Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: David Krieger

  • A Dangerous Face

    A Dangerous Face

    It is a weak and fleshy face,
    A face with furtive eyes
    That snake along the ground, refusing
    To rise and face forward.

    He chews his words well,
    Mixing them with venom,
    Words that dart like missiles
    From the side of his malformed mouth.

    It is a dangerous, deceitful face,
    The face of a man with too many secrets.
    It is the face of one who quietly orders
    Torturers to torture and Assassins to kill.

    It is the face not of a sniper,
    But of one who orders snipers into action.
    It is the face of a Klansman behind his mask,
    The face of one who savors lynchings.

    It is the face of one who hides in dark bunkers
    And shuns the brightness of the sun.
    It is a frightened face, dull and without color,
    The face of one consumed by power.

    It is a weak and fleshy face,
    A face with furtive eyes,
    A face that falls hard and fast
    Like the blade of a guillotine.
    Responses to a Dangerous Face

    Thank you for your responses, which came from all over the world. The most popular responses to who the poem was describing were Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. Other responses were more general: “an enemy,” “hate,” “people who are threatening the fragile world,” “people who are fighting the modern war,” “the epitome of American fears,” “an evil human being.”

    Three people named Dick Cheney, who was the actual model for the poem. Although Cheney was the model, I believe the poem describes a certain kind of person who is lacking in compassion and committed to violence and militarism.

    I particularly liked the response of Laurel from Pierce: “This poem is describing terrorist leaders. Terrorist leaders do not care who they kill, maim and frighten. These people hide behind their followers. They delight in power over the minds of their victims and the men and women they draw into their plans. They spread hatred through lies and acts of hate. These people do not commit the acts of terror themselves; instead they command their minions to perform them, sometimes at the cost of these poor followers own lives. This poem describes all of these characteristics.” Of course, this description of “terrorist leaders” could also include leaders of countries.

    Surprisingly, no one named Henry Kissinger, who qualifies as one of the leading war criminals of the 20th century and who, despite his history of misleading Congress and the American people, was recently appointed by President Bush to head of the investigation of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
    *David Krieger is a founder and president of The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Children of Iraq Have Names

    The Children of Iraq Have Names

    The children of Iraq have names.
    They are not the nameless ones.

    The children of Iraq have faces.
    They are not the faceless ones.

    The children of Iraq do not wear Saddam’s face.
    They each have their own face.

    The children of Iraq have names.
    They are not all called Saddam Hussein.

    The children of Iraq have hearts.
    They are not the heartless ones.

    The children of Iraq have dreams.
    They are not the dreamless ones.

    The children of Iraq have hearts that pound.
    They are not meant to be statistics of war.

    The children of Iraq have smiles.
    They are not the sullen ones.

    The children of Iraq have twinkling eyes.
    They are quick and lively with their laughter.

    The children of Iraq have hopes.
    They are not the hopeless ones.

    The children of Iraq have fears.
    They are not the fearless ones.

    The children of Iraq have names.
    Their names are not collateral damage.

    What do you call the children of Iraq?
    Call them Omar, Mohamed, Fahad.

    Call them Marwa and Tiba.
    Call them by their names.

    But never call them statistics of war.
    Never call them collateral damage.
    *David Krieger is a founder and president of The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Interview with David Krieger: Japan, U.S. must work together on nuke threat

    Interview with David Krieger: Japan, U.S. must work together on nuke threat

    The Asahi Shimbun, February 2002

    David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a California-based organization which has initiated many global grass-root projects for abolishing nuclear weapons, says not everybody in the United States supports the military retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

    In a recent interview with Asahi Shimbun reporter Masato Tainaka, Krieger voiced the hope that Japan, as a true friend, would “not to let the United States drive drunk.” He said U.S. policy could result in nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists in an increasing cycle of violence. Excerpts follow:

    Q: How do you view the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?

    A: The attacks taught us that even the most powerful nation in the world is vulnerable to terrorists. The strongest military in the world with its bloated nuclear arsenal could not protect against a small band of terrorists, propelled by hatred and committed to violence. Military force is largely impotent against those who hate and are willing to die in acts of violence. Current nuclear weapons policies of the nuclear weapons states make it likely that terrorists will be able to buy, steal or make nuclear weapons.

    Q: How do you evaluate Japanese contribution by dispatching the Self-Defense Forces to assist the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan?

    A: I think it’s dangerous because it’s maybe changing the line of Article 9 of the Constitution. It’s creating a precedent for Japan to go further in joining a military effort. A question I would ask, “Is Japan’s participation really self-defense?” Japan must maintain Article 9 of its Constitution. This article, which prohibits “aggressive war,” makes Japan unique among nations and gives Japan special responsibility for furthering the cause of peace. There has been some talk of trying to amend or remove this article from the Japanese Constitution. This would be a grave mistake.

    Q: What do you think about the U.S.-Japan relationship?

    A: I think Japan should be a true friend of the United States. This means that Japan must be willing to criticize the United States if it believes U.S. policies are misguided. True friends do not just go along with their friends. They tell them the truth. In the United States, we have a saying, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” You can’t go along with everything that is contrary to your fundamental beliefs. Maybe in a sense, terrorism is a global problem that Japan should join in an attempt to eradicate terrorism. But I think Japan has to think independently. Every developed country is vulnerable to terrorism. The question is-is the problem of terrorism likely to be made better or worse by using military force? With regard to the terrorist attacks, we should be more legal and thoughtful in not taking innocent lives and in not increasing the circle of violence. There have been, as far as I can tell, quite a number of innocent people who have died as a result of the U.S. action in Afghanistan.

    Q: How about the public opinion in the United States? Do they know many innocent Afghans have been killed by the U.S. bombings? Or do they think it was inevitable?

    A: I think the United States has to take responsibility for its actions. And if we were killing innocent people, that falls into the category of terrorism as well. However, most Americans don’t seem to have a problem with it. The support rate with the war is at a really high level, around 80 percent.

    Q: Am I right in thinking it must be difficult for you to find much of an audience for your views in the United States?

    A: One of the biggest problems is that it’s very difficult for people who share my views to get a chance to speak on national media. On Sept. 20, just after the terrorist attacks, I was invited to speak on a TV program “CNN Hotline.” I spoke in opposition to using military force. I emphasized the points-more legal and thoughtful. While I was on the air, two hostile callers called in with somewhat hostile questions, saying, “so many Americans were killed and we need to use military force, why is he opposing it?” After that program, I received about 80 e-mails.

    Q: Hate mail?

    A: On the contrary, except for five or six, all the rest were from people saying, “That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking. But I haven’t heard anybody talking about it in the media.” There are a lot of Americans who are not represented on the national programs. But basically my frustration is how hard it is to change people’s minds. Now I am going to focus more on trying to reach people through the national media. But it is very difficult task.

    Q: You mentioned a legal solution. But the United States has not agreed to set up an international criminal court. Instead the Bush administration intends to judge Osama bin Laden under U.S. military law, isn’t that right?

