Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: disarmament

  • Might Real Disarmament be on the Agenda?

    As a person who has believed ever since August, 1945 that nuclear disarmament was the single most important condition for the longrun survival of civlized life on earth, I was much encouraged a few days ago by several strong reactions to the contents of the US “Nuclear Posture Review” which had been leaked to the press on March 9. The “posture” includes contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven states, to which plans The New York Times replied with an editorial beginning: “If another country were planning to develop new nuclear weapons and contemplating pre-emptive strilkes against a list of non-nuclear powers, Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state. Yet such is the course recommended” by the Pentagon planning papers. The Washington Post, while reiterating its constant support for current American military actions, concluded its editorial by saying “The Bush administration is right to focus more of its strategic planning on deterring rogue states, but developing new nuclear weapons for that threat is neither necessary nor sensible.”

    Robert S. McNamara, who was US Secretary of Defense during the first stages of the Vietnam War, immediately criticized the posture review on several grounds: that the US has scrapped the ABM treaty in order to build a new missile shield in space; that the above-mentioned contingency plans undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by targeting several non-nuclear countries with our nuclear arms; that the review “appears to set forth a forty-year plan for developing and acquiring new nuclear weapons,” and that the nuclear testing of such new weapons would “fly in the face of vital US non-proliferation commitments.” Finally, not to limit my examples to the immediate reaction against the Nuclear Posture Review, I would mention that The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in the US has been circulating since the beginning of this year an appeal to “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.” This appeal carries the signatures of such widely admired world figures as Muhammad Ali, former President Jimmy Carter, the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, and Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba of Hiroshima.

    In the balance of the present article I would like to assess the possibilities for real disarmament. But first a caution: the momentum of President Bush’s “war against terror”, and the advice of all his important counselors with the partial exception of Colin Powell, is strongly in favor of new weapons, both nuclear and non-nuclear, developed hopefully with allied approval, but unilaterally if such approval is not forthcoming. The editorial reactions I have cited above do not call for disarmament of any kind. They reflect dismay at the failure of the administration even to realize how dangerous for the US itself are these rejections of international obligations and readiness to extend nuclear competition and militarize outer space as well as the long suffering earth. They thus call for a modicum of common sense restraint.

    The administration favors a certain disarmament on its own terms. In order to free up nuclear resources, plus the scientific and technical talent to create more sophisticated, precise new weapons, the US proposes a large voluntary reduction in the thousands of missiles now on alert in US and Russian bases. This is to be done without signing scraps of paper, and with the missiles kept in storage just in case some unpredictable change in the international atmosphere might require us to be able quickly to alert them again. The Russians, who have recovered their sense of humor since the demise of communism, have referred to this as a “nuclear warehouse” policy.

    A more difficult obstacle lies in the fact that American public opinion, as reflected in the behavior of the US Senate, does not like to accept international obligations. The Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because it would, quite obviously, limit the country’s ability to create and test new weapons. Many legislators have nothing good to say for the United Nations as such, and will have nothing to do with a proposed international tribunal for the trial of war crimes. They feel no embarrassment whatever in saying that they will not permit any American soldier to be tried by such a tribunal. Their forbears conquered the American West without having to apply any Geneva conventions to captured Indian braves, and they declare that the captured Taliban and Al Quaida fighters are not legitimate prisoners of war (another psychological throwback to their forbears’ attitude towards the Indians).

    Actually there already exists a very practical basis from which to initiate real nuclear disarmament. In 1970 the existing -and still the principal- nuclear powers (the EEUU, Russia, the UK, France, and China) sponsored a Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which they asked all the rest of the world to forego the development of nuclear weapons, in return for which the nuclear group itself undertook a solemn obligation to negotiate the reduction and eventual elimination of their own nuclear arsenals. Without any unnecessary sarcasms and finger pointings, without any reference to other treaties never ratified by the Senate, the nuclear “club” could now take the initiative to fulfill that obligation.

    There are also several practical circumstances which should make it possible for the leaders of all nations to recognize the increasing importance of nuclear disarmament for the survival of civilized life. Since 1970 (as well as before) there have been accidents at nuclear plants releasing dangerous quantities of radioactivity into the atmosphere, and eventuallly into the soil and water on which millions of people depend. There has been no way to hide these facts. Regardless of governmental secrecy, seismographs all over the world have detected every single nuclear test and every single nuclear accident in the years since 1945. There have also been at least nine very little publicized sinkings of nuclear submarines with consequent poisoning of the ocean waters. In addition, the safe disposal of radioactive wastes from well controlled civilian activities is a completely unsolved problem, of which political elites are surely aware even if they avoid public discussion of the subject. Where, and in what quantity, potentially endangering whose homes and lands, are to be buried the hundreds of tons of nuclear waste which include elements that will remain radioactive for several centuries? By what right do we deliberately endanger the health of these future generations? Without hurting anybody’s religious or ideological sensibilities, the delegates to a disarmament conference could mutually assume the obligation to reduce as far as it may still be possible, these health hazards.

    Another relevant circumstance is the fact that, in contrast to the situation in 1970, we no longer live in a bi-polar world. At that time, the EEUU and the USSR were so overwhelmingly powerful that, since the two of them could destroy each other 100 times over, and were aware of that fact, the rest of the world could relax in the assurance that such pragmatic leaders as Nixon and Brezhnev would be careful not to start a nuclear war. But today we live in a world of strongly revived religious differences, of militant nationalisms, of less ideological debate but more fear, hatred, and jealousy based on the increasing inequality between prosperous and poor societies, and the fact that this increasing inequaltiy is so obvious on the TV screens seen by almost everyone. This situation must lead all sane persons to realize that no small group of powers such as the nuclear club of the 1970’s can hope to restrict the spead of nuclear arms. In that sense I can agree that the ABM treaty is “outdated”, but not for the purpose of eliminating it so as to feel free to create all kinds of monstrous new weapons.

