Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: Iraq

  • Santa Barbara Pacifist to Document Life in Iraq: She’ll share information she’s gathering with friends, students she teaches in Santa Paula

    She’s going to be gone for only four days, but it’s where Leah Wells went that makes Devon Chaffee so nervous.

    “I’m extremely concerned,” said Chaffee, who works with Wells in Santa Barbara. “My cell phone never leaves my hip.”

    Wells is in Iraq. She left Monday and isn’t scheduled to be back in United States until Friday.

    The 26-year-old Wells, who works for the Santa Barbara-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, said she felt compelled to go there despite Iraq being in President Bush’s cross hairs.

    She said she has no illusions that her trip will change Bush’s mind, even though she is being joined by 1,000 students from around the world protesting any use of force against Iraq.

    “I think the goal isn’t to be successful. It’s to be faithful to what we believe in,” Wells said Monday while on a stopover in Chicago. “We have to act as compassionate human beings toward those who have been through 12 years of hardship.”

    The State Department isn’t condoning trips to Iraq. Its Web site informs travelers that there is no U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. In fact, the Polish Embassy, which was being used for Americans in distress, also is closed.

    “It’s not a real good idea to be going there,” a State Department official said. “We’re asking people not to go to that particular region.”

    That doesn’t matter to Wells. What does matter is the story of the people who live in Iraq. She said her job is to document the lives of average Iraqis using her digital video camera and interviews.

    Wells will bring this information back to the United States to share both with her Santa Barbara friends and some students she teaches in Santa Paula.

    “Raw vegetables are hard to come by for the average citizen there,” she said. “The water is contaminated. They need help, not bombs.”

    As for Saddam Hussein, she knows his government is repressive, and she does not support it. But, the pacifist said, war isn’t the answer.

    Instead, she likes to quote an ancient proverb that says when two elephants fight, it’s the grass that gets hurt.

    “Nobody is talking about the grass,” she said. “That’s why we have to.”

  • Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences

    To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

    Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

    We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

    And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

    This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our — or some other nation’s — hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

    Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

    This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

    In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration’s domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

    In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

    Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant — these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

    The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

    Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

    And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq’s oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation’s oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

    Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

    Could a disruption of the world’s oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

    In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

    One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

    But to turn one’s frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

    Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq — a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 — this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare — this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

    We are truly “sleepwalking through history.” In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

    To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is “in the highest moral traditions of our country”. This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

  • On the Brink of War

    On the Brink of War

    We are on the brink of a war that will undoubtedly be disastrous for the people of Iraq, and likely even more so for the people of the United States. Listening to President Bush’s rhetoric, one has the feeling that it is Hate Week in Orwell’s 1984.

    Surely, Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has committed atrocities in the past. Surely, the American people can be aroused to hate Saddam. These are the buttons that are being pushed by Bush and his militant advisors who are eager for war.

    As Bush raises shrill charges against Hussein, US troops take up their positions on his orders surrounding Iraq. According to Bush, “Saddam has the motive and the means and the recklessness and the hatred to threaten the American people.”

    But exactly what motive could he have? Self-destruction? The desire to see himself and his country destroyed? On the contrary, his motivation seems to be to hold off a war by allowing free access in his country to the United Nations weapons inspectors.

    But still Saddam is easy to hate, and the Bush administration is pressing for a war. “The United States,” says Bush, “along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime.”

    But how exactly is Saddam threatening us? What exactly are we defending against? These are among the questions that go unanswered by the administration and the media as Bush pushes for war.

    In fact, the Iraqi regime has been largely disarmed. It will be a fairly easy target for the US military with its crushing might, a far easier target of attack than North Korea.

    Sometimes in the flurry of administration invective, it is difficult to remember that it is the United States that has an arsenal of 10,000 nuclear weapons and Iraq that has none, or that it is the US military that is surrounding Iraq and that Iraq has not actually made any threat against the US.

    Neither the Bush administration nor the American media has paid much attention to the consequences of a US attack to “disarm” Saddam. They do so at their peril and at the peril of the American people because the consequences will be grave.

    The consequences will include the deaths of many innocent Iraqi civilians and young American troops. They will include increased hatred of the US throughout the Arab world, and a corresponding rise in terrorism. They will include the undermining of the international law of war and of the United Nations. The global economy could be sent into a tailspin, and there will potentially be serious adverse effects on the environment.

    This war will cause major rifts in the Western alliance. It will provide a precedent to other leaders who want to solve international conflicts by means of preemptive unilateral wars. It will encourage the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in countries likely to be threatened by the US in the future.

    In the end, it will be the American people who will pay the heaviest price for Bush’s ill-considered war. We will be the victims of future acts of terrorism and our civil liberties will continue to be diminished as power is concentrated in a dictatorial president.

    We should not lose track of the fact that George Bush was not elected. He was selected by a small group of conservative justices on the US Supreme Court. This makes it even more tragic that he is leading our country into a disastrous war.

    Nelson Mandela, one of the great moral leaders of our time, recently expressed his sense of the Bush administration’s policies: “It is a tragedy what is happening, what Bush is doing in Iraq. What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust.”

