Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: US Nuclear Weapons Policy

  • Speech Delivered to the Marshall Islands Parliament

    This is the English translation of the speech delivered by Foreign Minister Tony de Brum to the Nitijela (Parliament) of the Republic of the Marshall Islands on February 23, 2015.

    Tony de BrumOn February 3, 2015, the US Federal District Court granted the US government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Marshall Islands seeking to hold the US to its legal obligations to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and for nuclear disarmament. On February 6, 2015, the US Embassy in Majuro issued a statement in which it welcomed the Court’s decision. We now wish to explain some of the issues in the February 3rd ruling, provide our position on certain aspects, and respond to certain parts of the US February 6th statement.

    Since the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force 45 years ago, and the US recommitted to its obligations under the NPT in 2010, we believe the time is right for legal action to enforce the US disarmament obligations. Every day that nuclear weapons remain in the world on high alert status, the Marshall Islands and every other country remains threatened. And every day that the US continues to refuse to negotiate for nuclear disarmament, the RMI is denied the benefit of the bargain under the NPT.

    The US did not argue the case on the merits, but rather sought dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. The Court upheld the US claims that the RMI did not have standing to bring the lawsuit, and that the case was subject to the Political Question doctrine and thus should be left in the hands of the political branches of government, in this case the Executive. We are disappointed with the Court’s ruling and, respectfully, believe it to be in error.

    Regarding standing to bring the case, the Court held that the harm to the Marshall Islands from the US breach of the NPT was speculative, and that even if the RMI were denied the benefit of its bargain under the NPT, the Court could not order the Executive to comply with the law. But the harm is not speculative, and the US Senate history confirms that—referring to vertical nuclear proliferation as the gravest threat to humankind. Indeed, it is hard to imagine the US arguing that harm from the pursuit of nuclear weapons by other countries is speculative. Yet the US Embassy welcomes a decision finding harm from a breach of the NPT to be speculative.

    As a party to the NPT, we believe that we have standing to bring this case against other NPT parties, including the US, that are not fulfilling their obligations. But the Court, in dismissing, creates precedent that parties to treaties with the US do not have legal recourse in US courts. Instead compliance with treaties is subject to the unassailable interpretation, politics and disposition of each changing President. Again, it is hard to imagine the US arguing that legal compliance by other countries with respect to the law concerning weapons of mass destruction is subject to the unassailable interpretation, politics and disposition of each sitting Executive.

    Regarding the Political Question doctrine, the Court held that it was up to the Executive to fulfill (or, implicitly, decide not to fulfill) its legal obligations to negotiate in good faith back for nuclear disarmament. Contrary to the US February 6th statement, the Court did not rule that the objective of a world without nuclear weapons “can only be achieved ‘politically,’ through patient diplomacy.” Instead, in its February 3rd decision, the Court cited cases that provide that if negotiations fail (or don’t even begin), then war may be the next option, as opposed to a peaceful judicial remedy. We could not disagree more. It is exactly because we seek a peaceful resolution of the issue that we brought the case to the courts.

    In its February 6th statement, the US said, “President Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons…remains a key objective of U.S. national security policy.” The RMI welcomes this reassertion of President Obama’s vision. We share this vision. That is why we implore the US to honor its binding NPT Article VI obligations, namely negotiations in good faith relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. We implore the US to do what we are asking the Courts to order it to do: call for and convene negotiations for nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Instead of continuing to claim compliance with the NPT while refusing to call for or convene any such negotiations, why doesn’t the US demonstrate compliance by actually calling for and convening such negotiations? Perhaps then the US commitment to achieving nuclear disarmament could become “unassailable,” as it claims it is in its February 6th statement.

    Also in its February 6th statement, the US referred to the Marshall Islands as “our friend and ally.” We have the same feeling toward the US. It is with respect and as a sovereign nation that we have gone to court to insist that the US fulfill its obligations under Article VI of the NPT and customary international law. Nuclear weapons are not our friend, nor the friend of the US or any other country. Rather, these weapons are the enemy of all humankind. That is why we will stand up for what we believe in, and we will be appealing the Court’s dismissal of the lawsuit to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the next step in the American judicial process.

    Finally, we note the US recognition, repeated in its February 6th statement, that “the Marshall Islands ‘has played an outsized role in the fight for a safer world.’” The legal action is part of that continued fight.

  • Where’s America’s Commitment to Seek a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

    Nuclear weapons do not make Americans safer.  Rather, they threaten us all with their uncontrollable and unforgiving power.  They are weapons of mass annihilation, indiscriminate in nature, threatening combatants and civilians alike. They kill and maim.  They cause unnecessary suffering.  They are immoral and their use would violate the humanitarian laws of warfare.  No country should be allowed to possess weaponry that is capable of destroying civilization and ending most life on the planet, including the human species.

    David KriegerNuclear weapons and human fallibility are a most dangerous mix.  As long as nuclear weapons exist in the world, civilization and the human species are threatened.  Nuclear deterrence is not foolproof, and time is not our friend.  We must approach this task with the urgency it demands.  We must confront nuclear weapons and those countries that possess and rely upon them with what Martin Luther King, Jr. called “the fierce urgency of now.”

