Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Nuclear Abolition

  • Government Statements in Favor of a Nuclear Weapons Ban

    Ban Nuclear Weapons NowThe following quotes were compiled by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons in July 2014.

    “We join all peace-loving people in their call for a global treaty to outlaw and eliminate these instruments of human destruction.”
    — Afghanistan (November 2012)

    “Argentina supports the efforts of the international community to move towards the negotiation of a universal legally binding instrument banning nuclear weapons.”
    — Argentina (September 2013)

    “Nuclear weapons should be stigmatized, banned and eliminated before they abolish us.”
    — Austria (September 2013)

    “[Burundi] solemnly expresses its readiness … to further work out a robust road map or action plan on totally banning nuclear weapons.”
    — Burundi (February 2014)

    “Given the catastrophic consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, we must work to create a new international treaty explicitly prohibiting their use and possession, without any exceptions.”
    — Chile (February 2014)

    “We insist on the urgency of an international legally binding instrument that prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.”
    — Colombia (May 2010)

    “My delegation hopes that we are going to increase our cohesion and determination to fight for the prohibition of these weapons, which are a permanent threat to humanity.”
    — Comoros (February 2014)

    “[T]he humanitarian approach must be the spearhead through which we focus our efforts towards negotiations on an instrument banning nuclear weapons.”
    — Costa Rica (February 2014)

    “My country is open to all new initiatives that seek the prohibition of nuclear weapons.”
    — Côte d’Ivoire (February 2014)

    “Cuba gives special priority to nuclear disarmament and highlights the need to adopt a legally binding international instrument that completely prohibits nuclear weapons.”
    — Cuba (April 2013)

    “The only option is to eradicate this threat through the complete prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.”
    — Ecuador (April 2013)

    “[W]e hope to deepen our understanding and develop more specific proposals for attaining concrete results, including the negotiation of an international legal instrument to abolish nuclear weapons.”
    — El Salvador (February 2014)

    “Nuclear weapons should be totally banned.”
    — Fiji (March 2013)

    “Ghana believes that among the variously advanced bases for the elimination of nuclear weapons, their humanitarian impact is the strongest and most compelling. We will continue to support this justification at any relevant forum as one of the most legitimate bases for a convention banning the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons by any state.”
    — Ghana (February 2014)

    “We consider it very important to create a legally binding instrument to ban nuclear weapons globally.”
    — Guatemala (February 2014)

    “Let us use the momentum of this conference [Nayarit] to launch a program of action to begin the process of developing a global ethical norm and a legal ban on all nuclear weapons.”
    — Holy See (February 2014)

    “The indiscriminate negative and calamitous impact on public health, the environment, food security, infrastructure, economic growth and sustainable development is most alarming and underscores the urgent need for a ban on these weapons.”
    — Jamaica (April 2014)

    “[Jordan] joins the calls for the early start of negotiations on a legally binding instrument to ban nuclear weapons.”
    — Jordan (February 2014)

    “It is the conviction of Kenya that it is time states considered a legal ban on nuclear weapons, even if nuclear-armed states refuse to participate.”
    — Kenya (October 2013)

    “It is unacceptable that the deadliest weapons of all – nuclear weapons – are the only weapons of mass destruction not yet expressly prohibited by an international convention. A treaty banning the use, manufacture and possession of nuclear weapons is long overdue … there is a clear humanitarian imperative for us to start negotiations.”
    — Kiribati (February 2014)

    “A ban treaty on nuclear weapons would complement existing international law.”
    — Kuwait (March 2013)

    “We hope that there will be a universal treaty adopted in the near future to outlaw and eliminate all nuclear weapons.”
    — Lebanon (February 2011)

    “Malawi realizes the fact that it is the duty and the responsibility of states and governments to take up the humanitarian discourse, and start negotiations for a multilateral legally binding instrument that will ban the production, testing, use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons.”
    — Malawi (February 2014)

    “The growing support on this issue must now be translated into meaningful action towards a treaty to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons.”
    — Malaysia (February 2014)

    “I reiterate the strong support of my government for achieving a global treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.”
    — Mexico (July 2013)

    “One of the most urgent issues that needs to be addressed is the banning of nuclear weapons … it is high time to start negotiations.”
    — Mongolia (September 2013)

    “We need to move towards action … to obtain the noble goal of banning nuclear weapons.”
    — Morocco (February 2014)

    “[T]here is no doubt that the time has come for mankind and the international community to take the additional step of negotiating a total ban on the use of this type of weapon.”
    — Nicaragua (February 2014)

    “We are concerned that, till now, there is no international treaty banning these weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Nigeria (February 2014)

    “We are working along several different tracks to achieve the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. We are aiming at a genuine, total ban.”
    — Norway (September 2011)

    “Palau believes that the time has come for a new diplomatic process to negotiate a legally binding instrument to ban nuclear weapons – even if the nuclear-armed states are unwilling to join such a process. By banning nuclear weapons outright, we would devalue and stigmatize them, which is necessary if we are to succeed in eliminating them.”
    — Palau (May 2014)

    “We support the objective of banning nuclear weapons and eliminating them within a specified timeframe.”
    — Palestine (February 2014)

    “It is only through a prohibition on the use and possession of nuclear weapons that we will achieve elimination.”
    — Peru (March 2013)

    “The catastrophic humanitarian impact of any use of nuclear weapons underlines the urgent need for a ban on nuclear weapons.”
    — Philippines (October 2013)

    “We hope that we will not wait long before we celebrate a universal treaty for disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear weapons.”
    — Qatar (May 2010)

    “[There is an] urgent need to have a treaty banning nuclear weapons given the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.”
    — Samoa (September 2013)

    “We urge states that have not yet done so to amplify the momentum and join the vast movement for a binding international convention totally banning nuclear weapons.”
    — Senegal (June 2014)

    “We must ban all research, testing, possession, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.”
    — Sierra Leone (March 2013)

    “A world free from nuclear weapons would require the underpinning of a universal and multilaterally negotiated legally binding instrument that would ban the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and on their destruction.”
    — South Africa (February 2011)

    “We continue to stress that states should move forward towards total elimination and the absolute ban of the nuclear arsenal.”
    — Sri Lanka (April 2013)

    “Nuclear weapons should be banned completely and immediately.”
    — Sudan (March 2013)

    “The Swiss government is engaged in pushing for the delegitimization of nuclear weapons as a preparatory step for a ban on nuclear weapons.”
    — Switzerland (October 2012)

    “We join our region’s consensus on the urgent need to advance towards nuclear disarmament and the complete and general elimination of nuclear weapons, as well as towards the negotiation of a universal and legally binding instrument which prohibits their use.”
    — Trinidad and Tobago (February 2014)

    “Ukraine supports the early start of negotiations on … a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.”
    — Ukraine (September 2013)

    “The strong consensus of the international community on the troubling humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons should further be highlighted to facilitate a process of disarmament based on banning the use and ownership of nuclear weapons.”
    — United Arab Emirates (May 2013)

    “I wish to show my full support … for a common effort to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons to ensure the safety of humankind around the world.”
    — Vanuatu (October 2012)

    “It is for our good and the good of the future generations to ban this indiscriminate weapon. Clearly, there is no benefit to humanity of having or developing nuclear weapons … We reiterate our call to completely and totally ban nuclear weapons.”
    — Zambia (May 2013)

  • France Responds to Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    french_flagOver the past few weeks, French elected officials have posed questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits filed by the Marshall Islands in April 2014. France is one of nine countries being sued by the Marshall Islands for failure to negotiate for nuclear disarmament.

