Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: David Krieger

  • Estamos viviendo al borde de un precipicio nuclear

    Con las armas nucleares,  ¿que podría salir mal? La respuesta es corta: Todo.

    Las armas nucleares podrían ser lanzadas por accidente o error de cálculo. Ya ha habido varias “por poco” debido a advertencias falsas que casi provocan lanzamientos reales, lo que muy probablemente hubiera dado lugar a una represalia. Estas falsas advertencias son mucho más peligrosas para EE.UU. y Rusia sabiendo que cada lado mantiene cientos de armas nucleares en alerta, listas para ser lanzadas en cualquier  momento al darse la orden para hacerlo.

    La mera posesión de armas nucleares y el “prestigio” en la comunidad internacional asociado a dicha posesión es un incentivo para la proliferación nuclear. Actualmente hay nueve países con armas nucleares. ¿Cuánto más peligroso sería el mundo si en su lugar fueran 19, 29 o 99 naciones?

    Las armas nucleares tratan de ser justificadas por una hipótesis sobre el comportamiento humano conocida como la disuasión nuclear. Se arguye que una nación (con o sin armas nucleares) no atacará a otra si hay la amenaza de represalia nuclear. Pero la disuasión nuclear no es infalible y no proporciona protección física. La seguridad que ofrece es totalmente psicológica. Falla si un lado no cree que la otra parte realmente efectuaría una represalia nuclear. Falla si uno de los  lados no es racional. Es un error en el caso de que un grupo terrorista entre en posesión de armas nucleares, y al no tener un territorio, no se pueden tomar represalias en su contra y, además, podrían ser suicidas.

    La disuasión nuclear puede proporcionar una débil, incierta y poco fiable protección contra otros estados, pero no ofrece ninguna contra los terroristas. Por lo tanto, los terroristas en posesión de dichas armas son la peor pesadilla de cualquier estado, incluyendo a los poseedores de estos fatídicos arsenales.

    Ante tales peligros, tiene sentido tratar de reducir los arsenales nucleares al menor número posible de armas (con la meta de  cero) para que las que queden puedan ser vigiladas con mayor eficacia y evitar que caigan en las manos de grupos terroristas.

    También es cierto que el Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear (TNP) obliga a los 190 países del tratado a negociar de buena fe sobre las medidas eficaces para poner fin a la carrera armamentista en fecha próxima y lograr el desarme nuclear completo. La obligación de negociar de buena fe para el desarme nuclear también se aplica a los cuatro países con armas nucleares que no son parte del TNP (Israel, India, Pakistán y Corea del Norte) a través del derecho internacional consuetudinario.

    Ya que está claro que mucho podría salir mal con las armas nucleares, incluyendo que algunas caigan en manos de terroristas, es sorprendente que haya tanta complacencia en torno al tema. Esta complacencia es alimentada por la apatía, el conformismo, la ignorancia y la negación. Sin la participación ciudadana, empujando a los líderes políticos para que actúen, es probable que el mundo será testigo de la pesadilla del terror nuclear, ya sea ocasionada por un país o por terroristas en posesión de armas nucleares. La apatía y la negación tienen el potencial de corroer y disolver nuestro futuro común.

    Por el momento, los nueve países con armas nucleares tienen planes para modernizar sus arsenales, a pesar de la inmoralidad, ilegalidad y desperdicio de los recursos involucrados en hacerlo. Tan sólo EE.UU. está planeando gastar mil millones de millones de dólares en la modernización de su arsenal nuclear en los próximos tres decenios. ¿Dónde está la lógica de estas acciones cuando hay tantas necesidades humanas incumplidas?

    Las armas nucleares no son la solución a nuestros problemas, y plantean el espectro de la devastación de la civilización y el destino de la especie humana. ¿Que podría salir mal? ¿No deberían los ciudadanos simplemente ignorar los peligros nucleares y dejarlos en manos de los líderes de los países con esas armas?  Eso sería una simple continuación del status quo y no habría ninguna solución.

