Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: Mike Ryan

  • Saving Humanity from the Fiery Threat of Nuclear Annihilation, Through the Power of Women

    In my youth, I wrote stories about the possible destruction of the beautiful planet on which I lived, deceiving readers into thinking that I was an embittered old man.  I leaped into the future as far as I could see, and I saw creatures coming from other worlds with the weapons to destroy the world around me.  I was haunted by the screams of my father, who had to kill other men in hand-to-hand combat in the global war that raged from 1914 to 1918.

    In 1943, I was drafted into the American army to stop Hitler and his murderous followers from conquering Europe.  I was trained to shoot and stab other men, just as my father had been trained in his generation.  I was selected as a war correspondent to write about the atrocities suffered by other men in bloody battles where they had lost their arms and legs, and sometimes their brains and testicles.  I lived through glorious days after I came home unwounded, but I had to face the grim realities created by scientists who had acted on the wild possibilities I had envisioned in my science fiction stories.

    In 1932, I had published a story titled “Red April 1965” about a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union—and I was confronted early in April of 1965 by a madman who rushed into my office screaming about the imminent occurrence of such a war on the very date when I had predicted it.  The war did not happen then, but I still had a deep fear that atomic bombs would destroy our civilization.

    In 1948, I wrote speeches for President Harry Truman, who had used nuclear weapons on Japan to save the lives of thousands of civilians and end the Second World War as quickly as possible.  After his action, the world embarked on a nuclear arms race, which has continued for many years.  Life on earth is under the fiery threat of annihilation.

    In 1982, David Krieger asked me to join him in founding the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a nonprofit educational organization, which has become a voice of conscience for the community, the nation, and the world.  Its message is that nuclear weapons threaten the future of all life on our planet, and that it is the responsibility of all of us, working together, to end this threat forever.  Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and they must be abolished by us.  Peace in a world free of nuclear weapons is everyone’s birthright.  It is the greatest challenge of our time to restore that birthright to our children and all future generations.

    In 1983, I was invited to go to Moscow by the Council of Citizens, a nonpartisan organization based in New York.  In Russia, I was given an opportunity to speak to 77 Soviet leaders in the Kremlin.  I urged them to take the initiative in getting rid of nuclear weapons.  I said that I hoped my own government—the U.S. government—would do that, but I was afraid that American leaders would not do it.

    The Soviets listened to me, and my speech was quoted in Pravda.  I was interviewed by Radio Moscow, but the Soviets told me that if they discarded their nuclear weapons, they would be regarded as “weak” in many parts of the world.  I felt that my mission to Moscow did not have the positive results I had hoped for.

    Now, I believe that a worldwide initiative by women has the best possibilities of ending the nuclear threat.  Courageous women are making a difference in all nations; in fact, many countries have elected women to the highest offices in their governments.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has many notable women on its board of directors, its council of advisors, its associates, and staff.  Its development and progress is largely due to the generosity and activities of these women.

    The Foundation’s financial survival was largely dependent on the gifts of Ethel Wells, a Santa Barbara resident.  In the 1980s, the Foundation coordinated an International Week for Science and Peace.  Mrs. Wells reasoned that scientists were at the heart of creating constructive or destructive technologies, so she contributed $50,000 for a prize for the best proposal for a scientific step forward.  The winning proposal came from the Hungarian Engineers for Peace and called for the formation of an International Network of Engineers for Peace.  A short time later, the engineers joined with a group of like-minded scientists and established the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility.  That organization continues to thrive with a large list of supporters.

    In 1995, friends of Barbara Mandigo Kelly, my wife, established an annual series of awards through the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to encourage poets to explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit.  These awards are offered to people in three categories—adults, young persons 13 to 18 years old, and youth 12 and under.  Thousands of poems have been received from people of all ages, from all over the world.  The prize-winning poems have been published in book form, in anthologies and on the Foundation’s website.

    For many years, the Foundation offered prizes, financed by Gladys Swackhamer, awarded for essays by high school students all over the world, who shared their thoughts on nuclear policy and peace issues.  Many of these essays have been published in magazines in many places, and the authors include many young women from a wide variety of backgrounds.

    The necessity for cooperative action was highlighted recently in an article published in the Wall Street Journal signed by four men who have served in high positions—George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Senator Sam Nunn.  They expressed the belief that “We have arrived a dangerous tipping point in the nuclear era, and we advocate a strategy for improving American security and global security….We are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe.”  [Emphasis added.]

    I think the time has come for the formation of a Women’s Task Force for Nuclear Peace, composed of leaders of women’s organizations with millions of members around the world.  The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is prepared to work in cooperation with these organizations to awaken humanity to the urgent need of preserving life on earth.

  • Start Worrying and Learn to Ditch the Bomb

    This article was originally published by The Times

    During the Cold War nuclear weapons had the perverse effect of making
    the
    world a relatively stable place. That is no longer the case. Instead,
    the
    world is at the brink of a new and dangerous phase – one that combines
    widespread proliferation with extremism and geopolitical tension.

    Some of the terrorist organisations of today would have little
    hesitation in
    using weapons of mass destruction to further their own nihilistic
    agendas.
    Al-Qaeda and groups linked to it may be trying to obtain nuclear
    material to
    cause carnage on an unimaginable scale. Rogue or unstable states may
    assist,
    either willingly or unwillingly; the more nuclear material in
    circulation,
    the greater the risk that it falls into the wrong hands. And while
    governments, no matter how distasteful, are usually capable of being
    deterred, groups such as al-Qaeda, are not. Cold War calculations have
    been
    replaced by asymmetrical warfare and suicide missions.

    There is a powerful case for a dramatic reduction in the stockpile of
    nuclear
    weapons. A new historic initiative is needed but it will only succeed by

    working collectively and through multilateral institutions. Over the
    past
    year an influential project has developed in the United States, led by
    Henry
    Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn, all leading
    policymakers. They have published two articles in The Wall Street
    Journal
    describing a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and articulating
    some
    of the steps that, cumulatively taken, could help to achieve that end.
    Senator John McCain has endorsed that analysis recently. Barack Obama is

    likely to be as sympathetic.

    A comparable debate is now needed in this country and across Europe.
    Britain
    and France, both nuclear powers, are well placed to join in renewed
    multilateral efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in
    existence.
    The American initiative does not call for unilateral disarmament;
    neither do
    we. Instead, progress can be made only by working alongside other
    nations
    towards a shared goal, using commonly agreed procedures and strategies.

    The world’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons are overwhelmingly controlled
    by two
    nations: the United States and Russia. While Washington is in possession
    of
    about 5,000 deployed warheads, Russia is reported to have well over
    6,000,
    making its stockpile the largest in the world. It is difficult to
    understand
    why either the American or Russian governments feel that they need such
    enormous numbers of nuclear weapons.

    Hard-headed Americans, such as Dr Kissinger and Mr Shultz, have argued
    that
    dramatic reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in these arsenals
    could
    be made without risking America’s security. It is indisputable that if
    serious progress is to be made it must begin with these two countries.

    The US and Russia should ensure that the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
    of
    1991 continues to provide the basis for co-operation in reducing the
    number
    of nuclear weapons. The treaty’s provisions need to be extended.
    Agreement
    should be reached on the issue of missile defence. The US proposal to
    make
    Poland and the Czech Republic part of their missile defence shield has
    upset
    the Kremlin. It has been a divisive issue, but it need not be. Any
    missile
    threat to Europe or the United States would also be a threat to Russia.
    Furthermore, Russia and the West share a strong common interest in
    preventing proliferation.

    Elsewhere, there are numerous stockpiles that lie unaccounted for. In
    the
    former Soviet Union alone, some claim that there is enough uranium and
    plutonium to make a further 40,000 weapons. There have been reports of
    nuclear smuggling in the Caucasus and some parts of Eastern Europe.
    Security
    Council Resolution 1540, which obliges nations to improve the security
    of
    stockpiles, allows for the formation of teams of specialists to be
    deployed
    in those countries that do not possess the necessary infrastructure or
    experience in dealing with stockpiles. These specialists should be
    deployed
    to assist both in the monitoring and accounting for of nuclear material
    and
    in the setting up of domestic controls to prevent security breaches.
    Transparency in these matters is vital and Britain can, and should, play
    a
    role in providing experts who can fulfil this important role.

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty, for 40 years the foundation of counter-
    proliferation efforts, in in need of an overhaul. The provisions on
    monitoring compliance need to be strengthened. The monitoring provisions
    of
    the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol, which
    require
    a state to provide access to any location where nuclear material may be
    present, should be accepted by all the nations that have signed up to
    the
    NPT. These requirements, if implemented, would have the effect of
    strengthening the ability of the IAEA to provide assurances about both
    declared nuclear material and undeclared activities. At a time when a
    number
    of countries, including Iran and Syria, may be developing a nuclear
    weapons
    programme under the guise of civilian purposes, the ability to be clear
    about all aspects of any programme is crucial.

    Bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into effect would, similarly,

    represent strong progress in the battle to reduce the nuclear threat.
    The
    treaty would ban the testing of nuclear weapons, ensuring that the
    development of new generations of weapons ceases. However, it will only
    come
    into force once the remaining nine states who have not yet ratified it
    do
    so. Britain, working through Nato and the EU, must continue to encourage

    those remaining states that have not yet agreed to the Treaty – India,
    Pakistan, Egypt, China, Indonesia, North Korea, Israel, Iran and the
    United
    States – to ratify it.

    A modern non-proliferation regime will require mechanisms to provide
    those
    nations wishing to develop a civilian nuclear capability with the
    assistance
    and co-operation of those states that possess advanced expertise and
    that
    are able to provide nuclear fuel, spent-fuel management assistance,
    enriched
    uranium and technical assistance. But, in return, proper verification
    procedures must be in place and access for the IAEA must not be impeded.

    Achieving real progress in reducing the nuclear weapons threat will
    impose
    obligations on all nuclear powers not just the US and Russia. The UK has

    reduced its nuclear weapons capability significantly over the past 20
    years.
    It disposed of its freefall and tactical nuclear weapons and has
    achieved a
    big reduction of the number of warheads used by the Trident system to
    the
    minimum believed to be compatible with the retention of a nuclear
    deterrent.
    If we are able to enter into a period of significant multilateral
    disarmament Britain, along with France and other existing nuclear
    powers,
    will need to consider what further contribution it might be able to make
    to
    help to achieve the common objective.

    Substantial progress towards a dramatic reduction in the world’s nuclear

    weapons is possible. The ultimate aspiration should be to have a world
    free
    of nuclear weapons. It will take time, but with political will and
    improvements in monitoring, the goal is achievable. We must act before
    it is
    too late, and we can begin by supporting the campaign in America for a
    non-nuclear weapons world.

  • Humanity’s Future: Creating a Global Republic of Conscience and Creativity

    All my life, I have felt connected to the stars.  As a boy, I walked at night in the garden of my grandfather King’s house, looking up at the dazzling lights in the sky.  One world was not enough for me.  I wrote stories about the explorations of the stars that I knew human beings would undertake.  My tales landed me in the Science Fiction Hall of Fame and in a book entitled Pioneers of Wonder.  


    As I went through my long life I encountered one glorious being after another.  I began to become aware of the tremendous role played by humanity in the development of the amazing planet called the Earth.


    I became aware of the spiritual wisdom of the saints and prophets; the writers of the Gospels and the soaring poets, ranging from Rumi to Shakespeare; the creators of great music, ranging from the singers of songs in all languages to the deep composers, Bach and Puccini and Beethoven, realizing that there were no limits to the creations pouring forth from the human soul.  I found everlasting pleasure in the lines of William Blake—The one “who kisses joy as it flies lives in eternity’s sunrise.”


    I have just put together a book, which encompasses my life’s experiences with the many kinds of writing I have composed—beginning with my imaginary trips to the far stars and the pains of hunger endured with many people in the dark days of the 1930s.  When I went to the University of Kansas City, my professors encouraged me to shift from science fiction to the practice of journalism.


    My last story for an interstellar magazine was called “Star Ship Invincible.”  It described what happened to a group of people who attempted to travel from Earth to Jupiter in a new vessel built to be strong enough to pass through any pressures brought against it. But that ship was not invincible after all.  It fell into a Black Hole, a void in space that could not be passed through.


    The ship was absorbed into another universe from which it could not escape.  The attempts of human beings to go into other dimensions were not achievable.  They could not tell what had happened to them.  They had traveled beyond their finite limits.


    My next experience was to write a story about a man caught in the tortures of hunger—whose only solace came from a recording of human laughter.  In a day of desperation he tried to sell that recording to an old pawnbroker, but the old man did not find it worth more than a few dollars.  The old man was wounded by the anguish in that roar of laughter.  “Shut it off,” the broker said.  “Please shut it off.”


    The young man went back into the freezing night from which he had come.  The old man was alone with the echoes of that defiant mirth in his shop filled with the precious things sold to him by people who were dying of thirst and hunger.  That was the state of the world for many people in those years of pain and poverty.


    That story was broadcast on the NBC radio network and reprinted in The Best American Short Stories, edited by Edward O’Brien in England.  It caught the attention of editors on the Kansas City Star, and I was hired by that paper as a reporter although I had never taken a course in journalism.  The managing editor, C. G. Wellington, said he was reluctant to take me on—because I reminded him of Ernest Hemingway, a writer he had employed there in 1917.  Wellington said Hemingway had promised him to make a lifetime career on the Star—and then had run off to be an ambulance drive in World


    War I.


    Hemingway came to Kansas City soon after the publication of his great book, For Whom the Bell Tolls, based on the Civil War in Spain when General Franco overthrew the Spanish Republic and created a dictatorship there.  Hemingway visited the Star on a night when Wellington was not there—and I had a chance to show him some of my stories.  “You’ve got good stuff, kid,” Hemingway said.  “But if you want to get anywhere, you’ll have to get out of Kansas City.  The world is changing fast, kid.  You have to go places.”


    I followed his advice and went to New York in January 1941.  I landed a job on the Associated Press staff in Rockefeller Center, and dealt with news pouring in from all parts of the planet.  Then I was appointed to a Nieman Fellowship at Harvard.  In January 1943, I was drafted into the United States Army and became a war correspondent.


    I landed in Normandy in 1944 and rode with General George Patton’s Third Army across France and into Paris.  The liberation of Paris on a golden day in August was one of the most exhilarating joys of my life.  The Nazi forces which had occupied that beautiful city in 1940 retreated from our troops in disarray.  As they retreated, they were fired upon by the Free French under the command of General Charles de Gaulle.


    We were aware of the fact that Adolf Hitler, the Nazis’ leader, had ordered the German general in command of Paris to set fire to the city.  But he had refused to do so.  Hitler kept asking: “Is Paris burning?” but no answer was given to him.  The innate humanity of a German officer was more powerful than Hitlerism.


    I was one of the American soldiers who were received with hugs and kisses when we entered the city.  I appreciated the warm welcome given to us by the French people, particularly the French girls.


    We rushed into the bars, followed by the girls.  While we drank bottles of champagne, we rejected the offers of the girls for unlimited sexual services.  When I shouted: “I’m a married man!” the girls murmured: “When the war’s over, you can go back to your wife, but you’re over here now.  You ought to be grateful for what we can give you now.”  I didn’t take advantage of the offers.  I wanted to survive—and get back to my wife in New York with a good body.  On our honeymoon, she had given me everything a woman could give to a man, and I hoped we would have many years of such enjoyments.


    When the Nazis surrendered, I flew home.  I had received a Certificate of Distinguished Service from Lt. Gen. John C. H. Lee, one of Gen. Eisenhower’s deputy commanders, and I returned to the AP with a sense of recognition that I had given three years of my life to the struggle against Nazism.  Many of my friends had been wounded or killed—and I had interviewed many wounded men as a War Correspondent.  Yet, I had not been crippled or injured.  I thanked the Lord of the Universe for the blessings he had given me, but I had not received the punishment I expected.


    The AP did not give me the raise in salary I expected.  Barbara and I celebrated my return by deep lovemaking and we had produced a wonderful child, a boy we named Terence Francis Kelly.  The cost of living was rising and so I moved from the AP to the National Housing Agency, where I served as an information specialist and earned a much larger salary.  During the war a housing shortage had developed, and President Truman had launched a large-scale building program designed to meet the needs of millions of veterans and others whose lives had been disrupted by the war.


    I liked the Housing Agency and I knew that its work was important.  But I could not resist a tempting offer from a public relations agency, the Fitzgerald Company, which had been founded by a friend of mine.  I left that agency to become a consultant to the National Book Publishers Council and then to serve as the U.S. director of the Study of World News conducted by the International Press Institute, which had received a large grant from the Ford Foundation.


    Before I joined the Study of World News, I served as the Washington director of Averell Harriman’s 1952 campaign to become the Democratic candidate for president.  Harriman had the kind of experience that I thought a president should have.  He had been the U.S. Ambassador to Britain, the Ambassador to the Soviet Union, the director of Truman’s Security Agency, and one of the administrators of the Marshall Plan, which had revived Europe after the war.  I went with him across the United States in a chartered plane, and wrote speeches for him indicating that he was dedicated to the liberal program on which Truman had won his victory in 1948.  But the nomination went to Adlai Stevenson, who had been elected governor of Illinois that year.


