Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Nuclear Abolition

  • New Deal on South Asian Nukes

    This article was originally published on www.truthout.org

    Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari came out last Saturday with yet another series of statements to cause more than mere ripples in South Asia. He did so especially with pronouncements on the nuclear weapons issues between India and Pakistan that have made many sections in the subcontinent sit up and take notice.

    Do these statements, however, add up to a real promise of a new deal for the region, which has continued to be a dangerous place ever since the two rival nations became nuclear-armed neighbors in May 1998?

    Addressing India from Islamabad, at a video-conference in New Delhi at “Summit 2008,” organized by the leading daily The Hindustan Times, Zardari offered nothing less than Pakistan’s cooperation in turning South Asia into a nuclear-weapon-free zone, an objective to be achieved through a “non-nuclear treaty.” As he put it challengingly, “I can get around my parliament to this view, but can you get around the Indian parliament to this view?”

    He made an even greater impact by his answer to a question about the no-first-strike nuclear policy of India and the possibility of Pakistan adopting the same stand. His response was prompt and positive. He did not stop with saying that Pakistan would not use its nuclear weapons first. He went on to declare that he was opposed to these weapons anyway and to assert: “We do not hope to get into any position where nuclear weapons have any use.”

    The official Indian reaction was that Zardari’s statements were not quite official. Voices from India’s establishment, echoed in various media reports, wondered: Whom was the Pakistani president speaking for, anyway? Tauntingly, they asked whether he had the tacit support of Pakistan’s army on this subject.

    They had a point. By all accounts, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has remained mainly under the control of the army, which is possessively proud of them. Officially, up to now, Pakistan has not altered its policy by which it has retained the right of first nuclear strike. While India has made much play about its renunciation of this option, Pakistan has maintained from the outset that it could not do so because it lacked parity with its bigger neighbor in conventional weapons.

    Pakistan’s new democratic dispensation has apparently kept its distance from the army but not demonstrated its dominance over the generals. Quite the reverse is the message sent out by the government’s attempt sometime ago to acquire control of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the army’s infamous and important arm, and Islamabad’s hasty retreat from the reform under obvious pressure.

    Rather surprisingly, there has been no other serious Indian response, not even from the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), whose leadership may have to do business with Zardari with the party’s return to power in the general elections due early next year. The statements, however, elicited more reactions within Pakistan.

    Zardari has drawn much flak in his country before for statements considered overly friendly to India. He and the government of his Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) also had to beat a retreat after his statement in a media interview suggesting that the Kashmir issue could be kept on the back burner. In the video conference, he did not say the same thing about Kashmir but repeated his other controversial remark about seeing no “threat” from India. He may come in for criticisms again on these counts. His stand on the nuclear issue, however, has attracted no opposition offensive for the moment.

    Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League(N), the main opposition, in fact, was quick to claim that he had made the proposals for nuclear peace first. Sharif, who had presided over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons tests a decade ago, let his party clarify: “This was Nawaz Sharif’s proposal as prime minister. On the Pakistan side, the position has always been consistent. But because India refuses to abandon its nuclear weapons, this proposal has been in the doldrums.”

    The PML(N) also claimed that the proposal was contained in the Lahore Declaration signed between Sharif and former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on February 1, 1999. While the claims are open to question, observers in Pakistan actually expect the opposition to unleash an offensive against the government on the presidential pronouncements. Front-ranking newspaper The Daily Times, for example, forecasts that a “chorus of criticism will now most probably overwhelm Mr. Zardari’s overtures to India and make them look like ‘concessions.’ “

    As for the reactions from uncommitted quarters, they are asking the same questions as India’s establishment. Lieutenant-General (retired) Talat Masood, a political commentator and head of the Pakistani chapter of Pugwash says:”The big question is, can President Zardari take along Pakistan’s ruling establishment, especially the military?” He adds, “Even if (Zardari) was not fully familiar with the nuclear vocabulary, what he possibly meant was that there has to be a strategic restraint regime between the two countries.”

    The fact is, the ruling establishments of the two countries have never been ready to consider any “strategic restraint regime” that envisages any reduction of their nuclear arsenals or any reversal of their nuclear weapons programs. They have been ready, in other words, to cooperate only in order to present a picture of “responsible” nuclear armed neighbors to the rest of the world.

    This, actually, was the larger purpose also of the Lahore Declaration, signed just nine months after nuclear weapons tests in both countries. The declaration recognizes “that the nuclear dimension of the security environment of the two countries adds to their responsibility for avoidance of conflict between the two countries.” The document voices commitment, not to regional peace as such, but to the “objective of universal nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.”

    The declaration calls upon the two countries only to “take immediate steps for reducing the risk of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons and discuss concepts and doctrines with a view to elaborating measures for confidence-building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at prevention of conflict.”

    India and Pakistan are said to have made much progress in their “peace process” initiated in 2004. New Delhi and Islamabad, however, have made sure that the nuclear part of the process made no advance beyond what the declaration mandated. The confidence-building measures (CBMs) – which have never gone beyond steps like notification of each other before tests of nuclear-capable missiles – were somehow supposed to create confidence that the people of the two countries were safe even when such missiles stayed in military deployment.

