Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: activism

  • Where Are They Now? Lauren Lankenau

    Where Are They Now? Lauren Lankenau

    Interns have always played a vital role at NAPF and we love staying in touch with them after they leave us and begin their careers.

    Lauren Lankenau interned with us during the spring of 2018, shortly before leaving Santa Barbara to attend Vanderbilt University Law School. This summer, Lauren will work with Keller Rohrback, L.L.P., the law firm that represented the Marshall Islands in the lawsuits we strongly supported.

    We caught up with Lauren to find out how her time at NAPF has influenced her life thus far…

    NAPF: In what ways did your internship at NAPF impact your life?

    Lauren: My internship with NAPF allowed me to explore nuclear issues outside the classroom setting and ultimately gave me a type of solace knowing that I too can make a difference in this world.

    NAPF: The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits were filed in 2014, just about six years ago. What was it about these lawsuits that interested you?

    Lauren: The ability to give a voice to people harmed by government entities is what interested me about the Marshall Islands case. The tale of environmental exploitation without adequate recompense is far too common. I want to hold people accountable for their actions.

    NAPF: Would you say that your time at NAPF furthered your interest in becoming an activist and using your voice for justice?

    Lauren: I always had an interest in enacting change, but was unsure what mode would be most impactful. At the time of my internship, I was focusing primarily on science. Working at NAPF showed me that activism is actually a more effective way to prevent environmental harm. My internship coincided with my switch from science to activism.

  • Youth Activism on the TPNW Program

    Youth Activism on the TPNW Program

    In mid-February of 2020, the Peace Action Fund of New York State, NuclearBan.US, Treaty Awareness Campaign, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and Nuclear Age Peace Foundation launched the Youth Activism on the TPNW (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons) Program.  The coordinators were Emily Rubino of the Peace Action Fund of New York State; Eust Eustis of the Treaty Awareness Campaign; Molly McGinty of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War; and Christian N. Ciobanu of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    As part of this program, the coordinators brought 15 students (11 from New York and 4 from Boston) to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)’s Forum on How to Ban Bombs and Influence People. This forum was held at Salle Olympe de Gouges, 15 Rue Merlin, 75011 Paris, France.

    Upon arriving to Paris, the youth participated in an informal orientation, where they received the itinerary and met with one another. 5 Swiss students from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies and 1 doctoral student from Sciences Po also attended the orientation.

    During the second and third days of the program, the youth attended the ICAN Forum. At the Forum, Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, delivered the keynote address.

    Following her moving address, the forum convened a series of panels, which focused on activism 101; the risks and consequences of nuclear weapons; detoxing from deterrence; how activists can work with parliamentarians and members of the financial community; how art can be used as a social justice tool; and how activists have challenged established narratives from various actors in the world such as the military, climate change, nuclear weapons, patriarchy, big business, and colonial powers. The panelists included: Jean-Marie Collin of ICAN France; Beatrice Fihn of ICAN; Ray Acheson of Reaching Critical Will; Susi Snyder of PAX, Catherine Killough of Women Cross DMZ; and Leona Morgan of the Nuclear Issues Group, amongst others. A list of the speakers can be found here.

    During the final session of the Forum, participants heard from prominent actors of the climate movement, professional NGOs and single-issue coalitions about different pathways to achieving change.

    Throughout the Forum, Susan Chapas, an intern of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, interviewed students about their thoughts on nuclear disarmament. These video clips will be available soon.

    The participants felt empowered and are thinking about how they can shift the discourse on how nuclear weapons are discussed and engage in conversations with the public about the TPNW. Additionally, many young people shared that the Forum was the first time that they had heard about the intersectionality of climate change and nuclear weapons. Usually, they only hear about these issues in separate siloed discussions.

    The participants also appreciated the fact that many of the panelists and participants of this program were women. A young person shared that women’s empowerment is vital, but unfortunately lacking at many disarmament forums. Thus, it was important for her to hear from strong female activists and participate in a program composed of young women.

  • Kate Hudson: In Her Own Words

    Kate Hudson: In Her Own Words

    Do you think the UK can rethink its position on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?