    Debemos reconocer que estamos viviendo al borde de un precipicio nuclear con todos los peligros antes mencionados. En lugar de confiar en la disuasión y seguir modernizando los arsenales nucleares, tenemos que presionar a nuestros líderes políticos para que cumplan con nuestras obligaciones morales y legales para negociar de buena fe la prohibición y la eliminación de las armas nucleares. Es decir, tenemos que liberarnos de nuestra absurda complacencia y comprometernos por lograr un mundo cero nuclear.

    Este artículo fue publicado originalmente por Truthout.

    Vaya aquí para la versión inglés.

    David Krieger es Presidente de Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Rubén D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • We Are Living at the Edge of a Nuclear Precipice

    With nuclear weapons, what could possibly go wrong? The short answer is: Everything.

    Nuclear weapons could be launched by accident or miscalculation. There have already been several close calls related to false warnings nearly leading to actual launches, which would most likely have led to retaliatory responses. These false warnings are all the more dangerous for the US and Russia knowing that each side keeps hundreds of nuclear weapons on high alert, ready to be launched in moments of an order to do so.

    David KriegerThe mere possession of nuclear weapons and the prestige in the international community associated with such possession is an inducement to nuclear proliferation. There are currently nine nuclear-armed countries. How much more dangerous would the world become if there were 19, 29 or 99?

    Nuclear weapons are justified by a hypothesis about human behavior known as nuclear deterrence. It posits that a nation (with or without nuclear weapons) will not attack a nation that threatens nuclear retaliation. But nuclear deterrence is not foolproof and it does not provide physical protection. The security it provides is entirely psychological. It fails if one side does not believe that the other side would really engage in nuclear retaliation. It fails if one side is not rational. It fails in the case of a terrorist group in possession of nuclear weapons that does not have territory to retaliate against and additionally may be suicidal.

    Nuclear deterrence may provide some weak, uncertain and unreliable protection against other states, but it provides no protection against terrorists. Thus, terrorists in possession of nuclear weapons are any state’s worst nightmare, including nuclear-armed states. In light of such dangers, it would make sense to seek to reduce nuclear arsenals to the lowest possible number of weapons (on the way to zero) so that any that remained could be more effectively guarded and kept from the hands of terrorist groups.

    It is also true that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires the 190 parties to the treaty to negotiate in good faith for effective measures to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. The obligation to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament also applies to the four nuclear-armed countries that are not parties to the NPT (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) through customary international law.

    Since it is clear that much could go wrong with nuclear weapons, including some weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, it is surprising that there is so much complacency around the issue. This complacency is fuelled by apathy, conformity, ignorance and denial. Without citizen engagement, pushing on political leaders to act, it is likely that the world will witness nightmarish nuclear terror, either of the state variety or that actually brought about by terrorists in possession of nuclear weapons. Apathy and denial have the potential to corrode and dissolve our common future.

    For the present, the nine nuclear-armed countries all have plans to modernize their nuclear arsenals, despite the immorality, illegality and waste of resources involved in doing so. The US alone is planning to spend $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades. Where is the humanity in seeking to devote resources to improving nuclear weaponry and delivery systems when there are so many human needs that are going unfulfilled?

    Nuclear weapons are not a solution to any human problem, and they raise the specter of the devastation of civilization and the doom of the human species. What could possibly go wrong? Shouldn’t good citizens just ignore nuclear dangers and leave them in the hands of whoever happens to be leading the nuclear-armed countries? That would actually be a continuation of the status quo and would be no solution at all.

    We must recognize that we are living at the edge of a nuclear precipice with the ever-present dangers of nuclear proliferation, nuclear accidents and miscalculations, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war. Instead of relying on nuclear deterrence and pursuing the modernization of nuclear arsenals, we need to press our political leaders to fulfill our moral and legal obligations to negotiate in good faith for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. That is, we need to break free of our acidic complacency and commit ourselves to achieving a nuclear zero world.

    This article was originally published by truthout.

    Click here for the Spanish version.

