Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Peace

  • The New Millennium: The Past As Prologue

    It is perhaps a peculiar quality of human beings that we like to count things, and we seem to become particularly excited when our numbers end up with several zeros at the end. Such is the case with the year 2000, even though it is not exactly the turning of the millennium, which will take place as the year turns from 2000 to 2001. It is close enough, however, and it has its own set of problems, which have been characterized by the expression “Y2K.” I will return to that, but first I would like to offer a few observations to provide perspective on the past as a prologue to our current situation.

    First, life has existed on Earth for some 4 billion years.

    Second, humans have existed on Earth for only some 3 million years, less than 1/1000th of the existence of life on Earth.

    Third, civilization and recorded history have existed for only some 10,000 years, barely a tick on the geological clock.

    Fourth, the Nuclear Age began only some six decades ago with the first controlled fission reaction that was sustained under the bleachers of the stadium at the University of Chicago.

    Fifth, less than 55 years ago, the first nuclear weapons were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, utterly destroying those cities and killing over 200,000 of their inhabitants.

    Sixth, throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the United States and the former Soviet Union engaged in a nuclear arms race that at its height saw the deployment of some 80,000 nuclear weapons, many of which were thousands of times more powerful than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Seventh, plutonium, which is the principal ingredient in nuclear weapons and did not exist as such until specifically created for nuclear weapons, will remain dangerous to humans and other forms of life for some 250,000 years. Even a microgram of plutonium, if inhaled, will lead to lung cancer, and we have created thousands of tons of plutonium by the fissioning of uranium for weapons and nuclear power.

    Eighth, at the present time, ten years after the end of the Cold War, eight countries have a total of some 35,000 nuclear weapons, most of them in the arsenals of the United States and Russia. Due to the conditions of social disintegration in the former Soviet Union, there is increased concern that nuclear weapons or weapons-grade nuclear materials might fall (or might already have fallen) into the possession of additional countries or criminals or terrorists.

    From this very quick walk through time, we can reach some interesting conclusions.

    First, in a relatively short period of time, humans have devised a means for their own annihilation.

    Second, we have created radioactive poisons, such as the thousands of tons of plutonium, that will be a danger to humanity for some 25 times longer than civilization has existed.

    We are now an endangered species, endangered by our own cleverness in taming the atom and using the power of the atom for weapons of mass destruction.

    With our new knowledge has come the need for far higher levels of responsibility to prevent our self-destruction. As a species, we have done a poor job of accepting this responsibility.

    Let us look at what we have done in the relatively recent past to try to deal with the challenge of nuclear weapons.

    Nearly 30 years ago the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force. In that treaty, the non-nuclear weapons states promised not to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. In return, the nuclear weapons states promised to engage in good faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament. In other words, this treaty was a trade-off: non-proliferation for nuclear disarmament. For the most part, the non-proliferation part of the bargain has been kept. The nuclear disarmament part of the bargain has been arrogantly pushed aside by the nuclear weapons states.

    Five years ago, the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty held a Review and Extension Conference, as called for by the terms of the treaty. At that conference the treaty was extended indefinitely, although many states argued that an indefinite extension was equivalent to a blank check which should not be given to the nuclear weapons states to continue to flout the treaty provisions. At that time, certain additional promises were made: to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by 1996, to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and to “a determined pursuit” of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally with the ultimate goal of their elimination.

    A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1996, but has yet to be ratified by the US, Russia, China, India or Pakistan. There has been no progress on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and there has been a noticeable lack of “determined pursuit” of nuclear disarmament. The START II agreement has not been ratified by the Russian Duma. In fact, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed to move back the date for completing START II reductions from the beginning of 2003 to the end of 2007. There has been no progress on START III. The US and Russia still maintain dangerous postures of launch on warning. Some 5,000 nuclear weapons remain on hair-trigger alert, ready for immediate launching.

    The US still considers its nuclear arsenal to be the “cornerstone” of its security policy. It has fought against a NATO review of nuclear policy. It has fought against consideration of nuclear disarmament in the UN Conference on Disarmament. It has refused to consider a No First Use policy. Further, it has promoted policies such as the expansion of NATO and the development of a National Missile Defense system that have made the Russians feel more threatened and rely more heavily on their nuclear arsenal.

    In 1996 the International Court of Justice said that any threat or use of nuclear weapons that would violate international humanitarian law would be illegal. This means that nuclear weapons cannot be threatened or used if they would fail to distinguish between combatants and civilians, or if they would cause unnecessary suffering to combatants. Since it would be impossible to use nuclear weapons in any manner that would not either grossly injure non-combatants or cause unnecessary suffering to combatants, any threat or use of nuclear weapons would be illegal. This ruling by the World Court has been largely ignored by the nuclear weapons states.

    The Court also pointed out in its opinion that the effects of the use of nuclear weapons cannot be controlled in either time or space. We know, for example, that today people are continuing to suffer and die as a result of the radiation releases from the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons that took place for four decades until the mid-1980s.

    At the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, a group of Non-Governmental Organizations from around the world lobbied for greater progress on nuclear disarmament. Disappointed by the outcome of the conference, they formed a global network, which is called Abolition 2000, to work for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Abolition 2000 is a citizens movement, which is now composed of some 1,400 citizen action groups in 89 countries. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is the International Contact for this global network.

    Abolition 2000 has called for an international treaty to be concluded by the end of the year 2000 which would lead to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Its goal is to enter the 21st century with a treaty in place providing a firm commitment on the part of the nuclear weapons states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. As the year 2000 is approaching rapidly, this may seem like an unrealizable goal. But this is not necessarily the case.

    Democracies respond to overwhelming citizen pressure. If such pressure were forthcoming in the United States, it could turn the tide. If we have continued complacency, then we will enter the 21st century with inertia and perhaps we will have to wait until a nuclear weapon destroys another city or many cities somewhere in the world before there is action to eliminate nuclear weapons. On the other hand, if Americans were to say, “Enough is enough,” and demand leadership from our government to obtain a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons, it could be done and it could be done rapidly.

    At the present time our national security is based upon the illegal threat of nuclear weapons use that could result in the murder of hundreds of millions of innocent people. We are all accomplices to this illegal threat. Were this threat ever to be carried out, we would be accomplices, willing or unwilling, to what the president of the World Court has described as the “ultimate evil.” If nuclear weapons are ever used again, by accident or design, it will be a greater crime than that committed by the Nazis during World War II. The German people were rightly terrified to challenge the Nazis. The American people have no such excuse. Nor can we claim ignorance. We are all parties to the threatened crime. And, as we learned at Nuremberg, superior orders do not constitute a defense.

    Someone recently said to me, “I’m glad you’re working on this because I have other priorities.” That was not comforting. No one person is going to turn this country around. It will take all of us together. And all of us together can do it. As Jody Williams, the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for the Landmines Campaign, said, “We are the new superpower.” She didn’t mean the United States or any other powerful nation alone. She meant us – you, me, and millions like us. Together we are the new superpower, but only if we make our voices heard.

