Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

  • The Good Name of War

    From where does this good name arise that we are content to sacrifice and value war above that we love far more?

    Is it tales of glory and yet bolder lies wrapped in flags and mythic warrior lore that lead our children off to war?

    If war is the best we can devise to give meaning to our lives and touch our core, are we not then truly lost?

    Would that we could recognize that this false good name of futile war comes with a fierce debilitating cost.

    Does the wearisome brutality of war bring us comfort, seem a cure? In such a world can love endure?

    Pity that we live with war, pity that we send our children off to die among the rats, among the flies.

    For rippling flags and lowly lies we hide the truth of what’s in store, preserving the good name of war.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), and a leader in the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons.

  • Jakob von Uexkull Speaks on Humanity’s Future

    Jakob von Uexkull, a former member of the European Parliament, recently delivered the 6th Annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future in Santa Barbara, California. The lecture series, a project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, honors Frank K. Kelly, a founder and Senior Vice President of the Foundation.

    The lecture series was created in the belief that humanity’s future deserves our consideration and best thinking. Our future today is imperiled by the power of human-created technologies that threaten civilization and even human survival on the planet. Those who will inhabit the future deserve our advocacy and our stewardship of the planet. Those alive today have no right to threaten the future of humanity by depleting or seriously diminishing the resources of the planet or by destroying the environment of those who will follow. Rather, we have a moral responsibility to preserve the planet and to pass it on intact to future generations.

    Jakob von Uexkull was born in Sweden and currently resides in London. He is one of the world’s leading visionaries, and is a man who has acted upon his vision to create a better world. Understanding the power of the Nobel Prizes, he went to the Nobel Foundation over 25 years ago with a proposal to add two new categories to their award prizes: one for protecting the environment and one for alleviating poverty. He even offered to raise the funds to support these awards.

    After consideration, the Nobel Foundation, which had added only one new award to the initial awards, said no to his request. Von Uexkull then decided to move forward on his own with these new awards, which he named the Right Livelihood Awards (www.rightlivelihood.org). He funded the first awards with the sale of his stamp collection. The first awards were presented in Stockholm on December 9, 1980, the day before the presentation of the Nobel Prizes.

    At first, the Swedish press questioned whether von Uexkull was working for the CIA or the KGB in seeking to undermine the Nobel Prizes. The next year the press ridiculed the awards. But within five years, the awards were being presented in the Swedish Parliament and soon became known as the “Alternative Nobel Prizes.”

    The Right Livelihood Awards have now been presented for more than 25 years, and each year three or four recipients of the Award split a prize of approximately $250,000. Awards have been made to more than 100 leaders throughout the world who are working in the areas of environmental protection and sustainability, development and poverty alleviation, peace and human rights.

    The overwhelming majority of Nobel Prizes go to American and European men, with countries in the southern hemisphere having received only 11 percent of the Nobel Prizes. By contrast, 44 percent of the Right Livelihood Awards have been made to groups and individuals in the Global South. Women have received only five percent of the Nobel Prizes, whereas women, including women-led organizations, have received 34 percent of the Right Livelihood Awards.

    Von Uexkull’s latest innovative project is the World Future Council (www.worldfuturecouncil.org) . The purpose of the Council is to bring together wise elders, pioneers and youth leaders to be a voice for shared human values and for fulfilling our responsibilities to future generations. The Council will recommend best practices to ensure a positive future for humanity. The first meeting of the Council will take place in Hamburg, Germany in May 2007.

    The title of von Uexkull’s Kelly Lecture is “Globalization: Values, Responsibility and Global Justice.” It will be posted on the Foundation’s www.wagingpeace.org website. A DVD of the talk will also be available from the Foundation. Previous Kelly Lectures on Humanity’s Future by Frank K. Kelly, Richard Falk, Anita Roddick, Robert Jay Lifton and Mairead Maguire can also be found at the www.wagingpeace.org website.

     

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

  • Preventing War Against Iran

    The United States is deeply mired in a preventive war of its own making in Iraq with no clear way out. Now the Bush administration is making accusations against Iran and bolstering US forces in the Persian Gulf with two additional naval battle groups.

    Why would the Bush administration contemplate a new war against Iran? How would a war against Iran in any conceivable way benefit the United States? There are no clear answers that explain the Bush administration’s increased threats toward Iran. Yet, despite the president’s statements that he will pursue “robust diplomacy,” the possibility that the United States will launch an attack against Iran cannot be dismissed.

