Category: Events

Shows up on homepage under “Latest from NAPF”

  • 2005 Annual Dinner Remarks

    Martin Luther King, Jr. said of his time, “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of good people.”

    Our voices and efforts can and do make a difference.

    We meet this year, as we have for the past two years, in a time of war, and I think we must all ask ourselves if we are doing enough to further the cause of peace.

    We just passed the 2,000 mark of young Americans dead in Iraq. And over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed.

    Are we doing enough to build a peaceful world?

    Our responsibility, and the reason the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation exists, is to build such a world, and create a future in which our children and grandchildren can look back on war as an artifact of the past.

    One path to creating such a future is to honor those who struggle for peace, and that is what we are engaged in this evening.

    Tonight we are fortunate to honor two exceptional peacemakers.

    I’ve worked closely with Senator Roche for nearly a decade, and I can tell you what a truly extraordinary man he is. You have already heard from Diandra about his achievements. Let me just add that he is a deeply spiritual person, whose persistence and courage is rooted in a solid base of faith and love for humanity. Knowing that humanity is endangered by nuclear arsenals, I doubt that Doug will cease his work until that danger and the weapons themselves no longer exist.

    Now, it is my privilege to introduce you to Daniel Ellsberg.

    The name Daniel Ellsberg has become synonymous with courageous truth telling for the risks he took in releasing the Pentagon Papers. There was an easier route that Dan could have taken. He could have looked at the Pentagon Papers and then looked the other way. He could have said that government secrecy is necessary, even if it deceives the people into supporting an illegal war. He could have kept his high-level job as a RAND Corporation analyst at the Pentagon and lived a comfortable life with all the perks that go with high government position.

    Can you imagine putting everything on the line for truth – your job, your family, your reputation, your freedom? Dan put it all on the line for truth, for democracy and, most of all, for the possibility of ending a war and saving lives – American and Vietnamese – and he did it with the expectation of losing his own freedom.

    Daniel Ellsberg is a Harvard Ph.D. with an exquisite mind. He is one of the brightest people I know. As a young man, he was a cold warrior, who after graduating from Harvard College volunteered for the Marines and served as a Marine Corps platoon leader and company commander. This is the background of the man who chose to reveal the government’s own secret findings about the Vietnam War to the American people.

    In becoming a whistle blower, Dan helped strengthen the roots of democracy and end a terrible war. He also helped bring down a presidency built on deception and misconduct. Dan’s courage and the illegal reaction of the Nixon administration, helped bring about Mr. Nixon’s early retirement, under duress, from the presidency.

    For releasing the Pentagon Papers, Dan was placed on trial on 11 felony counts that could have resulted in more than 100 years in prison.

    The government’s case against him was dismissed when Nixon’s “plumbers” were caught breaking into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. In this way, Dan was spared growing old in prison. Rather, he has stayed young by devoting himself to governmental accountability and continuing to work for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons. His award-winning memoir on Vietnam and the release of the Pentagon Papers, Secrets, is a book that all Americans should read.

    In his early career, Dan Ellsberg focused on nuclear weapons dangers. In addition to his ongoing efforts for government transparency and accountability and his encouragement of potential whistleblowers, he continues to analyze and to speak out on nuclear dangers.

    Daniel Ellsberg is a courageous and dedicated leader for peace. He is a true American hero. It is a privilege to present him with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2005 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award.

  • Santa Barbara Nuclear Activist Leader Honored at Gala

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Originally published by the Santa Barbara News Press

  • It Is Up To Us

    I am very honored by this award, and I accept it on behalf of all the people I work with and have struggled with to build a better world – particularly my colleagues at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    When we founded the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we believed that we cannot sit back and wait for leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev. Such leaders – with his wisdom, vision and courage – are all too rare.

    We believed that we ordinary citizens must step forward, and create the change we wish to see in the world.

    My life was transformed when, shortly after graduating from college, I visited Hiroshima.

    The Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima awakened me, as I had not been before, to the true extent of the dangers of the Nuclear Age.

    Over the years since then, I have come to know many of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are called hibakusha. With one voice, they say, “Never again! We will not repeat the evil.”

    The hibakusha understand, as few others in this world do, that nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist, and that we must eliminate these weapons before they eliminate us.

    That is our challenge. It is the challenge that I confront daily. It is the challenge of our time and of our generation. It is a challenge we cannot fail to accept and we cannot fail to accomplish.

    I believe that each generation has a responsibility to pass the world on intact to the next generation. You might say that that is the least we can do for the future.

    But for us in the Nuclear Age, this is a more difficult task than ever before. Nuclear weapons contain the potential to foreclose a human future.

    If we succeed in eliminating these weapons of genocide, indeed omnicide, we will be viewed in the future as having done our part to save the world.

    If we fail, there may be no future generations to remember us or to judge us.

    We in the United States must press our government to stop being the greatest obstacle to nuclear disarmament. It is not in our interest, nor that of our children, for our government to cling tenaciously to these terrible weapons and even try, as it is doing now, to create new nuclear weapons for specific purposes.

    Rather, the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, should, in our own interest and that of humanity, lead the way to a world free of nuclear weapons.

    It is up to us to change our country and the world.

    Each of us can be as powerful as anyone who ever lived. All we need to do is set our intentions and take a first step. Without doubt, a first step will lead to a second, and we will be on our way.

    We are all gifted with consciences to guide us, with voices we can raise, with arms to embrace, and with feet to take a stand. These are the gifts with which the future calls out to us to act.

    We must fight ignorance with education, apathy with direction, complacency with vision, and despair with hope. We owe this to ourselves and to our children.

    I’d like to conclude with an excerpt from a poem in my new book. The poem is about hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it is about silence. It is called Hibakusha Do Not Just Happen, and this is the way it ends:

    For every hibakusha many must contribute For every hibakusha many must obey For every hibakusha many must be silent

    It is up to us to break the silence – for each other, for humanity and for the future.

