Author: David Krieger

Olympic Inspiration for Peace

The world has again witnessed two weeks of extraordinary beauty and talent by young athletes gathered from throughout the world. The athletes met in Beijing for the XXIXth Olympic Games of modern times and competed on a global stage. They inspired me and I believe they must have inspired billions of human beings in every part of the world by the amazing feats of speed, strength, agility and teamwork of which we humans are capable.

The athletes of these Olympic Games demonstrated their concentration and grace under pressure. Some won medals, but most did not. Their crowning common achievement was to come together in the spirit of friendship and peaceful competition, and demonstrate to the world the incredible beauty not only of their skills and talents but of peace in action.

The Olympic Games show us that peace and goodwill are possible. The flags of nations are raised in honor of the achievements of the athletes. The flags symbolize victory in peaceful competition, not the failure of war. What a different ground of competition the Olympics provides than does the battlefield of war. A person can be the best in the world regardless of the size of one’s country, the color of one’s skin, or the riches one has amassed. Victory is determined on a peaceful and level playing field, without weapons of violence or undue influence.

The Olympics value human life in all its variety. There are no exclusions from the human family. Victory is celebrated, but it is also recognized as transient. One can be a champion, but there will always be new champions. Some champions compete against each other, while others compete against the records of champions of the past. The valor is in the competition, the glory is in being part of it.

How can one not be thrilled by watching the athletes in their native costumes entering the great arena of the Olympic stadium? How can one not be overwhelmed with the beauty of the pageantry that surrounds the opening and closing ceremonies of the games? How can one not be struck with the thought that this is what life on our precious planet could be, not just for two weeks but for all time?

Of course, there cannot be continuous year-round Olympics, but the Olympics show just one facet of human greatness, that of athletic prowess. There could be other great festivals and celebrations of human achievement in the areas of music, poetry, dancing and drama. We could celebrate those who work to save the environment and its precious resources, those who protect endangered species, those who create alternative energy sources, those who work for peace and justice. There is so much cause for celebration, starting with the miracle of our very existence.

The Olympics give us a glimpse of what is possible for our species and our world. They demand that we be more than quiet (or even noisy) observers. They challenge us to re-envision our world, and imagine the paradise that our planet could be. Do we really need to settle our differences by war and violence rather than by law and diplomacy? Do we really need to divide up the earth’s resources so inequitably, so that some live in overabundance while others cannot meet their basic needs? Do we really need to keep destroying the Earth as though future generations are of no concern to us?

We have an Earth, a water planet, which supports life and is endlessly interesting and beautiful. We have a sun that powers our planet. We have the Olympic Games to thrill and inspire us. We have talented human beings across the planet. The Olympics, so fresh in our minds, should embolden us to say: “We can do better, much better.” In a democracy, the fault for not doing better lies not just with our leaders, but with our own apathy. After the Olympics, we can get up off the couch and do more to help our Earth stay green and healthy in a just world without war. In the Nuclear Age, it’s actually up to all of us to build a better world and assure 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.

August 25, 2008
NATO Nuclear Weapons: Power Without Purpose
Europe is heavily armed with nuclear weapons. Both Britain and France possess their own nuclear forces and the United States has a long history of keeping nuclear weapons on European soil. Britain’s nuclear force is estimated at under 200 weapons, with approximately 150 deployed on four Vanguard submarines and the remainder kept in reserve. France is thought to have approximately 350 nuclear weapons in its Force de frappe (strike force). The US keeps some 200-350 nuclear weapons in six countries: Belgium, Germany, Holland, Italy, Turkey and the UK. Recent unconfirmed reports indicate that the US has pulled its nuclear weapons out of the UK. If this is correct, approximately 240 US nuclear weapons remain in five European countries.

On the NATO website, it states, “NATO has radically reduced its reliance on nuclear forces. Their role is now more fundamentally political, and they are no longer directed towards a specific threat.” This is a rather enigmatic statement, leaving one to ponder how nuclear weapons are used in a “fundamentally political” role. The NATO website adds, “NATO’s reduced reliance on nuclear forces has been manifested in a dramatic reduction in the number of weapons systems and storage facilities. NATO has also ended the practice of maintaining standing peacetime nuclear contingency plans and as a result, NATO’s nuclear forces no longer target any country.”

Given the fact that NATO does not target any other country with nuclear weapons, one wonders what role they still serve. Again, the NATO website provides an answer, which is “to maintain only the minimum number of nuclear weapons necessary to support its strategy of preserving peace and preventing war.” But this still leaves one wondering with whom one is “preserving peace and preventing war.” Although nothing is stated, it would seem that the answer is likely to be Russia. This might explain why NATO has expanded up to the Russian western border, despite earlier US promises to Russia not to do so, and also why the US continues to pursue the placement of missile defense installations in new NATO states Poland and the Czech Republic, despite continuing Russian protests.

NATO reasoning for maintaining nuclear weapons seems very flimsy. If there is anything that is clear about nuclear weapons, it is that they cannot protect their possessors. All of the nuclear weapons in Europe cannot protect any European city from a nuclear attack by an extremist organization. Reliance upon these weapons provides an incentive for nuclear proliferation, increasing the possibilities that these weapons will fall into the hands of such an organization and will be used.

If European nations want to provide true security to the citizens of their countries, they should end NATO’s reliance upon nuclear weapons by taking the following steps:
- Call for the removal of all US nuclear weapons from Europe.
- Call for the US to remove its missile defense installations from the Russian border
- Negotiate the removal of all tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and the western regions of Russia.
- Create a global treaty to bring all weapons-grade fissile material under strict and effective international control.
- Call for the NATO nuclear weapons states (US, UK and France) to fulfill their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.
- Take a leading role in initiating negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, setting forth a roadmap for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.
- Join Russia and China in negotiating a ban on space weaponization.
David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), and a councilor of the World Future Council (www.worldfuturecouncil.org).
August 14, 2008
A Short Message to the UC Regents: Get Out of the Nuclear Weapons Business

Designing and developing weapons of mass annihilation should not be business as usual, especially for a great university. And yet, for the UC, it is business as usual. Since the beginning of the Nuclear Age, the UC has been in the business of providing management and oversight to the nation’s principal nuclear weapons laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The UC is now in that business with corporate partners such as Bechtel.