    The three French politicians are all members of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND). PNND is a non-partisan forum for parliamentarians nationally and internationally to share resources and information, develop cooperative strategies and engage in nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament issues, initiatives and arenas.

    For more information on the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

    Written Question 55528 (National Assembly)
    Mme Danielle Auroi, Green Party
    Original French Version

    Question (published on May 13, 2014): Ms. Danielle Auroi asks for the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on the case filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands.  This island nation served as a site of nuclear tests starting in the 1950s.  Over a period of twelve years, 67 nuclear tests were carried out there by the United States.  Many of the inhabitants of this archipelago still suffer from high levels of radiation.  Rather than demand compensation, on April 24 2014 the Republic of the Marshall Islands chose to file a case in the International Court of Justice for “flagrant violations” of international law against the nine nuclear weapons states, including France.  Notably, the Republic of the Marshall Islands accuses France of neglecting its nuclear disarmament obligations agreed to in 1992 by ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Also, she asks how France will respond to these allegations and by extension how it plans to ensure compliance with its nuclear disarmament obligations, in accordance with Article VI of the NPT.

    Answer (published on June 3, 2014): France has noted the request introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice.  It is currently examining the next steps to take.  France is committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a fundamental instrument in collective security, and its Article VI on disarmament which it (France) fully complies with.  It frequently presents in international gatherings the measures it has taken to carry it (the treaty) out effectively, unilaterally and in the framework of international treaties such as the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which it (France) ratified.  It has, for example, at the recent preparatory committee for the Examination Conference of 2015, made public a report published by the United Nations presenting in detail and full transparency its doctrine and its track record in nuclear disarmament.  It will continue to do so at the next session of the UN General Assembly and, most certainly, at the NPT Examination Conference next year in New York.  Acting on this track record, do note that France possesses today less than 300 nuclear warheads and no arms in reserve.  This number translates into a very significant reduction of French forces due to the evolution of the strategic context.  France has thereby diminished by half its arsenal in nearly 20 years.  It is the first nation not only to cease producing fissile materials for its arms but also to dismantle its production installations.  France sees the ban on fissile material production for arms as the next step in nuclear disarmament and has made ambitious proposals for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament at the international level in this vein.

     

    Written Question 11666 (Senate)
    M. Richard Tuheiava, Socialist Party
    Original French Version

    Question (published May 15, 2014): Mr. Richard Tuheiva asks for the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on the legal case introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against France before the International Court of Justice for “flagrant violations” of international law.  On April 24 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed a case against the nine UN-member nuclear weapons states, including France, which possesses an arsenal of under 300 nuclear warheads.  The government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands is thereby accusing France of not respecting its nuclear disarmament obligations, according to its 1992 promise made by ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, via Article 6, requires it to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures to cease the nuclear arms race at an early date and on nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty for general and total disarmament under strict and effective international control.”  France has not respected this obligation and, as the judicial inquiry by the Marshal Islands makes clear, is tirelessly pursuing the modernization of its arsenal through nuclear simulation programs and M51 ballistic missiles.  This modernization process goes against the spirit and the letter of the NPT.  Upon examination of the introductory document to the case filed by the Republic of the MarshalI Islands, it appears that it does not seek financial compensation from these proceedings, but that it is asking the International Court of Justice to order France “to take all necessary measures to meet, within a year from the pronouncement of the judgment, the obligations due according to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law, among which are pursuing good faith negotiations, so as necessary in engaging them to conclude a convention on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects effected under strict and effective international control.”  He asks therefore what judicial and diplomatic follow-up the Government plans to give before this accusation by the small Pacific state.

    Answer (published June 26, 2014): France has noted the request introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice.  It is currently examining the next steps to take.  France is committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a fundamental instrument in collective security, and its Article VI on disarmament which it (France) fully complies with.  France has also subscribed to resolution 1887 of the Security Council made on September 24 2009, which commits “to work towards a world more secure for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the objectives stated in the NPT, in a manner that promotes international stability, and on the basis of the principal of security undiminished for all.”  France contributed greatly to efforts in the domain of nuclear disarmament.  It has taken unilateral decisions that led it, in nearly twenty years, to diminish its nuclear arsenal by half.  It possesses today less than 300 nuclear warheads and has no arms in reserve.  Furthermore, France was the first state not only to cease producing fissile materials for its arms, but also acted to irreversibly dismantle its production installations.  In a multilateral framework, France signed the Complete Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and was among the very first states to ratify this treaty.  In this framework, it put an end to nuclear tests and irreversibly dismantled its test center in the Pacific.  Finally, it pleads tirelessly in international meetings for the quick starting of negotiation for a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, which represents the logical next step in nuclear disarmament.  This treaty, which would quantitatively limit the development of nuclear weapons, would in effect complete the CTBT, which already imposes a qualitative limit to the development of nuclear arsenals.  None of the programs that the France has put into action to guarantee the security, feasibility, and maintenance of the capacities of its nuclear weapons contradict its international obligations. France abstains from developing new types of arms, or assigning new missions to its nuclear arms.

     

    Written Question 57699 (National Assembly)
    M. Philippe Plisson, Socialist Party
    Original French version

    Question (published June 17, 2014): Mr. Philippe Plisson asks for the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development on the (legal) process set into motion by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against France in the International Court of Justice for “flagrant violations” of international law.  On April 24 2014 the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed a case against the nine nuclear weapons states, including France, which possesses an arsenal of less than 300 nuclear warheads. The Republic of the Marshall Islands is accusing France of not respecting its nuclear disarmament as promised in 1992 by ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which according to Article 6 commits “to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures to cease the nuclear arms race at an early date and on nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty for general and total disarmament under strict and effective international control.”  France has not respected this obligation and, as the judicial inquiry by the Marshal Islands makes clear, is tirelessly pursuing the modernization of its arsenal through nuclear simulation programs and M51 ballistic missiles. This modernization process also goes against the spirit and the letter of the NPT.  He asks what judicial and diplomatic follow-up France plans to do regarding this accusation.

