Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Human Rights

  • Service and Resistance

    In the 16 years the Center for Teaching Peace has worked with schools to begin or expand courses on peace education, one goal has been stressed: ideas first, then action. It isn’t enough to master the theories of nonviolence but do nothing to create the peaceable society. Unbalanced students result. They leave school idea-rich but experience-poor.

    The remedy? Service learning. Much praise is owed teachers who realize that as much can be learned outside the classroom as inside. Such groups as the National Society for Experimental Education are successfully making the case that classroom lectures, discussions and assigned readings should coexist with learning that results from involving students in well-organized community service.

    Often enough, service is the easy part. What’s difficult is making connections. Ladling soup in a homeless shelter is fine but it remains do-gooder slumming unless twinned with learning about governmental policies that allow poverty to persist for the many while wealth increases for the few. Building homes with Habitat for Humanity remains idle charity unless accompanied by knowledge about governmental and corporate deals that keep money flowing to build weapons but not affordable housing.

    Evidence exists that students are twinning public service with private resistance. One example is the Graduation Pledge Alliance by which college seniors about to enter the work world put ideals before dollars by taking a voluntary pledge: “I pledge to explore and take into account the social and environmental consequences of any job I consider and will try to improve those aspects of any organization for which I work.”

    Coordinated by Prof. Neil Wollman of Manchester College, a Church of the Brethren school in Indiana, the pledge was taken by thousands of graduates at more than 100 colleges last spring. It is a natural transition for service-minded students to ask about the ethics of future employers. How are their products or services benefiting society, if at all? What is the employer’s record on such issues as antitrust, race sex and age discrimination, pollution and animal abuse. In the company’s theology of capitalism, is worshipping the dollar-god the sole article of faith, with no heed paid to the victims of structural violence?

    This is genuine resistance. As a result of service, students have thought about the kind of humane world they want to live and work in, and are making the kind of demands to create that world.

  • Downwinders Eligible for Worker Compensation and Health Care

    As seen in media accounts posted onto Downwinders onelist, the Hanford offsite exposure health hearings were held the last week of January in Kennewick, Washington. Almost 200 people were in attendance.

    In spite of numerous requests, the Department of Energy has refused thusfar to hold site hearings (like the worker site hearings held over the last two years) on offsite exposures and health problems. This hearing was therefore convened by the Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

    The verbatim transcript and videotape of the testimony made during this hearing provide clear evidence of significant health problems amongst offsite exposed populations, as requested by the DOE. To many, of course, provision of further evidence would seem unnecessary, as many family members of nuclear workers, who themselves suffer today from cancers, autoimmune thyroiditis, other autoimmune disorders, and other serious health problems, testified during the DOE site hearings on worker health problems held over the past two years. This evidence of offsite exposure health problems, and serious health problems amongst Nevada Test site exposed populations who are not currently eligible for any kind of help within the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) is already out there. Why are we asked by the DOE for even further evidence to be provided?

    We want to be clear that we are very supportive of compensation and health care for those within the DOE nuclear complex who have developed cancers and other serious health problems which are more likely than not caused by their exposures on site. But, there are those exposed outside the site fenceline who have developed the same cancers and other health problems as have developed in workers, and who have been subjected to the same exposure health risk as workers.

    If these individuals were nuclear workers, rather than offsite exposed persons, they would be eligible under the new DOE compensation and health care initiative. To deprive these eligible individuals of government help based on the fact that they were exposed outside rather than inside the site fenceline is not only illogical but entirely unjust.

    EQUAL EXPOSURE HEALTH RISK, UNEQUAL TREATMENT

    THE TEST CASE: The only radionuclide for which “official” reconstructed doses have been provided by the government, is radioiodine, or I-131. Currently, estimated, reconstructed I-131 doses are available for those exposed to Hanford nuclear reservation historic offsite airborne releases, for Nevada Test Site atomic test fallout releases, and for Oak Ridge offsite plus Nevada Test Site I-131 releases, combined.

    It is for this reason, that radioiodine logically serves as the test case for inclusion within the DOE health care and compensation initiative, of offsite exposed persons who qualify within the eligibility criteria defined for that initiative.

    DOWNWINDERS MEET ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

    Under the DOE nuclear worker compensation and health care initiative, the exposure to the worker in question must fall within guidelines for determining whether the worker’s cancer was at least “as likely as not” to have been caused by his or her exposure on the job.

    The determination of exposure dose received for workers provides workers with a range of possible doses, when worker exposure records are not available. Eligibility under the new law requires that the specified cancer be “at least as likely as not” related to exposure on the job. This is based upon a reconstructed radiation dose at the upper 99% confidence limit of the estimate of probability of causation in the published radioepidemiological tables. Probability of causation refers to the probability that an exposure resulted in the cancer or other health outcome that a person now has.

    Where is the logic or the justice in depriving involuntarily exposed members of offsite populations (which includes, of course, those exposed to Nevada Test Site fallout, which contained I-131 as well as a range of other biologically significant radionuclides) of this compensation or health care if certain offsite exposed persons (“downwinders”) have cancers or any other health problems which are within the recognized list of health problems of the DOE nuclear worker initiative, and if these individuals also have reconstructed doses which, when translated to probability of causation, would qualify them for compensation and health care if these individuals were nuclear workers?

    These were involuntary exposures. These were very often childhood exposures. These infants and children were exposed before they even had a chance to say NO.

    People who were children in the l950s and l960s were exposed involuntarily to several significant sources of I-131:

    l. Nevada Test Site: (1951-1957) released 150 million curies of I-131, along with a range of other biologically significant radionuclides.

    2. Marshall Islands (l952-1958) thermonuclear tests released 8 billion curies of I-131.

    3. Former USSR- ( 1958-62) thermonuclear tests released 12 billion curies of I-131, much of which deposited globally.

    These doses must be added together, each within an uncertainty range, in order to obtain a person’s total exposure dose, for a particular radionuclide (in this test case, I-131). It is well known that one predictor of radiogenic thyroid disease is the size of the thyroid as vs the size of the dose. A baby’s or child’s tiny thyroid absorbs virtually all of the radioiodine over its decay time, delivering therefore a dose twenty times the dose to an adult thyroid.

    Note that radioiodine is only one of a range of biologically significant radionuclides released from local DOE sites, released within Nevada Test Site fallout, from Marshall Islands tests, and from tests in the former Soviet Union. All of these sources contributed to the overall dose, and exposure health risk to which people were involuntarily subjected.

    Thusfar, only one radionuclide, I-131, has been addressed by our government. There is significant danger than, unless the public loudly and repeatedly demands that the other biologically significant radionuclides be addressed as well, through government funded provision of estimated, added doses and health risk from exposure to these other radionuclides, that I-131 is the only radionuclide for which we will EVER have any sort of dose information. Dose information is required before dose can be translated into probability of causation for offsite populations who have existing potentially radiogenic disease. If only I-131 doses are provided (at the present time, Marshall Island and former USSR I-131 fallout doses have NOT been provided), those exposed offsite will forever be kept from the knowledge of their true exposures, and from knowing how those exposures may have damaged their health. Why should workers be given this information, and helped by our government, while their children, friends and neighbors who were subjected to the same exposure health risk, are left out in the cold?

    ALERTING CONGRESS, THE MEDIA, AND THE PUBLIC

    We must alert the media, Members of Congress, and others concerned with the welfare of people whose lives have been damaged by the legacy of bomb production and testing in this country, to the need to include offsite exposed people who meet the eligibility criteria for exposed workers within the DOE nuclear workers compensation and health care initiative, to the importance of providing these offsite exposed individuals (including Nevada Test Site exposed) with the health care and government funded help they need and deserve.

    These individuals exposed outside the fenceline have sacrificed and suffered for our country no less than those who were exposed within the fenceline.

    Trisha Pritikin

    Daughter of Hanford nuclear workers

  • Statement by the President on Signing the International Criminal Court Treaty

    The United States is today signing the 1998 Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court.In taking this action, we join more than 130 other countries that have signed by the December 31, 2000 deadline established in the Treaty. We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. We do so as well because we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of impartial and effective justice in the years to come.

    The United States has a long history of commitment to the principle of accountability, from our involvement in the Nuremberg tribunals that brought Nazi war criminals to justice, to our leadership in the effort to establish the International Criminal Tribunals for the FormerYugoslavia and Rwanda. Our action today sustains that tradition of moral leadership.

    Under the Rome Treaty, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will come into being with the ratification of 60 governments, and will have jurisdiction over the most heinous abuses that result from international conflict, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The Treaty requires that the ICC not supercede or interfere with functioning national judicial systems; that is, the ICC Prosecutor is authorized to take action against a suspect only if the country of nationality is unwilling or unable to investigate allegations of egregious crimes by their national. The U.S. delegation to the Rome Conference worked hard to achieve these limitations, which we believe are essential to the international credibility and success of the ICC.

    In signing, however, we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the Treaty. In particular, we are concerned that when the Court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the Treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not. With signature, however, we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the Court. Without signature, we will not.

    Signature will enhance our ability to further protect U.S. officials from unfounded charges and to achieve the human rights and accountability objectives of the ICC. In fact, in negotiations following the Rome Conference, we have worked effectively to develop procedures that limit the likelihood of politicized prosecutions. For example, U.S. civilian and military negotiators helped to ensure greater precision in the definitions of crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction.

    But more must be done. Court jurisdiction over U.S. personnel should come only with U.S. ratification of the Treaty. The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the Court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.

    Nonetheless, signature is the right action to take at this point. I believe that a properly constituted and structured International Criminal Court would make a profound contribution in deterring egregious human rights abuses worldwide, and that signature increases the chances for productive discussions with other governments to advance these goals in the months and years ahead.