Your involvement with the weapons labs is arguably illegal under international law, is certainly immoral and, from a security perspective, perpetuates US reliance on nuclear weapons, which undermines US and global security. It also sends exactly the wrong message to the young people who are educated at the University of California. It suggests to them that it must be acceptable to create weapons capable of destroying civilization when a great university engages in doing so.

The UC shares in the responsibility for creating all nuclear weapons in the US arsenal. Should these weapons ever be used, by accident or design, the responsibility and accountability for that use will rest not only upon decision makers in the US government, but upon the UC system – including upon those who remained indifferent or apathetic in the face of the UC oversight of the weapons labs.

Some at the UC refer to its work on nuclear weapons as a “national service.” I would say it is a disservice, both to the nation and to the University.

The most important thing that can be said about nuclear weapons is that they do not and cannot protect their possessors. By continuing to rely upon these weapons, a prospect furthered by the nuclear weapons laboratories, the US upholds nuclear double standards that encourage nuclear proliferation.

I suggest to you that a day will come when the UC will deeply regret having sold its good name to provide respectability to the creation and maintenance of nuclear weapons. In the interests of the UC and the country, I would urge you to take the following three actions:

First, support the Student Department of Energy Lab Oversight Committee, which has already demonstrated serious intent and done important research on the weapons laboratories and how their work negatively impacts national and global security.

Second, follow the example of the Norwegian government pension fund and divest the UC investment portfolio of corporations involved in creating nuclear weapons and their component parts.

Third, withdraw from the management and oversight of the weapons labs on the grounds of legality, morality and human security. By doing so, you would be setting an invaluable example for UC students and for institutions of higher education in our country and throughout the world.

Such acts of conscience by the UC Regents would help spark a national discussion on the need for US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons.

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). On July 17, 2008, members of the public were allotted one minute each to express their views in the public comment portion of the UC Regents’ meeting.

July 21, 2008
Comparing the Positions of Senators Obama and McCain on Nuclear Disarmament
Nuclear weapons do not and cannot protect their possessors. They can only be used to threaten or carry out massive retaliation. Retaliation does not constitute protection. It constitutes retribution of the worst sort, killing large numbers of innocent people. Further, when powerful states continue to rely upon nuclear arsenals for their security, they create an incentive to nuclear proliferation. When nuclear weapons proliferate to other countries, the chances are increased that they will end up in the hands of terrorist organizations that are suicidal, not locatable, and thus not subject to being deterred.

A major goal of the next president of the United States should be to achieve a clear path to the elimination of all nuclear weapons. This will require making a commitment to the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world; bringing US policy in line with this commitment; and convening negotiations with the other nuclear weapon states to achieve this goal.

Both leading presidential candidates have articulated a commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. Senator Obama has said, “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.”

On another occasion, Senator Obama stated, “Here’s what I’ll say as President: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons. We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we’ll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons.” For the United States to keep its commitment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty would mean that it would enter into “good faith” negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Senator Obama asserts that this will be a “long road,” but with the requisite leadership and political will, it need not be so long a road as he now perceives.

Senator Obama elaborated, “We’ll work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material. We’ll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we’ll set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”

Senator McCain has said, “A quarter of a century ago, President Ronald Reagan declared, ‘our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.’ That is my dream, too.” Having said this, however, Senator McCain made it clear that the goal was not close at hand. He referred to it as “a distant and difficult goal,” one that “we must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically, and with a focused concern for our security and the security of allies who depend on us.” Again, the requisite leadership and political will would make this a far less “distant and difficult goal.”

Senator McCain continued, “But the Cold War ended almost twenty years ago, and the time has come to take further measures to reduce dramatically the number of nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals. It is time for the United States to show the kind of leadership the world expects from us, in the tradition of American presidents who worked to reduce the nuclear threat to mankind. […] I believe we should reduce our nuclear forces to the lowest level we judge necessary, and we should be prepared to enter into a new arms control agreement with Russia reflecting the nuclear reductions I will seek.” Senator McCain’s goal is ambiguous when he talks about “the lowest level we judge necessary….” One might ask: Who is the “we” that judges and what is the criteria for “necessary”?

Bringing US policy into line with the commitment to obtain a nuclear weapons-free world requires a number of steps to dramatically reduce nuclear risks as well as the size of nuclear arsenals. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has proposed seven steps to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. These will be discussed below, along with the positions of the two major party candidates for US president on each of these steps.
- De-alert. Remove all nuclear weapons from high-alert status, separating warheads from delivery vehicles. There remain some 3,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert in the arsenals of the US and Russia, elevating the risks of accidental launches.
Senator Obama states on his campaign website that he would “work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert.” He has also said, “If we want the world to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example. President Bush once said, ‘The United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status – another unnecessary vestige of Cold War confrontation.’ Six years later, President Bush has not acted on this promise. I will. We cannot and should not accept the threat of accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch.”

Senator McCain has not stated his position on de-alerting nuclear arsenals.
- No First Use. Make legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons and establish nuclear policies consistent with this commitment. Among the nuclear weapons states, only China and India currently have policies of No First Use. The other states, including the US, maintain the option of using nuclear weapons preemptively.
Neither candidate has taken a position specifically on No First Use of nuclear weapons. Senator Obama, however, has said that the US should lead an effort to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons.

