Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

  • King’s Message On Vietnam is Relevant to Iraq

    King’s Message On Vietnam is Relevant to Iraq

    In a lecture in late 1967 over the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the subject of “Conscience and the Vietnam War.” His conscience was clearly telling him that this was a war that made no sense and must be stopped.

    “Somehow this madness must cease,” King said. “We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative of this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.”

    King went on to say in his speech, “The war is Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” Within a few months, that malady would result in King’s assassination, and over the years since King’s death that malady would lead America into other wars in other places.

    Today, King’s words could be transposed from Vietnam to Iraq: “I speak as a child of God and a brother to the suffering poor of Iraq….” And it is still the “poor of America” who are paying the greatest price, the ultimate price on the battlefield and the loss of hope at home, while corporations such as Halliburton reap obscene profits.

    Over the decades the “malady within the American spirit” that King named persists. It is a malady of power, arrogance and greed, a malady that takes our high ideals and smashes them in the dust, along with human life, by bombs dropped from 30,000 feet. With the power to wage war, our leaders have again thumbed their noses at the international community and sent our young soldiers to fight and die in an illegal war, authorized neither constitutionally nor under international law.

    King concluded his speech by saying, “We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and for justice throughout the developing world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.”

    The world warned the US against going to war in Iraq. The UN Security Council refused to be forced into war or to authorize it, and the US president called the UN irrelevant. Millions of people throughout the world took to the streets, and the US Administration dismissed them as irrelevant.

    Today, the US Administration has had its way, and the terrible scourge of war has again been unleashed. Thousands have died, including more than 500 American soldiers. Tens of thousands have been injured and maimed, including thousands of American soldiers. Saddam Hussein has been pulled from power and his statues toppled, but Iraq is in chaos as a result of the US invasion and occupation, and experts are predicting that a terrible civil war lies ahead. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, although the US president assured us they were there, and American soldiers are being confronted daily by bullets, bombs and scorn.

    What would King say to us today? Would he be resilient, or would he be broken by the “shameful corridors” through which our leaders have dragged us? Surely, he would be resilient. He knew the pain of struggle and he knew that war and violence only breed more war and violence. But how his heart would ache for the lost promise of those destroyed by this war and for the poor who bear the burden most. How his heart would ache if he could see how little we have progressed in overcoming the maladies of power, arrogance and greed. Surely, King’s message would be constant, and he would be leading a nonviolent struggle today to find the way to peace and respect for human dignity in America, Iraq and throughout the world.

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is the co-author of Choose Hope: Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age and Peace: 100 Ideas.

  • Yet Another Farewell

    Yet Another Farewell

    On the death of the 500th American soldier in Iraq

    Let us lay the heavy black bag at your feet
    While the tired buglers sound their dirge.

    Let us lay the heavy black bag at your feet
    Like a terrible wreath.

    If you nudge the sturdy bag with your right foot
    Nothing will happen.

    If you kick the formless bag with your left foot
    Nothing will happen.

    It will not respond, nor speak nor cry.

    Will you circle the black bag cautiously
    Like a coyote?

    Will you howl, break down in tears
    Or simply smirk?

    David Krieger
    January 2004

     

  • Imagining Martin Luther King, Jr. At 75: A Day For Reflection

    Imagining Martin Luther King, Jr. At 75: A Day For Reflection

    Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been 75 years old today had he lived to grow older. At 75, he certainly would have been a wise man. He was already wise well beyond his years at 39 when he was assassinated. How valuable it would have been for our country and the world to have had him here to speak and take action on the issues of the day.

    Above all else, Dr. King was a man of justice and peace. One can imagine how, were he able to see us today, he would have recoiled at the increasing gap between rich and poor in our country and the world; at the tax cuts for the rich and the deceptions by political leaders to achieve them; at the abuses of corporate leaders who cheated both their shareholders and their employees; and, most of all, at the lies of political leaders to take the country to war yet again.

    He certainly would have remembered the Vietnam War that he spoke out against so eloquently, and he would have been struck by the similarities between that war and the war in Iraq. He would have been deeply saddened to see that America had built its military on the backs of the poor, and that US soldiers were still coming home in body bags.

    Dr. King’s 75th birthday is a time for reflection about who we are as a people and who we want to be. It is a time to strengthen our resolve to work, as he did, for justice, peace and human dignity. It is a time to strengthen our resolve to create a just and decent country that upholds civil and human rights for all. It is a time to recognize our responsibilities to lead by example, not by force. It is a time to work to end the double standards of “do as I say, not as I do” policies that shame our country and tarnish it in the eyes of the world.