    The Bush administration has continued trumpeting the fear that Iran may develop nuclear weapons, a technological possibility because of the uranium enrichment program it is pursuing. This charge, however, is not credible, at least in the near-term. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei reports there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The CIA indicates that it would take Iran a decade to develop nuclear weapons, if that were its intention. Thus, the charge that Iran is on the brink of becoming a nuclear weapons state appears farfetched. The charge, and the lack of evidence to support it, is ominously similar to the spurious claims the Bush administration leveled against Iraq as a cause for initiating that war.

    More recently, the Bush administration has floated a new charge that Iran has provided Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) to insurgents in Iraq, even suggesting that the devices were responsible for the deaths of some 170 Americans. The administration has put forward little supporting information to substantiate its claim, and the government of Iran denies the allegation. It may be possible that Iranians are giving some support to Iraqi Shiites, but is this adequate cause to attack Iran and initiate a war with a country of some 70 million people? This is highly doubtful, unless the US is prepared to pay an even heavier price in blood and treasure than it is already paying in Iraq.

    Perhaps Mr. Bush thinks that he can bring democracy to another country in the Middle East, but this hasn’t worked out in Iraq and it is even less likely to happen in Iran. This is particularly true since US military forces are already stretched so thin that there would be little possibility for the US to put “boots on the ground” in Iran. A war against Iran would likely be an air war, a prolonged demonstration of “shock and awe.”

    What else could be motivating the Bush administration to pursue a war against Iran? Is it that the administration wishes to support Israel, which views Iran as a significant threat? Is it that Iran, like Iraq before it, is talking about changing its currency for oil revenues to Euros? Could it be that Mr. Bush likes being a “war president,” and, rather than accept defeat in Iraq, is seeking to widen the war by extending it to Iran?

    It is possible that the administration’s threatening behavior toward Iran is merely muscle flexing to strengthen the US hand in negotiations, but this possibility cannot be relied upon, particularly in light of the manner in which the Bush administration initiated the Iraq War.

    There have been reports by respected journalist Seymour Hersh that the US has contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. Even rumors of the US planning to use nuclear weapons preemptively against Iran should raise serious concerns in the halls of Congress and throughout the country. Nuclear weapons concentrate power in the hands of a single individual, undermining democracy and the future of global security.

    Congress opened the door for Mr. Bush’s attack against Iraq. Whatever the administration’s motives may be for its threatening behavior regarding Iran, Congress should now be responsible for closing the door to a US attack on another country. Speaker of the House Pelosi has said, “…Congress should assert itself…and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran.”

    Congress should act proactively and go on record before it is too late, foreclosing the president from attacking Iran without specific Congressional authorization, as well as appropriate authorization by the United Nations Security Council. The hour is late, but not too late, for Congress to assert its Constitutional responsibility.

    Senator Robert Byrd, among other Senators and members of Congress, has already put forward a resolution that requires Congressional approval of any offensive US military action taken against another country. In introducing Senate Resolution 39 on January 24, 2007, Senator Byrd stated, “I am introducing a resolution that clearly states that it is Congress…not the President – that is vested with the ultimate decision on whether to take this country to war against another country.” He called his resolution “a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption, which proposes that the President – any President – may strike another country before that country threatens us….”

    As bad as things are in Iraq – and there is no doubt that they are bad – for Mr. Bush to initiate a new war by attacking Iran would only make matters worse for the United States. The US needs to pursue an exit strategy from Iraq, not a preemptive war against yet another country that has not attacked the United States. The Congress of the United States needs to go on record now to assure that Mr. Bush understands this and the limits of his authority under the Constitution.

     

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

  • Congress Must Act to Stop a US Attack on Iran

    George Bush has already lost the illegal war of aggression that he initiated in Iraq. In the process, he has spent enormous sums of money, stretched the US military to the breaking point, undermined international law and the US Constitution, been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well as more US citizens than died on September 11, 2001, and brought respect for the United States to new lows throughout the world. He now appears poised to initiate a new war against Iran.

    In advance of the war against Iraq, Mr. Bush moved US forces into the region. In an ominously reminiscent set of maneuvers, he has already moved two naval battle groups into the Persian Gulf, and has another battle group on the way. It is likely that Mr. Bush will opt for air attacks against Iran rather than “boots on the ground,” as too many US troops are already tied up in Iraq. There should be grave concerns about Mr. Bush’s inability to think strategically beyond threat and attack, given the dismal consequences of his actions in Iraq.