Senator McCain has said, “It’s naïve to say that we will never use nuclear weapons.” If he believes it is naïve to say that nuclear weapons will never be used, it seems unlikely that he would be willing to rule out their first use.
- No New Nuclear Weapons. Initiate a moratorium on the research and development of new nuclear weapons, such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The Bush administration has been pushing for new nuclear weapons, but Congress has wisely resisted this path.
Senator Obama has said, “We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads. I do not support a premature decision to produce the RRW [Reliable Replacement Warhead].” He has also stated, “We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads.”

Senator McCain has said, “I would only support the development of any new type of nuclear weapon that is absolutely essential for the viability of our deterrent that results in making possible further decreases in the size of our nuclear arsenal, and furthers our global nuclear security goals. I would cancel all further work on the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a weapon that does not make strategic or political sense.” McCain’s statement leaves a loophole by using language similar to that used by the proponents of the Reliable Replacement Warhead, that is, that the RRW is essential for the viability of the US deterrent and will make possible a decrease in the US nuclear arsenal.
- Ban Nuclear Testing Forever. Ratify and bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In 1999, the Senate with a Republican majority voted along party lines against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Bush administration has not resubmitted the treaty for further Senate consideration.
Senator Obama has stated, “I will make it my priority to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.”

Senator McCain was among the Senators voting against ratification of the Treaty in 1999. He has indicated that he would reconsider his earlier decision, stating that he would take another look “to see what can be done to overcome the shortcomings that prevented it from entering into force.”
- Control Nuclear Material. Create a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty with provisions to bring all weapons-grade nuclear material and the technologies to create such material under strict and effective international control. In a world with few or no nuclear weapons, it is essential to have strong international controls of nuclear materials that could be used for developing nuclear weapons.
Senator Obama has said, “I will work to negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.” He has further stated, “I will secure all loose nuclear materials around the world in my first term.”

Senator McCain has stated that the US “should move quickly with other nations to negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to end production of the most dangerous nuclear materials.”
- Nuclear Weapons Convention. The Non-Proliferation Treaty requires “good faith” negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Such good faith negotiations should be applied to reaching a multilateral international treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. This treaty would set forth a confidence-building roadmap to a world free of nuclear weapons.
Neither candidate has spoken about negotiating a new treaty for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, although both have talked about the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Both candidates have called for reductions in nuclear arsenals. While reductions can be taken unilaterally or bilaterally with the Russians, the critically important step of a Nuclear Weapons Convention will require multilateral negotiations with all of the world’s states.

Senator Obama’s website states that he will “seek dramatic reductions in US and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material.” He has also promised to “seek deep cuts in global nuclear arsenals.”

Senator McCain has said, “I believe we should reduce our nuclear forces to the lowest level we judge necessary, and we should be prepared to enter into a new arms control agreement with Russia reflecting the nuclear reductions I will seek.”
- Resources for Peace. Reallocate resources from the tens of billions currently spent on nuclear arms to alleviating poverty, preventing and curing disease, eliminating hunger and expanding educational opportunities throughout the world. Plans should be made for reallocating the large sums of money currently used to maintain and improve nuclear arsenals.
Senator Obama has said that he will “cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending,” giving as an example that he will “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

Senator McCain has not stated his position on reallocating resources from the defense budget in general or nuclear weapons programs in particular to meeting human needs.

The Candidates’ Positions on Other Key Issues Affecting Nuclear Disarmament

An important issue affecting the US ability to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons is the tension created between the US and Russia over US implementation of missile defenses, particularly in Eastern Europe. The US missile defense program has been viewed as a threat by Russia since the US unilaterally abrogated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. The Russians have viewed US missile defenses as threatening their deterrent capability despite US assurances to the contrary, and if this issue is not resolved it could be a deal breaker for further progress on nuclear disarmament. An important step in clearing the path with Russia for major reductions in nuclear weapons would be for the US to reverse course on deployment of missile defenses and open negotiations with the Russians to reinstate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Senator Obama has said, “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”

Senator McCain voted Yes on deploying National Missile Defense in 1999, and more recently stated, “The first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia (sic) and Poland, and I don’t care what his [Putin’s] objections are to it.”

Another potential stumbling block is space weaponization. Russians and the Chinese have both promoted a draft treaty to reserve outer space for peaceful purposes, including a ban on space weaponization. The US has not been willing to even discuss such a ban, and was the only country in the United Nations to vote against such a ban in the 2007 UN General Assembly. The US should join with the other countries of the world in assuring that space is reserved for peaceful purposes only.

Senator Obama has said flatly, “I will not weaponize space.”

Senator McCain has stated, “Weapons in space are a bad idea. A treaty that increases space security is a good idea, but it is likely to take a long time to negotiate. There is a simpler and quicker way to go: a Code of Conduct for responsible space-faring nations. One key element of that Code must include a prohibition against harmful interference against satellites.”

Another concern in bringing US policy in line with a commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world is the control of the spread of nuclear power. While the promotion of nuclear power is a tenet of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it adds significantly to the complications of controlling nuclear materials and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power and research reactors, as Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea have demonstrated, are a pathway to nuclear weapons, and the US should shift its policy of promoting these nuclear materials factories. Even more dangerous are facilities to enrich uranium or separate plutonium, which could be used in weapons programs.

Senator McCain has sponsored legislation that would provide subsidies for the nuclear power industry. McCain has said that “nuclear power, for all kinds of reasons, needs to be part of the solution.” In a speech on the environment, Senator McCain referred to nuclear energy as “a proven energy source that requires zero emissions.” After referencing the plans of China, Russia and India to build new nuclear reactors, he asked, “And if they have the vision to set and carry out great goals in energy policy, then why don’t we?” McCain is calling for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors in the US by the year 2030.

