Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Women Waging Peace

  • Makoma Lekalakala | In Her Own Words

    Makoma Lekalakala | In Her Own Words

    Tell me a little bit about your journey as an activist and how you landed on environmental activism.

    It was not just a personal journey but rather a journey of a collective. From its inception, Earthlife Africa, the environmental justice organization I work for, has been an anti-nuclear organization. When the government started looking at nuclear energy, we tried talking with them. Our talks were not very fruitful until a Russian partner organization notified us of an intergovernmental agreement South Africa had signed with an energy company, ‘Rosatom’. In the agreement, if things didn’t go right with the nuclear reactors, Rosatom would not be held responsible – it would be South Africa’s responsibility.

    We started talking to more and more organizations. Liz McDaid, “Eco-Justice Lead” for the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, and I, filed the founding affidavit for the case and she provided a supporting affidavit on behalf of her organization. Our case was grounded in South Africa’s Bill of Rights that states, “everyone has a right to a safe environment.”

    Ultimately, we decided to take the issue to court because the doors were closed no matter how much we knocked. Our campaign brought various organizations together on this one issue, as energy issues intersect in nearly all other interests. I think the pressure that people exerted on the government is actually the key that brought us to where we are today and partially why we were awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize. We’ve been saying that the prize is not my prize, it’s not her prize, it’s our prize, as South Africans. We’re all in this together.

    One of the concerns of this campaign was how the government of South Africa did not allow transparency or citizen engagement on this issue. Is changing that dynamic a lasting legacy of this campaign in South Africa?

    We hope that in the future, the government will be much more transparent and allow people to become part of decision-making processes. The lack of transparency and prevalence of corruption were issues that were addressed in the court ruling. The government had acted unconstitutionally and unlawfully with respect to the peoples’ right to information, and their rights to express themselves. They had also violated policies that deal with procurement issues in South Africa. These rights are enshrined into the Constitution. These types of processes are supposed to be public, and we hope that from the court ruling, things will be done differently.

    Part of your work is aimed at encouraging the engagement of women, specifically women of color, in environmental fights. What are the key barriers to that engagement now, and how are you working to mitigate those barriers?

    That’s ongoing work. It is more about how to expand those efforts. In South Africa, ordinary women who are impacted negatively by policies have never been part of decision making processes. Often, information is presented in very scientific, academic and economic language. This is not the language that ordinary people speak. That’s one of the barriers we can change. We can demystify information. There are more women in the world than men, so it’s women who should be at the forefront of these issues and in decision-making roles.

    Within this campaign, women were much more active than any other group. So, this victory was a victory for women. It’s quite important however for us to make sure that the activism continues and doesn’t end here.

    Much of my future work is to ensure that we get more women involved because women are much closer to issues. They bear the burden of injustices, whether environmental, social or economic. As people in the world, there should not be any discrimination, whether it’s against men or women. It’s up to women to take up this issue in order to play a role and have a say in decisions that impact their futures.

    What concerns you most about nuclear developments and how has your work as an environmental activist and women’s rights activist informed your work on nuclear issues?

    Nuclear is painted as the energy for the future and we are told nuclear energy is climate neutral. Nuclear energy is not climate neutral. The nuclear fuel chain is carbon intensive, and the construction of nuclear reactors takes a very long time. The country cannot afford to build nuclear reactors, so that means that we have to borrow money. The cost overruns are going to make this kind of electricity very expensive. A lot of South Africans would not be able to access it in their lifetimes because it takes so long to deliver. They’ll be living in everlasting debt for generations to come. The other concern is the waste. The high-level waste is stored next to the plants themselves. Low-level waste is stored about 600 kilometers away from the plant. There, the soil is poisoned and the vegetation is dying, impacting people who live nearby with dangerously high levels of radioactivity.

    Another key issue is around water. Nuclear energy requires a lot of water, and in the Southern African countries we are water scarce. We need a ‘least cost’ energy option which does not have collateral costs that would come from the nuclear fuel dangers. When people have access to electricity, it should be electricity that is not harmful to them.

    What unique intersections do you see women specifically being affected by nuclear issues?

