Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Nuclear Disarmament

  • California Assembly Joint Resolution 33 – Full Text

    California Assembly Joint Resolution 33 – Full Text

    On August 28, 2018, the California State Senate adopted Assembly Joint Resolution 33, which calls upon the federal government to embrace the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, make nuclear disarmament the centerpiece of national security policy, and spearhead a global effort to prevent nuclear war. The Assembly passed the resolution earlier in August, which makes California the first state in the U.S. to have passed this type of resolution. For more information, including a full vote tally, click here.

    WHEREAS, Since the height of the Cold War, the United States and Russia have dismantled more than 50,000 nuclear warheads, but 15,000 of these weapons still exist and pose an intolerable risk to human survival; and

    WHEREAS, Ninety-five percent of these weapons are in the hands of the United States and Russia and the rest are held by seven other countries: China, France, Israel, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom; and

    WHEREAS, The use of even a tiny fraction of these weapons could cause worldwide climate disruption and global famine; for example, as few as 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, small by modern standards, would put at least five million tons of soot into the upper atmosphere and cause climate disruption across the planet, cutting food production and putting two billion people at risk of starvation; and

    WHEREAS, A large-scale nuclear war would kill hundreds of millions of people directly and cause unimaginable environmental damage and catastrophic climate disruption by dropping temperatures across the planet to levels not seen since the last ice age; under these conditions the vast majority of the human race would starve and it is possible we would become extinct as a species; and

    WHEREAS, Despite assurances that these arsenals exist solely to guarantee that they are never used, there have been many occasions when nuclear armed states have prepared to use these weapons, and war has been averted only at the last minute; and

    WHEREAS, Nuclear weapons do not possess some magical quality that prevents their use; and

    WHEREAS, Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara said, speaking about the Cuban Missile Crisis, “It was luck that prevented nuclear war,” yet our nuclear policy cannot be the hope that luck will continue; and

    WHEREAS, As the effects of climate change place increased stress on communities around the world and intensify the likelihood of conflict, the danger of nuclear war will grow; and

    WHEREAS, The planned expenditure of more than $1 trillion to enhance our nuclear arsenal will not only increase the risk of nuclear disaster but fuel a global arms race and divert crucial resources needed to assure the well-being of the American people and people all over the world; and

    WHEREAS, There is an alternative to this march toward nuclear war: in July 2017, 122 nations called for the elimination of all nuclear weapons by adopting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons; now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature urges our federal leaders and our nation to embrace the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and make nuclear disarmament the centerpiece of our national security policy; and be it further

    Resolved, That the Legislature calls upon our federal leaders and our nation to spearhead a global effort to prevent nuclear war by renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first, ending the President’s sole, unchecked authority to launch a nuclear attack, taking U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert, canceling the plan to replace its entire arsenal with enhanced weapons, and actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals; and be it further

    Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the Senate, to the Minority Leader of the Senate, to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States, and to the Governor.

  • Testimony in Support of California Assembly Joint Resolution 33

    Testimony in Support of California Assembly Joint Resolution 33

    I’d like to begin by thanking my Assemblymember, Monique Limon, for introducing this important resolution.

    My name is Rick Wayman. I’m the Deputy Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a non-profit organization headquartered in Santa Barbara. On behalf of our 80,000 members worldwide, including over 10,000 here in California, I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.

    Last year, I had the privilege of participating in the negotiations at the United Nations for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As a partner organization of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, we share in the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded for our work on this groundbreaking treaty.

    Right now, we have a federal government that is choosing to spend over $100,000 per minute for the next 30 years on nuclear weapons upgrades. But it’s not just dollars that we’re squandering. Nuclear weapons are, simply put, indiscriminate mass killing devices. Any use would be illegitimate and wholly unacceptable.

    California has a long and proud history of setting positive legislative trends and kick-starting the process of change nationwide. That is why AJR 33 is so important today.

    This resolution lays out some of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that could occur should nuclear weapons be used again. I have worked closely with people around the world deeply impacted by nuclear weapons development, testing, and use. Every one of them tells me the same thing: we must put an end to nuclear weapons so that no one ever suffers this same fate.

    The Assembly and Senate of the State of California now have a unique opportunity to contribute to this noble goal.