  • Presentation of 2004 Peace Award

    Presentation of 2004 Peace Award

    Tonight we honor an extraordinary journalist, a familiar face and voice for us all, a man of uncompromising integrity.

    Our theme tonight is broadcasting peace, and there are few broadcasters who have held peace so dear as our honoree.

    When Lyndon Johnson realized that he had lost the support of our honoree for the Vietnam War, he knew that he had lost the support of the country. He knew that Walter Cronkite would tell the American people the truth about the war – and that truth would end their support for the war.

    When journalists serve power rather than truth, there can be a fast descent into the frightening world of George Orwell’s 1984. It takes dedicated journalists to assure that war is not equated with peace; that ignorance is not equated with strength; and that freedom is not equated with slavery.

    The principal function of a journalist is to bring the truth to the people so that power will not be abused. That requires hard work and integrity, and it is what has characterized Walter Cronkite throughout his distinguished career. Mr. Cronkite has served democracy well, and set a high standard for younger journalists to follow.

    In his career spanning over 65 years in journalism, he has earned the respect of the American people and of people throughout the world. He has been named the “most influential person” in broadcasting and selected in a nationwide viewer survey as the “Most Trusted Man in Television News.”

    He was born in 1916 and began his career in high school as a campus correspondent for the Houston Post. He covered World War II as a United Press correspondent.

    In 1942, he landed with the Allied troops in North Africa, covering the battle of the North Atlantic . He was also with Allied troops making their beachhead assaults at Normandy in 1944.

    After the war he covered the Nuremberg trials, which held the top Nazi leaders to account for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. I believe that he learned very important lessons about peace from both the war and the trials that followed it.

    From 1946 to 1948 he was the chief correspondent for United Press in Moscow.

    In 1950 he joined CBS News, and was their anchor for political convention and election coverage from 1952 to 1980.

    In 1962 he began his duties with CBS Evening News, where he anchored the nightly news program until 1981. During that period he covered key historical events of the time – the wars, the assassinations, the elections and the ascent of man into space.

    Since his retirement from CBS News he has made many award-winning documentaries, including the Emmy-winning Children of Apartheid.

    He has received numerous prestigious awards for his contributions to broadcast journalism. He has been inducted into the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Hall of Fame. And in 1981, he was awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award.

    In 1999, upon receiving the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award of the World Federalist Association, Mr. Cronkite stated, “Those of us living today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether through a monumental educational and political effort we will achieve a world of peace under a system of law where individual violators of that law are brought to justice.”

    On the subject of war and peace, he stated: “While we spend much of our time and a great deal of our treasure in preparing for war, we see no comparable effort to establish a lasting peace. Meanwhile.those advocates who work for world peace by urging a system of world government are called impractical dreamers. Those impractical dreamers are entitled to ask their critics what is so practical about war.”

    Walter Cronkite is a man who has seen war at close hand, reported on it over the course of seven decades, and who comes down unequivocally on the side of peace. For his honesty, integrity and courage as a journalist and for his commitment to building a more peaceful world, I am proud to present the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2004 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to Walter Cronkite.

  • 21st Annual Evening for Peace: Broadcasting Peace: A Conversation with Walter Cronkite

    The following is a transcript of the live interview conducted by Sam Donaldson with Walter Cronkite, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2004 Distinguished Peace Leader.

    Sam Donaldson with Walter Cronkite at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 21st Evening for Peace

    Donaldson: I must tell you that for many of us, without meaning any disrespect to the people now doing the CBS Evening News, it will always be the Cronkite Show. Here was the leader with a bunch of correspondents that couldn’t be touched, I know because we tried to compete against him, and Robert Pierpoint who was here earlier tonight. He was one of the great horsemen that Walter depended upon on that show. Let’s get down to business. I hear people say that this is the most important election of our lifetime. Is it? What do you make of its importance?

    Cronkite: I think it’s more important than our lifetime. I would think that this election is perhaps the most important in the last century, going back to perhaps the Civil War.

    Donaldson: You have to explain that. Why?

    Cronkite: I expect to. Why is because we have taken a 180 degree turn in our policy and foreign policy. We have adopted this incredible decision as announced by the president in his announcement of our policy future, which is a compulsory thing they have to do every couple of years. And he announced the system of preemption. With this preemption and the unilateral nature of it, as practiced by the administration very shortly thereafter, we have established a foreign policy that is unsustainable in a world that we hope will be governed by peace rather than war. As a consequence, we are on a very, very dangerous course for not only the United States but for civilization. The suggestion that one should take preemptive action if that nation believes that it is threatened by a neighbor, for heaven’s sakes, that may sound possible to sustain if you are a dominant nation such as the United States . But what do you do if you translate that same program to one of the African neighbor nations, to one of the Middle Eastern neighbor nations? As soon as you sense that you are endangered by your neighbor, you are therefore entitled, because the United States has established this wonderful concept, you are therefore entitled to go to war. What kind of a future is that for the world? It is incredibly impossible to sustain that kind of a foreign policy around the world among all the nations of the world that are entitled because of our leadership, to say, well, the United States does it, why can’t we do it?

    Donaldson: Well, the president says it’s us against them, that we live in a dangerous world, we must defend ourselves and we’re gonna divide the world up between those who support our policy and those who don’t. Those who support us will be our allies, and those who don’t will pay the piper.

    Cronkite: I’d say that’s one hell of a way to behave to those who believe with us, to tell them that either you’re with us or against us – either you accept what we say we will do or you cannot be part of the game. That hardly seems to me to be a foreign policy that is very practical of long endurance. It may suffice for a moment, but it’s not going to live very long in the history of our universe.

    Donaldson: Walter, do you think we are safer or less safe because our strike against Iraq ?

    Cronkite: Far less safe.

    Donaldson: Why?

    Cronkite: Because as we read every day in the press and occasionally hear on television-

    Donaldson: We’ll get to that.