    What would he have said about our Congress giving away its Constitutional authority to make war to the President? What would he have said about the President leading the country to war against Iraq illegally and without the approval of the United Nations Security Council?

    What would he have said about our continued reliance on nuclear weapons long after the end of the Cold War, and our plans to conduct research on mini-nukes and “bunker-busting” nuclear weapons? What would he have said about the allocation of nearly half of our discretionary income as a society to prepare for and engage in war? What would he have said about our lack of universal health care, the breakdown of our educational system and the growing number of homeless in the streets?

    Dr. King is not here to speak out and take action, but I can imagine that he would have been angered and deeply saddened by the state of our country and the world. He likely would have been disgusted by the poor quality of leadership and the continued prevalence of greed in our nation. He would have wanted us to do more and give more of ourselves. He would have called upon us to strengthen our efforts to build a peaceful and just world. Although he is not here to inspire us, that should not stop us from hearing the echoes of his deep, resonant voice. Although he is not here to lead, that should not stop us from acting.

    The best birthday present we could give to Martin Luther King, Jr. is our commitment to his dream the dream of a more just and decent America, a country that could lead in justice and decency rather than military expenditures and number of billionaires. Remembering him helps us to realize how far we have strayed from our course and far we have to go.

    YOU ARE NOT ONE BUT MANY

    Remembering Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Your deep voice still hangs in the air,
    Melting the cowardly silence.
    You are the one standing solidly there
    Looking straight in the face of violence.

    You are the one who dreams
    That this nation will honor its creed.
    You are the one who steps forward.
    You are the one to bleed.

    You are not one but many
    Unwilling to cower or crawl.
    You are the one who will take no less
    Than a world that is just for all.

    David Krieger

     

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is the co-author of Choose Hope: Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age and Peace: 100 Ideas. For more information on Martin Luther King’s 75th birthday click here.

  • A Conspiracy of Decency

    A Conspiracy of Decency

    We will conspire to keep this blue dot floating and alive,
    To keep the soldiers from gunning down the children,

    To make the water clean and clear and plentiful,
    To put food on everybody’s table and hope in their hearts.

    We will conspire to find new ways to say
    People matter. This conspiracy will be bold.

    Everyone in this conspiracy will dance
    At wholly inappropriate times and places.

    They will burst out singing non-patriotic songs.
    Anyone can join this conspiracy, anyone.

    It will be a conspiracy of, by and for the people
    And the not-so-secret password will be Peace.

    * David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation(www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003).

  • A Letter to UC President Robert Dynes

    A Letter to UC President Robert Dynes

    The following is the text of David Krieger’s letter to the University of California’s President Robert Dynes opposing the UC’s management of the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, which research and develop nuclear weapons.

     

    Dear President Dynes,

    I am writing on Human Rights Day to urge you to oppose further collaboration between the University of California and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Laboratories. It is highly inappropriate for a great university like the University of California to involve itself in the research and development of weapons of mass destruction. By providing oversight and management to the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories, the University of California places itself in the position of researching and developing weapons capable of causing massive suffering and slaughter, such as occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The International Court of Justice has stated, “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.” Rather than contributing toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, the University of California is providing support for continued U.S. reliance on and development of nuclear weapons. Policies of the current administration include research on more usable nuclear weapons, such as mini-nukes and “bunker-busters,” research being carried out at the UC-managed labs.

    A great university should provide not only knowledge but a moral compass to the students it educates and to the larger society. The University of California cannot fulfill this function so long as it remains an accomplice in the U.S. effort to base its security on the ongoing threat of mass annihilation. The University of California should be a leader in working to end the nuclear weapons era; not a leader in contributing to new nuclear arms races that extend the nuclear weapons era.

    I encourage you to take a strong and principled stand against a continued relationship between the University of California and the nation’s nuclear weapons laboratories, a stand that will contribute to nuclear sanity and the security of all Americans.

    Sincerely,

    David Krieger
    President

    *David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003).

  • Rising to the Challenge of Peace

    Rising to the Challenge of Peace

    It is very special to be back in Nagasaki, a city dedicated to peace. In the Nuclear Age peace has become our most important challenge. Our task is to rise to that challenge. My hope is that each of you will become the peace leaders that our troubled world so badly needs.

    Let me share with you a poem I wrote, which I believe describes, at least in part, the situation today.

    War is Too Easy

    If politicians had to fight the wars
    they would find another way.

