Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: David Krieger

Jimmy Carter on Morality and Nuclear Weapons

In January 2010 the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of eight international civil society organizations working for a world free of nuclear weapons, held a consultation at the Carter Center in Atlanta on the May 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. A highlight of the meeting was a session with President Carter in which he expressed his views on the need for stronger efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament and prevent nuclear proliferation. In the question and answer period that followed his remarks, I posed a question to the former president about his own strong moral standards and his preparedness to use nuclear weapons in a counterattack against the Soviet Union. Douglas Roche, the chair emeritus of the Middle Powers Initiative, called President Carter’s response “the most poignant moment I have ever experienced at an MPI meeting.” The question and President Carter’s response follow.

Q: President Carter, thank you so much. I was struck when you said in your remarks that you were prepared to launch a counterattack against the Soviet Union. Knowing you as a deeply moral individual – this is a personal question – I wonder how you could in your own mind take your moral, religious, spiritual values and contemplate retaliation with nuclear weapons with all the results and consequences that this would have.

President Carter: The most difficult issue I’ve ever had to face as a human being is what to do if a nuclear threat materialized when we were in the midst of the Cold War. I prayed constantly that I would not be faced with this decision. I didn’t see the rationality—it is difficult for me to talk about it. I couldn’t sit acquiescently and let the Soviet Union destroy my country without a response when we had the capability to do so.

I had been a submarine officer and military professional. I was ready to take action that would take human life to protect the integrity of my country. At the same time, I did everything I could to avoid it. I bent over backwards to understand the partially paranoid concerns of the Soviet leaders. I would sit sometimes in my White House office—I had a large globe there and I would deliberately turn the globe to Moscow and I would imagine myself as Brezhnev. I would imagine what things might cause me to resort to nuclear use and what might cause me to avoid it. We began to work with the Soviet Union in many ways, including on human rights.

I can’t say in good conscience now that my decision to respond would have been the correct one. It would have cost millions of American lives if we were subject to attack and it would have cost millions of Russian lives if we attacked. I cannot answer your question adequately. It is incompatible with my basic Christian beliefs to do that. What Jesus Christ would have done, I don’t know. When I took the oath of office of President, before God, I took the oath to defend my country. I felt that was the way I could prevent further destruction of my country. The fact that the Russians believed I would respond was the essence of the mutual deterrence. If I made any sort of public insinuation that the Russians could attack us with nuclear weapons without being the recipient of a response—that would have been unacceptable, unimaginable for me to do.

March 10, 2010
A Nuclear Weapons Convention

This speech was delivered by David Krieger to the 4th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

A Nuclear Weapons Convention is a treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons. Such a treaty does not yet exist, except in the form of a model treaty developed by non-governmental organizations and introduced by Costa Rica and Malaysia to the United Nations General Assembly. The model treaty shows that a Nuclear Weapons Convention is possible from a technical perspective. What it does not demonstrate is its feasibility from a political perspective.

If the goal is a world free of nuclear weapons, then a Nuclear Weapons Convention is the best vehicle for achieving this goal. When speaking about a Nuclear Weapons Convention, I generally add “a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.” Let’s discuss those qualifiers.

Many leaders express concern about nuclear disarmament occurring too rapidly, without sufficient preparation, and thus being potentially dangerous and destabilizing. Of course, that concern must be compared to the considerable dangers of current nuclear weapons policies, including proliferation, terrorism, and inadvertent or intentional use. However, to avoid destabilization in the process of nuclear disarmament, the proposal is for phased elimination of nuclear weapons, which would allow for confidence building in each phase. As certain steps were accomplished in each phase, confidence in the system would be strengthened. For example, reductions in numbers of weapons can be set out for the various phases. Safeguards can be strengthened in phases, and so forth. There are many ways in which the phases can be designed, related to the number of phases, their length, and what is to be accomplished in each phase.

A principal concern related to nuclear weapons abolition is cheating. Thus, any disarmament system must be subject to verification. Ronald Reagan famously said, “Trust, but verify.” There need to be systems of inspection and verification so that there is confidence that cheating is not occurring. Individual states should not be allowed to control the methods of inspection and verification on their territories. Verification must not have limiting factors. It must allow for full inspections. Countries must be prepared to open their facilities to challenge inspections at any time and in any place. The right to full inspections to assure against cheating must be understood as a basic requirement for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. There are many ways in which verification procedures can be organized and designed, related to issues such as what entities would authorize and conduct inspections, and the timing and scope of the inspections.

Making disarmament irreversible is an important element of the process of moving to zero nuclear weapons. It is one of the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Irreversibility is a matter of principle in order to hold on to the gains that are made in the process of disarmament and not allow for the possibility of backsliding. Some technical questions may be involved, including the determination of what constitutes irreversibility.

The final element I would stress is transparency. A Nuclear Weapons Convention should make the process of nuclear disarmament transparent so that all parties will have confidence that the required steps are actually being taken. This is an element that must be carefully thought through, however, so as not to increase the vulnerability of states as the number of weapons is reduced. There is a delicate balance between security and transparency that must be considered.

