Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: abolition

  • The Nuclear Policy of the Bush Administration

    The euphoria in the West that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union had an amazing effect. The general public came to believe that the end of the Cold War also meant the end of the nuclear peril, and that the nuclear issue can be taken off the agenda of important problems.

    This is seen in a public opinion poll in the UK, in which the question was: what is the most important issue facing Britain. During the Cold War, more than 40 per cent put nuclear weapons as such an issue. Since the end of it, the percentage dropped rapidly, and nowadays it is practically zero. The situation is probably the same in the United States, and it is my opinion that this enabled the hawks to become bolder in their plans, not only to ensure, but to demonstrate to the rest of the world, the overwhelming superiority of the United States. The events of September 11th came as a convenient excuse to put these plans into action.

    The year 2002 was remarkable for the formulation of new policies, starting with the Nuclear Posture Review in January, and ending with the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, released in December.

    This last document starts with: ‘Weapons of mass destruction – nuclear, biological, and chemical – in the possession of hostile states and terrorists represent one of the greatest security challenges facing the United States.’

    And this is the crux of the matter. According to the current counter-proliferation policy, nuclear weapons are bad, but only if in possession of some states or groups. In the possession of the United States they are good, and must be kept for the sake of world security.

    The fact that as a signatory of the NPT, the USA is legally bound to their elimination, is completely ignored. Indeed, nuclear arsenals will have to be retained indefinitely, not just as a weapon of last resort, or as a deterrent against a nuclear attack, but as an ordinary tool in the military armoury, to be used in the resolution of conflicts, as has been practiced in the past, and even in pre-emptive strikes, should political contingencies demand it.

    This is in essence the current US nuclear policy, and I see it as a very dangerous policy.

    Towards its implementation, President Bush has already authorized the development of a new nuclear warhead of low yield, but with a shape that would give it a very high penetrating power into concrete, a ‘bunker-busting mini-nuke’, as it has been named. It is intended to destroy bunkers with thick concrete walls in which public enemies, like Saddam Hussein, may seek shelter.

    To give the military authorities confidence in the performance of the new weapon it will have to be tested.

    If the USA resumed testing, this would be a signal to other nuclear weapon states to do the same. China is almost certain to resume testing. After the US decision to develop ballistic missile defences, China feels vulnerable, and is likely to attempt to reduce its vulnerability by a modernization and build-up of its nuclear arsenal. Other states with nuclear weapons, such as India or Pakistan, may use the window of opportunity opened by the USA to update their arsenals. The danger of a new nuclear arms race is real.

    As mentioned before, the new policy includes pre-emptive acts, and this greatly increases the danger. If the militarily mightiest country declares its readiness to carry out a pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, others may soon follow. The Kashmir crisis, of May last year, is a stark warning of the reality of the nuclear peril.

    India’s declared policy is not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. But if the United States – whose nuclear policies are largely followed by India – makes pre-emptive nuclear attacks part of its doctrine, this would give India the legitimacy to carry out a pre- emptive strike against Pakistan. Even more likely is that Pakistan would carry this out first.

    Taiwan presents another potential cause for a pre- emptive nuclear strike by the United States. Should the Taiwan authorities decide to declare independence, this would inevitably result in an attempted military invasion by mainland China. The USA, which is committed to the defence of the integrity of Taiwan, may then opt for a pre-emptive strike.

    Finally, we have the problem of North Korea, listed by Bush as one of the ‘axis of evil.’ The disclosure that North Korea is already in possession of two nuclear warheads, and the likelihood of its acquiring more of them if the Yongbyon facility is reactivated, are a direct challenge to current US policy. I fear that a campaign to use military force against the regime of Kim Jong Il, similar to that against Saddam Hussein, will ensue.

    How can we prevent such catastrophes? The traditional method of dealing with such situations – by partial agreements, damage-limitation treaties, confidence- building measures – does not seem to work any more. In its determination to maintain world dominance, particularly on the nuclear issue, the present administration will pay no attention to reasoned and sophisticated arguments. Arms control is as good as dead.

    As I see it, the only way is to go back to basics, to put the goal of total nuclear disarmament back on the agenda. The only way to compel the current decision- makers to change their minds is by pressure of public opinion. For this purpose, the public must be awakened to the danger. The general public is not sufficiently informed about the recent changes in military doctrine, and the perils arising from them. We have to convince the public that the continuation of current policies, in which security of the world is maintained by the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons, is not realistic in the long run because it is bound eventually to result in a nuclear holocaust in which the future of the human race would be at stake. We must convince public opinion that the only alternative is the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    Sir Joseph Rotblat, the 1995 Nobel Peace Laureate, is an member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Advisory Council.

  • Nagasaki Peace Declaration

    How many people in the world now remember that fateful day? At 11:02 a.m. on August 9, fifty-nine years ago, the city of Nagasaki was instantly transformed into ruins by a single atomic bomb dropped from an American warplane, killing some 74,000 people and wounding 75,000. Today, Nagasaki ‘s verdant cityscape attracts visitors from around the world, and its residents maintain a distinctive set of traditions and culture. Nevertheless, the city’s increasingly elderly atomic bomb survivors continue to suffer from the after-effects of the bombing as well as from health problems induced by the stress of their experience. We the citizens of Nagasaki call upon the world with a renewed sense of urgency, even as we reflect upon the intense suffering of those who have already perished.

    We call upon the citizens of the United States to look squarely at the reality of the tragedies that have unfolded in the wake of the atomic bombings 59 years ago. The International Court of Justice has clearly stated in an advisory opinion that the threat of nuclear weapons or their use is generally contrary to international law. Notwithstanding, the US government continues to possess and maintain approximately 10,000 nuclear weapons, and is conducting an ongoing program of subcritical nuclear testing. In addition, the so-called mini nuclear weapons that are the subject of new development efforts are intended to deliver truly horrific levels of force. In terms of the radioactivity that such weapons would release, there would be no difference compared to the bomb dropped on Nagasaki . So long as the world’s leading superpower fails to change its posture of dependence on nuclear weapons, it is clear that the tide of nuclear proliferation cannot be stemmed. People of America : The path leading to the eventual survival of the human race unequivocally requires the elimination of nuclear arms. The time has come to join hands and embark upon this path.