Senator Obama has adopted a far more cautious approach to nuclear energy. In his energy plan on his website, it states, “Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.” Although Senator Obama does not seem to have directly said so himself, Senator McCain has said that Senator Obama “doesn’t support new nuclear plants.” Possibly Senator McCain was extrapolating from the difficulty of the nuclear power industry providing satisfactory solutions to the four key issues that Senator Obama raised.

Analysis

On the issue, so critical to humanity’s future, of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons, there is much we still don’t know about the candidates’ positions. Both state in general terms that they favor the goal. Neither of them, however, has discussed seeking to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty that would set forth a roadmap for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

Between the two candidates, Senator McCain’s positions seem more cautious. He has defined the goal as “distant.” He has also used language that could leave open the door to developing new nuclear weapons, if they meet certain criteria. A most serious obstacle to Senator McCain achieving progress is his strong support for missile defenses, which have led the Russians to consider backtracking on nuclear disarmament by, for example, bolstering its offensive nuclear capabilities and pulling out of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. Further, McCain has stated that it is “naïve to say that we will never use nuclear weapons,” which seems to suggest that he would not support ruling out First Use of nuclear weapons.

Senator Obama has articulated a more detailed position on achieving the goal of a nuclear weapons free world than has Senator McCain. Senator Obama has said that he wants to be the President that leads the way to a nuclear weapons-free world, although he, too, sees it as a “long road.” He has come out in favor of removing US nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert, not developing new nuclear weapons, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, achieving a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material and making deep cuts in global nuclear arsenals. He is also more cautious about nuclear energy, seeks to cut funds from unproven missile defense systems, and opposes the weaponization of space.

The World Set Free

In the seventh decade of the Nuclear Age, there is a glimmer of hope that new leadership in the United States may pave the way forward toward a world free of nuclear weapons. Such leadership would be a great gift to the people of the United States and to the world. If humans together can rid the world of its greatest human-created threat, we can also join together to accomplish other great feats – eliminating poverty, hunger and disease, protecting the environment and averting the potential disasters arising from climate change, and opening new channels of creativity and communication that can bind us all closer together in peace, justice and human dignity.

***This article is for educational purposes. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan organization and does not support particular candidates or political parties.

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a councilor of the World Future Council.
July 16, 2008
Is Japan Being Too Polite About Nuclear Disarmament

Why is it that when the leaders of the G-8 go to Japan, they scrupulously avoid visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Japanese government doesn’t invite their guests to these cities that suffered the atomic bombings in 1945, and the guests don’t go out of their way to make such a visit. Perhaps Japanese leaders think it would be impolite for the guests, many of whom have control of nuclear arsenals, to see first-hand, in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums, the destruction that these weapons have caused. But then again, it might be highly educational for them.

Nuclear weapons have become surrealistic. It has been nearly 63 years since they were used in warfare. For most people, they are out of sight and out of mind, but not for all people, and particularly not for the leaders of the G-8. They still talk about nuclear strategy, nuclear proliferation and nuclear umbrellas. What they should be talking about, though, is nuclear disarmament, and this doesn’t happen much in these dark closing days of the George W. Bush era.

Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, came to Tokyo and proclaimed that the US “has the will and the capability to meet the full range, and I underscore full range, of its deterrent and security commitments to Japan.” One wonders how such a statement is received in Japan. Does it make the Japanese feel secure to know that the US is prepared, if necessary, to retaliate with nuclear weapons on behalf of Japan? The steady refrain of the hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, is “Never Again!” But as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, “again” cannot be ruled out.

North Korea’s test of a nuclear weapon was worrisome, but surely the way forward with North Korea is not the threat of their nuclear obliteration by the US in the event they attacked Japan. At any rate, retaliation would give very little solace to Japan if it were attacked again with nuclear weapons. The key is nuclear disarmament, not only by North Korea, but by all nuclear weapons states. Why isn’t Japan pushing harder to achieve this goal?

An appropriate Japanese response to Condoleezza Rice, and to George W. Bush, whose policies Rice was articulating, would have been: “Thank you very much for the offer, but we don’t want to sit under your nuclear umbrella and have you threaten massive annihilation in our name. We know what it means to be attacked by nuclear weapons, since we suffered this fate by your hands at the end of World War II. We stand with the hibakusha in calling for a world free of nuclear weapons. We want you to get on with serious nuclear disarmament talks now.”

Taking it even a step further, the Japanese could have responded that no one should have control of nuclear weapons without witnessing the artifacts at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums and without meeting survivors of the atomic bombings and hearing their stories. In fact, no country should have nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Until Japan takes such a posture, it will remain just another country that directly or indirectly supports the nuclear status quo with all its dangers.

The people of Japan should be proud of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so magnificently rebuilt after the tragedies of the US atomic bombings, and they should be proud of the spirit and courage of the hibakusha. Japan has a key role to play in ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity, but it will not be successful in this role by being a polite host, keeping its powerful guests away from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and failing to demand more from its G-8 partners in ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

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

July 9, 2008
The Non-Proliferation Treaty Turns Forty

July 1, 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) being opened for signatures. The true purpose of this treaty has always been two-fold: to prevent nuclear proliferation and to achieve nuclear disarmament; in other words, to create a level playing field in which there are no nuclear weapons. In the preamble to the treaty, the parties declare “their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament.”

The treaty recognized five states as nuclear weapons states: the United States, Soviet Union (now Russia), United Kingdom, France and China. Three countries never joined the Treaty – Israel, India and Pakistan – and all three have subsequently developed nuclear arsenals. One country, North Korea, withdrew from the treaty and tested a nuclear device in 2006.

Thus, at the 40-year anniversary, the number of nuclear weapons states in the world has not quite doubled. Actually, four other states became nuclear weapons states during this period, but gave up their nuclear arsenals. South Africa developed a small nuclear arsenal and then dismantled it. Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus inherited nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union broke apart, but turned them over to Russia for dismantling.