    A: The United States not supporting an international criminal court is very unfortunate because the United States should be a leader in that effort. I don’t think people in large parts of the world will accept a military trial or even a civilian trial of Osama bin Laden in the United States as fair. I don’t believe myself that it would be possible for Osama bin Laden to get a fair trial in the United States. Therefore, the international community including the United States should set up a special tribunal for terrorists, similar to the tribunal for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

    Q: Once the Afghan campaign ends, the Bush administration reportedly is considering military campaigns against terrorists in other countries. What do you think about that?

    A: I don’t think there would be much support in the international community for attacking other countries. I have been surprised at how relatively easily the United States seems to be winning this Afghan war. I didn’t think the Taliban would collapse so quickly. But it’s one thing to destroy the Taliban, it’s another thing to end terrorism. I don’t think we know whether there has been any effective reduction of terrorist capabilities. We don’t know what they planned, we don’t know what their larger plans are. My feeling is that nuclear policies that we have now do make it quite possible terrorists will get nuclear weapons.

    Q: As for nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia agreed in November to reduce their arsenals to between 2,200 and 1,700 warheads in the next 10 years. Was this a breakthrough for nuclear disarmament?

    A: First of all, I think the agreement is more public relations than serious disarmament. It sounds to me like they still want to rely upon nuclear weapons. I don’t believe they are serious about their promises under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

    Under the treaty, nuclear weapon states have an obligation to sincerely negotiate for nuclear abolition. But the United States is not likely, particularly under the Bush administration, to show that leadership without some pressure from other countries. Japan should be the leader of those countries.

    Q: What is needed for Japan to be a leader?

    A: Again, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” is a critical idea. If Japan thinks the U.S. policy could result in nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, it would be terribly irresponsible not to question U.S. policy. To prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, it is absolutely necessary to get the numbers down to numbers that can be controlled with certainty.

    Q: How many?

    A: The numbers may be 100 or 200 nuclear weapons. If a country really believes that nuclear weapons only have the purpose of deterrence, it certainly doesn’t need more than that for deterrence.

    You need more than that if you have the idea of some potential offensive use of nuclear weapons. But right now with none of the major powers in conflict, we really could go down. Rather, the threat with nuclear weapons will come from terrorists. It was a crucial lesson from Sept. 11.

    So we haven’t fully lost our opportunity to reduce nuclear arsenals down to 100 or 200 on the way to zero. Having experienced nuclear devastation first hand, Japan is well positioned to lead the world, including the United States, to achieve nuclear disarmament. Japan should be a leader for a nuclear weapons and terrorism-free world.
    *David Krieger, 59, is a founder and a member of the Coordinating Committee of Abolition 2000, a global network of over 2000 organizations and municipalities committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Ozaki Yukio Memorial Foundation in Tokyo recently honored him as a person who has devoted his life to creating world peace.

  • Ending the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    Ending the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    Ozaki Yukio Memorial Foundation “Gakudo” Award Lecture

    I am honored to receive an award that is made to individuals and organizations that carry on Ozaki Yukio’s undaunted battle to build a safe and peaceful world for all people. I want to thank the Board of Directors of the Ozaki Yukio Foundation and its President, Moriyama Mayumi, for this high honor. I particularly want to express appreciation to Mrs. Sohma Yukika and Mrs. Hara Fujiko, the daughter and granddaughter of Ozaki Yukio, who are both directors of the Foundation.

    Ozaki Yukio wrote, “I dreamed I would find a way for the peoples of the five continents to live in peace.” I can think of no goal more worthy or necessary. Ozaki Yukio was a great man, a man of the people, who fought for democracy and peace throughout his life. He also fought against war, militarism, military expenditures and unilateralism.

    One of the previous recipients of this award is Elisabeth Mann Borgese. Elisabeth and I worked together for two years in the early 1970s at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California. I was attracted to the Center by Elisabeth’s work of the law of the seas. She believed passionately that a new world order could be built from the necessity of creating a new set of laws for the world’s oceans. Elisabeth, now in her 80s, still exudes passion for this work and remains an inspiration to me.

    Our Common Heritage

    Elisabeth spoke often of the oceans as the Common Heritage of Mankind, a phrase coined by Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta. Over the years I have come to see that the concept of Common Heritage applies not only to the oceans, but to virtually everything on our planet, as well as to the planet itself, its biosphere, atmosphere and outer space. The land is our Common Heritage as are the skies, the climate, the trees and the crops we plant. Our Common Heritage also includes our cultures, our languages, our art forms, our religions, and our understandings of the mystery and miracle of life.

    It is part of the human condition that we do not stop often enough to recognize and appreciate the miracle of our lives. Each one of us is a miracle, unique and special. Every simple thing that we are capable of doing — everything that we take for granted such as walking, talking, thinking and creating – is a miracle. And, of course, we ourselves are miracles. We don’t know where we come from before birth or where we go after death. We don’t know why our hearts or brains work or why we are capable of breathing and doing so much more without conscious effort. Each of us is a miracle shrouded in mysteries we cannot understand.

    We now share this incredibly beautiful planet with some six billion other miracles. I have often wondered how it is that miracles are capable of killing other miracles. Perhaps it is because we do not value ourselves highly enough that we are less appreciative of others. Perhaps there is some appreciation for the miracles of who we are and for life that is missing in our cultures and our educational systems.

    The Glorification of War

    Most of us on this planet live in cultures in which war is glorified and celebrated. Our history books are filled with stories and pictures of those who led us into battle. Our popular culture celebrates war and warriors. One has only to look at a culture’s movies, television programming and the video games that children play to understand from where the next generation of warriors will arise.

    The 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history. Some 200 million people died in international and civil wars. One of the most striking things about the 20th century is that the number of civilians killed in warfare rose dramatically throughout the century. In World War I, soldiers fought each other in trenches. In World War II, civilian casualties rose as aerial attacks were directed against cities. By the end of that war, US bombers were destroying Japanese cities at will. It was not a large step from the fire bombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945, in which some 100,000 civilians were killed, to dropping atomic weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of that year.

    By the end of the 20th century over 90 percent of the casualties of warfare were civilians, and throughout the latter half of the 20th century the threat of nuclear annihilation hung over all humanity. The United States and the former Soviet Union engaged in a mad arms race in which they each developed the capacity to destroy humanity many times over. Somehow the world survived the insanity of the nuclear arms race, but we are not yet safe. There are still far too many nuclear weapons in the world, over 30,000, and even today a surprisingly large number of them, some 4,500, remain on hair-trigger alert.

    The Influence of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums

    My goal is to help create a world free of nuclear weapons. I was deeply affected in this regard by a relatively early visit to Japan. I came to Japan in 1963, when I was 21 years old. During my stay in Japan, I visited the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums. I learned something at these museums that I had neither seen nor heard before. It was the extent of the suffering of the people who were beneath those bombs.

    In school in the United States, we had learned a relatively simple lesson about the use of these bombs: Atomic bombs win wars. In the case of World War II, the US dropped the atomic bombs and won the war. There was little discussion of the large numbers of deaths of men, women and children, or of the terrible suffering caused by the bombs. In these museums, however, the people beneath the bombs were brought back into the picture.

    Surely, nuclear weapons are the least heroic weapons imaginable. Their power is such that they kill indiscriminately. Dropped on a city, nuclear weapons kill everything immediately within a broad radius, and spread their radioactive poisons that go on killing over a much broader area. My visit to those museums at a young age had a profound effect on me. It gave direction to my life. I did not know then exactly what I would do, but I did know that nuclear weapons were not really weapons at all. They were instruments of genocide, capable of destroying cities, civilization and even humanity itself.

