Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: Mike Ryan

  • Stoking an Asian Cold War?

    This article was originally published by In Depth News.

    Proxy wars between countries was one of the more tragic features of the Cold War between the U.S. and the USSR. Both super-powers fuelled the conflicts supplying military materiel and political support while they piously claimed that nuclear deterrence worked so that they themselves never went to war. The U.S. in particular claimed that the George Kennan doctrine of the “containment” of the USSR worked and ere long the Communist giant imploded obligingly.

    Fast forward two decades, and a declining U.S. super power, trapped in economic woes of its own making, is groping for ways to contain a rising China. Proxy wars are no longer possible especially for a super power mired in the morass of Iraq and Afghanistan and encumbered by the unending and ubiquitous “war against terrorism” fighting an unseen enemy.

    What better then than to outsource the task of the containment of China to ambitious India and reluctant Japan? That, essentially, is the subtext of the unusually lengthy Joint Statement that came out at the conclusion of President Obama’s recent visit to India and the rationale for his Asian tour. Unsurprisingly both Japan and now India are the chosen candidates of the U.S. for permanent member status in the UN Security Council.

    The scenario has been a long time in gestation and operation and spans the presidencies of Bush the Son and of Barak Obama giving it the bipartisan support it needs as national security policy. For India — the world’s most populous democracy unable to match China’s poverty alleviation record and bedevilled by home-grown terrorism — the opportunity to escape the stigma of ostracism following the 1998 nuclear blasts was too good to be true.

    The Nehruvian vision of Non-alignment and moral superiority as the key to Great Power status had failed to unlock the door. Now it was self-built economic muscle (and a clever manipulation of the U.S. political system by the wealthy Indian lobby) and a replay of the old “Yellow Peril” cry replayed as a “string of pearls” theory that secured a place at the high table.

    The sophistication of Indian diplomacy will ensure that the new game will be played with finesse and without any of the crudity of the earlier proxy wars. It will garner huge bilateral trade and technology-transfer benefits for itself while maintaining normal relations with China competing at the same time for economic payoffs and political influence with China in Asia and Africa with U.S. support.

    Japan was settling into a low-key role after brief episode of assertiveness under Koizumi and a succession of bland Prime Ministers with little impact on the international political and economic scene. But China’s ill-conceived saber-rattling over the Diaoyu Tai or Senkaku islands plus Medvedev’s ill-timed visit to the Kuril Islands has made her ready to question China on its intentions in the East and South China Seas, recall its Ambassador from Moscow and play hard ball in the Six Nation Talks over North Korea’s nuclear weapon programme.

    It is a dangerous game to play especially since China is able to revive old animosities against the Japanese with its domestic audience and apply economic pressures as well. For the U.S. the revitalization of its old alliance with Japan on the eastern flank of China was long overdue and the rebuff over Okinawa was a sign that Japan had to fall back in line.

    While the speculation over the shift of the global centre of gravity from the Atlantic to the Pacific goes on, the Atlantic powers — the U.S. and NATO militarily and the U.S. and the EU economically — are not ready to abdicate their role in global affairs. The logical — and inexpensive — way to continue to exert influence in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans is through allies justifying their selection as a natural alliance among “democracies” with a common allegiance to human rights, anti-terrorism and nuclear non-proliferation (giving the Obama slogan of “a nuclear weapon free world” a rest).

    The side benefits are to break Non-aligned and G77 solidarity in the UN and other forums like the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round of negotiations and the upcoming Climate Change talks in Cancun isolating China at the same time. Possible irritants in the newly forged U.S.-EU-Japan-India axis will continue to be India’s stance regarding Iran’s nuclear programme, China’s human rights record and Myanmar or Burma’s military junta. The adroit management of this will be a small price to pay rather than giving the Republicans the satisfaction of shredding Obama’s foreign policy as they have done with his domestic policies.

  • 2010 to Be Key Year in Fight Against Nuclear Arms

    This article was originally published by Reuters

    Next year will be crucial for global nuclear non-proliferation efforts and all eyes will be on the United States and Russia to see if the two top atomic powers can reach a deal to reduce their arsenals.

    In April, U.S. President Barack Obama declared in a speech in Prague that the United States was committed “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” In September he chaired a meeting of the U.N. Security Council that unanimously supported this vision.

    Analysts and Western government officials say Obama’s ability to begin
    delivering on his promise will be tested next year when Moscow and Washington resume haggling on an arms reduction pact and again at a key U.N. nuclear arms conference in May.

    They say success of a month-long review of the troubled 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
    (NPT) will depend largely on whether U.S. and Russian negotiators can
    first agree on a successor pact to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction
    Treaty (START I).

    START I, signed in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, officially expired on Dec. 5. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last week in Copenhagen that they would keep working for a deal in 2010.

    “The START follow-on agreement, which appears to be nearing a
    conclusion, won’t dramatically reduce arsenals on either side, but it
    will be an important demonstration of the will to move toward
    disarmament,” said Mark Fitzpatrick of the London-based International Institute For Strategic Studies.

