Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Nuclear Abolition

  • Letter to NATO Secretary General and Member States

    Excellency,

    This letter comes to you, to the leaders of other NATO members and to the NATO Secretary General from the councils that represent churches across the member states of NATO, namely, the Conference of European Churches, the National Council of Churches of Christ USA, the Canadian Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.

    Our letter is a joint initiative to encourage joint action.  We ask your Government to ensure that the forthcoming NATO summit commits the Alliance to a thorough reform of NATO’s Strategic Concept. The 60th anniversary meeting is a welcome opportunity to begin the process of up-dating the Alliance’s security doctrine.  In particular, we encourage new initiatives that will end NATO’s reliance on nuclear weapons and will engage with nuclear weapon states and other states outside of NATO in the serious pursuit of reciprocal disarmament.

    Such collective action by NATO can be a major factor in revitalizing the nuclear non-proliferation regime at this critical time.  It is also an important opportunity for the alliance to reinforce the vision of a world without nuclear weapons so compellingly put forward in recent months by eminent figures on the global security stage. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, four elder statesmen of Germany and former Foreign Secretaries of the United Kingdom are among those urging both a recovery of that vision and concrete steps to realize it.

    NATO has the opportunity to fashion a new strategic doctrine that, on the one hand, takes full account of the threats posed by nuclear weapons, and, on the other hand, takes full advantage of the political momentum that is now finally available to support decisive inter-governmental action against the nuclear threat.

    We encourage NATO to consign to history the notion that nuclear weapons “preserve peace” (as claimed in paragraph 46 of the current Strategic Concept), and instead to recognize the reality that “with every passing year [nuclear weapons] make our security more precarious” (President Gorbachev’s assessment; echoed by other leaders).

    We are convinced that NATO security in the years ahead will require not only long-delayed action on reciprocal disarmament but also concerted new action to resolve injustices, divisions and conflicts that affect both the Alliance and its neighbours.  We believe security must be sought through constructive engagement with neighbours and that authentic security is found in affirming and enhancing human interdependence within God’s one creation.

    Inasmuch as all NATO members are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), we urge the Alliance to promote the actual implementation of the backlog of disarmament and non-proliferation measures already elaborated through the NPT review process or awaiting negotiation as the current cycle culminates.

    One very important measure of NATO’s good faith in terms of NPT and the pursuit of nuclear disarmament will be its willingness to remove the 150-250 US tactical nuclear weapons still based in five member countries — Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Turkey.  In so doing NATO would boost international confidence in an NPT regime that has been seriously eroded since 2000.  NATO would also honor the longstanding international call that all nuclear weapons be returned to the territories of the states that own them.  Removal of these weapons would be a timely signal that NATO’s old nuclear umbrella will not be extended and that there are real prospects for progress on collective security agreements in greater Europe.

    The emerging vision of a world without nuclear weapons is giving citizens and churches in every NATO country cause for hope.  We are requesting that NATO’s security doctrine be realigned in a direction which establishes such hopes.

    Sincerely,

    Rev. Dr. Samuel Kobia
    General Secretary
    World Council of Churches

     

    		 The Venerable Colin Williams
    General Secretary
    Conference of European Churches
    Rev. Michael Kinnamon, Ph.D.
    General Secretary
    National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA    		 The Rev. Dr. Karen Hamilton
    General Secretary
    The Canadian Council of Churches

  • Silence Is Indefensible

    Silence Is Indefensible

    Arundhati Roy, the great Indian writer and activist, has said, “There’s nothing new or original left to be said about nuclear weapons.” Nonetheless, she speaks out because, in her words, “silence would be indefensible.” Silence is the norm. We live our day-to-day lives with these weapons capable of destroying our cities, our countries, our civilizations, even our species. How can silence be the norm?

    This is what Roy herself says about nuclear weapons: “Whether they’re used or not, they violate everything that is humane. They alter the meaning of life itself. Why do we tolerate them? Why do we tolerate the men who use nuclear weapons to blackmail the entire human race?”

    Do we really trust our political leaders and those leaders who might come to power in the future to never unleash the fury of nuclear war? Do we believe that all leaders under all conditions, no matter how rushed or stressed, will refrain from using this power of annihilation? Perhaps we do, and this would explain the widespread complacency and silence.

    Perhaps we just feel impotent to change the situation. This resignation is often summed up with the phrase, “the genie cannot be put back into the bottle.” So, we have loosed the genie of atomic might on the world, and we appear content to let it roam. We seem to lack the cleverness or motivation even to try to trick the genie back into the bottle.

    What were the odds of sudden economic collapse of powerful financial institutions? What were the odds of the collapse of the former Soviet Union, or the odds that the Berlin Wall would be peacefully dismantled? Why does virtually no one see big changes such as these on the horizon? While they are rarely foreseen, in hindsight they seem perfectly understandable.

    What about the odds of two nuclear armed submarines colliding in the ocean? The chances of this occurring are infinitesimally small. Yet, it happened. Such rare occurrences happen. What are the odds of a nuclear war being unleashed on our planet? Could such a war begin by accident? Could it occur by miscalculation or overreaching? Perhaps the odds are small, but they are not zero and therefore they are above the acceptable level.

    Are we silent because we believe that nuclear weapons actually keep us safer? This wouldn’t be surprising because we have been taught to believe that we are protected by nuclear weapons, but this isn’t the case. Nuclear weapons cannot protect their possessors. They can only be used to inflict massive retaliation and such retaliation is not protection. If nuclear weapons protected their possessors, missile defenses would not be needed. But they do not, and missile defenses are faulty tools for protection as well. In fact, those that possess nuclear weapons are guaranteed to be targeted by someone else’s nuclear weapons.

