Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: International Issues

The Arms Trade Treaty Opens New Possibilities at the UN

This article was originally published by Cadmus Journal.

On 2 April, 2013, the Arms Trade Treaty, which had been blocked for ten years in the consensus-bound Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, was put directly before the United Nations General Assembly, and was passed by a massive majority. This historic victory opens new possibilities for progress on other seemingly intractable issues. In particular, it gives hope that a Nuclear Weapons Convention might be adopted by a direct vote on the floor of the General Assembly. The adoption of the NWC, even if achieved against the bitter opposition of the nuclear weapon states, would make it clear that the world’s peoples consider the threat of an all-destroying thermonuclear war to be completely unacceptable.

Other precedents can be found in the International Criminal Court and the Ottawa Land Mine Treaty, both of which were adopted despite the vehement opposition of militarily powerful states. The Arms Trade Treaty, the ICC and the Land Mine Treaty all represent great steps forward. Although they may function imperfectly because of powerful opposition, they make the question of legality clear. In time, world public opinion will force aggressor states to follow international law.

On April 2, 2013, a historic victory was won at the United Nations, and the world achieved its first treaty limiting international trade in arms. Work towards the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) began in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, which requires a consensus for the adoption of any measure. Over the years, the consensus requirement has meant that no real progress in arms control measures has been made in Geneva, since a consensus among 193 nations is impossible to achieve.

To get around the blockade, British U.N. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant sent the draft treaty to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and asked him on behalf of Mexico, Australia and a number of others to put the ATT to a swift vote in the General Assembly, and on Tuesday, April 3, it was adopted by a massive majority.

Among the people who have worked hardest for the ATT is Anna Macdonald, Head of Arms Control at Oxfam. The reason why Oxfam works so hard on this issue is that trade in small arms is a major cause of poverty and famine in the developing countries. On April 9, Anna Macdonald wrote:

“Thanks to the democratic process, international law will for the first time regulate the $70 billion global arms trade. Had the process been launched in the consensus-bound Conference on Disarmament in Geneva currently in its 12th year of meeting without even being able to agree an agenda, chances are it would never have left the starting blocks. Striving for consensus is, of course, sensible. The problem is that it can lead to a lowest-common-denominator approach. The balance of power shifts to those, often the minority, who oppose an issue, because all the effort goes into trying to persuade them not to bring everything to a shuddering halt. Tuesday, April 2, was a good day for the U.N. It showed that things can get done. It showed that the democratic process can work. And it set an important precedent. Does it make any difference, legally, that the treaty was adopted by vote, not consensus? No. It is the same text as on the final day of negotiations, and its legal status is the same as if it had been agreed by consensus. But it should give hope to those working on other seemingly intractable issues that you can change the rules of the game and make progress.”

I think that the point made by Anna Macdonald is an enormously important one. The success achieved by moving discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty from the Conference on Disarmament to the UN General Assembly points the way to progress on many other issues, especially the adoption of a Nuclear Weapons Convention. In my opinion, it is highly desirable to make a motion for the adoption of a Nuclear Weapons Convention on the floor of the General Assembly, following exactly the same procedure as was followed with the ATT. If this is done, the NWC (a draft of which is already prepared) would certainly be adopted by a large majority.

It might be objected that the nuclear weapon states would be offended by this procedure, but I believe that they deserve to be offended, since the threat or use of nuclear weapons is illegal according to the 1996 ruling of the International Court of Justice, and in fact the threat or use of force in international relations is a violation of the UN Charter. The adoption of the NWC would make clear the will of the great majority of the world’s peoples, who consider the enormous threat which nuclear war poses to human civilization and the biosphere to be completely unacceptable.

It is not only the ATT that forms a precedent, but also the International Criminal Court, whose establishment was vehemently opposed by several militarily powerful states. Nevertheless, the ICC was adopted because a majority of the peoples of the world believed it to be a step forward towards a stable, peaceful and just global society.

In 1998, in Rome, representatives of 120 countries signed a statute establishing the International Criminal Court, with jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

Four years were to pass before the necessary ratifications were gathered, but by Thursday, April 11, 2002, 66 nations had ratified the Rome agreement, 6 more than the 60 needed to make the court permanent. It would be impossible to overstate the importance of the International Criminal Court. At last, international law acting on individuals has become a reality! The only effective and just way that international laws can act is to make individuals responsible and punishable, since (in the words of Alexander Hamilton), “To coerce states is one of the maddest projects ever devised.”

Although the ICC is in place, it has the defect that since it is opposed by powerful states, it functions very imperfectly. Should the Nuclear Weapons Convention be adopted by the UN General Assembly despite the opposition of the nuclear weapon states, it would have the same defect. It would function imperfectly because despite the support of the vast majority of the world’s peoples, a few powerful opponents would remain.

Another precedent can be found in the Antipersonnel Land-Mine Convention, also known as the Ottawa Treaty. In 1991, six NGOs organized the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, and in 1996, the Canadian government launched the Ottawa process to ban landmines by hosting a meeting among like-minded anti-landmine states. A year later, in 1997, the Mine Ban Treaty was adopted and opened for signatures. In the same year, Jody Williams and the International Campaign to ban Landmines were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. After the 40th ratification of the Mine Ban Treaty in 1998, the treaty became binding international law on the 1st of March, 1999.

The adoption of an Arms Trade Treaty is a great step forward; the adoption of the ICC, although its operation is imperfect, is also a great step forward, and likewise, the Antipersonnel Land-Mine Convention is a great step forward. In my opinion, the adoption of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, even in the face of powerful opposition, would also be a great step forward. When the will of the majority of the world’s peoples is clearly expressed in an international treaty, even if the treaty functions imperfectly, the question of legality is clear. Everyone can see which states are violating international law. In time, world public opinion will force the criminal states to conform to the law.

In the case of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, world public opinion would especially have great force. It is generally agreed that a full-scale nuclear war would have disastrous effects, not only on belligerent nations but also on neutral countries. Mr. Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, emphasized this point in one of his speeches:

“I feel”, he said, “that the question may justifiably be put to the leading nuclear powers: by what right do they decide the fate of humanity? From Scandinavia to Latin America, from Europe and Africa to the Far East, the destiny of every man and woman is affected by their actions. No one can expect to escape from the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war on the fragile structure of this planet. …”

“No ideological confrontation can be allowed to jeopardize the future of humanity. Nothing less is at stake: today’s decisions affect not only the present; they also put at risk succeeding generations. Like supreme arbiters, with our disputes of the moment, we threaten to cut off the future and to extinguish the lives of innocent millions yet unborn. There can be no greater arrogance. At the same time, the lives of all those who lived before us may be rendered meaningless; for we have the power to dissolve in a conflict of hours or minutes the entire work of civilization, with all the brilliant cultural heritage of humankind.”

“…In a nuclear age, decisions affecting war and peace cannot be left to military strategists or even to governments. They are indeed the responsibility of every man and woman. And it is therefore the responsibility of all of us… to break the cycle of mistrust and insecurity and to respond to humanity’s yearning for peace.”

The eloquent words of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar express the situation in which we now find ourselves: Accidental nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, insanity of a person in a position of power, or unintended escalation of a conflict, could at any moment plunge our beautiful world into a catastrophic thermonuclear war which might destroy not only human civilization but also much of the biosphere.

We are reminded that such a disaster could occur at any moment by the threat of an attack by Israel on Iran and by the threat of an all-destroying nuclear war started by the conflict in the Korean Peninsula. It is clear that if the peoples of the world do not act quickly to abolish nuclear weapons, neither we nor our children nor our grandchildren have much chance of survival.

John Avery is a leader in the Pugwash movement in Denmark.

June 6, 2013
Fueling the Fire in North Korea

Santa Barbara, CA – While tensions appear to have eased between North Korea and the U.S. in the past few weeks, the U.S.- North Korean nuclear crisis is not over. Any overt action by either country could easily reignite an already volatile and dangerous situation.

It is in this context that later this month, on May 21, the U.S. plans to launch a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, 4,200 miles away. The test was originally scheduled for early April, at the height of the current U.S.-North Korea nuclear crisis. At that time, U.S. officials postponed the test, stating they did not want to provoke a response from North Korea.

So one must ask, has anything truly changed between North Korea and the U.S. since early April? Is a missile launch really any less provocative now than it was then? The answer is clearly that missile testing remains provocative. The posturing and exchanges that the world has been witnessing are capable of spiraling out of control and resulting in nuclear war today, just as they were a month ago.

David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, said, “The testing of a Minuteman III nuclear missile at this time is a clear example of U.S. double standards. The government believes that it is fine for the U.S. to test-fire these missiles when we choose to do so, while expressing criticism when other countries conduct missile tests. Clearly U.S. leaders would be highly critical if North Korea were to conduct a long-range missile test, now or at any time. We seem to have a blind spot in our thinking about our own tests. Such double standards encourage nuclear proliferation and make the world a more dangerous place.”

One must also consider that each missile test is a clear reminder of the United States’ continued reliance on nuclear weapons in spite of proclamations by the Obama administration of the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. Nor should one overlook the tens of millions of dollars spent on each missile test at a time when the U.S. economic recovery is still weighing in the balance.

Clearly this upcoming long-range missile test is more than just a test. It is a provocative move in a nuclear war game. A game where there is no winner.
# # #

For further comment, contact Rick Wayman, Director of Programs of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, at rwayman@napf.org or (805) 965-3443. Outside of regular office hours, please contact Rick Wayman at (805) 696-5159.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation — The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations. For more information, visitwww.wagingpeace.org.

May 16, 2013
References to Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons and a Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons

This list does not include references from statements delivered in Arabic or Russian. Full statements available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org.

Individual statements

Algeria

24 April: “The conference held in Oslo in March on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons served once again to provide evidence of the devastating, long-term, irreversible effects of nuclear weapons.” (translation)

Argentina

4 April: “Finally, we reiterate the importance our country places on initiatives concerning the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in the context of the disarmament and non-proliferation regime. In this regard, we reiterate the firm commitment of Argentina to these initiatives, remembering that the ultimate end goal in these areas is liberation from the scourge of nuclear weapons for all mankind.” (translation)

Austria

24 April: “Austria is of the view that the discourse about nuclear weapons needs to be fundamentally changed. We will only manage the challenges posed by nuclear weapons if we move away from a debate that is still dominated by outdated military security concepts originating from cold war enemy and threat perceptions. Instead, we need to draw conclusions from our common understanding that any use of nuclear weapons would cause catastrophic consequences and be devastating in its effects for the whole world and all of humankind. The conference that took place on the topic of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in Oslo in March was an important milestone in developing this discourse further and we look forward to continuing these discussions on future occasions.”

25 April: “Austria is convinced that it is necessary and overdue to put the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at the center of our debate, including in the NPT. Nuclear weapons are not just a security policy issue for a few states but an issue of serious concern for the entire international community. The humanitarian, environmental, health, economic and developmental consequences of any nuclear weapons explosion would be devastating and global and any notion of adequate preparedness or response is an illusion.”

“We are highly appreciative that the government of Norway provided the international community with an opportunity for an in-depth and enlightening discussion on this important topic. The discourse needs to be furthered. We look forward to the follow-up conference in Mexico and to other future occasions. Austria was pleased to participate in and contribute to the joint statement that was delivered by South Africa on behalf of over 70 states yesterday.”

“I would like to stress that in Austria’s view, a key motivation behind the NPT and the entire nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime is the humanitarian imperative: to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, to eliminate this existential threat from the face of the earth and to make sure that unacceptable humanitarian consequences from these weapons do not occur. Arguments that this discourse may in any way distract or divert from the NPT implementation are therefore unconvincing and misguided.”

Australia

22 April: “Australia remains deeply concerned by the risk for humanity represented by the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used and the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from their use. The discussions at the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo this year, in which Australia participated, illustrated once more the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects of a nuclear weapon detonation. This is why we strive to realise the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, including through implementation of the 2010 Action Plan. Australia welcomes the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

25 April: “Australia acknowledges South Africa’s contribution to this meeting through its statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. As we noted in our general debate statement, the discussions at the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo this year, in which Australia participated, illustrated once more the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects of a nuclear weapon detonation … Australia welcomes the offer of fellow NPDI member Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

Bangladesh

23 April: “We remain deeply concerned about the possible catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. We support the process that began in Oslo recently to address the issue. Furthermore, realizing the goals of disarmament could benefit us with both peace and development dividends, by saving millions of lives and diverting our valuable resources from armament to addressing pressing development needs.”

Belgium

23 April: “Belgium repeatedly expressed deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and reaffirmed the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law, while [being] convinced that every effort should be made to avoid nuclear war and nuclear terrorism.”

Brazil

23 April: “Brazil welcomed the Norwegian initiative to convene the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of a Nuclear Weapon Detonation. This issue is an important component of the NPT and we very much regret that the NWS decided not to be represented at the event. We look forward to their revisiting this position with respect to the follow-up Conference, to be held in Mexico. We also look forward to further impetus being given to the international movement to delegitimize the very existence of nuclear weapons.”

Canada

25 April: “Canada shares the concern expressed in South Africa’s earlier statement about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from the use of nuclear weapons. Canada welcomed the March 2013 conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Oslo, as an opportunity for valuable fact-based discussions on these consequences and on humanitarian preparedness for a nuclear weapons detonation. We welcome the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

Chile

23 April: “Article VI [of the NPT], which requires nuclear disarmament and the elaboration of a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, has not been implemented.”

“The Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons showed that there is no possibility of preparation against an offensive nuclear weapon detonation … this reality should be reflected in this process.” (translation)

China

22 April: “China has always stood for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, and [has] actively promoted the establishment of a world free of nuclear weapons.”

