Category: Peace

  • NAPF Activities and Accomplishments

    The vision of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is “a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons.” The Foundation’s mission is “to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons, and to empower peace leaders.” The Foundation has been designated as a consultant to the United Nations Economic and Social Council and named by the United Nations as a Peace Messenger Organization. It has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Untitled 4

    Some of the Foundation’s most important current activities and accomplishments include:

     

    • Consulting with the Republic of the Marshall Islands in bringing its lawsuits in the International Court of Justice in The Hague and in US federal court for breaches by the nuclear-armed countries of their obligations to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law.
    • Building a consortium of civil society organizations from throughout the world in support of the Marshall Islands Nuclear Zero lawsuits and garnering significant national and international media attention to the obligations of the nuclear-armed countries, their breaches of those obligations and the lawsuits based on those breaches.
    • Empowering peace leaders throughout the US and abroad through our outstanding Peace Leadership Program that reaches some 3,000 people annually through lectures and workshops.

    Other important ongoing activities and accomplishments of the Foundation include:

     

    • Shining light on the importance of Peace Leadership, through our annual Distinguished Peace Leadership Award and other awards to some of the world’s greatest peace leaders.
    • Establishing a world-renowned Advisory Council, which includes, among other prominent peace leaders, the XIVth Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Daniel Ellsberg and Helen Caldicott.
    • Co-founding Abolition 2000, a network of over 2,000 organizations and municipalities seeking the abolition of nuclear weapons, and providing early leadership to the network.
    • Inspiring Soka Gakkai youth from Hiroshima to gather more than 13 million signatures on the Abolition 2000 International Petition, which called for ending the nuclear weapons threat, signing a new treaty to abolish nuclear weapons, and reallocating resources from maintaining nuclear arsenals to meeting human needs.
    • Participating in, organizing informational panels for, and distributing briefing papers at the five-year review conferences of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the preparatory conferences that take place between review conferences.
    • Awarding a $50,000 prize for the best proposal for using science for constructive purposes, which led to the creation of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES), and then working together with INES on many conferences and programs.
    • Co-founding the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of seven international civil society organizations that work closely with middle power governments to put pressure on the nuclear-armed countries to move toward abolishing their nuclear weapons.
    • Creating the Sadako Peace Garden on the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, and holding an annual public event there each year on or about August 6th to remember Sadako of the thousand cranes and all innocent victims of war, while rededicating ourselves to achieving peace and a world free of nuclear weapons.
    • Hosting an International Law Symposium that led to the establishment of a coalition to create a United Nations Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS), which could act as a first responder for stopping genocides, wars, human rights abuses and help to alleviate the suffering caused by natural disasters.
    • Convening an International Law Symposium on the dangers of nuclear deterrence and issuing the “Santa Barbara Declaration: Reject Nuclear Deterrence, An Urgent Call to Action.”
    • Initiating the annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future, and bringing outstanding thinkers and speakers – including Noam Chomsky, Dame Anita Roddick, Commander Robert Green and Robert Jay Lifton, among others – to our community to present the annual lecture.
    • Publishing timely and relevant information on the need to abolish nuclear weapons by key leaders in the abolition movement in the forms of books, book chapters, pamphlets, briefing papers, articles and letters to the editor in key media.
    • Creating and publishing a monthly online newsletter, The Sunflower, which provides regular and timely updates on nuclear weapons-related activities and issues.
    • Providing our members with the means to communicate with government officials on key nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation issues through our Action Alerts.
    • Bringing artistic expression to issues of peace and nuclear abolition through our annual Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards that “explore and illuminate positive visions of peace and the human spirit,” and publishing the winning poems.
    • Educating many students at the University of California about the relationship of the University to the US nuclear weapons laboratories (the UC provides management and oversight to the weapons labs).
    • Continuing a vital student internship program, providing an opportunity for exceptionally bright and motivated students from around the US and abroad to contribute to the Foundation’s work program while learning about our issues and organization.

    While much that the Foundation does and accomplishes is set forth above, there is also much that is intangible, such as working daily for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and reaching countless people throughout the world with our messages. Every day, our efforts, large and small, are building an institution of strong integrity and credibility to confront the unprecedented threats to humans and other forms of life posed by nuclear weapons and to work steadily on the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • Not Just Apologies but Repentance

    hiroshimaThis article was originally published by Hiroshima Peace Media Center.

    In a press conference last week Tomiichi Murayama, the soft-spoken, elegant former prime minister of Japan urged his country’s current leaders to honor, on this 70th anniversary of the end of WWII, the nation’s past apologies. Murayama, whose independent streak may come from his origins in the laid-back, distant Prefecture of Oita, is among the last living politicians, to have personally experienced the Pacific War. Of his 1995 statement of contrition, still the official benchmark for recognition of Japan’s war-time aggressions, he has said that it was not merely an apology but a pledge — a pledge to think about the past, to admit historical facts, and to “not repeat mistakes.”

    Last month some 460 mostly Western scholars of Asian studies issued a letter of appeal, also urging the Abe Administration to uphold the truth of “Japan’s history of colonial rule and wartime aggression in both words and action.” Another statement, on the “Comfort Women” issue, was released by 16 associations of Japanese history scholars and educators.

    These pleas are timely. An unsavory air of opposition-bashing has been spreading here for some time. The silence of authorities and independent observers may bolden or give legitimacy to those ready to criticize scholars, media outlets or ordinary citizens they perceive as not patriotic enough by their small-minded standards.

    Nonetheless, frequently asking a single country to apologize tends to turn the gaze upon others, and the sight is hardly flattering: a roll-call of nations having admitted to or atoned for past wrong-doings falls pitifully short.

    Most Western colonial powers have a stained record when it comes to apologizing for their colonial era plunders. Too many still make believe that their colonialism had less to do with greed and more with the spread of “civilization.” Quite a few still perpetuate the myth of “The White Man’s Burden.”

    It took Belgium decades to face its shameful history in Africa. France has never formally apologized to Algeria nor Britain to India (neither has Britain apologized to China, for the 19th century Opium Wars, maybe one of the ugliest instances of state-sanctioned drug-trafficking). Netherlands waited a long time to apologize to its former colony Indonesia for mass executions in the 1940s and Indonesia itself had to be persuaded, to apologize to East Timor, which it had invaded and harshly misruled for almost 25 years.

    It is quite unlikely that the Chinese Communist Party will ever apologize for the horrors of the Cultural Revolution. The former Soviet Union never apologized for crimes in Eastern and Central Europe and, maybe just as tragically, for crimes against its own people under Stalin. Turkey still struggles to recognize the Armenian Genocide. And we must collectively and for long apologize, for watching on as the horrors of genocide spread across Cambodia and Rwanda, a mere few decades ago.

    The Iranian regime has yet to apologize for the arbitrary executions of thousands of opposition figures in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution. Israel claims that the great suffering endured by millions of Jews during the Holocaust somehow gives it carte blanche, to recognize no other suffering, especially not that of the Palestinians.

    There is a long list of despotic, unrepentant rulers across Africa, Asia and Latin-America, who have never apologized for any of their misdeeds – a sadly crowded field.

    Even the five permanent members of the Security Council, among themselves accounting for almost 80% of global arms exports, have yet to offer apologies to the rest of the human race, for failing to advance our collective peace and security or for achieving so little, as nuclear weapons states, to further the cause of nuclear disarmament.

    But by any measure the leader of the no-apologies category, in a league all its own, must be the United States of America.

    Few countries have been as mired in as much warfare within as brief a period of history as the United States. Since WWII, the number of revolutions, coups d’état, invasions and wars it has directly or indirectly instigated has been staggering.

    The United States has yet to apologize for unleashing nuclear terror on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only has there been no apology, but past governments have gone to extraordinary lengths, to convince a gullible public that the two atomic bombs saved a million American lives (notwithstanding historical research proving this story was promoted by a PR team after the bombings.)

    Neither has it apologized for usurping Iran’s genuine democratic movement in the 50s, or for propping up so many unsavory dictators across Latin America in the 60s and 70s. It has not apologized for the death and destruction it wrought upon Vietnam — and upon tens of thousands of its own youth who fought the unjust, unnecessary Vietnam War. And it has yet to apologize, for destroying a country called Iraq, unlocking a Pandora’s Box of conflict across the Middle East.

    Because George W. Bush and his top lieutenants have never apologized to the people of Iraq for the faked and failed 2003 invasion, and for bringing so much pain and suffering to so many, their lack of remorse and accountability has become impetus to further violence and injustice.