    Thue only sane policy is to recognize that either we get rid of nuclear weapons or their eventual use, whether by intent or by accident, will inevitably kill millions of persons and poison the living conditions of the survivors and successors. We need a world disarmament conference for as many years as it may take to negotiate comprehensive, verifiable, permanent disarmament of all the existing stocks of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

     

  • The President’s Other Two Wars

    The President’s Other Two Wars

    During his first year in office, George W. Bush has engaged in three wars. His war against terrorism is widely known and discussed. His resolve to fight against evildoers with America’s military might is said to have defined his presidency.

    The president’s other two wars have received far less attention, but they may end up defining his presidency even more than his war against terrorism. These are his war against international law and his war against the international control of armaments.

    In the war against international law, the president has shown remarkable boldness in his disdain for the remainder of the international community. He has pulled out of the Kyoto Accords on Global Warming, perhaps the most critical environmental treaty of our time. He has also demonstrated his contempt for the creation of an International Criminal Court that would hold individuals accountable for the types of serious international crimes that were prosecuted by the United States at Nuremberg following World War II.

    The president’s war against the international control of armaments, however, has been his most successful undertaking. In one area of arms control after another, he has demonstrated that he plans to chart the course of US unilateralism when it comes to decisions on controlling armaments.

    He has made clear that he does not intend to resubmit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to the Senate for ratification. When the CTBT came up at the 2001 United Nations General Assembly, the US was the only country to vote against carrying over an item supporting the treaty to the next session of the General Assembly.

    The president has also requested studies from the Pentagon on the possible resumption of nuclear testing. When the parties to the CTBT met last November to discuss ways to bring the Treaty into force more rapidly, the US did not even bother to show up and participate.

    Mr. Bush has opposed signing the International Treaty to Ban Landmines, despite the solid international support to ban these weapons that go on killing civilians long after the soldiers have left a war zone. At a UN conference on small arms, the US blocked key provisions to stem the illegal traffic in small arms, those most used in combat. The US also torpedoed a six-year effort to create a Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would allow for verification procedures including on-site inspections.

    The president’s boldest act, however, in his war against the international control of armaments was his announcement that the US is withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Despite Russian opposition to taking this step, the president gave his notice of withdrawal on December 13, 2001, starting the six months running for withdrawal under the provisions of the treaty. Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty will give the US the ability to test weapons for use in outer space, leading to their deployment in outer space and the undermining of the Outer Space Treaty as well.

    In his November 2001 Crawford Summit with Russian President Putin, Mr. Bush announced his intention to lower the size of the US strategic nuclear arsenal to some 1,700 to 2,200 nuclear weapons over a ten year period. This unilateral action did not even go as far as President Putin had been offering for over a year (reductions to 1,500 strategic weapons or possibly lower). The president’s plan will keep overkill the principal US nuclear strategy for at least the next decade. Further, since it has been unilaterally initiated, it will be subject to unilateral reversal by Mr. Bush himself or a successor to the presidency.

    In taking these steps, Mr. Bush has also demonstrated his contempt for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which the US has promised to pursue good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice has interpreted this phrase to mean complete nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.

    As recently as May 2000, the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty promised to preserve and strengthen the ABM Treaty “as the cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons.” At the same time, the US joined the other parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in promising an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” The president’s actions have helped convince our allies and treaty partners that US promises are worth very little, but perhaps this is to be expected when a president is engaged in war on so many fronts.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • NAPF Response to the August 2001 Session of Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education

    Contemporary definition of disarmament education and training: An American perspective

    Very little comprehensive education on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons exists for students prior to entering college. Considering the natural audience of high school and the importance of reaching students at a young age, a focused curriculum for high school students would best serve the goal of creating a good foundation for lifetime commitment and involvement in these areas.

    In order that there be fuller participation in disarmament and non-proliferation from a wider variety of ages, races, classes, etc., the participants must be able to take ownership in the issue. This means that the terminology, access to information, and input credibility must exist in a more user-friendly version. The reason that younger generations are less invested in non-proliferation, disarmament and abolition is their lack of exposure to peace-oriented education. The standard American high school curriculum for history is chronicled from war to war, general to general, and battle to battle with little coverage of the pacifist contingency nor the strides made for humankind by nonviolent activists. In fact, they are generally dismissed as dangerous or destructive rather than principled, disciplined individuals trying to create dynamic changes toward equality and justice.

    Those with the greatest potential for power, our young people, are not treated as viable candidates in the process of peacemaking. Peacemaking itself is an afterthought, a hopeful goal once the objectives ridding the world of nuclear weapons, civil conflicts, and chemical and biological warfare have been attained. Peacemaking can no longer be viewed as tangential to disarmament, but must become the sustenance which propels the disarmament and non-proliferation movement. Nonviolence and education are not the goals at the end of the road; they are the road.

    Assessment of the current situation of disarmament and non-proliferation education

    Access to information on disarmament and non-proliferation is limited to a specific group of people, namely college and post-graduate students whose academic interests focus primarily on these topics. A program for educating a wider audience through high schools is limited in existence. Yet education on disarmament and non-proliferation should not be limited to the academic elite, but should be available to the rising voters and general public, because fundamentally the topics concern everyone. The well educated have a responsibility to widen the circle of public involvement in eliminating the threat of weapons proliferation, and this task mandates dialogue with young people. The nongovernmental organizations and academics must utilize high school venues and assist in classroom education for both teachers and students, being mindful of the current trends in American public education.

