible. Most important, deterrence operates at a psychological level. It does not and cannot provide physical protection. A record of non-use of nuclear weapons in the past (since Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is not a guarantee of security from nuclear attack in the future.
4. Fear of cheating. Many members of the public fear that in a world without nuclear weapons, a cheater will be advantaged. It will require education to assure public understanding that nuclear disarmament will be done in a phased and verifiable manner, and that we will not proceed to zero unilaterally and until we are certain that cheating will not advantage a cheater. By reducing the stockpiles of nuclear weapons gradually, it will be possible to forge trust and demonstrate the willingness of all parties to submit to effective systems of verification. Such systems would be operational years before the final nuclear weapons are dismantled.
5. Power and prestige. Members of the public often take pride in nuclear arsenals, believing that they bestow power and prestige. In today’s world, this is unfortunately a valid, albeit dangerous, perspective. It will be necessary to shift thinking on this, which will require leadership. In actuality, nuclear weapons, instruments capable of massive annihilation, can be considered instruments of power and prestige only in cultures that are numb to the potential consequences of such technologies of death or that go beyond such numbness to affirm and glorify the wanton destructiveness these weapons represent.
6. Conformity. In the past, the public went along with possession of nuclear weapons because they were effectively led to believe these weapons provided security. Consequently, there was no effective challenge to the possession of these weapons.
7. Denial. Nuclear weapons destroy indiscriminately – men, women and children. They are city-destroying weapons. They are so terrible that it is psychologically more comfortable to deny their threat.
8. Failure of imagination. Many people are comfortable with nuclear weapons because for most or all of their lives these weapons have been a part of the backdrop of reality in which we live. These people consider such possession as routine and fail to imagine the devastating consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.
All of these reasons that inhibit engagement in seeking nuclear weapons abolition are counterproductive. They will hopefully be impacted by the Obama administration and reversed or, at a minimum, turned in a more positive direction. The Obama administration is about combating complacency with empowerment. Obama himself campaigned on a platform of change, which was broadly supported by the electorate. The administration is already seeking to involve large numbers of individuals in the decisions that affect their lives, and to provide information for informed consent or dissent. After some 60 years of education that has promoted deterrence, people will have to learn the lesson that deterrence is only a theory, one that in fact makes the possessors of nuclear weapons vulnerable to annihilation. To get over the fear of cheating, people will have to trust that the verification procedures are adequate. They will have to adopt the approach of the committed nuclear abolitionist, Ronald Reagan: “trust but verify.”

The public will need new ways to measure the power and prestige of their country, by indicators such as low infant mortality rates, universal health care for all Americans, increasing use of sustainable energy, and gross national happiness. It will be up to the Obama administration to help people envision new ways of measuring their value. People will have to accept the proposition that conformity is not a virtue, whereas critical thinking enhances both understanding and security. Denial forces us to freeze, to fail to act for our own benefit. Finally, a failure of imagination undermines our capacity to predict the future and prepare for it.

In addition, there are powerful entrenched forces in the military-industrial-Congressional complex that support continued reliance on nuclear arms and oppose abolition. Leadership by the Obama administration can help to overcome the impediments to change that in the past have hampered progress toward nuclear weapons abolition. In return, a more empowered and awakened citizenry can help press forward an abolition agenda, in their own interests and the interests of all humanity. President Obama appears ready to walk down the path of nuclear weapons abolition, but he cannot stand alone in seeking an end to the nuclear threat to humanity. He will need our voices and our presence in support of new policies aimed at achieving a world without nuclear weapons.

I will conclude with a quotation from an abolitionist of another time, Frederick Douglass, whose message remains valid in our time as we confront the continuing dangers of nuclear annihilation: “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will.”

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor of the World Future Council.
January 27, 2009
Working Tirelessly to Lessen the Nuclear Threat

I want to thank each of you who supported our idea on Change.org for “US Leadership to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Globally.” Our idea was one of nearly 8,000 ideas submitted to Change.org. With your help, we finished in the top 35 ideas to change America (number 23, I believe). We also had 76 institutional endorsers of our idea from throughout the world, and hundreds of individual comments on the need for abolition. In addition, many tens of thousands of people were alerted to the idea and received some education on the need for action on nuclear disarmament, even if they did not choose to vote.

My thanks to you is even greater knowing that Change.org did not make it easy to vote. It required a fairly lengthy process by internet standards to get registered at Change.org and cast your vote. So, to those who participated, thank you for sticking with it, and spreading the message to friends, family and colleagues. This is the way that change occurs, often from person to person.

Just before voting concluded on Change.org, we discovered that the official site of the Obama transition team, Change.gov, was also soliciting ideas for a Citizen’s Briefing Book. We also added our idea of “US Leadership to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Globally” to that site, and we trust that it will be conveyed to President Obama along with the other ideas that were submitted.