    The direct link I see is around energy poverty. It will benefit women because billions, even trillions of Rands won’t be spent in order to have a decentralized electric system. Women are also the caretakers in society. With the effects of radioactivity, it is women who often take care of those who are sick, those who develop cancers, or children born with various types of defects. It’s women who would be caring for them continuously.

    How do you think this campaign was impacted because of the fact that it was led by women? As you said, the campaign was fueled and dominated by women – staying loud and present in the streets.

    The campaign, though we were mainly women, still had men who participated, and we complemented each other very well. We didn’t even realize that there were more women in the campaign until one journalist raised that point. For us, it was the norm. In other organizations, there are men and women, some led by women, others led by men. It was a combination of the two stepping up and taking up the initiative together.

    You and Liz McDaid were up against some incredibly powerful forces and you’ve mentioned some threats of violence in previous interviews. How did power play out in the campaign and how you were able to overcome any discrepancies?

    Mostly what we experienced, and this is normal in any society, is that when you find yourself with different views held by other people, your situation depends on how you react to those different views. We live in a country of complexities, so even if somebody differs with you or says things that are negative or threatening, that is something one must expect in any situation where you differ with others.

    Both myself and Liz [McDaid] come from the [Apartheid] liberation struggle. We’ve been through a lot. As an activist from that age and time you say, ‘this is what I want to see happening’ and you expect to encounter the negatives from that. What is important is maintaining clarity of purpose.

    Lastly, what are you focused on now?

    I have three focuses. The first is monitoring what is coming from the government. Last October, we had to take the government to court again because there were still pronouncements saying that nuclear was intended to be part of the energy mix. The second focus is to build upon the momentum we’ve established in order to get more women continually involved in this campaign. We need women to understand the legislation and policy around the issue and to put a human face to energy policy in this country. Thirdly, we are aware that Rosatom has signed various intergovernmental agreements for cooperation with other African countries. We are now stepping into civil society within different countries to build a pan-African anti-nuclear movement.
    Just to add a quick note – my work is not only focused on anti-nuclear struggles; my work is also focused on coal struggles. What I would say is that we’re working on ‘energy democracy’ – making sure that there is energy democracy and energy justice in South Africa.

    Makoma Lekalakala grew up in the Soweto township of Johannesburg, a hub for resistance during South Africa’s Apartheid. She became a young activist at her church, engaged in a range of issues that included women’s rights, social, economic and environmental justice.

    Today, Lekalakala is the director at Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, a group designed  “to encourage women to become more involved in energy and climate policy-making.” Through her work at Earthlife Africa, Lekalakala recently teamed up with fellow environmental activist Liz McDaid of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI). Together, after learning about a secret agreement between South Africa and Russia, she and McDaid spearheaded a women-led effort to challenge government corruption and nuclear energy policy.

    Recognized for their tiresome and often highly dangerous efforts, Lekalakala and McDaid were awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2018.

  • Cynthia Lazaroff | In Her Own Words

    Cynthia Lazaroff | In Her Own Words

    Can you tell us a bit about the professional journey you took in engaging with U.S.- Russian relations?

    I was awakened to the gravity of the nuclear danger by my mentor and professor Richard Falk as an undergraduate at Princeton and became deeply concerned about the risk of a nuclear war between the US and USSR. I had already fallen in love with the Russian language and was so taken by Russian literature, I wanted to go and meet the “enemy” for myself and made my first trip to Russia in 1978 at the height of the Cold War as an exchange student at Leningrad State University.

    I made dear friends. They were not the enemy stereotype in U.S. media. They were people whom I found delightful, whom I came to love. Compared to life in the U.S., they were living in relative poverty, yet had a rich spiritual life. They showed me hospitality and generosity that touched me to the core.

    I would leave my dorm and, with as much secrecy as I could, go to stay with my friends, a Russian family who lived in a tiny room in a communal apartment. To the fullest extent possible, I wanted to experience what life was like for a Soviet.  I wanted all recognizable signs of being an American to disappear. I wore their clothes, the valenki (woolen felt boots) that they gave me. I literally put myself in their shoes.

    At that time, my Russian friends met with me at great personal risk, as recurrent unofficial meetings with foreigners almost certainly meant a visit from the KGB.  My friends paid a price.

    It was at this moment that I realized I had to try to do something, I didn’t know how or what or where it would lead me, I just knew that I had to try to do something about this insane disconnect between my experience with my Russian friends and the thousands of nuclear weapons our two countries had pointed at each other.