    I encourage you to write to the President and your representatives in Congress and to raise the issue of nuclear threat in every campaign setting in the upcoming elections. Ask that nuclear weapons be taken off alert status (if for no other reason than to avoid the problems associated with Y2K). Ask that the US adopt a policy of No First Use. Ask that the US take leadership in negotiating an international treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention similar to what we already have for chemical and biological weapons, setting forth the steps for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Make the candidates discuss these issues. Make them declare where they stand on these issues.

    In the final analysis, nuclear weapons are not weapons at all. They are the most terrible instruments of mass annihilation yet created by men. They are portable incinerators. They are illegal, immoral, and undemocratic. They have cost us some $6 trillion since the beginning of the Nuclear Age. More damaging still, they have cast a dark shadow over our consciences and our souls. I urge each of you to make your voice heard and to demand an end to the outrage of relying upon nuclear weapons for what they can never give to us — security.

    Let us enter the 21st century with a commitment in place to abolish nuclear weapons. And if we cannot do it in the year 2000, let us recommit ourselves for the next year and as long as it takes to rid the world of this evil. In doing so, we will keep faith with all humanity that has preceded us and with all generations to follow. Perhaps most important, we will keep faith with ourselves and be, in the words of the great French writer, Albert Camus, “neither victims nor executioners.”

    * David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Creating a Center for Humanity’s Future: Celebrating Creativity in the Coming Age

    The idea of a great circle around the world, with people of all ages speaking and listening to one another … presenting an Annual Report on the State of Humanity … a fountain of joy and inspiration, confidence, strength and limitless creativity

    People all over the Earth are gradually awakening to the most astounding aspects of human beings — that we are not only parts of the mysterious universe, we are embodiments of the whole cosmos, each of us absolutely original and unique but limitless in our capacity. We are finite individuals and yet we will affect everything that happens in the future.

    In this century the discoveries of the human mind — the release of nuclear energy and other revelations — have brought us to the brink of annihilation. In the same century, we have demonstrated enormous cruelty and enormous compassion. We have created a global communications system in which human beings reach out to one another across all boundaries of time and space. Ideas flash around the world, reshaping old institutions and bringing new ones into existence and rapid growth.

    To serve the global community now arising through the individual efforts of people all over the planet, I believe there will be a great opportunity for the fostering and celebration of human creativity through a Center for Humanity’s Future. I advocate the formation of such a Center as a statement of confidence in the tremendous productive capacities of human beings — as a place of light and listening, a place of exploration and encouragement, a launching pad for ideas from throughout the world.

    That Center could have the bold spirit that marked the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, which blazed across the world’s horizons from 1959 to 1981 with the many projects it launched from its headquarters in Santa Barbara. It helped to prevent a war between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was a pioneer in the environmental movement. It called attention to the destructive potentialities of television. It published a model for a new American Constitution, designed to protect human liberties and to indicate human responsibilities in the future. It brought together thousands of people in dialogues and conferences in Santa Barbara, Chicago, New York, Washington, Malta, and Geneva. It became an “early warning system” for humanity.

    The preamble for the proposed model for a new Constitution for the United States contained a declaration that it was designed “to welcome the future in good order.” In our time, we have become intensely concerned with “the future.” All organizations have “vision statements” and make plans for the next years, the next decades, the next century, or even longer.

    Welcoming the future in good order should be one of the primary purposes of the new Center. For many people, the future has a menacing aspect — with imagined disasters and catastrophes rushing toward us. The Center could give a continuing emphasis to the positive possibilities, while recognizing the negative ones..

    The Importance of Celebration

    In the coming age, in which human beings will face more complex problems and more challenges than ever before, it will be essential to evoke the positive powers inherent in every person. That is why the proposed Center should be dedicated to celebration — to foster the release of everyone’s highest thoughts and emotional intelligence. Celebration means more than a never-ending party, or fun and games all year round, although it does include all the aspects of joy, because human beings are at their best when they are joyful, when they take delight in everything to which they are related in a mysterious unfolding universe.

    A Center for Humanity’s Future could raise the banner of celebration over the whole Earth — bringing together people of all kinds in meetings and dialogues, honoring the fine work going on in many places by creative and compassionate persons, inviting everyone to open up and communicate in many languages through the Internet and other channels, lauding the value of cooperation, encouraging everyone to “welcome the future in good order.”

    Overcoming the Power of Violence

    In addition to honoring and promoting the positive potentialities of all human beings, the Center could explore and advocate every possible step to overcome the power of violence. With the existence of nuclear weapons and other instruments of mass destruction, the continuation of life on Earth is at stake. The costs of violence in the twentieth century have been colossal. Millions of lives have been destroyed in the countless wars which have occurred. The Holocaust revealed the destructive depths to which human beings could descend. The massacres in Africa, Yugoslavia, Asia, and elsewhere have been horrifying in their ferocity — the extermination of neighbors by neighbors, the tortures and slaughters of women, children and old people, have shown cruelties on a staggering scale.

    One of the primary purposes of the Center could be to examine the strategies used in human efforts to reduce or eliminate violence. The admonitions of religious leaders, the development of severe punishments under strict laws, the therapeutic programs of psychologists, have not been very effective.

    A six-point pledge developed by the United Nations Education and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) would be offered for consideration. The points are:

    • Respect all life.
    • Reject violence in all its forms, particularly violence directed at the most deprived and vulnerable people.
    • Share with others, in a spirit of generosity.
    • Listen to understand.
    • Preserve the planet.
    • Rediscover solidarity.

    This pledge is based on the realization that everyone must take a personal share of responsibility for the future of humanity.

    Widening Roles for Women in Shaping Humanity’s Future

    The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions was almost exclusively a male enterprise, dominated by highly active men with elitist ideas of leadership. Only one woman was ever appointed to the scholarly circle — the Fellows — who ran the Center. The increasing activities of women in all fields certainly has crucial significance for the future of the human species. A Center dedicated to humanity’s future must give the widest scope to women, who now compose 52 percent of the world’s population. From its board of directors to its staff, such a Center must have women fully represented.

    Since that Center will be continuously engaged in initiating, receiving, discussing, and promoting ideas for the benefit of humanity, women around the world will be continuously invited to take part in the life of the Center. There will be a place for everybody at the Center’s table. There will be a physical table, located in the Center’s headquarters in Santa Barbara— but the table will extend around the planet through the Internet and other methods of communication.