Here is what we said in describing our idea: “It is far too dangerous to keep global nuclear disarmament on the back burner. Nuclear weapons pose the most immediate, overwhelming and devastating threat imaginable to our country and to civilization. The only way to assure that these weapons are never used again is to abolish them forever. Only the United States has the leadership capacity to bring the countries of the world together to achieve this goal. It is time for the US to assert that leadership, and President-elect Obama has shown by his statements that he is prepared to lead on this issue. We call upon him to make a strong public commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons globally; to initiate bilateral negotiations with the Russians to take nuclear weapons off high alert status and to dramatically and verifiably reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of our two nations; and to convene a meeting of the nuclear weapons states to initiate negotiations on a global treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons by the year 2020. This would make the United States more secure, restore its credibility throughout the world, and be a gift to all humanity and all future generations.”

Of course, we understand that the US is not the only country that can lead on this critical issue. But we also believe that without US leadership, the Russians won’t take serious steps, and without the Russians, the UK, France and China will not take the necessary steps, and so on. We are not asking for the US to disarm its nuclear arsenal unilaterally, but to use its status in the world to lead other nations to a common goal, a goal that will benefit all nations and all peoples, now and in the future.

We are asking for serious and far-reaching change in US nuclear policy, and we are encouraged by President Obama’s own statements on the issue. Most recently, in his Inaugural Address, he stated, “With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.” This one sentence tells us that President Obama recognizes the seriousness of the nuclear threat, places it on a level with global warming, and understands that it is an issue that will require global cooperation and tireless commitment.

With so many pressing issues before the new president, it is essential that he be given the support of the American people and people throughout the world in fulfilling his goals. Since he seeks to lessen the nuclear threat, we must give him encouragement and support to achieve this end. Changing the world does not end with a vote on Change.org or an entry in the Citizen’s Briefing Book on Change.gov. It requires persistence, which means a long-term commitment to the goal. At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we will continue to provide you with information and ideas for action, and we ask you to join us in assuring that these ideas get through to President Obama and his team.

January 20, 2009
Making Peace a Priority

The election of Barack Obama has brought a new spirit of hope to the United States and the world. We now have the opportunity to chart a new course for US foreign policy and provide leadership to restore peace under international law, promote justice and reestablish America’s credibility in the world. Our time demands such leadership from the United States, which could be demonstrated by taking the following ten steps:

1. Commit to US leadership to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. Enter into negotiations with the Russians and then the other seven nuclear weapons states to create a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

2. End the war in Iraq, withdraw American troops, close US military bases in Iraq and provide reparations to the people of Iraq for the damage we have caused there.

3. Pursue and bring to justice the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, using police and intelligence to address counterterrorism, and cease the US war against the Taliban.

4. Close Guantanamo, bring the prisoners to trial in US courts or release them, and provide assurances that the US will never again be a party to torture.

5. Increase the US role in brokering peace in areas of conflict, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

6. Reduce the military budget by 25 to 50 percent, eliminating wasteful and unneeded military expenditures, and reducing our foreign military bases and our global naval presence; and apply the savings to meeting human needs and revitalizing our economy.

7. Cease US plans to put weapon systems in outer space, and join Russia and China in a treaty prohibiting the weaponization of outer space.

8. Pledge US respect for the United Nations Charter and international law, including fulfilling the noble goals of the Charter of ending “the scourge of war” and formulating plans for “the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.”

9. Re-sign the Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court and give full US support to holding individuals accountable under international law for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

10. Establish a Department of Peace with a cabinet level Secretary of Peace, so that peace has a permanent place at the table in the councils of government.

We have the opportunity to change our country and the world. Now is the time to seize the moment.

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

December 23, 2008
Denying Access to a United Nation Official: An Issue of Human Rights

Richard Falk is a soft-spoken and reflective man. He is a scholar, the author or editor of more than 50 books, including important books on human rights. For 40 years he was a professor of international law and practice at Princeton University. After becoming emeritus at Princeton, Falk moved to California, and became a distinguished visiting scholar at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He continues to maintain a busy schedule of teaching at various universities, writing books and articles, and lecturing throughout the world.

I have known him as a friend and colleague for more than three decades. Despite his mild and scholarly manner, he can be tough on issues of human rights. He has dedicated his life to upholding and strengthening international law and has held human rights as central to international law. With regard to international law in general, and to human rights in particular, he has been a proponent of universal responsibility for upholding human rights and of individual accountability for egregious failures to do so.

Earlier this year, Falk was appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council as the Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories. In this capacity, he is the key person in the United Nations system to report on potential human rights abuses in the Palestinian territories. Falk was chosen by the UN Human Rights Council for this position out of 184 potential candidates.

This past Sunday, Falk attempted to enter Israel on his way to the Palestinian territories. He was denied entry, detained at the Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv by Israeli officials for 20 hours, and expelled from the country the next day.

Israeli officials defended their position in denying Falk entry on the grounds that he was hostile to Israel, having said in 2007 that the Israeli blockade of Gaza was a “Holocaust in the making” and for having said this year that Israel’s imposition of collective punishment against the entire population of Gaza is a “crime against humanity.”

