Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Uncategorized

  • A Model of Thermonuclear Extinction on Planet Mars

    Since September 11, 2001 the threat of the detonation of nuclear devices is more often on the minds of the public especially. After this attack, it seems clear that there are groups who would happily extinguish many, if not all persons living on planet Earth. Simply stated, as long as these weapons of annihilation exist, so too will the temptation to use them. Although military experts speak of the “survivability” of what they deem “limited exchange,” they are speaking primarily of the very short-term continuation of our species. Well known are the many films and books devoted to elucidating the damage that would be done to civilizations by the blasts of such weapons. However, few people have explored, at least in any great detail the effects on our planets ecosystem by a nuclear blast.

    Most researchers who focus on climatic changes throughout history explain that a change in just a few degrees can and will have lasting planet wide effects-most of these effects are detrimental to life-including human life. One theory suggests that a nuclear exchange would prompt a “nuclear winter.” Dr. Carl Sagan and others introduced this idea in 1983 in the journal Science. In this theory, after the explosions of a nuclear exchange have stopped, the real lasting damage will be just beginning. The spread of ash and smoke in the atmosphere from global fires, will block sunlight, darkening the sky, which will lead to lower global wide temperatures of as much as 10-15 degrees centigrade within 5-6 months. The most conservative models show that a change in the temperature of even one degree Centigrade would unbalance the ecosystem, thus directly affecting the survival of many species on Earth, including humanity.

    These theories of the effects of all this smoke and ash in the atmosphere are more than an idle theory-a very similar event has happened several times on our planet, the last, being some 65 million years ago. In 1979, Walter Alvarez was sifting through sediments from Gubbio, Italy when he discovered a large amount of a radioactive element that is rare on Earth-but is found in meteors and asteroids. This material called iridium was found in sediments dating to the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, called the K-T boundary. This iridium did not have a terrestrial explanation. Alvarez’s research gave support to an already proposed asteroid theory of vast extinctions that have occurred for the past 400 million years or so. We now know that an asteroid, roughly the size of Mount Everest, slammed into what is today the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. About once every 30 to 60 million years, something devastating occurs on our planet. As we slowly revolve around our galaxy, our tiny solar system is brought into contact with other space debris, including comets, asteroids, and other objects, both large and small. In addition, every now and then, one of these astral bodies slams into our planet. The resulting devastation from a moderate sized impact is an almost total loss of life on our world. This has occurred about five times in Earth’s history. These mass extinctions are what led to the rise of our own species: humanity. Before the impact that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs, which had dominated Earth for more than 150 million years, mammals were small, nocturnal, and secretive. They needed to spend most of their time and energy in evading meat-eating dinosaurs. With the extinction of dinosaurs, the remaining mammals moved into habitats and ecological niches previously dominated by the dinosaurs. Over the next 65 million years, these early mammals evolved into a wide variety of species, assuming many ecological roles and rising to dominate the Earth as the dinosaurs had before them.

    The first of these Global Killers slammed into our planet around 440 million years ago in what is known as the Ordovician Period. Because of this impact, the fossil record shows that nearly 90 percent of all the species on Earth became extinct. The second event took place 370 million years ago, near the end of the Devonian Period, which resulted in the loss of over 80 percent of all species. The third and greatest mass extinction, at least so far, happened around 245 million years ago, at the end of the Permian Period. Soon after this enormous impact, nearly 96 percent of all species on Earth were lost. This devastation was so incredible, that paleontologists use this event to mark the end of the ancient, or Paleozoic Era, and the beginning of the middle, or Mesozoic Era, when many new groups of animals evolved. Just over 205 million years ago, near the end of the Triassic Period, the fourth mass extinction claimed over 75 percent of the species alive at the time, including a large number of amphibians, fish and reptile species. The fifth, most well known, and most recent major collision occurred just over 65 million years ago, and would end the Cretaceous Period. This collision with an asteroid resulted in the loss of 75 percent of all species, including the giant marine reptiles, and, the dinosaurs.

    This last impact is known to have produced a spray of debris called an ejecta sheet, which was blown from the edge of the crater. This is surmised because traces of an element, common to asteroids called Iridium, has been found over vast regions of North and South America. In fact, material from the impact’s explosion was distributed all over the Earth. Although the large amounts of ash in the geological strata suggest that most of North and South America were devastated by fire from the impact, the long-term planet-wide environmental effects were ultimately more deadly. Dust from the impact blocked sunlight from the earth’s surface for many months, while sulfur ejected from the impact site, combined with water vapor and chlorine, from the oceans that were flash boiled, and nitrogen from our air produced a worldwide downpour of intense acidic rain. The darkness and acid rain caused plant growth to cease. As a result, both the herbivorous dinosaurs, which were dependent on plants for food, as well as the carnivorous dinosaurs, which fed on the herbivores, died out. On the other hand, animals such as frogs, lizards, and small insect-eating turtles and mammals, which were dependent on organisms that fed on decaying plant material, were more likely to survive.

    When this piece of rock struck the Earth it was traveling about 30,000 miles per hour. The resulting impact caused fires on a global scale due to the enormous heat. This would explain the iridium deposits and the fires would explain a surplus of carbon that has also been discovered at the K-T boundary layer. Other researchers studying carbon deposits in sedimentary layers have documented a period in Earth’s past when ancient wildfires were widespread. Fossils in the sediments in the K-T boundary also show a strange disappearance of about 60 percent of the animals and plants in this period of time-nearly all animals weighting over a few dozen pounds were wiped out. These ancient fires may provide evidence from Earth’s past that give us an idea of how a nuclear war climate might affect the climate. It would be hard to prepare for the striking of an asteroid, however, the threat from a similar event, the detonation of several thermonuclear devices would almost certainly cause similar global destruction.