    Hearing from People of All Ages: The Lifting of Every Voice

    The idea of a great circle around the world, with people of all ages speaking and listening to one another, has seemed to be a fantasy — until our time, when it has become a reality. Human beings are now crossing all geographic boundaries easily and swiftly. The Center for Humanity’s Future would invite participants in all the dialogues already under way to comment on the principal topics offered by the Center for worldwide discussion. The first topics could be:

    • Overcoming the power of violence, preventing a war and building a culture of peace;
    • Awakening everyone to the primacy of individual persons in shaping the future;
    • Recognizing the spiritual dimensions of every human being and encouraging spiritual growth;
    • Reaffirming the necessity for protecting the environment and maintaining the earth as a flourishing home for all forms of life;
    • Emphasizing the need for cooperation as an instrument for achieving the good of all;
    • Exploring what it means to be human in the 21st Century; and
    • Developing a Code of Human Responsibilities.

    In the Center’s outreach to people of all ages, there could be a continuous reminder of the fact that every human being has an impact on the future and will have an influence felt for many generations.

    Presenting an Annual Report on the State of Humanity — and a Global Celebration of Creativity

    Each year, the Center could present an Annual Report on the State of Humanity, based on the ideas flowing into it and from it throughout the year. People everywhere might be asked to pledge their support for the international movement for the formation of a culture of peace and nonviolence.

    The Center could also sponsor a global Celebration of Creativity, highlighting the marvelous achievements of women, men, children, people from all backgrounds. Artists of all kinds — musicians, dancers, singers, poets, mystics, doctors, healers, prophets, sculptors— could lead community celebrations which would be linked together around the world. It would recognize the creativity of everyone — and the connections of human beings with one another. It could be videotaped and used on television and the Internet to bring delight into the daily lives of people everywhere.

    The Center itself could be a fountain of joy and inspiration — with its mission to foster hope and happiness and sing a great song as Beethoven did — a song of confidence in the strength and wide-ranging abilities of human beings, aware of their tremendous roles in a universe filled with limitless creativity.

    *Frank K. Kelly is the senior vice president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Kelly is a former speech writer for President Truman and staff director of the U.S. Senate Majority Policy Committee. He served for 17 years as Vice President of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.

    Thoughts On a Center for Humanity’s Future and the State of Humanity

    by David Krieger President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    The Center for Humanity’s Future could be composed of Nobel Laureates and selected other world leaders in various fields, who would issue an Annual Report on the State of Humanity. These leaders would meet at least once a year to finalize the report, which could be released to the people of the world through the media and in the form of a book.

    The purpose of the report would be to offer creative solutions for coping with the dangers humanity faces, and to inspire people to live with full human dignity and to be active participants in shaping a better future.

    The Center for Humanity’s Future would have a full-time secretariat who would work throughout the year in preparing the State of Humanity Report and arranging meetings with leaders in many fields who would provide input to the Nobel Laureate group that would issue the report.

    The Center for Humanity’s Future would operate through two existing non-profit organizations located in Santa Barbara, California: The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and La Casa de Maria Retreat Center.

  • Season of Hiroshima

    The season of Hiroshima arrives each August in the heat of summer. The bomb exploded over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and three days later a second bomb exploded over Nagasaki. Total destruction. The flattening of cities, the incineration of all forms of life. It is a season of memory, reflection, and rededication to the future of life.

    Hiroshima was the awakening of the Nuclear Age. It was a moment in history when time stood still. The clocks were frozen at 8:16 a.m. It was not the end of war as had been hoped, but the end of a certain innocence that could never return. Hiroshima taught us that time was not infinite for humanity, that the future was not assured. We had harnessed the awesome and awful power of the atom, and with this the power to destroy ourselves.

    Hiroshima neither was nor is about victory or defeat. Nor is it about the Japanese, the Americans, or the people of any other single country. Hiroshima belongs to all humanity, residing in our collective consciousness. It is universal. We share in its destructive fire. We share in its suffering, its death, and rebirth.

    The spirit of Hiroshima is “Never Again!” The promise on the Memorial Cenotaph at Hiroshima Memorial Peace Park reads “Let All Souls Here Rest in Peace; For We Shall Not Repeat the Evil.” It is a promise to not only those who died, but to those who lived. It is a promise to all humanity and to the future. The “We” in the promise is all of us. It is a promise to ourselves.

    Wherever you live, take note of this season, and spend some time in contemplation on the meaning for humanity of the historic, somber events which took place on August 6 and August 9, 1945.

  • The Spirit of Hiroshima

    I am a hibakusha, a survivor of Hiroshima. In 1945, when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. I was 12 years old, a 7th grader at girls’ junior high school. I was exposed to the A-bomb at a point less than a mile away from the epicenter.

    On the morning of August 6, 1945, the skies were perfectly clear without a sign of clouds. As the sun of midsummer arose, the temperature began to rise rapidly. When the air-raid alarm sounded at 7:09 a.m. and was cleared at 7:31 a.m., the citizens gave a sigh of relief and started their activities. Many people had entered the city from neighboring towns and villages to work at dismantling buildings. About 350,000 people were believed to have been in the city on that day, including more than 40,000 military personnel.

    There was no vacation for students during the war. Students of only 12 years old or so had to work day after day in factories or at building demolition sites. On that day, a total of about 8,400 junior high school boys and girls aged 12 to 14 were working on six building demolition sites.

    After the all-clear signal was issued, we went back to work. A total of 500 girl students, 7th and 8th graders of our junior high school, were serving as mobilized students, clearing away demolished buildings. Forming groups of 4 or 5, we collected broken tile, glass and pieces of wood and carried them in baskets, shouting “Yosha, Yosha,” encouraging each other.

    Suddenly my best friend, Takiko Funaoka, shouted, “I hear the sound of a B-29.” Never thinking it was possible, I looked up and there, high in the sky, the white vapor was trailing.

    Then I caught a glimpse of an airplane flying away to the northwest. I thought I saw some luminous body drop from the tail of the plane. I quickly lay flat on the ground. Just at that moment, I heard an indescribable deafening roar. My first thought was that the plane had aimed at me.

    I had no idea how long I had lain unconscious, but when I regained consciousness the bright sunny morning had turned into night. Takiko, who had stood next to me, had simply disappeared from my sight. I could see none of my friends nor any other students. Perhaps they had been blown away by the blast.

    I rose to my feet surprised. All that was left of my jacket was the upper part around my chest. And my baggy working trousers were gone, leaving only the waistband and a few patches of cloth. The only clothes left on me were dirty white underwear.

    Then I realized that my face, hands, and legs had been burned, and were swollen with the skin peeled off and hanging down in shreds. I was bleeding and some areas had turned yellow. Terror struck me, and I felt that I had to go home. And the next moment, I frantically started running away from the scene forgetting all about the heat and pain.

    On my way home, I saw a lot of people. All of them were almost naked and looked like characters out of horror movies with their skin and flesh horribly burned and blistered. The place around the Tsurumi bridge was crowded with many injured people. They held their arms aloft in front of them. Their hair stood on end. They were groaning and cursing. With pain in their eyes and furious looks on their faces, they were crying out of their mothers to help them.