I view these four elements – phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent – as being essential for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. They are necessary for building confidence that the abolition of nuclear weapons can be accomplished. They will be guideposts in negotiating the treaty, but before there can be a treaty we must first get to the negotiating table.

Over the years, there have been many calls for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. In 1995, when the Abolition 2000 Global Network was formed following the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, they called in their founding statement for the NPT nuclear weapon states to “[i]nitiate immediately and conclude…negotiations on a nuclear weapons abolition convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.”

In 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The Court stated unanimously: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” In effect, the Court said there is a legal obligation to pursue a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

On the opening day of the of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation published an Appeal in the New York Times signed by, among others, 35 Nobel Laureates, including 14 Nobel Peace Laureates. The Appeal called upon the nuclear weapon states to “[c]ommence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.”

In 2008, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued an Action Plan for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament, emphasizing that the two are strongly interrelated. The first of his five actions is “[a] call for all NPT parties to pursue negotiations in good faith – as required by the treaty – on nuclear disarmament either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.”

The Mayors for Peace Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol calls for negotiations for a Nuclear weapons Convention or a comparable Framework Agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons by the year 2020. They have promoted this among their 3,500 member cities.

The most important issue confronting us is not the elements of a Nuclear Weapons Convention. These can be worked out through negotiations. The most important issue is how to generate the political will to commence negotiations. I believe that such political will must come from demands by the people. I also believe that the United States should lead the way, and this places a special responsibility upon the shoulders of Americans. If the US does not lead, it is hard to imagine the Russians joining; if the Russians don’t join, it is hard to imagine the Chinese joining, and so forth.

President Obama has called for the US, as the only country to have used nuclear weapons, to lead on achieving a nuclear weapons-free world. Unfortunately, though, he doesn’t believe the goal can be achieved in his lifetime. It is up to people everywhere to make their voices heard on this issue and to encourage him to convene negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention with a sense of urgency. President Obama has expressed strong concern about nuclear terrorism. He must be convinced that the threat of nuclear terrorism will only be eliminated when nuclear weapons are eliminated.

If the United States does not act in convening negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, Japan could take the lead. As the victims of the first atomic attacks, Japan has an equal, if not more valid, claim to leadership and responsibility on this issue. Most important, the voices of the bomb survivors, the hibakusha, must be ever present in the debate on achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

In a Briefing Booklet that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is preparing for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, we describe a spectrum of perspectives toward nuclear weapons. At one end of the spectrum are the Nuclear Believers, those who believe the bomb has been a force for peace. At the other end of the spectrum are the Nuclear Abolitionists, those who believe that nuclear weapons threaten the annihilation of the human species and most forms of life. In the center is the category of the Nuclear Disempowered, those who are confused, ignorant and apathetic. People in this category are often fatalistic and are inclined to defer to “experts.” It is this enormous group of disempowered individuals that must be awakened, empowered and engaged in seeking a world free of nuclear weapons. This is our challenge as abolitionists. If we can succeed in building a solid base of support for nuclear weapons abolition, a Nuclear Weapons Convention will be the vehicle to take us to the destination.

February 22, 2010
A Message to Youth: Live to Your Full Capacity and Save the Planet

This speech was delivered to the youth of Soka Gakkai International in Japan on February 8, 2010.

I want to talk with you as youth, as a group of youth who care about our world. One thing is certain: You will inherit the world. It will not be either the strong or the meek who will inherit the Earth; for better or for worse, it will be the youth. You will inherit what we, the older generation, leave to you, and you will hopefully do better than we have done in preserving this beautiful planet and the diversity of its life forms. You will hopefully do better in achieving and maintaining peace on our planet. You will also have the eventual responsibility, as each generation does, to pass the world on in tact to the next generation.

New generations of youth keep coming, like waves against the shore. Now it is your turn to reach the shore. As animals once left the sea for the land, you now come of age to take responsibility in the world. And you come of age at a time of great challenge. The generations of your parents and grandparents have left you a world that is fraught with dangers and inequities. The test of your generation will be in the way you create a more just and decent world. But you will have another challenge as well. You will have to navigate the dangers of nuclear weapons – weapons capable of ending civilization and destroying most life on Earth.

The human future is not guaranteed. That is the most profound meaning of the Nuclear Age. It is an era in which we have created weapons that are capable of omnicide, the destruction of all. Omnicide is an extension of suicide and genocide to the entire world. We live in a time when it is possible to destroy everything. We have proven our cleverness in creating tools of destruction. Now it is up to us, and to you as youth in particular, to find the means to assure that these tools are not used and are abolished.

How will you do this? To start with, you must recognize the nature of the problem. This is no ordinary problem that can be left to work itself out. It requires a plan. Who will create and implement such a plan? Who will take the lead in assuring that we are progressing toward zero nuclear weapons? The problem could become much worse than it is today. Instead of nine nuclear weapon states, imagine a world in which there are 20 or 50 or 100. What kind of world would that be?

We have a Non-Proliferation Treaty that seeks to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons. That treaty has a provision for nuclear disarmament, so that there will not be permanent classes of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.” Everyone recognizes that such a world would not be fair, so Article VI of the treaty requires that the nuclear weapon states engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice interpreted this clause in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. They said, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

I would like to share with you some additional reasons to abolish nuclear weapons:

1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.   As such, they are instruments of dehumanization as well as annihilation.

