Tag: justice

We Stand with Protestors Working to End Systemic Injustices

We condemn the murder of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and countless other victims of anti-Black racism. We stand with protesters across the US and the world working to end systemic injustices. The pain, trauma, and suffering of racial injustice, police brutality, and white supremacy must end. We commit to working for the dignity and safety of the Black community and for its children, who deserve not only to breathe, but to live peacefully and thrive. We honor the African Americans, including the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who have made critical contributions to the project of nuclear abolition (documented in the important book African Americans Against the Bomb, Stanford University Press, 2015).

_________________

Condenamos el asesinato de George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery y muchas otras víctimas del racismo. Estamos con los manifestantes en todo Estados Unidos y el mundo entero que se esfuerzan para poner fin a las injusticias sistemáticas. El dolor, el trauma y el sufrimiento de la injusticia racial, la brutalidad policial y la supremacía blanca deben terminar. Nos comprometemos a trabajar por la dignidad y la seguridad de las comunidades de color y de sus hijos, que merecen no solo respirar, sino también vivir en paz y prosperar. Honramos a los afroamericanos, incluido el reverendo Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., que han realizado contribuciones críticas al proyecto de abolición nuclear (documentado en el importante libro African Americans Against the Bomb, Stanford University Press, 2015).

June 4, 2020
2012 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award Acceptance Speech

It is with profound gratitude and humility that I receive this coveted Distinguished Peace Leadership Award 2012. I wish to thank Nuclear Age Peace Foundation for the great honor.

I am aware that in receiving this award, I am following in the footsteps of some of the most gallant and respected notables of our century – among them, His Holiness the XIVth Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the late King Hussein bin Talal of Jordan, Jacques Cousteau, Walter Cronkite and many other distinguished champions of peace.

I am truly humbled to be following the lead of such exceptional human beings. With their contributions to world peace and harmony they have touched and influenced many of us gathered this evening and impacted the lives of many more around the world.

My life was deeply traumatized by the nuclear legacy of the United States in the Marshall Islands. My public career has been shaped by the nuclear insult to my country and the Marshallese people. I have endeavored to make my modest contribution to peace by bringing their story to the world through all opportunities available to me.

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

I have been a student of the horrific impacts of the nuclear weapons testing program for most of my life. I served as interpreter for American officials who proclaimed Bikini safe for resettlement and commenced a program to repatriate the Bikini people who for decades barely survived on the secluded island of Kili. I accompanied the American High Commissioner of the Trust Territory just two years later to once again remove the repatriated residents from Bikini because concentrations of strontium and cesium had exceeded safe limits and their exposure had become too high for the established US government’s health standards.

I was also personally involved in the translation of the Enewetak Environmental Impact Statement that declared Enewetak in the western Marshall Islands safe for resettlement. In a television interview on CBS Sixty Minutes I expressed my concern to Morley Safer at the time by describing the military public relations efforts associated with the Enewetak clean-up as a dog-and-pony show. Today, for the most part the atoll remains unsafe for human habitation.

Later, during negotiations to terminate the trust territory arrangement mandated by the United Nations and assigned to the United States, we discovered that certain scientific information regarding Enewetak was being withheld from us because, as the official US government memorandum stated, “the Marshallese negotiators might make overreaching demands” on the United States if the facts about the extent of damage in the islands were known to us.

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

The Marshall Islands’ close encounter with the bomb did not end with the detonations themselves. In recent years, documents released by the United States government have uncovered even more horrific aspects of this burden borne by the Marshallese people in the name of international peace and security. US government documents prove in no uncertain terms that its scientists conducted human radiation experiments on Marshallese citizens and American servicemen assigned to our part of the world. Some of our people were injected with or coerced to imbibe fluids laced with radioactive substances. Other experimentation involved the purposeful and premature resettlement of people on islands highly contaminated by the weapons tests to study how human beings absorb radionuclides either from their foods or from their poisonous environment.

Much of this human experimentation occurred in populations either exposed to near lethal amounts of radiation, or to “control” populations who were told they would receive medical “ care” for participating in these studies to help their fellow citizens. At the conclusion of all these studies, the United States still maintained that no positive linkage could be established between the tests and the health status of the Marshallese. Just in the past few years, a National Cancers Institute study has predicted a substantively higher than expected incidence of cancer in the Marshall Islands resulting from the atomic tests.

Throughout the years, America’s nuclear history in the Marshall Islands has been colored with official denial, self-serving control of information, and abrogation of commitment to redress the shameful wrongs done to the Marshallese people. The scientists and military officials involved in the testing program picked and chose their study subjects, recognized certain communities as exposed when it served their interests, and denied monitoring and medicinal attention to subgroups within the Marshall Islands.

I remember well their visits to my village in Likiep where they subjected every one of us to tests and invasive physical examinations the United States government denied ever carrying out. In 1978 as a representative on the negotiations with the United States, we raised the issue requesting that raw data gathered during these visits be made available to us. United States representatives responded by saying that our recollections were juvenile and could not possibly reflect the realities of the time.

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

While a resolution of the status question was eventually reached, the issue of damages and personal injury from the testing remain a matter of contention between our two countries to this day. The unresolved aspect of the agreement remains the question of damages and personal injury claims yet to be addressed. Attempts to resolve these outstanding issues through the Compact of Free Association between our two countries as well as through the United States court system have been unsuccessful.