    What about a much feared “all out thermonuclear exchange” implementing tens of thousands of weapons? We strangely enough have a reasonable facsimile to such a catastrophe-the planet Mars. In 1984, a meteorite, later christened ALH84001U, was found in Antarctica. This meteorite, which originated about 4.5 billion years ago on Mars, contained what appears to be fossilized microorganisms, along with other traces of life. The ramifications of these discoveries cannot and must not be dismissed. Life on Earth first appeared about 3.8 billion years ago, at a time when it is believed the planets formed. Mars is almost exactly the same age as Earth, and most probably had the same reducing atmosphere. Observed astronomical evidence is fully consistent with the occurrence of microorganisms on a cosmic scale, in both meteorites as well as comet dust. This may seem at first, unbelievable, however the relative comparisons between the early planetary development of both Mars and the Earth were very similar. One catastrophic event ensured that no higher life would develop on the Red Planet. In the newly published book, Many Worlds, which includes many of the brightest writers and scientists in their fields, and is edited by the renown historian, scientists and author, Stephen J. Dick, there is a section by Christopher P. McKay titled “Astrobiology: The Search For Life Beyond The Earth.” On page 51 of Many Worlds, there is a small chart comparing the development of the two planets between 4.5 Billion years ago and today. At some point, about 3.3 billion years ago, some catastrophic event, most probably a huge asteroid collision, snuffed out any beginnings of life. The event would have been far greater than Earth has experienced, thus putting an end to any microbiological life that had begun. The likely candidate is the impact of an asteroid or small moon, causing the crater Hellas Planitia. This crater dwarfs any that have been found on our own planet, measuring 1,243 miles wide and nearly four miles deep. Because of this enormous impact, the process of life would have to be halted. There would be no development of organisms that give off oxygen as a waste product, as on our planet. No more atmosphere of any kind would remain, for it would have been blasted into space by the shock wave. The tremendous heat from the impact would have boiled most of the liquid water away-what remained would be frozen solid by the impending winter.

    The crater of the object that formed the KT boundry left a relatively small crater, about 112 miles in diameter, yet its impact leveled most of North and South America’s vast forests. As destructive as that rather small impact was, what should happen if an asteroid the size of the rock that formed the Hellas crater hit Earth? That answer is quite simple: there would be no life on Earth today, not even microbes. Humanity currently has in its possession, enough weapons to reproduce such an event. Bomb shelters would be useless. No shelter could withstand such blasts, and if anyone could survive the initial air bursts, radiation, acid rains, plumeting tempersatures, lack of food and drinkable water, the devastation of approximately millions of megaton detonations would destroy all life on our planet. The forests, planet wide, would be rapidly burned to dust by the blast front that would be traveling many times the speed of sound. The heat from the blast front would erase any trace of humanity. Much of the ocean would be heated to the point that oxygen maturation would be unable to support life. Massive earthquakes would contort and twist our planet; volcanic eruptions would begin simultaneously around the globe. However, no creature would be here to know. Between the heat flash, acid rains, radiation and first rising, then quickly dropping temperatures, the Earth would enter into what could be a permanent ice age. The physical planet would go right on spinning at 900 miles an hour. It would still move along with the sun and other planets at over a million miles a day around our tiny galaxy. Nevertheless, life, even the hardiest bacteria or virus, would be utterly eradicated. Some time latter, I would guess about 12-18 months, the dust would settle, and the Earth would be left an arid and cold brown ball. Certainly fossils would exist that would show some alien visitor that we were here, but little else would define planet Earth as the once home of a reasonably advanced civilization. A civilization that had chosen, rather than to put aside petty grievances, to self destruct.

  • Might Real Disarmament be on the Agenda?

    As a person who has believed ever since August, 1945 that nuclear disarmament was the single most important condition for the longrun survival of civlized life on earth, I was much encouraged a few days ago by several strong reactions to the contents of the US “Nuclear Posture Review” which had been leaked to the press on March 9. The “posture” includes contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven states, to which plans The New York Times replied with an editorial beginning: “If another country were planning to develop new nuclear weapons and contemplating pre-emptive strilkes against a list of non-nuclear powers, Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state. Yet such is the course recommended” by the Pentagon planning papers. The Washington Post, while reiterating its constant support for current American military actions, concluded its editorial by saying “The Bush administration is right to focus more of its strategic planning on deterring rogue states, but developing new nuclear weapons for that threat is neither necessary nor sensible.”

    Robert S. McNamara, who was US Secretary of Defense during the first stages of the Vietnam War, immediately criticized the posture review on several grounds: that the US has scrapped the ABM treaty in order to build a new missile shield in space; that the above-mentioned contingency plans undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by targeting several non-nuclear countries with our nuclear arms; that the review “appears to set forth a forty-year plan for developing and acquiring new nuclear weapons,” and that the nuclear testing of such new weapons would “fly in the face of vital US non-proliferation commitments.” Finally, not to limit my examples to the immediate reaction against the Nuclear Posture Review, I would mention that The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in the US has been circulating since the beginning of this year an appeal to “commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.” This appeal carries the signatures of such widely admired world figures as Muhammad Ali, former President Jimmy Carter, the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, and Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba of Hiroshima.

    In the balance of the present article I would like to assess the possibilities for real disarmament. But first a caution: the momentum of President Bush’s “war against terror”, and the advice of all his important counselors with the partial exception of Colin Powell, is strongly in favor of new weapons, both nuclear and non-nuclear, developed hopefully with allied approval, but unilaterally if such approval is not forthcoming. The editorial reactions I have cited above do not call for disarmament of any kind. They reflect dismay at the failure of the administration even to realize how dangerous for the US itself are these rejections of international obligations and readiness to extend nuclear competition and militarize outer space as well as the long suffering earth. They thus call for a modicum of common sense restraint.

    The administration favors a certain disarmament on its own terms. In order to free up nuclear resources, plus the scientific and technical talent to create more sophisticated, precise new weapons, the US proposes a large voluntary reduction in the thousands of missiles now on alert in US and Russian bases. This is to be done without signing scraps of paper, and with the missiles kept in storage just in case some unpredictable change in the international atmosphere might require us to be able quickly to alert them again. The Russians, who have recovered their sense of humor since the demise of communism, have referred to this as a “nuclear warehouse” policy.