    Answer (published July 22, 2014): France has taken note of the request introduced by the Republic of the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice.  It is currently examining the next steps to take.  France is committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a fundamental instrument of collective security, and its Article VI on disarmament to which it (France) fully conforms.  Furthermore, France subscribed to Resolution 1887 of the Security Council on September 24, 2009 which requires it “to work towards a world more secure for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the objectives stated in the NPT, in a manner that promotes international stability, and on the basis of the principal of security undiminished for all.”  France has greatly contributed to efforts in the domain of nuclear disarmament.  It made unilateral decisions that lead it, in nearly twenty years, to diminish its nuclear arsenal by half.  Today France possesses less than 300 nuclear warheads and no weapons in reserve.  In addition, France was the first state to not only cease production of fissile materials for nuclear arms but also to set about irreversibly dismantling its production installations.  In a multilateral framework, France has signed the Complete Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and was among the very first states to ratify this treaty.  In this framework, it has put an end to nuclear tests and irreversibly dismantled its test center in the Pacific.  It pleads tirelessly in international meetings for the quick onset of the negotiation for a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear arms, which represents the next step in the matter of nuclear disarmament.  This treaty, which would limit the quantitative development of nuclear arms, would in effect complete the CTBT, which already poses a qualitative limit on the development of nuclear arsenals.  None of the programs that France is putting into action to guarantee the safety, the reliability and the maintenance of its nuclear arms contradicts its international obligations.  France has abstained from developing new types of arms, or assigning new missions to its nuclear arms.

     

    Translations to English by NAPF Intern Jeremie Robins.

  • U.S. Conference of Mayors Calls for Nuclear Disarmament

    The U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted this resolution at its 82nd annual meeting in Dallas, Texas, in June 2014.

    Resolution No. 119: Calling for Constructive Good Faith U.S. Participation in International Nuclear Disarmament Forums

    US Conference of Mayors logoWHEREAS, Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, and is part of the supreme law of the land pursuant to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, states: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes 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”; and

    WHEREAS, in 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial branch of the United Nations (UN) and the highest court in the world on questions of international law, issued an authoritative interpretation of Article VI, unanimously concluding: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”; and

    WHEREAS, forty-four years after the NPT entered into force, an estimated 16,400 nuclear weapons, most held by the U.S. and Russia, pose an intolerable threat to humanity, and there are no disarmament negotiations on the horizon; and

    WHEREAS, the U.S. and the eight other nuclear weapon possessing states are investing an estimated $100 billion annually to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals while actively planning to deploy nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future; and

    WHEREAS, the U.S.-Russian conflict over the Ukraine may lead to a new era of confrontation between nuclear-armed powers, and nuclear tensions in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and on the Korean peninsula remind us that the potential for nuclear war is ever present; and

    WHEREAS, in December 2012, the UN General Assembly established a working group open to all member states (the “Open-Ended Working Group”) “to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons,” and scheduled for September 26, 2013 the first-ever High-Level meeting of the UN General Assembly devoted to nuclear disarmament; and

    WHEREAS, in December 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution which: “Calls for the urgent commencement of negotiations, in the Conference on Disarmament, for the early conclusion of a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons to prohibit their possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer and use or threat of use, and to provide for their destruction;”…. “Decides to convene, no later than 2018, a United Nations high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament to review the progress made in this regard;” and “Declares 26 September as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons devoted to furthering this objective, including through enhancing public awareness and education about the threat posed to humanity by nuclear weapons and the necessity for their total elimination;” and

    WHEREAS, delegations representing 146 States, the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and civil society organizations participated in the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Nayarit, Mexico, February 13-14, 2014, to discuss global and long-term consequences of any nuclear detonation, accidental or deliberate, including impacts on public health, humanitarian assistance, the economy, the environment, climate change, food security and risk management; and

    WHEREAS, Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo, Mexico’s Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, Chair of the Nayarit Conference, concluded: “The broad-based and comprehensive discussions on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons should lead to the commitment of States and civil society to reach new international standards and norms, through a legally binding instrument … [The] time has come to initiate a diplomatic process conducive to this goal… compris[ing] a specific timeframe, the definition of the most appropriate fora, and a clear and substantive framework … The 70th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks is the appropriate milestone to achieve our goal”; and

    WHEREAS, August 6 and 9, 2015 will mark the 70th anniversaries of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed more that 210,000 people by the end of 1945, while the remaining “hibakusha” (A-bomb survivors) continue to suffer from the physical and psychological effects of the bombings; and

    WHEREAS, the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) continue to suffer from the health and environmental impacts of 67 above-ground nuclear weapons test explosions conducted by the U.S. in their islands between 1946 and 1958, the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima-sized bombs detonated daily for 12 years; and

    WHEREAS, the RMI on April 24, 2014 filed landmark cases in the ICJ against the U.S. and the eight other nuclear-armed nations claiming that they have failed to comply with their obligations, under the NPT and customary international law, to pursue negotiations for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and filed a companion case in U.S. Federal District Court; and

    WHEREAS, the Administration’s FY 2015 budget request for maintenance and modernization of nuclear bombs and warheads, at more than $8.7 billion, in constant dollars exceeds the amount spent in 1985 for comparable work at the height of President Reagan’s surge in nuclear weapons spending, which was the highest point of Cold War spending; and

    WHEREAS, this enormous commitment to modernizing nuclear bombs and warheads and the laboratories and factories to support those activities does not include even larger amounts of funding for planned replacements of delivery systems – the bombers, missiles and submarines that form the strategic triad; in total, according to the General Accounting Office, the U.S. will spend more than $700 billion over the next 30 years to maintain and modernize nuclear weapons systems; the James Martin Center places the number at an astounding one trillion dollars; and

    WHEREAS, this money is desperately needed to address basic human needs such as housing, food security, education, healthcare, public safety, education and environmental protection; and

    WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has adopted resolutions each year since 2010 calling for deep cuts in nuclear weapons spending and redirection of those funds to meet the needs of cities and adopted an additional resolution in 2011 “Calling on Congress to Redirect Military Spending to Domestic Needs”; and in 2013 called on the U.S. to participate in good faith in the UN Open-Ended Working Group and High-Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament, and the Nayarit Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons; and