    Setting up a hotline between designated officials of the two armies, in order to avert chances of nuclear accidents among other things, has not exactly made the people of the subcontinent safer than before. It has not done so because the nuclear hawks of the two countries have not desisted from threatening use of the weapons by design. Terrifying nuclear threats have been traded, as we have recalled more than once in these columns, between the two countries during the Kargil conflict of 1999 (following on the heels of the Lahore Declaration) and the fearsome confrontation of 2002.

    The peace process has not prevented the nuclear militarists in both countries from pursuing their projects. The period since the declaration has seen both participating in a missile race, displaying no coyness about its nuclear dimension at all. In 2004, former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf boasted: “My government has spent more money in the last three years on enhancing Pakistan’s nuclear capability than (spent for this purpose) in the previous 30 years.” We do not know whether the country’s current economic crisis has made any difference in this regard. Successive Indian governments may not have been forthcoming with similar figures. There is little doubt, however, that under the shroud of secrecy, they have swelled with the same pride over their misuse of taxpayers’ money to build weapons of mass-murder.

    At one point In the course of talks on CBMs, the rulers of India and Pakistan even agreed to seek “parity” with nuclear powers (P5), “consultations” with them “on matters of common concern,” and development of a “common nuclear doctrine.” The idea has not been pursued seriously, but has not been abandoned officially.

    This strange partnership of sworn nuclear rivals does not make the proposal from Pakistan’s president sound like a reliable promise for the peace-loving people of the region.

    J. Sri Raman is a freelance author and peace activist in India. He is the author of ” Flashpoint.”
  • Remembering Joseph Rotblat, Remembering Our Humanity

    Remembering Joseph Rotblat, Remembering Our Humanity

    Joseph Rotblat was one of the great men of our time. As a young physicist from Poland, Rotblat realized that it might be possible to create an atomic weapon and worried that the Germans might succeed in developing such a weapon before the Allied powers. Due to this realization and his belief that the Allied powers needed a deterrent to a possible Nazi bomb, Rotblat agreed to work during World War II on the British bomb project and then on the US Manhattan Project.

    When it became clear to him in late 1944 that the Germans would not succeed in creating an atomic weapon, Rotblat resigned from the Manhattan Project and returned to London. He was the only Allied scientist to resign from the bomb project as a matter of conscience. The following August, he read with shock that the American atomic weapons had been used on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decided to devote the rest of his life to seeking the abolition of these terrible weapons. He would never again work on a weapon project. Instead, he found work as a nuclear physicist at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London.

    Joseph Rotblat was the youngest signer of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955. Most of his colleagues who signed the document were already Nobel laureates, and Bertrand Russell told Rotblat the he was sure that Rotblat would someday receive the prize. Rotblat was a founder and leader of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, which began in 1957 to bring together scientists from East and West. In these conferences, Rotblat carried forward the spirit of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto: “Remember your humanity and forget the rest.”

    Rotblat did indeed receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 for his years of dedicated effort in seeking a world free of nuclear weapons. He was 87 years old at the time. He continued to speak out and be a powerful voice for abolishing nuclear weapons until his death in 2005 at the age of 96.

    I had the pleasure to know Joseph Rotblat and work closely with him. He was a man of enormous optimism. He believed in humanity and trusted that we would live up to our potential. He said on many occasions that his short-term goal was to abolish nuclear weapons, and his long-term goal was to abolish war. He believed that a world free of nuclear weapons was both desirable and feasible, and he patiently explained to all who would listen why this was so.

    November 4, 2008 marks the centennial of his birth. It is a good opportunity to pause and remember a man of great compassion and humanity. Above all, Joseph was kind and decent and was unwavering in his commitment to create a better world – a world in which humanity’s future was not threatened by the nuclear weapons that he had helped to create.

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

  • The United Nations and Security in a Nuclear Weapons-Free World

    The following is the text of a speech delivered by the Secretary-General to the East-West Institute on October 24, 2008

    Mr. John Edwin Mroz, President and CEO of the East-West Institute,

    Mr. George Russell, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the East-West Institute.

    Dr. Kissinger,

    Dr. ElBaradei,

    Mr. Duarte,

    It is a great pleasure to welcome you all to the United Nations. I salute the East-West Institute and its partner non-governmental groups for organizing this event on weapons of mass destruction and disarmament.

    This is one of the gravest challenges facing international peace and security. So I thank the East-West Institute for its timely and important new global initiative to build consensus. Under the leadership of George Russell and Martti Ahtisaari, the East-West Institute is challenging each of us to rethink our international security priorities in order to get things moving again. You know, as we do, that we need specific actions, not just words. As your slogan so aptly puts it, you are a “think and do tank”.

    One of my priorities as Secretary-General is to promote global goods and remedies to challenges that do not respect borders. A world free of nuclear weapons would be a global public good of the highest order, and will be the focus of my remarks today. I will speak mainly about nuclear weapons because of their unique dangers and the lack of any treaty outlawing them. But we must also work for a world free of all weapons of mass destruction.