    For 50 years, the United States has been a part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty has been remarkably successful at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries. But it has failed to compel the nuclear-armed nations to fulfill their obligation to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

    The 122 nations that voted in favor of adopting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons last year at the United Nations were complying with their obligation to act. The US was shamefully hostile to this process. The vast majority of the world’s countries are moving forward to outlaw and stigmatize nuclear weapons possession, and the US is being left behind. This emerging legal norm against nuclear weapons will only get stronger. California, followed by the entire United States, must get on the right side of history. But more importantly, we must do everything in our power to eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us.

    Thank you.

    Rick Wayman delivered these opening remarks at a hearing at the California State Capitol on August 14, 2018.

     

  • Testimony in Support of AJR 33

    Testimony in Support of AJR 33

    Good morning. I am Marylia Kelley, the Executive Director for Tri-Valley CAREs. We are a Livermore, CA-based nonprofit organization with 5,700 members. Tri-Valley CAREs has monitored nuclear weapons activities at California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for 35 years. We are unique in that our membership includes scientists and engineers from the Lab, which is one of two locations where all U.S. nuclear weapons are designed.

    Tri-Valley CAREs is a partner in key coalitions including the International Coalition for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017 for its efforts to achieve the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

    I had the honor of participating at the United Nation in negotiations for the TPNW last summer. The Treaty makes clear that nuclear weapons pose horrific humanitarian and environmental consequences that are legally and morally unacceptable under all circumstances.

    The Treaty was overwhelmingly adopted by 122 states parties last year, putting the vast majority of the countries of the world on record – speaking in a single voice – that nuclear weapons are no longer acceptable.

    This is how societal patterns are changed – and how national behaviors are changed over time.

    By voting to pass AJR 33, this committee becomes an integral part of the global shift to public safety based on a nuclear weapons free world for our children and all who come after us.

    It is right, timely and thrilling to me as a Californian that my state is poised to take a principled position to help ensure that nuclear weapons are never again used, that the international TPNW is supported, and that the elimination of nuclear weapons occurs at the earliest possible date.

    Thank you, Assembly member Limon for introducing AJR 33, and thank you members of the Committee on Public Safety for considering this Resolution – and for inviting me to speak this morning before your most important vote.

  • Prospects for Denuclearization

    Prospects for Denuclearization

    [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” overlay_color=”” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” padding_top=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” padding_right=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”no” min_height=”” hover_type=”none” link=””][fusion_text]

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    After the Singapore Summit between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump, Trump was very upbeat about the denuclearization of North Korea. On June 12, 2018, Trump said in a CNN interview, “He’s denuking the whole place and he’s going to start very quickly. I think he’s going to start now.” Seriously?

    For this to happen, Kim would have to be either a fool or a saint. And, of course, he is neither. Rather, he is a third generation dictator who fears the overthrow of his regime, likely by the US. Kim knows that his best guarantee against that happening is his possession of nuclear weapons.

    Kim certainly knows the history of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi. Both gave up their respective country’s nuclear programs. After doing so, each was overthrown and killed. Hussein was put on trial by the US puppet regime in Iraq and was sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was carried out on December 30, 2006. When Libyan rebels, with help from the US, France and the UK, attacked the Gadhafi regime, Gadhafi attempted to hide and escape, but he was captured, tortured and killed.

    Given this history, why would Kim make himself vulnerable to overthrow when he doesn’t need to do so? The answer is that he won’t, which also means that he won’t completely denuclearize.  Since this is the logic of Kim’s position, we might ask: why has Trump been so effusive about Kim’s prospects of denuclearizing? Obvious explanations are that Trump is a novice at conducting international negotiations and that he thinks exceptionally highly of himself as an effective negotiator.

    For Trump to believe that Kim would bend to Trump’s will and denuclearize, Trump would have to be either a fool or an extreme narcissist. Unfortunately, he appears to be both and seems intent on proving this over and over again. Another example is his pulling out of and violating the Iran agreement negotiated with Iran by the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany. Fortunately, none of the other parties to the agreement has joined the US in pulling out.

    Denuclearization is a good thing, and I am all for it. The US, as the strongest military power in the world and the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in war, should be leading the way. Nuclear weapons do not protect the Trump regime, as they do the Kim regime. Nor, for that matter, do they protect the US. Which would be safer for the US: a world with nine nuclear-armed states, as we currently have, or a world with zero nuclear-armed states?

    The logic here is that if Trump is serious about a denuclearized North Korea, he had best play a leadership role in convening negotiations among the nine nuclear-armed states to achieve a denuclearized planet. In such negotiations, it will be necessary to deal with the concerns and fears of the leaders of each of the nuclear-armed countries, including those of Kim Jong-un. The world we live in is far from perfect, but we would all be better off if the overriding nuclear threat to humanity was lifted from our collective shoulders.