    There are still more than 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, most in the arsenals of the United States and Russia.  However, seven other countries also possess these annihilators.  These countries are: the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.  Even one of these weapons can destroy a city, a few can destroy a country, and an exchange of 100 of them between India and Pakistan on the other side’s cities could trigger a nuclear famine resulting in the deaths of some two billion people globally.  A larger nuclear exchange between the US and Russia could return the planet to an ice age, resulting in nearly universal death.

    What is needed today is for the countries of the world to engage in negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and to achieve total nuclear disarmament.  That is what is required of us and the other countries of the world under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law.  Unfortunately, rather than negotiating in good faith for these ends, the nuclear-armed countries are engaged in expensive programs to modernize their nuclear arsenals.

    The goal of negotiations should be a universal agreement for all the nuclear-armed countries to give up their nuclear arsenals in a phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent manner.  It will require the participation of all countries, but some country will need to lead in convening these negotiations.  That country should be the United States of America, given its background in developing, using and testing nuclear weapons.  But, if history is a guide, that won’t happen until the people of the United States demand it of their government.

    The country that has stepped up to take a leadership role in calling on the nuclear-armed nations to fulfill their obligations for nuclear disarmament is a small, courageous Pacific Island state, the Republic of the Marshall Islands.  It is suing the nine nuclear-armed nations to require them to do what they are obligated to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law; that is, to negotiate in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

    The Nuclear Zero initiative of the Marshall Islands falls in this 70th anniversary year of the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States.  Enough people have already suffered from nuclear weapons – those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those in the Marshall Islands, the Nevada Test Site, Semipalatinsk, Lop Nor and other nuclear weapon test sites around the world.  It is time for humanity to take charge of its own destiny.  In the Nuclear Age, ridding the world of nuclear weapons is an imperative.  Our common future depends upon our shared success.

    Of course, the perspective expressed above is my own.  It is tragic, though, that such a perspective did not make it into the President’s 2015 State of the Union Message to the Congress and People of the United States.  It was an opportunity to teach and lead that was missed by the President.  Why, we might ask, is he engaged in modernizing the US nuclear arsenal, a trillion dollar project, instead of negotiating for the elimination of nuclear weapons?  After all, in Prague in 2009, the president expressed boldly, “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  What has happened to that commitment?

    Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).  He is the author of ZERO: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition. 

    This article was originally published by The Hill.

     

  • Restocking the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Would Send a Terrible Message

    This letter to the editor was published by the Los Angeles Times on December 4, 2014.

    LA TimesTo the Editor: The U.S. can lead in modernizing its nuclear arsenal, resuming nuclear testing and, in general, continuing to demonstrate the perceived military usefulness of nuclear weapons. Or, the U.S. can lead in pursuing negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race and achieve complete nuclear disarmament. (“New nuclear weapons needed, many experts say, pointing to aged arsenal,” Nov. 29)

    The first path will cost $1 trillion over the next three decades, encourage nuclear proliferation and keep the nuclear arms race alive through the 21st century. The second path will demonstrate U.S. global leadership, allow precious resources to be used for meeting basic needs and fulfill U.S. legal obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    We have a choice about what kind of country we wish to be and what kind of world we will pass on to our children and grandchildren.

     

  • ISIS, Ebola, Ferguson

    This article was originally published by Counterpunch.

    Did you notice? Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel just announced plans to massively “upgrade” the US nuclear arsenal. It might have been swallowed by other breaking and ongoing news: ISIS and another beheading, Ebola, Ferguson, or the historic comet landing of Philae – at least one positive story. In addition to local news, stories in my own community of Hood River, Oregon include the transport of coal and construction of coal terminals, blast zone determination for oil trains, or the legacy of the Hanford nuclear production complex, which was part of the Manhattan Project.

    Those unique or ongoing events certainly have their place in the news cycle and matter to us at different levels. Does that mean that we should numbly accept new plans by our government to revitalize systems which without doubt are the greatest threat to human survival? Did we forget that our President told the world in Prague in 2009 that America is committed to seek peace and security by creating a world without nuclear weapons, and for that announced intention received a Nobel Peace Prize?

    The concerns outlined by Secretary Hagel could have provided an excellent opportunity to significantly implement the needed steps away from nuclear weapons. Cheating scandals on qualification tests or misconduct by top officers overseeing key nuclear programs certainly are worrisome. Even more worrisome is the fact that nuclear weapons still exist and are not considered an abnormality. The more troubling aspect of Hagel’s announcement is the broader nuclear modernization program. Making sure the so-called triad of strategic deliver systems grows, the Pentagon can plan for plenty of new missile submarines, new bombers and new and refurbished land-based missiles. The Monterey Institute of International Studies sums up their well-documented report: “Over the next thirty years, the United States plans to spend approximately $1 trillion maintaining the current arsenal, buying replacement systems, and upgrading existing nuclear bombs and warheads.”

    Even the most doubtful among us will see the contradiction between the commitment of seeking a world without nuclear weapons and “revamping the nuclear enterprise” as Hagel noted in his keynote speech at the Reagan National Defense Forum last week.