    Nuclear weapons are also profoundly undemocratic. They concentrate power and take it away from the people. Nuclear weapons were born in secrecy and have always been shrouded in secrecy. The decisions to develop, deploy and use these weapons have always been in the hands of only a small number of individuals. Even today, a single leader, or at most a small group of individuals, could envelop the world in nuclear conflagration.

    The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had it right: Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist. If the cry of the atomic bomb survivors, “Never Again!” was to be realized, then nuclear weapons would have to be eliminated. The goal seemed tremendously distant in the face of the implacable hostility being expressed during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Yet it seemed necessary. The intention of confronting nuclear weapons and seeking their elimination was set in my mind in 1963, nearly four decades ago.

    After leaving Japan, I joined the army reserves in lieu of being drafted into the army. A second major force that shaped my life in the direction of working for peace was being called to active duty in the army in 1968. The Vietnam War was at its height, and I soon found myself as a young 2nd lieutenant with orders to go to Vietnam. I was totally opposed to the war in Vietnam, thinking it was illegal, immoral and highly inappropriate for the US to be killing Vietnamese peasants on the other side of the world. I decided to fight against going to Vietnam and took the matter to court. Eventually I won, and was released from the army.

    My first job was teaching international relations at San Francisco State University. I felt that change was too slow as a teacher, and that is what led me to work with Elisabeth Borgese at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. After that I worked for the Reshaping the International Order (RIO) Foundation in the Netherlands, coordinating a project on the relationship of dual-purpose technologies to disarmament and development. Then, in 1982, I was a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    It has been nearly twenty years since our Foundation was born. At that time, the leaders of the United States and Soviet Union were not talking to each other. The world situation looked grim. A small group of us in Santa Barbara believed that more needed to be done, and that citizen action was critical. We met weekly for a year, trying to develop a plan. From these meetings, we created the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    The implication of the name was that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. I became the president of this new Foundation. We had no resources, but large dreams. Even in those difficult days, I was filled with hope. Each day brought new challenges. Our small Foundation began speaking out and advocating for a world free of nuclear threat. In those early days, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, we were viewed with some suspicion for our advocacy of nuclear disarmament.

    The tagline of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is Waging Peace. It is a concept that we believe is essential to ending the cycle of violence and building a culture of peace. Waging Peace implies an active commitment to changing the world. It means seeking non-violent means to resolve conflicts, and also working actively to prevent wars by creating the conditions of peace. This means active engagement in ending poverty and starvation. It means fighting against human rights abuses wherever they occur. It means fighting against corporate greed when there is human need. It means working for sustainable conditions of development and an environment that will sustain life on our planet.

    There are four main areas in which we have worked. The first is for the abolition of nuclear weapons. We believe that the elimination of nuclear weapons is essential to ensure a human future. We were a founding member of the Abolition 2000 Global Network, a network that has grown to over 2,000 organizations and municipalities throughout the world. We were also a founding member of the Middle Powers Initiative, a small group of non-governmental organizations that has encouraged and supported middle power governments to play a leading role in nuclear disarmament efforts. The Foundation organized an Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity, which has been signed by many world leaders, including 37 Nobel Laureates. I will discuss this Appeal in more detail in a moment.

    The second area of our concern is international law and institutions. We believe that international law must be strengthened and that the United Nations and its specialized agencies must be empowered to do their jobs effectively. We have fought hard for the creation of an International Criminal Court, a court that can hold individuals accountable for the most serious international crimes. An International Criminal Court would bring Nuremberg into the twenty-first century. It would set a standard in the world that no one stands above international law, and that crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide will not go unpunished. To this list of crimes, the crime of international terrorism should now be added.

    Without universal respect for and enforcement of international law, it will not be possible to effectively stop human rights abuses, destruction of the environment, and weaponization of the planet and outer space. Nor will it be possible to provide protection to the oceans, atmosphere, outer space and other areas of Common Heritage of Mankind.

    A third area of our concern is the use of science and technology for constructive rather than destructive purposes. In this area we helped to found and have provided support for the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES). This network, based in Dortmund, Germany, has affiliates in all parts of the world, and major projects in ethics, disarmament, and nuclear non-proliferation. INES has also established a whistleblower fund to support scientists and engineers who act courageously in opposing unethical uses of science and technology. We also have a Renewable Energy Project that promotes the use of sustainable forms of energy.

    The final major area of our concern is reaching out to youth. The Foundation has a Youth Outreach Coordinator on our staff who is responsible for conducting Peace Leadership Trainings for Youth and building chapters on high school and college campuses. We also have a Peace Education Coordinator on our staff who teaches non-violence in the schools and who is developing non-violence curriculum that can be used by teachers throughout the world.

    We provide internships for young people, and we give annual prizes to youth in our Swackhamer Peace Essay Contest and our Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards. Through our two web sites, www.wagingpeace.org and www.nuclearfiles.org, we reach additional hundreds of thousands of young people each year, many of whom sign up as members of the Foundation and receive our monthly e-newsletter, The Sunflower.

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

    Let me now focus on nuclear issues. In 1995, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty held a review and extension conference. At issue was whether the treaty, which entered into force in 1970, would be extended indefinitely or for periods of time. This is the treaty that requires the nuclear weapons states to engage in good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. We went to that treaty conference, along with other non-governmental organizations, lobbying against indefinite extension of the treaty. We wanted extensions of the treaty to be based upon achieving clearly defined nuclear disarmament goals.

    The United States was there lobbying hard for an indefinite extension of the treaty. In the end, the US prevailed and the treaty was extended indefinitely. The continuation of the treaty would not be dependent upon the nuclear weapons states achieving disarmament goals. However, the parties to the treaty agreed by consensus to complete negotiations for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to commence negotiations for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and to the “determined pursuit by the nuclear weapons states of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons….”

    Out of frustration with the slow progress on nuclear disarmament at the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, a number of disarmament non-governmental organizations decided to join together in establishing a new global network, Abolition 2000, to achieve the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. By the year 2000, the network had grown to over 2000 organizations and municipalities.

    When the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, now numbering 187 countries, met for their next review conference in the year 2000 there was little good news to report. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty had been created and signed by many countries, but the treaty had not yet entered into force and in 1999 the US Senate failed to ratify the treaty. There had been virtually no progress on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. If anything, the nuclear weapons states could be said to be making “systematic and progressive efforts” to thwart nuclear disarmament.

    At the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, many parties to the treaty noted the lack of substantial progress on nuclear disarmament, and called for action. The parties agreed to 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament. Among these were entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; the continuation of an interim moratorium on nuclear testing; full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals….”

    An Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    On the opening day of the 2000 review conference, our Foundation ran an Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity in the New York Times. The Appeal, signed by many of the great peace leaders of our time, says in part, “Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately – soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm…. The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them.”