  • Paris: War Is Not the Answer

    The attacks on innocents in Paris on November 13, 2015 were horrifying crimes, filling the city with grief and uniting people throughout the world in solidarity with the victims and with France.  These attacks were cold-blooded murders of innocent people, clearly crimes deserving punishment.  But when crimes are used as the impetus for war, the crimes and grief are multiplied and the toll of innocents increases to become the norm.  Surely, we must cry havoc, but we must also be wary of letting loose the dogs of war.

    The attacks in New York on September 11, 2001 were also unspeakable crimes.  These attacks also stirred the sympathy and solidarity of the world, in this case for the United States, until the U.S. answered the attacks by letting loose the snarling dogs of war, first against Afghanistan and then against Iraq, a country having nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.  The leaders who perpetrated these wars also caused untold sorrow and death of innocents.  While perpetrators of the attacks in New York, including Osama bin Laden, have been tracked down and captured or killed, those U.S. leaders who committed the worst of the Nuremberg crimes, crimes against peace, particularly in Iraq, have never been brought to justice.

    It was the illegal U.S. war against Iraq, at least in part, that gave birth to ISIS and stoked its smoldering resentment and aggression against the West, and yet those who perpetrated this war still walk free.  And crimes within these wars, such as the bombing of the Doctors without Borders hospital in Kunduz (Afghanistan), still continue.  Unfortunately, we cannot roll back time or erase bad decisions by U.S. leaders, but we can learn from those bad decisions.  The West, particularly France, can seek out the perpetrators of the Paris crimes and bring them to justice.  Crimes demand justice for the victims, not warfare that will only create more victims in an ongoing loop of vengeance and retaliation.

    The challenge today is to find a means of ending this loop of vengeance and retaliation.  This will require acting morally, legally (under international law), and pragmatically (by not inflaming more deaths of innocents and more violence).  This is a great challenge, which will require a new way of thinking, based on avoiding wars rather than perpetuating them.  It will require righting many of the wrongs that the West has inflicted on the Middle East, including ending the long-standing injustices that have been brought to bear on the Palestinians.  It will require the West curbing its hunger for cheap oil from the Middle East.  It will require finding a means of cutting off sources of funding for ISIS, which allow it to pursue war and support terrorism.

    It is also clear that the West cannot fight terrorism with nuclear weapons.  These devices of mass annihilation are not suitable for stopping crimes associated with terrorism.  On the other hand, if the number of nuclear weapons in the world is not dramatically reduced (on the way to zero) and bomb-grade fissionable materials not brought under secure safeguards, terrorists will end up with nuclear or radiological weapons.  This could lead to disasters almost beyond comprehension.  Terrorists in possession of nuclear weapons will not be subject to nuclear deterrence.  They are suicidal, and they do not have territory to retaliate against.  Thus, nuclear deterrence won’t work against them.  If we don’t want to witness or be victims of nuclear terrorism, it is now past time to begin negotiating seriously to create a Nuclear Zero world, as we are required to do under international law.

    The terrorist acts in Paris were a terrible tragedy, but war is not the answer.  In solidarity with the people of France, we must seek justice, not war, if we are to end the cycle of violence that threatens us all and undermines our common humanity.

  • The Fate of Humanity

    The fate of humanity and that of all other inhabitants of the planet rests far too comfortably in the hands of a small number of national leaders (currently all male) who have the self-ordained authority to launch nuclear weapons. They hold in their hands the fate of every man, woman and child on the planet. On one sunlit morning or afternoon any one of these powerful individuals could launch his country’s nuclear weapons, triggering retaliatory responses. The skies would darken with the ash and soot rising from burning cities and create a nuclear winter. Even a small nuclear war could cause a nuclear famine, leading to the deaths by starvation of some two billion of the most vulnerable people on the planet.

    Those with the power and control over nuclear weapons could turn this planet, unique in all the universe in supporting life, into the charred remains of a Global Hiroshima. Should any leader hold so much power? Should we be content to allow such power to rest in any hands at all?

    Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein painted the starkness of our dilemma six decades ago in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto: “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

    Humanity has a choice to make. We can continue with business as usual, standing in the dark shadows of apathy, conformity, ignorance and denial, or we can take action to abolish nuclear weapons. Doing nothing all but assures that nuclear weapons will spread to other countries and eventually again be used by accident or design. Doing all we can to move the world to Nuclear Zero is our only chance to save the planet and assure a human future. We can start by changing apathy to empathy, conformity to critical thinking, ignorance to wisdom, and denial to recognition of the threat posed by nuclear weapons. The time is short and what is at risk is all we love and treasure.