2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists. Nuclear war could cause deadly climate change, putting human existence at risk. Here is what one researcher, Steven Starr, concluded from reviewing the recent literature on nuclear weapons and climate change: “The detonation of a tiny fraction of the operational nuclear arsenals within cities would generate enough smoke to cause catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of the protective stratospheric ozone layer. Environmental devastation caused by a war fought with many thousands of strategic nuclear weapons would quickly leave the Earth uninhabitable.”

3. They threaten to foreclose the future, negating our common responsibility to future generations.

4. They make cowards of their possessors, and in their use there can be no decency or honor. This was recognized by most of the leading US generals and admirals of World War II, including Dwight Eisenhower, Hap Arnold, Omar Bradley, and William Leahy. Admiral Leahy, chief of staff to President Truman, said: “The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

5. They divide the world’s nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing false and unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them.

6. They are a distortion of science and technology, siphoning off our scientific and technological resources and twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes. On the 50th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a senior Manhattan Project scientist, Hans Bethe, called upon “…all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons – and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.”

7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power. The International Court of Justice has ruled that the threat of use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and any use that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal. It is virtually impossible to imagine a threat or use of nuclear weapons that would not violate international humanitarian law by failing to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, causing unnecessary suffering or being disproportionate to a preceding attack.

8. They waste our resources on the development of instruments of annihilation. The United States alone has spent over $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the onset of the Nuclear Age.

9. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals and, in doing so, undermine democracy. They give over to a few individuals, usually men, greater power of annihilation than at any previous time in history.

10. They are morally abhorrent, as recognized by virtually every religious organization, and their mere existence corrupts our humanity. If we are willing to tolerate these weapons and their indiscriminate power of annihilation, then who are we? What do these weapons say about our humanity, our human decency?

I think it should be clear that one primary goal for youth should be to act and to lead in abolishing nuclear weapons.

Later this year, in May, there will be an eighth Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. This is the only treaty that has provisions requiring the nuclear weapon states to pursue the goal of nuclear disarmament. It will be an important meeting after the failure of the last NPT Review Conference in 2005. To give you an idea of how much there is to accomplish, I want to share with you the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s priority recommendations for the conference:

1. Each signatory nuclear weapon state should provide an accurate public accounting of its nuclear arsenal, conduct a public environmental and human assessment of its potential use, and devise and make public a roadmap for going to zero nuclear weapons.

2. All signatory nuclear weapon states should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies by taking all nuclear forces off high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapon states and No Use against non-nuclear weapon states.

3. All enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium – military and civilian – and their production facilities (including all uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technology) should be placed under strict and effective international safeguards.

4. All signatory states should review Article IV of the NPT, promoting the “inalienable right” to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in light of the nuclear proliferation problems posed by nuclear electricity generation.

5. Each nuclear weapon state should comply with Article VI of the NPT, reinforced and clarified by the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion, by commencing negotiations in good faith on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons, and complete these negotiations by the year 2015.

The problems may seem complex, but the bottom line is this: Nuclear weapons threaten the human future, and they must be abolished. This is a human issue that is every bit as consequential as was the movement to abolish slavery in the 19th century. There are some acts that cannot be tolerated, and slavery and the threat of nuclear omnicide are among them.

You can be a voice for abolition by learning more, supporting the hibakusha, and speaking out for a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons. Don’t be satisfied with anything less than a clear commitment to a world with zero nuclear weapons, and demand more from political leaders who say that the goal is too difficult or cannot be achieved within their lifetime.

In addition to working for the abolition of nuclear weapons, your generation faces many other challenges as well. There is no major international problem in our world that does not require international cooperation to solve. Thus, we need to work together. With modern communications and transportation, your generation is well equipped to cooperate across all borders. Really, borders exist primarily in our minds. They are not drawn upon the Earth, only on maps. And all borders are permeable to ideas and trade, as well as to pollution and disease. The bottom line is that we live in a single unitary world. We all share one Earth, and we can make of it a paradise or a nightmare. We choose – by our actions or inaction.

We live in a world of some 200 nation states. Most of these spend far too much on their military forces, so that in total the world spends some $1.5 trillion a year on its militaries. We know that for a relatively small proportion of this amount – five or ten percent – it would be possible to make enormous progress on the eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals. These goals include ending poverty and hunger, universal education, gender equality, child health, maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development. The achievement of these goals would reflect real advances in human security, and with relatively small reductions in global military expenditures we could make them happen.

As you go through life, you will have many challenges. Each of you will have to find your own way in the world. I want to share with you 12 ideas on how to meet these challenges. These involve using all your miraculous gifts to live to your full capacity as human beings.

1.   Learn from others, but think for yourself. (Use your mind and judgment.)

2.   Decide for yourself what is right or wrong. (Use your conscience.)

3.   Speak out for what you believe in. (Use your voice.)

4.   Stand up for what is right. (Use your power as an individual.)

5.   Set goals and be persistent in working for them. (Use your vision and determination.)

6.   Live by the Golden Rule. That is, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Use your feelings as a point of reference.)