    The UK will only rethink its position on the TPNW when the argument has been won to get rid of Britain’s nuclear weapons system Trident. The UK cannot sign up without putting in place a time-constrained plan for disarmament, without any conditionality on other nuclear weapons states disarming, so signing up to the TPNW is understood, in effect, to be unilateral nuclear disarmament, given that no other nuclear weapons states are planning to give up their nuclear weapons. While opinion polls over the last decade and a half generally show a majority of the population (especially, young people) in favour of scrapping Trident, this has not affected the policy of the major parties. While smaller parliamentary parties like the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party oppose nuclear weapons, the Conservative Party, Labour Party and Liberal Democrats all continue to back Trident and its replacement. The key reason for this is the view that nuclear weapons are necessary to maintain Britain’s status as a world power. While many in the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats favour nuclear disarmament, the leaderships are not willing to risk looking weak on defence by abandoning the nuclear arsenal. So even though recent governments have recognised that cyber warfare, climate change, terrorism and other contemporary factors are actually the key security threats, not nuclear weapons, there is no appetite to change the totemic status of the UK’s nuclear arsenal, in spite of its enormous cost.

    How does Brexit affect the dominant beliefs on nuclear deterrence?

    Brexit has pushed virtually all other political issues down, or off, the political agenda, so it has been very difficult to raise the issue at all through our Parliamentary CND group. One of the effects of Brexit has been to increase the role and influence of the far right, and to increase nationalism, so no doubt nuclear disarmament would be seen as weakening ‘the nation’. So in so far as it is possible to judge, I would say that Brexit will make the political climate less amenable to progress on nuclear disarmament.

    Do you think women have a specific role to play in paving the way to the abolition of nuclear weapons?

    Women are often more prominent in peace and nuclear disarmament movements than in other civil society movements and campaigns, although that may be changing these days with more women entering public life. I have tended to think that this is because some elements of our dominant culture may see peace as ‘weak’ and that warfighting is a male characteristic, along with often more aggressive posturing, whereas caring and nurturing – and protecting future generations – has tended to be the preserve of females. But I do not consider these to be innate, rather to be learned through social conventions. Equally they can be unlearned, and the path to peace and disarmament is open to all to embrace, irrespective of gender.

    Kate Hudson is a British left-wing political activist and academic. Since 2010, she has been the General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), having served as chair since 2003. She first became active in the peace movement in the early 1980s during the surge of activity against cruise missiles. With the end of the Cold War, like many others, Kate felt that the issue of nuclear weapons had greatly declined, so she turned to other campaigning work. One of her proudest moments was helping to Embrace the Base at Greenham Common in December 1982, along with 30,000 other women. By the mid-1990s, with the expansion of NATO and the escalation of the U.S. ‘Star Wars’ system, she came back to lead CND just as the ‘war on terror’ was beginning. She has been a key figure in the anti-war movement nationally and internationally and considers international cooperation and solidarity to be the key to the nuclear non-proliferation movement’s ultimate success.

  • 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.

  • Open Letter from the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center

    Our Dear Sisters and Brothers,

    We send warm greetings and many thanks to all who actively engage in the transformation of weapons of mass destruction to sustainable life-giving alternatives. Gregory Boertje-Obed (U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas) Michael Walli (Federal Correctional Institution McKean, Bradford, Pennsylvania) and I are sending you some of our observations and concerns on the 2nd anniversary of our Transform Now Plowshares action.

    Transform Now Ploughshares

     

    On July 28, 2012, after thorough study of nuclear issues, and because of our deepening commitment to nonviolence, we engaged in direct action by cutting through four fences at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where the U.S. continues to overhaul and upgrade thermonuclear warheads.

    On that day, two years ago, when we reached the building where all U.S. highly-enriched (bomb-grade) uranium is stored, we prayed and also wrote messages on the wall, such as “The Fruit of Justice is Peace”. (Realistically, the higher and stronger fences built as a result of our nonviolent incursion can never keep humans safe from inherently dangerous materials and weapons.)  We acted humbly as “creative extremists for love”, to cite one of our most important and revered leaders, Martin Luther King, Jr.

    There are a number of reasons for what we did. We three were acutely mindful of the widespread loss to humanity that nuclear systems have already caused, and we realize that all life on Earth could be exterminated through intentional, accidental, or technical error.

    Our action at the Y-12 site in Oak Ridge exposed the storage of weapons-making materials deliberately hidden from the general public. The production, refurbishment, threat, or use of these weapons of mass destruction violate the fundamental rules and principles by which we all try to live amicably as human beings. The United States Constitution and the Laws of War are intended to ensure the survival of humanity with dignity. However, it is abundantly clear that harmony and cooperation among nations can never be achieved with nuclear weapons. (These arguments, we assume, will be made on our behalf during the eventual appeal of our convictions that accused us of sabotage, though it was never our intention to harm our country.)

