Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Nuclear Abolition

  • 2013 Nagasaki Appeal

    Although more than 50,000 nuclear weapons have been eliminated since 1986, more than 17,000 remain. It would only take a small number of these weapons of mass destruction to end civilization and most life on earth. Nine countries possess nuclear weapons, another five host U.S. nuclear weapons on their soil, and more still base their security on alliances with nuclear weapon states. Countless atomic bomb survivors worked hard until their last days for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The danger of nuclear annihilation, by accident, miscalculation or design continues to cast a dark shadow over humanity’s future. In addition, the failure of the nuclear weapon states to achieve more progress toward a nuclear weapons free world is undermining the legitimacy of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The nuclear weapon states’ repeated delays in fulfilling their “unequivocal” commitment to nuclear disarmament has discredited the nonproliferation regime and may destroy it. The massive and ongoing releases of radiation from the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima nuclear power plant which resulted from the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, 2011, demonstrated yet again the inability of human beings to control nuclear technology. The fear and suffering of Fukushima citizens for their health and life renewed our recognition of the danger of radioactivity, whether from nuclear weapons or nuclear energy. The experiences of Fukushima and the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima have shown us that the effects of nuclear disasters are uncontrollable in time and space. Despite the daunting challenges, there are reasons for hope. Among them, the renewed emphasis on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons use, which the hibakusha have been calling for for decades. In 1996, the International Court of Justice, in considering the uniquely destructive effects of nuclear weapons concluded that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally illegal. The final document of the 2010 NPT review conference expressed “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and reaffirmed “the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.” Describing the inhumanity of nuclear weapons, the resolution adopted in November 2011 by the Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement identified the need to “conclude … negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binding international agreement.” Since 2010, the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons have been discussed in the United Nations General Assembly and at preparatory committee meetings for the 2015 NPT Review Conference. In addition, an international conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, hosted by the government of Norway, was held in Oslo in March 2013. A follow-on meeting, will be hosted by the government of Mexico in February 2014. We welcome this trend and expect it to contribute to global efforts to achieve the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. The 2010 NPT Review Conference agreed: “All States need to make special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons,” noting in particular “the Five-Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” including the call for negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention. 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 held meetings in Geneva for the first time in May, June and August of this year. It was a new situation in which representatives of government and civil society participated as equals. This prompted the Conference on Disarmament, following 17 years of inaction, to establish an informal working group on nuclear disarmament. In addition, the first High Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament in the United Nations General Assembly was held in September 2013. This is being followed up by the Non Aligned Movement proposal to establish 26 September as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and to hold a High Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament no later than 2018. We are encouraged by such efforts and hope they continue. We emphasize and reiterate that nuclear weapons are indiscriminate and inhumane weapons of mass destruction, and their use would be impermissible under any circumstances. The idea that nuclear deterrence can assure a country’s security is delusional. Another use of nuclear weapons would cause human death and suffering across national borders and generations. It would result in destruction of the environment and entire ecosystems. Even a relatively small regional nuclear exchange could result in a global “nuclear famine” leading to a billion deaths. Against this background, we appeal for the following concrete actions. 1.    Negotiations on the comprehensive prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons should start on the earliest occasion. We call for negotiations to begin in 2014, and for these negotiations to be supported by the NPT Review Conference in 2015 and the High Level Conference proposed to take place no later than 2018. 2.    The nuclear-armed countries, especially those with the largest arsenals, the U.S. and Russia, should make significant reductions in their strategic and non-strategic, deployed and undeployed nuclear stockpiles through bilateral or unilateral measures. All nuclear-armed countries should halt development and modernization of their nuclear weapons systems. The obscene amounts of money and scientific resources dedicated to these ends should be reallocated to meeting social and economic needs. 3.    All nations should phase out the role and significance of nuclear weapons in their military and foreign policies. Nuclear-armed countries and those countries that rely on nuclear umbrellas have a special responsibility. Nuclear-free countries can also take steps to delegitimize and stigmatize nuclear weapons, such as enacting national legislation and divesting from nuclear weapons industries. 4.    Governments and civil society should publicize the decision of the District Court of Tokyo in the Shimoda case: “The [atomic bomb] attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war,” especially following the 50th anniversary of the December 8, 1963 decision. 5.    We encourage greater citizen participation in campaigns for the elimination of nuclear weapons, such as Mayors for Peace, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND), the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons (Abolition 2000), the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). We welcome the engagement of young people around the world. 6.    We call for a redoubling of efforts to establish new nuclear weapon-free zones, including in the Middle East, Northeast Asia and the Arctic Circle. Nuclear weapon-free zones diminish the role of nuclear weapons in national security policies and reduce the risks of nuclear weapons use at the regional level. They also provide an achievable and more secure alternative to extended nuclear deterrence. 7.    The nuclear disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant continues to cause immeasurable damage and suffering to the citizens of Fukushima Prefecture and beyond. Those responsible for the Fukushima accident should be held accountable. At the same time, civil society should support programs to assist displaced residents and restore, as much as feasible, the damaged areas in Fukushima. Information about the ongoing crisis should be transparent and publically available. Those exposed to radiation should be guaranteed long-term medical assistance. We must not let Fukushima be forgotten. 8.    The accident at Fukushima has taught us that we cannot continue to rely upon nuclear energy. The hibakusha’s experience of the atomic bomb was brought to the United Nations in 1982 by Senji Yamaguchi, who declared: “No More Hiroshimas, No More Nagasakis, No more Hibakusha, No More War!” The accident at Fukushima requires the addition of “No More Fukushimas!” As the only nation that has experienced nuclear attacks in war, Japan has a special responsibility to lead in achieving a world without nuclear weapons. Therefore: 1.    We welcome Japan joining 124 other governments in signing a joint statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in the United Nations General Assembly First Committee on 21 October 2013. However, we regret the U.S. – Japanese joint security statement of 3 October 2013 which reaffirmed the Alliance’s commitment to the security of Japan “through the full range of U.S. military capabilities, including nuclear and conventional.” The Japanese government should change its policy of reliance on the U.S. nuclear umbrella in conformity with the joint statement that indicates clearly that the continued existence of all humanity depends on not using nuclear weapons “under any circumstances.” 2.    We believe that the Japanese government should pursue the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia as a path to achieving security that does not rely upon nuclear deterrence. Leaders of 532 local authorities in Japan have expressed support for this idea, as did 83 Japanese and South Korean parliamentarians from across the political spectrum in a joint statement on 22 July 2010. In September 2013, the President of Mongolia indicated his country’s interest in exploring the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia at the United Nations General Assembly. We call upon the Japanese government to initiate a dialogue with the government of South Korea to achieve a Northeast Asia nuclear weapon-free zone. 3.    We call upon the Japanese government to inform the world about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons as an imperative for the abolition of nuclear weapons. To demonstrate leadership, Japan should take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative Foreign Ministers’ Meeting to be held in Hiroshima in April 2014. Japan should also urge political leaders and government officials who will participate in the G20 Summit that will be held in Japan in 2016 to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 4.    We call on the Japanese government to seek and welcome independent, international expert assistance in stabilizing, containing and monitoring the radiological crisis at Fukushima. We, the participants in the 5th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, heard again the voices of survivors of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and their urgent appeal that the elimination of nuclear weapons becomes a reality while they are still alive. We also listened to hopeful voices of young people accepting responsibility for achieving and maintaining a world without nuclear weapons. The ties of mutual understanding and solidarity were deepened through three days of spirited interaction and discussion. We pledge to continue our utmost efforts to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, and we appeal to the people of the world: “Nagasaki must be the last A-bombed city.” by The 5th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

  • Hubris vs. Wisdom

    David Krieger delivered this speech in Nagasaki, Japan, on November 2, 2013.

