Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Nuclear Abolition

  • Open Letter in Support of the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    Dear President Christopher Loeak,

    Dear Foreign Minister Tony de Brum,

    Dear People and Parliament of the Marshall Islands,

    The world salutes your initiative in taking legal action for negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law against the nine nuclear-armed “Goliaths” (the United States, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea).

    We hope that you will be joined in these lawsuits by as many governments as possible, and we will urge them to do so.

    In taking this action, you, and any governments that choose to join you, are acting on behalf of all the seven billion people who now live on Earth and on behalf of the generations yet unborn who could never be born if nuclear weapons are ever used in large numbers.

    You are also acting on behalf of all our ancestors throughout tens of millennia who will have their intellectual, cultural and scientific achievements cancelled should humanity terminate itself through the inadvertent or deliberate use of nuclear weapons.

    In addition, you are acting on behalf of untold thousands of other species who will surely perish in the catastrophic global climatic effects of a nuclear conflict.

    Win or lose in the coming legal arguments, what you, and any who join you, will do has the deepest moral significance, going far beyond the specific interests of any country or government and beyond the usual calculations of national self-interest.

    The unprecedented outburst of resounding applause that Foreign Minister Tony de Brum received in the plenary of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting on 28 April 2014 shows that, for the world, you are all heroes.

    If you stay the course, alone or with a host of others, then what you will be doing is – to recycle a phrase already well-used – “not so much making history, as making history possible.”

    All people and all governments that have the welfare and survival of humanity and the planet at heart must support you wholeheartedly in your courageous legal action.

    (For further information see www.nuclearzero.org)

    Signed:

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate, South Africa

    Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate, Northern Ireland

    Oscar Arias, Nobel Peace Laureate, Costa Rica

    Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate, United States

    Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Laureate, Iran

    Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Laureate, Argentina

    John Hallam (Letter coordinator), People for Nuclear Disarmament/Human Survival Project, Australia

    Prof. Peter King, Human Survival Project, Australia

    David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, United States

    Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director, Greenpeace International, Netherlands

    Aaron Tovish, Mayors For Peace 2020 Vision Campaign, Austria

    Colin Archer, Secretary-General, International Peace Bureau, Switzerland

    Ingeborg Brienes, Co-President, International Peace Bureau, Switzerland

    Jayantha Dhanapala, former UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs (Personal Capacity)

    Helen Caldicott, M.D., Founder, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Australia

    Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute, United States

    Senator Scott Ludlam, Australia

    Jill Hall MP, Australia

    Judy Blyth, People for Nuclear Disarmament, Australia

    Jenny Grounds, President, Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Australia

    Chris Hamer, World Citizens Association / Scientists for Global Responsibility, Australia

    Nick Deane, Marrickville Peace Group, Australia

    Father Claude Mostowyk, MSC, Missionaries of the Sacred Hearth Justice and Peace Centre, Australia

    Ruth Russell, Convenor, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Australia

    Dennis Doherty, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Australia

    Hanna Middleton, Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Australia

    Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Sydney University, Australia

    Barney Richards, President, New Zealand Peace Council, New Zealand

    Bob Rigg, former Chair, National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament, New Zealand

    John Hinchcliffe, President, NZ Peace Foundation, New Zealand

    Dr. Kate Dewes,Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand

    Commander Robert Green (Royal Navy, Ret.), Disarmament and Security Centre, New Zealand

    Dave Webb, Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, United Kingdom

    Bill Kidd MSP, United Kingdom

    Jenny Maxwell, Hereford Peace Council, United Kingdom

    Rae Street, Greater Manchester Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, United Kingdom

    Godrick Ernest Scott Bader, Life-President, Scott Bader Ltd, United Kingdom

    Arthur West, Chair, Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, United Kingdom

    Tony Simpson, Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation, United Kingdom

    Prof. Emeritus Kirsten Osen, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Norway

    Prof. John Gunnar Maeland, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Norway