    An apology may not be meaningful or even meant, but true repentance can be felt. When the Emperor of Japan recently visited Palau in the Pacific and stood, frail and bowing, in front of memorials for Japanese and American soldiers killed on those horrific battlegrounds more than 70 years ago, people understood the depth and sincerity of his gesture.

    One of the most powerful apologies contained no words and took not even 30 seconds: it came from Chancellor Willy Brandt of Germany, falling to his knees at the Warsaw Ghetto Memorial on December 7, 1970. He later wrote in his memoirs “As I stood on the edge of Germany’s historical abyss, feeling the burden of millions of murders, I did what people do when words fail.” His historical gesture, repelled by many in his own country, became a turning point for German reconciliation not just with Poland but with the rest of Europe.

    Any Israeli prime minister who will one day have the courage to stand on the rubble of a Gaza neighborhood, look into the eyes of its once-dignified residents and pledge to work to end their plight, need not apologize — just act on that sense of repentance and responsibility, to start making a historical wrong right.

    The people of Hiroshima understood the significance, of both repentance and forgiveness, making theirs the rallying calls “To Forgive but not to Forget,” “Never Again” and “Transformation from a Military City to a City of Peace.” Without an understanding, of the invisible threads that weave together acceptance of sins and the struggle for forgiveness, could Hiroshima have stood today as a city symbolizing peace around the world? Every morning when bells toll in Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park at 8:15 a.m., the exact time of the atomic bombing, I am reminded, of how long this work may take.

    The great Japanese Nihonga painter Ikuo Hirayama travelled numerous times to Nanjing, site of atrocities committed by the Japanese military in the 1930s, to help rebuild the old Nanjing City Wall. He made personal donations to China’s historic heritage and trained countless Chinese artists in restoration. A survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing himself, Hirayama once said “I started to create my artwork as a requiem for those who lost their lives in the war. The wish for peace is at the core of my work.” Hirayama needed no apologies — his very life embodied faith in the powers of responsibility and redemption. Upon his death in December 2009, the Chinese government stopped its criticism of Japan momentarily, to pay tribute to a great artist and a courageous ambassador of peace.

    In the Nuclear Age apologies for historical wrongs are not some diplomatic niceties, to quickly offer and get over with. Rather, they should prod us to understand why we still live in such a violent world, spend so much money on arms or need 16,000 nuclear warheads — 2000 of them on trigger-hair alert – for our security. Why here, as in so many other nations, we have politicians who want us to believe that more warfare is the only way forward. And why, despite our great strides and achievements, we are unable to trust the powers of repentance and to solve our problems in a just, civilized manner. The stakes, of not understanding, have never been so high.

    Nassrine Azimi is co-founder and co-coordinator of Green Legacy Hiroshima Initiative.

  • Albert Einstein, Scientist and Pacifist

    “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except our ways of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophes.”

    “I don’t know what will be used in the next world war, but the 4th will be fought with stones.”

    Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

    Besides being one of the greatest physicists of all time, Albert Einstein was a lifelong pacifist, and his thoughts on peace can speak eloquently to us today. We need his wisdom today, when the search for peace has become vital to our survival as a species.

    Family background

    Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany, in 1879. He was the son of middle-class, irreligious Jewish parents, who sent him to a Catholic school. Einstein was slow in learning to speak, and at first his parents feared that he might be retarded; but by the time he was eight, his grandfather could say in a letter: “Dear Albert has been back in school for a week. I just love that boy, because you cannot imagine how good and intelligent he has become.”

    Remembering his boyhood, Einstein himself later wrote: “When I was 12, a little book dealing with Euclidian plane geometry came into my hands at the beginning of the school year. Here were assertions, as for example the intersection of the altitudes of a triangle in one point, which, though by no means self-evident, could nevertheless be proved with such certainty that any doubt appeared to be out of the question. The lucidity and certainty made an indescribable impression on me.”

    When Albert Einstein was in his teens, the factory owned by his father and uncle began to encounter hard times. The two Einstein families moved to Italy, leaving Albert alone and miserable in Munich, where he was supposed to finish his course at the gymnasium. Einstein’s classmates had given him the nickname “Beidermeier”, which means something like “Honest John”; and his tactlessness in criticizing authority soon got him into trouble. In Einstein’s words, what happened next was the following: “When I was in the seventh grade at the Lutpold Gymnasium, I was summoned by my home-room teacher, who expressed the wish that I leave the school. To my remark that I had done nothing wrong, he replied only, ‘Your mere presence spoils the respect of the class for me’.”

    Einstein left gymnasium without graduating, and followed his parents to Italy, where he spent a joyous and carefree year. He also decided to change his citizenship. “The over-emphasized military mentality of the German State was alien to me, even as a boy”, Einstein wrote later. “When my father moved to Italy, he took steps, at my request, to have me released from German citizenship, because I wanted to be a Swiss citizen.”

    Special and general relativity theory

    The financial circumstances of the Einstein family were now precarious, and it was clear that Albert would have to think seriously about a practical career. In 1896, he entered the famous Zürich Polytechnic Institute with the intention of becoming a teacher of mathematics and physics. However, his undisciplined and nonconformist attitudes again got him into trouble. His mathematics professor, Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), considered Einstein to be a “lazy dog”; and his physics professor, Heinrich Weber, who originally had gone out of his way to help Einstein, said to him in anger and exasperation: “You’re a clever fellow, but you have one fault: You won’t let anyone tell you a thing! You won’t let anyone tell you a thing!”

    Einstein missed most of his classes, and read only the subjects which interested him. He was interested most of all in Maxwell’s theory of electro-magnetism, a subject which was too “modern” for Weber. There were two major examinations at the Zürich Polytechnic Institute, and Einstein would certainly have failed them had it not been for the help of his loyal friend, the mathematician Marcel Grossman.

    Grossman was an excellent and conscientious student, who attended every class and took meticulous notes. With the help of these notes, Einstein managed to pass his examinations; but because he had alienated Weber and the other professors who could have helped him, he found himself completely unable to get a job. In a letter to Professor F. Ostwald on behalf of his son, Einstein’s father wrote: “My son is profoundly unhappy because of his present joblessness; and every day the idea becomes more firmly implanted in his mind that he is a failure, and will not be able to find the way back again.”

    From this painful situation, Einstein was rescued (again!) by his friend Marcel Grossman, whose influential father obtained for Einstein a position at the Swiss Patent Office: Technical Expert (Third Class). Anchored at last in a safe, though humble, position, Einstein married one of his classmates. He learned to do his work at the Patent Office very efficiently; and he used the remainder of his time on his own calculations, hiding them guiltily in a drawer when footsteps approached.

    In 1905, this Technical Expert (Third Class) astonished the world of science with five papers, written within a few weeks of each other, and published in the Annalen der Physik. Of these five papers, three were classics: One of these was the paper in which Einstein applied Planck’s quantum hypothesis to the photoelectric effect. The second paper discussed “Brownian motion”, the zig-zag motion of small particles suspended in a liquid and hit randomly by the molecules of the liquid. This paper supplied a direct proof of the validity of atomic ideas and of Boltzmann’s kinetic theory. The third paper was destined to establish Einstein’s reputation as one of the greatest physicists of all time. It was entitled On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, and in this paper, Albert Einstein formulated his special theory of relativity. Essentially, this theory maintained that all of the fundamental laws of nature exhibit a symmetry with respect to rotations in a 4-dimensional  space-time continuum.

    Gradually, the importance of Einstein’s work began to be realized, and he was much sought after. He was first made Assistant Professor at the University of Zürich, then full Professor in Prague, then Professor at the Zürich Polytechnic Institute; and finally, in 1913, Planck and Nernst persuaded Einstein to become Director of Scientific Research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin. He was at this post when the First World War broke out.

    While many other German intellectuals produced manifestos justifying Germany’s invasion of Belgium, Einstein dared to write and sign an anti-war manifesto. Einstein’s manifesto appealed for cooperation and understanding among the scholars of Europe for the sake of the future; and it proposed the eventual establishment of a League of Europeans. During the war, Einstein remained in Berlin, doing whatever he could for the cause of peace, burying himself unhappily in his work, and trying to forget the agony of Europe, whose civilization was dying in a rain of shells, machine-gun bullets, and poison gas.

    The work into which Einstein threw himself during this period was an extension of his theory of relativity. He already had modified Newton’s equations of motion so that they exhibited the space-time symmetry required by his Principle of Special Relativity. However, Newton’s law of gravitation remained a problem.