    The only safe number of nuclear weapons is zero, and to reach this level will require international cooperation, like every significant global problem. It will also require leadership and, as the possessors of over 95 percent of the nuclear weapons on the planet, the countries that must lead are the US and Russia. If they fail to lead, the nuclear genie will continue to roam.

    Why do we waste our resources on such weapons? Why do we use our scientists in such dehumanizing ways? Why do we debase ourselves with our implicit threats of mass murder?

    Are we silent because we are numb? Have we become so distracted that we will not raise our voices because we cannot imagine consequences so horrific? Have we become so fearful of giving voice to our fears that we are dumb as well as numb?

    Nuclear weapons diminish our humanity, and our silence condemns us in the eyes of those who will follow us on this planet.

    I and others have said all of this before. Like Arundhati Roy, I continue to speak out, often repeating myself, in the belief that silence is indefensible.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor of the World Future Council.

  • Use Your Imagination

    Asked to opine about what I think one or two of the biggest issues facing us in the coming decades might be, I find myself needing to quote Arundhati Roy, in her anti-nuclear polemic “The End of Imagination.” Roy writes, “There’s nothing new or original left to be said about nuclear weapons. There can be nothing more humiliating for a writer of fiction to have to do than restate a case that has, over the years, already been made by other people in other parts of the world, and made passionately, eloquently, and knowledgeably.”
    She goes on to say, however, that she is “prepared to grovel. To humiliate myself abjectly, because in the circumstances, silence would be indefensible.” Roy is talking about her need to speak out against the open embrace of nuclear weapons by the country of her birth, India.
    When asked to comment about ‘big issues,’ and ‘issues related to war and peace’ – after all, I was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize so I should have ‘big thoughts’ about any number of such ‘big issues’ – as often as not I find myself reduced to feeling more like what Roy describes. What more can be said about a multitude of issues facing this increasing small and overwhelmed planet; issues as wide-ranging as global warming or the HIV crisis or unbridled globalization? People with much more intimate knowledge of these issues have spoken – often and with much wisdom. It feels like there is nothing left to be said.
    Yet, I also find myself willing to try on some issues – issues on which I am not even approaching what would be called ‘an expert’ — because I also feel that, under the circumstances, silence would be indefensible. Along with challenges facing us such as those noted above, one that causes me particular concern is the open embrace by the Bush administration of National Missile Defense (NMD), an issue flirted with – to greater and less degree and in various incarnations — for approaching two decades now since launched under the Reagan administration and known in common parlance as ‘Star Wars.’
    Like many others, I tend to revert to calling NMD the ‘Son of Star Wars’ — yet I recognize that for many, the mere use of such terminology threatens to reduce the cold-blooded horror of this move to militarize space to something amazing and almost wonderful. ‘Son of Star Wars’ of course conjures up the fabulous high-tech wizardry of that imaginative series of movies; causes one to almost want to be able to believe that this NMD is little more than lasers and ‘good guys’ really just trying to defend us all from the ‘bad guys.’
    I hesitate to single it out. After all, my ‘expertise’ is landmines. Don’t I risk minimizing the concern by my display of a lack of intimate knowledge? While I may not be an expert on National Missile Defense and its implications for the militarization of space, it doesn’t take an expert to see how this move fits into the arrogant isolationism of the new administration – and from my experience sometimes it is the least expert questions that are the most difficult to really answer.
    We are now being asked to stunt our imagination and our own intelligence and accept that real ‘freedom’ means that we should be free from the arms control treaties that have formed a cornerstone of stability for decades. We are told that our friends and allies around the world just don’t understand this new concept of freedom and security. But not to worry, given enough time and a bit more backslapping, they will come around. And if they don’t, we’ll do it anyway.
    It is also implied – this is not just the domain of this government – that if we do not accept this new wisdom, if we speak out passionately and maybe even eloquently and for some, maybe even with great knowledge about the issues at hand – we are somehow not patriotic. And, missile defense does seem so overwhelming that it is tempting to give in to being ‘patriotic’ and to letting the ‘experts’ advise us as to how best to protect ourselves from the rogue enemies who will be the ones to feel the wrath of these defensive missiles – after all, what can the ordinary individual possibly really understand about such difficult national defense issues.
    I think the biggest challenge is for each and every ‘ordinary citizen’ to believe that their view on this – and any of the other ‘big issues’ facing us – is important. The biggest challenge is for ordinary citizens to fire up their imaginations and believe that they can make a difference on this and most any other issue if they take action.
    My friend and fellow-laureate Betty Williams once said (and I shamelessly use her words whenever and wherever I can) that sometimes we try to get by just invoking our feelings of empathy for problems that face others – or us all, collectively. Somehow, just by ‘feeling the other person’s pain’ we are more righteous than those who cannot even do that. But as Betty says, emotions without action are irrelevant. If you do not get up and take action to make the world the place you want it to be, it really doesn’t matter what you feel.
    So, I guess that I will have to now try to move beyond my words of horror about the NMD and the militarization of space and the arrogant isolationism of this country. I will have to fire up my own imagination and try to find ways to help convince us all that real security comes with meeting the needs of the individuals on this planet – through human security –and not through spending billions of tax dollars ‘freely,’ for new imaginative weapons that threaten us all.
    I re-read this, of course, and find that I have not found new eloquence on this issue of NMD and the militarization of space. I re-read this and recognize that I’ve not found some new magic combination that will convince someone to stop this madness. At the same time, I recognize that the point isn’t necessarily to find new eloquence – it is to add my voice, and my actions, to bring about change that I believe is critical to making this a better place for us all. All that I have to do is use my imagination.