  • Open Letter to President Obama

    OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:
    Fulfill the Prague Promises of Nuclear Disarmament

    Dear Mr. President:

    As you approach your final year in office as President of the United States, I write to urge you to take critical steps to fulfill the promises of nuclear disarmament set forth in your 2009 Prague speech.

    You stated, “…I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  There can be no doubt that America and all other countries would be more secure in a world without the overarching threat of nuclear devastation.  You also stated in the Prague speech, “…as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.  We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.”

    These were wise words, speaking to the critical role of the United States in leading the world out of the nuclear age, as we led it into the nuclear age.  With a little over a year remaining in your final term, it is important for you to take action that would lead toward a nuclear-free world.

    Please consider the following steps:

    1. Fulfill the U.S. obligation under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by providing leadership to convene good faith negotiations among the world’s countries for an end to the nuclear arms race, including modernization of nuclear arsenals, and for complete nuclear disarmament.
    1. Take all U.S. nuclear weapons off high-alert status.
    1. Declare a U.S. policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons.
    1. Complete the job of securing all weapons-grade nuclear materials throughout the world.
    1. Speak out and educate the American people about the dangers and lack of security inherent in nuclear deterrence policies, as well as the provocative and offensive capabilities inherent in missile defense policies.

    You could set the world on a fast-track course for nuclear zero.  You are approaching the end of your opportunity as President to do this.  Judging from your Prague speech, you know it is the right thing to do.  Don’t miss this chance, leaving open the very real possibility of foreclosing the future through nuclear war by accident or design.  You have a unique opportunity to secure this victory for all humanity, or at the least set it in motion by your leadership in the final year of your presidency.

    You, and only you, can do this.

    Respectfully,

    David Krieger, President
    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • 2015 Evening for Peace Introduction

    Good evening and thank you for being part of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 32nd Annual Evening for Peace. A special welcome to all the students with us tonight. We hope that this evening will be a great learning experience for you – both educational and inspirational.

    Our honoree this year, the 70th anniversary year of the atomic bombings, is a hibakusha – a survivor of those bombings. She, like other hibakusha, has the truest perspective on the horrors caused by the atomic bombs, the perspective of being under a nuclear detonation.

    Before I introduce our honoree to you, I’d like to make a few comments about nuclear weapons and the work of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation to abolish them.

    The atomic bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relatively small nuclear weapons when compared with those of today.  Nonetheless, they were very effective killing devices, killing 210,000 to 220,000 persons in the two cities by blast, fire and radiation by the end of 1945.

    Nuclear weapons are not the friend of humanity or other forms of life. In fact, they are the enemy of all Creation. They are illegal, immoral, tremendously costly and undermine the security of their possessors.

    The only reasonable number of nuclear weapons on our planet is Zero, and it is our collective responsibility to go from where we are to Zero. This has been the goal of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation since our founding in 1982.

    We’ve progressed from 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world in the mid-1980s down to under 16,000 today. This is progress, but it is not sufficient. We still face the prospect of a Global Hiroshima – a nuclear war, by accident or design, which could end civilization and even the human species.

    There is far too much complacency around this issue. I worry about ACID, an acronym for key elements of complacency: Apathy, Conformity, Ignorance and Denial. We must change these acidic forms of complacency to engagement by changing Apathy to Empathy; Conformity to Critical Thinking; Ignorance to Wisdom; and Denial to Recognition of the nuclear threat.

    One important way we do this is through our work as a consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands in their lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice and in US federal court. The Marshall Islands does not seek compensation in these lawsuits. They seek only that the nuclear-armed countries negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament as they are obligated to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law.

    The Foundation has helped establish legal teams to support these cases, and the attorneys working on the cases have given thousands of hours to this work on a pro bono basis. Two of these lawyers are here this evening and I’d like you to join me in recognizing them: Laurie Ashton and Lynn Sarko.