    Our “crime” was to draw attention to the criminality of the 70-year-old nuclear industry itself and to the unconscionable fact that the United States spends more on nuclear weapons than on education, health, transportation, and disaster relief combined.

    We three Transform Now Plowshares consider it our duty, right, and privilege to heighten tension in the ongoing debate of Disarmament vs. Deterrence because history has repeatedly taught us that the policy of deterrence doesn’t lead to security, but rather to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. During our trial, the U.S. prosecutors and the U.S. courts accused the wrong people when they claimed that we violated the law, because what we did was to make America’s citizens aware of egregious preparations for mass murder.

    We took action because we were acutely aware that our government has failed to keep its long-standing promise to pursue nuclear disarmament. (As Ramsey Clark testified during one of our pre-trial hearings, the U.S. entered into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the 1960’s because our country was finally facing up to the severe human and environmental consequences of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as to the hideous results of countless nuclear tests conducted by the U.S. government within and beyond our own borders.)

    One of our pressing concerns is that U.S. prosecutors and the courts adhere to an obsolete view of security with no cognizance – or consciousness – of the horrific effects caused by nuclear weapons. Greg, Mike, and I believe that, undeniably, the U.S. is in a state of denial. It’s what Hannah Arendt called not evil, but the banality of evil. “There’s nothing deep about it. It’s nothing demonic! There’s simply the reluctance ever to imagine what the other person is experiencing, right?” (Hannah Arendt, “Eichmann was Outrageously Stupid” in The Last Interview and Other Conversations, Melville House, Brooklyn 2013, p. 48).

    We citizens cannot permit ourselves to be rendered passive and mute by the banality of evil! Only complete nuclear disarmament can save humanity. At stake is the honor and dignity of the Hibakusha, along with the physical, environmental, emotional, and psychological trauma long suffered by victims of the nuclear system, from uranium miners to down-winders. (From 1946 to 1958, Marshall Islanders were bombarded with 67 atomic and thermonuclear tests that were carried out by the United States.)

    Michael Walli, Greg Boertje-Obed and I are in U.S. prisons because, ironically, our action at Oak Ridge was based on the common sense reality that we human beings have endured more than enough destruction and exploitation. We believe that we citizens can exercise our collective power to consciously transform our nation’s priorities. We all need to actively insist on more humane uses for the billions of dollars now budgeted for the nuclear weapons/industrial complex.

    Two years ago, as we neared the building in Oak Ridge, we were extremely surprised by the ineffectiveness of the system that supposedly guarded our nation’s most important National Security Complex. We believed that we were about to expose the source of unfettered violence that has led to the chronic spiritual and economic decline in the U.S. As it turned out, it was the laxity of the security system at Y-12 that caught the attention of the courts and the mainstream media. Security weakness became the big story. There was no mainstream acknowledgement that the national security complex is rotting from its own irrelevance.

    Most surprisingly, our July 2012 action and our court cases have revealed that it is not the U.S. government that is in control of the nuclear weapons complex, but in reality it is the corporations that are in control through their solicitation and manipulation of endless funding for the refurbishment of unlawful thermonuclear warheads. We three are incarcerated because we stood up to a nuclear weapons industry that is kept thriving by the interlocking and obsolete institutions that subscribe to the long-discredited notion that law and security can be enforced by ever-greater force.

    Regarding the $22.8 billion contract awarded to the Y-12 site in Oak Ridge and the Pantex plant in Texas, for the refurbishment of thermonuclear warheads and a new Uranium Processing Facility (UPF), the relevant corporations don’t actually operate under the long-discredited myth of “nuclear deterrence”. Rather, corporations such as Babcock and Wilcox, Lockheed, and Bechtel operate under limited liability subsidiaries, joint ventures, consortiums, and partnerships for the main purpose of making profits by engaging in huge nuclear weapons production/refurbishment contracts. By this time, Congress certainly is aware that valid contracts can be issued only for the dismantlement of all nuclear weapons and for the environmentally-sound treatment and disposition of all nuclear materials.

    In order for the U.S. to negotiate for nuclear disarmament in good faith, we say it is essential to peaceably transform these very corporations so that they are no longer able to violate the most basic moral and legal principles of civilized society by deliberately precipitating planetary self-destruction.

