Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Articles by David Krieger

  • A World Youth Summit to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    Each year since 1983, Daisaku Ikeda, the founder and president of Soka Gakkai International, has issued a Peace Proposal. Many of these proposals have included the subject of abolishing nuclear weapons – weapons that Ikeda’s mentor, Josei Toda, rightly called an “absolute evil.” In his 2014 Peace Proposal, his 32nd, President Ikeda puts forward an extremely important idea, that of holding a World Youth Summit to Abolish Nuclear Weapons in 2015. It is this part of his 2014 proposal that I will address in this article.

    Convening a World Youth Summit to Abolish Nuclear Weapons implies that the leaders and diplomats of the world have not achieved success in dealing with nuclear weapons. This is clearly the case. As Ikeda points out, 2015 will mark the 70th year since the atomic bomb was created, tested, and then used twice in warfare, once on the city of Hiroshima and once on the city of Nagasaki. Despite the risk that nuclear weapons continue to pose to humanity, their threat still hangs over our collective heads.

    The survivors of those bombings saw firsthand the damage done to their cities by the blast, fire and radiation. They have since learned that the consequences of the atomic bombings cannot be confined in space or time. The average age of these atomic bomb survivors now surpasses 78 years, and yet their fervent dream of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons remains unrealized. They have done their best to assure that their past does not become someone else’s future, but the leaders of the nuclear weapon states have failed to negotiate for Nuclear Zero, let alone achieve it.

    The year 2015 will also mark the 45th year since the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty entered into force. That treaty was designed not only to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, but also to level the playing field among nations by assuring that the parties to the treaty pursue negotiations in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and for nuclear disarmament. The non-nuclear weapon states signed this treaty in good faith, believing that the nuclear weapon states would fulfill their part of the bargain by negotiating in good faith for a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Convening a World Youth Summit to Abolish Nuclear Weapons also implies that new thinking regarding security and nuclear weapons is needed. Where better can this new thinking come from than the youth of the world? The old thinking, embodied in nuclear deterrence strategy, is based upon the belief that the threat of mass annihilation will keep the peace. This hypothesis has never been proven and has come close to failing on many occasions. It has, however, kept alive the threats of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) and Self-Assured Destruction (SAD).

    To anyone who studies nuclear deterrence theory carefully, it must seem like a game of Russian roulette with a bullet loaded in one of six chambers of a gun pointed at the head of humanity. In fact, Martin Hellman, a Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University, estimates that a child born today has a one-in-six chance of dying due to a nuclear war during his or her expected 80-year lifespan.

    The world of the future belongs to the youth of today, but if they are not active in claiming this world, they may be subject to the consequences of the clash between powerful technologies and a level of human wisdom inadequate to control these technologies. Rather than sitting idly awaiting these consequences, Ikeda calls upon the youth of the world to take matters into their hands and develop a plan to abolish nuclear weapons. He calls for a specific outcome of the World Youth Summit, the adoption of “a declaration affirming their commitment to bringing the era of nuclear weapons to an end.”

    To achieve this objective, young people will need to commence an exchange of ideas on developing a plan of action to abolish nuclear weapons. They will need to talk to each other across borders, learning together and planning together. They will need to focus their youthful enthusiasm on seeking a way out from under the nuclear threat that continues to hang precariously above all humanity. The youth will need to organize and develop strategies to lead their political leaders. They will need to see the world with fresh eyes, in order to teach their elders what is possible in that new world, when the threat of mass annihilation is removed because nuclear weapons are abolished and prohibited.

    The World Youth Summit to Abolish Nuclear Weapons could base its declaration on ridding the world of nuclear dangers to all humanity, but especially to the youth of the world themselves. They could also argue their case on the need to disinvest in these dinosaur-like weapons and invest instead in meeting human needs, such as food, potable water, shelter, health care and education, and in protecting the environment from climate change and other serious threats.

    Abolishing nuclear weapons is critical, but it is only a beginning. The youth of the world would find that, if they succeeded in ridding the world of nuclear dangers, they could do much more. They could turn their attention to building a world without war and one that is just for all, a world in which the arc of history would bend toward justice at a rate commensurate with the need to assure human dignity for all.