    I was feeling unbearably hot, so I went down to the river. There were a lot of people in the water crying and shouting for help. Countless dead bodies were being carried away by the water – some floating, some sinking. Some bodies had been badly hurt, and their intestines were exposed. It was a horrible sight, yet I had to jump in the water to save myself from heat I felt all over.

    As I was watching the horrible scene, someone called my name, “Miyoko, aren’t you Miyoko?” But I couldn’t make out who was speaking to me. She said, “I am Michiko.” Her burns were so severe they had reduced her facial features – eyes, mouth and chin – to a pulp.

    Then I realized that bright red flames were blazing in the area from where I had escaped. Fearing that staying where Michiko and I were would mean that we would be trapped by the flames, we climbed up the river bank, helping each other.

    Just as we were about to cross the bridge, we found that A-bomb victims were moving about in utter confusion on the bridge. They reminded me of sleepwalkers.

    We crossed the bridge and on our way we witnessed countless tragedies. Those who drank from the water tank for fire prevention died as they tried to drink. They fell into the water, one on top of each other.

    A bleeding mother was trying to rush into a burning house, shouting, “oh, my boy….” But a man caught her and wouldn’t let her go. She was screaming frantically, “Let me go, let me go, my boy, I must go.” The scene was hell on earth.

    Helping each other, we came to the edge of another bridge. “I cannot run any further,” said Michiko. Yet she pleaded with me with her eyes to take her with me. I could not even give her a drop of water. We had to separate.

    Michiko walked alone to the temple property on the hillside about a half mile away. She was dead when her parents found her three days later. I always thought that if I had been able to help her a little more to reach the rescue center, she might have lived. My heart still aches.

    I managed to get to a first-aid station. I suffered from lingering high fever, diarrhea, vomiting, and bleeding gums. Half of my hair fell out. I was on the verge of death. Keloid scars developed on my face, arms and legs. Someone helped me do knee bends so that my knees would not stiffen permanently.

    I was shocked and filled with sorrow when I looked at my face in the mirror for the first time after eight months. It was disfigured beyond all recognition. I couldn’t believe it was my face. My mother would weep and say, “I should have been burned instead of you, for I am much older than you and will not live long.” She would also say, “It would have been much better if you had died at the moment the bomb exploded.” Seeing mother in such deep sorrow, I made up my mind never to grieve over my fate in her presence.

    After eight months of treatment, I returned to my school only to find that the number of students had been reduced from 250 to about 50. Though I had suffered from the atomic bombing, I did not intend to stop my activities, so I studied very hard.

    The horrible keloids on my face kept me from finding work after graduation. Around that time I began visiting Reverend Kiyoshi Tanimoto’s church, located in Nagarekawa. I faithfully attended his Monday evening gatherings for atomic bomb survivors where, listening to sermons and singing hymns with the others, my heart gradually came to find peace. With the warm help of these people and many others, I became one of sixteen young women known as the “Hiroshima Maidens” who traveled to Tokyo and Osaka for hospital treatment.

    Eight years after the bombing, when I was 20, in May, 1953, I found myself inOsaka where I eventually underwent more than ten operations over a seven-month period. These operations were quite successful and, as a result, I was able to open and close my dysfunctional eyelid and to straighten out my crooked fingers. I was filled with gratitude towards those people who reached out with warm, loving hands and softly stroked my eyelid that wouldn’t shut. I returned to Hiroshima, wishing for a way to express my thanks.

    Reverend Tanimoto established a facility for poor blind children without families. I and two other “Hiroshima Maidens” began work there as live-in caretakers. From morning until night, we were mothers to these children, helping them with homework, meals, going to the bathroom, and changing and washing clothes. Exactly one year later, in May 1955, my two companions left this job to travel to Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York to undergo more cosmetic surgery. For myself, I just didn’t feel right about traveling to the U.S., the country which had dropped the atomic bomb. I was left behind alone.

    My one pleasure each week was attending Sunday morning services at church. The Americans I met there did not fit the image I had formed of them in my mind. They were extremely kind, and deeply regretted their country’s atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of them was Mrs. Barbara Reynolds who later founded the World Citizenship Center (WCC) in Hiroshima. She was a pious Quaker who devoted her life and all she had to make Hiroshima internationally known. Because of her great efforts of goodwill, she eventually became a special honorary citizen of Hiroshima in 1975. Her hatred of the bombings were so strong and her caring for the victims so real, I often wondered how she could possibly be from the same country as the men who had bombed Hiroshima.

    I owe what I am today to the love of Mrs. Reynolds and many other people. She is the one who persuaded and encouraged me to speak of my experience to foreigners in English even though I had no confidence in my ability nor sufficient knowledge of the English language in my view. She and many kind Americans helped me overcome the fear of speaking about my experience. I am very grateful to all of them.

    Gradually coming to like and trust Americans, I realized that, had the Japanese possessed the A-bomb, we, too, would have used it. The real enemy, therefore, is not America. It is war and nuclear weapons. Those weapons must be abolished.

    Nuclear weapons are manufactured by human beings. War is started by us human beings, too. Peace begins when we share our sufferings with each other. We must all strive to overcome hatred and learn to love one another. The most important task for the peoples of this world is to cultivate friendship through exchanges involving religion, art, culture, sports, education, and economic assistance.

    In March 1962, just before the U.S. resumed nuclear testing and after I had been working at the home for the blind for eight years, I found a way to work at helping to abolish nuclear weapons. Through the help of Barbara Reynolds, I was chosen as a representative of Hiroshima to present the heartfelt message of the survivors of the A-bomb in person to U Thant, the Secretary General of the United Nations at the 18th National Disarmament Conference in Geneva. On the way to New York and Geneva, we visited 14 countries in five months, including the United States, England, France, West and East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Everywhere we appealed for a ban on nuclear testing.

    In April 1964, I joined anther group, the World Peace Study Mission, which traveled to eight countries between April and July. When I returned home, I was shocked to find that my elder brother and his wife had died from the after-effects of the bombing, leaving their three children, who were 6, 8 and 12 years old. The children had moved to our house to live with my aged parents, expecting me to bring them up. Moreover, my father’s health was very poor, due to cancer of the stomach, and the doctor said that he had only three more months to live. Although he was a survivor of the bombing himself, he had taken care of me and had worked at the first aid station treating victims and helping to dispose of dead bodies. I began to take care of my father, and my small nieces and nephew. I devoted my life to this task.

    In April 1982, when the Second Special Session on Disarmament Conference was held in the U.N., I made a third trip to the United States. My journey across America took two months. Barbara Reynolds, my guide and companion, traveled with me to Los Angeles, where we had spent an intense week introducing drawings by survivors to the people and media of Southern California. We were taken by van with those drawings, four films, 400 books, 1,500 pamphlets, 130 slide-sets, etc., from the West Coast of America to New York City. We visited 29 cities in 16 different states and one city in Canada. I made my appeal to more than 110,000 people in sixty-nine gatherings. We showed the drawings by survivors and projected our films about Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that people in North America could hear the story of Hiroshima and nuclear weapons. Three Japanese TV crews followed the exhibition, and recorded the reaction of Americans to the pictures and to my appeal for nuclear disarmament, to show on Japanese television.