    Stevenson offered me a place on his staff, but I was eager to get out of politics and I became vice president of the Fitzgerald agency again.  Then I leaped over to take part in the Study of World News, which had been started by the Ford Foundation under the leadership of Lester Markel, Sunday editor of the NY Times.


    The study got under way in September of 1952, when staffs were organized in Zurich, Switzerland; New York; and Madras, India.  W. MacNeil Lowry, formerly chief Washington correspondent for the Cox newspapers, was given operating responsibility for the entire project.  Lowry asked me to take charge of the work in the United States.


    Arrangements were made with a group of ten leading researchers in American journalism schools, headed by Dr. Ralph Casey of the University of Minnesota, to measure the amounts of foreign news printed in American papers.  The news flowing on agency wires from all over the world was surveyed by the IPI staff in New York.  The wire reports of all the major news agencies were made available by the agencies for study during the same weeks.


    Ninety-three of the American papers were put on the list through a statistical sampling method used by Dr. Chilton Bush, head of the Institute for Journalistic Studies at Stanford University.  The list gave fair representation to morning and evening papers, papers in different regions of the countries, papers representing a cross-section of American journalism.


    For purposes of comparison with this list, a separate list of large papers was prepared.  Papers in Europe and India were selected by the IPI staff in consultation with editors involved.  Forty-eight papers in Western Europe and 28 in India were chosen for examination.  The communist papers in the Soviet bloc and in China were not included however. It was assumed that these papers were instruments of government propaganda.


    When all the phases of the IPI studies were completed in the spring of 1953, the IPI had the largest assemblage of facts and ideas about the handling of news around the world.  The reports eventually released by the IPI showed the gaps and discrepancies in the handling of such information—and created enduring controversies about the prejudices shown by editors who favored certain countries and disfavored others.


    Lester Markel had declared in 1952 that “the main objective of the Institute is to bring out greater world understanding through a better flow of information.”  My participation in this vast project led me to believe that the task was almost impossible.


    In my 92 years on this planet, I have been a professor of communication and disseminator of information to illuminate the tremendous tasks of the human species.  I have been appalled by the human capacity for evil and uplifted by the enormous capacity for good.


    We are evolutionary giants with origins linked to the cosmic explosion that brought the universe into being.  We are composed of whirling atoms and glowing molecules beyond our comprehension.  Albert Einstein, the greatest thinker of the 20th Century, who brought us into the nuclear age, which may destroy us all, decided that we were created by a Spirit we could never understand.  We can never understand how far we have come and how far we may have to go.


    We are electromagnetic fields of energy and yet many of us may become Glorious Beings rising like mountains on new horizons. As the poet William Blake said, we can kiss joy as it flies and live in eternity’s sunrise.  We can respond to the never-ending allurements we were born to enjoy.


    I have come here tonight to talk about humanity’s future and to hear your views on what the future may hold for us.  When I was a young writer of science fiction, I walked in darkness, fearing the terrible disasters that might lie ahead of us.  Yet, I went from one great experience to another.


    My mother gave me the name of King.  That was her maiden name—Martha King—and she wanted me to have it.  She married a man named Kelly, who sacrificed much of his manhood on a battlefield in France, and she did not want me to be completely identified with an Irish name and Irish history.  So I have gone through life with a resounding name—Frank King Kelly.  When I am down, overwhelmed by the awful things I have endured, I shout my name out loud:  “Frank King Kelly!” and I feel related to all the Kings and Kellys in the amazing history of humankind!


    How was it possible for me as a boy to endure the blows of bullies in my first years in school?  Why was I given a scholarship at the U. of Kansas City?  How did one of my stories get into a collection of Best American Short Stories when I was 21?  How did I get the advice I needed from a great writer, Ernest Hemmingway, who urged me to get out into the world and overcome my fears?


    When I went to New York, I couldn’t sell enough stories to survive there, even though I got some unexpected income by writing about the frustrated lives of girls in New York and Washington.  I was given a chance to write these “true stories” for a magazine edited by a man who was a friend of one of my professors in Kansas City.  He persuaded me to put more “zing” in those stories—and I made enough money to live well in New York until I got a good job on the AP staff.  One of my stories was featured in a volume of these “true romances,” and I wrote about them in an article for the Atlantic Monthly entitled “Synthetic Sin.”


    In Manhattan I became a special correspondent for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and other papers across the country.  I wrote an article about the successful campaign against prejudice being conducted by a state commission against discrimination, which had been fighting against racial, religious, and national group prejudices for 2 ½ years.  Commission Chairman Charles Garside disclosed that the AFL Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, and Express and Station Employees had repealed regulations that had restricted Negroes.  The union had also eliminated from its constitution all the provisions that restricted membership to White persons.


    I was happy to write about such actions because I hated the treatment then given to Blacks, immigrants, and other minorities in American society.  When I was a reporter on the Kansas City Star, I rode ambulances from the General Hospital to the scenes of fires, murders, and accidents.  When we saw Black people in any of those painful situations, the ambulance went speeding by.  The ambulance drivers told me: “We don’t stop for Blacks.  They’ve got their own hospitals and their own ambulances.”  I was horrified by the separation of human beings in the city where I had been born.  


    I tried to get the city editor of the Star to let me do a series of articles on the brutality I had seen at the city jail, where police officers routinely beat homeless men who were arrested for wandering in the streets.  “We can’t get the cops down on us,” he said.  “We need their help in many places.”  I saw the corruption in the police force and other agencies, but I quickly gave up my efforts to expose what needed to be done.  I found out that I wasn’t a crusader.


    When I was offered a job as a researcher and speech writer for President Truman, I knew he had been elected with the backing of a notorious political machine—the Pendergast organization, run by Boss Tom Pendergast.  My liberal friends urged me to keep away from that organization. “If you work for Truman, you’ll be regarded as a crook or subnormal mentally,” one of these friends said.


    But I had been told by reporters who investigated Truman that he was not personally involved in any of Pendergast’s chicanery.  Pendergast had endorsed Truman because he was widely admired for his personal integrity.  My wife and my literary agent, Mary Abbot, were convinced that Truman was a fine man.  They admired the work he had done in trying to eliminate overcharging by the corporations, which had made huge profits in World War II.


    When I got a call from the White House in the spring of 1948, asking me to do research and writing for Truman in the Presidential campaign that year, I was reluctant to take it seriously.  I didn’t know anyone on his staff.  I was astonished when I learned that Kenneth Birkhead, one of my friends who had been a student with me at the University of Kansas City, had recommended me.  He had told Clark Clifford and Bill Batt, the two men who were organizing Truman’s “whistle stop” train trips, that I was a fast writer who had written articles for many newspapers and I shared Truman’s ideas about giving full rights to people of all colors and creeds.


    So I went to Washington, helped to draft the Democratic platform, wrote drafts of many of the speeches Truman delivered from the backend of his campaign train, and shared in Truman’s unexpected triumph at the polls.


    I hadn’t sought any appointment on Truman’s White House staff.  I was prepared to go back to the Fitzgerald agency, but my friends at the Atlantic Monthly had persuaded the president of Boston University to offer me an appointment as a professor of communications there.  The Atlantic press had just published my first serious novel—a book entitled An Edge of Light, about my role as an AP editor in New York—and they said that a professorship at Boston University would give me a stable income and enough free time to write books.


    On the night in November when Truman’s so shocking triumph set off celebrations by delighted Democrats in Washington and other cities, Barbara and I drank champagne together and packed our few belongings into suitcases and prepared to move to a house in a Boston suburb. We didn’t realize that we would spend only a few months in Boston.  When I arrived at the university, a secretary told me:  “A Senator with a fancy name has been calling you from Washington. I’ve put a note on your desk.”


    The Senator was Scott Lucas of Illinois.  He told me that he was scheduled to be the Majority Leader of the Senate, succeeding Alben Barkley of Kentucky, who had been elected Vice President on the Truman ticket.  He said he needed a speech written and asked me to join his staff in January of 1949.


    The president of Boston University was negative toward the idea when I talked to him about it.  “You want to run back to Washington when you’ve just been appointed here as an associate professor?” Daniel Marsh said, angrily.  “I won’t give you a leave of absence for any such purpose.”


    My friends at the Atlantic Monthly were negative also, and urged me to stay in Boston.  Members of the White House staff said, however, that Lucas would be a key factor in getting Truman’s proposals enacted by a Senate largely controlled by conservative Southern Democrats.


    I stayed four months on the faculty in Boston, and I found my students responsive to my arguments for the kind of progressive agenda offered by Truman.  Truman had strongly supported the formation of the United Nations; he had desegregated the American armed forces; he had favored an expansion of the social security system and a national health program.  In his inaugural address in January 1949, he had declared that every human being had a right to “a decent, satisfying life.”  He offered encouragement to the rising movement for women’s attainment to the highest positions in every field.