    Obviously it had to be modified, since it disagreed with his Special Theory of Relativity; but how should it be changed? What principles could Einstein use in his search for a more correct law of gravitation? Certainly whatever new law he found would have to give results very close to Newton’s law, since Newton’s theory could predict the motions of the planets with almost perfect accuracy. This was the deep problem with which he struggled.

    In 1907, Einstein had found one of the principles which was to guide him, the Principle of Equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. After turning Newton’s theory over and over in his mind, Einstein realized that Newton had used mass in two distinct ways: His laws of motion stated that the force acting on a body is equal to the mass of the body multiplied by its acceleration; but according to Newton, the gravitational force on a body is also proportional to its mass. In Newton’s theory, gravitational mass, by a coincidence, is equal to inertial mass; and this holds for all bodies. Einstein wondered – can the equality between the two kinds of mass be a coincidence? Why not make a theory in which they necessarily have to be the same?

    He then imagined an experimenter inside a box, unable to see anything outside it. If the box is on the surface of the earth, the person inside it will feel the pull of the earth’s gravitational field. If the experimenter drops an object, it will fall to the floor with an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second. Now suppose that the box is taken out into empty space, far away from strong gravitational fields, and accelerated by exactly 32 feet per second per second. Will the enclosed experimenter be able to tell the difference between these two situations? Certainly no difference can be detected by dropping an object, since in the accelerated box, the object will fall to the floor in exactly the same way as before.

    With this “thought experiment” in mind, Einstein formulated a general Principle of Equivalence: He asserted that no experiment whatever can tell an observer enclosed in a small box whether the box is being accelerated, or whether it is in a gravitational field. According to this principle, gravitation and acceleration are locally equivalent, or, to say the same thing in different words, gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent.

    Einstein soon realized that his Principle of Equivalence implied that a ray of light must be bent by a gravitational field. This conclusion followed because, to an observer in an accelerated frame, a light beam which would appear straight to a stationary observer, must necessarily appear very slightly curved. If the Principle of Equivalence held, then the same slight bending of the light ray would be observed by an experimenter in a stationary frame in a gravitational field.

    Another consequence of the Principle of Equivalence was that a light wave propagating upwards in a gravitational field should be very slightly shifted to the red. This followed because in an accelerated frame, the wave crests would be slightly farther apart than they normally would be, and the same must then be true for a stationary frame in a gravitational field. It seemed to Einstein that it ought to be possible to test experimentally both the gravitational bending of a light ray and the gravitational red shift.

    This seemed promising; but how was Einstein to proceed from the Principle of Equivalence to a formulation of the law of gravitation? Perhaps the theory ought to be modeled after Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, which was a field theory, rather than an “action at a distance” theory. Part of the trouble with Newton’s law of gravitation was that it allowed a signal to be propagated instantaneously, contrary to the Principle of Special Relativity. A field theory of gravitation might cure this defect, but how was Einstein to find such a theory? There seemed to be no way.

    From these troubles Albert Einstein was rescued (a third time!) by his staunch friend Marcel Grossman. By this time, Grossman had become a professor of mathematics in Zürich, after having written a doctoral dissertation on tensor analysis and non-Euclidian geometry, the very things that Einstein needed. The year was then 1912, and Einstein had just returned to Zürich as Professor of Physics at the Polytechnic Institute. For two years, Einstein and Grossman worked together; and by the time Einstein left for Berlin in 1914, the way was clear. With Grossman’s help, Einstein saw that the gravitational field could be expressed as a curvature of the 4-dimensional space-time continuum.

    In 1919, a British expedition, headed by Sir Arthur Eddington, sailed to a small island off the coast of West Africa. Their purpose was to test Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light in a gravitational field by observing stars close to the sun during a total eclipse. The observed bending agreed exactly with Einstein’s predictions; and as a result he became world-famous. The general public was fascinated by relativity, in spite of the abstruseness of the theory (or perhaps because of it). Einstein, the absent-minded professor, with long, uncombed hair, became a symbol of science. The world was tired of war, and wanted something else to think about.

    Einstein met President Harding, Winston Churchill and Charlie Chaplin; and he was invited to lunch by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Although adulated elsewhere, he was soon attacked in Germany. Many Germans, looking for an excuse for the defeat of their nation, blamed it on the pacifists and Jews; and Einstein was both these things.

    Einstein’s letter to Freud: Why war?

    Because of his fame, Einstein was asked to make several speeches at the Reichstag. and in all these speeches he condemned violence and nationalism, urging that these be replaced by and international cooperation and law under an effective international authority. He also wrote many letters and articles pleading for peace and for the renunciation of militarism and violence.

    Einstein believed that the production of armaments is damaging, not only economically, but also spiritually. In 1930 he signed a manifesto for world disarmament sponsored by the Womans International League for Peace and Freedom. In December of the same year, he made his famous statement in New York that if two percent of those called for military service were to refuse to fight, governments would become powerless, since they could not imprison that many people. He also argued strongly against compulsory military service and urged that conscientious objectors should be protected by the international community. He argued that peace, freedom of individuals, and security of societies could only be achieved through disarmament, the alternative being “slavery of the individual and annihilation of civilization”.

    In letters, and articles, Einstein wrote that the welfare of humanity as a whole must take precedence over the goals of individual nations, and that we cannot wait until leaders give up their preparations for war. Civil society, and especially public figures, must take the lead. He asked how decent and self-respecting people can wage war, knowing how many innocent people will be killed.

    In 1931, the International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation invited Albert Einstein to enter correspondence with a prominent person of his own choosing on a subject of importance to society. The Institute planned to publish a collection of such dialogues.  Einstein accepted at once, and decided to write to Sigmund Freud to ask his opinion about how humanity could free itself from the curse of war. A translation from German of part of the long letter that he wrote to Freud is as follows:

    “Dear Professor Freud, The proposal of the League of Nations and its International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation at Paris that I should invite a person to be chosen by myself to a frank exchange of views on any problem that I might select affords me a very welcome opportunity of conferring with you upon a question which, as things are now, seems the most important and insistent of all problems civilization has to face. This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering  mankind from the menace of war? It is common knowledge that, with the advance of modern science, this issue has come to mean a matter of life or death to civilization as we know it; nevertheless, for all the zeal displayed, every attempt at its solution has ended in a lamentable breakdown.”

    “I believe, moreover, that those whose duty it is to tackle the problem professionally and practically are growing only too aware of their impotence to deal with it, and have now a very lively desire to learn the views of men who, absorbed in the pursuit of science, can see world-problems in the perspective distance lends. As for me, the normal objective of my thoughts affords no insight into the dark places of human will and feeling. Thus in the enquiry now proposed, I can do little more than seek to clarify the question at issue and, clearing the ground of the more obvious solutions,  enable you to bring the light of your far-reaching knowledge of man’s instinctive life upon the problem..”

    “As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e. administrative) aspect of the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations… But here, at the outset, I come up against a difficulty; a tribunal is a human institution which, in proportion as the power at its disposal is… prone to suffer these to be deflected by extrajudicial pressure…”

    Freud replied with a long and thoughtful letter in which he said that a tendency towards  conflict is an intrinsic part of human emotional nature, but that emotions can be overridden by rationality, and that rational behavior is the only hope for humankind. The full exchange between Einstein and Freud can be found on the following link: http://www.freud.org.uk/file-uploads/files/WHY%20WAR.pdf

    The fateful letter to Roosevelt

    Albert Einstein’s famous relativistic formula, relating energy to mass, soon yielded an understanding of the enormous amounts of energy released in radioactive decay. Marie and Pierre Curie had noticed that radium maintains itself at a temperature higher than its surroundings. Their measurements and calculations showed that a gram of radium produces roughly 100 gram-calories of heat per hour.

    This did not seem like much energy until Rutherford found that radium has a half-life of about 1,000 years. In other words, after a thousand years, a gram of radium will still be producing heat, its radioactivity only reduced to one-half its original value. During a thousand years, a gram of radium produces about a million kilocalories, an enormous amount of energy in relation to the tiny size of its source! Where did this huge amount of energy come from? Conservation of energy was one of the most basic principles of physics. Would it have to be abandoned?

    The source of the almost-unbelievable amounts of energy released in radioactive decay could be understood through Einstein’s formula equating the energy of a system to its mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, and through accurate measurements of atomic weights. Einstein’s formula asserted that mass and energy are equivalent. It was realized that in radioactive decay, neither mass nor energy is conserved, but only a quantity more general than both, of which mass and energy are particular forms. Scientists in several parts of the world realized that Einstein’s discovery of the relationship between mass and energy, together with the discovery of fission of the heavy element uranium meant that it might be possible to construct a uranium-fission bomb of immense power.