    The Appeal calls upon the leaders of all nations and, in particular the leaders of the nuclear weapons states, to take five actions for the benefit of all humanity. These actions are:

    – De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles. – Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. – Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement. – Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states. – Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    The Crawford Summit

    In November 2000, Presidents Bush and Putin met at the Crawford, Texas Summit. President Bush announced that he was prepared to unilaterally reduce the size of the US nuclear arsenal to 2,200 to 1,700 strategic nuclear warheads over a ten-year period. President Putin agreed to match these levels, although he had stated previously on several occasions that he was prepared to go to lower levels than this. While perhaps we should be grateful that the reductions are occurring, these numbers are still high enough to destroy the world many times over, and demonstrate that the US and Russia are still stuck in the Cold War mentality of deterrence – even when it is not clear there is anyone to deter.

    The Crawford Summit failed to deal with any of the critical issues raised in the Appeal. Both the US and Russia continue to maintain some 2,250 nuclear weapons each on hair-trigger alert. More than ten years after the end of the Cold War, this is unnecessarily dangerous and increases the possibility of an accidental nuclear war.

    Rather than reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, President Bush has been trying to convince President Putin to amend the treaty and has indicated his willingness to abrogate the treaty if President Putin will not agree to amend it. We have prepared a book at the Foundation on the US plans to deploy a National Missile Defense. The book is entitled, A Maginot Line in the Sky: International Perspectives on Ballistic Missile Defense. It provides many arguments why a ballistic missile defenses are destabilizing and decrease global security. In Northeast Asia, theater missile defenses will lead to China’s strengthening its offensive capabilities, which in turn will lead India and Pakistan to strengthen their nuclear arsenals.

    We believe there are three principle reasons why President Bush is pushing so hard to deploy missile defenses: first, he seeks more protection and degrees of freedom for US forward based troops and military installations; second, he seeks to proceed with development and testing to weaponize outer space; and third, the program will transfer tens of billions, perhaps hundreds of billions, of dollars, from US taxpayers to defense contractors. The Bush administration is so eager to move forward with missile defenses that it has actually encouraged China to build up its nuclear arsenal so that it will not feel threatened by US missile defenses.

    In 1999 the US Senate failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and President Bush has not shown any intent to re-submit the treaty to the Senate. On the contrary, he has examined possibilities of resuming nuclear testing. At the present, all states are observing a moratorium on nuclear testing. A breakout from this moratorium by one state could lead other states to also resume testing and signal increased reliance on nuclear arsenals.

    Good faith negotiations to achieve the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons are the promise of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which entered into force more than 30 years ago. The failure to engage in these negotiations is a breach of the solemn obligations of that treaty. The unilateral steps announced by President Bush at the Crawford Summit are not a substitute for these negotiations. What is done unilaterally can be reversed unilaterally, and irreversible steps are called for by the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty at their 2000 Review Conference.

    Policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and No Use against non-nuclear weapons states would signal less reliance on nuclear weapons and would provide needed assurances to non-nuclear weapons states. So long as the nuclear weapons states fail to provide these assurances, the uncertainty will be an impetus to nuclear proliferation.

    The US alone is continuing to spend some $35 billion per year on maintaining its nuclear arsenal. That amounts to some $100 million per day. At the same time, some 30,000 children under the age of five are dying daily of starvation and preventable diseases. Relatively small amounts of food and inexpensive inoculations could save these children. The world, led by the United States, continues to squander resources on nuclear arsenals that have virtually no military utility while children go hungry and without adequate nutrition, health care and education.

    The $35 billion that the US spends per year on nuclear weapons is just one-tenth of its military budget of some $350 billion per year. The world as a whole is spending some $750 billion on military forces. These are obscene amounts in the face of the suffering in the world. Just a small percentage of world military expenditures could provide clean water, adequate food and shelter and primary education for all the people on our planet. The potential is there to turn our planet into a paradise for all of its inhabitants, but to do so we must break out of the war culture that militarizes and poisons the planet.

    Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

    The terrorist attacks on US soil on September 11th taught us that even the most powerful nation in the world is vulnerable to terrorists. The strongest military in the world with its bloated nuclear arsenal could not protect against a small band of terrorists, propelled by hatred and committed to violence. Military force is largely impotent against those who hate and are willing to die in acts of violence. The only way out is by waging peace so effectively, with such depth of compassion, that enemies are turned to friends or at least made neutral. This will not be easy, but it is our best hope for security in the future.

    Current nuclear weapons policies of the nuclear weapons states make it likely that terrorists will be able to buy, steal or make nuclear weapons. Should this occur, it will not only be buildings that may be destroyed but cities. Unless the nuclear weapons states become serious about reducing the size of their nuclear arsenals to a firmly controllable number of nuclear weapons, it is a near certainty that these weapons will at some point land in the hands of terrorists.

    Policy Proposals for Japan

    I would like to suggest some policy considerations for Japan. I offer these as a friend of the Japanese people.

    Japan should be a leader for a nuclear weapons free world. Right now it is not. I think the government of Japan has broken faith with the will of its people on the issue of nuclear disarmament. The people of Japan want nuclear disarmament, and deserve better from their government on this issue. Having experienced nuclear devastation at first hand, Japan is well positioned to lead the world, including the US, to achieve nuclear disarmament.

    Be a true friend of the United States. This means that Japan must be willing to criticize the US if it believes US policies are misguided. True friends do not just go along with their friends. They tell them the truth. In the US, we have a saying, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” On nuclear policy issues, the US has been driving drunk and putting the world at risk. It’s past time for Japan to express its concern to the US in polite but strong terms.

    Be a friend also to China. This means that Japan must also be willing to criticize China, but also to apologize to China for the wrongs committed there by Japan in the past. I just came from China and had the strong sense from the young people I spoke with there that an apology from Japan is long overdue and would improve relations between the two countries.

    Oppose ballistic missile defenses in Northeast Asia, and work instead for a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone. This would be important for security in the region and as a model for the world. A leader in this work in Japan is Hiromichi Umebayashi, the president of Peace Depot.

    Follow the Kobe Formula throughout Japan. If the captain of an American ship in Japanese waters is asked whether his ship is carrying nuclear weapons, the standard response based on US policy is to “neither confirm nor deny.” This should not be good enough response for Japan. At Kobe, port entry is denied without a clear response that the ship is not carrying nuclear weapons. This policy could be used throughout Japan.

    Support the five steps set forth in the Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity. These are: de-alert all nuclear weapons; re-affirm commitments to maintaining Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; commence good faith negotiations for a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons; declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons; and reallocate resources from maintaining nuclear arsenals to meeting human needs.

    Maintain Article IX of your Constitution. This article, which prohibits “aggressive war,” makes Japan unique among nations and gives Japan special responsibility for furthering the cause of peace. There has been some talk of trying to amend or remove this article from the Japanese Constitution. This would be a grave mistake.

    Sadako Peace Garden

    I told you that an early influence on my life was visiting the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums. Thirty-seven years after my first visit to those museums, I was able to arrange with the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for an exhibit from those museums to come to Santa Barbara. Thousands of people were able to gain new insights into the dangers of nuclear weapons by visiting that exhibit. After the exhibit returned to Japan, we were able to create a virtual exhibit that can be viewed from our web sites.

    One of the most moving stories related to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the story of Sadako Sasaki. Sadako was a little girl, only two years old, when the bomb fell on Hiroshima. For ten years she led a normal life, and then came down with leukemia, a likely result of radiation exposure. While in the hospital, Sadako folded her medicine wrappers into paper cranes in the hopes of regaining her health and achieving peace in the world. On the wings of one of the small cranes she wrote, “I will write peace on your wings and you will fly all over the world.”