    Only the American people can stop this war, and only if they act now in overwhelming numbers.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is the co-editor with Richard Falk of The Iraq Crisis and International Law.

  • The Uneasy Road to Peace Instead of War When the Unthinkable is Again ThinkableThe Uneasy Road to Peace Instead of War When the Unthinkable is Again Thinkable

    The history of humankind could be summarized cynically as a constant war with some intervals called peace.

    The advances in technology and science have overwhelmed the ancestral teachings of philosophy. Socrates’ “Know thyself “; Confucius’ wise quotes or Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” remain to be fulfilled. The Roman’s motto IF YOU WANT PEACE PREPARE FOR WAR is better applied than LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. The mind continues its domain over the heart.

    We entered with firm steps into the Third Millennium applying the same “solutions” used by Homo erectus with stones and ox jaws to solve disputes and impose dominance. The big difference is that since 1945 the possibility exists that humankind could become extinct by its own hand.

    Enormous interests move the geopolitics of the planet. The convenient allies of yesterday are today’s enemies. Alliances that only a few years ago were acceptable due to the Cold War are now unnecessary and even punishable.

    No one could deny the evil that moves Saddam Hussein’s actions. This is nothing new. His criminal record goes back more than 30 years. But it was evil also that allowed and promoted his rise to power. Seems like it was okay to look the other way meanwhile Saddam slaughtered the Kurds with arms of mass destruction. At that moment Iraq was at war with Iran and the Ayatollah Khomeini, the enemy of the U.S. Germany, France, the U.S.. , England and many Asian nations supplied Saddam with the necessary ingredients to build the weapons that are now the REASON for a possible war against the Iraqi regime.

    How can we argue that to avoid the POSSIBILITY that Saddam builds a nuclear weapon, the United States is willing to use tactical nuclear weapons? Will it be possible to avoid in the future that India or Pakistan might launch among themselves a “preventive” nuclear attack? The same could happen with China against Taiwan or Israel against an Arab nation. We are opening the most terrific Pandora’ s box.

    Can Condolezza Rice, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Collin Powell assure the world that the radiation of those “tactical” weapons will not cross over the borders to Iraq’s neighbors? Are the smart bombs intelligent enough to distinguish between military targets and civilian populations? Or are we going to continue piling collateral damage?

    The United Nations and its inspectors in Iraq, with all their human frailties are a better option that starting a fuse that could unleash our worst nightmare.
    *Rubén Arvizu is Director for Latin America of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • A Diary of Two Iraqi Girls

    The following diary passages were given to the Foundation by Ramzi Kysia, a member of the Iraq Peace Team (IPT) an initiative of Voices in the Wilderness. According to Kysia, the passages are from the diary of Amira, a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, and her 9-year-old sister, Layla. The girls wrote these entries during the last 2 months of 2002, and gave them to IPT to be translated and published in the US. For more information on the Iraqi Peace Team click here.
    AMIRA
    My name is Amira and I didn’t go to school because of the financial circumstances. I left school at the age of 8 years old. I was in the third grade. No one in our family completed school. Not my father, mother or brothers. I have 2 brothers, 2 sisters and my parents. Father is an old, sick man and he and my mother don’t work. I, Amira, is the only one who works.

    I wake up at 7am and go to the bathroom, wash my face with soap and water, then eat bread and tea for breakfast, and go to work. I say, “with God’s blessing,” and go to the market and buy 30 packs of chewing gum and go to work in Karrada Street, and work until 3 or 4pm. Then I go home, enter the bathroom for a bath, wash my clothes, and read with my younger sister, Layla.

    A man told me to go to school and study. I get ashamed a lot, and said, “please, Allah, remove the sanctions from the Iraqi people.” And I am in pain because I didn’t attend school. I see girls go to school and regret that I cannot, because it is a treasure, and man’s future.

    ***

    LAYLA
    My name is Layla. I am nine years old. I am a student in the third grade elementary school. I wake up at 7am, wash my face with water, then go to the market to get breakfast which is egg and bread. After breakfast, I wear the school uniform and go to school by 8am. My school is far away. It’s 15 minutes. I go to home by 12pm, then enter my home and my mother would be preparing lunch which is a potato sandwich. Then I go to sleep and wake up in the afternoon to write my homework, and stay awake until 9pm. I don’t watch TV because ours is broken and we can’t buy one. Every day I go to the neighbors to watch TV, and then stay with my sister at home. My mother says that she’ll work to buy us a TV and so my sister Amira doesn’t have to work. I will work to save money and buy a TV.

    ***

    AMIRA
    My name is Amira and on Tuesday I wake up at 7am. My mother said that she’ll go and buy breakfast, then I would wash my face with water and soap and change my clothes and wear work clothes. Then my mother came with eggs, bread and tea, and I said to myself that I would like to sit at home, but our finances would not help. Then my mother said, “take care, Amira.” I said, “don’t worry, I know,” and she said, “go, Amira, Allah be with you my dear daughter.” Then I left home at 8am and went to the market to get chewing gum to sell in the street. I made 3000 dinar [$1.50 US] and gave it to my mother.