    David KriegerMayor Taue, Dr. Tomonaga, people of Nagasaki, conference participants, I bring greetings from the 60,000 members of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and wish to express to you and the city of Nagasaki our deep appreciation for continuing this tradition of Nagasaki Global Citizens Assemblies for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. It is a great pleasure to be back in this beautiful city, and I am particularly happy to renew old friendships.

    The steadfast commitment of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to nuclear weapons abolition for nearly seven decades is both admirable and honorable. Along with many millions of other thinking and caring people throughout the world, I share with you the hope and goal that Nagasaki will remain the last place on Earth where nuclear weapons are ever used in warfare.

    It is evident that there is only one way to assure this goal, and that is to abolish nuclear weapons. To do so will require leadership and a massive demand from people throughout the world. As one who has worked toward this goal for more than four decades, I know that this is an extremely difficult challenge, but I also know that we are making progress.

    In 1986, there were over 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Today there are just over 17,000. It is progress that the world has shed some 53,000 nuclear weapons in roughly the past quarter century, but we still have far too many. To assure that there are no more Hiroshimas or Nagasakis will require achieving a world with Zero nuclear weapons.

    Hubris Versus Wisdom

    In the Nuclear Age, humankind must not be passive in the face of the threat posed by nuclear weapons. The future of humanity and all life depends upon the outcome of the ongoing struggle between hubris and wisdom.

    Hubris is an ancient Greek word meaning extreme arrogance. Wisdom is cautionary good sense.

    Hubris is at the heart of Greek tragedy – the arrogant belief that one’s power is unassailable. Wisdom counsels that no human power is impregnable.

    Hubris says some countries can hold onto nuclear weapons and rely upon them for deterrence. Wisdom says these weapons must be eliminated before they eliminate us.

    Hubris says these terrible weapons are subject to human control. Wisdom says that humans are fallible creatures, subject to error.

    Hubris repeats that we can control our most dangerous technologies. Wisdom says look at what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

    Hubris says the spread of nuclear weapons can be contained. Wisdom says that the only sure way to prevent the spread or use of nuclear weapons is to abolish those that exist.

    Hubris says that political leaders will always be rational and avoid the use of nuclear weapons. Wisdom observes that all humans, including political leaders, behave irrationally at some times under some circumstances.

    Hubris says we can play Russian roulette with the human future. Wisdom says we have a responsibility to assure there is a human future.

    Hubris says that we can control nuclear fire. Wisdom says nuclear weapons will spark wildfires of human suffering and must be eradicated forever from the planet.

    The Necessity of Wisdom

    In the Nuclear Age, wisdom is the best antidote to hubris. I want to go back in time to the horrific opening of the Nuclear Age and explore the wisdom of three men who understood clearly that the creation and use of atomic bombs changed the world. These men were Albert Camus, Mohandas Gandhi and Albert Einstein. Their responses to the use of atomic weapons were very different from that of then-President of the United States Harry Truman, who, when he heard of the bombing of Hiroshima, is reported to have said, “This is the greatest thing in history.” He also thanked God that the bomb had come to the United States and not to its enemies.

    Albert Camus was a great French novelist and existentialist who, during World War II, edited the underground French Resistance newspaper, Combat. Twelve years after the war, in 1957, he would receive the Nobel Prize for Literature. After learning of the bombing of Hiroshima, even before the second bomb had been dropped on Nagasaki, he wrote:

    “Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests. Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging. This is no longer a prayer but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments – a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason.”

    Camus recognized instantly that, after the atomic bomb was created and used, peace needed to be elevated to the top of our hierarchy of values and goals. It needed to be pursued actively, that is waged, with the same strategic thinking, discipline, commitment and courage as for waging war. For Camus, the new circumstance of nuclear weapons in the world required the people to wage peace and to lead their leaders.

    Gandhi was the great proponent of satyagraha (truth-force) and nonviolence. He was leading India to independence from the British when the atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Gandhi recalled his reaction to the bombs: “I did not move a muscle when I first heard that the atom bomb had wiped out Hiroshima. On the contrary, I said to myself, ‘Unless now the world adopts nonviolence, it will spell certain suicide for humanity.’ Nonviolence is the only thing the atom bomb cannot destroy.” For Gandhi, the violence of the atomic bomb could only be overcome by the nonviolence of humanity.

    Albert Einstein, the great scientist and humanitarian, wrote, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

    Einstein saw that the old ways of thinking were a trap and that people must learn to think in new ways. I believe the most important new ways of thinking that are needed are species identification and solidarity, that is, we must think like members of one race, the human race. In doing so, we will learn to settle our differences peacefully and not through violence, and we will build institutions, such as the United Nations, that will support these ways of thinking. For Einstein, the critical factor brought about by atomic weaponry was the need for new modes of thinking if humankind is to avert “unparalleled catastrophe.”

    Three great men; three powerful expressions of wisdom.

    Ending the Nuclear Threat

    The only number of nuclear weapons that makes sense is Zero and that must be our goal: a world with Zero nuclear weapons. This world is only as far away as our imaginations, our determination and our perseverance. To achieve Nuclear Zero, we must wage peace, take nonviolent actions, and change our modes of thinking to identify as members of the human species. The Nuclear Age demands of us that we conquer hubris with wisdom.

    We must never give up on seeking the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. We can follow wisdom and live together as humans, seeking solutions to our common problems; or we can follow the path of hubris and perish together stuck in our apathy, our ignorance and our national allegiances.

    The most important next step on the journey to a peaceful and non-killing world is ending the nuclear weapons era. This can be accomplished by the negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. Progress is being made toward this goal, but it seems unbearably slow.

    Civil society and non-nuclear-weapon states must bring more pressure to bear upon the existing nuclear weapon states to negotiate the elimination of their nuclear arsenals. I would also encourage the countries participating in the upcoming Mexico conference to begin negotiations, with or without the nuclear weapons states, for a legal ban on the manufacture, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The process must begin, and it must be approached with a sense of urgency.

    Having identified the problem – that nuclear weapons endanger the human species and much of complex life – we should move rapidly toward eliminating the threat. In doing so, we will free up scientific and financial resources to deal with other pressing global threats, including climate change, development of renewable energy resources, pollution of the oceans and atmosphere, scarcity of potable water, food insecurity and loss of forests, biodiversity and arable land. For the future of humanity, we must also move forward to eliminate war as a human institution.