    We thank you for your letters and your concerns. We ask you to support the Republic of the Marshall Islands in their current legal actions against the United States in U.S. federal court  and against the U.S. and all the other nuclear weapons states in the International Court of Justice, for failure to eliminate their respective nuclear arsenals. You can learn more and add your support by signing the petition at www.nuclearzero.org.

    Blessings,

    Greg, Michael and Megan

  • Peace Leadership in Canada

    Peace Leadership in Canada

    joann_deckNAPF Peace Leadership Director Paul Chappell spoke in December 2013 in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada on the principles of nonviolence at the workshop on Building Non-Violent Indigenous Rights Movements. Held at the Wabanaki Resource Center at St. Thomas University and sponsored by the Wabanaki Confederacy and The Land Peace Foundation, the first part of this workshop focused on how nonviolence training could be applied to the current struggle against fracking as Indigenous tribes resist the Government of New Brunswick’s appropriation of tribal lands for shale gas exploration.

    Chappell discussed both the philosophy of nonviolence and the actions of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. He also explored the history of different kinds of nonviolent protests.

    “I was inspired to learn how Gandhi stood up for himself, with strength and nonviolence and was able to move so many people to action,” said Juisen Bartibogue, Mi’kmaq Nation, 19, of Burnt Church, New Brunswick. “I saw how nonviolence is the only way for us to be able to achieve our goals and to make a lasting peace.”

    Attorney Sherri Mitchell, a graduate of the summer 2013 NAPF Peace Leadership training, spoke during the second half of the workshop on strategy building for unified movements. A member of the Penobscot Tribe and executive director of the Land Peace Foundation, Mitchell has been an advocate for indigenous rights for over two decades, working to protect the rights of her own tribe and those of Indigenous people across the Americas.

    Mitchell said, “The battle over dwindling resources has caused aggressive attacks on Indigenous rights and these workshops will provide the practical skills to create strong and effective opposition to these attacks.”

  • Nuclear Zero: The Necessary Number

    This article is the introduction to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s Annual Report.

    David KriegerIn 1945 the first nuclear weapon was tested and, within weeks, the next two nuclear weapons were used by the United States on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    By 1986 there were over 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world, nearly all in the arsenals of the US and USSR.

    Today there are just over 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world,

    which means that, since the mid-1980s, the world has shed some 50,000 nuclear weapons. That’s progress, but it’s far from sufficient.

    There are still some 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert in the US and Russian arsenals. These weapons are accidents waiting to happen.

    Atmospheric scientists tell us that, in a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which 50 nuclear weapons from each side were exploded on the other side’s cities, enough soot would be put into the stratosphere to block warming sunlight, shorten growing seasons, and cause crop failures leading to a billion deaths by starvation globally. Nuclear famine is only part of the havoc that a “small” nuclear war would cause.

    Zero is the only safe number of nuclear weapons on the planet. It is what the human future requires of us. For the sake of the seven billion inhabitants of our planet, for everyone who matters to each of us, for everything that matters to each of us, we must strive for and achieve Nuclear Zero.

    Another necessary number is One, because each one of us has the power to make a difference with our voice, our actions and our support. When a dedicated portion of the seven billion Ones on the planet are joined together and motivated, they can achieve any great and necessary goal, including Nuclear Zero.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we are committed to providing Peace Leadership that emphasizes the Power of One in achieving Nuclear Zero.

  • Book Review: Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual

    Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual by Lawrence S. Wittner


    Publisher:  University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN


    Publication Date: February 2012, 288 pages


    Paperback Price: $29.95


    Working for Peace and Justice: Memoirs of an Activist Intellectual is a must read for all who are interested and involved in the search for peace, racial equality, and other aspects of social justice.  The book is a very well written autobiography by Lawrence S. Wittner, emeritus professor of history at the State University of New York-Albany.


    Born and raised in Brooklyn, New York,  Wittner graduated from Columbia College (B.A., 1962), the University of Wisconsin (M.A., 1963), and Columbia University (Ph.D. in history, 1967).  His teaching assignments were at Hampton Institute, Vassar College, the University of Toyko, and finally, SUNY/Albany from which he retired as a full professor in 2010.  His scholarship included authorship of eight books and the editing or co-editing of another four, plus the writing of over 250 published articles and book reviews.  His most challenging scholarly effort was the completion of a three book series The Struggle Against the Bomb on the history of the nuclear disarmament movement.  The books were:  One World or None: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement Through 1953;  Resisting the Bomb: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1954-1970;  and Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971 to the Present.  An abbreviated version of the entire trilogy is also available as Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement. Additionally, his Rebels Against War: The American Peace Movement, 1933-1983 is a widely acclaimed, comprehensive account of the missing link between the mass peace and justice movements of the 1930s and their rebirth in the 1960s with emphasis on civil rights, non-violent resistance and the prevention of World War III.