    What drove you to start the U.S.-USSR Youth Exchange Program? What was your ultimate goal, and do you feel you achieved it?

    I returned to Russia for the second time in 1980 to teach American culture in Soviet schools. My Soviet high school students demonstrated an unbridled enthusiasm, dedication, passion and curiosity for learning about the U.S. and what life was like for their American counterparts. I could see that enemy stereotypes had not yet poisoned their minds. One day I showed my students a film about teenagers surviving together in the wilderness on an Outward Bound program. They told me they dreamed of meeting American teenagers, of joining them in the wilderness, and one day, maybe even traveling to the United States.  At the time, such contacts were essentially forbidden, and foreign travel was reserved exclusively for officials, diplomats, top athletes or cultural figures. I promised my students I would do all I could to make this possible. They inspired me to start the first US-USSR Youth Exchange Program.

    It took five years to fulfill my students’ dream, to win the trust of Soviet officials to allow Soviet and American youth to join together for a wilderness exchange experience, the first joint ascent of Mt. Elbrus, Europe’s highest peak, 18,481’ located in the Caucasus Mountains of the former USSR.

    I read in an article that when you were beginning this program people responded by saying you looked like “…a cute little girl, and it’s hard to be taken seriously in this field as a woman…” Have you been able to overcome this? 

    When I started out in the early 1980s, I was in my early twenties, and there were very few women working in the field of U.S.-Russian relations. Having been a student at Princeton, which had only recently begun admitting women, I was accustomed to being the only woman in the room much of the time, so this was not an issue for me.

    But there were ingrained prejudices that women were not to be taken seriously in male-dominated professions – both in the U.S. and the former Soviet Union.

    I was blessed to find extraordinary mentors in both countries who did not harbor these prejudices, took my work seriously, advised and supported me in carrying the work forward.

    That said, I developed an exchange program with one of the most male-dominated institutions in the former USSR, the Soviet Sports Committee, where all of my counterparts were men who initially refused to see me and ignored all of my proposals for a very long time, not just because I was a woman, but also because I was an American, a citizen of a country that was the stated enemy of the Soviet Union.

    It took five years of trust-building, knocking again and again on doors that were closed. It took persistence and patience, finding points of human connection,and the support of mentors and colleagues – men and women in both countries – to break through the barriers in the Sports Committee and finally become partners.

    Spending much of your career engaged with global diplomacy, particularly in the shadows of a possible nuclear war, what was your experience as a woman in this field?

    In the 1980s, the ever present awareness of the existential threat of nuclear war inspired millions of people around the world to join together to oppose the arms race and act to reduce the risk of nuclear war. So I found myself part of a global movement of men and women, youth and children that transcended gender, racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, socio-economic and partisan divides, one that unified into what mediation expert William Ury calls the “Third Side,” a coalition that acts to serve the shared interests of the larger community. We all had one overarching common goal in mind – preventing a nuclear war.

    Today, the public has largely forgotten the existential threat of nuclear war. My prayer is that there is global awakening to the escalating nuclear danger today, and that a new Third Side for the 21st century emerges that once again brings people from all backgrounds and all walks of life together to act now to reduce the threat of nuclear war, to work to create a more peaceful world and eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.

    How, if at all, do you feel being a woman has informed or shaped the work you did (or the perspective your took) in this field?  

    I am a mother. I have carried in my own body a fragile new life. I have nurtured a new soul on this Earth. I have a visceral connection to future generations. Having lived through the Hawaii false ballistic missile alert, I have confronted in real time, my own death, the death of my children, the possibility of the end of human civilization, the mass extinction of life on Earth. I have been shaken to the core of my being. I would like that to happen with those who are engaged in nuclear war planning, abstract discussions of megadeaths, preparations for omnicide.

    Have you ever felt undermined or silenced in professional settings purely because you’re a woman? How did you respond?

    I came of age at a time when I didn’t know a single woman, including myself, who didn’t experience some form of condescending, derisive comments, sexual innuendo or harassment in the workplace, in public and private meetings with men. In these situations, I worked to steer such conversations and experiences back to the work at hand. I looked for and found support among men who did not want to be a part of a culture that perpetuated dominance and violence over others. Ultimately, it does not matter whether you are a man or woman, what matters is whether you embrace nonviolence, whether you have respect for the dignity of each individual human being.