    A Few Simple Truths

    I will end with a short poem I wrote earlier this year. It is titled “A Few Simple Truths.”

    A FEW SIMPLE TRUTHS

    Life is the universe’s most precious creation.

        There is only one place we know of where life exists.

        Children, all children, deserve a full and fair chance.

        The bomb threatens all life.

        War is legitimized murder with collateral damage.

        Construction requires more than a hammer.

        The rising of the oceans cannot be contained by money.

        Love is the only currency that truly matters.

        One true human brings beauty to the earth.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • Nuclear Zero: The Moral Imperative

    How grateful I am to be able to stand in this good company and to receive the honor that will make me a part of the great processional of those you have honored before me.
    I am especially grateful to your president, David Krieger.  David has a deep pervasive ultimate concern to which he has dedicated the full force of his creative energy and imagination.  He has this crazy idea to which he has committed himself: he wants to save the earth and all its inhabitants from self-destruction.  He wants to make the planet a more peaceable habitation for all of us, and for our children and grandchildren after us.  How good it is to be counted among his followers.
    Now here I bring you the words of the beloved poet, Stanley Kunitz, written when he was somewhere on his way to the 100 years he lived, before his death a few years ago.
    I have walked through many lives,
some of them my own,
and I am not who I was,
though some principle of being
abides, from which I struggle
not to stray.
When I look behind,
as I am compelled to look
before I can gather strength
to proceed on my journey,
I see the milestones dwindling
toward the horizon….
    And here am I, an aged rabbi, who, like a peddler with a pack on his back, wherever he goes, comes bearing a pack of notions, some very old and familiar notions:  “Love thy neighbor as thyself.  It hath been told thee what is good and what the Lord requires of thee: only to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.  And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.  Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.  And they shall sit, everyone, under his vine and his fig tree, with none to make them afraid.  If I am not for myself, who will be for me?  And being for myself alone, what am I?  And if not now, when?” And here, from a 1,800-year-old commentary on the Bible, the Midrash, where God is portrayed showing Adam all that has been created, and says to him: “See my works, how fine and excellent they are.  All that I have created has been given to you.  Remember this and do not corrupt and desolate the world, for if you corrupt it, there is no one after you to set it right.”
    Those are ancient words and ancient visions.  They come out of the sacred books of the Jewish civilization, but surely they embody ideals and visions held sacred by Christians and Muslims, and other faiths, and non-believers as well.  To voice them here is to remember that we live in a world in which the ideals of love and fellowship and peace and justice and care for the planet, are daily being mutilated throughout the world, even here in this land, even here in Santa Barbara.  For we live in a time of broken ideals, a broken world, a fragmented humanity, which needs to be made whole.
    But of all the words of the Bible, those that have been profoundly significant to all of us associated with the purposes of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation are to be found in the concluding chapters of the book of Deuteronomy.  In churches everywhere it is customary to read scripture from a book.  But in synagogues we Jews read every week from a parchment scroll we call Torah.  The Torah is written in Hebrew on a scroll which bears the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch.  Each scroll is written by hand, the work of a scribe who reverently and lovingly copies every word of it.  According to a rigorous tradition the scribe must use a quill to serve him as a pen, so that the ink will touch with gentleness the pages of the parchment.  For the Torah and the Bible it introduces is a book of peace.  Only a quill, no metal, is permitted to be the instrument of the scribe’s work.  For metal is the material of violence, of war; it may not be used in composing the book of peace.
    Wherever the scribe has done his work throughout the centuries and neared the completion of it as he reached the closing chapters of the fifth book, the book of Deuteronomy, his quill has brought to the parchment these words of danger and challenge, which, ever since they were first spoken, have reverberated throughout human history: “See, I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you may live, you and your seed after you.”
    To speak of choosing the way of blessing and life compels us to reckon with all that threatens life in our time, but also to raise the fearful question as to whether our civilization, so visibly incoherent and in decline, is not itself, in the throes of death. (Is such a thing possible?)   We have been so infused with the conceit that we could escape the remorseless fate that has overtaken all previous social systems—that we with all of our sophistication, with all of our so-called exceptionalism, that we with our science and industry, our democracy, our ingenuity, could violate the iron law of history.  For history has surely shown that every civilization has perished sooner or later.  Human social systems, as Robert Sinai once wrote, with their members anxious, insecure, restless, swollen with pride, driven by the will to power and by inordinate appetites, corrupted by self-intoxication and self-deception, sooner or later have sinned against the laws of proportion and harmony and have plunged into decay and self-destruction.
    Now, I ask you, what of our civilization?  Small wonder that we should be uncertain.  What hurts and confuses us is the lurking suspicion that because of what we have done to the air and the earth and the cities and the children and to one another, we may possibly have been condemned to live in an age that will make no significant contribution to the human spirit.  What hurts and confuses us is the knowledge that a huge proportion of our resources, our ingenuity, our wisdom, our creative energy, leaves untouched the abiding problems of human beings who live in this troubled time.  Technological processes uninhibited by any human values other than the dream of total security have committed great and even smaller powers to collective mechanisms of destruction.  But the dream of total security has produced only the reality of total vulnerability.  As for nuclear weapons, and the several powers that possess them, we know, as I think it was George Kennan who once said, “nuclear weapons cannot bring us security, they can only bring revenge.”  If only we could banish this sterile dream and sadistic nightmare.
    “We have fed the heart on fantasies,” the poet Yeats once said, “the heart’s grown brutal from the fare/  More substance in our enmities/ Than in our love.” And all of this rooted in the conviction that nothing must stand in the way of the demonstration of our power.  “Power to coerce,” Norman Cousins once wrote, “power to harm, power that intimidates intelligence, power that conquers language and renders other forms of communication incoherent and irrelevant, power becoming a theology, admitting no other gods before it…”  Surely we know that the policies to which we have been so slavishly obedient end up, as always, constituting a form of violence against the poor—the ever growing kingdom of the poor,
    Yet we know there is another power within us, a power that will enable to us to say “NO” to the forces that have ruled over our thinking and feeling.  It is the power of our own critical intelligence, of our own decency, the power of the human spirit, a spiritual power present in every person, and it can be actualized.  And we shall have to actualize this power without pretending away our need for security, or that we do indeed live in a brutal world, brimming with anger and suspicion, and adversaries.
    There is a story members of the clergy like to tell.  It concerns a minister (it could be a priest, a rabbi, or an imam) who wants to stage an object lesson for the members of his/her congregation, and placed a lion and a lamb in a cage outside the entrance to the church.  And they lived together in peace.  And people from miles around came to see this remarkable phenomenon.  Finally, the mayor of the city, intrigued by this feat, sent a delegation to inquire how the minister pulled off this trick.  ‘Oh, “there’s no trick at all,” said the minister.  “All you have to do is put in a fresh lamb from time to time.”
    In the real world, we know very well, lions and lambs do not live together peacefully.  Even the prophet Isaiah, when he spoke of such a possibility, was referring to a messianic time.  And that’s where the rub is for us: how to face up to the truth of this real world of brutality, fear, mutual rivalry, and the need for security, and still retain hope, still work for something different.
    How shall we do that?  We need some troubled people.  We need agitated people.  We need men and women who are not ashamed to be sensitive and tender with one another.  We need those who are willing to become members of a community dedicated to each other’s fulfillment.  We need men and women who have the courage to be afraid, afraid of all those forces which have removed our humanity.  And as for the vast store of nuclear weapons, we need men and women who can maintain a firm conviction that it is not so wild a dream (to borrow the words of Norman Corwin) that we can negotiate, not only to do away with the nuclear arms race, but also that we can abolish nuclear arms, altogether.  We must not let this hope be crushed amidst the powers and the principalities.  And that is why the work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is so important.
    And something more, we need to give voice to the abandoned and forgotten, and preserve a vision that can transcend the dangerous imagery of victory and defeat, a vision of a genuinely humane society, in a genuinely decent world, that we can ultimately approach a great common tenderness.
    How shall I thank you for the gift of the honor you have given me?  What I could have said at the very beginning, and it might have been worthy and sufficient for this occasion, are Shakespeare’s words:
    “I can no other answer make, but thanks, and thanks, and ever thanks.”

