Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Articles by David Krieger

  • Humanize, Not Modernize

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is now in its 33rd year of working for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons.  We seek these goals for the people of today, and also for those of the future, so that they may have a healthy planet to live on and enjoy.

    Science and technology have brought great benefits to humanity in the form of health care, communications, transportation and many other areas of our lives.  An average person alive today lives a better and longer life than did kings and nobles of earlier times.  Yet, science and technology have not been universally positive.  They have also given us weapons capable of destroying civilization and most complex life on the planet, including that of our own species.

    In the Nuclear Age, our technological capacity for destruction has outpaced our spiritual and moral capacity to control these destructive technologies.  The Foundation is a voice for those committed to exercising conscience and choosing a decent future for all humanity.

    childrennature3The Foundation continues in its role as consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) in its courageous Nuclear Zero lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed Goliaths.  The Marshall Islanders, who have been victims of US nuclear testing, know the pain and suffering caused by these weapons.  Their lawsuits seek not compensation, but to assure that the nuclear-armed countries fulfill their obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms at an early date and to achieve nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.  We are proud to stand with the RMI in these lawsuits that seek an end to the nuclear weapons era.

    There is no way to humanize weapons that are inhumane, immoral and illegal. These weapons must be abolished, not modernized.  And yet, all nine nuclear-armed countries are engaged in modernizing their nuclear arsenals.  The US is leading the way, planning to spend more than $1 trillion on upgrading its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades.  In doing so, it is making the world more dangerous and less secure.  The US could lead in humanizing rather than modernizing by reallocating its vast resources to feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing safe drinking water, assuring an education for the poor, as well as cleaning up the environment, shifting to renewable energy sources and repairing deteriorating infrastructure.

    Join us in making the shift from modernizing nuclear arsenals to humanizing the planet.

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

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • Reflections on the 70th Anniversary of the Atomic Bombings

    On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, killing some 90,000 people immediately and another 55,000 by the end of 1945.  Three days later, the United States dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, killing some 40,000 people immediately and another 35,000 by the end of 1945.

    David KriegerIn between these two bombings, on August 8, 1945, the U.S. signed the charter creating the Nuremberg Tribunal to hold Axis leaders to account for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Under well-established international humanitarian law – the law of warfare – war crimes include using weapons that do not distinguish between civilians and combatants or that cause unnecessary suffering.  Because nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately and cause unnecessary suffering by radiation poisoning (among other grotesque consequences), the U.S. was itself in the act of committing war crimes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki while agreeing to hold its defeated opponents in World War II to account for their war crimes.

    Those who doubt this conclusion should consider this hypothetical situation: During World War II, Germany creates two atomic bombs and uses them on British cities, killing tens of thousands of civilians.  Under such circumstances, can you imagine the Nazi leaders who ordered these attacks not being held accountable at Nuremberg for these bombings of civilian targets?

    The U.S. has always publicly justified its use of atomic weapons against Japan on the grounds that they ended the war sooner and saved American lives, but did they?  Many key U.S. military leaders at the time didn’t think so, including Admiral William Leahy and General (later President) Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    Admiral Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff and the top U.S. official presiding over meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir based on his contemporaneous notes and diaries, “[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender….”  He went on, “[I]n being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

    General Eisenhower reported in his memoir a discussion with Secretary of War Henry Stimson, during which he was told of plans to use the atomic bombs on Japan.  Eisenhower wrote, “During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him [Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives….”

    In the decades that followed the atomic bombings in 1945, the U.S. and the Soviet Union engaged in an insane nuclear arms race, reaching some 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world by the mid-1980s.  Despite many accidents, miscalculations and international crises, nuclear weapons have not been used again in warfare.  Today there are still approximately 16,000 in the arsenals of nine countries, with over 90 percent of these in the possession of the U.S. and Russia.  Some 1,800 nuclear weapons remain on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired within moments of an order to do so.  Most of these weapons are many times more powerful than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Nuclear weapons do not make the U.S. or the world more secure.  On the contrary, they threaten civilization and the human species.  Fortunately, steps may be taken to eliminate this threat.