    WHEREAS, Mayors for Peace continues to advocate for the immediate commencement of negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2020 and its membership has grown ten fold since the “2020 Vision Campaign” was launched in 2003, surpassing 6,000 members in 158 countries, representing one seventh of the world’s population; and Mayors for Peace, with members in the U.S. and Russia; India and Pakistan, and Israel, Palestine and Iran can be a real force for peace.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that U.S. Conference of Mayors expresses its deep concern that the UN Open-Ended Working Group on nuclear disarmament and the Nayarit Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons took place without the participation of the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China; that at the September 26, 2013 UN High-Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament, the U.S. joined with France and the UK in a profoundly negative statement, delivered by a junior British diplomat: “While we are encouraged by the increased energy and enthusiasm around the nuclear disarmament debate, we regret that this energy is being directed toward initiatives such as this High-Level Meeting, the humanitarian consequences campaign, the Open-Ended Working Group and the push for a Nuclear Weapons Convention”; and that the U.S. voted against the 2013 UN General Assembly resolution calling for urgent commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament for the early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. to participate constructively and in good faith in the Third Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons to be hosted by Austria in Vienna, December 8-9, 2014, and to press the other nuclear weapon states to do likewise; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. to participate constructively and in good faith in urgent commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament for the early conclusion of a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons, and to press the other nuclear weapon states to do likewise; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors commends the Republic of the Marshall Islands for calling to the world’s attention the failure of the nine nuclear-armed states to comply with their international obligations to pursue negotiations for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and calls on the U.S. to respond constructively and in good faith to the lawsuits brought by the RMI; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. to demonstrate a good faith commitment to its disarmament obligation under Article VI of the NPT by commencing a process to negotiate the global elimination of nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, under strict and effective international control, at the May 2015 NPT Review Conference, and to press the other nuclear weapon states to do likewise; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors urges President Obama to engage in intensive diplomatic efforts to reverse the deteriorating U.S. relationship with Russia; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the President and Congress to reduce nuclear weapons spending to the minimum necessary to assure the safety and security of the existing weapons as they await disablement and dismantlement, and to redirect those funds to meet the urgent needs of cities; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on its membership to proclaim September 26 in their cities as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and to support activities to enhance public awareness and education about the threat posed to humanity by nuclear weapons and the necessity for their total elimination; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors welcomes the appointment of Akron, Ohio and Mayor Donald Plusquellic as a Mayors for Peace regional lead city, and encourages all U.S. mayors for join Mayors for Peace; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors expresses its continuing support for and cooperation with Mayors for Peace.

    Submitted by:

    The Honorable Donald L. Plusquellic
    Mayor of Akron, Ohio

    The Honorable William D. “Bill” Euille
    Mayor of Alexandria, Virginia

    The Honorable Denny Doyle
    Mayor of Beaverton, Oregon

    The Honorable Mark Kleinschmidt
    Mayor of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

    The Honorable William E. “Bill” Gluba
    Mayor of Davenport, Iowa

    The Honorable T.M. Franklin Cownie
    Des Moines, Iowa

    The Honorable Luigi Boria
    Mayor of Doral, Florida

    The Honorable Roy D. Buol
    Mayor of Dubuque, Iowa

    The Honorable William V. “Bill” Bell
    Mayor of Durham, North Carolina

    The Honorable Salvatore J. Panto, Jr.
    Mayor of Easton, Pennsylvania

    The Honorable Kitty Piercy
    Mayor of Eugene, Oregon

    The Honorable Ed Malloy
    Mayor of Fairfield, Iowa

    The Honorable Joy Cooper
    Mayor of Hallandale Beach, Florida

    The Honorable Alex Morse
    Mayor of Holyoke, Massachusetts

    The Honorable Mark Stodola
    Mayor of Little Rock, Arkansas

    The Honorable Paul Soglin
    Mayor of Madison, Wisconsin

    The Honorable McKinley Price
    Mayor of Newport News, Virginia

    The Honorable Chris Koos
    Mayor of Normal, Illinois

    The Honorable Frank Ortis
    Mayor of Pembroke Pines, Florida

    The Honorable Michael Brennan
    Mayor of Portland, Maine

    The Honorable Gayle McLaughlin
    Mayor of Richmond, California

    The Honorable Ardell Brede
    Mayor of Rochester, Minnesota

    The Honorable Stephen Cassidy
    Mayor of San Leandro, California

    The Honorable Pam O’Connor
    Mayor of Santa Monica, California

    The Honorable Neil King
    Mayor of Taos Ski Valley, New Mexico

    The Honorable Laurel Lunt Prussing
    Mayor of Urbana, Illinois

    The Honorable Geraldine Muoio
    Mayor of West Palm Beach, Florida

  • Commending the Honorable Tony A. De Brum of the Republic of the Marshall Islands

    COMMENDING THE HONORABLE TONY A. DEBRUM OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

    HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA OF AMERICAN SAMOA

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    Tuesday, June 17, 2014

    Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my good friend, the Honorable Tony A. de Brum, who has served the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) with distinction and honor as Senator, Minister in Assistance to the President (Vice-President), Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Health and Environment, and in other notable capacities.

    Senator Tony de Brum was born in 1945 and grew up on Likiep atoll at the height of the U.S. nuclear testing program in the RMI. From 1946–1958, the U.S. exploded 67 nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands and, in 1954, detonated the Bravo shot on Bikini atoll. Acknowledged as the greatest nuclear explosion ever detonated, the Bravo shot vaporized 6 islands and created a mushroom cloud 25 miles in diameter.

    In his own words, the Honorable Tony de Brum, states:

    I am a nuclear witness and my memories from Likiep atoll in the northern Marshalls are strong. I lived there as a young boy for the entire 12 years of the nuclear testing program, and when I was 9 years old, I remember vividly the white flash of the Bravo detonation on Bikini atoll, 6 decades ago in 1954, and one thousand times more powerful than Hiroshima—an event that truly shocked the international community into action.

    It was in the morning, and my grandfather and I were out fishing. He was throwing net and I was carrying a basket behind him when Bravo went off. Unlike previous ones, Bravo went off with a very bright flash, almost a blinding flash; bear in mind we are almost 200 miles away from ground zero. No sound, just a flash and then a force, the shock wave. I like to describe it as if you are under a glass bowl and someone poured blood over it. Everything turned red: sky, the ocean, the fish, and my grandfather’s net.

    People in Rongelap nowadays claim they saw the sun rising from the West. I saw the sun rising from the middle of the sky, I mean I don’t even know what direction it came from but it just covered it, it was really scary. We lived in thatch houses at that time, my grandfather and I had our own thatch house and every gecko and animal that lived in the thatch fell dead not more than a couple of days after. The military came in, sent boats ashore to run us through Geiger counters and other stuff; everybody in the village was required to go through that.

    Shaped by what he witnessed, Tony de Brum determined to become an activist.

    I think that’s the point that my brain was taught that. I did not consciously say at the time, I am going to now be a crusader. Just a few weeks after that, my grandfather and I went to Kwajalein, where they had evacuated the people of Rongelap, where they were staying in big large green tents being treated for their nuclear burns and exposure. All the while, incidentally, the United States government was announcing that everything was OK, that there was nothing to be worried about.

    Unconvinced, Tony de Brum not only became one of the first Marshall Islanders to graduate from college but he worked for 17 years to negotiate his country’s independence from the United States. As an eyewitness to nuclear explosions, he also became one of the world’s leading advocates for nuclear disarmament calling upon the parties to the NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and pursue the peace and security of a world without them. In 2012, Tony deBrum was awarded the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. Previous recipients include Archbishop Desmond Tutu, His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama, King Hussein of Jordan, and Jacques Cousteau.

    In April 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits—unprecedented lawsuits against all nine countries that possess nuclear weapons for their failure to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament as required by the NPT. The landmark cases signed by RMI Foreign Minister Tony deBrum are now pending before the International Court of Justice in The Hague and the U.S. Federal District Court in San Francisco. As a Pacific Islander and as the Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I applaud the RMI and especially Tony deBrum for taking a stand against the nuclear weapon giants. ‘‘No nation should ever suffer as we have,’’ Foreign Minister Tony de Brum has stated, and I agree.