    We call upon the peoples of the world to recognize how scant is the value repeatedly being placed on human life, evidenced by events such as the war in Iraq and outbreaks of terrorism. Wisdom must prevail, and we must join together in enhancing and reinforcing the functions of the United Nations in order to resolve international conflicts, not by military force, but through concerted diplomatic efforts. Next year will be the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings, coinciding with the 2005 NPT Review Conference to be held at UN headquarters. With the approach of the coming year, let there be a convergence among the citizens of the world, NGOs, and all concerned parties who desire peace, so that the way may be opened for the elimination of those symbols of inhumanity known as nuclear weapons.

    We call upon the government of Japan to safeguard the peaceful underpinnings of its constitution, and, as the only nation ever to have experienced nuclear attack, to enact into law the threefold non-nuclear principle. The combination of the threefold non-nuclear principle with nuclear disarmament on the Korean Peninsula will pave the road towards the creation of a Northeast Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone. At the same time, the specifics of the Pyongyang Declaration must be agreed upon, while Japan itself must also pursue an independent security stance that does not rely on nuclear arms.

    We call upon the world’s youth to study the reality of the atomic bombings and to internalize a sense of respect for life, as our young people are doing in Nagasaki . The enthusiasm and hope manifested by youth who have considered the requirements of peace and are acting accordingly will serve to enlighten an increasingly confused world. Individuals who arise to take action close at hand can and will foster the realization of world peace and the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    We in Nagasaki will continue to share our experiences of the atomic bombing of our city, and will work to make Nagasaki a center for peace studies and peace promotion. It is our hope that we will thus be able to form bonds of friendship and solidarity with people throughout the world.

    Today, on the 59th anniversary of the atomic bombing, as we pray for the repose of those who died and recall to mind their suffering, we the citizens of Nagasaki pledge our commitment to the realization of true peace in the world, free from nuclear weapons.

  • We Need You

    We Need You

    The Foundation’s overarching goal is to help create a world free of nuclear weapons. In a rational world, this should not be a difficult task. A persuasive case can be made that a nuclear war could destroy civilization and possibly put an end to the human species and most forms of life. At a minimum, the use of these weapons could obliterate cities, including our own. We know what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a result of two small nuclear weapons. Today’s weapons have on average eight times the explosive power of those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    But, of course, this is not a rational world. It is a world in which fear, denial and irrationality hold high office. It is a world in which international law is trampled on and strategies of “might makes right” are employed far too frequently by national leaders. In our world, many leaders cling to old views of power, failing to realize that in the Nuclear Age, as Einstein pointed out, “everything has changed save our modes of thinking.”

    At a recent Foundation event, a woman asked, “Can an organization like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation make a difference on the issue of eliminating nuclear weapons?” This is an important question. The honest answer is that it is a tough struggle, one in which there are no guarantees of success. In many respects, fighting for a world free of nuclear weapons is an act of faith rooted in a strong belief in a resilient human spirit.

    It is clear that the dangers of the Nuclear Age have not diminished, despite the end of the Cold War. It remains a dangerous world in which the ultimate expression of anger and frustration, a nuclear 9/11 or 3/11, must be prevented. The best way to prevent such an occurrence is to assure that nuclear weapons and materials do not proliferate any further than they already have. The best way assure this is to dramatically reduce the number of these weapons with the goal of their elimination, and to apply international safeguards to both nuclear weapons and materials.

    Achieving a nuclear weapons-free world is a colossal task,one that too many people consider unattainable and therefore not worth the effort. In fact, it is the consequences of not undertaking this effort that makes it so essential. The risks posed by nuclear weapons are far too great to leave to chance or to politicians or generals. They demand a response from the people; they demand our involvement.

    The work of the Foundation is perhaps even more necessary today than it was at
    the height of the Cold War. It is to bring critical issues related to nuclear dangers
    to people everywhere, and to provide quality information, analysis and ideas
    for advocacy. This is the work we engage in daily and the work we have engaged in
    for more than 20 years. Our only chance of success is to work with others to build a movement big enough to impact governments. To do this, we need your active support
    and involvement.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation seeks to be a voice of reason at a critical juncture in human history. This election year we are launching a campaign to Chart a New
    Course in US Nuclear Policy. We need your help. Please add your voice, and help us to extend the Foundation’s reach and its ability to achieve a more rational and caring world, one that we can be proud to pass on to the next generation.

  • Shaping the Future

    Shaping the Future

    What kind of future do you want? The vision of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a world at peace, free of the threat of war and free of weapons of mass destruction. It is worth contemplating this vision. Is it a vision worth striving for? Is it an impossible dream or is it something that can be achieved?

    Since no one can predict the future with certainty, those who say this vision is an impossible dream are helping to determine our reality and the future of our children and grandchildren. None of the pundits or intelligence agencies could foresee the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet Union, or the end of apartheid in South Africa. It was people who believed the future could be something more and better than the present that brought about these remarkable changes.

    One thing is certain. The future will be shaped by what we do today. If we do nothing, we leave it to others to shape the future. If we continue to do what we have done in the past, the future is likely to resemble the past. When Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa, which itself was something impossible to predict, he had to make a decision on how the crimes of the apartheid period would be handled. Rather than harsh retribution, he chose amnesty for all who came before a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and admitted to their crimes. This choice helped shaped a new future for South Africa and perhaps for the world.

    If we are to shape a new future for a safer and saner world we need to have bold visions of what that world could be. We need to dream great dreams, but we need to do more than this. We need to act to make our dreams a reality, even if those acts appear to be facing enormous obstacles.

    It is hard to imagine an abuse of power that has ended of its own accord. Abuses end because people stand up to them and say No. The world changes because people can imagine a better way to treat the earth and each other and say YES to change.

    If we want a world without war, we need to be serious about finding alternative means to resolve disputes non-violently and to provide justice and uphold dignity for all people. This requires an institutional framework at the global level: a stronger United Nations, an effective International Court of Justice, and a new International Criminal Court to hold all leaders accountable for crimes under international law.