    Daisaku Ikeda points out, “The greatest significance of such a summit and declaration would lie in the spur they provide to future action.” I would only add to this that the future is now; it is time for the youth of the world to seize the initiative to build a peaceful, just and ecologically sound world, free of nuclear threat – one that they will be proud to pass on to future generations.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He and Daisaku Ikeda had a dialogue that was published in Japan and the U.S. as Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • A Poem for the Crossroads

    I would like to write a poem and nail it
    to a stake at humanity’s crossroads.
    It would say: choose your path wisely.

    It would say: this path we are on is far
    too treacherous, a trap for the unwary
    and complacent.

    It would say: take down the gun pointed
    at humanity’s heart – enough of war,
    enough of nuclear weapons, enough
    of stumbling toward collective suicide.

    It would say: enough homage to death –
    choose life and be a citizen of the world.
    It would say: be kinder than necessary.

    It would certainly say: when it rains, the water
    sinks into the Earth and the grass grows
    toward the sun.

    It would say: when the winds blow, the leaves
    will flutter from the trees like butterflies.
    It would remind us to stop and look at
    the beauty around us.

    It would say: this is Eden, but it needs care.
    It would say: before you choose a path, think
    about the people of the future.

    It would say: make each moment of your time
    on Earth matter.

    It would say: choose the path of peace.

  • The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    The Nuclear Zero lawsuits, initiated by the Marshall Islands, are about the law, but they are about much more than the law.  They are also about saving humanity from its most destructive capabilities.  They are about saving humanity from itself and about preserving civilization for future generations.  They are incredibly important, and I will try to place them in a broader context.

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsI will begin by sharing two quotations with you.  The first is by Jayantha Dhanapala, a Sri Lankan diplomat, former United Nations Under-Secretary General, and long-time and committed leader in the area of nuclear disarmament.  He states: “The spectre of the use of a nuclear weapon through political intent, cyber-attack or by accident, by a nation state or by a non-state actor, is more real than we, in our cocoons of complacency, choose to acknowledge.”

    The spectre of nuclear use, even nuclear war, is real and most of the world lives in “cocoons of complacency.”  It is clear that we must break free from those cocoons, which are as dangerous to the human future as are the nuclear weapons that now imperil us.  The Nuclear Zero lawsuits seek to accomplish that.

    The second quote is by His Holiness Pope Francis, the leader of the Catholic Church, who has brought new light and compassion to his office.  He states: “As long as so great a quantity of arms are in circulation as at present, new pretexts can always be found for initiating hostilities. For this reason, I make my own the appeal of my predecessors for the non-proliferation of arms and for disarmament of all parties, beginning with nuclear and chemical weapons disarmament.”  The Pope talks about disarmament in general, but he puts nuclear disarmament, along with chemical weapons disarmament, at the top of his list.

    Pope Francis continues: “We cannot however fail to observe that international agreements and national laws — while necessary and greatly to be desired — are not of themselves sufficient to protect humanity from the risk of armed conflict. A conversion of hearts is needed which would permit everyone to recognize in the other a brother or sister to care for, and to work together with, in building a fulfilling life for all.”

    “A conversion of hearts.”  Can there be any doubt that such conversion is necessary?  Can there be any doubt that traditional diplomacy is not getting the job done?  And that preparations for war and resolving conflicts by means of warfare are moving us farther away from the needed conversion of hearts.

    Disarmament negotiations have been stuck for some 20 years.  The “step-by-step” approach of the nuclear-armed states is not working.  There are no negotiations in good faith for nuclear disarmament, as required by international law.  There are still over 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world.  The use of even a small number of these would destroy civilization or, worse, end complex life on the planet – the only planet we know of in the universe that harbors life.

    Nuclear weapons do not so much threaten our amazing planet itself, as they threaten the future of humanity and all the creatures, which are subject, for better or worse, to our stewardship.  Over geological time with the passing of hundreds of thousands of years, the Earth will recover from the worst we can do to it.  It is ourselves and civilization that we put at risk with our nuclear arsenals.  We must have a “conversion of hearts” if we are to save our world, ourselves, and the human future.

