Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Peace

  • State Violence and Killing Is Not the Answer

    OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, NOBEL PEACE LAUREATE
    PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
    FROM:  MAIREAD CORRIGAN MAGUIRE, NOBEL PEACE LAUREATE.
    20th JUNE 20ll.


    DEAR MR. PRESIDENT,


    ‘STATE VIOLENCE & KILLING IS NOT THE ANSWER’


    Mairead MaguireAs you know, on lst May, 20ll, the NATO forces tried unsuccessfully to assassinate the Libyan Head of State, Moammer Gadaffi.  This attempt to assassinate the Libyan Head of State under US Army law, was a war crime and punishable as an International crime in its own right. During the attack by NATO forces one of President Gadaffi’s sons, and three of Gadaffi’s grandchildren were killed by NATO forces.


    The following day, 2nd May 20ll, the extra-judicial killing and assassination of Osama Bin Laden, and killings of a woman and two men who were with him, by the US Navy SEALs, continued the State Terrorism of the US Government. After the assassination you, Mr. President, addressed the media and attempted to make acceptable the idea that such violence is just and acceptable. Do you and your Government and Allies who support you, really believe that the vast majority of men and women around the world have lost all sense of what is right and what is wrong?  Do you really believe that we have all abandoned all sense of decency and ethical values exchanging them in support of your endorsed illegal, killing of unarmed civilians?  Do you really believe we will all remain silent whilst under your warrior leadership the US Government and its allies dismantle basic human rights and international laws, so long fought for by brave, courageous men and women (including Americans) replacing these with extrajudicial killings, torture and assassinations?


    Three months into the French, English, Italian led NATO/US campaign (never sanctioned by US Law) and shamefully agreed by U.N. (who identified the purpose of the operation to be for the protection of citizens!) people of conscience are horrified to hear that, yet again, on l9th June, NATO has carried out more air attacks on Libya, killing 15 unarmed civilians, including women and children.


    After 9/ll the whole world shared the grief of the American people, and many hoped that those who carried out such horrendous acts would be brought to justice through the Courts. We were moved by many of the families who lost loved ones on 9/ll when they started ‘Families for a peaceful tomorrow’ and called for justice not revenge. However, violence and revenge was the chosen path of the US Government and its Allies, who for ten years embarked on a path of violence and war.  In this time over 6,000 USA soldiers have needlessly died and countless thousands injured physically and mentally.  Wars in Iraq (over l million Iraqis killed) and Afghanistan (over 50,000 Afghans killed) were carried out by the US in their pursuit of vengeance.  The US-led so-called ‘war on terrorism’ in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan has ‘terrorised’ unarmed civilians by carrying out aerial bombardments, night raids, death squads, extra-judicial killings and drone attacks killing many unarmed civilians, including women and children, and tragically they continue to this day.


    In a world struggling to birth a new consciousness, it is not incredulous that the best the US Government, NATO and its allies can offer as a model to world citizens, is the outdated example of violence, militarism,  and war, destroying humans and their environment?


    I believe real change and leadership is coming from the people’s movements and what is happening around the world amongst the masses of extra-ordinary men and women rising up, mostly peacefully and non-violently, in country after country for human dignity, equality, freedom and democracy and against violence, oppression, injustice and war, is the real force for change. We all take great hope and inspiration from the ‘Arab Spring’ and join in solidarity with our courageous Arab brothers and sisters in working for change.


    A new dawn, a new age of civilization is coming. It will be an age of solidarity, of each person dedicated to ‘protective love’ of each other and our World. It will be an age of nonviolent evolution which shows we can solve our problems as the human family by peaceful means not by violence, nuclear weapons and war.


    The peoples of the world are sending a clear message to you Mr. President, to NATO, and all our Governments, and armed opposition groups, that there will be no military solutions to these ethnic/political/economic problems, but only through ending occupations (USA -Iraq/Afghanistan,   Israel/Palestine) declaring ceasefires (Libya, etc.,) and entering into dialogue and negotiations with all parties to the conflicts, can we begin to solve these problems, the roots of which are inequality and injustice.


    Mr. President, you came into office promising change and gave the world hope. You lit the passion in the hearts of many men and women longing for change, for dialogue and negotiation, to move beyond destructive militarism, nuclear weapons and war. That passion remains in the heart of humanity as can be seen in the mass nonviolent movements for social and political change taking place around the world. Will you, Mr. President, take this great opportunity in human history and help lead ,the world to a new beginning, so we can in the words of the late President John F. Kennedy ‘begin again the quest for peace?’ 


    Yours in Peace,  


    Mairead Corrigan Maguire
    (Nobel Peace Laureate)

  • Why the Pentagon Papers Matter Now

    Daniel Ellsberg


    This article was originally published by Reader Supported News.