    Cronkite: I thought you would, so I thought I’d preempt you. The problem quite clearly is that we have excited the Arab world, the Muslim world, to take up arms against us, far beyond what was being done by Al-Qaeda and others, of the terrorist groups. We have created a new body of importance in the terrorist groups who are coalescing around the Iraqi situation.

    Donaldson: The president said in that famous State of the Union message in which he described the axis of evil that the United States would not stand idly by and permit nations to acquire weapons of mass destruction that threaten us, which suggests that maybe if the president maintains political power that we will then have to move against Iran. Maybe North Korea . What do you think?

    Walter Cronkite at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 21st Evening for Peace

    Cronkite: That is precisely the course that he has set. Actually, the truth of the matter is we do not have the military strength to take on Iran and North Korea simultaneously or even separately at this point. We have committed nearly all of the forces we have available to this enterprise in Iraq . For heaven’s sakes. This argument about a draft. That this administration would dare to assert that there is no draft in their thinking. That’s got to be an absolutely straight out lie, one of many that they have made. We cannot continue the Iraq war as it is quite clearly going to continue for quite a while and expect to be prepared to move on Iran , to move on North Korea , to even have this vaunted security and safety at home without a draft. We don’t have that kind of power in our military today. And we are being lied to when we are being told there is no thought of a draft in the Pentagon.

    Donaldson: Well, it won’t be the first time we’ve been lied to by various presidents, now, Walter. It’s nothing new.

    Cronkite: Well, yes, but do we really have time to go into that?

    Donaldson: No. I’m not asking for a litany of lies. All right. How could the administration have so badly miscalculated after we got to Baghdad in less than three and a half weeks, militarily, from the standpoint of trying to then move forward to do something in Iraq that would bring it out all right? How come they didn’t know anything about the Middle East ?

    Cronkite: I wish the hell I knew the answer to that. That’s one of the questions we have every right to ask and you’re just the guy to ask it.

    Donaldson: Well, it’s easy to ask questions. But a lot of people say, fine, if they thought they wanted to do this, they did not prepare. I’m borrowing a Kerry line, I suppose. Or maybe he stole it from you. They did not prepare for the peace. They had no plan after that. They made miscalculations, did they not? And so at the point we’re at now, answer the fundamental question: We’re hip deep in the big muddy once again, as Lyndon Johnson’s time showed: how do we get out?

    Cronkite: The program that I have proposed through the Democrats-I say that with, I hope everybody understands, my tongue in my cheek. I’m working both sides. My tongue is in both cheeks. I wrote a column about it and it didn’t get printed anywhere, but it was a great column. I proposed what I would like to hear the Democratic candidate say. My proposal was that he would say that one of the first steps he would take upon moving into the Oval Office, besides changing the furniture around a bit, would be to organize a panel of retired generals who have come out during the various discussions of the Iraq War against what has been going on in Iraq, the entire lack of planning, inadequate number of troops, all of the things that these retired generals have come on television to report on. He would organize this panel and would tell them he wanted their plan for us to get out of Iraq with honor, to get our troops home and to have them do this within the next six months. I can imagine, I would say if I were the candidate, what would happen in America as those boys and girls came home. Every Broadway, every Main Street would be festooned with American flags. We would welcome those boys and girls back in every town and community of America . They would be honored as they’ve never been honored before. But more than that, we’d be sure that everyone of those people would be entitled to an education that we would pay for to help pay them back for their service. Furthermore, we would supply a fund so that every professional person serving in the reserve, in the National Guard, who was called up and lost his practice in the law or dentistry or whatever would get financial help to restore that practice he had when he went away. Every businessman, every single small businessman who lost his business because he was called up and kept there longer than he should have been kept anyway, that individual would get financial help. I would put these people back on their feet because they’re entitled to it.

    But we would go further than that, of course. We would then begin to put together the codicil for peace that this nation would follow in the future. And that codicil for peace would be a vastly different thing than our present foreign policy. The very first thing we would do would be to reverse 180 degrees our attitude towards the United Nations. We would put our full force behind the United Nations. We would do everything we can to bring the United Nations into the position of power that it should have. We are going to have to someday in the attempt to make an international organization of this kind work. Our only real hope of establishing a lasting peace is that such an organization will work. That would mean the United Nations would have legislative power, judicial power and military power to say this is the road to peace and we will hold peace. Now that is going to require-I see your tongue moving toward your check.

    Donaldson: Towards my mouth, my lips.

    Cronkite: But let me say what that requires. I know what it requires and you know what it requires, and you’re about to hang me with it. What this requires is an understanding of the American people that we can only assure world peace through an international organization if we are willing to surrender some of our sovereignty.

    Donaldson: You’re right, Walter, you guessed my question. Both candidates, not just President Bush, but Senator Kerry, say in almost the same words, “I will never give another nation veto power over the security of the United States.” And the crowds cheer. So how are you going to convince the American people that we should in fact obey the rule of international law?

    Cronkite: As with almost everything else to be solved with our national being and for world peace, it’s going to require a lot of education. We begin with that. We’ve got to improve our educational system to the degree that we have a literate society to which you can appeal with a reasonable argument rather than the passion of the moment or the passion of the past that has to be preserved. That won’t work. We have to have a revolutionary change. You know, Tom Jefferson, old Tom said at one time that the nation that expects to be ignorant and free, expects what never can and never will be. We are on the precipice of being so ignorant that we cannot function well as a democracy.

    Donaldson: And that is a terrific segue to our business. We have distinguished members of the educational community here with great universities and all that. But our business, the news business, tap into it. Are we helping in this process that you describe today?

    Cronkite: No. We’re not participating in it at all.

    Donaldson: What happened to us?