    It appears that the absence of the Cold War and the soothing rhetoric about a world without nuclear weapons keeps us complacent–or can anyone imagine one million people demonstrating against nuclear weapons as they did in New York City in 1982? That same year was the largest exercise in direct democracy (voting on an issue rather than representatives to decide ‘our’ view) when voters in referenda in about half the states decided overwhelmingly to call for a freeze on research, development, production and deployment of nuclear weapons. I think we the people should make ourselves heard again. Conflict transformation experts help us articulate many, some of them are:

    First, nuclear deterrence is a myth and ought to be rejected by all people and governments. In the Santa Barbara Declaration by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation  the major problems outlined with nuclear deterrence are: (1) its power to protect is a dangerous fabrication; (2) the assumption of rational leaders; (3) the threatening of mass murder is illegal and criminal; (4) it is immoral; (5) it diverts badly needed human and economic resources; (6) its ineffectiveness against non-state extremists; (7) its vulnerability to cyber-attacks, sabotage and error; and (8) setting an example to pursue nuclear weapons as deterrence.

    Second, diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies. Once the “unthinkable” nuclear option no longer plays a central role in security planning, and once the nuclear weapons are de-coupled from conventional military forces, the elimination of nuclear arsenals can be facilitated.

    Third, don’t wait for conditions to be ripe. There is statistical certainty that a nuclear weapon will be used at some point. The only way to make sure it does not happen is to eliminate all.

    Fourth, encourage compliance with all international treaties and create new ones that will ban and eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide. We are at a time in history where a Global Peace System created conditions for global collaboration through international laws and treaties. It is time for the United States to meaningfully participate in this system.

    Fifth, move our government toward unilateral disarmament. Without a nuclear arsenal we are not making anyone less secure. What if the United States would take the lead in a global “disarmament race”? After decades of international military interventionism the United States might become a loved and respected country again.

    Sixth, recognize the role of nuclear weapons in the chain of global violence ranging from hand guns on the streets of Chicago to catastrophic environmental and humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use. Violence and the threat of violence on all levels perpetuates violence.

    No Russian take-over of the Ukraine, Chinese territorial claims, or even Pakistani expansion of nuclear arsenal makes it any more logical to revitalize our nuclear arsenals. We can reject the myth of nuclear deterrence and we can help the government shift the spending priorities to healthcare, education, infrastructure, the environment, renewable energy, low income housing and many more important areas. Currently our public conscience is lacking urgency with regard to nuclear weapons. We owe it to ourselves and our children to activate this urgency and make the elimination of nuclear weapons a step toward a world beyond war.

    Patrick. T. Hiller, Ph.D., Hood River, OR, is a Conflict Transformation scholar, professor, on the Governing Council of the International Peace Research Association, and Director of the War Prevention Initiative of the Jubitz Family Foundation.

     

  • U.S. Nuclear Policy: Taking the Wrong Road

    David KriegerOn September 21, 2014, the International Day of Peace, The New York Times published an article by William Broad and David Sanger, “U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms.”  The authors reported that a recent federal study put the price tag for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal at “up to a trillion dollars” over the next three decades.  It appears that Washington’s military and nuclear hawks have beaten down a president who, early in his first term of office, announced with conviction, “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

    Many U.S. military leaders, rather than analyzing and questioning the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence to provide security, are acting as cheerleaders for it.  Rear Admiral Joe Tofalo, director of the Navy’s Undersea Warfare Division, recently pontificated, “For the foreseeable future, certainly for our and our children’s and our grandchildren’s lifetimes, the United States will require a safe, secure and effective strategic nuclear deterrent.  The ballistic nuclear submarine forces are and will continue to be a critical part of that deterrent….”  He went on to argue that all legs of the nuclear triad – bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine launched ballistic missiles – would be needed to “provide a strong deterrent against different classes of adversary threat.”

    Admiral Tofalo was backed up by Admiral Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, who argued, “In a world where our traditional adversaries are modernizing, emerging adversaries are maturing and non-state actors remain elusive and dangerous, we must get 21st century deterrence right…the reality is that an effective modernized nuclear deterrent force is needed now more than ever.”

    All this emphasis on modernizing the nuclear deterrent force may be good for business, but ignores two important facts.  First, nuclear deterrence is only a hypothesis about human behavior that has not been and cannot be proven to work.  Second, it ignores the obligations of the U.S. and other nuclear-armed states to pursue negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament.

    The U.S. and other nuclear-armed countries are gambling that nuclear deterrence will be foolproof rather than a game of chance, like nuclear roulette.  Rather than providing security for the American people, nuclear deterrence is a calculated risk, similar to loading a large metaphorical six-chamber gun with a nuclear bullet and pointing the gun at humanity’s head.

    The only foolproof way to assure that nuclear weapons won’t be used, by accident or design, is to abolish them.  This is what the generals and admirals should be pressing to achieve.  Negotiations in good faith for abolishing nuclear weapons are required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and by customary international law.  Since these obligations have not been fulfilled in 44 years, one courageous country, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, has brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries, seeking the International Court of Justice to order their compliance.  They have also brought a lawsuit specifically against the U.S. in U.S. Federal Court.

    Rather than showing leadership by fulfilling its obligations for ending the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament, the U.S. conducted a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile test on September 23, just days after the International Day of Peace and days before the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on September 26.  Such displays of arrogance, together with U.S. plans to spend some $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades, suggest that if the people don’t demand it, we may have nuclear weapons forever, with tragic consequences.

    You can find out more about the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits and support the Marshall Islands at www.nuclearzero.org.