    A more difficult obstacle lies in the fact that American public opinion, as reflected in the behavior of the US Senate, does not like to accept international obligations. The Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because it would, quite obviously, limit the country’s ability to create and test new weapons. Many legislators have nothing good to say for the United Nations as such, and will have nothing to do with a proposed international tribunal for the trial of war crimes. They feel no embarrassment whatever in saying that they will not permit any American soldier to be tried by such a tribunal. Their forbears conquered the American West without having to apply any Geneva conventions to captured Indian braves, and they declare that the captured Taliban and Al Quaida fighters are not legitimate prisoners of war (another psychological throwback to their forbears’ attitude towards the Indians).

    Actually there already exists a very practical basis from which to initiate real nuclear disarmament. In 1970 the existing -and still the principal- nuclear powers (the EEUU, Russia, the UK, France, and China) sponsored a Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which they asked all the rest of the world to forego the development of nuclear weapons, in return for which the nuclear group itself undertook a solemn obligation to negotiate the reduction and eventual elimination of their own nuclear arsenals. Without any unnecessary sarcasms and finger pointings, without any reference to other treaties never ratified by the Senate, the nuclear “club” could now take the initiative to fulfill that obligation.

    There are also several practical circumstances which should make it possible for the leaders of all nations to recognize the increasing importance of nuclear disarmament for the survival of civilized life. Since 1970 (as well as before) there have been accidents at nuclear plants releasing dangerous quantities of radioactivity into the atmosphere, and eventuallly into the soil and water on which millions of people depend. There has been no way to hide these facts. Regardless of governmental secrecy, seismographs all over the world have detected every single nuclear test and every single nuclear accident in the years since 1945. There have also been at least nine very little publicized sinkings of nuclear submarines with consequent poisoning of the ocean waters. In addition, the safe disposal of radioactive wastes from well controlled civilian activities is a completely unsolved problem, of which political elites are surely aware even if they avoid public discussion of the subject. Where, and in what quantity, potentially endangering whose homes and lands, are to be buried the hundreds of tons of nuclear waste which include elements that will remain radioactive for several centuries? By what right do we deliberately endanger the health of these future generations? Without hurting anybody’s religious or ideological sensibilities, the delegates to a disarmament conference could mutually assume the obligation to reduce as far as it may still be possible, these health hazards.

    Another relevant circumstance is the fact that, in contrast to the situation in 1970, we no longer live in a bi-polar world. At that time, the EEUU and the USSR were so overwhelmingly powerful that, since the two of them could destroy each other 100 times over, and were aware of that fact, the rest of the world could relax in the assurance that such pragmatic leaders as Nixon and Brezhnev would be careful not to start a nuclear war. But today we live in a world of strongly revived religious differences, of militant nationalisms, of less ideological debate but more fear, hatred, and jealousy based on the increasing inequality between prosperous and poor societies, and the fact that this increasing inequaltiy is so obvious on the TV screens seen by almost everyone. This situation must lead all sane persons to realize that no small group of powers such as the nuclear club of the 1970’s can hope to restrict the spead of nuclear arms. In that sense I can agree that the ABM treaty is “outdated”, but not for the purpose of eliminating it so as to feel free to create all kinds of monstrous new weapons.

    Thue only sane policy is to recognize that either we get rid of nuclear weapons or their eventual use, whether by intent or by accident, will inevitably kill millions of persons and poison the living conditions of the survivors and successors. We need a world disarmament conference for as many years as it may take to negotiate comprehensive, verifiable, permanent disarmament of all the existing stocks of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

     

  • A High School Student’s Passion for Humanity

    Dear David Krieger,

    My name is Amber Herman and I am a senior in high school in Davenport, Iowa.

    My friends do not understand why I would rather read books on social justice issues and peace instead of attending the basketball game. They don’t understand why I am outraged that the United States has not signed the UN Convention’s Rights of the Child. They don’t understand why Craig Kielburger and you are my heroes when they praise Michael Jordan as a star. They don’t understand that we, the youth, are called to be the leaders of TODAY when they feel so powerless.

    They do understand that I have a passion for humanity. They hear the words I speak against violence. Although they do not understand. . . they are curious. They wonder what fuels my spirit to bring an end to war and poverty.

    All I ask of my peers is to simply contemplate the question: What If they could change the world? That is the question that Craig Kielburger and my Social Justice teacher asked me. I realized how big a world there was outside my high school, my community, and my country. I still dared to believe I could make a positive difference.

    Your speech “Hope in the Face of Darkness” was amazing! Tears were streaming down my face as I read about your passion for humanity and your words about hope. Everything I believe about Youth Empowerment you so beautifully described.

    I am only one person but I have the power to light the fire of peace within others. I am only one person but I have knowledge, faith and more importantly I have HOPE! At National Catholic Youth Conference this past December, a teenager who lost her father on September 11th stood before 24,000 youth from around the country stating: “I came here looking for hope. You all are my hope.”

    I plan to attend Iowa State University and study Dairy Science and International Agriculture. I hope to join researchers in third-world countries to teach the people better agriculture techniques. I also look forward to a career as a public speaker for human rights, especially children. I have already started speaking to youth groups in my area.

    I hope to someday attend a conference on social justice/peace issues. I am currently trying to save money for college and financially cannot afford to attend a summer conference. Until I can, I will continue to educate myself and others.

    You dared to believe peace was possible. Because of you, thousands of youth across the world dare to believe too. Thank you. God bless.

    Sincerely,

    Amber Herman

  • Interview with David Krieger: Japan, U.S. must work together on nuke threat

    Interview with David Krieger: Japan, U.S. must work together on nuke threat

    The Asahi Shimbun, February 2002

    David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a California-based organization which has initiated many global grass-root projects for abolishing nuclear weapons, says not everybody in the United States supports the military retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

    In a recent interview with Asahi Shimbun reporter Masato Tainaka, Krieger voiced the hope that Japan, as a true friend, would “not to let the United States drive drunk.” He said U.S. policy could result in nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists in an increasing cycle of violence. Excerpts follow:

    Q: How do you view the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?