WP.29: “The complete prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons, getting rid of the danger of nuclear war and the attainment of a nuclear-weapon-free world, serve the common interests and benefits of humankind.”

“For the attainment of the ultimate goal of general and comprehensive nuclear disarmament, the international community should develop, at the appropriate juncture, a viable long-term plan comprising phased actions, including the conclusion of a convention on the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons.”

Costa Rica

23 April: “Costa Rica and Malaysia have presented a model nuclear weapons convention. This proposal prohibits the use, threat of use, possession, development, testing, deployment and transfer of nuclear weapons and provides a phased program for the elimination of these weapons under effective international control. We believe this could be a starting point for negotiations to create an instrument capable of strengthening confidence in verification and ensuring the supervision of the dismantling and final reduction of nuclear stockpiles.”

“We express our appreciation to [OPANAL] for its work for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, in particular the Declaration of Member States in which they express their conviction to join the efforts of the international community to move towards negotiation of a universal instrument banning nuclear weapons.”

“We cannot fail to mention the humanitarian impact that a nuclear explosion would cause. We fully endorse the joint statement read by South Africa. In 2012 we joined a similar statement both in Vienna and in the First Committee. A few weeks ago in Oslo, we found that it is not possible to prepare for a nuclear explosion and that the consequences of that would be unimaginable.” (translation)

Cuba

22 April: “Cuba gives special priority to nuclear disarmament and highlights the need to adopt a legally binding international instrument that completely prohibits nuclear weapons … The urgent need to move towards nuclear disarmament is a growing demand of the international community. The necessary steps should be taken for the immediate commencement of negotiations allowing the early adoption of an international convention on nuclear disarmament.” (translation)

Denmark

23 April: “At previous meetings Denmark has joined the group of countries behind a statement expressing deep concern by the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects that could follow from the use of nuclear weapons; and so again at this PrepCom with the statement presented by South Africa. In our view this third-track approach to disarmament and non-proliferation is not meant to undermine existing multilateral or bilateral nuclear disarmament mechanisms. They have indeed produced reductions that we welcome. Nor is it meant to reinterpret well-established international humanitarian law. We hope for a fact-based discussion to expand the group of concerned countries, including with the P5, and to increase awareness of these humanitarian consequences.”

Ecuador

23 April: “[T]he existence of nuclear weapons in the world represents a serious threat to human security and the survival of humanity. The only option is to eradicate this threat through the total and complete prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.”

“Ecuador condemns and expresses its frustration and deep concern about the blockade and paralysis of the Conference on Disarmament that has lasted more than 15 years. It is imperative to start negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which provides for their destruction without delay.”

“In compliance with Article VI of the NPT, and in order to ensure nuclear disarmament and the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons, Ecuador advocates the need to start negotiations to adopt a convention that provides an international legal framework, complementary to existing steps, with deadlines and strict verification systems.”

“I wish to conclude with a reference to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, whose use would be catastrophic for mankind … We join the Joint Declaration of a large group of countries noting the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons, their incompatibility with international humanitarian law and the urgent need for a ban and destruction of arsenals.”

“Congratulations to Norway for its leadership on the issue. We strongly support the International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, organized in Oslo on 4 and 5 March this year with great success and international support. 127 states and various international organizations and civil society organizations participated, showing that there is a growing global concern about the effects of nuclear detonations, and that it is a matter of interest and critical importance for all human beings.”

“The Conference was informed that the use of nuclear weapons would cause unacceptable devastation to human life and health, the environment, to economies, development, infrastructure and more; that there is no possibility of appropriate national or international response to such a catastrophe; and that this danger and fundamental challenge to the survival of humanity and the planet must be addressed through prevention.”

“We welcome the conference to follow up on the results of Oslo that will take place in Mexico in the coming year. Ecuador will continue to work with other states on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, in order to build an alternative to the dependence of states on nuclear weapons, to delegitimize the use and possession of nuclear weapons, and to emphasize that the use of nuclear weapons causes unacceptable harm to humanity and the planet as a whole.” (translation)

Egypt

22 April: “[T]he consequences of nuclear weapons, including the humanitarian consequences, do not stop at borders but they are a matter of threat to everyone and it is the concern of the whole humanity to usher nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapon States indeed say that they do recognize the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, but the question that awaits a satisfactory reply is what has been done to remove those weapons.”

24 April: “The negotiation of a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame ending in 2025, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention, is necessary and should commence without any further delay.”

“Egypt, together with more than 70 States, delivered a statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. This statement, which is gaining the world’s attention, makes clear the unacceptable consequences of any nuclear detonation, whether by design, miscalculation or accident. Given that the only guarantee that nuclear weapons are never to be used again is their total elimination, the continued existence of nuclear weapons represents a threat to humanity.”

“Last month some 127 States and several United Nations agencies attended the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, held in Oslo in early March. It is not at all surprising that the Oslo conference concluded that the historical experience from the use and testing of nuclear weapons has demonstrated the devastating immediate and long-term effects of such weapons; and that while political circumstances have changed, the destructive potential of nuclear weapons remains. Unfortunately, the nuclear-weapon States chose not to attend this important conference which is highly regrettable – hopefully, these States will attend the next such conference which shall be hosted by Mexico.”

“Egypt reiterates its full support to the NAM commitment to vigorously pursue the following priorities leading to the Review Conference in 2015, in full cooperation with all States Parties to the Treaty … 3) Prompt commencement of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, the route to realizing a world free from nuclear weapons by the year 2025.”

Ghana

24 April: “In agreement with the conclusion of the Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, we wish to remind all states that none is safe from a nuclear weapon accident should it occur.”

Finland

25 April: “The humanitarian impacts of the use of nuclear weapons would be most catastrophic and indiscriminate. Such weapons should never be used. In our view, a nuclear-weapon-free world is a far-reaching goal, but a self-evident one. We cannot afford to lose any time in our efforts towards this important goal.”

Indonesia

25 April: “[W]e emphasize the necessity to start negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction, without further delay.”

Iran

25 April: “[T]aking into account the abovementioned measures and principles and also the fact that government support for a convention eliminating nuclear weapons has grown significantly in recent years, I believe it is high time to start negotiation on a Nuclear Weapons Convention in the CD as a matter of top priority. Such a convention must legally prohibit, once and for all, the possession, development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons by any country and provide for the destruction of such inhumane weapons.”

23 April: “The international community cannot wait till the horrors of the nuclear weapons happen and must set a deadline and a target date for the total elimination of nuclear arsenals. Such a cut-off date could enable the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations on Nuclear Weapons Convention and conclude it as soon as possible as the highest priority.”

Ireland

23 April: “The wider UN community’s sense of frustration at the slow pace of disarmament is clear … we see it in the groundswell of support for a meaningful discussion around the humanitarian impact of a nuclear detonation, whether this is caused by accident, miscalculation or design.”

“Ireland welcomes the constructive meeting held in Oslo in March, and looks forward to the follow-on Conference later this year in Mexico. The clear message which emerged from Oslo is that humanity would be powerless to respond to the uniquely destructive power which a nuclear detonation would unleash. We encourage the nuclear weapons states to engage in this process. Their absence from Oslo was, perhaps, a missed opportunity and we hope they will be present in Mexico.”

25 April: “Concrete progress in a number of the areas covered by Action 5 would also go some way to addressing the many humanitarian concerns expressed by Governments at the recent Oslo Conference. These are important concerns, not expressed lightly. They are the concerns of the majority of UN member states.”

“It is a matter of regret that the nuclear weapons states were not present at Oslo to listen to these concerns expressed by Governments and civil society. The message from Oslo was nevertheless clear: humanity will be powerless to respond to the uniquely destructive power which a nuclear detonation would unleash. This was the message delivered again yesterday by our fellow NAC-member South Africa on behalf of seventy-eight NPT states Parties. There is a growing voice from governments and civil society on this issue which should occupy a central place in our deliberations. It is crucial that those who choose to possess these terrible weapons heed these concerns and we encourage them to attend the meeting which our fellow NAC member Mexico will host next year.”

“We can and must do more to get the disarmament commitments back on track, to begin the world leading to genuine disarmament negotiations, be they for a single, multilaterally negotiated instrument or a series of mutually reinforcing agreements.”

Japan

22 April: “As the only country to have suffered atomic bombings during wartime, Japan actively contributed to the Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in March. With strengthened resolve to seek a nuclear-weapons-free world, we continue to advance disarmament and non-proliferation education to inform the world and the next generation of the dreadful realities of nuclear devastation.”

“Given the awful humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons use, it is an urgent priority as well as a responsible approach to the present state of affairs to firmly implement concrete measures contained in the 2010 NPT Action Plan regarding the CTBT, an FMCT and further reductions of nuclear arsenals in order to substantially reduce this risk.”

Kazakhstan

23 April: “The catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences from nuclear tests in Semipalatinsk – and from other nuclear test sites around the globe – demonstrate that the aftermaths of any use of nuclear weapons are uncontrollable in time and space. Here, I would like to note that development, production or use of nuclear weapons is increasingly being seen worldwide as incompatible with international humanitarian law. The recent Oslo Conference underscored the potential of humanitarian approaches in this dimension.”

“It is our firm conviction that total elimination of all nuclear arsenals is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapons convention or package of agreements as it was suggested by the United Nations Secretary-General in his Five-Point Plan for Nuclear Disarmament acquires particular significance in terms of achieving this noble goal. I take the opportunity to note that Kazakhstan’s initiative to draft a Universal Declaration of a Nuclear Weapon-Free World within the UN is considered as one of the effective vessels to facilitate adoption of a Convention.”

25 April: “We acknowledge a consolidating role of the Oslo Conference of March 2013 in achieving a total and unconditional elimination of all nuclear weapons – a noble aim broadly supported by the majority of states.”

Kenya

23 April: “Kenya welcomes the outcome of the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons hosted by Norway on 4 and 5 March, 2013. It was indeed a significant event. The high number of countries that took part in the evidence-based discussions on these effects highlights the interests and concerns of the wider international community. It reinforces our view that nations serious enough about the elimination of nuclear weapons need to start negotiations now on a treaty to ban them.”

“We believe the initiative can be pivotal in the delegitimization of nuclear weapons in the minds of people. Nuclear deterrence really is threatening mass extermination. The impact of use of nuclear weapons or an accident at a nuclear weapons facility would be catastrophic. Their use would violate Resolutions of the UN General Assembly that have repeatedly condemned their use as an international crime.”

“Needless to state, the debate on humanitarian concerns can contribute to meaningful nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation measures as well as to the implementation of the NPT Action Plan.”

Malaysia

23 April: “Malaysia remains convinced that the total elimination of nuclear weapons should remain on top of the international agenda … Malaysia looks forward to the Nuclear-Weapons States to fulfil their commitments to report to the 2014 PrepCom on the steps that they are undertaking towards the elimination of their nuclear weapons. This however does not preclude us from pursuing negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention.”

25 April: “Malaysia is already a party to the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. While these two Conventions were negotiated and finalised many years ago, we are disappointed at the resistance and reluctance of some States to initiate and support a similar Convention on the complete and total elimination of nuclear weapons.”

Mexico

23 April: “The NPT preamble refers to the conscience of the international community in relation to the terrible consequences of nuclear war visited upon all mankind and the consequent need to avoid the danger of such a war and to take safety measures for the people. The mere existence of nuclear weapons represents a real risk to international security, because as long as they exist, there will be players who will want to own them and use or threaten to use them.”

“This March, 127 countries met with representatives of international organizations and civil society in Oslo to address the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. To expand on this, Mexico will convene, in 2014, a follow-up conference to the discussions had in Oslo. We hope that all NPT parties will be involved … our interest in strengthening this agreement and forging new agreements has its foundation in the humanitarian imperative.” (translation)

24 April: “It is necessary to mainstream the humanitarian perspective of a possible nuclear weapon detonation. The discussion that took place in Oslo will move in this direction and prevent nuclear weapons from being used again and from causing catastrophic humanitarian crises anywhere in the world. Mexico is organizing a follow-up conference, which will take place in early 2014. The participation of 127 countries represented in the discussion, and the growing interest generated by this issue, may be the germ of a process to move substantially towards the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.” (translation)

Netherlands

23 April: “The Netherlands fully subscribes to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The NPT is the essential instrument to achieve that goal. The discussion on humanitarian consequences in Oslo recently reminded us again about the devastating effects of these weapons and hence the importance of making progress towards that objective.”

New Zealand

22 April: “New Zealand takes some heart from the fact that, this year, we have the opportunity to advance collective nuclear disarmament responsibilities in several fora, including via the Oslo conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and the open-ended working group.”

25 April: “The recognition by the 2010 Action Plan of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons was, for New Zealand, a cautionary – and necessary – reminder of the real world implications of the work we undertake in this, and other, nuclear disarmament fora. The Conference hosted by the Norwegian Government in Oslo this past March served to reinforce the Review Conference’s expression of concern by exploring the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in a more systematic way and one which puts the real issues of human security into the fore. Its key message – that no state or international organisation could feasibly address the humanitarian impact of a nuclear weapon detonation – must underpin all of our work on nuclear disarmament and would serve to underline its urgency. New Zealand looks forward to the follow-up conference to be convened in Mexico next year and welcomes the Government of Mexico’s initiative on this … New Zealand fully subscribes to the statement already delivered by South Africa in the general debate here on behalf of over 70 countries concerning the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.”

Nigeria

23 April: “We will continue to emphasize that the existential threat posed to mankind by nuclear weapons, including their possible use or threat of use, remains unacceptable. The Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons hosted in March 2013 by the Government of Norway made clear that the detonation of a nuclear device would have grave humanitarian consequences that will spread beyond national borders and significantly impact human beings across regions and across the world.”