    I found that the students I had in my classes at Boston University—most of them war veterans—backed the creation of international laws to bring principles of justice into the world community.  They admired Truman’s willingness to confront critics and reactionary opponents.  I finally returned to Washington to work for the Senate leader and to participate in struggles against McCarthyism, the House of Un-American Activities Committee, and other bigots.


    I had lived through the oppressive years when one-third of the people had lived in poverty and despair while the federal government under President Hoover had been virtually paralyzed.  I favored a new democracy with places for everybody.


    But Senator Lucas was defeated when he ran for re-election—beaten by a man named Everett Dirksen, whose nickname was “the Wizard of Ooze.”  The American Medical Association sponsored pamphlets denouncing Truman’s health plan and many doctors took part in the opposition to Lucas because he had supported that plan.


    After Lucas was rejected by the voters, I stayed on for two years with his successor as the Senate Leader, Ernest McFarland of Arizona.  McFarland was a good-hearted man, but he was not a very progressive legislator.  I left my job as the staff director of the Senate Majority Policy Committee, and plunged into other activities.


    I helped the American Book Publishers Council repel attempts by right-wing groups to censor books, and I served as the U.S. director of an International Press Institute study of international news.  That study revealed that many American newspapers carried only small amounts of news from other countries—and revealed that many Americans were not aware of significant developments in other parts of a rapidly changing world.


    When the Soviet Union succeeded in putting a man into space, I urged my fellow Americans to applaud that achievement.  I was an advocate of cooperation between the two powerful nations.  I proposed that a statue be presented to the people of the Soviet Union as a gift from the American people just as the gift to the United States of the Statue of Liberty from France symbolized friendship between two great nations.


    My proposal came to the attention of leaders of the U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. Citizens’ Dialogue, which had been promoting exchange visits since 1979 to create “trust and understanding” between the two countries.  I was one of 29 Americans invited to make a trip to the Soviet Union in the spring of 1983.  I made a speech in the Kremlin, emphasizing the dangers of nuclear weapons.  I said that those weapons endangered the survival of life on earth.


    I also told the Soviets about my participation in efforts to establish a National Peace Academy.  The Academy was dedicated to the education and training of professional peacemakers and to the dissemination of information about the developing art of peaceful conflict resolution.  I had participated in a citizen’s movement with 30,000 members, which led to the approval of the Peace Academy project by both houses of Congress and the construction of a U.S. Institute of Peace on the mall in Washington.


    The part of my speech in Moscow, which aroused the most discussion, was my suggestion that either the U.S. or the Soviet Union should dismantle half of its nuclear weapons and invite the world to witness that event.  “Would not that nation open a new era, with humanity set free from the nightmare of a nuclear war?” I asked the Soviet leaders who took part in our dialogue.  Afterwards, a Soviet official approached me and said that he personally liked the idea.  Then he added: “But wouldn’t the nation that endorsed such a proposal be accused of weakness?”


    I said that I didn’t think that the building of thousands of such bombs should be considered a sign of strength.  The arms race is a road to planetary suicide, I said.  Why do you consider the present situation as a state of progress?  The American people believe that you are prepared to inflict catastrophic blows on the Western countries—and you believe that we are prepared to kill millions of men, women, and children in the Soviet nations.


    When I visited Moscow and other parts of the Soviet Union in 1983, the Soviets like Brezhnev were believed to be firmly in control of enormous forces.  None of the commentators predicted the rise of a Gorbachev and the rapid disintegration of the Soviet empire.  No one predicted that Ronald Reagan, a right-wing Republican, would take big steps to end the Cold War.


    On my visit to the Soviet Union in 1983, I found that the people there had a deep fear of another war.  Many young people had seen films and television programs that depicted how many things Americans had—houses, cars, many personal possessions.  The Soviet young people no longer believed in the promises of communism.  They wanted to be free to pursue happiness in the American style.  When I came back and reported on their commitment to peace and their friendliness toward Americans, many people in Santa Barbara thought I had been brainwashed and deceived.  When I reminded them that President Truman had predicted to me that the Soviet system would collapse—and that Russia would seek friendly relations with the United States—many Americans did not accept such a hopeful view of the future.


    Like Truman, however, I had come close to death many times, and I shared his deep feeling that human beings could be “glorious beings,” eventually capable of building a global society.  I shared his admiration for the poem by Alfred Tennyson entitled” Locksley Hall,” written in 1842.  Truman carried a copy of it in his wallet, and frequently referred to it.


    The English author wrote:


    “For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,


    Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that could be;


    Saw the heavens filled with commerce, argosies of magic sails,


    Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales;


    Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rained a ghastly dew


    From the nations’ aerial navies grappling in the central blue;


    Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle-flags were furled


    In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world…”


    I was amazed by Tennyson’s predictions in that poem and pleased by Truman’s long look forward.  But I, too, had expected human beings to build a planetary organization and enter into a global acceptance of all creeds and cultures.


    When I worked on the Democratic platform, which Truman advocated in his 1948 campaign, we approved statements supporting “the effective international control of all weapons of mass destruction, including the atomic bomb.”  Truman insisted that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified steps to end the most terrible war in history but he did not want to place such power in the hands of national leaders in any conflict in the future.  If Truman’s plans for international control over nuclear weapons had been adopted, the insane nuclear arms race of the last 50 years could have been avoided—and humanity could not have been brought to the brink of annihilation in later confrontations between the United States and the Soviet Union.


    That 1948 platform also endorsed Truman’s recognition of the state of Israel and the help he had given to the new Jewish nation to survive during the bloody conflicts in Palestine.


    Truman was accused of acting emotionally—succumbing to the pleas of Eddie Jacobson, his former partner in a clothing store, and other Jewish friends—or of pandering to the wealthy American Jews who gave large amounts of money to his candidacy and other nominees of the Democratic Party.  But I and others who worked on that 1948 platform knew that the president was genuinely convinced that the Jewish people should have a homeland.  His primary motivation came from his reading of the Bible.  His religious faith came from the scriptures in that book regarded as holy by Jews and Christians.


    Truman was one of the few American leaders who tried to save the Jews from Hitler’s concentration camps.  In April 1943, after he learned that Jews had been herded into slaughter houses “like animals,” he voiced his indignation in a fiery speech to 125,000 persons in a Chicago stadium.  Saying that “no one can any longer doubt the horrible intentions of the Nazi beasts,” Truman urged all the governments then at war with the Nazis to help the Jews before it was too late.  He asked for the opening of “free lands” for the Jews and other persecuted minorities.


    If his plea had been heeded, millions of lives could have been saved—including thousands of the most gifted people who ever lived on this planet.  It is still impossible to accept the failures of many of the people (including myself) who did little to save the human beings destroyed by the racist Nazis.  “Today—not tomorrow—we must do all that is humanly possible to provide a haven and a place of safety for all those who can be grasped from the hands of the Nazi butchers.”  He begged all of us to “draw deeply on our traditions of aid to the oppressed—and our great national generosity.”  He said:  “This is not a Jewish problem, it is an American problem—and we must and we will face it squarely and honorably.”


    We did not face it squarely and honorably on the scale that it called for.  We did finally join other nations in crushing Hitler’s Nazis and the Japanese warlords.  As a member of General Patton’s Third Army, I had the joy of liberating Paris from the German occupation forces in 1944.  I must note that it was the humanity of a German general—commander of the Nazi forces in Paris—that kept Paris from being destroyed.  Hitler had ordered that general to set the city on fire, but he refused to do it. Hitler died in the wreckage of his bomb shelter in Berlin.


    In the years since World War II, there have been many savage events on our planet.  The United Nations—created by Truman and other farsighted leaders in 1945—has not been as effective as its founders and supporters hoped that it would be.  The destructive forces that have been manifested all through the long history of human beings have produced wars, persecutions of minorities, mass killings, the committing of tortures against international law, have made me wonder whether we will ever evolve into the “glorious beings” we were designed to be.


    But we now have an International Bill of Rights drafted by leaders in many countries—and there is a growing awareness of the fundamental value of every person in the developing world culture.  President Truman in his inaugural address in 1949 declared that every person is entitled to “a decent, satisfying life.”


    The fact that we live in a nuclear age when enough weapons exist to destroy all nations and bring down our whole civilization must awaken in every one of us a sense of personal responsibility for getting rid of those weapons.  The leaders of the nuclear powers are not carrying out that vital task.  So we the people must demand action to get every government to act for human survival.