7.   Recognize the miracle that you are. You are unique in the universe. (Be spiritually aware.)

8.   Never harm another miracle. Choose to solve conflicts without resort to violence. (Be nonviolent.)

9.   Believe in yourself. (Be trustworthy, even to yourself.)

10.   Help others. (Be giving.)

11.   Be a citizen of the world. (Be inclusive and embrace all life.)

12.   Be a force for peace and justice. (Be courageous and committed.)

I hope you will find joy in life and also contribute to creating a more just and decent world. If you care about life and recognize its preciousness, you are needed to create a better future. Albert Camus, the great French writer and philosopher, said: “Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present.”

Camus responded to the first atomic bombing in this way: “Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests. Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging. This is no longer a prayer but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments – a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason.” I stand with Albert Camus in choosing to wage peace. I hope you will as well.

As you may know, I engaged in a dialogue with SGI President Daisaku Ikeda. We espoused the principle of choosing hope, rather than succumbing to ignorance, apathy or despair. Hope gives rise to action, and action, in turn, gives rise to hope. Our shared hope includes the goal of building a more peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons – a daunting but essential goal. I stand with Daisaku Ikeda in choosing hope. I’m sure that you stand with him as well.

You are the future. May each of you choose hope, wage peace, and live your lives fully and with a full measure of joy. I wish you all much success.

Let me conclude with a poem that I wrote for a Soka High School graduation some years ago. I think its message remains valid today.

ADVICE TO GRADUATES

Always remember this:
You are a miracle
Made up of dancing atoms
That can talk and sing,
Listen and remember, and laugh,
At times even at yourself.

You are a miracle
Whose atoms existed before time.
Born of the Big Bang, you are connected
To everything – to mountains and oceans,
To the winds and wilderness, to the creatures
Of the sea and air and land.
You are a member of the human family.

You are a miracle, entirely unique.
There has never been another
With your combination of talents, dreams,
Desires and hopes. You can create.
You are capable of love and compassion.

You are a miracle.
You are a gift of creation to itself.
You are here for a purpose, which you must find.
Your presence here is sacred – and you will
Change the world.

February 18, 2010
Omnicide and Abolition
This speech was delivered by David Krieger to the 4th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on February 6, 2010.

It is a great pleasure to be again in Nagasaki. Thank you all for welcoming us so warmly to your beautiful city. I have always been struck by the chance nature of the bombing of Nagasaki. The target of the bomb that fateful day was another city, Kokura, but clouds prevented the bombing of that city. If it hadn’t been for those clouds, Nagasaki might never have been bombed. If there had not been a break in the clouds over Nagasaki, the city might never have been bombed. Something as ordinary as clouds can change our lives in profound ways. But so can our actions to build a world of peace and to eliminate nuclear weapons from our planet.

Over the years I have written a number of poems about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I would like to share one of these, entitled Echoes in the Sky. It begins with a quote by the former mayor of Nagasaki, Iccho Itoh.

ECHOES IN THE SKY

“Today the bells of Nagasaki echo in the sky…”
— Mayor Iccho Itoh

The sky, bitter, blue, unyielding, holds promise. The city, so welcoming,
deserved far better. Clouds opened making space for devastation. Before
anyone expected, the flowers returned. Memories are painful, sometimes
unbearable. Words of apology never came. Survivors grow old and feeble.
Generations pass. The air above the sea is thick with sorrow. The bells ring
out for peace, echo in the sky.

This is the first time I have been in Nagasaki since the tragic death of Mayor Itoh. I remember him vividly as a man of great charm and warmth. He had a deep commitment to ending the nuclear weapons era and to assuring that Nagasaki’s past does not become any other city’s future. Many of us throughout the world feel a debt of gratitude for the leadership he provided on this most critical issue of our time.

Nagasaki is a city at once magical and poetic. From the ashes of atomic devastation nearly 65 years ago, Nagasaki has arisen to become a leading global city in the movement for a world free of nuclear threat. These Citizens’ Assemblies are models of engagement to involve ordinary citizens in the task of abolishing nuclear weapons. The bells of Nagasaki echo in the sky’s embrace. These bells send forth a call to people everywhere to awaken to the spirit of peace, to global cooperation and the transformative powers of forgiveness and love. Nagasaki has always been an entry point for foreigners into Japan. It has also been a gateway outward to the world, and your message is one that is critical for the world to hear.

I have worked for nuclear disarmament for four decades, and have done so with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation since its founding in 1982. Our first and most important goal at the Foundation is the abolition of nuclear weapons. We also seek to strengthen international law and to empower new generations of peace leaders. These goals go together hand-in-hand. We will not achieve abolition without strengthening international law and empowering new generations of peace leaders. So we need to be firm in our demands for the total abolition of these monstrous weapons in accord with international law, and new generations of peace leaders must join in this demand and stand with us shoulder-to-shoulder. We need to educate and mentor young leaders to carry forward this struggle until the last nuclear weapon is dismantled and destroyed.

