Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Nuclear Disarmament

  • The Next Nuclear Disarmament Moment

    The Next Nuclear Disarmament Moment

    President Obama will be meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for the first time on April 1st, on the eve of the upcoming G-20 meeting. As with previous Russian and American leaders in the Nuclear Age, the future of life on the planet may rest upon their chemistry and ability to work together.

    These two men will have the chance to change the course of global nuclear policy, setting their two countries and all humanity on a far less dangerous path. Both men have called for such change. Both have expressed support for the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. Their opening dialogue on issues of nuclear disarmament will likely set the tone for their work over the next few years.

    On July 24, 2008, then candidate Obama stirred a huge crowd in Berlin with these words: “This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons…. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.”

    President Medvedev, in a statement shared at a recent plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, emphasized that “Russia is open to dialogue and is prepared for negotiations with the new US administration.” His message continued, “I fully share the commitment of the US President Barack H. Obama to the noble goal of saving the world from the nuclear threat and see here a fertile ground for a joint work.”

    What can we reasonably expect as outcomes in the area of nuclear disarmament from their upcoming meeting? The most important outcome is likely to be a joint statement of commitment to move the world away from the nuclear precipice with the goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons.

    This statement of commitment will be important in publicly recognizing the obligations of the two countries under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in finally putting to an end the dangerous residual dynamics of the Cold War. But more tangible signs of their intentions will also be needed.

    The two leaders should pledge their cooperation and common effort in controlling nuclear weapons and loose nuclear materials throughout the world, keeping these out of the hands of terrorists. This is absolutely essential for the future security of both countries and for the rest of the world.

    The two men should also agree to end the dangerous Cold War legacy of keeping thousands of their nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. Nearly two decades after the end of the Cold War, this practice allows virtually no time for rational decision making and invites potential accidental launches based on faulty information or computer error.

    Another matter ripe for agreement is the extension of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), which is scheduled to expire in December 2009. This is the only active agreement between the two countries that has provisions for accounting and verification, and these provisions will be needed as the two countries move forward in making deeper cuts in their arsenals.

    Surely the two men will also have some figures in mind for the next step in moving toward nuclear disarmament. Currently, both sides are committed under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) to reduce their deployed strategic warheads to between 2,200 and 1,700 by the end of the year 2012. A serious next step, which could supersede the SORT agreement, would reduce the arsenals on each side to approximately 1,000, including both deployed and reserve weapons. This is still far too many, but it would demonstrate that the two sides are taking seriously their obligations for nuclear disarmament.

    Other issues related to nuclear policy that may come on the table include the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, a ban on new nuclear weapons, reductions in ballistic missiles, controlling the nuclear fuel cycle and commitments of No First Use. The Russians are also deeply concerned about US missile defense plans in Europe, reaching an agreement to prevent the weaponization of space, and refraining from substituting conventional warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles from which nuclear warheads have been removed.

    Many hopes for the future rest upon President Obama and President Medvedev working together to achieve the bold vision of ridding the world of the only weapon capable of ending the human presence on our planet. Their vision is aligned. Now the world awaits their action.

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

  • Watershed Moment on Nuclear Arms

    During the 2008 campaign, President Obama promised to deal with one of the world’s great scourges — thousands of nuclear weapons still in the American and Russian arsenals. He said he would resume arms-control negotiations — the sort that former President George W. Bush disdained — and seek deep cuts in pursuit of an eventual nuclear-free world. There is no time to waste.

    In less than nine months, the 1991 Start I treaty expires. It contains the basic rules of verification that give both Moscow and Washington the confidence that they know the size and location of the other’s nuclear forces.

    The Bush administration made little effort to work out a replacement deal. So we are encouraged that American and Russian officials seem to want a new agreement. Given the many strains in the relationship, it will take a strong commitment from both sides, and persistent diplomacy, to get one in time.

    When President Obama meets Russia’s president, Dmitri Medvedev, in London on April 1, the two should commit to begin talks immediately and give their negotiators a deadline for finishing up before Dec. 5. For that to happen, the Senate must quickly confirm Mr. Obama’s negotiator, Rose Gottemoeller, so she can start work.

    Mr. Bush and then-President Vladimir Putin signed only one arms-control agreement in eight years. It allowed both sides to keep between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed warheads. Further cuts — 1,000 each makes sense for the next phase — would send a clear message to Iran, North Korea and other wannabes that the world’s two main nuclear powers are placing less value on nuclear weapons.

    Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev should also pledge that these negotiations are just a down payment on a more ambitious effort to reduce their arsenals and rid the world of nuclear weapons. The next round should aim to bring Britain, France and China into the discussions. In time, they will have to cajole and wrestle India, Pakistan and Israel to the table as well.

    There is a lot President Obama can do right now to create momentum for serious change. We hope his expected speech on nuclear weapons next month is bold.

    He can start by unilaterally taking all of this country’s nuclear weapons off of hair-trigger alert. He should also commit to eliminating the 200 to 300 short-range nuclear weapons this country still has deployed in Europe. That would make it much easier to challenge Russia to reduce its stockpile of at least 3,000 short-range weapons. These arms are unregulated by any treaty and are far too vulnerable to theft.

    Mr. Obama must also declare his commitment to include all nuclear weapons in negotiated reductions — including thousands of warheads that are now held in reserve and excluded from cuts. And he must make good on promises to press the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (opponents are already quietly organizing) and the international community to adopt a pact ending production of weapons-grade nuclear fuel.

    Mr. Obama must reaffirm his campaign pledge to transform American nuclear policy that is still mired in cold war thinking. His administration’s nuclear review is due by year’s end. It must make clear that this country has nuclear weapons solely to deter a nuclear attack — and that this administration’s goal is to keep as few as possible as safely as possible. The review must also state clearly that the country has no need for a new nuclear weapon and will not build any.

    Two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia and the United States together still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. It is time to focus on the 21st-century threats: states like Iran building nuclear weapons and terrorists plotting to acquire their own. Until this country convincingly redraws its own nuclear strategy and reduces its arsenal, it will not have the credibility and political weight to confront those threats.

    This article originally appeared as an editorial in the New York Times

  • Letter to President Obama

    Letter to President Obama

    Dear President Obama,

    In your upcoming meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia you have an incredible opportunity to set a new course toward a nuclear weapons-free world, an opportunity initially made possible by the end of the Cold War nearly two decades ago. As you said in your Berlin speech on July 24, 2008, “This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.” We agree that this is the moment to reverse decades of mistrust and danger, and to set a new course for humanity.

    President Medvedev appears to share your vision. He said recently, “Today, we are facing a pressing need to move further along the road of nuclear disarmament. In accordance with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Russia is fully committed to reaching the goal of a world free from these most deadly weapons.”

    President Medvedev went further, emphasizing that Russia “is open to dialogue and is prepared for negotiations with the new US administration.” He said that he fully shares your commitment “to the noble goal of saving the world from the nuclear threat and see here a fertile ground for a joint work.”

    In the midst of the acute economic and environmental problems in the world, a joint statement of intent from you and President Medvedev, committing yourselves and your countries to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons within a reasonable time span, would provide tangible evidence that a new era of hope has begun. You would awaken hope and appreciation in every corner of the globe.

    We urge you to join with President Medvedev in making such a statement and setting in motion a course of concrete actions such as those called for by former senior statesmen from the United States and throughout the world.

    Among the concrete actions we would particularly urge you and President Medvedev to initially take are: agreeing to extend the 1991 START agreement beyond its expiration in December 2009 in order to retain its verification provisions; taking nuclear arsenals on both sides off hair-trigger alert; and agreeing to make dramatic cuts in the arsenals of both sides to below 1,000 nuclear weapons each, deployed and in reserve, as a next step toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

    On behalf of tens of thousands of our members and supporters throughout the world, we call upon you to act boldly in moving to rid the world of its greatest existential threat, that of nuclear omnicide. We urge you to lead the world in achieving this decisive victory for humanity.

    Sincerely,

    David Krieger
    President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • Use Your Imagination

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

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

  • Inspired by the Hibakusha

    This article was published by the Hiroshima Peace Media Center

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

     

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

  • Doomsday Clock May Finally Stop Ticking

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The Missouri University Nuclear Disarmament Education Team (MUNDET)

    Recently, President Barack Obama stated: ” I will make the goal of elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of U.S. nuclear weapons policy.” Without question, this is the most promising nuclear disarmament statement by a U.S. president in recent history. However, the road to abolition will not be an easy one. Given the financial and political power of the corporate/military nuclear weapons complex, the president will face many hurdles, and will have to obtain strong grassroots support to convince Members of Congress to endorse the kind of comprehensive international regimen which will be required to accomplish the president’s goal.