    I also agree that we should spur greater commitments in international climate change negotiations, and I commend Foreign Minister Tony de Brum for galvanizing more urgent and concrete action on climate change. As an architect of the Majuro Declaration for Climate Leadership, Foreign Minister Tony deBrum has been unrelenting in vocalizing his concerns. In 2013, he addressed the United Nations Security Council on the threat posed by climate change to the long-term viability and survival of the Marshall Islands. During climate talks at the United Nations, he stated that ‘‘we are not just trying to save our islands, we are trying to save the entire world.’’

    I declare my sincere and heartfelt commitment to a nuclear-free world and a world committed to putting climate at the top of its diplomatic agenda. In so doing, I honor Tony de Brum as a leader, activist, friend and brother by placing his name and work in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for historical purposes.

  • The Emotional and Psychological Trauma to Our People Can’t Be Measured In Real Terms

    This article was originally published by the Huffington Post.

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands in the northern Pacific Ocean is not only a breathtakingly beautiful island state, but has recently moved into the public eye by starting a bold initiative that is widely interpreted as a “David against Goliath” undertaking.

    The Marshall islands were subjected to dozens of nuclear tests, carried out by the U.S. after 1945.

    According to the Associated Press, the island group filed suit in late April against each of the nine nuclear-armed powers in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. It also filed a federal lawsuit against the United States in San Francisco.

    The Marshall Islands claims that instead of negotiating disarmament, the nine countries are modernizing their nuclear arsenals, spending $1 trillion on those arsenals over the next ten years.

    “I personally see it as kind of David and Goliath, except that there are no slingshots involved,” David Krieger, president of the California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told AP. The Foundation is acting as a consultant in the case and is hoping that other countries will join the legal effort, Krieger points out.

    Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are included in the indictment. The last four are not parties to the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but appear to be, according to the lawsuits, bound by its provisions under “customary international law.” The NPT, considered the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament efforts, requires negotiations among countries in “good faith” on disarmament, AP reports.

    None of the countries had been informed in advance of the lawsuits. The case found broad recognition within the international press.

    The Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands, Tony de Brum, explains in an interview the impact the nuclear tests had and still have for his citizens and what he hopes this lawsuit can achieve for the island state and the world community.

    You grew up on the island of Likiep during the 12-year period when the United States tested 67 atomic and thermonuclear weapons in the atmosphere and under water in the Marshall Islands (1946-1958). What are your memories on the impact these tests had for the island of Likiep and its inhabitants? Environmentally, politically and psychologically?

    tony_debrumMy memories of the tests are a mixture of awe, of fear, and of youthful wonder. We were young, and military representatives were like gods to our communities and so our reactions to the tests as they took place were confused and terrifying. We had no clue as to what was happening to us and to our homelands. Our elders, including my grandfather, tried to stop the tests in petitions and communications to the UN but were not successful. I personally witnessed the injuries to some of our countrymen from Rongelap and to this day cannot recall in words my sense of helplessness and anxiety without severe emotional stress. But for as long as I can remember, the explosions and the bizarre effects that lit up our skies are still a source of pain and anger. How could human beings do this to other humans?

    While in later life many attempts have been made, both in good and bad faith, to reconstruct the impact of the testing on our people, only the physical and environmental effects can be discussed with some confidence. The emotional and psychological trauma to our people, both young and old, cannot be measured in real terms. The pain is real and the uncertainty is overwhelming. As a young lady said to me when showing me pictures of her dead deformed infant child, “God did not create my baby. He cannot be so cruel.”

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands recently filed an extraordinary lawsuit at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, suing all nine nuclear weapons possessors for failing to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. But only three of the nine nuclear states named by the lawsuit generally accept the rulings of the International Court of Justice. What do you hope for the outcome of this case?

    My country has exhausted all means within our limited power to bring attention and closure to our outstanding nuclear issues with our former Administrative Authority, the United States. Mechanisms jointly established for dealing with outstanding claims for physical injury and property damage have fallen way short of satisfying even the basic findings of the Nuclear Claims Tribunal formed under treaty agreements. This is due mostly to the withholding of critical information necessary for us to make informed decisions regarding our nuclear past and our uncertain future. To this day the United States still refuses to release information we have identified and requested under established processes. All the while we have to cope with displaced communities, skyrocketing medical costs, dangerously radioactive environments, and deprivation of use of traditional lands.

    The United States tells us they have satisfied their obligation under the Free Association Compact, a Treaty, and that they will not entertain any claims or requests for meaningful assistance in this issue. In fact, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the cases of the People of Bikini and the People of Enewetak seeking damages for their destroyed homelands. After seeing what mere testing of these terrible weapons of mass destruction can do to human beings it makes sense for the Marshallese People to implore the nuclear weapons state to begin the hard task of disarmament. All we ask is that this terrible threat be removed from our world. It is the best we can do as collateral damage in the race for nuclear superiority. Our sacrifice will be for naught if the nuclear countries do not stand up and take notice of the evil that nuclear weapons present to our earth.

    Do you think that this case can help to create enough international momentum for the Non-Proliferation-Treaty (NPT) to be treated — due to its near universal adherence — as part of customary international law by which all states must abide, regardless of whether or not they actually signed the treaty?

    We believe that it is sensible and logical for the world community to consider this matter as one of customary international law. To do otherwise is to gamble with the future of the world.

    What effects would that have on the discourse of nuclear disarmament worldwide?

    It should stimulate intelligent discourse and wise solutions. For what would it gain the world for instance, to be protected from climate change, only to suffer massive destruction from nuclear weapons? All our efforts to be sane about the future must be connected to survival and peace. The right hand cannot be out seeking climate peace while the left is busy waging nuclear war.

    Looking at the status quo of this discourse, how do you evaluate the outcome of the recent NPT PrepCom at United Nations’ headquarters in New York City which closed without adopting the Chair’s draft recommendations to the Review Conference?

    The outcome of the recent NPT PrepCom appeared to be more “business as usual,” with the nuclear-armed parties to the treaty essentially evading their Article VI obligations or claiming they were fulfilling them in a step by step manner, while at the same time continuing to modernize their nuclear arsenals and relying upon them in their military strategies. It is clear that the nuclear-armed states are not pursing negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament, as they are obligated to do under Article VI of the treaty.

    You have also been advocating on the issue of climate change, a grave concern that affects not only the Pacific Islands, but has obvious global consequences. Are there linkages between nuclear disarmament and climate change? Considering that both issues climate change, as well as nuclear disarmament are political matters of tremendous significance, which one, in your opinion, has the capacity of being addressed faster by the international community?

    I hit upon this somewhat in question four but clearly one cannot isolate climate change from the other most pressing issue of world security today. They go hand in hand, and must be dealt with in a coordinated and universally accepted pathway. As a country that has seen the ravages of war, suffers the lingering effects of nuclear tests, and facing the onset of a rising sea, we see all these to be threats of equal force against world peace and human life. But finger pointing and challenges of who goes first must now stop and sane and intelligent human beings must confront this insanity with firm confidence and clear peaceful intentions.