    Mr. Bush believed our forces would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. One wonders what Mr. Bush thinks will happen if he attacks Iran, a regional power in the Middle East. The US could end up bogged down in the Middle East for decades. There have also been reports by respected journalist Seymour Hersh that the US military has contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, an act of terrorism that could open a global Pandora’s Box.

    Speaking recently to a security forum in Munich, Russian President Vladimir Putin had some strong criticism for the Bush policies. While Mr. Putin’s credentials are far from impeccable, his words bear consideration. “One state, the United States,” he said, “overstepped its national borders in every way.” Putin observed, “It is a world of one master, one sovereign…it has nothing to do with democracy. This is nourishing the wish of countries to get nuclear weapons.” Mr. Putin was particularly critical of the way in which the United States is undermining international law.

    Congress opened the door for Mr. Bush’s attack against Iraq. Congress should now be responsible for closing the door to a US attack on Iran. Congress should go on record before it is too late foreclosing the president from attacking Iran without specific Congressional authorization as well as appropriate authorization by the United Nations Security Council. The hour is late, but not too late, for Congress to assert its Constitutional responsibility. Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war and allocate funding for war.

    Senator Robert Byrd has already put forward a resolution that requires Congressional approval of any offensive US military action taken against another country. In introducing Senate Resolution 39 on January 24, 2007, Senator Byrd stated, “I am introducing a resolution that clearly states that it is Congress…not the President – that is vested with the ultimate decision on whether to take this country to war against another country.” He called his resolution “a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption, which proposes that the President – any President – may strike another country before that country threatens us….”

    As bad as things are in Iraq – and there is no doubt that they are bad – for Mr. Bush to initiate a new war by attacking Iran would only make matters worse for the United States. The US needs to pursue an exit strategy for Iraq, not a preemptive attack against yet another country that has not attacked the United States. Through its actions, the US needs to return to respecting and supporting international law. The Congress of the United States needs to go on record now to assure that Mr. Bush understands this and the limits of his authority under the Constitution.

     

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

  • Worth Contemplating

    Worth Contemplating

    It is worth contemplating that the man who told the American people and their Congress that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction necessitating war, who took us to war illegally, who has branded innocent men as “enemy combatants” and held them illegally at Guantanamo, who is responsible for torture at Abu Ghraib prison, who authorized the rendition of suspects so they could be tortured in other countries, whose war in Iraq has led to over 3,000 American deaths, more than occurred on 9/11, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, who has stretched our military so thin it may be unable to protect the country in the case of a real crisis, who always asserted he took orders from his commanders “on the ground” and then fired the commanders who gave him advice he didn’t want to hear, who now offers us “the surge” as a last desperate attempt to save his own reputation at the expense of American soldiers, is the same man who has his finger on the nuclear button, believes in preemptive war and has warned that all options are on the table, including the nuclear option.

  • Citizens’ Tribunal Finds Watada Acted Legally

    Citizens’ Tribunal Finds Watada Acted Legally

    A Citizens’ Hearing on the Legality of US Actions in Iraq was held in Tacoma, Washington on January 20-21, 2007. The Citizens’ Hearing was organized in response to US Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq on grounds that the war is illegal, and in the belief that when government fails to act responsibly and legally it is the duty of citizens in a democracy to act.

    Lt. Watada faces a court martial on February 5, 2007 at Fort Lewis, Washington for failing to deploy with his Stryker Brigade to Iraq and for “conduct unbecoming of an officer.” The military judge has refused to allow Lt. Watada to raise a Nuremberg defense, the basis of which is his contention that the war in Iraq is illegal and therefore orders to deploy to the war are illegal.

    The Citizens’ Hearing Panel, which I chaired, was composed of twelve citizens, who heard testimony on the issue of the illegality of the war – testimony that would have been introduced at Lt. Watada’s court martial if the military judge had allowed it. A majority of the Panel consisted of US military veterans going back to World War II, as well as a military family member, a Gold Star family member, a government leader, a religious leader, a union member and a high school student.

    The Panel heard testimony on four principal issues: whether the war in Iraq was an illegal war of aggression and thus a crime against peace; whether a systematic pattern of war crimes have been committed by US forces in Iraq; whether crimes against humanity have been committed; and whether a US military officer has a duty to refuse illegal orders. Testimony was presented by Iraq War veterans, experts in international law and diplomats.