    Some of my interest in this subject stems from my own personal experience. As I come from [the Republic of Korea, my country has suffered the ravages of conventional war and faced threats from nuclear weapons and other WMD. But of course, such threats are not unique to my country.

    Today, there is support throughout the world for the view that nuclear weapons should never again be used because of their indiscriminate effects, their impact on the environment and their profound implications for regional and global security. Some call this the nuclear “taboo”.

    Yet nuclear disarmament has remained only an aspiration, rather than a reality. This forces us to ask whether a taboo merely on the use of such weapons is sufficient.

    States make the key decisions in this field. But the United Nations has important roles to play. We provide a central forum where states can agree on norms to serve their common interests. We analyze, educate and advocate in the pursuit of agreed goals.

    Moreover, we have pursued general and complete disarmament for so long that it has become part of the Organization’s very identity. Disarmament and the regulation of armaments are found in the Charter. The very first resolution adopted by the General Assembly, in London in 1946, called for eliminating “weapons adaptable to mass destruction”. These goals have been supported by every Secretary-General. They have been the subject of hundreds of General Assembly resolutions, and have been endorsed repeatedly by all our Member States.

    And for good reason. Nuclear weapons produce horrific, indiscriminate effects. Even when not used, they pose great risks. Accidents could happen any time. The manufacture of nuclear weapons can harm public health and the environment. And of course, terrorists could acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear material.

    Most states have chosen to forgo the nuclear option, and have complied with their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet some states view possession of such weapons as a status symbol. And some states view nuclear weapons as offering the ultimate deterrent of nuclear attack, which largely accounts for the estimated 26,000 that still exist.

    Unfortunately, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence has proven to be contagious. This has made non-proliferation more difficult, which in turn raises new risks that nuclear weapons will be used.

    The world remains concerned about nuclear activities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and in Iran. There is widespread support for efforts to address these concerns by peaceful means through dialogue.

    There are also concerns that a “nuclear renaissance” could soon take place, with nuclear energy being seen as a clean, emission-free alternative at a time of intensifying efforts to combat climate change. The main worry is that this will lead to the production and use of more nuclear materials that must be protected against proliferation and terrorist threats.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    The obstacles to disarmament are formidable. But the costs and risks of its alternatives never get the attention they deserve. But consider the tremendous opportunity cost of huge military budgets. Consider the vast resources that are consumed by the endless pursuit of military superiority.

    According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military expenditures last year exceeded $1.3 trillion. Ten years ago, the Brookings Institution published a study that estimated the total costs of nuclear weapons in just one country?the United States?to be over $5.8 trillion, including future cleanup costs. By any definition, this has been a huge investment of financial and technical resources that could have had many other productive uses.

    Concerns over such costs and the inherent dangers of nuclear weapons have led to a global outpouring of ideas to breathe new life into the cause of nuclear disarmament. We have seen the WMD Commission led by Hans Blix, the New Agenda Coalition and Norway’s seven-nation initiative. Australia and Japan have just launched the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. Civil society groups and nuclear-weapon states have also made proposals.

    There is also the Hoover plan. I am pleased to note the presence here today of some of that effort’s authors. Dr. Kissinger, Mr. Kampelman: allow me to thank you for your commitment and for the great wisdom you have brought to this effort.

    Such initiatives deserve greater support. As the world faces crises in the economic and environmental arenas, there is growing awareness of the fragility of our planet and the need for global solutions to global challenges. This changing consciousness can also help us revitalize the international disarmament agenda.

    In that spirit, I hereby offer a five-point proposal.

    First, I urge all NPT parties, in particular the nuclear-weapon-states, to fulfil their obligation under the treaty to undertake negotiations on effective measures leading to nuclear disarmament.

    They could pursue this goal by agreement on 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. Upon the request of Costa Rica and Malaysia, I have circulated to all UN member states a draft of such a convention, which offers a good point of departure.

    The nuclear powers should actively engage with other states on this issue at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, the world’s single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum. The world would also welcome a resumption of bilateral negotiations between the United States and Russian Federation aimed at deep and verifiable reductions of their respective arsenals.

    Governments should also invest more in verification research and development. The United Kingdom’s proposal to host a conference of nuclear-weapon states on verification is a concrete step in the right direction.

    Second, the Security Council’s permanent members should commence discussions, perhaps within its Military Staff Committee, on security issues in the nuclear disarmament process. They could unambiguously assure non-nuclear-weapon states that they will not be the subject of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The Council could also convene a summit on nuclear disarmament. Non-NPT states should freeze their own nuclear-weapon capabilities and make their own disarmament commitments.