    What are the most important takeaways you want people to leave with after reading your piece, “Dawn of a New Armageddon”?

    My prayer is that we all receive the wake-up call, the gift that I received during the 38 minutes of the false ballistic missile alert in Hawaii. My prayer is that without having to go through it themselves, in real time, people who read the story will come to know what it’s like to feel that you’re about to be hit by a nuclear missile, what’s it like to feel that the world as we know it might be coming to an end, that everyone we know and love, everything we cherish on this Earth could be vaporized in an instant. These are unacceptable stakes.  It is omnicidal insanity to accept the nuclear world we live in. I pray that we act, as we did in the 1980s, to compel our politicians to change our nuclear policy, first to take the ten immediate steps to reduce the nuclear risk as outlined in The Nuclear Playbook on our website. I see these 10 steps as achievable, critical steps we can take now with the ultimate aim of  creating a more peaceful world where we can eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.

    How has your experience on January 13th impacted your life and/or professional goals?

    A near-death experience, they say, changes you forever. For me and hundreds of thousands of others in Hawaii, living through the 38 minutes when we felt we were about to be hit by a nuclear missile was a deeply personal near-death experience. I felt the cell-splitting terror. We all felt the fear and it led us to reach out. We all called those dearest to say, “I love you.” The experience of feeling that you are about to be hit by a nuclear missile makes it absolutely clear what is most precious. I want us to be motivated not by fear but by love. To act from our love for this precious life, for the gift of this beautiful Earth, for the joy of sitting with a child who is asking you, “Momma, where did I come from?”

    I do not want to live in a world where I have to try to explain to my daughter why we have nuclear weapons. Just try explaining MAD to a child.  They look at you like you are trying to play a trick on them. They know that it is insane. They don’t have the sophistication to delude themselves. The 38 minutes brought me back to that child-like joy. I am here!  I am still here! I am in this exquisite world. I want to take care of my children, of this Earth. I see the vibrant colors of life anew, the gift of this life. May the stories of all of us who went through the 38 minutes be heard, be taken to heart, be felt in the gut, and compel us to act now.

    Those 38 minutes woke me up. I realized that we are in great danger and we have to do something about it – that responsibility as a mother, as a human being, is with me. And it will never leave me – until we eliminate this threat.  That’s why I’ve joined forces with many others and started a campaign at nuclearwakeupcall.earth.

    Bio

    Cynthia Lazaroff is the founder of www.nuclearwakeupcall.earth.  She is a U.S.-Russian relations expert and an award-winning documentary filmmaker.  Cynthia is engaged in Track II and Track 1.5 diplomacy and mediation efforts with Russia and has founded groundbreaking U.S.-Russian exchange initiatives since the early 1980s.  She has spent the past year interviewing experts and officials in the U.S. and Russia on nuclear dangers.

    Cynthia has developed numerous film and television projects related to Russia and nuclear issues including Mother Russia for HBO, The Cuban Missile Crisis for NBC, and the award-winning mini-series Hiroshima, broadcast by Showtime on the 50th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb.  Her producing credits include the prize-winning Challenge of the Caucasus, featuring the first joint ascent of Mount Elbrus, Europe’s highest peak, by Soviet and American youth whom she co-led to the summit.

    Cynthia’s expertise on nuclear dangers made for a singular experience on January 13, 2018 when she received warning on her cell phone of a ballistic missile headed to her home in Hawaii.  While the alert turned out to be false, it was a wake-up call for Cynthia, who is determined to share her harrowing, 38 minute near-death experience that day in hopes that it will inspire others to wake up and take action to reduce the escalating and existential nuclear danger that threatens the future of all life on Earth. Her article for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists about this experience is at this link.

  • Ray Acheson | In Her Own Words

    Ray Acheson | In Her Own Words

    Tell us about your journey in the field of nuclear disarmament? What drove you to this fight and what keeps you going?