The courts have invoked the statutes of limitation while the administration contends that the circumstances of the claims do not constitute provable differences from knowledge based on which the agreements in 1986 were reached. We do not deny signing an agreement. We do admit though that this was based on information provided us by the United States contending that the damages were as they described in various studies presented to us to justify the adequacy of nuclear compensation and purported to describe in full the true damages caused by the tests.

In order to break this impasse we would require evidence which has been declared top secret by the United States to which the public has no access. It is interesting to note that the United States has expressed strong interest to bring the nuclear issues with the Marshall Islands to closure. We have responded that there can be no closure without full disclosure.

Further the United States Government tells us, our government is now responsible for nuclear claims, stemming from what is called the espousal provision of the Compact of Free Association. That basically says, we have settled all claims and should any new ones arise, the Government of the Marshall Islands will be responsible and liable. Ironically, the only other time in the history of the United States where ‘espousal’ was used to squelch claims was in the settlement to release the hostages in Iran.

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

Last month in Geneva, the 21st Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted the Independent Special Rapporteur’s report, which in short, found that the US nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands resulted in both immediate and continuing effects on the human rights of the Marshallese. The adopted report also sets forth a set of far reaching recommendations, among them, under subparagraph (f); “Guarantee the right to effective remedy for the Marshallese people, including by providing full funding for the Nuclear Claims Tribunal to award adequate compensation for past and future claims, and exploring other forms of reparation, where appropriate, such as restitution, rehabilitation and measures of satisfaction; including, public apologies, public memorials and guarantees of non- repetition; and consider the establishment of a truth and reconciliation mechanism or similar alternative justice mechanisms.”

How far the United States government will act on these recommendations remains uncertain. In spite of all that has occurred in this relationship, the American people will not find a better friend than the people of the Marshall Islands.

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

I accept this high honor you bestow upon me this evening in the name of my country, my fellow citizens, and all who have in one way or another contributed to the understanding of the Marshallese nuclear plight.

I accept it on behalf of Lijon Aknelang and the Almira Matayoshi of Rongelap Atoll, who passed away recently but were never discouraged in their fight to find peace and justice. I dedicate it to the mothers of Rongelap whose shameful treatment by American scientists violated all acceptable norms of human decency and respect. I accept it on behalf of Senator Jeton Anjain and his brother Mayor John Anjain, who exposed the dark secrets of the experimentation on the Rongelap people. This honor I share with Mayor Anjain’s son, Lekoj Anjain who became the first recognized leukemia victim of nuclear tests. I accept this honor on behalf of the Marshallese Traditional Leaders, especially Iroijlaplap Jebro Kabua and Anjua Loeak, who made lands under their stewardship available for the humane resettlement of displace nuclear nomads. I accept it on behalf of Marshallese community leaders who petitioned in vain to stop the tests through avenues known to them, both directly to the United States and to the United Nations. I accept on behalf of Senator Ishmael John of Enewetak who fought to his death to bring justice to the people of his home who to this day remain unable to resettle their ancestral lands and whose atoll continues to store nuclear wastes including plutonium.

I would be remiss if I did not include the many friends throughout the world who have contributed to our knowledge of the dangers of nuclear weapons and the clear and present danger they are to the universe as we know it. I accept it on behalf of all Marshallese whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by the horrific effects of the nuclear test. But most of all, dear friends, I accept on behalf of my granddaughter Zoe, who, as a brave young four year old, battled with leukemia for two very difficult years, and is now declared healthy enough to return to school and live a normal life. For this I will always be thankful to God and His Mercy.

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

For the use of our country in the maintenance of what is called an unquestionable military supremacy over the world, Kwajalein Atoll, which is my parliamentary constituency, has been tasked to bear the burden. I therefore dedicate this honor to the people of Kwajalein whose continuing sacrifice of providing the home of their forefathers for the “preservation of international peace and security” continues to this day and for the next seventy-four years.

The Marshall Islands are by no means the only ones who have experienced a taste of nuclear horror. The people of Hiroshima and Nakasaki, Kazakhstan, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and French Polynesia have had first-hand experience. The 67 nuclear events in the Marshalls, equivalent to 1.7 Hiroshima shots every day for 12 years came complete with physical displacement, nuclear illness, birth anomalies, alienation of land, massive destruction of property, injury and death. But perhaps the most hurtful of all was official denial and secretive cover up and refusal to accept responsibility on the part of the perpetrators.

The Marshall Islands were also subject to years of expensive clean up and rehabilitation of land and habitat which fell far short of restoring the lands and sites to any productive use. In certain parts, repatriation will not be possible for at least 12,000 years. And that’s only from testing.

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned is that any way you look at it, nuclear weapons and the horrific destruction they bring, whether in war or in experimentation, leave permanent and irreversible damage to man and nature. All things surrounding nuclear weaponry threaten life on our planet and perhaps even our universe. It is not good for men and women, boys and girls, and dogs and cats. It is harmful to trees and to plants we eat. It poisons fish and wildlife. It makes our world less, not more, secure.

If the lessons of the end of World War II, and the lessons of all the tests conducted since then have not been learned then we must learn them. If the experiences of laboratory exposure, also denied, are not part of our learning pathway, then they must be added. If we do not take the message of nuclear survivors to heart, then we will have to soften our hearts. Nuclear weapons threaten us, they do not protect us. No matter where they are located or deployed, one push of a red button could be the end of life as we know it. That is not a chance worth taking.