    Presently, insufficient intellectual and political activity concerning nuclear disarmament (especially at the local level) is going on in this country or other parts of the world. Despite the recent, encouraging statements by several well-known political figures both here and abroad, and the excellent work by numerous non-governmental organizations who are supplying timely information and strategies for political action, nuclear war prevention continues to rank low on the list of immediate citizen concerns when compared with problems of unemployment, economic recession, health care, education, etc. Additionally, most college and university professors who normally address other serious human problems, have seriously defaulted on the world’s most pressing environmental/survival issue. Nuclear war will not merely warm the planet, it will “sizzle” it.

    With the academic default in mind, the University of Missouri – Columbia Peace Studies Program has initiated the Missouri University Nuclear Disarmament Education Team (MUNDET) whose mission is to inform citizens of Missouri, and other parts of the world, of the urgent need to abolish nuclear weapons from Planet Earth, and inspire them to work for that goal. MUNDET works with educational, religious, civic and other community groups by addressing the main issues connected with the nuclear threat, and how it must be met. Among its tools has been the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s excellent DVD “Nuclear Weapons and the Human Future: How You Can Make a Difference” and the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s DVD ” The Last Best Chance”.

    In accordance with the university’s three major functions, i.e., research, instruction, and public service, MUNDET:

    • Consults with interested faculty and students at colleges and universities (and elsewhere) about RESEARCH into nuclear disarmament problems;
    • Provides assistance to college, university, and high school faculties regarding nuclear disarmament education CURRICULUM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT; and,
    • Assists environmental, civic and faith-based organizations, as well as other interested parties with nuclear disarmament education PROGRAMMING AND PROMOTION.

    MUNDET currently has six team members, including:

    John Kultgen, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Missouri who is author of IN THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW: REFLECTIONS ON THE MORALITY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE (Peter Lang, 1999). In 2006, he presented a paper on THE MORALITY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IN A WORLD OF PROLIFERATION, ROGUE STATES, TERRORIST GROUPS AND NUCLEAR STOCKPILES to the Oxford Round Table at Harris Manchester College, Oxford University. The paper will be published in a volume that will be titled TERRORISM AND GLOBAL INSECURITY: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE.

    Steven Starr, Senior Scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility has been published by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. His writings also appear on the websites of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology Center for Arms Control Energy and Environmental Studies; Scientists for Social Responsibility; and the International Network of Scientists Against Proliferation. He has worked with the governments of Switzerland, Chile, New Zealand and Sweden in support of their efforts at the United Nations to encourage the elimination of thousands of high-alert, launch ready nuclear weapons. He has made presentations to ministry officials, parliamentarians, universities, and citizens around the world. He also specializes in making technical, scientific information understandable to all audiences.

    Bill Wickersham, Educational Psychologist and Adjunct Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Missouri is a specialist in the social and psychological obstacles to nuclear disarmament, and frequently addresses ” The Role of Education, Religion and the Community in the Prevention of Nuclear War”.

    Lily Tinker Fortel, A graduate of Earlham College’s Peace Studies Program, is a full time staff member at Mid-Missouri Peaceworks, and does community organizing and outreach on behalf of peace and nuclear disarmament education with the Columbia Peace Coalition.

    Russ Breyfogle, Social worker and teacher is president of the University of Missouri’s Friends of Peace Studies, and serves as MUNDET’s liaison to the MU Peace Studies Program.

    Scott Jones, President of the Peace and Emergency Action Coalition for Earth.

    MUNDET’s Coaches are:

    Frances A. Boyle, Professor of international law, University of Illinois

    David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, CA, and

    Rick Wayman, Director of Programs, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    Jonathan Schell , Nation Institute Fellow, and Distinguished Fellow, Center for the Study of Globalization, Yale University.

    For additional information, contact Bill Wickersham at:

    bwickers@centurytel.net or 573-817-1512

     

    Bill Wickersham is an adjunct professor of Peace Studies at the University of Missouri, a member of Veterans for Peace and a member of the U.S. Steering Committee of Global Action to Prevent War.