    By 12 noon I eat a cheese sandwich, and at 3pm I went to the market to buy bread and paid 500 dinar [25 cents] for some dates, grapes and cheese. I went home and all my family was awaiting me. My younger brothers were waiting at the door. When they saw me they ran towards me and took the bag and ate. After eating we stayed until 9pm and then went to sleep. I went to bed, but my mother said, “let me heat the water for you to wash.” I bathed and went to bed by 10pm. I was very tired and sleep until 3am to open the water and help my mother until 4am, then go to sleep again.

    ***

    AMIRA
    Sometimes I don’t go to work because I am sick. It’s a nasal disease, and I have a headache. Once I went to work and a man said to me, “Why are you like that -you are a little girl. Go to school.” I was very sick. I went to the park, sat there and had a gloomy mood. I said if there were no sanctions I would have attended school.

    Sanctions has affected us like that, effected the Iraqi people. Sometimes there children, women and men sleeping in the street. They are poor and feel bad and say, “Allah, remove these sanctions.”

    I wake up at 6am, and my mother would say, “are you going to work?,” and I say, “yes.” My sister, Layla, said, “will you be back at 4pm?,” and I said, “I don’t know. God knows.” When I would leave the house, mother would look at me with a tear in her eyes and say, “until when my Amira will be like this?” And I would smile and say, “Don’t be sad, God is merciful.” Then she would say, “God be with you my daughter,” and I would leave the house.

    I am 14 years old and work in the streets. I love to go to school and sometimes I am ashamed of myself. My friends say, “Amira, where do you go?” I say, “to work.” Yasmeen, my friend, says, “why do you go to work?” I say, “Who’ll support my family?” Deep in my heart I wish I didn’t have to go to work in the street. I go home in the evening very tired. I have rice and soup for dinner, and go to bed. I send this letter to the dearest people in America, who are against the sanctions and the Zionists. I hope from Allah to give you good health and all that you hope for.

    ***

    LAYLA
    I wake up at 7 in the morning and go to the bathroom to wash my face with water and soap. Then my mother prepares breakfast which is yogurt, bread and tea. I go to school at 8am. I study at school then I go home. My mother prepares lunch, so I would eat and change my clothes and go to the bath. Then I sleep in the afternoon. Then I write my homework with my mother’s help.

    I don’t go out with my friends because I have no money. I said to my mother if we have some money? And mother said we have just 10,000 dinars [$5 US], and I want you to go to the market and buy tomatoes, potatoes, and bread so I can prepare food for you because Amira is going to come tired from work. Amira comes from work and goes to the bathroom and came out of the bathroom. We ate dinner. I said why don’t we save money so we can buy a TV?, and Amira said “Allah is a great giver.” Then we went to bed at 9pm.

    ***

    AMIRA
    Once upon a time I was at work around 3pm on Sunday. I was playing with my friend Selma. I told Selma that we should go home, but she said that we’ll go at 6pm. A boy named Mahmoud came from a distance holding a big, iron bar in his hand. Mahmoud threw the iron bar in the street, but it hit my food and I had a big wound.

    My foot started bleeding a lot. I went to the hospital in a taxi while my foot is bleeding. We had only 2000 dinar [$1 US] on us, and went to a nurse who said that she would clean the wound and took 1500 dinar, and I had only 2000. So I said, “how much do you want after dressing my wound?” Then I went home and my mother was sad to see what happened to my foot.

    Day after day I went to the hospital and they would clean it and dress it, and I would pray to Allah to heal my foot. After 9 days an old man came and said, “what’s wrong with your foot?,” and I told him the story. The man said, “would you go to a doctor?” I said that I have no money. He said, “come with me to the hospital.” We went to the hospital and they sew my foot with stitches. Then the doctor prescribed me medicines. After all of this the man paid 15,000 dinar [$7.50 US]. After paying 15,000 at the hospital for the stitching and medicine, the man said to me go and stay at home and I’ll pay you the money. Stay for 7 days. I said, “you can’t do that,” and the man said, “no problem.” I will give you $20 US so you can stay at home. I went home and stayed for 7 days taking medicine. Then my wound healed and I thanked Allah and said to the man, “bless you and thank Allah for my good condition.”

    ***

    AMIRA
    Oh God, remove the sanctions on the Iraqi people and Mohammad’s nation.
    God protect our people.

    When I go to work, I won’t sit, but keep running and walking, and stopping a little bit and then get back to work. All of this to get money to buy food for my family. All of this because of the sanctions. This life has destroyed my life and my family’s life. I work so my family will have food. I pay rent for the house which is 30,000 dinar [$15 US] a month. I didn’t study because of the bad circumstances for 5 years now. I left school and I regret that. I see the children study and I feel very sad.

    Today, I wake up at 6am and go to the bathroom. I wash my face with water and soap. My mother makes my breakfast wish is tea, bread and yogurt. I get full, thank God. I am change to my work clothes. Before going to work my mother would say, “take care, Amira,” and I would say, “yes, don’t worry.”

