Category: Peace

  • Open Letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis

    Gen. James Mattis
    Secretary of Defense
    1000 Defense Pentagon
    Washington, DC 20301-1000

    February 9, 2018

    Dear Secretary Mattis,

    We were very pleased to learn of the postponement of the scheduled February 7 launch of a Minuteman III ICBM from Vandenberg Air Force Base. We urge you to act swiftly to postpone any additional nuclear-capable missile tests scheduled during the period of the 2018 Olympic Truce, which lasts through March 25.

    Regardless of advance planning of such tests, it is essential to global security that the United States be flexible and respect worthwhile initiatives for peace such as the Olympic Truce. The Air Force has postponed launches due to unfavorable weather conditions, technical problems, and other issues. There is no reason why the Air Force cannot – at a minimum – postpone these ICBM tests until after the designated weeks of the Olympic Truce.

    If North Korea were to test an ICBM during the Olympics, many nations, including the United States, would view the act as provocative and threatening. One does not have to stretch the imagination too far to guess how North Korea might react to our testing of ICBMs during the same period.

    For the sake of global stability and to honor the Olympic spirit, we urge you to postpone any additional ICBM tests during the period of the Olympic Truce.

    Sincerely,

    (Organizational affiliations listed for identification purposes only)

    Lilly Adams, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Christine Ahn, Women Cross DMZ

    Edward Aguilar, Coalition for Peace Action, Pennsylvania

    Katherine Alexander, Peace Action of New York State

    Rev. Dr. Chris J. Antal, Unitarian Universalist Congregation at Rock Tavern,

    Veterans for Peace, Representative to the United Nations

    Jean Athey, Peace Action Montgomery

    Mavis Belisle, Dallas Peace and Justice Center

    Medea Benjamin, Code Pink

    Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies, New Internationalism Project

    Matthew Bolton, Associate Professor, Political Science, Pace University

    Jacqueline Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation

    Glenn Carroll, Nuclear Watch South, Atlanta

    Sister Clare Carter, New England Peace Pagoda

    Jeff Carter, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Gerry Condon, President, Veterans For Peace

    Alexis Dudden, Professor of History, University of Connecticut

    Leonard Eiger, Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action

    Carolyn Rusti Eisenberg, Professor of History, Hofstra University

    Vicki Elson, Resistance Center for Peace and Justice

    Oliver Fein, M.D.

    Gordon Fellman, Professor of Sociology and Chair, Peace, Conflict, and Coexistence          Studies, Brandeis University

    Norma Field, Professor Emerita, Japanese Studies, University of Chicago

    Martin Fleck, Security Program Director,  Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Shelagh Foreman, Massachusetts Peace Action

    Mary J. Geissman, Peace & Justice Task Force, All Souls Unitarian Church, NYC

    Irene Gendzier, Professor Emeritus, Boston University

    Joseph Gerson (PhD), Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security

    Todd Gitlin, Professor, Columbia University

    Van Gosse, Professor of History, Franklin & Marshall College, Co-Chair, Historians for Peace and Democracy

    Jonathan Granoff , President Global Security Institute

    Claire Greensfelder, INOCHI:  Plutonium Free Future / Women for Safe Energy,

    Co-Creator, nowarwithnorthkorea.org

    Evie Hantzopoulos, Global Kids

    Rabia Terri Harris, Founder, Muslim Peace Fellowship

    Cole Harrison, Massachusetts Peace Action

    David Hartsough, Peaceworkers, San Francisco

    William D. Hartung, Center for International Policy

    Ira Helfand, Co-President, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

    Patrick Hiller, War Prevention Initiative

    Mary Hladky, United for Peace and Justice

    Christine Hong, Professor, Literature, Critical race & ethnic studies, University of California Santa Cruz

    Will Hopkins, New Hampshire Peace Action

    Mari Inoue, Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World

    Rev. Julie Johnson Staples, J. D.

    Sally Jones, Peace Action Fund of New York State

    Lauri Kallio, Peace Action National Board

    Louis Kampf, Emeritus Professor, MIT

    Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist, Beyond Nuclear

    Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley CARES, Livermore, CA

    Assaf Kfoury, Professor, Computer Science, Boston University

    John Kim, Veterans For Peace-Korea Peace Campaign

    Jonathan King, Professor, MIT Dept. of Biology

    Bob Kinsey, The Colorado Coalition for Prevention of Nuclear War

    Michael Klare, Five College Professor, Peace & World Security Studies, Hampshire College

    David Krieger, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Peter Kuznick, Professor of History, American University

    John Lamperti, Professor of Mathematics, Emeritus, Dartmouth College

    Tony Langbehn, Maryland United for Peace and Justice

    Judith Le Blanc, Director, Native Organizers Alliance

    Robert Jay Lifton, MD, Lecturer in Psychiatry, Columbia University, Distinguished Professor Emeritus,The City University of New York

    Dan Luker, Boston Veterans for Peace, Chapter 9

    Kevin Martin, President, Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund

    Margaret Melkonian, Long Island Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives

    Stephen Miles, Win Without War

    Susan Mirsky, Newton Dialogues on Peace and War

    David Monsees, PhD, Snake River Alliance, Boise, Idaho

    Helga Moor, New Jersey Peace Action

    Rev. Bob Moore, Coalition for Peace Action, New Jersey and Pennsylvania

    Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council (retired)

    Richard Ochs, Baltimore Peace Action

    Koohan Paik, International Forum on Globalization

    Rosemary Palmer, Cleveland Peace Action

    Tony Palomba, Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice and the Environment

    Rev. Rich Peacock, Peace Action of Michigan

    Guy Quinlan, All Souls Nuclear Disarmament Task Force, New York City

    Rosemarie Pace, Director, Pax Christi Metro New York

    Charlotte Phillips, MD, Brooklyn for Peace

    Allison Pytlak,Programme Manager, Reaching Critical Will, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)

    Steve Rabson, Professor Emeritus, Brown University

    Jon Rainwater, Executive Director, Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund

    Kristina Romines, Women’s Action for New Directions

    Jerald P. Ross, First Parish Bedford UU Peace and Justice Cmte

    Linda Rousseau, Peace & Justice Task Force, All Souls Unitarian Church, NYC

    Coleen Rowley, Women Against Military Madness

    Deb Sawyer, Utah Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    Claire & Scott Schaeffer-Duffy, SS., Francis & Therese Catholic Worker, Worcester, MA

    Robert Shaffer, Professor of History, Shippensburg University

    Paul Shannon, American Friends Service Committee

    Alice Slater, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Jeff Stack, Mid-Missouri Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR)

    Dr. Kathleen Sullivan, Director, Hibakusha Stories

    David Swanson, Word Beyond War

    Florindo Troncelliti, Peace Action Manhattan​

    David Vine, Associate Professor of Anthropology, American University

    Timmon Wallis, NuclearBan.US

    Alyn Ware, World Future Council

    Rick Wayman, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Cora Weiss, International Peace Bureau, UN Representative

    Sarah G. Wilton (CDR, USNR-R, retired), Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

    Lawrence Wittner, Professor Emeritus, SUNY/Albany, Co-chair, Peace Action

    Ann Wright, US Army Colonel retired

  • Review of David Krieger’s Book Portraits

    This is the sixth collection of poems by David Krieger, an American peace leader and poet who has lived through and been impacted by the events since the Second World War. This unique collection of 70 poems is not just about well known figures but also ordinary folks, the People Between.

    The poems are poignant and powerful, reminding us of personalities from the poet’s humanist perspective that probe the state of global affairs while questioning those who end as its leaders. David Krieger’s pen has irony, it reveals both hurt and sorrow as well as hope and compassion for the world we live in and its frailties.

    The first and last poems of the book, ‘To Be Human’ and ‘The One-Hearted’, describe   the book’s overarching spirit:

    “To be human is to recognize the cultural perspectives that bind us to tribe, sect, religion, or nation, and to rise above them….

    To be human is to breathe with the rhythm of life. It is to stand in awe of who we are and where we live. It is to see the Earth with the eyes of an astronaut.”

    The final poem, ‘The One Hearted’ demonstrates the same optimism:

    “They are warriors of hope, navigating
    oceans and crossing continents.
    Their message is simple: Now
    is the time for peace. It always has been.”

    Portraiture in writing involves etching personality in a moment giving us insight into the subject of observation. It’s their action in such a moment in Krieger’s collection which defines his protagonist as peacemaker or warmonger. Krieger is a story teller. Most poems are about the courage of a nonviolence activist where the protagonist like Gandhi’s Satyagraha adherent defies the oppressor standing fiercely to face up to the evil.

    On Bishop Romero’s assassination (p.10), Krieger writes:

    “But the politicians and the generals
    know what they do
    when they give their orders
    to murder at the altar.”