  • The Atomic Bomb, Then and Now

    Dennis Kucinich - Frank Kelly LectureThis article was originally published by the Huffington Post.

    Sixty-nine years ago, the United States dropped the first atomic bombs on Japan — Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 — killing over a quarter of a million people.

    General Dwight D. Eisenhower and other government leaders said at the time that the atomic bomb was not necessary militarily and that Japan was already facing certain defeat by the US and the Soviet Union.

    Despite these warnings, the bombs were used and were wrongfully credited with ending the war. The atomic bomb ushered in an age of warfare that gave nations the ability to annihilate other nations and to commit environmental suicide, as Jonathan Schell related in his masterpiece The Fate of the Earth.

    The ability to split the atom also legitimatized a nuclear industry which poisons our land and our water as shown in the new documentary film Hot Water, produced by Liz Rogers and Elizabeth Kucinich, which will be released late 2014.

    Two years ago, Congress brought forward a proposal to create a new national park to honor those who developed the bomb. I opposed the bill because I felt the effects of the bomb were nothing to celebrate or glorify and was instrumental in the proposal’s defeat in the House in 2012. A transcript of the debate in the house can be found here. In the 2014 Congress, this bill (S. 507 by Senator Cantwell) passed the House, but is unlikely to pass the Senate.

    Our problem isn’t simply our nuclear past, but is our present addiction to nuclear weapons which threaten humanity’s future. Professor Francis A. Boyle observed that in 2013 the Obama administration changed the United States nuclear posture. The United States has historically positioned its nuclear arsenal for the purposes of “deterrence,” yet under President Obama’s administration they are for brandishing. “In today’s security environment” the United States now reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against any country (first strike policy).

    Lest anyone forget that nuclear is a big business, the United States is the leader in the global nuclear energy market. Nuclear energy technology is one of our biggest exports and is promoted as a boon to the environment, forget Fukushima. Forget that dozens of nuclear reactors in the US are operating way past their original licensing permits and that the aging reactor vessels are in late stages of embrittlement.

    Forget that nuclear utilities are pleading with Wall Street to give them a break. We have come full circle, back to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the United States struck first with nuclear weapons. The most recent nuclear posture, the White House claimed, is necessary to eventually get rid of nuclear weapons! Read Professor Boyle’s analysis and the White House document.

    During this time of commemoration of man’s inhumanity, visited upon the people of Japan three generations ago, let us resolve that we shall demand leaders who will resist the impulse to solve political and security problems through weapons of mass destruction.

    Such leaders already exist in an organization known as the Parliamentarians for Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament, or PNND. Additionally, The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation promotes citizen action for nuclear abolition.

    We must work together to support all efforts to get rid of nuclear weapons, not through appeals to violence but through the instinct to celebrate life. Let us find a path to love so that we can dismantle the destructive forces within our own hearts, which paralyze any sense of compassion necessary for the survival of all life on this planet. Let us build technologies for sustainability, and peace.

  • Statement Against Nuclear Air-Launched Cruise Missile

    Rep. Earl BlumenauerToday, the House of Representatives voted on my amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2015 that would have prevented a $3.4 million down payment on a new nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) and redirect that funding towards the cleanup and removal of unexploded military ordinance that litters every state in the country.

    This amendment looks modest, only redirecting $3.4 million. Allowing this seed money to go forward, however, commits us to billions down the road, without a reason or rationale for doing so.  The new ALCM does not yet have an official price tag, but estimates range from $20 to $30 billion.  A rebuilt nuclear warhead to go on it adds another $12 billion. That’s over $40 billion. Based on our past experience with runaway costs for nuclear weapons development, it is very likely that cost is going to increase over time.

    We don’t need a new nuclear cruise missile, especially when our current arsenal is good through the mid-2030s. We certainly don’t need both a bomber armed with new air-dropped nuclear bombs that taxpayers just finished paying for, and a nuclear cruise missile to meet our deterrence requirements and those of our allies.

    What’s worse, a mass U.S. deployment of new nuclear cruise missiles could renew an arms race we’ve already agreed to end, pushing China, Pakistan and others to seek this capability.

    This $3.4 million is just the beginning.  My amendment would have stopped the momentum for this wasteful program that does nothing to keep America secure. It would have instead used that money for the accelerated cleanup of unexploded bombs on US soil, something that would actually keep our families and communities safe, while returning land to productive economic use at the same time.

    My amendment to rein in spending on nuclear weapons didn’t pass, which is disappointing, but I’m not going to stop working to convince Congress and the American people that we need to get our priorities straight, make our communities safer, and stop expanding our already bloated nuclear programs.

  • United States and Russia Respond to Nuclear Zero Lawsuits

    Nuclear Zero LawsuitsThe “Nuclear Nine” – U.S., Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – were sued five days ago by the Republic of the Marshall Islands for breach of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and related provisions of customary international law. Very little has been said thus far by representatives of the offending nations. Below is a summary of the statements of Russia, the U.S. and Israel along with some commentary.

    Russia

    “As a result … Russia has reduced its strategic (long-range) nuclear potential by more than 80 percent and its non-strategic nuclear weapons by three-quarters from their peak numbers.”