    My third initiative relates to the “rule of law.” Unilateral moratoria on nuclear tests and the production of fissile materials can go only so far. We need new efforts to bring the CTBT into force, and for the Conference on Disarmament to begin negotiations on a fissile material treaty immediately, without preconditions. I support the entry into force of the Central Asian and African nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. I encourage the nuclear-weapon states to ratify all the protocols to the nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. I strongly support efforts to establish such a zone in the Middle East. And I urge all NPT parties to conclude their safeguards agreements with the IAEA, and to voluntarily adopt the strengthened safeguards under the Additional Protocol. We should never forget that the nuclear fuel cycle is more than an issue involving energy or non-proliferation; its fate will also shape prospects for disarmament.

    My fourth proposal concerns accountability and transparency. The nuclear-weapon states often circulate descriptions of what they are doing to pursue these goals, yet these accounts seldom reach the public. I invite the nuclear-weapon states to send such material to the UN Secretariat, and to encourage its wider dissemination. The nuclear powers could also expand the amount of information they publish about the size of their arsenals, stocks of fissile material and specific disarmament achievements. The lack of an authoritative estimate of the total number of nuclear weapons testifies to the need for greater transparency.

    Fifth and finally, a number of complementary measures are needed. These include the elimination of other types of WMD; new efforts against WMD terrorism; limits on the production and trade in conventional arms; and new weapons bans, including of missiles and space weapons. The General Assembly could also take up the recommendation of the Blix Commission for a “World Summit on disarmament, non-proliferation and terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction”.

    Some doubt that the problem of WMD terrorism can ever be solved. But if there is real, verified progress in disarmament, the ability to eliminate this threat will grow exponentially. It will be much easier to encourage governments to tighten relevant controls if a basic, global taboo exists on the very possession of certain types of weapons. As we progressively eliminate the world’s deadliest weapons and their components, we will make it harder to execute WMD terrorist attacks. And if our efforts also manage to address the social, economic, cultural, and political conditions that aggravate terrorist threats, so much the better.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    At the United Nations in 1961, President Kennedy said, “Let us call a truce to terror?. Let us invoke the blessings of peace. And as we build an international capacity to keep peace, let us join in dismantling the national capacity to wage war.”

    The keys to world peace have been in our collective hands all along. They are found in the UN Charter and in our own endless capacity for political will. The proposals I have offered today seek a fresh start not just on disarmament, but to strengthen our system of international peace and security.

    We must all be grateful for the contributions that many of the participants at this meeting have already made in this great cause. When disarmament advances, the world advances. That is why it has such strong support at the United Nations. And that is why you can count on my full support in the vital work that lies ahead.

    Thank you very much for your support.

    Ban Ki-moon is Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  • A World Free of Nuclear Weapons

    To the Editor:

    Re “New and Unnecessary” (editorial, Oct. 13):

    A big decision about nuclear weapons facing the next president will be “to build or not to build,” but there’s more to this story.

    The new president will need to decide whether to keep thousands of American nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired at a moment’s notice, or to eliminate this potentially catastrophic cold war posture.

    He must decide whether to retain the option of environmentally devastating nuclear testing, or to encourage the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He must decide whether to perpetuate the system of nuclear haves and have-nots, or to commence good-faith negotiations to achieve the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide.

    The next president must, for the sake of humanity’s future, make a world free of nuclear weapons an urgent priority and assure the United States’ leadership to realize this goal.

    Rick Wayman
    Director of Programs
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    Santa Barbara, Calif.

    This letter to the editor was originally published in the New York Times

    Rick Wayman is Director of Programs at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • Opening Remarks to World Future Council Meeting

    Opening Remarks to World Future Council Meeting

    On behalf of the World Future Council (WFC), I extend a warm greeting to each of you. I want to tell you a little about the World Future Council. I will then focus my remarks to nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and the relationship between them – an issue on which all Americans need to awaken and focus.

    The WFC is a relatively new organization. It seeks to be a voice for future generations. I remember seeing a book many years ago entitled, Who Speaks for Earth? This is what the World Future Council is attempting to do for future generations – to be their voice in the decisions that will affect them.

    The Council is composed of 50 Councilors from throughout the world, all of whom have dedicated their lives to pursuing a better future for humanity. The vision and achievements of these Councilors are quite remarkable. I am honored to be among them.

    The founder of the WFC is Jakob von Uexküll, who also founded the Right Livelihood Awards, which are known as the Alternative Nobel Prizes. These prizes, presented in the Swedish Parliament the day before the Nobels, honor those who work for peace, justice, human rights and a healthy environment. The chair of the Council is Bianca Jagger, a tireless campaigner for human rights, the environment and future generations.

    Two principal projects of the WFC are one on Climate and Sustainability and one on Future Justice. Of course, these are interrelated. You cannot have future justice without a sustainable planet, and issues of energy supply and its consequences will affect both of these areas.

    My work on the WFC has been primarily in the area of Future Justice. Our concern is not only how to create a more just future that embodies principles of intergenerational equity, but also how to assure that there is a future. Our actions today that could foreclose the future need to be reframed as crimes against future generations.