    If we do not begin to redistribute resources so that everyone’s basic needs can be met, the richer parts of the world will face a future of hostility and terrorism. The only way to prevent such a future is by turning tomorrow’s enemies into today’s friends. Creating a better future requires acting now for a more equitable present.

    The future of life on the planet is endangered by weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. We are committed to eliminating these weapons, but we won’t succeed unless we are joined in this effort by far more people. That’s where you come in. Be a force for a future free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction by being a force for change.

    One of our supporters, Tony Ke, a high-powered Canadian web designer, recently created a new web site called End of Existence (www.endofexistence.org). I encourage you to visit it for an exciting new look at why we must abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us. I also encourage you to join some of the world’s great leaders in signing our Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity athttps://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/secure/signtheappeal.asp

    Let’s not let the future be shaped by our complacency and inaction. We have the power, the privilege and the responsibility to shape a better world, a world free of war and free of weapons of mass destruction. The Foundation works each day to achieve this vision. You can find out more about what we are doing and how you can play a part by exploring our web site:https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com. We invite you to be part of the solution.

  • Why Fight for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons?

    Why Fight for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons?

    There are many reasons to fight for a world free of nuclear weapons. Here are some of the most important.

    Nuclear weapons are not really weapons at all, but instruments of mass annihilation, of genocide, and possibly even of omnicide, the destruction of all.

    They are city destroying weapons that target the innocent, killing and maiming indiscriminately. Their threat and use is immoral by any moral standard, and illegal under any reasonable interpretation of international law.

    These weapons place the human future and most of life in jeopardy.

    Nuclear weapons are inhumane and undermine our humanity by their very existence.

    To threaten or use these weapons is a cowardly act, unbefitting of a brave and decent people.

    Nuclear weapons are profoundly undemocratic, concentrating the power to destroy in the hands of the few.

    These weapons divide the world into nuclear haves and have-nots, creating a world of nuclear apartheid.

    The current policies of the nuclear weapons states will result in nuclear weapons or weapons-grade materials falling into the hands of terrorists and criminals, and the countries likely to suffer the greatest damage as a result are the nuclear weapons states themselves.

    The possession of nuclear weapons by any nation is an impetus to other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenals and thus multiplies the danger.

    If we do not succeed we may not be able to pass the world on intact to the next generation.

    Ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and other forms of life is the greatest challenge of our time. It wouldn’t be so difficult if the governments of the nuclear weapons states accepted their share of responsibility and took leadership of the effort. Since these governments have failed to do so, it is left to the people of the world to take responsibility and fight for a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a fight for a human and humane future.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • An Open Letter to the Next U.S. President: Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    The city of Hiroshima’s Peace Declaration on August 6, 2000 stated, “if we had only one pencil we would continue to write first of the sanctity of human life and then of the need to abolish nuclear weapons.” The citizens of Hiroshima have horrendous first-hand knowledge of the devastation of nuclear weapons. They became the unwitting ambassadors of the Nuclear Age.

    If we wish to prevent Hiroshima’s past from becoming our future, there must be leadership to reduce nuclear dangers by vigorous efforts leading to the total elimination of all nuclear weapons from Earth. This will not happen without US leadership, and therefore your leadership, Mr. President, will be essential.

    Also in the Peace Declaration of Hiroshima is this promise: “Hiroshima wishes to make a new start as a model city demonstrating the use of science and technology for human purposes. We will create a future in which Hiroshima itself is the embodiment of those ‘human purposes.’ We will create a twenty-first century in which Hiroshima’s very existence formulates the substance of peace. Such a future would exemplify a genuine reconciliation between humankind and the science and technology that have endangered our continued survival.”

    With this promise and commitment, Hiroshima challenges not only itself, but all humanity to do more to achieve a “reconciliation between humankind and science and technology.” The place where this challenge must begin is with the threat posed by nuclear weapons.

    At the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, the US and the other nuclear weapons states made an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” This commitment is consistent with the obligation in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and with the interpretation of that obligation as set forth unanimously by the International Court of Justice in its landmark 1996 opinion on the illegality of nuclear weapons.

    In addition to moral and legal obligations to eliminate nuclear weapons, it is also in our security interests. Nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to the existence of our nation and, for that matter, the rest of the world. The American people and all people would be safer in a world without nuclear weapons. The first step toward achieving such a world is publicly recognizing that it would be in our interest to do so. That would be a big step forward, one that no American president has yet taken.

    In the post Cold War period, US policy on nuclear weapons has been to maintain a two-tier structure of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.” We have moved slowly on nuclear arms reductions and have attempted (unsuccessfully) to prevent nuclear proliferation. We have not given up our own reliance on nuclear weapons, and we have resisted any attempts by NATO members to re-examine NATO nuclear policy.

    One of the early decisions you will be asked to make, Mr. President, is on the deployment of a National Missile Defense. While this resurrection of the discredited “Star Wars” system will never be able to actually protect Americans, it will anger the Russians and Chinese, undermine existing arms control agreements, and most likely prevent future progress toward a nuclear-weapons-free world. The Russians have stated clearly that if we proceed with deploying a National Missile Defense, they will withdraw from the START II Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This would be a major setback in US-Russian relations at a time when Russia has every reason to work cooperatively with us for nuclear arms reductions.

    In fact, Russian President Putin has offered to reduce to 1,500 the number of strategic nuclear weapons in START III. Well-informed Russians say that he is prepared to reduce Russia’s nuclear arsenal to under 1,000 strategic weapons as a next step. We have turned down this proposal, and told the Russian government that we are only prepared to reduce our nuclear arsenal to 2,000 to 2,500 strategic weapons in START III. This is hard to understand because reductions in nuclear weapons arsenals, particularly the Russian nuclear arsenal, would have such clear security benefits to the United States.

    The Chinese currently have some 20 nuclear weapons capable of reaching US territory. If we deploy a National Missile Defense, they have forewarned us that they will expand their nuclear capabilities. This would be easy for them to do, and it will certainly have adverse consequences for US-Chinese relations. Additionally, it could trigger new nuclear arms races in Asia between China and India and India and Pakistan.