    Education in the United States is experiencing a period of review and increased “accountability” where teachers are disencouraged to explore curricula outside the standard material and adhere to rigid testing aimed to prove that students are learning. The standardized tests are largely disliked by teachers and administrators because of the limited practical knowledge they measure; these tests are indicative of whether or not students are learning how to be good test takers, rather than common sense thinkers. This phenomenon of multiple choice testing has many effects, both for classroom learning and for societal implications. First, teachers have little time to explore creative and diverse learning styles because the standardized tests cover specific information, the majority of which does not cover multi-dimensional thinking. Second, because of the time constraints of the school year and the financial incentives offered to teachers whose students succeed, teachers must rush through all the material to be covered on the examinations. Third, the current system of schooling school does encourage character development through service to others nor does it endear students to explore other contexts outside their own experiences, like becoming involved in any social movements or positive change for society.

    Thus, for young people to become active in disarmament and non-proliferation, they must first have the opportunity to come to some understanding and awareness that these two topics are global problems with personal implications. Students are not taught to be system-oriented, seeing the world as living organism and acknowledging the web of interconnections that span the globe. If our goal is to educate kids about disarmament and non-proliferation, then our first step is getting them to believe that our world is worth saving. The military now has direct access into high schools in America through programming called Channel One, which broadcasts “news” into schools for fifteen minutes every day. ROTC recruiters are allowed onto campuses, but conscientious objectors are thrown off school grounds. Specific classes in nonviolence education are few and far between in the United States, and many teachers are too overwhelmed with their current curriculum to believe that themes of peace and justice infused into their existing lesson plans could work.

    Furthermore, disarmament and non-proliferation are at the end of a long path of exploration into issues of economic and social justice. Schools must first provide kids with the tools to handle their own personal conflicts and more importantly must make the existing subject matter, and the way it is presented, less violent. Visual media shows terrorism, civil strife and full-scale war as a real-life video game. For students to have some ownership in the problem, they need to understand where the countries obtain their weapons, who profits, and who uses the weapons. We must not treat the loss of human life as the military does, calling it “collateral damage”. Education for young people on disarmament and non-proliferation has varying implications based on where it will be implemented, i.e. gun control laws in the United States require a unique strategy, as do the problems of disarmament in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe.

    Recommendation for promoting education

    First, we must make our American schools more nonviolent institutions. Nonviolence education should be a mandatory component in all high schools, and the corporations providing the “news” to ripe young audiences should be forced to remove any marketing by the military branches. Our classrooms are not corporate experiments. Additionally, nongovernmental organizations should utilize the “news” networks to encourage coverage of peace-friendly programming to an already captive audience. Second, nongovernmental organizations should interface the existing material on disarmament and non-proliferation and compile a “user-friendly” seminar, video and worksheet questionnaire as well as a framework for allowing student participation in this issue, i.e. how to write to a newspaper, congressperson, how to create press releases and petitions, and how to engage their creativity toward a positive goal. Fourth, students must be sent on study abroad delegations to experience firsthand effects of governmental policies on other countries. Other options for field trips are visiting sites of nuclear testing as well as the companies and factories where the many different weapons are produced, and touring countries whose young people actively participate in conflict. We need to encourage students to see a more complete, real picture of the problem rather than blaming the warring parties for their reliance on weapons to settle conflicts. American students need to know that the number one export in their country is weapons and that America sponsors nearly three-fourths of the ongoing conflicts worldwide.

    Examining pedagogic methods

    The Internet can be a powerful tool to relate stories and facilitate dialogue between students in different countries. Academics and nongovernmental organizations can serve as moderators for communication between cultures on the topics of disarmament and non-proliferation. In addition, the Internet may be used to display “video diaries” of firsthand experiences from students in regions like East Timor and Cambodia to enhance the personalization of distance learning. Through these “video diaries”, students in different countries can hear their counterparts’ stories in their own voices, making a more real connection between their cultures.

    The Internet can also be used to disseminate teacher training materials and resources while providing a network of educators who have elected to participate in disarmament and non-proliferation education. Through this network, teachers and administrators can secure guest speakers, classroom activities worksheets and background materials, and an array of videos for their students. Students and teachers may also pose questions directly to the nongovernmental organizations’ educational liaisons through email and online discussion forums.

    Recommendations for the United Nations Organizations

    If peace education toward the goals of disarmament and non-proliferation is to work, then adequate funding must be provided for its implementation. First, the United Nations can exert pressure on national governments to evaluate the compensation teachers receive for the demands of their jobs. Currently, the priorities of the government of the United States focus on war making and funding programs through the Department of Defense. Cushioning the budgets of the Department of Education and ensuring adequate grants for States and Local Municipalities will increase the viability as well as the legitimacy of disarmament and non-proliferation education. Second, the United Nations can suggest that nongovernmental organizations pertaining to disarmament and non-proliferation take their messages into school board meetings and classrooms, and provide classes at the college level for teachers-in-training as a part of a Credential program. Third, textbook writers and manufacturers must accept a new version of history, and nongovernmental organizations must begin consulting with writers of world and American history texts to ensure accuracy and fair and adequate coverage of nuclear and weapons-oriented themes. To acquire authenticity in the classroom, these ideas of disarmament and non-proliferation must be written and viewed in print by students.

    Introducing disarmament and non-proliferation in post-conflict societies: Aceh, Indonesia case study

    UNICEF currently funds a peace-building educational program in Banda Aceh, Indonesia for young people who have been exposed to war throughout their lives. This experimental program combines nonviolent theory with practical applications of peacemaking and disarmament. It provides a forum for people to tell their stories and heal from their experiences, as well as create for themselves a more peaceable society. Nonviolence trainers are currently conducting teacher trainings in Aceh, and beginning in early September, the teachers will begin classes for young people in the province.

    In addition, the concept of “peacekeeping forces” must be reevaluated to incorporate more than reassigning soldiers to forcibly keep the peace in a region. Peacekeepers must be unarmed as well as trained in conflict management and crowd dynamics. The concept of disarmament and non-proliferation must grow from citizen awareness to government and military implementation of more peaceable resolutions for global problems.