    Jody Williams won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her leadership of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

  • Inspired by the Hibakusha

    This article was published by the Hiroshima Peace Media Center

    In 1975, I was a 22-year-old high school music teacher in New Zealand. The school syllabus included a Threnody (‘song of lament’) for the Victims of Hiroshima by Penderecki. Until then I had never heard of hibakusha. My life changed forever when I read their stories, and showed photos and their paintings to my young students. The hibakusha inspired me to dedicate my life to help them abolish nuclear weapons.
    At that time there were over 52,000 nuclear weapons. Hundreds more were being tested by the US, UK and France in the Pacific: in Australia, Tahiti, the Marshall Islands and Kiribati. Radioactive fallout from these was even detected in mothers’ milk in New Zealand. Regional protest groups emerged, enraged that the “superpowers” would use our “Ocean of Peace” to test weapons causing severe health and environmental effects, and capable of annihilating most life on the planet. They lobbied their governments and, in 1973, New Zealand, Australia and other Pacific Islands took France to the International Court of Justice (World Court) and effectively forced future tests underground. When US warships, probably carrying nuclear weapons, visited our ports under the Australia New Zealand US (ANZUS) military alliance in 1976, peace groups organised “peace squadrons” of hundreds of small boats to oppose them. Thousands of people demonstrated on the streets throughout the country demanding that New Zealand should become a nuclear free zone.
    Ordinary citizens, including young mothers like myself, were angry that ANZUS membership made us a target for the enemies of the US and her allies, and we did not want nuclear weapons used against others in our defence. We worked hard over the next decade to establish 300 small neighbourhood peace groups throughout the country who educated the public about the dangers of both nuclear weapons and nuclear power. We showed films and exhibitions about hibakusha, and doorknocked nearly every home asking people to display nuclear free stickers on their homes and cars, and in their workplaces.
    By 1984, 66% of municipal councils were nuclear free and the new government pledged to ban visits by nuclear armed and powered vessels. Prime Minister David Lange believed that by rejecting the nuclear umbrella, New Zealand was strengthening its national security. He said: “We were, simply, safer without nuclear weapons in our defence than with them…”
    Although the government came under heavy US, British and Australian pressure, they were bolstered by a massive mobilisation of public support by the peace movement in both New Zealand and the US. The French government’s terrorist bombing of Greenpeace’s anti-nuclear flagship, Rainbow Warrior, in Auckland coincided in 1985 with the creation of a South Pacific Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. When the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded in 1986, the combination of these events ensured the passage into law of the Nuclear Free Act. In 1986, retired magistrate Harold Evans, from our local Christchurch peace group, initiated the World Court Project. This grew into a worldwide campaign to persuade the UN General Assembly to request an advisory opinion from the Court on the legal status of nuclear weapons. It took nearly a decade to build support and momentum nationally and internationally, helped by the improved political climate after the end of the Cold War.
    In 1994, for the first time the World Court accepted evidence from citizens which included 11,000 signatures from international judges and lawyers; a sample of the 100 million signature Hiroshima and Nagasaki Appeal, and material surveying 50 years of citizens’ opposition to nuclear weapons. In addition, over 700 citizen groups worldwide endorsed the Project. Forty-four states and the World Health Organisation participated in the biggest World Court case ever, with two-thirds arguing for illegality.
    Just before the oral hearings in 1995, the Court accepted 4 million individually signed Declarations of Public Conscience, including over 3 million from Japan. After strong domestic pressure, the Japanese government allowed the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to testify. They confronted the 14 judges with huge photographs depicting the devastation and suffering. Over 50 hibakusha were present to witness this historic legal challenge. A woman from the Marshall Islands powerfully described how many islanders are still dying of cancers and women give birth to deformed babies including some which look like “jellyfish.”
    In July 1996, the Court delivered its historic Advisory Opinion that “a threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.” The judges also unanimously agreed that “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.”
    The World Court Opinion helped spark new initiatives to achieve a nuclear weapon free world. As a former member of the World Court Project Steering Committee, I was invited in 1998 to join the Middle Powers Initiative. This campaign by a network of international citizen organisations worked closely with seven countries, including New Zealand, which had played important roles in the World Court Project. Called the New Agenda Coalition, they lobbied effectively within the UN and, at the 2000 Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, secured an unequivocal commitment from the nuclear weapon states to eliminate their nuclear weapons.
    The Middle Powers Initiative also established the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament (coordinated by New Zealander Alyn Ware, another leader of the World Court Project). It now has over 500 members in 70 countries with regular newsletters, and a website translated into 11 languages including Japanese. Recently, politicians from different parties in Belgium, Germany, Holland, Italy, Turkey and the UK called for the removal of US nuclear weapons from their soil after a US Air Force investigation concluded that “most sites” used for deploying nuclear weapons in Europe do not meet US Department of Defense minimum security requirements. In June 2008, 110 US tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn from Britain, which means that there are now no US nuclear weapons there for the first time since 1950.
    Following the presentations by the Mayors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to the World Court in 1995, they were inspired by the 1996 Opinion to renew their call for nuclear abolition and launch an international membership drive for Mayors for Peace. To mark the 10th anniversary of the Court’s Opinion in 2006, Mayors for Peace launched the Good Faith Challenge and the “Cities Are Not Targets” project. Today there are 2,708 member cities in 134 countries. Of these, 89 are capital cities, almost half the world’s capitals, including Moscow, Beijing, London and Paris.
    Other states supportive of the World Court Project, led by Malaysia and Costa Rica, sponsored UN resolutions calling for a Nuclear Weapons Convention–an enforceable global treaty to ban nuclear weapons. A consortium of lawyers, scientists and disarmament experts drafted a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention which was distributed by the UN Secretary-General in 1997 for states to consider. In 2007, the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention was updated, and translated into Japanese. The proposed treaty, and the more general call for nuclear abolition, have received growing support from across the political spectrum and from a wide array of constituencies including former Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers, mayors, military leaders, academics, parliamentarians, scientists, governments, Nobel Laureates, NGOs and the general public.
    On United Nations Day last year, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon launched a five-point plan for nuclear disarmament. He called for the nuclear weapon states to fulfil their obligation under the NPT by pursuing “a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments. Or they could consider negotiating a nuclear-weapons convention, backed by a strong system of verification, as has long been proposed at the United Nations.”
    With the world’s total of nuclear weapons now half what it was in 1975, and US President Obama himself calling for nuclear abolition, the time is ripe for all states to work together to take weapons off high alert; make immediate and drastic cuts to their nuclear arsenals; cancel missile defence systems; sign and ratify a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; and negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and an Outer Space Treaty. There has never been a more hopeful moment for us all to press our leaders to start negotiating a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Then the pain and anguish suffered by hibakusha everywhere will not have been in vain, and our dreams and aspirations for a nuclear free world can be realised.