  • A Recipe for Survival

    After two mostly wasted decades since the end of the Cold War, nuclear disarmament is again high on the international agenda.

    President Obama has pledged to seek a world free of nuclear weapons – a legal commitment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty – and, as a first step, to negotiate further cuts in nuclear stockpiles with Russia. These two countries combined hold 95 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal.

    Former statesmen are getting together to demand the scrapping of all nuclear weapons. After eight years in which arms control was not a priority for the United States, the fog has lifted. The challenge now is how to ensure that this new enthusiasm does not fizzle out.

    The change of heart has been motivated not just by idealism but by a sober realization that the risk of nuclear weapons being used is increasing significantly.

    Next time, the culprit could well be a terrorist group for whom the concept of deterrence, which helped the world until now to escape a nuclear Armageddon, is irrelevant.

    The nonproliferation regime is starting to come apart at the seams. Sensitive technology thought to be the preserve of a few advanced countries has recently been acquired with alarming ease by others. Possession of nuclear weapons is still seen as conferring prestige and providing an insurance policy against attack, as Iraq and North Korea seem to demonstrate.

    Nuclear weapon states, which between them have some 27,000 warheads, reinforce this message by modernizing their nuclear arsenals. To make matters worse, countries that master uranium enrichment can have a bomb within months if they so decide.

    Fortunately, there is now an emerging consensus on what could and should be done:

    • Bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force and ban the development of new nuclear weapons;
    • Initiate negotiations on a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty that would ban the production of material for nuclear weapons;
    • Negotiate a successor for the START treaty between Russia and the United States, which expires this year, containing significant, verifiable cuts in their nuclear warheads. An initial target could be to cut to 1,000 or even 500 warheads on each side;
    • Extend the warning time for possible nuclear attack. As an insane relic of the Cold War, Russian and United States leaders may have no more than 30 minutes to respond to an apparent attack that could be the result of computer error or unauthorized use;
    • Develop a mechanism to put all facilities for enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium under multinational control. This would give countries guaranteed supplies of fuel for peaceful nuclear power but not access to the material needed to build a weapon;
    • Give the International Atomic Energy Agency sufficient legal authority, technological capabilities and resources to credibly verify the disarmament process and to ensure that non-nuclear-weapon states use nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes. The IAEA and the Security Council together must be able to effectively deter, detect and respond to possible proliferation cheats;
    • Radically improve the physical security of nuclear materials.

    Recent statements by the Obama administration give us hope that some of these measures can be adopted quickly. However, the deep-rooted causes of the insecurity that have plagued the world for decades need to be addressed simultaneously if durable security is to be attained.

    First, poverty and inequality. The links between poverty, repression and injustice, on the one hand, and extremism and violence, on the other, are clear for all to see. We must learn to value all human life equally. Developed countries – quick to react when the lives of their own citizens are at stake – give the clear impression that they do not really care about the lives of the world’s poor.

    Second, festering conflicts. The Middle East, home to the world’s most perilous and intractable conflict, will never be at peace until the Palestinian question is resolved. What compounds the problem is that the nuclear nonproliferation regime has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of Arab public opinion because of the perceived double-standards concerning Israel, the only state in the region outside the NPT and known to possess nuclear weapons.

    Iraq and Libya are unlikely to be the last countries in the Middle East to be tempted to acquire nuclear weapons. Concerns about current and future nuclear programs in the region will persist until a lasting peace is achieved and all nuclear weapons in the area are eliminated as part of a regional security structure. The Obama administration’s pledge to engage in direct diplomacy with Iran, without preconditions and on the basis of mutual respect, and to seek a grand bargain, is long overdue.

    Third, the weakness of international institutions. The most pressing threats facing the world, such as weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, the global financial crisis and climate change, can only be addressed through collaborative global action.

    For that we need multilateral institutions. We must overcome the cynicism that has too often characterized government attitudes to the UN. The UN and related agencies must be given adequate authority and funding and put in the hands of leaders who have vision, courage and credibility.

    Above all, we need to halt the glaring breach of core principles of international law such as limitations on the unilateral use of force, proportionality in self-defense and the protection of civilians during hostilities in order to avoid a repeat of the civilian carnage in Iraq and, most recently, in Gaza.