    The testimony of the experts in international law was clear that the war in Iraq was initiated illegally. The US invasion of Iraq did not comply with the United Nations Charter, in that it was not authorized by the UN Security Council, nor was it required for immediate self-defense. It was a war of aggression, violating international law and the United States Constitution. Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution makes the United Nations Charter, a treaty duly signed and ratified by the US government, a part of the “supreme Law of the Land.”

    The most powerful testimony presented came from five Iraq War veterans. They described a military training process in which the dehumanization of Iraqis was pervasive, creating an unhealthy environment conducive to the commission of war crimes. The veterans described the constant reference to Iraqis, at all levels of the chain of command, as hajis, ragheads and worse. Some described orders to shoot and kill children.

    One veteran described an instance in which he witnessed a frightened mother and daughter being shot in the back as they ran away from US troops. There was also testimony on the beating and killing of prisoners. The soldiers testified that the atmosphere of targeting civilians did not come simply from the individual soldiers, but from far higher in the command structure.

    The consistent testimony of the Iraq War veterans was that the lives of Iraqis were devalued and that war crimes were systematically committed as a result of the rules of engagement in Iraq. The Panel also received testimony on the systematic torture of Iraqi prisoners and on the use of heavy US weaponry in a manner that failed to discriminate between soldiers and civilians. Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations Denis Halliday described the “shock and awe” initiation of the war as “a terrorist act.”

    Colonel Ann Wright, a former army officer and diplomat, testified that the United States had not met its obligations as an occupying power, and that grave breeches of the Geneva Conventions were occurring regularly in the treatment and torture of prisoners. Colonel Wright and other expert witnesses urged that US leaders be held accountable for their criminal actions.

    There was also testimony on crimes against humanity. Prominent in this testimony was discussion of the systematic destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure, including water facilities, sewage treatment facilities and electric power facilities. One expert, Antonia Juhasz, a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, testified that all the US orders to change Iraq’s laws to provide economic advantage to the US, particularly in relation to Iraq’s oil, were in violation of international law. Thus, all contracts created in this way must be rescinded and the profits returned to the Iraqi people.

    On the critical question regarding Lt. Watada’s refusal of orders, there was strong testimony that soldiers and officers are only required to obey lawful orders. In accord with the Nuremberg Charter and Principles, the US Constitution and US Army Field Manual 27-10, an officer has a duty to act lawfully by refusing to follow illegal orders. Insofar as the war in Iraq is an illegal aggressive war in which war crimes and crimes against humanity are being systematically committed, Lt. Watada acted lawfully in refusing orders to deploy to Iraq. Professor Richard Falk testified that the military judge’s order preventing Watada from presenting evidence on the illegality of the war was “criminally disallowing him from obeying the law.”

    The full report of the Panel of the Citizens’ Hearing will be released soon; some of the testimony is now available on the website www.wartribunal.org. The preliminary, but unanimous, finding of the Panel is that the US has committed crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq. Further, Lt. Watada acted legally and honorably in refusing orders to deploy to Iraq, and his actions are in accord with the oath he took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He was the panel chair and a member of the Jury of Conscience of the World Tribunal on Iraq held in Istanbul in July 2005.
  • Opening Remarks Delivered at the Citizens’ Hearing on the Legality of US Actions in Iraq: The Case of Lt. Ehren Watada

    Opening Remarks Delivered at the Citizens’ Hearing on the Legality of US Actions in Iraq: The Case of Lt. Ehren Watada

    This Citizens’ Hearing was convened to examine the legality of US actions in Iraq. We were prompted and inspired in this effort by the actions of Lt. Ehren Watada, who refused orders to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that the war is illegal, a “crime against peace” as defined in the Nuremberg Principles.

    Lt. Watada has stated, “The war in Iraq is in fact illegal. It is my obligation and my duty to refuse any orders to participate in this war. An order to take part in an illegal war is unlawful in itself. So my obligation is not to follow the order to go to Iraq.”

    We believe that Lt. Watada’s contentions about the illegality of the war deserve a full and fair hearing. Unfortunately, this has been made impossible at his court martial, since the military judge has already ruled that the issue of the legality of the war may not be raised in the defense of Lt. Watada. This ruling cuts out the heart of Lt. Watada’s defense, and denies him the opportunity to make his case before the military court.

    In addition to challenging the legality of the war, Lt. Watada has challenged the manner in which the war and occupation have been conducted. He has stated, “This administration used us for rampant violations of time-tested laws banning torture and degradation of prisoners of war. Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration and the rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crimes.”

