Author: David Krieger

  • President Announces Restructuring of USA

    President Announces Restructuring of USA

    In a surprise announcement, President Bush has called for a restructuring that would convert the United States of America into a wholly owned subsidiary of the Department of Defense. “This will be a good move for both sides,” the President said. “It will give the Defense Department what they want and it will make the American people feel more secure.”

    The new entity will be known as the Department of Defense USA (NYSE symbol: DOD). Mr. Bush said that under the new structure he would remain on as president, while Donald Rumsfeld, currently Secretary of Defense, would assume the position of Chairman and Dick Cheney would continue as CEO.

    The president announced that an important step toward achieving this goal would be to turn over another $48 billion to the Defense Department in fiscal 2003, raising their annual budget to nearly $400 billion. This comes on the heels of a $33.5 billion increase for fiscal 2002. The president also announced his intention to raise the budget for Homeland Security to $25 billion. “Our first priority is the military, our highest calling,” Mr. Bush said.

    The president likened the arrangement to a gated community for wealthy homeowners. “We’re rich,” he said, “and there are a lot of people that don’t like us for that. We need to protect ourselves from the people who don’t like us and are evil. The best way to do that is with our military forces, meaning our brave men and women with missiles, camouflage outfits and other defense stuff. These people are protecting us and they deserve a bigger ownership stake.”

    The president referred to a recently released study by a senior World Bank economist that found that the richest one percent of the world population earn as much as the poorest 57 percent. In bolstering his argument, the president pointed out that the poorest ten percent of Americans are still better off than two-thirds of the world’s population.

    “We can’t exactly build a Great Wall around America like the one they have in China,” the president stated, “although we can sort of put one up in the sky to keep out the missiles of evil people. We can also give enough money and power to our military that we won’t need to build a Great Wall, which would be costly and take resources away from the education of our children.”

    Wall Street reacted favorably to the president’s proposed restructuring. Said one analyst, “This reorganization has been needed for a long time. It really only recognizes the reality of the situation.”

    [For the record, in case this sounds too close to reality, it is not yet true, except for the president’s quote in paragraph 3, his intention to raise the Pentagon budget by $48 billion and the Homeland Security budget to $25 billion, and the World Bank expert’s figures on income disparity. The United States is not yet, in fact, officially a wholly owned subsidiary of the Department of Defense.]

  • The President’s Other Two Wars

    The President’s Other Two Wars

    During his first year in office, George W. Bush has engaged in three wars. His war against terrorism is widely known and discussed. His resolve to fight against evildoers with America’s military might is said to have defined his presidency.

    The president’s other two wars have received far less attention, but they may end up defining his presidency even more than his war against terrorism. These are his war against international law and his war against the international control of armaments.

    In the war against international law, the president has shown remarkable boldness in his disdain for the remainder of the international community. He has pulled out of the Kyoto Accords on Global Warming, perhaps the most critical environmental treaty of our time. He has also demonstrated his contempt for the creation of an International Criminal Court that would hold individuals accountable for the types of serious international crimes that were prosecuted by the United States at Nuremberg following World War II.

    The president’s war against the international control of armaments, however, has been his most successful undertaking. In one area of arms control after another, he has demonstrated that he plans to chart the course of US unilateralism when it comes to decisions on controlling armaments.

    He has made clear that he does not intend to resubmit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to the Senate for ratification. When the CTBT came up at the 2001 United Nations General Assembly, the US was the only country to vote against carrying over an item supporting the treaty to the next session of the General Assembly.

    The president has also requested studies from the Pentagon on the possible resumption of nuclear testing. When the parties to the CTBT met last November to discuss ways to bring the Treaty into force more rapidly, the US did not even bother to show up and participate.

    Mr. Bush has opposed signing the International Treaty to Ban Landmines, despite the solid international support to ban these weapons that go on killing civilians long after the soldiers have left a war zone. At a UN conference on small arms, the US blocked key provisions to stem the illegal traffic in small arms, those most used in combat. The US also torpedoed a six-year effort to create a Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would allow for verification procedures including on-site inspections.

    The president’s boldest act, however, in his war against the international control of armaments was his announcement that the US is withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Despite Russian opposition to taking this step, the president gave his notice of withdrawal on December 13, 2001, starting the six months running for withdrawal under the provisions of the treaty. Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty will give the US the ability to test weapons for use in outer space, leading to their deployment in outer space and the undermining of the Outer Space Treaty as well.

    In his November 2001 Crawford Summit with Russian President Putin, Mr. Bush announced his intention to lower the size of the US strategic nuclear arsenal to some 1,700 to 2,200 nuclear weapons over a ten year period. This unilateral action did not even go as far as President Putin had been offering for over a year (reductions to 1,500 strategic weapons or possibly lower). The president’s plan will keep overkill the principal US nuclear strategy for at least the next decade. Further, since it has been unilaterally initiated, it will be subject to unilateral reversal by Mr. Bush himself or a successor to the presidency.

    In taking these steps, Mr. Bush has also demonstrated his contempt for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which the US has promised to pursue good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice has interpreted this phrase to mean complete nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.

    As recently as May 2000, the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty promised to preserve and strengthen the ABM Treaty “as the cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons.” At the same time, the US joined the other parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in promising an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” The president’s actions have helped convince our allies and treaty partners that US promises are worth very little, but perhaps this is to be expected when a president is engaged in war on so many fronts.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Hope in the Face of Darkness

    Hope in the Face of Darkness

    I am very happy to be here with you. I want to thank the organizers of this conference and the members of the Youth Peace Conference.

    I feel a great sense of hopefulness in this room, coming from your hearts. I know you have accomplished great things in the past and I know of your commitment to continue to meet the challenges that confront humanity.

    I hold your president, Daisaku Ikeda, in the highest regard, and consider him to be one of the true world citizens and peace leaders of our time. It was my great privilege last year to present him with our Foundation’s World Citizen Award. It was also my privilege to engage in a dialogue with him, which was published this year on August 6th under the title, Choose Hope.

    In our dialogue we discussed the route to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons and a world at peace. We also looked at the role of education, literature and poetry in shaping our lives. There was nothing we agreed upon more strongly than the importance of hope and of youth in shaping our common future. We share the belief that it is indeed possible to shape a peaceful future, and that youth must help lead the way.

    The title for this talk was chosen in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Those attacks were meticulously planned. They were attacks against symbols of US economic and military power, but they were far more than symbolic. They took some 3,000 to 4,000 innocent lives. The intentional taking of innocent lives is a mark of darkness on our planet.

    Each life is a miracle. Each of us is a miracle. We cannot explain by logic or experience where we come from before birth or where we go after death. We have no way to comprehend the mystery of life or the mystery of our universe. We can only appreciate that we exist on this Earth at this time in this vast and expanding universe, and try to use our precious lives for good purposes.

    As shocking as terrorism may be, it is far from our only problem or even our major problem. We still live in a world in which some 30,000 children die daily from starvation and preventable diseases.

    We live in a world in which the richest 20 percent control 80 percent of the resources. Some 450 billionaires have combined incomes equal to over half of the world’s population. While some on our planet live in lavish abundance with every material advantage imaginable, others live in abject poverty, lacking even the basic resources needed to survive.

    The world spends some $750 billion annually on military forces and weapons, while for a fraction of this amount everyone on the planet could have clean water, adequate food, health care, education, shelter and clothing.

    There are some 30 to 40 wars going on at any given time. Injustice, disparity and old and new hatreds give rise to these wars. The vast majority of the casualties are civilians. In these wars, some 300,000 child soldiers participate. These wars destroy the environment, the infrastructure in already poor countries, and produce new masses of refugees.

    In many parts of the world, people suffer from massive human rights abuses. These abuses fall most heavily on women and children.