If we continue to imagine any kind of a benefit being derived from the fact that the atomic powers are now armed to the teeth, then the sacrifice of all we have cited in this brief message tonight will have been in vain. Enlightened modern leaders of the world have not been blind to this fact of life. It is just that they have yet to put the matter of the nuclear race to rest.

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

Barely forty-eight hours ago we were in India at the 11th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity where 193 countries, both governments and non-government organizations, met to discuss the accelerated decline in the integrity of the environment and its genetic resources. Also debated were programs and efforts to address the unsustainable global development direction and the dangers that it poses to the world.

As in nuclear disarmament efforts, we have a situation where world leaders fully understand the problem, are aware of the solutions, but cannot decide who should go first. There is no question that if civilization does not keep global warming under 2 degrees C by 2050, this effort to protect mother earth will be in vain. I am confident that the entire membership of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is familiar with the issue and knows what must be done to avoid climate chaos. But like nuclear disarmament, the world know the problem, it knows the solutions, but lacks the collective political will to execute.

As a small islands developing state, the Marshall Islands, and its neighbors are among the most ecologically vulnerable areas on the planet. We are actively working with other Pacific Islands to ensure that ocean resources in the region are governed and protected from exploitation. As a nation whose single most important productive sector and key export is in fisheries, the state of the world’s oceans and fish stocks and how these vital resources are being exploited remains on the list of our immediate priorities.

Recently, the Marshall Islands, in partnership with Palau and Micronesia, has undertaken a feasibility study for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion or OTEC technology, which uses the deep ocean temperature differential to generate electricity, water and other marketable by-products. If successful, OTEC will turn the Marshall Islands and its neighbors from oil-dependent basket case economies into net exporters of renewable energy. On this score we salute the enlightened efforts on sustainable energy in which our friends in California have been admirably proactive.

The Marshall Islands cannot afford to wait for global movement on climate change. Barely two meters above sea level, the stakes are a bit high here. And having had our share of displaced populations, we do not see moving elsewhere as a viable option. We are partnering with our neighbors in Micronesia in examining alternative financial mechanisms for economic security and earlier this month held a workshop in the islands on the subject of Debt for Adaptation Swap on Climate Change. This promises to be an innovative means of dealing with nonperforming governmental development loans of the recent past.

The Micronesia Challenge is a partnership of island states of the North Pacific to jointly set aside for protection and conservation substantial areas of their individual and collective territories. In addition, Palau, the state of Kosrae in Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands have declared a total ban on fishing and finning of Sharks in their economic zones, effectively creating the world’s largest shark sanctuary. We are taking these extraordinary steps as proud stewards and protectors of some of the world’s richest and most diverse ecosystems. We want to leave our planet intact for the benefit of our children, and their children’s children.

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been stalwart in its mission of nuclear disarmament and the elimination of the nuclear threat to man. For the nearly two decades I have been associated with its efforts, I can attest to its diligence and dedication to marshal its resources to promoting peace and harmony in a nuclear free world. That goal is pure in its intent, necessary in pursuit, and is the only option through which we can leave a world where healthy children and a healthy environment can live in harmony, now and forever.

For whatever is remaining of my life, I pledge to follow this dream that one day we can rid the world of the scourge of nuclear weapons and that peace can be achieved not by what harm we can do to each other, but by what good we can do together.

I share in this award, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, and recognize with gratitude those who have walked with me in this journey of life. I want to thank most especially my wife and my best friend, Rosalie, and our three daughters – Doreen, Dolores and Sally Ann for always standing by my side and supporting me, even when the odds were overwhelming. My dad, my brothers and sisters and the numerous people who have made it possible for me to be recognized and honored, I wish to express to you my deepest gratitude and kamolol (mahalos).

For me, the work to address the plight of all affected peoples continues with renewed determination. We owe it to the nuclear victims and the nuclear survivors, but most importantly we owe it to the future generations of our planet.

Yokwe and God Bless you all.

October 21, 2012
Wishes for the New Year

Vaya aquí para la versión española.

May we embrace peace with justice. May we speak for it and stand for it. May we make our voices heard and our presence felt.

May we awaken to the possibilities of our greatness if we stop wasting our resources on war and its preparation.

May we end all war in the new year. Wars always end. May we end them sooner and lessen the toll of death and suffering. May we refrain from initiating new wars.

May we dramatically reduce military spending and reallocate the funds to meeting social needs – the needs of the poor, the hungry, the homeless and those without health care.

May we end the arms trade, and make pariahs of those who profit from it and from war.

May we stop provoking a new nuclear arms race with the Russians by the expansion of NATO and deployment of missile defense installations up to their borders in Europe.

May we recognize the omnicidal threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. May we take these weapons off hair-trigger alert, declare and enforce policies of No First Use, and begin negotiations for a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of all nuclear weapons.

May we uphold and strengthen human rights for all people in all places. May we seek justice for the oppressed.

May we stop to appreciate the beauty and abundance of our amazing planet, our most important common heritage. May we make it a healthy planet for all life by restoring the purity of its air and water, the lushness of its forests and the richness of its soil.

May we demonstrate a decent respect for the lessons of history and for all who have preceded us on our unique planet, the only one we know of in the universe that supports life.

May we show by our actions that we take seriously our role as trustees of Earth for our children and their children and all children of the future – that they may enjoy a peaceful and harmonious life on our planetary home.