    I go to work, go to the market and buy chewing gums to sell in the street, and work until 11am, then buy an egg sandwich and tea, then go back to work. A man said to me, “why don’t you go to school?” I said, “I don’t go to school.” The man said, “school is best, daughter.” I said, “our circumstances is not helping.”

    The man said, “how many are you at home?” I said, “Six, and no one works but me.” The man said, “are they old?” And I said, “No, they are young. One is 2 years old, one is 11 years old, one is 9 years old, I am 14 years old, and my parents.” The man said, “God is merciful, hopefully your circumstances will change.”

    I got really sad, then it was 1pm in the afternoon and I had a fight with a boy who hit me on the mouth and I started bleeding. He ran away and I started to cry. A man came from the restaurant and gave me a bottle of water and a tissue and 100 dinars [5 cents]. I thanked the man then I went home.

    My little brothers was waiting for me at the door. They came running happily towards me and I entered the home, and my mother was sad. I said, “why are you sad, mother?” My mother said, “I am sad because you have to work to support us and not go to school like the other children.” I said, “it’s okay, mother,” and laughed. Sadness is in the heart, not the eyes.

    ***

    AMIRA
    In the middle of winder it’s very cold. I go to work with other children and we all wonder until how log we are going to be that way. My father can’t work, and I have to get the bread and food for the family, and all this is due to the sanctions.

    I got very sick in mid-winter. My nose started hurting me and I didn’t go to the doctor, so now I have nasal problems. Sometimes I would wake up with a painful headache, and I have no money to go to the hospital to do a nasal operation. They want 100,000 dinar [$50 US] and I have no money. Everyday I pray to God to heal me. Then I sit a little bit to stop the dizziness, and hurry to buy medicine which doesn’t help me. Some people say, “why don’t you do the operation and get rid of it?” And I would say, “I have no money.” When I have money I buy medicine from the pharmacy or buy clothes for my brothers and food for the house. I buy cakes and fruits for the family when I have money, and I would say, “the money goes and comes.” From today I decided to save money for the operation to be good.

    If there were no sanctions, life would not be expensive. Life would be beautiful. Sanctions has effected all of us, and Palestine is in the hand of Zionist criminals. God willing, sanctions will go from Iraq and Palestine, and Palestine will be liberated from the criminals. And I, Amira, would go back to school and won’t have to work, and won’t get hurt when seeing the other girls at school.

    ***

    AMIRA
    I sat at home on Friday. I woke up at 9am, then went to the bath and washed my face with soap and water, and ate bread, tea and eggs for breakfast. Then I washed the dishes and changed my clothes to help my mother with the house work. Then I cleaned the house and went to the market to buy meat, tomatoes, onions and bread. I worked with my mother until 12pm. Mother made us lunch and we ate it. Mother said to me and my sister, Layla, that we’ll go to our aunt’s house. Auntie was happy to see us, and brought us tea and cake, and I had 2000 dinars [$1 US] and gave them to my aunt who refused to take them, but I insisted and said, “if you don’t take it I won’t see you again.” My aunt is in need for me, and I have her all that I had. She would prepare food for her children, and I am happy for that.

    ***

    AMIRA
    I went to work and saw a 13 year old girl go to school with my friend, and I became sad when I saw her. I went to work, bought chewing gums to sell, and went to work. When I see a girl my age and my sister’s age happy with clothes and I would give her good words.

    A man asked me, “why don’t you go to school? Why stay in the street? You are pretty, why are you in the streets?” I said, “our circumstances doesn’t allow me to go to school. My father is sick and mother works at home, and I have a little sister and two younger brothers. No one works but me.” The man became sad and said, “may God make it better for you.”

    All of what the man said to me made me sad, and I was going to cry, but was careful for my tear not to drop. All of this was at 1pm, and I made 3000 dinar [$1.50 US], and this is the memorial day of the Prophet, and I want a lot of money on this day, and all I have is 3000. I went to a man friend and asked him to give me 2000 dinar and I will pay him tomorrow. He agreed and gave me 2000 dinar. I thanked him and went to the marked and bought nuts and sweets and candles and incense, and went home and saw guests in our house. It was my aunt and her kids, and all the things I bought were 3500 dinar, and I still had 1500 on me and it wasn’t enough. So I went to my friend to borrow 3000, and I would pay her tomorrow, and told her I would give her 4000 for her 3000, and she agreed.

    I went to the market and bought meat, tomatoes, bread, dates and onions, and felt better. It was 5pm, and I prepared the table, candles and incense, and kept sweets in the plates and the nuts too. It was 6pm and we were celebrating the birthdate of the Prophet. I gave a small plate of sweets and nuts to the neighbors who are poor, and to my aunt and her kids. We celebrated until 8pm, and then mother prepared dinner, and we ate and thanked God for the food, and stayed awake until 10pm and mother laid beds, but it wasn’t enough, so Layla and I slept on the carpet.

    Then at morning I went and bought bread and cheese and came back to prepare breakfast. They all wake up and saw the food ready, and my mother said, “God give you long life.” We all ate. My aunt’s husband is dead, and I have my aunt money for the taxi and we said goodbye. Then I went to work.