    It is Lt. Watada’s deeply held conviction that as an officer in the United States Army, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, he cannot follow orders to participate in the Iraq War, nor lead the men and women assigned to his command to do what he believes is illegal. “How,” he has asked, “could I order other men to die for something I believe is wrong?”

    The implications of Lt. Watada being correct in his assessment of the war are extremely significant. Such a finding would mean that all officers and soldiers have an obligation under the Nuremberg Charter and Principles, the United States Constitution and US military regulations to refuse orders to participate in this war. Further, this finding would have repercussions that could implicate individuals at the highest levels of the US government in the same crimes tried at Nuremberg after World War II: crimes against the peace; war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    The fourth of the Nuremberg Principles says that superior orders are not a defense to the commission of an illegal act. This is echoed in US Army Field Manual 27-10. The military court, however, intends to focus only on whether or not the order was obeyed, rather than upon the legality of the order. By narrowing the scope of the inquiry, the military tramples upon international law and the Nuremberg Principle of individual accountability.

    In a second ruling, on issues of permissible speech, the military judge found that Lt. Watada’s criticism of the war was not shielded by his First Amendment right to free speech. This means, in essence, that though officers in the Armed Forces may be asked to give their lives for their country, the truth of their assertions regarding the illegality of US actions is not even a matter to be considered in charges of “conduct unbecoming of an officer.”

    The combination of the military judge’s rulings in the Watada case makes it virtually impossible for Lt Watada to obtain legal relief in a military court. These rulings also make a mockery of the Nuremberg Charter and the Nuremberg Principles established by the United Nations International Law Commission following the Nuremberg Tribunals. The military judge’s ruling would certainly be repugnant to US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was the chief prosecutor for the United States at the Nuremberg Tribunal. Jackson believed strongly that history would judge the United States by how it applied the Nuremberg standards to its own leaders in the future.

    “We must never forget,” Jackson said, “that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

    What makes this Citizens’ Hearing critically important is that it provides a forum for testimony relevant to Lt. Watada’s refusal to deploy and his statements on the illegality of the Iraq War. It is our intention, as citizens of a democracy, to give a full and fair hearing to Lt. Watada’s claims about the illegality of the war. We cannot rectify the denial of Lt. Watada’s rights in the military courts, but we can examine the truth of his claims in a public hearing.

    I would like to explain what this Hearing is and is not. I will start with what it is not.

    • First, and most obviously, this is not a court of law, and no one is on trial here.
    • Second, we are not engaged in a mock trial of any person.
    • Third, we make no claim to impartiality, only to truth.
    • Fourth, this is not an official hearing or commission of the United States government. No government agency has convened or authorized this Hearing.

    The authority for this Hearing stems from the power vested in citizens in a democracy to become informed, speak out and play a role in the process of determining national policy. This is a Citizens’ Hearing; one organized and composed of citizens – those in whom the foundational power of the state vests in a democracy. The impetus for the Citizens’ Hearing evolved from three principal concerns.

    First, that Lt. Watada will not receive a full and fair trial at his court martial, inasmuch as Lt. Watada will not be able to raise a Nuremberg-based defense to his contention regarding the illegality of the war and his speech will not be protected by First Amendment rights.

    Second, that the war in Iraq may be illegal, and this issue deserves close scrutiny, expert testimony and the full engagement of the public.

    Third, that it is both a right and responsibility of citizens in a democracy to oversee the actions of their government, and this holds particularly true with regard to government conduct on issues of war and peace.

    This Citizens’ Hearing will be conducted in the manner of a hearing held before a committee of the Congress. It will be a hearing that seeks to elicit evidence, reach conclusions, and make these conclusions known to a broader public. Over the next two days the Panel of this Citizens’ Hearing will receive testimony related to the legality of US actions in Iraq. Specifically, this Hearing will focus on the following questions:

    1. Is the war in Iraq an illegal war of aggression, causing the invasion of Iraq by the United States and the “coalition of the willing” to constitute a crime against peace?
    2. Have US actions in the hostilities in Iraq been such as to constitute a pattern of war crimes?
    3. Does the ongoing occupation of Iraq constitute a crime against humanity?
    4. Does a member of the United States Armed Forces have a duty under the Nuremberg Principles, the US Constitution and US military regulations to refuse to follow an order to participate in an illegal war?