  • The Nun Behind Bars in Brooklyn

    You could call it a homecoming of sorts, but without the welcome home party. After growing up in the shadow of Columbia University in Manhattan’s Morningside Heights, serving the Catholic Church as a biology teacher in Africa for more than 40 years, and a peace activist in Nevada, 84-year-old Sister Megan Rice has landed back in New York City. She’s at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn. It’s Sunset Park, but without the grass and trees.

    Transform Now Plowshares

     

    According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Sister Megan in all probability would have served her 35-month prison sentence at Connecticut ‘s Danbury Federal Prison. But female inmates are no longer being housed in that institution. So, Danbury’s loss is Brooklyn’s gain. Sister Megan is one of 78 low security female inmates known as “cadres”. They’re not awaiting trial or transfer. They’ve been convicted and, it appears, will serve their sentences at MDC. Although the prison system classifies this kindly, grandmotherly nun as “low security”, prosecutors described her as a danger to the community during her recent Knoxville trial, and won a conviction for sabotage, which the law defines as a “federal crime of terrorism”.

    In July 2012, Sister Megan, along with two fellow peace activists, carried a Bible, candles, bread and bolt cutters into the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Y-12 processes and stores America’s highly enriched uranium, the material terrorists could use to make a dirty bomb. The facility has enough highly enriched uranium to make 10,000 nuclear bombs. Using bolt cutters the trio sliced through four chain link fences, reaching all the way to the outside walls of the building where the bomb making material is stored, before they were accosted by a single security guard. The guard took one look at Sister Megan, Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed and knew immediately they were peace protesters… and it wasn’t just because they offered him bread, instead of brandishing weapons.

    The security breach was a huge embarrassment to the federal government and sent shock waves around the world. After all, other nations send their vulnerable nuclear materials to be stored at Y-12. Several Congressional hearings examined the incident during which a number of lawmakers said America owed a debt of gratitude to Sister Megan for highlighting security flaws at Y-12 that needed to be addressed, and urgently. Nonetheless, the federal government came down hard on the three protesters charging that they had interfered with the national defense. During their trial Y-12’s federal manager, a prosecution witness, said the three damaged the facility’s credibility as the nation’s Fort Knox of uranium.

    The three activists never intended to expose security failings at Y-12, instead their protest action was designed to draw attention to the multi-trillion dollar nuclear weapons industry which, they say, is siphoning off tax payer dollars from real needs like healthcare, education, housing and jobs. The U.S. spends more on nuclear weapons than all the other countries of the world combined and four times more than Russia. Over the next 10 years additional spending is planned as the nation ramps up to modernize its entire nuclear arsenal: submarines, missiles and bombers, at a cost the Congressional Budget Office estimates to be $355 billion. The activists are members of Plowshares an international movement opposed to nuclear weapons, whose mission is the conversion of resources from weapons of mass destruction to that which is life giving and can benefit humanity.

    Since her conviction last year Sister Megan has spent time in a number of prisons in Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and now New York. She told me she ministers to the women by listening to their stories and sharing in the emotional pain. “Clearly these are the most vulnerable people in society. They are those who cannot find the jobs. The jobs are not being created, and many of them, because of that, fall into the drug industry just to survive, to buy diapers for their children. As we know the military budgets are eating up everything and have for so long,” says Sister Megan.

    Besides comforting the women trapped in the system… there are the letters. Sister Megan told me during a recent phone call from MDC Brooklyn that she does not have enough time in the day to attend to the flood of letters that are sent to her. Since she can’t respond to each one individually, she’s enlisted a circle of six friends (one jokingly describes herself as Sr. Megan’s secretary) to disseminate her response letters. Recently this circle sent out 120 letters.

    The letters are a window into her sincere spirit amid the realities of prison life:

    “I could never fully describe the kindness with which a guardian angel guard (male) walked me through “intake” in about 15 minutes, while I ate my baloney and cheese sandwich (brown bread! turkey baloney!) the first meal of the day for me except for two apples given to me by my sister passenger ‘Tiffany’ on the way from Newburgh to Brooklyn.”

    “It’s good to be 84 and the next young thing only about 70, if that! The United Nations is represented among a large population from Brooklyn, Queens, and up-state New York towns-Watertown, Ithaca, and Plattsburg-well represented with one loner from Florence, AZ.”

    From behind bars she continues to follow events in the outside world. And, ever the teacher, in her letters she counsels her supportive community on how best to keep moving forward on the issue closest to her heart:

    “And in the what can we be doing now? category, we can begin by signing the petition at www.nuclearzero.org in support of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which has filed suit in the International Court of Justice and U.S. Federal District Court against the nine nuclear- armed nations for failure to comply with their obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law to pursue negotiations for the world wide elimination of nuclear weapons.”

    From 1946 to 1968, the Marshall Islands acted as a testing ground for America’s nuclear weapons program. The U.S. detonated 67 atomic bombs during that time period which is the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs every day for 12 years. Castle Bravo, the largest nuclear bomb ever tested by the U.S., was 1,000 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb. Having experienced firsthand the horrible consequences of nuclear weapons, the small island nation has petitioned the World Court for an injunction to require the nuclear armed states to meet their disarmament obligations as laid out in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and under international law. The lawsuit is supported by a number of Nobel Laureates including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Shirin Ebadi and Jody Williams. A global petition is being circulated on line for people to sign in support of the lawsuit.

    Regarding the lawsuit Sister Megan told me, “It’s marvelous news, a David and Goliath story. I really want to be able to sign something… .or if you could sign it for me?”

    Helen Young is producing the documentary “Nuclear Insecurity” on nuclear disarmament activists, including Sister Megan, and the policy experts on the frontlines of the global movement to abolish nuclear weapons.

  • U.S. Government Files Official Notice of Appearance

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsOn May 29, 2014, the United States government filed the required “Notice of Appearance” with the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. on April 24, 2014 for breaches of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Similar lawsuits were filed against all nine nuclear-armed nations (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea) in the International Court of Justice.

    The Notice of Appearance names three lawyers that will be defending the United States in the case in U.S. Federal District Court. They are:

    • Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General
    • Anthony J. Coppolino, Deputy Branch Director
    • Eric R. Womack, U.S. Department of Justice Trial Attorney

    This filing demonstrates that the United States will indeed be appearing to defend itself and its agencies in court in this unprecedented lawsuit.

    For more information on the Nuclear Zero lawsuits, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

  • After Mexico: Why an “Ottawa Process” for a Legal Ban of Nuclear Weapons Deserves Our Enthusiastic Support

    Alice SlaterThe 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),  extended indefinitely in 1995 when it was due to expire, provided that five nuclear weapons states which also happened to hold the veto power on the Security Council (P-5)– the US, Russia, UK, France, and China– would  “pursue negotiations in good faith” 1 for nuclear disarmament.  In order to buy the support of the rest of the world for the deal, the nuclear weapons states “sweetened the pot” with a Faustian bargain promising the non-nuclear weapons state an “inalienable right” 2  to so-called “peaceful” nuclear power, thus giving them the keys to the bomb factory. 3 Every country in the world signed the new treaty except for India, Pakistan, and Israel, which went on to develop nuclear arsenals.  North Korea, a NPT member, took advantage of the technological know-how it acquired through its “inalienable right” to nuclear power and quit the treaty to make its own nuclear bombs. Today there are nine nuclear weapons states with 17,000 bombs on the planet, 16,000 of which are in the US and Russia!