     

    Dr. Kate Dewes coordinates the Disarmament and Security Centre and taught Peace Studies at Canterbury University for 20 years.

  • Doomsday Clock May Finally Stop Ticking

    This article was published by InterPress Service and appeared on Commondreams.org

    UNITED NATIONS – The Barack Obama administration’s apparent resolve to take U.S. foreign policy in a new direction is creating ripples of hope for an enhanced U.N. agenda on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.
    Observers and diplomats who are due to take part in a major meeting to discuss progress on the implementation of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) told IPS they had never before so optimistic about the U.N.-led negotiation process.

    “I think he [Obama] is sincere about what he is saying,” said David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, an advocacy group that works closely with the U.N. “I think he is willing to stand up against the vested interests.”

     

    Many peace activists, like Krieger, believe that the threat of a possible nuclear catastrophe is not going to go away so long as the major nuclear powers remain reluctant to take drastic steps towards dismantling their nuclear arsenals.

    Countries that rolled back their weapons programs, as well as those that never produced such arms, have long been calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, but the response they received from the major nuclear powers has always been disappointing. In addition to actions against the spread of nuclear weapons, the NPT requires the five declared nuclear states – the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China – to engage in “good faith” negotiations for disarmament. Until now that task has remained elusive.

    The United States and Russia are the world’s largest nuclear weapon states. They possess no less than 93 percent of the total number of nuclear weapons in the world, according to Sipri, a Sweden-based think tank that tracks weapon production and export worldwide.

    Among others, China has 400 warheads, France 348, and Israel and Britain about 200 each. India is believed to have more than 80 and Pakistan about 40 nuclear weapons.

    Critics see the United States as the most irresponsible member of the nuclear club, for it not only failed to meet the NPT obligations, but also contributed, at great length, to block, and even derail, the international discourse on nuclear disarmament.

    The Ronald Reagan administration, for example, looked the other way when Pakistan was developing its illegal nuclear program in the 1980s. Similarly, the George W. Bush administration decided to make a nuclear trade deal with India that remains outside the fold of the NPT.

    The Bush administration is held responsible by many for sabotaging the U.N. agenda on disarmament by its decision to abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and to install controversial missile defenses in countries located next to Russia’s borders.

    During the past eight years, the former U.S. administration also refused to endorse the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which is considered by experts an integral part of the international framework to achieve the goal of disarmament.

    “We have been through the dark ages,” Krieger told IPS. “It was a death plan for humanity.”

    During his two terms, Bush never spoke of nuclear disarmament. He rather fully supported the move to generate new kinds of nuclear weapons. In March 2007, his administration declared plans to make new kinds of nukes, a move considered as controversial by many.

    Bush argued that the existing warheads had become obsolete, but many experts saw his line of reasoning as out of step with reality because in their conclusion, the U.S. stockpile was already ‘safe and reliable’ for at least 50 years.

    At the time, many independent think tanks in Washington warned that such a move would prove provocative and counter-productive because countries like Iran and North Korea would use it as justification to possess nuclear weapons.

    In contrast to the Bush administration, however, the message from the new administration in Washington appears to be radically different.

    “A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America’s interest and the world’s interest,” said the new U.S. president in a recent statement. “It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality.”

    Currently, a coalition of peace advocacy groups is running a nationwide signature campaign to press Obama to take immediate, effective, and practical measures for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    “Nuclear weapons could destroy civilization and end intelligent life on the planet,” said the campaign in a letter to Obama. “The only sure way to prevent nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war is to rid the world of nuclear weapons.”

    Krieger told IPS that so far over 50,000 people, including some Noble laureates, have signed the letter. He expects that by next month when the letter is due to be delivered to the White House, at least one million people would have endorsed it.

    An international group, known as “Global Zero,” is proposing deep cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, a verification and enforcement system, and phased reduction leading to the elimination of all stockpiles.

    Supporters of the Global Zero campaign includes many distinguished international figures and former statesmen, such as former U.S. President Jimmy Carter; former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger; former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci; former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev; and Shaharyar Khan, a former Pakistani foreign minister.

    The launching in Paris follows 18 months of consultations among diplomats and military leaders and in effect established Global Zero as a participant in mobilizing efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    Last July Obama said, “as long as nuclear weapons exist we will retain a strong deterrent,” but added in the same breath:” We will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy.”

    According to unconfirmed reports, the Obama administration is already engaged in negotiations on the proposal to reduce the number of nuclear weapons to 1,000 in the first phase and that it is possible that the reaction from Moscow is likely to be positive.

    However, in Krieger’s view, that would happen only if the Obama administration takes a different position on the deployment of the U.S. missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, which Russia perceives to be a threat to its sovereignty.