    Cronkite: Well, what happened was cable. Not actually what the cable people are doing, but the fact that there is such a profusion today of various cable channels and cable stations that they have drastically reduced the audience for the traditional networks, that is, the old timers NBC, ABC, CBS. They have so reduced their income that they do not dare to do anything except the cheapest kind of entertainment programming. And they will not give an adequate amount of time or consideration in any other way to informing the American people of the problems of our time. They’re not helping to educate the people in any way. Now, that is in parallel, if you will, with the failure of our educational system. We have now wasted so much money with cutting the tax rates of the rich in this country that we do not have enough money left to be sure that no child is left behind. We’ve got so many children left behind today, it’s unbelievable. We’re not able to build the schoolhouses that are needed, but most of all we’re not able to pay our teachers what they deserve. These are the people we have employed to raise this educational level of the American people to the degree that we do not fall to Thomas Jefferson’s forecast; that we are an intelligent people that can understand the issues of the day and vote accordingly. We are in a position today that we cannot do that job. We literally cannot pay teachers what they’re worth. Now, where do we go from here? I hope you’re not going to ask me the next question, where do we go from here?

    Donaldson: Where do we go from here, Walter? Where do we go from here, Walter? Answer the question!

    Cronkite: Well, God knows. And unfortunately, since only God knows, that means only Bush knows.

    Donaldson: Remember this. Someone once said, God takes care of fools, drunks and the United States of America .

    Cronkite: And perhaps the Democratic party.

    Donaldson: Well, let’s cover that point. You wrote earlier this year in a column about the political campaign, and you said religion ought not to be an issue in the political campaign.

    Cronkite: Absolutely.

    Donaldson: But it is.

    Cronkite: Of course it is. It’s being exploited very successfully, I’m afraid, by the Republican party, and the group of evangelicals who have helped finance this effort to make religion an issue in the campaign, in the election.

    Donaldson: You don’t think God favors one party over the other, that God gets into the tax code? Maybe he has an exemption there, who know?

    Cronkite: I used to think that God took part in contests at one time or another, until the Boston team won a couple of nights ago.

    Sam Donaldson at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 21st Evening for Peace

    Donaldson: David Krieger said that our job is to tell the truth, bring the truth to people. But when we attempt to do that by fact checking ads, by fact checking what candidates say, we’re accused of being partisan, we’re accused of getting into the contest. What do you think our job is? How should we handle a political contest like what’s going on today?

    Cronkite: I think you’ll agree with me almost immediately. I dodge the question in a sense. We are never going to be able to do it unless the networks, and I’m talking about our traditional networks again, give us enough time to devote to information transmission to the people. Those half-hour evening news programs, as you know only too well, are vastly inadequate. After the commercials, the lead-ins, the lead-outs and all that, we’ve got something like 16 or 17 minutes at the most. We’ve got one of the most complicated nations in the world with our vast numbers of special interests across our broad nation. We are presumably a great leader of a world that is incredibly complex today, more than probably any time in recent history at any rate. And to think that we can tell just the essentials that happen in that world, that domestic world, that international world, in 16 minutes is ridiculous. We can’t do it. Now then, you and I for all of our careers with our networks have hoped for prime time. We are in this mixed time, evening time from 6:00 to 6:30. We all wished for years for prime time in which to do news or documentaries. We finally got it three or four years ago. So what do we do with these magazine shows? Sex, crime, the oddball events of the world. Nothing serious in those programs. What would happen if our networks would devote those magazine prime time magazine hours that they do to instant documentaries? Suppose that you have got the headlines at 6:30 and you came up with 60 Minutes Wednesday night for an hour and at that time, by golly, you saw a documentary and a panel of experts and so forth that would explore the problem that we revealed at 6:30. We would advise this nation, we would educate this nation in a manner in which it has never been educated before. We would use television the way people dreamed that television would be used when we first had the tubes on the market.

    Donaldson: I’m with you, Walter, but you know what would happen is the bottom line network bosses, the people who own us now, would say, “We can’t put that on because we won’t get a mass audience. Someone over here has gotten hold of the Paris Hilton tape and put it on and that’s where all the eyeballs are.”

    Cronkite: That’s exactly what they’d say.

    Donaldson: That’s exactly what they are saying.

    Cronkite: Not only would they say it, they’d do it.

    Donaldson: But you’re talking about the evening news. I remember where in the fall of 1972, you did two long Watergate stories two nights in a row, 7, 8, 9 minutes apiece. That doesn’t happen anymore. Why not?

    Cronkite: Well, that gets into a more difficult problem. I don’t know the why not because it could be done. We did those two programs, one on Friday night and one on Monday night and, actually, they were even longer than 6 or 7 minutes each. They were 17 minutes, one of them, the first one, Friday night. This was my concept. This was just before the election of that year and Watergate had been in all the headlines for three or four months and then it had suddenly died out because that’s the way stories work for the press. We had told all of it. The Washington Post team had not come up with any new revelations. Deep Throat, if there was one (I won’t start that argument), hadn’t come up with anything. As a consequence, as things work in the press, the story moved from the front page to page 3 to page 7 to page 9 to the comic page with a two liner, and I was determined that we were going to remind the American people of the Watergate story before we went to the polls a couple of months later. So we put together this review of Watergate and we went deep into the documentary type stuff. We put together and made a pretty good piece out of it. The problem was, of course, that we put it out on a Friday and practically before we were off the air, the White House – the group who had done all of this, Nixon’s group – was on the phone to Bill Paley, the chairman and owner of CBS, and was demanding that we abandon the Monday piece and, a matter of fact, they wanted a special done to correct the mistakes we had made in the piece we had done. Paley, of course, panicked, I would say, for the moment and called Dick Salant, the head of CBS News who was a brilliant man.

    Donaldson: Lawyer, good lawyer.

    Cronkite: Oh, terrific, terrific. He had to listen to Paley, of course, and Paley was saying you have to do something about this, the White House is on us, it’s very difficult, you can’t do that Monday piece. Salant was saying, well, I’ll work on it, I’ll work on it. Meanwhile Frank Stanton was calling and others were calling. The pressure was on. Salant, being as brilliant as he was, when he came to us, he came to us from the counsel’s office at CBS. Eric Severeid and all of us practically were going to quit because we thought that the management was sending in this lawyer who was going to suppress us and only be the spokesman for management. He turned out to be the greatest journalist I’d ever known in his sense of honesty, integrity and telling the full story regardless of where the chips fell. He was a tremendous man.

    Donaldson: So even though you had to cut it down, you did run the second piece?

    Cronkite: What happened was that Salant was smart enough to compromise and he called Paley and he said we’ve taken care of it, Mr. Paley. We’re gonna cut the length of the piece on Monday. Well, we did. We cut a few minutes out of a long piece, but Paley was satisfied with that and was able to answer the White House by saying, “We’re cutting it down on Monday.” That didn’t please the White House, of course. They kept insisting that we had to cancel it. But Paley stood firm on that one.

    Donaldson: I just remember that. Walter, you could spend all evening doing it, but very quickly, handicap the next nine days and if you care to make a predication about who’s going to win, make it.

    Cronkite: I really am not prepared to. I don’t know. I think it’s that close. I can’t remember an election in which I didn’t think I could call it in advance until this year.

    Donaldson: Why is it this close?

    Cronkite: I think it’s this close because there is a huge body of people who would wear the “Anybody but Bush” pin who, at the same time, are not intrigued by Kerry. I don’t think he has made the impression that he needs to make to assure a victory. He’s managed in these three debates to bring himself back to even, almost even, but not overwhelmingly in the lead. I have been disappointed myself in his candidacy. You know, you and I made a lot of comments. I remember some of yours and if I don’t remember them, I’m making them up anyway.

    Donaldson: I’ve made a lot of dumb predictions, if that’s what you mean.

    Cronkite: Not predictions, but we made fun of the fact that we ourselves were talking about charisma being a feature of presidential elections since television came in, that television had changed the whole balance of election campaigning because it injected this feature of charisma.

    Donaldson: Well, it has, hasn’t it?

    Cronkite: It has. And that’s what I was going to say, that we have to invoke that name, that charisma identification in the case of the Democratic candidate. He does not have charisma. That is a difficult thing to overcome and meanwhile, without the charisma that he needs, he has, I think, not done a very good job of campaigning. It took him too long to get away from the litany of mistakes that this administration has made and get down to the program that he himself would substitute. I think that’s what people want to hear. What would he do? And we really still haven’t gotten a very clear picture of the program with which he would come in to the White House.

    Donaldson: But we know the President’s program. Is it a case of better the devil we know than the devil we don’t know, for some people? We know what George W. Bush will do. More of the same.

    Cronkite: I know and I find it hard to believe that there’s anybody that would vote for that.

    Donaldson: Half the country . And with that, would you do something for us that I think everyone in the room would love to have you do one more time. Will you sign off! With your famous sign off!

    Cronkite: And that’s the way it is, Saturday, October 23, 2004. Goodnight.

  • Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba’s 2004 World Citizenship Award Acceptance Speech

    Memorial Hall, Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, October 8, 2004

    Dr. David Krieger, honorable guests, colleagues and friends. It is my greatest honor to represent 619 member cities of the organization Mayors for Peace in accepting this year’s World Citizenship Award from such a prestigious organization as the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    It is indeed a pleasure to be recognized here in Hiroshima by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation among such prestigious leaders in the movement for the abolition of nuclear weapons. This organization, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, has spearheaded our movement by showing us the direction to follow. It has also given us concrete examples by taking specific measures that have been effective in accomplishing our goal.

    The recent Nuclear Age Peace Foundation campaign called “Turn the Tide” is an excellent example of a job well done, one that will have a great effect on the world.

    I also would like to add that we are fortunate to find a leader in the person of Dr. David Krieger as well as in the persons all of us here, leaders in a joint effort for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    I would like to take this opportunity to summarize what our organization, Mayors for Peace, has been trying to accomplish and what we are aiming to accomplish. To start my review, I would like to mention one trend that is very important, at least in my mind.

    The problem of nuclear weapons was created by science and technology. Partly because of this, our movement to abolish nuclear weapons is firmly based on science, scientists, scientific thinking and all the relevant facts.

    Here I am using the words “science,” “scientists,” and so forth broadly. Let me mention a few examples that might be noteworthy. In the 1980s, a great movement was created, the nuclear freeze movement, largely through the efforts of physicians. Medical science, one of the scientific realms, declares that there is nothing these powerful scientists can do once nuclear war erupts.

    Environmental scientists also show us clearly that from the environmental and ecological points of view that nuclear war is not preventable. The only way to get rid of this danger is to abolish all nuclear weapons.

    Other scientists and experts can tell you from their areas of expertise that the only way is to get rid of all nuclear weapons.

    Here I would like to add another component to this list of experts’ opinions about nuclear weapons. That is, the perspective of mayors or city managers.

    Actually there is an American president who describes what I am going to say very well. Let me quote him first. The president is Abraham Lincoln. He said, “You may fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time. But you can not fool all of the people all of the time”.

    In a sense, this is an abstract statement but it is most true on the level of running a city, dealing with daily lives of citizens. For example, in lofty or high places, one could argue whether weapons of mass destruction exist or not and can get away with not saying the truth.

    But on the level of issues that mayors deal with, when garbage piles up on the streets there is no denying it. You cannot just lie. We have to deal with daily lives of citizens at that level. That is why mayors really see the facts clearly. We see the truths that surround us very clearly and we base our judgment on those facts and truth.

    Last October, in Manchester England , Mayors for Peace held an executive committee meeting. The discussion was based on facts that we have to deal with on a daily bases. We have come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons will have to be eliminated as soon as possible. We have set the deadline for the year 2020.

