Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: INES

  • Science, Peace, and Sustainability

    Science, Peace, and Sustainability

    Speech delivered to INES Conference in Mexico City on March 1, 2008

    We are meeting to explore relevant issues of Science, Peace, and Sustainability. The relationship between science, peace, and sustainability affects the lives of all of the planet’s inhabitants as well as the lives of future generations yet unborn. The International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) takes seriously issues of global responsibility, and we believe that engineers and scientists, because of their training, knowledge and privileged place in society, have a special role to play in improving the human condition and assuring a better future for humanity.

    INES has worked since 1991 in three principal areas: Peace and Disarmament, Sustainability, and Ethics in Science. INES is an international network of some 70 organizations in 34 countries. It also has individual members throughout the world. INES has held major conferences in Berlin, Amsterdam and Stockholm; and smaller meetings in many places in the world, including Buenos Aires, Argentina and most recently Nagpur, India. We are very pleased to be having our first meeting in Mexico. It is our hope that from this meeting will emerge many important and innovative ideas that will help strengthen the ties between science, peace and sustainability.

    Many years ago, in the early 1980s, I had the pleasure of working on a Reshaping the International Order (RIO) Foundation project on Disarmament, Development and the Environment with the great Mexican diplomat and Nobel Peace Laureate Alfonso Garcia Robles. He skillfully negotiated the world’s first Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in an inhabited region, that of Latin America and the Caribbean. Last year that treaty celebrated the 40th year of its existence. It has been one of the significant success stories in the area of preventing nuclear proliferation.

    Many other regions of the world have followed in the footsteps of Latin America and the Caribbean, and we have Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones now in the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa, Antarctica and Central Asia. Virtually the entire Southern hemisphere has become a series of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones. Now countries in the North need to learn from the South, and cease their hypocritical and dangerous posturing and brandishing of nuclear arms.

    Around the same time that the Treaty of Tlatelolco, establishing the Latin American and Caribbean Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, was being agreed to, another treaty was being negotiated to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That treaty, known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), was signed in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. It contains a major trade-off. In exchange for the non-nuclear weapons states agreeing not to acquire nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons states agreed in Article VI to “good faith” negotiations for nuclear disarmament. The International Court of Justice advised in 1996 that this meant bringing to a conclusion “negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    What I wish to emphasize is the abysmal lack of “good faith” on the part of the nuclear weapons states and, in particular, the United States. In UN General Assembly voting on nuclear disarmament matters in 2007, the United States had the distinction of voting against every one of the 15 measures put before the UN. France voted against 10 measures, the UK against 9 and Israel against 8.

    In 1982, I helped found an organization, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which believes that peace is an imperative of the Nuclear Age. This belief was earlier pronounced by Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto issued on July 9, 1955. The Manifesto concluded, “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

    This is the power that scientists and engineers have placed in the hands of humanity: the power to create a new Paradise on Earth, and the power to foreclose the future by means of technologies capable of causing “universal death.” What shall we do? Which path shall we take? Which power shall we exercise? Science has contributed abundantly to war and continues to do so. Can science and scientists play a role in tipping the balance toward peace?

    And what about sustainability? Shall we go on using up the world’s resources because rich countries consider them to be inexpensive? Nothing irreplaceable can be considered inexpensive. This is another way of foreclosing the future. As an alternative course, scientists can contribute to protecting the world’s resources and developing sustainable forms of energy that do not place heavy burdens on future generations. To succeed in sustainable development, we will also need sustainable disarmament. They are inextricably linked.

    Resource depletion is a cause of war. So is greed. So is crushing poverty. If we want peace, we must protect our environment, conserve our resources, and have global standards of human dignity. We must also control and eliminate the weaponry we have created that could destroy human life on the planet, as well as most other forms of life.

    If we want peace, we must reverse the Roman dictum and prepare for peace. That means that we must use sustainable technologies and conserve our resources. It also means that scientists must work for constructive rather than destructive ends. They must also set appropriate professional standards that delegitimize destructive uses of science and technology. And they must speak out against such destructive uses and those scientists and engineers who succumb to such projects. We need a Hippocratic Oath for Scientists and Engineers based upon the commitment to “do no harm.”

    At our conference over the next few days, we will be exploring some critical issues:

    1. science, education and social responsibility;
    2. militarization and the spread of nuclear weapons;
    3. climate change and other serious environmental issues; and
    4. the paradigm of sustainability.

    All of this will be infused with the perspectives of Latin America.

    Time is not on our side, but perhaps in our deliberations we can make progress on deflecting the course of history that has divided humanity in the past, been conducive to wars, generated human rights abuses, tolerated environmental degradation, and set humanity on a collision course with catastrophe. Let us use our human capacities to choose hope and set a new course for the future, one rooted in peace, sustainability and the constructive uses of science and technology.