    The Marshall Islands has brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries.  They ask only that these nine nuclear-armed states do what is required of them under international law – under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law.  They ask that the nuclear-armed countries fulfill their obligations under international law to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.  They ask only for the fulfillment of unkept promises and unmet obligations.

    The Marshall Islanders are very sympathetic heroes and heroines.  For 12 years, from 1946 to 1958, the United States tested nuclear and thermonuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, causing untold suffering to the islanders.  The US tested 67 times, in the atmosphere and underwater.  The power of these tests was the equivalent force of testing 1.6 Hiroshima bombs daily for 12 years.  This led to countless health problems and premature deaths from cancer and leukemia.  It also led to many birth defects and stillbirths.   After the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no place on the planet has suffered more from nuclear weapons than has the Marshall Islands.

    The United States was the trustee of the Trust Territory of the Pacific, which included the Marshall Islands.  In this role, the US was responsible for protecting the life and health of the islanders.  Instead, the US tested nuclear weapons on their islands, conducted secret radiation experiments on the islanders, and hid information from the islanders so as to evade paying them fair compensation for their pain, suffering and premature deaths.  This was criminal behavior; it was certainly not the behavior of a responsible trustee.

    With the Nuclear Zero lawsuits, the Marshall Islanders are acting out of compassion.  They are not seeking compensation.  They are breaking the bonds of complacency.  They seek a conversion of the human heart in order to save their islands and the world from the ravages of nuclear weapons.  They wish that no other country or people will ever suffer as they have.  They have initiated these lawsuits as a public good.

    As Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum put it, “Our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damage of these weapons, and we vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again experience these atrocities.  The continued existence of nuclear weapons and the terrible risk they pose to the world threaten us all.”  I should note that this is the same perspective as that of the hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It is the perspective of all those who have suffered the terrible consequences of nuclear weapons use.

    With regard to the legal aspects of these lawsuits, they are about whether treaties matter.  They are about whether the most powerful nations are to be bound by the same rules as the rest of the international community.  They are about whether a treaty can stand up with only half of the bargain fulfilled.  They are about who gets to decide if treaty obligations are being met.  Do all parties to a treaty stand on equal footing, or do the powerful have special rules specifically for them?  They are also about the strength of customary international law to bind nations to civilized behavior.

    These lawsuits, as I already noted, are about more than just the law.  They are also about breaking the cocoons of complacency and a conversion of hearts.  They are also about leadership, boldness, courage, justice, wisdom and, ultimately, about survival.  Let me say a word about each of these.

    Leadership.  If the most powerful countries won’t lead, then other countries must.  The Marshall Islands, a small island country, has demonstrated this leadership, both on ending climate chaos and on eliminating the nuclear weapons threat to humanity.

    Boldness.  Many of us in civil society have been calling for boldness in relation to the failure of the nuclear-armed countries to fulfill their obligations to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament.  The status quo has become littered with broken promises, and these have become hard to tolerate.  Instead of negotiating in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race “at an early date,” the nuclear-armed countries have engaged in massive programs of modernization of their nuclear arsenals (nuclear weapons, delivery systems and nuclear infrastructure).  Such modernization of nuclear arsenals could cost trillions of dollars and ensure that nuclear weapons are deployed through the 21st century and beyond.  The Marshall Islands is boldly challenging the status quo with the Nuclear Zero lawsuits.

    Courage.  The Marshall Islands is standing up for humanity in bringing these lawsuits.  I see them as David standing against the nine nuclear-armed Goliaths.  But the Marshall Islands is a David acting nonviolently, using the courts and the law instead of a slingshot.  The Marshall Islands shows us by its actions what courage looks like.

    Justice.  The law should always be about justice.  In the case of nuclear weapons, both the law and justice call for an equal playing field, one in which no country has possession of nuclear weapons.  That is the bargain of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the requirement of customary international law, and the Marshall Islands is taking legal action that seeks justice in the international community.

    Wisdom.  The lawsuits are about the wisdom to confront the hubris of the nuclear-armed countries.  The arrogance of power is dangerous, and the arrogance of reliance upon nuclear weapons could be fatal for all humanity.