    He speaks of the Bishop:

    “Bishop Romero saw this clearly,
    Lay down your arms, he said.
    This, the day before his assassination.

    the day before they shot him at the altar,
    God, forgive them, they only follow orders
    They know not what they do.” 

    Norman Morrison’s self-immolation as a protest in front of the Pentagon (p.44):

    “When it happened, the wife of the YMCA director said,
    “I can understand a heathen doing that but not a Christian”.
    Few Americans remember his name, but in Vietnam
    children still sing songs about his courage.”

    On Rosa Park’s bus seat protest in his poem, ‘A Day Like Any Other Day’ (p.37):

    “By not moving, you began a movement,
    like a cat stretching, then suddenly alert.”

    Cindy Sheehan’s waiting answer from U.S. President Bush about her soldier son’s death in a war of no meaning, the Iraq war where “my son died for nothing” , In ‘I Refuse’ (p.41) dedicated to activist Camila Mejio, the voices of resistance unite in solidarity refusing to be silenced, refusing to suspend their conscience or giving up their humanity.

    The poems can be grouped along the lines of post- Second World War American military adventures — Vietnam War, Iraq War, Israel-Palestine War, and Nuclear Weaponization.  These include astute observations about warmongers. On Robert McNamara’s mea culpa in 1995 about the body count in Vietnam War (p.8), Krieger writes: “You broke the code of silence. Your silence was a death sentence to young Americans – to young men who believed in America.” In the same vein, in his portrait of  US Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney from Bush era he notes (p.32):

    “It is a dangerous, deceitful face
    the face of a man with too many secrets.

    ….

    It is the face not of a sniper,
    but of one who orders snipers into action.
    It is a face hidden behind a mask,
    the face of one who savors lynchings
    It is the face of one who hides in dark bunkers
    and shuns the brightness of the sun
    It is a frightened face, dull and without color,
    the face of one consumed by power.”

    In his poem on ‘Bombing Gaza: A pilot speaks’: (p.43)

    “They tell me I am brave, but
    how brave can it be to drop bombs
    on a crowded city? I am a cog, only that,
    a cog in a fancy machine of death.”

    Krieger does not hide his bitterness about those responsible for building and dropping Atomic Bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August 1945, forcing upon the humanity the unwanted Nuclear Weapons Age we live in.  In ‘An Evening with Edward Teller,’ he derides the “father of the H-bomb’:

    “He wore such claims like a crown,
    like a cloak of death, like a priest kneeling
    at the altar of the temple of doom.”

    “It was difficult to grasp that
    he must have been born an innocent child, and only
    slowly, step by step, became what he became.”

    Another priest at the altar of the temple of doom, the Atom Bomb builder Robert Oppenheimer expresses this more cataclysmically in a poem, “On Becoming Death” (p.19), citing from The Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”  Standing in front of a US President, Oppenheimer had spoken of having “blood on my hands”. To which Truman responds: “Blood? What Blood?” When Oppenheimer leaves, Truman orders his White House officials, “Don’t ever let him in here again.”

    Krieger can be humorous.  “Greeting Bush in Baghdad” is about the Iraqi journalist Muntader Al-Zaidi’s “farewell kiss” to Bush in the form of his shoes  hurled at the visiting President at a press conference. Al-Zaidi muses that his left shoe hurled at the U.S. President is for his “lost and smirking face” and the right shoe for a “face of no remorse” of caused death and destruction of his country.

    There are many poems in the collection especially those of remembrance written as an elegy for a friend, colleague, child, old man, and a dead soldier, written with fine sensitively and subtlety. My favourite is a short poem, ‘Standing with Pablo’ (p.40).  It’s about the poet’s admiration for his three Pablos: Picasso, Neruda, and Peredes. The first painted Guernica, the second wrote poems of love and dignity, and the third, Pablo Peredes whom we know little about, refused to fight war in Iraq.  Unlike the other two, the little known Peredes, “refused to kill or be killed”.

    Krieger’s poetry is direct, honest, and without pretense. It depicts the social reality surrounding us, invoking our shared humanity to bring about imminent peace needed globally. – An important collection.


    David Krieger (2017),  PORTRAITS: Peacemakers, Warmongers and People Between, Santa Barbara, California: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, pp.83 . The book can be ordered from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, California, USA. Website: www.wagingpeace.org  and email: wagingpeace@napf.org

  • Exchange of New Year Greetings

    Your Excellencies,

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Our meeting today is a welcome tradition that allows me, in the enduring joy of the Christmas season, to offer you my personal best wishes for the New Year just begun, and to express my closeness and affection to the peoples you represent.  I thank the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, His Excellency Armindo Fernandes do Espírito Santo Vieira, Ambassador of Angola, for his respectful greeting on behalf of the entire Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See.  I offer a particular welcome to the non-resident Ambassadors, whose numbers have increased following the establishment last May of diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.  I likewise greet the growing number of Ambassadors resident in Rome, which now includes the Ambassador of the Republic of South Africa.  I would like in a special way to remember the late Ambassador of Colombia, Guillermo León Escobar-Herrán, who passed away just a few days before Christmas.  I thank all of you for your continuing helpful contacts with the Secretariat of State and the other Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, which testify to the interest of the international community in the Holy See’s mission and the work of the Catholic Church in your respective countries.  This is also the context for the Holy See’s pactional activities, which last year saw the signing, in February, of the Framework Agreement with the Republic of the Congo, and, in August, of the Agreement between the Secretariat of State and the Government of the Russian Federation enabling the holders of diplomatic passports to travel without a visa.

    In its relations with civil authorities, the Holy See seeks only to promote the spiritual and material well-being of the human person and to pursue the common good.  The Apostolic Journeys that I made during the course of the past year to Egypt, Portugal, Colombia, Myanmar and Bangladesh were expressions of this concern.  I travelled as a pilgrim to Portugal on the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, to celebrate the canonization of the shepherd children Jacinta and Francisco Marto.  There I witnessed the enthusiastic and joyful faith that the Virgin Mary roused in the many pilgrims assembled for the occasion.  In Egypt, Myanmar and Bangladesh too, I was able to meet the local Christian communities that, though small in number, are appreciated for their contribution to development and fraternal coexistence in those countries.  Naturally, I also had meetings with representatives of other religions, as a sign that our differences are not an obstacle to dialogue, but rather a vital source of encouragement in our common desire to know the truth and to practise justice.  Finally, in Colombia I wished to bless the efforts and the courage of that beloved people, marked by a lively desire for peace after more than half a century of internal conflict.

    Dear Ambassadors,

    This year marks the centenary of the end of the First World War, a conflict that reconfigured the face of Europe and the entire world with the emergence of new states in place of ancient empires.  From the ashes of the Great War, we can learn two lessons that, sad to say, humanity did not immediately grasp, leading within the space of twenty years to a new and even more devastating conflict.  The first lesson is that victory never means humiliating a defeated foe.  Peace is not built by vaunting the power of the victor over the vanquished.  Future acts of aggression are not deterred by the law of fear, but rather by the power of calm reason that encourages dialogue and mutual understanding as a means of resolving differences.[1]  This leads to a second lesson: peace is consolidated when nations can discuss matters on equal terms.  This was grasped a hundred years ago – on this very date – by the then President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, who proposed the establishment of a general league of nations with the aim of promoting for all states, great and small alike, mutual guarantees of independence and territorial integrity.  This laid the theoretical basis for that multilateral diplomacy, which has gradually acquired over time an increased role and influence in the international community as a whole.

    Relations between nations, like all human relationships, “must likewise be harmonized in accordance with the dictates of truth, justice, willing cooperation, and freedom”.[2]  This entails “the principle that all states are by nature equal in dignity”,[3] as well as the acknowledgment of one another’s rights and the fulfilment of their respective duties.[4]  The basic premise of this approach is the recognition of the dignity of the human person, since disregard and contempt for that dignity resulted in barbarous acts that have outraged the conscience of mankind.[5]  Indeed, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.[6]

    I would like to devote our meeting today to this important document, seventy years after its adoption on 10 December 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations.  For the Holy See, to speak of human rights means above all to restate the centrality of the human person, willed and created by God in his image and likeness.  The Lord Jesus himself, by healing the leper, restoring sight to the blind man, speaking with the publican, saving the life of the woman caught in adultery and demanding that the injured wayfarer be cared for, makes us understand that every human being, independent of his or her physical, spiritual or social condition, is worthy of respect and consideration.  From a Christian perspective, there is a significant relation between the Gospel message and the recognition of human rights in the spirit of those who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Those rights are premised on the nature objectively shared by the human race.  They were proclaimed in order to remove the barriers that divide the human family and to favour what the Church’s social doctrine calls integral human development, since it entails fostering “the development of each man and of the whole man… and humanity as a whole”.[7]  A reductive vision of the human person, on the other hand, opens the way to the growth of injustice, social inequality and corruption.