  • A Victory for All Humanity

    We are gathered for this Citizens’ Assembly to re-commit ourselves to assuring that no other city will ever again suffer the terrible nuclear devastation experienced by Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It is time to build on the important work already done by the hibakusha, by Abolition 2000 and others, to create a full-fledged global campaign to eliminate all nuclear weapons from Earth.

    We are gathered here because the future matters.

    Nuclear weapons are powerful, but not as powerful as human beings. Nuclear weapons can only defeat us if we allow them to do so.

    Nuclear weapons have the power to create the final unalterable silence, but only if humanity is silent in the face of their threat.

    Nuclear weapons have the power to destroy us, but also to unite us.

    We must choose how we will use and control the technological possibilities we have created. We can choose to continue to place most of life, including the human species, at risk of annihilation, or we can choose the path of eliminating nuclear weapons and working for true human security. It is clear that nuclear weapons pose a species-wide threat to us that demands a species-wide response.

    Nuclear weapons are not really weapons. They are devices of unimaginable destruction that draw no boundaries between soldiers and civilians, men and women, the old and the young. The stories of the hibakusha attest to this. Nuclear weapons have no true military purpose since their use would cause utter devastation. We know the hell on Earth they created at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite this knowledge, some countries continue to rely upon these weapons for what they call national security.

    If terrorism is the threat to injure or kill the innocent, then nuclear weapons are the ultimate instruments of terrorism. They are held on constant alert, ready to destroy whole cities, whole populations. They are corrupting by their very presence in a society. They contribute to a culture of secrecy, while undermining democracy, respect for life, human dignity, and even our human spirits.

    Nuclear weapons should awaken our survival instincts and arouse our human spirits to resistance.

    The survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the hibakusha, have persistently reminded us that human beings and nuclear weapons cannot coexist indefinitely. The relationship is bound to end in future tragedies, if for no other reason than that we humans are fallible creatures and cannot indefinitely maintain infallible systems.

    We must have a global movement that joins with the hibakusha and builds upon their efforts to save the world from future Nagasakis and Hiroshimas. In doing so, we will save our human spirits as well. Nuclear weapons should awaken our survival instincts and arouse the human spirit to resistance.

    As we approach our task of seeking to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the arsenals of all countries, we must remember that there is no legitimate authority vested in governments to place the future of humanity and other forms of life at risk of obliteration. The authority of governments comes only from their people. Governments lose their authority when they become destructive of basic rights, including the rights to life, liberty and security of person as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Peace is not the province of governments. It is the province of the people. It is a responsibility that rests upon our shoulders. If we turn over the responsibility for peace to the governments of the world, we will always have war. I am convinced that the people know far more about achieving and maintaining peace and human dignity than the so-called experts – political, military or academic – will ever know.

    As far back as 1968, when the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed by the US, UK and Soviet Union, these states promised good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Although this treaty entered into force in 1970, the nuclear weapons states made virtually no efforts to act on this obligation. Twenty-five years later at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in 1995, the nuclear weapons states again promised the “determined pursuit…of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons….” Five years later at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the nuclear weapons states again promised an “unequivocal undertaking … to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals….”

    So far, all they have done is play with words and promises. They have shown no sincerity in keeping their promises or fulfilling their obligations. If we wait for the governments of the nuclear weapons states to act in good faith, we may well experience future Nagasakis and Hiroshimas. The abolition of nuclear weapons cannot wait for governments to act in good faith. The people must act, and they must do so as if their very lives depend on it — because they do.

    We are not only citizens of the country where we reside; we are also citizens of the world. Citizenship implies responsibilities. We each have responsibilities to our families, our communities and to our world community.

    As we enter the 21st century, we must accept our responsibilities as citizens of the world. I offer you this Earth Citizen Pledge: “I pledge allegiance to the Earth and to its varied life forms; one world, indivisible, with liberty, justice and dignity for all.” This pledge moves national loyalty to a higher level – to the Earth – and incorporates the principle aim of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that all persons deserve to be treated with dignity.

    The organization I lead, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, is committed to waging peace. We believe in a proactive approach to peace. Peace must be waged, that is, pursued vigorously. Peace does not just happen to us. We must make it happen. We must build effective global institutions of peace such as an International Criminal Court and we must strengthen existing institutions such as the United Nations and its International Court of Justice so that they can better fulfill their mandates. We cannot turn decisions on war and peace over to national governments. This is what led to World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and countless others. It is what led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The primary goal of our Foundation is the same goal that motivates the hibakusha of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It is the goal of abolishing all nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. It is, in my opinion, the most important responsibility of our time. It is a responsibility that should dominate the human agenda until it is realized.

    Our Foundation is a founding member of the Abolition 2000 Global Network and has served in recent years as its international contact. The Network has now grown to more than 2000 organizations and municipalities in 95 countries. It is one of the world’s largest civil society networks. It connects abolitionists across the globe. Its principle aim is to achieve a treaty for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Developing a strategy to achieve this goal is the Network’s most important task.

    The time is overdue for an effective global campaign aimed at dramatically changing the policies of the nuclear weapons states. In the words of Jonathan Schell, we have been given “The Gift of Time.” But time is running out. General Lee Butler has pointed out that we have been given a Second Chance by a gracious Creator, but there may not be a third chance.

    We need to focus our attention on a global campaign to awaken a dormant humanity. I would propose that this campaign must include the following elements:

    First, we need clear simple messages that can reach people’s hearts and move them to action. Examples might include: Destroy the bomb, not the children. End the nuclear threat to humanity. No security in weapons of mass murder. Sunflowers instead of missiles. A nuclear war can have no winners. Nuclear war, humanity loses.

    Second, these messages must be spread by word of mouth and by all forms of media, particularly the Internet. Basic information on the need for abolition and ideas for what a person can do may be found at wagingpeace.org.

    Third, we must have an easily recognizable symbol to accompany the messages. We already have this, the Sunflower. We must make better use of it. Sunflowers should be sent regularly to all leaders of nuclear weapons states, along with substantive messages calling for abolition.

    Fourth, we must enlist major public figures to help us spread the messages. We must use public service announcements as well as paid advertisements. We have already succeeded in having many leading world figures sign an Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity. This Appeal states clearly that “nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable,” and calls for de-alerting all nuclear weapons and for “good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons….” Signers include Mayor Itoh of Nagasaki and Mayor Akiba of Hiroshima, former US President Jimmy Carter, Harrison Ford, Michael Douglas, Muhammad Ali, Barbra Streisand, and 36 Nobel Laureates, including 14 Nobel Peace Laureates.

    Fifth, we must target certain key groups in society: youth groups, women’s groups, and religious groups. We must work especially to motivate youth to become active in assuring their future; to inform women’s groups of the threat nuclear policies pose to their families; and to alert religious groups to the moral imperative of nuclear weapons abolition.

    Sixth, we must provide an action plan to these groups. Each group, for example, could select key decision makers at the local level (a member of Congress or parliamentarian) and at the national level or international level (President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, etc.). The group would be charged with sending monthly letters and sunflowers to their key decision makers, particularly US decision makers, trying to persuade that individual to take more effective action for nuclear abolition. This would, of course, be a worldwide effort.

    Seventh, best practices and successes can be shared by means of the Internet, including our web site www.wagingpeace.org.

    Eighth, we must not give up until we have achieved our goal, and we must not settle for the partial measures offered by the nuclear weapons states that continue a two-tier system of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.”

    We must continue to speak out. We must find ways to compel large masses of our fellow humans to listen to the message of the hibakusha.

    We have a choice. We can end the nuclear weapons era, or we can run the risk that nuclear weapons will end the human era. The choice should not be difficult. In fact, the vast majority of humans would choose to eliminate nuclear weapons. Today, a small number of individuals in a small number of countries are holding humanity hostage to a nuclear holocaust. To change this situation and assure a future free of nuclear threat, people everywhere must exercise their rights to life and make their voices heard. They must speak out and act before it is too late. They must demand an end to the nuclear weapons era.

    Our dream is not an impossible dream. It is something that we can accomplish in our lifetimes. Slavery was abolished, the Berlin Wall fell, apartheid ended in South Africa. We need to bring the spirit of the hibakusha to bear on nuclear weapons. Our goal of a world free of nuclear weapons will be achieved by individual commitment and discipline, and by joining together in a great common effort. Achieving our goal will be a victory for all humanity, for all future generations.

    Each of us is a miracle, and every part of life is miraculous. In opposing nuclear weapons and warfare, we are not only fighting against something. We are fighting for the miracle of life.

    Our cause is right. It is just. It is timely. We will prevail because we must prevail.

    *David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. This speech was a keynote address at the Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

  • Signposts, Milestones to a Culture of Peace

    The subject I have been asked to address is one of optimism – “Signs that we are on the road to a culture of peace.” It is one that I can’t, with integrity, address entirely in that frame. Instead I would like to speak in terms of signposts, milestones and paving stones on the road to a culture of peace because it seems to me that for every sign of peace there is a counter sign of war, of conflict, of human violations.

    Actually, the state of affairs is more dismal than merely counter signs to peace.I think if I had to broadly define Western Culture, I could, without hesitation, say that we live in a war culture despite the fact that the majority of the members of civil society are not interested in being warriors. In the twentieth century alone, in the neighbourhood of “two hundred million people have been killed, directly or indirectly, in wars” – over twenty million directly in wars – in man-made violence.We live in a world where, at present, there are about fifty small wars taking place – a situation that is likely to multiply as populations expand, resources shrink, or are destroyed.Even though, western culture has a history of democracy originating with the Greeks, war has always played a defining part.However, I am not suggesting that violence or aggressionare innate in humans, but violence and aggression may be culturally determined. (Bookchin, 110, Weeramantry, 11)

    I am not a war historian – but it seems to me that beginning in the nineteenth century war, the number of deaths,- and deaths on a massive scale – and threats to civilian populations has progressively grown.I would suggest that the cause of this phenomenon coincides with the birth of the industrial epoch and its expansionist goals and is perhaps the root from which the unprecedented scale of violence emerges.The situation has been further exacerbated – and perhaps even caused – not only the development of technology but by the death of God defined as the “universal communion of man” and its replacement by worship of technology.There is little faith in resolving situations between people peacefully.The faith has been transferred to technology – peace kept by terror – a nuclear armed missile named “peacemaker,” for example; the concept of safety under the “nuclear umbrella”; protection enforced by Stars Wars, National Missile Defence System, the weaponization of space; and so on.

    We live in warrior culture in which we human beings, are engaged in a struggle to maintain our human dignity and to live in a peaceful and just society.

    Occasionally, individuals who epitomize this struggle, emerge, and as a consequence of their principled stands focus our attention on – and raise our awareness of – the forces of domination and destruction – knowledge and understanding that often has disappeared into individual and collective amnesia, in pursuing the day-to-day functions of everyday life. Individuals like Mahatma Gandhi, Vaclav Havel, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Nelson Mandela remind us of our humanity and our responsibility to maintain human dignity and to provide us with the energy and hope to continue on our road – or roads to a Culture of Peace:

    For there are two roads to be travelled concurrently.The first is a tough road – to fight against a system seemingly determined to annihilate us as it accumulates arsenals of weapons of mass destruction and maintains policies that could bring about their use; the second is peace-building – building a road to peace.The first is about survival, the second is about peace.

    The first road to be travelled is in the active pursuit of the elimination of nuclear weapons, and the mobilization of political will to ban the weaponization of space. At the moment, we have the ability to destroy ourselves and the planet in an afternoon.As well, we are already facing 21st Century weapons of mass destruction which bode ill for humankind and have the potential for destruction greater than nuclear war.

    Bill Joy, Co-founder and Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems wrote to me about the new technological weapons and asked me “to raise the issues of these technologies and support efforts to contain these new dangers”. Mr. Joy is concerned, first of all, because they “may empower nearly anyone to [commit] massively destructive acts,” and secondly, because these technologies could cause an arms race similar to that of nuclear weapons. These weapons – genetics, nanotechnology and robotics – are capable of runaway self-replication and destruction on a such a scale that, in the case of nanotechnology the biosphere could be destroyed within half and hour.”This is the first moment in the history of our planet,” writes Carl Sagan in”Pale Blue Dot” when any species, by its own voluntary actions, has become a danger to itself- as well as to vast numbers of others.” (Joy letter; quoted in Joy)

    Nuclear war, or war utilizing these technologies, is not war in the traditional sense.Nuclear weapons are not weapons in a conventional sense that can be used in a war where one side becomes the victor and the other the defeated Hans Morgenthau asserts that the concepts nuclear”weapons” and nuclear “war” are euphemisms.A nuclear weapon is “an instrument of unlimited, universal destruction.”Nuclear war is suicide and genocide. The control and abolition of nuclear weapons and these 21st Century technologies is essential if we are not to pass along, generation after generation, the intolerable threat of nuclear holocaust, or destruction from these new technologies, and if we are continue to exist in history.

    The second and concurrent road on which we must travel – and one we must travel in the shadow of extinction – We “walk through the valley of the shadow of death” (Psalm 23) – is the call to action and action itself, in its many forms, to work for global security, common security, human security in order to create a sustained world peace in which all people can live in their diverse cultures to their full potential.This entails an end to “unrestricted and undirected growth through science and technology”, an end to “perpetual economic growth.” – mindless production and consumption.(Japanese people have recently been criticized by their government for not consuming enough).

    One of the primary keys to peace is the amelioration of suffering in the developing world, the elimination of poverty, hunger, famine, environmental degradation, illness with AIDS emerging as a major threat.These issues can perhaps be attributed, in part, to the legacy of colonialism, playing some part in the root causes of the tribal, ethnic and civil strife.It is no secret that the countries of the developing world are of interest to the major world powers – the G-8(and before them the colonial powers) only in relation to their own economic gain.It is only where their financial interests are at stake will the powerful nations intervene – a prime example is the Gulf War when the oil supplies were endangered by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

    We recently celebrated the 100th Anniversary of the 1899 Hague Appeal for Peace Conference.The 1899 Conference is perhaps an appropriate defining point to measure how far we have come on the road to peace; to look for significant milestones that suggest we may be having some success in our struggle for a culture of peace; and signposts that will provide us with direction on the path to a peaceful future.

    By the time of the first Hague Conference there were over four hundred peace societies – the growth, development, sophistication of which, since then, I see as the most significant and most important progression on the road to peace.One hundred years later Cora Weiss, President of 1999 Hague Appeal for Peace managed to bring to The Hague, over 8,000 people from around the globe, representing many different organizations concerned with the need, and working in different areas, for peace.This is the future of civil society.

    The 1899 Hague Peace Conference emerged at the end – and because of – a war-torn century- at that time the worst in history.There are several views on the reason for the meeting in the Hague in 1899 and I think two of them, inconsistent though they are, provide a telling argument for the complexities in which we find ourselves, with regard to the peoples-of-the-world’s longing for peace.

    One view, expressed by Judge Weeramantry, a highly regarded former judge, and Vice-President, of the International Court of Justice, is that the world was sickened by the fact that during the 19th Century, the horrors of war had caused human suffering on a scale at that time unprecedented in history: new levels of efficiency had been achieved “in the regimentation of resources for the slaughter of enemy populations.”In response to the outcry and call for peace, the Czar of Russia, according to Judge Weeramantry, took the initiative, and the Great Powers met in The Hague and(I’ll quote him) “made plans to lead humanity to a golden future free of the scourge of war [and] went further along the path to establishing a machinery for global justice than any other conference in recorded history.”However, we have to acknowledge the abysmal failure of this dream with over eight-and-a-half million people killed less than twenty years later. (Weeramantry, 10)

    Another view, and equally valid, voiced by Geoffrey Robertson, a well respected international lawyer and Queen’s Counsel, specializing in human rights, is that the Great Powers met in The Hague in 1899 and 1907, and prior to that in St. Petersburg, with the aim of reducing “the cost of killing soldiers in wars.”The major powers, he says, met out of concern about the cost of new weaponry, and agreed on limits “on the development of poison gases and explosive ‘dum-dum bullets.”According to him, these rules “came to be dressed up in the language of humanity… due to the influence of the International Committee of the Red Cross”.However, the intention of the founder of the Red Cross, who was “horrified by the carnage left on the European battlefields”, according to Robertson, was, not to end war, but merely “to make these wars more humane for injured soldiers and prisoners.” (Robertson, 15).

    This marked the emergence of International Humanitarian Law which is one of the milestones on the road to a culture of peace.Humanitarian law, though, is war law – it imposes legal restraints on the warrior, the methods of killing.The modern rules governing the conduct of warriors which include rules on who and what can be targeted,”are now collected in the four Geneva Conventions.”However, according to Robertson “after a century of arms control efforts, commencing in 1899 with a peace conference in The Hague at which twenty-six nations debated whether to use dum-dum bullets, ends with 50 million Kalashnikov rifles in circulation and with no international rule preventing the use – let alone the development – of nuclear weapons.” (Robertson, 173, 167).

    The development of International Law, even though still in its formative stages and relying “upon equity, ethics, and the moral sense of mankind to nourish its developing principles,” can be considered a series of milestones or perhaps paving stones – because they create a legal ground, a code of conduct – on the road to peace.However, the problem with International Law is that it develops after the fact, after the atrocity, after the war, and we are reaching the point where such retrospective remedies become increasingly futile. (Weeramantry, 5)

    Most – if not all (perhaps all) – of the decisive actions and the creation of major global institutions concerned with freedom, justice and human dignity – peace – have arisen – like the phoenix – from the ashes of war, of death, of abominable acts of destruction.The League of Nations and the International Court of Justice emerged as a response to the horrors of the First World War. These two institutions, however, did not concern themselves with human dignity per se, for the League of Nations was created for developing and keeping peace between states. The International Court Justice has jurisdiction only over consenting states party to the Statute of the ICJ.Individuals had to wait for another war before their interests, the interests of the members of civil society were taken into account.

    Their time came with the birth of the United Nations – the response to the carnage of the Second World War and it is important to state, the evils, the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. This was in the minds of the drafters – and resonates in – the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.This is tremendous victory- another milestone – for human dignity, for global security, for a culture of peace.One of the Charter’s primary purposes-“respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms” – owes its prominent position to “last-minute pressure” from American non-governmental organizations on the American officials at the meetings in San Francisco in June, 1945. (Robertson, 32)

    Unfortunately for peace and human security, the power in the United Nations was – and is – vested in the victors of World War Two who became the five permanent members of the Security Council – the P-5 they are called – each with the power of veto.They are also the nuclear powers, and regrettably, hold the world in some kind of hostage.