    What could foreclose the future? One area is certainly radical change in the earth’s climate, making the earth uninhabitable for humans. The other major area is nuclear war. Nuclear weapons continue to threaten the future of humanity, despite the fact that many, perhaps most, people on the planet think the problem went away with the end of the Cold War. Most of us in this country are ignorant and apathetic about nuclear weapons. Those who are aware of the serious threats posed by these weapons, often feel impotent to influence policy. I want to emphasize that the problem has not gone away, and humankind remains threatened by the devastating power of these weapons.

    There are still more than 25,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine countries, with 95 percent of these in the arsenals of just two countries: the United States and Russia. There remain some 3,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in moments of an order to do so. It would take just one nuclear weapon to destroy a city and a relatively small number of nuclear weapons to destroy a country. Nuclear weapons place the future of civilization and the human species in jeopardy of annihilation.

    It is for these reasons that 26 years ago I was a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a non-profit and non-partisan civil society organization. This name is meant to imply that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. As most of the original atomic scientists understood, in the Nuclear Age we have to abolish not only nuclear weapons but war itself.

    Let me share with you three ideas that are contained in a recent article I wrote in the form of a Briefing for the New President on US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons. The briefing is called A Return to Sanity and this is the way it begins:

    The most important thing to understand about nuclear weapons is this: these weapons do not and cannot provide physical protection to their possessors. Please let this thought sink in.

    The second most important thing to understand about these weapons is that they are weapons of genocide writ large or, as the philosopher John Somerville has labeled them, weapons of omnicide, capable of the destruction of all. These weapons put at risk the future of humankind and most life on earth. Please also let this thought sink in.

    The third most important thing to understand about nuclear weapons is that they are in the hands of human beings with all their frailties and fallibilities, and, as such, these weapons are disasters waiting to occur. Please let this thought sink in as well.

    There are many reasons to oppose nuclear weapons. They are immoral, illegal and cowardly; they waste our scientific and monetary resources; and they undermine democracy by concentrating power in the hands of a few individuals. The most important reason, however, is pragmatic. These weapons threaten the human future, just as climate change does. And they undermine the future of powerful states, including the US, as well as of those that are not so powerful.

    There is only one way out of the nuclear dilemma, and that requires US leadership. Without US leadership, we will drift toward nuclear annihilation. We are likely to witness the further proliferation of nuclear weapons to states and terrorist groups. One thing we know with certainty is that terrorists cannot be deterred. Therefore, there is zero room for error in preventing terrorists from obtaining these weapons.

    For nearly every country that has developed nuclear weapons, the path has been through civilian nuclear reactors for research or energy. That is the best argument I know of, although there are many more, as to why nuclear energy is the wrong path to a sustainable energy future. Nuclear power is a pathway to nuclear proliferation. In addition, it generates waste that will burden thousands of future generations. Despite trying for the past sixty years, no one has a good answer about how to store the tremendously dangerous waste from nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy also requires large societal subsidies, such as assured low limits on liability for accidents that may occur and the decommissioning of the nuclear plants no longer generating power. Nuclear power plants are also attractive targets for terrorists.

    These large, expensive, dangerous and heavily subsidized plants are not the answer to our energy problems. They cannot provide the truly safe and clean energy that can be found in the sun, the winds, the tides and other forms of renewable energy.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation we are calling upon the next president of the United States to make a world free of nuclear weapons an urgent priority and to take seven critical steps:

    • De-alert. Remove all nuclear weapons from high-alert status, separating warheads from delivery vehicles;
    • No First Use. Make legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons and establish nuclear policies consistent with this commitment;
    • No New Nuclear Weapons. Initiate a moratorium on the research and development of new nuclear weapons, such as the Reliable Replacement Warhead;
    • Ban Nuclear Testing Forever. Ratify and bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
    • Control Nuclear Material. Create a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty with provisions to bring all weapons-grade nuclear material and the technologies to create such material under strict and effective international control;
    • Nuclear Weapons Convention. Commence good faith negotiations, as required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons;
    • Resources for Peace. Reallocate resources from the tens of billions currently spent on nuclear arms to alleviating poverty, preventing and curing disease, eliminating hunger and expanding educational opportunities throughout the world.

    Let me end here with a quote from The Little Prince: “‘It’s a matter of discipline,’ the Little Prince told me. ‘When you’ve finished washing and dressing each morning, you must tend your planet.’”

    I wish you a very productive meeting and great success in tending to our planet.

    David Krieger is a member of the Executive Committee of the World Future Council, and a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org)
  • Building a Local Nuclear Disarmament Coalition with Global Aims

    Building a Local Nuclear Disarmament Coalition with Global Aims

    The most important question that I have about nuclear weapons is this: Why are most people so disinterested in policies concerning these weapons that have the capacity to destroy the human species and much of life on the planet?

    It seems to me that there are two principal answers to this question: ignorance and apathy. Many people are ignorant about the threats posed by nuclear weapons. Among those who are concerned, many may believe there is little they can do to change the policies of the nuclear weapons states.

    Nuclear weapons can be used in only a few ways.

    First, to initiate a preemptive or preventive attack on an enemy in a most cowardly, immoral and illegal fashion, killing hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent people.