    Although some people said that wouldn’t be doable, we set the year 2020 partly because of the hibakusha. Hibakusha is the Japanese word for survivors of atomic bombs. As a matter of fact, after we announced the deadline we received warm words from our hibakusha friends. Their only complaint or criticism was that 2020 was not soon enough because they may not alive to see the day.

    To honor these hibakusha , we would like to stick to that goal and work harder in order to realize our goal no later than the year 2020. To start a summary of our activities let me start with what the hibakusha themselves have done. I believe it is very important to mention this. The World Citizenship Award, I am sure, has been given to Mayors for Peace because we do represent the voices of hibakusha.

    In the Peace Declaration of 1999, I summarized and pointed out three important contributions that the hibakusha had made by that time. The first one is the fact that they chose to live under circumstances in which they could not have been blamed had they chosen death. They not only chose to live, but to do so as decent human beings. This is quite an accomplishment that we tend to take for granted.

    The second accomplishment is that they effectively prevented a third use of nuclear weapons. When we tell their stories of August 6 and August 9, we feel like we live them. Certainly, anybody who went through that experience wishes to avoid telling it. Despite that fact they kept telling the world what would happen if another nuclear weapon should be used.

    The third important accomplishment is that they created and live a new world view. This is what Dr. Albert Einstein believed. Although he thought it did not exist, it does in the minds of hibakusha and it has spread all over the world by now. I would like to express that value as “reconciliation” instead of “retaliation”. The hibakusha themselves say simply that no one else should go through the experience they had. This spirit has been captured in the Memorial Cenotaph in the Peace Park , as well as in the Japanese Constitution.

    These are the footsteps on which the Mayors for Peace base our decisions and future activities.

    The first activity that the Mayors for Peace launched actually occurred in April this year in New York .

    Mayors and deputy mayors gathered in New York City to attend the Preparatory Committee meeting of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference, speak to the national delegates from various countries, make speeches, speak to city council members in New York City, speak to journalists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and so forth. It was a series of very important activities, some of which were extremely effective.

    I would like to quote a deputy mayor who summarized the activities in April. Jenny Jones is the deputy mayor of London . She said, “At the beginning of the experience in New York I was not sure what would happen, but the entire experience was invigorating. I am recharged with energy and feel I can work even harder for the abolition of nuclear weapons once I go back to London “. She was pleased, energized and energetic. London will be represented at the NPT Review Conference next year in May. I’m hoping Mayor Ken Livingston himself will join us.

    The consensus among participating mayors and deputy mayors was that although not all of the comments from national delegates were encouraging, after we went through the experience, we believe that it is possible to abolish nuclear weapons by the year of 2020.

    The second step of our activity is basically the one-year period between August 6 of this year till August 9 of next year, although we will put more focus on the period between August 6 this year until the NPT Review Conference in May next year.

    During this period we would like to sponsor concerts, symposia, and other activities to raise public awareness and to gather more momentum worldwide. There are many different activities happening all around the world on a daily basis, and more mayors are joining the Mayors for Peace organization. Other organizations and NGOs are holding their own activities to help us gather forces together in May next year in New York .

    The important component of our campaign is for mayors and NGOs to approach their respective governments to get them to help us induce the NPT Review Conference to adopt formal documents outlining our proposal for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    Our aim is to have a universal nuclear weapons convention signed by the year 2010 and ultimately abolish all nuclear weapons by the year 2020. We also have a contingency plan in case our present course does not materialize. But I am not going to tell you about that because we would like to concentrate on realizing our goal rather than fearing that we may not be able to accomplish it.

    The third step is the NPT Review conference itself, which will be held in May next year. By the way, next year is 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings. We would like to have at least 100 mayors from Mayors for Peace cities and also at least 1000 NGO representatives representing various voices grassroots movements from around the world in New York during the NPT Review conference.

    I also would like to tell you that our efforts have been doubled, tripled or quadrupled – actually enhanced one hundred-fold by people of various organizations and NGOs around the world who have worked so hard. Let me just point out a few things that did not happen in the previous movement for abolishing nuclear weapons.

    Our efforts – grassroots movements and civil society movements – quite often have been ignored by formal governmental structures. In February this year, the European Congress actually adopted a resolution supporting the Mayors for Peace emergency campaign. In June in Boston , the US conference of Mayors consisting of 1183 American cities adopted by acclamation a resolution whose content was even stronger than that of European Congress. Many governments, including those who sent their ambassadors to Hiroshima in recent years, have endorsed our emergency campaign.

     

    In the area of NGOs, International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which won the Nobel Prize in 1985, has also recently adopted a resolution endorsing our emergency campaign in Beijing.

    And today we have honor of receiving the 2004 World Citizenship Award from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which is another way of endorsing our campaign in an effort to expand this effort to abolish all nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

    In 1945, just after the atomic bombing, some people claimed that no life would grow in Hiroshima for 75 years. Of course you see the trees and flowers now, so this statement was not true. But in a different sense, as long as we have nuclear weapons on this earth, one could claim that no real life is actually thriving on the earth. We do not have life actualizing its fullest potential as long as there are nuclear weapons. Therefore, let us make sure that the year 2020, 75 years after the atomic bombings, will be the year real life is born again by abolishing nuclear weapons.

    When Mr. Nelson Mandela was released from the prison after 28 years, he was asked by a journalist, “What are you going to do next?” I suppose the journalist wanted to hear some important political action that Nelson Mandela was planning at the time. But Nelson Mandela answered “I would like to listen to classical music while watching a beautiful sunset on a beach.”

    So in that spirit I would like to promise you that Mayors for Peace, and I personally, will do our best to accomplish our goal by the year 2020. And I know that all of you will join us, so that in the year 2020 we will be able to listen to Beethoven’s 9th Symphony and rejoice that finally peace has come while watching the sun set beautifully into the Seto Inland Sea over Hiroshima. Let’s work together.

    Thank your very much.