    As a species, but particularly in the developed world, we are using up the resources of our planet at a prodigious rate. In doing so, we are robbing future generations of their ability to share in the use of these resources.

    We are also polluting our land, air and water – our most precious resources that we need for survival – with chemical, biological and radiological poisons.

    If all of this were not enough, we have developed and deployed tens of thousands of nuclear weapons capable of destroying humanity and most of life. Many people think that this problem has ended, but it has not. There are still more than 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world and some 4,500 of them are on hair-trigger alert.

    We have reached a point where all of us should be concerned and responsive. Things could grow still worse, however. Nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists would multiply the dangers. Instead of buildings being destroyed, nuclear weapons could cause the destruction of whole cities. Imagine the damage that could be done if terrorists had nuclear weapons. This danger cannot be dismissed.

    Humanity can no longer afford or tolerate the damage that hatred can cause. Nor can humanity afford or tolerate the suffering and premature death that has been the lot of the poor.

    Far too many people on this Earth live in despair and hopelessness. These are afflictions of the soul that go beyond physical pain.

    Others, who should know better, live in selfishness, ignorance and apathy. In many ways, these are even crueler afflictions of the soul. They are symptoms of the disease of selfishness of the Roman Emperor Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned.

    It is not always easy to have hope in the face of darkness, but it is necessary. If we give up hope for bringing about change, we give away our power and diminish the possibilities for change.

    Hope must be a conscious choice. There are always reasons for giving up and retreating into selfishness, ignorance and apathy. If you want hope, you must choose it. It will not necessarily choose you. The way to choose hope is by your actions to achieve a better world.

    There are important reasons, though, to have hope.

    The most important reason for me is the power of the human spirit. The human spirit is amazing. It is capable of achieving sublime beauty and overcoming tremendous obstacles. All greatness – in art, music, literature, science, engineering and peace – is a triumph of the human spirit. But the greatest triumph of the human spirit comes from choosing a compassionate goal and persisting in overcoming obstacles to achieve this goal. All worthy goals require persistence to achieve. They will not happen overnight.

    We should celebrate the spirit of the hibakusha, the survivors of the atomic bombings. They are fighting for a better world, a world in which nuclear weapons will never again be used. They have been proposed to receive the Nobel Prize for Peace. I would strongly support their nomination for this recognition and high honor.

    Miyoko Matsubara was a young girl when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. She has had a dozen or more surgeries and has suffered from breast cancer, but her spirit is indomitable. She learned English and has traveled throughout the United States and Europe to tell her story to young people in the hope that they will understand nuclear dangers and not suffer her fate. When I think of Miyoko, I think of her humble but determined spirit. She is a woman who has suffered and who bows deeply.

    Sadako Sasaki was two years old when the bomb fell on Hiroshima. When she was 12 years old she suffered from leukemia as a result of her exposure to radiation, and was hospitalized. She folded paper cranes with the wish of being healthy again. She folded some two-thirds of the 1000 paper cranes that she hoped would make her wish come true. On one of these cranes she wrote, “I will write peace on your wings and you will fly all over the world.”

    After Sadako died, her classmates finished folding the cranes. Today Sadako’s statue stands in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. The base of the statue is always covered in thick layers of folded cranes that have been placed there by children from throughout Japan and from throughout the world. Children all over the world know of Sadako’s story and her courage.

    Nelson Mandela fought for the rights of his people and an end to apartheid in South Africa. The government of South Africa put him in prison, where he remained for 27 years. Despite his imprisonment, he was able to maintain his spirit and his hope. When he was finally released from prison, he became the first black president of his country. Instead of seeking vengeance, he presided over a peaceful transition of power in South Africa, appointing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to offer pardons to all who confessed their misdeeds during the period of apartheid.

    The first two presidents of Soka Gakkai went to prison rather than fight as soldiers in a war they thought was wrong. I admire their spirits. Mr. Makiguchi died in prison, and Mr. Toda came out to re-build this organization dedicated to applying Buddhist principles to social action. Mr. Toda left a lasting legacy to Soka Gakkai when he called nuclear weapons an “absolute evil,” and called upon the youth of Soka Gakkai to join in ending this evil.

    You responded magnificently to this challenge when you gathered more than 13 million signatures on the Abolition 2000 International Petition calling for ending the nuclear threat, signing a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons and reallocating resources from nuclear weapons to meeting human needs. This petition was presented to the United Nations, but much more needs to be done.

    There are so many people whose lives reflect the best of the human spirit. Another is Hafsat Abiola, who was one of our Foundation’s honorees for our 2001 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. Hafsat’s father was the first democratically elected president of Nigeria, but he was not able to serve even one day because he was imprisoned by the military. When Hafsat’s mother fought for democracy in her country and for her husband’s release from prison, she was assassinated. On the day before Hafsat’s father was to be released from prison, he, too, was killed.

    Despite the pain of losing her parents, Hafsat is without bitterness or rancor. After graduating from Harvard University, she started an organization named for her mother, the Kudirat Initiative for Democracy (KIND). Hafsat works for democracy and for the rights of women and children throughout Africa.

    One other example of the power of the human spirit is found in Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire. Mairead was a young woman working as a secretary in Northern Ireland when disaster struck her family. Mairead’s sister and her sister’s three young children were hit by an out of control car when British forces shot an IRA getaway driver. Two of the children died and the pain was so great that Mairead’s sister later committed suicide.

    Mairead debated what she should do. She considered taking up arms against the British, but she instead choose the course of non-violence. Mairead and another woman, Betty Williams, organized peace gatherings in Northern Ireland. They brought together hundreds of thousands of ordinary people calling for peace. The important thing for you to note is that Mairead herself was a very ordinary person, who became extraordinary because of her choices that reflected courage, compassion and commitment. Today she is the most active of the Nobel Peace Laureates, and often brings them together to speak and act on important peace issues.

    A second reason for hope is that even improbable change does occur. Changes that no expert could predict sometimes occur with incredible speed. Relationships change and new possibilities for peace open up, such as occurred in US-China relations in the early 1970s. The Cold War ended after more than four decades of tension and conflict between East and West. This was symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall, which opened the way for a reunited Germany. Pieces of that wall with their graffiti are now souvenirs sold to tourists. I have such a small piece of the wall in my office. It reminds me that great barriers can come down.

    Nelson Mandela went from being a prisoner of a repressive government to becoming president of South Africa. Similar stories mark the lives of Lech Walesa of Poland and Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic. These changes are not predictable, and are usually the result of efforts that have been taking place over a long period of time by committed individuals, generally outside the glare of the media spotlight.

    A third reason for hope is the Power of One. Individuals can and do make a difference in our world. The second person our Foundation honored with our 2001 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award was Craig Kielburger. Craig is 18 years old, but he is already an old hand at social change. What changed Craig’s life was reading about a 12-year-old Pakistani boy, Iqbal Masih, when Craig was himself only 12 years old. Iqbal had been sold into bonded labor as a carpet weaver and had been virtually a slave, chained to his carpet loom for 14 to 16 hours a day. Somehow he had been able to get free, and began speaking out against child labor. Iqbal was given the Reebok Human Rights Award, but when he returned to Pakistan he was murdered by the “Carpet mafia.”

    Craig thought about Iqbal being the same age as he was. When Craig went to school that day, he told his friends about Iqbal and insisted that they do something to further the cause of children’s rights for which Iqbal had been fighting. That was the beginning of a new organization, Free the Children, founded by Craig Kielburger at the age of 12.

    Today, six years later, Craig’s organization has grown to over 100,000 members. It is the largest organization of children helping children in the world. They have been responsible for freeing thousands of children from bonded labor, and they have built hundreds of schools in places where children were previously not able to obtain a basic education. Craig travels throughout the world to learn and to inspire young people to get involved and make a difference.