    Fitzpatrick added that the “absolute deadline” for a new agreement was
    May, when the NPT review conference opens in New York. Otherwise it
    will “start off in a deep hole,” he said.

    The last NPT review conference in May 2005 ended in failure. Many delegates blamed the collapse on the the United States, Iran and Egypt, accusing them of forming an unholy alliance that divided delegations and wasted time bickering over procedure.

    They said the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush focused too much on the perceived atomic threats posed by Iran and North Korea while Tehran and other developing nations accused Washington and the other four nuclear powers of reneging on disarmament commitments.

    CONCERNS ABOUT IRAN AND NORTH KOREA

    If Russia and the United States can send the world a clear signal that they are serious about nuclear disarmament by getting a new pact to shrink their Cold War
    stockpiles, the NPT may get a new lease on life when its 189
    signatories gather to discuss ways of closing what some see as
    dangerous loopholes.

    The United States, Britain, France, Russia
    and China all have a special status under the NPT. They were allowed to
    keep their weapons but pledged to launch disarmament negotiations, a
    promise some non-nuclear weapons states say they have ignored.

    Western powers would like next year’s NPT review to agree on a plan of
    action for beefing up the treaty to make it harder for states like Iran
    and North Korea to acquire sensitive technology and the capability to
    produce nuclear weapons.

    But rich and poor nations have been at loggerheads for years. Poor states accuse the big powers of keeping a monopoly on nuclear technology and want that to end.

    Wealthy states worry about the threat of nuclear arms races in Asia and in the Middle East, where Israel
    is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal although it has not
    acknowledged it. They fear that a renaissance of atomic energy
    worldwide will increase nuclear proliferation risks.

    Many NPT signatories would also like the review conference to call for universality of the treaty — meaning that Israel, Pakistan
    and India should be pressured to sign and get rid of any warheads they
    have. North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and tested nuclear
    devices in 2006 and earlier this year.

    NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY

    Some analysts say it would be helpful for the Obama administration to
    resubmit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), a pact that would
    ban all nuclear testing, to the Senate for ratification before the NPT review begins.

    Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, a U.S.-based peace and security foundation, said ratification of the treaty was viewed by most nations as “the litmus test of U.S. commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.”

    The CTBT was rejected by a Republican-dominated Senate in 1999. The Bush administration
    never resubmitted it because it did not want to subscribe to a treaty
    that would limit its future testing options, a position Obama has
    reversed.

    A U.S. official told Reuters Obama was already sounding out
    Senators to gauge support for the test-ban treaty and believed a
    bipartisan consensus was emerging in favor of ratifying it.

    The head of the CTBT organization in Vienna, Tibor Toth, told
    Reuters U.S. ratification would send a strong signal to the other eight
    countries that need to ratify the treaty for it to come into force —
    China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan.

    “The U.S. ratification will be a game-changer,” Toth said.

  • The Time Is Now

    We hold these truths to be self-evident: No one should live under the threat of nuclear annihilation, and it is our responsibility to ourselves and future generations to end this threat.

    This vision has been at the heart of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s work for 27 years as we have waged peace for a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Now a remarkable window of opportunity has opened. It offers a real chance to make progress toward the goal of eliminating the nuclear threat. To take advantage of this unique, historical moment, I ask you to give the Foundation financial support now to further its mission.

    The time is now. It is unprecedented that world leaders have embraced the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. New international agreements are being negotiated. Public support is vital to ensure the potential is realized. A strong grassroots effort is essential. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is uniquely placed to provide leadership for a new movement based on education and advocacy.

    The time is now.  The Foundation has never been stronger. Our membership has tripled to 31,000. Our new DVD featuring President Obama is proving very popular. Our Action Alert Network has channeled thousands of emails to elected officials in Washington, DC. And our Peace Leadership Program, under the direction of former US Army Captain and West Point graduate, Paul Chappell, is making it easy for volunteers to spread the message of nuclear weapons abolition in their own communities.

    The time is now. With 27 years of experience, wide-ranging expertise and a record of nonpartisan international action, the Foundation has both the capacity and credibility to seize this moment and to lead toward a safer, saner tomorrow for all people. But we need your donation now to leverage this opportunity to protect the world for future generations.

    Ending the nuclear threat remains the most critical issue facing humanity. Your help can and will make a difference. The time is now!

  • The Nobel War Lecture

    In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, President Obama, one of the world’s great orators and purveyors of hope, gave a speech that must reflect the divisions within himself and his personal struggles to reconcile them.  It was a surprising speech for the occasion.  Rather than a speech of vision and hope, it was a speech that sought to justify war and particularly America’s wars.  The speech was largely an infomercial for war, touting not only its necessity but its virtues, and might well be thought of as the “Nobel War Lecture.”