    This Hearing will seek to answer these questions based upon the testimony provided by eyewitness and expert witnesses. At the end of the Hearing, the Panel will prepare and release a Final Statement containing its findings. The Final Statement will be sent to every member of the United States Congress. We hope that the findings will also be widely distributed by the media throughout the country, and will cause our fellow citizens to give greater consideration to the challenge that Lt. Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq on grounds of illegality presents to each of us as Americans.

    We act here at this Citizens’ Hearing in the belief that the testimony and Final Statement that will be produced will provide important information and conclusions relevant not only to the court martial of Lt. Watada, but additionally to all members of the Armed Forces and to every American citizen. If the war and occupation are found to be illegal and in violation of the United States Constitution, then each of us as a citizen bears some portion of responsibility. If this is, in fact, the finding and citizens choose to accept this responsibility, then the leaders who initiated and directed this war, far more than a lone Lieutenant, should be held to account for their actions under international law and the United States Constitution.

    I declare this Citizens’ Hearing open. We on the Panel pledge to seek the truth and to act with justice.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He was the panel chair and a member of the Jury of Conscience of the World Tribunal on Iraq held in Istanbul in July 2005.
  • It’s Time For a Plan to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    It’s Time For a Plan to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    In early January 2007, a surprising commentary appeared in the Wall Street Journal pleading for US leadership to move toward a world free of nuclear weapons. The surprise emanated from the identity of the writers: four prominent former high-level US foreign and defense policy officials, a bipartisan group with impeccable hawkish credentials – George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn.

    In their welcome if belated statement of concern about nuclear dangers, they harkened back to the 1986 summit at Reykjavik, where Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev came close to an agreement to rid the world of nuclear weapons. “Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons,” they wrote, “and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America’s moral heritage. The effort could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations.”

    The four men who signed this commentary might have harkened back even further. In the 1960s, John F. Kennedy likened nuclear weapons to a nuclear sword of Damocles, “hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness.” Kennedy concluded, as have the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who experienced the devastatingly destructive nuclear attacks at the end of World War II, that nuclear weapons “must be abolished before they abolish us.”

    It should be of deep concern to all Americans that more than a decade and a half after the end of the Cold War, the danger of the spread and use of nuclear weapons has not substantially diminished and has quite possibly increased. Moreover, it has become increasingly apparent that nuclear weapons may give far more leverage to relatively weak actors, such as terrorist groups, than they do to even the most powerful nations.

    In one of his last speeches at the conclusion of his ten-year tenure as Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan pointedly directed his remarks to the extreme dangers humanity faces due to the failure to eliminate nuclear weapons. He argued, “The one area where there is a total lack of any common strategy is the one that may well present the greatest danger of all: the area of nuclear weapons,” and he cited many reasons necessitating a concerted effort to both prevent proliferation and achieve nuclear disarmament.

    The lynchpin of Annan’s proposal, however, was the specific need for the nuclear weapons states to take action on their nuclear disarmament commitments. “I call on all the States with nuclear weapons,” he said, “to develop concrete plans -– with specific timetables -– for implementing their disarmament commitments. And I urge them to make a joint declaration of intent to achieve the progressive elimination of all nuclear weapons, under strict and effective international control.”

    There can be no doubt that a plan to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons is critically needed and should animate a national, indeed a global, dialogue. Nuclear weapons endanger our nation and the world. These weapons are capable of destroying cities and countries, including our own, and could put an end to civilization. They are tools of our own making that place a dark cloud over the human future. The continued reliance upon these weapons by the United States and other nuclear weapons states is a provocation to other countries to do the same and could lead to a breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

    Terrorists cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons because they cannot be located, and if terrorists gain possession of nuclear weapons they cannot be prevented from using them by threat of retaliation. The security of even a military superpower such as the United States could be dramatically undercut by a single terrorist group with just one nuclear weapon. Such is the leverage of nuclear weapons: they favor the weak over the strong.

    A consensus is finally building behind the conviction that the abolition of nuclear weapons is necessary and that US leadership is urgently needed to achieve this goal. Now we need increased momentum to achieve an action plan so that over the next decade nuclear weapons can be eliminated globally in a process that is transparent, verifiable and irreversible. To succeed in reaching this goal will require a new way of thinking that involves increased reliance on international cooperation and diplomacy to achieve security, and adherence by all nations, even the most powerful, to a strengthened body of international law.

    We are facing a challenge that will determine our common future. As Kofi Annan pleaded to the young people at Princeton who he was addressing in his speech, “Help us to seize control of the rogue aircraft on which humanity has embarked, and bring it to a safe landing before it is too late.”