    Let me review. Three important reasons to have hope are: the power of the human spirit; the fact that improbable change does occur; and the Power of One. The most important reason, though, is that hope is needed to change the world, and you cannot leave this job to others. Your hope and your help are needed.

    The greatest enemies of change are selfishness, apathy and ignorance. These are the enemies of hope. I urge you to resist these at all costs.

    Selfishness is a narrow way to live. It is about what you have, not what you do. Rich lives are not about the money we accumulate, but about the ways in which we interconnect and help others. The antidote to selfishness is compassion, built upon helping others.

    Apathy is about not caring about others. It is a lack of interest and a failure to engage in trying to make a difference. The antidote to apathy is caring and commitment.

    Ignorance in the midst of information is also about not caring – not caring enough to find out about the problems that confront us. I recently visited Sadako Peace Garden, the small garden that we created in Santa Barbara on the fiftieth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Each year on August 6th we hold a commemoration at the garden for all who died and suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    It is a very beautiful natural garden. It has many wonderful trees, but there is one immense and dramatic eucalyptus tree at one end of the garden that is called the Tree of Faith. The garden also has large rocks in which cranes have been carved.

    In that garden, people sometimes leave folded paper cranes and short messages hanging from the oak trees. On the day I visited, I found this message: “There are many things here I do not know, the knowing of which could change everything.” What a powerful message. The antidote to ignorance is knowledge.

    We must be seekers of knowledge, not for its own sake but to better understand our world so that we can engage in it and break our bonds of selfishness with a compassionate response to life. I don’t think this is asking too much of ourselves or each other. It is the essence of being human.

    Don’t be constrained by national boundaries. Recognize the essential equality and dignity of every person on the planet. This is the basic starting point of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Don’t expect to change the world overnight. Change seldom occurs that way. Trees grow from seeds. They all begin small, and some grow large. Sometimes they become magnificent. Often they need care and nurturing. Most of what we do to achieve a better world will require patience and persistence.

    I encourage you to plant seeds of peace by your engagement in issues of social justice, by your efforts to create a more decent world in which everyone can live with dignity.

    I have with me a seed from the Tree of Faith in Sadako Peace Garden. It has within it all that is necessary to become a great magnificent tree, just as you have within you all that is needed to become a great human being and a leader for peace.

    I want to conclude by asking you to take three specific actions.

    First, take the pledge of Earth Citizenship: “I pledge allegiance to the Earth and to its varied life forms; one World, indivisible, with liberty, justice and dignity for all.” That is the world we need to create. I also want to encourage you to study two very important documents, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Earth Charter. Please be an active and responsible citizen of our planet. Nothing less will do.

    Second, help to build schools in areas of great need. We have joined with Free the Children to raise funds to build schools in post-conflict areas, such as Chiapas, Mexico and Sierra Leone in Africa. For between $5,000 and $10,000 dollars a school can be built and a teacher provided for students who would otherwise not get a primary education. Free the Children has already built over 100 of these schools in poor countries. This is one of the best ways I can think of to make a difference in our world.

    Third, make a commitment to work for a nuclear weapons free future. Recognize the essential truth that human beings and nuclear weapons cannot co-exist. Choose life and a human future. In the past you helped gather 13 million signatures on the Abolition 2000 International Petition. Today I’d like to ask you to do even more.

    Work to make your school, your community, your nation and our world nuclear weapons free zones.

    Organize letter writing and petition campaigns to the media and to government leaders.

    Promote the idea of a Nobel Peace Prize for the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring global attention to their cry of “Never Again!”

    Use the sunflower as the symbol of achieving a nuclear weapons-free world.

    I urge you also to join us in also gathering support for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity, and sending it to leaders of your country and other countries throughout the world. The Appeal, which has already been signed by some of the great peace leaders of our time, asks the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to take five critical actions for the benefit of all humanity. These are:

    – De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles. – Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. – Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement. – Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states. – Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world. – Not one of these critical actions was even addressed by Presidents Bush and Putin at their summit in Crawford, Texas in November. Their pledge to unilaterally reduce their arsenals of strategic nuclear weapons to between 2,200 and 1,700 over a ten-year period is inadequate and represents their desire to continue to rely upon their nuclear arsenals. We must ask that these leaders take up again the issue of nuclear disarmament in a far more serious way when they meet again in Moscow next March. If they do not, they and we will face the risk that terrorists will be able to purchase, steal or develop nuclear weapons and destroy our cities.

    I would encourage delegations of youth representatives to travel to Washington, Moscow, Tokyo and other key capitals to make the case for ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity. We cannot rely upon the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to solve the problems themselves. They need the help and encouragement of all of us. This is part of our responsibility as citizens of planet Earth.

    If serious progress on nuclear disarmament is not made soon, you will be inheriting the nuclear dangers that are left behind. Time is of the essence and we must approach nuclear disarmament now as if the future of civilization depended upon our success in convincing world leaders to adequately control and eliminate these weapons and the fissile materials needed to create them.

    I hope that I have challenged you, particularly with the actions I have proposed. I have confidence that you will meet the challenge of being an active participant in creating a more just and decent future for humanity, a future you can be proud to pass on to your children and grandchildren.

    I encourage you to choose hope and then never lose hope, even in the face of darkness. Your success in life will be something that only you can judge, but I believe the right criteria for you to use are compassion, commitment and courage. I hope that you will work to achieve a better world, and I know that you can and will make a difference.

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Ending the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    Ending the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    Ozaki Yukio Memorial Foundation “Gakudo” Award Lecture

    I am honored to receive an award that is made to individuals and organizations that carry on Ozaki Yukio’s undaunted battle to build a safe and peaceful world for all people. I want to thank the Board of Directors of the Ozaki Yukio Foundation and its President, Moriyama Mayumi, for this high honor. I particularly want to express appreciation to Mrs. Sohma Yukika and Mrs. Hara Fujiko, the daughter and granddaughter of Ozaki Yukio, who are both directors of the Foundation.

    Ozaki Yukio wrote, “I dreamed I would find a way for the peoples of the five continents to live in peace.” I can think of no goal more worthy or necessary. Ozaki Yukio was a great man, a man of the people, who fought for democracy and peace throughout his life. He also fought against war, militarism, military expenditures and unilateralism.

    One of the previous recipients of this award is Elisabeth Mann Borgese. Elisabeth and I worked together for two years in the early 1970s at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California. I was attracted to the Center by Elisabeth’s work of the law of the seas. She believed passionately that a new world order could be built from the necessity of creating a new set of laws for the world’s oceans. Elisabeth, now in her 80s, still exudes passion for this work and remains an inspiration to me.

    Our Common Heritage

    Elisabeth spoke often of the oceans as the Common Heritage of Mankind, a phrase coined by Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta. Over the years I have come to see that the concept of Common Heritage applies not only to the oceans, but to virtually everything on our planet, as well as to the planet itself, its biosphere, atmosphere and outer space. The land is our Common Heritage as are the skies, the climate, the trees and the crops we plant. Our Common Heritage also includes our cultures, our languages, our art forms, our religions, and our understandings of the mystery and miracle of life.

    It is part of the human condition that we do not stop often enough to recognize and appreciate the miracle of our lives. Each one of us is a miracle, unique and special. Every simple thing that we are capable of doing — everything that we take for granted such as walking, talking, thinking and creating – is a miracle. And, of course, we ourselves are miracles. We don’t know where we come from before birth or where we go after death. We don’t know why our hearts or brains work or why we are capable of breathing and doing so much more without conscious effort. Each of us is a miracle shrouded in mysteries we cannot understand.