    How troubling it is to see this man of hope bogged down by war, not only on the ground but in his mind.  As he put it, “I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars.”  One of these wars he seeks to end, but the other he has made his own by recently committing 30,000 additional troops and justifying it as “an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.”  The president persists despite his recognition that “[i]n today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflicts are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.” 

    Where was the vision that was so hopeful in Barack Obama the campaigner for the presidency?  Has a year in office reduced him to a “reality” from which he cannot raise his sights to envision a more peaceful future – one without war or Predator drone attacks, one in which international cooperation in intelligence gathering and law enforcement could bring terrorists to justice? 

    The president tells the world, “I did not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.”  This is certain.  He tells his audience, “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.  There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”    Perhaps his decision to bow to the generals and increase the US presence in the war in Afghanistan is weighing heavily on him.  Perhaps he seeks a way to find it both “necessary” and “morally justified.” 

    President Obama acknowledges his debt to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., leading proponents of nonviolence, but he cannot find a way to follow their example.  He finds instead that “as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.”  From the lofty visions and practical actions of Gandhi and King, the president brings us down to earth, to his reality that in his position he is fated to carry on with war.  “So yes,” he tells us, “the instruments of war have a role to play in preserving the peace.”

    What does he offer in the stead of peace?  He argues that there must be standards governing the use of force.  Yes, this is long established, although not often adhered to.  One such standard is no use of force without the approval of the United Nations, except in self-defense to repel an imminent attack.  But America and its NATO allies often take war into their own hands, ignoring this rule of international law to which all states are bound.

    Having justified war, the president offers three paths to building “a just and lasting peace.”  First, he argues for “alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior.”  This makes sense so long as it is applied to all states equally without double standards.  Second, he argues that peace must be based upon human dignity and human rights.  Of course, this is so.  Of course, America should stand for human rights rather than torture and the worst abuse of all – aggressive war.  Third, he makes the point that a just and lasting peace must also be based upon freedom from want.  There is nothing to argue with here.  Why not use our resources to help eliminate poverty and hunger and expand education and healthcare throughout the world, rather than pour these resources into waging war?

    President Obama barely mentioned nuclear disarmament in his speech.  When he did, he reiterated his commitment to upholding the Non-Proliferation Treaty, calling it “a centerpiece” of his foreign policy.  He then moved quickly to pointing a finger at Iran and North Korea.  “Those who seek peace,” he said, “cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.”  He is right; no nation should arm itself for nuclear war, including the United States and the other eight nations that have already done so.

    The President might have built a strong, positive and hopeful speech on the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons, instruments of omnicide, but he chose instead to offer up a laundry list of reasons for war.  When it came to peace, his message, sadly, was No, we can’t.

  • Abolishing Nuclear Arms: It Can Be Done

    This article was originally published on CNN Opinion

    When President Obama called for a world free of nuclear weapons in Prague, Czech Republic, this spring, many dismissed this part of his speech as idealistic rhetoric.

    But the abolition of nuclear weapons is not an unrealistic fantasy. It is a practical necessity if the American people are to have a secure future. President Obama should use his Nobel speech this week to reaffirm his commitment to this essential and obtainable goal.

    It is essential because a world armed with nuclear weapons is simply too dangerous for us to countenance. Since the end of the Cold War we have tended to act as though the threat of nuclear war had gone away. It hasn’t. It is only our awareness of this danger that has faded. In fact, there are some 25,000 nuclear weapons in the world today; 95 percent of them are in the arsenals of the United States and Russia.

    Just this past weekend, the START treaty limiting the number of U.S. and Russian warheads expired. Negotiators in Geneva, Switzerland, have not yet been able to work out the details of a follow-up treaty.

    We must hope they will be able to agree to deep reductions. A recent study by Physicians for Social Responsibility showed that if only 300 of the weapons in the Russian arsenal attacked targets in American cities, 90 million people would die in the first half hour. A comparable U.S. attack on Russia would produce similar devastation.

    Further, these attacks would destroy the entire economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on which the rest of the population depends for survival. In the ensuing months the vast majority of people who survived the initial attacks in both countries would die of disease, exposure and starvation.

    The destruction of the United States and Russia would be only part of the story. An attack of this magnitude would lift millions of tons of soot and dust into the upper levels of the atmosphere, blocking out sunlight and dropping temperatures across the globe.

    In fact, if the entire Russian and U.S. strategic arsenals were involved in the fighting, average surface temperature worldwide would fall 10 degrees Centigrade to levels not seen on Earth since the depth of the last ice age 18,000 years ago.

    For three years there would not be a single day in the Northern Hemisphere free of frost. Agriculture would stop, ecosystems would collapse and many species, perhaps even our own, would become extinct. This is not just some theoretical scenario; it is a real and present danger.

    On January 25, 1995, we came within minutes of nuclear war when Russian military radar mistook a Norwegian-U.S. scientific rocket for a possible attack on Moscow. President Yeltsin, a man reportedly suffering from alcoholism and other major medical problems, was notified and given five minutes to decide how to respond.