    Japanese legend has it that if one folds 1,000 cranes their wish will come true. Sadako died before her 1,000 cranes were finished, but her classmates folded the rest and they spread the story of Sadako. Today her peace cranes have truly flown all over the world. There is a statue of Sadako in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and its base is always covered by mounds of cranes brought and sent by children from throughout Japan and other parts of the world. Sadako’s message of peace has even reached Santa Barbara.

    In 1995, our Foundation commemorated the 50th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by creating a peace garden at a beautiful retreat center in Santa Barbara. We called it Sadako Peace Garden. It is a very natural garden. There are cranes carved into the large boulders in the garden. There is also a very large, beautiful eucalyptus tree at one end of the garden. The tree is over one hundred years old. It has a very broad trunk and it reaches far into the sky. At the retreat center they call it the Tree of Faith.

    Each year on August 6th we hold a commemoration at Sadako Peace Garden. The ceremony is composed of music, poetry and reflections. It is always very solemn and beautiful. During the year, many people visit Sadako Peace Garden for their own quiet reflection. I like to take visitors there. I recently took one of the young honorees of our Distinguished Peace Leadership Award, Hafsat Abiola from Nigeria, and her sister Khafila to visit the garden. There were paper cranes hanging from the trees as well as some messages. We noticed that one of the messages said, “There are many things here I do not know, the knowing of which could change everything.” What a beautiful concept. We must never give up, because there are things we do not know, the knowing of which could change everything.

    At the garden I picked up some small seeds from the ground. It was from a seed like those that the Tree of Faith grew. Each of those seeds contained everything necessary to create a strong, healthy, beautiful tree. It is the same with each of us. We each contain all we need to become strong, healthy and beautiful individuals, although we will certainly be benefited by some support and nurturing. I am speaking, of course, of what we become inwardly as well as outwardly.

    The Importance of Hope

    I want to suggest to you that hope should be a foundation for our actions. Without hope, it is easy to become mired in despair or cynicism. Without hope, vision is limited; and without vision, as the Prophet Isaiah warned long ago, the people perish.

    Hope may be found in the active pursuit of a more peaceful and just world. Hope may be found in educating a new generation in the ways of peace and non-violence. Hope may be found in a compassionate response to suffering, wherever it occurs. Hope will be forged by our actions to end hunger, poverty, and the abuse of human rights. Hope resides in our efforts to stop the pollution of our planetary home and to protect its resources for future generations. And hope will be found in working to abolish nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and in working to abolish war as a human institution.

    We do not know what the future holds. What we do know is that if we are apathetic and uninvolved we will not be a part of shaping a better future. It gives me hope that increasing numbers of people, many of them young people, are becoming involved in actively working to shape a more decent future.

    In many ways, we are living in a dark and dangerous time. But with hope and perseverance we can make a difference. I recently learned something important: Darkness is not the opposite of light. Darkness is the absence of light. Where there is light, there is no darkness. The same must be true of despair: Where there is hope, there cannot be despair. So I urge you to bring light into dark times, and bring hope to those who despair. By planting and nurturing seeds of peace each day and by living with compassion, commitment and courage, you can help create a world at peace free of the threat of nuclear annihilation. It’s going to take all of us together to change the course of our world, and our joy will be in the effort to accomplish this great goal.

    I pledge to you that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation will not cease in its efforts to lead the way toward a peaceful, non-violent and nuclear weapons-free world that we can be proud to pass on to the next generation – and I am convinced that our work has never been more necessary or important.

    The Power of One

    Encouraged by exemplary lives such as that of Ozaki Yukio, we will work to find, train and inspire the Ozaki Yukio’s of tomorrow. I’m glad that you are keeping his vision alive, and I hope that our work is also contributing to realizing the vision of this great man of the people.

    I would like to conclude with a short quote by Ozaki Yukio. It comes from an extraordinary article he wrote, entitled, “In Lieu of My Tombstone.” He said this:

    “If the world’s wealth and people are allowed to move freely, economic recovery will be spurred and the gap between the rich and the poor will be bridged. To secure this, the abolition of arms will annihilate the difference between the strong and the weak countries and bring about global equality, which means security and happiness for all mankind.

    “Collaboration or isolation? Open doors or closed? Which will it be? You who read this, wherever you are in the world, I beg you to ponder these lines and choose wisely.”

    We would all do well to not only ponder these lines, but also to ponder the life of Ozaki Yukio. His life demonstrated the Power of One. He lived with compassion, commitment and courage. He made a difference in his country and in the world. In this sense, his life is a beacon.

    I encourage each of you to choose hope and to be persistent in seeking your goals. You will help to fulfill Ozaki Yukio’s noble vision if each day you do something to contribute to a world of peace and justice, free from the threat of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Responsibility for the future, as Ozaki Yukio understood so well, rests with each of us.

    *David Krieger is the President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    We cannot hide from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that could destroy civilization and end most life on Earth.

    Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately – soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm.

    The obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects,” as unanimously affirmed by the International Court of Justice, is at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    More than ten years have now passed since the end of the Cold War, and yet nuclear weapons continue to cloud humanity’s future. The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them.

    We, therefore, call upon the leaders of the nations of the world and, in particular, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to act now for the benefit of all humanity by taking the following steps:

    – De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles. – Reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. – Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement. – Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states. – Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

  • We Could Learn from the Skeptics

    In a New York Times editorial on December 19, 2000, “Prelude to a Missile Defense,” they rightly point out that “no workable shield now exists” and that the diplomatic and financial costs are too high to begin construction of even a limited system “until the technology is perfected.”

    It is a great leap of faith to believe that this technology will ever be perfected. Experts repeatedly have warned us that even a moderately effective offense that includes decoys will always be able to overcome the type of defensive system we are capable of deploying.

    However, even if we were able to create a foolproof missile defense against Iraq, Iran and North Korea, we would still be at risk from nuclear weapons delivered by terrorist groups or nations by other means than missiles, such as by weapons carried into US harbors on boats. The geo-political damage that deployment of a National Missile Defense would do in our relations with Russia and China would also undermine any advantages such a system might provide.

    The editorial suggests that “Mr. Bush’s new foreign policy team should try to persuade skeptical countries that a limited defensive system can be built without wrecking existing arms control treaties or setting off a destructive new arms race.” To succeed in this persuasion, Mr. Bush’s new team will need either superhuman powers or excessive and dangerous arm twisting skills.

    They would be far wiser to listen carefully to the reasons why many of our closest allies, as well as Russia and China, are skeptical about our missile defense plans. By trying to understand rather than convert the skeptics, the Bush foreign policy team might learn that deploying a costly and unreliable Ballistic Missile Defense would create greater problems than it would solve.

    The new administration might more fruitfully concentrate its efforts on providing leadership in fulfilling the promises made by the nuclear weapons states at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference for an “unequivocal undertaking” to eliminate all nuclear weapons globally. Such leadership would be a true gift to humanity. It would also do far more to assure American and global security in the 21st century.