    Survival.  At their base, the Nuclear Zero lawsuits brought by the Marshall Islands are about survival.  They are about making nuclear war, by design or accident, impossible because there are no longer nuclear weapons to threaten humanity.  Without nuclear weapons in the world, there can be no nuclear war, no nuclear famine, no overriding threat to the human species and the future of humanity.

    The dream of ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity should be the dream not only of the Marshall Islanders, but our dream as well, our collective dream, not only for ourselves, but for the human future.

    The people of the world should follow the lead of the Marshall Islanders.  If they can lead, we can support them.  If they can be bold, we can join them.  If they can be courageous, we can be as well.  If they can demand that international law be based on justice, we can stand with them.  If they can act wisely and confront hubris, with all its false assumptions, we can join them in doing so.  If they can take seriously the threat to human survival inherent in our most dangerous weapons, so can we.  The Marshall Islands is showing us the way forward, breaking cocoons of complacency and demonstrating a conversion of the heart.

    I am proud to be associated with the Marshall Islands and its extraordinary Foreign Minister, Tony de Brum.  As a consultant to the Marshall Islands, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has worked to build the legal teams that support the Nuclear Zero lawsuits.  We have also built a consortium of over 50 civil society organizations and individuals supporting the lawsuits.  We have also created a way for individuals to add their voices of support with a brief petition.  You can find out more and add your voice at the campaign website, www.nuclearzero.org.

    I will conclude with a poem that I wrote recently: “Testing Nuclear Weapons in the Marshall Islands.”

    TESTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
    IN THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

    The islands were alive
    with the red-orange fire of sunset
    splashed on a billowy sky.

    The islanders lived simple lives
    close to the edge of the ocean planet
    reaching out to infinity.

    The days were bright and the nights
    calm in this happy archipelago
    until the colonizers came.

    These were sequentially the Spanish,
    Germans, Japanese and then, worst of all,
    the United States.

    The U.S. came as trustee
    bearing its new bombs, eager to test them
    in this beautiful barefoot Eden.

    The islanders were trusting,
    even when the bombs began exploding
    and the white ash fell like snow.

    The children played
    in the ash as it floated down on them,
    covering them in poison.

    The rest is a tale of loss
    and suffering by the islanders, of madness
    by the people of the bomb.

    This speech was delivered by NAPF President David Krieger at a public forum on the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits in Vienna, Austria, on December 5, 2014.

  • The Torturers

    The torturers will gather in Hades.

    There will be no pleasantries.

    They will be stripped of all honors.

    They will be awakened
    to the baseness of their crimes.

    They will be purged of all justifications.

    Their smiles will be banished.

    They will see their true faces.

    They will be surrounded by the screams
    of their victims.

    They will understand who they are.

  • Restocking the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Would Send a Terrible Message

    This letter to the editor was published by the Los Angeles Times on December 4, 2014.

    LA TimesTo the Editor: The U.S. can lead in modernizing its nuclear arsenal, resuming nuclear testing and, in general, continuing to demonstrate the perceived military usefulness of nuclear weapons. Or, the U.S. can lead in pursuing negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and achieve complete nuclear disarmament. (“New nuclear weapons needed, many experts say, pointing to aged arsenal,” Nov. 29)

    The first path will cost $1 trillion over the next three decades, encourage nuclear proliferation and keep the nuclear arms race alive through the 21st century. The second path will demonstrate U.S. global leadership, allow precious resources to be used for meeting basic needs and fulfill U.S. legal obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    We have a choice about what kind of country we wish to be and what kind of world we will pass on to our children and grandchildren.

     

  • On Modernizing the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal

    The Los Angeles Times ran front-page articles on November 9 and 10, 2014, on modernizing the US nuclear arsenal. The first article was titled, “Costs rise as nuclear arsenal ages.” The second article was titled, “Arsenal ages as world rearms.” Both were long articles and the authors made the case that there is no choice but for the United States to modernize its nuclear arsenal, delivery systems and infrastructure at great expense to taxpayers, estimated at $1 trillion over the next three decades.