    I came to antinuclear work through broader social justice activism. I was antiwar and antimilitarist in high school and university, joining protests against the Iraq war, the occupation of Palestine, and war profiteers. I also worked against the death penalty and for the abolition of prisons. I did my undergrad degree in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto and by chance, interned with a woman named Randy at her organization in Cambridge, MA, the Institute of Defense and Disarmament Studies. Randy had drafted the call for a nuclear freeze in the 1980s and was one of the leaders of the Nuclear Freeze Movement and a co-organizer of the march and rally for the nuclear freeze that drew a million people to Central Park in 1982. She taught me a lot about nuclear weapons and the antinuclear movement, and when I graduated from university I sought a position at the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom working on disarmament, with the Reaching Critical Will program. That was 2005; I’ve been there ever since.

    I’ve been committed to antinuclear advocacy and activism because I see nuclear weapons as one of the ultimate symbols of injustice and hubris in our world, as well as a purveyor of catastrophic humanitarian suffering and environmental destruction. Nuclear weapons are possessed by a handful of governments that use them to dominate international relations. They have succeeded in controlling the academic and political discourse around these weapons, they have threatened other countries to bend to their will, they have tested these weapons thousands of times, mostly only on indigenous lands and communities, they extract the uranium from and bury the waste near vulnerable communities. Nuclear weapon policy and practice is racist, patriarchal, and dangerous, yet the tiny handful of governments that possess them have managed to control ideas about these weapons so that society has largely learned to live with them, and to believe they are necessary to maintain international peace. In reality, these weapons are maintaining the status quo for the most powerful, privileged countries on earth and put us all under the threat of annihilation. Confronting this set up, trying to change it, working collectively with activists and survivors and like-minded governments – this is what keeps me going. Working to abolish nuclear weapons, for me, is also about challenging patriarchy, racism, and militarism all at once.

    Briefly describe the relationship between patriarchy and nuclear struggles?

    There is the “ubiquitous weight of gender” throughout the entire nuclear weapons discourse and the association of nuclear weapons with masculinity described by Carol Cohn in her groundbreaking work on gender in nuclear weapons discourse. There is the denial of people’s—especially women’s—lived experiences of the weapons, that is, denial of others’ perceptions of reality. Such denial is characteristic of patriarchy and psychologically abusive relationships. The dominant discourse also attempts to justify and to link opposition to nuclear weapons to “womanhood” or “femininity” in order to belittle and marginalize antinuclear perspectives. All these complex dimensions are important to explore and expose.

    The connection between militarized/toxic masculinity and warfare creates and reinforces the widely observed gender stereotype, assuming men to be inherently violent and inclined to participate in violent acts. Men do constitute the majority of those committing violence and participating in armed conflict. But there is a distinct social history fostering this behavior, perpetuated by assumptions about masculinity and femininity and by the institutions and social structures influenced by these assumptions. When gender differential treatment of men becomes integral to political or military policy, it is difficult to change. Like institutional racism, it becomes part of the social fabric, continuously reinforced through practice, and so conditions the environment in which all disarmament negotiations take place.

    Within the context of nuclear weapons, the masculinity-warfare connection displays two key elements of gendered obstacles to denuclearizing security policy. First, the association of weapons and war as a symbol of masculine strength makes it harder to open up discussions about disarmament or collective security. Proponents of abolition are put down as unrealistic and irrational, as “emotional” or “effeminate”. In the last few years, some representatives of the nuclear-armed states have tried to argue that even talking about the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons or calling for abolition is “emotional”. They refused to attend the humanitarian initiative conferences. They have argued that the topic is irrelevant to conversations about nuclear weapons. Overall, the gendered discourse around nuclear weapons has made it more difficult for heads of state, diplomats, and the military to envision or articulate different security structures that do not rely extensively on weapons and military might to “protect” the “nation” or its people.

    Why have women been so silenced in the fight for nuclear disarmament, especially considering their long history of involvement in this struggle?

    Women have been marginalized in pretty much any issue dealing with peace and security, or weapons and warfare. Women, and others not identifying as men, are vastly underrepresented in disarmament and arms control discussions and negotiations. At the same time, women have been at the forefront of the antinuclear movement. Women were leaders in the campaign to ban nuclear weapon testing in the United States, using powerful symbols such as a collection of baby teeth to show evidence of radioactive contamination. Women led the Nuclear Freeze movement in the 1980s, calling on the Soviet Union and the United States to stop the arms race. Women were leaders in the movement to ban nuclear weapons in the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

    I think the disconnect between the high-level of women’s participation in activism against the bomb and low level of participation in government delegations or their silence/dismissal as non-experts is based on a very patriarchal approach to security and weapons issues described above in my answer to the second question. I think it’s also because of the technique of the patriarchy to deny lived experience, to consider the reality of lives and bodies as being “emotional” and as “non-expert”.