I would like to talk to you about Omnicide and Abolition. Omnicide is a term coined by the philosopher John Somerville. It is an extension of the concepts of suicide and genocide. It means the destruction of all, of everything. Nuclear weapons have the potential for omnicide. They could destroy everything — civilization, the human species, other forms of life, art, music, memory, poetry, literature, the past, the future. Anything you can imagine can be destroyed by nuclear weapons, even imagination itself. How clever we humans are. We are a tool-creating species, and we have created tools with which we are capable of annihilating ourselves and other forms of life. This should be a frightening thought to all of us.

There is no doubt that the number of nuclear weapons on our planet is sufficient to end human life. What can justify this risk? Is it not insane to continue to run this risk? Why does this seem to be something that our political leaders cannot see? Where is the leadership for change?

One ray of hope is Barack Obama assuming the presidency of the United States. He seeks “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” But he tells us that he is not naive, and that this is not likely to be achieved in his lifetime. He tells us we must be patient. But if he knew that patience might make nuclear proliferation more likely and lead to further nuclear catastrophes, would he not instill his goal with a greater sense of urgency?

Another ray of hope is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has called for all parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty “to pursue negotiations in good faith – as required by the treaty – on nuclear disarmament either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.” This is important leadership coming from the top international civil servant.

Our task as global citizens is to become a strong enough voice that leaders seeking abolition, like President Obama and Ban Ki-moon, will feel a solid base of support behind them, providing them with the strength to seek to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity with a sense of urgency.

We have our work cut out for us. There is no doubt it will be difficult to achieve our goal. We face powerful forces. We must make our demands heard. As the 19th century anti-slavery abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, said: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will.”

We must encourage President Obama to act with greater urgency, but we must also encourage Kim Jong-Il to come to the negotiating table, give up his nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances and development assistance, and join a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone. We must also bring the spirit of the hibakusha to the negotiating table. If we can do this, we can use the transforming powers of forgiveness and love to infuse the negotiations with a new energy reflective of the changed “modes of thinking” that Albert Einstein saw as essential to avert “unparalleled catastrophe.”

The hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have given testimony to enough pain and suffering for many lifetimes. Let their voices echo in the sky and throughout the Earth. I would ask you to take five actions from this Citizens’ Assembly.

First, invite President Obama and other world leaders to visit your city. Help them to see at first hand the nature of the nuclear power of annihilation and compare that to the transformative powers of forgiveness and love.

Second, send a strong delegation of hibakusha to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and lobby each of the delegates to the conference, encouraging them to approach the elimination of nuclear weapons with a sense of urgency.

Third, send delegations of hibakusha throughout the world to tell their stories to young people, to share with them the Appeal that will come from this Assembly, and to encourage their leadership in the struggle for a world without nuclear weapons.

Fourth, lobby the Japanese government to step out from under the US nuclear umbrella and to end its reliance on extended nuclear deterrence.

Fifth, continue to lobby for a Nobel Peace Prize for the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Obama received the prize for what he might do; the hibakusha deserve the prize for what they have done in powerfully spreading the message, “Never again!”

Now I would like to focus on the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which will take place in May. In their deliberations, states parties to the conference should bear in mind the following in seeking a comprehensive solution to the threat of nuclear weapons rather than narrow advantage:
- Nuclear weapons continue to present a real and present danger to humanity and other life on Earth.
- Basing the security of one’s country on the threat to kill tens of millions of innocent people, perhaps billions, and risking the destruction of civilization, has no moral justification and deserves the strongest condemnation.
- It will not be possible to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons without fulfilling existing legal obligations for total nuclear disarmament.
- Preventing nuclear proliferation and achieving nuclear disarmament will both be made far more difficult, if not impossible, by expanding nuclear energy facilities throughout the world.
- Putting the world on track for eliminating the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons will require new ways of thinking about this overarching danger to present and future generations.
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation supports the following five priority actions for agreement at the 2010 NPT Review Conference:
1. Each signatory nuclear weapon state should provide an accurate public accounting of its nuclear arsenal, conduct a public environmental and human assessment of its potential use, and devise and make public a roadmap for going to zero nuclear weapons.
2. All signatory nuclear weapon states should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies by taking all nuclear forces off high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapon states and No Use against non-nuclear weapon states.
3. All enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium – military and civilian – and their production facilities (including all uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technology) should be placed under strict and effective international safeguards.
4. All signatory states should review Article IV of the NPT, promoting the “inalienable right” to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in light of the nuclear proliferation problems posed by nuclear electricity generation.
5. All signatory states should comply with Article VI of the NPT, reinforced and clarified by the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion, by commencing negotiations in good faith on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons, and complete these negotiations by the year 2015.
The most important action by the NPT Review Conference would be an agreement to commence good faith negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Such an agreement would demonstrate the needed political will among the world’s countries to move forward toward a world without nuclear weapons. If the United States fails to lead in convening these negotiations, I would urge Japan to do so. Regardless of which countries provide the leadership, however, I would propose that the opening session of these negotiations be held in Hiroshima, the first city to have suffered nuclear devastation, and the final session of these negotiations be held in Nagasaki, the second and, hopefully, last city to have suffered atomic devastation.