    The 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty obligates its parties, including the U.S., to engage in negotiations in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and for nuclear disarmament.  In a 1996 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice interpreted this obligation as follows: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    Because these negotiations have yet to take place, one small and courageous country, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, has brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries at the International Court of Justice and in U.S. federal court, seeking court orders for these countries to fulfill their obligations under international law.

    On the 70th anniversary of the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is past time for the U.S. to change course.  Rather than pursue current plans to spend $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal, the U.S. should lead the world in negotiations to achieve the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.  This would make the world safer.  It would also recognize the criminal nature of these weapons and show respect for the survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many of whom have worked tirelessly to assure that their past does not become someone else’s future.

    This article was originally published by Truthout: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32073-the-us-should-eliminate-its-nuclear-arsenal-not-modernize-it

  • Twelve Worthy Reasons Not to Waste Billions Modernizing the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal

    1. It is not sane, sensible or rational.

    2. It will not make the U.S. or the world safer or more secure.

    3. It is provocative activity that will trigger existing nuclear-armed countries to modernize their nuclear arsenals and result in new nuclear arms races.

    David Krieger4. It demonstrates U.S. commitment to nuclear weapons rather than to nuclear weapons abolition.

    5. It will make nuclear weapons appear more reliable and accurate and therefore more usable.

    6. It is not necessary for purposes of nuclear deterrence.

    7. It sends a strong message to non-nuclear-armed countries that nuclear weapons have perceived military value, and thus creates an inducement to nuclear proliferation.

    8. It breaches the U.S. obligation in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith on effective measures to end the nuclear arms race at an early date.

    9. It breaches the U.S. obligation in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith on effective measures for nuclear disarmament.

    10. It is an immoral waste of resources that are desperately needed for meeting basic human needs for food, water, shelter, education and environmental protection.

    11. Despite the $1 trillion price tag already proposed for U.S. nuclear weapons modernization over the next three decades, as with most “defense” plans, original budgets are generally vastly underestimated.

    12. Benefits of U.S. nuclear weapons modernization will go overwhelmingly to enrich “defense” contracting corporations and their executives.

  • The Nuclear Age at Seventy

    The first explosion of a nuclear device took place at Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16, 1945. Just three weeks later, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima and three days after that on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. The new weapons had devastating power, killing approximately 100,000 people immediately in the two cities and another 100,000 people by the end of 1945.

    David KriegerSince these bombings brought the world into the Nuclear Age, the human future and that of other forms of life have been at risk. Never before did humankind have the power to destroy itself, but that completely changed in the Nuclear Age. By our own scientific and technological cleverness, we humans had created the means of our own demise. Our technological capacity for destruction had exceeded our spiritual capacity to work together and cooperate to end the threat that these weapons posed to our common future. 

    After the bombings of the two Japanese cities, the United States almost immediately entered into a nuclear arms race with itself. In 1946, when the US was the only nuclear-armed country in the world, it began atmospheric nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands, then a United Nations Trust Territory that the US had agreed to administer. The US broke the bond of trust by testing 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, with an explosive power equivalent to detonating 1.6 Hiroshima bombs daily for 12 years. 

    In the decades that followed, other countries would develop nuclear arsenals. These included: the USSR (now Russia), UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. On numerous occasions the nuclear-armed countries came close to using nuclear weapons by accident, miscalculation or design. The most serious of these near disasters was the Cuban Missile Crisis, which went on for 13 days in 1962, while the world stood on the brink of nuclear war. 

    At the height of the nuclear arms race in 1986, there were more than 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world. There were more nuclear weapons than there were targets for them. With the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the number of nuclear weapons began to fall and since then the world, primarily the US and Russia, has shed over 50,000 nuclear weapons. 

    Today there are approximately 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with over 90 percent in the arsenals of the US and Russia. Some 1,800 of these remain on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired within moments. These are still insane numbers, with species- ending potential. Yet, strangely, most people on the planet do not think much about nuclear dangers. 

    One group of people, though, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, still think a lot about these dangers. These survivors, or hibakusha (as they are known in Japan), have witnessed the horrors of nuclear weapons at close hand. They have seen the death and destruction caused by the relatively small nuclear weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They speak out with the moral certainty that they do not want their past to become anyone else’s future. 

    All nine nuclear-armed countries are engaged in modernizing their nuclear arsenals. Together they are spending $100 billion annually on them. The US alone is planning to spend $1 trillion over the next three decades on modernizing its nuclear arsenal. It is a waste of precious resources that should be reallocated to meeting human needs for food, water, shelter, healthcare, education, a clean environment and repaired infrastructure. 

    The grand bargain of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is that the non-nuclear-armed states agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons, and the nuclear-armed states agreed to negotiate in good faith for the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. The goal is a level playing field, with no countries possessing nuclear weapons. The problem with the bargain is that the nuclear-armed countries are not holding up their end. 

    Lawsuits against all nuclear-armed nations To set this right, the Republic of the Marshall Islands has brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries, calling on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to declare them in breach of their obligations and order them to commence the promised negotiations. Because the US is such an important player and does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, a separate lawsuit was brought against it in US federal court. 

    If the people of the Marshall Islands can demonstrate such boldness and courage, so can the rest of us. It is time for action to demand a nuclear weapons-free world. It is time to challenge hubris with wisdom, and complacency with compassion. Nuclear weapons are powerful, but the human heart is more powerful. As Pope Francis said, we need a “conversion of hearts.” 

    It is time to join with the hibakusha in demanding a world free of nuclear weapons. The world has waited for 70 years to end the nuclear weapons era. The next decades may not be so kind to humanity. We must act now, while we still can, to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and all life.

    This article was originally published by the Hiroshima Peace Media Center.

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

  • NAPF Activities and Accomplishments

    The vision of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is “a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons.” The Foundation’s mission is “to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons, and to empower peace leaders.” The Foundation has been designated as a consultant to the United Nations Economic and Social Council and named by the United Nations as a Peace Messenger Organization. It has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Untitled 4

    Some of the Foundation’s most important current activities and accomplishments include:

     

    • Consulting with the Republic of the Marshall Islands in bringing its lawsuits in the International Court of Justice in The Hague and in US federal court for breaches by the nuclear-armed countries of their obligations to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law.
    • Building a consortium of civil society organizations from throughout the world in support of the Marshall Islands Nuclear Zero lawsuits and garnering significant national and international media attention to the obligations of the nuclear-armed countries, their breaches of those obligations and the lawsuits based on those breaches.
    • Empowering peace leaders throughout the US and abroad through our outstanding Peace Leadership Program that reaches some 3,000 people annually through lectures and workshops.

    Other important ongoing activities and accomplishments of the Foundation include:

     

    • Shining light on the importance of Peace Leadership, through our annual Distinguished Peace Leadership Award and other awards to some of the world’s greatest peace leaders.
    • Establishing a world-renowned Advisory Council, which includes, among other prominent peace leaders, the XIVth Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Daniel Ellsberg and Helen Caldicott.
    • Co-founding Abolition 2000, a network of over 2,000 organizations and municipalities seeking the abolition of nuclear weapons, and providing early leadership to the network.
    • Inspiring Soka Gakkai youth from Hiroshima to gather more than 13 million signatures on the Abolition 2000 International Petition, which called for ending the nuclear weapons threat, signing a new treaty to abolish nuclear weapons, and reallocating resources from maintaining nuclear arsenals to meeting human needs.
    • Participating in, organizing informational panels for, and distributing briefing papers at the five-year review conferences of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the preparatory conferences that take place between review conferences.
    • Awarding a $50,000 prize for the best proposal for using science for constructive purposes, which led to the creation of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES), and then working together with INES on many conferences and programs.
    • Co-founding the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of seven international civil society organizations that work closely with middle power governments to put pressure on the nuclear-armed countries to move toward abolishing their nuclear weapons.
    • Creating the Sadako Peace Garden on the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, and holding an annual public event there each year on or about August 6th to remember Sadako of the thousand cranes and all innocent victims of war, while rededicating ourselves to achieving peace and a world free of nuclear weapons.
    • Hosting an International Law Symposium that led to the establishment of a coalition to create a United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS), which could act as a first responder for stopping genocides, wars, human rights abuses and help to alleviate the suffering caused by natural disasters.
    • Convening an International Law Symposium on the dangers of nuclear deterrence and issuing the “Santa Barbara Declaration: Reject Nuclear Deterrence, An Urgent Call to Action.”
    • Initiating the annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future, and bringing outstanding thinkers and speakers – including Noam Chomsky, Dame Anita Roddick, Commander Robert Green and Robert Jay Lifton, among others – to our community to present the annual lecture.
    • Publishing timely and relevant information on the need to abolish nuclear weapons by key leaders in the abolition movement in the forms of books, book chapters, pamphlets, briefing papers, articles and letters to the editor in key media.
    • Creating and publishing a monthly online newsletter, The Sunflower, which provides regular and timely updates on nuclear weapons-related activities and issues.
    • Providing our members with the means to communicate with government officials on key nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation issues through our Action Alerts.
    • Bringing artistic expression to issues of peace and nuclear abolition through our annual Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards that “explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit,” and publishing the winning poems.
    • Educating many students at the University of California about the relationship of the University to the US nuclear weapons laboratories (the UC provides management and oversight to the weapons labs).
    • Continuing a vital student internship program, providing an opportunity for exceptionally bright and motivated students from around the US and abroad to contribute to the Foundation’s work program while learning about our issues and organization.

    While much that the Foundation does and accomplishes is set forth above, there is also much that is intangible, such as working daily for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and reaching countless people throughout the world with our messages. Every day, our efforts, large and small, are building an institution of strong integrity and credibility to confront the unprecedented threats to humans and other forms of life posed by nuclear weapons and to work steadily on the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • Missile Defense: A Dangerous Game

    <This letter to the editor was published by the Santa Barbara News-Press on June 13, 2015.>

    Thank you for publishing the important front-page article on June 1, “Major flaws revealed in U.S. anti-missile nuclear defense.” It confirms the unreliable nature of missile defenses. Despite the fact that U.S. missile defenses are flawed and unreliable, however, we are placing them close to the Russian borders, provoking Russia to maintain and modernize its offensive missiles.

    David KriegerRussia views U.S. missile defenses as we would view their missile defenses were the situation reversed — as part of an offensive first-strike scenario, since these “defensive” missiles are capable of shooting down the remaining Russian offensive missiles that would survive a U.S. first-strike attack. The best way to understand the situation and the Russian perspective is to imagine the concerns of U.S. political and military leaders if Russia were placing missile defenses on the Canadian and Mexican borders with the U.S.

    The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was meant to prevent such defensive-offensive cycles of nuclear arms escalation by limiting the number of missile defense installations that could be deployed. However, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from this treaty in 2002 under President George W. Bush. This unilateral treaty abrogation by the U.S. and our resultant continued deployment of missile defenses has undermined our legal and moral obligations to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and pursue further nuclear weapons reductions with Russia.

    We are playing a very dangerous game of nuclear roulette, with the missiles pointed at humanity’s heart. This game is based upon an illogical, faith-based reliance on nuclear deterrence — the threat of massive, omnicidal nuclear retaliation. If such a threat were effective (which it isn’t), what would be the purpose of missile defenses, other than enriching “defense” corporations?

    If you think your family is protected by nuclear deterrent threats, think again. If you think your family is protected by missile defenses, think yet again.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Grand Bargain Is Not So Grand

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has two major purposes and together they form a grand bargain. First, the treaty seeks to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.  Second, the treaty seeks to level the playing field by the pursuit of negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve nuclear disarmament. The goal of the grand bargain, in other words, is a world without nuclear weapons.

    David KriegerFor the most part the non-nuclear weapon states parties to the treaty are playing by the rules and not developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. However, one country – the United States – has stationed its nuclear weapons on the territories of five European countries otherwise without nuclear weapons (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey), and agreed to turn these weapons over to the host countries in a time of war. The US has also placed all NATO countries plus Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan under its “nuclear umbrella.” Collectively these countries are known as the weasel countries, non-nuclear in name but not in reality.

    In addition, there has been nuclear proliferation outside the NPT. Three countries that never joined the NPT developed nuclear arsenals (Israel, India and Pakistan), and North Korea withdrew from the treaty and developed nuclear weapons. Despite all of this actual nuclear proliferation, attention seems to be primarily focused on the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons, even though Iran appears to be willing to take all necessary steps, including intrusive inspections, to assure the world that it is not seeking nuclear weapons.