    It should be noted, however, that over the years, particularly in the wake of the social upheaval of the 1960’s, the interpretation of some rights has progressively changed, with the inclusion of a number of “new rights” that not infrequently conflict with one another.  This has not always helped the promotion of friendly relations between nations,[8] since debatable notions of human rights have been advanced that are at odds with the culture of many countries; the latter feel that they are not respected in their social and cultural traditions, and instead neglected with regard to the real needs they have to face.  Somewhat paradoxically, there is a risk that, in the very name of human rights, we will see the rise of modern forms of ideological colonization by the stronger and the wealthier, to the detriment of the poorer and the most vulnerable.  At the same time, it should be recalled that the traditions of individual peoples cannot be invoked as a pretext for disregarding the due respect for the fundamental rights proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    At a distance of seventy years, it is painful to see how many fundamental rights continue to be violated today.  First among all of these is the right of every human person to life, liberty and personal security.[9]  It is not only war or violence that infringes these rights.  In our day, there are more subtle means: I think primarily of innocent children discarded even before they are born, unwanted at times simply because they are ill or malformed, or as a result of the selfishness of adults.  I think of the elderly, who are often cast aside, especially when infirm and viewed as a burden.  I think of women who repeatedly suffer from violence and oppression, even within their own families.  I think too of the victims of human trafficking, which violates the prohibition of every form of slavery.  How many persons, especially those fleeing from poverty and war, have fallen prey to such commerce perpetrated by unscrupulous individuals?

    Defending the right to life and physical integrity also means safeguarding the right to health on the part of individuals and their families.  Today this right has assumed implications beyond the original intentions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which sought to affirm the right of every individual to receive medical care and necessary social services.[10]  In this regard, it is my hope that efforts will be made within the appropriate international forums to facilitate, in the first place, ready access to medical care and treatment on the part of all.  It is important to join forces in order to implement policies that ensure, at affordable costs, the provision of medicines essential for the survival of those in need, without neglecting the area of research and the development of treatments that, albeit not financially profitable, are essential for saving human lives.

    Defending the right to life also entails actively striving for peace, universally recognized as one of the supreme values to be sought and defended.  Yet serious local conflicts continue to flare up in various parts of the world.  The collective efforts of the international community, the humanitarian activities of international organizations and the constant pleas for peace rising from lands rent by violence seem to be less and less effective in the face of war’s perverse logic.  This scenario cannot be allowed to diminish our desire and our efforts for peace.  For without peace, integral human development becomes unattainable.

    Integral disarmament and integral development are intertwined.  Indeed, the quest for peace as a precondition for development requires battling injustice and eliminating, in a non-violent way, the causes of discord that lead to wars.  The proliferation of weapons clearly aggravates situations of conflict and entails enormous human and material costs that undermine development and the search for lasting peace.  The historic result achieved last year with the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference for negotiating a legally binding instrument to ban nuclear arms, shows how lively the desire for peace continues to be.  The promotion of a culture of peace for integral development calls for unremitting efforts in favour of disarmament and the reduction of recourse to the use of armed force in the handling of international affairs.  I would therefore like to encourage a serene and wide-ranging debate on the subject, one that avoids polarizing the international community on such a sensitive issue.  Every effort in this direction, however modest, represents an important step for mankind.

    For its part, the Holy See signed and ratified, also in the name of and on behalf of Vatican City State, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  It did so in the belief, expressed by Saint John XXIII in Pacem in Terris, that “justice, right reason, and the recognition of man’s dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race.  The stockpiles of armaments which have been built up in various countries must be reduced all round and simultaneously by the parties concerned.  Nuclear weapons must be banned”.[11]  Indeed, even if “it is difficult to believe that anyone would dare to assume responsibility for initiating the appalling slaughter and destruction that war would bring in its wake, there is no denying that the conflagration could be started by some chance and unforeseen circumstance”.[12]

    The Holy See therefore reiterates the firm conviction “that any disputes which may arise between nations must be resolved by negotiation and agreement, not by recourse to arms”.[13]  The constant production of ever more advanced and “refined” weaponry, and dragging on of numerous conflicts – what I have referred to as “a third world war fought piecemeal” – lead us to reaffirm Pope John’s statement that “in this age which boasts of its atomic power, it no longer makes sense to maintain that war is a fit instrument with which to repair the violation of justice…  Nevertheless, we are hopeful that, by establishing contact with one another and by a policy of negotiation, nations will come to a better recognition of the natural ties that bind them together as men.  We are hopeful, too, that they will come to a fairer realization of one of the cardinal duties deriving from our common nature: namely, that love, not fear, must dominate the relationships between individuals and between nations.  It is principally characteristic of love that it draws men together in all sorts of ways, sincerely united in the bonds of mind and matter; and this is a union from which countless blessings can flow”.[14]

    In this regard, it is of paramount importance to support every effort at dialogue on the Korean peninsula, in order to find new ways of overcoming the current disputes, increasing mutual trust and ensuring a peaceful future for the Korean people and the entire world.

    It is also important for the various peace initiatives aimed at helping Syria to continue, in a constructive climate of growing trust between the parties, so that the lengthy conflict that has caused such immense suffering can finally come to an end.  Our shared hope is that, after so much destruction, the time for rebuilding has now come.  Yet even more than rebuilding material structures, it is necessary to rebuild hearts, to re-establish the fabric of mutual trust, which is the essential prerequisite for the flourishing of any society.  There is a need, then, to promote the legal, political and security conditions that restore a social life where every citizen, regardless of ethnic and religious affiliation, can take part in the development of the country.  In this regard, it is vital that religious minorities be protected, including Christians, who for centuries have made an active contribution to Syria’s history.

    It is likewise important that the many refugees who have found shelter and refuge in neighbouring countries, especially in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, be able to return home.  The commitment and efforts made by these countries in this difficult situation deserve the appreciation and support of the entire international community, which is also called upon to create the conditions for the repatriation of Syrian refugees.  This effort must concretely start with Lebanon, so that that beloved country can continue to be a “message” of respect and coexistence, and a model to imitate, for the whole region and for the entire world.

    The desire for dialogue is also necessary in beloved Iraq, to enable its various ethnic and religious groups to rediscover the path of reconciliation and peaceful coexistence and cooperation.  Such is the case too in Yemen and other parts of the region, and in Afghanistan.

    I think in particular of Israelis and Palestinians, in the wake of the tensions of recent weeks.  The Holy See, while expressing sorrow for the loss of life in recent clashes, renews its pressing appeal that every initiative be carefully weighed so as to avoid exacerbating hostilities, and calls for a common commitment to respect, in conformity with the relevant United Nations Resolutions, the status quo of Jerusalem, a city sacred to Christians, Jews and Muslims.  Seventy years of confrontation make more urgent than ever the need for a political solution that allows the presence in the region of two independent states within internationally recognized borders.  Despite the difficulties, a willingness to engage in dialogue and to resume negotiations remains the clearest way to achieving at last a peaceful coexistence between the two peoples.

    In national contexts, too, openness and availability to encounter are essential.  I think especially of Venezuela, which is experiencing an increasingly dramatic and unprecedented political and humanitarian crisis.  The Holy See, while urging an immediate response to the primary needs of the population, expresses the hope that conditions will be created so that the elections scheduled for this year can resolve the existing conflicts, and enable people to look to the future with newfound serenity.

    Nor can the international community overlook the suffering of many parts of the African continent, especially in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Nigeria and the Central African Republic, where the right to life is threatened by the indiscriminate exploitation of resources, terrorism, the proliferation of armed groups and protracted conflicts.  It is not enough to be appalled at such violence.  Rather, everyone, in his or her own situation, should work actively to eliminate the causes of misery and build bridges of fraternity, the fundamental premise for authentic human development.

    A shared commitment to rebuilding bridges is also urgent in Ukraine.  The year just ended reaped new victims in the conflict that afflicts the country, continuing to bring great suffering to the population, particularly to families who live in areas affected by the war and have lost their loved ones, not infrequently the elderly and children.

    I would like to devote a special thought to families.  The right to form a family, as a “natural and fundamental group unit of society… is entitled to protection by society and the state”,[15] and is recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Unfortunately, it is a fact that, especially in the West, the family is considered an obsolete institution.  Today fleeting relationships are preferred to the stability of a definitive life project.  But a house built on the sand of frail and fickle relationships cannot stand.  What is needed instead is a rock on which to build solid foundations.  And this rock is precisely that faithful and indissoluble communion of love that joins man and woman, a communion that has an austere and simple beauty, a sacred and inviolable character and a natural role in the social order.[16]  I consider it urgent, then, that genuine policies be adopted to support the family, on which the future and the development of states depend.  Without this, it is not possible to create societies capable of meeting the challenges of the future.  Disregard for families has another dramatic effect – particularly present in some parts of the world – namely, a decline in the birth rate.  We are experiencing a true demographic winter!  This is a sign of societies that struggle to face the challenges of the present, and thus become ever more fearful of the future, with the result that they close in on themselves.