    Meanwhile night was falling on Europe. In 1929, an economic depression had begun in the United States and had spread to Europe. Without the influx of American capital, the postwar reconstruction of the German economy collapsed. The German middle class, which had been dealt a severe blow by the great inflation of 1923, now received a second heavy blow. The desperation produced by economic chaos drove German voters into the hands of political extremists.

    On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor and leader of a coalition cabinet by President Hindenburg. Although Hitler was appointed legally to this post, he quickly consolidated his power by unconstitutional means: On May 2, Hitler’s police seized the headquarters of all trade unions, and arrested labor leaders. The Communist and Socialist parties were also banned, their assets seized and their leaders arrested. Other political parties were also smashed. Acts were passed eliminating Jews from public service; and innocent Jewish citizens were boycotted, beaten and arrested. On March 11, 1938, Nazi troops entered Austria.

    On March 16, 1939, the Italian physicist  Enrico Fermi (who by then was a refugee in America) went to Washington to inform the Office of Naval Operations that it might be possible to construct an atomic bomb; and on the same day, German troops poured into Czechoslovakia.

    A few days later, a meeting of six German atomic physicists was held in Berlin to discuss the applications of uranium fission. Otto Hahn, the discoverer of fission, was not present, since it was known that he was opposed to the Nazi regime. He was even said to have exclaimed: “I only hope that you physicists will never construct a uranium bomb! If Hitler ever gets a weapon like that, I’ll commit suicide.”

    The meeting of German atomic physicists was supposed to be secret; but one of the participants reported what had been said to Dr. S. Flügge, who wrote an article about uranium fission and about the possibility of a chain reaction. Flügge’s article appeared in the July issue of Naturwissenschaften, and a popular version of it was printed in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. These articles greatly increased the alarm of American atomic scientists, who reasoned that if the Nazis permitted so much to be printed, they must be far advanced on the road to building an atomic bomb.

    In the summer of 1939, while Hitler was preparing to invade Poland, alarming news reached the physicists in the United States: A second meeting of German atomic scientists had been held in Berlin, this time under the auspices of the Research Division of the German Army Weapons Department. Furthermore, Germany had stopped the sale of uranium from mines in Czechoslovakia.

    The world’s most abundant supply of uranium, however, was not in Czechoslovakia, but in Belgian Congo. Leo Szilard, a refugee Hungarian physicist who had worked with Fermi to measure the number of neutrons produced in uranium fission, was deeply worried that the Nazis were about to construct atomic bombs; and it occurred to him that uranium from Belgian Congo should not be allowed to fall into their hands.

    Szilard knew that his former teacher, Albert Einstein, was a personal friend of Elizabeth, the Belgian Queen Mother. Einstein had met Queen Elizabeth and King Albert of Belgium at the Solvay Conferences, and mutual love of music had cemented a friendship between them. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Einstein had moved to the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton; and Szilard decided to visit him there. Szilard reasoned that because of Einstein’s great prestige, and because of his long-standing friendship with the Belgian Royal Family, he would be the proper person to warn the Belgians not to let their uranium fall into the hands of the Nazis. Einstein agreed to write to the Belgian king and queen.

    On August 2, 1939, Szilard again visited Einstein, accompanied by Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner, who (like Szilard) were refugee Hungarian physicists. By this time, Szilard’s plans had grown more ambitious; and he carried with him the draft of another letter, this time to the American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein made a few corrections, and then signed the fateful letter, which reads (in part) as follows:

    “Some recent work of E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into an important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe, therefore, that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following..”

    “It is conceivable that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded  a port, might very well destroy the whole port, together with some of the surrounding territory..”

    The letter also called Roosevelt’s attention to the fact that Germany had already stopped the export of uranium from the Czech mines under German control. After making a few corrections, Einstein signed it. On October 11, 1939, three weeks after the defeat of Poland, Roosevelt’s economic adviser, Alexander Sachs, personally delivered the letter to the President. After discussing it with Sachs, the President commented,“This calls for action.” Later, when atomic bombs were dropped on civilian populations in an already virtually-defeated Japan, Einstein bitterly regretted having signed Szilard’s letter to Roosevelt. He said repeatedly that signing the letter was the greatest mistake of his life, and his remorse was extreme.

    Throughout the remainder of his life, in addition to his scientific work, Einstein worked tirelessly for peace, international understanding and nuclear disarmament. His last public act, only a few days before his death in 1955, was to sign the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, warning humankind of the catastrophic consequences that would follow from a war with nuclear weapons.

    http://www.umich.edu/~pugwash/Manifesto.html

    Here are a few more things that Einstein said about peace:

    “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that we used when we created them.”

    “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”

    “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”

    “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

    “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get different results.”

    “Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.”

    “Past thinking and methods did not prevent world wars. Future thinking must prevent war.”

    “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”

    “Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it.”

    “Taken as a whole, I would believe that Gandhi’s views were the most enlightened of all political men of our time.”

    “Without ethical culture, there is no salvation for humanity.”

    Albert Einstein, great physicist and lifelong pacifist, we need your voice today!

  • Peace, Power & Politics: How New Zealand Became Nuclear Free

    maire_leadbeater_bookIn a captivating and remarkably readable book, Maire Leadbeater follows the story of New Zealand’s peace movement from 1975 into the 2000s, telling the exciting story about how the people in movements can change a country. A spokesperson for Aukland CND in the 1980s, Leadbeater played a leading role in the mass movement described in the book, giving a unique, in-the-masses view of the action.

    The leading argument of the book is that New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy was made not by the politicians who have taken the credit but by a vast peoples’ movement made up of scientists and doctors, housewives and schoolchildren. This wide-ranging account describes the motivations, actions, personalities, and hopes of the people who helped to create the tremendous force of public opinion which ultimately forced the hands of the politicians. As Leadbeater says, “If the people lead, the leaders will follow.”

    Written chronologically, the author skillfully avoids any of the usual dullness or monotony one would usually find in a book such as this. The book is clearly and simply written, giving both a broad overlook of a decades-long movement while also inserting interesting and amusing details. The multitudes of forms of activism are described with life and color from polite petitions to head-on clashes of warships and kayaks. The book is worth reading for the plentiful amounts of illustrations, photographs, cartoons, and pamphlets, some of which will make you chuckle and laugh out loud.

    The book goes into detail about three major campaigns: against the visits by nuclear warships to New Zealand, against French nuclear testing, and to the World Court. Although the facts of these events are well-known to some, this books gives a broad overview of the many viewpoints, while also giving insights into the way the campaigns formed and operated. The interplay between the politicians and the activists, and the thin line between following public opinion and foreign relations, is illustrated with such skill that I was amazed at the complexities the author was able to portray.

    This book is definitely worth the time it takes to read as Leadbeater illustrates how political change can be driven by a grass-roots political movement instead of a hierarchical, formal process of working within the system. She also makes it clear that although there have been some wins, there is still much work to do, both within New Zealand and on a global scale.

  • The Vietnam War: After Forty Years

    Today, 40 years after the American war in Vietnam ended in ignominious defeat, the traces of that terrible conflict are disappearing.

    Traveling through Vietnam during the latter half of April 2015 with a group of erstwhile antiwar activists, I was struck by the transformation of what was once an impoverished, war-devastated peasant society into a modern nation. Its cities and towns are bustling with life and energy. Vast numbers of motorbikes surge through their streets, including 4.2 million in Hanoi and 7 million in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon). A thriving commercial culture has emerged, based not only on many small shops, but on an influx of giant Western, Japanese, and other corporations. Although Vietnam is officially a Communist nation, about 40 percent of the economy is capitalist, and the government is making great efforts to encourage private foreign investment. Indeed, over the past decade, Vietnam has enjoyed one of the highest economic growth rates in the world. Not only have manufacturing and tourism expanded dramatically, but Vietnam has become an agricultural powerhouse. Today it is the world’s second largest exporter of rice, and one of the world’s leading exporters of coffee, pepper, rubber, and other agricultural commodities. Another factor distancing the country from what the Vietnamese call “the American war” is the rapid increase in Vietnam’s population. Only 41 million in 1975, it now tops 90 million, with most of it under the age of 30 — too young to have any direct experience with the conflict.

    Vietnam has also made a remarkable recovery in world affairs. It now has diplomatic relations with 189 countries, and enjoys good relations with all the major nations.