  • Statement on the Catastrophic Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons

    I am taking the floor on behalf of the following Member States, Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, DR Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Macedonia, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, my own country, New Zealand, and the Observer State the Holy See.

    Our countries are deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Past experience from the use and testing of nuclear weapons has amply demonstrated the unacceptable humanitarian consequences caused by the immense, uncontrollable destructive capability and indiscriminate nature of these weapons. The fact-based discussion that took place at the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons convened by Norway last March allowed us to deepen our collective understanding of those consequences. A key message from experts and international organisations was that no State or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation or provide adequate assistance to victims.

    The broad participation at the Conference, with attendance by 128 States, the ICRC, a number of UN humanitarian organisations and civil society, reflected the recognition that the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are a fundamental and global concern. We warmly welcome Mexico’s announcement of a follow-up Conference, scheduled for 13-14 February 2014. We firmly believe that it is in the interests of all States to participate in that Conference, which aims to further broaden and deepen understanding of this matter, particularly with regard to the longer-term consequences of a nuclear-weapon detonation. We welcome civil society’s ongoing engagement.

    This work is essential, because the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons affect not only governments, but each and every citizen of our interconnected world. They have deep implications for human survival; for our environment; for socio-economic development; for our economies; and for the health of future generations. For these reasons, we firmly believe that awareness of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons must underpin all approaches and efforts towards nuclear disarmament.

    This is not, of course, a new idea. The appalling humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons became evident from the moment of their first use, and from that moment have motivated humanity’s aspirations for a world free from this threat, which have also inspired this statement. The humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons have been reflected in numerous UN resolutions, including the first resolution passed by this Assembly in 1946, and in multilateral instruments, including the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. The world’s most eminent nuclear physicists observed as early as 1955 that nuclear weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind and that a war with these weapons could quite possibly put an end to the human race. The First Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (SSOD-1) stressed in 1978 that “nuclear weapons pose the greatest danger to mankind and to the survival of civilisation.” These expressions of profound concern remain as compelling as ever. In spite of this, the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons have not been at the core of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation deliberations for many years.

    We are therefore encouraged that the humanitarian focus is now well established on the global agenda. The 2010 Review Conference of the NPT expressed “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”. That deep concern informed the November 26 2011 resolution of the Council of Delegates of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and the decision last year of this General Assembly to establish an open-ended working group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations. It underlies the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States’ call to the international community, in August 2013, to emphasise the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons during any discussion of nuclear issues. Last month, at the High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament, numerous leaders from around the world again evoked that deep concern as they called for progress to be made on nuclear disarmament. Today, this statement demonstrates the growing political support for the humanitarian focus.

    It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances. The catastrophic effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, whether by accident, miscalculation or design, cannot be adequately addressed. All efforts must be exerted to eliminate the threat of these weapons of mass destruction.

    The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination. All States share the responsibility to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, to prevent their vertical and horizontal proliferation and to achieve nuclear disarmament, including through fulfilling the objectives of the NPT and achieving its universality.

    We welcome the renewed resolve of the international community, together with the ICRC and international humanitarian organisations, to address the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. By raising awareness about this issue, civil society has a crucial role to play side-by-side with governments as we fulfil our responsibilities. We owe it to future generations to work together to do just that, and in doing so, to rid our world of the threat posed by nuclear weapons.

  • Chemical Weapons, Then Nuclear Weapons

    David KriegerEveryone can agree that chemical weapons are terrible weapons.  When used, they kill indiscriminately and cause their victims to suffer and die horrible deaths.  The use of chemical weapons in Syria resulted in US threats to strike the Syrian regime with cruise missiles.  Fortunately, this response to the use of chemical weapons was averted, as it might well have caused even more death, injury and displacement for the Syrian people.  With pressure from their ally, Russia, the Syrian government agreed to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and turn over its stock of chemical weapons for destruction.

    Chemical weapons are dangerous and deadly weapons, but they are not the worst weapons created by humans.  By any measure, the worst weapons are nuclear weapons.  They kill by blast, fire and radiation, and they are capable of causing a nuclear winter and sending the globe into an ice age.  Even the two relatively small nuclear weapons (by today’s standards) used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki each thoroughly destroyed a city.  The nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima killed some 90,000 people immediately and 145,000 by the end of 1945.  The nuclear weapon dropped on Nagasaki killed some 40,000 people immediately and 75,000 by the end of 1945.

    People are continuing to die from the effects of the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and also from the radiation released by the atmospheric and underground testing of far more powerful nuclear weapons subsequently.  The effects of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either time or space.  They are weapons that cause stillborn births and birth defects in succeeding generations, as well as genetic mutations.  Like chemical weapons, they are weapons that violate international humanitarian law, the law of warfare, because they cannot discriminate between soldiers and civilians and they cause unnecessary suffering.

    So, with last-minute collaboration by the US and Russia, the unexpected outcome was that Syria agreed to give up its chemical weapons.  This demonstrates the power of the US and Russia working cooperatively on solving global problems.  Of course, there are many more such problems to work through, including pollution of the oceans and atmosphere, climate change, human rights abuses, starvation, epidemic diseases and the list goes on.  There is not a single serious global problem that can be solved by any one nation alone, no matter the strength of its military power.

    Further, the unexpected success in Syria opens the door to moving from chemical weapons to nuclear weapons.  There is an obstacle, though, with nuclear weapons, and that is that the foxes are guarding the nuclear hen houses.  The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, UK, Russia, France and China) are the initial five states to develop nuclear arsenals, to test these weapons and to threaten their use.  They are also the five nuclear weapon states designated in the Non-Proliferation Treaty that have agreed to negotiate in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.