Norway

23 April: “The NPT review conference in 2010 referred explicitly to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences any use of nuclear weapons would have. This was an important message from the world community. Since 2010, we have seen the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons increasingly being recognized as a fundamental, and global, concern that must be at the core of all our deliberations regarding nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.”

“In March this year the Government of Norway hosted an international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. The aim of the Conference was to provide an arena for the international community to have a fact-based discussion of the humanitarian and developmental consequences that would result from a nuclear weapon detonation. The conference focused on what actually happens on the ground after a nuclear detonation.”

“The consequences of a nuclear detonation are relevant to practitioners in such diverse fields as health services, development, environment, finance and emergency preparedness. So far there has been no global arena in which to begin to discuss these issues. This is why Norway decided to organize the Conference, and to invite a wide range of stakeholders. All interested states, as well as UN humanitarian organizations, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, representatives of civil society and other relevant actors were invited to the Conference.”

“The Conference was held over two days and included presentations by international experts and relevant national and international stakeholders concerning three key aspects: 1) the immediate humanitarian impact of nuclear detonations, 2) the wider and more long-term developmental, health and environmental consequences, 3) preparedness, including plans and existing capacity to respond to this type of disaster.”

“128 states met at the Conference, together with UN organisations, the ICRC, IFRC and civil society. The Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs hosted the Conference. The High Commissioner for Refugees, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Director of OCHA in Geneva, the Secretary General of Norwegian People’s Aid and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons addressed the Conference’s opening session.”

“The broad and active participation at the Oslo Conference reflects the recognition that the catastrophic effect of a nuclear detonation is an issue of concern and relevance to all.”

“The main conclusion from the conference is that no state or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation in any meaningful way. No existing national or international emergency system would be able to provide adequate assistance to the victims.”

“We welcome Mexico’s offer to host a Conference to further discuss these issues. We are looking forward to continuing to broaden the discussions on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. This is an issue that affects us all.”
(See rest of statement)

Philippines

22 April: “NPT States Parties underscored their deep concern for the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons … It is for these reasons that the Philippines welcomes the international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons which was hosted by Norway last March. The conference concluded that the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapon use would be unacceptable and urged States to begin work to outlaw these weapons. We also welcome the follow-up meeting to be hosted by Mexico at a future date.”

“Now is also the time to set in motion negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention (NWC). Some argue that a NWC would move the focus away from the NPT. On the contrary, it could get the ball rolling as it ensures full implementation of the NPT.”
“A NWC is the only comprehensive, universal and non-discriminatory way towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. An international conference can be held in the near future that will set the parameters for the elimination of nuclear weapons and prohibit their production, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and provide for the destruction of such weapons within a specified time frame or timeline.”

“The upcoming High Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament would be a good opportunity to drum up support for such a Convention. I urge States that have provided us with a model NWC to take the lead once again in jumpstarting discussions for a NWC.”

Republic of Korea

25 April: “In view of the risk of accidental nuclear war and its indiscriminate catastrophic consequences, it is the collective duty of all NPT State Parties to fulfil their obligations under Article VI of the NPT.”

Slovakia

25 April: “We also pay due attention and seriously consider the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. The 2010 Review Conference of the NPT expressed ‘deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons’. There would be no single country that could address it alone. This issue extends discussions on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The international conference on humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons held recently in Oslo has been an example of it.”

“We must work together to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, whether deliberate or accidental. That is why we continue to support the process that would lead to the total elimination of nuclear arsenals, including the reasons for their existence thus eliminating effectively the above threat.”

South Africa

22 April: “South Africa shares the deep concern expressed by the vast majority of States Parties to the NPT about the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Along with many others, we remain convinced that nuclear weapons do not guarantee security, but rather detract from it. As long as these weapons exist, and vertical and horizontal proliferation persists, humanity will continue to face the threat of catastrophe and mass annihilation.”

Sri Lanka

22 April: “The situation which prevails in the Korean Peninsula reminds us of the urgency of the call for the total elimination of nuclear weapons since we firmly believe that total elimination of nuclear weapons from the world is the only possible way for the survival of humanity. It is for this reason that we continue to stress that states should move forward towards total elimination and the absolute ban of the nuclear arsenal.”

Sweden

23 April: “The use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences, which is why we must work towards their elimination.”

Switzerland

22 April: “I would especially like to emphasise the very positive and encouraging Oslo Conference last March on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. This conference is perfectly consistent with the spirit of the Final Document of the 2010 Review Conference. Indeed, the 2010 outcome had introduced the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament as a new avenue to be explored to facilitate the implementation of Article VI of the NPT. It therefore seems crucial to us that all States Parties to the NPT engage in the discussion of this dimension. My delegation fully associates itself with the statement that will subsequently be made on this issue by South Africa on behalf of a group of States.”

25 April: “In 2010, all Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) expressed their deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons. Our delegation associates itself fully with the joint statement delivered yesterday by South Africa on behalf of 77 States. Switzerland remains convinced that nuclear weapons do not generate security but are a threat to international as well as human security.”

“Two-thirds of the UN membership as well as representatives of important international and non-governmental organisations met last month in Oslo to give further consideration to this deep concern expressed in 2010. The main conclusion of this conference is clear: no matter how well governments or humanitarian actors prepare, the immediate as well as the wider effects of the use of nuclear weapons cannot be mitigated and the consequences would be unacceptable. Efforts must therefore be redoubled to prevent any nuclear detonation – be it caused by accident, miscalculation or wilful intent. We welcome this fact-based, fresh and long overdue humanitarian approach. We are also looking forward to deepening discussions on this issue, including at the follow-up meeting that Mexico will host.”

“The establishment of the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) by resolution A/RES/67/56 is a reaction to the continuing deadlock in the CD. This working group offers the possibility to work together collectively and inclusively to advance nuclear disarmament. Just like the Oslo Conference, this working group is in full conformity with the spirit and letter of the NPT. In this regard, our delegation would reject to qualify as ‘distraction’ any efforts undertaken in good faith to achieve the common goals enshrined in this treaty.”

“It is necessary to develop more concrete measures and instruments in order to prevent and ban the use of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminate them, as all other weapons of mass destruction. Switzerland will continue to contribute to efforts towards progressive delegitimization of nuclear weapons in order to pave the way for our final and common objective of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Thailand

23 April: “We also welcome the result of the Conference on Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Oslo in March this year, which further illustrated the devastating effect of the use of nuclear weapons on human life as well as the environment. We hope that such abhorrent scenarios have rendered any contemplation to engage nuclear arsenals as irresponsible, reprehensible and unthinkable.”

“More broadly, Thailand hopes that the fresh initiatives introduced at the UN General Assembly last year will revitalize the Conference on Disarmament and looks forward to the commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material, as well as a nuclear weapons convention, which should be held in an inclusive manner.”

Turkey

22 April: “[W]e remain concerned by the risk that nuclear weapons pose for humanity. The participants of the recent Oslo Conference have been further acquainted with the horrific consequences of a nuclear use or accidental detonation. Turkey believes that a robust awareness should be raised at the informational level so that future generations do not have to fear for the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Turkey welcomed the discussions at the Oslo Conference and looks forward to actively participating to the follow-up.”

Ukraine

23 April: “Ukraine considers the total elimination of nuclear weapons to be the only absolute guarantee against the scourge of nuclear warfare and supports the call for the immediate adoption of the comprehensive international agreement on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. This ultimate goal requires a consistent long-term approach with specific practical steps and effective disarmament measures to be taken by the international community in a transparent, non-discriminatory, verifiable and irreversible manner, building a system of mutually reinforcing instruments for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons.”

United Arab Emirates

22 April: “UAE supports the international efforts in addressing the humanitarian aspects of using nuclear weapons with an objective, in the long run, to ban the use, threat and eventually owning of these weapons.”

Joint statements

Humanitarian initiative

24 April: (On behalf of 78 nations) “Our countries are deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. While this has been known since nuclear weapons were first developed and is reflected in various UN resolutions and multilateral instruments, it has not been at the core of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation deliberations for many years. Although it constitutes the raison d’être of the NPT, which cautions against the ‘devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of people’, this issue has consistently been ignored in the discourse on nuclear weapons.”
(See rest of statement)

International Committee of the Red Cross

24 April: “In 2010, the States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) took a ground-breaking step in recognizing the ‘catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons’ and the relevance of international humanitarian law in this regard. This step has inspired a renewed focus on the horrific human suffering that would result from the use of nuclear weapons and the implications of such weapons on the environment.”

“The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) welcomes this development. In our view, an informed view on these weapons must include a detailed grasp of the immediate consequences of nuclear weapons on human health and on medical and other infrastructure. Equally important is an understanding of the longer-term effects on health and the implications for the world’s climate and food production. Recent studies by the ICRC, IPPNW and other organizations have highlighted these implications.”

“It was a deep and profound concern about these consequences that led the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to make a historic appeal on nuclear weapons in 2011. In it, the Movement called on States to ensure that nuclear weapons are never again used, regardless of their views on the legality of such weapons, and to pursue in good faith and conclude with urgency and determination negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binging international agreement, based on existing commitments and international obligations.”
(See rest of statement)

League of Arab States

WP.40: “The Arab States welcome the events on nuclear disarmament that will take place in 2013. They affirm the importance of the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Oslo on 4 and 5 March 2013, at which it was noted that no one was capable of addressing the consequences of a nuclear-weapon detonation, regardless of whether such a weapon was detonated deliberately, as a result of a misjudgement or unintentionally.”

“The attention of the Conference on Disarmament should be drawn to the importance of establishing a subcommittee responsible for the immediate commencement of negotiations on the formulation of a nuclear disarmament treaty, with a view to gradually eliminating nuclear weapons within a specified period of time. That treaty would outlaw the development, production, stockpiling and use of such weapons and provide for their destruction, and ensure that removal is complete, non-discriminatory and verifiable.”

New Agenda Coalition

22 April: “The 2010 NPT Review Conference expressed ‘deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons’ and reaffirmed ‘the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law’. Furthermore, a significant number of States highlighted this concern at the 2012 NPT Preparatory Committee and at the 2012 General Assembly First Committee session.”

“In March this year, Norway hosted an International Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons aimed at developing a greater awareness and understanding of the catastrophic consequences of their use. Mexico has offered to host a follow-up conference to continue this long overdue discussion. Given that it is abundantly clear that no State or group of States can mitigate the effects of a nuclear weapon detonation on civilian populations, it is our expectation that all NPT States Parties seize the opportunity to permanently rid our world from the threat posted by nuclear weapons.”

“All States Parties must seize the opportunity of this PrepCom to begin work in earnest on the construction of a comprehensive legally-binding framework of mutually reinforcing instruments for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons. Such a framework should include clearly defined benchmarks, timelines, and be backed by a strong system of verification. Given the threat posed to all of humanity by these instruments of mass annihilation, it is time for use to act now, for tomorrow may be too late.”

WP.27: “Reiterating the Treaty’s recognition of the devastation that would be visited upon all of humanity by a nuclear war, the 2010 Review Conference expressed its deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and asserted the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.”

“Since the 2010 Review Conference, awareness has been growing about the humanitarian consequences of a nuclear detonation, as most recently illustrated by the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, which was held in Oslo on 4 and 5 March 2013. Given the indiscriminate and disproportionate effects of nuclear weapons, the humanitarian concerns should inform actions and decisions during the 2015 review cycle and beyond.”

“Furthermore, the 2015 Review Conference should work towards the construction of a comprehensive framework of mutually reinforcing instruments for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons. In order to be transparent, efficient and credible, such a legally binding framework for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons must include clearly defined benchmarks and timelines, backed by a strong system of verification.”

Non-Aligned Movement

22 April: “The Group … emphasizes the necessity to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction, without further delay.”

24 April: “The Group also reiterates its firm commitment to work for convening a high-level international conference to identify ways and means of eliminating nuclear weapons, at the earliest possible date, with the objective of an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction.”

25 April: “The Group emphasizes the necessity to start negotiations, without further delay, on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction.”

“[T]he Group reiterates its firm commitment to work for convening a high-level international conference to identify ways and means of eliminating nuclear weapons, at the earliest possible date, with the objective of an agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, to prohibit their development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction.”

WP.14: “The nuclear-weapon States should be urged to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of their nuclear weapons within a specified time framework, including a nuclear weapons convention.”

“An international conference at ‘the earliest possible date’ to achieve agreement on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame, including, in particular, a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons convention).”

Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative

23 April: “The members of the NPDI participated in the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons that took place in Oslo, Norway, on March 4 and 5, 2013. The NPDI remains deeply concerned by the risk for humanity represented by the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used and by the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from their use. The discussions at the Oslo Conference illustrated once more the devastating immediate and long-term humanitarian effects of a nuclear weapon detonation. We welcome the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue.”

24 April: “[I]n view of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of a use of a nuclear weapon, they simply cannot be considered to be just a weapon like any other.”

“We encourage all States parties to contribute to raising awareness, in particular amongst the younger generation, of the tragic consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.”

WP.4: “In view of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, it is imperative that the more than 65-year record of nuclear non-use be extended forever. Members of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative thus see the need for determined steps by the nuclear-weapon States towards nuclear disarmament, with the final objective of a nuclear-weapon-free world.”

OPANAL

24 April: “[T]he Conference recently held in Oslo … introduced the humanitarian vision of the use of nuclear weapons, bringing a breath of fresh air to these debates, a breath full of hope. By exposing the catastrophic consequences of using any nuclear weapon, the raising of awareness regarding the threat that they pose to the world would be promoted. Humanity should not continue under this risk as a consequence of the security policies lacking an alternative to replace nuclear deterrence doctrines with more effective measures, with truly safe measures for humanity as a whole.”