    God is merciful. He sent me a man who paid me 8000 dinar [$4 US]. I paid my friends the debt I owed them and thanked them. I thanked God again for his mercy, and that he gave me money to feed my aunt and her children. I went home happy because I paid my debts. And I pray God to remove the sanctions from the children of Iraq and Palestine.

    ***

    AMIRA
    I didn’t study. I didn’t go to school. I am not like other girls who go to school, go to relatives, have friends, games. I go to work, come home, and that’s it. So far life isn’t pretty.

    I get sad when people are leading a happy life and we live a bad life. I am not supposed to think of life at this age, but I can’t but think when seeing my family in a bad situation. But I pray and say, “God is merciful.” Girls my age should go to school, and parks, and play games, have friends and visit relatives. But so far I didn’t see but bad things and sadness. I smile in front of people, but I am sad inside. No one knows what’s in my heart but God.

  • Iraq & North Korea Meeting the Challenge of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

    President Bush has adopted very different policies toward Iraq and North Korea, despite having provocatively labeled both countries part of the “Axis of Evil,” along with Iran. He has repeatedly threatened war if Iraq does not divulge and eliminate its purported weapons of mass destruction, has been moving US troops into the Gulf region to demonstrate the seriousness of his intent, has engaged in threatening practice bombing runs over Iraqi territory, and has been illegally arming and inciting opposition forces to initiate a civil war in Iraq. But, with regard to North Korea, which has now admitted to having a nuclear weapons program and is known to have advanced delivery systems, Bush has made clear that he prefers to rely on diplomacy over military action.

    Iraq appears to be cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors, while North Korea has asked the inspectors to leave its country and has given notice of its intent to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as is its legal right, in order to pursue, if it chooses, a nuclear weapons program free from treaty restraints. Why, then, is war the prospect for Iraq and diplomacy for North Korea?

    Bush seeks to justify the distinction by insisting that Iraq poses special dangers because it has invaded neighboring countries in the past and has previously used non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction. This distinction, however, seems dubious, especially given past US policies. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 at the urging of the US, and the US was fully aware of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons in its war against Iran and against the Kurds. At the time the US was supporting Iraq and even supplying it with many of the components needed to produce chemical and biological weaponry. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the US ambassador at the time sent mixed signals, telling Saddam Hussein that its dispute with Kuwait was a matter of only regional concern.

    The two aggressive wars initiated by Iraq during Saddam’s rule both involve a measure of US complicity. Iraq has not acted aggressively toward neighbors during the past decade. Iraq fully understands that if it were to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction at this point it would face almost certain annihilation, and nothing in Saddam Hussein’s career, however brutal, suggests such irrationality. Indeed, the Baghdad regime has always given highest priority to its own survival and to that of the Iraqi state.

    The Bush administration has set itself up as the arbiter of who is and who is not allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. This is not a strategy likely to succeed without giving American foreign policy a militarist character that includes being constantly prepared for warfare in remote parts of the world. In recent years, the US failed to stop India and Pakistan from developing and possessing nuclear weaponry. Nor did it act to prevent Israel from developing its own nuclear arsenal, and even appears to have supported Israel’s program in various ways. At a minimum, the US certainly turned a blind eye toward this dangerous addition to the nuclear weapons club. Bush has chosen to continue these policies, which predate his presidency, despite his seeming preoccupation with nuclear proliferation.

    The Arab world is keenly aware that the US has adopted very different standards for Iraq and North Korea, and also with respect to Iraq and Israel. There is no acceptable explanation of this double standard other than the strategic opportunism of Washington.

    Is the real rationale for the policy that the US doesn’t want unpredictable leaders to develop nuclear arsenals? Doubtful, because North Korea, Pakistan and Israel each currently have unpredictable leaders.

    Is the policy that the US will only allow its allies to develop nuclear arsenals? Also doubtful, because North Korea, India and Pakistan are not properly regarded as allies, although Pakistan has temporarily shifted its alignment due to pressure from Washington in the aftermath of September 11th.

    Is the policy that the US will use the suspected development of weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to intervene in a country that sits on large oil reserves? One cannot help feeling that oil is a major economic and strategic interest that helps explain why the Bush administration seems so intent on waging war against Iraq as a prelude to regime change. There may be other political and strategic motivations as well, including the desire to assert regional dominance in the Middle East and eliminate a troublesome leader.

    We believe that the US government needs to develop a consistent policy on weaponry of mass destruction that applies to all nations. President Bush’s pursuit of a diplomatic solution with North Korea seems like the right course of action, especially if compared to its approach to Iraq.

    The US Government needs to enter into negotiations with North Korea, rather than seeking to isolate it. The United States must also be willing to offer security assurances as well as much needed development assistance to the people in North Korea in exchange for the North Koreans forgoing their nuclear option. It would be diplomatically constructive for the US to encourage the establishment of a Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone that covers the two Koreas, Japan, Taiwan, and that portion of Chinese and US nuclear forces deployed in Northeast Asia. It would also be helpful to support reunification discussions between Seoul and Pyongyang.

