Category: Uncategorized

  • The President’s Other Two Wars

    The President’s Other Two Wars

    During his first year in office, George W. Bush has engaged in three wars. His war against terrorism is widely known and discussed. His resolve to fight against evildoers with America’s military might is said to have defined his presidency.

    The president’s other two wars have received far less attention, but they may end up defining his presidency even more than his war against terrorism. These are his war against international law and his war against the international control of armaments.

    In the war against international law, the president has shown remarkable boldness in his disdain for the remainder of the international community. He has pulled out of the Kyoto Accords on Global Warming, perhaps the most critical environmental treaty of our time. He has also demonstrated his contempt for the creation of an International Criminal Court that would hold individuals accountable for the types of serious international crimes that were prosecuted by the United States at Nuremberg following World War II.

    The president’s war against the international control of armaments, however, has been his most successful undertaking. In one area of arms control after another, he has demonstrated that he plans to chart the course of US unilateralism when it comes to decisions on controlling armaments.

    He has made clear that he does not intend to resubmit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to the Senate for ratification. When the CTBT came up at the 2001 United Nations General Assembly, the US was the only country to vote against carrying over an item supporting the treaty to the next session of the General Assembly.

    The president has also requested studies from the Pentagon on the possible resumption of nuclear testing. When the parties to the CTBT met last November to discuss ways to bring the Treaty into force more rapidly, the US did not even bother to show up and participate.

    Mr. Bush has opposed signing the International Treaty to Ban Landmines, despite the solid international support to ban these weapons that go on killing civilians long after the soldiers have left a war zone. At a UN conference on small arms, the US blocked key provisions to stem the illegal traffic in small arms, those most used in combat. The US also torpedoed a six-year effort to create a Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would allow for verification procedures including on-site inspections.

    The president’s boldest act, however, in his war against the international control of armaments was his announcement that the US is withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Despite Russian opposition to taking this step, the president gave his notice of withdrawal on December 13, 2001, starting the six months running for withdrawal under the provisions of the treaty. Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty will give the US the ability to test weapons for use in outer space, leading to their deployment in outer space and the undermining of the Outer Space Treaty as well.

    In his November 2001 Crawford Summit with Russian President Putin, Mr. Bush announced his intention to lower the size of the US strategic nuclear arsenal to some 1,700 to 2,200 nuclear weapons over a ten year period. This unilateral action did not even go as far as President Putin had been offering for over a year (reductions to 1,500 strategic weapons or possibly lower). The president’s plan will keep overkill the principal US nuclear strategy for at least the next decade. Further, since it has been unilaterally initiated, it will be subject to unilateral reversal by Mr. Bush himself or a successor to the presidency.

    In taking these steps, Mr. Bush has also demonstrated his contempt for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which the US has promised to pursue good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice has interpreted this phrase to mean complete nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.

    As recently as May 2000, the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty promised to preserve and strengthen the ABM Treaty “as the cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons.” At the same time, the US joined the other parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in promising an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” The president’s actions have helped convince our allies and treaty partners that US promises are worth very little, but perhaps this is to be expected when a president is engaged in war on so many fronts.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Nobel Peace Laureates Centennial Appeal

    We, the undersigned Nobel Peace Laureates gathered for the centennial of the Nobel Prizes, express our joy at this year’s award to the United Nations and its Secretary General, Kofi Annan.

    We hope that our message of peace and justice will reach the hearts and minds of those in and out of government who have the power to make a better world.

    We look forward to a world in which we the peoples, working in cooperation with governments, with full respect for international law, will enable the UN to fulfil its mission to save this and succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

    We call for the prompt establishment of the International Criminal Court and full implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including economic, social, and cultural as well as civil and political rights.

    We offer our support for the unrelenting, patient, and non-violent pursuit of peace wherever conflicts may rage today or tomorrow, such as the Middle East, Colombia, or the Great Lakes of Africa.

    We commit ourselves to work for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction and the reduction and control of small arms and other conventional weapons.

    We call on the human family to address the root causes of violence and build a culture of peace and hope. We know that another world is possible, a world of justice and peace. Together we can make it a reality.

    Oslo, December 10, 2001

    Institute of International Law 1904

    INTERNATIONAL PEACE BUREAU 1910

    Cora Weiss
    AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE

    Mary Ellen McNish 1947
    Norman E. Borlaug 1970
    Máiread Corrigan Maguire 1976

    AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

    Colm Ó Cuanacháin 1977
    Adolfo Pérez Esquivel 1980
    Lech Walesa 1983
    Desmond Tutu 1984

    INTERNATIONAL PHYSICIANS FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR WAR

    Bernard Lown 1985
    Oscar Arias 1987
    Rigoberta Menchú Tum 1992
    Joseph Rotblat 1995
    José Ramos-Horta 1996

    INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO BAN LANDMINES

    Jody Williams 1997
    Jerry White 1997
    John Hume 1998

  • The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Top Five List of Nuclear Events in 2001

    1. The US gives notice of withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

    2. US Boycotts the UN Conference to Advance the Entry Into Force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    3. US President George W. Bush pledges to reduce the US nuclear arsenal to between 1.700 and 2,200 strategic nuclear weapons over a period of ten years. Russian President Vladimir Putin says that he will “respond in kind.”

    4. The Ukraine destroys its last nuclear missile silo, fulfilling its pledge to give up the nuclear arsenal it inherited after the dissolution of the USSR.

    5. Germany decides to phase out nuclear power by 2025.

    ____________________________________________________

    1. US Gives Notice of Withdrawal from ABM Treaty

    President George W. Bush served formal notice to Russia on 13 December that the US is withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and proceeding with plans to develop and deploy the controversial National Missile Defense (NMD) system prohibited by the treaty. In a speech, President Bush stated, “I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government’s ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks. Defending the American people is my highest priority as Commander-in-Chief and I cannot and will not allow the United States to remain in a treaty that prevents us from developing effective defense.”

    Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov responded saying that the decision is regrettable, however, “Russia can be unconcerned with its defense systems. Maybe other nations should be concerned if the US chooses to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.” Russian President Vladimir Putin called the Bush decision “mistaken” and stated that, “The present level of bilateral cooperation between Russia and the United States should not only be preserved but also used for quickly working out new frameworks of strategic cooperation.”

    In response to the announcement, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue stated, “We’ve taken note of the relevant reports and express our concern. China is not in favor of missile defense systems. China worries about the negative impact. We think the relevant sides [of the ABM Treaty] should seek through constructive dialogue a solution that safeguards the global strategic balance and doesn’t harm international efforts at arms control and disarmament.”

    According to Department of Defense plans, the next scheduled step is the construction of missile silos at Fort Greely in Alaska and the opening of a new North Pacific target testing range.

    Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, responded to the announcement, “Unilateral withdrawal will likely lead to an action-reaction cycle in offensive and defense technologies, including countermeasures. That kind of arms race would not make us more secure.” Senator Joseph Biden (D-Deleware), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also stated that withdrawing from the treaty could lead to a new arms race. According to Biden, “About eight months ago they were talking about weaponizing space. God help us when that moment comes.”

    2. US Boycotts CTBT Conference

    From 11-13 November, delegates from 118 countries attended the UN Conference to Advance the Entry Into Force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Japanese Ambassador Nobuyasu Abe called the treaty “a practical and concrete measure for realizing a nuclear-weapon-free world.” The US, which has not ratified the treaty, boycotts the conference.

    In a related action, the US sought a procedural decision at the UN on 5 November to keep the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) off the agenda of the UN General Assembly. The US lost the vote by 140 to 1. The US also voted against a resolution introduced by Japan on nuclear disarmament which stresses the importance of taking practical steps to implement Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the early entry into force of the CTBT.

    3. US/Russian Nuclear Reductions

    At the beginning of a three-day US-Russian summit from 11-13 November, US President George W. Bush pledged to reduce the US nuclear arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 strategic nuclear weapons over a period of ten years. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he will “respond in kind.” The Bush pledge left out tactical nuclear weapons and those maintained in a hedge stockpile. Bush’s unilateral pledge is not binding on future US presidents and is therefore reversible. It also does not come down to even the level of 1,500 strategic warheads President Putin had previously and repeatedly offered.

    4. Ukraine Destroys Last Nuclear Facility

    On 1 November, the Ukraine destroyed its last nuclear missile silo, fulfilling its pledge to give up the nuclear arsenal it inherited after the dissolution of the USSR. Under the US-Ukrainian Cooperative Threat Reduction, the silo was blown up at a military range in the southern Mykolaiv region near Pervomaisk. The land underneath the silo will now be cleaned up and converted to agricultural use.

    In 1991, the Ukraine inherited the word’s third largest nuclear stockpile, including 130 SS-19 missiles, 46 SS-24 missiles and dozens of strategic bombers. After renouncing nuclear weapons, the Ukraine transferred all its nuclear missiles and warheads to Russia by 1996. Nuclear materials from the warheads were reprocessed and sent back to the Ukraine for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. In 1997, the Ukraine and the US signed a treaty on US assistance for dismantling 38 Tu-160s and Tu-95s bombers and more than 480 Kh-55 air-launch cruise missiles.

    Serhiy Borodenkov, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, stated, “So far, Ukraine confirmed its commitment to secure peace and stability, and made a significant contribution to strengthening the international regime of arms nonproliferation.”

    5. Germany To Phase Out Nuclear Power

    German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and the nation’s leading energy companies formally signed an agreement on 11 June to shut down the country’s 19 civilian nuclear power reactors. The agreement will limit nuclear plants to an average of 32 years of operation and the power plants will be phased out over the next two decades with the most modern plants likely closing around 2021. The agreement also limits the amount of nuclear energy that current reactors can generate.

    The agreement gained legislative backing on 17 December with approval in the Bundestag, the lower house of parliament. The Bundesrat, the upper house in which Germany’s states are represented, must still debate the law but it has no power of veto. The draft law bans new nuclear power plants and subjects current plants to more stringent safety checks. After 1 July 2005, nuclear fuel reprocessing as well as the transport of nuclear fuel to and from reprocessing plants will be prohibited. Nuclear power currently provides about one third of the nation’s energy supply.

  • The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Top Five List of Nuclear Secrets Revealed in 2001

    1. Reports surface about the use of humans as guinea pigs in nuclear experiments from the 1950s to the 1970s.

    2. In a documentary, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres goes further than any other Israeli official in confirming that Israel has nuclear capability and discloses for the first time details about Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

    3. The UK Ministry of Defense (MoD) admits for the first time partial details of seven politically sensitive accidents involving British nuclear weapon, drawing attention to an institution shrouded in secrecy and cover-up.

    4. The French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) admits that Moruroa Atoll is threatened with collapse because of sustained nuclear testing.

    5. The Norwegian Radiation Protection Agency (NRPA) reveals that radioactive waste from a nuclear research plant in Norway has been wrongly fed into a town’s sewage system for nine years.
    1. Humans Used as Guinea Pigs in Nuclear Experiments

    The UK Ministry of Defense admitted on 12 May that it exposed British, Australian and New Zealand servicemen to radiation in tests during the 1950s and 1960s. A spokesperson for the Ministry denied that the soldiers were used as guinea pigs, stating that each man gave his consent to participate. The experiments tested the effectiveness of protective clothing during radiation experiments. According to the Ministry of Defense, officers were ordered to walk, run and crawl through contaminated nuclear test sites at Monte Bello Island and Maralinga to determine what types of clothing would give best protection against radioactive contamination. Both the Australian and New Zealand governments demanded a full inquiry into the experiments and announced that they will examine links between illnesses suffered by servicemen and exposure to radiation.

    Although previously thought to be used for the first time during the Gulf War, the Australian government confirmed on 28 May that more than eight tons of depleted uranium were blasted into the air during nuclear tests at Maralinga in the 1950s. The government announced that it will prepare a study of those who may have been affected, including soldiers and Aboriginal and civilian populations in the area at the time of testing. The findings of the study will determine eligibility for compensation under military or safety stipulations. An Australian royal commission first discovered the use of depleted uranium in atomic tests at Maralinga some 14 years ago, but the government failed to take any action at the time.

    On 24 June, The Sunday Times (UK) revealed that some 45,000 people, mainly Soviet soldiers, were deliberately exposed in 1954 to radiation from a bomb twice as powerful as the one dropped on Hiroshima just nine years before. At 9:33 a.m. on 14 September 1954, a Soviet Tu-4 bomber dropped a 40,000-ton atomic weapon from 25,000 feet. The bomb exploded 1,200 feet above Totskoye testing range near the provincial town of Orenburg. Thousands are believed to have died in the immediate aftermath and in the years following. The pilot flying the Tu-4 bomber developed leukemia and his co-pilot developed bone cancer. Marshal Georgi Zhukov, Stalin’s most senior World War II Commander, safely witnessed the blast from an underground nuclear bunker. Moments after the blast, Zhukov ordered 600 tanks, 600 armored personnel carriers and 320 planes to move forward to the epicenter in order to stage a mock battle. The experiment was designed to test the performance of military hardware and soldiers in the event of a nuclear war.

    The UK Atomic Energy Authority admitted on 30 September that thighbones were removed from the bodies of dead babies without parents’ consent for testing from 3,400 children between 1954 and 1970. The bones were collected from hospitals throughout the UK to allow scientists to establish what effect the fallout from nuclear tests being carried out around the world was having on health. Doctors feared that the radioactive fallout from nuclear tests was contaminating milk and could be building up to dangerous levels in children’s bones.

    2. France Cooperated with Israel in Launching Israel’s Nuclear Program

    At a time of rising tensions in the Middle East, Israel’s broadcasting media aired a television documentary in November in which Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres discloses for the first time details about Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. In the documentary, Peres goes further than any other Israeli official in confirming that the country has nuclear capability. Along with French officials, Peres gives details about cooperation between Israel and France in launching Israel’s nuclear program.

    The showing of the film may be a sign that the Israeli government is beginning to relax its rule of absolute silence on its nuclear program. Mordechai Vanunu is still serving an 18-year sentence in jail for revealing in 1986 that Israel had a nuclear program and more than 100 warheads. The makers of the film also believe that the government cooperated in the making of the film because of concerns over international terrorism and the expectation that Iran could have nuclear capability in a few years.

    The film reveals that France helped Israel with its nuclear program in exchange for support in the Suez War. In September 1956, Shimon Peres, then a Defense Ministry Official, accompanied Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to Sevres, France for a meeting with French and British delegations over the Suez crisis. In the documentary, Peres states, “In Sevres, when it was all over, I told Ben-Gurion, ‘There’s one piece of unfinished business: the nuclear issue. Before you agree, let me finish that.’ Of the four countries which at that time had a nuclear capability-the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France-only France was willing to help us.”

    Until Israel’s agreement with France, no country had supplied another with the means for developing nuclear capability. Jean-Francois Daguzan, Deputy Director of the Foundation for Strategic Research, said the agreement was kept secret for some 30 years. He stated, “It was well known in military and political circles, but it didn’t become public knowledge until the mid-1980s after a book was published about that era and the agreement was mentioned. There was no suggestion that France had given Israel its nuclear capacity, but it had certainly helped the country acquire it.”

    Israel still will not officially confirm or deny making nuclear weapons at the plant near Dimona. Israel’s policy of ambiguity is designed to deter Arabs from attacking Israel while at the same time avoiding the political fallout of becoming a declared nuclear power.

    3. UK Ministry of Defense Releases Carefully Worded List of Nuclear Accidents

    In July, the UK Ministry of Defense (MoD) admitted for the first time some details of seven politically sensitive accidents involving British nuclear weapons. However, the MoD admitted that it only released partial information, drawing attention to an institution shrouded in secrecy and cover-up.

    In 1974, a torpedo was dropped on top of a nuclear weapon on a British nuclear submarine, the HMS Tiger, anchored off Valetta Harbor, Malta. According to Shaun Gregory, a Bradford University academic, if the torpedo had exploded or caused a fire, it could have detonated the high explosive within the nuclear weapon, scattering radioactive debris for several miles around. The Maltese government was not told about the accident.

    In August 1977, a Polaris missile was dropped while being hoisted onto a submarine at a nuclear weapons depot at Coulport, Argyll and Bute. The military documented both events as “handling incidents.”

    The MoD documented three road accidents involving military convoys carrying nuclear weapons–in Wiltshire in January 1987, on the M8 near Glasgow in August 1983, and near the Coulport depot in April 1973.

    In 1974 and 1981, protective casings around Polaris missiles were “compressed” on board submarines at sea, but no other details are given.

    According to the MoD, a full description of these incidents can not be released to protect the “operational security” of the weapons. However, some information was released under a freedom of information request by “The Guardian” in a carefully worded list to “allay public worries.” The MoD insists that the accidents did not endanger public safety since none of the weapons were damaged or leaked radioactive material.

    However, the MoD has refused to give any details of other mishaps because they did not “involve any threat to public safety”. In 1992, an inquiry by Ronald Oxburgh, the then MoD chief scientific adviser, found that since 1960 there have been around 20 mishaps.

    4. Moruroa Atoll Threatened With Collapse

    Reports that surfaced in March from the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) admit that the rock of Mururoa Atoll is threatened with collapse because of sustained nuclear testing. Between 1966 and 1996, France exploded 178 nuclear bombs on Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls. Of those tests, 137 were below ground explosions and 41 were atmospheric.

    An official spokesman for the CEA stated: “We are observing an acceleration of the natural, seaward progression of certain perimeter areas in the northeastern zone, as well as compression at the surface. There has definitely been a weakening of the atoll rock that has been amplified by the nuclear tests.” The atoll has been dotted with seismic sensors, linked to Paris by satellite, to give early warning should a major collapse occur.

    For many years, environmentalists and anti-nuclear activists have warned that the Atoll could collapse and release radioactive debris because of the French nuclear testing. Matt Robson, Disarmament Minister of New Zealand, said that New Zealand first expressed concerns as early as 1973 and had known about the damage when a report was released in 1998. In 1999, the International Geomechanical Commission released a report on plutonium “hotspots” and the risk of portions of the atoll collapsing, possibly causing tidal waves. New Zealand announced that it will formally ask the French Government to explain the reports of the atoll’s possible collapse.

    5. Plumbing Mistake Creates Nuclear Fertilizer

    The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) revealed on 17 April that radioactive waste from a nuclear research plant in Norway has been wrongly fed into a town’s sewage system for nine years. As a result, some of the radioactive waste ended up as farm fertilizer. The NRPA stated that waste water was incorrectly linked in 1991 to a sewage system in Halden when it should have been pumped directly into the sea. The “plumbing” mistake was not rectified until 1999. Officials deny that there has been any risk to human health, but ecologists are demanding radiation tests for local farmers. Mr. Sverre Hornkjoel, a scientist for NRPA, said that the mistake was made by municipality officials, but Norway’s nuclear industry is ultimately responsible.

  • Notes from the Road, March of the Antmen

    Rennie Harris Puremovement, a dynamic Philadelphia-based hip hop dance company, performed at the University of California at Santa Barbara recently. As a college student in Philadelphia, I jumped at every chance my studies would allow me to join their cipher, to explore and celebrate our diverse and rich heritage through dance, spoken word, and theater. Their respect for capoiera and traditional African drumming combined with a distinctly urban edge and sense of urgency mirrored my own artistic sensibilities.

    Sitting at the UCSB session, feeling the thumping beats, taking in the acrobatic moves, and fully appreciating P-Funk and Endangered Species took me back a couple years to the sites and scenes of a city overflowing with arts, activism, and energy – back to master classes at the Pained Bride, Mumia rallies at City Hall, DanceAfrica at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, Odunde processions to the Schulkyll River, bantubas at the Community Education Center, Penn Relay after parties everywhere, and then – the nostalgia ended abruptly. March of the Antmen had a new message for me, has new meaning as our leadership pursues the individuals responsible for the events of 9/11.

    I make no claims to be a dance critic, yet the opening and closing sequences alone held power – a battle scene of soldiers crawling along, hugging the earth contrasted against a group of young brothers perpetrating a drive-by and losing one of their own in the gunfire exchange. Antmen poses a number of pressing questions: why do men often march into war at a feverish pace? What parallels are there between “official” and “unofficial” war zones, between trauma resulting from gang violence and poverty as opposed to trauma resulting from warfare? And Who ultimately suffers? Whether you’re a b-boy, senator, dance critic, and/or peace activists, the question we must all ask ourselves is what role do I play in all of this?

    *Michael Coffey is the Youth Outreach Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • “The White Rose”: Student Resistance in Germany During WWII

    On Friday, August 17, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation was honored with the presence and words of Dr. George Wittenstein, a “core” member of a group of very close friends that later became known as “The White Rose” resistance group. In the past decade there has been a revival in the attention given to “The White Rose,” which promoted the resistance to Nazi ideology during Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. According to Dr. Wittenstein, much of the published accounts regarding “The White Rose” contain inaccuracies, in some cases being entirely incorrect. It is for this reason that Dr. Wittenstein has made it a goal for the remainder of his life to contribute whatever he can to aid in setting the record straight.

    An exhibit on resistance in Germany at UCLA sponsored by the German government at which Dr. Wittenstein was invited to speak was an example of insufficient historical research. Before the exhibit was opened to the public, he was given a chance to see it for himself. To his dismay, pictures of his friends in “The White Rose” had been mislabeled and the only successful military putsch (revolt) against Hitler was not even mentioned (another fact that often goes unmentioned is that “The White Rose” was the only group which addressed the treatment and extermination of Jews). At the last minute, Dr Wittenstein changed his original speech to address these inaccuracies. A reporter approached him that day after his revised speech from the LA Times who remarked, “once a rebel, always a rebel.”

    Dr. Wittenstein stressed the fact that in most democratic societies today it is impossible for people to even begin to comprehend the oppressive nature of Hitler’s total dictatorship, which makes it difficult to explain. The Nazi party was extremely efficient in establishing itself as the new government and within days of Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor, the Nazis had taken control over every aspect of public life. Every city block had an informer who reported any “suspicious” activity to the Gestapo (secret police). Communication was monitored to such an extent that in one case, Dr Wittenstein recalled, while sitting in a theater watching the news, a man was arrested by the Gestapo. No doubt he must have made a negative comment about the regime.

    Under these conditions, any form of resistance was extremely dangerous and finding allies was impossible for all practical purposes. Without open communication resistance groups had no way of knowing if other groups even existed. It was not until after the war that Dr. Wittenstein discovered that approximately three hundred other groups had been operating in Germany at the time. In the early years of Hitler’s regime, there were youth groups (similar to the US Boy Scouts) called “Buendische Jugend” throughout Germany and Europe until the mid-1930s when Hitler banned them and forced their members into the ranks of his new “Hitler Youth.” To add to the difficulty of mobilizing an opposition against a total dictatorship, the majority of the German people had been indoctrinated with Nazi propaganda. This “education” began as early as age four, and was intensified for the older children in the “Hitler Youth” program, in which membership became mandatory in the late 1930s. What must be noted though, is that it was not until near the war’s end that the truth of the atrocities being committed by the Nazis was known. Instead, the German public was presented with lies and false hope in the form of propaganda glorifying Hitler.

    The friends of “The White Rose” were middle-class students with parents who shared their anti-Nazi sentiment. They had access to the “truth,” as Dr. Wittenstein explained, in the form of radio broadcasts and literature from Switzerland (which was politically neutral) and the BBC. Once the war had started, listening to foreign radio stations was punishable by death. Since all communication in Germany was monitored, as well as any literary or artistic works deemed by Hitler as “degenerate” being forbidden, resistance groups relied on “underground” sources of information.

    In 1938, the year he considers the true beginning of “The White Rose,” Dr. Wittenstein met Alexander Schmorell while serving his two-year mandatory military training. In their barracks the two 19-year-olds discussed resistance as well as common academic interests and became close friends. One of the few accounts that Dr. Wittenstein acknowledged as correctly stated throughout all books written about “The White Rose,” was this quote by Alexander Schmorell: “Maybe ten years from now there will be a plaque on this door [of the barracks] which will read: ‘This is where the revolution began’.”

    After their service ended in 1939, the two men attended the University of Munich where they met Hans Scholl and Hellmut Hartert. Christoph Probst, a student and father of two (very uncommon for students at the time) joined later and became Dr. Wittenstein’s closest friend. This “tightly knit” group of friends was for the most part apolitical medical students, discussing more academic issues such as philosophy and art. After the war, in an effort to memorialize her siblings, Inge Scholl, the elder sister of Hans and Sophie, wrote mostly about them in her book entitled “The White Rose”. This led to the now commonly accepted perception that the others who contributed equally and who were also executed played insignificant roles. As the group of friends became more aware of the horrific deeds of the Nazis, they realized the need for action. The only method possible was by writing and distributing leaflets, which was much more dangerous than one would think. Purchasing mass amounts of paper and stamps immediately roused suspicion. In 1942 the first four leaflets were written by Schmorell and Scholl, the first and fourth almost entirely by Scholl, Wittenstein edited the third and fourth leaflets. These leaflets were very idealistic and implied a more passive approach to resistance. Quoting many famous philosophers, they were targeted toward the intellectual community.

    After a philosophy professor missed two lectures with no explanation, Wittenstein and a painter friend led about fifty fellow students to the university President’s office to demand the whereabouts of the teacher. The President, who was visibly disturbed and frightened, because such action was unheard of in Nazi Germany, denied any knowledge Dr. Wittenstein and his friend then led the group of students on a “sympathy demonstration” through the streets of Munich to the professor’s apartment. Such an open protest (in broad daylight) was until then unthinkable. The student unrest was growing.

    As was true for all medical students, the friends were drafted into the military but permitted to continue their studies in uniform. In the summer of 1942 they were sent to serve at the Russian front where they gained a new member and friend, Willi Graf. While in Russia, they were exposed to the true extent of the atrocities being committed by the Nazis. Because of Schmorell’s ability to speak the language, they had frequent interaction with the Russian people and came to realize that they were genuinely good-natured, despite Hitler’s propaganda describing them barbaric animals. Upon their return from Russia, Wittenstein felt that the passive, philosophical approach was not enough and pushed for more active resistance. A fifth leaflet was written that took this new approach, but it unfortunately required an enormous sacrifice. The group now realized that in order to save their beloved country, Germany must lose the war as soon as possible.

    As more students became aware of the true intentions of Hitler’s plan, the resentment increased. At the University of Munich one event sparked an almost total riot. The Gauleiter (a Nazi appointed head-of-state) of Bavaria delivered a speech at the university in which he berated the female students for continuing their studies, while instead they should be producing children for Hitler’s “master race.” He went so far as to offer access to his male staff if they were unable to find a boyfriend on their own. Obviously outraged, the female students attempted to walk out but were stopped and arrested by Gestapo guards. The male students revolted and took the stage, holding the leader of the Nazi student organization hostage until the women were allowed to leave.

    After the disappearance of his first professor, Dr. Wittenstein found a new mentor for his Ph.D thesis in psychology in Professor Kurt Huber, who agreed with the ideals of “The White Rose” and active resistance. In February of 1943 came the fall of Stalingrad and the printing of the sixth and final leaflet. In another example of misrepresentation, many sources claim that the students wrote the sixth leaflet, when in fact Professor Huber himself wrote it.

    On February 18, 1943, the final leaflet was distributed. Hans Scholl and his younger sister, Sophie (who had joined the group despite Hans’ insistence on her safety), clandestinely placed the leaflet throughout the University of Munich. As they left the building they must have realized that they had a few copies remaining and went back inside to drop them into the courtyard from above. They were spotted by a janitor and were immediately arrested. In the following months all but one suspected of being associated with “The White Rose” were arrested.

    During his arrest, a draft leaflet written by Christoph Probst was found in Hans Scholl’s pocket, which he tried in vain to tear up and swallow. Christoph Probst was promptly arrested and stood trial with the Scholl siblings. Hitler’s “Peoples Court,” which was established to eliminate his enemies (usually by death sentences), flew to Munich from its usual venue in Berlin only four days after the arrests to hold the trial. After a very brief trial, Hans and Sophie Scholl and Christoph Probst were immediately executed by guillotine. Alexander Schmorell, Willi Graf, and Professor Kurt Huber were tried by the People’s Court in April of the same year and executed later. In his defense, Huber gave a speech in which he stated, “…I demand the freedom of the German people…”

    Having been warned that the Gestapo was once again tracking him Dr. Wittenstein requested transfer to the Italian front, which was out of the range Gestapo jurisdiction and saved him from prosecution. He had already been involved with the “Freiheitsaktion Bayern,” a Bavarian resistance group that later carried out the only successful putsch against Hitler (as mentioned above, this is yet another historical fact that has been distorted, in this case being completely omitted). Dr. Rupprecht Gerngross, a commander of an unarmed interpreters unit, managed to weed out Nazi supporters under his command, whom he promptly sent to Russia. The unit obtained a huge arsenal of light weapons (grenades, rifles, etc.). It was in Italy, that Dr. Wittenstein collected diverse weapons and had them transported to this group in Munich. With the help of a like-minded tank commander and his unit, this group overtook the main radio station and disarmed all bridges leading into the city. As the US forces reached Munich, the resistance group announced over the radio that the citizens must wave white flags in surrender and arrest all the “little Nazis” before they could escape. In this way, Munich was spared total destruction by resisting Hitler’s order that every city must be defended to the last man.

    This is, of course, only a brief overview of the story of “The White Rose,” as Dr. Wittenstein explained, but for myself it had a significant impact, as my mother was born in 1939 near Munich. As a child she witnessed the bombing of her hometown and still recalls running for shelter amidst the flames and destruction. Because of the emotional nature of the topic, she, like Dr. Wittenstein, is usually somewhat reluctant to discuss the past. Both her older brother and father served in the German military, but only her father, an interpreter, survived. Her older brother, Otto, was a fighter pilot for the “Luftwaffe” (German Airforce) and was killed in battle in 1944. As a young boy, I was passionate about flying, so too was my uncle. I remember my mother sitting me down and showing me photos of her older brother when he was close to my age at the time and how emotionally difficult it was for her. He and his friends, being only 13 or 14 years old, had built full-scale gliders that they would launch and pilot from the hilltops of Bavaria. These same friends, only four or five years later were flying warplanes, most of them never returning.

    It was not until recently, when I told her that Dr. Wittenstein was coming to speak about “The White Rose,” that I really discussed the war again with my mother. After looking through the old photos again, I realized that my uncle and his friends probably built those gliders as part of their training in the “Hitler Youth” (after noticing the swastikas painted on the planes and the officer accompanying them). As impressionable young boys, they were undoubtedly filled with enthusiasm as they built and flew their own aircraft. As they began flying for the “Luftwaffe” as trained fighter pilots, the faces in the pictures began to change. In a matter of a few years, the enthusiastic young boys began to look like weary old men. According to my mother, my uncle in particular became disillusioned as he realized the futility of Hitler’s war.

    As Dr. Wittenstein talked about the female students’ revolt at the University of Munich, it reminded me of stories my mother told me of Hitler’s plans for the German women to provide him with as many offspring as possible. Hitler declared that he would be the Godfather of every family’s fourth child, and upon bearing a fifth child, the mother would receive a gold medal.

    After speaking with my mother and hearing Dr. Wittenstein, I can only hope that I have gained some further understanding of the hardships endured by those living under Hitler’s dictatorship. I do realize though, now better than before, that resisting oppression may be life threatening, but in extreme circumstances it is the only way to protect one’s freedom. The truth must be told and the people must listen.

  • Some Thoughts on “Courage” Award

    News Item: “Boston, May 21, 2001 Former President Gerald R. Ford, overwhelmingly condemned in 1974 for pardoning his predecessor, Richard M. Nixon, was honored today for that act by the John F. Kennedy Library with its Profile in Courage Award.” — New York Times, May 22, 2001

    Does it really take courage to pardon a former president, alleged to have committed serious crimes, who resigns under threat of impeachment? Does it really take courage to demonstrate by the use of a pardon that high officials stand above the law? Many people think that Ford’s pardon of Nixon may have been part of the negotiations leading to Ford’s appointment as Nixon’s vice president.

    In the presentation of the award to former President Ford, Senator Edward Kennedy remarked about Ford, “His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us.”

    If Ford deserves to be honored for his “courage” in pardoning Nixon for his cover-up of the Watergate scandal and for lying to the American people, we might consider some other awardees in future years for the Kennedy Center Profile in Courage Award.

    Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator, for in effect pardoning himself by arranging for his lifetime appointment to the Chilean Senate and immunity from prosecution.

    Richard Nixon himself for pardoning war criminal Lt. William Calley for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

    Bob Kerrey, former U.S. Senator and president of the New School, for revealing 30 years after the fact when pressed to do so by the accusations of another member of his squad that he was involved in ordering the killing of women and children in Vietnam.

    Regents of the New School for their courageous “unqualified support” of Bob Kerrey and for recognizing that “War is Hell.”

    Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War who devised the “Body Count” as a means of keeping score, for acknowledging years later that we did not win the war in Vietnam.

    William Jefferson Clinton for pardoning fugitive financer Marc Rich and for handling his own impeachment proceedings so gracefully.

    Norman Schwartzkoff for leading the Persian Gulf War in which we buried enemy soldiers while still alive with bulldozers.

    George H. W. Bush for honoring rather than pardoning General Schwartzkoff.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist and his Supreme Court colleagues for having the courage to override the Florida Supreme Court in order to select the current occupant of the White House, despite their often proclaimed commitment to states rights.

    Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, for doing such effective self-promotion that it wasn’t necessary to pardon his many Nuremberg-like crimes.

    Clearly, the Kennedy Library will not run short of potential recipients of their award — men and women who demonstrate the courage to do the wrong thing.

  • To Address Gang Problem, Abandon Ageist Ideas

    Adults have no monopoly on problem solving. If policing, prison and other conventional methods aren’t working, maybe it’s time to ask young people what they think should be done and really listen to what they say.

    I began teaching classes in nonviolence theory and practice in a maximum-security juvenile facility near Washington, D.C., in 1998. The young men and women incarcerated there were being detained for myriad crimes: gang-related issues, shooting family members or violence against siblings or peers, for example. These young people had a few things in common: They were all people of color, all poor, all with low levels of literacy. Yet these qualities did not impede their ability to internalize the values and tenets of active peacemaking. As I worked with these young women and men, we all began to uncover the true meaning of nonviolence: listening to each other, validating each other’s experiences, figuring out how to make things more just, and becoming more in control of our emotions and responses to anger and violence.

    By many people’s standards, I should not have been there teaching the people whom society deems unlovable, unteachable and unreformable, and who are at the end of a heavy-handed legalistic punitive society, all victims of finger-pointers rather than problem solvers. Yet the nonviolence classes at this juvenile prison worked because of faith in the creativity and self-expressiveness of each young person. I entered the jail ready to hear their stories in their own words and to address the issues most affecting them, like physical abuse at home, substance abuse and escalating verbal conflict.

    In my estimation, violence stems from misunderstanding, which comes in comfortable positions who make decisions affectinfrom lack of communication, which comes from ignorance in the true sense of the word–and ignorance is combated only through education and dialogue. To truly get at the root of a problem, as a society we must abandon our ageist ideologies that adults have a monopoly over access to community building and problem solving. We must reincorporate young people back into the loop. This begins by listening to them and straightforwardly addressing their concerns and grievances.

    In the first presidential debate, George W. Bush labeled “at risk” kids as “kids who basically can’t learn.” This stereotype haunts kids, especially minorities, making escape from these externally imposed confines more precarious. What is it like to be heard and understood? What is it like to be an adult with stature, a stable life, a voice and clear language and thoughts to express that which pleases and displeases? What must it be like not to be discounted based on race, age, appearance, location or other transient factors? Perhaps before our communities can make progress toward more peaceful relations, we need to hear and accept the daily complications that make life perilous for kids, in their own words and language, absent judgment and malevolent suspicion.

    The recent smattering of gang-related shootings in Oxnard opens a door of potential dialogue for a long-standing and gravely important problem. First, designate a permanent means of addressing the complicated issues surrounding gang violence in Ventura County by institutionalizing classes in alternatives to violence specifically for gang members, creating a safe space for them to learn concrete methods of conflict management. Peace is not static; it is a forever-changing dynamic that requires finesse and negotiation and consistent maintenance. Peace is not the lull between explosions. To create a lasting peace, we must equip our young people with the teachable and learnable tools necessary to make competent, broad-minded decisions.

    Next, give these young people the chance to be articulate and play an active role in making their communities better places. Offer the option of intra-gang and inter-gang facilitated dialogues by an impartial third party. Gandhi provides a wonderful guideline for such an encounter: Describe all that is shared in common against the one unshared separation, claiming a different gang. Allow them to become policy-makers and set the guidelines for creating safer communities. Ask them how to begin making things as right as possible rather than handing down mandates that might not address the real issues of why the gang violence has recently escalated.

    If heavier policing, stricter sentencing and more time in juvenile hall or prison are not making a positive difference, then we ought to ask those directly involved what they think ought to be done. Their answers might just surprise us.

    * Leah C. Wells is Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She teaches a nonviolence class at St. Bonaventure High School and is director of the Southern California chapter of Nonviolence International. She is youth coordinator for Season for Nonviolence 2001.

  • Notes from the Road

    Earlier this month, I participated in Make Our World 2000, a joining of minds between international youth peace activists. The event was held at a scenic retreat center just outside of Malibu, California. A group of remarkable, concerned southern California residents — and activists in their own right — convened the event and enlisted the assistance of the Global Youth Action Network to encourage young activists to attend, facilitate discussion, and develop a plan of action.

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.

                                                                       -Margaret Mead

    Much was accomplished in the few days we spent together, and a number of larger themes surfaced. We spent valuable time getting to know one another, summarizing our purpose for heeding the call to attend, sharing meals, and hiking together in the Malibu hills. We brainstormed on how we could combine forces, better support one another, and create an international youth platform addressing and linking multiple social justice issues. We recognized the accomplishments of previous meetings with similar goals, yet seized the moment at hand to synthesize, organize, and contribute our individual and collective energies to the youth movement.

    Diversity is a cornerstone in building this movement! Unfortunately, a number of our allies experienced difficulties in securing the proper approval and means to attend the event. Their presence was sorely missed! In their absence, the group acknowledged a relationship between structural, global, macro-level injustice and individual, micro-level suffering.[1] As a means to find solutions to identify and act on solutions to end such suffering, the group recommitted itself to having a greater representation of indigenous peoples, people of African descent, and people of Asian descent at our next gathering, tentatively scheduled for June 2001.

    The facilitators and the group as a whole created and maintained a comfortable and flexible environment that allowed for changes to the agenda. One such change and subsequent discussion validated the point that often times activists work in isolation and/or lack adequate mentorship and support. Knowing this, all individuals working for a sane and safe world must better support one another, expand our network, and use new technologies to reinforce the sense of community.

    [Together we can be] 1,000 candles burning as bright as the sun.

    -Jimmy Hurrell

    I will spare you the specifics on the proposed projects out of respect for group members as we continue to discuss appropriate action steps and with the realization that Make Our World 2000 was just one very important step out of many more to come. Please check back with us soon at https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com for an update on Foundation efforts to develop a network of other youth organizations around the world working on issues complimentary to our own. Don’t worry. You won’t have to wait long!

     

    [1] Jonathan White, a sociology professor at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, visited the Foundation in November 2000 and discussed one example of such injustice – hunger – with area high school and college students.

     

  • We Could Learn from the Skeptics

    In a New York Times editorial on December 19, 2000, “Prelude to a Missile Defense,” they rightly point out that “no workable shield now exists” and that the diplomatic and financial costs are too high to begin construction of even a limited system “until the technology is perfected.”

    It is a great leap of faith to believe that this technology will ever be perfected. Experts repeatedly have warned us that even a moderately effective offense that includes decoys will always be able to overcome the type of defensive system we are capable of deploying.

    However, even if we were able to create a foolproof missile defense against Iraq, Iran and North Korea, we would still be at risk from nuclear weapons delivered by terrorist groups or nations by other means than missiles, such as by weapons carried into US harbors on boats. The geo-political damage that deployment of a National Missile Defense would do in our relations with Russia and China would also undermine any advantages such a system might provide.

    The editorial suggests that “Mr. Bush’s new foreign policy team should try to persuade skeptical countries that a limited defensive system can be built without wrecking existing arms control treaties or setting off a destructive new arms race.” To succeed in this persuasion, Mr. Bush’s new team will need either superhuman powers or excessive and dangerous arm twisting skills.

    They would be far wiser to listen carefully to the reasons why many of our closest allies, as well as Russia and China, are skeptical about our missile defense plans. By trying to understand rather than convert the skeptics, the Bush foreign policy team might learn that deploying a costly and unreliable Ballistic Missile Defense would create greater problems than it would solve.

    The new administration might more fruitfully concentrate its efforts on providing leadership in fulfilling the promises made by the nuclear weapons states at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference for an “unequivocal undertaking” to eliminate all nuclear weapons globally. Such leadership would be a true gift to humanity. It would also do far more to assure American and global security in the 21st century.