    North Korea has already indicated its willingness to cease development of its long-range missile program in exchange for development assistance which they badly need. We should pursue similar policies with Iraq, Iran and other potential enemies. We should vigorously pursue diplomacy which seeks to turn potential enemies into friends.

    Rather than proceeding with deployment of a National Missile Defense, we should accept President Putin’s offer and proceed with negotiations for START III nuclear arms reductions to some 1,000 to 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons on each side. Simultaneously, we should provide leadership for multinational negotiations among all nuclear weapons states for a Comprehensive Treaty to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. This would be a demonstration of the “good faith” called for in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    In addition to these steps, there are many more positive steps that require US leadership. Among these steps are de-alerting nuclear forces, separating warheads from delivery vehicles, providing assurances of No First Use of nuclear weapons, establishing an accounting for all nuclear weapons and weapons grade materials in all countries, withdrawing nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters, and providing international monitored storage of all weapons-grade nuclear materials.

    The United States is a powerful country. It will have enormous influence, for better or for worse, on the future of our species and all life. Continuing on with our present policies on nuclear weapons will lead inevitably to disaster. Millions of Americans know that we can do better than this. Because these weapons are in our arsenal now does not mean they must always be, if we act courageously and wisely.

    We need to set a course for the 21st century that assures that it will be a peaceful century. The lack of leadership to end the nuclear threat to humanity’s future is unfortunately augmented by other unwise policies that we pursue. Our country must stop being the arms salesman to the world, the policeman for the world, and the chief trainer for foreign military and paramilitary forces.

    We need to become an exporter and promoter of democracy and decency, human rights and human dignity. If these values are to be taken seriously abroad, we must demonstrate their effect in our own society. To do this, we need to reduce rather than increase military expenditures. We are currently spending more on our military than the next 16 highest military spending countries combined. This is obscene and yet it goes unchallenged. It is another area where presidential leadership is necessary.

    We live in a world in which borders have become incapable of stopping either pollution or projectiles. Our world is interconnected, and our futures are interlinked. We must support the strengthening of international law and institutions. Among the treaties that await our ratification are the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Landmine Prohibition Treaty, the Treaty on the Rights of the Child, the Treaty on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Treaty for an International Criminal Court.

    Mr. President, I have watched many of your predecessors fail to act on these issues. You have the opportunity to set out on a new path, a path to the future that will bring hope to all humanity. I urge you to accept the challenge and take this path. Be the leader who abolishes nuclear weapons. It would be the greatest possible gift to humanity.

  • Interview with Hiro Takeda

    “… as hibakusha I think I have the responsibility inform people of the danger of the bomb, the radiation and the effect it has on human beings, because there are a lot of people still in Hiroshima who have suffering from the radiation. And as for my self I haven’t had anything serious but I have been going to the doctor ever since the dropping of the bomb.” (Hiro Takeda)

    Mr. Takeda was born in 1919. He was living with his mother and brother on the outskirts of Hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped there on August 6, 1945. He is a hibakusha, a Hiroshima survivor. Stefania Capodaglio is the 1999 Ruth Floyd Human Rights intern at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation office in Santa Barbara. She spoke with Mr. Takeda during August 1999 about his experiences during and after the bombing of Hiroshima. Mr. Takeda is a US citizen and lives now in Southern California.

    Stefania Capodaglio: One thing that struck me about your description of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing at the Sadako Peace Day event in Santa Barbara this year is the vivid memory that you have of those days. I imagine it is a difficult process for you to awake to those memories. Please tell me a bit about what you remember of those days and what did you and your family do immediately after the dropping of the bomb.

    Hiro Takeda: In my memory it was one of my most frightful and horrendous experience I ever had in my life. Because when they bomb fell there was a big BOOM and then a flash in the BOOM. That is what they call PIKADUN (PIKA means flash). We did not know what kind of bomb was dropped and it was very, very powerful. Fortunately injured because I was sleeping and it pushed the ceiling up, it pushed the walls up. Fortunately we did not loose any windows because my mother had all the windows open because it was a very hot day. But the neighbors who had all the windows closed, the windows shattered and it blew the glass across the room. There were sliding doors and a lot of people got hurt on their head. We were lucky . We thought maybe the when the bomb fell we thought: What happened? Then towards afternoon, towards evening the whole city was in flame so I said: My God what is that! Then there was this awesome sight I ever seen : the whole city was all in flame and we just couldn’t comprehend , what was going on. And that evening my brother and I, we turned on the radio, the “Philco Radio” that we took with us from here (US) and it was a small radio with a short wave on that, but we never used that until we have used that radio because we were afraid , because if we were caught with the short wave being American who knew what would have happened.

    That night, on August 6th, my brother and I, were very very anxious of what was going on, so we turned on the radio and then we caught one of the stations in Australia, we caught the news and then they announced it was an A-bomb that was dropped over Hiroshima and we never heard about A-bomb and radiation. And then I understand ……will grow in the city… we were kind of shocked and just speechless. So what we did the following day, we saw a lot of people coming in a way from (away from) Hiroshima city. They were men all worried about their relatives, friends, and neighbors. So I got my mother on the back of my bicycle and we went out to the city. The first place we went to was the temple because they told us that all the victims were in the temples, shrines and schools. So this was the first place where we went to was the temple, and when we saw all these people they were languishing and disfigured, well my mother and I, we couldn’t even stand, we couldn’t even go forward, we were just frozen dead and we couldn’t believe what we saw and I don’t know, it was one of the most frightful sight I ever seen in a They were all just burned and I saw many many We went to the next place. It was the shrine and it was the same thing and then the school ground. There were 100 and 1000 of people all in classrooms all way along that of course almost all the buildings were quiet damaged because of the blast, but then there were in this room we went to, this room was full of dead people, and then in the other room there were people who were dying, we saw many of them dying in front of our eyes. Some of these things is something that hit me really hard, and still we couldn’t believe….I do not know how to say that!! Have we known that the radiation effect was dangerous we would have maybe been afraid to go even to the city, but we didn’t know anything about that. A-bomb, radiation, nothing! We never heard about that thing, so we were desperate trying to look for relatives, friends, and neighbors. And one of the next sight I saw and I think I have already mentioned that on August 6 Peace Day : a young lady standing, she was just standing with her burned skin that was peeling and she was…. I do not know how to describe her. The next thing that really hurt me, even now when I think about it and I cry is this young boy. I do not know how old he was but I couldn’t recognize him because his face was blown and it was just like a balloon. He was just crying “Mammy, Mammy” and then “water, water”, and then that pitiful and painful voice and I can’t still…..I’ll never forget that little boy!! And we didn’t know what to do, we wanted to do something but we just didn’t know what to do! And this was one of the most frightful experience I ever had: seeing a 100 a 1000 people all around the school ground. Some of the people were disfigured and when I saw them I thought they were in great pain. The people who died without having been identified by their relatives were cremated in the school ground. And these are sights that I think I’ll never forget as long as I live. I saw many movies about Hiroshima and the dropping of the A-bomb, but they were nothing compared to what I actually witnessed. A lot of people aren’t quite aware yet of how dangerous and harmful the story behind is.