    A: The attacks taught us that even the most powerful nation in the world is vulnerable to terrorists. The strongest military in the world with its bloated nuclear arsenal could not protect against a small band of terrorists, propelled by hatred and committed to violence. Military force is largely impotent against those who hate and are willing to die in acts of violence. Current nuclear weapons policies of the nuclear weapons states make it likely that terrorists will be able to buy, steal or make nuclear weapons.

    Q: How do you evaluate Japanese contribution by dispatching the Self-Defense Forces to assist the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan?

    A: I think it’s dangerous because it’s maybe changing the line of Article 9 of the Constitution. It’s creating a precedent for Japan to go further in joining a military effort. A question I would ask, “Is Japan’s participation really self-defense?” Japan must maintain Article 9 of its Constitution. This article, which prohibits “aggressive war,” makes Japan unique among nations and gives Japan special responsibility for furthering the cause of peace. There has been some talk of trying to amend or remove this article from the Japanese Constitution. This would be a grave mistake.

    Q: What do you think about the U.S.-Japan relationship?

    A: I think Japan should be a true friend of the United States. This means that Japan must be willing to criticize the United States if it believes U.S. policies are misguided. True friends do not just go along with their friends. They tell them the truth. In the United States, we have a saying, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” You can’t go along with everything that is contrary to your fundamental beliefs. Maybe in a sense, terrorism is a global problem that Japan should join in an attempt to eradicate terrorism. But I think Japan has to think independently. Every developed country is vulnerable to terrorism. The question is-is the problem of terrorism likely to be made better or worse by using military force? With regard to the terrorist attacks, we should be more legal and thoughtful in not taking innocent lives and in not increasing the circle of violence. There have been, as far as I can tell, quite a number of innocent people who have died as a result of the U.S. action in Afghanistan.

    Q: How about the public opinion in the United States? Do they know many innocent Afghans have been killed by the U.S. bombings? Or do they think it was inevitable?

    A: I think the United States has to take responsibility for its actions. And if we were killing innocent people, that falls into the category of terrorism as well. However, most Americans don’t seem to have a problem with it. The support rate with the war is at a really high level, around 80 percent.

    Q: Am I right in thinking it must be difficult for you to find much of an audience for your views in the United States?

    A: One of the biggest problems is that it’s very difficult for people who share my views to get a chance to speak on national media. On Sept. 20, just after the terrorist attacks, I was invited to speak on a TV program “CNN Hotline.” I spoke in opposition to using military force. I emphasized the points-more legal and thoughtful. While I was on the air, two hostile callers called in with somewhat hostile questions, saying, “so many Americans were killed and we need to use military force, why is he opposing it?” After that program, I received about 80 e-mails.

    Q: Hate mail?

    A: On the contrary, except for five or six, all the rest were from people saying, “That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking. But I haven’t heard anybody talking about it in the media.” There are a lot of Americans who are not represented on the national programs. But basically my frustration is how hard it is to change people’s minds. Now I am going to focus more on trying to reach people through the national media. But it is very difficult task.

    Q: You mentioned a legal solution. But the United States has not agreed to set up an international criminal court. Instead the Bush administration intends to judge Osama bin Laden under U.S. military law, isn’t that right?

    A: The United States not supporting an international criminal court is very unfortunate because the United States should be a leader in that effort. I don’t think people in large parts of the world will accept a military trial or even a civilian trial of Osama bin Laden in the United States as fair. I don’t believe myself that it would be possible for Osama bin Laden to get a fair trial in the United States. Therefore, the international community including the United States should set up a special tribunal for terrorists, similar to the tribunal for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

    Q: Once the Afghan campaign ends, the Bush administration reportedly is considering military campaigns against terrorists in other countries. What do you think about that?

    A: I don’t think there would be much support in the international community for attacking other countries. I have been surprised at how relatively easily the United States seems to be winning this Afghan war. I didn’t think the Taliban would collapse so quickly. But it’s one thing to destroy the Taliban, it’s another thing to end terrorism. I don’t think we know whether there has been any effective reduction of terrorist capabilities. We don’t know what they planned, we don’t know what their larger plans are. My feeling is that nuclear policies that we have now do make it quite possible terrorists will get nuclear weapons.

    Q: As for nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia agreed in November to reduce their arsenals to between 2,200 and 1,700 warheads in the next 10 years. Was this a breakthrough for nuclear disarmament?

    A: First of all, I think the agreement is more public relations than serious disarmament. It sounds to me like they still want to rely upon nuclear weapons. I don’t believe they are serious about their promises under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

    Under the treaty, nuclear weapon states have an obligation to sincerely negotiate for nuclear abolition. But the United States is not likely, particularly under the Bush administration, to show that leadership without some pressure from other countries. Japan should be the leader of those countries.

    Q: What is needed for Japan to be a leader?

    A: Again, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” is a critical idea. If Japan thinks the U.S. policy could result in nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, it would be terribly irresponsible not to question U.S. policy. To prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, it is absolutely necessary to get the numbers down to numbers that can be controlled with certainty.

    Q: How many?

    A: The numbers may be 100 or 200 nuclear weapons. If a country really believes that nuclear weapons only have the purpose of deterrence, it certainly doesn’t need more than that for deterrence.

    You need more than that if you have the idea of some potential offensive use of nuclear weapons. But right now with none of the major powers in conflict, we really could go down. Rather, the threat with nuclear weapons will come from terrorists. It was a crucial lesson from Sept. 11.

    So we haven’t fully lost our opportunity to reduce nuclear arsenals down to 100 or 200 on the way to zero. Having experienced nuclear devastation first hand, Japan is well positioned to lead the world, including the United States, to achieve nuclear disarmament. Japan should be a leader for a nuclear weapons and terrorism-free world.
    *David Krieger, 59, is a founder and a member of the Coordinating Committee of Abolition 2000, a global network of over 2000 organizations and municipalities committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Ozaki Yukio Memorial Foundation in Tokyo recently honored him as a person who has devoted his life to creating world peace.

  • Elisabeth Mann Borgese: First Lady of the Oceans

    Elisabeth Mann Borgese: First Lady of the Oceans

    Humanity and the oceans lost a great friend and champion when Elisabeth Mann Borgese died on February 8th. Elisabeth, the youngest daughter of Thomas Mann, was a true citizen of the world. She inspired me and many others with her vision of the oceans as the “common heritage of humankind” and her ceaseless efforts to make this vision a reality.

    Elisabeth believed that, just as life had emerged from the oceans onto land, a new form of human and environmentally friendly world order could emerge from the oceans to the land. She saw that the borderless oceans required a new form of cooperative governance to protect and preserve the ocean’s precious resources for future generations. She believed fervently that finding a new non-territorial way to govern the oceans was necessary and would teach humankind important lessons for governing our shared planet.

    I first heard Elisabeth speak of these ideas when I was a young assistant professor of international relations at San Francisco State University. I thought she had a vision that was worth fighting for. For me, she was like a pied piper. I immediately asked her if there was a way I could help her to achieve her goal. That led to working with Elisabeth for two years at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara.

    I learned from Elisabeth that the problems of our world were far more than academic — one should accept nothing less than changing a world so badly in need of change. Words were never enough; they must be translated into action.

    Elisabeth held annual Pacem in Maribus (Peace in the Oceans) conferences, bringing together the best minds she could find from throughout the world to work on the multifaceted problems of creating a new law of the seas. In a book we edited together, The Tides of Change, based on one of these conferences held in Malta, Elisabeth wrote, “If the oceans are indeed man’s last frontier on this old earth of scarcity and competition to which we have reduced our common heritage, the law of the seas is the advance post on the long march toward a new world of science and technology, of abundance and cooperation which we have set out to achieve.”

    Elisabeth also created the International Ocean Institute with branches throughout the world that trains individuals from developing countries to better use their ocean resources. She was a tireless campaigner for using the resources of the oceans to benefit those who needed it most rather than only those most technologically advanced.

    After leaving the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Elisabeth moved to Halifax, Nova Scotia. I saw her only occasionally, but I noticed that her spirit never waivered and her commitment never waned. On the last few occasions that I saw her she had some difficulty walking and had physically slowed down, but she still traveled the world giving lectures and spreading her vision with the enthusiasm of a young girl.

    Elisabeth was a great world citizen and a citizen of the future world that must be created if humanity is to survive. She was a treasure, and her life becomes part of the common heritage of humankind.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • How Can We Justify This?

    by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), February 2002

    Let us pray that our nation will remember that the unfolding of the promise of democracy in our nation paralleled the striving for civil rights. That is why we must challenge the rationale of the Patriot Act. We must ask why should America put aside guarantees of constitutional justice?

    How can we justify in effect canceling the First Amendment and the right of free speech, the right to peaceably assemble?

    How can we justify in effect canceling the Fourth Amendment, probable cause, the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure?

    How can we justify in effect canceling the Fifth Amendment, nullifying due process, and allowing for indefinite incarceration without a trial?

    How can we justify in effect canceling the Sixth Amendment, the right to prompt and public trial?

    How can we justify in effect canceling the Eighth Amendment which protects against cruel and unusual punishment?

    We cannot justify widespread wiretaps and internet surveillance without judicial supervision, let alone with it. We cannot justify secret searches without a warrant. We cannot justify giving the Attorney General the ability to designate domestic terror groups. We cannot justify giving the FBI total access to any type of data which may exist in any system anywhere such as medical records and financial records.

    We cannot justify giving the CIA the ability to target people in this country for intelligence surveillance. We cannot justify a government which takes from the people our right to privacy and then assumes for its own operations a right to total secrecy. The Attorney General recently covered up a statue of Lady Justice showing her bosom as if to underscore there is no danger of justice exposing herself at this time, before this administration.

    Let us pray that our nation’s leaders will not be overcome with fear. Because today there is great fear in our great Capitol. And this must be understood before we can ask about the shortcomings of Congress in the current environment. The great fear began when we had to evacuate the Capitol on September 11. It continued when we had to leave the Capitol again when a bomb scare occurred as members were pressing the CIA during a secret briefing. It continued when we abandoned Washington when anthrax, possibly from a government lab, arrived in the mail. It continued when the Attorney General declared a nationwide terror alert and then the Administration brought the destructive Patriot Bill to the floor of the House. It continued in the release of the Bin Laden tapes at the same time the President was announcing the withdrawal from the ABM treaty. It remains present in the cordoning off of the Capitol. It is present in the camouflaged armed national guardsmen who greet members of Congress each day we enter the Capitol campus. It is present in the labyrinth of concrete barriers through which we must pass each time we go to vote. The trappings of a state of siege trap us in a state of fear, ill equipped to deal with the Patriot Games, the Mind Games, the War Games of an unelected President and his unelected Vice President.

    Let us pray that our country will stop this war. “To promote the common defense” is one of the formational principles of America. Our Congress gave the President the ability to respond to the tragedy of September the Eleventh. We licensed a response to those who helped bring the terror of September the Eleventh. But we the people and our elected representatives must reserve the right to measure the response, to proportion the response, to challenge the response, and to correct the response.

    Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.

    We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.

    We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.

    We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.

    We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

    We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.

    We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.

    We did not authorize assassination squads.

    We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.

    We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.

    We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.

    We did not authorize national identity cards.

    We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.

    We did not authorize an eye for an eye.

    Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.

    We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.

    We did not authorize war without end.

    We did not authorize a permanent war economy.

    Yet we are upon the threshold of a permanent war economy. The President has requested a $45.6 billion increase in military spending. All defense-related programs will cost close to $400 billion. Consider that the Department of Defense has never passed an independent audit. Consider that the Inspector General has notified Congress that the Pentagon cannot properly account for $1.2 trillion in transactions. Consider that in recent years the Dept. of Defense could not match $22 billion worth of expenditures to the itemsit purchased, wrote off, as lost, billions of dollars worth of in-transit inventory and stored nearly $30 billion worth of spare parts it did not need.

    Yet the defense budget grows with more money for weapons systems to fight a cold war which ended, weapon systems in search of new enemies to create new wars. This has nothing to do with fighting terror. This has everything to do with fueling a military industrial machine with the treasure of our nation, risking the future of our nation, risking democracy itself with the militarization of thought which follows the militarization of the budget.

    United States Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio)
    Email responses to Dkucinich@aol.com

  • Farm workers struggle with Pictsweet

    A simple issue of justice

    The workers at the Pictsweet mushroom farm want justice in their workplace. They want decent wages and health benefits, retirement plans, and, most of all, respect. And through the tireless efforts of individual workers, through their personal sacrifice and through the unobtrusive facilitation by the skilled UFW organizers, the mushroom workers and surrounding community are using their collective strength to win a contract.

    The concept of a union for farm workers centers on grassroots organizing and the power of communities to create positive social change. Thanks to the tireless work of the nonviolent leader Cesar Chavez, California farm workers’ rights to organize are legally protected through the Agriculture Labor Relations Act. The traditional hierarchical system of the “powerful few” over the “powerless many” relies on the assumption that the many workers will not organize, link arms and work together to exercise their rights. However, the workers have continued to speak truthfully about their hardships at the hands of Pictsweet management. Nonviolence requires that its practitioners understand the transformative power of human suffering. In this respect, the workers are well versed.

    In a presentation to a high school in Ventura County, Jose Patiña outlined the wishes of the workers and the tactics they are using to persuade the management at Pictsweet to negotiate with them. Delegations of workers routinely visit the offices of supermarkets and restaurants that still purchase Pictsweet mushrooms. Their main purposes are to personalize the issue – showing the management of those establishments the mistreatment of the workers and of the unjust practices – and to convince them to boycott the Pictsweet mushrooms until the company agrees to negotiate for a fair contract and fair working conditions. The organizers have enlisted the help of college MEChA groups statewide in their latest lobbying efforts as well, encouraging them to distribute flyers at restaurants in California still buying Pictsweet mushrooms.

    The workers not only attempt to educate the buyers, but to raise the consciousness of the public as well. Labor Day weekend saw community-wide support for the mushroom workers in a three-mile march through downtown Ventura to the Pictsweet plant. A few months prior, workers stood in front of the government center with signs and puppets at rush hour to publicize the fact that Pizza Hut still purchases Pictsweet mushrooms. And even progressives in Hollywood have taken up their cause as activists Martin Sheen and Mike Farrell have endorsed the workers’ struggle.

    ¿Que queremos?

    The workers want a contract and a raise. All of the nearly 250 workers at the Ventura mushroom farm have been working without a contract for nearly fourteen years. This means that they cannot leverage collective bargaining power to gain the desired improvements in wages and working conditions. While the struggle for a contract has financially impacted the workers and their families, the workers realize that the long-term goal is a raise – more than the last 3-cent raise they received from Pictsweet after an increase of workload. Jose Luis Luna says, “We have not had a significant wage increase in years. The cost of living has gone up several times and we are still making the same money. I support two minor children and myself on my salary.”

    The workers want a pension plan. There are no 401K plans for Pictsweet workers. There are no retirement benefits for dedicated employees who have spent more than twenty years working for this company and, regrettably, the workers have nothing to show for their labor when they retire. The director of human resources reports that he encourages workers to invest a portion of their money in savings accounts for their own retirement, but there is no guarantee that any or all of the workers in fact do this. Moreover, because of increased economic hardships as a result of inflation and no adjusted salary increases, the workers often find themselves in already financially precarious situations before having to set aside some money for retirement.

    The workers want a decent medical plan. The working conditions at Pictsweet are often precarious: working in pitch black darkness; climbing slippery fifteen-foot tall mushroom beds; and, during the rainy season in California, sometimes working barefoot in water up to their knees in a room with exposed electrical outlets. In violation of fire codes, the buildings where the mushrooms grow have only one fire exit from the second floor. The hats that the workers wear in the dark sheds where the mushrooms grow have inadequate light bulbs, causing severe eyestrain, yet there is no vision plan in their medical benefits.

    Workers’ complaints about on-the-job injuries often fall on deaf ears at Pictsweet, where the management challenges their claims, asserting that their injuries happened elsewhere and thus are not covered by workers’ compensation. In addition, the existing medical plan is outrageously expensive for the farm workers’ families. Workers pay on average $13 per week for medical coverage for themselves, their spouses and their children – and yet the individual annual deductible for office visits, not including prescriptions, is a staggering $150 for each member of the family!

    In March of this year, a compost fire began as a result of the buildup of discarded compost and hay. The fire’s origins? Rather than reduce productivity to accommodate the decline in business as a result of the boycott, Pictsweet maintained the same level of production and opted to throw out their packaged, unused mushrooms. When the fire started and thick pungent smoke contaminated the air, the community throughout Ventura County was immediately informed of the health risks posed by the toxins released in the air. However, the local Pictsweet management did not address the health risks with their employees until nearly a week later after UFW organizer Jessica Arciniega met with plant manager Ruben Franco. Only then did Pictsweet hand out facemasks for their workers.

    The press release by the Ventura County Public Health Department on March 15, 2001 read as follows: “County health officials recommend that healthy adults and children in areas affected by smoke avoid strenuous outdoor activity and remain indoors as much as possible…levels of the particulates in the smoke may be high enough that the potential exists for even healthy people to be affected. [Smoke] may pose a special risk to adults and children with asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or other respiratory diseases and heart disease.”

    Yet the workers were forced to continue working in enclosed buildings where huge fans pumped in thick smoke – unaware of the health risks posed. They were not told by management until the sixth day that their health was jeopardized by working as the fire continued to burn. Moreover, they were not allowed medical leave with pay for illness sustained during this time! Because the Pictsweet workers have no contract, they are at the mercy of their supervisors. Any complaint could be construed as insubordination.

    Finally, the workers want respect and a voice at work. There is no partnership at Pictsweet between management and labor. Supervisors routinely condescend to the pro-UFW workers. The supervisors give preferential treatment to the anti-union workers who have family members in management and encourage the contras, those workers who oppose UFW representation, by offering promotions and financial rewards for their complicity in maintaining the status quo at the farm. The pro-UFW workers want a system of arbitration so that they have a safe and reasonable forum to address their grievances with the company.

    “It has been hard working for this company, but what can we do, we need to work. It hurts to know that we don’t matter. We give our lives to the company only to learn that they don’t think very much of us. We’re people who feel and think and have families who need us and love us,” explains Baudelio Aguayo. “We’re not animals that nobody wants. All we ask for is a little human compassion and respect.”

    These disciplined workers are not only working for their benefit, but for the good of all the workers there. Both pro- and anti-UFW workers alike work in the same conditions. The pro-union faction, a decisive majority of the workers, struggle to create a sustainably just environment for the entire laboring workforce.

    Firsthand visit

    The management at Pictsweet in Ventura is not wholly to blame – they are merely mid-level executors of policies set by those in the corporate office who value profits over people. When I toured the Pictsweet farm at the behest of management there, I had the opportunity to talk with grower Greg Tuttle, intimately inspect working conditions at the farm, and inquire about the status of negotiations with the workers.

    During my visit I saw the close proximity of the fire to the buildings where the workers were forced to endure stifling poor air quality while the fire burned. I saw how the boycott has impacted the productivity: what used to be a room filled floor-to-ceiling with packages of mushrooms had been reduced to one stack of mushrooms less than four feet tall. And I saw no more than ten anti-union workers in white “No UFW” t-shirts at the farm, corroborating the fact that two-thirds of the workers support UFW representation.

    In a meeting with Mr. Olmos, head of human resources at the Ventura Pictsweet plant, I learned that the company feels it has been involved in negotiations with the workers for nearly two years, in spite of claims by the workers and UFW organizers that the company has maintained stoic unresponsiveness to workers’ pleas for mediated talks. However, these alleged “negotiations” have not produced better working conditions for any of the workers, and have not provided for a significant wage increase nor recognition of Union representation – charges which the company cannot deny.

    In fact, the office atmosphere where I spoke with Mr. Olmos was palpably uncomfortable, him shifting in his chair and clearing his throat as if to indicate the legitimacy of the questions I was raising about resolving the discrepancies between the workers and management. Those in power at the Ventura Pictsweet branch, and those in located at the parent company United Foods, Inc. headquarters in Bells, TN, seem undaunted by the unmistakably devastating economic impact the consumer boycott is having on their business, already having closed one plant in Oregon and drastically scaled back production at the Ventura plant. They seem unmoved by the stamina and vigor exhibited by the workers who, in the words of Gandhi, are seeking through their nonviolent campaign not “to bring their opponents to their knees, but to their senses.”

    In a recent major legal victory in mid-January, an administrative judge with the Agricultural Labor Relations Board found Pictsweet guilty of illegally firing mushroom worker Fidel Andrade. Judge Douglas Gallop outlined Pictsweet’s continued mistreatment of its workers who support UFW representation in a 31-page decision, highlighting the animosity shown toward pro-union workers and demanding that Mr. Andrade be given back his job with seniority and pay all lost wages and other benefits. Additionally, Pictsweet must post notices about workers’ rights and allow the workers access to ALRB representatives who can answer the workers’ questions without Pictsweet officials present.

    UFW organizer Jessica Arciniega believes that “the judge’s ruling has benefited the workers more than anything in once again validating and reaffirming what workers have known and been experiencing throughout this campaign – that Pictsweet is very anti-union and has been violating workers’ rights. This translates into everyday by workers knowing that if they stand up for their rights, and provide the evidence that is necessary, the law can work in their favor.” One legal victory does not win the battle, however, as Ms. Arciniega points out: “The success of this campaign is dependent on so much more – boycott and solidarity within our communities.” To those who impede the negotiations process, these words, written in 1969 by Cesar Chavez to the President of California Grape and Tree Fruit League, Mr. E.L. Barr, provide a compelling admonition:

    “You must understand – I must make you understand – that our membership and the hopes and aspirations of the hundreds of thousands of the poor and dispossessed that have been raised on our account are, above all, human beings, no better and no worse than any other cross-section of human society; we are not saints because we are poor, but by the same measure neither are we immoral. We are men and women who have suffered and endured much, and not only because of our abject poverty but because we have been kept poor. The colors of our skins, the languages of our cultural and native origins, the lack of formal education, the exclusion from the democratic process, the numbers of our men slain in recent wars – all these burdens generation after generation have sought to demoralize us, to break our human spirit. But God knows that we are not beasts of burden, agricultural implements or rented slaves; we are men.”
    *Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and teaches nonviolence in two high schools.

  • Tattletales for an Open Society

    [This appeared as an advertisement in the January 21, 2002 issue of The Nation]

    Dear Dr. Cheney and Senator Lieberman:

    On November 11, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), an organization you co-founded in 1995, issued a report that listed the names of academics along with 117 statements they made, in public forums or in classes, that questioned aspects of the Administration’s war on terrorism. Concluding that “College and university faculty have been the weak link in America’s response to the attack,” the report asked alumni to bring their (presumed) displeasure about these views to the attention of university administrations. While ACTA’s report does not have the cachet of President Nixon’s “Enemies List,” nor the intimidating force (yet?) of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s too-numerous- to-list lists, as an American historian I am naturally interested in this project, and I have decided to offer your organization my full cooperation.

    Therefore, as an example to my colleagues, I am stepping forward to name a name, my own–Martin J. Sherwin, the Walter S. Dickson Professor of English and American History at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts–and to tattle on myself. On December 3, 2001, I remarked to a class at Tufts University studying World War II that there was an ominous resemblance between the sense of panic in 1942 that produced Executive Order 9066, permitting the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry, and the post-9/11 atmosphere that supported the Justice Department’s arrest of hundreds of Muslims.

    Later, on December 6, after hearing Attorney General John Ashcroft assert before the Senate Judiciary Committee that civil-liberties critics “aid terrorists…erode our national unity and diminish our resolve,” I told my class that Mr. Ashcroft had bolstered my resolve to diminish his effort to remake our public discourse in the image of Pinochet’s Chile–even if senators who were equally shocked, were too cowed at that moment to challenge such an un-American attitude. Surrendering the liberties that define the unique character of our nation will not help us to win the war on terrorism, I noted; on the contrary, it will only erode the constitutional foundation upon which the political strength of our nation rests. The AG’s defense of military commissions (secret trials) in the United States in 2002– even to try suspected terrorists–is an affront to those who fought and died to protect our freedoms in World War II. I recommended that students read Robert Sherrill’s book, Military Justice Is to Justice As Military Music Is to Music.

    Finally, Dr. Cheney and Senator Lieberman, I implore you as the Founding Mother and Father of ACTA to exert your influence to assure that in the next report Martin J. Sherwin is correctly spelled. Having been too young to be of interest to Senator Joseph McCarthy, and having been embarrassed by my absence from President Nixon’s “Enemies List,” ACTA’s list may be my last opportunity to publicly document my deep love for my country. When my grandchild asks, “What did you do during the ‘War on Terrorism,’ grandpa?” I will say, “Harry, I spoke out in order to preserve for you and your friends the best things about America. You can read what I said in the ACTA report of…” (date as yet unspecified).

    In closing, I call on my colleagues to put political bias aside and assist the organization that Dr. Cheney and Senator Lieberman created; after all, they are one of us: She is a PhD and he claims to be a liberal. You can now tattle on yourself in great company. The Nation will post appropriate critical remarks on a new section of its website: “Tattletales for an Open Society” (TAOS). If you are genuinely uncertain whether a specific remark actually crossed the threshold of acceptable criticism, err on the side of caution: Submit the remark to The Nation’s tattletale page and give ACTA a chance to determine whether you should be published. Send your submissions to tattletales@thenation.com.

    MARTIN J. SHERWIN

    P.S. Kai Bird and I are writing a biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, whose secret security hearing in 1954 is instructive in these matters.

  • Response to “The President’s Other Two Wars”

    Dear Mr. Krieger:

    Thanks for the ‘report card’ on President Bush’s first year in office. From the perspective of peace activists, the report exposes America’s apparent failure to advance the cause of peace. It is a report worthy of careful review.

    My concern is to seek out the underlying forces/politicians/money that ‘push Bush’ into such an aggressive and warlike posture. It seems that the President is the willing ‘captive’ of tremendously strong and wealthy factions in America, mainly the military-industrial-complex, combined with the oil and energy industries. Those forces have powerful lobbyists working for them full time in Washington.

    In the short term, America will appear to be saving the world from terrorism and all kinds of evil. Longer term, America is likely to find itself the international pariah, increasingly isolated, paranoid and financially crippled by its hubris. I’m predicting that America will fall into ruin like the former Soviet Union.

    By coincidence, Afghanistan may well prove, again, to be one enormous failure, leading to the downfall of the former Superpowers. Count on it, ‘Evil Empires’ will continue to rise and fall like recurring nightmares. We have a long, long way to go before we can claim to be ‘civilized’.

    Fred Brailey. RR4, Orangeville, Ontario, Canada.

  • President Announces Restructuring of USA

    President Announces Restructuring of USA

    In a surprise announcement, President Bush has called for a restructuring that would convert the United States of America into a wholly owned subsidiary of the Department of Defense. “This will be a good move for both sides,” the President said. “It will give the Defense Department what they want and it will make the American people feel more secure.”

    The new entity will be known as the Department of Defense USA (NYSE symbol: DOD). Mr. Bush said that under the new structure he would remain on as president, while Donald Rumsfeld, currently Secretary of Defense, would assume the position of Chairman and Dick Cheney would continue as CEO.

    The president announced that an important step toward achieving this goal would be to turn over another $48 billion to the Defense Department in fiscal 2003, raising their annual budget to nearly $400 billion. This comes on the heels of a $33.5 billion increase for fiscal 2002. The president also announced his intention to raise the budget for Homeland Security to $25 billion. “Our first priority is the military, our highest calling,” Mr. Bush said.

    The president likened the arrangement to a gated community for wealthy homeowners. “We’re rich,” he said, “and there are a lot of people that don’t like us for that. We need to protect ourselves from the people who don’t like us and are evil. The best way to do that is with our military forces, meaning our brave men and women with missiles, camouflage outfits and other defense stuff. These people are protecting us and they deserve a bigger ownership stake.”

    The president referred to a recently released study by a senior World Bank economist that found that the richest one percent of the world population earn as much as the poorest 57 percent. In bolstering his argument, the president pointed out that the poorest ten percent of Americans are still better off than two-thirds of the world’s population.

    “We can’t exactly build a Great Wall around America like the one they have in China,” the president stated, “although we can sort of put one up in the sky to keep out the missiles of evil people. We can also give enough money and power to our military that we won’t need to build a Great Wall, which would be costly and take resources away from the education of our children.”

    Wall Street reacted favorably to the president’s proposed restructuring. Said one analyst, “This reorganization has been needed for a long time. It really only recognizes the reality of the situation.”

    [For the record, in case this sounds too close to reality, it is not yet true, except for the president’s quote in paragraph 3, his intention to raise the Pentagon budget by $48 billion and the Homeland Security budget to $25 billion, and the World Bank expert’s figures on income disparity. The United States is not yet, in fact, officially a wholly owned subsidiary of the Department of Defense.]