The greatest failure of the NPT at the 40-year mark is in the area of nuclear disarmament. In 1968, when the NPT was opened for signatures, there were 38,974 nuclear weapons in the world. By 1986, the number of nuclear weapons reached its height at 70,481 nuclear weapons. By the time the NPT turned 25 (from its entry into force in 1970), there were 40,344 nuclear weapons in the world, more than when it was opened for signatures. There remain some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with over 95 percent of these in the arsenals of the US and Russia. Yet, there are some hopeful signs.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has created an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament with the purpose of forging a global consensus on how to reinvigorate the NPT at its 2010 Review Conference. “We cannot simply stand idly by” Rudd said, “and allow another review conference to achieve no progress – or worse, to begin to disintegrate. The treaty is too important. The goal of nuclear non-proliferation is too important.”

In Europe, 69 members of the European Parliament from 19 European Union member states issued a Parliamentary declaration in support of the Nuclear Weapons Convention, a draft treaty for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Angelika Beer, a member of the European Parliament Subcommittee on Security and Defense, said, “Only a serious commitment to disarmament provides the moral ground for demanding non-proliferation from others.”

In their endorsement of the Nuclear Weapons Convention, the parliamentarians stated, “We take seriously the universal obligation, affirmed by the International Court of Justice, to achieve nuclear disarmament in good faith in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

It is also hopeful that over 2,300 mayors of cities from throughout the world have recognized the particular danger that nuclear weapons pose to cities. They have joined the Mayors for Peace 2020 Campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

Despite the United States voting against every one of the 15 nuclear disarmament measures to come before the 2007 United Nations General Assembly, there is hope on this front as well. Both major party candidates for US president have endorsed the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, and have indicated that they would take steps to realize this goal. With serious US presidential leadership for achieving the nuclear disarmament obligation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, there will hopefully be far more to celebrate on the 50th anniversary of the treaty.

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

July 1, 2008
Debating Article VI

Christopher Ford’s article, “Debating Disarmament, Interpreting Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” (Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, November 2007), ends with a disclaimer, “The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of the State Department or the U.S. government.” Ford’s views, however, seem extremely closely aligned with those of the State Department, which he joined in 2003 and where he currently serves as the United States Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation.

Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) states: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” This article is the principal tradeoff in the NPT, in which the non-nuclear weapon states are given the promise that the playing field will be leveled by “negotiations in good faith on…nuclear disarmament.”

When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) considered the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in 1996, the judges unanimously concluded, based upon Article VI of the NPT, that “[t]here 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.” [Emphasis added.]

In his article, Ford seeks to substitute his judgment for that of the ICJ, the world’s highest judicial body. He dismisses the view of the Court on the nuclear disarmament obligation as mere dictum, “generally… regarded as having minimal authority or value as precedent.” But, in fact, the Court viewed this portion of its opinion as essential to close the gap in international law that they found in the threat or use of nuclear weapons “in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

Ford uses his impressive rhetorical skills to place emphasis on the word “pursue,” making the claim that “pursuit” of negotiation in good faith is all that is required of a party. He uses the term “pursue” to mean “to seek” or “to chase,” rather than in the sense of “to carry something out” or “to continue with something,” meanings that the ICJ likely had in mind in their reaching their opinion that negotiations must not only be pursued but brought “to a conclusion.”

It seems unlikely that the non-nuclear weapon states would have been (or now would be) satisfied with Ford’s view of “pursue.” Like the bold lover on the Grecian Urn in Keat’s famous Ode, the non-nuclear weapon states would be denied their reward “[t]hough winning near the goal.” In other words, they could only watch as the nuclear weapons states pursued the goal of negotiations on nuclear disarmament without real hope that the goal would ever be reached.

Article VI of the NPT makes far more sense when the emphasis is placed on the “good faith” of the parties in pursuing (as in carrying out) negotiations for nuclear disarmament. Ford’s parsing of words literally deprives Article VI of meaning as he seeks to exonerate the US for its failure to act in good faith.

Ford is predictably also dismissive of the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament that were adopted by consensus in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. He argues, “Structurally, contextually, and grammatically…the 13 Steps amount to no more than any other political declaration by a convocation of national representatives: their statement of belief, at that time, regarding what would be best.” Since the United States has also been dismissive of the 13 Practical Steps, Ford is certainly in line with US policy on this point.

The 13 Practical Steps call for, inter alia, ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), applying the principle of irreversibility to nuclear disarmament, conclusion of START III, preserving and strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and “[a]n unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI.”

The United States has, in fact, failed to ratify the CTBT, explicitly not applied the principle of irreversibility in negotiating the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) in 2002, failed to negotiate START III with the Russians, withdrawn from the ABM Treaty to pursue missile defenses and space weaponization, and not made the “unequivocal undertaking…to which all states are committed under Article VI.”

Despite Mr. Ford’s protestations concerning Article VI and his argument that “the United States has made enormous progress” on nuclear disarmament, the facts remain that the US still relies heavily on its nuclear arsenal, is the only country capable of leading the way toward a world free of nuclear weapons, and has not done nearly enough to rid the world nor its own citizens of the existential threats posed by nuclear weapons. The US, for example, has continued to maintain a significant portion of its nuclear arsenal on hair-trigger alert, has sought to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, has failed to initiate a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons, and in 2007 voted against all 15 nuclear disarmament measures that came before the United Nations General Assembly.

From a practical point of view, this means that other nuclear weapons states will continue to rely upon their nuclear arms for what they believe provides for their security. In fact, as the nuclear weapons states continue to rely upon these weapons, other states will choose to provide such “security” for themselves, and nuclear weapons will proliferate, eventually ending up in the hands of extremist organizations that cannot be deterred from using them against even the most powerful states. In other words, while Mr. Ford’s rationalizations and analysis (“…it would be unfair and inaccurate to extend any special Article VI compliance criticism to the United States”) may provide comforting justifications for some, they in fact contribute to a sense of nuclear complacency that undermines US security and progress on nuclear disarmament.