    SC: The United States dropped the A-bomb on your country on August 6th, 1945. Do you hate the US for what it did to your country?

    HT: I don’t hate countries for doing that, but I have a grudge against President Truman for ordering that. But then an other thing is why did they have to drop the bomb knowing that 100 of thousands of innocent people would have died? Why couldn’t they drop the bomb in some place in a remote area to show them what powerful weapon they had instead of killing 140,000 innocent people? I know of a friend of mine, his sun whose name was Kasu (Kaso), they could never find him! And we lost quite a few of our neighbors. Five or six days later my brother and I went to look for our teacher who was like a second father. We were so concerned about him! To go to our teacher we had to cross the whole city and we had to go through the epicenter. We spent the whole day to go through the epicenter and the stench of death was all over the place, and finally, I don’t know how we ever managed to cross some of the bridges that were all destroyed, but somehow we managed to find the house. Of course it was completely destroyed, and the daughter was there at the house by herself and she said that her father died three days ago and he was cremated.

    SC: Do you believe that your personal witness could influence people and make them reflect more seriously about the atrocities committed with the dropping of the bomb?

    HT: I would think so! When I talked to the people about what I went through and all that, they were quiet astonished. Well when I talk to the people they try to understand or realize , and of course it is hard for them to even visualize or imagine what effect it had on the human being. They can say it was awful, horrible, but this doesn’t describe anything because there is no words in a dictionary to describe what I saw. They cannot imagine what happened, there are no words to describe what happened. When I tell people about that thing they say: Oh, this is awful!! This is something that we should be aware of and then try to prevent a nuclear war. And this is the only thing they can really do or say. So I have these wishes: at least try get along to each other and prevent war as much as we can. But this is something really difficult. Even right now there are some countries making nuclear warheads and I think about my grandson who have to through all that.

    SC: How do you think your memories and stories can best be shared with students and young people in order to increase their understanding of the need to eliminate nuclear weapons?

    HT: I made speeches at school, even in Japan, at the University in Tokushima and then at the Grammar School in Koku Kopu) and here in SB and I even made a speech in LA. I made these speeches at least to make them aware of how awful an A-bomb is, and of course a lot of students were shocked. But the students at the University in Tokushima they didn’t even know about the A-bomb and this was something surprising to me. I’m sure they heard about it but they didn’t know how much destructive it was or how much effect it had on human beings. So I believe that educating people in extent is a good I idea.

    SC: What do you think about Japanese and American military expenditures for conventional weapons and other sophisticated weapon’ technologies? Do you believe they are still useful after what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    HT: If they could avoid using them it would be the best thing, but to prevent that is an other question. Because there is Pakistan, India, China and Korea that are still building them. To prevent an other country to launch a missile in a certain way is necessary, but to spend all that money on nuclear weapons is ridiculous because there are so many people who need to be helped, a lot of people who suffer for hunger. Why cannot they use the money towards helping the people instead of building arms? So sometimes I wonder if this is the right way to go!! But then when you see other countries building something like that because they are trying to attack or something like that, well it is a necessity, but then I hope they have at least something to prevent that thing to happen.

    SC: How do you see your role as an “hibakusha”?

    HT: Well I tried not to spread that I’m an hibakusha, but as hibakusha I think I have the responsibility inform people of the danger of the bomb, the radiation and the effect it has on human beings, because there are a lot of people still in Hiroshima who have suffering from the radiation. And as for my self I haven’t had anything serious but I have been going to the doctor ever since the dropping of the bomb. But I was lucky to be able to still survive and be able to tell people of my experience and I think this is one of my responsibilities.

    SC: If there is one lesson you could share with the next generation, what would it be?

    HT: Well I will simply tell them the truth and tell them how terrible the A-bomb is! I would like to tell them to have good relations with other countries, starting with their neighbors. And build friendship and understanding and prevent all these arguments. That’s all I have to say about this! I have been telling my children about the A-bomb and I’m sure they heard something else from their friends, so in this way you can make people aware of the danger of the A-bomb and then I’m sure they will do everything possible to work towards peace instead of trying to create more walls between countries.

    SC: What effect the bomb had on your family: your mother, your brother ..?

    HT: As far as the health my brother and my sister did pretty well, of course my sister she had some problems but then she is O.K.! It hurt my mother more than anything and I think my mother died because of the radiation. Because right after the A-bomb all the people were in the school and my mother used to go and help to cook and nurse these people not knowing the danger of the radiation and she was there every day. So it may affect her health in this way and of course she was very sad that she lost a very good friend in the A-bomb.

  • Excerpt from Senator Douglas Roche’s first speech in Canada’s Senate

    …Third, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the high potential for a significant Canadian contribution to international peace and security. We are an important middle-power country, and our leadership is needed in addressing the most compelling problem faced by the world community today. The continued existence of 30,000 nuclear weapons almost a decade after the end of the Cold War is an affront to humanity. Five thousand of these weapons are on alert status, meaning they are capable of being fired on 30 minutes’ notice.