    It will require a process of good faith negotiations to get to zero nuclear weapons. That, in turn, will require political will, which has been largely lacking, even though it was agreed to by all the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Article VI of this treaty obligates its parties to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and for complete nuclear disarmament. Fifty years after the NPT was opened for signatures in 1968, this obligation remains not only unfulfilled but untried. For the nuclear-armed parties to the NPT to take this obligation seriously would be a major turn-around in their behavior.

    Another treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, was adopted by 122 countries in July 2017 and is now opened for signatures and the deposit of ratifications. The treaty prohibits, among other things, the possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Again, the nuclear-armed countries have been largely hostile to this treaty. None of them have signed it or indicated support for it, and the US, UK and France have said they would never sign, ratify or become parties to it.

    Our common future on the planet rests on generating the support and political will to fulfill the promise of these two treaties. Putting the global nuclear dilemma into perspective, it should be clear that denuclearization of North Korea is only one piece of the puzzle, one that is unlikely to be achieved in isolation. A far greater piece lays in the failure of the US to show any substantial leadership toward attaining a nuclear zero world. Failure to achieve the goal of global denuclearization could mean the end of civilization and most life on our planet. And where is the logic in that?

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and has served as its president since 1982.[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container][fusion_global id=”13042″]

  • Assessing the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit

    Assessing the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit

    The Singapore Summit was a dramatic turn-around from the adolescent name calling that Trump and Kim had engaged in only months before. Trump had labelled Kim as “Little Rocket Man,” and Kim had labelled Trump as “Dotard.” Having gotten through this, the summit was on for June 12, then it was abruptly cancelled by Trump when Mike Pence had referred to the “Libya model” for North Korean nuclear disarmament, and a North Korean official had called Pence a “political dummy.” North Korean officials were understandably sensitive to the Libya model reference. They view Gadhafi’s demise as a direct result of his giving up Libya’s nuclear program. Then, in the midst of the chaos, something happened behind the scenes and suddenly the summit was back on for June 12, as originally planned.

    It was a summit of smiles and handshakes. Little Rocket Man and Dotard seemed very happy in each other’s company.  They smiled incessantly, shook hands many times and, at one point, Trump gave a thumbs up.

    The most obvious result of the summit was the change in tone in the relationship of the two men. Whereas the tone had once been nasty and threatening, it was now warm and friendly. The two men appeared to genuinely like each other and be comfortable in each other’s company. For both, the new warmth of their relationship seemed likely to play well with important domestic constituencies. Although the summit elicited a lot of skepticism from US pundits, the optics were those of a breakthrough in a relationship once considered dangerous and a possible trigger to a nuclear conflict. Both men viewed the summit as a major achievement.

    They each committed to a rather vague Summit Statement, which said in part: “President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK (North Korea) and Chairman Kim Jong-un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” Trump added as an unexpected sweetener that he would put a halt to the joint US-South Korean war games, which the North Koreans had long complained were highly provocative.

    Each was being promised what he most desired: security for Kim and his regime, and complete denuclearization of North Korea for Trump. They were also gaining in stature in their home countries. Prior to the summit, Trump was asked by a reporter if  he thought  he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, to which he coyly responded, “Everyone thinks so, but I would never say it.”

    There was much, however, that didn’t emerge from the Singapore summit, and it can be summarized in a single word: “details.” The ultimate value of the summit will be found in the details that are agreed to and acted upon going forward. Will these details build or destroy trust? Will Kim truly believe that he can trust Trump (or a future American president) to give security to the Kim regime? Will Trump (or a future American president) truly believe that Kim is following up on denuclearizing? The answers to these questions will depend upon details that have yet to be agreed upon, including those related to inspections and verification.

    While the summit has relieved tensions between the two nuclear-armed countries, nuclear dangers have not gone away on the Korean Peninsula or in the rest of the world. These dangers will remain so long as any country, including the US, continues to rely upon nuclear weapons for its national security. Such reliance encourages nuclear proliferation and will likely lead to the use of these weapons over time – by malice, madness or mistake.

    We can take some time to breathe a sigh of relief that nuclear dangers have lessened on the Korean Peninsula, but then we must return to seeking the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. An important pathway to this end is support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by the United Nations in 2017 and now open for state signatures and deposit of ratifications.