    I’d also like you to join me in recognizing Dan Smith, another pro bono attorney who has submitted amicus briefs on behalf of other civil society organizations in support of the Marshall Islands.

    When you support the Foundation, you are supporting the courage of the Marshall Islanders and their legal efforts to achieve a victory for all humanity.

    Another way we work to shift complacency to engagement is through our project, “Humanize Not Modernize.” This project opposes the US and other nuclear-armed countries upgrading, modernizing and generally making their nuclear arsenals more usable. The US alone plans to spend $1 trillion over the next three decades on modernizing its nuclear arsenal. It will only benefit the arms manufacturers at the expense of meeting human needs for the poor and hungry and those without health care.

    When you support the Foundation, you are supporting the shift from nuclear insanity to human security.

    Still another way we work to combat nuclear complacency is by educating a new generation of Peace Leaders. Paul Chappell, the director of our Peace Leadership Program, travels the world teaching people the values and skills needed to wage peace. We also have a great internship program at the Foundation, led by Rick Wayman, our Director of Programs. Our interns make valuable contributions to the Foundation’s work.

    When you support the Foundation, you are supporting the development and training of committed young peace leaders.

    Tonight we shine a light on courageous Peace Leadership. This is the 32nd time we have presented our Distinguished Peace Leadership Award. It has gone to some of the great Peace Leaders of our time, including the XIVth Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Carl Sagan, Yehudi Menuhin, Jody Williams, Jacques Cousteau, Helen Caldicott and Medea Benjamin.

    We are honored to be presenting our 2015 award to an exceptional woman, who is a hibakusha and child victim of war. She was just 13 years old when the US dropped an atomic bomb on her city of Hiroshima. She lost consciousness and awakened to find herself pinned beneath a collapsed building.

    She thought she would die, but she survived and has made it her life’s work to end the nuclear weapons era and to assure that her past does not become someone else’s future. She is a global leader in the fight to prevent a Global Hiroshima and assure that Nagasaki remains the last city to suffer a nuclear attack. Our honoree is a Peace Ambassador of the United Nations University of Peace in Costa Rica, a Peace Ambassador of the city of Hiroshima, and was a nominee for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

    I am very pleased to present the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2015 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to a courageous Peace Leader and member of the human family, Setsuko Thurlow.

    David Krieger delivered these remarks at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 32nd Annual Evening for Peace on October 25, 2015.

  • War Crime Blues

    Have you heard the terrible news?
    U.S. forces bombed a hospital in Kunduz.
    It gives me a case of the wartime blues,
    makes me shake with the war crime blues.
    You can’t win a war, you can only lose.

    U.S. forces already knew
    the place was off limits under the law, before
    they attacked, killing twenty-two.

    The chain of command I sadly accuse
    of being at fault and causing the spread
    of the war crime blues.

    The attack was launched at two
    in the morning.  It came without warning,
    with no sign or clue.

    The first bombs fell on the hospital’s I-C-U.
    Patients were burned in their hospital beds,
    it is tragically true.

    Despite frantic calls, the bombing continued
    for well over an hour, showing the wartime power
    to be arrogant, cowardly and relentlessly rude.

    That no U.S. leader would stand and refuse
    to carry out such orders makes me shake
    with the war crime blues.

    Bombing a hospital, no one should do.
    Among the dead were three young children,
    their lives cut short, who were murdered, too.

    The U.S. attacked the only hospital in Kunduz.
    Now it’s the people, wounded and writhing in pain,
    who will shake with the war crime blues.

    Have you heard the terrible news?
    U.S. forces bombed a hospital in Kunduz.
    Does it give you a case of the wartime blues?
    Does it make you shake with the war crime blues?
    You can’t win a war, you can only lose.

  • Children of War

    In war, children die,
    float away on clouds of grief.
    By far, the greatest lie of all
    is the well-worn but absurd belief
    that war is noble, not a crime.

    In war, children writhe in pain,
    while their parents wail.
    Before we spread war’s red stain,
    should we not consider how we fail
    the young, again and yet again?