    Another development from the Second World War – is The Nuremberg Charter, the response to the absolute horror at the unbelievably evil crimes of Hitler.This was another momentous step forward – another milestone – on the road to peace.Though there were earlier laws, piracy and anti-slavery which could be considered “crimes against humanity”, Nuremberg was the huge step forward for International Law.It changed, clarified and developed the concept of “crimes against humanity.”For the first time individual rights took precedence over sovereign rights and individuals who committed crimes against humanity on behalf of the states they represented were deemed responsible for the crime.Moreover, these states themselves were under a continuing obligation to institute legal proceedings and punish them for their crimes.If they failed to do so another state or the international community had the right to bring them to justice.

    Following the Nuremberg Judgements – almost fifty years later, however – two Criminal Courts were established on an ad hoc basis to punish crimes against humanity: the Hague Tribunal to prosecute the crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia and the Arusha Tribunal for crimes committed in Rwanda.And recently, in Rome, a treaty was drafted and up for ratification which will establish a permanent International Criminal Court.These must be seen as victories for peace – as milestones. However, it must be emphasized that crimes against humanity have been selectively punished according to the will of the United Nations Security Council.None of the victors have been put on trial for the razing, the carpet bombing, of Dresden and Berlin; for the firebombing of Tokyo, for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to say nothing of crimes against humanity committed in Vietnam.

    Moreover, the Rwanda massacre and the East Timor devastation could have been prevented but for UN Security Council’s -and above all the United States’ refusal to act.You will recall Stephen Lewis’s piercing indictment of U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright).My dream is that someday justice will be elevated to a realm above state interest, because to the detriment of justice, International Law is subservient to states parties to the Treaty; and the United Nations is a convenient tool, governed by the power relations in the Security Council.

    The latest victory for justice and human dignity was the Pinochet judgement which brought the crimes against humanity out of the zone of war and into the realm of “peace” – “peace” in the sense that it was not conflict between states. This would never have happened if, according to Robertson, Pinochet had decided to take tea with Henry Kissinger rather than Margaret Thatcher because the United States, which is a friend of Chile, would have issued Pinochet with a “suggestion for immunity”.In Robertston’s view credit it due to the British Government which allowed the law to take its course and to the English judges who, to quote him, “with an almost touching naiveté, took the Torture Convention to mean what it said.” [“With uncanny, uncynical decency, they proceeded to hoist the old torturer on his own petard”] (Robertson, 396,397)

    These are some of the milestones and signposts on the road to peace. But it seems to me that is atrocious and unjust that human beings are forced to carve their steps for peace out of, in reaction to acts of war and violence. There has to be some way to plant the seeds of a humane, just world in healthy soil rather than in the killing fields.

    Many or most of the actions to create a just world order, a culture of peace – and this is my most important point – a signpost – have come about because of the involvement and actions of civil society, of dedicated individual and groups.

    One of the most hopeful signs towards a culture of peace is the rapid growth of civil movements, of people and groups who are determined – to paraphrase a section of an Amnesty International call to action – to not “be part of the killing silence.”And another, for which we give thanks, is the accelerated development and expansion of communications technology, creating global networks which link non-governmental organizations around the world.Amnesty International, for example, has over one million members world-wide and there are 900 other non-governmental organizations defending and promoting human rights and hundreds and hundreds of others focusing in others facets of peace and justice, nuclear abolition, anti-war, health, education, environment, development and so on.

    A system parallel to the United Nations has grown up outside, alongside and synchronous with it – and often slightly ahead because these non-governmental organizations are not governed by power and politics. Their concern is respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.It is this moral force, which perhaps idealistically and naively, takes seriously the moral and ethical imperatives of the United Nations Charter and brings pressure to bear on the member states to act in the spirit of the Charter and to live up to their obligations under the various treaties, signed by them under the auspices of the United Nations.

    These non-governmental organizations are host to a wealth of knowledge, expertize, experience, energy and a principled value-oriented, ethical commitment.Their members come from many walks of life – some are lawyers, medical doctors, academic experts, former military officials, diplomats, weapons scientists and arms control negotiators; and religious and spiritual leaders who remind us of the dignity of the human, and of our responsibility for all life.

    Non-governmental organizations have created powerful global networks for information gathering and dissemination which have proven to be valuable to governments. Civil society has always played an important role in fact-finding, in the verification of information through the intelligence networks they have built.Citizen’s groups also focus attention on the issues and mobilize public opinion.

    When we look to past successes in our struggle for a humane world, the actions of members of civil society have played an immense role in the development of International Law.One of the most significant was the abolition of slavery; another was the concern articulated by the founder of the International Red Cross and supported by the outcry from the four hundred peace societies referred to earlier, which gave birth humanitarian law, albeit for war; there were the American non-governmental organizations (American Jewish Congress and the NAACP) whose pressure attained the primacy of “respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms” in the UN Charter.And Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch can take credit for most of the achievements in human rights law.

    The most significant action taken by civil society – in that it broke new ground by achieving its goal by linking with government- is the World Court Project.This project was initiated by a small group of individuals, who addressed themselves to the question of how to have the International Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction is based on consent, give an opinion on whether or not nuclear weapons, or the threat of nuclear weapons constitute a threat to humanity, a crime against humanity.This became a world-wide citizen movement which sought partnership with the World Health Organization and then because the Court refused the World Health Organization jurisdiction, with the government of Costa Rica.

    Building on a global coalition of citizens, the Canadian government, in 1997, forged a civil society/government partnership, to ban landmines which resulted in the Ottawa Process, a Landmines Treaty which the US, China and Russia, all UN Security Council members have, so far, refused to sign.

    The recent Treaty to establish an International Criminal Court is another important success-story for civil society and a step towards a culture of peace.Pressure from citizen groups, concerned with human rights, on their governments around the world resulted in its creation in Rome in 1998.

    Citizens protests against globalization at the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle and again recently in Washington at the World Bank/International Monetary Fund meetings are perhaps harbingers of change to address the global economic disparities caused by the unregulated activity of multinational corporations and the global currency markets.

    The nuclear abolition movement is undergoing a renaissance now that the Cold War is over, a Second Nuclear Age has set in, and new nuclear dangers are threatening the peace and security of the people of the world.The Canadian government, reacting to pressure from citizens’ groups, has in a small way attempted to create a civil society government partnership by establishing annual NGO/government consultations on the nuclear issue.It also included two NGO representatives on its delegation to the 2000 NPT Review Conference.At the conference Canada proposed the participation of accredited NGOs expert in this field.However, this was not acceptable to the majority of states.All that came out of the proposal was agreement that one formal meeting will be held between delegates and NGOs at which NGOs would make presentations to the delegates.This was mere formalization of a process that was already taking place.

    The United Nations conferences – Habitat, The Earth Summit, Women’s Conference in Beijing – which though excluding citizens from decision-making forum, gave the people the opportunity to mass in large numbers, network, create coalitions, bring the issues to the attention of the world’s public and create the ground for change in the interest of human beings.If Kofi Annan’s proposal for a Conference on Nuclear Dangers becomes a reality, then we will have the opportunity again to carve out a path towards a global peace.

    To me, the growth of civil movements, and evidence that they are going on the offensive, that their power is growing and they are demanding action and enforcement, is the most significant process, the most significant signpost directing us to the future – in the movement towards a culture for peace.

    We, the people, have to accept that we are responsible for all life, to create a world worth living in. We cannot trust our destiny to government nor can we trust diplomatic solutions.They are not just – they are all about sovereign power relations, statecraft.International Law is dependent on the will of states and subservient to States interests.An example of this is one I spoke about with regard to Pinochet’s bad decision to travel to England for his health problems, rather than the United States which would not have allowed the law to take its course. It is some comfort that the courts of Chile have stripped him of his immunity.Future perpetrators of crimes against humanity will perhaps hesitate, and current ones will perhaps tremble a little.

    I was outraged when I read that the US signed the 1977 Geneva Protocols on Genocide with a reservation that this did not apply to nuclear weapons; I feel angry that US will not sign the Landmines Treaty because it wants to continue to use them and their cluster bombs; and that China will not sign the Treaty to the International Criminal Court because of, it is suspected, its massacre in Tianamen Square.The U.S. will not sign it because it fears that its soldiers will be indicted.Recently, France, in an outright violation of justice for humanity, signed the International Criminal Court Convention with a reservation which will allow it to commit nuclear genocide with impunity.

    The U.S. prepares itself for a Third World War with tremendous investments in high-technological super weapons and the weaponization of space, and threatens world peace and stability with its proposed National Missile Defence System and potential abrogation of the ABM Treaty, its failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the resurgence of its nuclear doctrine as strategic to its defence policy and to NATO policy which has caused Russia to give new importance to nuclear weapons.All these actions have the potential to start a new arms race.

    There are some countersigns at the political and diplomatic levels – in the service of peace – for example, there is more emphasis on preventative diplomacy and conflict resolution; the UN has a peacekeeping force which, however, is merely operative to keep the peace once the mechanisms are established.Some governments, to name Canada for one, in the person of its Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, are attempting to affect a transformation from the military security concept to one of human security and to concern themselves with issues of the effects of war on children, on women and children in armed conflict, child soldiers, landmines and so on.However, I do not think that they are attempting to ameliorate, in a real way, global economic disparities, poverty, famine, health, education, environmental degradation which perhaps would address the root causes of war.

    The real signs for peace come from civil society, to the thousands of activities undertaken in the striving for peace – the paving stones – of hundreds of thousands of individuals around the world. In political circles these would be called Track II activities – you, the teachers of global education, for example, imparting tools for a sustainable future, peace education, conflict resolution and so on – grounding our young people in ethically based knowledge and practices.There is also a minor revolution taking place in alternate technologies, small scale economic and development activities, though these are in no way a counterweight to the massive technological developments.