    Six years after the trip to the United Nations, in September 1988, I had to take five months’ sick leave in order to have breast surgery. The Director of the National Cancer Research Center said. “At the time the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the radiation released adversely affected human cells undergoing division, especially in the mammary glands where the process of cell division is at its peak when a female is between 10 and 13 years old. In those girls passing through puberty when the bomb was dropped, a cancerous seed was implanted. The female hormonal system acted to promote the growth of this cancer. Forty-three years later, the chances for having breast cancer were four times greater for women who were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.”

    I may look fine and healthy now, but my old wounds still hurt all the time. I still have the fear that I will soon have the A-bomb disease again and suffer for the rest of my life. When I get depressed and worried about the future, I try to remember my friends who were killed by the bomb when they were young. I’m sure they each had their own dreams. I feel so sorry for them when I think of how much they wanted to live. But at the same time, I can hear them saying to me that I was very fortunate to have lived and I should take care of myself in order to accomplish my mission. My mission is to continue telling my experience as a survivor, a hibakusha, appealing for the abolition of nuclear weapons, talking about the folly of war and the preciousness of life, to as many people as possible. That surely will console their souls.

    I am grateful for being able to live, and do what I can to make peace.

    As a hibakusha, I am determined to continue appealing for the elimination of nuclear weapons from the Earth. That is what I must do. We survivors of the atomic bombing are against the research, development, testing, production, and use of any nuclear arms. We are opposed to war of any kind, for whatever reason.

    I would like to say to young people in the United States and other countries: Nuclear weapons do not deter war. Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist. We all must learn the value of human life. If you do not agree with me on this, please come to Hiroshima and see for yourself the destructive power of these deadly weapons at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.

    We are at the threshold of the 21st century. It is time for us to change the international trend from confrontation to dialogue, from distrust to reconciliation, and to move towards the solidarity of nations in the world, so that every creature on Earth can live in peace on this beautiful planet. It is war itself that is wrong.

    The inscription on the peace memorial cenotaph in Hiroshima reads: “Let all souls here rest in peace; for we shall not repeat the evil.” That is what the spirit of Hiroshima is all about.

    We must vow to do all in our power that never again will anyone have to face the tragedy that occurred in Hiroshima.

    “We Shall Not Repeat the Evil.” No More Hiroshimas! No More War!

    My only purpose is to appeal to everyone to work for the abolishment of all nuclear weapons, and for a more peaceful world of mutual understanding.

  • Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Abolish War

    Choose peace and a human future, and make sure that your voice is heard!

    If nuclear weapons are relied upon for security, sooner or later they will be used by accident or design. That we have had these weapons in our midst for some fifty years provides no proof or promise that they will not be used in the future. In fact, if some nations continue to rely upon nuclear weapons for their security, the likelihood is that other nations will choose to do so as well; and the more nuclear weapons proliferate, the greater will be the danger to humanity.

    There is a way out of this dilemma. Nuclear weapons were invented by man. While it may not be possible to “dis-invent” them or, as some say, “to put the genie back in the bottle,” it is possible to abolish them under strict and effective international control. In fact, since nuclear weapons threaten the future of humanity, it is a highly sensible goal for humanity to seek to abolish these weapons. But how can this be done? What are the major obstacles preventing the abolition of nuclear weapons, particularly in light of the decade-old end of the Cold War?

    These are questions we posed to a group of distinguished experts who participated in an Abolition Strategy Meeting in Santa Barbara at the end of April. In conjunction with the strategy meeting, the Foundation presented its 1999 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to General George Lee Butler for his dedicated efforts to bring about the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    An extraordinary group of leaders — including General Butler, Senator Alan Cranston, Canadian Senator Douglas Roche, Ambassador Jonathan Dean, author Jonathan Schell, and actor and U.N. Peace Messenger Michael Douglas — came to Santa Barbara to discuss obstacles facing the abolition movement as well as current opportunities. The Summer 1999 issue of Waging Peace Worldwide features a special section on this Abolition Strategy Meeting that looks at “The Road Ahead.” It includes remarks by General Butler, Senator Cranston, and Jonathan Schell, as well as selected dialogue that occurred at the strategy meeting.

    That issue also contains the Abolition 2000 “Call for the New Millennium,” which was an outcome of a very productive general meeting in The Hague of over 1,300 organizations that comprise the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. There are two articles on The Hague Appeal for Peace Conference, a meeting in The Hague which brought together more than 8,000 peace activists from around the globe; a special section dedicated to Hiroshima and Nagasaki; news of Foundation activities; and much more.

    One of the most inspiring moments at the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference came in the closing ceremony when a group of young people from Sierra Leone – young people who have known the terror and horrors of war in their own country – sang a song they had written especially for the conference called “Bye Bye War.” With a simple melody and lyrics, they moved the entire auditorium at the Hague Congress Center to stand and sway with their rhythm as everyone sang, over and over, “Bye Bye War.”

    The challenge of the 21st century is to abolish nuclear weapons and to say good-bye to war itself. The effort to meet this challenge has already begun. I encourage you to evaluate foreign policy initiatives of your country on the basis of whether or not they contribute to a world free of nuclear weapons and an end to war as a human institution. Choose peace and a human future, and make sure that your voice is heard!

  • Imagine Peace

    Imagine Peace

    “Can you imagine a world in which the hungry are fed, the cold are clothed, the homeless are housed? Can you imagine a world that is peaceful, a world in which war is only a memory?”

    “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”—President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

    Try to imagine such a world! What would it look like? What would it feel like? How would a peaceful world differ from our present world? How would your own life be different than it is now? How would the resources be used that were once devoted to ever more deadly armaments?

    These are important but rarely asked questions that call upon us to use our imaginations. They call upon us to examine the priorities of our own societies, and to think seriously and creatively about our own commitment to ending war and building peace.

    I imagine that peace would be built on justice. People would be treated fairly. The hungry would be fed, the cold would be clothed, the homeless housed. There would be no children dying of preventable diseases, and no illiteracy, because societies would prevent these conditions from arising.

    If everyone had adequate food, shelter, health care, and education, there would not be so many angry and alienated people. Parents would not despair for the lives and futures of their children. Peace would brighten the future.

    What if societies allocated adequate funds to protect the environment and develop environmentally friendly technologies to replace dangerous and damaging ones? What if there were a societal ethic that the environment is a common heritage that we humans must steward for all forms of life and for future generations?

    There are reliable estimates that everything I have envisioned above could actually be accomplished for only a small percentage of current world military expenditures. It has been suggested that for approximately $40 billion annually, some 5 precent of current world military expenditures, poverty in the world could be ended.

    In a peaceful world, people would treat each other with respect. Diversity would be appreciated. People would be entitled to their own beliefs. They would find ways to cooperate. Borders would be far less important than they are now. There would be a general recognition that we all share one Earth and the responsibility to preserve its abundance and beauty for future generations.

    Even in a peaceful world, there would still be conflicts. People and nations would disagree, but there would be conditions assuring that differences would be settled without resort to violence. If this commitment could be trusted—and over time we would come to trust it—there would be no need to expend outrageous amounts on military forces and weapons systems.

    In a peaceful world, some nations might still maintain military forces, but they would be for defensive purposes only. It would be a very different orientation. Weapons and delivery systems would be designed for defense, and thus would not be threatening to neighboring countries.

    In a peaceful world, the purpose of governments would be to serve all of the people, not to favor the powerful at the expense of the disempowered. Governments would protect the Earth and the heritage of those yet unborn, and find ways to settle differences without resort to violence.

    If we cannot imagine such a future, we certainly cannot begin to believe in its possibility. I believe in the power of imagination. If we can imagine a future, it is possible to create it. We may not know today how to get from here to there, and it may seem a very long way away. But we can begin the journey.

    Knowing that something is possible is a long step forward on the journey toward achieving it. There may be failures and backtracking along the way, but a peaceful world is a powerful vision, one that ultimately will not be denied.

    The Spring 1999 issue of Waging Peace Worldwide focuses on “Building a Culture of Peace.” The authors are all pioneers in this effort, an effort that takes not only imagination, but compassion, courage and commitment. As you read the articles, I encourage you to ask yourself the question, “What role will I play in bringing such a world into being?”

  • Philip Berrigan Released from Federal Prison

    Before dawn on Feb. 12, 1997, Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the Christian season of Lent, six religious peace activists, Steve Baggarly from Norfolk, Vir., Philip Berrigan, a former Josephite priest from Baltimore, Mark Colville of New Haven, Conn., Susan Crane, from Baltimore, Tom Lewis-Borbely of Worcester, Mass. and the Rev. Steve Kelly, a Jesuit priest from San Jose, Calif., calling themselves Prince of Peace Plowshares, boarded the USS The Sullivans, an Aegis destroyer, at the Bath [Maine] Iron Works (BIW). Inspired by Isaiah’s prophecy to turn swords into plowshares, they poured their own blood and used hammers to beat on the hatches covering the tubes from which nuclear missiles can be fired and unfurled a banner which read Prince of Peace Plowshares, “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks…Isaiah 2:4.”

    The federal government eventually charged them with two felonies: conspiracy to destroy government property and destruction of government property/aiding and abetting. On May 7, 1997, after Federal Judge Gene Carter denied an international law defense, a jury in Portland, Maine convicted all six defendants of both charges. On Oct. 27, 1997, Carter sentenced Berrigan to 24 months in prison, two-years of supervised probation and restitution of approximately $4,667.

    On Feb. 16, 1998, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, a 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate from Northern Ireland, visited Berrigan in federal prison. She was moved to stage a nonviolent protest against a possible U.S. attack on Iraq. Prison authorities arrested her, but her charge of trespassing was dismissed. Berrigan, however, would serve ten days in solitary confinement and temporarily lose visiting privileges. However, the Plowshares activist is now scheduled for release from from the Federal Correctional Institute in Petersburg, Virginiaon 8:30 AM on Friday, November 20, 1998

    Berrigan received enough “good-time” credit to be released before serving the entire 24 months. The other Prince of Peace Plowshares still incarcerated are Susan Crane and Steve Kelly. Crane received a 27-month sentence, while Kelly’s sentence is 25 months.

    Elizabeth McAlister will be there when her husband Philip Berrigan walks out the prison gate. They will return to Baltimore’s Jonah House, the Christian resistance community which they helped form in 1973. That same day, some members of the Jonah House will be traveling to Fort Benning, Georgia.

    There will be a massive protest at Fort Benning on Nov. 22, when as many as 1,000 people will be arrested trying to close down the School of the Americas. This is the infamous school at Fort Benning, which has trained thousands of the human rights abusers in Latin America.

    On Feb. 12, 1997, in Sagadahoc County District Court, when the Prince of Peace Plowshares were brought to arraignment, Judge Joseph Field felt impassioned enough to say, “Anyone of my generation knows Philip Berrigan. He is a moral giant, the conscience of a generation.”

    The Plowshares brought to Bath Iron Works an indictment against those who would use weapons of mass destruction. A portion of the indictment made this argument: “The Aegis weapons and system are a present and immediate danger to all life on earth and a robbery of human needs, human talents and resources. If the missiles exist they will be used. Disarmament brings peace; the weapons are the crime.” However, at their trial, they were forbidden to argue the USS The Sullivans, with its weapons of mass destruction, violates the Constitution, international law and the spiritual laws of God.

    The Plowshares movement started on Sept. 8, 1980, when eight activists, including Philip and Daniel Berrigan, entered the General Electric plant in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania and hammered and poured blood on two nose cones for nuclear warheads. Since then, there have been more than 50 Plowshares actions, and sentences have ranged in severity to as much as 18 years in jail.

    Philip Berrigan and Tom Lewis-Borbely, as part of the Aegis Plowshares, for example, disarmed another Aegis destroyer, the USS Gettysburg, at BIW on Easter Sunday, March 31, 1991. While this was the first Plowshares action for Steve Baggarly and Mark Colville, Susan Crane and Rev. Steve Kelly acted on Aug. 7, 1995, as the Jubilee Plowshares-West in disarming NAVSTAR navigational equipment at Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale, Calif.

    In Berrigan’s autobiography, Fighting the Lamb’s War, Skirmishes with the American Empire, he emphasizes Plowshares activists understand “Christ was condemned in accordance with [Roman] law” and “[U.S.] law legalizes nuclear weapons.” It is expected that he will continue his vigorous efforts toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. He will probably be sent to jail again.

  • Linus Pauling and the Spirit of Peace: A Tale of Two Petitions

    Linus Pauling was undoubtedly a great scientist. This is attested to by his Nobel Prize in chemistry and his many discoveries in this field. More important, from my perspective, he was also a great human being. He had an unflagging commitment to peace, which he expressed with intelligence and courage.

    I met Linus Pauling in April 1991, when he was presented with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Lifetime Achievement Award for Distinguished Peace Leadership. It was a wonderful occasion, at which we also presented the XIVth Dalai Lama with an award for Distinguished Peace Leadership.

    In April 1991 the Persian Gulf War had just ended, and Americans were in a particularly patriotic mood. Yellow ribbons abounded, and President Bush’s approval ratings were above 90 percent. In his acceptance speech, before an audience of more than 800 people, Dr. Pauling chose to address what had just happened in the Persian Gulf. He began with a syllogism:

    “To kill and maim people is immoral.
    War kills and maims people.
    War is immoral.”