  • El Papa Francisco pide prohibición completa de armas nucleares

    Click here for the English version.

    Cuando el Papa Francisco llegó a los Estados Unidos trajo consigo no sólo su espiritualidad, sino su entereza, la compasión y el compromiso de crear un mundo más decente. Instó a la población de Estados Unidos y sus representantes para vivir la Regla de Oro y respetar la naturaleza que nos sostiene a todos. A pesar de tener una agenda muy ocupada, encontró tiempo para compartir una comida con las personas sin hogar, dialogó con los presos, y bendijo a los necesitados. Comentó que los niños son los más importantes entre nosotros. Él nos dio ejemplo con sus sonrisas, su calor, sus palabras y sus hechos.

    El Papa tuvo tantas actividades durante su visita de seis días que muchos estadounidenses tal vez no vieron y escucharon su discurso en las Naciones Unidas el 25 de septiembre sobre la “urgente necesidad de trabajar por un mundo libre de armas nucleares, aplicando el Tratado de No Proliferación, en lo escrito y en su espíritu, con el objetivo de una prohibición total de estas armas”. El Papa nos pide no sólo que deseemos un mundo así, pero nos exhorta “a trabajar” para ello. Si se va a trabajar para alcanzar este mundo, todos debemos intercambiar la apatía por la empatía, la conformidad por el pensamiento crítico, la ignorancia por la sabiduría, y la denegación del reconocimiento de la amenaza que estas armas representan para la humanidad y el futuro de la vida en la Tierra.

    El Papa Francisco nos llama a reconocer que existe una “necesidad urgente” para dicho trabajo. No es el trabajo de un día lejano, o que se puede hacer un día de estos. El tema es urgente, la necesidad es enorme. Él insistió por la “plena aplicación del Tratado de No Proliferación, en su redacción  y espíritu.” El Tratado de No Proliferación (TNP), que entró en vigor en 1970, obliga a las partes en el artículo VI del tratado “a celebrar negociaciones de buena fe sobre medidas eficaces relativas a la cesación de la carrera de armamentos nucleares en fecha cercana y al desarme nuclear … “.

    Los cinco países con armas nucleares que son parte en el TNP (Estados Unidos, Rusia, Reino Unido, Francia y China) no están siguiendo a ni lo escrito ni el espíritu del tratado. En lugar de poner fin a la carrera de armas nucleares, dedican grandes cantidades de dinero a la costosa y peligrosa “modernización” de sus arsenales nucleares, haciendo caso omiso de su obligación de negociar de buena fe para el desarme nuclear. Los cuatro países con armas nucleares que no son parte del tratado (Israel, India, Pakistán y Corea del Norte) están obligados por el derecho internacional consuetudinario a estas disposiciones del TNP, y también están haciendo caso omiso de sus obligaciones en virtud del derecho internacional.

    El Papa Francisco dice claramente que la meta a alcanzar es la “prohibición total” de las armas nucleares. Medidas parciales no son suficientes. Como líder espiritual que es, tiene que ser muy consciente de que toda la Creación, incluyendo la humanidad, se coloca en riesgo por las más de 15.000 ojivas nucleares que hay todavía en nuestro planeta. El Papa rechaza efectivamente la disuasión nuclear como justificación. Él dice: “Una ética y una ley basada en la amenaza de destrucción mutua – y posiblemente la destrucción de toda la humanidad – es contradictorio en sí mismo y una afrenta a todo el marco de las Naciones Unidas, que terminaría como ” naciones unidas por el miedo y la desconfianza. ‘”

    Como alguien que ha trabajado para la abolición de las armas nucleares durante más de tres décadas, me siento muy alentado por el llamado rotundo del Papa para la “prohibición total”. Él no anda con rodeos. Fue claro y directo y habló de la urgencia de lo que es necesario para realizar la tarea. Muchos otros en todo el mundo que busca un planeta libre de armas nucleares también deben estar encantados con el llamado de Francisco “para la abolición de las armas nucleares, incluyendo los 117 países que han firmado el” Compromiso Humanitario “, iniciado por Austria, para llenar el vacío legal que actualmente existe con respecto a la posesión de estas armas. La pequeña República de las Islas Marshall se debe sentir particularmente alentada por el llamado del Papa para la abolición, ya que está en el proceso de demandar a los nueve países con armas nucleares en la Corte Internacional de Justicia y en una corte federal por su incapacidad para cumplir con sus obligaciones en virtud del el Tratado de No Proliferación y el derecho internacional consuetudinario.