    Peace is not easy, they say.
    It is war that is too easy –

    too easy to turn a profit, too easy
    to believe there is no choice,

    too easy to sacrifice
    someone else’s children.

    Someday it will not be this way.
    Someday we will teach our children

    that they must not kill,
    that they must have the courage

    to live peace, to stand firmly
    for justice, to say no to war.

    Until we teach our children peace,
    each generation will have its wars,

    will find its own ways
    to believe in them.

    War is Too Easy

    If politicians had to fight the wars they would find another way. Peace is not easy, they say. It is war that is too easy – too easy to turn a profit, too easy to believe there is no choice, too easy to sacrifice someone else’s children. Someday it will not be this way. Someday we will teach our children that they must not kill, that they must have the courage to live peace, to stand firmly for justice, to say no to war. Until we teach our children peace, each generation will have its wars, will find its own ways to believe in them.   As long as someone else’s children can be sacrificed on the altar of war, wars will continue. The US war in Iraq was not sanctioned by the United Nations and is outside the boundaries of international law. It was a war sold to the American people and the people of the world on the basis of the imminent threat of Iraq’s use of weapons of mass destruction, and yet no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Many more American soldiers have now died in Iraq since Mr. Bush announced the end of the major combat operations on May 1, 2003 than died in the so-called major combat phase of the war, and yet no weapons of mass destruction have been found. Thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed and injured in the war, and perhaps tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers. The web site Iraqbodycount.org, which provides information on reported civilian casualties, reports that some 7,900 to 9,700 Iraqi civilians have died in the war. That is some two-and-a-half to three times the number of innocent civilians that died in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, and yet no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Would you join me in a moment of silence for the innocent victims of this war and of all wars.

    Peace

    There is a Roman dictum, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” This has been diligently followed for over 2,000 years. It has always resulted in more war. We need a new dictum: “If you want peace, prepare for peace.” This is our challenge.

    I’d like to share some ideas that I believe are important in a discussion about peace. These ideas can be organized using the letters that form the word “peace.”

    1. Perspective

    The Nuclear Age began only 58 years ago, a mere nanosecond in geological time. Scientists tell us that the universe began 15 billion years ago, in the immensely distant past. We can conceive of the life of the universe as a 15,000 page book, with each page representing a million years. In this book, the “Big Bang” would occur on page one and then thousands of pages would represent the expansion of the universe and the creation of stars. The Earth would have been formed around page 10,500. The beginning of life on Earth, the first single-celled creatures, would have occurred on about page 11,000. And then over the next 4,000 pages, you could read about life developing. Only three pages from the end of this 15,000 page book would our human ancestors appear. It would not be until the last word on the last page of the book that human civilizations would appear. The Nuclear Age would fall in the period – the punctuation mark – of the last sentence of the last page of the history of the universe. So, in the development of the universe, of all that has preceded us in time and on this planet, the Nuclear Age is infinitesimally tiny, and yet it is incredibly important for it is the funnel through which we must pass to move into the future. For the first time in history, a species (homo sapiens) has developed technology capable of destroying itself and most of life on the planet. We need this perspective of our place in time and geological history to have a sense of how extraordinarily rare and precious we are.

    2. Education

    We are all born as blank slates. We are unformed and uninformed. It is only by education that we develop our views and prejudices. It is only by education that we draw boundaries that include some and exclude others. Education shapes our view of the world. We can educate for peace or for war. We can educate to create critical thinkers or to create individuals who will charge into battle or support wars without thinking. Our education largely determines our willingness to fight in wars (or to send others to fight), or to fight for peace. At the outset of the Nuclear Age, Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of the 20th century, observed, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” If we are to avoid this “unparalleled catastrophe,” which continues to hang over our heads, we must educate ourselves and in turn educate others about upholding human dignity for all and finding alternatives to violence. It is helpful in this sense to look to the lives of great peace heroes, such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela and Linus Pauling. Also among the great peace educators and leaders of our time is your president, Daisaku Ikeda. We must also educate for global citizenship, for the shared responsibility of passing on the planet and life on the planet intact to the next generation. Arundhati Roy, the great Indian writer and activist, has said this about nuclear weapons, whether or not they’re used: “They violate everything that is humane; they alter the meaning of life. Why do we tolerate them? Why do we tolerate the men who use nuclear weapons to blackmail the human race?” It is a question of education. These men and these weapons should not be tolerated.