    Then as now, both the United States and Russia maintained a policy of “launch on warning,” authorizing the launch of nuclear missiles when an enemy attack is believed to be under way. We don’t know exactly what happened in the Kremlin that morning, but someone decided not to launch Russian missiles and we did not have a nuclear war.

    January 25, 1995, was five years after the end of the Cold War. There were no unusual crises anywhere in the world that day. It was a relatively good day in a time much less dangerous than our own. And we almost blew up the world. That was 15 years ago and the United States and Russia still maintain more than 2,000 warheads on high alert ready to be launched in 15 minutes and to destroy each other’s cities 30 minutes later.

    Nuclear weapons are the only military threat from which U.S. armed forces cannot protect us. It is urgently in our national security interest to eliminate these instruments of mass annihilation from the arsenals of potential adversaries. If we have to get rid of our own nuclear weapons to achieve this, it is a deal well worth making.

    Make no mistake, the elimination of nuclear weapons is an attainable goal. These bombs are not some force of nature. They are the work of our hand. We built them and we can take them apart.

    Some governments falsely see these weapons as safeguards of their security. It will not be easy to convince them that true safety requires that we abolish them. Nor will it be easy to design the verification regime needed to assure that the weapons are dismantled and that no new weapons are built. Yet national security experts in the United States and around the world say that it can be done and it must be done.

    If politics is the art of the possible, then statesmanship is the art of the necessary. And if ever there was a time that cried out for statesmanship it is now.

    There are many important issues that demand our attention — health care reform, energy policy, creating more jobs — but none is as urgent as eliminating the threat of nuclear war.

  • Is It Just War?

    This article was originally published on the Waging Peace Today blog

    In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize today in Oslo, Norway, President Obama invoked the idea of “just war” to rationalize his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and the continued drone attacks against the people of Pakistan. The president rightly stated that certain criteria must be met for a war to be considered “just,” but did not proceed to examine his criteria as they relate to the wars he is continuing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    President Obama’s definition of a “just war,” according to his Nobel acceptance speech is a war that:

    1. Is waged as a last resort or in self-defense;
    2. Uses proportional force;
    3. Spares civilians from violence whenever possible.

    Even a cursory glance at this definition of a “just war” shows that what the US is doing in Afghanistan falls far short.

    Waged as a last resort or in self-defense

    This criterion was a stretch when the US invaded in 2001, but eight years later it’s downright silly. No other means of putting an end to this conflict have been reasonably attempted. Ongoing refusal by the United States to pursue a diplomatic solution through negotiations with the Taliban shows that this war has never been a “last resort.”

    Uses proportional force

    Since the 2001 invasion, the US Air Force has dropped around 31 million pounds of bombs on Afghanistan. There are countless examples of disproportionate force used, such as an aerial bombing raid in response to celebratory gunfire at a wedding.

    Spares civilians from violence whenever possible

    Sending drones to fire missiles at Pakistani villages, a strategy that has increased dramatically under President Obama’s watch, is a sure way to injure, traumatize and kill many civilians. In Afghanistan, estimates range from 12,000 to 32,000 civilians killed as a result of the current war. Over 200,000 are known to be living in Internally Displaced Persons camps in Afghanistan. With the upcoming escalation of US and NATO troops, deaths of both Afghan civilians and foreign troops are certain to rise.

    A war of choice with diplomacy “off the table” is not just. War is not peace, regardless of how you spin it.

  • Afghanistan: War Is Not the Answer

    Statement of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    President Obama’s recent decision to send 30,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan is part of a larger trend of escalating violence in a country renowned for being a graveyard of empires. After adding 21,000 US troops to Afghanistan in March 2009, the months of July, August and October 2009 were the deadliest months for US troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Continued attacks against civilians have stoked anger and resentment among the people of Afghanistan.

    The US invasion and occupation of Iraq have shown that true stability and democracy cannot be imposed through violence. Even with a US force of over 100,000 troops, Iraq remains an extremely dangerous place, with daily bombings, kidnappings and killings. Many people in Iraq still lack basic necessities such as electricity and clean drinking water. By some estimates, more than one million Iraqis have been killed in the war and more than four million have become refugees.

    The president’s decision to add nearly 50 percent more US troops to the occupation of Afghanistan will, together with troops from other NATO countries, bring total troop levels to around 150,000 – approximately the same number of troops deployed by the Soviet Union in their failed war in the 1980s.

    According to US intelligence agencies, there are fewer than 100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, and there are serious tensions between al Qaeda and the Taliban.  Even if the Taliban were to prevail in Afghanistan and offer al Qaeda a “safe haven,” it would be unlikely that al Qaeda would accept it, preferring instead to maintain the “invisibility” of a non-state network.

    Therefore, it is reasonable to ask the question, “Will the president’s decision to increase US troop levels in Afghanistan make the United States more secure?” For the following reasons, we believe this question must be answered in the negative.

    Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will lead to more US casualties. The war in Afghanistan has already claimed the lives of nearly 1,000 US troops and has severely impacted the lives of countless others through repeated deployments, serious injuries and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

    Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will create more casualties among the Afghan people. Civilian deaths in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion are estimated at between 12,000 and 32,000. More than 200,000 Afghan people have been displaced. Increased US troop numbers in Afghanistan are likely to result in increased civilian deaths, injuries and displacements.

    Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will breed more extremists. A US intelligence report in early 2009 showed that only one-tenth of enemy fighters in Afghanistan are ideologically-motivated Taliban; the vast majority are fighting against foreign occupiers or for personal economic gain. The continued war in Afghanistan will perpetuate conditions conducive to recruiting by al Qaeda and other extremist groups. Civilian casualties, indefinite detentions and destruction of property only create more extremists.

    Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will lead to increased financial burden. It is estimated that it will cost an additional $1 million per year for each individual troop sent to Afghanistan. According to the National Priorities Project, total US costs for the war in Afghanistan in 2010 are estimated at $325 billion. Especially at a time of high unemployment, economic hardship and a massive federal budget deficit in the US, this spending is not responsible.

    Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will weaken US military readiness. By adding more troops in Afghanistan, President Obama will stretch the US military even thinner, leaving fewer troops in reserve, causing more repeated tours of duty, and reducing our capacity and readiness to respond should other conflicts arise.

    Conclusion and Recommendations

    The military is the wrong tool for solving our problems in Afghanistan. It is akin to using a chainsaw for surgery rather than a scalpel. The most effective ways to deal with extremist groups, such as al Qaeda, are through international cooperation in intelligence gathering and law enforcement. A recent study by the RAND Corporation shows that only seven percent of terrorist groups were defeated by military force in the past 40 years.

    For the reasons set forth above, we urge Congress not to fund additional troops in Afghanistan. Instead, Congress should help in funding the rebuilding of Afghanistan’s infrastructure and support the Afghan people in building institutions of social justice such as schools, courts and health care clinics. Respect for the US in Afghanistan and around the world would increase significantly by providing even a small fraction of the resources currently being spent on the war in Afghanistan for these constructive purposes.

  • Acceptance Speech on Receiving Erasmus Prize

    Your Majesty, your Royal Highnesses, distinguished guests and friends,

    You honor me by your presence and I am deeply moved. Allow me to convey my gratitude by sharing some personal experiences which may reflect the values of Erasmus, whose name we here commemorate.

    My life was shaped in the crucible of wars. The First World War caused my family to flee to America. My destiny was shaped by the impact of the Second World War. Three goals became the focus of my life:

    • trying to bring perpetrators of war crimes to justice
    • caring for survivors
    • trying to prevent future wars

    As soon as my studies were completed, I enlisted in the United States army. In due course, I landed on the beaches of Normandy and participated in every major battle. As a war crimes investigator in the army of General Patton, I joined in the liberation of many Nazi concentration camps and witnessed indescribable horrors. After the war ended, I was discharged as a sergeant of infantry and awarded five battle stars for not being killed or wounded. Not all wounds are visible.

    I never speak of “winning” a war. I learned that the only victor in war is death.

    The next phase of my life was helping to bring to justice some of those responsible for the aggressions and atrocities. The famous Nuremberg trial by the international military tribunal was followed by twelve subsequent trials. I was appointed chief prosecutor in what was probably the biggest murder trial in history. Twenty-two Nazi leaders of extermination squads called Einsatzgruppen were convicted of deliberately murdering over a million innocent men, women and children. I was then 27 years old and it was my first case.

    The victims were slain because they did not share the race, faith or ideology of their executioners. I thought murdering thousands of children and all their relatives for such cruel reasons was a very terrible thing. I have never lost that feeling. Punishing criminals must not obscure the need to care for their innocent victims. In 1948, I became the director of restitution programs to recover heirless properties for the benefit of needy survivors. That led to an additional assignment as counsel in negotiating a very sensitive “reparations treaty” between West Germany, Israel and major Jewish charitable organizations. Millions of Nazi victims, regardless of persuasion, Jews and non-Jews alike, have benefited from the unprecedented indemnification laws which were negotiated in secret here in The Hague in Kasteel Oud Wassenaar in 1952.

    Appreciation belongs primarily to German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, who, as a devout catholic, proclaimed that amends had to be made for the terrible crimes committed in the name of the German people.

    My files dealing with my war crimes and restitution have been donated to the US Holocaust Museum in Washington. My books and lectures are available free on my website and the internet under a new United Nations audio-visual program. My Erasmus prize will all go for peace purposes.

    Let me spend the few remaining minutes on what I consider the most important phase of my life and that is trying to prevent war-making itself. At Nuremberg war-making ceased to be regarded as a national right but was condemned as “the supreme international crime”. There has never been a war without atrocities. Illegal war-making is the biggest atrocity of all.