    The New England Journal of Medicine recently warned:

    The risk of an accidental nuclear attack has increased in recent years, threatening a public health disaster of unprecedented scale. I was part of a Project Ploughshares team that conducted roundtables on the subject of nuclear weapons for community leaders in 16 cities in 10 provinces during the month of September. These two-and-a-half-hour roundtables were attended by 378 persons representing a wide range of Canadians: members of Parliament, members of provincial legislatures, mayors, municipal councillors, school board members, business and religious leaders, and so on. These informed Canadians want the Government of Canada to take an unambiguous stand in support of new, worldwide efforts to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

    The International Court of Justice, the highest legal authority in the world, says nations are obliged to conclude negotiations leading to such elimination. Former military leaders, presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers around the world are calling for a global ban. The Abolition 2000 movement, supported by 1,000 non-governmental organizations, many of them right here in Canada, want negotiations completed by the year 2000. That would lead, then, to an international treaty that would take, perhaps, a quarter of a century to implement. The essential point is that failure to negotiate future eliminations now is leading to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    By testing their nuclear weapons a few months ago, India and Pakistan have exposed the cracks in the non-proliferation regime. As long as the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China – maintain their arsenals of nuclear weapons, other states will naturally seek to acquire them.

    Since nuclear weapons have become the currency of power, how can we expect aspiring states not to acquire them? The current breakdown in the preparatory process for the 2000 review of the non-proliferation treaty reveals the central problem the world faces: Either there will be a global ban on nuclear weapons or they will spread to more nations, with escalating danger to the world.

    Thus, a New Agenda Coalition of eight important states – Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, and Sweden – was formed this summer to seek an unequivocal commitment from the states possessing nuclear weapons to start immediately a process of negotiation leading to the elimination of those weapons.

    Canada has so far refused to join this new coalition. Why? Because NATO continues to insist, despite the logic of the post-Cold War era, that nuclear weapons are “essential.” That is NATO’s word. Trying to be loyal to NATO, Canada thus votes against resolutions at the United Nations calling for the commencement of negotiations. That has to stop. The vast majority of Canadians want an end to the terrible spectre of nuclear weapons. They want Canada to take a leading role in working with like-minded states to get negotiations going. I support the efforts of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

    This week, the Middle Powers Initiative, a network of seven prominent, international, non-governmental organizations specializing in nuclear disarmament, sent a delegation to Ottawa. They were met by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, and were received by the Prime Minister. The delegation urged the Government of Canada to vote at the United Nations this fall for a new resolution sponsored by the New Agenda Coalition which would call upon states possessing nuclear weapons to start and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons. Canada should vote “yes” on this resolution.

    There is not a shred of justification for NATO to keep its nuclear weapons in this new age of east-west partnership. NATO, which still has a valuable role to play in security questions, does not need nuclear weapons, and Canada should work to get nuclear weapons out of NATO.

    Honourable senators, 14 years ago, I made what I thought was my last speech in Parliament. Taking my leave of the House of Commons after 12 years of service, I said:

    Canada, with its history and geography, its freedom and democracy, its resources and technology, and its space and industry, is ideally placed to work for the conditions of peace.

    By the unforeseen twists of fate, I now re-enter Parliament, and my first words are to repeat my call for Canada to work for peace, reconciliation and social justice in the world.

    In my career as a journalist, author, parliamentarian, diplomat, and educator, I have been in every region of the world. There is no land more blessed than Canada.

    The United Nations regularly attests to that fact. I love this country. I love Alberta, my home province. I love Quebec, the province of my birth. My children live in four different cities across Canada. I love St. John’s, and the whole of Newfoundland. I love Victoria, British Columbia, and the whole of Vancouver Island. I want this country to stay together. I want our people to work together. I want our political process to come together.

    There is too much alienation in our society, too much polarization, too much confrontation. I want to contribute to a spirit of reconciliation, an atmosphere of healing, a new basis of hope, as we prepare for the third millennium.

    We simply must find ways of offering genuine hope to young people so that they can truly benefit from a more equitable economy, a reformed Senate and a more dynamic role in world affairs.

    Conscious that I am only one person, I will contribute all my strength to moving Canada forward. Together, we in this historic place can help build Canada anew.

  • Nelson Mandela Calls for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

    [fusion_builder_container type=”flex” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” overlay_color=”” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” padding_top=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” padding_right=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”true” min_height=”” hover_type=”none” link=”” border_sizes_top=”” border_sizes_bottom=”” border_sizes_left=”” border_sizes_right=”” first=”true”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hue=”” saturation=”” lightness=”” alpha=”” content_alignment_medium=”” content_alignment_small=”” content_alignment=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” fusion_font_family_text_font=”” fusion_font_variant_text_font=”” font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_transform=”” text_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_color=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_delay=”0″ animation_offset=”” logics=””]

    President Mandela, in an impassioned speech to the United Nations General Assembly today, called on the nuclear-weapon States to make a firm commitment to eliminating nuclear weapons and on the global community to eradicate poverty. Mandela, the third to speak in the Assembly’s opening session after Brazil’s Foreign Minister Luiz Felipe Lampreia and U.S. President William Clinton, received two standing ovations from the full assembly hall.

    Mandela recalled the very first resolution of the United Nations, adopted in January 1946, which called for “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction,” and lamented the fact that “we still do not have concrete and generally accepted proposals supported by a clear commitment by the nuclear-weapon States to the speedy, final and total elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capabilities.”

    Mandela asked those who justify “these terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction – why do they need them anyway?”

    “In reality, no rational answer can be advanced to explain in a satisfactory manner what, in the end, is the consequence of Cold War inertia and an attachment to the use of the threat of brute force to assert the primacy of some States over others.”

    Mandela announced that in an attempt to contribute to the elimination of these weapons, South Africa, together with Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden will be submitting a draft resolution to the First Committee (Disarmament and Security) for consideration by the General Assembly. He called on all members of the United Nations to support the resolution, which will be entitled “Towards a Nuclear Weapons Free World: The Need for a New Agenda.”