    John Scales Avery, Ph.D., Chairman, Danish National Group, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Denmark

    Ingrid Schittich, Chairperson, Association of World Citizens, Germany

    Xanthe Hall, Disarmament Campaigner, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Germany

    Herman Spanjaard, M.D., Chair, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Netherlands

    Dr. Peter van den Dungen, General Coordinator, International Network of Museums for Peace, Netherlands

    Dominique Lalanne, Co-chair, Armes nucléaires STOP, France

    Jean-Marie Matagne, President, Action des Citoyens pour le desarmement nucleaire, France

    Pep Puig, Ph.D., Group of Scientists and Technicians for a Non-Nuclear Future, Spain

    Josep Puig, President, Eurosolar, Spain

    Santiago Vilanova, Journalist, Green Alternative, Spain

    Maria Arvaniti Sotiropoulou, President, Greek Medical Association for the Protection of the Environment and against Nuclear and Biochemical Threat, Greece

    Dr. Mubashir Hasan, President Punjab, Pakistan People’s Party, Pakistan

    Sharon Dolev, Director, Israeli Disarmament Movement, Israel

    Sukla Sen, EKTA, India

    J. Narayana Rao, Secretary, Centre For Cultural, Educational, Economics and Social Studies, India

    Wilfred D’Costa, Indian Social Action Forum, India

    Dr. Ranjith S. Jayasekhara, Vice-President, Sri Lankan Doctors for Peace and Development, Sri Lanka

    Ronald McCoy, Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility, Malaysia

    Dr. Syed Husain Ali, Senator, Malaysia

    Hiro Umebayashi, Special Adviser, Peace Depot, Japan

    Hiroshi Taka, Representative Director, Japan Council against A & H Bombs (Gensuikyo), Japan

    Steve Leeper, Research Centre for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University, Japan

    Hideyuki Ban, Citizens Nuclear Information Centre, Japan

    Tadatoshi Akiba, Former Mayor of Hiroshima, Japan

    Joan Russow, Global Compliance Research Project, Canada

    Gordon Edwards Ph.D., President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Canada

    Martha Goodings, No2 Nuclear Weapons, Canada

    Vivian Davidson, President, World Federalist Movement – Vancouver Branch, Canada

    Patti Willis, Pacific Peace Working Group, Canada

    Phyllis Creighton, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, Canada

    Larry Kazdan, CGA, Vancouver, Canada

    Saul Arbess, Director, Canadian Peace Initiative, Canada

    Global Alliance of Ministries for Peace

    Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment), United States

    Kathy Wanpovi Sanchez, Tewa Women United, United States

    Alfred L. Marder, President, US Peace Council, United States

    Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action, United States

    Stephen Vincent Kobasa, Coordinator, Trident Resistance Network, United States

    Lawrence Wittner, Professor Emeritus of History, SUNY/Albany, United States

    Ralph Hutchison, Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, United States

    Blase Bonpane, Co-Director, Office of the Americas, United States

    Theresa Bonpane, Co-Director, Office of the Americas, United States

    Prof. Martin Hellman, Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, United States

    Alice Slater, New York Director, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Dr. Ruby Anne Chirino, Program Coordinator, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Mexico

  • The Mouse that Roared: Stand With the Marshall Islands

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

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

    The lawsuits raise the following issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • Alice Slater: China Is the Only Country that Promised Not To Use Nuclear Weapons First

    This article was originally published by RIA Novosti.

    Alice Slater, New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told Rossiya Segodnya about the current situation with the nuclear weapons in China. 50 years ago China detonated its first nuclear test, nearly 20 years after the US dropped their bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are nine countries that have nuclear weapons today: the US,  Russia, UK, France,  and China, who signed the Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) in 1970.

    China’s first nuclear test took place 50 years ago. How would you assess the current situation with the nuclear weapons in the country? Does it represent any potential danger?