    Building the missile defense systems has cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, although it’s still not clear that it would be especially effective.

    “The defense contractors in the United States will continue to put pressure,” he told IPS. “But he [Obama] has to understand that this system is not going to work.”

    While Krieger and many others seem satisfied with the gradual and phased reduction of nuclear weapons on both sides, some nuclear abolitionists remain skeptical about the outcome of such measures and would rather like to see dramatic results in a short span of time.

    “Cutting down to 1,000 nuclear weapons each? 1,000 are too many. It’s the same kind of slow process as it was during the cold war,” said Zia Mian, a nuclear physicist and peace activist at Princeton University. “It’s about restoring the process, not breaking away from the process.”

    Mian, who plans to attend the upcoming NPT preparatory meeting in May, added: “If Obama wants a real change, he must say: We are going to negotiate a treaty now to eliminate the nuclear weapons.”

  • Creating a World Free of Nuclear Weapons: A Speech for President Obama

    Creating a World Free of Nuclear Weapons: A Speech for President Obama

    (This is a speech that President Obama might give to educate and encourage American citizens to support him in seeking a world free of nuclear weapons and to alert the world to America’s new proactive stance on nuclear disarmament.)

    My Fellow Citizens,

    I want to talk with you about an issue of the utmost importance for our common future and that of our children, grandchildren and generations to follow us on our planet.

    The issue is nuclear weapons and the threat they pose to all humanity. As we learned more than six decades ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a single nuclear weapon can destroy a city, and the nuclear weapons today are far more powerful than those used in 1945. By implication, a few nuclear weapons could destroy a country and a nuclear war could end civilization as we know it.

    We cannot rest comfortably or be complacent because nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare for over 60 years. There have been far too many accidents and miscalculations. We have come too close, too often, to nuclear devastation.

    The threat that these weapons will be used is ever present. Today nine countries possess nuclear weapons. This number could grow dramatically should we continue with business as usual. There is also the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of non-state extremist groups, a threat that increases as nuclear weapons proliferate.

    Many countries today believe that the nuclear weapons states have imposed a double standard on the world, and they are not content with this. Some of these countries refer to the current global situation as “nuclear apartheid.” We all know that double standards promote privilege for some, while creating resentment for many. Double standards cannot hold.

    It is for this reason, compounded by the extreme dangers inherent in nuclear weapons, that the United States must lead the way to a world free of nuclear weapons. There are three important reasons that I now seek to assert this leadership. First, as long as nuclear weapons exist, they will threaten the security of our country. Second, unless we act now to control nuclear weapons and the material to create them, nuclear weapons may end up in the hands of terrorists with dire consequences. Third, we are the country that led the way into the Nuclear Age, and – due to our economic and military power – we are also the country that must lead the way out. In doing so, we would also be asserting moral leadership.

    Creating a nuclear weapons-free world will not be an easy task, but it is a necessary one. I assure you that we will not disarm unilaterally, nor without the ability to verify the disarmament of other countries. We will proceed cautiously, but resolutely.

    We have already begun negotiations with the Russians. Together our two countries possess over 95 percent of the nuclear weapons on the planet. Together we must take the lead in reductions. Our negotiations have three goals. First, to remove our arsenals from hair-trigger alert, making accidental launches far less likely. Second, to extend the 1991 START I agreement, so as to maintain its provisions for verification of reductions. Third, to reduce the number of nuclear weapons that each side possesses to 1,000 or less over the next two years.

    These three steps will show the world that our two countries are serious about achieving the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world, a goal that all states party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are committed to under Article VI of the treaty.

    Some of you will ask about the threats from nuclear-armed countries such as North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel. Others will ask about the dangers of potential nuclear weapons states such as Iran and Syria. My response to these concerns is that our country must lead the way, and we must assure by persuasion and positive incentives that these countries will follow our lead. In this, I believe that President Reagan had it right when he said, “Trust, but verify.” But first, we must begin negotiations.

    At the level of approximately 1,000 nuclear weapons each in the arsenals of the United States and Russia, we would still have nuclear forces that would not be challenged by any rational leader, and no greater number would deter an irrational leader. When we reach 1,000 nuclear weapons each, it will be necessary to bring the other nuclear weapons states into the process to initiate negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a treaty outlawing the possession of nuclear weapons and providing for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons from the planet.

    We are embarked on a great venture, one more critical and difficult than putting a man on the moon. But we should take heart in the capacity for greatness in the human spirit. If we are capable of putting a man on the moon, as we did, we are also capable of controlling and eliminating a technology capable of ending our human presence on Earth. This is a problem that we must deal with now, and not pass it on to future generations, while running the risk of devastation in the interim.

    My fellow citizens, this is an undertaking on which rests the future of our country and our planet. We are embarked upon a path that will free humanity from what President Kennedy called the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over our heads. To do so is a shared responsibility to each other and to the future generations that will follow us on Earth. It is a task from which we cannot shirk if we are to be responsible citizens of our country and our planet.

    If we can succeed in eliminating nuclear weapons from our planet, we just may be inspired by our achievement to do even more: to build a future that is humane for all, in which poverty is eliminated, resource use is sustainable, human rights are upheld and war is no longer a means of settling disputes. Let us be bold and set our sights on what has never before been achieved in the firm conviction that we can create change on the fantastic journey of our lives that links us with the past and stretches to the future. The elimination of nuclear weapons will put aside one towering obstacle to assuring that there is a future.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor of the World Future Council.

  • A World Free of Nuclear Weapons: The Wrong and Right Way to Do It

    UPI Outside View, January 24, 2008

     

    Since the beginning of the Atomic Age, policymakers and scholars have attempted to come up with formulas to constrain the nuclear genie. In mid-January, in an effort to move this ambition forward, former senior decision-makers — Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, Defense Secretary William Perry and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Samuel Nunn — released “Toward a Nuclear-Free World,” a report published in the Wall Street Journal designed to advance nuclear abolition.

    The timing would seem propitious. In December 2007, in voting down a new nuclear weapon (the reliable replacement warhead), Congress mandated that President Bush and his successor rationalize the U.S. nuclear arsenal by the end of 2009 to justify future appropriations. As a result, a disarmament proposal advanced by such statesmen and endorsed by dozens of prominent experts should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, it cannot.

    At first blush the Shultz et al. proposal appears to be promising for nuclear-arms controllers, who could object to extension of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, deeper nuclear reductions beyond those promoted by the Bush administration or increasing the warning time for the initiation of nuclear use. Likewise the call for cooperative ballistic missile defense, increased security at nuclear materials sites, strengthening non-proliferation verification and implementation of the treaty banning nuclear weapons testing. If constraining nuclear development or use marks the objective, the answer is no one.

    However, if the aim truly is the elimination of nuclear arms — the authors declared an objective to eradicate the “threat to the world” — the proposal falls far short. A review of what could be done versus what the authors say should be done supports this conclusion.

    — Set a timeline for the elimination of nuclear arsenals, not an “agreement to undertake further substantial reductions.” The authors’ call for extension of the monitoring provisions of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty coupled to undefined reductions below the 1,700 to 2,200 nuclear warheads allowed under the 1992 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty with Russia may be admirable, but it does not amount a “nuclear-free world.” Absent weapons elimination benchmarks — including disposal of non-deployed warheads — the authors’ plan amounts to maintenance of diminished but still substantial weapons caches.

    — Separate nuclear warheads from delivery systems. To reduce the risk of nuclear war prior to abolition, the authors advocate increased warning and decision time for nuclear initiation. They speak abstractly about mutually agreed upon “physical barriers in the command-and-control sequence” to prevent premature nuclear launch. Only warhead separation from missiles meets the objective. Certainly, if Pakistan can separate its bombs from delivery vehicles to allow time for prudent decisions, so can the United States, Russia and others.

    — Eliminate long-range ballistic missiles except those used for commercial and scientific research. Such an approach nullifies the authors’ promotion of ballistic missile defense. A precedent for negotiated missile elimination includes the 1987 Reagan-Gorbachev Intermediate Force Reduction Treaty. Elimination also finds precedent in the unilateral withdrawal and destruction of obsolete delivery systems from arsenals.

    — Eliminate all high enriched uranium and separated plutonium rather than enhance security at sites holding such material. The authors call for countries to apply the highest standards of security to nuclear materials. But only removal and disposal will prevent access by terrorists or nuclear ambitious nations.

    — Ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. The U.S. Senate failed to do so during the Clinton administration. The authors propose a “process” to get the treaty implemented but fail to call upon the most prominent hold out to adopt the agreement it gave birth to.

    — Go beyond the Additional Protocol to verify that countries are not using civil nuclear programs for military purposes. The protocol allows International Atomic Energy Agency inspection of all suspect nuclear sites. Many countries have yet to adopt it, but the protocol itself is imperfect. Placing all atomic plants under IAEA co-management would do a better job to prevent nuclear breakouts.

    — Provide teeth to deal with nuclear violators. The authors fail to furnish a strategy to combat atomic cheats. Given the gravity of an attempted nuclear breakout, the international community must have “in place” a dedicated military capacity to stop any nuclear fudging.

    Shultz and his colleagues conclude, “Progress (toward a nuclear-free world) must be facilitated by a clear statement of our ultimate goal.”

    Unfortunately the goal is muddled by the authors’ own formulation. If nuclear disarmament is the objective, we can do far better.

    Bennett Ramberg, Ph.D., J.D., served in the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs in the George H.W. Bush administration. The author of three books and editor of three others on international security, he has written for such prestigious journals as Foreign Affairs and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Ramberg’s Op-Eds have appeared in all major newspapers in the United States and many around the world.

  • The Way is Open for a Nuclear Weapon-Free Northern Europe

    This article was originally published on Active Nonviolence

    At the 50th Pugwash Conference in 2000, John Holdren said: “In a rapidly-changing world, which we are certainly living in, the establishment consensus on the necessity of nuclear weapons could crumble quickly.” Today John’s prediction seems to be coming true. There are indeed indications that the establishment is moving towards the point of view that the peace movement has always held: – that nuclear weapons are essentially genocidal, illegal and unworthy of civilization; and that they must be completely abolished as quickly as possible. There is a rapidly-growing global consensus that a nuclear-weapon-free world can and must be achieved in the very near future.

    One of the first indications of the change was the famous Wall Street Journal article by Schultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn advocating complete abolition of nuclear arms [1]. This was followed quickly by Mikhail Gorbachev’s supporting article, published in the same journal [2], and a statement by distinguished Italian statesmen [3]. Meanwhile, in October 2007, the Hoover Institution had arranged a symposium entitled “Reykjavik Revisited; Steps Towards a World Free of Nuclear Weapons” [4].

    In Britain, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Lord Hurd and Lord Owen (all former Foreign Secretaries) joined the former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson as authors of an article in The Times advocating complete abolition of nuclear weapons [5]. The UK’s Secretary of State for Defense, Des Brown, speaking at a disarmament conference in Geneva, proposed that the UK “host a technical conference of P5 nuclear laboratories on the verification of nuclear disarmament before the next NPT Review Conference in 2010″ to enable the nuclear weapon states to work together on technical issues.

    In February, 2008, the Government of Norway hosted an international conference on “Achieving the Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons” [7]. A week later, Norway’s Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Stoere, reported the results of the conference to a disarmament meeting in Geneva [8].