December 29, 2011
For a Nuclear Free, Peaceful, Just and Sustainable World
For a Nuclear Free, Peaceful, Just and Sustainable World
Declaration of the Conference International Planning Committee
New York, New York
April 30-May 1, 2010

Our world is facing crises on an unprecedented scale – global warming, poverty, war, hunger and disease – which both threaten the very future of life as we know it, and bring, on a daily basis, death and extreme sorrow and suffering to the majority of our people.

Despite the global economic crisis, we face a situation in which global military spending – money for killing – far outstrips all other spending, at the expense of addressing urgent human needs. Arms races in many parts of the world are escalating. More and larger foreign military bases are being built and space is being used for war. NATO is being enlarged to dominate the world. All life is threatened by tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that can destroy our planet hundreds of times over. Aggressive nuclear strategies remain the brutal reality:
- Despite its non-proliferation diplomacy, the United States has reaffirmed the central role of nuclear weapons in its defense policy, as has Russia, and increased spending for its nuclear weapons programs to an all-time high;
- All of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nuclear weapon states – the U.S., Russia, U.K., France and China — are modernizing their nuclear arsenals;
- While pledging to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. foreign and military policies, the Obama Administration has repeated its threats of first strike nuclear attacks first against North Korea and second, with Israel against Iran by reiterating that “all options are on the table;”
- Dangerously since they are not signatories, India, Israel and Pakistan are not obligated under the NPT to abolish their nuclear weapons.
- While Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs are the focus of broad international condemnation, the world continues to turn a blind eye to Israel’s large, sophisticated nuclear arsenal.
- The South Asian nuclear arms race continues unabated;
There is an urgent need for real change.

We share a vision of a world free from war and nuclear weapons, a world built on a foundation of global justice, supporting a sustainable environment. Our priority is to ensure genuine human security for all peoples.

This vision is realisable, but to achieve it requires concerted nonviolent and practical action by those who seek it. Popular pressure on the world’s political leaders will be required to move them to value human security over militarism and the war systems that are sources of their power and privilege.

Our responsibility is to identify those steps needed to achieve our vision and to discern the means to create the political will necessary to prevail.

To achieve a world free of nuclear weapons: Building on the groundswell of international public opinion, we call on all governments to begin negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention to ban all nuclear weapons by 2020.

To achieve a world free of war: Seeking, as expressed in the UN Charter, to end the scourge of war that has blighted succeeding generations, we will work to end all military conflicts and support peaceful dialogue and conflict resolution based on international law. International conflicts must be prevented and solved through diplomacy:
- We call for an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the withdrawal of all foreign troops from those regions.
- We call on Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories occupied since June 1967, to dismantle the settlements and to recognize the national rights of the Palestinian people.
- We call on the U.S. to sign a peace treaty to finally end the Korean War, formalize diplomatic relations, lift sanctions and encourage meaningful exchange.
- We call on the international community to normalize relations with Iran and North Korea.
- We call for the blockade of Cuba to end.
We will work for the end of military alliances and the closing of all foreign military bases, to end the militarization of space, and to greatly reduce the world’s military spending. Torn by the deaths of countless thousands of people as a result of the arms trade, we call for that trade in death to be banned. Putting people first, we call on governments with militarized economies to begin industrial conversion programmes so that our resources and energy are organized to meet human needs, not to end human lives. Let goverment structures promote peace instead of war. With imagination and creativity we will build relations between all countries on the basis of equality and respect.

To achieve a world where our collective resources are managed and distributed to meet the needs of all peoples: We will work to transform the current social structures, so that people come before profit, and economic enterprises provide for genuine human security rather than imposing a tyranny of debt and deprivation. We are in solidarity with the indigenous people around the planet who are standing up for their rights.

To end the despoliation of our planet, the poisoning of our lands and water and the air we breathe: We will educate and organise to halt and reverse global warming. To create a sustainable future, we will work in our communities and nations to end the commodification of nature. We will strive to establish a worldwide moratorium on uranium mining, which has taken a terrible toll in human lives, and to phase out nuclear power whose poisons persist for tens of thousands of years. We will promote sustainable, renewable energy production as an alternative to nuclear energy and a way to mitigate climate change and we encourage our governments to join the International Renewable Energy Agency. Protecting our environment is one of our greatest imperatives. We call on the major industrial powers to significantly address the existing and impending global climate crisis.

We welcome the increased international cooperation amongst our movements which has enabled the success of this conference and commit to the continuation of this international dialogue and coordination. To deepen the social involvement necessary to achieve our goals, we will work to include other civil society organisations – such as trade unions and faith groups – whose visions include a more peaceful and just society.

Martin Luther King observed that, “all too many people find themselves living amid a great period of social change, and yet they fail to develop the new attitudes, the new mental responses, that the new situation demands“ We are in a similar moment, a time of great dislocation and upheaval. We need a new conversation amongst ourselves about how to re-order our societies and economies if humanity is to survive and prosper. It is past time to kick the habit of looking to those in power to deliver the changes we so urgently need. A world-wide movement for peace and global justice in solidarity is our aim and our commitment.

Time is short – we must seize the moment!