    I will conclude with a poem that is part of my first poetry book, Today Is Not a Good Day for War. The poem is about the hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those who are victims, but also the ambassadors, of the Nuclear Age. It is called Hibakusha Do Not Just Happen.

    HIBAKUSHA DO NOT JUST HAPPEN

    For every hibakusha there is a pilot

    for every hibakusha there is a planner

    for every hibakusha there is a bombardier

    for every hibakusha there is a bomb designer

    for every hibakusha there is a missile maker

    for every hibakusha there is a missileer

    for every hibakusha there is a targeter

    for every hibakusha there is a commander

    for every hibakusha there is a button pusher

    for every hibakusha many must contribute

    for every hibakusha many must obey

    for every hibakusha many must be silent

    Of course this is not just about hibakusha. It is about us as well. It is about our responsibility and also our silence. In today’s world, we all are at risk of becoming hibakusha. We must choose peace, sustainability and human decency, while outspokenly refusing to allow the gifts of our human talents and skills to be used to improve warfare and its capacity for slaughter.

    We must break the silence and be leaders for peace and sustainability. We must each play our part in reversing the militarization of our planet and moving it toward a peaceful and sustainable future, the Paradise that Russell and Einstein believed was within our grasp.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility

    Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility

    I have just returned from Berlin and the annual Council meeting of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES). This is an organization much needed in our world, one that supports the ethical uses of science and technology for disarmament and sustainable development. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has helped to foster the work of this international organization since the inception of INES more than 15 years ago.

    The meeting included an important presentation by Professor Guillermo Lemarchand from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina on the extent to which scientific efforts are driven by large military research and development budgets. Lemarchand presented information on the close relationship between research and development funding and the exponential growth of the lethality of weaponry. During the 20th century the lethality (maximum number of casualties per hour that a weapon can generate) grew from about 100 at the beginning of the century to about six billion at the end of the century. The lethality growth of weapons in the 20th century was 60 million, and now encompasses the population of the planet.

    Scientists may not be concerned with or even know the reasons why their basic research is being funded by military sources. The driving of academic research and development by military budgets is becoming pervasive at universities throughout the world, leading to the variant of the famous statement in President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address that some now find appropriate – the military-industrial-academic complex.

    The University of California is an excellent example of a university providing research and development for military purposes. It provides management and oversight to the US nuclear weapons laboratories. Its funds for doing this come through the US Department of Energy, but the work of the nuclear weapons laboratories is largely secret and military in nature. Currently the labs are working on the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a new hydrogen bomb that the Bush administration hopes will replace every nuclear weapon in the US arsenal.

    The management of the nuclear weapons laboratories by the University of California is just the tip of the iceberg of military involvement with universities around the world. According to the report by Professor Lemarchand, a physicist, the US military assigns officers to practically all areas of the world to seek out scientific researchers who may be helpful in furthering US military purposes. Too often military funding is the only source of funding available for academic researchers.

    This can create a dilemma for professors, who are often under pressure to bring in research funding. On the one hand, they can accept funding from the military, and find themselves contributing toward new means of weaponization – an outcome they may find unethical. On the other hand, they can turn down offers of funding from the military and not be able to continue their research into basic areas of science that they find important.

    There are many issues that confront scientists and engineers in today’s world. These include weapons of mass destruction, genetic engineering, biotechnology, global warming and climate change, food supplies and agricultural production, energy use and alternative energy development, and pollution and health issues. How does one approach such issues from the perspective of global responsibility?

    First, global responsibility means working for the betterment of humanity. Practically this means using one’s talents and skills for constructive rather than destructive purposes. Second, it means speaking out, individually or collectively, against dangerous and destructive uses of science and technology. Third, it means putting the welfare of humanity as a whole ahead of the considerations of any one nation.

    The Council members of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility are a dedicated group that is making its voice heard on the ethical uses of science and technology. If you would like to find out more about their work and become involved in it, visit them online at www.inesglobal.com.

    David Krieger is the President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), and a leader in the global effort to abolish nuclear weapons.

  • Report on Trip to Europe by NAPF President

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation president David Krieger was in Europe from July 2nd to July 9th. He was there to attend meetings of the International Council and Executive Committee of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES), where he serves as deputy chair of INES, and to give several talks. He gave the keynote address at the 40th anniversary meeting of the International Peace Research Association, spoke to some 150 participants from throughout Europe at the International Summer Academy of the Schlaining Peace Center, and gave a talk to the International Institute for Peace in Vienna.