If agreement could be reached to begin these negotiations for a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, we would be on a serious path toward a nuclear weapons-free world, one that would allow the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to know that their pleas have been heard.

I would like to conclude by sharing another poem, “The Bells of Nagasaki.”

THE BELLS OF NAGASAKI

The bells of Nagasaki
ring for those who suffered
and those who suffer still.

They draw old women to them
and young couples
with love-glazed eyes.

They draw in small children
walking awkwardly
toward the epicenter.

The Bells of Nagasaki,
elusive as a flowing stream,
ring for each of us, ring
like falling leaves.

Thank you, and let’s make sure that the echoes of the Nagasaki bells are heard throughout the world. Never lose hope, and never give up the struggle for a safer and saner world, free of all nuclear weapons.
February 8, 2010
William Stafford: A Voice for Peace

Poet William Stafford was a conscientious objector
during World War II. A wonderful 32
minute documentary video, “Every War Has Two Losers,” has been done of his life
as a writer and man of peace. The video,
directed by Haydn Reiss, includes commentary by Robert Bly, W.S. Merwin and Alice Walker,
among others.

Stafford, who lived from 1914 to 1993, is revealed as a
down to earth man and artist, who was a voice for peace and simple decency. The video is available online from Amazon, as
are many of Stafford’s poetry
books.

The flavor of Stafford’s poetic voice for peace can be found in his
poem:

At the
Un-National Monument Along the Canadian
Border

This is the field where the battle did
not happen,
where the unknown soldier did not
die.
This is the field where grass joined hands,
where no monument stands,
and the only heroic thing is
the sky.

Birds fly here without any sound,
unfolding their wings across the open.
No people killed –
or were killed – on this ground
hollowed by the
neglect of an air so tame
that people celebrate it by forgetting its
name.

January 29, 2010
Nuclear Weapons After Bush: Prospects for Abolition

2010_01_25_conference_transcript.pdf

January 25, 2010
Become a Peace Leader and Change the World

I’d like you to learn the skills to do something great in your life, to make a difference in the world by becoming a peace leader. What could be a greater or more satisfying challenge than working to make the world more peaceful and just?

Leadership begins with thinking big, with having dreams and goals that are larger than one person can accomplish. Nearly all important goals may seem like impossible dreams until someone comes along and dreams them. Leadership requires a vision of a better future and at least a rough idea of a plan to achieve the vision. It requires convincing others that the vision is worth pursuing and the plan makes sense. Leadership is about moving people to action. It is best accomplished by persuasion and by setting the right example for others. Leadership has the power of mobilization.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) Peace Leadership Program is organized and led by Paul Chappell. Paul is a dynamic young leader who graduated from West Point in 2002 and served in the Army until 2009. He is deeply committed to building a peaceful world and training new peace leaders. He has written an important book, Will War Ever End? A Soldier’s Vision of Peace for the 21st Century (Weston, Connecticut: Ashoka Books, 2009).

NAPF Peace Leadership Program seeks to train people to be leaders working for a more just and peaceful world. At the Foundation, we believe that each of us has leadership potential that can be developed and put into practice. What does it take to become an effective peace leader? First, a passion to change the world. Second, a commitment to work toward the needed change. Third, the ability to inspire others to join in the effort. Finally and above all, leadership requires persistence.

Achieving any great goal cannot be done overnight. It takes hard work. There will undoubtedly be obstacles that must be overcome. Someone must hold the vision and inspire others by rolling up his or her sleeves and working to make progress. Someone must lead. Why not you?

I encourage you to learn more about the Foundation’s Peace Leadership Program by signing up for the program and learning the skills that will allow you to contribute to creating a better world. The world is waiting for you!

January 4, 2010
The Time Is Now

We hold these truths to be self-evident: No one should live under the threat of nuclear annihilation, and it is our responsibility to ourselves and future generations to end this threat.

This vision has been at the heart of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s work for 27 years as we have waged peace for a world free of nuclear weapons.

Now a remarkable window of opportunity has opened. It offers a real chance to make progress toward the goal of eliminating the nuclear threat. To take advantage of this unique, historical moment, I ask you to give the Foundation financial support now to further its mission.

The time is now. It is unprecedented that world leaders have embraced the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. New international agreements are being negotiated. Public support is vital to ensure the potential is realized. A strong grassroots effort is essential. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is uniquely placed to provide leadership for a new movement based on education and advocacy.

The time is now. The Foundation has never been stronger. Our membership has tripled to 31,000. Our new DVD featuring President Obama is proving very popular. Our Action Alert Network has channeled thousands of emails to elected officials in Washington, DC. And our Peace Leadership Program, under the direction of former US Army Captain and West Point graduate, Paul Chappell, is making it easy for volunteers to spread the message of nuclear weapons abolition in their own communities.

The time is now. With 27 years of experience, wide-ranging expertise and a record of nonpartisan international action, the Foundation has both the capacity and credibility to seize this moment and to lead toward a safer, saner tomorrow for all people. But we need your donation now to leverage this opportunity to protect the world for future generations.

Ending the nuclear threat remains the most critical issue facing humanity. Your help can and will make a difference. The time is now!