  • A Victory for All Humanity

    We are gathered for this Citizens’ Assembly to re-commit ourselves to assuring that no other city will ever again suffer the terrible nuclear devastation experienced by Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It is time to build on the important work already done by the hibakusha, by Abolition 2000 and others, to create a full-fledged global campaign to eliminate all nuclear weapons from Earth.

    We are gathered here because the future matters.

    Nuclear weapons are powerful, but not as powerful as human beings. Nuclear weapons can only defeat us if we allow them to do so.

    Nuclear weapons have the power to create the final unalterable silence, but only if humanity is silent in the face of their threat.

    Nuclear weapons have the power to destroy us, but also to unite us.

    We must choose how we will use and control the technological possibilities we have created. We can choose to continue to place most of life, including the human species, at risk of annihilation, or we can choose the path of eliminating nuclear weapons and working for true human security. It is clear that nuclear weapons pose a species-wide threat to us that demands a species-wide response.

    Nuclear weapons are not really weapons. They are devices of unimaginable destruction that draw no boundaries between soldiers and civilians, men and women, the old and the young. The stories of the hibakusha attest to this. Nuclear weapons have no true military purpose since their use would cause utter devastation. We know the hell on Earth they created at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite this knowledge, some countries continue to rely upon these weapons for what they call national security.

    If terrorism is the threat to injure or kill the innocent, then nuclear weapons are the ultimate instruments of terrorism. They are held on constant alert, ready to destroy whole cities, whole populations. They are corrupting by their very presence in a society. They contribute to a culture of secrecy, while undermining democracy, respect for life, human dignity, and even our human spirits.

    Nuclear weapons should awaken our survival instincts and arouse our human spirits to resistance.

    The survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the hibakusha, have persistently reminded us that human beings and nuclear weapons cannot coexist indefinitely. The relationship is bound to end in future tragedies, if for no other reason than that we humans are fallible creatures and cannot indefinitely maintain infallible systems.

    We must have a global movement that joins with the hibakusha and builds upon their efforts to save the world from future Nagasakis and Hiroshimas. In doing so, we will save our human spirits as well. Nuclear weapons should awaken our survival instincts and arouse the human spirit to resistance.

    As we approach our task of seeking to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the arsenals of all countries, we must remember that there is no legitimate authority vested in governments to place the future of humanity and other forms of life at risk of obliteration. The authority of governments comes only from their people. Governments lose their authority when they become destructive of basic rights, including the rights to life, liberty and security of person as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Peace is not the province of governments. It is the province of the people. It is a responsibility that rests upon our shoulders. If we turn over the responsibility for peace to the governments of the world, we will always have war. I am convinced that the people know far more about achieving and maintaining peace and human dignity than the so-called experts – political, military or academic – will ever know.

    As far back as 1968, when the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed by the US, UK and Soviet Union, these states promised good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Although this treaty entered into force in 1970, the nuclear weapons states made virtually no efforts to act on this obligation. Twenty-five years later at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in 1995, the nuclear weapons states again promised the “determined pursuit…of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons….” Five years later at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the nuclear weapons states again promised an “unequivocal undertaking … to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals….”

    So far, all they have done is play with words and promises. They have shown no sincerity in keeping their promises or fulfilling their obligations. If we wait for the governments of the nuclear weapons states to act in good faith, we may well experience future Nagasakis and Hiroshimas. The abolition of nuclear weapons cannot wait for governments to act in good faith. The people must act, and they must do so as if their very lives depend on it — because they do.

    We are not only citizens of the country where we reside; we are also citizens of the world. Citizenship implies responsibilities. We each have responsibilities to our families, our communities and to our world community.

    As we enter the 21st century, we must accept our responsibilities as citizens of the world. I offer you this Earth Citizen Pledge: “I pledge allegiance to the Earth and to its varied life forms; one world, indivisible, with liberty, justice and dignity for all.” This pledge moves national loyalty to a higher level – to the Earth – and incorporates the principle aim of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that all persons deserve to be treated with dignity.

    The organization I lead, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, is committed to waging peace. We believe in a proactive approach to peace. Peace must be waged, that is, pursued vigorously. Peace does not just happen to us. We must make it happen. We must build effective global institutions of peace such as an International Criminal Court and we must strengthen existing institutions such as the United Nations and its International Court of Justice so that they can better fulfill their mandates. We cannot turn decisions on war and peace over to national governments. This is what led to World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and countless others. It is what led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The primary goal of our Foundation is the same goal that motivates the hibakusha of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It is the goal of abolishing all nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. It is, in my opinion, the most important responsibility of our time. It is a responsibility that should dominate the human agenda until it is realized.

    Our Foundation is a founding member of the Abolition 2000 Global Network and has served in recent years as its international contact. The Network has now grown to more than 2000 organizations and municipalities in 95 countries. It is one of the world’s largest civil society networks. It connects abolitionists across the globe. Its principle aim is to achieve a treaty for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Developing a strategy to achieve this goal is the Network’s most important task.

    The time is overdue for an effective global campaign aimed at dramatically changing the policies of the nuclear weapons states. In the words of Jonathan Schell, we have been given “The Gift of Time.” But time is running out. General Lee Butler has pointed out that we have been given a Second Chance by a gracious Creator, but there may not be a third chance.

    We need to focus our attention on a global campaign to awaken a dormant humanity. I would propose that this campaign must include the following elements:

    First, we need clear simple messages that can reach people’s hearts and move them to action. Examples might include: Destroy the bomb, not the children. End the nuclear threat to humanity. No security in weapons of mass murder. Sunflowers instead of missiles. A nuclear war can have no winners. Nuclear war, humanity loses.

    Second, these messages must be spread by word of mouth and by all forms of media, particularly the Internet. Basic information on the need for abolition and ideas for what a person can do may be found at wagingpeace.org.

    Third, we must have an easily recognizable symbol to accompany the messages. We already have this, the Sunflower. We must make better use of it. Sunflowers should be sent regularly to all leaders of nuclear weapons states, along with substantive messages calling for abolition.

    Fourth, we must enlist major public figures to help us spread the messages. We must use public service announcements as well as paid advertisements. We have already succeeded in having many leading world figures sign an Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity. This Appeal states clearly that “nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable,” and calls for de-alerting all nuclear weapons and for “good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons….” Signers include Mayor Itoh of Nagasaki and Mayor Akiba of Hiroshima, former US President Jimmy Carter, Harrison Ford, Michael Douglas, Muhammad Ali, Barbra Streisand, and 36 Nobel Laureates, including 14 Nobel Peace Laureates.

    Fifth, we must target certain key groups in society: youth groups, women’s groups, and religious groups. We must work especially to motivate youth to become active in assuring their future; to inform women’s groups of the threat nuclear policies pose to their families; and to alert religious groups to the moral imperative of nuclear weapons abolition.

    Sixth, we must provide an action plan to these groups. Each group, for example, could select key decision makers at the local level (a member of Congress or parliamentarian) and at the national level or international level (President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, etc.). The group would be charged with sending monthly letters and sunflowers to their key decision makers, particularly US decision makers, trying to persuade that individual to take more effective action for nuclear abolition. This would, of course, be a worldwide effort.

    Seventh, best practices and successes can be shared by means of the Internet, including our web site www.wagingpeace.org.