    *Leah C. Wells is Peace Education Coordinator at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • 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 Proposal for Achieving Zero Nuclear Weapons

    It is conceded by all hands that we stand at some continuing risk of nuclear war. The risk is possibly not imminent, but it is basically important above all else — for survival. The Defense and Energy Departments together have made promising starts to reduce possession of nuclear weapons, but far more and much faster action is needed.

    Credible report has it that weapons are adrift, potentially available to irresponsible regimes and to terrorists. Independent development by them is not needed to establish threat. The peculiar characteristic of nuclear weaponry is that relative numbers between adversaries mean little. When a target country can be destroyed by a dozen weapons, its own possession of thousands of weapons gains no security. Defense against ballistic missiles is infeasible. What is more, it is irrelevant. Half a dozen non-technical means of delivery are available, in addition to cruise missiles and aircraft.

    The recognized and awful dangers of other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological, do not compare to nuclear, despite their vileness. On the tremendous and incredible scale of killing, the others are retail as compared to the nuclear’s wholesale; but there need not be competition since all can be — must be — addressed concurrently.

    Drafting a successor to the nuclear arms treaty is purportedly underway. If START III repeats the mistakes of the past, it may well bog down into haggling over relative numbers. More productive can be a process continuing toward total nuclear disarmament, the only way in which both we and the world may be truly secure from nuclear destruction.

    An irony is that in developing and using nuclear weapons, we, the United States, have done the only thing capable of threatening our own national security. We have comparatively weak and friendly neighbors to the north and south, control of the seas, and a powerful air and combat-tested armed forces. We are proof that this in no way diminishes the need, as the world’s single greatest power, for Army, Navy, Air, and Marines capable not only of our own defense, but of intervention abroad in the interest of peace and human rights. These forces do not come into being overnight, but need to be continually developed and supported. The argument for a nuclear component is no longer valid. The time is now for a concrete proposal that meets the problem. Process, as opposed to negotiating numbers, is the basic principle of the proposal that I suggest. It is nothing less than drastic: the continuing reduction to zero of weapons in the hands of avowed nuclear powers, plus an end to the nuclear ambitions of others.

    The proposal: Let weapons be delivered to a single point, there to be dismantled, the nuclear material returned to the donors for use or disposal, and the weapons destroyed. This process, once underway, will be nearly impossible to stop, since its obvious merits, political and substantive, will compel support. The “single point” may well be a floating platform, at sea, in international waters. A handy platform can be an aircraft carrier that has been removed from “mothballs” and disarmed, yet capable of steaming to the desired location and operating support aircraft and ships to handle heavier loads. Living quarters for personnel, ships company, and disarmament processors, would be integral, as would be major protected spaces.

    The US, of course, is the obvious source of a carrier, but there could be international manning, following the precedent of NATO. This would make the American ship politically palatable to the participants and Russia would be handled sensitively. Obvious and major advantages of security, inspection, availability, timing, and cost would ensue. Those regimes and groups not initially participating can be put under enormous pressure to join. Any remaining recalcitrant can be disarmed militarily, this time with a concert of powers. The need for persuasion and understanding of the participating powers is, of course, fundamental, and probably the most difficult requirement to meet. To meet this need of public understanding and consequent action, domestic and foreign, will require that we dispel some common illusions, such as:

    • Is physical defense against nuclear weapons possible? No. What’s more, it’s irrelevant. A half dozen non-technical means of delivery avail.
    • Can nuclear weapons be used in any sensible manner? No. This includes “tactical.”
    • Does nuclear disarmament imperil our security? No. It enhances it.
    • Is deterrence of nuclear or other attack by threat of retaliation still possible? No. The many potential aggressors are scattered — even location unknown. No targets!

    With these illusions dispelled, it becomes evident that nuclear disarmament works to the advantage of every power. Only in this way can the world be made safe from unprecedented murder and destruction. It remains to take the necessary actions. They are feasible and imperative.
    *Admiral Noel Gayler (US Navy, Ret.) is a four-star admiral and served as Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC). He was responsible for nuclear attack tactical development and demonstration of nuclear attack tactics to the Chairman and Joint Chiefs.

  • Nagasaki Appeal: The Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

    Standing on the threshold of a new century, we concerned global citizens have gathered from throughout the world in Nagasaki, the last city of the departing century to suffer the devastation of a nuclear attack.

    Some half-century ago, humanity embarked on the development of nuclear weapons. These indescribably destructive instruments are capable not only of robbing millions of people of their lives at a single stroke, but also of inflicting lifelong physical and mental anguish on any survivors. The damage resulting from the use of nuclear weapons would extend far beyond the boundaries of the belligerents, having extremely serious consequences for the environment and all living things. Nevertheless, these criminal weapons are still being used by some states for political purposes.

    It is our duty to provide a worthy response to the voices of the hibakusha — the atomic bomb survivors; voices tinged with anxiety stemming from the knowledge that death from not yet fully explained causes may come at any time; voices that say, “Such a tragedy cannot be allowed to be repeated… Before the last of us leaves this world, nuclear weapons must be abolished forever.” It is the sincere desire of the citizens of Nagasaki, that Nagasaki should remain the last city to suffer the calamity of the dropping of an atomic bomb.

    Despite the fact that it has been over a decade since the collapse of the Cold War standoff, there are still over 30,000 nuclear warheads in existence on our fragile planet. The United States and the Russian Federation each continue to maintain several thousand nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert.

    The International Court of Justice, the world’s supreme legal authority, has ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is a violation of international law. These weapons, which are even more inhumane than biological or chemical weapons, are nonetheless claimed by the few governments which possess them, and by the countries sheltered by the “nuclear umbrella,” as necessary for their security.

    Expectations were raised in May of this year at the 2000 NPT Review Conference when the nuclear weapon states agreed to an “an unequivocal undertaking… to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals…” However, the phrase, “undertake to engage in an accelerated process of negotiations,” had to be eliminated from the draft document in order to avoid the breakdown of the talks.