    Understanding that the US and Russia aren’t pursuing their own nuclear disarmament obligations with the same vigor that they are pursuing Syria to give up its chemical weapons, it makes sense that they need pressure from below, from their citizens as well as from people throughout the world, to take the lead in ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity.  Join us at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in putting pressure on the US and Russia to lead the world in negotiating in good faith for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (similar to the Chemical Weapons Convention) to ban nuclear weapons and set forth a plan for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons.

    On the way to that goal, and as a follow-up to their success with Syria, it would be a large step forward for the US and Russia to throw their weight behind a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone, long a goal of the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    The possibilities for US-Russian cooperation for a more decent world order are exciting.  We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to fan these sparks of hope.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.

  • What On Earth are Nuclear Weapons For?

    Eric Schlosser’s hair-raising new book about actual and potential accidents with nuclear weapons, “Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety,” sharpens the dialogue, such as it is, between the anti-nuclear peace movement and nuclear strategists who maintain that these weapons still enhance the security of nations.

    We can imagine a hypothetical moment somewhere in time. No one can say when exactly, but for my money it is definitely far in the past. Before that moment—perhaps it was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, or perhaps one of the terrifying incidents Schlosser describes, when computer glitches caused the Soviets or the Americans to misperceive that nuclear missiles had been launched—realists could argue that the deterrent effect of the balance of terror was preventing world war. After that moment, the more nuclear weapons, the more risk and insecurity for the planet as a whole and therefore for all nations whether they have the weapons or not.

    One of the important points that Schlosser makes, one which former Secretary of Defense William Perry has also emphasized, is that our present moment is not less dangerous because the Cold War has passed and treaties have reduced the overall numbers of warheads, but much more dangerous—because military service in the nuclear weapons sector is considered a career dead-end, and the very lack of post-cold-war tension increases potential carelessness. At least General Curtis Lemay, whom John Kennedy had to restrain from launching World War III by attacking Cuba in 1962, pushed the Strategic Air Command to adhere to strict protocols for the safer handling of the weapons. Still, even that additional rigor was insufficient to prevent some of the near-disasters that Schlosser chronicles in such vivid detail.

    The ultimate absurdity of the whole system of security-by-nukes is the potential of nuclear winter, which posits that it would only take the detonation of a small percentage of the total warheads on the planet to loft enough soot into the atmosphere to shut down world agriculture for a decade—in effect a death-sentence for all peoples and nations. Wherever the hypothetical line is before which nuclear weapons enhanced international security, the possibility of nuclear winter demonstrates irrefutably that we are on the other side of that line.

    If some superior intelligence equipped with an interstellar version of the Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders looked closely at the accepted order of things on our planet, they would have serious misgivings about our mental health. As such a visit from aliens seems unlikely to happen, we come to the question of authority here on earth. Ever since Oppenheimer and other scientists gave us nuclear weapons, other deep thinkers like Herman Kahn in his book “Thinking about the Unthinkable” and Henry Kissinger have tried to make rational the permanently irrational subject of mass death. In retirement, Kissinger has thrown up his hands and works now for total abolition. He does this because he knows from experience that nuclear weapons put us in the realm of Rumsfeld’s unknown knowns—no matter what experts may assert, we do know that no one knows how a nuclear war might begin. We have a somewhat clearer idea of how it would end, and “victory” is not one of the words that we associate with such an end.

    No one defined more exactly the reasons why we have been so slow to acknowledge our own madness than Dag Hammarskjold:

    “It is one of the surprising experiences of one in the position of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to find in talks with leaders of many nations, both political leaders and leaders in spiritual life, that the view expressed, the hopes nourished, and the trust reflected, in the direction of reconciliation, go far beyond what is usually heard in public. What is it that makes it so difficult to bring this basic attitude more effectively to bear upon the determination of policies? The reasons are well known to us all. It might not be understood by the constituency, or it might be abused by competing groups, or it might be misinterpreted as a sign of weakness by the other part. And so the game goes on—toward an unforeseeable conclusion.”

    On Thursday, September 26, 2013, the UN hosted the first ever High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament. Russia and the United States boycotted the meeting.

    The urgent and primary task is educational, and that is where you and I can do our small but necessary part, with letters to our newspapers and our legislators. The task is to seed into worldwide discourse the complete dysfunctionality of “realist” nuclear rhetoric—an act of love on behalf of our beautiful and deeply threatened planet. If we succeed in changing the paradigm, a moment in time will come, again a hypothetical, indefinable moment, when the majority of the world’s people and leaders, Obama and Putin and Netanyahu and Hasan Rouhani, the new head of Iran, the thinkers and the generals of the nine nuclear powers, the corporations who make money off these weapons, all will come to realize the futility of the course we are on. And together we will begin to change. God help us, may no fatal accident or misinterpretation happen before that moment arrives.

  • Eliminating Nuclear Weapons is Just as Important as Eliminating Chemical Weapons

    Lawrence WittnerThe apparent employment of chemical weapons in Syria should remind us that, while weapons of mass destruction exist, there is a serious danger that they will be used.

    That danger is highlighted by an article in the September/October 2013 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Written by two leading nuclear weapons specialists, Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris of the Federation of American Scientists, the article provides important information about nuclear weapons that should alarm everyone concerned about the future of the planet.

    At present, the article reports, more than 17,000 nuclear warheads remain in the possession of nine nations (the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea). Over 90 percent of that inventory consists of U.S. and Russian warheads. These weapons, of course, are incredibly destructive, and almost all of them can massacre populations far more effectively than did the atomic bomb that obliterated the city of Hiroshima. Indeed, a single one of these weapons can slaughter hundreds of thousands of people.

    Although U.S., Russian, British, and French stockpiles of nuclear weapons have been declining since the end of the Cold War, those of the five other nuclear nations have been growing. Consequently, as Kristensen and Norris observe, with the possible exception of North Korea, all of these countries “have sufficient numbers of warheads and delivery systems to inflict enormous destruction over significant ranges with catastrophic humanitarian and climatic consequences in their regions and beyond.”

    Furthermore, many of these deadly weapons stand ready for almost instant use. As the authors state, “roughly 1,800 U.S. and Russian warheads are on high alert atop long-range ballistic missiles that are ready to launch 5 to 15 minutes after receiving an order.”

    But surely these terrible weapons are being phased out, aren’t they? After all, the major nuclear powers, plus most nations, have formally committed themselves to building a nuclear weapons-free world. And it is certainly true that the number of nuclear weapons on the world scene has dropped very significantly from the roughly 70,000 that existed in 1986.

    Even so, there are numerous signs that the nuclear disarmament momentum is slowing. Not only have nuclear disarmament negotiations between the United States (with 7,700 nuclear warheads) and Russia (with 8,500 nuclear warheads) apparently run aground, but none of the nuclear powers seems to take the rhetoric about a nuclear weapons-free world seriously. Kristensen and Norris note: “All the nations with nuclear weapons continue to modernize or upgrade their nuclear arsenals, and nuclear weapons remain integral to their conception of national security.”