Israeli officials are angry that Falk’s UN mandate as Special Rapporteur focuses solely on Israeli abuses in the Palestinian territories and does not call for reporting on Palestinian abuses of the human rights of Israelis. They also accused Falk of coming into the country on a tourist visa in June 2008 for an academic conference and of having used the occasion to gather information for work in his UN capacity.

It is clear that Israeli officials do not like the positions that Falk has taken with regard to Israeli actions affecting the Palestinian territories. The Israelis are not, however, taking action against Falk as an individual. They are refusing him entry to their country in his capacity as a United Nations official. In doing so, they are denying him access to the Palestinian territories and making it impossible for him to effectively do the job that has been assigned to him by the United Nations. This is unacceptable.

Upon his return to the United States, Falk commented on his experience, “My detention and denial of entry into Israel is part of a broader pattern designed to obscure the realities of the occupation by keeping qualified observers from getting out and, in my case, from getting in. Israel has been shifting attention as much as possible to the observer and away from what is observed. In doing so, they have distorted my views. The main point is not balance, but truth, and it is the rendering of what is true in Gaza, the harsh collective punishment, that gives the impression of imbalance. This isn’t about me. It’s about the Palestinian people.”

If we are to have an international community governed by international law, no state should be allowed to act against the interests of the whole, as Israel is doing in denying Falk the ability to do his work as Special Rapporteur. Sovereignty cannot trump the interests of the international community at large, and the interests of the community lie in the ability of Special Rapporteurs, such as Falk, being able to visit the territories of their responsibility and report on what they find.

Israel can, of course, take exception to Falk and continue their allegations of his bias, but they should not be allowed to deny him access to the territories where his responsibility lies. Israeli officials can counter the UN Special Rapporteur’s reports with their own facts and positions, but they should not be able to prevent the work of an agent of the United Nations.

Israel’s position on this matter is an affront not so much to Falk personally as to the United Nations system and to the Palestinian people. This is a situation on which the Secretary General of the United Nations should be speaking out in protest and his protests should be backed by both the General Assembly and the Security Council. This is not an issue of politics. It is an issue of human rights that demands the attention of the world.

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

December 18, 2008
US Leadership for Global Zero

Barack Obama recognizes the importance for US and global security of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. His election opens the door to US leadership to achieve the goal of zero nuclear weapons.

He has promised: “I will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of US nuclear policy.” He has also stated, “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. That’s what I’ve done as a Senator and a candidate, and that’s what I’ll do as President.”

All of us on our planet share in this responsibility. It is a responsibility to ourselves, to each other, and to future generations.

The United States created and used nuclear weapons during World War II. They are the most powerful weapons ever created. A single nuclear weapon can destroy a city, as we know from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With today’s more powerful nuclear weapons, we can readily surmise that a few nuclear weapons could destroy a country, and a nuclear war could destroy civilization and threaten most life on the planet.

Nuclear weapons are now in the arsenals of nine countries: the US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea.

Humanity’s challenge is to control and eliminate these weapons globally. Nuclear weapons are illegal, immoral, impractical and costly. We must keep the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons clearly before us: Zero nuclear weapons. Zero is both the safest and most stable number of nuclear weapons. But how do we move from a world with 26,000 nuclear weapons to global zero?

We need to let the new US President know that Americans and people throughout the globe seek his leadership on this issue, reversing past US policy that has relied upon nuclear weapons and threatened their first use. We must call upon President-elect Obama to make his intentions known to the world, taking the following five steps to forge a path to a world free of nuclear weapons.

First, make an unambiguous commitment on behalf of the United States to global zero and seek this commitment from all other nuclear weapons states. This is the simplest and most direct of the five steps and can be accomplished in a major foreign policy address.

Second, pledge that the US government will deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons in military policy by taking the weapons off high alert status and by committing to No First Use of nuclear weapons, and seeking this commitment from all other nuclear weapons states. This will demonstrate to the world that the US commitment is more than mere rhetoric.

Third, negotiate with the Russians, as a matter of high priority, major reductions in nuclear arsenals. Reach an agreement to reduce our respective nuclear arsenals to under 1,000 nuclear weapons, deployed and in reserve, by the year 2010. This agreement will likely require the US to abandon its plans for deployment of its unworkable and provocative missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Fourth, launch a major global effort to assure control of all nuclear weapons and the fissile materials to construct new nuclear weapons. This will be necessary for gaining confidence that a nuclear weapons-free world is attainable, particularly as the current nuclear weapons states move to lower and lower levels.

Fifth, use the convening power of the United States to bring together the nine nuclear weapons states to negotiate a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention similar to the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. When the existing nuclear weapons states have reached agreement, the Nuclear Weapons Convention should be opened for signature and ratification of all the world’s countries.

With strong US leadership, the kind that Barack Obama has pledged, a nuclear weapons-free world could be achieved by the year 2020, and this should be the goal of those seeking a more secure world. It still would be far from a perfect world, but it would be a great triumph for humanity. It would pave the way to building a more peaceful and secure future for all inhabitants of earth.

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

December 2, 2008