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and has served as its president since 1982

     

  • Singapore Summit: Final Statement

    Singapore Summit: Final Statement

    Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at the Singapore Summit

    President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

    President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

    Convinced that the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:

    1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

    2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

    3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

    4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

    Having acknowledged that the U.S.-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-up negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit.

    President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new U.S.-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.

    (Signed)

    DONALD J. TRUMP
    President of the United States of America

    KIM JONG UN
    Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

    June 12, 2018
    Sentosa Island
    Singapore

  • Singapore Summit

    Singapore Summit

    David KriegerWhen we think about what could be accomplished at the Singapore Summit, we’re not thinking big enough.

    At the Kim-Trump Summit in Singapore, the highest expectation is for a Kim pledge to denuclearize his country.  There seems to be no expectation that Trump would agree to denuclearize his country.  The world would benefit from a plan to denuclearize North Korea, but it would benefit even more from a plan to denuclearize the United States.

    Clearly, there would need to be plans set forth and agreed to for any denuclearization, but why limit such a plan only to North Korea?

    Given the potentially omnicidal devastation of nuclear weapons, the world needs a plan to abolish these weapons globally before they abolish all of us.  Why should we be content to have the smallest nuclear power agree to give up its nuclear arsenal, while allowing the most powerful nuclear-armed country to be unchallenged in maintaining its nuclear arsenal?

    In exchange for a denuclearized North Korea, Kim should bargain for an end to the Korean War by means of a Peace Treaty; the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea; a pledge of No First Use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.; economic support from the U.S.; and a pledge by the U.S. to convene a meeting of all nine nuclear-armed countries to develop a plan for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  The last point could be achieved through U.S. and North Korean leadership in signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

  • Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula

    The Panmunjeom Declaration was issued by North and South Korea on April 27, 2018, following an historic summit between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in.

    During this momentous period of historical transformation on the Korean Peninsula, reflecting the enduring aspiration of the Korean people for peace, prosperity and unification, President Moon Jae In of the Republic of Korea and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea held an Inter-Korean Summit Meeting at the ‘Peace House’ at Panmunjom on April 27, 2018.

    The two leaders solemnly declared before the 80 million Korean people and the whole world that there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula and thus a new era of peace has begun.

    The two leaders, sharing the firm commitment to bring a swift end to the Cold War relic of long-standing division and confrontation, to boldly approach a new era of national reconciliation, peace and prosperity, and to improve and cultivate inter-Korean relations in a more active manner, declared at this historic site of Panmunjom as follows:

    1. South and North Korea will reconnect the blood relations of the people and bring forward the future of co-prosperity and unification led by Koreans by facilitating comprehensive and groundbreaking advancement in inter-Korean relations.

    Improving and cultivating inter-Korean relations is the prevalent desire of the whole nation and the urgent calling of the times that cannot be held back any further.

    1) South and North Korea affirmed the principle of determining the destiny of the Korean nation on their own accord and agreed to bring forth the watershed moment for the improvement of inter-Korean relations by fully implementing all existing agreements and declarations adopted between the two sides thus far.

    2) South and North Korea agreed to hold dialogue and negotiations in various fields including at high level, and to take active measures for the implementation of the agreements reached at the summit.

    3) South and North Korea agreed to establish a joint liaison office with resident representatives of both sides in the Gaeseong region in order to facilitate close consultation between the authorities as well as smooth exchanges and cooperation between the peoples.

    4) South and North Korea agreed to encourage more active cooperation, exchanges, visits and contacts at all levels in order to rejuvenate the sense of national reconciliation and unity.

    Between South and North, the two sides will encourage the atmosphere of amity and cooperation by actively staging various joint events on the dates that hold special meaning for both South and North Korea, such as June 15, in which participants from all levels, including central and local governments, parliaments, political parties, and civil organisations, will be involved.

    On the international front, the two sides agreed to demonstrate their collective wisdom, talents, and solidarity by jointly participating in international sports events such as the 2018 Asian Games.

    5) South and North Korea agreed to endeavour to swiftly resolve the humanitarian issues that resulted from the division of the nation, and to convene the Inter-Korean Red Cross Meeting to discuss and solve various issues, including the reunion of separated families.

    In this vein, South and North Korea agreed to proceed with reunion programmes for the separated families on the occasion of the National Liberation Day of Aug 15 this year.