    The Declaration if Interdependence adopted by this Institute on July 4 thirty years ago indicates the right path for humanity’s future.  Let me remind you of the 10 points in that great statement:


    (1)    To explore the classical and renaissance traditions of East and West—and their continuing relevance to emerging modes and patterns of living;


    (2)    To renew the universal vision behind the American Dream through authentic affirmations of freedom, excellence and self-transcendence in an ever-evolving Republic of Conscience;


    (3)    To honor through appropriate observance the contributions of men and women of all ages to world culture;


    (4)    To enhance the enjoyment of the creative artistry and craftsmanship of all cultures;


    (5)    To deepen awareness of the universality of humanity’s spiritual striving and its rich varieties of expression in the religions, philosophies and literatures of humanity;


    (6)    To promote forums for fearless inquiry and constructive dialogue concerning the frontiers of science, the therapeutics of self-transformation, and the societies of the future;


    (7)    To investigate the imaginative use of the spiritual, mental and material resources of the planet in the service of universal welfare;


    (8)    To examine changing social structures in terms of the principle that a world culture is greater than the sum of its parts and to envision the conditions, prospects and possibilities of the world civilization of the future;


    (9)    To assist in the emergence of men and women of universal culture, capable of continuous growth in non-violence of mind, generosity of heart, and harmony of soul. I call these persons “glorious beings”;


    (10)    To promote universal brotherhood and to foster human fellowship among all races, nations and cultures.


    Many of the topics were the subjects of long dialogues I had in the 1950s with Raghavan and Nandini Iyer when I served as vice president of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.  The Iyers—and their brilliant son, Pico—certainly had the qualities of “glorious beings” and I want to express my gratitude for the inspirations they gave to me and to many others, including the founders of this Institute.


    In closing, I want to thank all of you who participated in our meeting here tonight.  You affirm my belief in the statement of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said:  “The life of man is a self-evolving circle, which from a ring imperceptibly small, rushes on all sides outwards to new and larger circles, and that without end”


    We are all rising together in Eternity’s sunrise!

  • A High-Stakes Nuclear Gamble

    Imagine a world with 20 or more nuclear weapons states. This was President Kennedy’s dark vision in 1963. Were it to come to pass, the risk that terrorists could buy or steal nuclear bombs would rise significantly. Yet President Bush’s recent proposal to provide nuclear energy assistance to India is a dangerous gamble that makes such an outcome more likely.

    It could unravel the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which, though imperfect, has helped limit the number of countries able to make nuclear weapons. Congress should reject the proposal and require renegotiation to limit the Indian nuclear weapons program.

    India’s nuclear history reveals why the proposed deal would weaken U.S. national security.

    In 1974, India exploded a secret nuclear device using plutonium from a Canadian-supplied reactor containing U.S. heavy water. Both the reactor and the heavy water were sold to India under agreements with a “peaceful use” requirement, which India violated.

    In 1978, Congress enacted the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. That required countries such as India who were not among the five nations recognized as nuclear weapons states under the nonproliferation treaty, and that wanted American nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, to submit to “safeguards,” meaning inspections of all their nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. India refused, and the United States ended all nuclear assistance to the country from that day forward.

    Now, Bush has put forward a proposal that caves in utterly to India. It would not only allow India to keep its bombs, it would permit it to use all its own nuclear material for bomb making, while using nuclear fuel the United States would supply for its civilian power program. If India receives this favor, can Israel and Pakistan be far behind?

    Such a radical proposal should be viewed within the context of the current negotiations with Iran and North Korea, two countries that signed the nonproliferation treaty but have been caught violating safeguards. Failure to stop them from producing nuclear weapons would be a serious blow to global stability.

    Iran and North Korea are being offered reactors and guaranteed nuclear fuel supplies for peaceful uses in return for a permanent shutdown of facilities for enriching uranium or separating plutonium, both of which have peaceful applications but enable the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Whether either will ultimately accept is unclear.

    So let’s compare the deals offered India and Iran:

    India: Can build as many nuclear weapons as it wishes with its own nuclear supplies. Iran: Cannot build any nuclear weapons with its own or anyone else’s supplies.

    India: Can build and operate un-safeguarded facilities for producing and stockpiling unlimited amounts of fissile material for its weapons program. Iran: Cannot build enrichment or plutonium separation facilities, even if safeguarded and even though the nonproliferation treaty does not prohibit such activities.

    India: Is asked to maintain a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing. Iran: Cannot make or explode nuclear devices under any circumstances.

    India: Must divide its nuclear facilities into “civilian” and “military,” with voluntary IAEA safeguards applying only to its civilian program. Iran: Must have the most stringent safeguards on all its nuclear facilities.

    This double standard favoring India is an example of America’s willingness to wash away the nuclear sins of its “friends” to achieve other foreign policy goals. Pakistan is another example; it has received F-16s, which can deliver its nuclear weapons, despite having violated U.S. nonproliferation laws and spread nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea via the Abdul Qadeer Khan network.

    What is the message we’re sending? How will these double standards persuade the Iranians to give up their right to produce advanced nuclear materials? How could signatories of the nonproliferation treaty not conclude that it has been seriously devalued when India — which refused to sign it in the first place, broke its contracts with the United States and Canada and developed nuclear weapons — is to be given virtually unconditional nuclear assistance?

    Some nations may decide that if they withdraw from the treaty, build nuclear weapons and wait long enough while avoiding antagonizing the United States, they will eventually get all the nuclear help they want.

    Why then is the Bush administration risking undermining the treaty?

    It is no secret that it views China as a growing strategic rival and sees India as a counterweight. It is therefore interested in helping India build up its economic and military capability. If the deal goes through, Pentagon officials reportedly expect India to purchase as much as $5 billion in U.S. conventional military equipment, some of which would be helpful in monitoring Chinese military movements and submarines.

    During the 2004 presidential race, both Bush and Sen. John Kerry stated that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was the most serious threat to U.S. national security. But giving nuclear assistance to India undercuts the rationale for telling other nations not to supply suspected proliferators such as Iran.

    Moreover, both China and Pakistan will be motivated to accelerate their own weapons programs and their mutual nuclear cooperation. Pakistani officials will not be more cooperative in the stalled investigation of Khan’s activities. Adding the risk to the nonproliferation treaty to this poisonous mix makes the president’s proposal a marked retreat from half a century of American leadership in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

    LEONARD WEISS was the chief architect of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978.

    Originally published by the Los Angeles Times.

  • 16 Democrats Voice Concern about Draft Nuclear Document

    The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States

    Dear Mr. President:

    We are writing you to express our strong concern about the draft U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine being prepared by the Pentagon. This draft calls for maintaining an aggressive nuclear posture with weapons on high alert to make pre-emptive strikes, if necessary on adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction.

    We recognize that in large part the draft “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations” is based on principles contained in the 1995 Nuclear Posture Review, the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and other directives published by the Bush administration since 2001. For instance, your 2002 National Security Presidential Directive 17 reportedly states, “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.”

    On the other hand, the language in the draft doctrine removes the ambiguity of the previous doctrine, and now suggests that your administration will use nuclear weapons to respond to non-nuclear WMD threats and suggests that this use could include pre-emptive nuclear strikes thereby increasing reliance on nuclear weapons.

    On page III-2 of the March 15, 2005 draft, it states that combatant commanders may request Presidential approval for pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons under such conditions as:

    • To counter an adversary intending to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S., multinational, or allies forces or civilian populations;
    • To counter an imminent attack from an adversary’s biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy;
    • To attack on adversary installations including weapons of mass destruction, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons, or the command and control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies;
    • To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces;
    • To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary WMD use.

    We believe this effort to broaden the range of scenarios in which nuclear weapons might be contemplated is unwise and provocative.

    The costs of using a nuclear weapon in the cases contemplated would almost always outweigh the benefits. Many potential targets are near major population centers. Striking a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons cache would require perfect intelligence and is impossible to do without significant collateral damage.

    The draft doctrine says that the belligerent that initiates nuclear warfare may find itself the target of world condemnation but notes that no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from using nuclear weapons in armed conflict. In other words, the draft Pentagon doctrine seems to conclude the United States is legally free to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively if it chooses, even against non-nuclear weapon states.

    This drastic shift in U.S. nuclear policy threatens the very foundation of nuclear arms control as shaped by the 1970 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which has helped prevent nuclear proliferation for over 35 years. In the context of efforts to strengthen and extend the treaty, the United States issued a negative nuclear security assurance in 1978, reiterated in 1995, that the United States would not use nuclear force against NPT member countries without nuclear weapons unless attacked by a non nuclear-weapon state that is allied with a nuclear-weapon state.

    The draft doctrine contradicts clear statements and assurances of your administration. On February 22, 2002 State Department spokesman Richard Boucher stated a similar version of the negative nuclear security pledge: “The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear- weapon state-parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a state toward which it has a security commitment carried out, or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon state in association with a nuclear weapon state.”

    Abandoning this clear negative security assurance under the NPT would further undermine the treaty and our many other efforts to prevent others developing or using nuclear weapons. Partly as a result of U.S. inflexibility on key disarmament issues, your administration has already squandered opportunities to build greater global support for measures to update and strengthen the nonproliferation system.