    We now share this incredibly beautiful planet with some six billion other miracles. I have often wondered how it is that miracles are capable of killing other miracles. Perhaps it is because we do not value ourselves highly enough that we are less appreciative of others. Perhaps there is some appreciation for the miracles of who we are and for life that is missing in our cultures and our educational systems.

    The Glorification of War

    Most of us on this planet live in cultures in which war is glorified and celebrated. Our history books are filled with stories and pictures of those who led us into battle. Our popular culture celebrates war and warriors. One has only to look at a culture’s movies, television programming and the video games that children play to understand from where the next generation of warriors will arise.

    The 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history. Some 200 million people died in international and civil wars. One of the most striking things about the 20th century is that the number of civilians killed in warfare rose dramatically throughout the century. In World War I, soldiers fought each other in trenches. In World War II, civilian casualties rose as aerial attacks were directed against cities. By the end of that war, US bombers were destroying Japanese cities at will. It was not a large step from the fire bombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945, in which some 100,000 civilians were killed, to dropping atomic weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of that year.

    By the end of the 20th century over 90 percent of the casualties of warfare were civilians, and throughout the latter half of the 20th century the threat of nuclear annihilation hung over all humanity. The United States and the former Soviet Union engaged in a mad arms race in which they each developed the capacity to destroy humanity many times over. Somehow the world survived the insanity of the nuclear arms race, but we are not yet safe. There are still far too many nuclear weapons in the world, over 30,000, and even today a surprisingly large number of them, some 4,500, remain on hair-trigger alert.

    The Influence of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums

    My goal is to help create a world free of nuclear weapons. I was deeply affected in this regard by a relatively early visit to Japan. I came to Japan in 1963, when I was 21 years old. During my stay in Japan, I visited the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums. I learned something at these museums that I had neither seen nor heard before. It was the extent of the suffering of the people who were beneath those bombs.

    In school in the United States, we had learned a relatively simple lesson about the use of these bombs: Atomic bombs win wars. In the case of World War II, the US dropped the atomic bombs and won the war. There was little discussion of the large numbers of deaths of men, women and children, or of the terrible suffering caused by the bombs. In these museums, however, the people beneath the bombs were brought back into the picture.

    Surely, nuclear weapons are the least heroic weapons imaginable. Their power is such that they kill indiscriminately. Dropped on a city, nuclear weapons kill everything immediately within a broad radius, and spread their radioactive poisons that go on killing over a much broader area. My visit to those museums at a young age had a profound effect on me. It gave direction to my life. I did not know then exactly what I would do, but I did know that nuclear weapons were not really weapons at all. They were instruments of genocide, capable of destroying cities, civilization and even humanity itself.

    Nuclear weapons are also profoundly undemocratic. They concentrate power and take it away from the people. Nuclear weapons were born in secrecy and have always been shrouded in secrecy. The decisions to develop, deploy and use these weapons have always been in the hands of only a small number of individuals. Even today, a single leader, or at most a small group of individuals, could envelop the world in nuclear conflagration.

    The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had it right: Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist. If the cry of the atomic bomb survivors, “Never Again!” was to be realized, then nuclear weapons would have to be eliminated. The goal seemed tremendously distant in the face of the implacable hostility being expressed during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Yet it seemed necessary. The intention of confronting nuclear weapons and seeking their elimination was set in my mind in 1963, nearly four decades ago.

    After leaving Japan, I joined the army reserves in lieu of being drafted into the army. A second major force that shaped my life in the direction of working for peace was being called to active duty in the army in 1968. The Vietnam War was at its height, and I soon found myself as a young 2nd lieutenant with orders to go to Vietnam. I was totally opposed to the war in Vietnam, thinking it was illegal, immoral and highly inappropriate for the US to be killing Vietnamese peasants on the other side of the world. I decided to fight against going to Vietnam and took the matter to court. Eventually I won, and was released from the army.

    My first job was teaching international relations at San Francisco State University. I felt that change was too slow as a teacher, and that is what led me to work with Elisabeth Borgese at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. After that I worked for the Reshaping the International Order (RIO) Foundation in the Netherlands, coordinating a project on the relationship of dual-purpose technologies to disarmament and development. Then, in 1982, I was a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    It has been nearly twenty years since our Foundation was born. At that time, the leaders of the United States and Soviet Union were not talking to each other. The world situation looked grim. A small group of us in Santa Barbara believed that more needed to be done, and that citizen action was critical. We met weekly for a year, trying to develop a plan. From these meetings, we created the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    The implication of the name was that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. I became the president of this new Foundation. We had no resources, but large dreams. Even in those difficult days, I was filled with hope. Each day brought new challenges. Our small Foundation began speaking out and advocating for a world free of nuclear threat. In those early days, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, we were viewed with some suspicion for our advocacy of nuclear disarmament.

    The tagline of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is Waging Peace. It is a concept that we believe is essential to ending the cycle of violence and building a culture of peace. Waging Peace implies an active commitment to changing the world. It means seeking non-violent means to resolve conflicts, and also working actively to prevent wars by creating the conditions of peace. This means active engagement in ending poverty and starvation. It means fighting against human rights abuses wherever they occur. It means fighting against corporate greed when there is human need. It means working for sustainable conditions of development and an environment that will sustain life on our planet.

    There are four main areas in which we have worked. The first is for the abolition of nuclear weapons. We believe that the elimination of nuclear weapons is essential to ensure a human future. We were a founding member of the Abolition 2000 Global Network, a network that has grown to over 2,000 organizations and municipalities throughout the world. We were also a founding member of the Middle Powers Initiative, a small group of non-governmental organizations that has encouraged and supported middle power governments to play a leading role in nuclear disarmament efforts. The Foundation organized an Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity, which has been signed by many world leaders, including 37 Nobel Laureates. I will discuss this Appeal in more detail in a moment.

    The second area of our concern is international law and institutions. We believe that international law must be strengthened and that the United Nations and its specialized agencies must be empowered to do their jobs effectively. We have fought hard for the creation of an International Criminal Court, a court that can hold individuals accountable for the most serious international crimes. An International Criminal Court would bring Nuremberg into the twenty-first century. It would set a standard in the world that no one stands above international law, and that crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide will not go unpunished. To this list of crimes, the crime of international terrorism should now be added.

    Without universal respect for and enforcement of international law, it will not be possible to effectively stop human rights abuses, destruction of the environment, and weaponization of the planet and outer space. Nor will it be possible to provide protection to the oceans, atmosphere, outer space and other areas of Common Heritage of Mankind.

    A third area of our concern is the use of science and technology for constructive rather than destructive purposes. In this area we helped to found and have provided support for the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES). This network, based in Dortmund, Germany, has affiliates in all parts of the world, and major projects in ethics, disarmament, and nuclear non-proliferation. INES has also established a whistleblower fund to support scientists and engineers who act courageously in opposing unethical uses of science and technology. We also have a Renewable Energy Project that promotes the use of sustainable forms of energy.

    The final major area of our concern is reaching out to youth. The Foundation has a Youth Outreach Coordinator on our staff who is responsible for conducting Peace Leadership Trainings for Youth and building chapters on high school and college campuses. We also have a Peace Education Coordinator on our staff who teaches non-violence in the schools and who is developing non-violence curriculum that can be used by teachers throughout the world.

    We provide internships for young people, and we give annual prizes to youth in our Swackhamer Peace Essay Contest and our Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards. Through our two web sites, www.wagingpeace.org and www.nuclearfiles.org, we reach additional hundreds of thousands of young people each year, many of whom sign up as members of the Foundation and receive our monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower.