    At the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, a new network of NGOs, Abolition 2000, called for immediate negotiations of a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons and a phase out of nuclear power. 4  A Working Group of lawyers, scientists and policy makers drafted a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention 5 laying out all the necessary steps to be considered for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  It became an official UN document and was cited in Secretary General Ban-ki Moon’s 2008 proposal for a Five Point Plan for Nuclear Disarmament.6 The NPT’s indefinite extension required Review Conferences every five years, with Preparatory Committee meetings in between.

    In 1996, the NGO World Court Project sought an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the bomb.  The Court ruled unanimously that an international obligation exists to “conclude negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects”, but disappointingly said only that the weapons are “generally illegal” and held that it was unable to decide whether it would be legal or not to use nuclear weapons “when the very survival of a state was at stake.”7 Despite the NGOs best efforts at lobbying for continued promises given by the P-5 at subsequent NPT reviews, progress on nuclear disarmament was frozen. In 2013, Egypt actually walked out of an NPT meeting because a promise made in 2010 to hold a conference on a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East (WMDFZ) had still not taken place, even though a promise for a WMDFZ was offered to the Middle East states as a bargaining chip to get their vote for the indefinite extension of the NPT nearly 20 years earlier in 1995.

    In 2012, the International Committee of the Red Cross made an unprecedented breakthrough effort to educate the world that there was no existing legal ban on the use and possession of nuclear weapons despite the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from nuclear war, thus renewing public awareness about the terrible dangers of nuclear holocaust.8 A new initiative, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)9 had been launched to make known the disastrous effects to all life on earth should nuclear war break out, either by accident or design, as well as the inability of governments at any level to adequately respond.  They are calling for a legal ban on nuclear weapons, just as the world had banned chemical and biological weapons, as well as landmines and cluster munitions.  In 1996, NGOs in partnership with friendly nations, led by Canada, met in Ottawa, in an unprecedented circumvention of the blocked UN institutions to negotiate a treaty to ban on landmines.  This became known as the “Ottawa Process” which was also used by Norway in 2008, when it hosted a meeting outside the blocked UN negotiating fora to hammer out a ban on cluster munitions.10

    Norway also took up the call of the International Red Cross in 2013, hosting a special Conference on the Humanitarian Effects of Nuclear Weapons. The Oslo meeting took place outside of the usual institutional settings such as the NPT, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and the First Committee of the General Assembly, where progress on nuclear disarmament has been frozen because the nuclear weapons states are only willing to act on non- proliferation measures, while failing to take any meaningful steps for nuclear disarmament. This, despite a host of empty promises made over the 44 year history of the NPT, and nearly 70 years after the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The P-5 boycotted the Oslo conference, issuing a joint statement claiming it would be a “distraction” from the NPT!  Two nuclear weapons states did show up—India and Pakistan, to join the 127 nations that came to Oslo and those two nuclear weapons states again attended this year’s follow-up conference hosted by Mexico, with 146 nations.

    There is transformation in the air and a shift in the zeitgeist in how nations and civil society are addressing nuclear disarmament. They are meeting in partnership in greater numbers and with growing resolve to negotiate a nuclear ban treaty which would prohibit the possession, testing, use, production and acquisition of nuclear weapons as illegal, just as the world has done for chemical and biological weapons. The ban treaty would begin to close the gap in the World Court decision which failed to decide if nuclear weapons were illegal in all circumstances, particularly where the very survival of a state was at stake. This new process is operating outside of the paralyzed institutional UN negotiating structures, first in Oslo, then in Mexico with a third meeting planned in Austria, this very year, not four years later in 2018 as proposed by the non-aligned movement of countries which fail to grasp the urgent need to move swiftly for nuclear abolition, and has not received any buy-in from the recalcitrant P-5. Indeed, the US, France and UK didn’t even bother to send a decent representative to the first high level meeting in history for heads of state and foreign ministers to address nuclear disarmament at the UN’s General Assembly last fall.  And they opposed the establishment of the UN Open Ended Working Group for Nuclear Disarmament that met in Geneva in an informal arrangement with NGOs and governments, failing to show up for a single meeting held during the summer of 2013.

    At Nayarit, Mexico, the Mexican Chair sent the world a Valentine on February 14, 2014 when he concluded his remarks to a standing ovation and loud cheers by many of the government delegates and the NGOs in attendance saying:

    The broad-based and comprehensive discussions on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons should lead to the commitment of States and civil society to reach new international standards and norms, through a legally binding instrument. It is the view of the Chair that the Nayarit Conference has shown that time has come to initiate a diplomatic process conducive to this goal. Our belief is that this process should comprise a specific timeframe, the definition of the most appropriate fora, and a clear and substantive framework, making the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons the essence of disarmament efforts. It is time to take action. The 70th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks is the appropriate milestone to achieve our goal. Nayarit is a point of no return. (emphasis added)

    The world has begun an Ottawa process for nuclear weapons that can be completed in the very near future if we are united and focused!    One obstacle that is becoming apparent to the success of achieving a broadly endorsed ban treaty is the position of “nuclear umbrella” states such as Japan, Australia, South Korea and NATO members. They ostensibly support nuclear disarmament but still rely on lethal “nuclear deterrence”, a policy which demonstrates their willingness to have the US incinerate cities and destroy our planet on their behalf.

    Achieving a ban treaty negotiated without the nuclear weapons states would give us a cudgel to hold them to their bargain to negotiate for the total elimination of nuclear weapons  in a reasonable time by shaming them for not only failing to honor the NPT but for totally undermining their “good faith” promise for nuclear disarmament. They continue to test and build new bombs, manufacturing facilities, and delivery systems while Mother Earth is assaulted with a whole succession of so-called “sub-critical” tests, as these outlaw states continue to blow up plutonium underground at the Nevada and Novaya Zemlya test sites.  The P-5’s insistence on a “step by step” process, supported by some of the nuclear “umbrella states”, rather than the negotiation of a legal ban demonstrates their breathtaking hypocrisy as they are not only modernizing and replacing their arsenals, they are actually spreading nuclear bomb factories around the world in the form of nuclear reactors for commercial gain, even ”sharing” this lethal technology with India, a non-NPT party, an illegal practice in violation of the NPT prohibition against sharing nuclear technology with states that failed to join the treaty.

    With a follow up meeting coming in Austria, December 8-9 of this year, we should be strategic in pushing the impetus forward for a legal ban. We need to get even more governments to show up in Vienna, and make plans for a massive turnout of NGOs to encourage states to come out from under their shameful nuclear umbrella and to cheer on the burgeoning group of peace-seeking nations  in our efforts to end the nuclear scourge!