    With regard to Iraq, the Bush administration should also be willing to enter into negotiations. The UN inspectors, after all, have already reportedly visited well over 200 Iraqi sites, selected on the basis of intelligence leads, and have so far found no evidence of prohibited weaponry. If the Bush administration has information, as it repeatedly has claimed, that Iraq has violated the UN mandate on eliminating its weapons of mass destruction, it has an obligation to provide this information to the UN inspectors so that they can carry out their work. In the event that Iraq is cleared by the UN inspectors with respect to nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction programs, the US should end its sanctions against Iraq and certainly end the bombing of the No-Fly Zones that it established in Iraq more than a decade ago without any authorization by the Security Council.

    To be consistent in its efforts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, the Bush administration should put pressure on Israel to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. Resolution 687, calling for Iraq’s nuclear disarmament, makes note of the calls to create a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone and Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone. The US should seek to realize these goals, and this will not be possible unless Israel’s nuclear arsenal is dismantled. As a major donor of military aid to Israel, the US is in a position to exert a benign influence on Israel’s policy on these issues that will be helpful in the pursuit of regional stability and a just peace throughout the Middle East.

    The US has wrongly treated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a one-way street for more than 30 years. From the outset the treaty was negotiated as a two-way street. The non-nuclear weapons states gave up their right to acquire or develop nuclear weapons in return for a solemn promise by the nuclear weapons states to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament. The US, as well as other nuclear weapons states, has not upheld its part of the bargain, which is a “material breach” of the treaty. It has also been unacceptable to other countries, particularly those that feel threatened by US foreign policy.

    Consistency, however, is not enough. Non-proliferation is increasingly being revealed as a dead-end that is not capable of protecting the peoples of the world against the dire possibility of a nuclear war. If the US really wants to put an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation, it must demonstrate that it has the political will to propose and engage in serious negotiations for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world, including its own, as called for almost 35 years ago in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    War is not a solution to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The only approach with some chance of success depends on a demonstrable political will to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. When the US demonstrates this political will, the inspection procedures and institutional structures to guard against cheating can be established, tested and gradually implemented. Only at that point can the world begin to breathe more easily.

    Moving in this direction will require a sea change in the strategy of the US Government, but it is the only policy that will have the consistency and international support needed to succeed, and is by far the best way to reduce the threat of nuclear catastrophe. Until the United States is prepared to forego its own nuclear weapons option, preventing others from doing what we have been doing for more than half a century will seem like an extreme version of moral hypocrisy. It is time for Americans to realize that reliance on nuclear weapons is incompatible with our most fundamental moral and legal obligations as well as with preventing and reversing nuclear proliferation.
    *Richard Falk, visiting professor, Global Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara, is chair of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. David Krieger is a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • The Bloodstained Path

    Originally Published in The Progressive

    Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.

    When Iraq possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, quite sad to say, it did so with the knowledge of, and sometimes with materials from, the United States. During the Administration of Ronald Reagan, sixty helicopters were sold to Iraq. Later reports said Iraq used U.S.-made helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons. According to The Washington Post, Iraq used mustard gas against Iran with the help of intelligence from the CIA.

    Iraq’s punishment? The United States reestablished full diplomatic ties around Thanksgiving of 1984.

    Throughout 1989 and 1990, U.S. companies, with the permission of the first Bush Administration, sent to the government of Saddam Hussein mustard gas precursors and live cultures for bacteriological research. U.S. companies also helped to build a chemical weapons factory and supplied the West Nile virus, fuel air explosive technology, computers for weapons technology, hydrogen cyanide precursors, computers for weapons research and development, and vacuum pumps and bellows for nuclear weapons plants. “We have met the enemy,” said Walt Kelly’s Pogo, “And he is us.”

    Unilateral action on the part of the United States, or in partnership with Great Britain, would for the first time set our nation on the bloodstained path of aggressive war, a sacrilege upon the memory of those who fought to defend this country. America’s moral authority would be undermined throughout the world. It would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf and Middle East region. And it would signal for Russia to invade Georgia; China, Taiwan; North Korea, the South; India, Pakistan.

    The United States must recommit itself to the U.N. Charter, which is the framework for international order. We have a right and a duty to defend ourselves. We also have an obligation to defend international law. We can accomplish both without going to war with Iraq.

    There is a way out.

    It must involve the United Nations. Inspections for weapons of mass destruction should begin immediately. Inspectors must have free and unfettered access to all sites. The time has come for us to end the sanctions against Iraq, because those sanctions punish the people of Iraq for having Saddam Hussein as their leader. These sanctions have been instrumental in causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Emergency relief should be expedited. Free trade, except in arms, must be permitted. Foreign investments must be allowed. The assets of Iraq abroad must be restored.

    And a regional zone free of weapons of mass destruction should be established.

    The only weapon that can save the world is nonviolence, said Gandhi. We can begin this practice today by calling upon the Administration in Washington to stop the talk of war, and stop the planning for war.

    In their heart of hearts, the American people do not want war on Iraq. The American people want peace.

    There is no reason for war against Iraq. Stop the drumbeat. Stop sending troops and supplies to Kuwait and Qatar. Pull back from the abyss of unilateral action and preemptive strikes.

    We know that each day the Administration receives a daily threat assessment. But Iraq is not an imminent threat to this nation. Forty million Americans suffering from inadequate health care is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs is an imminent threat. The ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat. The slowdown of the economy is an imminent threat, and so, too, the devastating effects of corporate fraud.

    We must drop the self-defeating policy of regime change. Policies of aggression and assassination are not worthy of any nation with a democratic tradition, let alone a nation of people who love liberty and whose sons and daughters sacrifice to maintain that democracy.

    The question is not whether or not America has the military power to destroy Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The question is whether we destroy something essential in this nation by asserting that America has the right to do so anytime it pleases.

    America cannot and should not be the world’s policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.

    We must work to bring Iraq back into the community of nations, not through destruction, but through constructive action worldwide. We can help negotiate a resolution with Iraq that encompasses unfettered inspections, the end of sanctions, and the cessation of the regime-change policy.

    We have the power to do this. We must have the will to do this. It must be the will of the American people expressed through the direct action of peaceful insistence.

    If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

  • Going to War? Ask Yourself Some Critical Questions About Bush Plan

    Originally Published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

    Before our nation commits itself to an invasion of Iraq, to war and its aftermath, I urge my fellow Americans to think ahead for a moment and soberly question some popular assumptions:

    Is this really the project that we want to rally the world around?

    Is this really the best way to prevent future terrorism?

    Do we really know where this path is going to take us?

    Is this really how we want to jump-start our ailing economy?

    Is this really how we want to fuel our SUVs?

    Is this really a fitting tribute to the victims of 9/11?

    Is this really what will make us feel better?

    Are these really the values we want to impart on our children?

    Is this really what we want to pledge allegiance to when we pledge allegiance to the flag?

  • 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.

  • We Can Stop This War Before It Begins: Statement at the European Parliament

    We Can Stop This War Before It Begins: Statement at the European Parliament

    Thank you for inviting me to speak today. I have come here to urge you all, individually and collectively, to do everything in your power to oppose a US war against Iraq – a war that can have no good end. I believe that we have within our reach the ability to stop this war before it begins.

    If we succeed, we will save the lives of innocent Iraqis who have suffered enough, and also the lives of young American soldiers, who enlisted in the military with the primary purpose of obtaining the resources to go to college. We will also prevent the creation of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of new terrorists, whose activities will undoubtedly affect Europe as well as the United States.
    AMERICA DOES NOT SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE

    The Bush administration would have the world believe that America speaks with one voice on the issue of war against Iraq. John Negroponte, the US Ambassador to the UN, recently said, referring to the Joint Congressional Resolution authorizing the president to use force, “This resolution tells the world that the United States speaks with one determined voice.”

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Large and growing numbers of Americans are saying “Not in our name.” They are saying it in full-page ads in major newspapers and they are saying it in the streets.

    They are making their voices heard and their presence felt. It is reminiscent of the period of the Vietnam War. The difference is that this war has not yet begun in earnest, which is not to say that the sanctions and the bombing in the no-fly zones have not already taken a large toll of victims.

    Only a few months ago, most Americans were not paying serious attention to the possibility of war. Now they are, and they are showing up in protest marches by the thousands. The number will swell to hundreds of thousands, even millions, if the bombs begin to fall on Baghdad.

    One recent ad in USA Today concludes: “Let us not allow the watching world today to despair of our silence and our failure to act. Instead, let the world hear our pledge: we will resist the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.”

    Let me give you the example of the member of Congress from my district, Lois Capps. Just one month ago she was undecided on this issue, perhaps because the Democratic leadership in the Congress has been so timid with a few notable exceptions such as Senator Robert Byrd. Many of Capps’ constituents spoke to her in opposition to the war. When it came time for the vote on the war resolution, she was one of 133 members of the House of Representatives who voted No, along with 23 Senators.

    She stated: “I have not yet seen or heard any convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat to our national security. Military action should always be a last resort, and we should work in concert with our allies and the U.N. to exhaust every possible diplomatic and economic solution to this problem. At this time I do not believe that the case has been made that force is the only option left to us.”

    I am here to ask your support in rallying the European Parliament to stand together with the growing number of Americans who are saying an increasingly clear and powerful No to this war — Not In Our Names.
    CHILDREN OF IRAQ

    The Bush administration is attempting to paint the face of Saddam on the people of Iraq. The children of Iraq deserve more from us. We must not accept the simplistic and militaristic solutions of the Bush administration — Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others — who have their own agendas for war, including oil, dominance and revenge.

    If you visit the web site of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, you will find photographs of the children of Iraq, children who will become the collateral damage of this war just as they have been the collateral damage of US-led sanctions that have taken some one million lives. You will also find at this web site letters from Iraqi students to American students. These children do not deserve to be painted with the face of Saddam.
    PREEMPTIVE WAR

    Mr. Bush has put forward a doctrine of preemptive war. It is actually not a new doctrine, but it is dangerous and aggressive unilateralism at its most extreme.