    An eighty percent reduction of a huge number is still a huge number. Russia continues to possess up to 8,500 nuclear weapons. Given what is now widely known about the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, it is inexcusable for any nation to act as if it is ok to maintain an arsenal of any size. Perhaps Russia does not realize this because it actively chose to boycott the conferences on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons organized by Norway in 2013 and Mexico in 2014. Their continued boycotting of multilateral initiatives for nuclear disarmament clearly demonstrates Russia’s lack of good faith efforts to fulfill Article VI of the NPT.

    Laurie Ashton, counsel to the Marshall Islands on these lawsuits, said, “A country that agrees to reduce antiquated nuclear stockpiles while spending hundreds of billions to make other categories of nuclear weapons more lethal is clearly still arms racing.  In a November 23, 2011 speech, the then Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, stated that Russia’s ‘new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defense penetration systems and new highly-effective warheads.’ The people of the world know when they are being played, and can see right through any argument that responsibility for stalled nuclear disarmament rests elsewhere.”

    “We are convinced that filing baseless suits does not foster a favorable conditions [sic] for further steps by the international community in the area of arms control and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

    Of course the Russian Foreign Ministry is not going to welcome a lawsuit for breach of an important international treaty. But calling these lawsuits “baseless” is disingenuous and outrageous. Regardless of one’s position on what the outcome of the lawsuits should be, it is quite clear that the Marshall Islands has a valid complaint that deserves to be heard in the courts.

    I’m unsure what Russia might consider “favorable conditions” or “further steps,” but I can guess based on the tone of this statement and their decades of inaction on nuclear disarmament. “Favorable conditions” are conditions in which the non-nuclear weapon states continue to be silent and accept the continued existence of thousands of nuclear weapons by a small group of countries. “Further steps” are pretending that the Conference on Disarmament will ever accomplish anything after a nearly two decade deadlock, modernizing its nuclear arsenal while making token reductions in total numbers of weapons, and sidestepping questions about why good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament are not on the agenda.

    “For past 45 years, the international community has made no serious efforts [to fulfill the treaty’s obligation that signatories seek a pact on] complete disarmament under strict and effective international  control.”

    This is an obvious attempt to re-direct the blame to the non-descript and unaccountable “international community.” The lawsuit clearly spells out the allegations against Russia. It has not negotiated in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date – the NPT has been in force for over 44 years and Russia continues, along with other nuclear-armed nations, to modernize its nuclear arsenal. Russia has not negotiated in good faith for nuclear disarmament. These are violations not only of Article VI of the NPT, but also of customary international law as defined in 1996 by the International Court of Justice.

    Phon van den Biesen, co-agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the cases before the International Court of Justice, replied effectively to Russia’s position yesterday when a member of Russia’s delegation to the NPT brought up the point about complete disarmament. Phon said, perhaps only half-jokingly, “You’re talking about the next lawsuit.”

    “The Russian Federation is open to interaction with its NPT partners with the aim of seeking the most effective paths to realization of the Treaty.”

    Russia boycotted last year’s Open-Ended Working Group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament initiatives. As mentioned earlier, they have also actively worked against the humanitarian initiative led by Norway, Mexico and Austria.

    United States

    “The U.S. is dedicated to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, consistent with our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.”

    When I dedicate myself to achieving something, I aim to do it within my lifetime, and preferably much sooner than that. This statement from the U.S. Department of State might be the first time the Obama administration has written the words “peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” without immediately following it with some version of “not in my lifetime.”

    If I am dedicated to losing weight, I am not going to remodel my kitchen and install a new deep fryer and replace the essential components of my soda machine. If the U.S. is indeed dedicated to a world without nuclear weapons, why is it modernizing its nuclear arsenal and planning which nuclear weapons will be deployed in the 22nd century?

    “We have a proven track record of pursuing a consistent, step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament – the most recent example being the New START Treaty.”

    The New START Treaty was signed four years ago. The treaty made modest cuts to the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons, but was only ratified by the U.S. at a steep cost – an agreement to modernize nuclear weapons and build new nuclear weapon facilities. The New START Treaty has proven at best to be a step forward in arms control, but certainly not in nuclear disarmament.

    It is painfully obvious that the step-by-step approach so loved by the P5 is little more than a delaying tactic to placate those who are either not paying attention or satisfied with the daily threats to humanity posed by nuclear weapons. At this rate, complete nuclear disarmament will not be achieved in this lifetime or, as former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believes, “in successive lifetimes.”

    Israel

    Paul Hirschson, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said he was unaware of the lawsuit, however “it doesn’t sound relevant because we are not members of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.”

    “It sounds like it doesn’t have any legal legs,” he said about the lawsuit, adding that he was not a legal expert.

    I’m not a legal expert either, but just a cursory reading of the application against Israel submitted by the Marshall Islands shows that the lawsuit relates to customary international law. Israel may think it is fine to continue to pretend that they do not possess nuclear weapons, but by filing this lawsuit, the Marshall Islands is calling on Israel to come clean and do the right thing – to negotiate along with all other nuclear-armed states for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

  • Open Letter to President Obama

    April 16, 2014

    Dear President Obama,

    During the closing session of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague on March 25, 2014, you cited a number of concrete measures to secure highly-enriched uranium and plutonium and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime that have been implemented as a result of the three Nuclear Security Summits, concluding: “So what’s been valuable about this summit is that it has not just been talk, it’s been action.”

    Would that you would apply the same standard to nuclear disarmament! On April 5, 2009 in Prague, you gave millions of people around the world new hope when you declared: “So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Bolstered by that hope, over the past three years, there has been a new round of nuclear disarmament initiatives by governments not possessing nuclear weapons, both within and outside the United Nations. Yet the United States has been notably “missing in action” at best, and dismissive or obstructive at worst. This conflict may come to a head at the 2015 Review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

    We write now, on the eve of the third Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting for the 2015 Review Conference of the NPT, which will take place at UN headquarters in New York April 28 – May 9, 2014, to underscore our plea that your administration shed its negative attitude and participate constructively in deliberations and negotiations regarding the creation of a multilateral process to achieve a nuclear weapons free world.  This will require reversal of the dismal U.S. record.

     

    • The 2010 NPT Review Conference unanimously agreed to hold a conference in 2012, to be attended by all states in the region, on a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear and other Weapons of Mass Destruction. The U.S. was a designated convener, and a date was set for December 2012 in Helsinki. The Finnish ambassador worked feverishly, meeting individually with all of the countries in the region to facilitate the conference. Suddenly, on November 23, 2012, the U.S. State Department announced that the Helsinki conference was postponed indefinitely.
    • In March 2013, Norway hosted an intergovernmental conference in Oslo on the Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons, with 127 governments in attendance. Mexico hosted a follow-on conference in Nayarit, Mexico in February 2014, with 146 governments present. The U.S. boycotted Oslo and Nayarit. Austria has announced that it will host a third conference, in Vienna, late this year.
    • In November 2012, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) established an “Open-Ended” working group open to all member states “to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons,” and scheduled for September 26, 2013, the first-ever High-Level meeting of the UNGA devoted to nuclear disarmament. The U.S. voted against both resolutions and refused to participate in the Open-Ended working group, declaring in advance that it would disregard any outcomes.
    • The U.S. did send a representative to the UN “High-Level” meeting, but it was the Deputy Secretary for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, rather than the President, Vice-President or Secretary of State. Worse, the U.S. joined with France and the U.K. in a profoundly negative statement, delivered by a junior British diplomat: “While we are encouraged by the increased energy and enthusiasm around the nuclear disarmament debate, we regret that this energy is being directed toward initiatives such as this High-Level Meeting, the humanitarian consequences campaign, the Open-Ended Working Group and the push for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.”
    • In contrast, Dr. Hassan Rouhani, the new President of Iran, used the occasion of the High-Level Meeting to roll out a disarmament “roadmap” on behalf of the 120 member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The roadmap calls for: “early commencement of negotiations, in the Conference on Disarmament, on a comprehensive convention on nuclear weapons for the prohibition of their possession, development, production, acquisition, testing, stockpiling, transfer, use or threat of use, and for their destruction; designation of 26 September every year as an international day to renew our resolve to completely eliminate nuclear weapons;” and “convening a High-level International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament in five years to review progress in this regard.” The NAM roadmap was subsequently adopted by the UNGA with 129 votes in favor. The U.S voted no.

    Meanwhile, your Administration’s FY 2015 budget request seeks a 7% increase for nuclear weapons research and production programs under the Department of Energy’s semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). NNSA’s “Total Weapons Activities” are slated to rise to $8.2 billion in FY 2015 and to $9.7 billion by 2019, 24% above fiscal year 2014. Your Administration is also proposing a $56 billion Opportunity Growth and Security Initiative (OGSI) to be funded through tax changes and spending reforms. OGSI is to be split evenly between defense and non-defense spending, out of which $504 million will go to NNSA nuclear weapons programs “to accelerate modernization and maintenance of nuclear facilities.” With that, your FY 2015 budget request for maintenance and modernization of nuclear bombs and warheads in constant dollars exceeds the amount spent in 1985 for comparable work at the height of President Reagan’s surge in nuclear weapons spending, which was also the highest point of Cold War spending.

    We are particularly alarmed that your FY 2015 budget request includes $634 million (up 20%) for the B61 Life Extension Program, which, in contravention of your 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, as confirmed by former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz, will have improved military capabilities to attack targets with greater accuracy and less radioactive fallout.

    This enormous commitment to modernizing nuclear bombs and warheads and the laboratories and factories to support those activities does not include even larger amounts of funding for planned replacements of delivery systems – the bombers, missiles and submarines that form the strategic triad, which are funded through the Department of Defense.  In total, according to the General Accounting Office, the U.S. will spend more than $700 billion over the next 30 years to maintain and modernize nuclear weapons systems. The James Martin Center places the number at an astounding one trillion dollars. This money is desperately needed to address basic human needs – housing, food security, education, healthcare, public safety, education and environmental protection – here and abroad.

    The Good Faith Challenge

    This our third letter to you calling on the U.S. government to participate constructively and in good faith in all international disarmament forums. On June 6, 2013, we wrote: “The Nuclear Security Summit process you initiated has been a success. However, securing nuclear materials, while significant, falls well short of what civil society expected following your Prague speech.”  In that letter, we urged you to you speak at the September 26, 2013 High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament at the United Nations; to endorse UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Five-Point Proposal on Nuclear Disarmament; to announce your convening of a series of Nuclear Disarmament Summits; to support extending the General Assembly’s Open-Ended Working Group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons; and to announce that the U.S. would participate in the follow-on conference on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons in Mexico in early 2014.

    In our second letter, dated January 29, 2014, we urged that you direct the State Department to send a delegation to the Mexico conference and to participate constructively; and that your administration shed its negative attitude and participate constructively in deliberations and negotiations regarding the creation of a multilateral process to achieve a nuclear weapons free world. And we called on the United States to engage in good faith in efforts to make the Conference on Disarmament productive in pursuing the objective for which it was established more than three decades ago: complete nuclear disarmament; and to work hard to convene soon the conference on a zone free of WMD in the Middle East promised by the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

    Since our last letter, the U.S. – Russian relationship has deteriorated precipitously, with the standoff over the Crimea opening the real possibility of a new era of confrontation between nuclear-armed powers. The current crisis will further complicate prospects for future arms reduction negotiations with Russia, already severely stressed by more than two decades of post-Cold War NATO expansion, deployment of U.S. missile defenses, U.S. nuclear weapons modernization and pursuit of prompt conventional global strike capability.

    Keeping Our Side of the NPT Bargain

    Article VI of the NPT, which entered into force in 1970, and is the supreme law of the land pursuant to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, states: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

    In 1996, the International Court of Justice, the judicial branch of the United Nations and the highest and most authoritative court in the world on questions of international law, unanimously concluded: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    Forty-four years after the NPT entered into force, more than 17,000 nuclear weapons, most held by the U.S. and Russia, pose an intolerable threat to humanity. The International Red Cross has stated that “incalculable human suffering” will result from any use of nuclear weapons, and that there can be no adequate humanitarian response capacity.   Declaring that “our nation’s deep economic crisis can only be addressed by adopting new priorities to create a sustainable economy for the 21st century,” the bi-partisan U.S. Conference of Mayors has called on the President and Congress to slash nuclear weapons spending and to redirect those funds to meet the urgent needs of cities.

    We reiterate the thrust of the demands set forth in our letters of June 13, 2013 and January 29, 2014, and urge you to look to them for guidance in U.S. conduct at the 2014 NPT PrepCom. We stress the urgent need to press the “reset” button with Russia again. Important measures in this regard are an end to NATO expansion and a halt to anti-missile system deployments in Europe.

     

    • We urge you to work hard to fully implement all commitments you made in the Nuclear Disarmament action plan agreed by the 2010 NPT Review Conference and to convene the promised conference on a zone free of WMD in the Middle East at the earliest possible date.
    • We urge you again to take this opportunity to endorse UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Five-Point Proposal on Nuclear Disarmament, to announce your convening of a series of Nuclear Disarmament Summits, and to engage in good faith in efforts to make the Conference on Disarmament productive in pursuing the objective for which it was established more than three decades ago: complete nuclear disarmament.
    • We call on you to declare that the U.S. will participate constructively and in good faith in the third intergovernmental conference on humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons to be held in Vienna late this year.
    • As an immediate signal of good faith, we call on your Administration to halt all programs to modernize nuclear weapons systems, and to reduce nuclear weapons spending to the minimum necessary to assure the safety and security of the existing weapons as they await disablement and dismantlement.

    Mr. President: It’s time to move from talk to action on nuclear disarmament. There have never been more opportunities, and the need is as urgent as ever.

    We look forward to your positive response.

    Sincerely,

    Initiating organizations:

    Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation
    [contact for this letter: wslf@earthlink.net; (510) 839-5877
    655 – 13th Street, Suite 201, Oakland, CA 94612]

    John Burroughs, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

    Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action

    David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Joseph Gerson, Disarmament Coordinator, American Friends Service Committee (for identification only)

    Alicia Godsberg, Executive Director, Peace Action New York

    Endorsing organizations (national):

    Robert Gould, MD, President, Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Tim Judson, Executive Director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service

    Michael Eisenscher, National Coordinator, U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)

    Michael McPhearson, Interim Executive Director, Veterans for Peace

    David Swanson, WarIsACrime.org

    Jill Stein, President, Green Shadow Cabinet

    Terry K. Rockefeller, National Co-Convener, United for Peace and Justice

    Hendrik Voss, National Organizer, School of the Americas Watch (SOA Watch)

    Alfred L. Marder, President, US Peace Council

    Robert Hanson, Treasurer, Democratic World Federalists

    Alli McCracken, National Coordinator, CODEPINK

    Margaret Flowers, MD and Kevin Zeese, JD, Popular Resistance

    Endorsing organizations (by state):

    Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) Livermore, California

    Blase Bonpane, Ph.D., Director, Office of the Americas, California

    Linda Seeley, Spokesperson, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, California

    Susan Lamont, Center Coordinator, Peace and Justice Center of Sonoma County, California

    Chizu Hamada, No Nukes Action, California

    Lois Salo, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Peninsula Branch, California

    Rev. Marilyn Chilcote, Beacon Presbyterian Fellowship, Oakland, California

    Margli Auclair, Executive Director, Mount Diablo Pleace and Justice Center. California

    Roger Eaton, Communications Chair, United Nations Association-USA, San Francisco Chapter, California

    Dr. Susan Zipp, Vice President, Association of World Citizens, San Francisco, California
    Michael Nagler, President, Metta Center for Nonviolence, California (for identification only)

    Rev. Marilyn Chilcote McKenzie, Parish Associate, St. John’s Presbyterian Church of Berkeley, California (for identification only)

    James E. Vann, Oakland Tenants Union, California (for identification only)

    Vic and Barby Ulmer, Our Developing World, California (for identification only)

    Judith Mohling, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Colorado

    Bob Kinsey, Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of Nuclear War

    Medard Gabel, Executive Director, Pacem in Terris, Delaware

    Roger Mills, Coordinator, Georgia Peace & Justice Coalition, Henry County Chapter

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

    Lisa Savage, CODEPINK, Maine

    Natasha Mayers, Whitefield, Maine Union of Maine Visual Artists

    Shirley “Lee” Davis, GlobalSolutions.org, Maine Chapter

    Lynn Harwood, the Greens of Anson, Maine

    Dagmar Fabian, Crabshell Alliance, Maryland

    Judi Poulson, Chair, Fairmont Peace Group, Minnesota

    Marcus Page-Collonge, Nevada Desert Experience, Nevada

    Gregor Gable, Shundahai Network, Nevada

    Jay Coghlan, Executive Director, Nuclear Watch New Mexico

    Joni Arends, Executive Director, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, New Mexico

    Lucy Law Webster, Executive Director, The CENTER FOR WAR/PEACE STUDIES, New York

    Alice Slater, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, New York

    Sheila Croke, Pax Christi Long Island, chapter of the international Catholic peace movement, New York

    Richard Greve, Co Chair, Staten Island Peace Action, New York

    Rosemarie Pace, Director, Pax Christi Metro New York

    Carol De Angelo, Director of Peace, Justice and Integrity of Creation, Sisters of Charity of New York (for identification only)

    Gerson Lesser, M.D., Clinical Professor, New York University School of Medicine (for identification only)

    Ellen Thomas, Proposition One Campaign, North Carolina

    Vina Colley, Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security, Ohio

    Harvey Wasserman, Solartopia, Ohio

    Ray Jubitz, Jubitz Family Foundation, Oregon

    Cletus Stein, convenor, The Peace Farm, Texas

    Steven G. Gilbert, PhD, DABT, INND (Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders), Washington

    Allen Johnson, Coordinator, Christians For The Mountains, West Virginia

    cc:

    John Kerry, Secretary of State
    Rose Gottemoeller, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
    Thomas M. Countryman, Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and
    Nonproliferation
    Susan Rice, National Security Advisor
    Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor
    Samantha Power, Permanent Representative to the United Nations
    Christopher Buck, Chargé d’Affaires, a.i., Conference on Disarmament
    Walter S. Reid, Deputy Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament

  • A New Examination for Missile Launch Officers and the Rest of Us

    David KriegerThe top brass in the US Air Force have indicated that they were shocked and outraged to discover that missile launch officers have been cheating on their examinations and that their superior officers have turned the other way, allowing the cheating to go on. The Air Force has viewed the cheating as a moral failure and has suspended more than 90 of these officers from their missile launch duties.

    This raises important philosophical and practical questions with regard to morality and legality. Which is the greater moral failure: cheating on an examination or being willing to launch nuclear-armed missiles that could lead to the deaths of millions of innocent men, women and children?

    What kind of society would give young officers the task of carrying out illegal orders to destroy cities, countries and even civilization, with all the attendant pain, suffering and death that would be caused?

    The exams on which there was cheating were most likely technical in nature, aimed at finding out whether the missile launch officers understood the technical issues involved in launching their missiles, upon command to do so, and in preventing unauthorized launches. But shouldn’t the officers in charge of launching also be tested on the legal and moral implications of what they are being asked to do in a worst-case scenario?

    With these larger legal and moral issues in mind, a more pertinent examination could be developed that would include True and False questions like these:

     

    1. You are a cog in a nuclear threat system that could lead to tens or hundreds of millions of deaths and bring about the catastrophic destruction of civilization.
    2. The nuclear-armed missiles you are responsible for launching would indiscriminately kill men, women and children, which is illegal under international humanitarian law.
    3. Nuclear weapons cause unnecessary suffering, which is illegal under international humanitarian law.
    4. It is illegal under international humanitarian law to launch a reprisal attack that is disproportionate to an initial attack.
    5. The effects of nuclear weapons detonations cannot be contained in space or time.
    6. US political leaders are failing to pursue negotiations in good faith for nuclear disarmament, as legally required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    7. US political leaders are failing to pursue negotiations in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, as legally required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    8. The defense of following orders by Nazi officers was not accepted as a legitimate defense for criminal acts at the Nuremberg trials.
    9. The Nuremberg trials after World War II held the Nazi leaders and officers to account, and some were given death sentences for committing crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
    10. You are not required to carry out illegal orders from a superior officer, and an order to fire your missiles with the consequence of indiscriminately killing men, women and children would be an illegal order.

    These are examination questions not only for missile launch officers to ponder, but for every member of our society to consider. The missile launch officers are only cogs in the US nuclear apparatus of death and destruction. They are not the only responsible parties, but they are instrumental parties to planning and preparation for indiscriminate murder and perhaps the death of all.

    The key responsible parties are political leaders and the people themselves. Only our political leaders, with pressure from the people, can assure that the United States plays a leadership role in pursuing the legal and moral path to achieving the globally necessary number of Nuclear Zero.

    The answers to all the above exam questions are True.

    This article was originally published by Truthout.