    A convincing response to these challenges requires a new system of security. The Security Council, often paralyzed and with its authority dwindling due to frequent discord, needs to be reformed to reflect the world of today and not of 1945. It should have a robust and well defined peacekeeping capability to prevent the massacre of innocent millions in places like Congo, Rwanda and Darfur. The Council should be systematically engaged in preventing and resolving conflicts, addressing root causes and not just symptoms.

    Nuclear disarmament is key to our very survival. We now have another chance to create a saner, safer world by working to eliminate the nuclear sword of Damocles that hangs over all our heads. Let us not waste this opportunity.

     

    Mohamed ElBaradei is Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  • A New US Approach to Nuclear Disarmament

    A New US Approach to Nuclear Disarmament

    The states party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will hold a Preparatory Committee meeting in May 2009 for the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Many of the non-nuclear weapon states party to this treaty have been discouraged by the lack of progress by the nuclear weapons states in fulfilling their obligations for nuclear disarmament. These countries will be looking for positive signs that the new president of the United States is committed to progress on the NPT Article VI promise of the nuclear weapons states for good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    For the past eight years, under George W. Bush, the US has made scant effort to fulfill its NPT commitment to nuclear disarmament. In 2002, Bush pushed through a bilateral agreement with the Russians, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). The treaty calls for reductions in deployed strategic warheads from approximately 6,000 each to between 1,700 and 2,200 each by the end of the year 2012. It is a three page treaty with few details. The treaty places no limitations on reserve stockpiles and has no timeline and no provisions for either irreversibility or verifiability. On January 1, 2013 the treaty ends and, unless it is extended, both countries may redeploy their reserve weapons or new weapons to any level they choose. Bush also withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002, opening the door for deployment of ballistic missile defenses and space weaponization.

    The Bush administration developed contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven countries, including states thought to be non-nuclear weapons states at the time. In addition, the Bush administration threatened preventive use of nuclear weapons and sought continuously, albeit unsuccessfully, the development of new nuclear weapons with new functions. It also sought unsuccessfully to replace the existing nuclear weapons in the US arsenal with a new warhead it called the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The Bush administration also undermined the non-proliferation regime by its arm twisting in support of the US-India nuclear deal, which gave special nuclear preferences to a state that never joined the NPT and developed nuclear weapons outside the framework of the treaty. Overall, the Bush administration appeared more concerned with assuring the reliability of its nuclear warheads and the financial profits for US corporations on nuclear deals than it was with the security of the American people or the stability of the non-proliferation regime.

    With President Obama, the US has a new president who has repeatedly expressed a commitment to seeking a world free of nuclear weapons. Prior to his election, he stated, “I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

    Upon assuming office, Obama posted the following goals on the White House website (www.whitehouse.gov) under the category of Nuclear Weapons. First, securing loose nuclear materials from terrorists within four years and negotiating a global ban on production of new nuclear weapons material. Second, strengthening the NPT by cracking down on countries that proliferate by assuring that the treaty provide strong sanctions for proliferators. Third, moving toward a nuclear free world by working with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert, and seeking dramatic reductions in the stockpiles of both sides’ nuclear arsenals and materials.

    Securing loose nuclear materials and prohibiting the development of new material will require global cooperation, as will strengthening the NPT. These steps, however, will be viewed by many nations through the prism of how successful President Obama is in achieving the goal of moving toward a nuclear weapons-free world, and their cooperation will be to varying degrees dependent upon how successful the US and Russia are in reaching agreement to dramatically reduce their nuclear arsenals.

    The May 2009 meeting of the NPT Preparatory Committee will take place shortly after President Obama completes his first 100 days in office. At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we believe there are three steps the President should take in advance of that meeting to demonstrate his commitment to the goals of the NPT.

    First, he should publicly reaffirm his commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. This could be as simple as indicating in a major speech his intention to follow through on the goals he has publicly expressed in previous speeches and on his White House website.

    Second, he should initiate bilateral negotiations with Russia to extend the 1991 Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START 1) so that its provisions, and particularly its verification provisions, will continue in force; agree to verifiable reductions in existing nuclear arsenals to under 1,000 nuclear weapons each (deployed and reserve) by the end of 2010; and take US and Russian nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.

    Third, President Obama should announce his intention to convene a meeting of all nuclear weapons states to initiate negotiations on a global treaty for the phased, verifiable irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework. This treaty, which would outlaw nuclear weapons, would be a Nuclear Weapons Convention, similar to the already concluded Biological Weapons Convention and Chemical Weapons Convention.