    It is the other side of the grand bargain, though, where things really break down. The five nuclear-armed countries that are parties to the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) appear more comfortable working together to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals than they do to fulfilling their disarmament obligations under the treaty. Their common strategy appears to be “nuclear weapons forever.”

    The US, which plans to spend $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades, is also largely responsible for the modernization programs of Russia and China as a result of unilaterally withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002 and placing land- and sea-based missile defenses close to the Russian and Chinese borders. Since missile defenses can also be part of an integrated plan to launch first-strike attacks, Russia and China may feel compelled to maintain the effectiveness of their nuclear deterrent by enhancing their offensive forces to counter US missile defenses. Avoiding such defensive-offensive escalations was the purpose of the ABM Treaty in the first place. One can get a better sense of this by imagining the US response if Russian missile defenses were placed on the Canadian border and Chinese missile defenses were placed on the Mexican border.

    The parties to the NPT just completed a month of negotiations for their ninth five-year review conference. The conference ended in failure without agreement on a final document to guide the work of the parties over the next five years. The US, UK and Canada refused to support a conference to begin negotiating a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to take place by March 1, 2016. This conference, promised when the NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995, has been put off previously and now it has been put off yet again.

    Even if there had been consensus on a final document from the 2015 NPT review conference, however, it would not have been a strong or satisfactory document. The nuclear-armed parties to the treaty spent their time at the meetings watering down the disarmament provisions to which they had previously made an “unequivocal undertaking.” The nuclear-armed states and the weasel states, despite their protestations, don’t seem serious about keeping their commitments to achieve nuclear disarmament. Increasingly, the non-nuclear weapons states and civil society organizations are coming to the conclusion that the nuclear-armed countries are not acting in good faith and, as a result, the grand bargain is not being fulfilled.

    A positive and hopeful outcome of the conference, though, is that the non-nuclear weapon states may be sufficiently fed up with the nuclear-armed countries to act boldly to push ahead on a new path to nuclear disarmament. More than 100 countries have now endorsed the Humanitarian Pledge, initiated by Austria, to work for a new legal instrument to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons, just as has been done for chemical and biological weapons and for landmines and cluster munitions. This legal instrument could take the form of a new Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.

    Also on the positive and hopeful side are the bold and courageous Nuclear Zero lawsuits filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice in The Hague and separately against the US in US federal court. These lawsuits seek declaratory relief, stating that the nuclear weapon states are in violation of the disarmament provisions of the NPT and of customary international law, and seek injunctive relief ordering the nuclear-armed countries to initiate and engage in negotiations in good faith for total nuclear disarmament. A well-attended side panel at the NPT review conference provided an update on the status of the lawsuits.

    This is the 70th year since nuclear weapons were used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are still over 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Enough is enough. It is time to abolish these weapons before they cause irreversible damage to civilization, the human species and other forms of life. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations of life on Earth to break our chains of complacency and demonstrate that the engaged human heart is more powerful than even nuclear arms.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the author of ZERO: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • The Young Men With the Guns

    for Father Roy Bourgeois

    “Let those who have a voice speak for the voiceless.”
                           — Bishop Oscar Romero

    None of it could have happened
    not the killings, the rapes, the brutality
    without the young men with the guns.

    Bishop Romero saw this clearly.
    Lay down your arms, he said.
    This, the day before his assassination,

    the day before they shot him at the altar.
    God, forgive them, they only follow orders.
    They know not what they do.

    But the politicians and the generals
    know what they do
    when they give their orders
    to murder at the altar.

    None of it could have happened
    not the killings, the rapes, the brutality
    without the politicians and the generals.

    The ones who sit in dark rooms
    and stuff their mouths with food
    before they give the orders.

    The people are silent.
    Their mouths will not open.
    They hang their heads and avert their eyes.

    Of course, they are afraid
    of the young men with the guns
    who carry out the orders.

    None of it could have happened
    without the people remaining silent.

    The Bishop staggered, he bled, he died.
    But he will never be silenced.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • What the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits Seek to Accomplish

    On April 24, 2014, just over a year ago, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and separately against the United States in US Federal District Court. The RMI argues that the five nuclear-armed parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which are the US, Russia, UK, France and China, are not meeting their obligations under Article VI of the treaty to negotiate in good faith for complete nuclear disarmament.  The RMI further argues that the other four nuclear-armed countries not parties to the NPT, which are Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea, have the same obligations under customary international law.