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.
  • A Bipartisan Plea For Nuclear Weapons Abolition

    A Bipartisan Plea For Nuclear Weapons Abolition

    An amazing and important commentary appeared in the January 4, 2007 issue of the Wall Street Journal, co-authored by four high-level architects of the Cold War: George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn. The article, entitled “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” was amazing not so much for what it proposed, but for who was making the proposal. The four prominent former US officials reviewed current nuclear dangers and called for US leadership to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons. Their argument was as follows:

    1. Reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.
    2. Terrorist groups are outside the bounds of deterrence strategy.
    3. We are entering a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, disorienting and costly than was Cold War deterrence.
    4. New nuclear weapons states lack the safeguarding and control experiences learned by the US and USSR during the Cold War.
    5. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty envisioned the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
    6. Non-nuclear weapons states have grown increasingly skeptical of the sincerity of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
    7. There exists an historic opportunity to eliminate nuclear weapons in the world.
    8. To realize this opportunity, bold vision and action are needed.
    9. The US must take the lead and must convince the leaders of the other nuclear weapons states to turn the goal of nuclear weapons abolition into a joint effort.
    10. A number of steps need to be taken to lay the groundwork for a world free of nuclear threat, including de-alerting nuclear arsenals; reducing the size of nuclear arsenals; eliminating tactical nuclear weapons; achieving Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and encouraging other key states to also do so; securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable materials everywhere in the world; and halting production of fissile materials for weapons, ceasing to use enriched uranium in civil commerce and removing weapons-usable uranium from research reactors.

    For many of us committed to the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons, there is nothing new in their arguments. They are arguments that many civil society groups have been making since the end of the Cold War. Other former officials, such as Robert McNamara and General George Lee Butler, former head of the US Strategic Command, have also made such arguments. What is new is that these former Cold Warriors have joined together in a bipartisan spirit to publicly make these arguments to the American people. This means that the perspectives of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the Global Security Institute, the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and other dedicated civil society groups are finally being embraced by key former officials who once presided over Cold War nuclear strategy.

    The bipartisan advice of Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn to abolish nuclear weapons will require a full reversal of the current Bush administration nuclear policies. The Bush administration has thumbed its nose at the other parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, behaving as though the US had no obligations to fulfill its commitments for nuclear disarmament under the treaty. The administration has largely opposed the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to by consensus at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

    If the administration wants to demonstrate leadership toward nuclear weapons abolition, it could immediately submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification; call for negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty; reach an agreement with Russia to begin implementing deeper cuts in the nuclear arsenals of the two countries, which Russia supports; and call for a summit of leaders of all nuclear weapons states to negotiate a new treaty for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    If the United States becomes serious about leading the way to a world free of nuclear weapons, as called for by the former US officials, it can assume a high moral and legal ground, while improving its own security and global security. Each day that goes by without US leadership for achieving a nuclear weapons-free world undermines the prospects for the future of humanity. There is no issue on which US leadership is more needed, and there is no issue on which the US has more to gain by asserting such leadership.

    The 19th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” The truth that if we are to have a human future the US must lead the way in abolishing nuclear weapons has been frequently ridiculed and violently opposed. The commentary by Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn suggests that this truth may now be entering the stage of being self-evident.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • Arthur N.R. Robinson and the Power of One

    I believe in the Power of One, the capacity of a single individual to make an important difference in our world. In many ways, this may seem like an article of faith, rooted in hope. But, in fact, it is more than an article of faith, for there are indeed individuals whose lives have made a significant difference in improving our world. One such individual is Arthur N.R. Robinson, who has served as both Prime Minister and President of his country. He has had a remarkable and charmed life, and he has altered the course of history by his extraordinary leadership in the creation of an International Criminal Court.

    In the 1980s, I became a supporter of the creation of an International Criminal Court, having been introduced to the idea by Robert Woetzel, a man who was also a close and long-time friend of President Robinson. I made many trips to the United Nations to encourage progress on this lofty idea of creating a court that would follow in the Nuremberg tradition of holding individual leaders to account for the commission of heinous crimes: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Although it was clear that this was a much needed innovation to the international system of institutions, it seemed quite unlikely at that time that it would be possible to gain the requisite international support for this bold conception.