    6) South and North Korea agreed to actively implement the projects previously agreed in the 2007 October 4 Declaration, in order to promote balanced economic growth and co-prosperity of the nation.

    As a first step, the two sides agreed to adopt practical steps towards the connection and modernisation of the railways and roads on the eastern transportation corridor as well as between Seoul and Sinuiju for their utilisation.

    2. South and North Korea will make joint efforts to alleviate the acute military tension and practically eliminate the danger of war on the Korean Peninsula.

    1) South and North Korea agreed to completely cease all hostile acts against each other in every domain, including land, air and sea, that are the source of military tension and conflict.

    In this vein, the two sides agreed to transform the demilitarised zone into a peace zone in a genuine sense by ceasing as of May 2 this year all hostile acts and eliminating their means, including broadcasting through loudspeakers and distribution of leaflets, in the areas along the Military Demarcation Line.

    2) South and North Korea agreed to devise a practical scheme to turn the areas around the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea into a maritime peace zone in order to prevent accidental military clashes and guarantee safe fishing activities.

    3) South and North Korea agreed to take various military measures to ensure active mutual cooperation, exchanges, visits and contacts. The two sides agreed to hold frequent meetings between military authorities, including the defence ministers meeting, in order to immediately discuss and solve military issues that arise between them.

    In this regard, the two sides agreed to first convene military talks at the rank of general in May.

    3. South and North Korea will actively cooperate to establish a permanent and solid peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. Bringing an end to the current unnatural state of armistice and establishing a robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula is a historical mission that must not be delayed any further.

    1) South and North Korea reaffirmed the Non-Aggression Agreement that precludes the use of force in any form against each other, and agreed to strictly adhere to this agreement.

    2) South and North Korea agreed to carry out disarmament in a phased manner, as military tension is alleviated and substantial progress is made in military confidence-building.

    3) During this year that marks the 65th anniversary of the Armistice, South and North Korea agreed to actively pursue trilateral meetings involving the two Koreas and the United States, or quadrilateral meetings involving the two Koreas, the United States and China, with a view to declaring an end to the war and establishing a permanent and solid peace regime.

    4) South and North Korea confirmed the common goal of realising, through complete denuclearisation, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.

    South and North Korea shared the view that the measures being initiated by North Korea are very meaningful and crucial for the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula and agreed to carry out their respective roles and responsibilities in this regard.

    South and North Korea agreed to actively seek the support and cooperation of the international community for the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

    The two leaders agreed, through regular meetings and direct telephone conversations, to hold frequent and candid discussions on issues vital to the nation, to strengthen mutual trust and to jointly endeavour to strengthen the positive momentum towards continuous advancement of inter-Korean relations as well as peace, prosperity and unification of the Korean Peninsula.

    In this context, President Moon Jae In agreed to visit Pyongyang this fall.

    April 27, 2018

    Done in Panmunjom

    Moon Jae In
    President
    Republic of Korea

    Kim Jong Un
    Chairman
    State Affairs Commission
    Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

  • Local Group Part of Nobel Peace Prize-Winning Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    Santa Barbara – On October 6, the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) “for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.”

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), a non-partisan, non-profit organization founded in Santa Barbara in 1982, has been an active member of ICAN since its inception a decade ago.

    NAPF President David Krieger said, “This is an immense honor for the hundreds of ICAN partner organizations and campaigners around the world who have worked tirelessly for a treaty banning nuclear weapons, which was finally adopted this year. I am particularly happy for the hibakusha – survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – who have dedicated their lives to the abolition of nuclear weapons.”

    Rick Wayman, NAPF’s Director of Programs, took an active role in ICAN’s efforts during the negotiations of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at the United Nations earlier this year. As part of ICAN’s diverse international team of campaigners, Rick assisted with lobbying countries to support strong language in the treaty, as well as with amplifying ICAN’s message in the media and social media.

    Wayman said, “The recognition by the Nobel Committee of ICAN’s outstanding work is well-deserved. Achieving the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been a collaborative effort that involved bold strategy, lots of hard work, and even some fun. There remains much work to be done to finally achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, particularly in the United States, which continues to maintain thousands of nuclear warheads. I hope that this Nobel Peace Prize will awaken many more people around the world to the urgent need to work for the abolition of nuclear weapons. We can, and will, achieve this goal.”

    A statement from ICAN about the award is here. More information about the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is here.