    Ambassador Luiz Felipe Lampreia, Foreign Minister of Brazil, who opened the General Assembly debate, also noted the nuclear disarmament initiative of the eight aforementioned countries.

    Commendation letters can be sent to President Mandela, C/o The Permanent Mission of South Africa to the United Nations, 333 East 38th Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10016. Fax (1) 212 692 2498.

    _________________________________________________________________________________
    Address by President Mandela at the 53rd United Nations
    General Assembly
    New York, 21 September 1998

    Mr. President;
    Mr. Secretary General, the Hon. Kofi Annan;
    Your Excellencies;
    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Mr. President, may I take this opportunity as President of the Republic of South Africa and as Chairperson of the Non-Aligned Movement to extend to you our sincere congratulations on your election to the high post of President of the General Assembly. You will be presiding over this august Assembly of the nations of the world at a time when its deliberations and decisions will be of the greatest consequence to the continuous striving of humanity at last to achieve global peace and prosperity.

    The Non-Aligned Movement, as well as my own country which is a proud member of that Movement, invest great trust in this organisation that it will discharge its responsibilities to all nations especially at this critical period of its existence. Quite appropriately, this 53rd General Assembly will be remembered through the ages as the moment at which we marked and celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Born in the aftermath of the defeat of the Nazi and fascist crime against humanity, this Declaration held high the hope that all our societies would, in future, be built on the foundations of the glorious vision spelt out in each of its clauses.

    For those who had to fight for their emancipation, such as ourselves who, with your help, had to free ourselves from the criminal apartheid system, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights served as the vindication of the justice of our cause. At the same time, it constituted a challenge to us that our freedom, once achieved, should be dedicated to the implementation of the perspectives contained in the Declaration.

    Today, we celebrate the fact that this historic document has survived a turbulent five decades, which have seen some of the most extraordinary developments in the evolution of human society. These include the collapse of the colonial system, the passing of a bipolar world, breath-taking advances in science and technology and the entrenchment of the complex process of globalisation. And yet, at the end of it all, the human beings who are the subject of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights continue to be afflicted by wars and violent conflicts. They have, as yet, not attained their freedom from fear of death that would be brought about by the use of weapons of mass destruction as well as conventional arms.

    Many are still unable to exercise the fundamental and inalienable democratic rights that would enable them to participate in the determination of the destiny of their countries, nations, families and children and to protect themselves from tyranny and dictatorship.

    The very right to be human is denied everyday to hundreds of millions of people as a result of poverty, the unavailability of basic necessities such as food, jobs, water and shelter, education, health care and a healthy environment.

    The failure to achieve the vision contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights finds dramatic expression in the contrast between wealth and poverty which characterises the divide between the countries of the North and the countries of the South and within individual countries in all hemispheres.

    It is made especially poignant and challenging by the fact that this coexistence of wealth and poverty, the perpetuation of the practice of the resolution of inter and intra-state conflicts by war and the denial of the democratic right of many across the world, all result from the acts of commission and omission particularly by those who occupy positions of leadership in politics, in the economy and in other spheres of human activity.

    What I am trying to say is that all these social ills which constitute an offence against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not a pre-ordained result of the forces of nature or the product of a curse of the deities. They are the consequence of decisions which men and women take or refuse to take, all of whom will not hesitate to pledge their devoted support for the vision conveyed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    This Declaration was proclaimed as Universal precisely because the founders of this organisation and the nations of the world who joined hands to fight the scourge of fascism, including many who still had to achieve their own emancipation, understood this clearly that our human world was an interdependent whole.

    Necessarily, the values of happiness, justice, human dignity, peace and prosperity have a universal application because each people and every individual is entitled to them.

    Similarly, no people can truly say it is blessed with happiness, peace and prosperity where others, as human as itself, continue to be afflicted with misery, armed conflict and terrorism and deprivation.

    Thus can we say that the challenge posed by the next 50 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by the next century whose character it must help to fashion, consists in whether humanity, and especially those who will occupy positions of leadership, will have the courage to ensure that, at last, we build a human world consistent with the provisions of that historic Declaration and other human rights instruments that have been adopted since 1948. Immediately, a whole range of areas of conflict confronts us, in Africa, Europe and Asia.

    All of us are familiar with these, which range from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola and Sudan on my own continent, to the Balkans in Europe and Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Sri Lanka in Asia.

    Clearly, this Organisation and especially the Security Council, acting together with people of goodwill in the countries and areas concerned, has a responsibility to act decisively to contribute to the termination of these destructive conflicts.

    Continuously, we have to fight to defeat the primitive tendency towards the glorification of arms, the adulation of force, born of the illusion that injustice can be perpetuated by the capacity to kill, or that disputes are necessarily best resolved by resort to violent means.

    As Africans, we are grateful to the Secretary General for the contribution he has made to help us find the way towards ending violent strife on our Continent. We have taken heed of his report, which will reinforce our efforts to banish war from our shores.

    The very first resolution of the General Assembly, adopted in January 1946, sought to address the challenge of “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction”.

    We must face the fact that after countless initiatives and resolutions, we still do not have concrete and generally accepted proposals supported by a clear commitment by the nuclear-weapons States to the speedy, final and total elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capabilities. We take this opportunity to salute our sister Republic of Brazil for its decision to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and urge all others that have not done so to follow this excellent example.

    In an honest attempt to contribute to the definition of the systematic and progressive steps required to eliminate these weapons and the threat of annihilation which they pose, South Africa together with Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden will be submitting a draft resolution to the First Committee for consideration by this Assembly. This is appropriately titled: “Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free World: The Need for a New Agenda”.

    I call on all members of the United Nations seriously to consider this important resolution and to give it their support. We must ask the question, which might sound naove to those who have elaborated sophisticated arguments to justify their refusal to eliminate these terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction – why do they need them anyway!

    In reality, no rational answer can be advanced to explain in a satisfactory manner what, in the end, is the consequence of Cold War inertia and an attachment to the use of the threat of brute force, to assert the primacy of some States over others.