    Second, to threaten to attack an enemy in order to have it bend to one’s will.

    Third, to threaten retaliation against an enemy that would initiate an attack against one’s country. This is called nuclear deterrence. It’s a theory about human behavior; it’s not a foolproof means of protection. For example, it is not possible to retaliate against an enemy, like al Qaeda, that cannot be located.

    A very important truth about nuclear weapons is that they do not and cannot provide physical protection to their possessors. They can make you believe you are safe, but this is of very little value in the event deterrence would fail – for any reason.

    Another important truth about nuclear weapons is that they are the only weapons that could destroy the United States. If you love the United States, as so many of our politicians are piously pronouncing these days, you should be working for a nuclear weapons-free world.

    It’s also true that you should be working for a nuclear weapons-free world if you love your children, your grandchildren and your fellow human beings – those who are alive today and those who will follow us on this earth.

    Another truth – one that may not be so obvious – is that only the United States can lead the way to a nuclear weapons-free world. Without US leadership it won’t be possible. If the US continues to rely upon its nuclear arsenal for security, the Russians and the other nuclear weapons states will not disarm. The likely consequence is nuclear proliferation and greater nuclear danger.

    During the past two administrations there has been very little political will to lead on nuclear disarmament. The Bush administration has made the US an obstacle to nuclear disarmament rather than a leader. In 2007, the US voted against all 15 nuclear disarmament measures to come before the UN. And the Clinton administration missed one of the great opportunities ever set before an American president to lead on nuclear disarmament.

    But now we are in a time of transformational possibilities. We will soon have a new administration. Both major party presidential candidates say that they favor a world without nuclear weapons, but not even a dedicated new president can change US nuclear policy alone. The new president will need broad public support, and Congress will have to be pushed on nuclear policy issues. This is where a coalition of local organizations could play a major role.

    We need to wake up America – before it is too late. There have been an incredible number of warnings from scientists, military leaders, clergy, Nobel laureates and other distinguished individuals that have not done the job. A Los Angeles coalition could set a great example for other cities across our nation and across the globe.

    This is a world problem, but it is particularly an American problem. We led the way into the Nuclear Age by developing nuclear weapons, we used the first nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we tested more nuclear weapons than any other nation – and we must also lead the way out of the Nuclear Age.

    What is needed is commitment, creativity, courage and coalition. It will also require persistence. This is a challenge at least as great, perhaps greater than that of global warming. So, rise up LA and help lead the nation.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation we have some tools that can be helpful.

    First, we have an Appeal to the Next President for US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a straight forward Appeal that educates while it advocates. It calls on the President to take seven steps: take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert; make legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons; initiate a moratorium on research, development and production of new nuclear weapons; ratify and bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; create a verifiable treaty to control nuclear materials throughout the world; commence good faith negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons; and reallocate resources from the tens of billions currently spent on nuclear arms to meeting human needs throughout the world.

    Second, we have a DVD called “Nuclear Weapons and the Human Future.” It is a great educational tool that can be used groups of all sizes.

    Third, we have a monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower, which provides regular updates on key nuclear policy issues.

    We are in a time of transformational possibilities. If we seize the moment, we will have fulfilled our responsibilities to humanity and to the future. If we fail, the consequences will be graver than we can imagine.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • Assessing Nuclear Dangers 63 Years Later

    Sixty-three years ago this month, the United States was the first (and only—so far) nation to use nuclear weapons, detonating two warheads in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. Tens of thousands of people were killed instantly. By the end of 1945, more than 200,000 more were dead from radiation-related ailments.

    This somber anniversary provides an opportunity to assess the range of nuclear threats bedeviling international relations and threatening the future. The moment is even more salient given the recent military probe of Georgia into its breakaway province of South Ossetia, the Russian military’s apparent overreaction, and the Bush administration’s subsequent rhetorical bluster threatening to reignite the Cold War, as well as ongoing U.S. attempts to establish antimissile deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic, a development provoking concern and defensiveness in Russia.

    There is some good news. In a dramatic display, North Korea destroyed a cooling tower at its Yongbyon nuclear complex on June 28. Closer to home, the U.S. Congress refused to fund the administration’s demand for a new nuclear weapon system, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which would have upgraded most of the U.S.’s current nuclear warheads. (The existing warheads will remain frighteningly effective for many years, according to a preponderance of scientists and military theorists.)

    Now the bad news. We face a stalled disarmament process, tens of billions of dollars that the U.S. is still pumping into a vast nuclear weapons complex, and the horrifying possibility of nuclear terrorism.

    In 2002, George W. Bush and his Russian counterpart, now former president Vladimir Putin, agreed to sharp reductions in nuclear stockpiles by 2012. (Even under this agreement, however, the “decommissioned” weapons could be easily and quickly re-commissioned.) More than half the allotted time has passed, yet this key post-Cold War priority has faltered.

    Furthermore, the Bush administration has decreased funding directed toward the critically important goal of securing “loose nukes” in Russia to keep them from the hands of terrorists.