    For example, the United States is modifying its existing nuclear warheads while planning production of warheads with new designs. Russia is phasing out its Soviet-era missiles and submarines and deploying newer missiles, as well as additional warheads on its missiles. France is deploying new nuclear missiles on its fighter-bombers and submarines. China is upgrading its missile force, while India and Pakistan are locked in a race to deploy new types of nuclear weapons. Although Israel is the most secretive of the nuclear powers, rumors are afloat that it is equipping some of its submarines with nuclear-capable cruise missiles. North Korea reportedly lacks operational nuclear weapons, but its hungry citizens can take heart that it is working to remedy this deficiency.

    In addition, of course, it is quite possible, in the future, that other nations will develop nuclear weapons, terrorists will obtain such weapons from national stockpiles, or existing nuclear weapons will be exploded or launched accidentally.

    In these very dangerous circumstances, surely the safest course of action would be to have the international community agree on a treaty requiring the destruction of all existing stocks of nuclear weapons and a ban on their future production. Nuclear disarmament discussions along these and other lines have recently been concluded by a UN Open Ended Working Group, and will be continued in late September by a UN High Level Meeting and later this fall by the UN General Assembly First Committee.

    But, to judge from past government behavior, it does not seem likely that disarmament discussions among government officials will get very far without substantial public pressure upon them to cope with the nuclear weapons menace. And it is a menace — one at least as dangerous to the future of world civilization as the existence of chemical weapons. So pressing world leaders for action on nuclear disarmament seems thoroughly appropriate.

    The alternative is to throw up our hands and wait, while power-hungry governments continue to toy with their nuclear weaponry and, ultimately, produce a catastrophe of immense proportions.

    This article was originally published by History News Network.

  • Protecting Whistleblowers

    The world urgently needs a system of international laws for protecting whistleblowers. There are many reasons for this, but among the most urgent is the need for saving civilization and the biosphere from the threat of a catastrophic nuclear war.

    It is generally recognized that a war fought with nuclear weapons would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster, affecting neutral nations throughout the world, as well as combatants. For example, on 4-5 March 2013 the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Espen Barth Eide hosted an international Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons.

    The Conference provided an arena for a fact-based discussion of the humanitarian and developmental consequences of a nuclear weapons detonation. Delegates from 127 countries as well as several UN organisations, the International Red Cross movement, representatives of civil society and other relevant stakeholders participated.

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

    China stated that “China has always stood for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, and [has] actively promoted the establishment of a world free of nuclear weapons. The complete prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons, getting rid of the danger of nuclear war and the attainment of a nuclear-weapon-free world, serve the common interests and benefits of humankind.”

    Japan’s comment included the words: “As the only country to have suffered atomic bombings during wartime, Japan actively contributed to the Oslo Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in March. With strengthened resolve to seek a nuclear-weapons-free world, we continue to advance disarmament and non-proliferation education to inform the world and the next generation of the dreadful realities of nuclear devastation.” Many other nations represented at the Oslo Conference made similarly strong statements advocating the complete abolition of nuclear weapons.

    Recently UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has introduced a 5-point Program for the abolition of nuclear weapons. In this program he mentioned the possibility of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, and urged the Security Council to convene a summit devoted to the nuclear abolition. He also urged all countries to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty.

    Three-quarters of all nations support UN Secretary-General Ban’s proposal for a treaty to outlaw and eliminate nuclear weapons. The 146 nations that have declared their willingness to negotiate a new global disarmament pact include four nuclear weapon states: China, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

    Nuclear disarmament has been one of the core aspirations of the international community since the first use of nuclear weapons in 1945. A nuclear war, even a limited one, would have global humanitarian and environmental consequences, and thus it is a responsibility of all governments,including those of non-nuclear countries, to protect their citizens and engage in processes leading to a world without nuclear weapons.

    Now a new process has been established by the United Nations General Assembly, an Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) to Take Forward Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations. The OEWG convened at the UN offices in Geneva on May 14, 2013. Among the topics discussed was a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention.

    The Model Nuclear Weapons Convention prohibits development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. States possessing nuclear weapons will be required to destroy their arsenals according to a series of phases.

    The Convention also prohibits the production of weapons usable fissile material and requires delivery vehicles to be destroyed or converted to make them non-nuclear capable.

    Verification will include declarations and reports from States, routine inspections, challenge inspections, on-site sensors, satellite photography, radionuclide sampling and other remote sensors, information sharing with other organizations, and citizen reporting. Persons reporting suspected violations of the convention will be provided protection through the Convention including the right of asylum.

    Thus we can see that the protection of whistleblowers is an integral feature of the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention now being discussed. As Sir Joseph Rotblat (1908-2005, Nobel Laureate 1995) frequently emphasized in his speeches, societal verification must be an integral part of the process of “going to zero” ( i.e, the total elimination of nuclear weapons). This is because nuclear weapons are small enough to be easily hidden. How will we know whether a nation has destroyed all of its nuclear arsenal? We have to depend on information from insiders, whose loyalty to the whole of humanity promts them to become whistleblowers. And for this to be possible, they need to be protected.

    In general, if the world is ever to be free from the threat of complete destruction by modern weapons, we will need a new global ethic, an ethic as advanced as our technology. Of course we can continue to be loyal to our families, our localities and our countries. But this must be suplemented by a higher loyalty: a loyalty to humanity as a whole.

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

  • Book Review of ZERO: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition

    In his remarkably readable and informative book on why abolishing nuclear weapons is an imperative for a safe and secure world, David Krieger points out there is a growing consensus among the peoples of the world that ZERO nuclear weapons is the only option.  David Krieger, a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara, California and President of the Foundation since 1982, has devoted his life to educating, inspiring and urging world leaders and ordinary citizens to act with a sense of urgency in a quest to abolish nuclear weapons.

    The United States’ nuclear strategy was built on the notion of mutually assured destruction: if any nation attacked the United States, we would respond by total and complete destruction of the attacking nation. To pursue such a strategy the United States built an enormous nuclear arsenal with various response capabilities. To be able to withstand a first strike and retaliate, the US plan was to deploy our nuclear arsenal in the air, at sea and from land-based missiles scattered across the country. With such an overwhelming ability to destroy any adversary, we were coaxed into believing no one would dare attack us. Such a false sense of security left other nations deciding they too must arm themselves with nuclear weapons, thus further perpetuating the false notion of security.  In spite of the fact that the US and Russia have actually reduced their nuclear weapons, other nations continue to seek, or are believed to be seeking, a nuclear capability.

    In his book ZERO: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, David Krieger’s piece by piece analysis of the arguments in support of our continued reliance on nuclear deterrence convincingly demonstrates that it is a doomed and failed long-range strategy for world peace and security.  He grapples with such questions as:  Do we really want to have the fate of the world and future generations entrusted to an ever changing cadre of world leaders who often govern under intense pressure (politically and emotionally) and stress?; Under such circumstances can these leaders be trusted to act prudently for the well-being of all humankind?; If nuclear deterrence is so effective, why has the United States spent billions of dollars on missile defense systems?; Have those systems and nuclear arsenal stopped the attacks of 9/11? On the USS Cole? On our embassies in Africa and elsewhere?