    These activities are taking place in the shadow of death, because the peace we are attempting to create today is more the outcome of fear of our demise from either ecological devastation or from death from weapons of mass destruction.Peace comes to be a mandatory goal, the only possible route for the continued existence of the human species.These thousands of civil initiatives may be the ones that will help us turn back from the wrong road we have taken – to recover an image of human good, of, borrowing from Murray Bookchin, “complementarity” in Nature, “complementarity” in relations between peoples, respect for “Other.”

    There are two events which haunt me and which I believe in the long run provide a key to a more humane, a more just, a peaceful world.The first one is Charter 77.Charter 77 was not only a document, but also a human rights movement, in communist Czechoslovakia.In 1975 Czechoslovakia signed the Helsinki Articles, two Covenants on Human Rights.The signatories – initially three, Vaclav Havel, Jan Patocka and Jiri Hajek -announced that they would Live in Truth, that is to say live as though the government of Czechoslovakia honoured the treaty it had signed.In actual fact the Treaty was specifically non-binding so that the United States could then sign it without Senate consent, and also because it suited Russia’s purposes.Nevertheless, the signatories took this declaration at its face value, and acted as though the state of Czechoslovakia was honouring the treaty.Their action, though politically and physically dangerous (in Jan Patocka died after an extremely gruelling interrogation) proved to be extremely powerful in gaining international attention, in gathering international supporters, who pressured governments and ultimately pressure was applied on Czechoslovakia.

    Fifteen years later, in 1992, Vaclav Havel as elected President of a democratic Czechoslovakia, in an address to the World Economic Forum, said that”Communism was not defeated by military force, but by life, by the human spirit, by conscience, by the resistance of Being and man to manipulation… This important message to the human race is coming at the 11th hour.”

    The other event I referred to earlier, was the British judges who naively accepted that the Torture Convention meant what it said.

    It is the people who have the moral authority, the moral courage, and the naiveté perhaps, the idealism – us – who have the greatest chance of creating a culture of peace.To quote Mahatma Gandhi: “We must be the change we wish to see in the world.”

    Thank you very much.

    Jennifer Allen Simons, Ph.D.
    The Simons Foundation
    August 11th, 2000

  • When Good Comes From Bad

    Most of us go through difficult stages in our lives. Some of these difficult periods transform and enlighten our views of life. The devastating effects of family problems and civil war in my country helped me appreciate my existence and that of others in a positive way. I was born in Sierra Leone West Africa in 1980. During my early childhood years, my country was peaceful and I lived a satisfying life that was full of love, friendliness and happiness. Between the ages of nine and eleven, everything changed. My father and mother separated and a civil war began. When I was thirteen, the civil war that had already been going on for several years, came to my town and changed my life. During that period of chaos, I lost my family and wandered about alone. I had no inclination where I was heading, but the determination to find safety. After months of traveling, sleeping in the bush, and having to eat and drink what the forest provided, I arrived at a village that was occupied by the Sierra Leone Military Forces.

    Since I was in pursuit of food and protection, I felt that it was safe to be with the military who provided me with nourishment and a place to sleep. As a result of what I thought was generosity, my interaction with the soldiers grew daily. The misery that almost cost me my life awaited just around the corner. After months of staying with soldiers, rebels started attacking the village. The soldiers fought back day after day. They lost most of their men in battle. As a result of fewer soldiers, the rebels came closer and surrounded the village. The military was in need of people to increase their number. All the boys in the village were asked to join the army. There was no way out. If I left the village, I would get killed by the rebels who would think I was a spy. On the other hand, if I stayed in the village and refused to join the army, I wouldn’t be given food and would eventually be thrown out, which was as good as being dead.

    I was briefly trained in warfare and unwillingly became a child soldier. I will never forget being in the battlefield for the first time. At first I couldn’t pull the trigger. I was lying almost numb in ambush watching kids my age being shot at and killed. The sight of blood and the crying of people in pain, triggered something inside me that I didn’t understand, and made me lose compassion for others. I lost my real being. I lost my sense of self. After crossing that line, I was not a normal kid. I was a traumatized kid. I became completely unaware of the dangerous and crooked road that my life was taking.

    In fact, most of the horrible events that I went through didn’t affect me until after I was taken out of the army and put into a psycho-social therapy home years later. I had been demilitarized as part as an effort by UNICEF and entered into a rehabilitation center for former child soldiers. At the psycho-social home, I began to experience trauma of another kind. I had sleepless nights. Every night I recalled the last day that my childhood was stripped away from me. I felt I had no reason for staying alive since I was the only one left in my family. I had no peace. My soul felt corrupted and I was lost in my own thoughts blaming myself for what had happened to me.

    The only times that I found peace with myself was when I began writing song lyrics about the good times before the war. Through these writings, as well as the help of the staff in my psycho-social therapy home, I was able to successfully overcome my trauma. I once again rediscovered my childhood that was almost lost. I realize that I had a great determination to survive. Also my songs gave me hope. Fifty percent of the kids did not overcome their trauma.

    Fortunately, I was reunited with my uncle and started school again in Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone. At this point in my life, I developed a sense of appreciation for everything around me and became only interested in the positive outcome of every situation. I came to the conclusion that I survived the war for a reason. That reason was to fight for peace so that the tragedy that befell me would not continue to affect the lives of other children in my country and around the world.

    In 1996, I was chosen to represent the youth of my country at a “Young Voices” conference at the United Nations. I went back home after the conference and started working with the youth of my country. First I tried to enlighten them about their rights, then, urged the government to make sure that the youth would have a voice in the decisions made for them. But the campaign didn’t last long because the civil war escalated to the city. All educational, governmental and productive institutions were brought to a halt. It became very dangerous for anti-war people to live in the city. With the help of Laura Simms, a facilitator who I met at the conference, I was able to leave my country. She brought me to the United States so that I would have a better education. I am currently living with her as my new mother in New York.

    One of the lessons that I learned from the tragic events of my life, summed up in a parable of my country, is that “once there is life, there is hope for a better future.” I think that every human being should be aware of the possibility of change. I strongly believe all humans are positive beings and are capable of thinking positively. It is just that life brings us different roads to travel, in order to find sanity in ourselves. It is possible for everyone to arrive at this hopeful conclusion.

    If we think of the future positively, our actions towards that future will be positive. Everyone can make a difference. You don’t have to be rich or famous to do so. If one person can change the way they interact with other people, no matter who they are or where they are from, that makes a big difference. It seems to me, one of the main problems of our last century was the inability of individuals to get along with each other.

    Back home my elders said, “Sometimes good comes from bad.” It is true. It is also true that good come from good.

    The Lord Is My Shepard
    by Ishmael Beah

    I give thanks to God for always helping me to see the brighter side of everything. Even in the darkest time of my life when I almost gave up and thought life was over. God made me realize and see that I have a reason to live a life guided by him. The following are a number of verses which I have written from a longer song:

    The lord is my Shepard
    I can never be lost
    Even when this daily life
    comes to the worst
    I keep his trust in my heart
    Through all the darkest hours
    I am protected by his powers
    God bless me everyday
    even when I fail
    in this day to day struggle
    he helps me pave my way
    out of the troubles I face
    making my fears less
    so when I am stressed
    I take it as another temptation
    to test my motivation
    But I fight this competition
    between evil and good
    every day and every night
    I sometimes am deceived
    intense struggles I perceived
    raising my praises
    cause my beliefs get stronger
    so I no longer
    live like the Pharisees, you heard
    The God’s marvelous display
    keeps me safe
    even when I am lost in this place
    do not feel disgrace
    Because his grace is always with me
    once blind, now I see.

  • The Earth Charter

    PREAMBLE

    We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

    Earth, Our Home

    Humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life. The forces of nature make existence a demanding and uncertain adventure, but Earth has provided the conditions essential to life’s evolution. The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air. The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth’s vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.

    The Global Situation

    The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous-but not inevitable.

    The Challenges Ahead

    The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

    Universal Responsibility

    To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.

    We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

    PRINCIPLES

    I. RESPECT AND CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LIFE

    1. Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.

    a. Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings.
    b. Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and in the intellectual, artistic, ethical, and spiritual potential of humanity.

    2. Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love.

    a. Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.
    b. Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.

    3. Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.

    a. Ensure that communities at all levels guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms and provide everyone an opportunity to realize his or her full potential.
    b. Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

    4. Secure Earth’s bounty and beauty for present and future generations.

    a. Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.
    b. Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth’s human and ecological communities.

    In order to fulfill these four broad commitments, it is necessary to:

    II. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

    5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.

    a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.
    b. Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth’s life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.
    c. Promote the recovery of endangered species and ecosystems.
    d. Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.
    e. Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.
    f. Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage.

    6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.

    a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.
    b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.
    c. Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.
    d. Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.
    e. Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.

    7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.

    a. Reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used in production and consumption systems, and ensure that residual waste can be assimilated by ecological systems.
    b. Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
    c. Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies.
    d. Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.
    e. Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.
    f. Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

    8. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.

    a. Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing nations.
    b. Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom in all cultures that contribute to environmental protection and human well-being.
    c. Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection, including genetic information, remains available in the public domain.

    III. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE

    9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.

    a. Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.
    b. Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.
    c. Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and enable them to develop their capacities and to pursue their aspirations.

    10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.

    a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.
    b. Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.
    c. Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.
    d. Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

    11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.

    a. Secure the human rights of women and girls and end all violence against them.
    b. Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic, political, civil, social, and cultural life as full and equal partners, decision makers, leaders, and beneficiaries.
    c. Strengthen families and ensure the safety and loving nurture of all family members.

    12. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.

    a. Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.
    b. Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of sustainable livelihoods.
    c. Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfill their essential role in creating sustainable societies.
    d. Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.