    Preemptive war was once called “aggressive war,” and was described as a “Crime against peace” in the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals. Such war violates Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter. It includes “planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression.”

    At stake is the entire post World War II international order, including the United Nations system itself.
    A DEFINING MOMENT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

    The Bush administration has already cajoled the US Congress to authorize preemptive war. This authorization is false because it is illegal. Congress cannot give the president the power to commit illegal acts, and war against Iraq cannot be legal unless it is properly authorized by the United Nations after all peaceful means have failed. We are far from that point.

    There are only two circumstances in which force is authorized under the United Nations Charter. First, there is self-defense, but this only comes into effect when a country is under attack or an attack is imminent, and then only until the United Nations Security Council becomes seized of the matter. In the case of Iraq, there is not a current or imminent attack and the United Nations Security Council is already seized of the matter.

    The second circumstance in which force is authorized under the UN Charter is when the Security Council determines that all peaceful means of resolving a conflict have failed. The Security Council has not made this determination in the case of Iraq, despite the Bush administration’s efforts to push it in this direction.

    Mr. Bush also places the UN in jeopardy by his threats to act unilaterally if he decides it is necessary. One former US diplomat recently referred to the Bush administration as “hectoring radical unilateralists.” He means by this that the approach of the administration is that of a bully. We must stand up to this bully in the name of peace, justice and international law.

    Senator Robert Byrd, a wise octogenarian and a hero on this issue in the US Senate, said: “S.J. Resolution 46 would give the president blanket authority to launch a unilateral, pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States…. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president’s authority under the Constitution of the United States, not to mention the fact that it stands the Charter of the United Nations on its head.”
    HYPOCRISY

    The Bush administration is more inclined to practice hypocrisy than democracy. The administration’s hypocrisy takes many forms. The most pronounced forms are Nuclear hypocrisy, Compliance hypocrisy and Criminal Justice hypocrisy. In each of these areas the Bush administration practices a clear double standard.

    Nuclear Hypocrisy

    Joseph S. McGinnis, Acting Head of the US delegation to the First Committee of the UN, recently stated when introducing a resolution (L.54) on Compliance with Arms Limitation and Disarmament Agreements:

    “The US believes that every country in the world should be a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. We also believe that every country that has signed and ratified these agreements should comply fully with their provisions, and that States Parties must hold each other accountable and take appropriate steps to deter violations.”

    The US has been in standing violation of its Article VI obligations for nuclear disarmament since the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force in 1970.

    The Bush administration has shown no inclination to comply with obligations of the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferences. It has failed to submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification, pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and entered into a fraudulent Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT) that will reduce some of the currently actively deployed strategic nuclear weapons but will not make these cuts irreversible. Rather, this treaty will allow for the deactivated weapons to be placed in storage, where they will actually be more likely to be available to terrorists.

    The Bush Nuclear Posture Review calls for retaining nuclear weapons in perpetuity, calls for contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, indicates a willingness to use nuclear weapons against chemical or biological weapons attacks, and outlines plans for more useable nuclear weapons such as bunker busters.

    Further, the Bush administration has formed alliances with Pakistan and India, although both have developed nuclear arsenals. The administration has never even raised the issue of Israel having developed a nuclear arsenal, despite long-standing calls for a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, including in Security Council Resolution 687, the resolution that laid down the terms of Iraqi disarmament.

    Regarding biological weapons, the Bush administration sabotaged six years of negotiations to add an inspection and verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention. The Bush administration also forced the resignation and replacement of Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). They disliked Bustani because he had encouraged Iraq to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and become part of its inspection regime, a step that would have made military action against Iraq even less justifiable.

    Compliance Hypocrisy

    The Bush administration is ready to go to war with Iraq to achieve compliance with UN Security Council resolutions. Yet, there are many other violations of Security Council resolutions by other nations, including US allies Israel and Turkey, for which the US shows little or no concern.

    Additionally, the Bush administration has indicated a willingness to engage in diplomatic efforts to seek a peaceful solution to the recent revelation by North Korea that it is developing nuclear weapons.

    Criminal Justice Hypocrisy

    Bush has withdrawn the US signature from the International Criminal Court and has sworn that US leaders will never be subject to the Court’s jurisdiction, yet he has threatened to bring Iraqi leaders to an International Tribunal should they use weapons of mass destruction if attacked by the US.
    CONCLUSIONS

    — The international community must stand firm in rejecting a US initiated preemptive war against Iraq.

    — The states of the European Union can help lead the way in preventing the Bush administration from standing the international system on its head with its plans for preemptive war. They can also engage in the hard work of negotiations and diplomacy to find a peaceful solution to the current compliance issues with Iraq and with other countries currently out of compliance with Security Council Resolutions and other multinational treaties such as the NPT.

    — Double standards in the international system must be ended, and a single standard must be applied to all, even the sole remaining superpower.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. His latest book is Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age.