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

    Let me now focus on nuclear issues. In 1995, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty held a review and extension conference. At issue was whether the treaty, which entered into force in 1970, would be extended indefinitely or for periods of time. This is the treaty that requires the nuclear weapons states to engage in good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. We went to that treaty conference, along with other non-governmental organizations, lobbying against indefinite extension of the treaty. We wanted extensions of the treaty to be based upon achieving clearly defined nuclear disarmament goals.

    The United States was there lobbying hard for an indefinite extension of the treaty. In the end, the US prevailed and the treaty was extended indefinitely. The continuation of the treaty would not be dependent upon the nuclear weapons states achieving disarmament goals. However, the parties to the treaty agreed by consensus to complete negotiations for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to commence negotiations for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and to the “determined pursuit by the nuclear weapons states of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons….”

    Out of frustration with the slow progress on nuclear disarmament at the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, a number of disarmament non-governmental organizations decided to join together in establishing a new global network, Abolition 2000, to achieve the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. By the year 2000, the network had grown to over 2000 organizations and municipalities.

    When the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, now numbering 187 countries, met for their next review conference in the year 2000 there was little good news to report. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty had been created and signed by many countries, but the treaty had not yet entered into force and in 1999 the US Senate failed to ratify the treaty. There had been virtually no progress on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. If anything, the nuclear weapons states could be said to be making “systematic and progressive efforts” to thwart nuclear disarmament.

    At the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, many parties to the treaty noted the lack of substantial progress on nuclear disarmament, and called for action. The parties agreed to 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament. Among these were entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; the continuation of an interim moratorium on nuclear testing; full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals….”

    An Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    On the opening day of the 2000 review conference, our Foundation ran an Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity in the New York Times. The Appeal, signed by many of the great peace leaders of our time, says in part, “Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately – soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm…. The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them.”

    The Appeal calls upon the leaders of all nations and, in particular the leaders of the nuclear weapons states, to take five actions for the benefit of all humanity. These actions are:

    – De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles. – Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. – Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement. – Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states. – Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    The Crawford Summit

    In November 2000, Presidents Bush and Putin met at the Crawford, Texas Summit. President Bush announced that he was prepared to unilaterally reduce the size of the US nuclear arsenal to 2,200 to 1,700 strategic nuclear warheads over a ten-year period. President Putin agreed to match these levels, although he had stated previously on several occasions that he was prepared to go to lower levels than this. While perhaps we should be grateful that the reductions are occurring, these numbers are still high enough to destroy the world many times over, and demonstrate that the US and Russia are still stuck in the Cold War mentality of deterrence – even when it is not clear there is anyone to deter.

    The Crawford Summit failed to deal with any of the critical issues raised in the Appeal. Both the US and Russia continue to maintain some 2,250 nuclear weapons each on hair-trigger alert. More than ten years after the end of the Cold War, this is unnecessarily dangerous and increases the possibility of an accidental nuclear war.

    Rather than reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, President Bush has been trying to convince President Putin to amend the treaty and has indicated his willingness to abrogate the treaty if President Putin will not agree to amend it. We have prepared a book at the Foundation on the US plans to deploy a National Missile Defense. The book is entitled, A Maginot Line in the Sky: International Perspectives on Ballistic Missile Defense. It provides many arguments why a ballistic missile defenses are destabilizing and decrease global security. In Northeast Asia, theater missile defenses will lead to China’s strengthening its offensive capabilities, which in turn will lead India and Pakistan to strengthen their nuclear arsenals.

    We believe there are three principle reasons why President Bush is pushing so hard to deploy missile defenses: first, he seeks more protection and degrees of freedom for US forward based troops and military installations; second, he seeks to proceed with development and testing to weaponize outer space; and third, the program will transfer tens of billions, perhaps hundreds of billions, of dollars, from US taxpayers to defense contractors. The Bush administration is so eager to move forward with missile defenses that it has actually encouraged China to build up its nuclear arsenal so that it will not feel threatened by US missile defenses.

    In 1999 the US Senate failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and President Bush has not shown any intent to re-submit the treaty to the Senate. On the contrary, he has examined possibilities of resuming nuclear testing. At the present, all states are observing a moratorium on nuclear testing. A breakout from this moratorium by one state could lead other states to also resume testing and signal increased reliance on nuclear arsenals.

    Good faith negotiations to achieve the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons are the promise of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which entered into force more than 30 years ago. The failure to engage in these negotiations is a breach of the solemn obligations of that treaty. The unilateral steps announced by President Bush at the Crawford Summit are not a substitute for these negotiations. What is done unilaterally can be reversed unilaterally, and irreversible steps are called for by the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty at their 2000 Review Conference.

    Policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and No Use against non-nuclear weapons states would signal less reliance on nuclear weapons and would provide needed assurances to non-nuclear weapons states. So long as the nuclear weapons states fail to provide these assurances, the uncertainty will be an impetus to nuclear proliferation.

    The US alone is continuing to spend some $35 billion per year on maintaining its nuclear arsenal. That amounts to some $100 million per day. At the same time, some 30,000 children under the age of five are dying daily of starvation and preventable diseases. Relatively small amounts of food and inexpensive inoculations could save these children. The world, led by the United States, continues to squander resources on nuclear arsenals that have virtually no military utility while children go hungry and without adequate nutrition, health care and education.

    The $35 billion that the US spends per year on nuclear weapons is just one-tenth of its military budget of some $350 billion per year. The world as a whole is spending some $750 billion on military forces. These are obscene amounts in the face of the suffering in the world. Just a small percentage of world military expenditures could provide clean water, adequate food and shelter and primary education for all the people on our planet. The potential is there to turn our planet into a paradise for all of its inhabitants, but to do so we must break out of the war culture that militarizes and poisons the planet.

    Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

    The terrorist attacks on US soil on September 11th taught us that even the most powerful nation in the world is vulnerable to terrorists. The strongest military in the world with its bloated nuclear arsenal could not protect against a small band of terrorists, propelled by hatred and committed to violence. Military force is largely impotent against those who hate and are willing to die in acts of violence. The only way out is by waging peace so effectively, with such depth of compassion, that enemies are turned to friends or at least made neutral. This will not be easy, but it is our best hope for security in the future.

    Current nuclear weapons policies of the nuclear weapons states make it likely that terrorists will be able to buy, steal or make nuclear weapons. Should this occur, it will not only be buildings that may be destroyed but cities. Unless the nuclear weapons states become serious about reducing the size of their nuclear arsenals to a firmly controllable number of nuclear weapons, it is a near certainty that these weapons will at some point land in the hands of terrorists.

    Policy Proposals for Japan

    I would like to suggest some policy considerations for Japan. I offer these as a friend of the Japanese people.

    Japan should be a leader for a nuclear weapons free world. Right now it is not. I think the government of Japan has broken faith with the will of its people on the issue of nuclear disarmament. The people of Japan want nuclear disarmament, and deserve better from their government on this issue. Having experienced nuclear devastation at first hand, Japan is well positioned to lead the world, including the US, to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    Be a true friend of the United States. This means that Japan must be willing to criticize the US if it believes US policies are misguided. True friends do not just go along with their friends. They tell them the truth. In the US, we have a saying, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” On nuclear policy issues, the US has been driving drunk and putting the world at risk. It’s past time for Japan to express its concern to the US in polite but strong terms.

    Be a friend also to China. This means that Japan must also be willing to criticize China, but also to apologize to China for the wrongs committed there by Japan in the past. I just came from China and had the strong sense from the young people I spoke with there that an apology from Japan is long overdue and would improve relations between the two countries.

    Oppose ballistic missile defenses in Northeast Asia, and work instead for a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone. This would be important for security in the region and as a model for the world. A leader in this work in Japan is Hiromichi Umebayashi, the president of Peace Depot.