    IV. DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE, AND PEACE

    13. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice.

    a. Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information on environmental matters and all development plans and activities which are likely to affect them or in which they have an interest.
    b. Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the meaningful participation of all interested individuals and organizations in decision making.
    c. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, association, and dissent.
    d. Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independent judicial procedures, including remedies and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such harm.
    e. Eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions.
    f. Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

    14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.

    a. Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.
    b. Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.
    c. Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges.
    d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.

    15. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.

    a. Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them from suffering.
    b. Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged, or avoidable suffering.
    c. Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted species.

    16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.

    a. Encourage and support mutual understanding, solidarity, and cooperation among all peoples and within and among nations.
    b. Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative problem solving to manage and resolve environmental conflicts and other disputes.
    c. Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration.
    d. Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
    e. Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.
    f. Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part.

    THE WAY FORWARD

    As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter.

    This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.

    Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.

    In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

    Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.

  • The Most Important Moral Issue of our Time

    There are many reasons to oppose nuclear weapons. They are illegal, undemocratic, hugely expensive, and they undermine rather than increase security. But by far the most important reason to oppose these weapons is that they are profoundly immoral.

    Above all, the issue of nuclear weapons in our world is a deeply moral issue, and for the religious community to engage this issue is essential; for the religious community to ignore this issue is shameful.

    I have long believed that our country would become serious about providing leadership for the elimination of nuclear weapons in the world only when the churches, synagogues and mosques became serious about demanding such leadership.

    The abolition of nuclear weapons is the most important issue of our time. I do not say this lightly. I know how many other important life and death issues there are in our world. I say it because nuclear weapons have the capacity to end all human life on our planet and most other forms of life. This puts them in a class by themselves.

    Although I refer to nuclear weapons, I don’t believe that these are really weapons. They are instruments of mass annihilation. They incinerate, vaporize and destroy indiscriminately. They are instruments of portable holocaust. They destroy equally soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm.

    Nuclear weapons hold all Creation hostage. In an instant they could destroy this city or any city. In minutes they could leave civilization, with all its great accomplishments, in ruins. These cruel and inhumane devices hold life itself in the balance.

    There is no moral justification for nuclear weapons. None. As General Lee Butler, a former commander in chief of the US Strategic Command, has said: “We cannot at once keep sacred the miracle of existence and hold sacrosanct the capacity to destroy it.”

    That nuclear weapons are an absolute evil was the conclusion of the President of the International Court of Justice, Mohammed Bedjaoui, after the Court was asked to rule on the illegality of these weapons.

    I think that it is a reasonable conclusion – the only conclusion a sane person could reach. I would add that our reliance on these evil instruments debases our humanity and insults our Creator.

    Albert Einstein was once asked his opinion as to what weapons would be used in a third world war. He replied that he didn’t know, but that if there was a third world war a fourth world war would probably be fought with sticks and stones. His response was perhaps overly optimistic.

    Controlling and eliminating these weapons is a responsibility that falls to those of us now living. It is a responsibility we are currently failing to meet.

    Ten years after the end of the Cold War there are still some 36,000 nuclear weapons in the world, mostly in the arsenals of the US and Russia. Some 5,000 of these weapons remain on hair-trigger alert, ready to be launched on warning and subject to accident or miscalculation.

    Today arms control is in crisis. The US Senate recently failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the first treaty voted down by the Senate since the Treaty of Versailles. Congress has also announced its intention to deploy a National Missile Defense “as soon as technologically feasible.” This would abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a cornerstone of arms control. The Russian Duma has not yet ratified START II, which was signed in 1993.

    Efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons are also in crisis. There is above all the issue of Russian “loose nukes.” There is no assuredness that these weapons are under control. There is also the new nuclear arms race in South Asia. There is also the issue of Israel possessing nuclear arms — with the implicit agreement of the Western nuclear weapons states — in their volatile region of the world.

    The Non-Proliferation Treaty is also in crisis. This will become more prominent when the five year Review Conference for the treaty is held this spring. Most non-nuclear weapons states believe that the nuclear weapons states have failed to meet their obligations for good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. More than 180 states have met their obligations not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. The five nuclear weapons states, however, have failed to meet their obligations for good faith efforts to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

    The US government continues to consider nuclear weapons to be “essential” to its security. NATO has referred to nuclear weapons as a “cornerstone” of its security policy.

    Russia recently proposed that the US and Russia go beyond the START II agreement and reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals to 1,500 weapons each. The US declined saying that it was only prepared to go down to 2,000 to 2,500 weapons each. Such is the insanity of our time.

    Confronting this insanity are four efforts I will describe briefly.

    • The New Agenda Coalition is a group of middle power states – including Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and South Africa — calling for an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states for the speedy and total elimination of their nuclear arsenals. UN Resolutions of the New Agenda Coalition have passed the General Assembly by large margins in 1998 and 1999, despite lobbying by the US, UK and France to oppose these resolutions.
    • A representative of the New Agenda Coalition recently stated at a meeting at the Carter Center: “A US initiative today can achieve nuclear disarmament. It will require a self-denying ordnance, which accepts that the five nuclear weapons states will have no nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. By 2005 the United States will already have lost the possibility of such an initiative.” I agree with this assessment. The doors of opportunity, created a decade ago by the end of the Cold War, will not stay open much longer.
    • The Middle Powers Initiative is a coalition of eight prominent international non-governmental organizations that are supporting the role of middle power states in seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Middle Powers Initiative recently collaborated with the Carter Center in bringing together representatives of the New Agenda Coalition with high-level US policymakers and representatives of civil society. It was an important dialogue. Jimmy Carter took a strong moral position on the issue of nuclear disarmament, and you should be hearing more from him in the near future.
    • Abolition 2000 is a global network of more than 1,400 diverse civil society organizations from 91 countries on six continents. The primary goal of Abolition 2000 is a negotiated treaty calling for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons within a timebound framework. One of the current efforts of Abolition 2000 is to expand its network to over 2000 organizations by the time of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference this spring. You can find out more about Abolition 2000 at www.abolition2000.org
    • A final effort I will discuss is the establishment of a US campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has hosted a series of meetings with key US leaders in the area of nuclear disarmament. These include former military, political, and diplomatic leaders, among them General Lee Butler, Senator Alan Cranston, and Ambassador Jonathan Dean.

    I believe that we have worked out a good plan for a Campaign to Alert America, but we currently lack the resources to push this campaign ahead at the level that it requires. We are doing the best we can, but we are not doing enough. We need your help, and the help of religious groups all over this country.

    I will conclude with five steps that the leaders of the nuclear weapons states could take now to end the nuclear threat to humanity. These are steps that we must demand of our political leaders. These are steps that we must help our political leaders to have the vision to see and the courage to act upon.

    • Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.
    • De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.
    • Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.
    • Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
    • 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 future is in our hands. I urge you to join hands and take a strong moral stand for humanity and for all Creation. We do it for the children, for each other, and for the future. The effort to abolish nuclear weapons is an effort to protect the miracle that we all share, the miracle of life.

    Each of us is a source of hope. Will you turn to the persons next to you, and tell them, “You give me hope,” and express to them your commitment to accept your share of responsibility for saving humanity and our beautiful planet.

    Together we will change the world!

     

  • Stop Using Child Soldiers

    “I would like to say to other child soldiers…please do not lose your childhood as well as your future.” -Abdi, former child soldier from Somalia.

    There are an estimated three hundred thousand child soldiers around the world. Thousands of children 15 years of age and much younger are recruited every year in countries where contemporary conflicts are uprooting them from their childhood. The considerable numbers of child soldiers make one pause to think that the world is being sucked into a desolate moral vacuum, an endless void where children are now exploited as armed fighters. Angola recruits children at 17 and Uganda at 13 years of age as volunteers. The situation is urgent.

    Child soldiers are considered to be all children under 18 according to Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In reality, child soldiers are children young enough to lift a rifle. In 1998 alone, there were 35 major armed conflicts where children were used as soldiers. Violent conflict has always made victims of non-combatants, but now, more and more, the combatants are children.

    Contemporary armed conflicts have increased the risks for children because of the proliferation of inexpensive light weapons, such as the Russian-made AK-47 or the American M-16 assault rifles, which are easy for children to carry and use. An AK-47, for example, can be easily assembled by a 10-year old boy. The international arms trade is largely unrestricted making assault rifles cheap and widely available in the poorest communities. In the Sub-Saharan area, for example, an AK-47 can be purchased for as little as six dollars on the streets. It is often suggested that too much money is spent for defense in both the developed and developing countries of the world, and that some of that money might instead be used to relieve hunger and to promote children’s survival and development. But, worldwide, many national budgets stay sharply skewed in favor of defense year after year. If security means the protection of our most precious assets, child survival should be high on the agenda of all defense departments. Why isn’t it? Perhaps in reality, the operational function of defense establishments is not so much to maintain the security of the country as a whole but to assure that the powerful remain in power. Rather than serving all their citizens’ interests, defense budgets serve the survival of the rich, not the children or the poor.

    How are child soldiers recruited?

    Governments in a few countries legally conscript children under 18. In the UK, teenagers who are 16 can enlist in the military for a three-to five-year-tour-of-duty. In the US, a 17-year-old can enlist in the Marines. In both countries these young soldiers can be sent to war zones.

    Even where the legal minimum age is set at 18, the law is not necessarily a safeguard. Child soldiers may be kidnapped or forced by adults to join an army. Others may be forced to join armed groups to defend their families and villages.