    For Pauling it was that simple. On January 8th of that year he had taken out a quarter page ad in the New York Times with the heading, “Stop the Rush to War!” He paid for the ad himself. On January 18th, three days after the war began, he published another advertisement, this time in the Washington Post. It was an Open Letter to President Bush, and it contained the syllogism concluding that war is immoral. Again, Dr. Pauling paid for the ad himself.

    In his acceptance speech for our award, Pauling noted that in the military operations of the Persian Gulf War some 300,000 Iraqis had been killed while some 150 Americans had died. The ratio was 2,000 to one. He concluded from this that what happened in the Persian Gulf was not a war.

    “In a war,” he said, “you have opposing forces that fight and there are deaths on both sides and finally one side wins. In the old days perhaps this was a demonstration of the democratic process – the side with the biggest number of fighters won. This wasn’t a war. This you could call a massacre or slaughter, perhaps even murder.”

    Speaking Truth to Power

    Linus Pauling was extremely direct. He stated the truth as he saw it. He was honest and without concern that his views might be very unpopular. He spoke truth to power. He spoke truth whomever he addressed. He spoke truth in the face of overwhelming and irrational patriotic fervor.

    In 1955, Pauling was one of 11 prominent signers of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. That document called for an end to war, and posed the problem of our powerful new weapons in this way: “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” The Manifesto concluded with this famous statement:

    “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge and wisdom. Shall we instead choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings, to human beings; remember your humanity and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

    In 1958 Linus Pauling published a book entitled No More War! In this book he stated, “I believe that there will never again be a great world war, if only the people of the United States and of the rest of the world can be informed in time about the present world situation. I believe that there will never be a war in which the terrible nuclear weapons – atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, superbombs – are used. I believe that the development of these terrible weapons forces us to move into a new period in the history of the world, a period of peace and reason, when world problems are not solved by war or by force, but are solved by the application of man’s power of reason, in a way that does justice to all nations and that benefits all people.”

    The Scientists’ Petition To Stop Nuclear Testing

    Pauling described in that book the terrible consequences of nuclear war. He also described the spurious arguments of Edward Teller for a so-called “clean” nuclear bomb. He also described a petition which he had prepared and circulated to scientists calling for an international agreement to stop the testing of nuclear weapons. The petition stated:

    “We, the scientists whose names are signed below, urge that an international agreement to stop the testing of nuclear bombs be made now.

    “Each nuclear bomb test spreads an added burden of radioactive elements over every part of the world. Each added amount of radiation causes damage to the health of human beings all over the world and causes damage to the pool of human germ plasm such as to lead to an increase in the number of seriously defective children that will be born in future generations.

    “So long as these weapons are in the hands of only three powers an agreement for their control is feasible. If testing continues, and the possession of these weapons spreads to additional governments, the danger of outbreak of a cataclysmic nuclear war through reckless action of some irresponsible national leader will be greatly increased.

    “An international agreement to stop the testing of nuclear bombs now could serve as a first step toward a more general disarmament and the ultimate effective abolition of nuclear weapons, averting the possibility of a nuclear war that would be a catastrophe to all humanity.

    “We have in common with our fellow men a deep concern for the welfare of all human beings. As scientists we have knowledge of the dangers involved and therefore a special responsibility to make those dangers known. We deem it imperative that immediate action be taken to effect an international agreement to stop testing of all nuclear weapons.”

    The petition was originally prepared for American scientists, but soon it was being signed by scientists around the world. By early 1958 the petition had been signed by 9,235 scientists, including 36 Nobel Laureates. On January 15, 1958, Pauling presented the petition with these signatures to Dag Hammarskjold, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Later the number of signatories of the petition grew to 11,021, representing 49 countries, and 37 Nobel Laureates. All of these signatures were collected on the initiative of Linus Pauling and his wife, Ava Helen, who played a very instrumental role in his life and his work for peace.

    Abolition of Nuclear Weapons

    As a result of Dr. Pauling’s efforts and those of others, a Partial Test Ban Treaty was achieved in 1963. This was far less than Pauling had worked for. The treaty banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, the oceans, and outer space, but it allowed testing to continue underground. In reality, it was an environmental treaty rather than a disarmament treaty. The treaty ultimately stopped atmospheric nuclear testing, with all of its hazards for human health. It did not, however, stop the nuclear arms race, which continued unabated for the next 35 years and in certain respects continues today.

    Dr. Pauling’s petition called for the “ultimate effective abolition of nuclear weapons.” This great goal remains to be achieved, and it falls to us – all of us – to achieve it. This brings me to the tale of the second petition, a tale all of us can participate in completing.

    In August 1997 a few of us working on Abolition 2000, which is a global network to abolish nuclear weapons, met in Santa Barbara for a brainstorming session. We decided that we needed a vehicle to go directly to the people for the cause of nuclear weapons abolition. We developed a simple petition, with three main points:

    1. End the Nuclear Threat. End the nuclear threat by dealerting all nuclear weapons, withdrawing all nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters, separating warheads from delivery vehicles and disabling them, committing to unconditional no first use of nuclear weapons, and ceasing all nuclear weapons tests, including laboratory tests and “subcriticals.”

    2. Sign the Treaty. Sign a Nuclear Weapons Convention by the year 2000, agreeing to the elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework.

    3. Reallocate Resources. Reallocate resources to ensure a sustainable global future and to redress the environmental devastation and human suffering caused by nuclear weapons production and testing, which have been disproportionately borne by the world’s indigenous peoples.

    Abolition 2000 Petition, Gathering the Signatures

    A month later, I was in Japan to help commemorate the 40th anniversary of the call for the abolition of nuclear weapons issued by Josei Toda, the second president of Soka Gakkai. In speaking with an international youth group of Soka Gakkai International, I mentioned the Abolition 2000 petition and spoke of its three important points. To my great surprise, I received word the next month that the youth division of Soka Gakkai in the Hiroshima region had decided to gather signatures on this petition. They set their initial goal at one million signatures.

    About a month later, I learned that signatures were to be gathered throughout Japan and the goal was 5 million signatures. In the end, in just three months, from November 1997 to January 1998, over 13 million signatures were gathered in Japan. One out of every nine persons in Japan signed the petition.

    In April 1998 a representative sample of these signatures was presented in Geneva to Ambassador Wyzner, the chair of the 1998 preparatory committee meeting for the year 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

    The effort by the Soka Gakkai youth in Japan was highly commendable. I’m sure it would have been welcomed and applauded by both Josei Toda and Linus Pauling. But the effort must not stop there. We are continuing to gather signatures in other parts of the world, including the United States.

    In my view, it is the United States, more than any other country, that must change its position on the abolition of nuclear weapons. Until the United States becomes seriously involved in this effort, the effort cannot succeed. And I am convinced that the United States will not become the leader of this effort until the people of this country demand of their government that it do so.