    3. Appreciation

    We live in an amazingly beautiful world, and each of us is a miracle. Have you ever stopped to consider what a miracle you are? All the things that we take for granted are such miracles: that we can see this beautiful earth, its trees and streams and flowers; that we can hear songs, that we have voices to speak and sing; that we can communicate with each other; that we can form relationships and can love and cherish each other; that we can walk and breathe and do all the incredible things we take for granted. If we can learn to appreciate how miraculous we truly are, perhaps we can also appreciate that each of us is equally a miracle. How can one miracle wish to injure or kill another? The gift of life must be rooted in appreciation, which will give rise to compassion and empathy.

    4. Choice

    We all have a choice about what we do with our lives. We can devote our lives to accumulation of material things, which is culturally acceptable, or we can set our sights on fulfilling more compassionate goals aimed at building a peaceful world. The Earth Charter, a wonderful document that was created with input from people all over the world, begins with these words: “We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future.” But humanity will not choose by a vote. The choice will be made by the individual choices of each of us. Each choice matters. The Earth Charter further states: “The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life.” In 1955, Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, a leading 20th century philosopher and social critic, issued a manifesto in which they concluded: “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.” The two most powerful images that emerged from the 20th century were the mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion and the view of Earth looking back from outer space. The mushroom cloud represents universal destruction, while the view of Earth from space represents the unique and solitary beauty of our planet, the only planet we know of that harbors life, in a vast, dark universe. These images represent polar opposite possibilities for humanity’s future. Which will we choose? We each have the power of choice.

    5. Engagement

    We need to become personally involved in the issues of our time, and find our own ways to work for a peaceful future. Among the important ways in which we can engage are by speaking out and making our presence felt for a peaceful world. That means opposing policies of violence and war. It means standing up for the human dignity of everyone, everywhere. We must create a world that works for all and we must begin where we are, but our vision and our outreach must be global. We must ask more of our leaders, and we must demand better leaders. We ourselves must become the leaders who will change the world. The most important change has always come from below and from outside the power structure. We must become world citizens. This means citizens of a polity that does not yet exist. By our commitment and our vision we can create the structures and institutions that will give rise to a Federation of the Peoples of Earth. We must transform the United Nations into such a federation, and give life to the International Criminal Court, which will hold all leaders accountable for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. To fight for peace is to fight for life and the future of our species and our planet. Our engagement and our endurance are essential to our human survival.

    My Hope for You

    My hope for you is that you will choose peace in all of its dimensions. I believe that the place to begin is by choosing hope. It is your belief that you can make a difference that will allow you to make a difference. Put aside despair, apathy, complacency and ignorance, and simply choose hope. It is the first step on the path to peace. Saint Augustine said, “Hope has two beautiful daughters: anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to change them.” There is nothing wrong with anger against injustice and you will certainly need courage to be a non-violent warrior for peace. You, the youth of Kyushu, and particularly of Nagasaki, have special responsibilities to fight for a nuclear weapons free world and to assure that no other city ever suffers the fate that this city suffered on August 9, 1945. You must go forth from Nagasaki and take the message of the hibakusha to the world: “Human beings and nuclear weapons cannot co-exist.” Today I visited the powerful peace statue, a symbol of Nagasaki, in which the right hand of a God-like figure points up toward the atomic bomb and the left hand is extended palm down in a gesture of peace. The sculptor, Seibo Kitamura, wrote these words: “After experiencing that nightmarish war, that blood-curdling carnage, that unendurable horror, who could walk away without praying for peace?” We need you to pray for peace and also to struggle for the triumph of humanity over these weapons of utter destructiveness. May you be bold, may you be creative, may you be persistent, and may you prevail!

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is the co-author with Daisaku Ikeda of Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age and the editor of Hope in a Dark Time, Reflections on Humanity’s Future. This speech was delivered in Nagasaki to Soka Gakkai youth on November 25, 2003.

  • Toward The 2005 Non-Proliferatioin Treaty Review Conference

    Toward The 2005 Non-Proliferatioin Treaty Review Conference

    The State of the World

    As we move toward the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, the world is experiencing increased extremism and instability. The extremism has manifested in the form of significant attacks by clandestine international terrorist organizations, such as those on 9/11, and acts of retaliation by powerful states that may or may not be directly related to the initial assaults. Neither the terrorists nor the state leaders involved have demonstrated reasonable regard for established rules of international law.