December 21, 2009
The Nobel War Lecture

In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, President Obama, one of the world’s great orators and purveyors of hope, gave a speech that must reflect the divisions within himself and his personal struggles to reconcile them. It was a surprising speech for the occasion. Rather than a speech of vision and hope, it was a speech that sought to justify war and particularly America’s wars. The speech was largely an infomercial for war, touting not only its necessity but its virtues, and might well be thought of as the “Nobel War Lecture.”

How troubling it is to see this man of hope bogged down by war, not only on the ground but in his mind. As he put it, “I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars.” One of these wars he seeks to end, but the other he has made his own by recently committing 30,000 additional troops and justifying it as “an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.” The president persists despite his recognition that “[i]n today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflicts are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.”

Where was the vision that was so hopeful in Barack Obama the campaigner for the presidency? Has a year in office reduced him to a “reality” from which he cannot raise his sights to envision a more peaceful future – one without war or Predator drone attacks, one in which international cooperation in intelligence gathering and law enforcement could bring terrorists to justice?

The president tells the world, “I did not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.” This is certain. He tells his audience, “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.” Perhaps his decision to bow to the generals and increase the US presence in the war in Afghanistan is weighing heavily on him. Perhaps he seeks a way to find it both “necessary” and “morally justified.”

President Obama acknowledges his debt to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., leading proponents of nonviolence, but he cannot find a way to follow their example. He finds instead that “as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.” From the lofty visions and practical actions of Gandhi and King, the president brings us down to earth, to his reality that in his position he is fated to carry on with war. “So yes,” he tells us, “the instruments of war have a role to play in preserving the peace.”

What does he offer in the stead of peace? He argues that there must be standards governing the use of force. Yes, this is long established, although not often adhered to. One such standard is no use of force without the approval of the United Nations, except in self-defense to repel an imminent attack. But America and its NATO allies often take war into their own hands, ignoring this rule of international law to which all states are bound.

Having justified war, the president offers three paths to building “a just and lasting peace.” First, he argues for “alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior.” This makes sense so long as it is applied to all states equally without double standards. Second, he argues that peace must be based upon human dignity and human rights. Of course, this is so. Of course, America should stand for human rights rather than torture and the worst abuse of all – aggressive war. Third, he makes the point that a just and lasting peace must also be based upon freedom from want. There is nothing to argue with here. Why not use our resources to help eliminate poverty and hunger and expand education and healthcare throughout the world, rather than pour these resources into waging war?

President Obama barely mentioned nuclear disarmament in his speech. When he did, he reiterated his commitment to upholding the Non-Proliferation Treaty, calling it “a centerpiece” of his foreign policy. He then moved quickly to pointing a finger at Iran and North Korea. “Those who seek peace,” he said, “cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.” He is right; no nation should arm itself for nuclear war, including the United States and the other eight nations that have already done so.

The President might have built a strong, positive and hopeful speech on the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons, instruments of omnicide, but he chose instead to offer up a laundry list of reasons for war. When it came to peace, his message, sadly, was No, we can’t.

December 11, 2009
World March for Peace and Nonviolence

This speech was delivered to a rally during the World March for Peace and Nonviolence in Los Angeles, CA on December 2, 2009.

Great thanks to the marchers traveling the world for peace and nonviolence. You bring us the gift of hope. How special it is to see so many people gathered together joined in commitment to achieving a peaceful and nonviolent world.

In his speech committing 30,000 more American troops to the war in Afghanistan, President Obama spoke of seeking “a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.” Unfortunately, he missed the point that his policy in Afghanistan, like the policies of the previous US administration in both Iraq and Afghanistan, will be one that continues to kill innocents, as well as sacrificing more of our own youth at the altar of war. Those who stand up for peace, prosperity and human dignity are those who say No to war. You cannot at the same time seek peace and wage war. You cannot continue to kill innocents in war and uphold human dignity.

War is an organized way of slaughtering other human beings.   It is a means of justifying murder — a monstrous conception, unworthy of the human spirit. Over time, war has become less discriminate and more lethal. In World War I, about 40 percent of those killed were civilians. The percentage of civilian deaths in World War II increased to two-thirds. In post-WWII wars, the number has increased to over 90 percent civilians.

Improved technology allows mass killing to take place from greater distances. Bomber pilots from 30,000 feet in the air can see only dim outlines of their targets. The operators of missile-bearing drones sit in safe havens far from where the drones will do their damage. With nuclear-armed missiles, you can press a button on one continent and murder millions of people on another continent.   The button pusher may not even know where the missile is aimed.

Militaries train soldiers to kill with small arms and bayonets. They turn young soldiers into killers. We traumatize and sacrifice our youth in war. For those who survive, we scar their lives forever. Of course, without conscription, we now only sacrifice the less advantaged youth. It is the children of the poor who have become the mainstay of our military force. As we dehumanize the enemy we dehumanize ourselves.

The countries of the world now spend some $1.5 trillion annually on their military forces. Over 40 percent of this is spent by one country alone — the United States.   Only ten countries account for 74 percent of the total. All but two of these, China and the Russian Federation, are US allies.