    Eighth, we must not give up until we have achieved our goal, and we must not settle for the partial measures offered by the nuclear weapons states that continue a two-tier system of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.”

    We must continue to speak out. We must find ways to compel large masses of our fellow humans to listen to the message of the hibakusha.

    We have a choice. We can end the nuclear weapons era, or we can run the risk that nuclear weapons will end the human era. The choice should not be difficult. In fact, the vast majority of humans would choose to eliminate nuclear weapons. Today, a small number of individuals in a small number of countries are holding humanity hostage to a nuclear holocaust. To change this situation and assure a future free of nuclear threat, people everywhere must exercise their rights to life and make their voices heard. They must speak out and act before it is too late. They must demand an end to the nuclear weapons era.

    Our dream is not an impossible dream. It is something that we can accomplish in our lifetimes. Slavery was abolished, the Berlin Wall fell, apartheid ended in South Africa. We need to bring the spirit of the hibakusha to bear on nuclear weapons. Our goal of a world free of nuclear weapons will be achieved by individual commitment and discipline, and by joining together in a great common effort. Achieving our goal will be a victory for all humanity, for all future generations.

    Each of us is a miracle, and every part of life is miraculous. In opposing nuclear weapons and warfare, we are not only fighting against something. We are fighting for the miracle of life.

    Our cause is right. It is just. It is timely. We will prevail because we must prevail.

    *David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. This speech was a keynote address at the Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

  • Commentary on the Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity

    The Appeal to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity was initiated by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in early 2000. By April 2000 it had some 50 prominent signers. It was run as a half-page advertisement in the New York Times on the opening day of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference on April 24, 2000. Since then more prominent leaders from throughout the world have signed the Appeal. Signers include 35 Nobel Laureates including 14 Nobel Peace Laureates, former heads of state, diplomats, military leaders, scientists and entertainers, each a leader in his or her own field. What follows is the appeal set forth in italics with comments by signers of the Appeal.

    We cannot hide from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that could destroy civilization and end all life on Earth.

    According to Oscar Arias, a Nobel Peace Laureate and former President of Costa Rica, “The existence of nuclear weapons presents a clear and present danger to life on Earth.”

    Jean-Michel Cousteau, the founder and president of the Ocean Futures Society, states, “The canary is dead…and we are going on with business as usual. How can we better move the public out of lethargy so we can protect the fragile peace?” This is our challenge with regard to the nuclear threats that confront humanity.

    Former U.S. Senator Alan Cranston argues, “There is a simple reason for focusing on the nuclear issue. Many, many issues are of supreme importance in one way or another, but if we blow ourselves up with nuclear weapons, no other issue is really going to matter. Quite possibly there would be no other human beings left to be concerned about anything else.”

    Father Theodore Hesburgh, the President Emeritus of Notre Dame University and one of the great educators of our time, writes, “The threat of nuclear war in our time has been the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced on Earth.”

    Former Australian Ambassador Richard Butler states, “Disarmament requires politicians and governments who know the truth – nuclear weapons threaten all and must be eliminated.”

    Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately – soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm.

    Can there be any doubt that nuclear weapons, capable of destroying the entire human species and most other forms of life, are the most serious moral issue of our time.

    The XIVth Dalai Lama has called for both internal and external disarmament. With regard to external disarmament, he states, “We must first work on the total abolishment of nuclear weapons.”

    Gerry Spence, the famed trial attorney and author, writes, “All my life I’ve worked for justice. What kind of justice could possibly exist in a nuclear bomb?”

    Another attorney, Jonathan Granoff, the vice president and UN representative of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, writes, “We are the first generation which must choose whether life will continue. This living sphere may be the only such place in the entire universe where this gift of life, this gift to love, exists. We surely do not have the right to place it at risk through our collective ingenuity and in the service of something we have created.”

    Harrison Ford, one of the great actors of our time, argues, “The United States must assume world leadership to end once and for all the threat of nuclear war. It is our moral responsibility.”

    Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire writes, “The hope lies in the truth being spoken that we cannot use these weapons to kill our own brothers and sisters, and in the process destroying our homeland, Mother Earth.”

    Ambassador Richard Butler states the matter simply, “There are plenty of experts who can argue and discuss the problem of proliferation, but it is beyond doubt that this in itself will not do the job. Doctrines of deterrence obfuscate the central reality that the day these weapons are used will be a catastrophe.”

    The obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament “in all its aspects,” as unanimously affirmed by the International Court of Justice, is at the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    The highest court in the world, known as the World Court, wrote in a 1996 opinion that it was their unanimous opinion that “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.”

     

    Ten years have now passed since the end of the Cold War, and yet nuclear weapons continue to cloud humanity’s future. The only way to assure that nuclear weapons will not be used again is to abolish them.

    Retired US Admiral Eugene Carroll, the Deputy Director of the Center for Defense Information, argues, “American leaders have declared that nuclear weapons will remain the cornerstone of US national security indefinitely. In truth, as the world’s only remaining superpower, nuclear weapons are the sole military source of our national insecurity. We, and the whole world, would be much safer if nuclear weapons were abolished and Planet Earth was a nuclear free zone.”

    Retired US Admiral Noel Gayler, a former Commander in Chief of the Pacific Command, asks, “Does nuclear disarmament imperil our security?” He answers his question, “No. It enhances it.”

    The former Chief of the Indian Naval Staff, Admiral L. Ramdas, states, “We have to give expression to the need of the hour, which very simply put is to run down nuclear weapons to zero and recycle these huge budgets in the areas where it is most needed – human security.”

    Queen Noor of Jordan argues persuasively, “The sheer folly of trying to defend a nation by destroying all life on the planet must be apparent to anyone capable of rational thought. Nuclear capability must be reduced to zero, globally, permanently. There is no other option.”

    Ted Turner, the founder of CNN, states, “We should get rid of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will not protect us. Only a more equitable world will protect us.”

    Nobel Peace Laureate Betty Williams, states, “We must put an end to this insanity and ‘End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity.’”

    We, therefore, call upon the leaders of the nations of the world and, in particular, the leaders of the nuclear weapons states to act now for the benefit of all humanity by taking the following steps:

    • Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and reaffirm commitments to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
    • De-alert all nuclear weapons and de-couple all nuclear warheads from their delivery vehicles.
    • Declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons states and policies of No Use against non-nuclear weapons states.
    • Commence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.
    • Reallocate resources from the tens of billions of dollars currently being spent for maintaining nuclear arsenals to improving human health, education and welfare throughout the world.

    Former US President Jimmy Carter has argued, “All nuclear states must renew efforts to achieve worldwide reduction and ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. In the meantime, it requires no further negotiations for leaders of nuclear nations to honor existing nuclear security agreements, including the test ban and anti-ballistic missile treaties, and to remove nuclear weapons from their present hair-trigger alert status.”

    Nobel Peace Laureate Oscar Arias argues that “the tens of billions of dollars that are dedicated to their [nuclear weapons] development and maintenance should be used instead to alleviate human need and suffering.”