    Urgent steps are also required to arrive at a just and permanent peace in the Middle East, on the basis of the realisation of the legitimate aspirations of the people of Palestine and respect for the independence and security of all the States of this important region.

    We also look forward to the resolution of the outstanding issues of Western Sahara and East Timor, convinced that it is possible to take these matters off the world agenda on the basis of settlements that meet the interests of all the peoples concerned.

    Similarly, we would like to salute the bold steps taken by the and Government to cooperate fully in all regional and international iniiatives to ensure that the peoples of the world, including our own, are spared the destructive impact of these crimes.

    The world is gripped by an economic crisis which, as President Clinton said in this city only a week ago, has plunged “millions into sudden poverty and disrupt(ed) and disorient(ed) the lives of ordinary people ” and brought “deep, personal disappointments (to) tens of millions of people around the world “.

    “Recent press reports”, President Clinton went on, “have described an entire generation working its way into the middle class over 25 years, then being plummeted into poverty within a matter of months. The stories are heartbreaking – doctors and nurses forced to live in the lobby of a closed hospital; middle class families who owned their own homes, sent their children to college, traveled abroad, now living by selling their possessions”.

    He said “fast-moving currents (in the world economy) have brought or aggravated problems in Russia and Asia. They threaten emerging economies from Latin America to South Africa ” and he spoke of “sacrifice(ing) lives in the name of economic theory” President Clinton further recognized that, in his words, “with a quarter of the world’s population in declining growth we (the United States) cannot forever be an oasis of prosperity. Growth at home (in the US) depends upon growth abroad”.

    I have quoted the President of the United States at this length both because he is correct and because he is the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Accordingly, we would like to believe that with the problem facing all humanity, and especially the poor, having thus been recognised, courage will not desert the powerful when it comes to determining the correct course to be taken and following this course, to address the challenge that has been identified.

    The tragedy President Clinton describes goes far beyond the sudden impoverishment of the middle class to which he correctly refers. Poverty has been and is the condition of the daily existence of even larger numbers of ordinary working people.

    Paradoxically, the challenge of poverty across the globe has been brought into sharp focus by the fact of the destructive “fast movements of currents” of wealth from one part of the world to the other. Put starkly, we have a situation in which the further accumulation of wealth, rather than contributing to the improvement of the quality of life of all humanity, is generating poverty at a frighteningly accelerated pace. The imperative to act on this urgent, life and death matter can no longer be ignored. The central challenge to ensure that the countries of the South gain access to the productive resources that have accumulated within the world economy should not be avoided by seeking to apportion as much blame as possible to the poor.

    Clearly, all relevant matters will have to be addressed, including such issues as greater inflows of long-term capital; terms of trade; debt cancellation; technology transfers; human resource development; emancipation of women and development of the youth; the elimination of poverty; the HIV/AIDS epidemic; environmental protection and the strengthening of financial and other institutions relevant to sustained economic growth and development.

    Fortunately, the matter is no longer in dispute that serious work will also have to be done to restructure the multilateral financial and economic institutions so that they address the problems of the modern world economy and become responsive to the urgent needs of the poor of the world.

    Similarly, this very Organisation, including its important Security Council, must itself go through its own process of reformation so that it serves the interests of the peoples of the world, in keeping with the purposes for which it was established.

    Mr. President; Your Excellencies: The issues we have mentioned were discussed in a comprehensive manner at the Twelfth Summit Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement held in the city of Durban, South Africa, earlier this month. I am privileged to commend the decisions of this important meeting to the General Assembly and the United Nations as a whole, including the Durban Declaration, which the Summit adopted unanimously. I am certain that the decisions adopted by the Non-Aligned Movement will greatly assist this Organisation in its work and further enhance the contribution of the countries of the South to the solution of the problems that face the nations of the world, both rich and poor. This is probably the last time I will have the honour to stand at this podium to address the General Assembly.

    Born as the First World War came to a close and departing from public life as the world marks half-a-century of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I have reached that part of the long walk when the opportunity is granted, as it should be to all men and women, to retire to some rest and tranquility in the village of my birth.

    As I sit in Qunu and grow as ancient as its hills, I will continue to entertain the hope that there has emerged a cadre of leaders in my own country and region, on my Continent and in the world, which will not allow that any should be denied their freedom as we were; that any should be turned into refugees as we were; that any should be condemned to go hungry as we were; that any should be stripped of their human dignity as we were. I will continue to hope that Africa’s Renaissance will strike deep roots and blossom forever, without regard to the changing seasons. Were all these hopes to translate into a realisable dream and not a nightmare to torment the soul of the aged, then will I, indeed, have peace and tranquility.

    Then would history and the billions throughout the world proclaim that it was right that we dreamt and that we toiled to give life to a workable dream.

    [/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

  • Appeal for Negotiations to Eliminate Nuclear Arms

    The nuclear tests in South Asia have jarred the world into new awareness of nuclear danger. They have demonstrated unmistakably the peril of nuclear proliferation and the weakness of international measures of control. They have also cast harsh new light on the persistence of the arsenals of the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France, who jointly possess some 35,000 nuclear weapons. These two main components of nuclear danger-proliferation on the one hand, and the remaining cold war arsenals on the other-can no longer be considered in isolation. They must be addressed together.

    To this end, we call for negotiations to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons in a series of well defined stages accompanied by increasing verification and control. We direct our appeal especially to the nuclear powers, to confirm and implement their existing commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons in Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. India has declared a moratorium on tests and its willingness to give up nuclear weapons in the context of a global plan for their elimination. Today, only a commitment to nuclear abolition can realistically halt nuclear proliferation.

    The tests of South Asia pose great danger but, against the background of the end of the cold war, they have also created an opportunity that must not be missed to take action that can at last free the world of nuclear danger. The hour is late, and the time for action is now.

    Signatories are:
    Oscar Arias, Alan Cranston, Daniel Ellsberg, Mark Hatfield, Joseph Rotblat, Admiral Eugene Carroll, Richard Barnet, Mikhail Gorbachev, Marcus Raskin, Bishop Walter R. Sullivan, Jimmy Carter, Jonathan Dean, Morton Halperin, Douglas Roche, David Cortright.