    In the background of this clash between extremist organizations and governments lurks the ever present danger of the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. The possibility of course exists that groups like al Qaeda could somehow acquire nuclear weapons from a sympathetic state or from criminal elements. Should such a group attain nuclear weapons it is unlikely they could be deterred from using them, particularly since they have no fixed location that could be threatened with retaliation in accord with the theory of deterrence.

    At the same time, the United States has put in place policies that appear to lower the barriers to the use of nuclear weapons. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review calls for contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against seven countries, including at least four that are non-nuclear weapons states. It is also declared US policy to use nuclear weapons against chemical or biological weapon stores or in retaliation for the use of these weapons.

    With its doctrine of preventive war, the US administration is undermining the system of international law set in place after the Second World War “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” It has chosen a path of unilateralism and “coalitions of the willing” over multilateral approaches in accord with international law. The US government is further undermining international law by its failure to support many existing treaties and by its active opposition to the creation of an International Criminal Court (ICC) to hold leaders accountable for the most egregious crimes under international law.

    The Role of the NPT

    The NPT was established primarily to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states other than the first five nuclear weapon states. The treaty was the brainchild of the US, UK and Russia, who believed that the world would be a safer place if they, along with France and China, controlled the world’s store of nuclear weapons. It was largely a self-serving proposition, not one that offered much inducement for other countries to sign off on nuclear weapons. The NPT bargain contained two elements that presumably benefited the countries that agreed to give up their right to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. First, the treaty promised them assistance in developing the “peaceful” uses of nuclear energy, going so far as to describe nuclear power as an “inalienable right.” Second, the treaty had provisions that the nuclear weapons states would engage in “good faith” negotiations for nuclear disarmament and called for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date.

    The NPT was put forward in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. The non-nuclear weapons states are undoubtedly wondering when the “good faith” negotiations by the nuclear weapons states will begin and why the United States in particular still seems intent on developing new nuclear weapons, such as mini-nukes and “bunker busters.”

    At the 2000 NPT Review Conference the parties to the treaty adopted by consensus a Final Document that contained 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament. These steps included the ratification of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, the preservation and strengthening of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and called for the nuclear weapons states to take unilateral as well as multilateral steps to achieve nuclear disarmament. It also called for greater transparency with regard to nuclear arsenals and for making irreversibility a principle of nuclear weapons reductions. On virtually every one of these commitments, the US, under the Bush administration, has shown bad faith. It is demonstrating that US commitments are not likely to be honored and that the most powerful country in the world finds nuclear weapons useful and is attempting to make them more usable.

    Iraq, Iran and North Korea

    In his 2001 State of the Union Address, President Bush described Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an Axis of Evil. In 2002 he began mobilizing US troops in the Middle East and threatening Iraq. In March 2003 he initiated a preventive war against Iraq, which his administration justified on the grounds that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the US. In the aftermath of the initial combat phase in Iraq, despite extensive searching, no weapons of mass destruction have been located in Iraq.

    Observing the US threats and attacks against Iraq might well have led Iran and North Korea to pursue nuclear weapons programs aimed at deterring US aggression. At this point, North Korea has withdrawn from the NPT, as is its legal right, and Iran is cooperating with inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    Six nation talks (US, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia) have been going on to try to resolve the impasse over North Korea’s withdrawal from the NPT and its declared intention to develop a nuclear arsenal. The CIA estimates that North Korea may currently have one or two nuclear weapons and the materials to make another six or so weapons in the short-term. North Korea is asking for the US to provide it with a non-aggression pact as the price for giving up its nuclear ambitions. It is a small price. The US has vacillated on whether to do this, but recently has indicated its willingness to give informal assurances. It remains unclear whether such assurances will be sufficient to bring North Korea back into the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.

    Current Problems with the NPT

    In addition to North Korea’s withdrawal from the treaty, there are other problems. First, its promotion of nuclear energy and nuclear research create the ever-present possibility of countries using the nuclear materials to develop clandestine nuclear weapons programs. Second, it lacks universality and the countries that have refused to join (India, Pakistan and Israel) have all developed nuclear arsenals and have thus, in a sense, been “rewarded” for not joining. Third, there are many unfulfilled commitments, particularly the nuclear disarmament commitments by the nuclear weapons states, which give the appearance that these countries are just making empty promises that they have no intention of keeping.

    There has been virtually no progress on any of the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. It is difficult for the non-nuclear weapon states to view this in any way other than as a sign of bad faith on the part of the nuclear weapons states.