  • 2004 World Citizenship Award Presentation to Mayors for Peace

    2004 World Citizenship Award Presentation to Mayors for Peace

    World citizenship has become essential to our survival as a species. Our powerful technologies have made our problems global, and the solutions to these problems must also be global. If the Earth is destroyed, no country, no matter how powerful, will be spared the devastation. We all have a vested interest in preserving our planet. Our time calls out for world citizenship.

    On our planet today are many greedy plunderers, individuals and corporations that would use up the Earth’s resources for their own short-term profits, polluting the air, water and land without regard for the good of the planet and its inhabitants. These plunderers, who often seek out the weakest national link to gain greater advantage in enhancing their profits, are destroying our wondrous life-supporting planet.

    Some governments have stockpiled thousands of nuclear weapons, the worst of all weapons of mass destruction, weapons that are capable of reducing our great cities to rubble. Despite obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, these governments have clung tenaciously to their large nuclear arsenals, threatening the survival of the human species and most life on Earth.

    Finding global solutions to global problems demands a worldwide constituency for change, a constituency of world citizens, who put the problems of the planet ahead of their concerns for their particular geographic portion of the planet. The number of world citizens on the planet is relatively small, but growing. The growth curve is in a race against time to save the planet from plunder and destruction and to achieve sustainability for future generations.

    In 1998, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation began presenting an annual award for World Citizenship. Previous honorees have been media innovator Ted Turner; Queen Noor of Jordan; poet and philosopher Daisaku Ikeda; artist Frederick Franck; and entertainer and humanitarian Harry Belafonte. This year’s honoree is – for the first time, an organization – Mayors for Peace.

    Mayors for Peace was selected for their innovative approach to the abolition of nuclear weapons. They have initiated an Emergency Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons by the year 2020, which they call Vision 2020. Witnessing the strain on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by the failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their treaty obligations for nuclear disarmament and recognizing the dangers that nuclear arsenals pose to all cities, the Mayors for Peace created their Emergency Campaign. The Campaign calls for initiating negotiations for nuclear weapons abolition in the year 2005, concluding these negotiations in the year 2010, and completing the process of eliminating these weapons by the year 2020. The Emergency Campaign brings the issue of nuclear disarmament to cities throughout the world through the commitment of mayors who have a responsibility to protect their constituents.

    In 2004, the Mayors for Peace Emergency Campaign brought 16 mayors and deputy mayors from 12 countries to the United Nations in New York for the Preparatory Committee meeting to the 2005 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference (NPT). The organization is currently making preparations to have more than 100 mayors and deputy mayors at the 2005 NPT Review Conference. Their presence made a strong impact in 2004 and will undoubtedly make an even greater impact in 2005.

    The superb leadership of Mayors for Peace has come from its president, Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba of Hiroshima , and its vice-president, Mayor Iccho Itoh of Nagasaki. It is altogether fitting and proper that the leadership of this organization and campaign should come from these cities that suffered the devastating consequences of nuclear weapons dropped on them. We hope that the survivors of the bombings in these cities, the hibakusha , who are ambassadors of the Nuclear Age, will take particular pride in this World Citizenship Award and the efforts of their mayors for a world free of nuclear weapons. We also hope that this Award will help in mobilizing additional mayors to join in the global effort to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    It is my honor and pleasure to present the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2004 World Citizenship Award to Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba representing the Mayors for Peace.

    David Krieger is a founder and the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org)

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

    Conference Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    After extensive discussions, the conference participants concluded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Ending the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    Ending the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    Ozaki Yukio Memorial Foundation “Gakudo” Award Lecture

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

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

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

    Our Common Heritage

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

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

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

    The Glorification of War

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

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

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

    The Influence of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

    An Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

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

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

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

    The Crawford Summit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

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

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

    Policy Proposals for Japan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sadako Peace Garden

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Importance of Hope

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

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

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

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

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

    The Power of One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Memories of the Trinity Bomb, Reflections of the 7th Annual Sadako Peace Day

    Fifty-six years ago the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and the world was changed. Humankind lives the legacy of the events of the summer of 1945 in countless ways, great and small, personal and political. The end of the Cold War did not halt the fierce global race for more powerful armaments. And today, as citizens of the United States, as members of the world community, we face many great and grave decisions about the future, concerning missile defense, arms control and test ban treaties, the international proliferation of nuclear weapons and the development of, and trade in, weapons material, nuclear, biological and chemical. It is difficult not to despair of the overwhelming amount of work to be done.

    However, this afternoon, in a garden dedicated to children and to peace, I would like to put aside these daunting challenges and look to the sacredness of the small and the power of place to transform our lives. I am reminded of Mother Theresa’s statement, “We can do no great things, only small things with great love.”

    This is the seventh ceremony to be held in this garden, on these benches, dedicated to Sadako Sasaki, one of the millions of children we lost to the twentieth century’s brutal wars. This garden has come to have personal significance for me, and for many like me, who have found moments of inner quietude in the shelter of the Tree of Faith. My husband, Joseph, and I have come to the Immaculate Heart Center on retreat over the last six years, and I have learned many things from the Tree of Faith. Several years ago, I was looking at the very top, at the fragile new leaves opening there. And I realized that those leaves, growing from the majesty of this sturdy trunk and these strong branches, were as young, as fresh, as the smallest seedling growing in the brush. This was a lesson to me about history, about aging, about the past giving birth to the future. This regal tree delicately recreating itself through time- God’s grace at work in small things.

    So, this afternoon, let us renew ourselves, and rededicate our lives to peace.

    Several years ago, I realized that in order for me to deepen my understanding of what it might mean to invent a peace that has never existed in humankind’s history, I had first to deepen my understanding of the legacy of war in my own life. Thus, an explanation of the title of my comments is in order. Memories of the Trinity Bomb is the name of a Japanese documentary film about me and my search for the moral legacy of the atomic bomb, as the daughter of Manhattan Project scientists. Last fall, a Japanese documentary maker, Yoshihiko Muraki, read portions of my book, Atomic Fragments: A Daughter’s Questions, and was inspired to tell Japanese people the story of my quest in search of the personal meaning of the bomb in the lives of the scientists who created it.