    David KriegerThe authors, reporters for the newspaper, write, “The Defense Department’s fleet of submarines, bombers and land-based missiles is also facing obsolescence and will have to be replaced over the next two decades, raising the prospect of further multibillion-dollar cost escalations.” This statement might be acceptable as a quote from a Defense Department official or in an opinion piece, but it hardly reflects the objectivity of professional reporters. It sounds more like an unattributed statement from a Defense Department official or from a “defense” corporation press release.

    In fact, there is a viable option that was not touched upon in the articles. The United States could choose instead to fulfill its legal obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. This would not be easy, but it would be far preferable to continuing the nuclear arms race through the 21st century. For the United States to convene such negotiations would demonstrate leadership in moving the world away from nuclear Armageddon and toward compliance with international law.

    In pursuing this option, “defense” corporations would likely suffer shortfalls in their profits, but the huge sums proposed to be spent on the modernization of the US nuclear arsenal could be shifted to providing for the basic needs of the poorest citizens and for restoring the country’s deteriorating infrastructure. The truth is that nuclear weapons are obsolete for providing 21st century security against terrorist organizations, failed states, environmental destruction or climate chaos.

    Do we really want to pass along the threat of nuclear warfare, by accident or design, which could destroy civilization, to our grandchildren and their grandchildren? Enough is enough. It is time, as Einstein argued more than a half century ago, to change our modes of thinking or face “unparalleled catastrophe.”

    No country has the right to threaten the future of civilization and complex life with weapons of massive destructive power. Modernization of the US nuclear arsenal is not the only choice we have. A far better and saner choice is to end the nuclear weapons era, and that can only be done by diplomacy and negotiations for a nuclear weapons-free world.

    Rather than creating a financial feeding frenzy for “defense” contractors and essentially throwing away a trillion dollars over the next three decades in the illegal pursuit of nuclear modernization, the United States could choose now to lead the world in seeking planetary nuclear zero. This would be a worthy pursuit for a great nation.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • Violence: We Are All Ayotzinapa

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    in our streets, our schools, our homes.

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    in Mexico and Nigeria, in Iraq and Syria.

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    in our cities, our towns, everywhere.

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    with guns and knives, bombs and drones.

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    with starvation, disease and pollution.

    Violence, you are killing our children,
    east and west, north and south.

    Violence, you are killing the future,
    threatening children not yet even on the planet.

    Violence, is there no reasoning with you?
    Enough is enough.

    Violence, you are a monster that must be stopped.
    Who will stand up? Who will speak out?

     

    VIOLENCIA: TODOS SOMOS AYOTZINAPA

    Violencia, estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    en nuestras calles, nuestras escuelas, nuestros hogares.

    Violencia estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    en México y Nigeria, en Irak y Siria.

    Violencia, estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    en nuestras ciudades, nuestros pueblos, en todas partes.

    Violencia, estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    con pistolas y cuchillos, bombas y aviones no tripulados.

    Violencia, estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    con hambre, las enfermedades y la contaminación.

    Violencia, estás matando a nuestros hijos,
    en el este, el oeste, el norte y el sur.

    Violencia, estás matando el futuro,
    amenazando a los niños que todavía ni siquiera han arribado al planeta.

    Violencia, ¿no podemos racionalizar contigo?
    Esto ya es demasiado.

    Violencia, eres un monstruo que debe detenerse.
    ¿Quién será el defensor? ¿Quién será el que hable?

     Traducción/adaptación de Rubén Arvizu

  • 2014 Evening for Peace Introduction

    Good evening and thank you for being part of this Evening for Peace. It is a privilege to share this evening with all of you.

    Will all the students in the room please stand. The work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is for you and the generations to follow you. Peace matters, and we’d like to help you all to become Peace Leaders.

    David KriegerWe live in a time of war, and in a world that sacrifices its children at the altar of violence. There are children growing up today who have never known peace. Can you imagine what that must be like?

    Within the living nightmare of war, some of these children may dream of peace. While their dreams may be beautiful, peace must be more than a dream.