    Alice Slater: Every country’s nuclear bombs represent a danger to the world. It is estimated that there are 16,300 nuclear bombs on the planet with all but a thousand of them in the US and Russia. China is estimated to have about 250 of them. China is the only country among the NPT signers who has promised not to be the first to use them. But essentially, just the possession of a nuclear arsenal is a form of use. When a bank robber walks into a bank and points a gun at people, even if the gun is never shot, it is still being used by the robber to bully and intimidate. That is what the possession of nuclear weapons means, by any country possessing, them, even China with its modest arsenal.

    Is it true, in your view, that possessing nuclear weapons increases the country’s diplomatic credibility on the international arena? Do nuclear weapons provide important security benefits to China and generally to the countries possessing nuclear weapons?

    Alice Slater: It is an illusion to think that there are any security benefits to possessing nuclear weapons. We are learning now of the  many near-accidents with airplane crashes carrying nuclear weapons, misplaced missiles flown unknown to distant bases carrying unaccounted nuclear weapons, missing and lost nuclear weapons in the US. Undoubtedly similar situations exist in Russia. Perhaps not in China since they never built the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that the US and Russia competed with to show who was stronger, when it actually made us weaker and more vulnerable to accidents, hazardous waste issues, not to mention possible miscalculations. We were very lucky not to have experienced an accidental nuclear war.  While laboring under the illusion that nuclear weapons provide security, it isn’t so for the major nuclear powers. Of course the fact that Saddam Hussein wound up in a hole in the ground and Muammar Gaddaffi in a sewer pipe after they gave up or were forced to turn over their nuclear technology, may give cause to isolated nations like North Korea to cling to their nuclear “deterrent”.

    Do you think it is important to continue the development of nuclear weapons or should the countries work on its elimination?

    Alice Slater: With the planet facing catastrophic climate change, droughts, hurricanes, tsunamis, forest fires, from the excessive carbon emissions from the industrial age, we can little afford to spend our national treasures of money and intellectual power on nuclear technology – both for weapons and power. The nuclear waste lasts 250,000 years and we don’t know how to safely isolate it from the environment for that inordinate length of time.  It is now reported that the US is contemplating expenditures of one trillion dollars over 30 years on its nuclear arsenal, laboratories, and delivery systems, with $300 billion budget for the next ten years. Russia and China, as well as India and Pakistan, have also been announcing new expenditures on this destructive and useless technology. Perhaps Asia can lead the way towards nuclear disarmament. The West is now caught up in a new cold war, having failed to contain NATO as promised to Gorbachev when the wall came down in Berlin and having expanded the missile program into eastern Europe after the US walked out of its Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.

    Given the current political situation in the world, is there a risk that any of Nuclear-Weapon States will use the weapons against another country? What are your estimates in this regard? What country could it be?

    Alice Slater: I don’t think any country would deliberately use nuclear weapons first, but we can’t be lucky forever on accidental launch or misjudgments. The world remembers Russia’s Colonel Petrov, in the Soviet bunker who disobeyed orders when a radar blip indicated a nuclear attack from the US and it was only a Norwegian weather satellite that had gone off course. We could have had a nuclear holocaust had he not done the right thing. We also came very close to miscalculating the presence of nuclear weapons during the Cuban missile crisis. We shouldn’t continue to push our luck! Some wise country, or group of countries should take the lead and start the talks for elimination under monitoring, verification and a tight timeline.

    Do you think any nuclear threat from Iran exists and what is your personal view on Iran’s nuclear program? Is it peaceful?

    Alice Slater: Iran is no more of a threat than other countries. Once you have the enrichment technology, you have the capacity to make the bomb, just as North Korea did. Every nuclear power plant is a bomb factory and the sooner we phase out nuclear power and rely on the abundant, clean, free energy of the sun, wind, water, geothermal we will all be safer, less poor, and may actually have some peace on earth. Over 400,000 people marched in NYC this month to make the links between poverty, war, and climate catastrophe. If Russia could put a man on the moon, surely it can work to end destructive technology and lead the way to a 21st century free of nuclear and fossil fuel.