    Nevertheless, the people of Vietnam paid a very heavy price for their independence from foreign domination. Some 3 million of them died in the American war, and another 300,000 are still classified as MIAs. In addition, many, many Vietnamese were wounded or crippled in the conflict. Perhaps the most striking long-term damage resulted from the U.S. military’s use of Agent Orange (dioxin) as a defoliant. Vietnamese officials estimate that, today, some 4 million of their people suffer the terrible effects of this chemical, which not only destroys the bodies of those exposed to it, but has led to horrible birth defects and developmental disabilities into the second and third generations. Much of Vietnam’s land remains contaminated by Agent Orange, as well as by unexploded ordnance. Indeed, since the end of the American war in 1975, the landmines, shells, and bombs that continue to litter the nation’s soil have wounded or killed over 105,000 Vietnamese — many of them children.

    During the immediate postwar years, Vietnam’s ruin was exacerbated by additional factors. These included a U.S. government embargo on trade with Vietnam, U.S. government efforts to isolate Vietnam diplomatically, and a 1979 Chinese military invasion of Vietnam employing 600,000 troops. Although the Vietnamese managed to expel the Chinese — just as they had previously routed the French and the Americans — China continued border skirmishes with Vietnam until 1988. In addition, during the first postwar decade, the ruling Vietnamese Communist Party pursued a hardline, repressive policy that undermined what was left of the economy and alienated much of the population. Misery and starvation were widespread.

    Nevertheless, starting in the mid-1980s, the country made a remarkable comeback. This recovery was facilitated by Communist Party reformers who loosened the reins of power, encouraged foreign investment, and worked at developing a friendlier relationship with other nations, especially the United States. In 1995, the U.S. and Vietnamese governments resumed diplomatic relations. Although these changes did not provide a panacea for the nation’s ills — for example, the U.S. State Department informed the new U.S. ambassador that he must never mention Agent Orange — Vietnam’s circumstances, and particularly its relationship with the United States, gradually improved. U.S.-Vietnamese trade expanded substantially, reaching $35 billion in 2014. Thousands of Vietnamese students participated in educational exchanges. In recent years, the U.S. government even began funding programs to help clean up Agent Orange contamination and unexploded ordnance.

    Although, in part, this U.S.-Vietnamese détente resulted from the growing flexibility of officials in both nations, recently it has also reflected the apprehension of both governments about the increasingly assertive posture of China in Asian affairs. Worried about China’s unilateral occupation of uninhabited islands in the South China Sea during 2014, both governments began to resist it — the United States through its “Pacific pivot” and Vietnam through an ever closer relationship with the United States to “balance” China. Although both nations officially support the settlement of the conflict over the disputed islands through diplomacy centered on the ten countries that comprise the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, officials in Vietnam, increasingly nervous about China’s ambitions, appear to welcome the growth of a more powerful U.S. military presence in the region. In the context of this emerging agreement on regional security, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, and U.S. President Barack Obama will be visiting Vietnam later this year.

    This shift from warring enemies to cooperative partners over the past 40 years should lead to solemn reflection. In the Vietnam War, the U.S. government laid waste to a poor peasant nation in an effort to prevent the triumph of a Communist revolution that U.S. policymakers insisted would result in the conquest of the United States. And yet, when this counter-revolutionary effort collapsed, the predicted Red tide did not sweep over the shores of California. Instead, an independent nation emerged that could — and did — work amicably with the U.S. government. This development highlights the unnecessary nature — indeed, the tragedy — of America’s vastly destructive war in Vietnam. It also underscores the deeper folly of relying on war to cope with international issues.

    Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and rebellion, What’s Going On at UAardvark?

  • Why Are We Planning to Walk Across the DMZ that Separates North and South Korea?

    Almost two years ago, when Christine Ahn proposed international women peacemakers walk across the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) which separates North and South Korea as an important action to help support Korean women and men working for reconciliation and reuniting of Korean families, I couldn’t resist. This was an important first step in establishing a peace process in which women and civil community would be included.

    Although many hurdles must still be jumped, including affirming support from three governments—North Korea, South Korea and the United States representing the United Nations Command.  The UN command at the DMZ has said it would facilitate our crossing once South Koreas Government gives its approval —a small team of women are planning a historic walk of 30 international women peacemakers from twelve different countries to cross the DMZ on 24th May, 2015, International Women’s Disarmament Day.  Some of the women participating are:  Gloria Steinem, Hon.Chair, Ann Wright (USA), Suzuyo Takazato (Japan), Abigail Disney (USA), Hyun-Kyung Chung (SouthKorea/USA). Many people have asked, “Why are they planning to walk across the DMZ that separates North and South Korea?” Maybe the real question should be, “Why not?”

    In many countries around the world, women are walking and calling for an end to war and for a de-militarized world. As the DMZ is the most highly militarized border in the world, women peacemakers believe it is only right, whilst working all their lives in their own countries for disarmament and demilitarization, that they should walk in Korea, in solidarity with their Korean sisters, who want to see an end to the 70 year old conflict to reunify millions of Korean families. Seventy years ago, as the Cold War was being waged, the United States unilaterally drew the line across the 38th parallel—later with the former Soviet Union’s agreement—dividing an ancient country that had just suffered 35 years of Japanese colonial occupation. Koreans had no desire or decision-making power to stop their country from being divided; now seven decades later the conflict on the Korean peninsula threatens peace in the Asia Pacific and throughout our world.

    The international women recognize that one of the greatest tragedies arising out of this man-made cold war politics and isolation is the tearing apart of Korean families and their physical separation from each other. In Korean culture, family relations are deeply important and millions of families have been painfully separated for 70 years.  Although there was a period of reconciliation during the Sunshine Policy years between the two Korean governments where many families had the joy of reunion, but the vast majority remain separated.  Many elders have sadly died before reunion with families, and most are getting older now.  How wonderful if the governments of both North and South allowed the remaining elders the joy and peace of mind of being able to meet, kiss and hold their loved ones, before they die. We are all wishing and praying—and walking—for this to happen for the Korean elders. Also due to western sanctions and isolationist policies put on the North Korean people, their economy has suffered. Whilst North Korea has come a long way from the 1990s when up to one million died from famine, many people are still very poor and lack the very basics of survival. During a visit to Seoul in 2007, one aid worker told me most people in South Korea would love to pack their car with food, drive an hour up the road, into North Korea, to help their Korean brothers and sisters if the governments would agree to open the DMZ and let them cross over to see each other! Many of us take for granted that we can visit family, and we find it hard to imagine that pain of separation still felt by Korean families who cannot travel an hour up the road, through the DMZ to visit their families.

    We international women want to walk for peace in North and South Korea, and hope the Governments will support our crossing the DMZ, recognizing that we are seeking to do this because we care for our Korean brothers and sisters. We want to plant a seed that Korean people, too, can be free to cross the DMZ in their work to build reconciliation, friendships and trust and put an end to the division and fear which keeps them in a state of war instead of peace.

    The DMZ with its barbed wire, armed soldiers on both sides, and littered with thousands of explosive landmines is a tragic physical manifestation of how much the Korean people have suffered and lost in war. Yet from all my encounters with the Korean people, all they wish for is to be reconciled and live in peace with each other. In recognizing the wishes of the Korean people, I believe the political leaders of North Korea, South Korea, United States and all governments involved must play their parts to help Korea move from war to peace.

    For the 30 international women who travel from over a dozen countries, we wish to go to Korea to listen to the Korean peoples stories, hopes and dreams, to tell them we love them, and join in solidarity with them in their work, and ours, in building a nonkilling, demilitarized Korea, Asia and World.

    For more information, visit www.womencrossdmz.org.

    Mairead Maguire is a Nobel Peace Laureate and a member of the NAPF Advisory Council.

  • To the Americans Who Died in the Vietnam War

    Perhaps you thought you were doing the right thing, fighting in a small distant country for president and country.  It is the way we were all indoctrinated.  When the country calls, you must answer.  But the leaders of the country were dead wrong about fighting in Vietnam, and this wall with your names etched on it speaks to the terrible loss of each of you in that savage, brutal and unnecessary war.  I mourn your loss.  I mourn the loss of possibilities that were cut off when your lives ended in that war.  You might have stayed home to live and love, to have children and grandchildren, to follow your dreams, but for that war.

    David KriegerThe war was so wrong in so many ways.  It was wrong for you, for the people you were ordered to kill, and for the soul of America.  It was a war that was neither legal nor moral and, as such, set the tone for future US wars.  After that war, I don’t see how we can ever be proud of our country again.