    David KriegerIn the ICJ, cases go forward only against countries that accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, unless they consent to jurisdiction.  Since only the UK, India and Pakistan accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, cases are limited to these three countries.  The US, Russia, France, China, Israel and North Korean were invited to have their cases heard at the ICJ.  China declined and the other countries did not respond.

    In the US case in Federal District Court, the judge dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds on February 3, 2015.  On April 2, 2015, the RMI filed a Notice of Appeal in the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Tony de Brum, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, stated, “We are in this for the long haul. We remain steadfast in our belief that nuclear weapons benefit no one and that what is right for humankind will prevail. We place great importance in and hold high respect for the American judicial process and will pursue justice in that spirit, using every available legal avenue to see that Nuclear Zero is achieved in my lifetime.”

    These are important lawsuits.  They have been described as a battle of David versus the nine nuclear Goliaths.  In this case, however, David (the RMI) is using the nonviolent means of the courtroom and the law rather than a slingshot and a rock.  It is worth considering what these lawsuits seek to accomplish.

     

    • To challenge the status quo in which the world is composed of a small number of nuclear “haves” and a large number of nuclear “have-nots.”
    • To use the courts to level the playing field and enforce playing by the same rules.
    • To receive support from the courts in the form of declaratory and injunctive relief, so that the courts declare that the nuclear-armed countries are out of compliance with their obligations and order them to commence good faith negotiations for complete nuclear disarmament.
    • To take a stand for all humanity, by ridding the world of the threat of nuclear catastrophes that could destroy civilization and much of life on the planet.
    • To be good stewards of the Earth for present and future generations, protecting the various forms of flora and fauna dependent upon our doing so.
    • To challenge the “good faith” of the nuclear-armed countries, for their failure to initiate negotiations for nuclear disarmament as required by the NPT and customary international law.
    • To obtain the benefit of the bargain of the NPT, which means not only that its parties without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, but that all parties, including the nuclear-armed states, will negotiate their elimination.
    • To end the complacency surrounding the threats that nuclear weapons pose to cities, countries and civilization.
    • To awaken people everywhere to the magnitude of the threat posed by nuclear weapons.
    • To say a loud and clear “Enough is enough,” and that it is time for action on the abolition of nuclear weapons.
    • To achieve a “conversion of hearts,” recognized by Pope Francis as necessary for effective action in changing the world on this most challenging of threats.

    These are high aspirations from a small but courageous country.  If you would like to know more about the Marshall Islands Nuclear Zero lawsuits, and how you can help support them, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

    David Krieger is a founder and President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and a consultant to the Marshall Islands in the Nuclear Zero lawsuits.

  • Hubris Versus Wisdom

    Humankind must not be complacent in the face of the threat posed by nuclear weapons.  The future of humanity and all life depends upon the outcome of the ongoing struggle between hubris and wisdom.

    Hubris is an ancient Greek word meaning extreme arrogance. Wisdom is cautionary good sense.

    Hubris is at the heart of Greek tragedy – the arrogant belief that one’s power is unassailable.  Wisdom counsels that no human fortress is impregnable.

    Hubris says some countries can hold onto nuclear weapons and rely upon them for deterrence.  Wisdom, in the voice of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, says these weapons must be eliminated before they eliminate us.

    Hubris says these weapons of annihilation are subject to human control.  Wisdom says that humans are fallible creatures, subject to error.

    Hubris repeats that we can control our most dangerous technologies.  Wisdom says look at what has happened in numerous accidents with nuclear weapons as well as accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

    Hubris says the spread of nuclear weapons can be contained.  Wisdom says that the only sure way to prevent the spread or use of nuclear weapons is to abolish those that now exist.

    Hubris says that political leaders will always be rational and avoid the use of nuclear weapons.  Wisdom observes that all humans, including political leaders, behave irrationally at times under some circumstances.

    Hubris says we can play nuclear roulette with the human future.  Wisdom says we have a responsibility to assure there is a human future.

    Hubris says that we can control nuclear fire.  Wisdom says nuclear weapons will spark wildfires of human suffering and must be eradicated forever from the planet.

    The Nuclear Age demands that we conquer complacency with compassion and hubris with wisdom.