    This is why this petition is so important, and why I enlist your help in reaching out to people all over this country to call for the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons. If we were to gather a number of signatures proportionate to our population as were gathered in Japan, we would need more than 25 million signatures. Can you imagine the power of presenting 25 million American signatures to the President and Congress? They would have to listen to us. They would have to act to achieve this end.

    Moral Countries Lead the Way

    Dr. Pauling concluded his speech at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation by saying, “I hope that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will work in the effort to make the United States into a moral country that could lead the world into a future of morality, a future worthy of man’s intelligence.”

    We are trying to do this, and I ask you to join in the effort to make the United States a moral country that could lead the way in achieving “a future worthy of man’s intelligence.”

    To make the United States a moral country, we should take the following steps:

    1. End the nuclear threat, and work to abolish all nuclear weapons from Earth. Nothing could be more immoral than threatening to murder hundreds of millions of innocent people in the name of national security. Remember this: nuclear weapons incinerate people. They are instruments of genocide that no sane nor moral person would ever want to be faced with using. And yet, even now, more than eight years into the post-Cold War era, we continue to rely upon these weapons and our official policy states that we will do so for the indefinite future. At many international conferences connected with the Non-Proliferation Treaty that I have attended, it has been the representatives of the United States who have thrown up the greatest stumbling blocks to nuclear disarmament. If we are to have a moral country this must change.

    2. Support an Arms Trade Code of Conduct. Stop selling arms to dictators and countries that violate human rights. The United States has become the arms salesman to the world. We lead all other nations in the sale of armaments. If we are to be a moral country, we must cease this practice, and place strict limitations on the transfer of armaments to other nations.

    3. Reallocate resources from military purposes to supporting adequate nutrition, health care, shelter and education for all members of society. The United States is the undisputed world champion in military spending. We spend more than the next 13 highest spending countries combined. These include Russia, Japan, United Kingdom, France, Germany and China. We need to realize that security requires more than military power. It also requires meeting human needs. A moral nation can be judged by its compassion toward its poorest and least fortunate members.

    4. Abide by international law and work to strengthen it. On many occasions in our recent past we have chosen not to give our support to international law. We were in the minority of nations in opposing a global ban on landmines, although most of our allies supported this ban. We were again in the minority in opposing the creation of an International Criminal Court, although most of our allies supported the creation of this court – a court to hold individuals accountable for the worst violations of international law, the ones that we held the Nazi leaders accountable for at Nuremberg. Recently, we took it upon ourselves to bomb sites in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for terrorist attacks rather than turning this matter over to the United Nations Security Council as we are required to do under international law. If we are to be a moral country, we cannot both fight terrorism and be terrorists ourselves.

    5. End all covert actions designed to destabilize or overthrow foreign governments. If we wish to see governments changed in other countries, we should speak out and give support to the opposition. We should not, however, be secretly providing arms, fomenting revolution, or attempting political assassinations. If we are to be a moral country, we cannot use immoral means to achieve what we believe are good ends.

    6. Work to resolve conflicts peacefully through negotiations, mediation, arbitration, and the International Court of Justice. There are many means to resolve conflicts short of violence, and to be a moral country we must support these means and use them. When a country is powerful militarily, as we are, there is a temptation to rely upon raw force rather than the power of the law. This temptation must be resisted.

    7. Apply our science and technology in constructive ways for the good of humanity rather than in destructive ways. Far too much of our government research and development budget goes into ever more sophisticated weaponry. Despite having agreed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we are still conducting “subcritical” tests of nuclear weapons. In doing so, we violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty. If we are to be a moral country, we must shift our technological priorities to fighting infant mortality, combating disease, improving nutrition, eliminating pollution, and eradicating poverty.

    8. Be honest with the American people. Stop hiding information under the guise of national security. Pursue a policy of informed consent. Without honesty and full information from the officials we elect, we cannot make informed decisions about the kind of future we choose for ourselves, our children and grandchildren. If we are to have a moral country, we must have an honest and open government.

    There is, of course, more we must do to be a moral country, but these steps would set us on the right road. They are steps that I feel certain Linus Pauling would support with all his energy, and I encourage you to endorse them and work for them as well.

    In the concluding chapter of his book, Linus Pauling wrote: “I believe that there is a greater power in the world than the evil power of military force, of nuclear bombs – there is the power of good, of morality, of humanitarianism.” He also wrote: “I believe in the power of the human spirit.”

    There is no greater force than the power of the people when moved to action. The power of the people brought independence to India. It ended the war in Vietnam. It brought down the Berlin Wall. It ended the Cold War. It brought democracy to Eastern Europe and to Russia. It ended the Duvallier regime in Haiti, the Marcos regime in the Philippines, and the Suharto regime in Indonesia. It brought down the regime based on apartheid in South Africa, and brought forth a leader like Nelson Mandela who has lived with the spirit of forgiveness.

    If the American people are moved to action, we can create a moral country. Our first step must be to end the intolerable threat that nuclear weapons pose for humanity. We must complete the task that Linus Pauling and other peace leaders began more than four decades ago. We stand on the threshold of a new century. Let us commit ourselves to crossing this threshold with a treaty in place to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

    There is great power for both good and evil in the human spirit. Let us choose good, let us choose life, let us choose hope, let us choose peace. Let us work, as Linus Pauling did, to make our country “a moral country that could lead the world into a future of morality, a future worthy of man’s intelligence.” This was the challenge that Linus Pauling worked for during his life, and the legacy he has left to us.

  • Joint Statement Against Nuclear Tests and Weapons by Retired Pakistani and Indian Armed Forces Personnel

    Recent developments in South Asia in the field of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery are a serious threat to the wellbeing of this region.

    The fact that India and Pakistan have fought wars in the recent past and do not as yet enjoy the best of relations, makes this development all the more ominous. The signatories of this statement are not theoreticians or arm-chair idealists; we have spent many long years in the profession of arms and have served our countries both in peacetime and in war.

    By virtue of our experience and the positions we have held, we have a fair understanding of the destructive parameters of conventional and nuclear weapons. We are of the considered view that nuclear weapons should be banished from the South Asian region, and indeed from the entire globe.

    We urge India and Pakistan to take the lead by doing away with nuclear weapons in a manifest and verifiable manner, and to confine nuclear research and development strictly to peaceful and beneficient spheres.

    We are convinced that the best way of resolving disputes is through peaceful means and not through war – least of all by the threat or use of nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan need to address their real problems of poverty and backwardness, not waste our scarce resources on acquiring means of greater and greater destruction.

    Signed

    Air Marshal Zafar A. Choudhry (Pakistan)
    Admiral L. Ramdas (India)
    Lt. Gen Gurbir Mansingh (India)

  • An Allegiance to Humanity

    https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/articles/wagingpeaceseries/rotblat.pdf