While some 25,000 children continue to die daily of starvation and preventable diseases, the US spends some $680 billion annually on its military. Each minute the US spends $1.9 million on its military. Each soldier sent to Afghanistan, that graveyard for empires, will cost $1,000,000 per year.

The Millennium Development Goals call for reducing poverty by cutting in half the number of people who live on less than $1 per day and who suffer from hunger; achieving universal education and eliminating gender disparity in education; promoting health by reducing by two-thirds the under five mortality rate, by three-quarters the maternal mortality rate, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS; and achieving environmental sustainability by halving the number of people without access to potable water and improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers (out of the some one billion slum dwellers now existing on the planet). All of this could be done for between five and ten percent of what the world spends annually on its militaries.

There are still over 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world, on average eight to 100 times more powerful than the atomic weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In our hubris, we seem to believe that we can control this unnatural fire. At least, many of our political and military leaders seem to believe this. The MAD in Mutually Assured Destruction has taken on a new meaning, Mutually Assured Delusions.

But let us have no delusion that nuclear weapons are safe or that they can protect us. They are instrument of annihilation, portable incinerators, which undermine our humanity. They go beyond suicide and genocide to omnicide, the destruction of all.

Here are ten reasons to oppose nuclear weapons:

1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.   As such, they are instruments of dehumanization as well as annihilation.

2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists. Nuclear war could cause deadly climate change, putting human existence at risk.

3. They threaten to foreclose the future, negating our common responsibility to future generations.

4. They make cowards of their possessors, and in their use there can be no decency or honor. This was recognized by most of the leading generals and admirals of World War II, including Dwight Eisenhower, Hap Arnold, and William Leahy.

5. They divide the world’s nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing false and unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them.

6. They are a distortion of science and technology, siphoning off our scientific and technological resources and twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes.

7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power. The International Court of Justice has ruled that the threat of use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and any use that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal. It is virtually impossible to imagine a threat or use of nuclear weapons that would not violate international humanitarian law (fail to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, cause unnecessary suffering or be disproportionate to a preceding attack).

8. They waste our resources on the development of instruments of annihilation. The United States alone has spent over $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the onset of the Nuclear Age.

9. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals and, in doing so, undermine democracy.

10. They are morally abhorrent, as recognized by virtually every religious organization, and their mere existence corrupts our humanity.

To end the nuclear weapons era, we need only vision, leadership and persistence. The vision has always been present, from men like Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and Joseph Rotblat – the latter being the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project as a matter of conscience and 50 years later being honored with the Nobel Peace Prize. All of these men believed fervently that the advent of nuclear weapons made necessary not only the abolition of these weapons, but the abolition of war.

Now we have a president of the US who has called for a world free of nuclear weapons, only he doesn’t think it can happen within his lifetime. We must convince him that there is urgency to eliminating these weapons. In a world of human fallibility there are no foolproof systems.

The needed persistence must be not only that of leaders, but of all of us. Persistence in seeking a nuclear weapons-free world is both a gift and a responsibility to ourselves and to future generations. The overriding importance of the goal demands that people everywhere be awakened and empowered to end the false security, as well as the ignorance and apathy, which has surrounded nuclear weapons for far too long. Nuclear weapons and war must be made taboo, as incest, cannibalism and slavery have been made taboo.

You can help by taking three steps.

First, become engaged with this issue. Visit the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation website at www.wagingpeace.org, and sign up as a member to receive our free monthly newsletter, The Sunflower.

Second, become active. While you are at the website, you can also sign up for the Foundation’s Action Alert Network to receive timely suggestions of messages you can send to the President and your representatives in Congress.

Third, become a Peace Leader. You can start on this by ordering our free DVD on “US Leadership for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World,” watching it and showing it to your friends and colleagues over the next year.

Let me conclude with a quotation and a poem.

The quotation is by Albert Camus, the great French writer and existentialist, and it was written immediately after the bombing of Hiroshima. Camus wrote:

“Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests. Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging. This is no longer a prayer but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments — a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason.”

The poem is from my book Today Is Not a Good Day for War. It is entitled, “Hibakusha Do Not Just Happen.” Hibakusha are survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are growing older. The youngest of the hibakusha, those in utero at the time of the bombing, are now in their mid-sixties. The hibakusha have worked very diligently to assure that their past will not become our future.

HIBAKUSHA DO NOT JUST HAPPEN

For every hibakusha there is a pilot
For every hibakusha there is a planner
For every hibakusha there is a bombardier
For every hibakusha there is a bomb designer
For every hibakusha there is a missile maker
For every hibakusha there is a missileer
For every hibakusha there is a targeter
For every hibakusha there is a commander
For every hibakusha there is a button pusher
For every hibakusha many must contribute
For every hibakusha many must obey
For every hibakusha many must be silent

We must end the silence, each of us. That is why this World March is so important. That is why our sustained commitment and persistent actions are needed. Ending the silence is at the heart of what is needed to save our amazing, miraculous world, and pass it on intact to the next generation. And at the heart of this effort is the abolition of nuclear weapons and of war, and the reallocation of resources to meeting the needs of social and environmental justice.

December 2, 2009