    Check out the ICAN campaign to find out how you can participate in Vienna.

    Endnotes

    1. “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes 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, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.”

    2. Article IV: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination…”

    3. http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html

    4. www.abolition2000.org

    5. Securing Our Survival: http://www.disarmsecure.org/pdfs/securingoursurvival2007.pdf

    6. http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/sg5point.shtml

    7. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=e1&p3=4&case=95

    8. http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/weapons/nuclear-weapons/overview-nuclear-weapons.htm

    9. www.icanw.org

    10. http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/treatystatus/

  • We Must End the Madness of Nuclear Weapons

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsSome five decades ago, world leaders came together on an urgent mission to avert “the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind” in the event of a nuclear war. The five then-existing nuclear weapon states – the United States, Soviet Union (now Russia), United Kingdom, France and China – signed the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They agreed to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.

    Five decades later, the nuclear threat has only increased. Four more states – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – now have nuclear weapons. The world is more dangerous because the signatories of the NPT have failed to keep their promises and have undermined the rule of law.

    Until now, no one has held them accountable. Last month, the Republic of the Marshall Islands courageously took the nine nuclear weapons-wielding Goliaths to the International Court of Justice to enforce compliance with the NPT and customary international law.

    This tiny Pacific nation’s firsthand experience with nuclear devastation compelled it to take a stand. The United States exploded 67 nuclear weapons there between 1946 and 1958, including a bomb 1,000 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. Marshall Islanders still suffer high cancer rates and environmental poisoning as a result. They are not seeking compensation; in fact, their bold stance could potentially jeopardize the essential funding and protection the US provides them. Yet their desire to protect their fellow humans from the pain and devastation wrought by nuclear weapons outweighs fear of retribution.

    Nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral because they have only one purpose: to indiscriminately destroy human life at the push of a button, without regard for whether they kill innocents or combatants, children or adults. In 1996, the International Court of Justice warned, “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.”

    No government, army, organization or individual should have the ability to impose nuclear devastation on other humans. This truth is enshrined in Article VI of the NPT: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes 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, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

    The five original nuclear weapon states signed onto this statement, but have failed to honor their commitments. The four more recent nuclear weapon states – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – have followed their lead in defying international legal obligations.

    Instead of working to end the insanity of the nuclear age once and for all, these nine countries waste trillions of dollars on their nuclear arsenals, in violation of both the treaty and customary international law. We can no longer afford this perilous game of nuclear roulette. Every day that world leaders delay action on disarmament, they impose the unacceptable menace of nuclear devastation upon every human on the planet.

    Addiction to nuclear weapons costs us all in other ways as well. The price of these weapons keeps rising. The nuclear nations spend a combined $100 billion on them every year. Imagine how far this amount could take us in providing access to education, health care, food and clean water for the people of the world.

    The people of the Marshall Islands are standing up to say that it’s time to end the era of nuclear madness. They are joined by Nobel Peace Laureates, and leaders and experts from every field who support this historic legal action.

    We call on President Obama and the leaders of the other nuclear weapon states to fulfill their legal obligation to negotiate in good faith to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. It is not unrealistic to ask that the world’s most powerful governments start obeying the law and keeping their promises.

    Nothing good has ever come of nuclear weapons. Nothing good ever will. For the sake of all humanity, current and future, it’s time to respect the law and keep the promise.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits: Who Will Speak for the People?

    This article was originally published by The Hill.

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsThe U.N. just concluded the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee with representatives from the 189 signatory nations and of civil society. The meeting was in preparation for next year’s NPT conference and to discuss the current status of fulfilling the obligations under the treaty and in particular, the mandate of the nuclear weapons states for global disarmament. The outcome was a continued foot dragging by the nuclear states motivating a demand for meaningful steps and progress toward disarmament by the other 184 nations in view of current international events.

    Recent scientific studies by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War on the humanitarian consequences of limited nuclear war have shed additional light on the danger these weapons pose.  Describing a hypothetical conflict between India and Pakistan using less than ½ of 1 percent of the global nuclear arsenals, the studies confirm 2 billion people would be at risk of dying due to global climatic change.

    Combined with recent scandals involving U.S. ICBM missile controllers and a growing accounting of nuclear mishaps and near misses in our nuclear forces over the years, the sense of urgency for disarmament is greater than ever. It has become a question of who will step forward and speak for humanity.

    On April 24, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits in the International Court of Justice against all nine nuclear-armed nations, as well as against the United States in U.S. Federal District Court. RMI claims that the nuclear weapon states are in breach of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force 16,121 days prior to the filing. In this David vs. Goliath action this tiny island nation has found the voice to speak on behalf of the world and the other nations signatory to the Treaty.

    The case for the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit comes directly from the NPT where Article VI states: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes 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, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

    This was the grand bargain that convinced many non-nuclear weapon states to sign the treaty and agree not to develop nuclear weapons of their own. Forty-four years later, with no meaningful negotiations on the horizon and no end in sight to the “step-by-step” process heralded by the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (P5), the RMI has stepped in to change the discourse on nuclear disarmament.

    RMI is seeking declaratory relief from the courts that will compel the leaders of the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) to initiate good-faith negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament. They are challenging the leaders of the NWS to answer, on the record, why 44 years have passed and nuclear arsenals continue to be modernized, national security strategies continue to place nuclear weapons at the top of the list, and the P5 don’t even expect to have a “Glossary of Key Nuclear Terms” to talk about nuclear disarmament until 2015.

    In addition to the five Nuclear Weapon States named in the NPT, the lawsuit also includes the four nuclear weapon states that are not parties to the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – which, RMI argues, are bound to Article VI obligations under customary international law.

    The RMI is a small sovereign nation, among the smallest in the world. However, their courage could not be greater. Having been a testing ground for 67 nuclear tests between 1946 and 1958, the Marshall Islanders have seen their land, sea and people poisoned from radiation. These tests had an equivalent explosive force greater than 1.5 Hiroshima bombs being detonated daily for 12 years.  The Marshall Islanders paid a heavy price in terms of their health and well-being for these destructive tests. They have experienced firsthand the horrible destruction caused by nuclear weapons and those that possess them. They are willing to stand up to the nine nuclear giants and say, “Never again. We have seen the destructive impact of these horrific weapons and vow to do all we can so the world never sees such atrocities again.”

    The RMI does not act alone in this action. A consortium of NGOs working to highlight the legal and moral issues involved in the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit has come together around the world coordinated by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara.  Respecting the courage of the plaintiff in bringing these lawsuits against some of the most powerful nations in the world they have developed a call to action.

    The consortium urges everyone to join them by raising your voice in support of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit. Go to www.nuclearzero.org, where you can read more about the lawsuits and sign the petition encouraging leaders of the Nuclear Weapon States to begin good-faith negotiations.

    Williams received the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work with the International Committee to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and is chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative. Dodge is a family physician on the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Physicians for Social Responsibility – the U.S. affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War – recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.