    Mr. Muraki told me that there is a great gap between Japanese and American understandings of the atomic bomb. Japanese people, he said, see themselves as victims of the bomb, Americans see the bomb as having ended a brutal war. My words spoke to him across that gap, and he hopes that his film, which premiered last night on Japanese television, will be a step toward bridging understandings between our peoples-another small thing.

    This past spring, I spent more than thirty days with the Japanese film crew, traveling to Manhattan Project sites around the country, and to other places of personal and historical significance. The first place we visited together was the Trinity site in New Mexico, where the atomic bomb was first tested in July 1945. The last place we visited together was this garden.

    Although I was born four years after the end of the war, I do have very real “memories of the Trinity bomb.” I grew up with pictures of the Trinity test. My mother, with an undergraduate degree in physics, was an optics expert, and a member of the Los Alamos team that developed the photographic equipment for the test. I have a vivid childhood memory of studying the photographs of that test, famous pictures that many of you have no doubt seen, of the silvery bubble that was the deadly fire ball, expanding into the towering mushroom cloud.

    Then, three years ago, while doing research for my book, I visited Trinity. The site is only open to the public twice a year, and thousands of people came. I was alone among the crowds. At the obelisk marking ground zero, I witnessed a young Japanese woman weeping.

    As I wrote in Atomic Fragments, I was struck by the sacredness of the place, somehow representing not only the lives and deaths of the bomb’s victims, but the lives and deaths of all victims of war. I silently walked the great circle around ground zero, wondering if my prayers had the power to relieve past suffering.

    After Trinity, I drove up to Santa Fe. The next day was Sunday, and I walked to the cathedral, where mass was being said. Listening to the message of Christian loving kindness, I felt a lonely, deep despair. I could not imagine how, with all of our differences, it would ever be possible for the planet’s peoples to understand each other. How would the world ever be free of war? But following on that, I was graced with the smallest sense of hope. And at that moment, a nascent feeling, the conviction that there is something in our humanity that binds us together, was the only thing I was sure of.

    I never expected to visit Trinity again. However, when the Japanese film makers read my description of ground zero, they asked me to return there with them. There were eight of us at the Trinity site last April, along, with our military escort. There were no crowds, just eight of us, dwarfed by the desolate enormity of the stormy New Mexican wilderness and the memories imprinted on its landscape. I became aware that I was embarking, with them, on a new spiritual journey. They asked what I remembered, and what I felt. Again, I walked the circumference of ground zero, but I was no longer alone. I was accompanied, being observed, interpreted, and listened to.

    Our understandings of the place and time were very different. We were sometimes surprised by each other’s questions and observations, careful about each other’s feelings, judgmental of each other’s actions, and vulnerable to each other’s judgments. But in being there, in experiencing that place together, in examining the fearsome history that joins us, we consented to learn from each other, and in each others’ presence. Our understandings were filtered through our cultures, but by assenting to experience Trinity together, we were united in ITS space and time.

    The last place we visited together was this garden. I had written about attending the dedication on August 6, 1995, and Mr. Muraki wanted to film me here. So, in June, Joseph and I brought our Japanese colleagues, that they might experience its gentle refuge-a space so far from Trinity site. A tiny oasis capable of holding an infinity of prayers. I told them about the dedication of the benches on the fiftieth anniversary of Hiroshima, about Stella Matsuda’s Dance of a Thousand Cranes-Up From Ashes, which she performed in the chapel. I told them about returning here over the years, and even recited a poem I had composed one night under a full moon.

    And so we came to the end of our journey-thirty days together over a three month period. I do not know if, as Mr. Muraki hoped, the story of the daughter of Manhattan Project scientists will speak, in human terms, to the Japanese general public. But I am certain that during our difficult and gratifying time together we took steps toward each other.

    After filming here, we went to my home in Oak View. I motioned to Mr. Muraki that I wished to show him a little garden, sheltered by an old oak tree, where I love to sit. Mr. Muraki speaks some English, but I speak no Japanese. There were two chairs in different sections of the lawn. After some few moments of trying to communicate, I understood that he was asking me in which chair I liked to sit. I showed him. He sat down, and looked out at the mountains in silence.

    There he stayed for many minutes-longer than I had anticipated he would. He was making a gentle gesture, discovering a window into my life, and opening for me, a window into his. A small moment of peace.

    I would like to close by relating my earliest memory of A Thousand Cranes. But first, some background: At Los Alamos, my father worked on the electronics of the bomb’s trigger mechanism. During the war, he advocated a demonstration of the bomb to compel the Japanese surrender. After the war, he never again worked on weapons and dedicated himself to peaceful scientific pursuits, to political and social action, and to building relationships with scientists worldwide, particularly in Japan.

    In the early 1960s, he hosted a young Japanese postdoctoral fellow at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Dr. Wakuta stayed in the United States for one year, and every day of that year, at home in Japan, his wife and young daughter folded three origami cranes as a prayer for his safe return. At the end of a year, they had made one thousand cranes, and once back home, Dr. Wakuta sent the cranes to my parents. Although I did not discuss it with my mother and father at the time, I now wonder if the gift of a Thousand Cranes was not an allusion to the bomb, a gesture of reconciliation, a prayer of forgiveness.

    It is a gift I remember even today-a small thing. One thousand fragile folded cellophane birds of blue, yellow, red, purple, green, suspended in long strands from a flat woven disk.

    Sadako’s cranes had flown around the world. And they continue their flight today, recreated now and into the future, by our hands and our hearts, as we bind ourselves to Sadako’s dream of peace, her small act of great love.

    Mary Palevsky, Ph.D. marypalevsky@cs.com

    Atomic Fragments: A Daughter’s Questions University of California Press, 2000 http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8743.html