    And yet, by 1998, the countries of the world gathered in Rome and established a Treaty to create this new Court, a court that would give life to the Principles of Nuremberg as we moved into a new century. It is certain that this essential innovation in international institution building could not have occurred were it not for a single individual, Arthur N.R. Robinson, who as the Prime Minister of Trinadad and Tobago put the United Nations on track to achieve this goal. Of course, many other people played important roles as well, but without this head of government taking bold action to put the matter on the agenda of the United Nations it could not have happened.

    Some people believe that only the big and powerful countries can influence the international system and the course of history. They are wrong. Trinidad and Tobago, under the leadership of a man of vision and determination, led the way to the establishment of an International Criminal Court, an institution that holds the promise of restoring integrity to world affairs. President Robinson and Trinidad and Tobago should be justly proud of what they have accomplished. By this effort and accomplishment Trinidad and Tobago has earned a vaulted place on the international map.

    A.N.R. Robinson, even as he enters his ninth decade of life, has not chosen to rest upon his laurels, as much as he may deserve to do so. Rather, he has recently accepted the responsibility to join the distinguished five-member Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims of International Crime, and in that capacity he continues to play an important role in working for justice in the international system.

    I wonder if the people of Trinidad and Tobago recognize how significant their contribution to building this new international institution has been. Perhaps they appreciate President Robinson’s efforts, but do they embrace these efforts with a sense of national pride? And, most important, do they join in the commitment to strengthening the structure of international criminal law so that the world may be spared future aggressive wars, genocides and crimes against humanity by having in place a mechanism to hold individual leaders to account for the commission of such crimes?

    There remains an important role for the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago to play on this issue – both at the government level and also at the level of civil society – that is so critical for humanity’s future. I hope that the government of Trinidad and Tobago will not give up its efforts to further the system of international criminal justice represented by the International Criminal Court. Perhaps, though, the government of this country, like most governments, will need a push from below, from its citizens, if it is to rise to a higher plane.

    I would like to propose that citizens of Trinidad and Tobago create a civil society organization that will provide creative ideas and assert public pressure for strengthening the International Criminal Court. The work of such a civil society organization could connect with the United Nations and with like-minded citizens throughout the world. It could carry forward the vision of A.N.R. Robinson and build upon his work. And I would hope that for many years to come he would be a wise and patient mentor to the youthful participants in such an organization.

    There is much still to be done. Sadly, I must recognize that my country, a country of enormous economic and military power but presently lacking a sound moral foundation, has refused to join the International Criminal Court and has actively opposed it. The United States government has forced other countries throughout the world to sign bilateral agreements with it, stating that they will never turn over US citizens to the International Criminal Court, regardless of the crimes committed. This is a very different United States government than the one that supported and encouraged the Nuremburg Tribunals following World War II. It is a government that is unfortunately seeking to protect its own high authorities from scrutiny and accountability for their own wrongdoing.

    We know that changing the world is not an easy matter. There is no magic wand. It takes the determination of great leaders of vision like A.N.R. Robinson, but it also takes the commitment and persistence of many people who join together for a noble cause. I think it would be extremely significant for Trinidad and Tobago and useful for the world to establish here the civil society organization I have mentioned with the purpose of forwarding the goal of an International Criminal Court that will be universal in its jurisdiction and by its legal force will raise the moral standards of humankind. Personally, I would like to see this organization originate in Trinidad and Tobago and be called, the A.N.R. Robinson Center for International Criminal Justice. It could be an institute within the newly established A.N.R. Robinson Museum, Library and Ethics Center that will be located in Castara on the island of Tobago.

    A.N.R. Robinson’s life strengthens my faith in the power of an individual to make a difference in our world. He is a man of rock solid principles. Integrity and courage have been the hallmarks of his life and career. As a political leader, he understood clearly the need for all leaders to be held to high standards if we are to have justice. And thus, in pursuing an International Criminal Court, A.N.R. Robinson acted for the benefit of all humanity.

    The number of people of whom this can be said is not large, and includes some of the greatest peace leaders of our time. I believe that it is a high badge of honor. At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we honored President Robinson with our Distinguished Peace Leadership Award in 2002, and he was kind enough to come to Santa Barbara to receive the award. This is only one of the many awards he has received for his efforts to establish an International Criminal Court.

    When a man of such great accomplishments in the world as A.N.R. Robinson is kind and humble, it reveals a nobility of spirit. I feel very fortunate to count among my friends a man of such bright and noble spirit, sterling character and significant achievements as Arthur N.R. Robinson.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.