    The Role of NGOs

    Given the state of the world and the current problems with the NPT, it seems appropriate for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the disarmament area to question the value of the treaty. What good is a treaty in which the most powerful states do not fulfill their obligations or keep their promises? There is no doubt that the behavior of the nuclear weapon states, and particularly the US, have undermined the value of the NPT and raised serious questions about it in the minds of many observers.

    The New Agenda Coalition (NAC) states have made a diligent effort to get the NPT back on track with their resolutions in the United Nations, but they have been stonewalled by the US and most of its allies. The Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of eight international non-governmental organizations, has attempted to support and promote the positions of the NAC throughout the world. Through these efforts, they achieved a slight crack in the stone wall when Canada, a NATO member, voted in support of the NAC resolution in the First Committee of the United Nations in November 2003.

    NGOs will likely continue to support and promote the efforts to make the parties to the NPT live up to their obligations, but at the same time are undoubtedly disheartened by the ongoing failure of the nuclear weapon states to meet their obligations or even show minimal good faith. In the years since the NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995 and despite the end of the Cold War, there has been no substantial progress toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    NGOs must choose the points of greatest importance and leverage, and stress these in their activities.

    First, it is long past time for the nuclear weapon states to provide legally binding security assurances to the non-nuclear weapon states.

    Second, there should be no regression on the moratorium on nuclear testing.

    Third, there should be far tighter controls of nuclear materials in all states, including the nuclear weapon states.

    In a November 3, 2003 statement to the UN General Assembly, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, called for “limiting the processing of weapon-usable material (separated plutonium and high enriched uranium) in civilian nuclear programmes – as well as the production of new material through reprocessing and enrichment – by agreeing to restrict these operations exclusively to facilities under international control.” In light of the increasing dangers of proliferation, it is amazing that such a proposal was not implemented long ago. It is a minimum acceptable standard for what must take place immediately if proliferation to both other states and terrorists is to be prevented. NGOs should certainly support this proposal.

    NGOs should also press for nuclear weapon free zones in the Middle East, Northeast Asia and South Asia. These are dangerous hotspots where the development of nuclear weapons has threatened regional stability and security. To achieve these goals will require concessions by the nuclear weapons states and faster movement toward fulfilling their disarmament obligations under the NPT. A primary activity of NGOs should be to expose the hypocrisy of the nuclear weapon states and try to develop stronger anti-nuclear sentiments among the populations of these countries and translate such sentiments into political power.

    At the moment there are not many hopeful signs, but one that stands out is 2020 Vision: An Emergency Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons by the World Conference of Mayors for Peace. This innovative campaign, spearheaded by the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calls for the 2005 NPT Review Conference to launch “a negotiating process committed to adopting a comprehensive program for progressive and systematic elimination of nuclear weapons by the next NPT Review Conference in 2010,” and then actually eliminating these weapons over the following decade. It is time-bound program that picks up the baton from Abolition 2000.

    I would encourage NGOs to help promote the effort of the World Conference of Mayors for Peace. NGOs must not give up because, in effect, this would be giving up on humanity’s future. That is what is at stake and that is why our work to support the NPT promise of the total elimination of nuclear weapons is so essential.

    David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). This speech was given on November 23, 2003 at the 2nd Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

  • Is a Nuclear 9/11 in Our Future?

    Is a Nuclear 9/11 in Our Future?

    Sooner or later there will be a nuclear 9/11 in an American city or that of a US ally unless serious program is undertaken to prevent such an occurrence. A terrorist nuclear attack against an American city could take many forms. A worst case scenario would be the detonation of a nuclear device within a city. Depending upon the size and sophistication of the weapon, it could kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.

    Terrorists could obtain a nuclear device by stealing or purchasing an already created nuclear weapon or by stealing or purchasing weapons-grade nuclear materials and fashioning a crude bomb. While neither of these options would be easy, they cannot be dismissed as beyond the capabilities of a determined terrorist organization.

    If terrorists succeeded in obtaining a nuclear weapon, they would also have to bring it into the US, assuming they did not already obtain or create the weapon in this country. While this would not necessarily be easy, many analysts have suggested that it would be within the realm of possibility. An oft-cited example is the possibility of bringing a nuclear device into an American port hidden on a cargo ship.

    Another form of terrorist nuclear attack requiring far less sophistication would be the detonation of a radiation weapon or “dirty bomb.” This type of device would not be capable of a nuclear explosion but would use conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials within a populated area. The detonation of such a device could cause massive panic due to the public’s appropriate fears of radiation sickness and of developing cancers and leukemias in the future.