    Two of the speeches by David in Europe (“Nuclear Disarmament in a Time of Globalization” and “US Policy and the Quest for Nuclear Disarmament”) can be found on the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s web site at www.wagingpeace.org.On July 7th, David went to the Schlaining Peace Center, which is housed in an old castle in the Austrian countryside. His speech there the next morning was on “The US Peace Movement in a Time of ‘War against Terrorism.’”That afternoon he was taken to Vienna , where he did a radio interview and then spoke in the evening at the International Institute for Peace on “US Policy and the Quest for Nuclear Disarmament.” He was introduced by the president of the Institute, Erwin Lanc, a former Foreign Minister of Austria.The main topics of the INES workshop were: Responsibility and Education (The Duality of Science and the Social Responsibility of Scientists; Ambivalence of R & D in Modern Biotechnology; Peace Education; Whistleblowers); War and Weapons (New Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Strategy; Uranium Weapons); Peace and Sustainability (Energy and Peace; Water and Peace; Climate Change and Energy Conflicts); War Politics and Peace Promotion (Nuclear Targeting and the Non-Proliferation Treaty); Disarmament (International Control of Nuclear-Usable Materials; Chemical Disarmament); and a session focusing on problems specific to Europe (Space Militarization from a European Point of View; Environmental Problems in the Danube Area; Europe under Construction; and Problems of Chemical Safety in Europe).Following the two-day INES Council and Executive Committee meetings, INES put on a two-day workshop that ran parallel to the meeting of the International Peace Research Association (IPRA), which allowed for networking with many members of this worldwide association. David gave the keynote address to IPRA on “Nuclear Disarmament in a Time of Globalization.”The INES meetings were held in Sopron, Hungary , a small town near the border of Austria. The participants in INES are a strongly engaged group of scientists and engineers, and their work supports and complements that of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. There were representatives at the meeting from throughout Europe as well as from Russia and Latin America. Future plans of INES include organizing for the International Einstein Year 2005, in which it is playing a leading role. Starting this November, INES will begin a series of meetings on Einstein’s views on peace, disarmament and social responsibility. In 2006, INES plans to focus on the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl , looking at the continuing dangers of nuclear power. In 2007/2008, INES will organize another major international congress. These activities are in addition to their ongoing work on ethics in science, the prevention of nuclear proliferation, their opposition to both missile and missile defense developments and a variety of other projects.

  • New Security Challenges: Ten Themes

    New Security Challenges: Ten Themes

    The International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, in cooperation with Scientists for Global Responsibility and the University of Bradford Department of Peace Studies, held a seminar on “New Security Challenges: Global and Regional Priorities” at Bradford University on May 23-24, 2002. The following ten themes emerged from the seminar.

    1. The new security challenges after September 11th are also the old security challenges. One major exception is the greater awareness of the increased vulnerability of the rich nations to determined terrorists. The vulnerability itself has not changed in a major way, but the determination of terrorists to exploit the vulnerability has notched up.

    2. It remains critical for the rich nations to redefine security so that it takes into account the interests of not only the rich, but also of those at the periphery. Disparity, poverty, inequity and injustice are fertile breeding grounds for terrorism. The rich countries should be spending more of their resources to alleviate these conditions of insecurity rather than pouring their resources into military solutions.

    3. Building the Castle Walls higher is a security strategy that is bound to fail. The rich cannot build these walls high enough to protect themselves from suicidal terrorists. Missile defenses, for example, are no more than a Maginot Line in the sky that cannot protect against terrorists and will not provide security against the threats of 21st century terrorism. Terrorists will simply go under or around the Castle Walls as the Germans went around the French Maginot Line in World War II.

    4. There is a greater probability that weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological) will be used against the most powerful countries. The availability of these weapons, due to the continued reliance on them by the most powerful nations, creates a new “balance of power” that turns the strength of the powerful against themselves.

    5. There is an increasing sense that international law is failing due to the strong opposition to international law solutions being demonstrated by the United States. At a time when international law and international cooperation are more needed than ever to achieve greater security, the United States is failing in its leadership.

    6. From a regional perspective, both Europe and Russia are failing to demonstrate a meaningful restraint on US actions subverting international law. In this sense, they are failing in their own leadership and are making themselves potential accomplices in crime under international law.

    7. The international system is not doing very well in implementing nonviolent methods of conflict resolution. One reason for this is continued reliance by the most powerful countries on military solutions to conflict. The United States alone has raised its military budget by nearly $100 billion since Bush became president.

    8. There is a need to strengthen and empower international institutions to act even in the light of uncertainty. Their actions, however, must reasonable and legitimate, taking into account principles such as right intention, precautionary principle, last resort, proportionality, consistency and right authority.

    9. There is a critical need to separate reality from illusion regarding security. The major sources of media continue to serve power and the status quo and fail to provide adequate perspective on key issues related to peace and security.

    10. There is a continuing need to activate public opinion for global and humanitarian interests. This means that the independent voices for peace, justice, development and sustainability of civil society organizations are of critical importance in providing alternative perspectives to those of governments and the mass media on issues of peace and security.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Deputy Chair of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility.