Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Uncategorized

  • Worse than the War

    Worse than the War

    Worse than the war, the endless, senseless war,
    Worse than the lies leading to the war,
    Worse than the countless deaths and injuries,
    Worse than hiding the coffins and not attending funerals,
    Worse than the flouting of international law,
    Worse than the torture at Abu Ghraib prison,
    Worse than the corruption of young soldiers,
    Worse than undermining our collective sense of decency,
    Worse than the arrogance, smugness and swagger,
    Worse than our loss of credibility in the world,
    Worse than the loss of our liberties,
    Worse than learning nothing from the past,
    Worse than destroying the future,
    Worse than the incredible stupidity of it all,
    Worse than all of these,
    As if they were not enough for one war or country or lifetime,
    Is the silence, the resounding silence, of good Americans.

  • Robert Strange McNamara: An American Idol

    It is hardly a surprise that “The Fog of War” won the Oscar for documentaries this year. As a film on the life of the former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, “The Fog of War” succeeds brilliantly. It conveys the distinctive complexity of this fascinating man who occupied such a prominent place in the American political and moral imagination during the Kennedy and Johnson presidencies. And the documentary presentation of this material, centered on issues of nuclear war and Vietnam, makes us think deeply about the troublesome interplay between war and political leadership, an issue that has again assumed a tragic salience since 9/11. “Fog of War” limits its consideration to McNamara’s reflections on and experience of war, and ignores altogether the thirteen years that he spent as president of the World Bank, which are to me as revealing as the seven years that he spent at the Pentagon. Although this exclusion makes the film fall short as a biographical statement, there are artistic and dramatic gains achieved by limiting the focus to war, and its complexities.

    The technique of the film maker, Errol Morris, is quite remarkable, managing to command our attention for almost two hours despite McNamara delivering what is essentially a monologue. Of course, some of the credit belongs to McNamara’s captivating words and delivery, and some to the editorial surgery that reduced some twenty hours of film to what we watch in the theater. Also, helpful in breaking the potential monotony of listening to a single voice are McNamara’s eleven lessons that are flashed on the screen at intervals giving us a sense of narrative structure. But what is most riveting, I think, is the cinematography that weaves a coherent fabric of a film consisting of illuminating archival footage, cascading images associated with McNamara’s words and deeds, and various bits of recorded conversations between McNamara and his superiors in the White House. Philip Glass’s edgy, rhythmically repetitive, music wonderfully complements the visual presentation, reinforcing the themes of death and destruction, as well as the contradictory pulls that make this singular individual both fascinating and ultimately elusive. It is never becomes clear whether this great man is genuinely trying to impart the wisdom gained from his deep immersion in the power games of the 20th century or whether he is elaborately engaged in masking a rather pathetic appeal for absolution from the gods of public assessment. Most probably, it is both.

    The title “The Fog of War” is a phrase taken from the Karl von Clausewitz, the early 19th century German theorist of war, and used to explain the inability of a military commander to grasp the full realities of a battlefield, given its complexity. It bears so centrally on the McNamara enigma because it is exculpatory in effect, suggesting that the mistakes of war are due to its complexity, rather than the incompetence or depravity of the leaders. What is misleading here is that Clausewitz was explaining why tactical errors are made in war, while McNamara is indirectly excusing moral shortcomings, including those that have been criminalized by international law. Technology has lifted much of the fog that existed in Clausewitz’s day, but the process of war continues to be enshrouded in the far thicker fog of personal ambition and national pride. To confuse the one with other, as McNamara does throughout the film is deeply self-serving, and in the end, quite discrediting.

    The substance of the eleven lessons is as revealing about McNamara’s frailties as it is about learning from the mistakes of past wars. For instance, Lesson #1: “empathize with your enemy” is used to vindicate the flexibility of the Kennedy leadership in the Cuban Missile Crisis in helping to extricate Khrushchev and the Soviets from the crisis without producing a nuclear war. Later on, somewhat inconsistently, McNamara becomes quite animated when he acknowledges that it was “pure luck” that saved us in this country and the world from a nuclear war, discovering after the fact how ready each side was to engage in catastrophic behavior to avoid backing down in the crisis. One might have expected at this point some expression of concern for the suffering inflicted by American military tactics, especially the deliberate reliance on terror bombing in World War II, but instead such issues surface, of all places, in relation to Lesson #4: “Maximize efficiency.”

    A disturbing motif throughout the film is the recurrent reference to General Curtis LeMay, a leading air force general during both World War II and the early phases of the cold war, who epitomizes the pure logic of warfare carried on without regard to the limits of law or morality, but dedicated single mindedly to victory and the total destruction of the enemy. McNamara’s attitudes toward LeMay are revealing, combining undisgusied admiration for his “efficiency” and dedication to duty, with an effort to contrast McNamara’s contrasting active moral indignation about killing people with Lemay’s indifference. It was LeMay who, for the sake of efficiency in the latter stages of World II, proposed and engaged in the fire bombing of 67 Japanese cities causing hundreds of thousands of deaths of women and children. At a telling moment in the film LeMay acknowledges that if the Allies had lost the war then he, and McNamara who was working under his command at the time, would have prosecuted as war criminals. At another point, McNamara wonders out loud “What makes it immoral if you lose, but moral if you win.”

    There is undoubtedly something mesmerizing about McNamara’s sustained discussion of what we should learn from the experience of war. It is connected with his obsessive effort to portray himself as a man of reason and efficiency who always performed as well as humanly possible in view of the historical circumstances. Sure, he made mistakes with horrifying human consequences, but he could not do otherwise and serve the leadership and reflect the priorities of his country. Significantly, the McNamara of the movie and of real life has trouble expressing emotion except in highly personal encounters. It is odd that the only times that McNamara seems choked with emotion is when he recalls picking out a cemetery plot for the burial of JFK after his assassination and when Lyndon Johnson awards him the Medal of Freedom after dismissing him as Secretary of Defense over disagreements on how to prosecute and explain the Vietnam War. When he is talking about destroying nations with nuclear bombs or about the millions of Vietnamese killed by American tactics or about the toxic effects of Agent Orange used extensively as a defoliant, McNamara remains cool as a cucumber, all head, no heart.

    Closely related, are the revealing points at which he draws red lines as to where he refuses to go with the inquiry. When asked about why he did not speak out on the war after he left the Defense Department, he refuses to answer. Similarly, when it comes to the specifics of his personal responsibility. I know that close friends and associates begged McNamara to speak out against the Vietnam War after he left the Pentagon, which just might have led to a dramatic shortening of a futile effort, saving thousands of lives, and yet he refused. In the present global setting McNamara is deeply critical of the American response to 9/11, especially to the Iraq War, but when asked to comment, he refuses once again to offer any criticism of the roles played by Rumsfeld and Bush. From personal experience, I went to see McNamara at the World Bank in the 1970s about loaning money to Chile during the brutal Pinochet dictatorship. He asked that our meeting be treated as “off-the-record,” and then proceeded to say how he more than anyone would rejoice at the overthrow of Pinochet, but said he would continue to encourage the bank to prop up the regime with loans. Once again McNamara was blending almost seamlessly a career at the summits of power with moral indignation that is kept safely “in the closet.”

    We learn from the film that at every stage of his life, from primary school onwards, McNamara burned with ambition and glowed with a sense of achievement. He tells us that he was the youngest assistant professor ever appointed at the Harvard Business School. In a sense, McNamara can be best understood as a consummate careerist who was also remained a compulsive teacher throughout his life. Serving the rich and powerful, whether in the Ford Motor Company, or in Washington, he is at every stage more loyal to his superiors than responsive to the moral precepts he has always delighted in espousing. McNamara is the man of reason who still at the age of 85 turns lives into statistics, with a self-satisfying smile, while explaining his Lesson # 6: “Get the Data.”

    McNamara seems amused while recalling that when his fiancé, then living in a separate city, wanted to send out engraved wedding invitations, she sent him a message asking for his full middle name, to which McNamara responded “Strange.” His future wife replied, “I know you are strange, but what is your middle name?” Perhaps, in the end, McNamara’s life and sensibility are best understood by having given a original and enigmatic twist to the word strange!

    *Richard Falk, a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, is chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • War No More: A Book Review

    War No More: A Book Review

    War No More by Robert Hinde and Joseph Rotblat.
    London: Pluto Press, 2003. 228 pages.

    This book is a service to humanity. It makes the case that war is no longer a viable way of resolving conflicts and that the institution of war must be abolished. Both of the authors are scientists who have given considerable thought to the role that science and technology have played in increasing the dangers of war and bringing humanity to the brink of annihilation. The authors bring broad experience and wisdom to their task of finding a way out of the culture of war.

    Joseph Rotblat was a Manhattan Project scientist during World War II. He left the project in its latter stages when he understood that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb and, therefore, that a US atomic bomb would not be necessary to deter them from using one. Under the circumstances of World War II, he was willing to help create an atomic weapon to deter the Nazis, but he was not willing to contribute to the creation of such a weapon for any other purpose. He was the only scientist to leave the project as a matter of conscience.

    After walking away from the US project to create an atomic weapon, Rotblat has spent more than 50 years working against nuclear weapons and against war. In 1955, he was one of the original eleven signers of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto that tried to warn the world about the extreme dangers of continuing the nuclear arms race. Shortly after this, he was instrumental in forming the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an international organization of scientists that has worked diligently to bring to the public scientific perspectives on the dangers of the nuclear arms race and other manifestations of militarism. In 1995, Rotblat and Pugwash were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    On his 90th birthday, Professor Rotblat announced that his short-term goal was to abolish nuclear weapons and that his long-term goal was to abolish war. You have to admire this vision and determination in someone entering his tenth decade of life.

    Robert Hinde, who served as a Royal Air Force pilot in World War II, is a distinguished professor at Cambridge University and long-time participant in the Pugwash movement. He is noted for his work in biology and psychology.

    This book grew from a Pugwash Conference at Cambridge in the year 2000 on “Eliminating the Causes of War.” The authors describe the book as an attempt to disseminate the message of the conference more widely. It is also, of course, a concrete step in attempting to realize Professor Rotblat’s long-term goal of a world without war.

    The authors believe that to bring the institution of war to an end, it is necessary to understand it better. They pose the questions: “What are the factors that contribute to the outbreak of war? Why are people willing to go to war? What can be done to prevent war?” The book then provides important facts, figures, charts and perspectives in an attempt to answer these questions. In the first major section of the book the authors deal with nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, making it abundantly clear why 21st century wars jeopardize the future of civilization and humanity itself.

    In the second major section of the book, the authors explore the factors that make war more likely. In doing so, they look at the role of political systems and political leaders, culture and tradition, resources, economic factors and human nature. The authors find that none of the traditional explanations are sufficient in and of themselves to an understanding of why wars occur. They suggest that insights may be found in the complex interrelationships between nations, political and economic systems, and the personalities of political leaders. One of their conclusions is: “Every war depends on multiple, interacting causes, but one factor is essential – the availability of weapons.”

    In the third major section of the book, the authors examine what should be done to eliminate war. In this section they delve into possible solutions to ending war, including factors that stop countries from going to war, arms control, peace education, organizations (from the United Nations to civil society groups), and intervention and means of conflict resolution. This section offers a fascinating overview of the direction in which humanity must move if it is to succeed in ending “the scourge of war.”

    In the final chapter in the book, an epilogue on “Eliminating Conflict in the Nuclear Age,” the authors offer a sense of how far we are from realizing the noble and necessary goals they seek. “At the time of writing, in 2003,” they state, “the general world situation is far from being a happy one; indeed, as far as the nuclear peril is concerned it is much worse than would have been expected 14 years after the end of the nuclear arms race…. To a large extent this is a result of the policies of the only remaining superpower, the United States of America, particularly the George W. Bush administration.” The authors express concern that the Iraq War, “threatening the guidelines of…morality in the conduct of world affairs and adherence to the rules of international law,” may be “a portent of the shape of things to come.”

    The authors plead that this must not be allowed to happen: “We cannot allow the products of billions of years of evolution to come to an end. We are beholden to our ancestors, to all the previous generations, for bequeathing to us the enormous cultural riches that we enjoy. It is our sacred duty to pass them on to future generations. The continuation of the human species must be ensured. We owe an allegiance to humanity.” They recognize that it is in the competing allegiances, to the nation and to humanity, that a solution to the immense problem of war may be found. They argue that “a process of education will be required at all levels: education for peace, education for world citizenship.” This is undoubtedly the greatest challenge of our time: how can we educate the people of the world to give their loyalty to humanity and withdraw their consent from war?

    I have only two concerns regarding the book. First, I think the subtitle, “Eliminating Conflict in the Nuclear Age,” is not quite accurate. It is likely that there will always be conflicts. The challenge is assuring that these conflicts are resolved by peaceful rather than violent means. Second, I fear that the book will not reach a wide enough audience. Its message is so critical to our common future that it deserves as broad a readership as possible.

    This book can play a role in the process of education. Were I to teach a course on Peace and War, I would happily select this book as a text. It would be an exciting prospect to explore with students the issues of peace and war set forth by Professors Hinde and Rotblat. The book is a challenge to our political imaginations, to our understanding of the world, and to our personal responsibility for exercising, in the words of the authors, “our paramount duty to preserve human life, to ensure the continuity of the human race.” But reaching students is not enough; the ideas in the book must reach ordinary citizens throughout the world and, through them, their leaders.

    A short Foreword to the book was written by Robert McNamara, who was the US Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War. McNamara offers this advice: “It is not good enough to leave it to the politicians. The politicians are in reality servants of the people, not their masters.” In the film, “Fog of War, Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert McNamara,” this important insight about the role of citizens in relation to politicians does not make it into the eleven lessons. Yet, it may, in fact, be McNamara’s most important insight.

    I would like to see a filmmaker such as Errol Morris, who was responsible for the McNamara documentary, prepare a similar film on Rotblat and Hinde. The lessons they set forth in War No More, if understood broadly enough, just might save our world.

     

    *David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and the Deputy Director of the International Network of Scientists and Engineers for Global Responsibility (INES).

  • Bush Plays with Fire: Launching a Dangerous Space Policy

    George W. Bush is playing with fire. He is expected to soon make a major space policy announcement that could include a return mission to the moon, the establishment of permanent bases on the moon, and an aggressive program to take humans to Mars. Estimates for these space projects range from $50 – $150 billion. That is of course before cost overruns set in.

    In order to make the trip to Mars feasible (the normal year-long trip would take a toll on any human being because of space radiation) Bush is expected to commit to using a nuclear rocket – what is now known as “Project Prometheus,” named after the God of Fire. The nuclear rocket would cut in half the amount of time it would take to get to Mars, and would have military applications as well. The Bush administration a year ago announced the Nuclear Systems Initiative, a $3 billion research and development effort to expand the number of launches of deadly nuclear powered systems into space.

    NUCLEAR DANGERS

    One scientist who has publicly expressed grave concern about the Nuclear Systems Initiative is Dr. Michio Kaku, Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics at the CUNY Graduate Center. According to Dr. Kaku, “The exploration of outer space is indeed one of humanity’s great adventures. Perhaps one of the greatest risks facing this ambitious program is the use of dangerous, unproven technologies which could backfire, eroding public confidence in the space program.”

    “One such dangerous technology is the nuclear rocket, which is nowseriously being reconsidered after being rightly rejected for the past several decades. The recent disaster involving the Columbia shuttle crew was bad enough. If it had contained a nuclear rocket, it would have been the death blow to the space program. Having radioactive uranium reactor parts sprayed over Texas and much of the southwest would have doomed the entire space program. The nuclear booster rocket has gone through many stages of development in the past, and all of them have been cancelled with good cause.”

    WHY THE MOON?

    The U.S. never signed the 1979 Moon Treaty that was created at the United Nations to prevent a rush of land claims and military bases on the planetary body. In fact, in a 1959 U.S. Army study entitled “The Establishment of a Lunar Outpost” the once secret plan stated that “The lunar outpost is required to develop and protect potential U.S. interests on the moon; to develop techniques in moon-based surveillance of the earth and space…to serve as a base for exploration of the moon, for further exploration into space and for military operations on the moon if required.” The Army study went on to conclude that with U.S. bases on the moon the U.S. could “extend and improve space reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities and control of space.”

    Scientists have discovered valuable resources on the moon including helium 3, a fuel that is seen as a replacement for the dwindling supply of fossil fuels back here on Earth. In a New York Times op-ed, written by science writer Lawrence Joseph in 1995, he says that “If we ignore the potentialof this remarkable fuel; the nation could slip behind in the race for control of the global economy, and our destiny beyond.” In the piece Joseph asks, “Will the moon become the Persian Gulf of the 21st Century?”

    Again in a New York Times op-ed piece called “A New Pathway to the Stars,”space writer Timothy Ferris wrote on December 21, 2003 that “Another possible energy source of the future – nuclear fusion reactors burning clean, safe helium 3 – has its own lunar connection. Helium 3, rare on Earth, is abundant on the moon. When fusion reactors start coming on line, lunar entrepreneurs may stand to make the kind of money their predecessors raked in during the gold rush and the oil boom.”

    Harrison Schmitt, the former Apollo astronaut who also served a term as U.S. Senator from New Mexico, is not ignoring the issue. In an op-ed published in the aerospace industry publication Space News entitled, “The Moon Treaty: Not a Wise Idea,” Schmitt stated “The mandate of an international treaty regime would complicate private commercial efforts >and give other countries political control over the permissibility, timing and management of all private commercial activities…The strong prohibition on ownership of ‘natural resources’ also causes worry.”

    The ideas of U.S. control of the moon have interesting origins. In the book Arming the Heavens: The Hidden Military Agenda for Space, author Jack Manno told the story of former Nazi Maj. Gen. Walter Dornberger (the man who recruited Werner Von Braun to come to work for Hitler to build the V-1 and V-2 rockets.)

    After the end of World War II the U.S. military recruited Von Braun and 1,500 other Nazi scientists to come to the U.S. under the top secret Operation Paper Clip. Von Braun, along with Dornberger and 100 others from the German rocket team, were brought to create the U.S. space program at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Dornberger eventually became a Bell Aviation Corporation Vice-President and helped the company make enormous profit building helicopters for the war effort in Vietnam.

    Before a congressional hearing in 1958, Dornberger insisted that America’s top space priority out to be to “conquer, occupy, keep and utilize space between the Earth and the moon.”

    Interestingly enough this same theme reemerged in a 1989 study written forthe U.S. Congress by John Collins. The study, published in book form was called Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years and the forward to the book was signed by seven leading political leaders at the time including Sen. John Glenn (D-OH) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL).

    Congressional staffer Collins reported that the U.S. would need to have military bases on the moon in order to control the pathway, or “gravity well,” between the Earth and moon. “Military space forces at the bottom of Earth’s so-called gravity well are poorly positioned to accomplish offensive/defensive/deterrent missions, because great energy is needed to overcome gravity during launch. Forces at the top, on a space counterpart of ‘high ground,’ could initiate action and detect, identify, track, intercept, or otherwise respond more rapidly to attacks.” Collins went on to conclude that with U.S. bases on the moon, “Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return.” Obviously the author was envisioning the day when aerospace corporations would be hard >at work “mining the sky” for profit.

    NO COMEPTITORS IN SPACE

    The Bush administration and his aerospace allies have been in a state of despair ever since China launched her first man into space in 2003. China has also publicly proclaimed that they hope to send a man to the moon in the near future. Imagine if some other nation, besides the U.S., was able to set up bases and mining colonies on the moon or began mining gold from asteroids. This would never be allowed.

    Within hours after Chinese “taikonaut” Yang Liwei made his historic venture into space, the U.S. military was warning of severe consequences. Speaking at a space conference, Lt. Gen. Edward Anderson, deputy Commander of U.S. Northern Command, told the assembled that, “In my view it will not be long before space becomes a battleground.”

    Speaking at the same conference, Rich Haver, Vice-President for intelligence strategy at Northrup Grumman Corporation, responding to a question about the implications of China’s space voyage said, “I think the Chinese are telling us they’re there, and I think if we ever wind up in a confrontation again with any one of the major powers who has a space capability we will find space is a battleground.”

    STAKES ARE TOO HIGH

    The prospects for eventual profit and control of the new space frontier are too high to be left to chance. Clearly, since the end of World War II, the U.S. military has been planning and is now vigorously developing space technologies that will give them control of the pathways on and off the planet Earth.

    Just as the Spanish Armada and British Navy were created to protect the “interests and investments” in the new world, space is viewed today as open territory to be seized for eventual corporate profit.

    The United Nations, to their credit, created the Moon Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty as ways to circumvent the warlike tendencies of humankind as we step out into the cosmos. These treaties hoped to ensure that conflict over “national appropriation” of the planetary bodies could be avoided. Maybe for once earthlings could join hands as we launched into space and explored the heavens for the good of all humankind.

    The U.S. appears to be heading in the direction of creating enormous danger and conflict with the current Nuclear Systems Initiative that will expand nuclear power and weapons into space – all disguised as the noble effort to hunt for the “origins of life” in space. Only a lively and growing global debate about the ethics and morality of current space policy will save us from lighting the harsh fires of Prometheus in the heavens.

    *Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

  • Ethics and Policy 4th Global Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates

    Final Statement*

    We are the first generation making decisions that will determine whether we will be the last generation. We have an ethical responsibility to future generations to ensure that we are not passing on a future of wars and ecological catastrophe. For policies to be in the interest of humanity, they must be based on ethical values.

    We express our profound anxiety that current policies are not creating a sufficiently secure and stable world for all. For this reason, we need to reset our course based on strong ethical foundations.

    Compassion and conscience are essential to our humanity and compel us to care for one another. Cooperation amongst nations, multilateralism, is the logical outgrowth of this principle. A more equitable international order based on the rule of law is its needed expression.

    We reiterate our conviction that international politics need to be reformed to address effectively three critical challenges: ending wars and violence, eliminating poverty, and saving the environment.

    We call upon everyone to join us in working to replace the culture of war with a culture of peace. Let us ensure that no child is ever again exposed to the horrors of war.

    Recent events, such as the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, bloodshed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya, as well as in parts of Africa and Latin America, confirm that problems with deep economic, social, cultural or religious roots cannot be resolved unilaterally or by armed force.

    International terrorism is a threat to peace. Multilateral cooperation and the promotion of human rights under the rule of law are essential to address terrorism and its underlying sources.

    The threat of weapons of mass destruction remains with us. We call for an immediate end to the newly resurgent arms race, which is being fueled by a failure to universally ratify a treaty banning nuclear testing, and by doctrines that lower the threshold of use and promote the creation of new nuclear weapons. This is particularly dangerous when coupled with the doctrine of pre-emption.

    For some to say that nuclear weapons are good for them but not for others is simply not sustainable. The failure of the nuclear weapons states to abide by their legal pledge to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons, contained in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, is the greatest stimulus to their proliferation.

    Nuclear weapons are immoral and we call for their universal legal prohibition. They must be eliminated before they eliminate humanity.

    We support the treaty to ban landmines and call for effective agreements to limit conventional weapons and arms trade.

    Trillions of dollars have been spent since the end of the Cold War in developing military approaches to security. Yet, the daily lives of billions remain bereft of adequate health care, clean water, food and the benefits of education. These needs must be met.

    Humanity has developed sophisticated technologies for destruction. Appropriate social and human technologies based on cooperation are needed for survival.

    The international community has a proven tool, the universality of the United Nations. Its work can and must be improved and this can be done without undermining its core principles.

    We assert that unconditional adherence to international law is essential. Of course, law is a living institution that can change and grow to meet new circumstances. But, the principles that govern international relations must not be ignored or violated.

    Ethics in the relations between nations and in government policies is of paramount importance. Nations must treat other nations as they wish to be treated. The most powerful nations must remember that as they do, so shall others do.

    Economic hardship is often the result of corruption and lack of business ethics, both internationally and locally.

    Through utilizing more effective ethical codes of conduct the business community can contribute to protecting the environment and eliminating poverty. This is both a practical and moral necessity.

    The scientific community could serve human interests more fully by affirmatively adopting the ethical principle of doing no harm.

    The international community has recently recognized the importance of establishing an ethical framework. Leaders of States issued the Millennium Declaration at the United Nations and set forth common values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared responsibility. From these values, a plan to address sustainable development and poverty, the Millennium Development Goals, emerged. We urge all to join in implementation of these goals and prevent any retreat from specific commitments. Moreover, we share the principles of the Earth Charter and urge governments at all levels to support this important document.

    For globalization to enhance sustainable development, the international community needs to establish more democratic, transparent, and accountable forms of governance. We advocate extending the benefits of democracy and self governance but this goal cannot be achieved through coercion or force.

    After a special session, the Nobel Peace Prize Winners have agreed that the death penalty is a particularly cruel and unusual punishment that should be abolished. It is especially unconscionable when imposed on children.

    We affirm the unity of the human family. Our diversity is an enrichment, not a danger. Through dialogue we gain appreciation of the value of our differences. Our capacity to work together as a community of peoples and nations is the strongest antidote to violence and our reason for hope.

    Our commitment to serve the cause of peace compels us to continue working individually and together on this path. We urge you to join us.

    *FInal Statement released November 30, 2003.

  • A Conspiracy of Decency

    A Conspiracy of Decency

    We will conspire to keep this blue dot floating and alive,
    To keep the soldiers from gunning down the children,

    To make the water clean and clear and plentiful,
    To put food on everybody’s table and hope in their hearts.

    We will conspire to find new ways to say
    People matter. This conspiracy will be bold.

    Everyone in this conspiracy will dance
    At wholly inappropriate times and places.

    They will burst out singing non-patriotic songs.
    Anyone can join this conspiracy, anyone.

    It will be a conspiracy of, by and for the people
    And the not-so-secret password will be Peace.

    * David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation(www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003).

  • Shirin Ebadi Biography

    The Iranian lawyer and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi was born in 1947. She received a law degree from the University of Tehran. In the years 1975-79 she served as president of the city court of Tehran, one the first female judges in Iran. After the revolution in 1979 she was forced to resign. She now works as a lawyer and also teaches at the University of Tehran.

    Both in her research and as an activist, she is known for promoting peaceful, democratic solutions to serious problems in society. She takes an active part in the public debate and is well-known and admired by the general public in her country for her defence in court of victims of the conservative faction’s attack on freedom of speech and political freedom.

    Ebadi represents Reformed Islam, and argues for a new interpretation of Islamic law which is in harmony with vital human rights such as democracy, equality before the law, religious freedom and freedom of speech. As for religious freedom, it should be noted that Ebadi also includes the rights of members of the bahai community, which has had problems in Iran ever since its foundation.

    Ebadi is an activist for refugee rights, as well as those of women and children. She is the founder and leader of the Association for Support of Children’s Rights in Iran. Ebadi has written a number of academic books and articles focused on human rights. Among her books translated into English are The Rights of the Child. A Study of Legal Aspects of Children’s Rights in Iran (Tehran, 1994), published with support from UNICEF, and History and Documentation of Human Rights in Iran (New York, 2000).

    As a lawyer, she has been involved in a number of controversial political cases. She was the attorney of the families of the writers and intellectuals who were victims of the serial murders in 1999-2000. She has worked actively – and successfully – to reveal the principals behind the attack on the students at Tehran University in 1999 where several students died. As a consequence, Ebadi has been imprisoned on numerous occasions.

    With Islam as her starting point, Ebadi campaigns for peaceful solutions to social problems, and promotes new thinking on Islamic terms. She has displayed great personal courage as a lawyer defending individuals and groups who have fallen victim to a powerful political and legal system that is legitimized through an inhumane interpretation of Islam. Ebadi has shown her willingness and ability to cooperate with representatives of secular as well as religious views.

  • Peace Education on Peaceboat

    Published by CommonDreams.org

    Peaceboat, the cruise with a conscience, recently devoted an entire month onboard to exploring the nuances of peace education on a global level. Comprised mainly of Japanese students aged 20-30, with a few staunch elder generational supporters, the workshops and dialogues featured onboard covered the parallel shortcomings in Japanese and American education, as well as the potential for change through a student-lead educational revolution.

    The students revealed the complex impacts of formulaic education on self- esteem, attention span, (mis)behavior and career paths. But they were not just empty complainers: they also gave creative input for restructuring the framework of education so that all learners are nurtured and supported.

    Moreover, they recognized that the entire foundation and purpose of education must undergo a transformation of ecological proportions.

    In The Web of Life, author Fritjof Capra differentiates between a holistic and ecological worldview. Using his example of a bicycle, a holistic view would wee how the parts interact with each other, the bike chain with the pedals, the gears, the treads with the road and perhaps the whole apparatus with the rider.

    An ecological approach would see all of those interactions plus the origins of the bike materials, the fabrication of the machine, the process of assembling it from mining the metal components to the individual welder, as well as the impact on the terrain.

    This bike metaphor can also be a model for viewing the state of education in the world today. Judging by the crisis in the United States, education has unraveled to the point that teachers quit after their second year in the classroom, students despairingly drudge through the school day, many in under resourced districts lacking in both funding and morale. Pressure to perform on high-stakes testing has resulted in a catastrophic decline in true learning, sacrificed at the expense of teaching to the test. Learning for the sake of truth and knowledge is hard find.

    If we view the components of education in disarray in a holistic manner, we may try to adjust this or that part of the system, i.e., more funding here, more support there. We can tweak and adjust the various parts of the educational system, hoping that each improvement will have some impact. The majority of educational problem-solvers are addressing the issue through a holistic perspective.

    But what we really need is an ecological understanding of education.

    This means examining the path that education took on this road toward more accountability and less compassion, and the path ahead for how communities will respond to the diverse needs of students in a time when education seems to be getting short shrift.

    Is school meant to mirror factory life, with children neatly in rows, performing identical tasks at the same rate, reaching the same conclusions and the same ends? Is school meant to prepare students for a life of conformity, where repetitive motions propel them in the direction of advancement? Will standardized tests make students pass the final ‘factory inspection’?

    Or is this factory model outdated?

    Based on student input, the answer seems to be yes. An ecological approach to education means that students are heard, and their suggestions taken seriously. It means that educational change begins from the ground up, in a grassroots student revolution.

    On PeaceBoat, students of all ages participated in an Ideal Schools Workshop, an activity geared toward brainstorming the best conditions for an ideal learning environment. Not surprisingly, their ideas reflect principles of ecology and ecological thinking.

    For example, they want cows, a tree house, an organic garden, big windows, field trips in nature and permission to walk barefoot, just to name a few suggestions. One young woman wanted a pottery class to make plates and bowls for the cafeteria, with the logic that students will care for things they themselves create.

    Yet taking the students’ suggestions further means entirely rethinking the fundamental nature and purpose of education. Rather than producing cookie- cutter patterned students, students want education to acknowledge and support the individual talents and aspirations of each learner.

    An ecological view of education means moving from a compartmentalized to an integrated approach; from a factory to an agrarian framework; from an impersonal to an individual environment; from a fixed to a flexible system; from a pedagogy based on theory to one in step with experience and reality; and from a gray, boxed arena to a colorful, open space where all learners can walk in and know who is valued here.

    Leah C. Wells is a freelance journalist and coordinator of PeaceEd.org, the hub of peace education information in the U.S. For more information, contact Ms. Wells at leah@peaceed.org.

  • UC must use position to lead WMD debate: U.S. move toward more offensive weapons signals dangerous trend

    The situation surrounding the University of California’s potential bid to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory is complex. The UC never has had to bid to manage Los Alamos. It was asked by the federal government to manage the labs and develop nuclear weapons as a public service. Competing to continue the research and development of weapons of mass destruction – a relationship that always has been in contradiction with the core mission of a university that promotes the principles of academic openness – is ethically questionable. Competing against defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Bechtel Corp. is even more questionable.

    It is true that the ethical dimensions of this managerial role have changed greatly since the original Manhattan Project, when we justified our pursuit of the original weapons of mass destruction as necessary to counter Hitler’s program of atomic weapons development.

    Similarly, the ethical dimensions have changed since the end of the Cold War, during which our justification was the vital necessity to balance the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

    Now, we use the “War on Terror” to justify the development, planned production and threatened use of new nuclear weapons. But the role of nuclear weapons has changed as well.

    The current administration has implemented a major strategic shift in U.S. foreign/defense policy, discarding the “threat-based approach” of the Cold War and assuming an “abilities-based approach” as outlined in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. This means that rather than producing nuclear weapons for defensive purposes – deterrence – we are now researching and designing a new generation of offensively designed nuclear weapons. Meet the euphemistically termed “bunker buster” and “mini-nuke” that UC employees are creating.

    “Mini-nukes” are still designed to be immensely powerful. Even worse, the planned bunker busters would most likely create huge clouds of radioactive dirt after detonation. Studies have shown that weapons detonated close to the ground or in shallow pits actually create more fallout than weapons detonated as an airburst. Supposedly, these weapons would be used against enemy command posts and weapons stockpiles.

    As nuclear strategies and policies change, so should our highly prestigious and respected university. Furthermore, students should have substantial say in these changes.

    Whose university is this? Am I wrong in believing that universities exist for students? Shouldn’t students be welcomed (not to mention correctly informed) to enter this critical debate? Isn’t it our right as an inseparable part of the UC to be consulted on major decisions such as this, one that will affect the course of the university and the world for decades to come? I say yes. Is Los Alamos the real UCLA? I say no.

    But this debate is bigger than who should manage the nuclear weapons complex. Catastrophic terrorism – terrorism plus WMD – is now regarded as the most significant threat to global security. The German foreign minister went so far as to call catastrophic terror a new “totalitarian threat” because it is not deterrable. So how do we meet this challenge? Preemptive strikes and nation-building are both very limited and inefficient strategies.

    In the face of this new “totalitarian” threat, many new questions must be posed and debated – by everyone. What effect on the psyche and policy of other nations is produced through the continued research, development and threat to use weapons of mass destruction by the nation who spends more on the military then the next nine nations combined? Can the United States have weapons of mass destruction without everyone else having them? If everyone has them, how can we stop terrorists from acquiring these weapons? Is it possible to stop terrorists from acquiring biological and nuclear weapons?

    If we truly and objectively ask and answer these questions to the best of our ability as rational human beings, I think the debate about the U.S. nuclear weapons complex would quickly shift from who should manage the nuclear weapons complex to whether there should be a nuclear weapons complex to manage.

    The UC, despite its deep contradictions, is the greatest university system in the world. Why else would we have been trusted to manage Armageddon for 60 years? Since the nuclear age began with us, we are the most qualified institution to lead a much needed international debate about the future of WMD, the future of catastrophic terror and, ultimately, the future of Earth. It is not only our privilege, it is our responsibility.

    *Micheal Cox is the student organizer for the Foundation’s UC Nuclear Free Chapter at UCLA. This article was orginially published in the Daily Bruin Online athttp://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=26587

  • 2003 Nagasaki Appeal 2nd Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

    In the first years of the 21st century the prospects of nuclear weapons proliferation and use have dramatically increased. As the last city to suffer a nuclear attack, Nagasaki is committed to reversing this dangerous trend and making progress towards a nuclear weapons-free world.

    The 21st century began with a chain reaction of violence and retaliation. In September 2001 terrorist attacks took place in the United States. The Afghan war followed, and then the Iraq War began in March 2003 on the pretext that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has reviewed its nuclear posture and promoted new policies for nuclear weapons use. Also, North Korea is conducting brinkmanship diplomacy using nuclear weapons development as a lever. We find that the intentions of various countries to give a new role to nuclear weapons will considerably hinder any progress towards their elimination.

    In this context, we global citizens have gathered again in the A-bombed city of Nagasaki three years after the 1st Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, in order to listen to the heartfelt pleas of Hibakusha and to be inspired by the enduring passion of the Nagasaki citizens’ commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    After 58 years, many Hibakusha continue to suffer from secondary illnesses caused by nuclear radiation, in addition to their initial physical injuries and emotional trauma wrought by the atomic bomb. Also, the second and third generation Hibakusha live in constant fear for their health. While enduring these hardships, they have sustained their efforts to develop strategies and build a movement to realize the elimination of nuclear weapons. Hibakusha have not been passive victims. They have critically analyzed, exposed hidden intentions and harshly criticized, as follows, the arguments put forward by those in authority who justify the possession and development of nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear weapon states have tried to obscure the true nature of nuclear weapons by hiding them within the phrase ‘weapons of mass destruction’. They argue that non-proliferation is a priority and reject nuclear disarmament. Especially, the US has undertaken research to develop small nuclear weapons and ‘bunker busters’, and is preparing for the resumption of nuclear tests, using the pretext of the ‘war against terrorism’. They imply that small nuclear weapons are merely extensions of conventional weapons, thus lowering the barrier to their use. Do they think that they now have free reign to do anything they want in the name of the so-called ‘war against terrorism’? This thinking will undoubtedly be imitated by other countries bringing with it the spread of nuclear weapons to even more countries. How can a country strengthen its own nuclear arsenal, while seeking to prevent nuclear proliferation by others? Moreover, where is the commitment by the nuclear weapon states to ‘an unequivocal undertaking $B!D(B to the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals’ adopted at the NPT Review Conference in May 2000? The US has acted in bad faith, and has violated the spirit of this commitment by pursuing new nuclear weapons.

    We global citizens strongly feel that all nuclear weapon states, declared and undeclared, and those countries that rely on the nuclear umbrella of others, should honestly and sincerely answer these direct questions from Hibakusha. Whatever justifications are offered by the nuclear weapon states, the weapons must be denounced as illegal and immoral by the people of the world.

    After three days of intense discussions in Nagasaki, we found hope in the constant resolve of the Hibakusha and in the vigor of today’s youth. As global citizens, we sincerely appeal to the people of the world to:

    • Call for an end to the cycle of violence and retaliation; now is the time to delegitimize war.
    • Ensure that nuclear war will be prevented, especially in the flashpoints of the Middle East, South Asia and Northeast Asia, including the Korean Peninsula.
    • Establish nuclear weapon free zone or areas free of weapons of mass destruction as a contribution to the prevention of nuclear wars and further nuclear proliferation.
    • Stop the trend towards the development of new types of nuclear weapons, policies for their use, missile defenses and weaponization of space.
    • Support those raising their voices in protest across the world and especially in the United States.
    • Continue building a large international citizen movement to abolish nuclear weapons in anticipation of the NPT Review Conference to be held in New York in 2005.
    • Press governments to adopt concrete steps to achieve nuclear abolition so that the 2005 NPT Conference will be an epoch-making event.

    We are greatly encouraged by the decision of the Mayors for Peace to initiate an ‘Emergency Action Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons’. Its success depends on civic activities in cities all over the world. We urge citizens to cooperate with their mayors to forge strong international support for this campaign at the 2005 NPT Review Conference. In order to achieve this, international solidarity with Nuclear Free Local Authorities is vital.

    We believe that Japan, as the only A-bombed nation, has a special role to play. We fear that a tendency among Japanese politicians to blindly accept nuclear weapons has increased. We must continue to listen to the urgent pleas of Hibakusha to end dependence on nuclear weapons and to exert credible leadership for nuclear abolition in the international community.

    Finally, in anticipation of the 2005 NPT Review Conference and the 60th anniversary of the US atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, we call on citizens everywhere to work with their political leaders in national and local governments to create strong public support for banning nuclear weapons for all time.