    There are many perspectives on peace. Here is mine. Peace is a dynamic balance in which human needs are met and human rights are upheld. Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the commitment to resolving conflict without resort to violence.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we believe that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. We believe it is beyond reason to threaten each other with nuclear weapons – weapons of indiscriminate mass slaughter. Civilization and complex life hang in the balance.

    We believe it is not reasonable to prepare for war and, at the same time, to expect peace. If we want peace, we must prepare for peace. And we must be willing to stand up for peace. We cannot sit back and expect that war and preparations for war will diminish. The world is too small and too dangerous for such complacency.

    We believe that the United States, rather than leading the world in the modernization of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, should be engaged in negotiating the abolition of these weapons, as it is required to do under international law. That is why we are consulting with the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a courageous small Pacific Island country, in their lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries.

    Rather than planning to spend $1 trillion over the next three decades on modernizing its nuclear arsenal, the US should be using those funds to meet human needs and uphold human dignity. That is the kind of peace leadership that is called for in our time.

    On this, the occasion of our 31st annual Evening for Peace, we come together to celebrate all that peace means to each of us and to honor a courageous Peace Leader. Among the many outstanding Peace Leaders we have honored over the years are the XIVth Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Jody Williams, Jacques Cousteau, Daniel Ellsberg, Walter Cronkite and Helen Caldicott.

    Tonight we honor a woman who stands solidly for peace, a woman who lives peace and breathes justice. Where peace needs an advocate, she is there, whether it be in the sweatshops of Asia, the streets of the Middle East or the halls of the US Congress. She has won victories from corporations on fair trade, human rights and human dignity. She has challenged Presidents, Secretaries of Defense and Secretaries of State. She has protested war-making on a bipartisan basis, protesting against leading figures in Republican and Democratic administrations, arguing that the US had no legitimate justification for invading Iraq or for continuing the war against Afghanistan.

    She holds two Master’s degrees, one in public health from Columbia University and one in economics from The New School. She has worked in Africa and Latin America for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and for the World Health Organization. She is the co-founder of two important civil society organizations, Global Exchange and CODEPINK. She is the author of eight books, the latest being, Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.

    She has received many awards, including the Martin Luther King, Jr. Peace Prize from the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Gandhi Peace Award from Promoting Enduring Peace.

    On May 23, 2013, she interrupted a foreign policy speech by President Obama. Her comments as she was forcibly led out of the room were recorded by Slate Magazine. She asked the President a series of questions:

    “Can you tell the Muslim people their lives are as precious as our lives?

    “Can you take the drones out of the hands of the CIA?

    “Can you stop the signature strikes that are killing people on the basis of suspicious activities?

    “Will you apologize to the thousands of Muslims that you have killed?

    “Will you compensate the innocent family victims?”

    She also shouted out: “I love my country.”

    When she had been removed from the room, President Obama said, “The voice of that woman is worth listening to.”

    That woman, Medea Benjamin, is our honoree this evening, and her voice is indeed worth listening to. I am very pleased, on behalf of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, to present her with the Foundation’s 2014 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.

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

  • Peace Leadership

    We live in a time of war and in a world that sacrifices its children at the altar of violence.

    President Eisenhower warned against the “military-industrial complex.”  He might well have added, “military-industrial-academic-congressional complex.”  All are implicated in the obscene sums spent on war and its preparation.

    David KriegerThere are children growing up today who have never known peace.  Can you imagine what this must be like?

    Within the living nightmare of war, some of these children may dream of peace.  While their dreams may be beautiful, peace must be more than a dream.

    Peace is a dynamic balance in which human needs are met and human rights are upheld.  It is a way of resolving conflicts without resorting to violence.

    Peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age.  It is beyond reason to threaten each other with nuclear weapons.  Civilization and complex life hang in the balance.

    To achieve peace, we must believe in peace and follow the path of peace.  A.J. Muste said, “There is no way to peace; peace is the way.”

    It is not reasonable to prepare for war and expect peace.  War is far too costly in terms of lives, resources and lost hopes and opportunities.  If we want peace, we must prepare for peace.

    To stand up for peace, one must believe that peace is worth standing for.  To fight for peace, one must believe that peace is worth fighting for.  Both require courage.