    During the course of his research, Wittner delved into the records and periodicals of many peace organizations like the War Resisters League, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and SANE (now Peace Action). Among the prominent peace activists whom he interviewed for his publications were A.J. Muste, Norman Thomas, Dave Dellinger, and Mercedes  Randall.  During his research for the Struggle Against the Bomb series, he interviewed such well known peace movement leaders as Randy Forsberg, Sandy Gottlieb, Helen Caldicott, John Isaacs, Randy Kehler, Jeremy Stone, Bernard Lown, Bob Musil and Frank von Hippel.


    In addition to his research and teaching roles, Wittner was a tireless agitator and social activist.  A paragraph in the Preface of the book describes those activities:


    ” Over the course of my life, I … have been tear-gassed, threatened by police with drawn guns, charged by soldiers with fixed bayonets, spied upon by U.S. government intelligence agencies, and purged from my job for political reasons.  Although, in my opinion, I did nothing that merited this kind of treatment, it is certainly true that much of my behavior was quite unconventional.  Indeed throughout most of my life I worked diligently as a peace agitator, civil rights activist, socialist organizer, labor union militant, and subversive songwriter. My experiences ranged from challenging racism in the South, to building alliances with maquiladora workers in Mexico, to leading the annual antinuclear parade through the streets of Hiroshima.  Like Wendell Phillilps, the great abolitionist leader, I have been a consistent thorn in the side of complacency – at least I hope so.”


    Clearly Wittner paid a price for his agitation and activism.  While he had a very enviable and successful academic career, his road to success was not easy.  Most major U.S. universities require three primary duties of their tenured professors and those who are seeking tenure.  Those duties are research, teaching, and community service.  If there ever was a university professor who excelled in all three of those functions, it was Lawrence Wittner.  That fact, notwithstanding, he had a VERY rough road to promotion and success because of ultra conservative presidents, deans, departmental chairs, and dead-wood academic colleagues.  Several of those individuals threw sand into the gears of his work as researcher, teacher, and community service provider.  Inane university politics delayed his achievement of tenure,  and ensured that his pay was not usually commensurate with his voluminous work output.   Lesser individuals would have succumbed to such outlandish obstacles.  This was not the case with Lawrence Wittner.  His life was, and is, a life of caring, persistence and dedication to the cause of peace, social justice and human survival.  It is important that his life’s contributions and achievements be passed on to young and old alike.  Working for Peace and Justice is an excellent book for general audiences, peace activists, ethicists, students of peace studies, students of history, and social activists of every stripe. 

  • Building a Local Nuclear Disarmament Coalition with Global Aims

    Building a Local Nuclear Disarmament Coalition with Global Aims

    The most important question that I have about nuclear weapons is this: Why are most people so disinterested in policies concerning these weapons that have the capacity to destroy the human species and much of life on the planet?

    It seems to me that there are two principal answers to this question: ignorance and apathy. Many people are ignorant about the threats posed by nuclear weapons. Among those who are concerned, many may believe there is little they can do to change the policies of the nuclear weapons states.

    Nuclear weapons can be used in only a few ways.

    First, to initiate a preemptive or preventive attack on an enemy in a most cowardly, immoral and illegal fashion, killing hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent people.

    Second, to threaten to attack an enemy in order to have it bend to one’s will.

    Third, to threaten retaliation against an enemy that would initiate an attack against one’s country. This is called nuclear deterrence. It’s a theory about human behavior; it’s not a foolproof means of protection. For example, it is not possible to retaliate against an enemy, like al Qaeda, that cannot be located.

    A very important truth about nuclear weapons is that they do not and cannot provide physical protection to their possessors. They can make you believe you are safe, but this is of very little value in the event deterrence would fail – for any reason.

    Another important truth about nuclear weapons is that they are the only weapons that could destroy the United States. If you love the United States, as so many of our politicians are piously pronouncing these days, you should be working for a nuclear weapons-free world.

    It’s also true that you should be working for a nuclear weapons-free world if you love your children, your grandchildren and your fellow human beings – those who are alive today and those who will follow us on this earth.