    In addition, this new doctrine, if approved, could exacerbate the danger of nuclear proliferation by giving states of concern, such as North Korea and Iran, an excuse to maintain their nuclear weapons options and would send a green light to the world’s nuclear states that it is permissible to use these weapons offensively.

    The draft nuclear doctrine also appears to undermine the credibility of other U.S. negative security assurances, such as those contained in the recent six-party statement of principles outlining the terms for the verifiable and complete dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities.

    Mr. President, it is one thing to threaten a devastating response to a biological or chemical weapons attack or the threat of a biological, chemical, or nuclear attack. It is quite another to say explicitly that the United States is prepared to counter non-nuclear weapons threats or attempt to pre-empt a suspected WMD attack by striking with nuclear weapons.

    As former Secretary of State Powell said in response to the possibility that India and Pakistan might use nuclear weapons during their confrontation in the summer of 2002: “Nuclear weapons in this day and age may serve some deterrent effect, and so be it, but to think of using them as just another weapon in what might start out as a conventional conflict in this day and age seems to me to be something that no side should be contemplating.”

    We urge you to personally review the draft doctrine and consider its serious negative consequences for U.S. national and international security interests. U.S. nuclear use policy and doctrine should be consistent with your often stated goal of significantly reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons worldwide.

    Thank you for considering our suggestions and we look forward to your reply.

    Sincerely,

    Sens. Dianne Feinstein (CA), Daniel Akaka (HI), Edward Kennedy (MA), Jack Reed (RI), Byron Dorgan (ND), John Kerry (MA), Frank Lautenberg (NJ) and Reps. Ellen Tauscher (CA), Neil Abercrombie (HI), Rob Andrews (NJ), Marty Meehan (MA), Ed Markey (MA), Susan Davis (CA), Loretta Sanchez (CA), Adam Smith (WA), and Mark Udall (CO).

  • Two Retired Generals Call for Prompt Withdrawal from Iraq: Support Murtha Position

    “What is worse than soldiers dying in vain is even more soldiers dying in vain.”

    The continued conflict in the Gulf War, and the massive reconstruction necessary on the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, require a reevaluation of American policy in Iraq. Much of the partisan, emotional rhetoric in the current public debate does little to focus on the problem.

    As patriotic Americans who have dedicated our professional lives to public service, we acknowledge that the situation in Iraq is complex and that people of good will can disagree. We acknowledge that a vigorous public debate has risks in wartime; but in a democracy, that is a risk we must accept. “Staying the course” is a greater risk. Absent a genuine collaboration between the White House and Congress, which obviously has not happened, the only way to influence a policy in a democracy is to have a public debate.

    Therefore, we feel it is vital at this time to weigh the risks of withdrawing our troops with the risks of keeping them there indefinitely.

    —

    Those who argue that the United States should not leave Iraq any time soon, nor set a deadline for beginning to withdraw, point to potential disasters if the United States pulls out before Iraqi forces demonstrate the ability to maintain adequate security. This would be an open-ended commitment, since most experts believe it will take decades to end the insurgency.

    In point of fact, the situation in Iraq already is a disaster, both for the American military and for Iraqi civilians. It therefore would be useful to examine what seems likely to, or may, happen if the United States continues on its present course of keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely. A careful balancing of the risks of leaving compared to the risks of staying could provide a basis for making an informed choice regarding this critical issue.

    —

    The risks of leaving

    Those who argue that the United States needs to continue to maintain substantial numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq suggest several dangers that are possible, although not inevitable, if the U.S. draws down our troops before Iraqi forces can demonstrate the capability to maintain security while confronted with the current level of insurgency.

    Charge #1: There could be a civil war. Only the presence of U.S. forces is keeping some stability in Iraq and precluding a religious war and increased civilian casualties.

    Response: There already is a civil war, even if the Administration doesn’t use that term. It is beside the point that one side doesn’t wear uniforms, a common occurrence in today’s warfare. With conservative estimates of 12,000 – 25,000 civilian deaths and many more thousands wounded since the fall of Baghdad, the high level of civil violence is indisputable.

    While U.S. troops do provide security in certain locations like the Green Zone, the reality is that daily life in Baghdad is still miserable, journalists can’t leave their hotels, congressional visitors can’t drive from the airport into Baghdad, and suicide bombers continue to kill on a daily basis. The presence of U.S. forces, the collateral damage they cause and the casualties they inflict on Iraqi civilians are major incentives for the recruitment of insurgents. The visible presence of our troops may actually be more of a cause of civil conflict than a solution to it.

    Charge #2: Iraq could become a failed state that is a haven for terrorists.

    Response: Iraq became a haven for terrorists as a direct result of the U.S. invasion. It is quite possible that ending the occupation would decrease, not increase, terrorist activity; but the larger question is how to deal with the multi-headed monster that Al Qaeda and its supporters have become. We are failing to accord sufficient priority to this threat, due in large part to our preoccupation with the ongoing war in Iraq.

    Charge # 3: If the U.S. “cuts and runs,” we will lose prestige and credibility across the globe.

    Response: Accusations that arguments for policy change constitute a “cut and run” surrender is an emotional ploy that obfuscates the issue. It is precisely the U.S. intervention in Iraq that has squandered the positive image of, and world sympathy that was felt for, the U.S. immediately after 9/11. According to authoritative polling, after two years of an aggressive U.S. campaign to promote democracy in the Middle East, the Iraq war has made millions suspicious of U.S. intentions; and the polls reveal that most now believe the war has made the world more, not less, dangerous.

    Not only do most Europeans view us in a negative light, but our image in the Muslim world is even worse: only about one fifth of Turks, Pakistanis or Jordanians — to name three U.S. allies — view us positively. It is true that American military power is respected and prestigious because it is the strongest in the world; but being regarded as a stubborn bully focused exclusively on our own interests as seen by the Administration does not give our nation the kind of image or credibility we desire and need. It is significant that polls show 80% of Iraqis want the American military to depart. At a recent conference, Iraqi leaders called for the departure of American troops and even suggested that insurgents are justified in killing coalition troops.

    The war against extremists cannot be won primarily through the use of force—it is foremost a war of ideas. We are losing that war and our Iraqi policy is one of the contributors to that condition.

    The U.S. cannot rebuild its credibility by extending the occupation, but rather by reforming the botched reconstruction program to restore a consistent supply of water, electricity and gasoline to Iraq’s civilian population, and by talking with all parties in the country and region to help rebuild its political structure.

    Charge #4: U.S. soldiers will have died in vain.

    Response: Soldiers die in vain when we, citizens and leaders alike, do not honor and reflect on their sacrifices, and when we fail to learn from our mistakes as we face the future. We believe that in national security decisions, as well as in the business world and politics, there are times to acknowledge mistakes in policy and cut losses.

    • After a terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 241 U.S. military personnel, President Ronald Reagan decided to eliminate the provocation of U.S. military presence, prevent additional casualties and withdraw our troops. The United States recovered from the setback without serious harm to our national interests.
    • After a long insurgency, Charles de Gaulle withdrew French forces from Algeria because the costs of continuing outweighed the possible benefits for France. Algeria became independent, and France became stronger as a result of its withdrawal.
    • Despite predictions of a resultant disaster for U.S. Cold War interests, the United States completed the withdrawal of our troops from Vietnam after suffering more than 58,000 killed. Even though South Vietnam subsequently fell to the communist north, this country ultimately became much stronger following withdrawal from that quagmire; and U.S. vital interests were not compromised.

    What is worse than soldiers dying in vain is even more soldiers dying in vain.

    —

    The risks of staying

    Any assessment of the impact of withdrawal from Iraq must be balanced against the consequences — and there could be many — of staying indefinitely.

    The insurgency could continue to intensify and expand: Using the U.S. military occupation as its clarion call, Al Qaeda has successfully appealed to foreign religious terrorists, Sunnis, and other nationalist elements within Iraq, all bent on ridding the Middle East of American military presence and influence. Even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has conceded the tension between foreign forces needed for protection and their image as occupiers.

    Just as the insurgency in Iraq has intensified in the last two years, it is likely to continue to expand its recruitment of foot-soldiers and martyrs, as well as its training and development of new leaders and its mastery of new tactics, many of which will be applicable in other venues. Indeed, the CIA already has warned that Iraq, as a living laboratory of urban combat, could be a more effective training ground for terrorists than was Afghanistan.

    With Al Qaeda’s use of Internet web sites now emerging as a primary vehicle to coordinate acts of terrorism, it seems likely that continued western military occupation in Iraq will become an increasingly potent incentive to inspire radicals and their young and avid followers; and it will play a major part in leading to attacks on Americans and other members of the coalition at times and in places least expected. The occupation also will continue to put at risk the lives of Iraqi security forces and moderate Iraqi politicians, perceived as puppets of the U.S.