    The world needs peace, and peace requires courageous peace leaders.

    That is why the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation exists.  That is why its institutional stability and outreach are so important.  We cannot just sit back and relax, and expect that war and preparations for war will diminish.  The world is too small and too dangerous for such complacency.

    Our vision is a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear threat.  Our programs all aim toward these ends.  We work with courageous countries, organizations and individuals throughout the world to eliminate nuclear weapons and end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and other forms of life.

    We train peace leaders throughout the world through our exceptional Peace Leadership Program.  We also honor courageous peace leaders with our annual Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.  Past honorees include Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the XIVth Dalai Lama, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Jody Williams and Helen Caldicott.

    The 2014 recipient of the NAPF Distinguished Peace Leadership Award is Medea Benjamin.  She is a cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK.  She is the author of eight books about peace.  She is an American who stands at the front lines of peacemaking throughout the world.  Where peace is endangered, she is there.  When members of Congress or the administration shout out for war, she makes her presence known for peace.  She is courageous and committed.

    Join us on November 16, 2014 in honoring Medea Benjamin as our 2014 Distinguished Peace Leader.  For information, contact the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation at 805-965-3443, or visit us online at www.wagingpeace.org.

  • The Mouse that Roared: Stand With the Marshall Islands

    The Marshall Islands is “the mouse that roared.”  It is a small island country standing up to the nuclear-armed bullies of the world saying, “enough is enough.”  It is in effect saying to the nuclear-armed countries, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk (on the false power and prestige of nuclear weapons).”  The Marshall Islands is acting with courage, compassion and commitment, taking risks for all humanity.  It is seeking to restore global sanity and end the overarching threat of nuclear omnicide.

    marshall_islands_flagThe Nuclear Zero Lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands against the nine nuclear-armed “Goliaths” have the potential to awaken the public to the current status of nuclear weapons dangers.  For the most part, the public appears ignorant of or apathetic to these dangers.  Awakening the public may be an even more important function of the lawsuits than the legal rulings of the courts.

    The lawsuits raise the following issues:

    First, the nuclear-armed countries party to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the US, Russia, UK, France and China) are obligated “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament . . . ”  The four nuclear-armed countries that are not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) have the same obligations under customary international law.

    Second, all nine nuclear-armed countries are in breach of their obligations to negotiate a cessation of the nuclear arms race.

    Third, all nine nuclear-armed countries are in breach of their obligations to negotiate for nuclear disarmament.

    Fourth, all nine nuclear-armed countries are in breach of their obligations to act in good faith.  They are not engaged in negotiations.  Rather, they are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.  The United States alone has plans to spend $1 trillion over the next three decades modernizing its nuclear arsenal.

    Fifth, these breaches undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and international law itself.

    Sixth, continued reliance on nuclear weapons keeps the door open to nuclear proliferation by other countries and by terrorist organizations, and to nuclear weapons use, by accident or design.

    According to atmospheric scientists, even a small regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, in which each side used 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons on the other side’s cities, would result in putting enough soot into the upper stratosphere to block warming sunlight, shorten growing seasons and cause crop failures that could lead to a global nuclear famine resulting in the death by starvation of some two billion people.  It would be a heavy price to pay for the broken promises and breached obligations of the nine nuclear-armed countries.

    There are still over 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with some 94 percent of these in the arsenals of the United States and Russia.  A war between these two countries could trigger an ice age that would end civilization and potentially all complex life on Earth.

    In sum, the nuclear-armed countries have obligations under international law that they are breaching, and these breaches raise serious threats to the people of the world, now and in the future.  The Marshall Islands has brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries in an attempt to compel them to do what the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty promised to do long ago, and what all nine nuclear-armed countries are required to do under international law.

    The people of the world should follow the lead of the Marshall Islands, one of the smallest but most courageous countries in the world.  We should stand with the Marshall Islands and support them in their legal action.  The dream of ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity should be not only the dream of the Marshall Islands, but our dream as well.  You can find out more about the Nuclear Zero lawsuits and sign a petition supporting the Marshall Islands at www.nuclearzero.org.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.