    Once recruited as soldiers, children are treated as adults. Children often serve as porters, carrying heavy loads such as ammunition or injured soldiers. Children are extensively used also as lookouts, messengers, and for common household and routine maintenance duties such as cleaning and assembling artillery. In Ugandan armies, children can volunteer at 13. They are forced to hunt for wild fruits and vegetables, loot food from gardens, plunder granaries, and perform guard duty.

    Most of the children in armies come from conditions of poverty. These conditions may drive parents to offer their children for service or sell them into slavery. Children are also recruited in areas where there is a high level of illiteracy among their families and a strong prevalence of violence and ignorance in their communities. Most child soldiers, for example, never go to school throughout their childhood.

    The enslavement of children into guerrilla groups is a serious issue addressed recently by an international labor group. In July 1999, the International Labor Organization (ILO) unanimously adopted Convention No.182 which prohibited and called for immediate action on the elimination of the worst forms of child labor, especially the “forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict.” The United States delegation to the ILO had opposed efforts to include a broad prohibition on child soldiers. Although trade unions and many governments supported a total ban on the participation of children in armed conflict, strong US pressure on the delegates to the ILO Convention resulted in the adoption of a much narrower, general prohibition on “forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflicts.”

    Physical, Psychological and Economic Harm

    Uncertain food supply and nonexistent health care are the worst economic consequences that wars bring into the reality of children on a daily basis. During the 1990s, an estimated two million children were killed in armed conflicts. Countless others have been seriously injured or have been forced to witness or take part in horrifying acts of violence. The shock, trauma, or Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTS) is generally not professionally treated immediately, if ever.

    Conflicts hurt children physically and psychologically. Children suffer the consequences of armed conflicts on their bodies because of the effects of maiming, torture, sexual violence or the multiple deprivations of war that expose them to hunger or disease. The psycho-social impacts of violence on children are as severe as physical wounds. Children respond to the stress of armed conflict with increased anxiety, developmental delays, sleep disturbance and nightmares, lack of appetite, withdrawn behavior, learning difficulties, and aggressive behavior.

    International law — The Geneva Conventions

    Humanitarian law focuses on situations of armed conflicts. Human rights law establishes rights that every individual should enjoy at all times, during both peace and war, such as the right to life, liberty and security.

    The international humanitarian law of armed conflict is reflected in four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and two 1977 Protocols. The Fourth Geneva Convention, relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, is one of the main sources of protection for children. It prohibits not only murder, torture or mutilation of civilians, but also any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

    In 1977, these Geneva Conventions were supplemented by two protocols that unite two main branches of international humanitarian law — the branch concerned with protection of vulnerable groups and the branch regulating the conduct of hostilities. Protocol I requires fighting parties in international armed conflicts to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians to ensure that the only legal targets of attack are military. Protocol II addresses non-international armed conflicts, that is to say, conflicts inside the borders of a nation. This protocol lists the fundamental rights of all who are not taking an active part in the hostilities, namely, the right to life, liberty and security of person. It also provides that children be given the care and aid they require for a normal childhood, including education and family reunion.

    Human rights law establishes rights that every individual should enjoy at all times, during both peace and war. The obligations, which are incumbent upon every nation, are based on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In formal legal terms, the primary responsibility for ensuring human rights rests with nations, since they alone can become contracting parties to the relevant treaties.

    Almost 190 states have agreed to the Geneva Conventions, making them the most widely ratified conventions in history. The majority of these states has also agreed to Protocol I and Protocol II. Although the United States has ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, it has not ratified the two protocols, objecting to the nature of these protocols.

    UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

    The Convention on the Rights of the Child focuses on situations of armed conflicts and the impacts on children. It was adopted by the General Assembly in November 1989 as the most comprehensive and specific protection for children worldwide. The Convention recognizes a list of rights that apply during both peacetime and war, such as protection of the family; essential care and assistance; access to health, food and education; and the prohibition of torture, abuse or neglect.

    Article 38 is known as the armed conflict article, but with regard to protection from recruitment it has little to offer. While the rest of the Convention is generally applicable to “every human being below the age of 18 years,” Article 38 makes a point of allowing children under 18 to take direct part in hostilities and to be recruited into a nation’s armed forces. It is all the more extraordinary because these restrictions are already embodied in international humanitarian law to which the article refers. Article 39 states that governments “…shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of…armed conflicts.” These articles, especially Article 38, call upon nations to respect international humanitarian law as a whole. On the other hand, these articles restate their provisions only on the age limits of a child soldier and, in actuality, offer no relief to an increasingly urgent situation. Three hundred thousand child soldiers — even one child soldier — are too many.

    The Convention: a commitment or a farce?

    In the ten years it took to negotiate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, many participating nations argued about the age limits. Both the United Arab Emirate and the United States did not want the minimum age for military recruitment to be 18. Currently the US accepts 17-year-olds with parental permission as voluntary recruits into the US Marines. According to the US Defense Department statistics, 17-year-olds make up less than one-half of 1% of all active US troops. The UK, which allows volunteer soldiers at 16 years, joined the US in its opposition. Some UK 16 year olds fought in the Falklands War and 200 were at the front in the Gulf War in 1991. The UK was even less ready than the US to make a compromise by raising the minimum age to 18.

    By the conclusion of the negotiations, the US and UK positions prevailed, and Article 38 stated that governments “shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.” The irony is that despite its winning many concessions from others in the negotiations and ultimately achieving its way on Articles 38 and 39, the UK signed and ratified the Convention in 1992, but has ignored its provisions. The United States still has not ratified the Convention.

    In a letter made public on December 21, 1998, a broad group of US leaders called on President Clinton to support an international prohibition on the use of child soldiers. The letter, identifying the use of children as soldiers as “one of the most alarming and tragic trends in modern warfare,” was signed by the leaders of forty human rights, religious, peace, humanitarian, child welfare, veterans and professional organizations. Signers of the appeal included Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll Jr., US Navy (retired); Robert Muller, President of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation; Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, General Secretary of the National Council of the Churches; Dr. David Pruitt, President of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Dr. William Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA; Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch; Bob Chase, President of the National Education Association; Randall Robinson, President of TransAfrica; Charles Lyons, President of the US Committee for UNICEF.

    The debate on age continues and more efforts have been made by other countries. In August 1999, the Nordic Foreign Ministers from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, signed a declaration against the use of child soldiers. In this declaration the Nordic Foreign Ministers supported an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulating that anyone under the age of 18 years not be recruited into their armed forces nor allowed to take any part in hostilities. This optional protocol has not yet been added to the Convention.

    On August 25, 1999 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1261 condemning the effects of war on children. The resolution strongly condemns the targeting of children and the recruitment of children in armed conflicts, but it does not call for a total prohibition on any recruitment or participation in armed conflict of children under the age of 18. Following the principles of international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court the resolution prohibits only the use of children under the age of 15 in armed conflicts because it is considered a war crime. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court “conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities” is considered a war crime. (Art. 8, XXVI)

    Rehabilitation of Child Soldiers: a Step Towards a Better Future

    In recent years there have been important international developments in establishing rehabilitation centers for ex-child soldiers. Rehabilitation centers now exist in Africa and Colombia. In Africa there is the Family Home Care Center in Lakka, Sierra Leone directed by COOPI, an Italian NGO, in collaboration with UNICEF and the Family Homes Movement. There is also the Reconstruindo a Esperança (Rebuilding Hope) Center in Maputo, Mozambique where a group of psychiatrists help former child soldiers re-enter mainstream society. In Colombia the Colombian Welfare Institute (ICBF) houses combatant children while awaiting openings in a rehabilitation center.

    The use of child soldiers is arguably worst in Africa. It is there, however, that the most progress has been made in raising the age of conscription to 18 and in involving ex-child soldiers in rehabilitation centers. The 1990 African Charter for the Rights and Welfare of the Child prohibits both recruitment and use of children under 18 as soldiers. It has thus far been ratified by only 15 of the 53 African countries members of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Among the 15 states that have ratified are Angola, Benin, Mozambique, Senegal Togo, and Uganda. Although the Charter came into force on November 20, 1999, Angola and Uganda are still recruiting children under the age of 18. Angola recruits children at 17 and Uganda at 13 years of age as volunteers.

    In October 1999 a Conference was held in Berlin on the use of child soldiers in Europe. The conference brought a new hope to the child soldiers issue. Its Berlin Declaration calls for the swift adoption and implementation of new international law prohibiting all participation in armed conflict of children under 18 years of age. However, the declaration was weakened by the refusal of a number of European states to adopt 18 as the minimum age for the participation in armed conflict — notably Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the UK. In addition, the UK intends to continue its policy of recruiting girls and boys at 16 years of age and deploying them at 17.

    Despite this, a gleam of hope has started to light the path towards change. The US Congress has already passed a resolution (S.Con.Res.72) introduced by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), which condemns the use of child soldiers, calls for greater support for rehabilitation and reintegration efforts for ex-child soldiers, and urges the US not to block a ban on the participation of children under 18 in the armed forces. The resolution was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on November 10, 1999.

    In addition, the UN Secretary-General Special’s Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Olara A. Otunnu, presently serves as advocate for children in armed conflicts and is recognized widely for his catalytic work with the United Nations and NGOs concerned about the child soldiers issue. Otunnu has been an advocate for child soldiers, who recognize in him a source of hope for their future. Otunnu has made an outstanding contribution to the protection and the rehabilitation of children involved in armed conflicts by informing and mobilizing international public opinion. He has made people more aware of the fact that the welfare of children affected by armed conflict is a priority issue for the entire world.

    It is uncertain if substantial changes can be made in a short time when the international debates center on legal age rather than on the humanitarian problems that these children have to face; but as Otunnu said in his report to the United Nations General Assembly on October 26, 1999, “hopes have been renewed by the extraordinary things done by ordinary people.” The efforts of these ordinary people, such as you and me, cannot be underestimated.