    U.S. casualties will increase: The U.S. has lost over 2,100 killed and over 15,500 wounded or injured in Iraq. In early August 2005, 20 Marines were killed in two days. Retaining a large number of American troops in Iraq subjects them to a growing variety of hostile attacks from what all experts agree is an insurgency that is growing considerably more sophisticated.

    International cooperation will be undermined: The number of countries assisting the U.S. in Iraq, most of which provide few troops, has already fallen by a quarter, from 34 last year to 25 today; and five more are due to leave by year’s end. Recently South Korea announced the reduction of its commitment. Furthermore, the international cooperation necessary to confront terrorism may deteriorate further by the continued suspicion of, and hostility toward, the United States in most other countries.

    A recent Pew Center international poll shows that the United States is held in low esteem across the globe, particularly in the Muslim world, largely as a result of the U.S. Administration’s foreign policies; and the war in Iraq continues to be deeply unpopular internationally, including with the populaces of our allies. Most countries believe that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has made the world a less safe place. Many are also suspicious that the United States intends to establish permanent bases in Iraq to secure the flow of oil from the region, a charge the Administration has not denied.

    U.S. attention will continue to be diverted from other critical security issues: Waging a full-time, unpopular war in Iraq, combined with the recent hurricane disasters, consumes the attention of the Administration’s national security team, resulting in too little consideration of other critical threats to the security of the United States. These include terrorist organizations, unsecured nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union, the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea and loose nuclear materials around the globe available to terrorists. It also detracts attention and funds from protection of our borders, our ports, our nuclear and chemical plants, our food and water supplies, and our domestic transportation system.

    The U.S. military will be stretched to the breaking point: In January 2004, Lieutenant General John Riggs said: “I have been in the Army 39 years, and I’ve never seen it as stretched in that 39 years as I have today;” and it is more stretched now. Despite increased incentives and lowered standards, the Army is unable to meet its recruitment goals.

    If the U.S. maintains troops in Iraq indefinitely at or near current levels, the ability of our armed forces to protect our national security interests in the rest of the world, including in Afghanistan where the Taliban has mounted a reinvigorated insurgency, will continue to decline.

    It is evident that many junior and mid-grade officers, discouraged by the prospect of repeated tours in Iraq, are resigning their commissions after fulfilling their mandatory service obligations, rather than opting for careers in the military. The difficulties faced by the armed forces today will lead to a deterioration of the quality of the Army from which it will take many years to recover.

    The Army National Guard and Reserve will be depleted further. Lieutenant General James Helmley, Chief of the Army Reserve, warned at the end of 2004: the Army Reserve “is rapidly degenerating into a broken force” and is “in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements.” The Army National Guard has been similarly affected.

    Military families, beset by long and too frequent separations, will continue to suffer. The divorce rate in the active-duty military has increased 40 percent since 2000.

    The number of service personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs has dramatically increased, far beyond Administration’s predictions earlier this year. VA budget documents had projected 23,553 such veterans, but the total is likely to reach 103,000 for the fiscal year that ended 30 September. Veterans’ health care programs could be short more than $2 billion next year without an emergency infusion of funds.

    The costly quagmire will continue: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told Fox News this summer that “Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.” The President has said that U.S. troops will be withdrawn when Iraqi forces are capable of maintaining security on their own; but meeting this criterion is unlikely in the foreseeable future, in part due to the complete lack of Iraqi combat support and combat service support units.

    Notification of our troop withdrawal would energize the Iraqi government to assume responsibility to organize and train the forces it deems necessary for security.

    We already have spent well over $200 billion on the war in Iraq, and it currently is costing us more than $5 billion a month. Hurricane relief is expected to cost at least $200 billion. The resulting deficits are simply not sustainable.

    The “credibility gap” will intensify: Once again, after many years, we see the return of an ominous credibility gap in the middle of a war. The majority of the American public is coming to reject the Vice President’s prediction that the insurgency is “in its last throes,” concluding instead that the war in Iraq, even if the original rationale justified the invasion, is not making Americans safer from terrorism.

    American government credibility will continue to be undermined by optimistic forecasts of success. Already, public opinion polls indicate a widening gap. A November Washington Post poll found that approval of Bush’s Iraq policy has fallen to 36% with 64% disapproving. Only 39% in the same poll agreed that the war was worth fighting. A number of polls show increasing numbers of American agreeing that some or all U.S. troops should be brought home. As we learned from the Vietnam experience, we cannot sustain a military campaign over the long term without public support.

    —

    U.S. strategy in Iraq has been based on faulty premises. Moreover, the decision simply to “stay the course” reflects an ideological rigidity that can be disastrous for our national security. It is time to cut our losses. We should begin to disengage early in 2006, after the Iraqi elections scheduled for this December. The withdrawal of U.S. troops should be orderly and phased, but prompt, and coordinated in advance with our allies and Iraqi officials.

    The United States should announce unequivocally that we have no intention of establishing permanent bases for a long-term military presence in Iraq. And we should continue to assist both rebuilding efforts in Iraq and efforts to spread democracy in the region.

    There may well be some negative consequences as a result of withdrawing of U.S. troops, but fewer, we believe, than if we continue on the present course. Ultimately, the United States will be stronger if we leave the quagmire that is Iraq to resolution by its own citizens.

    Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA-ret.) served in the Korean and Vietnam wars, retiring from the U.S. Army in 1981 following almost five years as president of the National Defense University. He subsequently directed the Johns Hopkins University Center in Bologna, Italy, for five years, and was president of the Monterey institute of International Studies for almost eleven years.

    Brigadier General John Johns (USA-ret.) was a combat arms officer in the U.S. Army for 26 years, including service in Vietnam. Following retirement from the U.S. Army in 1978, he served as a deputy assistant secretary of defense for four years. He then joined the faculty of the National Defense University, where he taught ethics, political science and strategic decision-making before being appointed academic dean of one of the University’s senior colleges.

  • Santa Barbara Nuclear Activist Leader Honored at Gala

    Six people whose efforts have made significant contributions to the world’s environment, including Santa Barbaran David Krieger of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, were honored by Global Green USA at a gala ceremony Friday in Beverly Hills.

    Global Green is the U.S. affiliate of Green Cross International, which aims to push the world toward more sustainable and safer use of its resources. The American group’s annual Millennium Awards recognize those who contribute professionally to that goal by addressing environmental and social problems.

    Besides Mr. Krieger, others honored were actors and environmental advocates Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick; Sally Lilienthal, founder and president of Ploughshares Fund; Fred Buenrostro, CEO of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System; and Rob Feckner, president of the CalPERS board.

    “We hope the awards inspire others to take similar paths and encourage our honorees to shine even brighter in their respective fields,” said Matt Petersen, president and CEO of Global Green USA.

    Mr. Krieger, who received the International Environmental Leadership Award, has been a leader in the effort to abolish nuclear weapons. Global Green noted that he helped found several international coalitions, including Abolition 2000; the Middle Powers Initiative; and the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, based in Germany.

    Mr. Krieger founded the Santa Barbara-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and has served as its president since 1982. A graduate of the Santa Barbara College of Law, Mr. Krieger also serves as a judge pro tem for the local Superior Court.

    The link between green concerns and abating the nuclear threat was embodied by the ceremony’s keynote speaker, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who asked that world leaders adopt a treaty guaranteeing clean water and sanitation.

    “We were able to solve the nuclear arms race because of . . . political will,” he said before the awards banquet. “Today we don’t see that political will. But I think it will emerge that leaders will have to address this problem.”

    Dwindling water supplies and political resistance have hampered efforts to bring fresh water to slum dwellers around the world, Mr. Gorbachev said Friday in an interview with The Associated Press.

    Mr. Gorbachev, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who led the Soviet Union for six years until its 1991 collapse, founded Green Cross International in 1993.

    Originally published by the Santa Barbara News Press

  • A Man-Made Tsunami – Why are There No Fundraisers for the Iraqi Dead?

    I am bewildered by the world reaction to the tsunami tragedy. Why are newspapers, television and politicians making such a fuss? Why has the British public forked out more than £100m to help the survivors, and why is Tony Blair now promising “hundreds of millions of pounds”? Why has Australia pledged £435m and Germany £360m? And why has Mr Bush pledged £187m?

    Of course it’s wonderful to see the human race rallying to the aid of disaster victims, but it’s the inconsistency that has me foxed. Nobody is making this sort of fuss about all the people killed in Iraq, and yet it’s a human catastrophe of comparable dimensions.

    According to the only scientific estimate attempted, Iraqi deaths since the war began number more than 100,000. The tsunami death toll is in the region of 150,000. Yet in the case of Iraq, the media seems reluctant to impress on the public the scale of the carnage.

    I haven’t seen many TV reporters standing in the ruins of Falluja, breathlessly describing how, in 30 years of reporting, they’ve never seen a human tragedy on this scale. The Pope hasn’t appealed for everyone to remember the Iraqi dead in their prayers, and MTV hasn’t gone silent in their memory.

    Nor are Blair and Bush falling over each other to show they recognise the scale of the disaster in Iraq. On the contrary, they have been doing their best to conceal the numbers killed.

    When the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated the figure of 100,000 killed in Iraq and published their findings in one of the world’s leading scientific journals, the Lancet, Downing Street questioned their methodology, saying “the researchers used an extrapolation technique, which they considered inappropriate, rather than a detailed body count”. Of course “a detailed body count” is the one thing the US military will not allow anyone to do.

    What is so odd is the way in which so much of the media has fallen into line, downplaying the only authoritative estimate of casualties in Iraq with the same unanimity with which they have impressed upon us the death toll of the tsunami.

    One of the authors of the forenamed report, Dr Gilbert Burnham, said: “Our data have been back and forth between many reviewers at the Lancet and here in the school, so we have the scientific strength to say what we have said with great certainty.”

    So, are deaths caused by bombs and gunfire less worthy of our pity than deaths caused by a giant wave? Or are Iraqi lives less worth counting than Indonesian, Thai, Indian and Swedish?

    Why aren’t our TV companies and newspapers running fundraisers to help Iraqis whose lives have been wrecked by the invasion? Why aren’t they screaming with outrage at the man-made tsunami that we have created in the Middle East? It truly is baffling.

    · Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python. His book Terry Jones’s War on the War on Terror is published this month by the Nation.

  • The Challenge of Hiroshima: Alternatives to Nuclear Weapons, Missile Defenses, and Space Weaponization in a North East Asian Context

    Conference Statement

    Six non-governmental organizations* brought together experts and activists from nine countries** in Hiroshima, Japan to discuss issues of global and regional peace and security. Almost 60 years after this city suffered the first atomic bombing, we confront new and continuing nuclear dangers in North East Asia and around the world.

    An inspiring opening to the conference was provided by Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, who discussed the Mayors for Peace Emergency Campaign to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons by 2020. A prominent sentiment that underlay the discussions during the meeting was the suffering experienced by the survivors of the atomic bombing, the hibakusha , and their courage and determination in their efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

    Despite the efforts of the hibakusha and the efforts of millions of other people for more than half a century to eliminate nuclear weapons, over twenty thousand remain deployed worldwide. Under the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States agreed to negotiate for the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. Unfortunately, there are no such negotiations in progress or even on the horizon for further nuclear reductions. Entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty also remains an unrealized goal, in no small part due to the refusal of the United States to ratify the Treaty.

    North Korea has announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and that it has the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. It justifies this decision in part because the United States government has listed North Korea as a potential nuclear target. North Korea also cites other implied United States threats to use force against it, manifested by the continued deployment of powerful United States military forces in the region.

    The United States and Japan are also proceeding with joint ballistic missile defense research, claiming a need to counter a North Korean missile threat. Missile defense deployment, and the possibility that it could be extended further to Taiwan , is viewed with great concern by China , and by other governments and peace movements throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

    The United States is pursuing ambitious programs for the modernization of its nuclear forces, from its missiles and the warheads they deliver to the systems used to plan and execute nuclear strikes. China and Russia , the major nuclear powers in the region, also continue to modernize some elements of their nuclear arsenals, although at a far slower pace than the United States . In addition, the United States continues to develop new kinds of high technology conventional weapons, including increasingly accurate and long-range conventionally armed missiles. A growing proportion of United States military forces are being deployed in the Pacific region.

    All countries in North East Asia and the surrounding region have a strong interest in a stable and peaceful environment. The development and deployment of dangerous weapons systems in the region undermines this goal.

    After extensive discussions, the conference participants concluded:

    • Every available diplomatic means should be employed to resolve the current standoff between the United States and North Korea , ranging from the existing six-party talks between North Korea , South Korea , Japan , China , Russia and the United States , to bilateral negotiations between North Korea and the United States.
    • Joint ballistic missile defense research by Japan and the United States complicates the relationship between the three major nuclear powers, and furthers proliferation of sophisticated military technologies. Missile defense development will make a regional arms race more likely. Therefore, joint ballistic missile defense development should not proceed, and the United States should not deploy anti-ballistic missile systems in the region.
    • Normalization of diplomatic relations between North Korea and Japan and between North Korea and the United States should be encouraged.
    • China , Russia , and the United States , the three nuclear weapons states with forces in the region, should actively pursue global negotiations for the elimination of all nuclear arsenals, consistent with their disarmament obligations under the NPT. These negotiations should involve all nuclear weapons states, including those not party to the NPT.

    As a way forward, the conference participants agreed that the six-party talks should be considered a starting point for long-term discussions to address further regional security-enhancing measures, including:

    • the withdrawal of missiles to such locations as would reduce perceived threats to countries in the region;
    • limitations and reductions of missiles in the region;
    • the creation of a North East Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone; and
    • the withdrawal of foreign military forces based in the region.

    The conference participants recognized that regional security also depends on the global security environment. They were particularly concerned about the weaponization of space, and wide-ranging United States plans for space dominance and the use of space for war fighting. The conference participants recommended the beginning and early conclusion of negotiations for a treaty banning these developments.

    The participants agreed that the outcome of the 2005 NPT Review Conference will be critical for the future of non-proliferation and disarmament. The cry of the hibakusha – no more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis – must be taken up by the people of the world, strongly enough this time that the governments finally must listen and act to fulfill their legal obligations for the total elimination of their nuclear weapons.

    *Convened by the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, the Hiroshima Peace Institute, the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP), Mayors for Peace, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), and the Peace Depot. This was the fourth in a series of conferences in the project Moving Beyond Missile Defense, sponsored by INESAP and NAPF.

    ** Canada, China, Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea, and the United States.

  • Report on Trip to Europe by NAPF President

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation president David Krieger was in Europe from July 2nd to July 9th. He was there to attend meetings of the International Council and Executive Committee of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES), where he serves as deputy chair of INES, and to give several talks. He gave the keynote address at the 40th anniversary meeting of the International Peace Research Association, spoke to some 150 participants from throughout Europe at the International Summer Academy of the Schlaining Peace Center, and gave a talk to the International Institute for Peace in Vienna.

    Two of the speeches by David in Europe (“Nuclear Disarmament in a Time of Globalization” and “US Policy and the Quest for Nuclear Disarmament”) can be found on the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s web site at www.wagingpeace.org.On July 7th, David went to the Schlaining Peace Center, which is housed in an old castle in the Austrian countryside. His speech there the next morning was on “The US Peace Movement in a Time of ‘War against Terrorism.’”That afternoon he was taken to Vienna , where he did a radio interview and then spoke in the evening at the International Institute for Peace on “US Policy and the Quest for Nuclear Disarmament.” He was introduced by the president of the Institute, Erwin Lanc, a former Foreign Minister of Austria.The main topics of the INES workshop were: Responsibility and Education (The Duality of Science and the Social Responsibility of Scientists; Ambivalence of R & D in Modern Biotechnology; Peace Education; Whistleblowers); War and Weapons (New Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Strategy; Uranium Weapons); Peace and Sustainability (Energy and Peace; Water and Peace; Climate Change and Energy Conflicts); War Politics and Peace Promotion (Nuclear Targeting and the Non-Proliferation Treaty); Disarmament (International Control of Nuclear-Usable Materials; Chemical Disarmament); and a session focusing on problems specific to Europe (Space Militarization from a European Point of View; Environmental Problems in the Danube Area; Europe under Construction; and Problems of Chemical Safety in Europe).Following the two-day INES Council and Executive Committee meetings, INES put on a two-day workshop that ran parallel to the meeting of the International Peace Research Association (IPRA), which allowed for networking with many members of this worldwide association. David gave the keynote address to IPRA on “Nuclear Disarmament in a Time of Globalization.”The INES meetings were held in Sopron, Hungary , a small town near the border of Austria. The participants in INES are a strongly engaged group of scientists and engineers, and their work supports and complements that of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. There were representatives at the meeting from throughout Europe as well as from Russia and Latin America. Future plans of INES include organizing for the International Einstein Year 2005, in which it is playing a leading role. Starting this November, INES will begin a series of meetings on Einstein’s views on peace, disarmament and social responsibility. In 2006, INES plans to focus on the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl , looking at the continuing dangers of nuclear power. In 2007/2008, INES will organize another major international congress. These activities are in addition to their ongoing work on ethics in science, the prevention of nuclear proliferation, their opposition to both missile and missile defense developments and a variety of other projects.