    Another truth – one that may not be so obvious – is that only the United States can lead the way to a nuclear weapons-free world. Without US leadership it won’t be possible. If the US continues to rely upon its nuclear arsenal for security, the Russians and the other nuclear weapons states will not disarm. The likely consequence is nuclear proliferation and greater nuclear danger.

    During the past two administrations there has been very little political will to lead on nuclear disarmament. The Bush administration has made the US an obstacle to nuclear disarmament rather than a leader. In 2007, the US voted against all 15 nuclear disarmament measures to come before the UN. And the Clinton administration missed one of the great opportunities ever set before an American president to lead on nuclear disarmament.

    But now we are in a time of transformational possibilities. We will soon have a new administration. Both major party presidential candidates say that they favor a world without nuclear weapons, but not even a dedicated new president can change US nuclear policy alone. The new president will need broad public support, and Congress will have to be pushed on nuclear policy issues. This is where a coalition of local organizations could play a major role.

    We need to wake up America – before it is too late. There have been an incredible number of warnings from scientists, military leaders, clergy, Nobel laureates and other distinguished individuals that have not done the job. A Los Angeles coalition could set a great example for other cities across our nation and across the globe.

    This is a world problem, but it is particularly an American problem. We led the way into the Nuclear Age by developing nuclear weapons, we used the first nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we tested more nuclear weapons than any other nation – and we must also lead the way out of the Nuclear Age.

    What is needed is commitment, creativity, courage and coalition. It will also require persistence. This is a challenge at least as great, perhaps greater than that of global warming. So, rise up LA and help lead the nation.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation we have some tools that can be helpful.

    First, we have an Appeal to the Next President for US leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a straight forward Appeal that educates while it advocates. It calls on the President to take seven steps: take nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert; make legally binding commitments to No First Use of nuclear weapons; initiate a moratorium on research, development and production of new nuclear weapons; ratify and bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; create a verifiable treaty to control nuclear materials throughout the world; commence good faith negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons; and reallocate resources from the tens of billions currently spent on nuclear arms to meeting human needs throughout the world.

    Second, we have a DVD called “Nuclear Weapons and the Human Future.” It is a great educational tool that can be used groups of all sizes.

    Third, we have a monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower, which provides regular updates on key nuclear policy issues.

    We are in a time of transformational possibilities. If we seize the moment, we will have fulfilled our responsibilities to humanity and to the future. If we fail, the consequences will be graver than we can imagine.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • International Action Against ‘Dirty’ Weapons: Huge Public Support for the Second International Day of Action Against Depleted Uranium

    For immediate release:

    This Thursday 29th May the Second International Day of Action Against Depleted Uranium is taking place. The scale of the event promises to be many times larger than previously seen as public outrage over the recent use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons in Iraq by Britain and America grows. Groups all over the world have pledged to take part and will be involved in protesting against military, government and commercial targets involved in the production and use of depleted uranium weapons and public awareness raising in their local communities.

    Countries that will be seeing protests on the 29th May include so far; Yugoslavia, Greece, the USA, Ireland, Germany, Finland and Britain. Organizers of the many protests range from groups such as Nuke Resister in the States who have a long history of working against DU weapons to individuals who have just found out about the use of these weapons after the recent attack on Iraq and feel compelled to take a stand. Fittingly Britain and the US will see the highest levels of protests with at least 15 events planned across Britain and 10 across the States, including Washington DC and New York. Anger at the issue in Britain is especially strong in Scotland where DU weapons are tested.

    Anna Bell from the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU), who have been working to support those taking part in the day, said “We have been completely taken by surprise at how many groups have wanted to take part in the Day of Action. People who have not been involved in campaigning before have come to us and have said they couldn’t believe their governments were capable of such hypocrisy and irresponsible behavior. Iraq was the first time many people had heard of the weapons and their effects. With the international trade in these weapons and the contamination they cause respecting no borders an International Day of Action is the most effective way of saying DU weapons are completely unacceptable to the world community.”

    DU weapons are both chemically toxic and radioactive and can cause long term damage to human health and the environment. They are have been labeled a weapon of indiscriminate effect by the UN Subcommission for Human Rights.

    For more information please contact:

    The Campaign Against Depleted Uranium
    Fax or telephone: 0161 273 8293
    http://www.cadu.org.uk
    info@cadu.org.uk