    The declassification and online release Monday of the full original version of the Pentagon Papers – the 7,000-page top secret Pentagon study of US decision-making in Vietnam 1945-67 – comes 40 years after I gave it to 19 newspapers and to Senator Mike Gravel (minus volumes on negotiations, which I had given only to the Senate foreign relations committee). Gravel entered what I had given him in the congressional record and later published nearly all of it with Beacon Press. Together with the newspaper coverage and a government printing office (GPO) edition that was heavily redacted but overlapped the Senator Gravel edition, most of the material has been available to the public and scholars since 1971. (The negotiation volumes were declassified some years ago; the Senate, if not the Pentagon, should have released them no later than the end of the war in 1975.)


    In other words, today’s declassification of the whole study comes 36 to 40 years overdue. Yet, unfortunately, it happens to be peculiarly timely that this study gets attention and goes online just now. That’s because we’re mired again in wars – especially in Afghanistan – remarkably similar to the 30-year conflict in Vietnam, and we don’t have comparable documentation and insider analysis to enlighten us on how we got here and where it’s likely to go.


    What we need released this month are the Pentagon Papers of Iraq and Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Yemen and Libya). We’re not likely to get them; they probably don’t yet exist, at least in the useful form of the earlier ones. But the original studies on Vietnam are a surprisingly not-bad substitute, definitely worth learning from.


    Yes, the languages and ethnicities that we don’t understand are different in the Middle East from those in Vietnam; the climate, terrain and types of ambushes are very different. But as the accounts in the Pentagon Papers explain, we face the same futile effort in Afghanistan to find and destroy nationalist guerrillas or to get them to quit fighting foreign invaders (now us) and the corrupt, ill-motivated, dope-dealing despots we support. As in Vietnam, the more troops we deploy and the more adversaries we kill (along with civilians), the quicker their losses are made good and the more their ranks grow, since it’s our very presence, our operations and our support of a regime without legitimacy that is the prime basis for their recruiting.


    As for Washington, the accounts of recurrent decisions to escalate in the Pentagon Papers read like an extended prequel to Bob Woodward’s book, Obama’s War, on the prolonged internal controversies that preceded the president’s decisions to triple the size of our forces in Afghanistan. (Woodward’s book, too, is based on top secret leaks. Unfortunately, these came out after the decisions had been made, and without accompanying documentation: which it is still not too late for Woodward or his sources to give to WikiLeaks.)


    In accounts of wars 40 years and half a world apart, we read of the same irresponsible, self-serving presidential and congressional objectives in prolonging and escalating an unwinnable conflict: namely, the need not to be charged with weakness by political rivals, or with losing a war that a few feckless or ambitious generals foolishly claim can be won. Putting the policy-making and the field realities together, we see the same prospect of endless, bloody stalemate – unless and until, under public pressure, Congress threatens to cut off the money (as in 1972-73), forcing the executive into a negotiated withdrawal.


    To motivate voters and Congress to extricate us from these presidential wars, we need the Pentagon Papers of the Middle East wars right now. Not 40 years in the future. Not after even two or three more years of further commitment to stalemated and unjustifiable wars.


    Yet, we’re not likely to get these ever within the time frame they’re needed. The WikiLeaks’ unauthorised disclosures of the last year are the first in 40 years to approach the scale of the Pentagon Papers (and even surpass them in quantity and timeliness). But unfortunately, the courageous source of these secret, field-level reports – Private Bradley Manning is the one accused, though that remains to be proven in court – did not have access to top secret, high-level recommendations, estimates and decisions.


    Very, very few of those who do have such access are willing to risk their clearances and careers – and the growing possibility (under President Obama) of prosecution – by documenting to Congress and the public even policies that they personally believe are disastrous and wrongly kept secret and lied about. I was one – and far from alone – with such access and such views, as a special assistant to the assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs in the Pentagon in 1964-65. (My immediate boss John T McNaughton, Robert McNamara’s primary assistant on Vietnam, was another; as documented in the recent publication of his personal diary.)


    I’ve long regretted that it didn’t even occur to me, in August 1964, to release the documents in my Pentagon safe giving the lie to claims of an “unequivocal, unprovoked” (unreal) attack on our destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf: precursors of the “evidence beyond any doubt” of nonexistent WMDs in Iraq, which manipulated Congress, once again, to pass the exact counterpart of the Tonkin Gulf resolution.


    Senator Morse – one of the two senators who had voted against that unconstitutional, undated blank cheque for presidential war in 1964 – told me that if I had provided him with that evidence at the time (instead of 1969, when I finally provided it to the senate foreign relations committee, on which he had served): “The Tonkin Gulf resolution would never have gotten out of committee; and if it had been brought to the floor, it would have been voted down.”


    That’s a heavy burden for me to bear: especially when I reflect that, by September, I had a drawer-full of the top secret documents (again, regrettably, not published until 1971) proving the fraudulence of Johnson’s promises of “no wider war” in his election campaign, and his actual determination to escalate a war that he privately and realistically regarded as unwinnable.


    Had I or one of the scores of other officials who had the same high-level information acted then on our oath of office – which was not an oath to obey the president, nor to keep the secret that he was violating his own sworn obligations, but solely an oath “to support and defend the constitution of the United States” – that terrible war might well have been averted altogether. But to hope to have that effect, we would have needed to disclose the documents when they were current, before the escalation – not five or seven, or even two, years after the fateful commitments had been made.


    A lesson to be drawn from reading the Pentagon Papers, knowing all that followed or has come out in the years since, is this. To those in the Pentagon, state department, the White House, CIA (and their counterparts in Britain and other Nato countries) who have similar access to mine then and foreknowledge of disastrous escalations in our wars in the Middle East, I would say:


    Don’t make my mistake. Don’t do what I did. Don’t wait until a new war has started in Iran, until more bombs have fallen in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq or Yemen. Don’t wait until thousands more have died, before you go to the press and to Congress to tell the truth with documents that reveal lies or crimes or internal projections of costs and dangers. Don’t wait 40 years for it to be declassified, or seven years as I did for you or someone else to leak it.


    The personal risks are great. But a war’s worth of lives might be saved.

  • Militarist Madness

    This article was originally published on the History News Network.


    Lawrence WittnerDespite the vast rivers of blood and treasure poured into wars over the centuries, the nations of the world continue to enhance their military might.


    According to a recent report from the prestigious Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), world military expenditures grew to a record $1.63 trillion in 2010.  Middle East nations alone spent $111 billion on the military, with Saudi Arabia leading the way.


    Arms sales have also reached record heights.  SIPRI’s Top 100 of the world’s arms-producing companies sold $401 billion in weaponry during 2009 (the latest year for which figures are available), a real dollar increase of eight percent over the preceding year and 59 percent since 2002.  These military companies do a particularly brisk business overseas, where they engage in fierce battles for weapons contracts.  “There is intense competition between suppliers for big-ticket deals in Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and Latin America,” reports Dr. Paul Holtom, Director of the SIPRI Arms Transfers Program.  Until recently, in fact, defense contractors scrambled vigorously to sell arms to Libya.


    In numerous ways, the United States is at the head of the pack.  Of the $20.6 billion increase in world military expenditures during 2010, the U.S. government accounted for $19.6 billion.  Indeed, between 2001 and 2010, the U.S. government increased its military spending by 81 percent.  As a result, it now accounts for about 43 percent of global military spending, some six times that of its nearest military rival, China.


    U.S. weapons producers are also world leaders.  According to SIPRI, 45 of its Top 100 weapons-manufacturers are based in the United States.  In 2009, they generated nearly $247 billion in weapons sales—nearly 62 percent of income produced by the Top 100.  Not surprisingly, the United States is also the world’s leading exporter of military equipment, accounting for 30 percent of global arms exports in the 2006-2010 period.


    Being Number 1 might be exciting, even thrilling, among children.  But adults might well ask if the benefits are worth the cost.  Are they?


    Let’s take a look at the issue of terrorism.  Much of the last decade’s huge military buildup by the United States was called for in the context of what President George W. Bush called the “War on Terror.”  And the costs, thus far, have been high, including an estimated $1.19 trillion that Americans have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus thousands of Americans and vast numbers of Afghans and Iraqis who have been slaughtered.  By contrast, the benefits are certainly dubious.  Neither war resulted in the capture or killing of the terrorist mastermind, Osama bin Laden, who was tracked down in another country thanks to years of painstaking intelligence work and dispatched by a quick commando raid.  Wouldn’t Americans (and people in other lands) be a lot safer from terrorism with fewer wars and better intelligence?


    Of course, there is also the broader national security picture.  Even without terrorism, the world is a dangerous place.  War is certainly a hardy perennial.  Nevertheless, simply increasing national military spending does not make nations safer.  After all, when one country engages in a military buildup, others—frightened by this buildup—often do so as well.  The result of this arms race is all too often international conflict and war.  Wouldn’t nations be more secure if they worked harder at cooperating with one another rather than at threatening one another with military might?  Even if they were not the best of friends, they might find it to their mutual advantage to agree to decrease their military spending by an equal percentage, thus retaining the current military balance among them.  Also, they could begin turning over a broader range of international security issues to the United Nations.


    Maintaining a vast military apparatus also starves other areas of a society.  Currently, in the United States, most federal discretionary spending goes for war and preparations for war—and this despite an ongoing crisis over unemployment and a stagnating economy.  Continuing this pattern, the Obama administration’s proposed federal budget for fiscal 2012, while increasing military spending, calls for sharp cuts in funding for education, income security, food safety, and environmental protection.  Even as congress wrestles with the thorny issue of priorities, huge numbers of teachers, firemen, health care workers, social workers, policemen, and others—told that government revenues are no longer sufficient to fund their services—are being dismissed from their jobs.  Other public servants are having their salaries and benefits slashed.  Social welfare institutions are being closed.  Thus, instead of defending the home front in the United States, the immensely costly U.S. military apparatus is helping to gut it.


    Ultimately, as many people have learned through bitter experience, militarism undermines both peace and prosperity.  Perhaps it’s time for government officials to learn this fact.

  • How Wars Are Made

    David KriegerThe first step is always to prepare for war by making weapons and teaching young people to march, turn on command to the left and to the right, and fire their weapons at pop-up enemies.


    The second step is to find a suitable enemy.  This has never been difficult.  Any country, any group can be turned into an enemy with the right approach.  It is only a matter of perspective.   


    The third step is to dehumanize the enemy, the less human the better.  Enemies should never have normal human feelings, such as love, compassion and sorrow.  They must be made to seem stripped of such capacities and turned into grotesque and mean-spirited monsters. 


    The fourth step is to inspire our young people to kill the enemy.  This is not hard and is best done with flags, parades and appeals to country and heroism.  The young should be excited to kill.  They will be killing the killers who want to kill them.


    The beauty of the system is that it is perpetual.  By sending out our young men and women to kill the enemy, we will be making new enemies, justifying our need to prepare for war.  And as the enemy sends out their young to kill ours, they will be confirming our belief in their inhumanity.

  • Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth

    This Declaration was adopted by the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, in Bolivia on April 22, 2010.


    Preamble


    We, the peoples and nations of Earth:


    considering that we are all part of Mother Earth, an indivisible, living community of interrelated and interdependent beings with a common destiny;


    gratefully acknowledging that Mother Earth is the source of life, nourishment and learning and provides everything we need to live well;


    recognizing that the capitalist system and all forms of depredation, exploitation, abuse and contamination have caused great destruction, degradation and disruption of Mother Earth, putting life as we know it today at risk through phenomena such as climate change;


    convinced that in an interdependent living community it is not possible to recognize the rights of only human beings without causing an imbalance within Mother Earth;


    affirming that to guarantee human rights it is necessary to recognize and defend the rights of Mother Earth and all beings in her and that there are existing cultures, practices and laws that do so;


    conscious of the urgency of taking decisive, collective action to transform structures and systems that cause climate change and other threats to Mother Earth;


    proclaim this Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, and call on the General Assembly of the United Nation to adopt it, as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations of the world, and to the end that every individual and institution takes responsibility for promoting through teaching, education, and consciousness raising, respect for the rights recognized in this Declaration and ensure through prompt and progressive measures and mechanisms, national and international, their universal and effective recognition and observance among all peoples and States in the world.


    Article 1. Mother Earth


    (1) Mother Earth is a living being.


    (2) Mother Earth is a unique, indivisible, self-regulating community of interrelated beings that sustains, contains and reproduces all beings.


    (3) Each being is defined by its relationships as an integral part of Mother Earth.


    (4) The inherent rights of Mother Earth are inalienable in that they arise from the same source as existence.


    (5) Mother Earth and all beings are entitled to all the inherent rights recognized in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as may be made between organic and inorganic beings, species, origin, use to human beings, or any other status.


    (6) Just as human beings have human rights, all other beings also have rights which are specific to their species or kind and appropriate for their role and function within the communities within which they exist.


    (7) The rights of each being are limited by the rights of other beings and any conflict between their rights must be resolved in a way that maintains the integrity, balance and health of Mother Earth.


    Article 2. Inherent Rights of Mother Earth


    (1) Mother Earth and all beings of which she is composed have the following inherent rights:


    (a) the right to life and to exist;


    (b) the right to be respected;


    (c) the right to regenerate its bio-capacity and to continue its vital cycles and processes free from human disruptions;


    (d) the right to maintain its identity and integrity as a distinct, self-regulating and interrelated being;


    (e) the right to water as a source of life;


    (f) the right to clean air;


    (g) the right to integral health;


    (h) the right to be free from contamination, pollution and toxic or radioactive waste;


    (i) the right to not have its genetic structure modified or disrupted in a manner that threatens it integrity or vital and healthy functioning;


    (j) the right to full and prompt restoration the violation of the rights recognized in this Declaration caused by human activities;


    (2) Each being has the right to a place and to play its role in Mother Earth for her harmonious functioning.


    (3) Every being has the right to wellbeing and to live free from torture or cruel treatment by human beings.


    Article 3. Obligations of human beings to Mother Earth


    (1) Every human being is responsible for respecting and living in harmony with Mother Earth.


    (2) Human beings, all States, and all public and private institutions must:


    (a) act in accordance with the rights and obligations recognized in this Declaration;


    (b) recognize and promote the full implementation and enforcement of the rights and obligations recognized in this Declaration;


    (c) promote and participate in learning, analysis, interpretation and communication about how to live in harmony with Mother Earth in accordance with this Declaration;


    (d) ensure that the pursuit of human wellbeing contributes to the wellbeing of Mother Earth, now and in the future;


    (e) establish and apply effective norms and laws for the defence, protection and conservation of the rights of Mother Earth;


    (f) respect, protect, conserve and where necessary, restore the integrity, of the vital ecological cycles, processes and balances of Mother Earth;


    (g) guarantee that the damages caused by human violations of the inherent rights recognized in this Declaration are rectified and that those responsible are held accountable for restoring the integrity and health of Mother Earth;


    (h) empower human beings and institutions to defend the rights of Mother Earth and of all beings;


    (i) establish precautionary and restrictive measures to prevent human activities from causing species extinction, the destruction of ecosystems or the disruption of ecological cycles;


    (j) guarantee peace and eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological weapons;


    (k) promote and support practices of respect for Mother Earth and all beings, in accordance with their own cultures, traditions and customs;


    (l) promote economic systems that are in harmony with Mother Earth and in accordance with the rights recognized in this Declaration.


    Article 4. Definitions


    (1) The term “being” includes ecosystems, natural communities, species and all other natural entities which exist as part of Mother Earth.


    (2) Nothing in this Declaration restricts the recognition of other inherent rights of all beings or specified beings.

  • Daisaku Ikeda’s Perseverance and Passion for Peace

    David KriegerDaisaku Ikeda is a man with a great heart and a great vision for humanity’s future.  I admire not only his passion for peace, as expressed in his annual Peace Proposals, but also his perseverance.  He does not give up.  He has a deep well of creativity.  His words have power because he is a man of conviction and action.


    This year’s Peace Proposal is titled, “Toward a World of Dignity for All: the Triumph of the Creative Life.”  I share a passion for the world Daisaku Ikeda envisions, a world of dignity for all.  I once rewrote the US Pledge of Allegiance as a World Citizens’ Pledge.  It said, “I pledge allegiance to the Earth and to its varied life forms; one world, indivisible, with liberty, justice and dignity for all.”  We should not be satisfied until the least among us is able to live a life of dignity.


    Daisaku Ikeda has correctly highlighted the importance of the eight Millennium Development Goals.  These goals are not sufficient, but they are necessary steps on the path to “dignity for all.”  If they are to be fulfilled, we must stop spending so lavishly on the world’s military forces and transfer a reasonable percentage of these resources toward ending poverty and disease while promoting education, environmental protection and the rights of women.


    I agree strongly with Daisaku Ikeda about leadership: in the “absence of international political leadership, civil society should step in to fill the gap, providing the energy and vision needed to move the world in a new and better direction.” 


    In recent weeks, we have seen wonderful examples of tens of thousands of people in Middle East countries taking to the streets and providing the leadership to oust dictators and demand new governments capable of assuring dignity for all citizens.  These citizen leaders have inspired each other and people throughout the world with their courage, compassion and commitment.


    The goal of abolishing nuclear weapons should be high on the agenda for achieving human dignity.  These weapons, with their implicit threat of indiscriminate mass murder, devalue the human species by their very existence.  They have also taken precious financial and human resources from human development goals. 


    I agree with Daisaku Ikeda’s perspective that “it is necessary to thoroughly challenge the theory of deterrence upon which nuclear weapons possession is predicated.”  Nuclear deterrence is a theory of human behavior, and it has many flaws that could result in the catastrophic use of nuclear weapons.


    Recently, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation held a conference on “The Dangers of Nuclear Deterrence.”  Out of that conference, we created a “Santa Barbara Declaration,” a call to action to reject nuclear deterrence.  The Declaration lists eight major problems with nuclear deterrence and states, “Nuclear deterrence is discriminatory, anti-democratic and unsustainable.  This doctrine must be discredited and replaced with an urgent commitment to achieve global nuclear disarmament.  We must change the discourse by speaking truth to power and speaking truth to each other.”


    Nuclear weapons have no place in a world that values human dignity.  My great goal in life is to see these weapons totally abolished.  This would represent a change of heart and orientation for humanity.  It would mean that we had come together in common cause to assure that these weapons could not destroy the civilizations we have so painstakingly built and maintained over many millennia. 


    I concur with Daisaku Ikeda and his mentor, Josei Toda, that nuclear weapons represent an “absolute evil,” one that cannot be tolerated if we are to fulfill our responsibility to ourselves and to future generations.  Ikeda points out that standing between our existing world and a world free of nuclear weapons are “walls of apathy.” 


    Our great challenge today is to break down these walls of apathy and replace them with gardens of creativity.  Upon such creativity can be built a shining world of “dignity for all,” one in which nuclear weapons exist only as a historical memory and powerful lesson about humanity’s capacity to overcome great threats by joining hands in common purpose.

  • The Eighth Anniversary of the Iraq War

    David KriegerOn this eighth anniversary of the Iraq War, I feel a deep sense of sadness mixed with anger, along with regret for what might have been.  We’ve had eight years of futile war in Iraq and nearly ten years of the same in Afghanistan.


    Following September 11, 2001, the world stood with the US.  We had a choice then: to respond legally, morally and with wisdom; or, like a helpless giant, to flail out with our vast arsenal of weapons.  To our shame, our leaders, then and now, have taken the latter course. 


    Before this war began, many of us marched for peace.  People all over the world marched for peace, but peace was not to be.


    Dick Cheney said, “We will be greeted as liberators.”


    Donald Rumsfeld said, in effect, that the war would pay for itself: “The bulk of the funds for Iraq’s reconstruction will come from Iraqis – from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment….”


    George W. Bush said, we will attack “at a time of our choosing.”  He dismissed the United Nations, saying “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities.  So we will rise to ours.”  He chose to attack Iraq on the evening of March 19, 2003, and he did so with shock and awe, but without legality under international law. 


    Less than two months later, Bush dressed up in a flight suit, landed on the aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, stood under a sign that said “Mission Accomplished,” and boasted with his usual shortsightedness, “In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”  The people of the world will have prevailed when Mr. Bush is on trial at the International Criminal Court.
     
    The result of our Global War on Terror is that we have spent more than $780 billion on the Iraq War and more than $387 billion on the Afghanistan War, a total of over $1.167 trillion.  These wars have cost California $147 billion, and have cost our 23rd Congressional District $2.6 billion.  These numbers grow by the day.  Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, has predicted that the total cost of the war in Iraq to the Federal government and to society will conservatively exceed $3 trillion.


    It is long past time to end this drain of our resources, which might have gone instead of war and massacre to support the poorest among us, to schools, to health care, and to improve our infrastructure. 


    The Global War on Terror, along with other excesses of capitalism, including massive fraud, has resulted in some 400 families in the US having assets exceeding those of the poorest 50 percent of Americans, some 155 million people.  Four hundred families versus half our population.  And many of our political representatives have fought for tax breaks for the very rich, while seeking to end the collective bargaining rights of the unions for public employees – teachers, nurses, firefighters and policemen.  This is just plain wrong.  But it is what we have become as a nation.


    Across this nation, people still haven’t connected the dots to understand the toll war takes on our society.


    Of course, the money wasted is only a part of the outrage that has weakened our country.  More importantly, some 4,500 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Of these, 4,300 Americans died since George Bush dressed up in his flight suit and gave his victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln.  But the death toll of Americans is dwarfed by that of Iraqis.  By some estimates, more than a million and a half Iraqis have died in the Iraq War.  Four million have been displaced from their homes.


    In Afghanistan, 1,498 American soldiers have died and 2,361 total coalition forces have died.  In 2010 alone, 2,777 civilians died in Afghanistan.  Of these, 1,175 were children and 555 were women.


    It is tempting to say that they all died because George Bush lied.  But George Bush’s lies were only one factor.  They also died because so many good Americans were silent in the face of these wars.  They also died because, in the case of Afghanistan, Barack Obama escalated the war and made it his own.


    Let me conclude with a poem I wrote about the war, titled “Worse than the War.”



    WORSE THAN THE WAR


    Worse than the war, the endless, senseless war,
    Worse than the lies leading to the war,


    Worse than the countless deaths and injuries,
    Worse than hiding the coffins and not attending funerals,


    Worse than the flouting of international law,
    Worse than the torture at Abu Ghraib prison,


    Worse than the corruption of young soldiers,
    Worse than undermining our collective sense of decency,


    Worse than the arrogance, smugness and swagger,
    Worse than our loss of credibility in the world,
    Worse than the loss of our liberties,


    Worse than learning nothing from the past,
    Worse than destroying the future,
    Worse than the incredible stupidity of it all,


    Worse than all of these,
    As if they were not enough for one war or country or lifetime,
    Is the silence, the resounding silence of good Americans.


    When will we say that we’ve had enough?  When will America try to regain its conscience, its soul, its decency and its honor?  When will we become a force for peace in the world?  The answer is: It’s up to us!  It’s up to us to take back our country and put it on the path to peace.

  • The Legacy of Christina Taylor Green

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.


    Ruben ArvizuWhen Jared Lee Loughner cowardly shot a group of people gathered exercising a fundamental act of democracy, his mission was to cause death, havoc and dismay.  Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was conducting an open dialogue with her constituents outside a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona, when she was gravely wounded and remains in stable but critical condition. There were 11 other people gravely wounded.


    The list of dead includes John M. Roll, a respected federal judge, Dorwin Stoddard who shielded his wife, Mavanell, with his own body, Phyllis Schnell, a widow and great-grandmother,  Gabe Zimmerman,  Congresswoman Gifford’s assistant director of community outreach, who was 30 years old and engaged to be married,  Dorothy Morris, a lady of 76 years. And Christina Taylor Green, only nine years old.


    Christina’s passage through life was short, yet full of enormous significance, as exemplified by her optimism, her joy for life, nature, her love for family, friends and her interest in learning how to better serve her country. Christina went to the Gifford event to learn more about the political process.


    Being one of the 50 babies born on the day of the fateful 9/11/2001 featured in the book Faces of Hope: Babies Born on 9/11, she and those other babies represent a glimmer of hope after one of the most tragic events in U.S. history.  She knew the meaning of being born on a date that marked a radical change in politics and international relationships. Her desire to learn how to conduct a democratic life led her to be a member of the student council and became a leader in her school, Mesa Verde Elementary. Her parents have said she wanted to eliminate hatreds and prejudices that divide us rather than unite us. Her life, as defined by her father, John Green,  “she was vibrant,  she was the best daughter in the world, and beautiful in her nine years of existence.”


    Christina was part of the new generation born in this 21st century that could  lead us towards a path to make urgent changes we need in a society increasingly apathetic and selfish.


    We at NAPF firmly believe that being free of nuclear weapons is the primary mission to safeguard the human race, and we pay a humble tribute to this lovely little girl filled with love for her family and all who were fortunate enough to know her. Her legacy should be a positive example for all of us who live now and for future generations.

  • A Seat at Humanity’s Table

    Frank Kelly“Everyone deserves a seat at humanity’s table.”  That was a favorite expression of my friend Frank Kelly, who died in 2010, one day before his 96th birthday.  Frank believed it was essential for a peaceful future that everyone be seated at that big table and everyone’s voice be heard.  I couldn’t agree more.  We need a table that has room for all of us, a table at which everyone is fed with opportunity; everyone’s human rights are upheld; and everyone has a chance for their voice to be heard. 


    Right now there aren’t enough seats at the table, and the seats that exist have been taken by the wealthy and dominant of the world.  But who should speak for humanity?  Should it be the G-8 or the G-20?  Should it be the P-5, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the ones who reserved for themselves the privilege of the veto power?  Should it be corporate titans?  Should it be representatives of the military-industrial complex?  These are the people who have claimed the seats at humanity’s table for themselves, and they seem quite content sitting there, hoarding resources and opportunity, and pulling the strings of the world.  But all is not well. 


    The rich and powerful may not yet recognize it, but they are sitting on a precipice, and they have a long way to fall.  The table where they are sitting is not stable.  They may believe that they can maintain their exclusive control of the table by using their wealth and power to bring in the police to cordon off the area, but this is only a temporary fix.  Unless they open the doors and expand the table, they are headed for a fall.  And with them is likely to go the table and all the resources they have sought to maintain for their exclusive use.


    To bring everyone to humanity’s table is not just the polite thing to do, it is the right thing to do.  It is also necessary.  The poor of the world know what is going on behind locked doors.  They know that their poverty and suffering are related to the greed at the restricted table.  All that those without a seat at the table are asking for is a chance to be heard and to be part of the decision making about the great problems confronting humanity, including the inequitable allocation of resources, the militarization of the planet, the destruction of the environment, the abuse of human rights, and the list goes on.  All of these great global issues can only be effectively addressed by global cooperation, and such cooperation is not possible if chairs are missing from humanity’s table. 


    It is increasingly evident that either everyone will be seated, or at least represented at the table, or the table will become increasingly irrelevant to solving the world’s problems.  The world has become too small to treat as a country club and put up “No Trespassing” signs to keep most of the world’s people away from humanity’s table.  We’ll either find a way to make room for all of us at the table, or we will fail in achieving the cooperation needed to solve the world’s most pressing problems.

  • The Nonkilling Idea Can Lead

    You will note that I have greeted you with a gesture of nonkilling respect for you and for all life.  It comes from the non-violent Jain tradition of India.  Since air, like earth and water, is essential for life, Jains avoid conventional clapping as doing violence to life.  I invite you to try it out and add it to your repertoire of nonviolent actions.  You will note that it produces an electric group atmosphere of respect for life.

    It is a great honor for me and my wife Glenda, along with co-director Greg Bourne and global monitor Tom Fee of the Center for Global Nonkilling, to be with Rev. and Mrs. Lawson, all of you, and with leaders of the pioneering Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.  Among them I cherish friendships with Board Chair Professor Richard Falk, respected colleague from Princeton days, inspiring poet Dr. David Krieger, who completed his peaceful doctoral program at the University of Hawai‘i one year after I arrived from Princeton as a war-fighting “hawk” in 1967, and former Army Capt. Paul Chappell who contributed by Skype to the 2nd Global Nonkilling Leadership Academy program in Honolulu completed just two weeks ago.

    Gandhi rightly said, “My life is my message.”  In this case, however, the message is not the life, but a question.  The question is:  “Is a nonkilling society possible?”  Is it possible for us humans to stop killing each other, from the family to the global humanity?

    The question is unusual, for one thing because the word “nonkilling” is not yet in a standard English dictionary.

    Let’s take a vote.  What do you think right now?  We might change our minds tomorrow.  How many say “No”?  How many say “Yes”?  How many say “Yes” and “No”?  How many say “I don’t know”?  How many abstain?  

    Whatever you now think—“Yes,”  “No,” or “Other”—you are invited to explore grounds for confidently answering “Yes.”  They are set forth in the book Nonkilling Global Political Science.  First published in 2002, it has been translated into 22 languages, with 13 more in progress, including into Arabic, French, German, Hindi, Italian, Korean, Portuguese, Russian and Urdu.  Chinese and Japanese are forthcoming.  There are grassroots teaching versions in Haitian Creole, in Ogoni and Ijaw of the Niger Delta, and Kiswahili of Great Lakes Africa (DR Congo, Burundi, and Rwanda).  

    There are many grounds for confidence that we can stop killing each other.  Most humans have never killed anyone.  Otherwise humanity long ago would have spiraled into extinction.  Ninety-five countries have completely abolished the death penalty.  Twenty-seven countries have no armies.  Forty-seven countries accept conscientious objection to military service.  Spiritual traditions and humanist philosophies proscribe killing.  Science promises new understanding of causes and prevention of killing.  Components for nonkilling societies already have been demonstrated somewhere in human experience.  If creatively combined and adapted in any single place, nonkilling societies can be approximated even now anywhere.  In short, knowledge exists to assist crossing the threshold of lethal pessimism to confidently envision a nonkilling global human future.

    Since ideas can lead, the Distinguished Leadership Award in this case needs to be directed not to a person but to leadership by an idea—the idea that a killing-free world is possible.

    The Nonkilling Leadership Story is a remarkable one.

    It starts with Spirit.  “No More Killing!”

    Spirit becomes a Question.  “Is a Nonkilling Society Possible?”

    The Question becomes an Answer.  “Yes!”

    Answer becomes an Organization: “Center for Global Nonkilling,” focused upon advancing research, education, training, putting knowledge into action, and nurturing global nonkilling leaders.

    The Organization affirms the Global Nonkilling Spirit which is invoked in the following way:

    AFFIRMATION OF THE GLOBAL NONKILLING SPIRIT

    In remembrance of all who have been killed
    Of all the killers
    Of all who have not killed and
    Of all who worked to end killing

    Guided by the Global Nonkilling Spirit
    Taught by faiths and found within
    We pledge ourselves and call upon all
    To work toward the measurable goal
    Of a killing-free world
    With infinite creativity in reverence for life.

    The Spirit guides the Mission:   “To promote change toward the measurable goal of a killing-free world, by means of infinite human creativity with reverence for life.”

    Miracles begin to happen, such as:

    •    Humanity United, founded by Pamela Omidyar, steps forth in 2008 with strategic planning and capacity-building support for the unique Center for Global Nonkilling in 2009 and 2010 to carry forward the vision and accomplishments of its predecessor Center for Global Nonviolence, founded in 1994.  The vision seeks to evoke the spiritual, scientific, skill, and artistic creativity of nonkilling humankind.

    •    The thesis of Nonkilling Global Political Science escapes the bounds of political science and begins to question the killing-accepting assumptions of other academic disciplines.

    •    In 2009 young Joám Evans Pim in Spain edits and publishes Toward a Nonkilling Paradigm, engaging 22 authors in 15 disciplines, including chapters on nonkilling history, nonkilling mathematics, and nonkilling engineering.

    •    In addition, Joám mobilizes 375 scholars in 200 universities in 50 countries in 20 nonkilling research committees.  He creates a series of books by multiple authors published or forthcoming, including Nonkilling Societies, Nonkilling History, Nonkilling Engineering, Nonkilling Psychology, and Nonkilling Korea:  Six Culture Explorations.  Planned are volumes on Nonkilling Economics, Futures, Geography, Linguistics and Spiritual Traditions.

    •    Spontaneously, organizations and movements begin to arise to carry the nonkilling idea into research, education and action.  They arise in Brazil, Colombia, Germany, Haiti, India, the Philippines and Great Lakes Africa.  A little nonkilling school for 230 children aged 5-6 and 7-8 with 5 teachers arises in the village of Kazimia on the banks of Lake Tanganyika in the DR Congo.  A pioneering nonkilling anthropology course is created by Professor Leslie Sponsel at the University of Hawai‘i.

    •    On nurturing leadership, in 2009 and 2010, the first two Global Nonkilling Leadership Academies are held to bring young women and men together for two weeks to share experiences and to make plans for nonkilling change in their societies. They review lessons from leaders like Queen Lili‘uo‘kalani, Gandhi, King, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Ron Mallone, Petra Kelly and Governor Guillermo Gaviria of Colombia, among others.

    •    Participants have come from Bangladesh, Colombia, Germany, Haiti, Hawai‘i, Ireland, India, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Liberia, Palestine, Philippines, Thailand, Trinidad, and Western Sahara.

    Going forward:

    •    The Center for Global Nonkilling becomes a partner of the WHO Violence Prevention Alliance in its work to eliminate human violence (suicide, homicide, and collective violence) as a “preventable disease.”

    •    Introduced by Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire, the Center becomes a Friend of the Nobel Peace Laureates’ World Summits and contributes to Principle 13 of its Charter for a World without Violence:  “Everyone has the right not to be killed and the responsibility not to kill others.”

    What does the nonkilling idea mean for support for the work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and other great organizations that celebrate life while working for a world free of war and other threats to human survival and well-being?  It simply means adding nonkilling confidence to inspired work for nuclear disarmament and security, economic well-being, freedom and human rights, protection of the biosphere, and every other issue requiring universal problem-solving cooperation.

    The nonkilling idea seeks a killing-free world achieved by global diffusion of a strong nonkilling ethic combined with global citizen understanding of ways and means to bring it about.  It is a process in which each human being who shares the air and precious gift of life on earth now and in the future becomes a center for global nonkilling.

    And so, I share with you a nonkilling gesture, a question: “Is a nonkilling society possible?,” and an answer: “Yes!,” and offer some evidence that the ancient nonkilling idea is beginning to lead anew in the 21st century. More can be found on the website of the Center for Global Nonkilling (www.nonkilling.org).

    To all of you, Glenda and I bring warmest Aloha from Hawai‘i.