    At the same time, we cannot forget the situation of families torn apart by poverty, war and migration.  All too often, we see with our own eyes the tragedy of children who, unaccompanied, cross the borders between the south and the north of our world, and often fall victim to human trafficking.

    Today there is much talk about migrants and migration, at times only for the sake of stirring up primal fears.  It must not be forgotten that migration has always existed.  In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the history of salvation is essentially a history of migration.  Nor should we forget that freedom of movement, for example, the ability to leave one’s own country and to return there, is a fundamental human right.[17]There is a need, then, to abandon the familiar rhetoric and start from the essential consideration that we are dealing, above all, with persons.

    This is what I sought to reiterate in my Message for the World Day of Peace celebrated on 1 January last, whose theme this year is: “Migrants and Refugees: Men and Women in Search of Peace”.  While acknowledging that not everyone is always guided by the best of intentions, we must not forget that the majority of migrants would prefer to remain in their homeland.  Instead, they find themselves “forced by discrimination, persecution, poverty and environmental degradation” to leave it behind…  “Welcoming others requires concrete commitment, a network of assistance and good will, vigilant and sympathetic attention, the responsible management of new and complex situations that at times compound numerous existing problems, to say nothing of resources, which are always limited.  By practising the virtue of prudence, government leaders should take practical measures to welcome, promote, protect, integrate and, ‘within the limits allowed by a correct understanding of the common good, to permit [them] to become part of a new society’ (Pacem in Terris, 57).  Leaders have a clear responsibility towards their own communities, whose legitimate rights and harmonious development they must ensure, lest they become like the rash builder who miscalculated and failed to complete the tower he had begun to construct” (cf. Lk 14:28-30).[18]

    I would like once more to thank the authorities of those states who have spared no effort in recent years to assist the many migrants arriving at their borders.  I think above all of the efforts made by more than a few countries in Asia, Africa and the Americas that welcome and assist numerous persons.  I cherish vivid memories of my meeting in Dhaka with some members of the Rohingya people, and I renew my sentiments of gratitude to the Bangladeshi authorities for the assistance provided to them on their own territory.

    I would also like to express particular gratitude to Italy, which in these years has shown an open and generous heart and offered positive examples of integration.  It is my hope that the difficulties that the country has experienced in these years, and whose effects are still felt, will not lead to forms of refusal and obstruction, but instead to a rediscovery of those roots and traditions that have nourished the rich history of the nation and constitute a priceless treasure offered to the whole world.  I likewise express my appreciation for the efforts made by other European states, particularly Greece and Germany.  Nor must it be forgotten that many refugees and migrants seek to reach Europe because they know that there they will find peace and security, which for that matter are the fruit of a lengthy process born of the ideals of the Founding Fathers of the European project in the aftermath of the Second World War.  Europe should be proud of this legacy, grounded on certain principles and a vision of man rooted in its millenary history, inspired by the Christian conception of the human person.  The arrival of migrants should spur Europe to recover its cultural and religious heritage, so that, with a renewed consciousness of the values on which the continent was built, it can keep alive her own tradition while continuing to be a place of welcome, a herald of peace and of development.

    In the past year, governments, international organizations and civil society have engaged in discussions about the basic principles, priorities and most suitable means for responding to movements of migration and the enduring situations involving refugees.  The United Nations, following the 2016 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, has initiated important preparations for the adoption of the two Global Compacts for refugees and for safe, orderly and regular migration respectively.

    The Holy See trusts that these efforts, with the negotiations soon to begin, will lead to results worthy of a world community growing ever more independent and grounded in the principles of solidarity and mutual assistance. In the current international situation, ways and means are not lacking to ensure that every man and every woman on earth can enjoy living conditions worthy of the human person.

    In the Message for this year’s World Day of Peace, I suggested four “mileposts” for action: welcoming, protecting, promoting and integrating.[19]  I would like to dwell particularly on the last of these, which has given rise to various opposed positions in the light of varying evaluations, experiences, concerns and convictions.  Integration is a “two-way process”, entailing reciprocal rights and duties.  Those who welcome are called to promote integral human development, while those who are welcomed must necessarily conform to the rules of the country offering them hospitality, with respect for its identity and values.  Processes of integration must always keep the protection and advancement of persons, especially those in situations of vulnerability, at the centre of the rules governing various aspects of political and social life.

    The Holy See has no intention of interfering in decisions that fall to states, which, in the light of their respective political, social and economic situations, and their capacities and possibilities for receiving and integrating, have the primary responsibility for accepting newcomers.  Nonetheless, the Holy See does consider it its role to appeal to the principles of humanity and fraternity at the basis of every cohesive and harmonious society.  In this regard, its interaction with religious communities, on the level of institutions and associations, should not be forgotten, since these can play a valuable supportive role in assisting and protecting, in social and cultural mediation, and in pacification and integration.

    Among the human rights that I would also like to mention today is the right to freedom of thought, conscience and of religion, including the freedom to change religion.[20]  Sad to say, it is well-known that the right to religious freedom is often disregarded, and not infrequently religion becomes either an occasion for the ideological justification of new forms of extremism or a pretext for the social marginalization of believers, if not their downright persecution.  The condition for building inclusive societies is the integral comprehension of the human person, who can feel himself or herself truly accepted when recognized and accepted in all the dimensions that constitute his or her identity, including the religious dimension.

    Finally, I wish to recall the importance of the right to employment.  There can be no peace or development if individuals are not given the chance to contribute personally by their own labour to the growth of the common good.  Regrettably, in many parts of the world, employment is scarcely available.  At times, few opportunities exist, especially for young people, to find work.  Often it is easily lost not only due to the effects of alternating economic cycles, but to the increasing use of ever more perfect and precise technologies and tools that can replace human beings.  On the one hand, we note an inequitable distribution of the work opportunities, while on the other, a tendency to demand of labourers an ever more pressing pace.  The demands of profit, dictated by globalization, have led to a progressive reduction of times and days of rest, with the result that a fundamental dimension of life has been lost – that of rest – which serves to regenerate persons not only physically but also spiritually.  God himself rested on the seventh day; he blessed and consecrated that day “because on it he rested from all the work that he had done in creation” (Gen 2:3).  In the alternation of exertion and repose, human beings share in the “sanctification of time” laid down by God and ennoble their work, saving it from constant repetition and dull daily routine.

    A cause for particular concern are the data recently published by the International Labour Organization regarding the increase of child labourers and victims of the new forms of slavery.  The scourge of juvenile employment continues to compromise gravely the physical and psychological development of young people, depriving them of the joys of childhood and reaping innocent victims.  We cannot think of planning a better future, or hope to build more inclusive societies, if we continue to maintain economic models directed to profit alone and the exploitation of those who are most vulnerable, such as children.  Eliminating the structural causes of this scourge should be a priority of governments and international organizations, which are called to intensify efforts to adopt integrated strategies and coordinated policies aimed at putting an end to child labour in all its forms.

    Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    In recalling some of the rights contained in the 1948 Universal Declaration, I do not mean to overlook one of its important aspects, namely, the recognition that every individual also has duties towards the community, for the sake of “meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”.[21]  The just appeal to the rights of each human being must take into account the fact that every individual is part of a greater body.  Our societies too, like every human body, enjoy good health if each member makes his or her own contribution in the awareness that it is at the service of the common good.

    Among today’s particularly pressing duties is that of caring for our earth.  We know that nature can itself be cruel, even apart from human responsibility.  We saw this in the past year with the earthquakes that struck different parts of our world, especially those of recent months in Mexico and in Iran, with their high toll of victims, and with the powerful hurricanes that struck different countries of the Caribbean, also reaching the coast of the United States, and, more recently, the Philippines.  Even so, one must not downplay the importance of our own responsibility in interaction with nature.  Climate changes, with the global rise in temperatures and their devastating effects, are also a consequence of human activity.  Hence there is a need to take up, in a united effort, the responsibility of leaving to coming generations a more beautiful and livable world, and to work, in the light of the commitments agreed upon in Paris in 2015, for the reduction of gas emissions that harm the atmosphere and human health.

    The spirit that must guide individuals and nations in this effort can be compared to that of the builders of the medieval cathedrals that dot the landscape of Europe.  These impressive buildings show the importance of each individual taking part in a work that transcends the limits of time.  The builders of the cathedrals knew that they would not see the completion of their work.  Yet they worked diligently, in the knowledge that they were part of a project that would be left to their children to enjoy.  These, in turn, would embellish and expand it for their own children.  Each man and woman in this world – particularly those with governmental responsibilities – is called to cultivate the same spirit of service and intergenerational solidarity, and in this way to be a sign of hope for our troubled world.

    With these thoughts, I renew to each of you, to your families and to your peoples, my prayerful good wishes for a year filled with joy, hope and peace.  Thank you.

  • Why the “Merchants of Death” Survive and Prosper

    This article was originally published by History News Network.

    During the mid-1930s, a best-selling exposé of the international arms trade, combined with a U.S. Congressional investigation of munitions-makers led by Senator Gerald Nye, had a major impact on American public opinion. Convinced that military contractors were stirring up weapons sales and war for their own profit, many people grew critical of these “merchants of death.”

    Today, some eight decades later, their successors, now more politely called “defense contractors,” are alive and well. According to a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, sales of weapons and military services by the world’s largest 100 corporate military purveyors in 2016 (the latest year for which figures are available) rose to $375 billion. U.S. corporations increased their share of that total to almost 58 percent, supplying weapons to at least 100 nations around the world.

    The dominant role played by U.S. corporations in the international arms trade owes a great deal to the efforts of U.S. government officials. “Significant parts of the government,” notes military analyst William Hartung, “are intent on ensuring that American arms will flood the global market and companies like Lockheed and Boeing will live the good life. From the president on his trips abroad to visit allied world leaders to the secretaries of state and defense to the staffs of U.S. embassies, American officials regularly act as salespeople for the arms firms.” Furthermore, he notes, “the Pentagon is their enabler. From brokering, facilitating, and literally banking the money from arms deals to transferring weapons to favored allies on the taxpayers’ dime, it is in essence the world’s largest arms dealer.”

    In 2013, when Tom Kelly, the deputy assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Political Affairs was asked during a Congressional hearing about whether the Obama administration was doing enough to promote American weapons exports, he replied: “[We are] advocating on behalf of our companies and doing everything we can to make sure that these sales go through. . . and that is something we are doing every day, basically [on] every continent in the world . . . and we’re constantly thinking of how we can do better.” This proved a fair enough assessment, for during the first six years of the Obama administration, U.S. government officials secured agreements for U.S. weapons sales of more than $190 billion around the world, especially to the volatile Middle East. Determined to outshine his predecessor, President Donald Trump, on his first overseas trip, bragged about a $110 billion arms deal (totaling $350 billion over the next decade) with Saudi Arabia.

    The greatest single weapons market remains the United States, for this country ranks first among nations in military spending, with 36 percent of the global total. Trump is a keen military enthusiast, as is the Republican Congress, which is currently in the process of approving a 13 percent increase in the already astronomical U.S. military budget. Much of this future military spending will almost certainly be devoted to purchasing new and very expensive high-tech weapons, for the military contractors are adept at delivering millions of dollars in campaign contributions to needy politicians, employing 700 to 1,000 lobbyists to nudge them along, claiming that their military production facilities are necessary to create jobs, and mobilizing their corporate-funded think tanks to highlight ever-greater foreign “dangers.”

    They can also count upon a friendly reception from their former executives now holding high-level posts in the Trump administration, including: Secretary of Defense James Mattis (a former board member of General Dynamics); White House Chief of Staff John Kelly (previously employed by several military contractors); Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan (a former Boeing executive); Secretary of the Army Mark Esper (a former Raytheon vice president); Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson (a former consultant to Lockheed Martin); Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Ellen Lord (a former CEO of an aerospace company); and National Security Council Chief of Staff Keith Kellogg (a former employee of a major military and intelligence contractor).

    This formula works very well for U.S. military contractors, as illustrated by the case of Lockheed Martin, the largest arms merchant in the world. In 2016, Lockheed’s weapons sales rose by almost 11 percent to $41 billion, and the company is well on its way to even greater affluence thanks to its production of the F-35 fighter jet. Lockheed began work on developing the technologically-advanced warplane in the 1980s and, since 2001, the U.S. government has expended over $100 billion for its production. Today, estimates by military analysts as to the total cost to taxpayers of the 2,440 F-35s desired by Pentagon officials range from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, making it the most expensive procurement program in U.S. history.

    The F-35’s enthusiasts have justified the enormous expense of the warplane by emphasizing its projected ability to make a quick liftoff and a vertical landing, as well as its adaptability for use by three different branches of the U.S. military. And its popularity might also reflect their assumption that its raw destructive power will help them win future wars against Russia and China. “We can’t get into those aircraft fast enough,” Lieutenant General Jon Davis, the Marine Corps’ aviation chief, told a House Armed Services subcommittee in early 2017. “We have a game changer, a war winner, on our hands.”

    Even so, aircraft specialists point out that the F-35 continues to have severe structural problems and that its high-tech computer command system is vulnerable to cyberattack. “This plane has a long way to go before it’s combat-ready,” remarked a military analyst at the Project on Government Oversight. “Given how long it’s been in development, you have to wonder whether it’ll ever be ready.”

    Startled by the extraordinary expense of the F-35 project, Donald Trump initially derided the venture as “out of control.” But, after meeting with Pentagon officials and Lockheed CEO Marilynn Hewson, the new president reversed course, praising “the fantastic” F-35 as a “great plane” and authorizing a multi-billion dollar contract for 90 more of them.

    In retrospect, none of this is entirely surprising. After all, other giant military contractors―for example, Nazi Germany’s Krupp and I.G. Farben and fascist Japan’s Mitsubishi and Sumitomo ―prospered heavily by arming their nations for World War II and continued prospering in its aftermath. As long as people retain their faith in the supreme value of military might, we can probably also expect Lockheed Martin and other “merchants of death” to continue profiting from war at the public’s expense.

  • Help Prevent a Second Korean War

    We are writing to ask you to help prevent a second Korean War by supporting a critically needed bill that will prevent President Trump from attacking North Korea without Congressional approval. Your ability to have that big an impact may sound farfetched, so we’ll start with some background showing how just 600 Georgia voters helped get the New START arms control treaty passed in 2010. This is described in endnote 149 of our book (click for free PDF):

    To bring New START to a vote, it first had to be voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where it was bottled up in September 2010. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) was a key vote and on the fence. A concerted effort by several NGOs [non-governmental organizations] got approximately 600 constituents to call his office during the three days prior to the committee vote. Isakson got off the fence and voted to bring the Treaty to a floor vote, though without saying how he would vote on the floor. In December, when that floor vote took place, the same kind of effort was mounted again, and Isakson did vote for the Treaty. While 600 phone calls in three days make a major impression on a senator, 600 people are only 0.006 percent of Georgia’s population.

    Those 600 calls meant the phone in Sen. Isakson’s office was ringing roughly 25 times an hour, eight hours a day, three days in a row, each time with someone urging him to support New START. An organization that knew someone in the senator’s office reported that it felt like a tsunami of support for the treaty and helped move the senator’s thinking.

    A similar opportunity exists today to reduce the risk of a second Korean War, probably involving the use of nuclear weapons. Congressman John Conyers and Senator Ed Markey have introduced H.R. 4140, the No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 which will prohibit the president from attacking North Korea unless we or our allies have been attacked, or Congress approves the strike.

    Congress should have reasserted its constitutionally mandated power to declare war long ago, but it took the fiery rhetoric of President Trump to create an opening where that might now happen. The bill was introduced five days ago with 61 cosponsors including two Republicans, Congressmen Thomas Massie and Walter B. Jones, Jr.

    To become law the bill will need many more supporters, so we hope you will call your Congressional representatives and senators, ask who handles foreign and military affairs, and then email them this one page summary with easily verifiable facts that we have found has changed many minds already. As Senator Isakson’s change of heart shows, it doesn’t take that many committed constituents to effect a major change.

    Other things you can do: If you are active with a civic or church group, suggest this as a group project. Post a link to this blog on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other social media. Email friends and do anything else you can think of to get these ideas out.

    As that one page summary shows, our nation is laboring under a dangerous misimpression that greatly increases the risk of a catastrophic war. Thank you for whatever you do to help.

  • Prescription for a Nuclear-Free World: Dr. Ira Helfand at NAPF’s 2017 Evening for Peace

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation presented Dr. Ira Helfand and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War with the 2017 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. Dr. Helfand’s acceptance speech is below. You can also download a MP3 audio file of the speech here.

    Thank you very much. The work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been so important in the movement to eliminate nuclear weapons for so many decades, it is a particular honor for us to receive this award from Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. And on behalf of all of the many thousands of doctors in IPPNW and in, especially, our American affiliate Physicians for Social Responsibility, thank you so much for giving us this award tonight.

    The citations of the Nobel Committee both in 1985 and in 2017 essentially spoke to the same issue, which was not the organizational effectiveness of the groups that they were awarding the prize to but the message that they brought to the world. The simple message that nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to human survival and must be abolished. That message I think is more important today than it’s ever been. There was a time about a generation ago in the 1980s when almost everybody understood this. People all around the world knew what was going to happen if there was a nuclear war. That was in part due to the educational work that we did then, but it was also due to just the constant attention that the nuclear question received in the media, and the obsessive concern about nuclear weapons that dominated the lives of so many of us at that time. When the Cold War ended, we, all of us, including people who are active in this movement, started to act as though the problem had gone away. As we know, it didn’t. There are still 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world today, several thousand on a hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired in less than 10 minutes’ notice.

    And in addition to that fundamental fact, we have to recognize that the danger of nuclear war has increased dramatically in the last few years. The situation in North Korea of course is in the news every day, and we cannot ignore this. There is the real possibility that there will be a war which will almost certainly turn nuclear between the United States and North Korea sometime in the very near future. It could happen this month, next month, the beginning of next year. But that’s only one of the flashpoints that exist in the world today. Relations between the United States and Russia are at the worst point in three decades. Relations between the United States and China are at the worst point in four decades. There is fighting every single day on the border between India and Pakistan, which are armed with significant and growing arsenals of nuclear weapons.

    In addition to these geopolitical flashpoints, there are several other factors that increase the risk of nuclear war. There is the danger of cyber terrorism. We used to think that the worst thing a terrorist could do would be to get a single nuclear warhead and bring it into New York or London or Tel Aviv or Bombay and set it off. Now we understand that the far greater danger is of a cyber attack. The terrorist will hack into the command and control systems of the United States or Russia, or possibly one of the other nuclear states, and either directly set off the launch of nuclear armed missiles or, perhaps more likely, create a false warning under which the country that’s being hacked thinks it’s being attacked by nuclear weapons from the other side and responds with a nuclear attack of its own.

    There is also the Trump phenomenon, and we simply cannot ignore this either. The US and other nuclear weapon states have predicated their policies over the last decades, their insistence on maintaining nuclear arsenals, on the assumption that the leadership of the nuclear-armed states would be composed of wise, temperate, well-informed people. It’s not my judgement, but the judgement of the experts in his own party, that Donald Trump possesses none of these qualities. And the fact that he is in charge of 6,800 nuclear warheads should be a cause of great concern to all of us. And it should also lead us to having a very different view of the whole nuclear enterprise.

    Finally, among the factors that are increasing the danger of nuclear war is the issue of climate change. We are told by the United States repeatedly that it seeks the abolition of nuclear weapons sometime in the future when conditions are safer. Conditions are not getting safer. Climate change is making large parts of this planet essentially uninhabitable by their current populations. And as this process progresses, and it will even if we take drastic action now, there’s going to be an increase in conflict in these regions that are facing severe environmental stress. There is going to be mass migration on a scale which absolutely dwarfs what has taken place so far in the last decade, and the possibility of conflict escalating to nuclear conflict is going to grow and grow and grow, unless the weapons are removed.

    The central concept behind PSR and IPPNW’s work has always been that, if people understood how bad nuclear war would be, how likely it was to happen, and the fact that this is not the future that needs to be, they would act to get rid of nuclear weapons. I want to spend a few minutes reviewing for you the part that has been our central piece of this message: What happens if there is a nuclear war? And I do apologize, this has been a lovely evening, everyone’s been enjoying a wonderful meal in great fellowship, but we do need to remind ourselves regularly of what it is that we are facing. So let me talk a little bit first about limited nuclear war.

    We have looked in great detail at the possibility of a war between India and Pakistan. Each of these countries has about 130 nuclear warheads at this point and they’re adding to their arsenals every month. The studies that we have done have been based on a model in which these countries use only 50 warheads each and use relatively small bombs, Hiroshima-sized weapons. They have weapons that are bigger. But it was intentionally a conservative model, so that we couldn’t be accused of overestimating the situation. The effect of a war between India and Pakistan, each using 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons in South Asia is unbelievably devastating. Twenty million people die in the first week as a result of the explosions, the fires, the direct radiation coming out of these bombs. To put that in perspective, during all World War II, 50 million people died across the whole planet over the course of eight years. In this situation, we would have a like number, 20 million people, dying in the course of a single week in one very constrained geographic area. But this local devastation is only part of the story, because these 100 bombs exploding over cities would cause 100 fire storms, and they’d put about 6.5 million tons of soot into the upper atmosphere. And that would block out the sun across the entire planet, dropping temperatures, shortening the growing season, drying the planet and causing a dramatic decrease in food production.

    We’ve looked at what the impact would be on food production here in the United States and in China, the world’s two largest food producers, and the results are frankly terrifying. The food production of major grain crops like corn and wheat and rice go down anywhere from 15% to 39% for a full decade after this conflict. And the world today simply cannot absorb a decline in food production of that magnitude. There are already 719 million people in the world who are malnourished, who are just getting by. They cannot afford any further decrease in their food consumption. There are 300 million people in the world today who are well-nourished, but live in countries where much of the food is imported, and this includes a number of very wealthy countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, many of the countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Under the circumstances that would pertain after a limited nuclear war and a worldwide decline in food production, those food imports would not be available.

    There are a billion people in China today who are well-nourished, who live in a country where most of the food is grown in country, but who are poor, who have not shared in the great economic progress that China has made. There are a billion people who live on less than $5 a day. And given the dramatic increase in food prices that would follow a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan, they would not be able to buy food. And so we have concluded that worldwide, over two billion people would be at risk of starvation as a result of a limited nuclear war in one corner of the globe involving less than 0.03% of the world’s nuclear weapons. The death of two billion people would not be the extinction of our species, but it would be the end of modern civilization as we know it. No civilization in human history has ever withstood a shock of this magnitude, and there is no reason to think that the very intricate, interdependent economic system that we all depend on would fare any better.

    That’s a limited nuclear war. Let me talk to you for a few minutes about a large-scale nuclear war. And I want to start by describing what an attack on a single city would look like. Most of us are familiar with images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the warning that we received in Japan in 1945 is one which we must take to heart. But we also have to understand that Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not begin to prepare us for what will happen if nuclear weapons are used again, because it will not be one or two small bombs on one or two cities. It’ll be large numbers of much larger bombs on many, many cities. We don’t know the exact targeting strategy of the United States or Russia, but I have been told recently by someone who is familiar with US military planning that the US still targets Moscow with 100 nuclear weapons. And that doesn’t count the French and the British weapons which are also targeted on Moscow, and for that matter the Chinese weapons that are targeted on Moscow.

    So, I’m going to use a model that is much smaller than 100 nuclear warheads. I’m going to use one single very large bomb. The destruction I’m going to describe is much less than will befall Moscow or New York or Washington, but I think it gives us an adequate understanding of the enormity of the danger that we face. I’m talking about a 20 megaton bomb. Within one-thousandth of a second of the detonation of this weapon, a fireball would form, reaching out for two miles in every direction, four miles across. Within this area the temperatures would rise to 20 million degrees Fahrenheit, which is hotter than the surface of the sun. And everything would be vaporized, the buildings, the people, the trees, the upper level of the earth itself would disappear.

    To a distance of four miles in every direction, the explosion would generate winds greater than 600 miles per hour. Mechanical forces of that magnitude destroy anything that people can build. To a distance of six miles in every direction, the heat would be so intense that automobiles would melt. And to a distance of 16 miles in every direction, the heat would still be so intense that everything flammable would burn: paper, cloth, wood, gasoline, heating oil. It would all ignite into a giant firestorm 32 miles across, covering over 800 square miles. Within this entire area, the temperature would rise to a 1400 degrees Fahrenheit. All of the oxygen would be consumed and every living thing would die. The bacteria and the viruses would die. The area would be sterilized of all life.

    In the case of New York, we’re talking about 12 to 15 million people dead in half an hour. And if this attack were part of a large-scale war between the United States and Russia, this level of destruction would visit every major city in both countries. In addition, the entire economic infrastructure of the country would be destroyed, and all the things that the rest of the population depend on to keep themselves alive would be gone. There’d be no electric grid, no internet, no public health system, no food distribution system, no fuel distribution system. And over the months following this attack, the vast majority of the people who did not die in the initial wave would also die; between the United States and Russia, something like 500 million people.

    But again, this is only part of the story. A limited war in South Asia puts six-and-a-half million tons of soot into the upper atmosphere. A large war between the United States and Russia puts about a 150 million tons of soot into the upper atmosphere. And that drops temperature across the planet, an average of 14 degrees Fahrenheit. In the interior regions of North America and Eurasia, the temperatures drop 45 to 50 degrees. We essentially create an instant ice age, conditions that have not existed on the planet in 18,000 years, since the coldest point of the last ice age. In the Northern Hemisphere there would be three years without a single day free of frost. That means that at some point every day, the temperature would go below freezing. And under those conditions, all the ecosystems which have evolved over the last 10,000 years since the last ice age ended, they would all collapse. Food production would stop. The vast majority of the human race would starve to death, and we might become extinct as a species.

    This is not some nightmare scenario. This is the danger that we live with every day as long as these weapons exist, that we have been living with for 70 years, and that we will continue to live with until we get rid of these weapons. But this is the future that will be if we don’t take action, and I believe we are essentially living on borrowed time. It is extraordinary good luck that has saved us from this fate until this point.

    Still, this is not the future that must be. Nuclear weapons are not a force of nature, they are not an act of God. We have made them with our own hands and we know how to take them apart. We’ve already dismantled more than 50,000 of them. The only thing that’s missing is the political will and commitment to do this. And that’s where all of us come in. We have allowed our governments to maintain this insanely dangerous situation year after year, exposing us to this unspeakable risk, and we have to make them stop. The good news is we can do this, we’ve done it once before.

    In the early 1980s, the United States and the Soviet Union were racing towards nuclear war. There were 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world and we were building 3,000 more every year. We were talking here in the United States about fighting and winning a nuclear war in Europe. And in response to that situation, an incredible movement grew up in this country. Millions of people marched across the country, gathered in Central Park in New York, petitioned their legislators, forced Congress to speak out on this. And in an extraordinary moment, we won. The Cold War arms race was stopped. And it happened so suddenly that I think most of us didn’t even realize when it took place.

    In 1983, two of the many episodes where we almost blew the planet up occurred. And in January of 1984, Ronald Reagan, who until then had been the most hawkish president regarding nuclear weapons in our history, said in the State of the Union Address, “Nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought.” We thought this was just rhetoric, that the guy was just making a speech for the 1984 election season that was starting. But we were wrong. We’d actually won, we had changed his mind. And it turns out we changed Gorbachev’s mind too. Over the two or three years that followed, the Cold War arms race came to an end, the Cold War itself came to an end, and frankly, all of us who were a part of this, and I suspect that’s almost everybody in this room who’s old enough, we saved the world.

    So, we can do this. We’ve done it once before; we just need to do it again. And the conditions that we face now, as dangerous as they are, provide us with the opportunity to do it because the great enemy of progress on this issue has been inattention, has been the fact that the media doesn’t care about nuclear war, that the vast majority of the population doesn’t pay any attention to that. But that situation is changing, because between the crisis in North Korea and the extraordinary anxiety that Donald Trump is provoking with his behavior, people are focusing on this issue again. There are other some positive developments, which also help us. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a huge step forward, a real milestone in our effort to get rid of these weapons. And that’s going to help us. The recent Nobel Prize will also give a greater platform to all of us across the world, all 500 NGOs who are part of this network, who were trying to alert people to the danger we face.

    And so, each of us needs to look at the situation and figure out what we can do. No one of us is expected to solve this problem all by ourselves. But each one of us needs to figure out what it is that we can do, who of our friends and neighbors we can mobilize, how we can work, what contribution we can make to get rid of these weapons. One of the things that happens whenever I give a talk is that people put up their hands at the end and say, “What can I do?” which is the obvious question. I want to offer something of an answer to that.

    We had a symposium in Western Massachusetts a few weeks ago about the link between climate change and nuclear war, and at the end of the symposium, at one of the workshops, there were a number of people present who had been a part of the original freeze movement in 1980s, which, as you may remember, started in the small hill towns of Western Massachusetts, with people going to their town meetings and then to city councils with a simple resolution calling for the US and Soviet Union to freeze the arms race. And what these people said is, “The time is ripe for a similar initiative, not to freeze the arms race, but to eliminate nuclear weapons.” And they came up with a simple statement, modeled on the freeze, with a plan to use it like the freeze was used, to make this sort of a tool usable by everybody, owned by no organization, so that hopefully all the peace groups in the country will take this up. A simple vehicle that we can all use is to go to our towns, our cities, our labor unions, our professional associations, our churches, our civic groups, and get them all to express the need to change US nuclear policy.

    I want to read it to you, it’s quite short. It’s called “Back From The Brink: A Call To Prevent Nuclear War.” “We call on the United States to lead a global effort to prevent nuclear war by [1] renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first; [2] ending the President’s sole unchecked authority to launch nuclear attack; [3] taking US nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert; [4] cancelling the plan to replace its entire arsenal with enhanced weapons; [5] and perhaps most importantly, actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear arms states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.”

    It’s simple, it’s direct, and it gives every constituency in this country the opportunity to raise their voice to call for an end to the nuclear weapons era. There are copies of this on the literature table out in the hallway. I hope you’ll all take a copy, sign it, and most importantly, think who it is that you can mobilize with this. How do you reach the California State Legislature? How do we ultimately reach the US Congress? How do we create a totally different view of what nuclear policy should be? I think we have a three-and-a-half year window to solve this problem. I don’t expect we’re going to see any real progress under the current administration even if Trump is removed from office; Pence, I don’t think would be any better. But in January of 2021, a new administration will take office in Washington, and our job is to create a fundamental change in US nuclear policy by that date, so that the new administration, the new President who takes office, is committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons, and to ensure that she appoints to all of the key places in the Defense Department, in the State Department, in the National Security Council, people who are likewise committed to working for the abolition of nuclear weapons. It’s an ambitious goal that we set ourselves, but we turned the world around once before in this timeframe, and I don’t think we have any choice. As I said before, I believe that we are living on borrowed time and we have a very limited window of opportunity to get rid of these weapons, and we need to seize that opportunity.

    When I describe the effects of nuclear war as I did for you all tonight, I do feel a certain sense of guilt, even if I’m not ruining a lovely dinner. I’m placing on your shoulders, and on my own shoulders listening to this again, a terrible responsibility. Once we know about this, we have to act. You can’t see somebody fall down and just step over them. If you know the whole world is at risk in this terrible way, you have to do something about it. And there’s no question, this responsibility is a burden, but I think it is something much more than that. I think this is a very great gift that we have all been given. Every one of us wants to do something good with our life. We have been given the opportunity to save the world and there’s absolutely nothing better that someone can do with their life than that. So it’s in that spirit that I urge you all to take up with renewed energy, because I know you’ve all been working on this issue for years, but with renewed spirit, with renewed commitment, this task. It says in the Hebrew Bible that God said “Behold, I have put before you life and death, therefore, choose life, that you and your children might live.” That is literally the choice before the world today. And so let’s all pledge tonight that we will choose life, that we will act with courage and determination and perseverance, so that indeed our children might live. Thank you.

  • International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Receives 2017 Nobel Peace Prize

    The world’s most prestigious prize for peace, the Nobel Peace Prize, has been awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).  This award will help shine a light on the passion and commitment of this worldwide movement to abolish nuclear weapons.  It will also draw attention to the goals ICAN has enthusiastically sought to achieve.  First, a public awakening of concern for the dangers to humankind and to all that each of us loves and treasures posed by nuclear weapons.  Second, the entry into force of the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Third, the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    ICAN has brought considerable youthful energy to the issue of nuclear disarmament.  It also operates as a global campaign involving some 400 civil society organizations from more than 100 countries.  The campaign began ten years ago, and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) was one of its initial members.  We’ve been a part of the campaign from the beginning.  We are proud to stand with the other civil society groups throughout the world in working with ICAN to achieve its goals, which are also our goals.

    The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was drafted by states with the participation of civil society.  On July 7, 2017 it was adopted by 122 countries.  The treaty bans, among other things, the possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.  NAPF lobbied for the treaty to include “threat of use” as well as “use” of the weapons.  Rick Wayman, our Director of Programs, delivered a speech at the United Nations treaty drafting meeting arguing this point, and it was adopted in the final text.  On September 20, 2017, the treaty was opened for signature at the United Nations.  Fifty countries signed the first day and subsequently three more countries have signed the treaty.

    The treaty will enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth country ratifies it.  So far, there are three ratifications.  ICAN will be working to see that the treaty gets more signatures and ratifications, including the support of the nine nuclear-armed countries, which boycotted the treaty negotiations.  On the day the treaty was adopted, the U.S., UK and France issued a joint statement in which they said, “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become a party to it.”  ICAN represents the will of the people to pass the planet on  intact to new generations, while the nuclear-armed countries reflect an outdated concept of security in which they are willing to threaten the future of civilization for their own misguided concepts of security.

    In the mid-1980s, there were 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world.  Today there are just under 15,000.  ICAN’s goal and NAPF’s goal is a world with zero nuclear weapons. This must also become the goal of all humanity. The great hope in the Nobel Peace Prize going to ICAN is that it will help draw global attention and concern to the ongoing threats posed by nuclear weapons and tip the scales toward ending the nuclear weapons era with its abundant dangers to all humanity.


    David Krieger is a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • Local Group Part of Nobel Peace Prize-Winning Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    Santa Barbara – On October 6, the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) “for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.”

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF), a non-partisan, non-profit organization founded in Santa Barbara in 1982, has been an active member of ICAN since its inception a decade ago.

    NAPF President David Krieger said, “This is an immense honor for the hundreds of ICAN partner organizations and campaigners around the world who have worked tirelessly for a treaty banning nuclear weapons, which was finally adopted this year. I am particularly happy for the hibakusha – survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – who have dedicated their lives to the abolition of nuclear weapons.”

    Rick Wayman, NAPF’s Director of Programs, took an active role in ICAN’s efforts during the negotiations of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at the United Nations earlier this year. As part of ICAN’s diverse international team of campaigners, Rick assisted with lobbying countries to support strong language in the treaty, as well as with amplifying ICAN’s message in the media and social media.

    Wayman said, “The recognition by the Nobel Committee of ICAN’s outstanding work is well-deserved. Achieving the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been a collaborative effort that involved bold strategy, lots of hard work, and even some fun. There remains much work to be done to finally achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, particularly in the United States, which continues to maintain thousands of nuclear warheads. I hope that this Nobel Peace Prize will awaken many more people around the world to the urgent need to work for the abolition of nuclear weapons. We can, and will, achieve this goal.”

    A statement from ICAN about the award is here. More information about the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is here.


    If you would like to interview David Krieger or Rick Wayman, please call +1 805 696 5159.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations. For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

  • Reclaiming the Truth About Vietnam

    “From Ia Drang to Khe Sanh, from Hue to Saigon and countless villages in between, they pushed through jungles and rice paddies, heat and monsoon, fighting heroically to protect the ideals we hold dear as Americans. Through more than a decade of combat, over air, land, and sea, these proud Americans upheld the highest traditions of our Armed Forces.”

    OK, I get it. Soldiers suffer, soldiers die in the wars we wage, and the commander in chief has to, occasionally, toss clichés on their graves.

    The words are those of Barack Obama, five-plus years ago, issuing a Memorial Day proclamation establishing a 13-year commemoration of the Vietnam War, for which, apparently, about $65 million was appropriated.

    Veterans for Peace calls it money allocated to rewrite history and has begun a counter-campaign called Full Disclosure, the need for which is more glaring than ever, considering that there is close to zero political opposition to the unleashed American empire and its endless war on terror.

    Just the other day, for instance, 89 senators quietly voted to pass the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, signing off on a $700 billion defense budget, which ups annual military spending by $80 billion and, as Common Dreams reported, “will dump a larger sum of money into the military budget than even President Donald Trump asked for while also authorizing the production of 94 F-35 jets, two dozen more than the Pentagon requested.”

    And of course there’s no controversy here, no media clamor demanding to know where the money will come from. “Money for war just is. Like the tides,” Adam Johnson of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting tweeted, as quoted by Common Dreams.

    Oh quiet profits! The Full Disclosure campaign rips away the lies that allow America’s wars to continue: GIs slogging through jungles and rice paddies to protect the ideals we hold dear. These words are not directed at the people who put Obama into office, who did so believing he would end the Bush wars. The fact that he continued them mocks the “value” we call democracy, indeed, turns it into a hollow shell.

    The U.S. Air Force dropped over 6 million tons of bombs and other ordnance on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia between 1964 and 1973, more than it expended in World War II, Howard Machtinger notes at the Full Disclosure website. And more than 19 million gallons of toxic chemicals, including the infamous Agent Orange, were dumped on the Vietnam countryside.

    “Accurate estimates are hard to come by,” he writes, “but as many as three million Vietnamese were likely killed, including two million civilians, hundreds of thousands seriously injured and disabled, millions of internally displaced, croplands and forests destroyed: incredible destruction — physical, environmental, institutional, and psychological. The term ecocide was coined to try to capture the devastation of the Vietnamese landscape.”

    And: “All Vietnamese, as a matter of course, were referred to as ‘gooks.’ So the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, which had been eroding throughout 20th century warfare, virtually disappeared.”

    And then there was the war’s effect on the soldiers who fought it and the “moral damage” so many suffered: “To date,” Machtinger writes, “estimates of veteran suicides range from a low of 9,000 to 150,000, the latter almost triple the number of U.S. deaths during the actual conflict.”

    So I pause in the midst of these numbers, this data, letting the words and the memories wash over me: Agent Orange, napalm, gook, My Lai. Such words link only with terrible irony to the clichés of Obama’s proclamation: solemn reverence . . . honor . . . heads held high . . . the ideals we hold dear.

    The first set of words sickened a vast segment of the American public and caused the horror of “Vietnam Syndrome” to cripple and emasculate the military-industrial complex for a decade and a half. Slowly, the powers that be regrouped, redefined how we fought our wars: without widespread national sacrifice or a universal draft; and with smart bombs and even smarter public relations, ensuring that most of the American public could watch our clean, efficient wars in the comfort of their living rooms.

    What was also necessary was to marginalize the anti-war voices that shut down the Vietnam War. This was accomplished politically, beginning with the surrender of the Democratic Party to its military-industrial funders in the wake of George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign. Eventually, endless war became the new normal, and blotting the shame of our “loss” in Vietnam from the historical record became a priority.

    The Full Disclosure campaign is saying: no way. One aspect of this campaign is an interactive exhibit of the 1968 My Lai massacre, in which American soldiers rounded up and killed more than 500 villagers. The exhibit was created by the Chicago chapter of Vets for Peace, which hopes to raise enough money to take it on a national tour and rekindle public awareness of the reality of war.

    A slice of that reality can be found in a New Yorker article written in 2015 by Seymour Hersh, the reporter who broke the story some four and a half decades earlier. In the article, Hersh revisits the story of one of the GI participants in My Lai, Paul Meadlo:

    After being told by (Lt. William) Calley to ‘take care of this group,’ one Charlie Company soldier recounted, Meadlo and a fellow-soldier ‘were actually playing with the kids, telling the people where to sit down and giving the kids candy.’ When Calley returned and said that he wanted them dead, the soldier said, ‘Meadlo just looked at him like he couldn’t believe it. He says, “Waste them?” When Calley said yes, another soldier testified, Meadlo and Calley ‘opened up and started firing.’ But then Meadlo ‘started to cry.’

    And that’s the war, and those are our values, buried with the dead villagers in a mass grave.


  • The Reality of the Nuclear Age: U.S. Must Negotiate with North Korea

    David KriegerAnyone with a modicum of sense does not want to see the US teeter at the brink of war with North Korea and certainly not inadvertently stumble over that brink, or intentionally jump.  The first Korean War in the 1950s was costly in terms of lives and treasure.  A second Korean War, with the possibility of nuclear weapons use, would be far more costly to both sides, and could lead to global nuclear conflagration.

    Neither North Korea nor South Korea want a new war, but US leadership in Washington is threatening war, with remarks such as “talking is not the answer”; North Korean threats “will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen”; “military solutions are now in place, locked and loaded”; and “all options are on the table.”  Such posturing has only elicited more nuclear and missile tests from North Korea.

    It is clear, though, that threats of attack are not a responsible way of going forward.  This may be difficult for Trump to grasp, since he has built his business and political reputation on threats and bullying behavior.  Like all bullies, he backs down when confronted.  But confrontation with a bully is still risky, particularly this bully, who is also thin-skinned, erratic, impulsive and has the full power of the US military at his disposal.

    The US does not need another war, not with North Korea or any country.  We need, instead, to extract ourselves from the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Nor should we turn our backs on the well-negotiated agreement with Iran to halt their nuclear weapons program.  In fact, this agreement should serve as a model for the type of agreement needed with North Korea.

    What needs to be done?

    The US should agree to negotiate with North Korea and do so without preconditions.  It has been suggested by North Korea, as well as by China and Russia, that North Korea would freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for the US and South Korea ceasing to conduct war games at North Korea’s border.  The US has foolishly, arrogantly and repeatedly ignored or rejected this proposal to get to the negotiating table. It seems that the US would prefer to continue its war gaming on the Korean peninsula than to negotiate with the North Koreans to find a solution to control their nuclear arsenal.

    It would appear that North Korea wants to assure that its regime is not vulnerable to a US attack and occupation, such as occurred in Iraq and Libya.  In each of these countries the leaders were captured and killed.

    Rather than seeking to tighten the economic sanctions on North Korea, which primarily hurt their people, the US should try a different approach, one offering positive rewards for freezing the North Korean nuclear and missile programs and allowing inspections.  Such positive rewards could include food, health care, energy, and infrastructure development.  North Korea has responded positively to such offers of help in the past, and would be likely to do so again.  Kim Jong-un is not, as the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has said, “begging for war.”

    In addition, there has never been a formal end to the Korean War, and it is past time to reach a peace agreement and formally bring the war to an end.  This would be a major step forward and one greatly desired by North Korea.

    The Trump administration needs to engage with its allies, South Korea and Japan, in these negotiations.  It should also bring other interested parties in Northeast Asia into the negotiations.  This would include China and Russia.  All of these countries appear to be ready to talk.  The US just needs to put aside its arrogance and begin the task of negotiating rather than continuing the unworkable approach of trying to force its will on North Korea or any other country by means of threats or bullying.  That is the reality of the Nuclear Age.