    Some three million Vietnamese were killed in the war.  Some were fighting for their independence.  Others were innocent civilians.  Many were women and children.  You and other Americans were sent half way around the world because American leaders feared the communists, feared that countries in Southeast Asia would fall like dominoes to the communists.  But Ho Chi Minh was more than a communist.  He was a nationalist, leading his country to independence from colonial rule.  He was a nationalist who admired Thomas Jefferson, and he had once asked the United States for help in seeking that independence.  We turned him down, turning our backs on our own history and on your future.

    Once Lyndon Johnson became president it was all escalation in Vietnam.  General Westmoreland always wanted more men.  He kept upping the ante in his calls for more American soldiers, and LBJ and McNamara kept obliging him.  They kept pulling young Americans from their lives and dreams to fight in the jungles of Vietnam.  You know better than I do that it was a hopeless war, a war in which you were sent to kill and die for no good reason, for the delusions of American leaders who didn’t want to lose a war.  Of course, that’s exactly what happened in the end, and by that time Nixon and Kissinger had joined the Johnson and Westmoreland team in failure.  According to the rigged body counts on the nightly news, we were winning the war, but that was only until we lost.

    One slogan stands out in my mind, “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”  We’ll never know how many there were, but there were many.  The war drove LBJ from office, but it brought in Richard Nixon.  He said he had a plan to end the war.  This turned out to be massive bombing of North Vietnam, and secret and illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia.  It was shameful, but not as shameful as Kissinger receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the shape of the table for peace talks with the Vietnamese.

    What kind of a country could pursue such a war against peasants fighting for their freedom?  Answer: The same kind of country that could drop atomic bombs on civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Sadly, in the years since you’ve been gone, our country has learned little about compassion.  We have fought new wars, including one in Iraq, based upon presidential lies having to do with illusory weapons of mass destruction.

    America has continued to waste its treasure in fighting wars around the world, as well as its dignity, its goodwill, its youth and its future.  I wish I could give you a more positive report on what America learned from the Vietnam War, but most of what it has learned seems intended to make wars easier to prosecute, such as ending conscription, relying on a poverty-driven volunteer army, embedding reporters with the troops, and not allowing photographs of returning coffins.  Incidentally, no dominoes ever fell.

    America has yet to learn that war is not the answer, that bombs do not make friends and military power does not bring peace.  Our military budget is immense.  When all is added in, it amounts to over a trillion dollars annually.  Imagine what a difference even a fraction of those funds would make in fulfilling basic human needs for Americans and people throughout the world.

    I wish you were here to stand up and speak out for peace and justice, for a better, more peaceful country and world.  We need you.

  • Secrecy and Democracy Are Incompatible

    It is obvious, almost by definition, that excessive governmental secrecy and true democracy are incompatible. If the people of a country have no idea what their government is doing, they cannot possibly have the influence on decisions that the word “democracy” implies.

    Dark government

    Governmental secrecy is not something new. Secret diplomacy contributed to the outbreak of World War I, and the secret Sykes-Picot agreement later contributed to the bitterness of conflicts in the Middle East. However, in recent years, governmental secrecy has grown enormously.

    The revelations of Edward Snowden and others have shown that the number of people involved in secret operations of the United States government is now as large as the entire population of Norway: roughly 5 million. The influence of this dark side of government has become so great that no president is able to resist it.

    In a recent article, John Chuckman remarked that “The CIA is now so firmly entrenched and so immensely well financed (much of it off the books, including everything from secret budget items to the peddling of drugs and weapons) that it is all but impossible for a president to oppose it the way Kennedy did. Obama, who has proved himself to be a fairly weak character from the start, certainly has given the CIA anything it wants. The dirty business of ISIS in Syria and Iraq is one project. The coup in Ukraine is another. The pushing of NATO’s face right against Russia’s borders is another. Several attempted coups in Venezuela are still more. And the creation of a drone air force for extra-judicial killings in half a dozen countries is yet another. They don’t resemble projects we would expect from a smiley-faced intelligent man who sometimes wore sandals and refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel during hhis first election campaign.”

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41222.htm

    Of course the United States government is by no means alone in practicing excessive secrecy: Scott Horton recently wrote an article entitled “How to Rein in a Secretive Shadow Government Is Our National Security Crisis”. He dedicated the article to the Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov because, as he said,  “Sakharov recognized that the Soviet Union rested on a colossal false premise: it was not so much socialism (though Sakharov was certainly a critic of socialism) as it was the obsession with secrecy, which obstructed the search for truth, avoided the exposure of mistakes, and led to the rise of powerful bureaucratic elites who were at once incompetent and prone to violence.”

    http://truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/29636-scott-horton-how-to-rein-in-a-secretive-shadow-government-is-our-national-security-crisis

    Censorship of the news

    Many modern governments have become very expert in manipulating public opinion through mass media. They only allow the public to hear a version of the “news” that has been handed down by  powerholders. Of course, people can turn to the alternative media that are available on the Internet. But on the whole, the vision of the world presented on television screens and in major newspapers is the “truth” that is accepted by the majority of the public, and it is this picture of events that influences political decisions. Censorship of the news by the power elite is a form of secrecy, since it withholds information that is needed for a democracy to function properly.

    Coups, torture and illegal killing

    During the period from 1945 to the present, the US interfered, militarily or covertly, in the internal affairs of a large number of nations: China, 1945-49; Italy, 1947-48; Greece, 1947-49; Philippines, 1946-53; South Korea, 1945-53; Albania, 1949-53; Germany, 1950s; Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1953-1990s; Middle East, 1956-58; Indonesia, 1957-58; British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64; Vietnam, 1950-73; Cambodia, 1955-73; The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65; Brazil, 1961-64; Dominican Republic, 1963-66; Cuba, 1959-present; Indonesia, 1965; Chile, 1964-73; Greece, 1964-74; East Timor, 1975-present; Nicaragua, 1978-89; Grenada, 1979-84; Libya, 1981-89; Panama, 1989; Iraq, 1990-present; Afghanistan 1979-92; El Salvador, 1980-92; Haiti, 1987-94; Yugoslavia, 1999; and Afghanistan, 2001-present, Syria, 2013-present; Egypt, 2013-present, and Ukraine, 2013-present. Most of these interventions were explained to the American people as being necessary to combat communism (or more recently, terrorism), but an underlying motive was undoubtedly the desire to put in place governments and laws that would be favorable to the economic interests of the US and its allies.

    For the sake of balance, we should remember that during the Cold War period, the Soviet Union and China also intervened in the internal affairs of many countries, for example in Korea in 1950-53, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and so on; another very long list. These Cold War interventions were also unjustifiable, like those mentioned above. Nothing can justify military or covert interference by superpowers in the internal affairs of smaller countries, since people have a right to live under governments of their own choosing even if those governments are not optimal.

    Many people in Latin America and elsewhere have been tortured: The long history of CIA torture was recently investigated, but only small portions of the 6000-page report are available to the public. The rest remains secret.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture

    ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture

    Extrajudicial killing of civilians by means of drones is also shrouded by secrecy, and it too is a gross violation of democratic principles.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/lawless-drone-killings/5355535

    Secret trade deals

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership is one of the trade deals that is being negotiated in secret. Not even the US congress is allowed to know the details of the document. However, enough information has been leaked to make it clear that if the agreement is passed, foreign corporations would be allowed to “sue” the US government for loss of profits because of (for example) environmental regulations. The “trial” would be outside the legal system, before a tribunal of lawyers representing the corporations.

    http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=5411

    https://www.transcend.org/tms/2015/03/world-at-a-crossroads-stop-the-fast-track-to-a-future-of-global-corporate-rule/

    A similar secret trade deal with Europe, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), is also being “fast-tracked”. One can hardly imagine greater violations of democratic principles.

    Secret land purchases in Africa

    According to a report released by the Oakland Institute, in 2009 alone, hedge funds bought or leased nearly 60 million hectares of land in Africa, an area the size of France.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13688683

    As populations increase, and as water becomes scarce, China, and other countries, such as Saudi Arabia are also buying enormous tracts of agricultural land, not only in Africa, but also in other countries.

    http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-foreign-farmland-20140329-story.html#page=1

    These land purchases are very often kept secret from the local populations by corrupt governments.

    Secrecy, democracy and nuclear weapons

    Nuclear weapons were developed in secret. The decision to use them on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an already-defeated Japan was made in secret. Since 1945, secrecy has surrounded all aspects of nuclear weapons, and for this reason it is clear that they are essentially undemocratic.

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

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

    The Model Nuclear Weapons Convention prohibits development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. States possessing nuclear weapons will be required to destroy their arsenals according to a series of phases. The Convention also prohibits the production of weapons usable fissile material and requires delivery vehicles to be destroyed or converted to make them non-nuclear capable.