    China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States are  officially recognized as possessing nuclear weapons by the Non – Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Three states – India, Israel, and Pakistan – never joined the NPT and are known to possess nuclear weapons. What other countries could potentially possess nuclear weapons or facilities to create such weapons?

    Alice Slater: Any country with a nuclear reactor has the capacity to develop a bomb.  Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, were on the way to making bombs and changed course. Japan has the capacity and every now and then its generals say it should use its tons to enriched plutonium to make bombs.   Brazil is enriching plutonium. We are planning to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia but they won’t give us assurances that they won’t enrich uranium.

    How can you describe relations between China and the United States in the nuclear weapons development sphere?

    Alice Slater: I don’t know if the US and China even discuss nuclear weapons. The two main players are the US and Russia. Right now there is a push from the military industrial complex and the unregulated corporations to make an enemy of Russia over Ukraine. We should be clearing up the events that occurred in the Ukraine as the corporate dominated media in the US doesn’t report events accurately and Russia is being blamed by our government and press without evidence. We still don’t know what happened. Some members of Civil Society called for an investigation, but nothing has happened. I think Russia should bring this up in the Security Council and in the First Committee of the UN that is meeting this week and next week. Let’s get all the facts out on the table.

    Finally, Russia and China should come to the meeting in Vienna on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons this December.  India and Pakistan came to the last two in Mexico and Oslo which the p-5 boycotted. This is the time for China and Russia to join the Asian nuclear weapons states and call for a treaty to ban the bomb, just as we’ve banned chemical and biological weapons. It would give the Western states pause, and empower civil society to press more effectively for nuclear disarmament in the US, UK, and France, as well as in the five European states that are part of NATO’s nuclear sharing – Italy, Belgium, Turkey, Netherlands and Spain.

  • Open Letter Supports Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    Recently, 78 civil society leaders from around the world released an Open Letter in Support of the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Zero Lawsuits.  I am proud to be among the signers of that letter supporting a courageous small Pacific Island country, one with only 70,000 inhabitants.  The Marshall Islanders are seeking to make the world a far more secure place, free of the nuclear threat that has hung over the collective head of humanity for some seven decades.

    David KriegerThe Open Letter was addressed to Christopher Loeak, President of the Marshall Islands; Tony de Brum, Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands; and the People and Parliament of the Marshall Islands.  They all deserve credit for their courage.  They are much like David in “David vs. Goliath,” but they carry court papers rather than a slingshot.

    The Open Letter salutes the initiative of the Marshall Islanders in seeking enforcement of international law by bringing lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed “Goliaths” for their failure to fulfill their obligations to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament.  These obligations derive from Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and from customary international law.

    The Open Letter praises the Marshall Islands for acting on behalf of all humanity and generations yet unborn in bringing the issue of the broken promises and breached obligations of the nuclear-armed countries to the International Court of Justice and to the U.S. Federal District Court.  In their lawsuits the Marshall Islands seeks no compensation.  Rather, it seeks an injunction by the Court requiring the fulfillment of legal obligations to negotiate for nuclear disarmament by the nuclear-armed countries.

    The letter concludes, “All people and all governments that have the welfare and survival of humanity and the planet at heart must support you wholeheartedly in your courageous legal action.”

    The Open Letter was coordinated by John Hallam, an Australian civil society leader working with People for Nuclear Disarmament and the Human Survival Project.  Other signers of the letter include Nobel Peace Laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Mairead Maguire; and former Mayor of Hiroshima Tadatoshi Akiba.

    To read the Open Letter, click here.  To find out more about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits and add your support, go to www.nuclearzero.org.