It will not be possible to maintain indefinitely the double standards on which the NPT was formulated and which can only be cured by achieving the nuclear disarmament provision in Article VI of the treaty. This will require substantially more effort than pursuing good faith negotiations; it will require actual good faith. US leaders would do well to set aside Mr. Ford’s approach to papering over US failures to act in good faith with a thin veneer of rhetorical justifications and legal advocacy, and get down to the serious business of leading a global effort to eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us.

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

June 24, 2008
Remarks at Occidental College

Acceptance speech for Alumnus of the Year award at Occidental College on June 14, 2008

Thank you. It’s great to be back at Oxy after these many years, and I am very honored to be recognized in this way. Being here brings back wonderful memories.

I’d like to begin by sharing a poem.

THE ONE-HEARTED

The one-hearted walk a lonely trail. They hold the dream of peace between the moon’s eclipse and the rising sun. They set down their weapons, carrying instead the spirits of their ancestors, a collection of smooth stones.

At night, they make fires, and watch the smoke rise into the starlit sky. They are warriors of hope, navigating oceans and crossing continents.

Their message is simple: Now is the time for peace. It always has been.

Since the Vietnam War, when I was a soldier by chance, not by choice, I have fought against militarism, against the needless slaughter of innocents in the false name of security, against the induction of young men, and now young women, into the military on the false premises of valor and necessity. I have fought for justice, for there can be no peace without justice, and I have fought for conscience, for conscience above all else makes us human, and no military machine has the right to dictate or suppress the conscience of any person.

During our lifetimes, our country has initiated aggressive war on far too many occasions, including the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which there has been no accountability. Even worse, if this is possible, our country and others have engaged in a mad nuclear arms race, preparing for omnicide, for the annihilation of all, in naïve reliance on the theory of deterrence. Even now, with the Cold War nearly two decades behind us, with no explanation but lethargy and inertia, leaders of the nuclear weapons states, and particularly leaders of the United States, continue to hold the world, including our own children and all future generations, hostage to the furious and untamed nuclear might we have created and unloosed upon the world.

There is no goal more worthy of our attention and action than that of ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity. I have had the privilege of friendship with Joseph Rotblat, the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project as a matter of conscience and the 1995 Nobel Peace Laureate. His great refrain until he died at the age of 96, echoed from the 1955 Russell-Einstein Manifesto, to which he was the youngest signer, was this: “Remember your humanity and forget the rest.”

I have had the privilege of knowing many hibakusha, survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who have warned repeatedly that nuclear weapons and human beings cannot coexist. If we must choose, must we not choose humanity, the vitality of life, all the great accomplishments of the past and the future’s rich potential, over the raw, indecent and murderous power of nuclear arms?

What is it that breeds ignorance and apathy in our country, a country that claims to be the world’s greatest democracy? What is it in our makeup and education that allows us to remain complacent in the face of world-ending weapons of our own making? What is it that makes us celebrate our genius in creating the tools of our own demise? Are our imaginations too weak and our vision too blurred to understand the fate that awaits us if we do not control and eliminate this threat to our common future?

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which I helped to found and have led for the past 26 years, works to abolish nuclear weapons, strengthen international law and empower a new generation of peace leaders. You can find out more at www.wagingpeace.org. I urge you to join us in this work to build a better future for humanity.

There is an Indian Proverb which states, “All of the flowers of all the tomorrows are in the seeds of today.” We must nurture, with all our human capacities, the seeds of peace and human dignity which have been tended so poorly for so long.

The time has come for new energy and leadership to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity, to restore and maintain peace, to live up to the highest standards of human rights, and to repair America’s tattered image in the world. This is a moment of hope for our country and the world. Change is coming, if we choose it. Now is the time for the one-hearted: “Their message is simple: Now is the time for peace. It always has been.”

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He was recognized on June 14, 2008 as the Occidental College Alumnus of the Year.

June 14, 2008
Firings and Hirings: the US Nuclear Arsenal Versus the People

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has announced the firing of two top Air Force officials for failure to adequately secure the nation’s nuclear weapons, citing a report that found a “problem…not effectively addressed for over a decade.” The individuals fired were the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff. That’s fine, as far as it goes. But why stop there?

The firing of these two men suggests that the problem is the adequate safeguarding of nuclear weapons and materials in the US arsenal. That is a serious problem, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Even if we could assure the security of all US nuclear weapons, we would not have dealt with the larger problem of assuring the security of US citizens from nuclear weapons. It is not only our own nuclear weapons we must worry about, but those of all other nuclear weapon states as well.

What most Americans don’t realize is that nuclear weapons do not and cannot protect us. They are not a defensive shield. All we can do with nuclear weapons is threaten their use against a country that would attack us and then hope that our threat is adequately communicated and believed, and that the leadership on the other side behaves rationally. In other words, deterrence (threat of retaliation) is a theory about how people may behave, and not a means of defense. We are staking the future of our country and the world on deterrence working under all circumstances. Whoever came up with this concept should be fired immediately.

In fact, some of the strongest proponents of deterrence during the Cold War are now calling for US leadership for a nuclear weapons-free world, precisely because they have concerns about the capacity of deterrence to provide for US security. Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz have joined with former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn in pressing for a new approach to US nuclear policy. They wrote in a January 2007 Wall Street Journal article, “We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal.”