    The continued existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to all of humanity, and their use would have catastrophic consequences. The only defense against nuclear catastrophe is the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    During our conference, we have learned from the stories of many who have suffered from the nuclear age: the hibakusha and downwinders from Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Semipalatinsk, Nevada, and Moruroa; Chernobyl and Tokaimura. The world’s citizens must now be mobilized to form a potent global movement, and it is this force that will compel governments to fulfill their promises. All sectors of the global community must be involved including women, youth, workers, religious communities and indigenous peoples.

    Having concluded four days of discussions in Nagasaki, the concerned global citizens who attended this historic Assembly call for the following actions:

    1. Let the citizens of the world cooperate with like-minded nations in calling for an international conference to negotiate a verifiable treaty for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    2. The responsibility and the potential role of the Japanese government in the context of the elimination of nuclear weapons is extremely great. We strongly expect Japan to end its dependence on nuclear weapons for national security, and to maximize its contribution to nuclear abolition, for instance, by working towards the establishment of a Northeast Asia nuclear weapon-free zone. We ask the citizens of the world to provide support to the activities of the Japanese people in pressuring their government.

    3. The missile defense programs proposed by the United States for North America and East Asia is preventing nuclear disarmament, and threatening to ignite a new arms race. The current situation must be urgently improved. Let us join hands with US citizens who are calling for the cessation of all missile defense programs, and work for stronger international public opinion on this subject.

    4. All governments should inform their publics about the damage caused by nuclear activities. We call for the reallocation of the resources currently expended on nuclear arms to mitigate and compensate for the human suffering and environmental damage caused by the use of nuclear weapons and the entire process of nuclear development, including uranium mining, reprocessing, testing, and manufacture. Resources should also be provided for the elimination of nuclear weapons and its verification.

    5. We also call for efforts directed toward the stepwise and parallel implementation of various measures, such as the entry-into-force as soon as possible of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; a total ban on sub-critical and all other forms of nuclear weapons testing; the cut-off and international control of weapons-usable fissile materials; deep reductions of nuclear arsenals; de-alerting; the adoption of no-first-use policies among nuclear weapons states and non-use policies against non-nuclear weapons states; withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from foreign soil and international waters; the establishment of new nuclear weapon-free zones and the strengthening of existing zones; and official rejection of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence. Further, we urgently call for the cessation of nuclear weapons programs by India and Pakistan. Let us use every available opportunity to express the expectations and demands of the world’s citizens.

    Activities aimed at the elimination of nuclear weapons, led by the hibakusha, Abolition 2000 and others, have progressed to the point where “nuclear weapons abolition” has become part of the common vocabulary of international politics and diplomacy. So long as the efforts of the world’s citizens continue, there is bright hope that our objectives will be achieved. The myriad small steps taken by concerned citizens in every conceivable setting will no doubt lead to new and giant strides forward. Let us begin renewed and concerted action directed at the rapid realization of a 21st century free of war, in which the scourge of nuclear weapons is finally removed forever.

  • Statement by Senator Douglas Roche on the New Agenda Coalition Vote Taken Nov. 9, 1999 in the United Nations First Committee on Disarmament and International Security

    1. On November 9th, the U.N. First Committee adopted the New Agenda Coalition resolution with 90 yes votes, 13 no’s and 37 abstentions. Last year’s First Committee vote was 97-19-32. The heart of the resolution is contained in Operative Paragraph 1: “Calls upon the Nuclear Weapon States to make an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the speedy and total elimination of their nuclear arsenals and to engage without delay in an accelerated process of negotiations, thus achieving nuclear disarmament to which they are committed under Article VI of the NPT.”

    2. Four NWS (the U.S., Russia, the U.K., and France) again voted no and China repeated its abstention. In 1998 NATO, which then had 16 states, voted 0-4-12. This year, with 19 members, Turkey and the Czech Republic moved from no to abstention, while Hungary and Poland voted no. Thus the NATO count was 0-5-14. Though some states (e.g. Azerbeijan, Benin) dropped to abstention from last year’s yes, the effect of this was offset by 14 NATO states together sending a message to the NWS that progress must be made.

    3. The Explanations-of-vote contained revealing observations. The U.K. said the NAC resolution was incompatible with the maintenance of a credible minimum deterrence. France accused the NAC of having ulterior motives in challenging the right to self-defence. The U.S. said it had already given a “solemn undertaking” concerning Article VI of the NPT and why should it be asked to give more? Canada, which abstained, praised the resolution but added: “The nuclear-weapon states and their partners and alliances need to be engaged if the goals of the New Agenda resolution are to be achieved.” This was a tacit admission that the Western NWS (the NATO leaders) had tied Canada’s hands. Australia, which also abstained, said it did not want to challenge the sincerity of the NWS commitment to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons.

    4. It is disappointing that the leaders of the NATO countries could not bring themselves to vote that the Nuclear Weapon States make an “unequivocal undertaking” to engage without delay in negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. The present situation is truly alarming: the U.S. Senate has rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; the U.S. is preparing to deploy a missile defence system over the objections of Russia and China; India is preparing to deploy nuclear weapons in air, land, and sea; Pakistan, which has successfully tested nuclear weapons, is now ruled by the military; meaningful discussions at the Conference on Disarmament are deadlocked; the preparatory conferences for the 2000 Review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have failed; the Russian Duma has not ratified START II. The gains made in the past decade on reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons are being wiped out. Immense dangers to the world lie ahead if the present negative trends are not reversed.

    5. We have offered logic, law, and morality to government leaders as reasons for them to move forward on nuclear disarmament. We are tempted, at this moment, to despair that we will ever be heard. That is the wrong reaction. We are being heard as never before, and the proponents of the status quo are being forced to invent the most preposterous reasons to justify their slavish adherence to weapons that have justly been called “the ultimate evil.” We do not have the luxury of despair at this moment. We must continue, with all our growing might, to speak truth to power.

    6. It is disturbing to be thwarted by a residual Cold War mentality driven by the military-industrial complex that infects the political decision-making process with fears of an unknown enemy. It is myopic for NATO government leadership to live in fear of U.S. government retribution for voting to advance nuclear disarmament. It is an abrogation of governments’ responsibility to humanity to stare silently into the abyss of more nuclear weapons.

    7. But rage bounces off the shields of denial constructed by the powerful. It does little to berate government leaders. Those in governments and in civil society who have worked hard for the successful passage of the NAC resolution as a way out of looming catastrophe must be humble enough to recognize that there is still not a vibrant public opinion in our society against nuclear weapons. The public generally does not know enough about the present situation even to be in denial.

    8. The time has come to inject renewed energy into the nuclear weapons debate. The sheer force of this energy must penetrate the consciences of decision-makers in the powerful states and thus transfer the nuclear abolition debate into a whole new field of action. We must rise up above the political, economic, social and cultural blockages to abolition and infuse the societal and political processes with a dynamic of action. The approach I am calling for must be based on our overpowering love for God’s planet and all humanity on it. In this call to witness, we will find new confidence in our ability to overcome the temporary denial by politicians and officials who do not understand the power of this transformation moment in history.

    9. By coincidence, the NAC vote, in which the NWS are still showing their defiance, occurred on the tenth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Wall fell because enough people created a force for freedom that became unstoppable. The Wall of resistance to nuclear weapons abolition will also crumble when the non-nuclear allies of the U.S. demonstrate the courage that we must give them. Already there are signs, in the speculation that tactical nuclear weapons will be removed from seven NATO countries in Europe, that the NATO leadership is feeling this pressure.

    10. Our first task now is to give our complete support to the leaders of the New Agenda Coalition, telling them we will not cease our active support of their efforts. Our second is to gather more strength among the public so that even the most skeptical of leaders will feel a new heat on this issue. Our third is to be a witness in our own communities, each in our own way, to our unflagging desire to leave a world for humanity that will indeed be nuclear-weapons-free.

    * Senator Douglas Roche is Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament and Chairman, Middle Powers Initiative.

  • A Cold Warrior Looks to Ban the Bomb After a Career in Brinkmanship

    “Butler is highly motivated in his quest to ban nuclear weapons, but then again he knows what those weapons can do when perhaps the rest of us have forgotten.”

    Retired Gen. George L. (Lee) Butler is among the very few whose job description has included the power to destroy the planet. As he recalled during a telephone conversation last week: “I lived for three years, every day of my life, with the requirement to answer a phone within three rings and be prepared to advise the president on how to retaliate with respect to the real or perceived threat of nuclear attack. I found it extremely sobering.”

    Butler, 59, a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and a much-decorated Vietnam air-combat veteran, came to that awesome responsibility upon ascending to the post of commander of U.S. strategic nuclear forces. He held that job between 1991 and 1994 in the Bush administration, just after the Cold War came to an abrupt end. But the U.S reliance on nuclear deterrence did not.

    While working for the Joint Chiefs under the direction of General Colin L. Powell, Butler was charged with reevaluating the U.S. nuclear deterrent in the aftermath of the Cold War. It was Butler’s recommendation to stand down the U.S. nuclear force from hair-trigger alert for the first time in 30 years, and the Bush administration acted on his recommendation, with Mikhail S. Gorbachev, then the Soviet leader, following suit.

    “So I felt when I retired in 1994,” Butler recalled, “that nuclear-arms control was on a pretty good track. START 11 was signed and starting the ratification process, and I had a great sense of relief and gratification that all had begun to change fairly quickly.” But he ruefully concedes that his optimism was misplaced: “Here we are, years later, and things look pretty much the same.”

    The impasse on nuclear-arms control deeply worries Butler as he assays a Russia close to ruin with deteriorating control over its still deadly nuclear arsenal. “The Russians survey a strategic landscape in which our Senate has imposed a moratorium on any sort of cuts that we might make, so here we are with 6,000, 7,000 operational weapons, about half of them on alert; and they are struggling to keep about a third of that many viable.”

    While everyone is focused on the fighting in Kosovo, Butler considers Russia’s weakness and instability a prescription for disaster and so has devoted his retirement years to getting arms control back on track. The father of two and grandparent of three, Butler is highly motivated in his quest to ban nuclear weapons, but then again he knows what those weapons can do when perhaps the rest of us have forgotten.

    Question: The whole effort to abolish nuclear weapons, which you have been involved with, seems to be on a back burner as relations with the Russians deteriorate. Are you worried about their ability to control their own weapons?

    Answer: I am, to some extent. My own view is that, with regard to the operational weapons, I think they’re as concerned as we, if not more so, about keeping those accountable and safe and secure. I worry more about the components back in the labs and in the multiplicity of storage sites that they built over the years, and I just can’t believe they have the resources to keep those to the same standards that they did during the Cold War. I’ve been following some of the reports coming out of the secret cities — for example, Krasnoyarsk, where that reactor is still running, cranking out maybe 40 tons of plutonium a year and folks are on half-wages and dispirited and poor morale and God knows what kind of discipline they’re able to maintain, and that’s an enormous temptation. So I guess I worry more about that stuff getting into the wrong hands than I do about accidental launch.

    Q: Speaking of stuff getting into the wrong hands, what do you make of the charges of China stealing secrets from the Los Alamos lab?

    A: I’m not so much outraged that China is spying on us. Everybody spies on everybody else–even our friends spy on us. That’s one thing, but that just simply means we all have the greater obligation to safeguard those secrets we feel could be most damaging to our national security if revealed. So I put a lot of responsibility on our own doorstep here.

    Q: In terms of arms control, what right do we have, aside from that they shouldn’t steal, to tell China not to develop an arsenal of this sort?

    A: We don’t, we clearly don’t have that right. Part of the cross we bear by continuing to maintain this Reaganesque nuclear-weapons policy is that we’re hoist on the petard of our own nuclear-weapons rhetoric. I keep thinking about that phone call the president must have had with his counterparts in India and Pakistan, trying to persuade them not to test or to develop nuclear weapons when we still have words that say nuclear weapons are essential to our security. In fact, they are the cornerstone of our security, when we have no reasonable threat that we can point to; and yet any of those nations can say, “Look at us, our survival is threatened.” It puts us in a terrible position with regard to containing proliferation, or just to bring moral suasion to bear in terms of trying to end the nuclear era after half a century.

    Q: Why hasn’t there been more progress toward eliminating nuclear weapons?

    A: It’s a whole host of things. I thought there was a kind of a cosmic roll of the dice, in the sense that, at the very moment the Cold War was coming to a spontaneous, unanticipated conclusion, George Bush failed at reelection and, consequently, at a moment when what we needed more than anything else was continuity in our national-security and foreign- policy team, it was totally disrupted.

    Q: But why is the Clinton administration not more aggressive on nuclear-arms control?

    A: It’s really puzzling. If I had to put my finger on it, in this arena real progress comes down to one thing, and that is motivation and guidance from the top. It has to come from the Oval Office, and that’s why I hark back to the latter days of the Bush regime, because that’s the way all that got done. There was no anguishing negotiation with our own bureaucracy, much less that in Moscow. We just made a political calculation of what the new state of the Russia-U.S. relationship would tolerate safely, measures that we could take independently that would send a signal of trust. There was a willingness to exercise boldness and leadership and vision, and I don’t think that this administration came to town prepared to do that on the international front. They had a very ambitious domestic agenda and tackled things like Medicare right out of the bag. Got off on a terrible foot with the military, and I think all that soured the relationship and, to some extent, poisoned the well.

    Q: Also, with Bush, it was good having a war hero as president who couldn’t be baited as being a dove.

    A: Yes. In my view, the single most important set of arms-control accomplishments were George Bush’s unilateral measures back in ‘9 1. We took all of the tactical nukes off the ships and brought them home from Europe and took the bombers off alert and accelerated the retirement of the Minuteman H force. And [Soviet President Mikhail S.] Gorbachev kind of unilaterally followed suit shortly thereafter and accelerated retirement of some of their programs that we’re standing down under START 1. It’s kind of ironic that, today, we have a Republican Congress that thwarts arms-control progress and yet it was a Republican administration that really moved the ball down the field.

    Q: What about the threat from China and from the so-called rogue nations?

    A: I’ve been through this so many times–it was my business, and this stuff about rogue nations, it just infuriates me to hear responsible people use bumper-sticker labels like that. As if you can reduce the complexity of sovereign entities with complex histories and cultures and bureaucracies to a label in order to avoid having to think about them seriously. We call Iran a rogue nation, and 20 years ago they were our closest ally; when the shah was in power, they were our friends.

    Q: If one accepted the idea of a sort of rogue or terrorist nation or force, it is difficult to think of thwarting them with sophisticated nuclear delivery systems.

    A: Exactly. I went through this in the Persian Gulf, because I was the planner and had to think through the question of what if Saddarn [Hussein] has a so-called weapon of mass destruction, which is another term I just really dislike because it lumps together three weapons of enormously disparate consequence. But it doesn’t take long to parse that out. If he’d employed chemicals, there is no circumstance I can imagine under which the United States should or would have replied with a nuclear weapon, or biological for that matter. Those are terrible weapons, but we’ve faced chemical weapons for years. And biological weapons, when you look at them from a battlefield perspective, which I’ve done much of my years as a planner, they’re pretty difficult to even think about how you use them without threatening yourself as much as anybody else.

    And as far as a nuke is concerned, my sense was that even if he’d had a nuclear weapon, I cannot imagine he would have employed it except in extremis, which means that we were going to occupy his country and either kill him or put him on trial as a war criminal–in which case, I suspect, where he would have employed the weapon, presuming it actually worked, would not have been against us or Saudi Arabia but probably in Israel. In which case there is nothing we could have done to stop that; it would have been an extraordinary catastrophe.

    But in terms of using a nuclear weapon in retaliation, the political and military and economic consequences or obstacles were just overwhelming.

    Q: Let me ask again about China and the risk of their putting a sophisticated warhead on a ballistic missile.

    A: You’re out there worrying about the prospect of ballistic missiles, but for most nations that would be the last thing in the world you’d ever want to resort to in terms of a desire to explode a nuclear device against the United States. There are more technologically efficient ways of getting that done. Suitcase bombs or offshore launching of a cruise [missile] strapped to the hull of a freighter are far more plausible than any ballistic-missile attack.

    But all of that presupposes an urge on the part of China to make a nuclear attack on the United States, which is effectively to commit suicide, and that’s where it all breaks down for me.

    China has only been re-demonized here recently. Even in the latter stages of the Cold War, we didn’t treat China as much of a threat. All of a sudden now, they’re being elevated again. That’s still a country that is fragile and, in some respects, perishable as any nation that size could possibly. be. To me it’s part and parcel of the business of not thinking responsibly or even intelligently about the international environment in which we operate, what U.S. interests are and how we deal with the nations that intersect most importantly with those.

    Q: What do you think about this revival of the Strategic Defense Initiative?