  • U.S. Nuclear Policy: Taking the Wrong Road

    David KriegerOn September 21, 2014, the International Day of Peace, The New York Times published an article by William Broad and David Sanger, “U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms.”  The authors reported that a recent federal study put the price tag for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal at “up to a trillion dollars” over the next three decades.  It appears that Washington’s military and nuclear hawks have beaten down a president who, early in his first term of office, announced with conviction, “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

    Many U.S. military leaders, rather than analyzing and questioning the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence to provide security, are acting as cheerleaders for it.  Rear Admiral Joe Tofalo, director of the Navy’s Undersea Warfare Division, recently pontificated, “For the foreseeable future, certainly for our and our children’s and our grandchildren’s lifetimes, the United States will require a safe, secure and effective strategic nuclear deterrent.  The ballistic nuclear submarine forces are and will continue to be a critical part of that deterrent….”  He went on to argue that all legs of the nuclear triad – bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine launched ballistic missiles – would be needed to “provide a strong deterrent against different classes of adversary threat.”

    Admiral Tofalo was backed up by Admiral Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, who argued, “In a world where our traditional adversaries are modernizing, emerging adversaries are maturing and non-state actors remain elusive and dangerous, we must get 21st century deterrence right…the reality is that an effective modernized nuclear deterrent force is needed now more than ever.”

    All this emphasis on modernizing the nuclear deterrent force may be good for business, but ignores two important facts.  First, nuclear deterrence is only a hypothesis about human behavior that has not been and cannot be proven to work.  Second, it ignores the obligations of the U.S. and other nuclear-armed states to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

    The U.S. and other nuclear-armed countries are gambling that nuclear deterrence will be foolproof rather than a game of chance, like nuclear roulette.  Rather than providing security for the American people, nuclear deterrence is a calculated risk, similar to loading a large metaphorical six-chamber gun with a nuclear bullet and pointing the gun at humanity’s head.

    The only foolproof way to assure that nuclear weapons won’t be used, by accident or design, is to abolish them.  This is what the generals and admirals should be pressing to achieve.  Negotiations in good faith for abolishing nuclear weapons are required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and by customary international law.  Since these obligations have not been fulfilled in 44 years, one courageous country, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, has brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries, seeking the International Court of Justice to order their compliance.  They have also brought a lawsuit specifically against the U.S. in U.S. Federal Court.

    Rather than showing leadership by fulfilling its obligations for ending the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament, the U.S. conducted a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile test on September 23, just days after the International Day of Peace and days before the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on September 26.  Such displays of arrogance, together with U.S. plans to spend some $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades, suggest that if the people don’t demand it, we may have nuclear weapons forever, with tragic consequences.

    You can find out more about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits and support the Marshall Islands at www.nuclearzero.org.

  • Small Island Country Attempts to Hold Hegemon to Its Promises: Interview with David Krieger

    David KriegerDavid Krieger, founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and its president since 1982, has lectured throughout the United States, Europe and Asia on issues of peace, security, international law and the abolition of nuclear weapons. Krieger is chair of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, chair of the Executive Committee of the Middle Powers Initiative, and a founder and member of the Global Council of Abolition 2000. The author or editor of more than 20 books, including five poetry volumes, and hundreds of articles on peace and a world free of nuclear weapons, Krieger agreed to participate in an email interview on the occasion of the latest twist in the Marshall Islands’ lawsuit in US Federal Court against the United States for its failure to honor its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    ***This article was originally published by Truthout.***

    Leslie Thatcher: Dr. Krieger, can you briefly explain what the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is, who is signatory to it, when it was signed and what nations’ obligations under the treaty are?

    David Krieger: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was opened for signatures in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. The treaty contains a trade-off. It seeks to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and also obligates its parties, including its signatory nuclear weapon states (US, Russia, UK, France and China), to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. A total of 190 parties have joined the treaty, only five of which are nuclear weapon states. The goal of the treaty is not only to stop other countries from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons, but to achieve a world with zero nuclear weapons by means of negotiations.