    El Papa Francisco es un hombre sabio y decente. Sus palabras de apoyo para una “prohibición total” de las armas nucleares deben llegar al corazón de todos los que buscan un mundo libre de esta terrible amenaza, una meta que los que ahora vivimos le debemos a nuestros hijos y nietos y a todas las generaciones que nos seguirán en el planeta.

    David Krieger es presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Sus libros y artículos están disponibles en la página web de la Fundación (www.wagingnpeace.org).

    Rubén Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation y Director General para América Latina de la organización de Jean-Michel Cousteau, Ocean Futures Society.

  • Pope Francis Calls for Complete Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

    When Pope Francis came to the United States he brought with him not only his spirituality, but his courage, compassion and commitment to creating a more decent world.  He urged the people of the US and their representatives to live by the Golden Rule and to respect nature that sustains us all.  Despite a full schedule, he found time to share a meal with the homeless, dialogue with prisoners, and bless those in need.  He commented that the children are the most important among us.  He taught us with his smiles, his warmth, his words and his deeds.

    pope_ungaThe Pope did so much during his six-day visit that many Americans may have missed his remarks at the United Nations on September 25th on the “urgent need to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, in full application of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in letter and spirit, with the goal of a complete prohibition of these weapons.”  The Pope asks us not only to desire such a world, but admonishes us “to work” for it.  In order to achieve this world, one must work to replace apathy with empathy, conformity with critical thinking, ignorance with wisdom, and denial with recognition of the threat these weapons pose to humankind and the human future.

    Pope Francis calls upon us to recognize that there is an “urgent need” for such work.  It is not work for a distant day, or work that can be put off to another time.  The matter is urgent, the need is great.  He also calls for the “full application of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in letter and spirit.”  The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, requires the parties in Article VI of the treaty “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament….”

    The five nuclear-armed countries that are parties to the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) are not at present following either the letter or spirit of the treaty.  Rather than ending the nuclear arms race, they are engaged in costly and dangerous “modernizing” of their nuclear arsenals, while ignoring their obligations to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament.  The four nuclear-armed countries that are not parties to the treaty (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) are bound by customary international law to these provisions of the NPT, and are also ignoring their obligations under international law.

    Pope Francis is clear that the goal to be achieved is the “complete prohibition” of nuclear weapons.  Partial measures are not enough.  As the spiritual leader that he is, he must be keenly aware that all of Creation, including humankind, is placed at risk by the more than 15,000 nuclear weapons still on our planet.  The Pope effectively dismisses nuclear deterrence as a justification for nuclear weapons.  He states, “An ethics and a law based on the threat of mutual destruction – and possibly the destruction of all mankind – are self-contradictory and an affront to the entire framework of the United Nations, which would end up as ‘nations united by fear and distrust.’”

    As someone who has worked for the abolition of nuclear weapons for more than three decades, I am greatly encouraged by the Pope’s resounding call for “complete prohibition.”  He did not mince his words.  He was clear and direct and spoke of the urgency that is necessary to accomplish the task.  Many others throughout the world seeking a world free of nuclear weapons must also be elated by Pope Francis’ call for nuclear weapons abolition, including the 117 countries that have signed the “Humanitarian Pledge,” initiated by Austria, to fill the legal gap that currently exists regarding possession of these weapons.  The tiny Republic of the Marshall Islands must be particularly encouraged by the Pope’s call for abolition as it is in the process of suing the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice and in US federal court for their failure to fulfill their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law.

    Pope Francis is a wise and decent man.  His words of support for a “complete prohibition” of nuclear weapons should give heart to all who seek a world free of nuclear weapons, a goal that those of us now alive owe to our children and grandchildren and all generations that will follow us on the planet.

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.