    Follow the Kobe Formula throughout Japan. If the captain of an American ship in Japanese waters is asked whether his ship is carrying nuclear weapons, the standard response based on US policy is to “neither confirm nor deny.” This should not be good enough response for Japan. At Kobe, port entry is denied without a clear response that the ship is not carrying nuclear weapons. This policy could be used throughout Japan.

    Support the five steps set forth in the Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity. These are: de-alert all nuclear weapons; re-affirm commitments to maintaining Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; commence good faith negotiations for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons; declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons; and reallocate resources from maintaining nuclear arsenals to meeting human needs.

    Maintain Article IX of your Constitution. This article, which prohibits “aggressive war,” makes Japan unique among nations and gives Japan special responsibility for furthering the cause of peace. There has been some talk of trying to amend or remove this article from the Japanese Constitution. This would be a grave mistake.

    Sadako Peace Garden

    I told you that an early influence on my life was visiting the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums. Thirty-seven years after my first visit to those museums, I was able to arrange with the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for an exhibit from those museums to come to Santa Barbara. Thousands of people were able to gain new insights into the dangers of nuclear weapons by visiting that exhibit. After the exhibit returned to Japan, we were able to create a virtual exhibit that can be viewed from our web sites.

    One of the most moving stories related to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the story of Sadako Sasaki. Sadako was a little girl, only two years old, when the bomb fell on Hiroshima. For ten years she led a normal life, and then came down with leukemia, a likely result of radiation exposure. While in the hospital, Sadako folded her medicine wrappers into paper cranes in the hopes of regaining her health and achieving peace in the world. On the wings of one of the small cranes she wrote, “I will write peace on your wings and you will fly all over the world.”

    Japanese legend has it that if one folds 1,000 cranes their wish will come true. Sadako died before her 1,000 cranes were finished, but her classmates folded the rest and they spread the story of Sadako. Today her peace cranes have truly flown all over the world. There is a statue of Sadako in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and its base is always covered by mounds of cranes brought and sent by children from throughout Japan and other parts of the world. Sadako’s message of peace has even reached Santa Barbara.

    In 1995, our Foundation commemorated the 50th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by creating a peace garden at a beautiful retreat center in Santa Barbara. We called it Sadako Peace Garden. It is a very natural garden. There are cranes carved into the large boulders in the garden. There is also a very large, beautiful eucalyptus tree at one end of the garden. The tree is over one hundred years old. It has a very broad trunk and it reaches far into the sky. At the retreat center they call it the Tree of Faith.

    Each year on August 6th we hold a commemoration at Sadako Peace Garden. The ceremony is composed of music, poetry and reflections. It is always very solemn and beautiful. During the year, many people visit Sadako Peace Garden for their own quiet reflection. I like to take visitors there. I recently took one of the young honorees of our Distinguished Peace Leadership Award, Hafsat Abiola from Nigeria, and her sister Khafila to visit the garden. There were paper cranes hanging from the trees as well as some messages. We noticed that one of the messages said, “There are many things here I do not know, the knowing of which could change everything.” What a beautiful concept. We must never give up, because there are things we do not know, the knowing of which could change everything.

    At the garden I picked up some small seeds from the ground. It was from a seed like those that the Tree of Faith grew. Each of those seeds contained everything necessary to create a strong, healthy, beautiful tree. It is the same with each of us. We each contain all we need to become strong, healthy and beautiful individuals, although we will certainly be benefited by some support and nurturing. I am speaking, of course, of what we become inwardly as well as outwardly.

    The Importance of Hope

    I want to suggest to you that hope should be a foundation for our actions. Without hope, it is easy to become mired in despair or cynicism. Without hope, vision is limited; and without vision, as the Prophet Isaiah warned long ago, the people perish.

    Hope may be found in the active pursuit of a more peaceful and just world. Hope may be found in educating a new generation in the ways of peace and non-violence. Hope may be found in a compassionate response to suffering, wherever it occurs. Hope will be forged by our actions to end hunger, poverty, and the abuse of human rights. Hope resides in our efforts to stop the pollution of our planetary home and to protect its resources for future generations. And hope will be found in working to abolish nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and in working to abolish war as a human institution.

    We do not know what the future holds. What we do know is that if we are apathetic and uninvolved we will not be a part of shaping a better future. It gives me hope that increasing numbers of people, many of them young people, are becoming involved in actively working to shape a more decent future.

    In many ways, we are living in a dark and dangerous time. But with hope and perseverance we can make a difference. I recently learned something important: Darkness is not the opposite of light. Darkness is the absence of light. Where there is light, there is no darkness. The same must be true of despair: Where there is hope, there cannot be despair. So I urge you to bring light into dark times, and bring hope to those who despair. By planting and nurturing seeds of peace each day and by living with compassion, commitment and courage, you can help create a world at peace free of the threat of nuclear annihilation. It’s going to take all of us together to change the course of our world, and our joy will be in the effort to accomplish this great goal.

    I pledge to you that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will not cease in its efforts to lead the way toward a peaceful, non-violent and nuclear weapons-free world that we can be proud to pass on to the next generation – and I am convinced that our work has never been more necessary or important.

    The Power of One

    Encouraged by exemplary lives such as that of Ozaki Yukio, we will work to find, train and inspire the Ozaki Yukio’s of tomorrow. I’m glad that you are keeping his vision alive, and I hope that our work is also contributing to realizing the vision of this great man of the people.

    I would like to conclude with a short quote by Ozaki Yukio. It comes from an extraordinary article he wrote, entitled, “In Lieu of My Tombstone.” He said this:

    “If the world’s wealth and people are allowed to move freely, economic recovery will be spurred and the gap between the rich and the poor will be bridged. To secure this, the abolition of arms will annihilate the difference between the strong and the weak countries and bring about global equality, which means security and happiness for all mankind.

    “Collaboration or isolation? Open doors or closed? Which will it be? You who read this, wherever you are in the world, I beg you to ponder these lines and choose wisely.”

    We would all do well to not only ponder these lines, but also to ponder the life of Ozaki Yukio. His life demonstrated the Power of One. He lived with compassion, commitment and courage. He made a difference in his country and in the world. In this sense, his life is a beacon.

    I encourage each of you to choose hope and to be persistent in seeking your goals. You will help to fulfill Ozaki Yukio’s noble vision if each day you do something to contribute to a world of peace and justice, free from the threat of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Responsibility for the future, as Ozaki Yukio understood so well, rests with each of us.

    *David Krieger is the President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    We cannot hide from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that could destroy civilization and end most life on Earth.

    Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately – soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm.

    The obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects,” as unanimously affirmed by the International Court of Justice, is at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    More than ten years have now passed since the end of the Cold War, and yet nuclear weapons continue to cloud humanity’s future. The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them.

    We, therefore, call upon the leaders of the nations of the world and, in particular, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to act now for the benefit of all humanity by taking the following steps:

    – De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles. – Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. – Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement. – Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states. – Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

  • The Unity of Lemmings

    The Unity of Lemmings

    As a consequence of the September 11th terrorist attacks, our country appears united as never before. President Bush has had approval ratings above 90 percent and it is reported that initial support for bombing Afghanistan also was above 90 percent.

    Congress was nearly unified in giving the President the authority to use force. Only Congresswoman Barbara Lee withheld her vote from this resolution. In doing so, she recalled the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in which Congress authorized the Vietnam War, and quoted Senator Wayne Morse, one of two Senators who voted against the resolution. “I believe,” said Morse, “that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States. I believe that with the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake.” Congresswoman Lee stated: “Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today. And I fear the consequences.”