    Only one state party to the treaty has withdrawn from the treaty and developed nuclear weapons: North Korea. Three other countries never joined the treaty and have all developed nuclear weapons: Israel, India and Pakistan. These countries are not bound by the treaty itself, but by customary international law to do what the NPT requires of its parties.

    Where is the Marshall Islands and what is its particular interest in the treaty?

    The Marshall Islands is a small island country in the northern Pacific Ocean. It has approximately 70,000 inhabitants. The Marshall Islands was a testing ground for US nuclear weapons from 1946 to 1958. During that period the US conducted 67 nuclear and thermonuclear tests in the Marshall Islands with the equivalent explosive force of 1.7 Hiroshima bombs daily for 12 years. Their people have experienced pain, suffering and premature death from the radioactive fallout of atmospheric and oceanic nuclear tests.

    What led them to sue the United States and what are they asking for?

    The Marshall Islands sued the US in US Federal Court and sued the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice not for compensation for themselves, but to assure that no other country or people suffer in the future from nuclear testing as they have, or are the victims of a future nuclear war. The Marshall Islands is asking the courts to declare that the nuclear-armed states are in breach of their obligations under the NPT and customary international law, and to order the nuclear-armed states to pursue and conclude those negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race and for complete nuclear disarmament. For a small island country to take this legal action against the most powerful countries on the planet is an act of great courage. The Marshall Islands is trying to convince the nuclear-armed states to do what they are obligated to do. In essence, the Marshall Islands is a friend telling friends to stop driving drunk on nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence.

    What are the implications of the recent US motion to dismiss that lawsuit?

    The US is trying to prevent the court from considering the merits of the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss it based on jurisdictional grounds, such as standing, political question doctrine, venue and the statute of limitations. The Marshall Islands have filed a strong response to the US motion to dismiss, and it will be up to the court to decide. But if the US actually felt confident that it was fulfilling its disarmament obligations under the NPT, it would welcome the opportunity to face the Marshall Islands in the courtroom on the merits of the case.

    How can concerned citizens support the Marshall Islanders?

    Concerned citizens can find out more about the Nuclear Zero lawsuits and support the people of the Marshall Islands by visiting www.nuclearzero.org. Individuals can sign a petition there in support of the Marshall Islands lawsuits.

  • Legal Sparring Continues in Nuclear Zero Lawsuit

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsOn September 8, the U.S. continued to argue its position to dismiss the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit filed on April 24 by the Republic of the Marshall Islands in U.S. Federal District Court.

    This reply comes in response to the Marshall Islands Opposition filed one month ago in which the RMI contends, among other points that:

    • While the Non-Proliferation Treaty is in effect and the U.S. is a party to it, there is no choice but for the U.S. to comply with it.
    • The courts determine compliance with the law, not the Executive.
    • The U.S. Constitution says “ALL” treaties are the supreme law of this nation. Not just some treaties, or ones the current President prefers at any particular time.
    • The NPT is a treaty, and under the plain language of our Constitution, the federal courts are charged with interpreting it, and resolving disputes involving it, such as this dispute.

    Essentially the U.S, in its reply to the RMI’s Opposition, continues to seek a dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds to avoid having the case heard on its merits. David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, commented, “This reply from the U.S. government is more of the same. Clearly they do not want to risk having the case heard on its merits. Yet, doing so would benefit every citizen of the U.S. and the world. Nuclear weapons threaten us all.”

    Importantly, the U.S. reply does not dispute that Article VI of the NPT comprises an international legal obligation to begin negotiations for nuclear disarmament. Rather, it argues that the U.S. courts are not the right place to enforce this obligation. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, one would come away with the notion that the Executive Branch of the U.S. government should be allowed to police itself when it comes to deciding if they are acting lawfully and in good faith.

    Further, the reply argues “… that an attempt to resolve the matter would express a lack of respect due to the political branches and risk conflicting and potentially embarrassing pronouncements by various branches…” Whether or not the claims made against the U.S. might prove an embarrassment to the Executive Branch has no place in this argument and should be of zero legal consequence in U.S. Federal court.

    The simple fact remains that the Executive Branch is not participating in any negotiations on ending the nuclear arms race or nuclear disarmament. At the same time, it continues to spend billions of dollars modernizing its nuclear arsenal. It is not, of its own volition, fulfilling its Article VI obligations and requires intervention of the court.

    Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum said, “I remain hopeful that the U.S. Federal Court will recognize that the U.S. must meet their legal and moral obligations if we are to leave the world a safer place for all of humanity.”

    The U.S. reply is available online here.

    The court has scheduled a hearing on the U.S. Motion to Dismiss in October, 2014. Visit  nuclearzero.org for the latest updates.

  • Amicus Curiae Briefs Support Marshall Islands Lawsuit

    On August 21, 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in its lawsuit against the United States in U.S. Federal District Court. The lawsuit, filed in April 2014, accuses the U.S. of breach of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by continuing to engage in a nuclear arms race and a failure to negotiate for nuclear disarmament.

    On the same day that RMI submitted its Opposition, three amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of RMI’s position. All of these organizations are part of the Nuclear Zero campaign to support the lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands against all nine nuclear-armed nations.

    Tri-Valley CAREs (TVC) argues in its amicus brief that the venue of Northern California is appropriate because the district contains Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), one of the United States’ two major sites for nuclear weapons research, design, development and modernization. TVC should know; they have been working since 1983 to clean up LLNL’s pollution and convert the lab to engage in socially beneficial activities.

    Nuclear Watch New Mexico (NWNM) argues in its amicus brief that future funding levels for nuclear weapon modernization programs indicate that the U.S. is not committed to its NPT Article VI obligation. NWNM further argues that the United States is creating new military capabilities for U.S. nuclear weapons.

    Pax Christi International, Physicians for Social Responsibility and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War submitted a joint amicus brief. In it, they argue that the risk of nuclear catastrophe is substantial and that even a small regional nuclear war would put two billion people at risk of famine.

  • Letter: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Make Us Safer

    This letter to the editor of the Washington Post was published on August 22, 2014.

    Are NATO-based nuclear weapons really an advantage in a dangerous world, as Brent Scowcroft, Stephen J. Hadley and Franklin Miller suggested in their Aug. 18 op-ed, “A dangerous proposition”? They are not. They make the world a far more dangerous place.

    Nuclear deterrence is not a guarantee of security. Rather, it is a hypothesis about human behavior, a hypothesis that has come close to failing on many occasions. Additionally, nuclear weapons are not “political weapons,” as the writers asserted. They are weapons of mass extermination.

    The United States and the other nuclear-armed countries are obligated under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and/or customary international law to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and complete nuclear disarmament. This is the substance of the Nuclear Zero lawsuits brought by the Marshall Islands against the nine nuclear-armed countries at the International Court of Justice and in U.S. federal court. The United States continues to evade its obligations.

    Rather than continuing to posture with its nuclear weapons in Europe, the United States should be leading the way in convening negotiations to eliminate all nuclear weapons for its own security and that of all the world’s inhabitants.

    David Krieger, Santa Barbara, Calif.

    The writer is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • 2014 Nagasaki Peace Declaration

    Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue delivers thAt this precise moment, 69 years ago, the sky over this hill was covered with a pitch black nuclear cloud. The single atomic bomb, dropped by a United States bomber, blew away houses and engulfed the city in flames. Many fled for their lives through streets littered with charred bodies. 74,000 precious lives were lost to the terrible blast, heat rays and radiation. A further 75,000 people were wounded. Those who narrowly survived were inflicted with deep mental and physical wounds that will never heal, even though 69 years have now passed.