1 May 2010

International Planning Committee: Ray Acheson – Reaching Critical Will; Colin Archer – International Peace Bureau; Reiner Braun – International Network of Engineers andScientists for Global Responsibility; Jackie Cabasso – Western States Legal Foundation, United for Peace and Justice; Arielle Dennis – Le Mouvement de la Paix;Bruce Gagnon – Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space;Joseph Gerson – American Friends Service Committee; Socorro Gomes – Centro Brasileiro de Solidariedade aos Povos e Luta pela Paz; Kate Hudson – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Akira Kawasaki – Peace Boat; Hans Lammarent – Bombspotting; Margo LaZaro – Global Family; Thomas Magnusson – International Peace Bureau; Judith LeBlanc – Peace Action; Narae Lee – Peace Boat; Dominique Lalanne – Aboliton 2000; Henry Lowendorf – Greater New Haven Peace Council; Issam Makhoul – Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian and Israeli Studies; Al Marder – International Association of Peace Messenger Cities; George Martin – Peace Action; Kevin Martin – Peace Action; Alice Slater – Abolition 2000; Susi Snyder – Abolition 2000; Hiroshi Takakusaki – Gensuikyo; Yayoi Tsuchida – Gensuikyo; Pierre Villard – Le Mouvement de la Paix; Alyn Ware – Abolition 2000; Rick Wayman – Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Dave Webb – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Cheryl Wertz – Peace Action NYS
May 1, 2010
The Berlin Wall Had to Fall, but Today’s World Is No Fairer

This article was originally published in the Guardian on October 30, 2009

Twenty years have passed since the fall of the Berlin wall, one of the shameful symbols of the cold war and the dangerous division of the world into opposing blocks and spheres of influence. Today we can revisit the events of those times and take stock of them in a less emotional and more rational way.

The first optimistic observation to be made is that the announced “end of history” has not come about, though many claimed it had. But neither has the world that many politicians of my generation trusted and sincerely believed in: one in which, with the end of the cold war, humankind could finally forget the absurdity of the arms race, dangerous regional conflicts, and sterile ideological disputes, and enter a golden century of collective security, the rational use of material resources, the end of poverty and inequality, and restored harmony with nature.

Another important consequence of the end of the cold war is the realisation of one of the central postulates of New Thinking: the interdependence of extremely important elements that go to the very heart of the existence and development of humankind. This involves not only processes and events occurring on different continents but also the organic linkage between changes in the economic, technological, social, demographic and cultural conditions that determine the daily existence of billions of people on our planet. In effect, humankind has started to transform itself into a single civilisation.

At the same time, the disappearance of the iron curtain and barriers and borders, unexpected by many, made possible connections between countries that until recently had different political systems, as well as different civilisations, cultures and traditions.

Naturally, we politicians from the last century can be proud of the fact that we avoided the danger of a thermonuclear war. However, for many millions of people around the globe, the world has not become a safer place. Quite to the contrary, innumerable local conflicts and ethnic and religious wars have appeared like a curse on the new map of world politics, creating large numbers of victims.

Clear proof of the irrational behaviour and irresponsibility of the new generation of politicians is the fact that defence spending by numerous countries, large and small alike, is now greater than during the cold war, and strong-arm tactics are once again the standard way of dealing with conflicts and are a common feature of international relations.

Alas, over the last few decades, the world has not become a fairer place: disparities between the rich and the poor either remained or increased, not only between the north and the developing south but also within developed countries themselves. The social problems in Russia, as in other post-communist countries, are proof that simply abandoning the flawed model of a centralised economy and bureaucratic planning is not enough, and guarantees neither a country’s global competitiveness nor respect for the principles of social justice or a dignified standard of living for the population.

New challenges can be added to those of the past. One of these is terrorism. In a context in which world war is no longer an instrument of deterrence between the most powerful nations, terrorism has become the “poor man’s atomic bomb”, not only figuratively but perhaps literally as well. The uncontrolled proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the competition between the erstwhile adversaries of the cold war to reach new technological levels in arms production, and the presence of the new pretenders to an influential role in a multipolar world all increase the sensation of chaos in global politics.

The crisis of ideologies that is threatening to turn into a crisis of ideals, values and morals marks yet another loss of social reference points, and strengthens the atmosphere of political pessimism and nihilism. The real achievement we can celebrate is the fact that the 20th century marked the end of totalitarian ideologies, in particular those that were based on utopian beliefs.

Yet new ideologies are quickly replacing the old ones, both in the east and the west. Many now forget that the fall of the Berlin wall was not the cause of global changes but to a great extent the consequence of deep, popular reform movements that started in the east, and the Soviet Union in particular. After decades of the Bolshevik experiment and the realisation that this had led Soviet society down a historical blind alley, a strong impulse for democratic reform evolved in the form of Soviet perestroika, which was also available to the countries of eastern Europe.

But it was soon very clear that western capitalism, too, deprived of its old adversary and imagining itself the undisputed victor and incarnation of global progress, is at risk of leading western society and the rest of the world down another historical blind alley.

Today’s global economic crisis was needed to reveal the organic defects of the present model of western development that was imposed on the rest of the world as the only one possible; it also revealed that not only bureaucratic socialism but also ultra-liberal capitalism are in need of profound democratic reform – their own kind of perestroika.

Today, as we sit among the ruins of the old order, we can think of ourselves as active participants in the process of creating a new world. Many truths and postulates once considered indisputable, in both the east and the west, have ceased to be so, including the blind faith in the all-powerful market and, above all, its democratic nature. There was an ingrained belief that the western model of democracy could be spread mechanically to other societies with different historical experience and cultural traditions. In the present situation, even a concept like social progress, which seems to be shared by everyone, needs to be defined, and examined, more precisely.

Mikhail Gorbachev was the last President of the Soviet Union and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990.