    If you would like to interview David Krieger or Rick Wayman, please call +1 805 696 5159.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations. For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

  • Rethinking the 3 Rs

    Until quite recently, ‘the 3 Rs’ simply meant reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic. One could very well get by with basic competencies in literacy and math. Yet once Ida Noddack proposed her theory of nuclear fission, the rethinking of our knowledge base began. As Hans Bethe revealed in his interview with Dr. Mary Palevsky, we might not have had nuclear bombs if the discovery of fission had not coincided with the movements of world war.

    Reframing

    John Borrie of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) explains ‘reframing’ as a move from what is deemed acceptable. The shift we see through acceptance of a total and legally binding ban on nuclear weapons is, at its core, an ideological and philosophical one. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a milestone in the ongoing reframing of global security concepts. While some may see the ban treaty as a stand against nuclear weapons states, we can also understand the action as taking a stand for peace by legally de-legitimizing weapons of mass destruction.

    However, reframing is directly linked to access to knowledge. The less we know, the less we question what is acceptable. The more we know the more action we are likely to take when the human consequences of the nuclear cycle are recognized. Hence, the 3 Rs of Human Security embedded in the nuclear ban treaty: Recognition, Restitution, and Remediation.

    Recognition

    The nuclear ban treaty recognizes the “unacceptable suffering of and harm caused to” those who experienced – and continue to experience – the effects of nuclear weapons, those whom Bo Jacobs and Mick Broderick term “Global Hibakusha.” The ban treaty also recognizes “the disproportionate impact of nuclear weapons activities on indigenous peoples” like the Pacific populations of the Marshall Islands, Australia, Kiribati, Hawai’i, and Te Ao Maohi.

    It is the lived experiences of those who continue to suffer from the effects of nuclear attacks and nuclear weapons testing, and their unwavering activism, that have led us to reframe and define Human Security through a lens of humanitarian consequence and human rights.

    Moreover, the treaty recognizes nuclear physics applied through tools of war – quite simply the intentional twisting of science into devastation. Or as Oppenheimer famously quoted the Bhagavad Gita when he witnessed the Trinity test, “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”

    Restitution

    Victims of nuclear activity are entitled to restitution. Full stop.

    During negotiations on the nuclear ban treaty, government and civil society delegations lobbied vigorously for the inclusion of article 6(1), which addresses “victim assistance.” This key point is an imperative for countries like the Marshall Islands where more than USD$2 billion have been awarded to the Enewetak, Rongelap, Utrik, and Bikini communities through the Nuclear Claims Tribunal – awarded claims that the United States refuses to honor.

    Remediation

    When my oldest son was 6 years old, he told me that he wanted to be a scientist. I said that was great but asked why. He replied that he wanted to be a scientist so he could figure out a way to clean up his islands; if scientists could figure out a way to put poison in his islands, there must be a way to take the poison out.

    To those who continue to experience the effects of ionizing radiation, like my sons, remediation is a responsibility not an option.

    Article 6(2) of the treaty compels state parties to take responsibility for their nuclear actions through “necessary and appropriate measures towards the environmental remediation of areas so contaminated.” In other words, taking the poison out of our children’s islands.

    Recentering  

    Nuclear states would like us to believe in deterrence, yet Borrie argues the need to critically analyze the knowledge base for such a one-sided theory. In light of the Pacific finding itself in the crosshairs of current nuclear aggressions, can nuclear states provide empirical evidence that deterrence works? The burden lies with nuclear states to prove that the consequences of nuclear weapons do not poison systems of sustainability thus cultivating global insecurity.

    Not all 122 states that voted for the ban treaty in July have ratified the legally binding instrument. Some are following their own constitutional procedures to ensure ratification, while others are constrained by agreements and conflicting treaties. However, the very existence of a nuclear ban treaty illuminates the philosophical shift resulting from more than 70 years of active reframing. The treaty shows us that we have evolved beyond the use of atomic science as a show of weaponry force; instead, recentering humanity to establish an era of remediation and peace.

    We must continue to broaden our context of security through well-researched policy with privilege given to lived experience, and recognition of insecurity as a result of atomic “peace.”

    How much longer must we live in fear?

    Brooke Takala is a mother, PhD candidate at the University of the South Pacific, and co-coordinator of an Enewetak NGO called Elimon̄dik.

    For information on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons https://www.un.org/disarmament/ptnw/

    For more information on US human radiation experimentation, including experimentation on the Marshallese people, refer to http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/radiation/

    Follow the treaty signatures/ratifications at http://www.icanw.org/status-of-the-treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons/