Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Peace

  • In the Shadow of Hiroshima

    On 6 August 1945, in total disregard of the basic tenets of science and civilization, the first Atom Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, which created a new war paradigm: destroy an entire city. On 9 August, the second atom bomb destroyed the city of Nagasaki. The sole purpose of creating the nuclear war science was to destroy and dominate other human beings. The law of war was, for 5000 years human history, not to attack unarmed civilians. Women, children, the sick and wounded were always protected. There were thousands of wounded war victims and the sick in Hiroshima and Nagasaki hospitals. Tens of thousands of unarmed citizens irrespective of gender, class, race, region and religion were killed instantly. This law of warfare was violated by a technically advanced nation that claimed, “In God We Trust” and swore by the Christian morality.

    Today, in spite of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there are about 26,000 nuclear warheads mostly in the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia. Also, there are up to 2,000,000 kilograms of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). It takes just 15-24 kilograms of HEU to make a nuclear bomb. There are 28 countries with the capacity to build at least one bomb and 12 countries with the capacity to make 20 bombs. Moreover, all “peaceful” nuclear power reactors add to ‘spent’ fuel which can be reprocessed to produce weapons grade plutonium. According to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, some 500,000 kilograms of plutonium is presently in global stockpiles. This is a threat to world peace and security.

    The dilemma of our Nuclear Age is that while “the reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself,” according to George Bernard Shaw. Today, we recall the heroic act of Russian scientist Andrei Sakharov who was imprisoned in the Soviet Union for his opposition to nuclear weapons. But it was his whistle blowing against the nuclear arms race that guided Mikhail Gorbachev to bring the Cold War to an end. Dr. Sakharov had challenged the power of the state in the cause of world peace. In the history of science, the role of Sakharov proved decisive in defending human rights and civilization.

    My country, India, is committed to a No First Use doctrine, but that does not prevent some reckless enemy or terrorist from striking first with a nuclear bomb. Pakistan’s nuclear program is India-specific and there is possibility of a Pakistani bomb falling in the hands of jihadis. Therefore, the Indian establishment considered it prudent to go for a “credible nuclear deterrence policy,” which intends to survive an initial atomic attack and be ready for an overwhelming retaliatory nuclear strike. Our credible nuclear deterrence is in place with the “specialized forces to tackle nuclear threat in all its dimensions”. But Indian Parliament has not debated the nuclear policy. Nor has there been any national debate, or any popular anti-nuclear campaign in the country. The patriotism of any whistleblower is questioned and no scientist can speak the truth.

    But by building the credible nuclear deterrence, we are repeating the folly of the Cold War pundits who in 1950s regarded nuclear weapons as the currency of power. By 1985, Moscow and Washington both had stockpiled 50,000 nuclear warheads with total Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) capability ten times over. However, by the 80s, concerned scientists established the Nuclear Nights and Nuclear Winter paradigm, declaring that “a nuclear war cannot be fought, nor can it be won.” But the Nuclear Non-Proliferation policy posed a complex and costly problem of decommissioning and safe keeping of thousands of useless but life-threatening nuclear warheads.

    Historically, Hiroshima remains a sad reminder of misuse of science. Science became identified with death and destruction. “We, scientists, have a great deal to answer for,” lamented Nobel Peace Prize recipient the late Joseph Rotblat. It is also a sad reality that the most civilized citizens around the globe still support the nuclear arms race. Admittedly, the scientists’ fraternity cannot live in isolation free from chauvinistic effects when the public and the political leaders think of nuclear weapons in terms of old warfare. But nuclear weapons have the potential of total destruction of all nations. As David Krieger of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation rightly says, “One bomb could destroy one city. A few bombs could destroy a country and a few (more) dozen nuclear bombs could reduce civilization to total ruins.” In a nuclear war there will be no victor, no vanquished.

    On this day of Hiroshima and Nagasaki let us remind ourselves that nuclear weapons are not selectively discriminatory. In fact, they are inclusively destructive to all –life irrespective of gender, caste, creed, race, region or religion. Still the mad nuclear arms race is high on the agenda of most super-patriots and religious fanatics. Concerned scientists have, therefore, appealed to the political leaders and governments of all colors and creed to give up the nuclear weapons.

    This Hiroshima day, we welcome the news that the U.S. President Barack Obama and the Russian President Dmitri Medvedev have signed an agreement to further reduce the stockpiles of nuclear warheads. President Obama is expected to support the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and strengthening the United Nations.
    It was George Santayana, the philosopher who said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” On this Hiroshima Day, we call upon the leaders of India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to desist the nuclear temptation. We also appeal to the Indian Parliament to declare the entire South Asian sub-continent a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.

    Professor Dhirendra Sharma is author of India’s Nuclear Estate and Convener of Concerned Scientists and Philosophers.

  • A Brief Salute to a Great Man

    The “most trusted voice in America” is silenced now, but his message will live as an example of what news should be.
    Mr. Walter Cronkite lived through and witnessed many of the most important events of the 20th Century, reporting and commenting with his authoritative and calm voice.
    His now prescient pronouncement of the futility of the war in Vietnam was pivotal in bringing it to an end. He also voiced his opposition to the Iraq war. Until the end of his life, he was a strong defender of justice and peace.
    We, at Nuclear Age Peace Foundation were very fortunate and honored to have benefited from his wisdom and experience in our Advisory Council. We will miss him and we will continue the mission of his ardent wish for a nuclear weapons free World.
    And that’s the way it will continue to be, Uncle Walter.

    Rubén Arvizu is the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Director for Latin America.
  • Walter Cronkite, An Advocate of Peace

    Walter Cronkite, An Advocate of Peace

    Walter Cronkite, the long-time anchorman for CBS Evening News, was the most trusted man in America. People believed in him. He was an honest newsman who became an American icon. He stood for what was decent and solid in the American heartland. But Walter Cronkite was more than an anchorman on the evening news. Like many of his generation, who had lived through World War II, he was deeply committed to building a peaceful world.

    In May 2004, Cronkite gave the commencement address at Pomona College, in which he criticized the Iraq War and encouraged the students to engage in a campaign for peace. He said to them, “the odds are high that you can gain immensely by participating in the campaign for peace – an experience that will profit you handsomely in the work-a-day world. The glory, though, is in playing an important role in history. I urge you not to believe that this dream of peace – and the way to achieve it – is without reality or a solid foundation.”

    Leaving no doubt where he stood in his commitment to peace, he continued, “You will be among those making a major contribution toward achieving what realists would say is impossible – a permanent peace among the peoples of our globe. I happen to believe we’ve got to put idealism on at least an equal footing with practicality. We’re going to make it, we human beings — if we cling to the belief — if we work for, bringing to reality the achievement of peace.”

    Later that year, in October, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation honored Mr. Cronkite with our Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. In actuality, he honored us by accepting the award. When he was interviewed by Sam Donaldson after receiving the award, he shared a proposal for having a new president organize a panel of retired generals to prepare a plan “to get out of Iraq with honor, to get our troops home and have them do this within the next six months. Unfortunately, there was no new president as a result of the 2004 election, and the war continued.

    Soon after the award presentation, Walter Cronkite became a member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council. The next summer, nearing the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Cronkite joined a Foundation panel at the United Nations. Expressing his concern for future generations, he told the audience, “The best security, perhaps the only security, against nuclear weapons being used again, or getting into the hands of terrorists, is to eliminate them. Most of the people of the world already know this. Now it is up to the world’s people to impress the urgency of this situation upon their governments. We must act now. The future depends upon us. Anything less would be to abandon our responsibility to future generations.”

    In 2007, still disturbed by the illegal war in Iraq, Cronkite wrote an article with me, emphasizing his long-standing concerns about the Iraq War. The article, which was published in the Santa Barbara News Press, was titled, “Time to End U.S. Presence in Iraq.” The article provided a three step program to end the war: “Step one is to proceed with the rapid withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and hand over the responsibility for the security of Iraq to Iraqi forces. Step two is to remove our military bases from Iraq and to turn Iraqi oil over to Iraqis. Step three is to provide resources to the Iraqis to rebuild the infrastructure that has been destroyed in the war.”

    The article ended with an expression of faith in the American people: “It is not likely, however, that Congress will act unless the American people make their voices heard with unmistakable clarity. That is the way the Vietnam War was brought to an end. It is the way that the Iraq War will also be brought to an end. The only question is whether it will be now, or whether the war will drag on, with all the suffering that implies, to an even more tragic, costly and degrading defeat. We will be a better, stronger and more decent country to bring the troops home now.”

    Walter Cronkite was a strong advocate for a U.S. Department of Peace. He wanted our nation to display its “determination to give to peace the full attention we now give to war. We would honor Walter Cronkite’s memory and what he stood for by deepening our own commitments to building a more peaceful world.

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

  • Daisaku Ikeda’s 2009 Peace Proposal and the Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

    Daisaku Ikeda’s 2009 Peace Proposal and the Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

    Daisaku Ikeda has always been a staunch advocate of nuclear weapons abolition. In his 2009 Peace Proposal, his 27th annual Peace Proposal, Ikeda makes “sharing of efforts for peace toward the abolition of nuclear arms” one of the three major pillars he proposes “for transforming the current global crisis into a catalyst for opening a new future for humanity….” The other two pillars are “sharing of action through tackling environmental problems” and “sharing of responsibility through international cooperation on global public goods.” Ikeda makes a powerful case for humanity rising out of necessity to a new level of global cooperation to overcome the shared threats to our common future.

    As always, Ikeda’s view of nuclear weapons is unambiguous. He refers to these weapons, as did his mentor Josei Toda, as an “absolute evil.” He is clear that these weapons “are incompatible not only with the interests of national security but with human security.” This understanding forms the basis for his uncompromising commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    At the governmental level, Ikeda proposes action at three levels. First, he suggests the prompt convening of a US-Russia summit, at which “basic agreement for bold nuclear arms reduction plans could be reached” in advance of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. I agree with him fully on this point, and it would seem that President Obama, who has already sent Henry Kissinger to Russia for preliminary talks, does as well.

    What might be accomplished at a US-Russia summit? I would argue for four needed outcomes. First, announce that the common goal of both countries is a world free of nuclear weapons. Second, agree as a next step toward this goal to reduce the arsenals of each side, deployed and reserve, to no more than 1,000 nuclear weapons by the year 2010. Third, commit to taking the nuclear weapons on both sides off hair-trigger alert. Fourth, extend the provisions of the 1991 START I agreement, which is set to expire in December 2009, so that its provisions for verification are retained.

    Ikeda’s second proposal for action at the governmental level is, building on the US-Russia agreements, to convene a five state summit for nuclear disarmament, composed of the five initial nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France and China). He sees their mandate being to create “a roadmap of truly effective measures to fulfill their disarmament obligation stipulated in Article VI of the NPT.” Thus, he seeks to keep the nuclear weapons states that are parties to the NPT focused on their obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    The third Ikeda proposal for government action is pursuing the challenge of concluding a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC), a new treaty that would “comprehensively prohibit the use, manufacture, possession, deployment and transfer of nuclear weapons.” Ikeda realizes, though, that action by governments is unlikely to succeed in this effort without the involvement of civil society. “To realize an NWC,” he states, “it is vital that people of the world raise their voices and strengthen solidarity in the manner seen in the campaigns for the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but on an even greater scale.”

    Awakening the people of the planet to the peril that nuclear weapons pose to them and their loved ones may be the most important single effort that can be made by those of us currently inhabiting the planet. Thus, I am particularly encouraged by Daisaku Ikeda’s call for a People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition. It is critical that people everywhere embrace this issue and take positive action for a world free of nuclear weapons. Governments have been too slow to act on their own, regardless of the dangers nuclear weapons pose to humanity and the human future.

    Even more enlightened governments, such as the Obama administration, need outspoken support from their citizens if they are going to meet the challenges of nuclear weapons abolition. With concerted global action during a People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition, it may be possible to move governments with unprecedented speed so as to reach the goal set forth by the Mayors for Peace of a world free of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

    Daisaku Ikeda’s 2009 Peace Proposal is an inspirational statement from a man who has chosen hope. Realizing the goals of the proposal for peace and nuclear abolition will require the active engagement of committed individuals and groups across the globe.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a Deputy Chair of the World Future Council.

  • Joint Statement by President Dmitriy Medvedev of the Russian Federation and President Barack Obama of the United States ofAmerica

    Reaffirming that the era when our countries viewed each other as enemies is long over, and recognizing our many common interests, we today established a substantive agenda for Russia and the United States to be developed over the coming months and years.  We are resolved to work together to strengthen strategic stability, international security, and jointly meet contemporary global challenges, while also addressing disagreements openly and honestly in a spirit of mutual respect and acknowledgement of each other’s perspective.

    We discussed measures to overcome the effects of the global economic crisis, strengthen the international monetary and financial system, restore economic growth, and advance regulatory efforts to ensure that such a crisis does not happen again.

    We also discussed nuclear arms control and reduction.  As leaders of the two largest nuclear weapons states, we agreed to work together to fulfill our obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and demonstrate leadership in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world.  We committed our two countries to achieving a nuclear free world, while recognizing that this long-term goal will require a new emphasis on arms control and conflict resolution measures, and their full implementation by all concerned nations.  We agreed to pursue new and verifiable reductions in our strategic offensive arsenals in a step-by-step process, beginning by replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with a new, legally-binding treaty. We are instructing our negotiators to start talks immediately on this new treaty and to report on results achieved in working out the new agreement by July.

    While acknowledging that differences remain over the purposes of deployment of missile defense assets in Europe, we discussed new possibilities for mutual international cooperation in the field of missile defense, taking into account joint assessments of missile challenges and threats,  aimed at enhancing the security of our countries, and that of our allies and partners.

    The relationship between offensive and defensive arms will be discussed by the two governments.

    We intend to carry out joint efforts to strengthen the international regime for nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. In this regard we strongly support the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and are committed to its further strengthening. Together, we seek to secure nuclear weapons and materials, while promoting the safe use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We support the activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and stress the importance of the IAEA Safeguards system. We seek universal adherence to IAEA comprehensive safeguards, as provided for in Article III of the NPT, and to the Additional Protocol and urge the ratification and implementation of these agreements. We will deepen cooperation to combat nuclear terrorism.  We will seek to further promote the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which now unites 75 countries. We also support international negotiations for a verifiable treaty to end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. As a key measure of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, we underscored the importance of the entering into force the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.  In this respect, President Obama confirmed his commitment to work for American ratification of this Treaty. We applaud the achievements made through the Nuclear Security Initiative launched in Bratislava in 2005, including to minimize the civilian use of Highly Enriched Uranium, and we seek to continue bilateral collaboration to improve and sustain nuclear security. We agreed to examine possible new initiatives to promote international cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy while strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We welcome the work of the IAEA on multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle and encourage efforts to develop mutually beneficial approaches with states considering nuclear energy or considering expansion of existing nuclear energy programs in conformity with their rights and obligations under the NPT. To facilitate cooperation in the safe use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, both sides will work to bring into force the bilateral Agreement for Cooperation in the Field of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. To strengthen non-proliferation efforts, we also declare our intent to give new impetus to implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540 on preventing non-state actors from obtaining WMD-related materials and technologies.

    We agreed to work on a bilateral basis and at international forums to resolve regional conflicts.

    We agreed that al-Qaida and other terrorist and insurgent groups operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan pose a common threat to many nations, including the United States and Russia.  We agreed to work toward and support a coordinated internationalresponse with the UN playing a key role. We also agreed that a similar coordinated and international approach should be applied to counter the flow of narcotics from Afghanistan, as well as illegal supplies of precursors to this country. Both sides agreed to work out new ways of cooperation to facilitate international efforts of stabilization, reconstruction and development in Afghanistan, including in the regional context.

    We support the continuation of the Six-Party Talks at an early date and agreed to continue to pursue the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in accordance with purposes and principles of the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement and subsequent consensus documents. We also expressed concern that a North Korean ballistic missile launch would be damaging to peace and stability in the region and agreed to urge the DPRK to exercise restraint and observe relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

    While we recognize that under the NPT Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program, Iran needs to restore confidence in its exclusively peaceful nature.  We underline that Iran, as any other Non-Nuclear Weapons State – Party to the NPT, has assumed the obligation under Article II of that Treaty in relation to its non-nuclear weapon status.  We call on Iran to fully implement the relevant U.N. Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors resolutions including provision of required cooperation with the IAEA. We reiterated their commitment to pursue a comprehensive diplomatic solution, including direct diplomacy and through P5+1 negotiations, and urged Iran to seize this opportunity to address the international community’s concerns.

    We also started a dialogue on security and stability in Europe.  Although we disagree about the causes and sequence of the military actions of last August, we agreed that we must continue efforts toward a peaceful and lasting solution to the unstable situation today. Bearing in mind that significant differences remain between us, we nonetheless stress the importance of last year’s six-point accord of August 12, the September 8 agreement, and other relevant agreements, and pursuing effective cooperation in theGeneva discussions to bring stability to the region.

    We agreed that the resumption of activities of the NATO-Russia Council is a positive step.  We welcomed the participation of an American delegation at the special Conference on Afghanistan convened under the auspices of Shanghai Cooperation Organization last month.

    We discussed our interest in exploring a comprehensive dialogue on strengthening
    Euro-Atlantic and European security, including existing commitments and President Medvedev’s June 2008 proposals on these issues. The OSCE is one of the key multilateral venues for this dialogue, as is the NATO-Russia Council.

    We also agreed that our future meetings must include discussions of transnational threats such as terrorism, organized crime, corruption and narcotics, with the aim of enhancing our cooperation in countering these threats and strengthening international efforts in these fields, including through joint actions and initiatives.

    We will strive to give rise to a new dynamic in our economic links including the launch of an intergovernmental commission on trade and economic cooperation and the intensification of our business dialogue. Especially during these difficult economic times, our business leaders must pursue all opportunities for generating economic activity. We both pledged to instruct our governments to make efforts to finalize as soon as possible Russia’s accession into the World Trade Organization and continue working towards the creation of favorable conditions for the development of Russia-U.S. economic ties.

    We also pledge to promote cooperation in implementing Global Energy Security Principles, adopted at the G-8 summit inSaint Petersburg in 2006, including improving energy efficiency and the development of clean energy technologies.

    Today we have outlined a comprehensive and ambitious work plan for our two governments.  We both affirmed a mutual desire to organize contacts between our two governments in a more structured and regular way. Greater institutionalized interactions between our ministries and departments make success more likely in meeting the ambitious goals that we have established today.

    At the same time, we also discussed the desire for greater cooperation not only between our governments, but also between our societies ‑‑ more scientific cooperation, more students studying in each other’s country, more cultural exchanges, and more cooperation between our nongovernmental organizations.  In our relations with each other, we also seek to be guided by the rule of law, respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights, and tolerance for different views.

    We, the leaders of Russia and the United States, are ready to move beyond Cold War mentalities and chart a fresh start in relations between our two countries.  In just a few months we have worked hard to establish a new tone in our relations.  Now it is time to get down to business and translate our warm words into actual achievements of benefit to Russia, the United States, and all those around the world interested in peace and prosperity.

  • Making Peace a Priority

    Making Peace a Priority

    The election of Barack Obama has brought a new spirit of hope to the United States and the world. We now have the opportunity to chart a new course for US foreign policy and provide leadership to restore peace under international law, promote justice and reestablish America’s credibility in the world. Our time demands such leadership from the United States, which could be demonstrated by taking the following ten steps:

    1. Commit to US leadership to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. Enter into negotiations with the Russians and then the other seven nuclear weapons states to create a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    2. End the war in Iraq, withdraw American troops, close US military bases in Iraq and provide reparations to the people of Iraq for the damage we have caused there.

    3. Pursue and bring to justice the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, using police and intelligence to address counterterrorism, and cease the US war against the Taliban.

    4. Close Guantanamo, bring the prisoners to trial in US courts or release them, and provide assurances that the US will never again be a party to torture.

    5. Increase the US role in brokering peace in areas of conflict, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    6. Reduce the military budget by 25 to 50 percent, eliminating wasteful and unneeded military expenditures, and reducing our foreign military bases and our global naval presence; and apply the savings to meeting human needs and revitalizing our economy.

    7. Cease US plans to put weapon systems in outer space, and join Russia and China in a treaty prohibiting the weaponization of outer space.

    8. Pledge US respect for the United Nations Charter and international law, including fulfilling the noble goals of the Charter of ending “the scourge of war” and formulating plans for “the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.”

    9. Re-sign the Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court and give full US support to holding individuals accountable under international law for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

    10. Establish a Department of Peace with a cabinet level Secretary of Peace, so that peace has a permanent place at the table in the councils of government.

    We have the opportunity to change our country and the world. Now is the time to seize the moment.

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

  • Renewed Hope for Peace

    With so much sadness around the Santa Barbara/Montecito fires, I’m deeply grateful to see so many here tonight.

    I am also very delighted to share tonight’s honors with Stanely Sheinbaum. We have been friends, colleagues and co-workers for justice and peace for over three decades. What a great man. I love him dearly. I’ve known David Krieger and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation throughout your courageous history. What important, innovative, challenging work you have done over all these critical years. Twenty-five yeas and still going strong; what a great achievement.

    It is a profound honor to follow people like the Dalai Lama, Jody Williams, Desmond Tutu, King Hussein of Jordon, and Walter Cronkite. And coming after last years honorees, the incomparable singing trio, Peter, Paul and Mary, I feel like I should begin by singing “Blowin’ in the Wind” or “If I Had a Hammer” – but I will spare you.

    This Distinguished Peace Leader Award means so very much to me and I’m very grateful. I will cherish it. That wonderful introduction by Mark Asman and Anna Grotenhuis warmed my heart. But it does remind me of a story. One day a speaker was introduced to his audience with these words: “Listen to this man. He is a most gifted person, which is evidenced by the fact that he made a million dollars in California oil. So listen to him.”

    The speaker responded with thanks, but he was somewhat confused and embarrassed. Many items were essentially there, but a little misinterpreted. He said:

    “First, it wasn’t oil – it was coal. Second, it wasn’t California – it was Pennsylvania. Third, it was not a million dollars – it was $100,000. Fourth, it was not me, but my brother. Fifth, it didn’t make it; he lost is. But facts aside, I’m glad to be here.”

    Well, I am George Regas and I, too, am glad to be here. I don’t know much about making a million dollars – but I do know something about peacemaking.

    PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA AND PEACEMAKING

    There is a deep, deep rejoicing with the election of Barack Obama. All over the world, Obama’s election has sent the message that hope is viable, that change is really possible, that peace is on its way.

    President elect Obama – hear us. Your first decision as President must be to instruct The Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare a sensible plan for ending the Iraq war and occupation. Get us out of Iraq. No more arguments about time tables. And if you establish a Peace Department and let Rabbi Leonard Beerman and George Regas head it up – Peace just might have a chance!!

    When both John McCain and Barack Obama, during the Presidential Campaign, would say, “we are the greatest country in the world…the ‘city shining on the hill’, that America with our history is exceptional” – that rhetoric always pushed me away. Not that I don’t love America because I love my country dearly. But this kind of thinking, this exceptionalism, is central to the Iraq tragedy.

    At the grave, we are all equal, and the suffering of one is not more important than the suffering of another. This reality is tragically missing from the American psyche. I think of all those children killed in Iraq as a result of our war; I think of those 30,000 children across the globe who die every day of malnutrition and hunger — and my heart is broken. Very clearly, modern war is total war. With the lethality of modern weapons, there can be no discrimination between combatants and civilians. Some studies say more than 1 million Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war. We need to proclaim as loudly as possible that war with the face it wears today is sin itself. Jesus would bless Howard Zinn when he says, “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

    The sin and evil at the heart of this war in Iraq is the belief that an American child is more precious than an Iraqi baby. Therefore, a reaffirmation of our common humanity and our equality in joy and in pain must be given primacy if there is ever to be peace in our world.

    Barack Obama must restore American moral credibility. Closing Guantanamo, banning all torture and ending the Iraq war and occupation will provide a start but only that. He must inspire the world as he has America that great things are possible; we can have a world without war.

    NOW LOOK AT ECONOMICS

    The world wide economic crises are overwhelming. There are significant moral issues surrounding this bleak situation.

    Larry Bartels of Princeton University and one of the country’s leading political scientists says some provocative things in his book, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Guilded Age. He indicates that from the 1940s to the 1970s the real income of the poorest fifth of Americans more than doubled, advancing faster than any other quintile. Since 1974 the pattern has been skewed significantly toward the rich.

    The years 1979 through 2008 have been calamitous for poor and middle class people in the U.S.

    Larry Bartels writes that he was surprised to find in his research how profoundly partisan differences affected economic outcomes.

    It is true there are many causes for the growing inequality in our globalized economy. But it is unwise to assume there is no cause and effect relationship between government policies and income distribution. Professor Bartels asserts “economic inequality is, in substantial part, a political phenomenon.”

    The war system is deeply embedded in this nation: in education, in government, in industry.

    Joseph Stiglitz, nobel laureate for economics, is saying in a new book that the Iraq war will eventually cost the U.S. $3 – $5 trillion. 40% of the 1.65 million people who have been deployed are coming home with disabilities – some very serious disabilities. That’s an obligation we must honor and we will be paying this for decades to come. We have borrowed every dime for the Iraq war. George Bush has tried to pretend that you can have a war and not pay the price. What a tragedy. The war system is a criminal mismanagement of humanity’s resources.

    NUCLEAR WEAPONS

    The political reality that nuclear war still remains an option for America, Russia, China, Britain, France, Pakistan, India and Israel – that reality is the paramount moral issue of our time.

    James Carroll, a great peace leader, writing in the Boston Globe October 13, 2008 says that the word “meltdown” came naturally to the lips last week, referring to the collapse of the financial markets. But Carroll talks about another meltdown which is the purpose of a nuclear bomb.

    He says the economic meltdown caused us to ignore a much greater problem. That very week over the signatures of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, the government released the statement “National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century.” The two officials argue that the time has come for the development of a new nuclear weapon, the so called Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). Because “nuclear weapons remain an essential and enduring element” of American military strategy, the aging arsenal of several thousand deployed nukes (and many more “stored” nukes) must be replaced.

    Obviously, President Bush will not succeed in getting new nuclear weapons approved in Congress. What Gates and Bodman are doing at the urging of the nuclear establishment is putting this item at the very top of the next President’s agenda.

    Carroll writes that for 20 years the United States has been ambivalent about its nuclear arsenal. The indecision was enshrined in the policy that America would “lead” the post Cold War world in the ongoing reduction of nuclear weapons, aiming at the ultimate abolition called for by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. However, at the same time we would maintain a sizable nuclear force, both deployed and stored, as a protection, a “hedge”, against the re-emergence of some Cold War-style threat.

    This nuclear policy was a deadly contradiction. It simply made U.S. leadership on meaningful nuclear weapons reduction impossible.

    Today nuclear nations want to renew and expand their arsenals, keeping their own nuclear advantage, and non-nuclear states, especially Iran, are moving towards acquiring nuclear weapons.

    The Gates-Bodman recent proposal is saying that if the policy of deterrence fails there will be an actual use of nuclear weapons to “defeat” an enemy. That is incomprehensible. Once nuclear war begins, all notions of victory and defeat are meaningless.

    During the days of the Interfaith Center to Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race, organized by Rabbi Leonard Beerman and Leo Baeck Temple and All Saints Church, Dr. Marvin Goldberger, distinguished physicist and former Cal Tech President, spoke at an event in the mid 1980s. I can still hear his words: “Those who use the rhetoric that suggests we can survive and win a nuclear war are certifiably insane. Such rhetoric is the greatest illusion of our day. It points to the moral bankruptcy of our age”.

    The Non Proliferation Treaty has integrity only if we are committed to the centerpiece of that treaty – a movement toward nuclear abolition.

    In the United States the public has been manipulated to focus almost exclusively on nuclear proliferation. And so there is no attention given to the possession and continued development of nuclear weapons and the thinly disguised reliance on their threatened use.

    When we deal with Iran, we are using a nuclear double standard. We only discuss proliferation. The U.S. must commit to nuclear disarmament if we are to have integrity. The reason Iran should not have nuclear weapons is because no country should have them. The only way to prevent Iran and other aspiring countries acquiring those deadly, world destroying nuclear weapons is for this country and Russia to disarm.

    Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2005, says we must always remember the goal of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a world free from nuclear weapons. So we must move on two fronts: Non-proliferation and equally the disarmament front. To deal with Iran with any integrity we must build an effective system of collective security that doesn’t rely in any way on nuclear weapons.

    GRASS ROOTS ORGANIZING

    None of this will happen without us. If there is to be a progressive agenda, Barack Obama must use his bully pulpit to continue to inspire and educate America to move this country in a new direction. But he needs a grass roots movement for peace at the center of the Obama agenda if he is to succeed.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized his ability to push legislation through Congress depended on the pressure generated by protestors and organizers. He once told a group of activists who sought his support for legislation, “you’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do it.”

    There were many factors contributing to Obama’s great victory, but the real key to his success was grass roots organizing.

    Now Obama’s supporters will need to transform that electoral energy into grassroots movements for change.

    Winning the election was only the beginning, the first stage, of a broader movement to help America become a nation of compassion, justice and peace.

    Do you remember during the Vietnam War the Newsweek cover in 1971 of a naked 9 year old Vietnamese girl running down the road screaming – her skin on fire from a napalm bomb? The picture epitomized the horrific tragedy of the Vietnam War. Americans began rather miraculously to identify with that child. She was just like our own children. She, too, was precious to a mother and father, and precious to God. That realization of the sacredness of all life was central to the mobilization and final victory of the peace movement during the Vietnam War. The same motivating experience of compassion can help us build a peace movement today.

    Virtually every meaningful social transformation in the history of the United States has resulted from nonviolent movements that have mobilized grass roots “people power.” “Together,” as Jody Williams said when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, “we are a superpower. It’s a new definition of superpower. It’s not one of us; it’s all of us.” All of us can fuel a new movement – to free the world of nuclear weapons, to bring justice to the world’s poor, to end the ways of war and destruction and see peace reign across the globe.

    As I close, I want us to remember there is such a thing as being too late. Will we learn about the perils of revenge, violence and war soon enough to act and change our ways? Will we learn before it is too late?

    Of all Michelangelo’s powerful figures, none is more poignant than the man in the Last Judgment being dragged down to hell by demons, his hand over one eye and in the other eye a look of dire recognition. He understood, but all too late.

    Michelangelo was right: Hell is truth seen too late.

    The call goes out to all of us to join the movement for peace. The call to act before it is too late.

    So hold on to hope. Cynicism and despair are deathblows to any movement for peace and disarmament. Good people will do nothing if they have lost hope. Teillard de Chardin said, “the world of tomorrow belongs to those who gave it its greatest hope.” I love that.

    My sisters and brothers don’t give up. It’s not too late yet. God needs you and me to save this wondrous creation and calls us to share this mission. What a privilege.

    The Rev. Dr. George Regas is Rector Emeritus of All Saints Church in Pasadena, California, and the recipient of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2008 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. He delivered these remarks at the 2008 Evening for Peace in Santa Barbara, California.
  • 2008 NAPF Evening for Peace

    2008 NAPF Evening for Peace

    Remarks delivered at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 25th Annual Evening for Peace on November 22, 2008 in Santa Barbara, California.

    Tonight marks a quarter century that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been holding this annual Evening for Peace. We are gathering at this 25th anniversary event at a time of renewed hope for peace.

    We are honoring two extraordinary individuals – Reverend George Regas and Stanley Sheinbaum – who have together spent over a century, often behind the scenes, working for a more just and peaceful world. This evening we shine a light on their acts of peace and world citizenship, and it is our hope that their lives will inspire all of us, and particularly the young people who are here, to lives of greater compassion, courage and commitment.

    Renewed hope is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

    We still live in a world in which conflicts are too often settled by force rather than law, in which we spend far too much of our precious resources, human and economic, on war and its preparations.

    The world’s nations are spending some $1.3 trillion annually on military preparations and war, with the United States is spending roughly half this amount. Since the beginning of the Nuclear Age, our country has spent some $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. We are still spending some $50 billion annually on nuclear arms.

    We need change in our world and, dare I say, change is coming.

    One thing is absolutely certain: Nuclear weapons do not and cannot protect their possessors. They can be used to commit monstrous acts of mass murder, by a first strike or in retaliation for a preceding attack, but they cannot protect their possessors.

    The only way we can be sure that we are safe from a nuclear attack is by abolishing these weapons.

    This is what President-elect Obama has said: “A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America’s interest and the world’s interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality.”

    When he says “our responsibility to make the commitment,” I think he means all of us. I think that Barack Obama and America need this commitment from all of us. But it is up to him and to all of us to fulfill this commitment with our actions.

    At the Foundation, we have developed a Nuclear Disarmament Agenda for President Obama during his first 100 days in office. We ask that he take three steps:

    First, make a public commitment for US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons in a major foreign policy address.

    Second, open bilateral negotiations with Russia on a range of nuclear policy issues. We need Russia as a partner in this journey to sanity.

    Third, initiate global action to convene a meeting of all nine nuclear weapons states to negotiate a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

    The proposed agenda has some additional details that can be found in your programs.

    The main point I’d like to leave you with is that a world free of nuclear weapons is not an impossible dream. The genie can be put back in the bottle. The process may begin with a dream, but it continues with a politics of peace and justice. If it also increases our security, as it surely will, we are far the better for it.

    I would ask you to also take three actions:

    First, send the “First Hundred Day Agenda” to President-elect Obama, along with an encouraging note from you about why you want a world with zero nuclear weapons.

    Second, sign the Foundation’s Appeal to the Next President for US Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World and gather another 15 or 50 or 500 signatures and send them to the Foundation by early January.

    Third, watch the Foundation’s DVD, “Nuclear Weapons and the Human Future,” and arrange a showing to a group you organize or that you belong to.

    Let me conclude with some thoughts by General Lee Butler, a former commander in chief of the United States Strategic Command – in charge of all US nuclear weapons. General Butler became an ardent abolitionist after retiring from the military and is one of our past awardees. Referring to the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, he said, “We cannot at once keep sacred the miracle of existence and hold sacrosanct the capacity to destroy it. It is time to reassert the primacy of individual conscience, the voice of reason and the rightful interests of humanity.”

    I believe that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and each of us have an important role to play in the transformation to a peaceful and nuclear weapons-free world. Your hope, commitment, involvement and support are making and will continue to make all the difference.

    Thank you for being with us; thank you for caring.

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

  • Statement of Costa Rican President on Reducing Military Spending

    This speech was delivered to the United Nations Security Council on November 19, 2008

    A curious tale from Scandinavian mythology tells of two kings condemned to fight one another for eternity. If one succeeded in killing the other, the victim would rise again to continue their struggle until the last day of the world. The story has several versions, but, in all of them, the kings and their armies are revived each morning with new weapons, ready to take to the field of battle once more. This fantasy, product of a warrior culture, became a painful premonition of the events that would mark, with blood, the history of the twentieth century: an escalation of weapons, enemies, threats and war that ended the lives of hundreds of millions of people and forced us into the trenches of international insecurity.

    There lies the reason for the creation of this Security Council: in the search for solutions to the endless battle within the human species, fed by the frenzy of the arms race. It is unlikely that any organization has ever been set a more ambitious task than that. And it is unlikely that any organization has faced more difficult choices. Many of those dilemmas remain to be resolved but their answer can be found, without a doubt, in the content of the Charter of the United Nations. In 1945, with the smoke still clearing after the worst war in human memory, the founders of this Organization wrote in Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations:

    “In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.”

    The wording of that Article is no accident. It makes a statement of which this Council must take note, to the fullest extent of its meaning: spending on arms is a diversion of human and economic resources; that is to say, a use that is not correct. As a minimum, the Charter asks us to accept that excessive military spending exacts an infinite cost in opportunity.

    These are not the delusions of a citizen of the first country in history to abolish its army and declare peace on the world. They are not the dreams of a Nobel Peace laureate. This is the text that holds up this building. It is the text that justifies any action of this Security Council. Article 26 has been, until now, a dead letter in the vast cemetery of intentions for world peace. But in that place there also rests the possibility of reviving that intention; of giving it the meaning intended by those who precede us in this struggle.

    “The least diversion of resources” means, first and foremost, finding alternatives to excessive military spending that do not damage security. One of those alternatives is to strengthen multilateralism. As long as nations do not feel protected by strong regional organizations with real powers to act, they will continue to arm themselves at the expense of their peoples’ development — of the poorest, in particular — and at the expense of international security. The Security Council must support, as a guarantor of collective security, multilateral accords adopted in our various regional organisms. Costa Rica will work along these lines during the coming year as a way to generate an environment that allows for the gradual reduction of military spending.

    Ours is an unarmed nation but it is not a naïve nation. We have not come here to lobby for the abolition of all armies. We have not even come to urge the drastic reduction of world military spending, which has now reached $3.3 billion a day — which is shameful. But a gradual reduction is not only possible, but also imperative, in particular for developing nations.

    I am well aware that neither this Organization nor this Council nor any of its Members can decide how much other countries spend on arms and soldiers. But we can decide how much international aid they receive and on which principles such aid is based. With the money that some developing nations spend on a single combat plane, they could buy 200,000 MIT Media Lab computers for students with limited resources. With the money they spend on a single helicopter, they could pay $100 monthly grants for a whole year to 5,000 students at risk of dropping out of school. The perverse logic that impels a poor nation to spend excessive sums on its armies and not on meeting the needs of its people is exactly the antithesis of human security and is ultimately a serious threat to international security.

    That is why my Government has presented the Costa Rica Consensus, an initiative to create mechanisms to forgive debts and support with international financial resources those developing countries which increase spending on environmental protection, education, healthcare and housing for their people and decrease spending on weapons and soldiers.

    In other words, this initiative seeks to reward developing countries, whether poor or middle-income, that divert increasingly fewer of their economic and human resources to the purchase of arms, just as stipulated in Article 26 of the Charter of the United Nations. Today, I ask members for their support in making the Consensus of Costa Rica a reality.

    I also ask members for their support for the arms trade treaty that Costa Rica, along with other nations, presented to the United Nations in 2006. This treaty seeks to prohibit the sale of arms to States, groups or individuals, when there is sufficient reason to believe that they will be used to violate human rights or international law. I do not know how much longer we can survive unless we realize that it is just as terrible to kill many people, little by little, every day, as it is to kill many people in a single day. The destructive power of the 640 million small arms and light weapons that exist in the world, 74 per cent of which are in the hands of civilians, has proven to be more lethal than that of nuclear weapons and constitutes one of the principal motors of national and international insecurity.

    Costa Rica knows that the members of this Council include some of the countries that top the list for the sale and purchase of small arms and light weapons in the world. But my country also knows that those nations have recognized terrorism and drug trafficking as serious threats to international security.

    International organized crime depends on arms trafficking, which until now has flowed with terrifying freedom across our borders, with the result that these same powerful nations suffer the consequences. Although the treaty would not eliminate the existence of such criminal groups, it would certainly limit their operations.

    If we do not succeed with these measures, if the Costa Rica Consensus does not win the support of developed nations and if the arms trade treaty sinks in the waters of this organization, our pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals will become nothing more than the impossible dream of a world that, like Sisyphus, labors without rest towards an unattainable goal.

    We are working to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger and, yet, armed conflicts constitute the principal cause of hunger in our world. We are working to improve health care, particularly maternal health and the fight against AIDS and malaria. Yet, military spending drains millions of dollars from the health-care budgets of poor countries. The Millennium Development Goals were brave words, but they will never be more than words if we do not regulate arms or devise incentives to reduce global military spending.

    Humanity can break the chain that, until now, has forced us to spend our centuries in an incessant and fratricidal struggle. That was the belief of those who founded this Organization. The enormous mission entrusted to this Council is not a failed expectation, but it is a rocky path. Maintaining peace will never be a simple task, nor will it ever be completed. But, I assure you that strengthening multilateralism, reducing military spending in favor of human development and regulating the international arms trade are steps in the right direction, the same as that marked out 63 years ago by those who, having survived atrocities, were nonetheless able to hope.

    Oscar Arias is a Nobel Peace laureate and President of Costa Rica.

  • Joseph Rotblat- The Conscience of this Nuclear Age

    Abstract

    Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat was one of the most distinguished scientists and peace campaigners of the post second world war period. He made significant contributions to nuclear physics and worked on the development of the atomic bomb. He then became one of the world’s leading researchers into the biological effects of radiation. His life from the early 1950s until his death in August 2005 was devoted to the abolition of nuclear weapons and peace. For this he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995. His work in this area ranked with that of Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell and this article is an attempt to summarise his life, achievements and outline his views on the moral responsibilities of the scientist. He is a towering intellectual figure and his contributions to mankind should be better known and more widely understood.

    Early life and times in Poland Joseph Rotblat was born to a Jewish family in Warsaw, Poland on November 4 1908 one of seven children (two not surviving child birth). His father, Zygmunt built up and ran a nationwide horse drawn carriage business, owned land and bred horses. His early years were spent in what was a prosperous household but circumstances changed at the outbreak of the First World War. Borders were closed and horses requisitioned leading to the failure of the business and poverty. After the end of the War he worked as a domestic electrician in Warsaw and had a growing ambition to become a physicist. Without formal education he won a place in the physics department of the Free University of Poland gaining an MA in 1932 and Doctor of Physics, University of Warsaw, 1938. He held the position of Research Fellow in the Radiation Laboratory of the Scientific Society of Warsaw and became assistant Director of the Atomic Physics Institute of the Free University of Poland in 1937. During this period he married a literature student, Tola Gryn. Before the outbreak of war, he had conducted experiments which showed that in the fission process neutrons were emitted. In early 1939 he envisaged that a large number of fissions could occur and if this happened within a sufficiently short period of time then

    considerable amounts of energy could be released. He went on to calculate that this process could occur in less than a microsecond and as a consequence would result in an explosion. The idea of an atomic bomb occurred to him in February 1939 (this is discussed in ‘My early years as a physicist in Poland’ reprinted in ‘War and Peace: The life and work of Sir Joseph Rotblat’ p39-55). Also in 1939 he was invited to study in Paris (through Polish connections with Marie Curie) and with James Chadwick at Liverpool University winner of the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the neutron. Chadwick was building a particle accelerator called a ‘cyclotron’ to study fundamental nuclear reactions and as he wanted to build a similar machine in Warsaw he decided to join Chadwick in Liverpool.

    Liverpool University

    Rotblat travelled to England alone in 1939 as he could not afford to support Tola there. At Liverpool University, Chadwick awarded him the Oliver Lodge Fellowship and now, with sufficient funds, returned home in the summer of 1939 with the intention of bringing his wife back to England. He planned to return to England in late August 1939 but Tola fell ill and he returned to Liverpool alone with the expectation that she would follow. However, war broke out as Poland was invaded by Germany on September 1 1939 and Tola was stranded. Rotblat made increasingly desperate attempts to bring her out of Poland through Belgium, Denmark or Italy but these attempts failed as borders closed across Europe. She is believed to have died in the inhumane conditions of the Warsaw Ghetto. This event affected him deeply for the rest of his life.

    Towards the end of 1939 he began experiments in Liverpool that demonstrated that the nuclear bomb was feasible, but it would require a massive technological effort to produce sufficient quantities of the Uranium isotope required to manufacture a bomb.

    Rotblat was wrestling with his conscience during this period and when back in England asked himself the question “What should I do? Should I begin to work or not ?” clearly meaning working on the bomb (see ‘Leaving the Bomb Project’ reprinted in Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace’ p281-288). He considered himself a ‘pure scientist’ and it was not right to work on weapons of mass destruction. However, he was well aware that other scientists need not necessarily share his convictions and in particular German scientists. Put simply, if Hitler had the bomb he would win the war. When Poland was overrun he decided to work on the bomb. His belief was that we needed to work on the bomb in order that it should not be used. In other words, if Hitler can have the bomb, then the only way in which we can prevent him from using it against us would be if we also had it and threatened to retaliate. And this was the argument which he used at the time to enable him, in all conscience, to begin to work. In the beginning of 1944 Rotblat went with the Chadwick group to Los Alamos, New Mexico to work on the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb. He was to return to Liverpool in late 1944 and in 1945 to become Director of Research in Nuclear Physics following a series of dramatic and life changing events.