    With the fall of the Soviet Union, perhaps we have become complacent about the danger posed by nuclear weapons. ZERO awakens us to the dangers, costs, and absurdity of our reliance on these weapons for our security because, in reality, with them we are less secure. Krieger astutely observes that as long as the nine nations of the world’s “nuclear club” rely on the false notion of nuclear deterrence, we can expect nuclear war to loom over the future of the world.

    Remembering the Hibakusha (the name given a person who survived the atomic bombs dropped on Japan), ZERO draws on the all too real, personal and intimate horrors nuclear war inflicts on all, individually and collectively, by relating the story of Miyoko Matsubara, a Hibakusha. Miyoko, 13 years old when the US dropped its atomic bombs on her country, describes how after the explosions her friend, Takiko, “simply disappeared from my sight.” Miyoko learned English so she could tell her story not to heap on us a sense of guilt and shame, but simply and quietly to give us a deeper understanding of the impact of weapons of mass destruction. She challenges us to become more aware of the world and a future we must avoid. Krieger’s book accepts that challenge by attempting to raise our consciousness and calling us to act in reducing nuclear weapons so there will not be a future of Hibakusha and others simply disappearing from our sight.

    In the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu::

    “This book makes a clear and persuasive case for why we must move urgently and globally to zero nuclear weapons. It should be required reading for all citizens of Earth.”

    No matter your level of understanding on this all-important issue, ZERO is a concise and thoughtful book which will better your understanding of the development, history and proliferation of nuclear weapons and why nuclear disarmament is necessary for a secure world. It is an essential addition to your list of must reads.

    ZERO: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition is available online at the NAPF Peace Store or fromamazon.com.

    Barry Ladendorf is a lawyer based in San Diego and is a member of Veterans for Peace Hugh Thompson Chapter 091.

  • Nuclear Abolition: New Opportunities and Old Obstacles

    At the end of last year, the airwaves and internet were filled with chatter about the ancient Mayan calendar which was predicting the end of the world or a similar catastrophe.  Some scholars argued that the Mayan prophecy related not to an impending disaster but to the end of a 5000 year cycle which would usher in a period of new consciousness and transformation.  While our planet seems to have dodged a bullet and survived the more gloomy interpretations of the ancient prophecy,  the Mayans may have been on to something as it appears we are actually seeing the breakup of a certain kind of world consciousness  regarding nuclear weapons this year and it’s all for the good.

    New initiatives for nuclear disarmament are springing up in both conventional and unconventional forums.   Norway stepped up to the plate in February and convened an unprecedented international meeting to address the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.  In Oslo, 127 nations, plus UN agencies, NGOs, and the International Red Cross participated in a debate and discussion of the catastrophic potential of nuclear weapons.  Two nuclear weapons states, India and Pakistan attended.

    The five recognized nuclear weapons states under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, who also happen to wield the veto as permanent members of the Security Council (the P5) the US, UK, Russia, China and France, refused to attend.  They spoke in one voice, as I learned on a conference call with Rose Gottemoeller, US Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, who told us that the US decision not to attend the conference “was made in consultation with the P5. They all agreed not to attend” because “Oslo would divert discussion and energy from a practical step by step approach and non-proliferation work.  The most effective way to honor the NPT.”  Other P5 spokespeople characterized the Oslo initiative as a “distraction.” Of course it was a distraction from the P5 preferred methods of business as usual in the ossified and stalled NPT process, as well as in the procedurally stymied Conference on Disarmament in Geneva which has been paralyzed for 17 years because of lack of consensus,  required by its rules to move forward on disarmament agreements—a recipe for nuclear weapons forever—with regular new breakout threats by nuclear proliferators.

    Oslo was an end run around those institutions. Taking its model from the Ottawa Process that wound up with a treaty to ban landmines, working outside of the usual institutional fora, it held an electrifying new kind of discussion as testimony was heard about the devastating impacts of what would occur during a nuclear war and the humanitarian consequences, examining the need to ban the bomb.  Prior to the Oslo meeting, more than 500 members of ICAN, a vibrant new campaign, met to work for negotiations to begin on a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons. At Oslo, the nations pledged to follow up with another meeting in Mexico.

    Right before Oslo, The Middle Powers Initiative, working to influence friendly middle powers to put pressure on the P5 for more rapid progress for nuclear disarmament, held a Framework Forum for a Nuclear Weapons Free World in Berlin, hosted by the German government, under the new leadership of Tad Akiba, former Mayor of Hiroshima who oversaw the burgeoning Mayors for Peace Campaign grow to a network of some 5300 mayors in more than 150 countries calling for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.  At that meeting, we were urged to organize Civil Society’s support for a new initiative promoted by the UN General Assembly’s First Committee establishment of a Geneva Working Group to meet for three weeks this summer to “develop proposals for taking forward multilateral negotiations on the achievement and maintenance of a world free of nuclear weapons.” And then in New York this September, for the first time ever, Heads of State will meet at a global summit devoted to nuclear disarmament!

    Furthermore, thanks to the tireless organizing of the Parliamentarians for Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament,, nearly 1000 parliamentarians from approximately 150 parliaments, meeting at  the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) in Ecuador last month chose the topic “Towards a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World: The Contribution of Parliaments”  as a focus this year under their Peace and International Security work.  IPU, which includes most of the nuclear weapons states in its 160 parliaments enables parliamentarians to engage on core issues for humanity.   That they chose the issue of nuclear weapons ahead of seven other proposals indicates the rising interest and consciousness for nuclear abolition around the world.

    And just before this meeting, Abolition 2000, the global network formed in 1995, at the NPT Review and Extension Conference, which produced a model nuclear weapons convention, now  promoted by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon in his five point proposal for nuclear disarmament,  held its annual meeting in Edinburg Scotland, supported by the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which is urging that after the referendum on Scottish independence from England, that England’s Trident nuclear submarine base at Faslane be closed, and that Scotland no longer house the British nuclear arsenal.  The network joined with Scottish activists at Glasgow and Faslane supporting their call to “Scrap Trident: Let Scotland lead the way to a nuclear free world.”

    Despite these welcome harbingers of a change in planetary consciousness in favor of nuclear abolition, we cannot ignore recent obstacles, setbacks and hardened positions in the old patriarchal and warlike paradigm. Disappointingly the Obama administration is proposing deep cuts in funding for nuclear non-proliferation programs so it can boost spending to modernize its massive stockpile of nuclear weapons adding another $500 million to the already bloated weapons budget, which includes spending for three new bomb factories at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Kansas City with programs for weapons modernization and new missiles, planes and submarines to deliver a nuclear attack which will come to more than $184 billion over the next ten years.

    In the provocative US military “pivot” to Asia, war games with South Korea for the first time simulated a nuclear attack where the US flew stealth bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons over South Korea and sent two guided-missile destroyers off the coast of South Korea, announcing plans to deploy an advanced missile defense system to Guam in the next few weeks two years ahead of schedule.