    A bi-partisan task force of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board, headed by former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, called upon the US in 2001 to spend $30 billion over an eight to ten year period to prevent nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union from getting into the hands of terrorists or so called “rogue” states. The task force called the nuclear dangers in the former USSR “the most urgent unmet national security threat facing the United States today.” At present, the US government is spending only about one-third of the recommended amount, while it pours resources into paying for the invasion, occupation and rebuilding of Iraq as well as programs unlikely to provide effective security to US citizens such as missile defense.

    The great difficulty in preventing a nuclear 9/11 is that it will require ending the well-entrenched nuclear double standards that the US and other nuclear weapons states have lived by throughout the Nuclear Age. Preventing nuclear terrorism in the end will not be possible without a serious global program to eliminate nuclear weapons and control nuclear materials that could be converted to weapons. Such a program would require universal agreement in the form of an enforceable treaty providing for the following:

    • full accounting and international safeguarding of all nuclear weapons, weapons-grade nuclear materials and nuclear reactors in all countries, including the nuclear weapons states;
    • international tracking and control of the movement of all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade materials;
    • dismantling and prohibiting all uranium enrichment facilities and all plutonium separation facilities, and the implementation of a plan to expedite the phasing out all nuclear power plants;
    • full recognition and endorsement by the nuclear weapons states of their existing obligation pursuant to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for an “unequivocal undertaking” to eliminate their nuclear arsenals;
    • rapidly dismantling existing nuclear weapons in an orderly and transparent manner and the transfer of nuclear materials to international control sites;
    • and criminalizing the possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons.

    While these steps may appear extreme, they are in actuality the minimum necessary to prevent a nuclear 9/11. If that is among our top priorities as a country, as surely it should be, the US government should begin immediately to lead the world in this direction. Now is the time to act, before one or more US cities are devastated by nuclear terrorism.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the co-author of Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • Gandhi’s Birthday

    Gandhi’s Birthday

    Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was born on October 2, 1869, was one of the great spiritual and peace leaders of the 20th century. He was a staunch advocate of non-violent social change, first in South Africa and later as the leader of the movement for Indian independence from British colonial rule.

    Throughout his life, Gandhi stood for the dignity of all people, even those who fought against him. He was a champion of the rights of the “untouchables” in India and a persistent opponent of the Indian caste system. Gandhi also worked to peacefully resolve the conflicts between Hindus and Muslims and prevent the break up of India into Hindu and Muslim countries.

    Gandhi believed that non-violence has great spiritual power and that spiritual power is reflected in non-violence. He was influenced in his philosophy of non-violence by the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy and, in turn, influenced the American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.

    When asked his opinion in 1949 of the 1945 US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Gandhi replied, “What has happened to the soul of the destroying nation is yet too early to see. Forces of nature act in a mysterious manner.”

    Gandhi was a great peace hero. On this anniversary of his birth, it is worthwhile to reflect upon how Gandhi’s philosophy and life of non-violence has changed the world and given us a model to aspire to as individuals and as a human community. Here are a few of Gandhi’s statements for reflection:

    “You have to stand against the whole world although you may have to stand alone. You have to stare the world in the face although the world may look at you with bloodshot eyes. Do not fear. Trust that little thing that resides in your heart.”

    “As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world that is the myth of the ‘atomic age’ as in being able to remake ourselves.”

    “Consciously or unconsciously, every one of us does render some service or other. If we cultivate the habit of doing this service deliberately, our desire for service will steadily grow stronger, and will make not only for our own happiness, but that of the world at large…all of us are bound to place our resources at the disposal of humanity.”

    *David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003). 

  • The Second Nuclear Age

    The Second Nuclear Age

    “The world has entered a new nuclear age, a second nuclear age. The danger is rising that nuclear weapons will be used against the United States. Just as bad, the danger is rising that the United States will use nuclear weapons against others….”

    — Jonathan Schell

    With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union, many Americans gave a deep sigh of relief and pronounced the nuclear threat at an end. It was a heady time. I can remember being asked, “What will the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation do now that the nuclear threat is gone?” My response was that the nuclear threat was still with us despite these momentous changes in the geopolitical landscape. It was far too soon to pronounce the Nuclear Age dead.

    In retrospect, from a vantage point of more than 12 years after these tectonic shifts in geopolitics, we can see that the Nuclear Age, with new and growing dangers, is still with us. The first half-century of the Nuclear Age was marked by a mad arms race between the United States and the former Soviet Union that resulted in the development and deployment of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons capable of destroying civilization and most life on Earth.