    Muhammad Ali, the great boxing champion and humanitarian, states, “We must not only control the weapons that can kill us, we must bridge the great disparities of wealth and opportunity among peoples of the world, the vast majority of whom live in poverty without hope, opportunity or choices in life. These conditions are a breeding ground for division that can cause a desperate people to resort to nuclear weapons as a last resort.” Ali concludes, “Our only hope lies in the power of our love, generosity, tolerance and understanding and our commitment to making the world a better place for all of Allah’s children.”

    Father Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame University, argues, “This is a time to reinvigorate our efforts towards reductions while we still have the opportunity of doing so. Nothing should distract us from this ultimate goal, which is all in the right direction for the peace and security of humankind.”

    How Can We Move Forward?

    Our best hope in moving forward lies with the power of the people. We cannot count on our leaders to act in good faith and in a timely way on this issue without pressure from the people.

    Australian Ambassador Richard Butler argues, “The key requirement for ending the nuclear threat to human existence is for ordinary people to bring the issue back to the domestic political agenda. Voters must make clear to those seeking public office that they will not get their vote unless they promise to pursue the goal of nuclear disarmament.”

    Arun Gandhi, the founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, concludes, “The people of the world must wake up to the negativity that has governed our lives for centuries giving rise to hate, discrimination, oppression, exploitation and leading to the creation of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.”

    Harrison Ford puts the matter clearly, “We have been led to believe that we have come a long way toward world nuclear disarmament. But that is not the case. Our government is not doing all that it could. We must urge our leaders to fulfill the obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

    The mayor of Nagasaki, Iccho Itoh, states, “I believe that the abolition of nuclear weapons can be accomplished by consolidating the efforts of world citizens and NGOs and mobilizing the conscience of humanity. Let us focus all our efforts on realizing a 21st century free from nuclear weapons and building a world in which our children can live in peace.”

    Maj Britt Theorin, a member of the European Parliament and former Swedish Ambassador for Disarmament, proclaims, “The unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear weapon states at the Non-Proliferation Conference to eliminate their nuclear arsenals is a victory. Together with scientists and NGOs, we now have five years to present a timetable for how and when all nuclear weapons will be eliminated.”

    This is our challenge. The people must awaken and act in their own self-interest and the interests of all humanity to end the nuclear weapons threat to our common future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • A Peace Message: On the fifty-fifth anniversaries of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    The world changed dramatically in the 20th century, a century of unprecedented violence. We humans learned how to release the power of the atom, and this led quickly to the creation and use of nuclear weapons. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this terrible new power was unleashed at the end of a bloody and costly war. Tens of thousands of persons, including large numbers of women and children, were killed in the massive explosion and radiation release of these new tools of destruction. A new icon was born: the mushroom cloud. It represented mankind’s murderous prowess. In the years that followed, nuclear weapons multiplied in a mad arms race. We achieved the possibility of creating a global Hiroshima and ending most life on Earth.

    If, one hundred years from now, you read this message, humanity will probably have succeeded in freeing itself from the scourge of nuclear weapons. That will be a great triumph. It will mean that we have met the first great challenge to our survival as a species. It will mean that we have learned and applied the lesson that the hibakusha, survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, worked so diligently to teach us, that human beings and nuclear weapons cannot co-exist.

    There is an alternative possibility, that of no civilization or human beings left alive one hundred years from now. Such a future would mean that we failed completely as a species, that we could not put away our primitive and violent means of settling our differences. Perhaps we would have simply stumbled by a combination of apathy and arrogance into an accidental nuclear conflagration. It would mean that all the beauty and elegant and subtle thought of humans that developed over our existence on Earth would have vanished. There would be no one left to appreciate what was or might have been. No eyes would read this letter to the future. There would be no future and the past would be erased. Meaning itself would be erased along with humanity.

    We have a choice. We can end the nuclear weapons era, or we can run the risk that nuclear weapons will end the human era. The choice should not be difficult. In fact, the vast majority of humans would choose to eliminate nuclear weapons. Today, a small number of individuals in a small number of countries are holding humanity hostage to a nuclear holocaust. To change this situation and assure a future free of nuclear threat, people everywhere must exercise their rights to life and make their voices heard. They must speak out and act before it is too late. They must demand an end to the nuclear weapons era.

    If this message reaches one hundred years into the future it will mean that enough of my contemporaries and the generations that follow will have heard the messages of the hibakusha and will have chosen the paths of hope and peace. Humanity will have conquered its most terrible tools of destruction. If this is the case, I believe that your future will be bright.

  • It’s Time to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat

    The US and Russia have made progress in reducing nuclear weapons from their Cold War highs, but we still have a long way to go. There remain some 35,000 weapons in the world, and 4,500 of these are on “hair-trigger” alert.

    If a single nuclear weapon were accidentally launched, it could destroy a city but that’s not all. With current launch-on-warning doctrines, an accidental launch could end up in a full-fledged nuclear war. This would mean the end of civilization and everything we value – just like that. The men and women in charge of these weapons could make a mistake, computers or sensors could make a mistake – and just like that our beautiful world could be obliterated. We can’t let that happen.

    Along with Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Marian Wright Edelman, Mohammad Ali, Harrison Ford, and many others, I have signed an Appeal to World Leaders to End the Nuclear Weapons Threat to Humanity. This Appeal calls for some sensible steps, such as de-alerting nuclear weapons. Just this step alone would make the world and all of us much safer from the threat of an accidental nuclear war while we pursue a world free of nuclear weapons.

    President Clinton recently said, “As we enter this new millennium, we should all commit ourselves anew to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.” I think the American people need to encourage the President and our representatives in Congress to assert US leadership in achieving such a world. We owe it not only to ourselves, but to our children, grandchildren and all future generations.

    But what should we do?

    First, the Russians have proposed cutting the number of US and Russian strategic nuclear weapons down to 1,000 to 1,500 each. We have responded by saying that we are only prepared to go to 2,000 to 2,500 weapons. But why? Isn’t it in the security interests of the American people to decrease the Russian nuclear arsenal as much as possible? We should move immediately to the lowest number of nuclear weapons to which the Russians will agree.

    Second, we should be upholding the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty instead of seeking to amend it. By limiting the number of defensive interceptor missiles, as the ABM Treaty does, we prevent a return to an offensive nuclear arms race. An effective missile defense system may work in the movies, but experts say it has very little chance of working or of not being overcome by decoys in real life. I certainly wouldn’t bet the security of my children’s future on building an expensive missile defense system that would violate the long-standing ABM Treaty.

    Third, we should declare a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons. There is no conceivable reason for attacking first with nuclear weapons or any other weapon of mass destruction and that should be our policy.

    Fourth, we should be engaging in good faith negotiations with Russia and the other nuclear weapons states to achieve a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons. That’s what we promised in the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recently reaffirmed at the 2000 Review Conference for this Treaty. If we want the non-nuclear weapons states to keep their part of the non-proliferation bargain and not develop nuclear weapons, we’d better keep our part of the bargain.

    When President Clinton goes to Moscow in early June to meet with President Putin, I’d like to see him come back with an agreement to dramatically reduce nuclear dangers by taking our respective nuclear arsenals off “hair-trigger” alert, by re-affirming the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, by agreeing on policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons, and by beginning negotiations in good faith on an international treaty for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons under strict and effective international control. If Presidents Clinton and Putin would take these steps, they would be real heroes of our time. And we could use some real life heroes.