Working to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons will require far more than firing two air force officials. In the current administration, it would require firing the president. He has failed to pursue US obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; threatened preemptive use of nuclear weapons; kept US nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert status; sought to develop new nuclear weapons; failed to support US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to pursue missile defenses (or, more accurately, missile offenses); and has blocked proposals by Russia and China to ban the weaponization of space. The one nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia that the president achieved, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), does not go as low in the number of weapons as the Russians proposed, has no provisions for verification, requires no dismantling of weapons taken off deployed status, and ends on December 31, 2012.

Both major party presidential candidates have said in general terms that they support the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. McCain stated that he shares Ronald Reagan’s dream “to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.” However, he characterizes that dream as “a distant and difficult goal.”

Barack Obama has 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.”

Both candidates are short on details of how they intend to move forward. It is the responsibility of the American people to assure that the next president they elect have a solid plan for getting from where we are now to a world free of nuclear weapons and that he be ready to begin the process on his first day in office. It is certain that without determined US leadership a nuclear weapons-free world will remain a distant goal and the security of the American people will continue to be endangered by the threat of nuclear war, by design or accident, and by nuclear terrorism; and further, that our current arsenal of some 10,000 nuclear weapons will provide us with no protection.

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The Foundation’s Appeal to the Next President can be signed at www.wagingpeace.org/appeal.

June 6, 2008

Nuclear Weapons and Future Justice

Future justice requires that the inhabitants of the future be treated justly and equitably. This implies that our current social, economic and political relations, both nationally and internationally, become more just and equitable. It also adds an explicit focus on the longer term consequences of these relations. The decisions taken in the present must be made with a view to their effect upon future generations.

Many indigenous peoples lived with an ethic of considering present impacts on the “seventh generation.” Modern societies have been far less respectful of those who will follow us on the planet, as the expanding population of the planet combined with our greed for natural resources and the power of our technologies has exponentially increased the human impact upon the Earth and upon future generations.

We need an ethic that expands our concept of justice to generations yet unborn. We need to recognize and appreciate the extent to which our decisions and acts in the present have serious, potentially irreversible, consequences for the future. In the 1990s, The Cousteau Society, led by respected ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau, developed and promoted a Bill of Rights for Future Generations. Its five articles are:

Article 1. Future generations have a right to an uncontaminated and undamaged Earth and to its enjoyment as the ground of human history, of culture, and of the social bonds that make each generation and individual a member of one human family.

Article 2. Each generation, sharing in the estate and heritage of the Earth, has a duty as trustee for future generations to prevent irreversible and irreparable harm to life on Earth and to human freedom and dignity.

Article 3. It is, therefore, the paramount responsibility of each generation to maintain a constantly vigilant and prudential assessment of technological disturbances and modifications adversely affecting life on Earth, the balance of nature, and the evolution of mankind in order to protect the rights of future generations.

Article 4. All appropriate measures, including education, research, and legislation, shall be taken to guarantee these rights and to ensure that they not be sacrificed for present expediencies and conveniences.

Article 5. Governments, non-governmental organizations, and individuals are urged, therefore, imaginatively to implement these principles, as if in the very presence of those future generations whose rights we seek to establish and perpetuate.

To enforce such a set of rights for future generations, we need to create a criminal conceptualization that designates the worst offenses against these rights as crimes against future generations, the worst crimes being those that would foreclose the future altogether or that would make life on the planet untenable. Two areas of human activity that would clearly fit into this category of foreclosing the future are nuclear war and climate change. Both have the potential to destroy human life on our planet, along with much other life.

Responsibilities towards Future Generations

Rights cannot exist in a vacuum. Along with rights, there must be concomitant responsibilities, including responsibilities to assure the rights of future generations. On November 12, 1997, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) solemnly proclaimed the UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of Current Generations towards Future Generations. The Declaration was composed of 12 Articles covering a full range of responsibilities towards future generations. The two Articles most closely related to preserving a human future and a future for life on the planet are Articles 3 and 4.

Article 3 – Maintenance and perpetuation of humankind – The present generations should strive to ensure the maintenance and perpetuation of humankind with due respect for the dignity of the human person. Consequently, the nature and form of human life must not be undermined in any way whatsoever.

Article 4 – Preservation of life on Earth – The present generations have the responsibility to bequeath to future generations an Earth which will not one day be irreversibly damaged by human activity. Each generation inheriting the Earth temporarily should take care to use natural resources reasonably and ensure that life is not prejudiced by harmful modifications of the ecosystems and that scientific and technological progress in all fields does not harm life on Earth.

The Declaration calls for “intergenerational solidarity.” Such solidarity with future generations requires that current generations take responsibility for assuring that the policies of those in power today will not lead to foreclosing the future for generations yet to be born. Thus, the importance of conceptualizing crimes against future generations cannot be evaded by the people of the present. A strong example of such crimes can be found in the example of policies promoting the possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons. Such policies constitute assaults upon future generations, as well as upon present life on the planet.

Nuclear Weapons and International Law

In the record of human history, survival chances have been enhanced by affiliation with the tribe and later with the nation-state. Such affiliations have provided a defense against the aggression of other groups. Violent conflicts between tribes and later nations have given rise to the pattern of warfare that has characterized human behavior from its earliest history. Technological innovations in warfare, such as the stirrup, crossbow, machinegun, airplane and submarine have given advantage to one side or another.

What characterizes the Nuclear Age is the innovation of a form of weaponry that makes possible the destruction of the species. Nuclear weapons, which are weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction, have the capacity to foreclose the future of human life on the planet. The philosopher John Somerville coined a new term for the potential of nuclear weapons – omnicide, meaning the death of all. He reasoned that humans had moved from suicide, to genocide, to the potential of omnicide. The threat or use of nuclear weapons constitutes the ultimate crime against the future, the crime of omnicide, including the destruction of the human species.

In 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The Court found, “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.” It further found that “the use of nuclear weapons would be a serious danger to future generations.” Even setting aside the blast effects of nuclear weapons, the Court found, “Ionizing radiation has the potential to damage the future environment, food and marine ecosystem, and to cause genetic defects and illness in future generations.”