    The first step of reaffirming his commitment to nuclear disarmament is desirable but not essential, since Obama has already given strong signals of his commitment. The second step of initiating bilateral negotiations with the Russians is not only desirable but essential, as this is the next venue in which significant progress can and must be achieved. The third step is also desirable, but may not be essential until tangible progress is announced resulting from US-Russian negotiations.

    To succeed in nuclear disarmament negotiations with the Russians, which would be strongly in the interests of the US, it will likely be necessary for the US to abandon its plans to place ballistic missile defenses in Europe. The Russians have long expressed concerns about US plans to deploy such defenses due to the potential first-strike advantage these defenses would provide. The Russians have also expressed concerns about the failure of the US to join other states in supporting a ban on space weaponization. The Russian concerns were met largely with a deaf ear and unsatisfactory explanations from the Bush administration. To make further nuclear disarmament attractive to the Russians will almost certainly require halting plans to deploy ballistic missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic and may also require the US to commit to banning the weaponization of space. The most satisfactory solution to these problems would be the reinstatement of the ABM Treaty and a global treaty banning space weaponization.

    In summary, the eight years of the Bush administration have left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in a precarious state. To strengthen the treaty and assure its capacity to prevent further proliferation, it will be necessary to show progress toward nuclear disarmament. President Obama should continue to make declarative statements of his support for a world free of nuclear weapons. Such statements will signal to the world his intentions and will help educate the American people. But such statements, while important and perhaps necessary, are not sufficient.

    Prior to the next Preparatory Committee meeting of the NPT parties in May 2009, President Obama should initiate negotiations with the Russians on a range of nuclear disarmament issues, including removing nuclear weapons on both sides from hair-trigger alert; extending the START I agreement; and agreeing to move rapidly, dramatically and verifiably to reduce nuclear stockpiles of weapons and materials on both sides. To succeed in negotiations on nuclear disarmament with the Russians will require concessions from the United States regarding ballistic missile deployments and space weaponization. But these “concessions” will assure greater US security. Finally, after achieving progress in US-Russian nuclear disarmament, the president should convene the nuclear weapons states to initiate negotiations for a phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    Congress and the American people must support and encourage the president in taking these steps. Should the president fail in the near term in achieving concrete results with the Russians, it could result in a breakdown of the non-proliferation regime, nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. All of these would undermine US and global security in ways we must seek to imagine and prevent.

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

  • Nuclear Weapons After Bush: A Role for the People

    Nuclear Weapons After Bush: A Role for the People

    “Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.”
    — H.G. Wells

    As with so many other areas of vital importance to the nation and the world, George W. Bush showed no interest in the abolition of nuclear weapons. Instead, he allowed for the possibility of first use of nuclear weapons by the United States, a policy conducive to nuclear war, nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. Treaties and international law in general were not high on the Bush agenda. The one nuclear disarmament treaty he concluded with the Russians during his tenure, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), has many flaws, most notably a lack of verification provisions. If the terms of the treaty are carried out, however, the result would be that the US and Russia would reduce the number of their deployed strategic warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 each by December 31, 2012. Many more nuclear warheads would be held in reserve. On January 1, 2013, the treaty will terminate and both countries will be free to deploy any number of nuclear weapons.

    The prospects for nuclear weapons abolition under Barack Obama are much improved. Obama believes in the importance of international law, and he has spoken often of the need to pursue a course leading to a world free of nuclear weapons. On his White House website, he lists as goals of his administration: securing loose nuclear materials from terrorists, strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and moving toward a nuclear free world. In the latter category, it states, “Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it.”

    The website goes on to say: “Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”

    Obama is supportive of the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, but describes it as a “long road.” He also indicates that he will maintain a “strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist.” Thus, he is positive toward abolition, but cautious. To succeed in moving down that road, no matter how long, Obama will need support from the American people. In the past, opinion polls have shown such support to exist, but not to be a high priority for Americans. Obama will need to nurture and encourage such support, which in turn can help him to succeed on the path to abolition.

    I will examine below eight reasons that the public has not been actively engaged in pressing for a world free of nuclear weapons.