    The best way to protect the brave young people who serve in the military of all nations is to try to eliminate war. The UN charter prohibits the use of armed force except under very limited circumstances. It is high time for the powerful nations that control the Security Council to remember and respect their basic legal obligations to all nations.

    It was made crystal clear at Nuremberg, and affirmed by the UN General Assembly, that law must apply equally to everyone. It is very dangerous when any person, or any nation, takes the law into its own hands. In a world seething with incredible destructive capabilities, there is no international dispute so overwhelming that it could justify the illegal use of armed force. Law is always better than war.

    Many well-intentioned people believe that war can never be stopped since it is ordained as part of some eternal plan. From the unbelievable horrors of war that I have personally witnessed, I cannot believe the cruelties I have seen were divinely inspired. I share the view of Erasmus and religious leaders of many faiths who hold that we are all members of one human family and must learn to live in peace and dignity regardless of our race or creed. I recall the words of my supreme military commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, when he became president of the United States: “The world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law.”

    It is difficult and takes time to change the heart and mind of persons with deeply entrenched and cherished ideals for which they are ready to kill and die. But it can surely be done. The early United States constitution denied all women the right to vote or own property. White men felt they had a right to own black people as slaves; not long ago, it would have been unthinkable that the United States would elect a non-white president, but take note: The world has changed!

    The world has changed and is ever-changing. National laws are being changed to conform to international obligations. There has been a gradual awakening of the human conscience.

    Whether aggression is punishable by an international court will be challenged at the International Criminal Court review conference next April. I believe we owe it to the future and to the memory of all who perished in wars, to go forward from Nuremberg and not backward. Even if only a small number of wars are deterred by the threat of punishment, it will surely be worthwhile.

    The stubborn belief that the human mind is incapable of creating an improved social order is a self-defeating prophecy of doom. It ignores the potential of new technologies. Holland has become the international law capital of the world. But it is a work in progress, the values which inspired Erasmus to speak out against abuses by vested authority are still needed today. Fear and hatred that fuels violence can best be conquered by reason, tolerance, compassion and a willingness to compromise that should be taught everywhere at every level of learning, the glorification of war must be replaced by the glorification of peace.

    I have tried to carry forward the main lesson of Nuremberg that aggression is the supreme international crime. I consider myself a realistic optimist: realist because I see the problems; optimist because I see the progress. The international community is still in its formative stage and there has been more progress in the last half century than in all of human history.

    I am aware that I will not live to see the goal of abolishing all wars. But I will be content to know that perhaps I will have helped to move closer to that ideal. To young people I say: “Never give up. Try harder.” Have the courage to speak up for what you know is right. You will find contentment in the knowledge that you have done your best to make this a more humane and peaceful world.

    I thank you all for the honor and privilege of addressing you.

  • World March for Peace and Nonviolence

    This speech was delivered to a rally during the World March for Peace and Nonviolence in Los Angeles, CA on December 2, 2009.

    Great thanks to the marchers traveling the world for peace and nonviolence.  You bring us the gift of hope.  How special it is to see so many people gathered together joined in commitment to achieving a peaceful and nonviolent world.

    In his speech committing 30,000 more American troops to the war in Afghanistan, President Obama spoke of seeking “a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.”  Unfortunately, he missed the point that his policy in Afghanistan, like the policies of the previous US administration in both Iraq and Afghanistan, will be one that continues to kill innocents, as well as sacrificing more of our own youth at the altar of war.  Those who stand up for peace, prosperity and human dignity are those who say No to war.  You cannot at the same time seek peace and wage war.  You cannot continue to kill innocents in war and uphold human dignity. 

    David krieger and blase bonpaneWar is an organized way of slaughtering other human beings.   It is a means of justifying murder — a monstrous conception, unworthy of the human spirit.  Over time, war has become less discriminate and more lethal.  In World War I, about 40 percent of those killed were civilians.  The percentage of civilian deaths in World War II increased to two-thirds.  In post-WWII wars, the number has increased to over 90 percent civilians.

    Improved technology allows mass killing to take place from greater distances.  Bomber pilots from 30,000 feet in the air can see only dim outlines of their targets.  The operators of missile-bearing drones sit in safe havens far from where the drones will do their damage.  With nuclear-armed missiles, you can press a button on one continent and murder millions of people on another continent.   The button pusher may not even know where the missile is aimed. 

    Militaries train soldiers to kill with small arms and bayonets.  They turn young soldiers into killers.  We traumatize and sacrifice our youth in war.  For those who survive, we scar their lives forever.  Of course, without conscription, we now only sacrifice the less advantaged youth.  It is the children of the poor who have become the mainstay of our military force.  As we dehumanize the enemy we dehumanize ourselves. 

    The countries of the world now spend some $1.5 trillion annually on their military forces.  Over 40 percent of this is spent by one country alone — the United States.   Only ten countries account for 74 percent of the total.  All but two of these, China and the Russian Federation, are US allies.