    The 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) established the framework under which nuclear weapon states, included the U.S., committed to disarm. Nonnuclear signers of the treaty pledged not to develop a nuclear weapons capability in exchange for assistance in acquiring peaceful nuclear technology. The NPT’s delicate balance has now been overturned: Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and India have all built nuclear weapons stockpiles outside the treaty. They have pointed—accurately—to the implicit double standard of the original five nuclear weapons states, “led” by the U.S., which have failed to take any meaningful steps toward their own disarmament.

    At the same time, the U.S. is irresponsibly inconsistent with other countries. The Bush administration has given India a special path to nuclear legitimacy despite its development of nuclear weapons outside of international law. India is close to accepting a deal giving it access to nuclear fuel and technology for power plants, in exchange for opening only part of its nuclear fuel cycle to inspections.

    The U.S. at the same time threatens to attack Iran for thinking nuclear thoughts. The most recent National Intelligence Estimate, in fall 2007, found that Iran ceased pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003, while continuing to attempt mastery over uranium enrichment, maintaining that its current program is for peaceful energy uses, as permitted under the NPT. The Bush administration continues to use an “all options are on the table” threat—code for “nuclear weapons could be used in military strikes”—against Iran, which, all parties agree, has no nuclear weapons. The Bush White House is the first U.S. administration in history to threaten the use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations, a startling and parlous policy.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency asserts that 20-30 countries have the intent or capability to pursue new nuclear weapons programs. And large quantities of highly enriched uranium and plutonium remain scattered at poorly secured sites throughout the world.

    Despite calls for disarmament from a cadre of converted Cold Warriors, the Department of Energy is asking for an estimated $150 billion to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons and a more “responsive” production network. This proposal builds on the Bush administration’s quiet surge in nuclear weapons spending: Adjusting for inflation, U.S. spending on nuclear weapons has increased by more than 13 percent since 2001 and is now one-third more than the Cold War average.

    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has been measuring the danger posed by nuclear weapons since 1947. In January 2007, it moved the clock from seven minutes to nuclear midnight to five minutes to nuclear midnight, due to “the perils of 27,000 nuclear weapons—2,000 of them ready to launch within minutes.”

    In his campaign stump speech, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama warns that nuclear terrorism is one of the gravest threats facing the United States today, highlighting his work on this overlooked issue. During the election season—and in the first months of a new presidential administration and Congress—citizens have an opportunity to insist that nuclear weapons materials from the Cold War be locked down, that nuclear stockpiles be reduced, and that we turn back the clock with real progress toward nonproliferation.

    Steve Daniels, MD, is the Santa Barbara chair of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

  • The Deja Vu of the Cold War

    Historically as a fact and as a chapter in Encyclopedias, the so-called Cold War drew to a close in the last years of the 80’s and the early 90’s.

    To celebrate that epic event, bells were rung, walls were destroyed, books and poems were written, movies were made to announce the beginning of a “new peace era”. Basically, two decades have passed and in the last years, mostly during the present Bush administration, the key elements for the bellicose situation have been revived.

    We are entering into a new nuclear arms race. The sword has been pulled out of the old armoire. The rhetoric of the perennial accusations resounds one more time. “You are the one”, “No, you are the one”. The conditions to deteriorate even more the precarious peace are popping up all over.

    In the most recent events, Mr. Vladimir Putin, the now Prime Minister of Russia accused the US government of orchestrating the rebellion in Georgia for political gains during the US Presidential campaign. For many, these remarks are simply untrue, for others, it is possible. Once again the world starts to be divided into two fronts.

    What is it in human nature that lures us so often and so rapidly to jump from one conflict to the next? Is peace simply a pause between two wars? Is there a real possibility to live in concord?

    What are we teaching our children, when they read the History of Humankind, and they only see wars as the most important events? The military is the most heroic status in society. It is “so cool” to see the parade of war paraphernalia; soldiers, missiles, airplanes, nuclear bombs.

    If you oppose that way of thinking you will be labeled a pacifist. And in the political lexicon that means you are an appeaser. In the era of Rambo and Terminator that is not fashionable.

    As long as we continue piling the nuclear arsenals the world will be playing Russian roulette. Minor quarrels could become major conflicts and will threaten the use of the ultimate weapons of mass destruction.

    We need to convince our governments, those with Nuclear weapons to get rid of the Armageddon weaponry forever. But first, we need to convince ourselves that the elimination of nuclear weapons is not just a dream.

    More than ever we must unite forces, to put to work the best minds looking for real and permanent solutions, not only bandages for deep open wounds.

    The Appeal to the next US President is a powerful tool. Let’s work together and collect all the signatures we can. Let’s flood Washington with names from all over the world.

    Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is coordinating the Appeal to the Next US President campaign in Latin America.
  • Olympic Inspiration for Peace

    Olympic Inspiration for Peace

    The world has again witnessed two weeks of extraordinary beauty and talent by young athletes gathered from throughout the world. The athletes met in Beijing for the XXIXth Olympic Games of modern times and competed on a global stage. They inspired me and I believe they must have inspired billions of human beings in every part of the world by the amazing feats of speed, strength, agility and teamwork of which we humans are capable.

    The athletes of these Olympic Games demonstrated their concentration and grace under pressure. Some won medals, but most did not. Their crowning common achievement was to come together in the spirit of friendship and peaceful competition, and demonstrate to the world the incredible beauty not only of their skills and talents but of peace in action.

    The Olympic Games show us that peace and goodwill are possible. The flags of nations are raised in honor of the achievements of the athletes. The flags symbolize victory in peaceful competition, not the failure of war. What a different ground of competition the Olympics provides than does the battlefield of war. A person can be the best in the world regardless of the size of one’s country, the color of one’s skin, or the riches one has amassed. Victory is determined on a peaceful and level playing field, without weapons of violence or undue influence.

    The Olympics value human life in all its variety. There are no exclusions from the human family. Victory is celebrated, but it is also recognized as transient. One can be a champion, but there will always be new champions. Some champions compete against each other, while others compete against the records of champions of the past. The valor is in the competition, the glory is in being part of it.

    How can one not be thrilled by watching the athletes in their native costumes entering the great arena of the Olympic stadium? How can one not be overwhelmed with the beauty of the pageantry that surrounds the opening and closing ceremonies of the games? How can one not be struck with the thought that this is what life on our precious planet could be, not just for two weeks but for all time?

    Of course, there cannot be continuous year-round Olympics, but the Olympics show just one facet of human greatness, that of athletic prowess. There could be other great festivals and celebrations of human achievement in the areas of music, poetry, dancing and drama. We could celebrate those who work to save the environment and its precious resources, those who protect endangered species, those who create alternative energy sources, those who work for peace and justice. There is so much cause for celebration, starting with the miracle of our very existence.

    The Olympics give us a glimpse of what is possible for our species and our world. They demand that we be more than quiet (or even noisy) observers. They challenge us to re-envision our world, and imagine the paradise that our planet could be. Do we really need to settle our differences by war and violence rather than by law and diplomacy? Do we really need to divide up the earth’s resources so inequitably, so that some live in overabundance while others cannot meet their basic needs? Do we really need to keep destroying the Earth as though future generations are of no concern to us?

    We have an Earth, a water planet, which supports life and is endlessly interesting and beautiful. We have a sun that powers our planet. We have the Olympic Games to thrill and inspire us. We have talented human beings across the planet. The Olympics, so fresh in our minds, should embolden us to say: “We can do better, much better.” In a democracy, the fault for not doing better lies not just with our leaders, but with our own apathy. After the Olympics, we can get up off the couch and do more to help our Earth stay green and healthy in a just world without war. In the Nuclear Age, it’s actually up to all of us to build a better world and assure 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 Short Message to the UC Regents: Get Out of the Nuclear Weapons Business

    A Short Message to the UC Regents: Get Out of the Nuclear Weapons Business

    Designing and developing weapons of mass annihilation should not be business as usual, especially for a great university. And yet, for the UC, it is business as usual. Since the beginning of the Nuclear Age, the UC has been in the business of providing management and oversight to the nation’s principal nuclear weapons laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The UC is now in that business with corporate partners such as Bechtel.

    Your involvement with the weapons labs is arguably illegal under international law, is certainly immoral and, from a security perspective, perpetuates US reliance on nuclear weapons, which undermines US and global security. It also sends exactly the wrong message to the young people who are educated at the University of California. It suggests to them that it must be acceptable to create weapons capable of destroying civilization when a great university engages in doing so.

    The UC shares in the responsibility for creating all nuclear weapons in the US arsenal. Should these weapons ever be used, by accident or design, the responsibility and accountability for that use will rest not only upon decision makers in the US government, but upon the UC system – including upon those who remained indifferent or apathetic in the face of the UC oversight of the weapons labs.

    Some at the UC refer to its work on nuclear weapons as a “national service.” I would say it is a disservice, both to the nation and to the University.

    The most important thing that can be said about nuclear weapons is that they do not and cannot protect their possessors. By continuing to rely upon these weapons, a prospect furthered by the nuclear weapons laboratories, the US upholds nuclear double standards that encourage nuclear proliferation.

    I suggest to you that a day will come when the UC will deeply regret having sold its good name to provide respectability to the creation and maintenance of nuclear weapons. In the interests of the UC and the country, I would urge you to take the following three actions:

    First, support the Student Department of Energy Lab Oversight Committee, which has already demonstrated serious intent and done important research on the weapons laboratories and how their work negatively impacts national and global security.

    Second, follow the example of the Norwegian government pension fund and divest the UC investment portfolio of corporations involved in creating nuclear weapons and their component parts.

    Third, withdraw from the management and oversight of the weapons labs on the grounds of legality, morality and human security. By doing so, you would be setting an invaluable example for UC students and for institutions of higher education in our country and throughout the world.

    Such acts of conscience by the UC Regents would help spark a national discussion on the need for US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). On July 17, 2008, members of the public were allotted one minute each to express their views in the public comment portion of the UC Regents’ meeting.