    There are many things that we as citizens can do to make a change and give more hope to solving the problem of child soldiers. These include: Join the US campaign to stop the use of child soldiers, by writing or calling the President, the Secretary of State and the members of Congress on this issue. Support the implementation of the Wellstone Senate Resolution. Cooperate with others in your community to publicize the issue of child soldiers in all media – newspapers, radio talk shows, and TV. Support the adoption of an Arms Trade Code of Conduct that would ban the shipment of conventional weapons to countries violating human rights and where light weapons can be easily purchased on the market by children. An Arms Trade Code of Conduct bill (HR2269) has been introduced by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). The bill is now held in the House International Relations Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. Support humanitarian organizations, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), UNICEF, Amnesty International, Free the Children, and Rädda Barnen (Swedish Save the Children), that unhesitatingly struggle to set the minimum age at 18, support the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and advocate demobilizing and reintegrating child soldiers into the community.

    The efforts of ordinary people can help renew the culture of peace in all countries. The culture of a country is very important and people who get together and combine their forces can eliminate the sources of violence that are nourished by the availability of light weapons, violence in the entertainment media, and tolerance of domestic violence, and other factors. A global change occurred when ordinary people helped to conduct the campaign to ban landmines, and now it is time to do something to stop the use of child soldiers. Do not let the opportunity slip away to give hope to these children. Believe in the power of one. Even if your voice may seem faint, do not hesitate to let others hear about this serious and urgent matter. You really can create change!

    Stefania Capodaglio was the first Ruth Floyd Intern for Human Rights at the foundation’s Santa Barbara headquarters. She is a student at the Catholic University of Milan.

  • Arms Trade Code of Conduct

    As of this writing, about 33 wars are raging across the world and 90% of their casualties are civilians. Over 25 million people have been killed in conflicts since the end of World War II. Yet rather than pursuing real disarmament, governments are spending over $2 billion every single day on armies and weapons. And regimes that abuse human rights are eagerly supplied by the world’s arms producers.

    A global Arms Trade Code of Conduct would prohibit the world’s arms producers, virtually all developed countries, from providing military assistance and conventional arms transfers to foreign governments that do not meet certain requirements. These requirements would include democratic governance, respect for human rights, non-involvement in acts of armed aggression, and participation in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, which was established on December 1991.

    Conventional arms include more than rifles and submachine guns. Also included are battle tanks, missiles and landmines. The conventional arms category is broad and ambiguous because it groups many types of dangerous weapons together under the category of “conventional” arms! Sensitive military and dual-use technologies are also included, such as telecommunications systems, sensors, lasers and sophisticated satellites that monitor and prevent unforeseen attacks from other countries. Also, military and security training for expertise in the use of such weapons, munitions, sub-components and sensitive technologies are considered conventional arms. All this can be supplied with little restraint to developing countries, some of which disregard democracy and blatantly abuse human rights.

    The United States is the world’s number one arms exporter. As a democratic nation, it has a responsibility to take the lead in curbing the weapons trade. In 1996, thirty three nations including the Russian Federation, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (but not China) signed the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Technologies. This agreement was an important step toward the control of the arms trade. The Wassenaar Agreement was set up to contribute to global security and stability by promoting “transparency” of arms exports. The Agreement requires clear and detailed information about arms exports and imports for each country once a year. The problem is that the Wassenaar Arrangement has been signed by only a few nations. The world needs a global Code of Conduct.

    In the United States, the Executive Office approves which countries receive military assistance and arms. Once a year, the President gives Congress a list of countries which will receive arms shipments from U.S. manufacturers. All U.S. arms transfer decisions take into account the multiple U.S. interests involved in each arms transfer. Sales are approved by the Executive Office on a case-by-case basis. All U.S. arms transfer decisions take into account certain criteria including; “Appropriateness of the transfer in responding to legitimate U.S. and recipient security needs”, “Consistency with international agreements and arms control initiatives”, and “The human rights, terrorism and proliferation record of the recipient and the potential for misuse of the export in question” (Criteria for Decision-making on U.S. Arms Exports, The White House, Feb. 17, 1995).

    Nevertheless, 85% of U.S. arms transfers during 1990-95 went to the nations that did not meet the proposed Code’s criteria. In fact, they went to the Middle East (Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Israel and Lebanon) and to 43 of the 53 countries in Africa, the continent with the most violent conflicts. In President Clinton’s first term, over two-thirds of all arms Wes agreements with the Third World went to dictatorships which are still violating human rights. In 19917 Clinton approved $83 billion in military assistance to dictatorships, an all-time record even during the Cold War years.

    More than half of U.S. weapons sales are now being financed by taxpayers instead of foreign arms purchasers. During fiscal year 1996, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in agreements for new international arms sales. The largest single subsidy program for U.S. weapons exporters is the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. Another Pentagon’s subsidy is the Defense Export Loan Guarantee (DELG) fund. Furthermore the Pentagon has also been leasing or giving away massive quantities of highly capable U.S. weapons that have been declared “surplus” relative to current needs. In addition to Pentagon programs, other agencies provide subsidies for sales of weapons. After the Pentagon’s FMF program, the second largest subsidy comes from the Economic Support Funds (ESF) program administered by the Agency for International Development. The “Dual Use” Funding of the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) is another source of funding for military exports. In addition the Senate and House Armed Services Committees are working hard to increase the Pentagon spending encouraged by the “Big Three’ weapons contractors — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon.

    Besides the United States, there are other countries that export conventional arms to countries violating human rights. France, for example, sent arms to Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates and Rwanda. Human Rights Watch and media reports indicate that the French government continued to supply arms to Rwanda for at least two months after international news reports of genocide became public knowledge and after the imposition of an international arms embargo on May 17, 1994. Later, during hearings in March-June 1998, Bernard Debré, who was France’s Minister of Cooperation in 1994, acknowledged that the French government had continued to supply arms to the Rwandan government “ten days after the massacres started,” explaining lamely that this was “because France didn’t immediately realize what was happening.”

    Sales of conventional arms bolster repressive dictatorships at the expense of the poor. In Togo and Rwanda, populations are crying out for schools and doctors, not for guns and military training. In July 1999 more than 100 bodies were found along the coastline of West Africa just after Togo’s June elections, during which opposition party members allegedly were shot and dumped into the sea. Their bodies washed up on the shores of neighboring Benin. They were killed with conventional arms, in this case, rifles or hand guns. Throughout sub-Saharan Africa, the AK-47 assault rifle can be purchased on the black market for as little as $6.

    Jose Ramos-Horta, a Nobel Peace Laureate form East Timor”, was affected personally by the danger of arms sales. In August 1977 his 21-year old sister, Maria Ortencia, along with at least 20 young children in a remote village in East Timor, were killed by Indonesian Air Force pilots. His sister and these children were only a few of more than 200,000 civilians who were killed in East Timor from December 1975, when Indonesia invaded and illegally annexed the newly independent land, to 1979. Indonesia waged this war — and continues to wage this war — using an arsenal of weapons imported from the United States and Europe.

    Nevertheless, there are still some people who think that an Arms Trade Code of Conduct is not necessary. Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), for example, believes that a Code of Conduct “hamstrings the President of the United States in his conducting of foreign policy.” He argues, “If anybody believes that a country that wants to buy weaponry is going to not buy it simply because they cannot buy them from the United States, they are just barking up the wrong tree.” Congressman Mat Salmon (R-AZ) declared that the Code of Conduct is “not about human rights, and is not about foreign policy. This … is about a philosophical difference that exists within the Congress.” I wonder if Jose Ramos-Horta believes that the Arms Trade Code of Conduct is only a big philosophical pillow-fight in Congress!

    There is a boomerang effect on U.S. interests, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) explained, citing that the U.S. spends twice as much to fight against countries like Yugoslavia, which was initially armed by U.S. arms exporters. McKinney is the Sponsor of the Code of Conduct bill (HR2269), a bill now pending (Nov 99) in the House International Relations Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. (Contact your legislator)

    There are a growing number of people who agree with the establishment of a global Arms Trade Code of Conduct, people who have a very realistic view of the world. Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica and 1987 Nobel Peace Prize winner, argues against a “military-dominated mind-set that prevailed throughout the Cold War.” He also states, “It is embarrassing that five permanent members of the UN Security Council are responsible for the largest quantity of arms sales to the developing world. The very countries that should be maintaining world peace and security are the ones most responsible for promoting war and insecurity by producing and selling weapons.”

    I believe that the United States now has an unprecedented opportunity to take the lead in this international effort. In my opinion, if the U.S. leads the way for the establishment of a Code of Conduct, other arms exporters will follow.

    In 1994 alone, the U.S. taxpayer paid more to subsidize weapons sales than they paid for elementary and secondary education programs. The original meaning of the word “subsidize” derives from the Latin word subsidium which means to help each other. To spend billions in weapons subsidies and billions more to fight against soldiers armed with these same weapons is simply bad policy. I agree with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who pointed out, “All of us whose nations sell such weapons, or through whose nations the traffic flows, bear some responsibility for turning a blind eye to the destruction they cause. And all of us have it in our power to do something in response.” U.S. foreign policy should mirror this statement and reduce weapons sales in order to establish programs that will benefit not only U.S. citizens but also citizens of the global community.

    * Stefania Capodaglio was the 1999 Ruth Floyd Intern in International Law and Human Rights at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation headquarters in Santa Barbara, California. Presently she is completing a Political Science degree at the Catholic University of Milan, Italy.