    On July 11, 2008, speaking at a Pugwash Conference in Canada, Norway’s Defence Minister, Anne-Grete Stroem-Erichsen, reiterated her country’s strong support for the complete abolition of nuclear weapons [9].

    Other highly-placed statesmen added their voices to the growing consensus: Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, visited the Peace Museum at Hiroshima, where he made a strong speech advocating nuclear abolition. He later set up an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament co-chaired by Australia and Japan [10].On January 9, 2009, four distinguished German statesmen ( Helmut Schmidt, Richard von Weizäcker, Egon Bahr and Hans-Dietrich Genscher) published an article entitled “Towards a Nuclear-Free World: a German View” in the International Herald Tribune [11]. Among the immediate steps recommended in the article are the following:

    • “The vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world… must be rekindled.”
    • “Negotiations aimed at drastically reducing the number of nuclear weapons must begin…”
    • “The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) must be greatly reinforced.”
    • ” America should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.”
    • “All short-range nuclear weapons must be destroyed.”
    • “The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty must be restored. Outer space may only be used for peaceful purposes.”

    From the standpoint of an NWFZ in Northern Europe, the recommendation that all short-range nuclear weapons be destroyed is particularly interesting. The US nuclear weapons currently stationed in Holland, Belgium and Germany prevent these countries from being (at present) part of a de-facto Northern European NWFZ; but with an Obama Administration in the United States, and with John Holdren advising President Obama, this situation might be quickly altered. Both public opinion and official declarations support the removal of US tactical nuclear weapons from Europe [12]. Indeed the only argument for their retention comes from NATO, which stubbornly maintains that although the weapons have no plausible function, they nevertheless serve as a “nuclear glue”, cementing the alliance.

    The strongest argument for the removal of US tactical nuclear weapons from Europe is the threatened collapse of the NPT. The 2005 NPT Review Conference was a disaster, and there is a danger that at the 2010 Review Conference, the NPT will collapse entirely because of the discriminatory position of the nuclear weapon states (NWS) and their failure to honor their committments under Article VI. NATO’s present nuclear weapon policy also violates the NPT, and correcting this violation would help to save the 2010 Review Conference from failure.

    At present, the air forces of the European countries in which the US nuclear weapons are stationed perform regular training exercises in which they learn how to deliver the weapons. This violates the spirit, and probably also the letter, of Article IV, which prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons from an NWS to a non-NWS. The “nuclear sharing” proponents maintain that such transfers would only happen in an emergency; but there is nothing in the NPT saying that the treaty would not hold under all circumstances. Furthermore, NATO would be improved, rather than damaged, by giving up “nuclear sharing”.

    If President Obama wishes to fulfill his campaign promises [13] – if he wishes to save the NPT – a logical first step would be to remove US tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. The way would then be open for a nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in Northern Europe, comprising the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Our final goal is, and must remain, the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. But NWFZs are steps along the road.

    References and links

    [1] George P. Schultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons”, The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2007, page A15 and January 15, 2008, page A15. www.nuclearsecurityproject.org http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116787515251566636.html?mod=Commentary-US

    [2] Mikhalil Gorbachev, “The Nuclear Threat”, The Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2007, page A15. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117021711101593402.htm

    [3] Massimo D’Alema, Gianfranco Fini, Giorgio La Malfa, Arturo Parisi and Francesco Calogero, “For a World Free of Nuclear Weapons”, Corriere Della Sera, July 24, 2008. http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/updates/20.html

    [4] Hoover Institution, “Reykjavik Revisited; Steps Towards a World Free of Nuclear Weapons”, October, 2007. http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/online/15766737.html

    [5] Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind, David Owen and George Robertson, “Start Worrying and Learn to Ditch the Bomb”, The Times, June 30, 2008. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4237387.ece?openComment=true

    [6] Des Brown, Secretary of State for Defense, UK, “Laying the Foundations for Multilateral Disarmament”, Geneva Conference on Disarmament, February 5, 2008. http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/aboutdefence/people/speeches/sofs/20080205layingthefoundationsformultilateraldisarmament.htm

    [7] Government of Norway, International Conference on “Achieving the Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons”, Oslo, Norway, February 26-27, 2008. http://disarmament.nrpa.no/

    [8] Jonas Gahr Stoere, Foreign Minister, Norway, “Statement at the Conference on Disarmament”, Geneva, March 4, 2008. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/dep/utenriksminister_jonas_gahr_store/taler_artikler/2008/cd_statement.html?id=502420

    [9] Anne-Grete Stroem-Erichsen, Defense Minister, Norway, “Emerging Opportunities for Nuclear Disarmament”, Pugwash Conference, Canada, July 11, 2008. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fd/The-Ministry/defence-minister-anne-grete-strom-erichs/Speeches-and-articles/2008/emerging-opportunities-for-nuclear-disar.html?id=521830

    [10] Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister, Australia, “International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament”, Media Release, July 9, 2008. http://www.pm.gov.au/media/release/2008/media_release_0352.cfm

    [11] Helmut Schmidt, Richard von Weizäcker, Egon Bahr and Hans-Dietrich Genscher, “Towards a Nuclear-Free World: a German View”, International Herald Tribune, January 9, 2009. http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/09/opinion/edschmidt.php

    [12] Hans M. Kristensen and Elliot Negin, “Support Growing for Removal of U.S. Nuclear Weapons from Europe”, Common Dreams Newscenter, first posted May 6, 2005. http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0506-09.htm

    [13] David Krieger, “President-elect Obama and a World Free of Nuclear Weapons”, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Website, 2008. https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/2008/11/05_krieger_obama_elect.php

    John Avery is a leader in the Pugwash movement in Denmark.
  • Working Tirelessly to Lessen the Nuclear Threat

    Working Tirelessly to Lessen the Nuclear Threat

    I want to thank each of you who supported our idea on Change.org for “US Leadership to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Globally.” Our idea was one of nearly 8,000 ideas submitted to Change.org. With your help, we finished in the top 35 ideas to change America (number 23, I believe). We also had 76 institutional endorsers of our idea from throughout the world, and hundreds of individual comments on the need for abolition. In addition, many tens of thousands of people were alerted to the idea and received some education on the need for action on nuclear disarmament, even if they did not choose to vote.