    When those flexing their “masculinity” want to demonstrate or reinforce their power and dominance, they try to make others seem small and marginalized by accusing them of being emotional, overwrought, irrational, or impractical. Women and other marginalized people have experienced this technique of dismissal and denigration for as long as gender hierarchies have existed. The denial of reason in someone else is an attempt to take away the ground on which the other stands, projecting illusions about what is real, about what makes sense or what is rational. One actor proclaims, “I am the only one who understands what the real situation is. Your understanding of is not only incorrect but also delusional—it is based upon a reality that does not exist.” It means putting self as subject and the other as object, eliminating their sense of and eventual capacity for agency.

    This is more than just an argument or a difference in interpretation. This is an attempt to undermine, discredit, and ultimately destroy the other’s entire worldview in order to maintain power and privilege. Objectification of others and control of reality, known as “gas lighting” in psychological terms, is as integral to patriarchy as it is to nuclear deterrence as a mechanism to maintain the current global hierarchy. When the majority of states, international and civil society organizations all say, “Nuclear weapons threaten us all and must be eliminated,” the nuclear-armed states say, “Nuclear weapons—in our hands—keep us safe and we must maintain them indefinitely.” When it is pointed out that they haven’t complied with their disarmament commitments, they claim that they have. They argue that they done all they can and now it up to rest of the world—those countries without nuclear weapons—to “create the conditions” for any further disarmament efforts. And it’s not just the reason or rationality of those supporting the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons that is denied. It is also the lived experience of everyone who has ever suffered from a nuclear explosion, or mining of nuclear weapons, or burial of nuclear waste.

    This isn’t just about silencing women. This is about silencing everyone who has an experience or feeling about nuclear weapons that contradicts the dominant narrative.

    Have you ever been silenced or ignored simply because you’re a woman? If  so, what did you do?

    Sure, all the time! But I just refuse to shut up. I keep writing, speaking, and inserting my views and the views of others I witness being silenced into the rooms and into the discourse.

    What does it mean to apply a gender lens to your work? Why is it so critical?

    Taking a human-focused approach to disarmament, and thereby challenging the dominant state-centered approach to international peace and security, was instrumental in establishing negotiations on the nuclear ban treaty. The humanitarian initiative, with its purposeful deconstruction of nuclear weapons as weapons of terror and massive violence, led to the majority of states being willing to negotiate the nuclear ban. An understanding of the gendered elements embedded in the discourse and politics of nuclear weapons will support the continued stigmatization of nuclear weapons and promotion of the new treaty.

    A gender perspective challenges governments and people to act on moral, ethical, humanitarian, environmental, legal, political and economic grounds without waiting for permission from those benefiting from the status quo—because that permission will never come. Humanitarian discourse intended to relieve multiple human suffering requires the recognition that nuclear weapons represent a constant threat of terror and that they perpetuate inequity between countries, with broader implications for humanity.

    Explorations of injustice help unmask their immorality. Within this more complex critique, gender analysis is crucial to illuminating and challenging the structures of power that impose injustice and deprivation and sustain nuclear weapons.

    Just as the humanitarian discourse undermines the perceived legitimacy of nuclear weapons, a gender analysis of nuclear discourse helps to deconstruct nuclear weapons as symbols of power and tools of empire. It can show that the enshrinement of nuclear weapons as an emblem of power is not inevitable and unchangeable but a gendered social construction designed to maintain the patriarchal order. As Carol Cohn, Felicity Ruby, and Sara Ruddick wrote in 2006, a gender analysis that highlights the patriarchy and social constructions inherent in this valuation of nuclear weapons helps to “multiply, amplify, and deepen” arguments for nuclear disarmament and question the role of a certain kind of masculinity of the dominant paradigm. Disarmament, sometimes cast by its detractors as a weak or passive approach to security, can instead be shown for what it is—rational, just, moral and necessary for our survival.