    While the nuclear standoff between the US and former USSR is no longer the extraordinary danger it was, new nuclear dangers have arisen that have led many astute observers to the conclusion that we have entered a second Nuclear Age. Among these new dangers are:

    • the nuclear standoff between nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, two countries that have more than a fifty-year history of warfare and serious tensions;
    • the partial breakdown of command and control systems that protect nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials in the former Soviet countries, giving rise to the increased possibility that these weapons and materials could fall into the hands of other countries and terrorist organizations;
    • the pursuit of nuclear weapons programs and the development of nuclear arsenals by countries, such as North Korea and Iran, that feel threatened by the Bush administration’s policy of preemptive war;
    • the impetus that Israel’s nuclear arsenal gives to other countries in the Middle East to develop their own nuclear arsenals;
    • the provocative policies of the Bush administration to pursue smaller, more usable nuclear weapons and those with a specific use in warfare such as the so-called “bunker busters,” blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear arms; and
    • the possibility that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has already lost its first member, North Korea, could fall apart due to the failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty to engage in good faith efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    The United States, as the world’s sole surviving superpower, has had the opportunity to lead the world toward a nuclear weapons free future. It is an opportunity that our country has largely rejected, and has done so at its own peril. Political leaders in the United States have yet to grasp that nuclear weapons make us less secure rather than more so, and their policies have reflected this failure to comprehend the dangers of the second Nuclear Age.

    In the year 2000, the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the United States, agreed to 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament. These included “[a]n unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals,” along with specific steps such as ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), preserving and strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and applying the principle of irreversibility to nuclear disarmament.

    In each of these areas the United States, under the Bush administration, has led in the opposite direction. The administration’s policies have sent a message to the world that the world’s strongest military power finds nuclear weapons useful for its national security and plans to maintain its nuclear arsenal for the indefinite future. The Bush administration has opposed ratification of the CTBT and has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty. Its approach to nuclear disarmament has been to employ maximum flexibility and make reductions fully reversible.

    The US pact with Russia, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), signed by Presidents Bush and Putin in May 2002, calls for reductions in deployed strategic nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 weapons on each side by the year 2012. The treaty has no timetable other than the final date to achieve these reductions, and there is no requirement to make these reductions irreversible. The Bush administration has already announced that it plans to put the weapons it takes off active deployment status into storage ready for redeployment on short notice. Thus, these weapons will be put into storage. The Russians are likely to follow suit, creating more opportunity for the stored nuclear weapons in both countries to fall into the hands of terrorists. In the meantime, the US and Russia are each maintaining over 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, subject to being launched accidentally.

    In addition, the Bush administration pursued an illegal preventive war against Iraq because of its purported, but never found, weapons of mass destruction. This action sent a message to North Korea, Iran and other states that if they want to be more secure from US attack, they had better develop nuclear forces to deter the US.

    North Korea has repeatedly made a simple request of the US. They have asked for security assurances from the US that they will not be attacked. This is not unreasonable considering that the Korean War has never officially ended, that the US maintains some 40,000 troops near the Demilitarized Zone that separates the two Koreas, that the US keeps nuclear-armed submarines in the waters off the Korean Peninsula, and that the Bush administration has pursued a doctrine of preemption. In return for a Non-Aggression Pact from the US, the North Koreans have indicated that they would give up their nuclear weapons program and rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    It would be a great shame if Americans only awakened to the dangers of the second Nuclear Age with the detonation of one or more nuclear weapons somewhere in the world. Given the increased threats associated with terrorism and the dangers that nuclear weapons or bomb-grade nuclear materials could fall into the hands of terrorists, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the next detonation of a nuclear weapon or other weapon of mass destruction could take place in a city in the United States.

    It is of critical importance that Americans be made aware of these dangers and reverse our policies before we are confronted by such tragedy. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has set forth a series of needed steps that have been widely endorsed by prominent leaders, including 38 Nobel Laureates, in its Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity and All Life. These steps are de-alerting all nuclear weapons, reaffirming commitments to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, commencing good faith negotiations on a treaty to eliminate all nuclear weapons, declaring a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons and reallocating resources from nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    Our challenge is to translate this program into action. It will require a sea change in the thinking of US political leaders. This cannot happen without a grassroots movement from below, that is, from ordinary citizens, who hold the highest office in the land. The starting point is the recognition that the Nuclear Age did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and that we are now living in the second Nuclear Age. We ask for your support in this fight for the future of humanity and all life on our planet.

    *David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003).