    Congress is also massively bailing out corporations and filling military coffers to overflowing. Civil liberties are being eroded and the United States is relentlessly bombing Afghanistan. So far, in addition to empty terrorist camps, we have accidentally bombed villages and hospitals, leaving an unknown number of Afghans injured and dead. We have bombed Red Cross warehouses three times. Aid workers in Afghanistan are warning that unless there is a bombing halt to allow food through to the Afghan people, millions of them could starve this winter.

    Perhaps it is time for an assessment of how well the President is really doing. I have suggested three criteria for judging the US response to terrorism: morality, legality and thoughtfulness.

    Morality can be evaluated on whether or not our response is resulting in widespread suffering and loss of innocent lives. It is. Although our military forces may be trying to avoid loss of innocent lives, they are not succeeding. Hundreds of innocent Afghans have already been killed. We call it “collateral damage.” If the relief workers in Afghanistan are correct, the US bombing could indirectly result in millions of innocent deaths by starvation this winter. Some half million Afghans have already fled their homes to avoid the bombing and have become refugees. On morality, the President’s military action is failing.

    Legality can be judged on whether or not our response is meeting the standards of domestic and international law. It is certainly questionable. Congress has not declared war against Afghanistan. It has simply given the President a blank check to use force. The United Nations Security Council has called on states “to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks.” It has not, however, explicitly given authorization to carry out military action in Afghanistan, and it is questionable whether the present military actions against the Taliban regime can be construed as self-defense. Certainly if US bombing results in massive starvation in Afghanistan, its actions will be illegal under the laws of war.

    The Taliban regime offered at one point to turn Osama bin Laden over to a neutral third state if the US would provide evidence of his guilt and stop its bombing. Whatever one may think of the Taliban, this was not an unreasonable offer. President Bush refused, saying that he would not negotiate. It might also be noted that President Bush has not provided evidence of bin Laden’s guilt to the American people. On legality, the President’s military action appears to be failing and on the verge of causing a major humanitarian disaster.

    Thoughtfulness can be evaluated on the basis of whether the response is likely to reduce or increase the cycle of violence. Thus far, the cycle of violence is increasing by our military response, and there seems to be no clear end in sight. Some members of the Bush administration are calling for spreading the war into Iraq and other countries in which terrorists may be operating. They are also warning that this will be a long war.

    In terms of thoughtfulness, there has also been very little reflection at the level of the government with regard to US policies that are generating such strong hatred toward us. Rather than thoughtfulness, the Bush administration has relied primarily on force. Here, too, the President’s military action is failing.

    In addition to the other failures of our military action, we appear to be no closer to apprehending Osama bin Laden or to destroying his terrorist network. It also seems unlikely that capturing or killing bin Laden will put an end to terrorism.

    Rather than being united like lemmings behind a failing military action, perhaps we should be thinking about other ways to make the American people safe from terrorism. Perhaps we should be having more public discussion of alternatives rather than being bombarded by military “analysts” on the news night after night. Perhaps we should be reflecting upon the implications of our policies in the Middle East and throughout the world, and evaluating them on the basis of their justice, equity and support for democratic practices.

    Perhaps we should be thinking more deeply about our lack of support for the United Nations and for international law. Perhaps we should be reconsidering our failure to support the treaty banning landmines, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Kyoto Accords on Global Warming, the verification protocol of the Biological Weapons Convention, and the treaty creating an International Criminal Court. Perhaps we should be reflecting on our failure to live up to our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the increased dangers that has created of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

    Terrorism poses a very serious threat to the American people and to the survival of civilization. Our only way out is to forge bonds of unprecedented global cooperation to end terrorism by getting to its roots. This will require police and intelligence cooperation globally. The military may have a role, but it should be one primarily of helping to provide intelligence and protecting our transportation systems, our nuclear plants, and other vulnerable areas of our society.

    Before we reach the edge of the cliff and go over like lemmings, it’s time to stop blindly following the path of military force. We should instead give leadership to strengthening an international system through the United Nations capable of ending terrorism and the conditions that give birth to it.

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a non-governmental organization on the roster of the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

  • Bush-Putin Nuclear Arms Cuts Are Not Enough

    Bush-Putin Nuclear Arms Cuts Are Not Enough

    Presidents Bush and Putin announced jointly that their countries “have overcome the legacy of the Cold War.” While the new cooperative relationship between the US and Russia is to be applauded, what their Presidents said and what was left unsaid about nuclear arms reductions still resonated with Cold War logic.

    President Bush announced that he would be reducing the US arsenal of long-range nuclear weapons by two-thirds from some 7,000 weapons to somewhere between 2,200 and 1,700 over a ten-year period. President Putin said, “we will try to respond in kind.” These cuts, which need to be viewed in the context of the post Cold War world, will not make us two-thirds safer.

    It was Presidents Bush Sr. and Yeltsin that agreed back in 1993 in the START II agreements to cut long-range nuclear arsenals to 3,500 each by the beginning of 2003. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin moved this date back to the end of 2007, but also agreed in principle to go beyond this in a next step to 2,500 long-range nuclear weapons in START III negotiations.

    Since entering office, President Putin has let it be known that he is prepared to reduce the long-range nuclear arsenals of the two sides to 1,500 or less. Some of his aides have said privately that President Putin was prepared to go down to 1,000 or less. Chances are he still is prepared to move to lower levels.

    Still lower levels of nuclear armaments would be consistent with leaving behind the legacy of the Cold War, while improving the security of both countries. If the US and Russia are no longer using these weapons to deter each other from attacking (since there is no reason to do so), for what reason do they need these weapons at all? It is widely understood that nuclear weapons have no military utility other than deterrence, and even this was shown to be ineffective in preventing terrorist attacks on September 11th.

    China has a minimal deterrent force of only some 500 weapons with only some 20 missiles capable of reaching the United States. India and Pakistan also have small nuclear arsenals, but surely they pose no threat to the US or Russia. The UK, France and Israel also have small nuclear arsenals, but pose no threat to either the US or Russia.

    North Korea, Iran and Iraq have neither nuclear weapons nor missiles with which to attack the US or Russia, and they would certainly be foolish to do so, given the conventional military power alone of these two countries.

    The greatest danger posed to both countries is not from each other or any other country. It is from terrorists, but terrorists cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons. Certainly this was one crucial lesson of September 11th.

    The US and Russia need to ensure that nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of terrorists. The best way to do this is to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons in all states to a level that can be controlled with certainty and to institute controls on weapons-grade fissile materials.

    To achieve such controls, which are truly in the security interests of both countries, will require even deeper cuts made with far more sense of urgency. Such cuts are necessary to keep Russian “loose nukes” out of the hands of terrorists and to demonstrate to the world the US and Russia are truly committed to achieving the nuclear disarmament they promised when they signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty more than three decades ago.

    Presidents Bush and Putin have also left some important things unsaid in regard to nuclear arms. They have made no mention of the continued high alert status of their nuclear weapons. Currently each country has some 2,250 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched within moments of an order to do so. This tempts fate unnecessarily, and could lead to an accidental nuclear war.

    Neither have the two Presidents made reference to tactical nuclear weapons, the smaller battlefield nuclear weapons that would be most likely to be used and that could most easily fall into the hands of terrorists. Nor has President Bush made mention of the serious implications for global stability if the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is amended or abrogated, as the US is seeking, to allow for the testing of space based weaponry.

    President Bush has said that he is prepared to reduce the US nuclear arsenal unilaterally, but this means that it is also possible to reverse this decision unilaterally. Several thousand US and Russian nuclear warheads will be dismantled in the coming ten years, but their nuclear cores will presumably be stored and available for reassembly on short notice. The decision to reduce nuclear arsenals should be committed to writing and made irreversible, such that the nuclear cores are unavailable for future use and subsequent administrations in both countries will be bound by the commitment.