The Court unanimously concluded that any threat or use of nuclear weapons that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal. This meant that there could be no legal threat or use of nuclear weapons that was indiscriminate as between civilians and combatants, that caused unnecessary suffering, or that was disproportionate to a prior attack. Despite the fact that there could be virtually no threat or use of nuclear weapons that did not violate international humanitarian law, the Court also found on a split vote that “in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

In light of the above conclusions, the Court found unanimously, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” Thus, the Court was clear in reaffirming the obligation to nuclear disarmament in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Although this aspect of the Court’s opinion does not specifically refer to the rights of future generations, adherence by the nuclear weapons states to “nuclear disarmament in all its aspects” would eliminate the possibility of nuclear weapons foreclosing the future by eliminating the weapons. Unfortunately, the political leaders of the nuclear weapons states have not fulfilled their obligations under international law.

Nuclear Weapons Possession as Criminal Behavior

Today there are nine states in the world that possess nuclear weapons: the US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. If we know that nuclear war could foreclose the future and would be a crime against future generations, does that make the possession of nuclear weapons by these states a crime against the future? Arguably, possession alone, without use or threat of use, is not a crime. But to take the inquiry one step deeper, is it possible that there can be possession without at least the implicit threat of use? In order to eliminate the possibility of threat or use of nuclear weapons, a state at a minimum would need to have a policy of “No First Use,” and would have to separate its warheads from delivery vehicles so that there could not be an inadvertent use of the weapons. While this would be better nuclear policy than one that left open the possibility of first use, it would not eliminate the possibility of a second use of the weapons, which would escalate a nuclear war, kill great numbers of innocent civilians, impact the health of children of the victims and even place the future of humanity at risk. Thus, the conclusion seems inescapable that the possessionof nuclear weapons by a state undermines future justice and constitutes a continuing crime against future generations.

Individual Accountability for Criminal Acts

The possession of nuclear weapons can be viewed as a crime of state, and this crime would apply to the nine states in possession of nuclear weapons. But beyond state criminal activity, there should also be culpability for the crime against the future by the leading state and military officials that support and promote nuclear weapons possession, as well as policies that make nuclear war more likely and total nuclear disarmament less likely. In addition, corporations, corporate executives and scientists who contribute to the maintenance and improvement of nuclear weapons should also be considered culpable for committing a crime against future generations.

It is fundamental to criminal law that individuals have culpability for crimes, and that individual accountability not be covered over by state or corporate culpability. At the Nuremburg Tribunals following World War II, the principle was upheld that all individuals who commit crimes under international law are responsible for such acts, and this is true even if they are high government officials and domestic law does not hold such acts to be crimes. Along with responsibility goes individual accountability for crimes against future generations.

The Need for a Taboo against Nuclear Arms

In the present global environment, the possession of nuclear weapons is not viewed as a crime against future generations or even broadly as a crime against the present, but rather as a normative behavior of powerful states. There is a strong need to change this general orientation toward nuclear weapons through education about their dangers and their capacity to foreclose the future. One of the best reasons to eliminate nuclear weapons is that they have the potential to eliminate the human species, now or in the future. So long as nuclear weapons exist and are held in the arsenals of some countries, the danger of the use of these weapons under some conditions, by accident or design, cannot be entirely excluded. In addition, the existence of these weapons in the arsenals of some states creates pressures for other states to acquire such weaponry.

It is essential to establish a norm that the possession of nuclear weapons is a crime against future generations, a crime that can only be prevented by the total elimination of these weapons. A taboo must be established that puts nuclear weapons in the same category of unacceptable behaviors as cannibalism, incest, slavery and torture, a taboo that ostracizes those who contribute to maintaining these weapons and who set up obstacles to their elimination.

Signs of Hope

The vast majority of states in the world support a world free of nuclear weapons.
The vast majority of US and Russian citizens support a world free of nuclear weapons.
More than 2100 mayors in some 125 countries throughout the world support the Mayors for Peace 2020 Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons by the year 2020.
More than half the world, virtually the entire southern hemisphere, is covered by nuclear weapons-free zones.
Former high-level US policy makers, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn, have spoken out in favor a world free of nuclear weapons.
Norway’s government pension fund has set a powerful example by divesting from companies providing components for nuclear weapons.
Legal measures to return to the International Court of Justice are being taken to challenge the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament obligations.
University students are showing increased concern for university involvement in nuclear weapons research and development.
Leading scientists, including the late Nobel Laureates Hans Bethe and Joseph Rotblat, are calling upon scientists in all countries to cease working on nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
UK Minister of Defense Des Browne has proposed a conference of the five principal nuclear weapons states to address the technical challenges of verifying nuclear disarmament.

Providing Hope with Teeth

While these signs of hope hold promise, far more needs to be done to establish a taboo against the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons that will result in a world free of nuclear weapons. Organizations such as the World Future Council need to take a leadership role in promoting the concept of future justice and crimes against future generations, identifying those particular crimes, such as nuclear war and the antecedent possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons, which are capable of foreclosing the future.

Those of us alive on the planet now are the trustees for future generations. We have the responsibility to assist in passing the world on intact to the next generation. We must act in intergenerational solidarity with those who are not yet present. In the words of the Cousteau Society’s Bill of Right for Future Generations, we must act “as if in the very presence of those future generations whose rights we seek to establish and perpetuate.”

Among the tools needed to succeed in passing the world on intact to future generations is the identification of crimes against future generations to underpin the establishment of taboos against such crimes. Also needed is a system of accountability to ostracize and otherwise punish individuals, regardless of their office, who are engaged in the preparation or commission of such crimes. The possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons is unquestionably among the most serious of these crimes. Future justice is not a possibility in a world without a future.

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

May 15, 2008