“We welcome the offer of Mexico to convene a follow-up conference on this issue, a country well known for its leadership in nuclear disarmament.”

“With the spirit to see the future positively, I am pleased to reiterate that Latin American and Caribbean States adopted the 2011 Declaration, a document that I presented to the UNGA First Committee in the same year, in which they agreed to join the efforts of the international community to take forward the negotiation of a legally-binding instrument aimed at prohibiting nuclear weapons. Today, this consensus is one of the guidelines of the Agency’s agenda.”

Tim Wright is Coordinator of ICAN Australia.

May 3, 2013
Nuclear Myths Could Result in Catastrophe, Historian Warns

Several ideas about nuclear weapons germinated in America after World War II, continued to sprout roots during the Cold War, and by now have taken full flower. The public rarely questions them, and neither do many scientists, military leaders, politicians or diplomats.

One: We need these weapons because, should all-out war break out, we’ll need them to overwhelm our enemy and lay waste to its cities. That could win the war for us. Another: Nuclear weapons keep the world stable because they help prevent war in the first place. They have been around for almost 68 years. World War III has failed to ignite in that time. The bombs, it is concluded, have helped keep us safe.

Or maybe that’s all wrong. In his new book, Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons, historian Ward Wilson mines historical case studies – some ancient, some recent – to deflate the assumption that enemy leaders will capitulate if we wipe out a horribly large percentage of their urban populations. Reducing a rival country’s cities to smoking rubble on a massive scale, he writes, actually boosts its morale and determination to prevail.

Wilson’s favorite proof is the behavior of Japan at the end of World War II. Americans generally think the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki spurred Japan to hastily end its fight. Using first-hand accounts of Japanese leaders’ meetings after the bombings and comments in their diaries and memoirs, Wilson concludes the A-bombs weren’t at all decisive. The Japanese had been tolerating the destruction of their cities for months, including the decimation of Tokyo by Allied firebombing. (Wilson argues persuasively that it was the abrupt entry of the Soviet Union into the battle against Japan, which occurred at the same time as Hiroshima, that caused Japanese political and military leaders to lose hope.)

As for the mission of nuclear bombs to be peacekeepers rather than tools of war, Wilson all but dismisses deterrence theory as a straw man that’s never been proven to frighten a crow. Such theories, he maintains, amount to wishful thinking that is “doubtful from the word go.”

What about familiar deterrence success stories, such as President John F. Kennedy’s willingness to bring the world to war during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis — a strategy of keeping the peace by acting tough? Wilson sees that event, and many others during the Cold War and afterward, as actually a failure of deterrence. Kennedy, he writes, “saw the nuclear deterrence stop sign, saw the horrifying image of nuclear war painted on it, and gunned through the intersection anyway.” We’ve avoided wars mostly out of luck, in spite of ourselves.

Wilson, 56, attended American University and is a senior fellow with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the California-based Monterey Institute of International Studies. This is his first book, and it’s gained attention rapidly inside nuclear policy circles. The author says he wants to write another one, focusing solely on the weaknesses of deterrence theory, in the year ahead.

NAPF spoke to Wilson about his belief that accepting old, unchallenged nuclear lessons will surely lead to eventual disaster. The following is an edited version of the conversation.

KAZEL: You’ve written that after college in 1981 you were hired as a fellow at the Robert F. Kennedy Foundation, and the director, David Hackett — who’d been Bobby Kennedy’s best friend — persuaded you that you had the power to change the world. How did he do that?

WILSON: He was Kennedy’s friend so he had great authority in my eyes. He took me for a walk by the Martin Luther King Public Library. I can remember children playing all around. He said, [affects a Boston accent], “Wahd, Wahd, what do you care about?” I said, “Nuclear weapons.” He never said, “I want you to do this, or I want you to do that.” Somehow, wordlessly, in the way he framed it, it seemed so clear to me that he expected that I had to do something about this problem – that I was interested in it, and therefore I had the capacity tochange it. I was young and credulous, so I believed him.

KAZEL: After that you had a conversation with the scientist Freeman Dyson, who gave you a “fundamental insight” into whether nuclear weapons actually are useful or not. What happened there?

WISLON: I got to know Dyson because I went to a conference on nuclear weapons that encouraged me to do more. Helen Caldicott spoke and [nuclear freeze advocate] Randall Forsberg spoke. Dyson spoke.…

[Later Dyson] gave me, to look at, a book review that he was writing. In it he talked about the [1982] Falklands War. He said that Great Britain could have nuked Buenos Aires. But even had they done that, they still would have had to send conventional forces to reconquer the Falkland Islands. It hit me really hard that blowing up cities doesn’t occupy territory. It doesn’t put soldiers on the ground who can enforce boundaries, or inspect people walking by, or check papers.

It suddenly became clear to me, at some intuitive level, that the weapons were limited in the way that they were useful. Yeah, you can blow stuff up, but that doesn’t necessarily get you what you want. After all, the United States and Great Britain blew up Hamburg [in World War II] and they destroyed Dresden, and they bombed Berlin. But that didn’t force Germany to its knees.

KAZEL: You also read Herman Kahn, and you felt he was incorrect in saying that nuclear weapons were so new and unprecedented that we can’t make predictions about them. You now say it’s possible to go back to previous wars, even back to the Siege of Carthage [in 152 BC], and conclude that attacking cities doesn’t help to win a war. Why do you think we can look at history that old and think it’s still relevant?

WILSON: I read this passage from Herman Kahn, and he said, we have so little experience with nuclear weapons – which is true – therefore, everything we think must be theoretical. He [was] essentially making a case for game theory and this logic-based scenario work that was done in the 1950s and ’60s. I said to myself, that can’t be right. War is not fundamentally technological. War is fundamentally a human activity.

The tools we use to wage war may be different. We ourselves are still the same, largely. I believe human nature changes only very slowly over thousands of years. So if it’s true human beings react to the destruction of a city relatively the same across history, and I can’t think of a reason why they wouldn’t, it should be possible to look at Carthage. It ought to be possible to study the sacking and burning of Liège [in 1468] by Charles the Bold. It ought to be possible to look at the destruction of Magdeburg in 1631 by [Johann Tserclaes count von] Tilly, when he burned the city and 30,000 people died…

That ought to give you real experiential information. We can imagine what a nuclear war would be like, but essentially it’s all speculation. It’s theory. Maybe it’s right, but maybe it’s wrong. Fundamentally, I’m a pragmatist. I believe in facts. So, this insight [is] that even though the weapons are new, the soldier, the combatants are essentially the same.

That is why I was not surprised to discover that Hiroshima had not forced the Japanese to surrender at the end of World War II: because I had spent seven years studying history where cities had been truly destroyed. In no case did it ever cause a war to be won.

KAZEL: Is it your conclusion, after conferring with military people, that our military is still focused on destroying enemy cities if a nuclear war ever happens?

WILSON: Well, I’ll tell you what I know. At least as late as the Clinton administration, I had a chance to sit down with Lee Butler [retired Air Force general and commander of Strategic Air Command] in his kitchen. He told me what it was like every month…to have someone rush into the room unexpectedly. You don’t have any warning. Some guy runs in and says, “Sir, you’re needed in the War Room.” You go downstairs, and there’s an incoming attack. It’s an exercise – you know it’s an exercise. But even so, all the circumstances are as they would be.

Then you have this conversation with whomever is playing the President at the White House. You go through your checklist. And you have four options, MAO 1 through 4. Major attack options 1 through 4: 1 is leadership, 2 is leadership plus military, 3 is leadership plus military plus economy, and 4 is leadership plus military plus economy plus civilian population. He said to me that every practice scenario was designed in such a way that you had to recommend MAO 4 – the one in which you target civilians.

Has the targeting changed since the Clinton administration? I don’t know. I’ve had some conversations with [military] people who very strongly assert that the U.S. doesn’t target civilian populations because that would be “illegal” and that they have lawyers who check the target list for “legality.”

KAZEL: Under what law?

WILSON: I don’t know whether it’s a military handbook of conduct or international humanitarian law. I don’t know. But at least as late as the Clinton administration, the [war plan] absolutely called for targeting civilians.

KAZEL: About three weeks ago, you made a presentation at the Pentagon for the Air Force nuclear staff. Did they discuss if the Air Force still has targeting plans against cities?

WILSON: No, they were very careful. We had very serious conversations. We didn’t agree. But they took what I had to say very seriously and listened closely, and I listened to them.

KAZEL: What didn’t they agree about?

WILSON: Well, at the end, a guy said, “Well, maybe nuclear weapons are the outmoded weapons of the past, but shouldn’t we then be thinking about what weapon we need in order to deter our opponents?” Obviously that’s their mindset; they’ve been assigned that as their job. But the fact that they couldconsider the notion that nuclear weapons are outmoded, are blundering, clumsy weapons of the past – that seemed to me to be remarkable.

I think that the whole trend in warfare [emerging today] is away from pointless destruction, which is essentially what nuclear weapons do best, and toward drones and targeted, small [missiles]. Obviously, drone missiles create a whole series of very serious problems in terms of accountability. Even smaller missiles like that have terrible consequences for civilians. However, killing a leader of Al-Qaeda with a Hellfire missile and killing 13 other people who are innocent is considerably different from using a nuclear weapon to kill a leader of Al-Qaeda and killing 130,000 people who are innocent.

I think the whole trend in warfare is away from “big” weapons, like nuclear weapons, and toward [accuracy]. What terrifies you [as a leader] is the thought that you may die, you may lose control of your regime, not that somebody else you don’t know will die.

KAZEL: But even by that reasoning, does that necessarily lead to nuclear disarmament? One could argue that tactical nuclear weapons — anything from artillery shells to antisubmarine nuclear torpedoes — could be developed instead of nuclear arms for use against cities. But that still isn’t nuclear abolition.

WILSON: Right. But these arguments I’m making by themselves might not be sufficient. Organizations like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and others have been making powerful moral arguments against nuclear weapons for 20, 30, 40 years. That nuclear weapons are so clearly immoral and not very useful makes a powerful combination. By themselves, either argument might or might not be sufficient. In combination, you have an irresistible argument, it seems to me.

KAZEL: Do you think that the use of any nuclear weapon is immoral?

WILSON: If you use a nuclear weapon to destroy an asteroid coming towards the world, well, that’s fine. That’s moral. Using a nuclear weapon in almost any setting, anywhere on the globe, probably you’ll kill innocent civilians…By and large, nuclear weapons are so clumsy, so messy, that they almost inevitably kill innocents.

KAZEL: Why did you decide for your book to veer almost completely away from the moral arguments against nuclear arms and stress the practical, military arguments?

WILSON: I knew that there have already been so many well-argued, strong moral arguments made over the last 60 years that I can’t do any better than that. This is an area where I thought something new could be said.

KAZEL: Should antinuclear groups be making more of an effort to emphasize strategic, military arguments, instead of what you call arguments based on “moral outrage”?

WILSON: Antinuclear groups should do what works. You have to imagine, I’ve been sitting in a room for 30 years thinking about nuclear weapons. I don’t know what motivates people or how to organize a political [movement].

You know, one of the crucial ingredients to getting the [1997 international landmine ban treaty] was that, at some point, military guys stepped forward and said, “In some circumstances landmines can help, but they’re fundamentally not that useful in a war.” When you combine that with the clear moral cost, and humanitarian impact, it became clear what needed to be done.

KAZEL: Some analysts argue that emerging nuclear nations view the weapons as a sign of national power and prestige – but that they don’t actually expect to use the weapons. How do we persuade nations such as Iran not to want a nuclear weapon?

WILSON: The problem is we’ve over-inflated their value. It seemed like a good idea when we were using that over-inflated value to create deterrence, to deter others. The difficulty is now others take that over-inflated value, and they think, “Oh, nuclear weapons are magic. They can keep my country safe no matter what I do, and I can behave in any way that I want to behind this shield. And I need to eat grass in order to be able to get them.”

The first step in doing something about nuclear weapons is to devalue them, to show they’re not magic, to get people to rethink deterrence. If you go through almost any document about deterrence, and cross it out and put “voodoo” in its place, the document will read essentially the same.

Another thing about the utility question is a two-part evaluation: the usefulness and the danger. They’re dangerous and they’re not useful in hardly any circumstances, and we just need to do something as fast as we possibly can. If you wait a hundred years, you will ensure that someone is going to use nuclear weapons. Either there will be a fight over resources because of global warming, or there will be so many nations with nuclear weapons that someone will sell a nuclear weapon out the backdoor to a terrorist.

KAZEL: You recommend that “extraordinary efforts” should be taken to prevent more nations from getting nuclear weapons. Would you support military action against Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons?

WILSON: I wouldn’t support military action against Iran. I think that’s silly. I think it’s absolutely true that every nation that gets nuclear weapons increases the danger, but I don’t think it’s true that the increase in danger means that nation is more powerful.

Imagine three or four people in your neighborhood felt unsafe, and decided to carry a bottle of nitroglycerine around with them wherever they went. These three or four people, if you bump into them on the street and knock them over and the nitroglycerine explodes, you get killed. So they make your neighborhood more dangerous, but are they really safer? If you want to rob them, you get a gun and stand really close to them and say, “Give me the dough.” Their nitroglycerine doesn’t help because you’re standing right next to them.

But then imagine over time, more and more people in the neighborhood say, “Hey, this is a great idea,I’ll get a bottle of nitroglycerine.” Each neighbor that gets a bottle of nitroglycerine makes your neighborhood less safe — but it doesn’t necessarily protect any of them or give them power. It doesn’t help, but it clearly hurts. That’s the way I see nuclear weapons. It’s bad that Iran seems to be building a nuclear weapon, but will that give them the power to dominate the Middle East once they have them? No, I don’t think so.

KAZEL: So, when you say “extraordinary efforts,” would that mean efforts beyond what is being done now?

WILSON: Yeah, you could take some risks – politically. You could be nice to the Iranians. Now, they are an ancient civilization, with a long tradition of scholarship, very strong religious views, and a unique perspective on religion. Ancient culture, sophisticated, subtle. Very much like France – once much more powerful, dominant culturally in the world.

My assessment is Iran wants nuclear weapons so they will be treated with the respect they believe they deserve. There’s a lot you can do [diplomatically], and maybe that gets you in trouble on the Right in the United States.

I really don’t think military action makes much sense. The Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz, and then we have an oil crisis and the world economy crashes. Moral issues aside, it’s just stupid policy.

KAZEL: You recommend in your book a world study of the usefulness of nuclear weapons, and a “full stop” on the development of new nuclear systems. But you don’t recommend nuclear abolition in it. However, in a presentation you made at the UN three weeks ago, you seemed more resolute. You said abolition is not impossible if the worldview of pro-nuclear advocates is questioned. You said abolitionists “clearly have the more convincing case” than proponents of the weapons.

WILSON: Part of the process of talking about this with a lot of people is that you listen and you find out what they think you’ve missed, or not. The reaction that I’m getting, so far at least, is that people don’t feel there is any serious mistake or flaw [in my arguments]. That’s reassuring, and that makes me feel I can push what I intuitively feel a little bit more.

KAZEL: You did feel strongly enough about your evidence in the book to recommend that the U.S. and Russia decrease their nuclear weapons to the low hundreds. You also say it’s very dangerous to have nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert.

WILSON: I got in a lot of trouble with the Pentagon for that. I sat at lunch with a squadron commander of one of the missile facilities in Montana. He was talking to me about what it’s like to work in the facility and how you go down underground. I think they have 72 hours on and 72 hours off. They want to have pride in what they do, and they believe that the thing about hair-trigger alert is wrong because they have all these careful rules in place. What they take pride in is making sure you could never have an accident…

I had to explain to him that I think the problem with hair-trigger alert is not that the U.S. mechanism for maintaining its nuclear forces is prone to breakdown, not that they’re doing a bad job. But I thinkleaders need to have time to think [an urgent situation] over and double-check. Kennedy said if he had been forced to decide about the Cuban Missile Crisis on the first day, he’d have launched the air strikes instead of doing the less-militaristic blockade. The air strikes could have led to nuclear war, since we now know they had tactical nuclear weapons on Cuba.

People go off half-cocked. They lose their heads. They get overwhelmed by emotion. They want retribution, and when leaders have the power to launch nuclear weapons without a chance for reflection, then that’s a danger.

Something that causes leaders to be forced to think about it for at least 24 hours, and maybe longer, makes a lot of sense to me. You read history and people make rash decisions. It happens all the time.

Robert Kazel is a Chicago-based freelance writer and was a participant in the 2012 NAPF Peace Leadership Workshop.

March 25, 2013
Iraq 10 Years Later: What Lessons Have Been Learned?

This article was originally published by the Ventura County Star.

This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War. As the longest and most costly war in U.S. history, the true costs in dollars, lives, environmental contamination and opportunity costs may never be fully appreciated.

This “preventive war” waged on our behalf has forever tainted the world view and standing of the U.S. Perhaps the most significant outcome of the war is the identification and clarification, a “how to” of what doesn’t work in resolving international conflict. Namely war itself.

Dollar estimates of the combined war costs range from $1.4 trillion to $4 trillion spent and obligated or a bill of between $4,500 and $12,742 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.

The human costs and death toll are immense. It is estimated that between 225,000 to more than 1 million have been killed when taking into account all the lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

To this tragedy are added the tens of thousands injured. Significant brain and spinal injuries to coalition forces approach 20 percent and PTSD 30 percent. The costs of treating these problems will continue for decades to come.

The respected international mediator John Paul Lederach suggests that going to war to defeat terrorism is like hitting a mature dandelion with a golf club — it only creates another generation of terrorists.

That graphic image is very telling in a part of the world where the mean age ranges from 17.9 in Afghanistan to 21.1 in Iraq. How will these future generations who lack the meeting of basic human needs respond to our war?

We have fallen victim to the idea that the “ends justify the means” when in reality the means are the ends in the making.

In his book Dying to Win, Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago examines the phenomenon of suicide bombing. His research reveals that despite religious conviction or revenge, the vast majority (95 percent) of suicide bombings always include the primary motivation of trying to push out foreign occupiers.

In a way to somehow sanitize or numb ourselves to the horrific effects of this war we have seen an entirely new lexicon added to our language. From drones to PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) to TBI (traumatic brain injury) to collateral damage to enhanced interrogation (torture) to rendition (torturing prisoners in outsourced countries) to suicide bombers.

We have written legal treatises to soothe and justify our use of terrorism and assassination of even our own citizens. In the use of these methods, machines and practices, have we not become the embodiment of “the enemy”? What happens when the entire world has the same capabilities and beliefs? These are some of the realities after 10 years of war.

We have fallen into financial disarray at home, with a significant contribution from these wars. The robbing of our own social fabric to cover these costs will play out for years to come. Yet, there are those who would continue to dismantle our social infrastructure to continue this war effort and that of future wars at any cost. How we address the facts at hand will determine our future and that of the world.

Indeed conflict is inevitable. War is optional. We have the necessary means to address conflict without war. The means are the ends in the making.

Robert Dodge is a family physician in Ventura, California, and is a member of the NAPF Board of Directors.

March 18, 2013
The Iraq War: 10 Years Later

After a decade of combat, casualties, massive displacement, persisting violence, enhanced sectarian tension and violence between Shi’ias and Sunnis, periodic suicide bombings, and autocratic governance, a negative assessment of the Iraq War as a strategic move by the United States, United Kingdom, and a few of their secondary allies, including Japan, seems near universal. Not only the regionally destabilizing outcome, including the blowback effect of perversely adding weight to Iran’s overall diplomatic influence, but the reputational costs in the Middle East associated with an imprudent, destructive, and failed military intervention make the Iraq War the worst American foreign policy disaster since its defeat in Vietnam in the 1970s, and undertaken with an even less persuasive legal, moral, and political rationale.

Most geopolitical accounting assessments do not bother to consider the damage to the United Nations and international law arising from an aggressive use of force in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, embarked upon in the face of a refusal by the Security Council to provide a legitimating authorization for the use of force despite great pressure mounted by the United States. The UN further harmed its own image when it failed to reinforce its refusal to grant authorization to the United States and its coalition, by offering some kind of support to Iraq as the target of this contemplated aggression. This failure was compounded by the post-attack role played by the UN in lending full support to the unlawful American-led occupation, including its state-building mission. In other words, not only was the Iraq War a disaster from the perspective of American and British foreign policy and the peace and stability of the Middle East region, but it was also a severe setback for the authority of international law, the independence of the UN, and the quality of world order.

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the United States was supposedly burdened by what policymakers derisively called ‘the Vietnam Syndrome.’ This was a Washington shorthand for the psychological inhibitions to engage in military interventions in the non-Western world due to the negative attitudes towards such imperial undertakings that were supposed to exist among the American public and in the government, especially among the military who were widely blamed for the Vietnam disaster. Many American militarists at the time complained that the Vietnam Syndrome was a combined result of an anti-war plot engineered by the liberal media and a response to an unpopular conscription or ‘draft’ that required many middle class Americans to fight in a distant war that lacked both popular support, a convincing strategic or legal rationale, and seemed to be on the wrong side of history, which as the French found out in their own Indochina War favored anti-colonial wars of liberation. The flag-draped coffins of dead young Americans were shown on TV, leading defense hawks to contend somewhat ridiculously that ‘the war was lost in American living rooms.’ The government made adjustments that took these rationalizations serious: the draft was abolished, and reliance henceforth was placed on an all-volunteer professional military complemented by large-scale private security firms; also, intensified efforts were made to assure media support for subsequent military operations by ‘embedding’ journalists in combat units and more carefully monitoring news reporting.

President, George H.W. Bush told the world in 1991 immediately after the Gulf War that had been successfully undertaken to reverse the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait that “we have finally kicked the Vietnam Syndrome.” In effect, the senior President Bush was saying to the grand strategists in the White House and Pentagon that the role of American military power was again available for use to do the work of empire around the world. What the Gulf War showed was that on a conventional battlefield, in this setting of a desert war, American military superiority would be decisive, could produce a quick victory with minimal costs in American lives, and bring about a surge of political popularity at home. This new militarist enthusiasm created the political base for recourse to the NATO War in 1999 to wrest Kosovo from Serb control. To ensure the avoidance of casualties, reliance was placed on air attacks conducted from high altitudes. The war took more time than expected, but was interpreted as validating the claim of war planners that the United States could now fight and win ‘zero casualty wars.’ There were no NATO combat deaths in the Kosovo War, and the war produced a ‘victory’ by ending Serbian control over Kosovo as well as demonstrating that NATO could still be used and useful even after the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet threat that had explained the formation of the alliance in the first place.

More sophisticated American war planners understood that not all challenges to United States interests around the world could be met with air power in the absence of ground combat. Increasingly, political violence involving geopolitical priorities took the form of transnational violence (as in the 9/11 attacks) or was situated within the boundaries of territorial states, and involved Western military intervention designed to crush societal forces of national resistance. The Bush presidency badly confused its new self-assurance about the conduct of battlefield international warfare where military superiority dictates the political outcome and its old nemesis from Vietnam War days of counter-insurgency warfare, also known as low-intensity or asymmetric warfare, where military superiority controls the battlefield but not the endgame of conflict which depends on winning the allegiance of the territorial population.

David Petraeus rose through the ranks of the American military by repackaging counterinsurgency warfare in a post-Vietnam format relying upon an approach developed by noted guerrilla war expert David Galula, who contended that in the Vietnam War the fatal mistake was made of supposing that such a war would be determined 80% by combat battles in the jungles and paddy fields with the remaining 20% devoted to the capture of the ‘hearts and minds’ of the indigenous population. Galula argued that counterinsurgency wars could only be won if this formula was inverted. This meant that 80% of future U.S. military interventions should be devoted to non-military aspects of societal wellbeing: restoring electricity, providing police protection for normal activity, building and staffing schools, improving sanitation and garbage removal, and providing health car and jobs.

Afghanistan, and then Iraq, became the testing grounds for applying these nation-building lessons of Vietnam, only to reveal in the course of their lengthy, destructive and expensive failures that the wrong lessons had been learned by the militarists and their civilian counterparts. These conflicts were wars of national resistance, a continuation of the anti-colonial struggles against West-centric domination, and regardless of whether the killing was complemented by sophisticated social and economic programs, it still involved a pronounced and deadly challenge by foreign interests to the national independence and rights of self-determination that entailed killing Iraqi women and children, and violating their most basic rights through the unavoidably harsh mechanics of foreign occupation. It also proved impossible to disentangle the planned 80% from the 20% as the hostility of the Iraqi people to their supposed American liberators demonstrated over and over again, especially as many Iraqis on the side of the occupiers proved to be corrupt and brutal, sparking popular suspicion and intensifying internal polarization. The truly ‘fatal mistake’ made by Petraeus, Galula, and all the counterinsurgency advocates that have followed this path, is the failure to recognize that when the American military and its allies attack and occupy a non-Western country, especially in the Islamic world, when they start dividing, killing and policing its inhabitants, popular resistance will be mobilized and hatred toward the foreign ‘liberators’ will spread. This is precisely what happened in Iraq, and the suicide bombings to this day suggest that the ugly patterns of violence have not stopped even with the ending of America’s direct combat role.

The United States was guilty of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Iraq War displayed to the world when George W. Bush theatrically declared on May 1, 2003 a wildly premature victory from the deck of an American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, with the notorious banner proclaiming ‘mission accomplished’ plainly visible behind the podium as the sun sank over the Pacific Ocean. Bush reveled in this misunderstanding by assuming that the attack phase of the war was the whole war, forgetting about the more difficult and protracted occupation phase. The real Iraq War, rather than ending, was about to begin, that is, the violent internal struggle for the political future of the country, one made more difficult and protracted by the military presence of the US and its allies. This counterinsurgency sequel to occupation would not be decided on the kind of battlefield where arrayed military capabilities confront one another, but rather through a war of attrition waged by hit and run domestic Iraqi forces, abetted by foreign volunteers, opposed to the tactics of Washington and to the overall aura of illegitimacy attached to American military operations in a Third World setting. Such a war has a shadowy beginning and a still uncertain ending, and is often, as in Iraq, as it proved to be earlier in Vietnam and Afghanistan, a quagmire for intervening powers. There are increasing reasons to believe that the current Iraqi leader, Nouri al-Maliki, resembles the authoritarian style of Saddam Hussein more than the supposed constitutional liberal regime that the United States pretends to leave behind, and that the country is headed for continuing struggle, possibly even a disastrous civil war fought along sectarian line. In many respects, including the deepening of the Sunni/Shi’a divide the country and its people are worse off that before the Iraq War without in any way questioning allegations about the cruelty and criminality of the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.

The Iraq War was a war of aggression from its inception, being an unprovoked use of armed force against a sovereign state in a situation other than self-defense. The Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals convened after World War II had declared such aggressive warfare to be a ‘crime against peace’ and prosecuted and punished surviving political and military leaders of Germany and Japan as war criminals. We can ask why have George W. Bush and Tony Blair not been investigated, indicted, and prosecuted for their roles in planning and prosecuting the Iraq War. As folk singer Bob Dylan instructed us long ago, the answer is ‘blowin’ in the wind,’ or in more straightforward language, the reasons for such impunity conferred upon the American and British leaders is one more crude display of geopolitics—their countries were not defeated and occupied, their governments never surrendered and discredited, and such strategic failures (or successes) are exempted from legal scrutiny. These are the double standards that make international criminal justice a reflection of power politics more than of evenhanded global justice.

There is also the question of complicity of countries that supported the war with troop deployments, such as Japan, which dispatched 1000 members of its self-defense units to Iraq in July 2003 to help with non-combat dimensions of the occupation. Such a role is a clear breach of international law and morality. It is also inconsistent with Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. It was coupled with Tokyo’s diplomatic support for the U.S./UK-led Iraq War from start to finish. Should such a record of involvement have any adverse consequences? It would seem that Japan might at least review the appropriateness of its complicit participation in a war of aggression, and how that diminishes the credibility of any Japanese claim to uphold the responsibilities of membership in the United Nations. At least, it provides the people of Japan with a moment for national soul-searching to think about what kind of world order will in the future best achieve peace, stability, and human dignity.

Are there lessons to be drawn from the Iraq War? I believe there are. The overwhelming lesson is that in this historical period interventions by the West in the non-West, especially when not authorized by the UN Security Council, can rarely succeed in attaining their stated goals. More broadly, counterinsurgency warfare involving a core encounter between Western invading and occupying forces and a national resistance movement will not be decided on the basis of hard power military superiority, but rather by the dynamics of self-determination associated with the party that has the more credible nationalist credentials, which include the will to persist in the struggle for as long as it takes, and the capacity to capture the high moral ground in the ongoing legitimacy struggle for domestic and international public support. It is only when we witness the dismantling of many of America’s 700+ acknowledged foreign military bases spread around the world, and see the end of repeated US military intervention globally, that we can have some hope that the correct lessons of the Iraq War are finally being learned. Until then there will be further attempts by the U.S. Government to correct the tactical mistakes that it claims caused past failures in Iraq (and Afghanistan), and new interventions will undoubtedly be proposed in coming years, most probably leading to costly new failures, and further controversies as to ‘why?’ we fought and why we lost. American leaders will remain unlikely to acknowledge that the most basic mistake is itself militarism and the accompanying arrogance of occupation, at least until this establishment consensus is challenged by a robust anti-militarist grassroots political movement not currently visible.

Richard Falk is Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and NAPF Senior Vice President.

March 18, 2013
Against the Institution of War
As we start the 21st century and the new millennium, our scientific and technological civilization seems to be entering a period of crisis. Today, for the first time in history, science has given to humans the possibility of a life of comfort, free from hunger and cold, and free from the constant threat of infectious disease. At the same time, science has given us the power to destroy civilization through thermonuclear war, as well as the power to make our planet uninhabitable through pollution and overpopulation. The question of which of these alternatives we choose is a matter of life or death to ourselves and our children.

Science and technology have shown themselves to be double-edged, capable of doing great good or of producing great harm, depending on the way in which we use the enormous power over nature, which science has given to us. For this reason, ethical thought is needed now more than ever before. The wisdom of the world’s religions, the traditional wisdom of humankind, can help us as we try to insure that our overwhelming material progress will be beneficial rather than disastrous.

The crisis of civilization, which we face today, has been produced by the rapidity with which science and technology have developed. Our institutions and ideas adjust too slowly to the change. The great challenge which history has given to our generation is the task of building new international political structures, which will be in harmony with modern technology. At the same time, we must develop a new global ethic, which will replace our narrow loyalties by loyalty to humanity as a whole.

In the long run, because of the enormously destructive weapons, which have been produced through the misuse of science, the survival of civilization can only be insured if we are able to abolish the institution of war.

While in earlier epochs it may have been possible to confine the effects of war mainly to combatants, in our own century the victims of war have increasingly been civilians, and especially children. For example, according to Quincy Wright’s statistics, the First and Second World Wars together cost the lives of 26 million soldiers, but the toll in civilian lives was much larger: 64 million.

Since the Second World War, despite the best efforts of the U. N., there have been over 150 armed conflicts; and, if civil wars are included, there are on any given day an average of 12 wars somewhere in the world. In the conflicts in Indo-China, the proportion of civilian victims was between 80 % and 90 % , while in the Lebanese civil war some sources state that the proportion of civilian casualties was as high as 97%.

Civilian casualties often occur through malnutrition and through diseases, which would be preventable in normal circumstances. Because of the social disruption caused by war, normal supplies of food, safe water and medicine are interrupted, so that populations become vulnerable to famine and epidemics. In the event of a catastrophic nuclear war, starvation and disease would add greatly to the loss of life caused by the direct effects of nuclear weapons.

The indirect effects of war are also enormous. Globally, preparations for war interfere seriously with the use of tax money for constructive and peaceful purposes. Today, despite the end of the Cold War, the world spends roughly $1.7 trillion (i.e. a million million) US dollars each year on armaments. This enormous flood of money, which is almost too large to imagine, could have been used instead for urgently needed public health measures.

The World Health Organization lacks funds to carry through an anti-malarial program on as large a scale as would be desirable, but the entire program could be financed for less than the world spends on armaments in a single day. Five hours of world arms spending is equivalent to the total cost of the 20-year WHO campaign, which resulted in the eradication of smallpox. For every 100,000 people in the world, there are 556 soldiers, but only 85 doctors. Every soldier costs an average of 20,000 US dollars per year, while the average spent per year on education is only 380 US dollars per school-aged child. With a diversion of funds consumed by three weeks of military spending, the world could create a sanitary water supply for all its people, thus eliminating the cause of almost half of all human illness.

A new and drug-resistant form of tuberculosis has recently become widespread, and is increasing rapidly in the former Soviet Union. In order to combat this new form of tuberculosis, and in order to prevent its spread to Western Europe, WHO needs 450 million US dollars, an amount equivalent to 4 hours of world arms spending. By using this money to combat tuberculosis in the former Soviet Union, WHO would be making a far greater contribution to global peace and stability than is made by spending the money on armaments.

Today’s world is one in which roughly ten million children die each year from diseases related to poverty. Besides this enormous waste of young lives through malnutrition and preventable disease, there is a huge waste of opportunities through inadequate education. The rate of illiteracy in the 25 least developed countries is 80 percent, and the total number of illiterates in the world is estimated to be 800 million. Meanwhile every 60 seconds the world spends roughly 2 million U. S. dollars on armaments.

It is plain that if the almost unbelievable sums now wasted on armaments were used constructively, most of the pressing problems now facing humanity could be solved, but today the world spends more than 20 times as much per year on weapons as it does on development.

Because the world spends a thousand billion dollars each year on armaments, it follows that very many people make their living from war. This is the reason why it is correct to speak of war as a social institution, and also the reason why war persists, although everyone realizes that it is the cause of much of the suffering that inflicts humanity. We know that war is madness, but it persists. We know that it threatens the future survival of our species, but it persists, entrenched in the attitudes of historians, newspaper editors and television producers, entrenched in the methods by which politicians finance their campaigns, and entrenched in the financial power of arms manufacturers, entrenched also in the ponderous and costly hardware of war, the fleets of warships, bombers, tanks, nuclear missiles and so on.

Science cannot claim to be guiltless: In Eisenhower’s farewell address, he warned of the increasing power of the industrial-military complex, a threat to democratic society. If he were making the same speech today, he might speak of the industrial-military-scientific complex. Since Hiroshima, we have known that new knowledge is not always good. There is a grave danger that nuclear weapons will soon proliferate to such an extent that they will be available to terrorists and even to the mafia. Chemical and biological weapons also constitute a grave threat. The eradication of smallpox in 1979 was a triumph of medical science combined with international cooperation. How sad it is to think that military laboratories cultivate smallpox and that the disease may soon be reintroduced as a biological weapon!

The institution of war seems to be linked to a fault in human nature, to our tendency to exhibit altruism towards members of our own group but aggression towards other groups if we perceive them to be threatening our own community. This tendency, which might be called “tribalism”, was perhaps built into human nature by evolution during the long prehistory of our species, when we lived as hunter-gatherers in small genetically homogeneous tribes, competing for territory on the grasslands of Africa. However, in an era of nerve gas and nuclear weapons, the anachronistic behavior pattern of tribal altruism and intertribal aggression now threatens our survival.

Fortunately, our behavior is only partly determined by inherited human nature. It is also, and perhaps to a larger extent, determined by education and environment; and in spite of all the difficulties just mentioned, war has been eliminated locally in several large regions of the world. Taking these regions as models, we can attempt to use the same methods to abolish war globally.

For example, war between the Scandinavian nations would be unthinkable today, although the region once was famous for its violence. Scandinavia is especially interesting as a model for what we would like to achieve globally, because it is a region in which it has been possible not only to eradicate war, but also poverty; and at the same time, death from infectious disease has become a rarity in this region.

If we consider the problem of simultaneously eliminating poverty, war and frequent death from infectious disease, we are lead inevitably to the problem of population stabilization. At the time when poverty, disease and war characterized Scandinavia, the average fertility in the region was at least 6 children per woman-life. Equilibrium was maintained at this high rate of fertility, because some of the children died from disease without leaving progeny, and because others died in war. Today, poverty and war are gone from the Nordic countries, and the rate of premature death from infectious disease is very low. The simultaneous elimination of poverty, disease and war would have been impossible in Scandinavia if the rate of fertility had not fallen to the replacement level. There would then have been no alternative except for the population to grow, which it could not have continued to do over many centuries without environmental degradation, bringing with it the recurrence of poverty, disease and war.

In Scandinavia today, democratic government, a high level of education, economic prosperity, public health, high social status for women, legal, economic and educational equality for women, a low birth rate, and friendly cooperation between the nations of the region are mutually linked in loops of cause and effect. By contrast, we can find other regions of the world where low status of women, high birth rates, rapidly increasing population, urban slums, low educational levels, high unemployment levels, poverty, ethnic conflicts and the resurgence of infectious disease are equally linked, but in a vicious circle. The three age-old causes of human suffering, poverty, infectious disease and war are bound together by complex causal relationships involving also the issues of population stabilization and woman’s rights. The example of Scandinavia shows us that it is possible to cure all these diseases of society; but to do so we must address all of the problems simultaneously.

Abolition of the institution of war will require the construction of structures of international government and law to replace our present anarchy at the global level. Today’s technology has shrunken the distances, which once separated nations; and our present system of absolutely sovereign nation-states has become both obsolete and dangerous.

Professor Elie Kedourie of the University of London has given the following definition of nationalism: “A doctrine invented in Europe at the beginning of the 19th century. It pretends to supply a criterion for the determination of the unit of population proper to enjoy a government exclusively its own, for the legitimate exercise of power in the state, and for the right organization of a society of states. Briefly, the doctrine holds that humanity is naturally divided into nations, that nations are known by certain characteristics which can be ascertained, and that the only legitimate type of government is national self-government.”

A basic problem with this doctrine is that throughout most of the world, successive waves of migration, conquest and intermarriage have left such a complicated ethnic mosaic that attempts to base political divisions on ethnic homogeneity often meet with trouble. In Eastern Europe, for example, German-speaking and Slavic-speaking peoples are mixed together so closely that the Pan-German and Pan-Slavic movements inevitably clashed over the question of who should control the regions where the two populations lived side by side. This clash was one of the main causes of the First World War.

Similarly, when India achieved independence from England, a great problem arose in the regions where Hindus and Moslems lived side by side; and even Gandhi was unable to prevent terrible violence from taking place between the two communities. This problem is still present, and it has been made extremely dangerous by the acquisition of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan.

More recently, nationalist movements in Asia and Africa have derived their force and popularity from a reaction against the years of European political and economic domination. Thus, at first sight, they seem to deserve our sympathy and support. However, in building states, the new nationalists have often used hate for outsiders as mortar. For example, Israel is held together by hostility towards its Arab neighbors, while the Pan-Arab movement is held together by hostility towards Israel; and in this inflamed political climate of mutual fear and hatred, even clandestine nuclear weapons appear to either side to be justified.

A basic problem rooted in nationalist mythology exists in the concept of sanctions, which treat nations as if they were individuals. We punish nations as a whole by sanctions, even when only the leaders are guilty, even though the burdens of the sanctions often fall most heavily on the weakest and least guilty of the citizens, and even though sanctions often have the effect of uniting the citizens of a country behind the guilty leaders.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the concept of the absolutely sovereign nation-state is an anachronism in a world of thermonuclear weapons, instantaneous communication, and economic interdependence. Probably our best hope for the future lies in developing the United Nations into a World Federation. The strengthened United Nations should have a legislature with the power to make laws which are binding on individuals, and the ability to arrest and try individual political leaders for violations of these laws. The World Federation should also have the military and legal powers necessary to guarantee the human rights of ethnic minorities within nations.

A strengthened UN would need a reliable source of income to make the organization less dependent on wealthy countries, which tend to give support only to those interventions of which they approve. A promising solution to this problem is the so-called “Tobin tax”, named after the Nobel-laureate economist James Tobin of Yale University. Tobin proposed that international currency exchanges should be taxed at a rate between 0.1 and 0.25 percent. He believed that even this extremely low rate of taxation would have the effect of damping speculative transactions, thus stabilizing the rates of exchange between currencies. When asked what should be done with the proceeds of the tax, Tobin said, almost as an afterthought, “Let the United Nations have it”. The volume of money involved in international currency transactions is so enormous that even the tiny tax proposed by Tobin would provide the World Federation with between 100 billion and 300 billion dollars annually. By strengthening the activities of various UN agencies, such as WHO, UNESCO and FAO, the additional income would add to the prestige of the United Nations and thus make the organization more effective when it is called upon to resolve international political conflicts.

A federation is, by definition, a limited union of states, where the federal government has the power to make laws which are binding on individuals, but where the laws are confined to interstate matters, and where all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved for the several states. In other words, in a federation, each of the member states runs its own internal affairs according to its own laws and customs; but in certain agreed-on matters, where the interests of the states overlap, authority is specifically delegated to the federal government.