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

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

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

    Freedom from fear

    In order to justify secrecy, enormous dark branches of government and mass illegal spying, governments say:  “ We are protecting you from terrorism”. But terrorism is not a real threat, since our chances of dying from a terrorist attack are vanishingly small compared to (for example) automobile accidents. If we are ever to reclaim our democracy, we must free ourselves from fear.

  • Why We Need Peace Heroes

    Why We Need Peace Heroes

    Developed for the Dayton International Peace Museum, Dayton, Ohio, for their 2015 Peace Heroes Walk as The Little Book of Peace Heroes.

    The Most Difficult Art Form

    Paul K. ChappellImagine if your city had a high school with a 100 percent illiterate student population. Would this high school, where not even one student knows how to read, gain local media attention? Actually, it would probably gain national media attention. Today our society recognizes illiteracy as a problem, because we understand that reading is the foundation of education. Furthermore, just trying to navigate through the modern world without the ability to read signs, menus, e-mails, and the Internet puts us at a major disadvantage in the struggle to succeed at life.

    But imagine traveling back in time three thousand years. This was around the era when the Trojan War between the Greeks and Trojans took place. In Homer’s depiction of the Trojan War, known as the Iliad, none of the characters know how to read. The Greek and Trojan societies are almost completely illiterate.[i] Not even kings such as Agamemnon and Priam know how to read.

    A better term to describe these ancient illiterate societies is “preliterate,” because they did not yet understand why literacy was an essential step in their society’s evolution. Imagine trying to convince the ancient Greeks and Trojans in the Iliad that they should learn how to read. This would be a seemingly impossible task, because they had no reference point to understand why reading is important.

    Today we know reading is important, because there is a reason why American slave owners made it illegal to teach slaves to read. And there is a reason why dictators ban books and the Nazis burned books. To oppress any large group of people in a society, a system must first oppress their minds, and reading offers us a way out of ignorance. Literacy also made it possible for humanity to organize ideas in new ways, allowing us to create intellectual disciplines such as science, history, philosophy, psychology, biology, and much more.[ii] Science is one of many subjects that cannot exist without literacy.

    What if our society is being held back by another form of illiteracy, which most of us today are not aware of, similar to the ancient Greeks and Trojans who were not aware of the importance of reading? In what way is our modern society illiterate? To understand this, we must first recognize the most difficult art form.

    There are many challenging art forms. To play the violin well, a person must get training. Sports are also art forms that require people to hone their craft, but to play any sport at a high level, we must be trained. If a person wants to write, paint, sculpt, practice martial arts, or make films to the best of their ability, training is also critical. But what is the most difficult form of art? What art form is far more challenging than playing any instrument or sport? The art of living.

    Living is certainly an art form. The Roman philosopher Seneca explained: “There exists no more difficult art than living . . . throughout the whole of life, one must continue to learn to live and, what will amaze you even more, throughout life one must learn to die.”[iii]

    Essential Life Skills

    Just as we must learn any art form, we must also learn how to live. But unlike other art forms, the art of living transforms us into both the sculptor and the sculpture. We are the artist and our life is the masterpiece. [iv] As a child I was never taught the art of living. For example, I was never taught how to overcome fear. Wouldn’t this be an incredibly useful thing to know? In fact, overcoming fear is one of the most important life skills we can have. Nor was I ever taught how to calm myself and other people down. This is another essential life skill.

    As a child I was never taught the many essential life skills that are part of the art of living. I was never taught how to resolve conflict, make the most of adversity, listen deeply, focus my mind, inspire people to overcome seemingly impossible tasks, lead from a foundation of respect rather than intimidation, develop empathy, be a good friend, have a healthy relationship, challenge injustice, be happy, find purpose and meaning in life, develop my sense of self-awareness so that I can critique myself honestly, and help humanity create a more peaceful and just world.

    Some children learn these skills from their parents, but many parents do not know how to listen well or handle conflict without yelling, causing children to learn bad habits. When people watch cable news, reality shows, and other forms of media entertainment, how often do they see someone who listens well and resolves conflict calmly and respectfully? More people in our society are taught to resolve conflict through aggression than through the power of respect.

    Imagine if you watched a basketball game, but nobody on either team had ever been properly taught how to play basketball. It would be a mess. Imagine if you listened to an orchestra play Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, but nobody in the orchestra had been taught how to play their instruments. It would also be a mess. Since living is far more complicated than playing basketball or Beethoven, when our society is filled with people who have not been taught the art of living, life becomes a lot messier than it needs to be. Living will always be somewhat messy because it is the most difficult art form, but when we are trained in the art of living we gain the tools to prevent unnecessary conflict, violence, misunderstanding, suffering, and trauma. And we become empowered to solve these and other problems when they arise.

    Preliterate in Peace

    The art of living requires us to understand what it means to be human, because the art of living works with the medium of our shared humanity, just as painting works with color and music works with sound. The art of living also requires us to learn the art of waging peace, because peace is the process and product of living well. Instead of saying our society is illiterate in peace, a more accurate phrase is “preliterate in peace.” Three thousand years ago, there were many brilliant Greeks and Trojans who did not understand the importance of becoming literate in reading. And today, there are many brilliant people in our society who do not yet understand the importance of becoming literate in living well, waging peace, and our shared humanity.

    Because environmental destruction, nuclear weapons, and war can drive humanity extinct, this new kind of literacy I am describing is necessary for human survival. Just as people today recognize that illiteracy in reading is a serious problem, we must create a future where people recognize that illiteracy in the art of living and the art of waging peace is also a serious problem. To take their society to the next level, a civilization such as the ancient Greeks had to prioritize literacy. To take our global society to the next level, we must prioritize literacy in living well, waging peace, and our shared humanity.

    The 2009 U.S. Army Sustainability Report lists several threats to national security, which include severe income disparity, poverty, and climate change. The U.S. Army Sustainability Report states: “The Army is facing several global challenges to sustainability that create a volatile security environment with an increased potential for conflict . . . Globalization’s increased interdependence and connectivity has led to greater disparities in wealth, which foster conditions that can lead to conflict . . . Population growth and poverty; the poor in fast-growing urban areas are especially vulnerable to antigovernment and radical ideologies . . . Climate change and natural disasters strain already limited resources, increasing the potential for humanitarian crises and population migrations.”32

    When the U.S. Army says that “greater disparities in wealth . . . poverty . . . and climate change” are dangerous, these were among the same concerns expressed by the Occupy movement. When the U.S. Army and Occupy movement agree on something, I think we should pay attention. However, none of these problems can be solved by a single country. In addition, none of these problems can be solved by waging war. During the twenty-first century, protecting our national security requires us to develop the skills necessary to work together as a global community. During the twenty-first century, protecting our national security also requires us to develop the skills necessary to create a new vision of global security.

    Many people who learn the art of living and the art of waging peace may not use these skills to participate in a paradigm-shifting global movement, just as many people today who have learned a written language may not read paradigm-shifting books. Many people today use reading simply for e-mails, the Internet, signs, menus, and articles. In a similar way, many people in the future may use the art of living and the art of waging peace simply to better their relationships, become happier, gain more purpose and meaning in their lives, and resolve conflicts with their friends, family, coworkers, and strangers. Every ounce of peace adds to the wellbeing of our broader human community. When we know more about the art of living, which includes understanding how our human vulnerabilities can be exploited by written and visual propaganda, we also become harder to manipulate.

    What Is a Peace Hero?

    Peace HeroesWhy must we learn the art of living? Why aren’t we born with all the knowledge necessary to live well? The reason is because our brains are so complex. An oak tree knows how to be an oak tree. It doesn’t need a mentor or role model to guide it. A caterpillar knows how to turn into a butterfly and thrive in the world. It doesn’t have to take a class or read a manual. But human beings, more than any other species on the planet, must learn to be what we are. We must learn to be human. This is why children in every culture need role models and mentors to guide them, such as parents, teachers, community members, or even religious icons such as Jesus and Buddha. This is why people in every culture need an ideal to strive toward, an ideal that represents our highest human potential.

    In our culture, this ideal is known as the “hero.” In ancient Greece, heroes were not moral, but exceptional. The Greek heroes included Achilles, Odysseus, and the greatest Greek hero of them all, Heracles (better known by his Latin name, Hercules). Achilles was the mightiest warrior alive, Odysseus was a brilliant tactician and talented speaker as well as a powerful warrior, and Heracles was the strongest man in the world.