    Manhattan Project

    Rotblat arrived at Los Alamos in March 1944 and soon became ambivalent about his involvement and he made no significant contribution to the development of the bomb and even complained of having nothing to do (this is discussed in the British Library recorded interviews and stated explicitly by Brian Cathcart in his obituary in ‘The Independent’ 2 January 2002). However, this time at Los Alamos was the pivotal intellectual experience of his life while the loss of Tola can be seen as the central emotional experience. He said “I was in Los Alamos for less than a year. Well, I came in the beginning of 1944, and left by the end of 1944. As soon as I came to Los Alamos, I realised that my fear about the Germans making the bomb was ungrounded, because I could see the enormous effort which was required by the American(s), with all their resources practically intact, intact by the war – everything that you wanted was put into the effort. Even so, I could see that it’s still far away, and that by that time the war in Europe was showing that Hitler is going to be defeated, and I could see that probably the bomb won’t be ready; even that Hitler wouldn’t have it in any case. Therefore I could see this from the beginning, that my being there, in the light of the reason why I came to work on it, was not really justified. But nevertheless, I could not be sure that the Germans would not find a shortcut maybe and they could still make the bomb. Therefore I kept on working together with the other people, although I was very unhappy about having to work on it. But as soon as I learned, towards the end of 1944, that the Germans have abandoned the project, in fact a long time before, I decided that my presence there was no longer justified, and I resigned and I went back to England.”(see ‘Leaving the Bomb Project’ reprinted in Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace’ p281-288).

    Chadwick was highly concerned that a Briton was the first to leave the Manhattan Project and the Americans regarded him as a security risk. An incompetent effort was made to ‘fit him up’ as a Russian spy, fearing that he would fly to Russia (he had learned to fly while in America) and divulge the secrets of the bomb. The Americans continued to regard him as a security risk and he was denied an entry visa for many years.

    St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College

    Rotblat was appalled at the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps as a part of his reaction to the horrors of the atomic bomb he became interested in the medical uses of nuclear radiation. In 1950 he was appointed Professor of Physics to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College until retirement in1976. During this period he made significant contributions (together with Professor Patricia Lindop) to the understanding of the effects of high energy radiation on mice. He built a 15 MeV electron linear accelerator to enable the study of the biological effects of high energy gamma rays on living organisms. He made significant contributions to the understanding of the effects of radiation on living organisms, especially those of fertility and aging. He also became interested in the effects of radiation from the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. In particular he researched the hazards associated the bone seeking isotope Strontium 90 with a view to establishing safe levels of exposure. He researched the nature of the fallout from the American nuclear test at Bikini Atoll and made public the type of bomb used (a fission fusion fission device) and the large amounts of radiation released. Rotblat became increasingly more politicised resulting in his growing involvement in the campaign to rid the world of nuclear weapons, for which he is best known.

    Pugwash and Nuclear Disarmament

    In 1946, Rotblat took the lead in setting up the British Atomic Scientists Association to stimulate public debate and included many leading scientists. It adopted a non-political agenda and was wound down and ended in 1959, but Rotblat went on to be a founding member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He collaborated with Bertrand Russell and helped launch the “Russell-Einstein Manifesto” in 1955. Russell had written to Einstein saying that “eminent men of science should draw the attention of world leaders to the impending destruction of the human race” (The Russell-Einstein Manifesto reprinted in ‘Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace’ p263-266). The ‘Russell-Einstein Manifesto’ called for a conference of scientists to discuss nuclear disarmament and the abolition of war. This led to the first Pugwash conference in July 1957, funded by a Canadian railway millionaire, Cyrus Eaton, on the condition that it met at Eaton’s home in Pugwash, Nova Scotia. Twenty-one international scientists attended, together with a lawyer, from ten countries, East and West.

    Conferences followed almost once a year with most participants being distinguished scientists from Great Britain, the USA and Soviet Union. The key founding principle was that participants attended as individuals and not representatives of government. Observers, however, from organisations such as the United Nations, UNESCO were welcome. Rotblat was Secretary-General of Pugwash from 1957 to 1993, Chairman of British Pugwash from 1980 to 1988 and President of Pugwash from 1988 to 1997.

    Pugwash has never cultivated extensive publicity but has been highly influential and, for example, was instrumental in achieving agreement on the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty. Also, Pugwash can be credited with helping to establish links between the US and Vietnam in the late 1960s, the negotiation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Rotblat can claim credit for these landmark achievements.

    Conclusions

    Joseph Rotblat made massively important contributions to science, to combating the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the promotion of peace. Bertrand Russell, in his

    autobiography, summed up his work with these words: “He can have few rivals in the courage and integrity and complete self-abnegation with which he has given up his own career (in which, however, he still remains eminent) to devote himself to combating the nuclear peril as well as other, allied devils”. His achievements were recognised with the award in 1992, with Hans Bethe, of the Einstein Peace Prize. In 1995 he was elected to The Royal Society and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the same year shared with the Pugwash Conferences. He was appointed KCMG in 1998. However, he could well have been most proud of Mikhail Gorbachev’s statement that Pugwash conferences and papers helped guide foreign policy resulting in the reduction in temperature of the Cold War.

    Joseph Rotblat at 89 said, “We scientists have to realise that what we are doing has an impact not only on the life of every individual, but also on the whole destiny of humankind…all of us who want to preserve the human race owe an allegiance to humanity; and it’s particularly the job of scientists, because most of the dangers to the world result from the work of scientists.” From his Nobel Lecture in Oslo, “the quest for a war free world has a basic purpose, survival. But if in the process, we learn to achieve it by love rather than by fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion, if in the process, we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, this will be an excellent incentive to embark on this great task. But above all, remember your humanity (J. Rotblat ‘Remember Your Humanity’ reprinted in ‘Joseph Rotblat: Visionsry for Peace’ p315-322). Joseph Rotblat was a truly great man and the conscience of the Nuclear Age.

    References and sources

    Joseph Rotblat’s papers (some 4 tonnes in weight !) are currently being processed by the University of Bath and the archives will reside in Churchill College, Cambridge. I am told that this process will take about 2 more years to complete.

    I have used 2 sound archive resources:

    British Library Sound Archive (call number F7208). This is an exhaustive, some 20 hours, series of interviews given to Katherine Thompson in his own home between May 1999 and 2002. An invaluable source although full transcripts, to my knowledge, are not available.

    National Security Archive-Cold War Interviews (November 15,1998, Episode 8, SPUTNIK). This is a non-governmental, non-profit organisation of scientists and journalists providing a ‘home’ for former secret U.S. Government information obtained under The Freedom of Information Act. Full transcripts are available on the internet.

    ‘War and Peace: The Life and Work of Sir Joseph Rotblat’ edited by Peter Rowlands and Vincent Attwood. Liverpool University Press 2006.

    ‘Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace’ edited by R. Braun, R. Hinde, D. Krieger, H. Kroto, and S. Milne. Wiley-Vich 2007.

    ‘Joseph Rotblat: Influences, Scientific Achievements and Legacy’, Physics Education, 40, October 2008, in press.

     
    Dr. Martin Underwood is a member of Pugwash UK and was a colleague and friend of Joseph Rotblat.