    My thanks to you is even greater knowing that Change.org did not make it easy to vote. It required a fairly lengthy process by internet standards to get registered at Change.org and cast your vote. So, to those who participated, thank you for sticking with it, and spreading the message to friends, family and colleagues. This is the way that change occurs, often from person to person.

    Just before voting concluded on Change.org, we discovered that the official site of the Obama transition team, Change.gov, was also soliciting ideas for a Citizen’s Briefing Book. We also added our idea of “US Leadership to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Globally” to that site, and we trust that it will be conveyed to President Obama along with the other ideas that were submitted.

    Here is what we said in describing our idea: “It is far too dangerous to keep global nuclear disarmament on the back burner. Nuclear weapons pose the most immediate, overwhelming and devastating threat imaginable to our country and to civilization. The only way to assure that these weapons are never used again is to abolish them forever. Only the United States has the leadership capacity to bring the countries of the world together to achieve this goal. It is time for the US to assert that leadership, and President-elect Obama has shown by his statements that he is prepared to lead on this issue. We call upon him to make a strong public commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons globally; to initiate bilateral negotiations with the Russians to take nuclear weapons off high alert status and to dramatically and verifiably reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of our two nations; and to convene a meeting of the nuclear weapons states to initiate negotiations on a global treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons by the year 2020. This would make the United States more secure, restore its credibility throughout the world, and be a gift to all humanity and all future generations.”

    Of course, we understand that the US is not the only country that can lead on this critical issue. But we also believe that without US leadership, the Russians won’t take serious steps, and without the Russians, the UK, France and China will not take the necessary steps, and so on. We are not asking for the US to disarm its nuclear arsenal unilaterally, but to use its status in the world to lead other nations to a common goal, a goal that will benefit all nations and all peoples, now and in the future.

    We are asking for serious and far-reaching change in US nuclear policy, and we are encouraged by President Obama’s own statements on the issue. Most recently, in his Inaugural Address, he stated, “With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.” This one sentence tells us that President Obama recognizes the seriousness of the nuclear threat, places it on a level with global warming, and understands that it is an issue that will require global cooperation and tireless commitment.

    With so many pressing issues before the new president, it is essential that he be given the support of the American people and people throughout the world in fulfilling his goals. Since he seeks to lessen the nuclear threat, we must give him encouragement and support to achieve this end. Changing the world does not end with a vote on Change.org or an entry in the Citizen’s Briefing Book on Change.gov. It requires persistence, which means a long-term commitment to the goal. At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we will continue to provide you with information and ideas for action, and we ask you to join us in assuring that these ideas get through to President Obama and his team.

  • For a Nuclear Weapons-Free World

    In the United States, the call by [Shultz/Perry/Nunn/Kissinger] has been echoed broadly and has received prominent support. There are no known decisions of support by European governments.

    Our response reflects from a German perspective the expectations that are linked with the administration of Barack Obama. This century’s keyword is cooperation.

    We unconditionally support the call of the four eminent U.S. persons for a radical change of direction in nuclear weapons policies, not only in the United States. This relates specifically to the following proposals: The vision of a world without the nuclear threat, as it has been developed by Reagan and Gorbachev in Reykjavik, has to be revived. Negotiations have to be started with the goal of drastic cuts in nuclear weapons, first between the United States and Russia, which possess the largest number of nuclear weapons, in order to also attract the other states that possess such weapons. The NPT has to be strengthened decisively. The United States has ratify the CTBT. All short-range nuclear weapons have to be dismantled.

    From a German perspective it has to be added: The agreement on the reduction of strategic weapons will expire this year. From this results the most urgent need of action between Washington and Moscow.

    It will be decisive for the 2010 NPT review conference that the nuclear weapon states finally fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the treaty to reduce their nuclear stockpiles.

    The ABM treaty has to be restored. Outer space has to be used only for peaceful purposes.

    [Post Cold War European stability] would for the first time be jeopardized by the American wish to deploy missiles with a matching radar system on extraterritorial bases in Poland and the Czech republic, on NATO’s Eastern border. Such a relapse into the times of confrontation with implications for an arms build-up and tensions can be avoided by an amicable agreement on the topic of missile defense which also reflects the interests of NATO and the EU – and best by restoring the ABM treaty.

    Fundamental efforts by the United States and Russia to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world would facilitate an agreement with all nuclear weapon possessors – regardless whether they are permanent members of the the United Nations Security Council or not – about appropriate behavior. A spirit of cooperation could spread from the Middle East to East Asia.

    Relics from the period of confrontation no longer fit into our new century. Cooperation does not fit well with NATO’s and Russia’s still valid doctrine of nuclear first use, even in response to non-nuclear attacks. A general no-first use treaty among the nuclear armed states would be a highly desirable step.

    Germany, which has renounced nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, has to press for a commitment by the nuclear states not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. We are also of the view that the remaining U.S. nuclear warheads should be removed from Germany.

    The authors are well-respected German politicians. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt (Social Democrat); Former President Richard von Weizsaecker (Christian Democrat); Former Federal Minister Egon Bahr (Social Democrat); and former Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher (Liberal).