    This engendered an aggressive response from North Korea which moved a medium-range missile to its east coast and threatened to launch a nuclear attack on the US.  The US put a pause on what it had called its step-by-step plan that laid out the sequence and publicity plans for US shows of force during annual war games with South Korea.  But ominously, the New York Times reported on April 4, 2013, that the US and South Korea “are entering the final stretch of long-stalled negotiations over another highly delicate nuclear issue: South Korea’s own request for American permission to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel. Which raises another key obstacle to the surge of sentiment for moving boldly towards nuclear disarmament.
    How can we tell Iran not to enrich uranium when we are negotiating that issue with South Korea as well as with Saudi Arabia?

    If we are serious about nuclear abolition we cannot keep spreading nuclear bomb factories around the world in the form of “peaceful” nuclear power. That is why this new negotiating possibilities outside the NPT are so promising. In order to ban nuclear weapons we are not bound to provide an “inalienable right” to so-called “peaceful nuclear power, as guaranteed by the Article IV promise of the NPT.

    The tragic events at Fukushima, have caused a time-out in the so-called nuclear renaissance that expected a massive increase of nuclear power worldwide.  Just last week, we learned that all of Fukushima’s holding ponds for the toxic radiated water that is used to prevent a meltdown of the stored radioactive fuel rods by cooling them with a constant flow of water, the radioactive trash produced by the operation of nuclear power plants, are all leaking into the earth. We have not yet absorbed the full catastrophic consequences of Fukushima which is still perilously poised to spew more poisons into the air, water and soil; poisons which are traveling around the world. And as the Japanese people rose up to develop plans to phase out nuclear power, members of the Japanese military, acknowledging the significance of nuclear plants as military technology, succeeded in getting the parliament to amend Japan’s 1955 Atomic Energy Basic Law last year, adding “national security” to people’s health and wealth as reasons for Japan’s use of the nuclear power.

    We were warned from the beginning of the atomic age that nuclear power was a recipe for proliferation. President Truman’s 1946 Acheson-Lilienthal Report on policy for the future of nuclear weapons, concluded that “the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the development of atomic energy for bombs are in much of their course interchangeable and interdependent” and that only central control by a global authority controlling all nuclear materials, starting at uranium mines could block the proliferation of nuclear weapons.[i] Nevertheless, President Eisenhower, seeking to counter public revulsion at the normalization of nuclear war in US military policy, was advised by the Defense Department’s Psychological Strategy Board that “the atomic bomb will be accepted far more readily if at the same time atomic energy is being used for constructive ends.”[ii]  Hence his Atoms for Peace speech at the UN in 1953, in which he promised that the US would devote “its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life” [iii] by spreading the peaceful benefits of atomic power across the globe.

    The fallout from the 1954 Bravo test of a hydrogen bomb contaminating 236 Marshall Islanders and 23 Japanese fisherman aboard the Lucky Dragon and irradiating tuna sold in Japan resulted in an eruption of rage against the atomic bombings which were forbidden to be discussed after 1945 by a ban instituted by US occupation authorities.  For damage control, the US NSC recommended that the US wage a “vigorous offensive on the non-war uses of atomic energy,” offering to build Japan an experimental nuclear reactor and recruiting a former Japanese war criminal, Shoriki Matsutaro, who ran the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper and Nippon TV network to shill for nuclear power by getting him released from prison without trial. The benefits of nuclear power were aggressively marketed as miraculous technology that would power vehicles, light cities, heal the sick.  The US made agreements with 37 nations to build atomic reactors and enticed reluctant Westinghouse and General Electric to do so by passing the Price Anderson act limiting their liability at tax-payer expense. Today there is a cap of $12 billion for damages from a nuclear accident. Chernobyl cost $350 billion and Fukushima estimates are as high as one trillion dollars.[iv]

    Ironically, Barack Obama is still peddling the same snake oil. During the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit,  designed to lock down and safeguard nuclear materials worldwide, Obama extolled the peaceful benefits of nuclear power while urging “ nations to join us in seeking a future where we harness the awesome power of the atom to build and not to destroy. When we enhance nuclear security, we’re in a stronger position to harness safe, clean nuclear energy. When we develop new, safer approaches to nuclear energy, we reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism and proliferation.”

    The Good News:  We don’t need nuclear power with all its potential for nuclear proliferation

    Following Fukushima, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Spain and Japan have announced their intention to phase out nuclear power.

    • Kuwait pulled out of a contract to build 4 reactors.
    • Venezuela froze all nuclear development projects.
    • Mexico dropped plans to build 10 reactors.[v]
    • Bulgaria and the Philipines also dropped plans to build new reactors.
    • Quebec will shut down its one reactor.
    • Spain is closing down another.
    • Belgium shut down two reactors because of cracks.

    New research and reports are affirming the possibilities for shifting the global energy paradigm. Scientific American reported a plan in 2009 to power 100% of the planet by 2030 with only solar, wind and water renewables.

    The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) also issued a 2010 Report 100% Renewable Energy by 2050.[vi]

    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that the world could meet 80% of its energy needs from renewables by 2050.

    In 2009 the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), was launched and now has 187 member states.[vii]

    We mustn’t buy into the propaganda that clean safe energy is decades away or too costly. We need to be vigilant in providing the ample evidence in its favor to counter the corporate forces arguing that it’s not ready, it’s years away, its’ too expensive—arguments made by companies in the business of producing dirty fuel.

    Here’s what Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to say about similar forces in 1936

    We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.[viii]

    These are the enormous forces we must overcome.  The eco-philosopher Joanna Macy, describes these times as ”the great turning”.  In shifting the energy paradigm we would essentially be turning away from “the industrial growth society to a life-sustaining civilization”, foregoing a failed economic model which “ measures its performance in terms of ever-increasing corporate profits–in other words by how fast materials can be extracted from Earth and turned into consumer products, weapons, and waste.”[ix]  Relying on the inexhaustible abundance of the sun, wind, tides, and heat of the earth for our energy needs, freely available to all, will diminish the competitive, industrial, consumer society that is threatening our planetary survival.  By ending our dependence on the old structures, beginning with the compelling urgency to transform the way we meet our energy needs, we may finally be able to put an end to war as well.

     

     

    [i] http://www.nci.org/06nci/10/Acheson-Lilienthal%20report%20excerpt.htm

    [ii] www.japanfocus.org/-yuki-tanaka/3521#

    [iii] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1439606/Atoms-for-Peace-speech

    [iv] www.japanfocus.org/-yuki-tanaka/3521#

    [v] http://progressive.org/fukushima_nuclear_industry.html

    [vi] http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/energy-report.html

    [vii] http://www.irena.org/Menu/Index.aspx?mnu=Cat&PriMenuID=46&CatID=67

    [viii] http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/digitalarchive/speeches/spe_1936_1031_roosevelt

    [ix] http://www.ecoliteracy.org/essays/great-turning

     

     

     

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