    In the year 2000, the parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty agreed that the principle of irreversibility should apply to nuclear disarmament. The US and Russia also agreed, along with the UK, France and China, to an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.”

    If the US and Russia truly want to prevent future nuclear terrorism, this is the time for leadership to accomplish the “total elimination” that has been promised. The US and Russia are the only countries capable of providing this leadership, but it is unlikely that they will do so unless pressed by the American and Russian people. And this will only happen if our peoples grasp the extent of the nuclear dangers that still confront us.

    We should not be lulled into thinking that reductions of long-range nuclear weapons to 2,200 to 1,700 in ten years time are sufficient. Such arsenals will continue to place at risk our cities as well as civilization and most of life.

    *David Krieger, an attorney and political scientist, is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Crawford Summit

    Presidents Bush and Putin will be meeting at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas from November 13-15 at what has been billed as the Crawford Summit. One major purpose of this summit is to discuss reductions in nuclear arsenals. For a few years the Russians have been calling for reducing US and Russian nuclear arsenals to 1,500 or less strategic nuclear weapons. The US has said that it needs to evaluate its nuclear posture, and is now in the process of doing so.

    President Bush has said that he wants to move forward with reductions in nuclear arsenals, but he has tried to tie these reductions to Russian agreement on amending the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty to allow the US to conduct missile defense tests that are currently banned by the ABM Treaty. In other words, President Bush has been using reductions in nuclear arsenals as a bargaining chip to gain Russian assent to amending the ABM Treaty.

    Perhaps it is not yet clear to President Bush that significant reductions in the Russian nuclear arsenal will make the US safer. In fact, leadership by the US and Russia to eliminate all nuclear weapons, as they are obligated to do in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, would be strongly in the interests of both countries as well as the world at large.

    Why is the US so eager to amend the ABM Treaty? I would suggest that there are three major reasons. First, the US wants to use theater missile defenses to protect its forward based forces throughout the world. This will give the United States greater degrees of freedom to use its military troops anywhere in the world without concern that US bases and troops will be vulnerable to missile attacks in response.

    Second, the US wants to weaponize outer space and wants to be rid of Article V, Section 1 of the ABM Treaty in which each party to the treaty “undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based or mobile land-based.” The US views missile defenses as a way to develop and test space based weaponry.

    Third, amending the ABM Treaty will allow the US to transfer billions of taxpayer dollars to defense industries to develop, test and deploy missile defenses — defenses that have little potential for actually protecting Americans from either major threats such as terrorism or virtually non-existent threats such as missile attacks from so-called rogue states.

    If the Russians do not go along with an amendment to the ABM Treaty, the Bush administration has already announced that it plans to withdraw from the treaty a treaty that Vladimir Putin as well as most of our allies throughout the world consider the cornerstone of strategic stability.

    US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty would be viewed throughout the world as a symbol of US arrogance and unilateralism. It would certainly have negative effects on our ability to hold together a coalition against terrorism, on future cooperative efforts with Russia and China, and on the prospects for nuclear disarmament.

    *David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Letter to President Vladimir Putin

    Letter to President Vladimir Putin

    Dear President Putin,

    Please stand firm on your position on upholding the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. You are correct in stating that it remains the cornerstone of global stability, and many knowledgeable Americans understand this.

    The Bush administration wants to eliminate Article V, Section 1 of the Treaty in order to develop a comprehensive ABM system, but with particular emphasis on space-based weaponry that will lead to a new arms race in space. This would be yet another disaster for the prospects of life on our fragile planet.

    If September 11th has taught us anything, it is that even the most powerful nations are vulnerable to those who hate and are wedded to violence. September 11th provides yet another warning that human beings and nuclear weapons cannot co exist.

    Please use the occasion of the Crawford Summit with President Bush to call for implementation of a plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons from Earth in accord with existing obligations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, beginning with immediate major reductions of nuclear weapons into the hundreds rather than thousands. I also urge you to propose that all nuclear weapons be removed from hair-trigger alert. Finally, I urge you to put forward immediately a World Treaty Banning Space-Based Weapons.

    This is a time that calls for bold proposals. Never has global leadership been more important. History has presented you with an opportunity to speak for humanity. Please speak to the world’s people in a clear and unambiguous voice for ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and for preserving outer space as a zone free of all weaponization.

    I am certain that you have the courage and commitment to succeed in accomplishing these goals.

    David Krieger, President Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • Stop the Bombing and Bring In the UN

    The US military action in Afghanistan is failing. Many innocent Afghans are being killed, and the US is no closer to finding or defeating the terrorists responsible for perpetrating the September 11th crimes against humanity. The United Nations and other relief organizations are warning that millions of Afghans could die of starvation this winter unless the bombing is halted soon. In other words, the bombing of Afghanistan is leading to a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions. We, therefore, call on the US and British forces to halt the bombing to allow relief organizations to do their job of getting food to the Afghan people.

    Terrorism is a global problem that can only be solved globally. Every country on Earth, every person on the planet, has a stake in ending the threat of terrorism. This matter must go back to the United Nations Security Council and must be handled by the United Nations as a matter of priority. If the US and UK continue their bombing, killing more innocent people, they will simply be adding fuel to the fire of terrorism. Some have suggested that they are providing the spark to ignite a global conflagration.

    On the other hand, if the international community joins together in a serious effort to combat terrorism, it could lead to unprecedented cooperation between national police and intelligence services. Such efforts could leave terrorists with no place to hide, and are essential to preventing terrorism.

    A global action through the United Nations will also demonstrate that this is not simply retaliation or vengeance on the part of the United States. To make a United Nations effort effective will require leadership and support by the United States, but it must be an effort that is truly directed by the Security Council of the United Nations.

    The United Nations should also set up a special International Tribunal for terrorists until the International Criminal Court is established, which will probably be next year. A trial before an impartial International Tribunal will help educate the world on the need to put an end to all terrorism. Such a trial will also be acceptable to virtually all countries throughout the world, whereas a trial of terrorists in the US would be viewed as biased in many countries.

    In sum, step one on the path to ending terrorism is to stop the bombing of Afghanistan now; step two is to turn over to the United Nations Security Council the job of preventing terrorism and bringing terrorists to justice.

    Military force is deepening the crisis without producing significant results. The vulnerability of civilization to determined and suicidal terrorists makes prevention the key to victory. Our future security, and that of the rest of the world, will be dependent on multilateral and cooperative efforts under an internationally accepted legal framework.

    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Call for Children to Help Children

    Dear Parents and Teachers:

    President Bush has asked each child in America to send one dollar to the White House to help Afghan children. However, the President is already spending billions of dollars to bomb Afghanistan. These bombs have hit villages, hospitals and a Red Cross relief storage building. They have already killed many Afghans, including children.

    Our government has provided some emergency food relief, but it is far from adequate. According to aid workers in Afghanistan, some 7.5 million Afghans may be threatened with starvation this winter unless the bombing is halted to allow food to reach the Afghan people.

    Recognizing that sending a dollar to President Bush’s effort will do very little to prevent mass starvation in Afghanistan this winter, we suggest that children send one dollar or more to the United Nations agency in charge of relief efforts for Afghan children at this address: UNICEF, 333 East 38th Street, New York, NY 10016.

    We also suggest that children write to President Bush to ask him to stop the bombing so that relief workers can get food through to the Afghan people to prevent millions of them, including children, from starving this winter.

    The President’s address is: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20509-1600. You can also email him at president@whitehouse.gov. Copies of emails can be sent to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at wagingpeace@napf.org.

    It is time for the children of the world to unite in calling for an end to all violence and for a global effort to provide food, shelter, clothing, health care and education for every person on the planet.

    We encourage you to share these ideas with your children, and to pass on this message.