    Unlike the ancient Greek heroes, the “peace hero” is not admired for being physically exceptional, but morally exceptional. Peace heroes such as Jesus, Buddha, Lao-tzu, many Jewish Prophets, Lucretia Mott, Mahatma Gandhi, Helen Keller, Martin Luther King Jr., Wangari Matthai, Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Oscar Romero, Malala Yousafzai, and many others are not exceptional killers like Achilles or exceptionally strong like Heracles, but exceptionally moral in the ways humanity must emulate if we are going to survive during our fragile future.

    One of the early peace heroes was Socrates. Socrates, similar to later peace heroes such as Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, St. Francis of Assisi, General Smedley Butler, and Leo Tolstoy, had been in the military. Socrates went from being courageous on the battlefield to courageously challenging injustice in his society, replacing the weapons of war with the weapon of truth. Historian James A. Colaiaco tells us: “Socrates carried out his mission without fear of death. But he contradicted the traditional notion of the hero . . . For him, vengeance is unjust, and honor is won only in the pursuit of moral virtue, even at the expense of violating the values of the community. The new hero that Socrates represented was not one who excelled on the battlefield or one who surrendered his life unthinkingly to the polis [city-state], but one who remained steadfast in his commitment to justice.”[v]

    A peace hero is not something we are, but an ideal we reflect in our daily lives. Honoring peace heroes lifts up this ideal higher so that more people can see this vision of what it means to be human, a vision that humanity needs to survive during our fragile future. One characteristic peace heroes all share in common is that they reject vengeance. Could you imagine Jesus, Buddha, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, or Malala Yousafzai embracing vengeance? If they did, they would not be the people we admire. Instead of embracing vengeance, peace heroes promote justice.

    Another characteristic peace heroes have in common is that they understand our interconnectedness, and how their work is built on the efforts of countless others. As a result, people who reflect the peace hero ideal are often embarrassed when anyone praises them as heroes. Frederick Douglass, who dedicated his life to ending slavery and furthering women’s rights, said: “We never feel more ashamed of our humble efforts in the cause of emancipation than when we contrast them with the silent, unobserved and unapplauded efforts of those women through whose constant and persevering endeavors this annual [anti-slavery] exhibition is given to the American public.”[vi]

    Commenting on the unsung heroes of peace and justice, Albert Schweitzer said, “The sum of these [actions from people who aren’t famous], however, is a thousand times stronger than the acts of those who receive wide public recognition. The latter, compared to the former, are like the foam on the waves of a deep ocean.”[vii]

    Protecting Our Fragile Future

    There are many concepts of what it means to be a hero, because people can be admired as heroes not because they possess exceptional moral virtue, but exceptional wealth, ruthlessness, or cunning. Which heroic ideal we admire will shape our future. If our society idolizes heroes who embrace vengeance and violence, our political system, way of viewing the world, and approach to solving problems will reflect this. If our society studies heroes who promote peace and justice, our vision will be expanded, allowing us to see new possibilities for solving problems and being human that we did not notice before, but were there all along, waiting to be discovered.

    Through literacy in the art of living, the art of waging peace, and our shared humanity, we will become empowered to reflect the ideal of the peace hero, solve our most serious human problems, and protect our fragile future. Through this new kind of literacy, human beings three thousand years from now may look back on us the way we look back on people living during the Trojan War. Because our modern problems threaten human survival, this new kind of literacy can help us ensure that three thousand years from now humanity will still exist.

     

    BIO:

    Paul K. Chappell serves as the Peace Leadership Director for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He graduated from West Point in 2002, was deployed to Iraq, and left active duty in November 2009 as a Captain. He is the author of the Road to Peace series, a seven-book series about waging peace, ending war, the art of living, and what it means to be human. The first four published books in this series are Will War Ever End?, The End of War, Peaceful Revolution, and The Art of Waging Peace. Lecturing across the country and internationally, he also teaches college courses and workshops on Peace Leadership. He grew up in Alabama, the son of a half-black and half-white father who fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars, and a Korean mother. Growing up in a violent household, Chappell has sought answers to the issues of war and peace, rage and trauma, and vision, purpose, and hope. His website is www.peacefulrevolution.com.

     

    [i] There is one possible reference to writing in the Iliad. In his introduction to the Robert Fagles translation of the Iliad, Bernard Knox says, “In Book 6 [of the Iliad], Glaucus tells the story of his grandfather Bellerophon. Proetus, king of Argos, sent him off with a message to the king of Lycia, Proteus’ father-in-law; it instructed the king to kill the bearer. ‘[He] gave him tokens, / murderous signs, scratched in a folded tablet . . .’” This reference is so vague that it is unclear whether these “murderous signs” were part of a written alphabet. Whether these scratched markings represented a written alphabet rather or just coded symbols, they seemed so mysterious that they are described by characters in the Iliad as signs and scratches.

    [ii] Classical Mythology, Lecture 1, The Teaching Company, DVD. In the first lecture, professor Elizabeth Vandiver discusses how literacy makes intellectual disciplines possible.

    [iii] Erich Fromm, The Sane Society (New York: Rinehart & Co., 1959), xiv.

    [iv] In his book Man for Himself, Erich Fromm discusses living as an art. I first heard this idea from Erich Fromm and Seneca.

    [v] James A. Colaiaco, Socrates Against Athens (New York: Routledge, 2001), 133.

    [vi] Philip S. Foner, ed., Frederick Douglass on Women’s Rights (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 1992), 11.

    [vii] Albert Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought, trans. Antje Bultmann Lemke (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1998), 90.

  • Recommended Reading on the Situation in Ukraine

    Ready for Nuclear War with Ukraine?” by Robert Parry. February 23, 2015.
    According to investigative journalist Robert Parry, famous for his coverage of the Iran-Contra scandal, the Ukraine’s new powers in Kiev are “itching for a ‘full-scale war’ with Russia at all costs – even nuclear war.” Arguing that western, particularly American, media has been unfaithful in assessing the full dangers of the conflict, Parry raises the spectre of a new Cold War.

    Ukraine: Time to Step Back from the Brink,” by Andrew Lichterman. February 2015.
    Andrew Lichterman, Senior Research analyst for the Western States Legal Foundation, has made a call “to halt and reverse all actions that contribute to [the Ukrainian conflict],” arguing that failing to do so risks renewing Cold War level tensions and nuclear conflict. Paying attention to Eastern Ukrainian and Russian point of views, Lichterman shows how the US has aggravated and even set the foundation for the current crisis. He calls for alternatives to the neoliberal international order and for all countries to “step back from the brink.”

    Review of Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands,” by Jonathan Steele. February 19, 2015.
    Jonathan Steele of The Guardian highlights a series of “irresponsible distortions” on the part of the new Ukrainian leadership and reviews Richard Sakwa’s book, Frontline Ukraine, which takes a “cool, balanced, and well sourced” approach to the ongoing conflict. Pointing to three long-simmering crises that directly preceded the current one, he directs his frustration to the EU, western media bias, and to the demonization of Russia and its allies.

    Presentation to the National Press Club by Jack Matlock. February 11, 2015.
    Jack Matlock, former ambassador to the USSR, adds his voice to those condemning the U.S.’s current policies regarding Russia and the Ukraine – paying particular attention to what he calls the “personalization” of the conflict, which dichotomizes the crisis as one between Russia’s leadership and the West’s. He finishes his address by referring to the US’ collective foreign policy as “autistic” and asks for a re-evaluation of our approach.

    Reagan’s Ambassador to Moscow Says U.S. Suffers from Autistic Foreign Policy,” by Martin Hellman, February 23, 2015.
    Martin Hellman, professor emeritus at Stanford University, discusses the speech given by President George H.W. Bush’s Ambassador to the USSR, Jack Matlock, on the U.S.’s current approach to the Ukrainian conflict. Calling American Foreign Policy “autistic,” Matlock is unsparing in his assessment and poignant in his criticism.

    A Dangerous Trend Line,” by Martin Hellman. February 17, 2015.
    Professor emeritus and anti-nuclear activist Martin Hellman once more advocates utilizing a cautious risk framework to reduce tensions in the current conflict. He sadly notes however that he and others have been “miserably” unsuccessful amidst rising emotions and hardening intransigence.

    Playing Chicken with Nuclear War,” by Robert Parry. March 3, 2015.
    “An unnerving nonchalance has settled over the American side which has become so casual about the risk of cataclysmic war that the West’s propaganda and passions now ignore Russian fears and sensitivities.”

    How Obama’s Aggression in Ukraine Risks Nuclear War,” by Robert Roth. March 6, 2015.
    Writing at Counterpunch, Robert Roth explains why continued aggressive tactics by the U.S. and NATO in Ukraine risk resulting in nuclear war with Russia.