    While some 25,000 children continue to die daily of starvation and preventable diseases, the US spends some $680 billion annually on its military.  Each minute the US spends $1.9 million on its military.  Each soldier sent to Afghanistan, that graveyard for empires, will cost $1,000,000 per year.

    The Millennium Development Goals call for reducing poverty by cutting in half the number of people who live on less than $1 per day and who suffer from hunger; achieving universal education and eliminating gender disparity in education; promoting health by reducing by two-thirds the under five mortality rate, by three-quarters the maternal mortality rate, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS; and achieving environmental sustainability by halving the number of people without access to potable water and improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers (out of the some one billion slum dwellers now existing on the planet).  All of this could be done for between five and ten percent of what the world spends annually on its militaries. 

    There are still over 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world, on average eight to 100 times more powerful than the atomic weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  In our hubris, we seem to believe that we can control this unnatural fire.  At least, many of our political and military leaders seem to believe this. The MAD in Mutually Assured Destruction has taken on a new meaning, Mutually Assured Delusions. 

    But let us have no delusion that nuclear weapons are safe or that they can protect us.  They are instrument of annihilation, portable incinerators, which undermine our humanity.  They go beyond suicide and genocide to omnicide, the destruction of all. 

    Here are ten reasons to oppose nuclear weapons:

    1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.   As such, they are instruments of dehumanization as well as annihilation.

    2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists.  Nuclear war could cause deadly climate change, putting human existence at risk. 

    3. They threaten to foreclose the future, negating our common responsibility to future generations.

    4. They make cowards of their possessors, and in their use there can be no decency or honor.  This was recognized by most of the leading generals and admirals of World War II, including Dwight Eisenhower, Hap Arnold, and William Leahy. 

    5. They divide the world’s nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing false and unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them. 

    6. They are a distortion of science and technology, siphoning off our scientific and technological resources and twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes.  

    7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power.  The International Court of Justice has ruled that the threat of use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and any use that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal.  It is virtually impossible to imagine a threat or use of nuclear weapons that would not violate international humanitarian law (fail to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, cause unnecessary suffering or be disproportionate to a preceding attack). 

    8. They waste our resources on the development of instruments of annihilation.  The United States alone has spent over $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the onset of the Nuclear Age.

    9. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals and, in doing so, undermine democracy.

    10. They are morally abhorrent, as recognized by virtually every religious organization, and their mere existence corrupts our humanity. 

    To end the nuclear weapons era, we need only vision, leadership and persistence.  The vision has always been present, from men like Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and Joseph Rotblat – the latter being the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project as a matter of conscience and 50 years later being honored with the Nobel Peace Prize.  All of these men believed fervently that the advent of nuclear weapons made necessary not only the abolition of these weapons, but the abolition of war.

    Now we have a president of the US who has called for a world free of nuclear weapons, only he doesn’t think it can happen within his lifetime.  We must convince him that there is urgency to eliminating these weapons.  In a world of human fallibility there are no foolproof systems. 

    The needed persistence must be not only that of leaders, but of all of us.  Persistence in seeking a nuclear weapons-free world is both a gift and a responsibility to ourselves and to future generations.  The overriding importance of the goal demands that people everywhere be awakened and empowered to end the false security, as well as the ignorance and apathy, which has surrounded nuclear weapons for far too long. Nuclear weapons and war must be made taboo, as incest, cannibalism and slavery have been made taboo.

    You can help by taking three steps. 

    First, become engaged with this issue.  Visit the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation website at www.wagingpeace.org, and sign up as a member to receive our free monthly newsletter, The Sunflower.

    Second, become active.  While you are at the website, you can also sign up for the Foundation’s Action Alert Network to receive timely suggestions of messages you can send to the President and your representatives in Congress.

    Third, become a Peace Leader.  You can start on this by ordering our free DVD on “US Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World,” watching it and showing it to your friends and colleagues over the next year.

    Let me conclude with a quotation and a poem.

    The quotation is by Albert Camus, the great French writer and existentialist, and it was written immediately after the bombing of Hiroshima.  Camus wrote:

    “Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests.  Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging. This is no longer a prayer but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments — a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason.”

    The poem is from my book Today Is Not a Good Day for War.  It is entitled, “Hibakusha Do Not Just Happen.”  Hibakusha are survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  They are growing older.  The youngest of the hibakusha, those in utero at the time of the bombing, are now in their mid-sixties.  The hibakusha have worked very diligently to assure that their past will not become our future. 

    HIBAKUSHA DO NOT JUST HAPPEN

    For every hibakusha there is a pilot
    For every hibakusha there is a planner
    For every hibakusha there is a bombardier
    For every hibakusha there is a bomb designer
    For every hibakusha there is a missile maker
    For every hibakusha there is a missileer
    For every hibakusha there is a targeter
    For every hibakusha there is a commander
    For every hibakusha there is a button pusher
    For every hibakusha many must contribute
    For every hibakusha many must obey
    For every hibakusha many must be silent          

    We must end the silence, each of us.  That is why this World March is so important.  That is why our sustained commitment and persistent actions are needed.  Ending the silence is at the heart of what is needed to save our amazing, miraculous world, and pass it on intact to the next generation.  And at the heart of this effort is the abolition of nuclear weapons and of war, and the reallocation of resources to meeting the needs of social and environmental justice.