    Gender analysis also highlights the ways in which the possession and proliferation of nuclear weapons are silently underwritten and supported by an image of hegemonic masculinity, demonstrating just how dangerous and illusory an image of security produces. Being aware of the gendered meanings and characterizations embedded throughout the discourse and politics of nuclear weapons helps to “confront the traditionally constructed meanings and redefine terms such as ‘strength’ and ‘security’ so that they more appropriately reflect the needs of all people.” This kind of awareness can help us to understand and improve how we think, talk and act about weapons, war, and militarism in a broader sense.

    How has intersectionality impacted the field of nuclear disarmament? Did it impact the success of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?

    The story of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons—and why it could be achieved now—must also be seen in the much larger context of the broader global resistance to injustice and oppression. In the United States in 2017, we have had Native Nations Rise actions; protests at airports and strikes at bodegas to protect the rights of immigrants; Black Lives Matter actions and professional athletes taking a knee to protest police violence against people of color. Around the world there have been initiatives to protect LGBTQIA people, refugees, workers, the environment. The Women’s March and the #MeToo campaign have smashed through layers of silence, exposing specific men but also disrupting the culture of misogyny, sexism, harassment, assault, and abuse.

    Nuclear weapons are part of these bigger systems of patriarchy, racism, militarism, and capitalism—systems that have been challenged throughout history, and that are being challenged now in new ways, from new collectives of people around the world.

    Women and LGBTQIA people are leaders in ICAN and the broader antinuclear movement, challenging the normative discourses that traditionally allow certain perspectives to be heard. Women also played a leading role among the diplomats in the process to ban nuclear weapons, with some delegations to the negotiations even being comprised solely of women.

    People of color also played a leading role in the nuclear ban. The process was galvanized and led by the nonwhite world, both in terms of governments and civil society. ICAN campaigners from Brazil to Kenya to the Philippines were instrumental in advocacy while most of the governments involved in the process are also from the global south. Indigenous nuclear-test survivors from Australia and the Marshall Islands gave testimony during negotiations alongside Japanese atomic-bomb survivors. Nuclear-weapon policy has long been recognized as racist and colonial. Banning nuclear weapons meant taking a stand against these policies, working together at the United Nations where all countries are supposed to have an equal say.

    How do you measure success in the fight for equal representation regarding nuclear talks? Is success being realized?

    We can measure success with numbers, to some extent – how many non-male-identified people are participating, speaking, being treated as experts within disarmament discussions and negotiations? How many all-male and all-white panels are still happening? Are government delegations and civil society groups making an effort to include – in a meaningful way – the views of people of diverse gender and ethnic backgrounds?

    There is some success. A few governments have been working to ensure participation of women from the global south at certain meetings by running sponsorship programs. Some have pushed for language in outcome documents in disarmament for encouraging governments to ensure the “full, effective, and equal” participation of women (such as the NPT, the TPNW, and also the UN General Assembly and the UN Program of Action on small arms and light weapons). There is some understanding of the relevance of UN Security Council 1325, which includes promotion of women’s participation, as relevant to disarmament. But much more work is needed. Even in civil society coalitions, the leadership is still skewed towards white, western activists and groups. Understanding privilege and taking an intersectional approach to our work is imperative, and we need to do much more.

    What are you focused on next?

    I’m writing a book about the process to ban nuclear weapons! I’m also working to promote entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, to prevent the development of autonomous weapons with the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, and to stop the bombing of towns and cities and war profiteering by holding states accountable to international law. (And a few other things!)

    Bio

    A fierce advocate for gender equality, Ray Acheson works for the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), one of the world’s longest-standing feminist peace organizations. At WILPF she serves as the Director of Reaching Critical Will, a program focused specifically on disarmament. Sitting on the ten-person international steering group, Acheson represents WILPF at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). Recently awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, ICAN and was recognized for a successful, intersectional campaign that led to the adoption of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. A champion for gender equity within disarmament, Acheson researches and writes about the important relationship between nuclear weapons and gender. Putting this research to practice, Acheson employs a invaluable gender lens in her fight for nuclear disarmament – a lens that provides her with hope for a future without the dangerous cycles of arms races and proliferation.