    Today, there are more than 16,000 nuclear warheads in existence. The hibakusha, atomic bomb survivors, who personally know the horror of nuclear weapons, have continued to desperately warn us that they must never be used again. The hibakusha and their appeal have prevented the repeated use of nuclear weapons since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    What would happen to the world if nuclear weapons were to be used in war today?
    In February, the “Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons” was held in Mexico. There, representatives of 146 states examined the impact of nuclear weapons from various perspectives, such as the human body, the economy, the environment, and the climate. Their findings revealed just how inhumane these weapons are, and they made terrifying predictions regarding the consequences of a nuclear war. Not only would it be impossible to save the injured, but the advent of a “nuclear winter” would cause food supplies to run out. This means that more than 2 billion people around the world would starve.

    Nuclear weapons are a continuing danger that threatens the present and future of our entire world. The terror that they bring is not confined to Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s past.

    The nations which are focusing on the inhumanity of these weapons have begun to consider treaties, such as a nuclear weapons convention, which would have them banned. However, nuclear weapon states, and those that are under a nuclear umbrella, have been unable to relinquish the idea that they can protect their national security with nuclear weapons. They are attempting to postpone the ban. If we cannot overcome this opposition, then next year’s “Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)”, which is held every 5 years, will come to nothing.

    I appeal to the nuclear weapon states, and to all states that are under a nuclear umbrella, to take the first step in overcoming this conflict. I ask that you create a forum for discussion with those countries which seek to legally ban nuclear weapons. Please discuss what has to be done, and by when, in order to realize a “world without nuclear weapons”. As the country that best understands the inhumanity of nuclear weapons, I ask that the government of Japan take the lead in these efforts.

    One regional method of protecting the future from nuclear war is the creation of “Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones”. Currently, more than half of our Earth’s landmass is already covered by such a Zone. I suggest that along with enacting the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, Japan should investigate a “plan for a Northeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone”. This would be one method for protecting the Republic of Korea, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Japan from nuclear weapons. The leaders of more than 500 Japanese local governing bodies support this concept, and this circle of agreement will continue to grow.

    Due to the debate over the right to collective self-defense, there are currently many opinions being exchanged regarding ways to guarantee Japan’s national security as a “Nation of Peace”.

    Nagasaki has continued to cry, “No more Nagasaki!” and “No more war!” The oath prescribed in the Japanese Constitution that Japan shall “renounce war” is the founding principle for post-war Japan and Nagasaki; a country and a city which suffered the atomic bomb.

    The hibakusha have continued to communicate this principle of pacifism by speaking of their personal experiences. However, the rushed debate over collective self-defense has given rise to the concern that this principle is wavering. I urgently request that the Japanese government take serious heed of these distressed voices.

    In Nagasaki, young people are thinking about nuclear weapons for themselves, conducting discussions, and initiating new activities. Our university students have begun spreading networks overseas. Our high school students have collected over one million signatures for a petition which they presented to the United Nations calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. These high school students have a motto; “We are weak but not powerless”. These words remind us that civic society, which is made up of many individuals, is a source of great strength. As a member of civic society, we, Nagasaki, will increase the number of our partners and continue our activities towards realizing a world free of nuclear weapons. We will join forces with NGOs, and cooperate with the UN and other countries that share our goal. Citizens of the world, let us give the next generation a “world without nuclear weapons”.

    Three years have passed since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc. Even today, there are many people being forced to live their lives in unease. Nagasaki continues to provide various forms of support to Fukushima in the hope that the region will achieve full recovery as soon as possible.

    Next year will be the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the hibakusha continue to age, we desire support befitting their present situation, such as improvement of the recognition system for atomic bomb diseases.

    We pray that between now and the 70th anniversary that we will make great advances towards our goal, which is shared by all peace-loving people, to achieve “a world without nuclear weapons”. We also offer our most heartfelt condolences to those who lost their lives to the atomic bomb.

    I declare that together with the city of Hiroshima, we shall continue to strive to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, and to achieve everlasting world peace.