  • For a Nuclear Weapon Free World

    This article was originally published in Italian by Corriere della Serra

    Dear Editor, an article published in the Wall Street Journal entitled “A
    world without nuclear weapons”, signed by George Schultz and Henry
    Kissinger, former Secretaries of State under Republican Presidents
    Reagan and Nixon, and by Bill Perry and Sam Nunn, the former Defence
    Secretary under President Clinton and the Democratic chairman of the
    Senate Defence Committee, in January 2007 opened up an extremely
    important debate for the future of humanity. In that article, the four
    American statesmen proposed the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
    Their argument, taken up again in a second article in January 2008, is
    that, unless the nuclear-weapon States – and there are now 8 of them –
    and especially the two main ones, United States and Russia, take the
    lead   in launching a process aimed at their total elimination, it will
    become increasingly difficult to prevent other countries from acquiring
    them, with the risk that sooner or later these weapons may be used, and
    that would have catastrophic consequences for the world.

    The importance of their article lies in the fact that, for the first
    time, the issue of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons was being
    addressed, in the United States, by politicians who represent the
    mainstream of American stategic policy, from both parties, stressing the
    fact that this is an objective to be pursued in the interests of both
    the nation and the world. Several very important statements followed
    their Op-ed. The two US presidential candidates have substantially
    agreed with this aim, as have the majority of those who, in the past,
    held positions of major responsibility in the USA in this field. In
    Russia, there was a positive reaction by Gorbachev and a more cautious,
    but not negative, reaction by the Government. In Britain, Gordon Brown
    spoke out favourably; the Defence Minister proposed hosting experts from
    United States, Russia, England, France and China in the English nuclear
    labs, in order to establish the methodologies of verification for the
    elimination of nuclear weapons; recently, the Times carried an article
    by another bipartisan quartet, including three former Foreign Ministers
    and a former Secretary General of Nato, expressing agreement.  In
    France, the Defence White Paper indicates that the objective to be
    pursued is the elimination of nuclear weapons. In Australia, the
    Government has established a new international Commission of Experts,
    whose task is to chart the road towards the elimination of all nuclear
    weapons. There have been innumerable positive reactions among
    non-governmental groups.

    We think it is important that Italy, too, should give indications that
    go in that same direction. Our joint signatures, like those on the
    Op-eds in other countries, are evidence of the fact that in both main
    political camps, and in the scientific community, there is a shared
    common opinion on the importance of this issue and this aim. We wish to
    suggest the main steps along this road. The first is the entry into
    force of the Treaty banning all forms of nuclear testing, including
    underground tests, thus enshrining into a treaty the current moratorium.
    The second is to set in motion the stalled negotiations, within the
    Disarmament Conference in Geneva, on the FMCT, which prohibits the
    production of highly enriched uranium and of plutonium with the isotope
    composition necessary for the production of nuclear weapons. Here, too,
    there is a de facto moratorium, but without any formal agreement and
    without verification measures. The entry into force of these two
    Treaties would be appreciated by non-nuclear-weapon States and would
    prepare a more favourable ground for the periodical Conference of the
    Non-Proliferation Treaty planned for 2010, strengthening the world’s
    non-proliferation regime, including the monitoring of the actual
    observance of the commitments – in both letter and spirit – envisaged by
    the NPT.

    We are fully aware that the road that will lead us to the elimination of
    nuclear weapons is long. It will call for certain political conditions.
    The first is an actual improvement in the relations between the nuclear
    superpowers, United States and Russia, who still maintain – despite
    recent reductions – over nine tenths of all nuclear weapons in the
    world. This would help the other nuclear weapon States recognized by the
    NPT – Britain, France and China – to do their part. It is also
    necessary to reduce the tensions in those parts of the world where the
    risk of nuclear weapons actually being used is highest, perhaps even by
    terrorist groups. We refer here to South-east Asia (India and Pakistan)
    and to the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab problem in the Middle East. In both
    these contexts, moves by the nuclear weapons States indicating that they
    are progressing towards a nuclear weapons free world would undoubtedly
    have a positive effect. Italy and Europe can and must do what they can
    to promote the path towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It
    is clear that this final result will be achieved only with the
    commitment of the major protagonists, United States and Russia, and of
    the other nuclear weapon States. But the spread of a new way of thinking
    – of a new “shared wisdom” – is a fundamental step along this path, and
    Italy too must contribute. It is necessary that on these fundamental
    issues for the very survival of humanity, despite our legitimate –
    indeed necessary – political differences, we join together in
    recognizing a superior, common interest.