For example, if the nations of the world considered the control of narcotics to be a matter of mutual concern; if they agreed to set up a commission with the power to make laws preventing the growing, refinement and distribution of harmful drugs, and with the power to arrest individuals for violating those laws, then we would have a world federation in the area of narcotics control.

If, in addition, the world community considered terrorism to be a matter of mutual concern; if an international commission were also set up with the power to make global anti-terrorist laws, and to arrest individuals violating those laws, then we would have a world federation with somewhat broader powers.

If the community of nations decided to give the federal authority the additional power to make laws defining the rights and obligations of multinational corporations, and the power to arrest individuals violating those laws, then we would have a world federation with still broader powers; but these powers would still be carefully defined and limited.

In 1998, in Rome, representatives of 120 countries signed a statute establishing a International Criminal Court, with jurisdiction over war crimes and genocide. Four years were to pass before the necessary ratifications were gathered, but by Thursday, April 11, 2002, 66 nations had ratified the Rome agreement, 6 more than the 60 needed to make the court permanent. The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is at present limited to a very narrow class crimes. The global community will have a chance to see how the court works in practice, and in the future, the community may decide to broaden its jurisdiction.

In setting up a federation, the member states can decide which powers they wish to delegate to it; and all powers not expressly delegated are retained by the individual states. We are faced with the problem of constructing a new world order which will preserve the advantages of local self-government while granting certain carefully-chosen powers to larger regional or global authorities. Which things should be decided locally, or regionally, and which globally?

In the future, overpopulation and famine are likely to become increasingly difficult and painful problems in several parts of the world. Since various cultures take widely different attitudes towards birth control and family size, the problem of population stabilization seems to be one which should be solved locally. At the same time, aid for local family planning programs, as well as famine relief, might appropriately come from global agencies, such as WHO and FAO. With respect to large-scale migration, it would be unfair for a country which has successfully stabilized its own population, and which has eliminated poverty within its own borders, to be forced to accept a flood of migrants from regions of high fertility. Therefore the extent of immigration should be among the issues to be decided locally.

Security, and controls on the manufacture and export of armaments will require an effective authority at the global level. It should also be the responsibility of the international community to intervene to prevent gross violations of human rights. Since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has more and more frequently been called upon to send armed forces to troubled parts of the world. In many instances, these calls for U. N. intervention have been prompted by clear and atrocious violations of human rights, for example by “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia and by genocide in Rwanda. In the examples just named, the response of the United Nations would have been much more effective, and many lives would have been saved, if the action which was finally taken had come sooner. Long and complex diplomatic negotiations were required to muster the necessary political and physical forces needed for intervention, by which time the original problems had become much more severe. For this reason, it has been suggested that the U. N. Secretary General, the Security Council and the General Assembly ought to have at their disposal a permanent, highly trained and highly mobile emergency force, composed of volunteers from all nations. Such an international police force would be able to act rapidly to prevent gross violations of human rights or other severe breaches of international law.

In evaluating the concept of an international police force directly responsible to the United Nations, it is helpful to examine the way in which police act to enforce laws and to prevent violence and crime at local and national levels.

Within a community which is characterized by good government, police are not highly armed, nor are they very numerous. Law and order are not maintained primarily by the threat of force, but by the opinion of the vast majority of the citizens that the system of laws is both just and necessary. Traffic stops when the signal light is red and moves when it is green whether or not a policeman is present, because everyone understands why such a system is necessary.

Nevertheless, although the vast majority of the citizens in a well-governed community support the system of laws and would never wish to break the law, we all know that the real world is not heaven. The total spectrum of human nature includes evil as well as a good. If there were no police at all, and if the criminal minority were completely unchecked, every citizen would be obliged to be armed. No one’s life or property would be safe. Robbery, murder and rape would flourish.

Within a society with a democratic and just government, whose powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a small and lightly armed force of police is able to maintain the system of laws. One reason why this is possible has just been mentioned – the force of public opinion. A second reason is that the law acts on individuals. Since obstruction of justice and the murder of policemen both rank as serious crimes, an individual criminal is usually not able to organize massive resistance against police action.

Edith Wynner, one of the pioneers of the World Federalist movement, lists the following characteristics of police power in a well-governed society:
1. “A policeman operates within a framework of organized government having legislative, executive and judicial authority operating on individuals. His actions are guided by a clearly stated criminal code that has the legislative sanction of the community. Should he abuse the authority vested in him, he is subject to discipline and court restraint.”
2. “A policeman seeing a fight between two men does not attempt to determine which of them is in the right and then help him beat up the one he considers wrong. His function is to restrain violence by both, to bring them before a judge who has authority to determine the rights of the dispute, and to see that the court’s decision is carried out.”
3. “In carrying out his duties, the policeman must apprehend the suspected individual without jeopardizing either the property or the lives of the community where the suspect is to be arrested. And not only is the community safeguarded against destruction of property and loss of life but the rights of the suspect are also carefully protected by an elaborate network of judicial safeguards.”
Edith Wynner also discusses the original union of the thirteen American colonies, which was a confederation, analogous to the present United Nations. This confederation was found to be too weak, and after eleven years it was replaced by a federation, one of whose key powers was the power to make and enforce laws which acted on individuals. George Mason, one of the architects of the federal constitution of the United States, believed that “such a government was necessary as could directly operate on individuals, and would punish those only whose guilt required it”, while James Madison (another drafter of the U. S. federal constitution) remarked that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted “the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively, and not individually”. Finally, Alexander Hamilton, in his “Federalist Papers”, discussed the confederation with the following words: “To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised… Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government, which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself – a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be enough to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government… What is the cure for this great evil? Nothing, but to enable the… laws to operate on individuals, in the same manner as those of states do.”

The United Nations is at present a confederation rather than a federation, and thus it acts by attempting to coerce states, a procedure which Alexander Hamilton characterized as “one of the maddest projects that was ever devised”. Whether this coercion takes the form of economic sanctions, or whether it takes the form of military intervention, the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of the UN’s efforts are hampered because they are applied to people collectively and not individually. It is obvious that the United Nations actions to stop aggression of one state against another in the Korean War and in the Gulf War fail to match the three criteria for police action listed above. What is the cure for this great evil? “Nothing”, Hamilton tells us, “but to enable the laws to act on individuals, in the same manner as those of states do.”

Historically, confederations have always proved to be too weak; but federations have on the whole been very successful, mainly because a federation has the power to make laws which act on individuals. At the same time, a federation aims at leaving as many powers as possible in the hands of local authorities. Recent examples of federations include the United States of America, the United States of Brazil, the United States of Mexico, the United States of Venezuela, the Argentine Nation, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of Canada, the Union of South Africa, Switzerland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the European Federation. Thus we are rich in historical data on the strengths and weaknesses of federations, and we can make use of this data as we attempt to construct good government at the global level.

Looking towards the future, we can perhaps foresee a time when the United Nations will have been converted to a federation and given the power to make international laws which are binding on individuals. Under such circumstances, true international law enforcement will be possible, incorporating all of the needed safeguards for lives and property of the innocent. One can hope for a future world where the institution of war will be abolished, and where public opinion will support international law to such an extent that a new Hitler or a future Milosevic will not be able to organize large-scale resistance to arrest, a world where international law will be seen by all to be just, impartial and necessary, a well-governed global community within which each person will owe his or her ultimate loyalty to humanity as a whole.

Besides a humane, democratic and just framework of international law and governance, we urgently need a new global ethic, – an ethic where loyalty to family, community and nation will be supplemented by a strong sense of the brotherhood of all humans, regardless of race, religion or nationality. Schiller expressed this feeling in his “Ode to Joy”, the text of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. Hearing Beethoven’s music and Schiller’s words, most of us experience an emotion of resonance and unity with its message: All humans are brothers and sisters – not just some – all! It is almost a national anthem of humanity. The feelings which the music and words provoke are similar to patriotism, but broader. It is this sense of a universal human family, which we need to cultivate in education, in the mass media, and in religion.

Educational reforms are urgently needed, particularly in the teaching of history. As it is taught today, history is a chronicle of power struggles and war, told from a biased national standpoint. Our own race or religion is superior; our own country is always heroic and in the right.

We urgently need to replace this indoctrination in chauvinism by a reformed view of history, where the slow development of human culture is described, giving adequate credit to all those who have contributed. Our modern civilization is built on the achievements of ancient cultures. China, India, Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, Greece, the Islamic world, Christian Europe, and Jewish intellectual traditions all have contributed. Potatoes, corn and squash are gifts from the American Indians. Human culture, gradually built up over thousands of years by the patient work of millions of hands and minds, should be presented to students of history as a precious heritage – far too precious to be risked in a thermonuclear war.

In the teaching of science too, reforms are needed. Graduates in science and technology should be conscious of their responsibilities. They must resolve never to use their education in the service of war, or in any way which might be harmful to society or to the environment.

In modern societies, mass media play an extremely important role in determining behavior and attitudes. This role can be a negative one when the media show violence and enemy images, but if used constructively, the mass media can offer a powerful means for creating international understanding. If it is indeed true that tribalism is part of human nature, it is extremely important that the mass media be used to the utmost to overcome the barriers between nations and cultures. Through increased communication, the world’s peoples can learn to accept each other as members of a single family.

Finally, let us turn to religion, with its enormous influence on human thought and behavior. Christianity, for example, offers a strongly stated ethic, which, if practiced, would make war impossible. In Mathew, the following passage occurs:

“Ye have heard it said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy. But I say unto you: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that spitefully use you and persecute you.”

This seemingly impractical advice, that we should love our enemies, is in fact of the greatest practicality, since acts of unilateral kindness and generosity can stop escalatory cycles of revenge and counter-revenge such as those which characterize the present conflict in the Middle East and the recent troubles of Northern Ireland. However, Christian nations, while claiming to adhere to the ethic of love and forgiveness, have adopted a policy of “massive retaliation”, involving systems of thermonuclear missiles whose purpose is to destroy as much as possible of the country at which the retaliation is aimed. It is planned that entire populations shall be killed in a “massive retaliation”, innocent children along with the guilty politicians. The startling contradiction between what the Christian nations profess and what they do was obvious even before the advent of nuclear weapons, at the time when Leo Tolstoy, during his last years, was exchanging letters with a young Indian lawyer in South Africa. In one of his letters to Gandhi, Tolstoy wrote:

“The whole life of the Christian peoples is a continuous contradiction between that which they profess and the principles on which they order their lives, a contradiction between love accepted as the law of life, and violence, which is recognized and praised, acknowledged even as a necessity.”

“This year, in the spring, at a Scripture examination at a girls’ high school in Moscow, the teacher and the bishop present asked the girls questions on the Commandments, and especially on the sixth. After a correct answer, the bishop generally put another question, whether murder was always in all cases forbidden by God’s law; and the unhappy young ladies were forced by previous instruction to answer ‘Not always’ – that murder was permitted in war and in the execution of criminals. Still, when one of these unfortunate young ladies (what I am telling is not an invention but a fact told to me by an eye witness) after her first answer, was asked the usual question, if killing was always sinful, she, agitated and blushing, decisively answered ‘Always’, and to the usual sophisms of the bishop, she answered with decided conviction that killing was always forbidden in the Old Testament and forbidden by Christ, not only killing but every wrong against a brother. Notwithstanding all his grandeur and arts of speech, the bishop became silent and the girl remained victorious.”

As everyone knows, Gandhi successfully applied the principle of non-violence to the civil rights struggle in South Africa, and later to the political movement, which gave India its freedom and independence. The principle of non-violence was also successfully applied by Martin Luther King, and by Nelson Mandela. It is perhaps worthwhile to consider Gandhi’s comment on the question of whether the end justifies the means: “The means may be likened to a seed”, Gandhi wrote, “and the end to a tree; and there is the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree.” In other words, a dirty method produces a dirty result; killing produces more killing; hate leads to more hate. Everyone who reads the newspapers knows that this is true. But there are positive feedback loops as well as negative ones. A kind act produces a kind response; a generous gesture is returned; hospitality results in reflected hospitality. Buddhists call this principle of reciprocity “the law of karma”.

The religious leaders of the world have the opportunity to contribute importantly to the solution of the problem of war. They have the opportunity to powerfully support the concept of universal human brotherhood, to build bridges between religious groups, to make intermarriage across ethnic boundaries easier, and to soften the distinctions between communities. If they fail to do this, they will have failed humankind at a time of crisis.

It is useful to consider the analogy between the institution of war and the institution of slavery. We might be tempted to say, “There has always been war, throughout human history; and war will always continue to exist.” As an antidote for this kind of pessimism, we can think of slavery, which, like war, has existed throughout most of recorded history. The cultures of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome were all based on slavery, and, in more recent times, 13 million Africans were captured and forced into a life of slavery in the New World. Slavery was as much an accepted and established institution as war is today. Many people made large profits from slavery, just as arms manufacturers today make enormous profits. Nevertheless, in spite of the weight of vested interests, slavery has now been abolished throughout most of the world.

Today we look with horror at drawings of slave ships, where human beings were packed together like cord-wood; and we are amazed that such cruelty could have been possible. Can we not hope for a time when our descendants, reading descriptions of the wars of the twentieth century, will be equally amazed that such cruelty could have been possible? If we use them constructively, the vast resources now wasted on war can initiate a new era of happiness and prosperity for the family of man. It is within our power to let this happen. The example of the men and women who worked to rid the world of slavery can give us courage as we strive for a time when war will exist only as a dark memory fading into the past.

1. Q. Wright, “A Study of War”, Chicago University Press, (1965).
2. M. Kahnert et al., editors, “Children and War”, Peace Union of Finland, (1983).
3. N.A. Guenther, “Children and the Threat of Nuclear War: An Annotated Bibliography”, Compubibs, New York, New York, (1985).
4. D.V. Babst et al, “Accidental Nuclear War: The Growing Peril”, Dundas, Ontario, Peace Research Institute, (1984).
5. J. Schear, editor, “Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Nuclear Risk”, Gower, London, (1984).
6. E. Chivian et al., editors, (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), “Last Aid: The Medical Dimensions of Nuclear War”, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, (1982).
7. H. Mahler, “World Health is Indivisible”, World Health Organization, Geneva, (1978).
8. E. Kamenka, editor, “Nationalism”, Edward Arnold, London, (1976).
9. Elie Kedourie, “Nationalism in Asia and Africa”, Frank Cass and Company Ltd., London, (1970).
10. S. Freud, “Warum Krieg? Das Bild vom Feind”, Arbeitsgem. Friedenspedagogik, (1983).
11. R.A. Levine and D.T. Campbell, “Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes and Group Behavior”, Wiley, New York, (1972).
12. R.A. Hinde, “Biological Basis of Human Social Behavior”, McGraw-Hill, (1977).
13. R.A. Hinde, “Towards Understanding Human Relationships”, Academic Press, London, (1979).
14. C. Zahn-Waxler, “Altruism and Aggression: Biological and Social Origins”, Cambridge University Press, (1986).
15. R. Axelrod, “The Evolution of Cooperation”, Basic Books, New York, (1984).
16. Arthur Koestler, “The Urge to Self-Destruction”, in “The Place of Values in a World of Facts”, A. Tiselius and S. Nielsson editors, Wiley, New York, (1970).
17. Edith Wynner,”World Federal Government in Maximum Terms: Proposals for United Nations Charter Revision”, Fedonat Press, Afton New York, (1954).

John Avery is a leader in the Pugwash movement in Denmark.
March 6, 2013
Dismay at P5 Boycott of Oslo Conference

This article was originally published by Pressenza.

It appears that Norway’s deliberate plan to limit the focus of its conference to the “catastrophic consequences of nuclear war” in an attempt to secure the attendance of the nuclear weapons states, has failed with the five nuclear weapons states who signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (known as the P5, as they are the very same nations that have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and wield the veto power in that damaged institution) boycotting the event.

The P5 have ganged up on the rest of the world, consulting with each other and refusing as a group to attend, according to Rose Goettemoeler, the US Acting Undersecretary for Arms Control and National Security, who briefed a group of US NGOs, starting out the conversation by saying:

“I want to talk to you about the US decision not to attend the conference, want you to know what the rationale is, we didn’t take this decision lightly. It was made in consultation with the P5. They all agreed not to attend.”

Contending that a focus on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war was a good strategy for NGOs, Goettemoeller insisted that it would be a “distraction” from the “step-by-step” approach preferred by the P5. But the beloved “step-by-step” approach, leading to a nuclear weapons free world in an infinite number of lifetimes, has brought us the latest abomination, the modest START treaty where Obama made a deal with the weapons labs and arms merchants for $180 billion worth of three new bomb factories, at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge and Kansas City, as well as new planes, submarines and missiles, over the next ten years, to deliver their lethal nuclear payloads.

One of the first ugly steps was the deal Clinton made in 1992 with the weapons labs when he was trying to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, where he promised $6 billion a year for new high-tech, computer-simulated nuclear bomb laboratory tests coupled with “sub-critical” tests at the Nevada test site, where plutonium is blown up with high explosives, but doesn’t have a chain reaction.

Despite the pledge made in the Non-Proliferation Treaty “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”, the rogue P5, are modernizing their arsenals and taking tiny baby steps leading to nowhere. All the while the US points to the “greatest threat”, a nuclear terrorist getting a bomb or North Korea or Iran.

Further, they appear to be tone-deaf or blind to the effect that NATO expansion and ballistic missile “offense” is having on the possibility for true nuclear disarmament where major agreements are needed between the US and Russia who have 19,000 of the 20,000 bombs on the planet. While Goettemoeller said she is looking forward to further progress in nuclear arms cuts with Russia, she discounted Putin’s recent call to beef up its military because of NATO expansion and US missiles planted on its border, characterizing it as a grandstanding speech by Putin made at a meeting of his generals. We need only recall what happened when the Soviet Union planted missiles in Cuba—we almost started a world war.

The good news about Oslo is that 130 nations have agreed to attend, including India and Pakistan, two nuclear weapons states outside the NPT regime. Perhaps Asia will lead the way to a negotiated treaty to finally ban the bomb.

Alice Slater is the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s New York Representative.

March 1, 2013
Implications of the US-India Nuclear Deal and the Task for the International Peace Movement

The US Congress has passed legislation enabling the 2005 US-India nuclear deal to go forward. This deal may accelerate the nuclear arms in South Asia.

The US Congress explicitly rejected proposals that the deal be conditional on India halting its production of fissile materials (plutonium and highly enriched uranium) for nuclear weapons. This is despite the fact that the United Nations Security Council had unanimously demanded that India and Pakistan stop such production (Resolution 1172, 6 June, 1998).

The U.S.-India deal will allow India access to the international uranium market. This will enable it to free up more of its domestic uranium for its nuclear weapons program. India could, for example, build a third weapon plutonium reactor and begin enriching uranium for weapons, as well as supply enriched uranium to fuel the nuclear submarine it has been trying to build for several decades. India could also convert one of its unsafeguarded nuclear power reactors to weapons-grade plutonium production, and generate an additional 200 kg/year of weapons-grade plutonium. This would allow India to produce an additional 40-50 weapons worth a year of weapon-grade plutonium — up from perhaps seven weapons worth a year today.

As part of the nuclear deal, the United States also agreed to let Indian keep its nuclear fuel reprocessing plants and plutonium breeder reactor program outside safeguards. The plutonium breeder reactor that India expects to complete in 2010 would produce about 25-30 weapons worth a year of weapon-grade plutonium in its blankets. India expects to build another four such reactors in coming years.

Pakistan’s National Command Authority, which is chaired by President Pervez Musharraf and has responsibility for its nuclear weapons policy and production, declared that “In view of the fact the [U.S.-India] agreement would enable India to produce a significant quantity of fissile material and nuclear weapons from unsafeguarded nuclear reactors, the NCA expressed firm resolve that our credible minimum deterrence requirements will be met.”

Our task

The international peace movement can still try to prevent this deal from triggering a major escalation in the South Asian nuclear arms race.

For the deal to come into force, it has to be accepted unanimously by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). The debate may be drawn out – the deal is supported by the United States, United Kingdom, France and Russia, while several members (including Austria, Ireland, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand) are opposed, and other countries (among them Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, and Finland) are divided. China has proposed that instead of an India-specific exemption from NSG rules, a criteria based approach be adopted. This presumably would open the door for the NSG to eventually consider lifting restrictions on nuclear trade with Pakistan — whose nuclear weapon and nuclear power program China has supported.

The countries who are members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group must be urged to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 1172. They should promote an end to the production of fissile materials for weapons in South Asia as a condition for any international nuclear trade with India or Pakistan.

A moratorium on such production could also be important in fostering negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. The United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China have all suspended production of fissile materials for weapons. India and Pakistan (along with Israel and North Korea) are continuing their production however. A complete halt to all production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons is a necessary step for nuclear disarmament.

For more information on the US-India nuclear deal:

Zia Mian and M. V. Ramana, “Wrong Ends, Means, and Needs: Behind the U.S. Nuclear Deal with India,” Arms Control Today, January/February 2006, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IndiaFeature.asp

Zia Mian, A.H. Nayyar, R. Rajaraman and M.V. Ramana, “Fissile Materials in South Asia and the Implications of the US-India Nuclear Deal,” http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/ipfmresearchreport01.pdf

Zia Mian is a research scientist with the programme on science and global security, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University. He is the co-editor of Out of the Nuclear Shadow: Pakistan’s Atomic Bomb & the Search for Security (Zed Books, 2001).

February 28, 2013
Compassion, Wisdom and Courage: Building a Global Society of Peace and Creative Coexistence
To download the full 2013 Peace Proposal, click here.

Synopsis

Efforts are currently under way to define a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with a target date of 2030. As we debate these goals, we must face head-on the underlying ailments of human civilization in order to ensure that efforts to improve the human condition are more than mere stopgap measures—that they enable people struggling in the face of dire threats to recover the hope and strength needed to lead lives of dignity.

For this we need a spiritual framework that will bring into greater clarity those things we cannot afford to ignore, while ensuring that all that we do contributes to the larger objective of a global society of peace and creative coexistence.

If we picture such a society as an edifice, the ideals of human rights and human security are key pillars that hold it up, while the foundation on which these rest is respect for the dignity of life. For this to be a meaningful and robust support for other endeavors, it must be felt and experienced palpably as a way of life.

To this end, I would like to propose the following three commitments as guidelines for action:
- The determination to share the joys and sufferings of others
- Faith in the limitless possibilities of life
- The vow to defend and celebrate diversity
I believe that the social mission of religion in the twenty-first century must be to bring people together in an ethos of reverence for life’s inherent dignity and worth.

One pressing threat to the dignity of far too many people in our world today is poverty. The pervasive stress of economic deprivation is compounded when people feel that their very existence is disregarded, becoming alienated and being deprived of a meaningful role and place within society. This underlies the need for a socially inclusive approach focused on the restoration of a sense of connection with others and of purpose in life.

Regardless of circumstance, all people inherently possess a life-state of ultimate dignity and are in this sense fundamentally equal and endowed with limitless possibilities. When we awaken to our original worth and determine to change present realities, we become a source of hope for others. Such a perspective is, I believe, valuable not only for the challenges of constructing a culture of human rights, but also for realizing a sustainable society.

To forestall the further fissuring of society and enable a culture of peace to take root in the world, dialogue based on the celebration of our diversity is indispensable.

Outlawing nuclear weapons as inhumane

There has been a growing movement to outlaw nuclear weapons based on the premise that they are inhumane. It is my strong hope that an expanding core of NGOs and governments supporting this position will initiate the process of drafting a treaty to outlaw these weapons in light of their inhumane nature.

Japan, as a country that has experienced nuclear attack, should play a leading role in the realization of a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC). Further, it should undertake the kind of confidence-building measures that are a necessary predicate to the establishment of a Northeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone and to creating the conditions for the global abolition of nuclear weapons.

The SGI’s efforts to grapple with the nuclear weapons issue are based on the recognition that the very existence of these weapons represents the ultimate negation of the dignity of life. At the same time, nuclear weapons serve as a prism through which to perceive new perspectives on ecological integrity, economic development and human rights. This in turn helps us identify the elements that will shape the contours of a new, sustainable society, one in which all people can live in dignity.

Toward this end, I would like to make three concrete proposals:
- Making disarmament a key theme of the Sustainable Development Goals. Halving world military expenditures relative to 2010 levels and abolishing nuclear weapons and all other weapons judged inhumane under international law should be included as targets for achievement by the year 2030.
- Initiating the negotiation process of a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The international community should engage in active debate to broadly shape international public opinion, with the goal of agreement on an initial draft by 2015.
- Holding an expanded summit for a nuclear-weapon-free world. The G8 Summit in 2015, the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would be an appropriate opportunity for such a summit.
Fostering a culture of human rights

To enhance United Nations efforts to promote a culture of human rights, I propose that the promotion of human rights be a central element of the SDGs for the year 2030, including the following two specific targets.

Every country should set up a Social Protection Floor (SPF) to ensure that those who are suffering from extreme poverty are able to regain a sense of dignity. Some thirty developing countries have in fact already started implementing plans for minimum income and livelihood guarantees. Such guarantees are a necessary condition for sustainability and a culture of human rights.

Every society should promote human rights education and training. Alongside the legal system of guarantees and remedies, efforts to raise awareness of human rights through education and training could serve as a catalyst for the social interaction and support that provides a sense of connection and helps people regain hope and dignity. Regional centers for human rights education and training could be established within the framework of the United Nations University, along the lines of the centers currently promoting education for sustainable development.

Today’s children will inevitably play a crucial role in the work of constructing a culture of human rights. To protect them and improve the conditions under which they live, it is crucial that all countries ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols, and pass the domestic legislation needed to fulfill the treaty obligations.

Strengthening Sino-Japanese relations

Improving relations between China and Japan—currently said to be at their worst since World War II—is an essential element in building a global society of peace and coexistence.

Political and economic relations between these two countries are constantly impacted by the ebb and flow of the times. This is why, faced with a crisis, it is important to adamantly uphold the two central pledges in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People’s Republic of China (1978): To refrain from the use or threat of force, and not to seek regional hegemony.

I urge Japan and China to set up a high-level forum for dialogue aimed at preventing any worsening of the situation. Its first order of business should be to institute a moratorium on all actions that could be construed as provocative. This should be followed by an analysis of the steps by which the confrontation evolved in order to facilitate the development of guidelines for more effective responses to future crises.

I suggest that Japan and China institute the practice of holding regular summit meetings, similar to those established through the Élysée Treaty that regularly brought together French and German Heads of State and Government. I further propose that Japan and China together launch an organization for environmental cooperation in East Asia. This would help lay the foundations of a new partnership focused on peace and creative coexistence and joint action for the sake of humanity.

The key to realizing all these goals ultimately lies in the solidarity of ordinary citizens. The year 2030 serves as a major goal in the effort to promote cooperation in the international community, and will also mark the one-hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Soka Gakkai. Working with all those committed to a global society of peace and creative coexistence, we will continue to foster solidarity among the world’s people as we look ahead to that significant milestone.

Daisaku Ikeda is President of Soka Gakkai International.
February 12, 2013