    1. Complacency. There has been a widespread belief that the issue is too big and too removed from the day-to-day pressures that we all face. There is a sense of powerlessness on nuclear disarmament issues that gives rise to complacency.
    2. Deference to experts. There has been a strong belief among the American public that nuclear disarmament is an issue requiring political and technical expertise. While some expertise may be required, the general outlines of nuclear disarmament policy do not require such expertise. What is required is a commitment to ending the threat of nuclear devastation to all humanity.
    3. A belief in deterrence. Much of the public has been taught to believe that the threat of nuclear retaliation keeps them safe. In fact, deterrence is only a theory and may not work under real world conditions. It requires rational leaders, and all leaders are not rational at all times. It also requires clear and effective communications, which are not always possible. Most important, deterrence operates at a psychological level. It does not and cannot provide physical protection. A record of non-use of nuclear weapons in the past (since Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is not a guarantee of security from nuclear attack in the future.
    4. Fear of cheating. Many members of the public fear that in a world without nuclear weapons, a cheater will be advantaged. It will require education to assure public understanding that nuclear disarmament will be done in a phased and verifiable manner, and that we will not proceed to zero unilaterally and until we are certain that cheating will not advantage a cheater. By reducing the stockpiles of nuclear weapons gradually, it will be possible to forge trust and demonstrate the willingness of all parties to submit to effective systems of verification. Such systems would be operational years before the final nuclear weapons are dismantled.
    5. Power and prestige. Members of the public often take pride in nuclear arsenals, believing that they bestow power and prestige. In today’s world, this is unfortunately a valid, albeit dangerous, perspective. It will be necessary to shift thinking on this, which will require leadership. In actuality, nuclear weapons, instruments capable of massive annihilation, can be considered instruments of power and prestige only in cultures that are numb to the potential consequences of such technologies of death or that go beyond such numbness to affirm and glorify the wanton destructiveness these weapons represent.
    6. Conformity. In the past, the public went along with possession of nuclear weapons because they were effectively led to believe these weapons provided security. Consequently, there was no effective challenge to the possession of these weapons.
    7. Denial. Nuclear weapons destroy indiscriminately – men, women and children. They are city-destroying weapons. They are so terrible that it is psychologically more comfortable to deny their threat.
    8. Failure of imagination. Many people are comfortable with nuclear weapons because for most or all of their lives these weapons have been a part of the backdrop of reality in which we live. These people consider such possession as routine and fail to imagine the devastating consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.

    All of these reasons that inhibit engagement in seeking nuclear weapons abolition are counterproductive. They will hopefully be impacted by the Obama administration and reversed or, at a minimum, turned in a more positive direction. The Obama administration is about combating complacency with empowerment. Obama himself campaigned on a platform of change, which was broadly supported by the electorate. The administration is already seeking to involve large numbers of individuals in the decisions that affect their lives, and to provide information for informed consent or dissent. After some 60 years of education that has promoted deterrence, people will have to learn the lesson that deterrence is only a theory, one that in fact makes the possessors of nuclear weapons vulnerable to annihilation. To get over the fear of cheating, people will have to trust that the verification procedures are adequate. They will have to adopt the approach of the committed nuclear abolitionist, Ronald Reagan: “trust but verify.”

    The public will need new ways to measure the power and prestige of their country, by indicators such as low infant mortality rates, universal health care for all Americans, increasing use of sustainable energy, and gross national happiness. It will be up to the Obama administration to help people envision new ways of measuring their value. People will have to accept the proposition that conformity is not a virtue, whereas critical thinking enhances both understanding and security. Denial forces us to freeze, to fail to act for our own benefit. Finally, a failure of imagination undermines our capacity to predict the future and prepare for it.

    In addition, there are powerful entrenched forces in the military-industrial-Congressional complex that support continued reliance on nuclear arms and oppose abolition. Leadership by the Obama administration can help to overcome the impediments to change that in the past have hampered progress toward nuclear weapons abolition. In return, a more empowered and awakened citizenry can help press forward an abolition agenda, in their own interests and the interests of all humanity. President Obama appears ready to walk down the path of nuclear weapons abolition, but he cannot stand alone in seeking an end to the nuclear threat to humanity. He will need our voices and our presence in support of new policies aimed at achieving a world without nuclear weapons.

    I will conclude with a quotation from an abolitionist of another time, Frederick Douglass, whose message remains valid in our time as we confront the continuing dangers of nuclear annihilation: “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will.”

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