    A: I have a lot of reservations about it. I feel a sense of personal responsibility because the Rumsfeld Report, which I helped author, is being touted by the proponents of ballistic missile defense as being justification for getting on with it. But what I told [former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld] and said to committees on the Hill in private, when we took our report over at their request, was I see no need to proceed to ballistic missile defense until the following requirements are met: One, we see threats that are commensurate with that level of effort, and nothing that we had in our report portrayed that. Secondly, that the technology is in hand; you just can’t wish and make it happen. And third, that whatever we do, we don’t unilaterally abrogate the [Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty], that we make this a cooperative negotiation with Russia that finds a way to square the circle of our security concerns and theirs.

    Q: Finally, what are the risks of accidental nuclear war?

    A: What one would worry more about is the kind of event that happened in January of 1995, when that experimental rocket was launched in the coast of Norway. That was initially assessed by the Russian command-and-control system as having been a Trident launch, and that was passed on all the way up to [President Boris NJ Yeltsin as a prospective ICBM attack from the United States. That information was only headed off in the final few moments.

    The Russian command-and-control system and early-warning system is in a state of great decline. About two-thirds of the satellites they relied on for early-warning capability are inactive or failing. That means there are very large sectors of the United States they either can not see or can not see for several hours each day–which puts them in a much more fragile posture with regard to the single most critical aspect of this deterrence equation, which is adequate forewarning of an attack. They are experiencing false alarms now on almost a routine basis. And I shudder to think about what the state of the morale and discipline of their rocket forces are, who are suffering along with everyone else with regard to not being paid and inadequate wages and an extremely dismal quality of life.

    There are worrisome aspects to all of that, but those are circumstance that we can deal with the simple step of reducing the alert status of these weapons. That’s why people like myself are so puzzled and dismayed that our government won’t even address that.

    “By continuing to maintain this Reaganesque nuclear-weapons policy … we’re hoist on the petard of our own nuclear-weapons rhetoric.”

    “This stuff about rogue nations, it just infuriates me … As if you can reduce sovereign entities with complex histories and cultures and bureaucracies to a label.”

    “You’re out there worrying about the prospect of ballistic missiles, but for most nations that would be the last thing in the world you’d ever want to resort to.”

    * Robert Scheer is a Contributing Editor to The Los Angeles Times and the author of “With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush and Nuclear War.”

  • U.S. Blocking Progress on Nuclear Disarmament

    The Cold War may be long over, but the United States and other declared nuclear powers still cling to their nuclear weapons. An estimated 36,000 nuclear weapons remain in the world’s nuclear arsenals, thousands of them ready to launch on a moment’s notice, and the nuclear powers continue to squander billions of dollars on nuclear weapons research and development. Meanwhile an ever growing list of countries are lining up to join the nuclear club, raising the specter of a new, more deadly chapter in the arms race and the danger of a nuclear strike somewhere in the world.

    A New Arms Race or a New Agenda?

    The United Nations General Assembly is about to vote on two important nuclear disarmament resolutions. One, sponsored by Ireland and seven other nations calls for a New Agenda for nuclear disarmament. These governments (Ireland, Brazil, South Africa, Slovenia, Mexico, Sweden, Egypt, and New Zealand) have recognized that without a serious new approach, the dangerous legacy of the Cold War will live on. Their New Agenda includes a call for negotiations on a treaty that would eliminate nuclear weapons. Malaysia has introduced a resolution calling on nations to honor the 1996 International Court of Justice opinion that a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons is required by law.

    The United States, preferring the nuclear status quo, has strongly rejected these resolutions and is intensively lobbying other nations to vote them down. The US delegation needs to hear from you! A vote is expected by November 13.

    Take Action to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

    Contact US Ambassador to the United Nations Robert Grey Jr., United States Mission to the United Nations, 799 UN Plaza, New York NY 10017, Fax 212-415-4119 cc: President William Jefferson Clinton, The White House, Washington DC 20500, Fax 202-456-2883

    Tell the Ambassador

    * The United States should be leading the world toward the abolition of nuclear weapons instead of blocking good faith efforts to jumpstart the stalled disarmament process.

    * Support the Malaysian and New Agenda resolutions submitted to the United Nations.

    * Contrary to your statement at the UN, the continued existence of thousands of nuclear weapons IS a clear and present danger to life on the planet.

    * Past reductions in the world’s nuclear arsenals are welcome but insufficient.

    * The United States should support and advance verifiable measures to immediately reduce the nuclear danger.

  • International Peace Bureau Condemns Pro-Nuclear Strong Arm Tactics

    The International Peace Bureau (IPB), at their annual meeting in London today, protested against intimidation tactics used by the United States, United Kingdom and France in trying to kill a resolution at the United Nations which calls for a commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons, and to achieve practical steps towards that goal.

    IPB, a Nobel Peace laureate, gave its full support for draft resolution A/C.1/53/L.48, which has been introduced by Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Slovenia and Sweden and is expected to be voted upon in the Disarmament Committee of the United Nations on November 13.

    Senator Douglas Roche of Canada, speaking to the IPB meeting, reported that the U.S., U.K., and France are sending representatives to the capitals of key countries in an attempt to persuade them to oppose the resolution. “They are using the same bullying tactics used three years ago when they tried unsuccessfully to stop the United Nations taking a case to the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons,” said Senator Roche.

    IPB called on its members around the world to urge their governments to support the draft resolution, whose purpose is to revitalise the disarmament agenda.

    The draft resolution is considered by its sponsors to be a moderate but clear expression of international concern about the dangers to the world of the continued impasse on nuclear disarmament. “The continuing existence of thousands of nuclear weapons, many on high alert status, cannot be maintained without a risk of use by accident, miscalculation or design,” warned Maj Britt Theorin, President of IPB. “In addition, the refusal of the nuclear-weapon states to commit themselves to nuclear disarmament or to take practical steps towards this goal, in violation of their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is threatening the treaty, and could lead to further proliferation of nuclear weapons.”

    “The western nuclear-weapon states have tried to portray this resolution as anti-NATO,” said Ms Theorin. “This resolution is not anti-NATO. Rather it is anti-nuclear.”