November 5, 2009

Nuclear Weapons and Future Justice

Future justice requires that the inhabitants of the future be treated justly and equitably. This implies that our current social, economic and political relations, both nationally and internationally, become more just and equitable. It also adds an explicit focus on the longer term consequences of these relations. The decisions taken in the present must be made with a view to their effect upon future generations.

Many indigenous peoples lived with an ethic of considering present impacts on the “seventh generation.” Modern societies have been far less respectful of those who will follow us on the planet, as the expanding population of the planet combined with our greed for natural resources and the power of our technologies has exponentially increased the human impact upon the Earth and upon future generations.

We need an ethic that expands our concept of justice to generations yet unborn. We need to recognize and appreciate the extent to which our decisions and acts in the present have serious, potentially irreversible, consequences for the future. In the 1990s, The Cousteau Society, led by respected ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau, developed and promoted a Bill of Rights for Future Generations. Its five articles are:

Article 1. Future generations have a right to an uncontaminated and undamaged Earth and to its enjoyment as the ground of human history, of culture, and of the social bonds that make each generation and individual a member of one human family.

Article 2. Each generation, sharing in the estate and heritage of the Earth, has a duty as trustee for future generations to prevent irreversible and irreparable harm to life on Earth and to human freedom and dignity.

Article 3. It is, therefore, the paramount responsibility of each generation to maintain a constantly vigilant and prudential assessment of technological disturbances and modifications adversely affecting life on Earth, the balance of nature, and the evolution of mankind in order to protect the rights of future generations.

Article 4. All appropriate measures, including education, research, and legislation, shall be taken to guarantee these rights and to ensure that they not be sacrificed for present expediencies and conveniences.

Article 5. Governments, non-governmental organizations, and individuals are urged, therefore, imaginatively to implement these principles, as if in the very presence of those future generations whose rights we seek to establish and perpetuate.

To enforce such a set of rights for future generations, we need to create a criminal conceptualization that designates the worst offenses against these rights as crimes against future generations, the worst crimes being those that would foreclose the future altogether or that would make life on the planet untenable. Two areas of human activity that would clearly fit into this category of foreclosing the future are nuclear war and climate change. Both have the potential to destroy human life on our planet, along with much other life.

Responsibilities towards Future Generations

Rights cannot exist in a vacuum. Along with rights, there must be concomitant responsibilities, including responsibilities to assure the rights of future generations. On November 12, 1997, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) solemnly proclaimed the UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of Current Generations towards Future Generations. The Declaration was composed of 12 Articles covering a full range of responsibilities towards future generations. The two Articles most closely related to preserving a human future and a future for life on the planet are Articles 3 and 4.

Article 3 – Maintenance and perpetuation of humankind – The present generations should strive to ensure the maintenance and perpetuation of humankind with due respect for the dignity of the human person. Consequently, the nature and form of human life must not be undermined in any way whatsoever.

Article 4 – Preservation of life on Earth – The present generations have the responsibility to bequeath to future generations an Earth which will not one day be irreversibly damaged by human activity. Each generation inheriting the Earth temporarily should take care to use natural resources reasonably and ensure that life is not prejudiced by harmful modifications of the ecosystems and that scientific and technological progress in all fields does not harm life on Earth.

The Declaration calls for “intergenerational solidarity.” Such solidarity with future generations requires that current generations take responsibility for assuring that the policies of those in power today will not lead to foreclosing the future for generations yet to be born. Thus, the importance of conceptualizing crimes against future generations cannot be evaded by the people of the present. A strong example of such crimes can be found in the example of policies promoting the possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons. Such policies constitute assaults upon future generations, as well as upon present life on the planet.

Nuclear Weapons and International Law

In the record of human history, survival chances have been enhanced by affiliation with the tribe and later with the nation-state. Such affiliations have provided a defense against the aggression of other groups. Violent conflicts between tribes and later nations have given rise to the pattern of warfare that has characterized human behavior from its earliest history. Technological innovations in warfare, such as the stirrup, crossbow, machinegun, airplane and submarine have given advantage to one side or another.

What characterizes the Nuclear Age is the innovation of a form of weaponry that makes possible the destruction of the species. Nuclear weapons, which are weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction, have the capacity to foreclose the future of human life on the planet. The philosopher John Somerville coined a new term for the potential of nuclear weapons – omnicide, meaning the death of all. He reasoned that humans had moved from suicide, to genocide, to the potential of omnicide. The threat or use of nuclear weapons constitutes the ultimate crime against the future, the crime of omnicide, including the destruction of the human species.

In 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The Court found, “The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.” It further found that “the use of nuclear weapons would be a serious danger to future generations.” Even setting aside the blast effects of nuclear weapons, the Court found, “Ionizing radiation has the potential to damage the future environment, food and marine ecosystem, and to cause genetic defects and illness in future generations.”

The Court unanimously concluded that any threat or use of nuclear weapons that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal. This meant that there could be no legal threat or use of nuclear weapons that was indiscriminate as between civilians and combatants, that caused unnecessary suffering, or that was disproportionate to a prior attack. Despite the fact that there could be virtually no threat or use of nuclear weapons that did not violate international humanitarian law, the Court also found on a split vote that “in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

In light of the above conclusions, the Court found unanimously, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” Thus, the Court was clear in reaffirming the obligation to nuclear disarmament in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Although this aspect of the Court’s opinion does not specifically refer to the rights of future generations, adherence by the nuclear weapons states to “nuclear disarmament in all its aspects” would eliminate the possibility of nuclear weapons foreclosing the future by eliminating the weapons. Unfortunately, the political leaders of the nuclear weapons states have not fulfilled their obligations under international law.

Nuclear Weapons Possession as Criminal Behavior

Today there are nine states in the world that possess nuclear weapons: the US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. If we know that nuclear war could foreclose the future and would be a crime against future generations, does that make the possession of nuclear weapons by these states a crime against the future? Arguably, possession alone, without use or threat of use, is not a crime. But to take the inquiry one step deeper, is it possible that there can be possession without at least the implicit threat of use? In order to eliminate the possibility of threat or use of nuclear weapons, a state at a minimum would need to have a policy of “No First Use,” and would have to separate its warheads from delivery vehicles so that there could not be an inadvertent use of the weapons. While this would be better nuclear policy than one that left open the possibility of first use, it would not eliminate the possibility of a second use of the weapons, which would escalate a nuclear war, kill great numbers of innocent civilians, impact the health of children of the victims and even place the future of humanity at risk. Thus, the conclusion seems inescapable that the possessionof nuclear weapons by a state undermines future justice and constitutes a continuing crime against future generations.

Individual Accountability for Criminal Acts

The possession of nuclear weapons can be viewed as a crime of state, and this crime would apply to the nine states in possession of nuclear weapons. But beyond state criminal activity, there should also be culpability for the crime against the future by the leading state and military officials that support and promote nuclear weapons possession, as well as policies that make nuclear war more likely and total nuclear disarmament less likely. In addition, corporations, corporate executives and scientists who contribute to the maintenance and improvement of nuclear weapons should also be considered culpable for committing a crime against future generations.

It is fundamental to criminal law that individuals have culpability for crimes, and that individual accountability not be covered over by state or corporate culpability. At the Nuremburg Tribunals following World War II, the principle was upheld that all individuals who commit crimes under international law are responsible for such acts, and this is true even if they are high government officials and domestic law does not hold such acts to be crimes. Along with responsibility goes individual accountability for crimes against future generations.

The Need for a Taboo against Nuclear Arms

In the present global environment, the possession of nuclear weapons is not viewed as a crime against future generations or even broadly as a crime against the present, but rather as a normative behavior of powerful states. There is a strong need to change this general orientation toward nuclear weapons through education about their dangers and their capacity to foreclose the future. One of the best reasons to eliminate nuclear weapons is that they have the potential to eliminate the human species, now or in the future. So long as nuclear weapons exist and are held in the arsenals of some countries, the danger of the use of these weapons under some conditions, by accident or design, cannot be entirely excluded. In addition, the existence of these weapons in the arsenals of some states creates pressures for other states to acquire such weaponry.

It is essential to establish a norm that the possession of nuclear weapons is a crime against future generations, a crime that can only be prevented by the total elimination of these weapons. A taboo must be established that puts nuclear weapons in the same category of unacceptable behaviors as cannibalism, incest, slavery and torture, a taboo that ostracizes those who contribute to maintaining these weapons and who set up obstacles to their elimination.

Signs of Hope

The vast majority of states in the world support a world free of nuclear weapons.
The vast majority of US and Russian citizens support a world free of nuclear weapons.
More than 2100 mayors in some 125 countries throughout the world support the Mayors for Peace 2020 Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons by the year 2020.
More than half the world, virtually the entire southern hemisphere, is covered by nuclear weapons-free zones.
Former high-level US policy makers, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn, have spoken out in favor a world free of nuclear weapons.
Norway’s government pension fund has set a powerful example by divesting from companies providing components for nuclear weapons.
Legal measures to return to the International Court of Justice are being taken to challenge the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament obligations.
University students are showing increased concern for university involvement in nuclear weapons research and development.
Leading scientists, including the late Nobel Laureates Hans Bethe and Joseph Rotblat, are calling upon scientists in all countries to cease working on nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
UK Minister of Defense Des Browne has proposed a conference of the five principal nuclear weapons states to address the technical challenges of verifying nuclear disarmament.

Providing Hope with Teeth

While these signs of hope hold promise, far more needs to be done to establish a taboo against the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons that will result in a world free of nuclear weapons. Organizations such as the World Future Council need to take a leadership role in promoting the concept of future justice and crimes against future generations, identifying those particular crimes, such as nuclear war and the antecedent possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons, which are capable of foreclosing the future.

Those of us alive on the planet now are the trustees for future generations. We have the responsibility to assist in passing the world on intact to the next generation. We must act in intergenerational solidarity with those who are not yet present. In the words of the Cousteau Society’s Bill of Right for Future Generations, we must act “as if in the very presence of those future generations whose rights we seek to establish and perpetuate.”

Among the tools needed to succeed in passing the world on intact to future generations is the identification of crimes against future generations to underpin the establishment of taboos against such crimes. Also needed is a system of accountability to ostracize and otherwise punish individuals, regardless of their office, who are engaged in the preparation or commission of such crimes. The possession, threat or use of nuclear weapons is unquestionably among the most serious of these crimes. Future justice is not a possibility in a world without a future.

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and a Councilor of the World Future Council (www.worldfuturecouncil.org).

May 15, 2008

A Great Olympic Moment

The Olympics are always magnificent. They bring the world together. The competition of the talented young athletes demonstrates the power, speed, precision and grace of human achievement and, most of all, the beauty of the human spirit. We are reminded that we are one world, and we are capable of coming together to compete peacefully.

In the Athens Olympics, there was a striking moment that demonstrated the power of the people. It occurred during the men’s gymnastic competition. The great Russian Olympian, Alexi Nemov was performing in the individual competition on the high bar. He performed a magnificent routine, releasing from the bar and flying over it four or five times. When he landed at the end of his routine the excitement in the room was palpable. There was a tremendous ovation.

Then the judges’ scores came up. They were lower than the crowd in the arena thought was fair, and the people rose to their feet and jeered the scores. Many attempts were made to quiet the crowd in order for the next athlete to compete, but the people would not be silenced. They clearly believed that they had witnessed an injustice, and they were not willing to be silent in the face of this injustice.

At this point one of the senior officials walked to the judges’ platform and spoke with two judges who had given particularly low scores. Then the scores were adjusted upward and new scores posted in the arena. But the crowd was still not fully satisfied as the scores remained below the crowd’s level of expectation for Nemov’s brilliant performance. The people continued to express their dissatisfaction.

Then, Nemov stepped out and faced the crowd. With great humility, he gestured to the crowd to stop their protest and they responded. The arena finally quieted enough for the competition to continue.

Why was this a great moment? Because the people spontaneously arose to protest a perceived injustice. Because the multinational crowd in the arena stood in solidarity with an athlete who they thought had been treated unfairly. Because the people in the arena that day demonstrated that their power was not to be denied. Because they showed the world that they would not be cowed by authorities, in this case the judges, from their own understanding of what is just and fair.

If only we could learn from this great Olympic moment. People matter. Fairness matters. And there are times when it is necessary for people to raise their voices against those in power if individuals are to be protected and fairness is to be upheld.

David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

September 24, 2004
So Much for Democracy: Iraqis Plan For Introduction of Martial Law

Seventeen months after the Anglo-American invasion in which President George Bush promised to bring democracy to Iraq, the country’s American-approved Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, yesterday introduced legislation allowing the Iraqi authorities to impose martial law, curfews, a ban on demonstrations, the restriction of movement, phone-tapping, the opening of mail and the freezing of bank accounts.

Military leaders may be appointed to rule parts of Iraq. A temporary reinstatement of Saddam Hussein’s death penalty is also now probable. Already, therefore, Iraq has begun to look just like any other Arab country. But the insurgency, which the laws are supposedly intended to break, exploded in gunfire in the very centre of Baghdad just as the new legislation was announced.

Incredibly, the fighting broke out in Haifa Street, in one of the busiest streets next to the Tigris river, as gunmen attacked Iraqi police and troops.

US helicopter gunships at roof-top height could be seen firing rockets at a building in the street which burst into flames. Bullets hissed across the Tigris and at least three soldiers, all believed to be Iraqis, were killed near the river bank.

The violence in the capital yesterday was impossible to avoid. It began with mortar attacks on the walled-off area where government officials live under American protection, one of the mortars falling close to Mr. Allawi’s home, another exploding beside a medical clinic close to his party headquarters. The explosions echoed over the city.

A bomb in a van, packed with shrapnel and artillery shells, was defused close to the government headquarters during the morning. Driving out of Baghdad at 11am, I saw another tremendous explosion blasting smoke and debris into the air close to an American convoy. US troops closed all highway bridges in the area in a desperate attempt to protect a long convoy of trucks and supplies moving into the city from the west. Traffic jams trailed for miles across Baghdad in 150F heat.

Many Iraqis may initially welcome the new laws. Security – or rather the lack of it – has been their greatest fear since the American military allowed thousands of looters to ransack Baghdad after last year’s invasion. They have, anyway, lived under harsh “security” laws for more than two decades under Saddam. But the new legislation may be too late to save Mr. Allawi’s “new” Iraq.

For large areas of the country – including at least four major cities – are in the hands of insurgents. Hundreds of gunmen are believed to control Samara north of Baghdad; Fallujah and Ramadi – where four more US Marines were killed on Tuesday – are now virtually autonomous republics.

Bakhityar Amin, Iraq’s new “minister of justice and human rights”, a combination of roles unheard of anywhere else in the world, was chosen to announce the martial-law legislation. “The lives of the Iraqi people are in danger, in danger from evil forces, from gangs and from terrorists,” he said. “We realise this law might restrict some liberties, but there are a number of guarantees. We have tried to guarantee justice and human rights.”

The legislation was necessary to fight insurgents who were “preventing government employees from attending their jobs, preventing foreign workers from entering the country to help rebuild Iraq and … to derail general elections.”

Iraq therefore entered into another fatal chapter of its history yesterday, and it didn’t look much like democracy.

Originally published in the Independent UK on July 8, 2004

July 8, 2004
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Statement Opposing War Against Iraq

We are firmly opposed to waging war against Iraq.

The rush to war against Iraq violates the spirit and letter of the US Constitution, as well as disregards the prohibitions on the use of force that are set forth in the UN Charter and accepted as binding rules of international law. The proposed war would also have dangerous and unpredictable consequences for the region and the world, and would likely bring turmoil to the world oil and financial markets, and might well lead to the replacement of currently pro-Western leaders in Egypt and Saudi Arabia with militantly anti-American governments.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation opposes on principle and for reasons of prudence, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, by any country, including, of course, Iraq. Our position is one of support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a temporary expedient, while a good faith effort is being made to achieve the overall abolition of nuclear weapons through a disarmament treaty with reliable safeguards against cheating. Unfortunately, at present, no effort to achieve nuclear disarmament is being made.

At the same time, the acquisition of nuclear weaponry, prohibited to Iraq by Security Council resolution, is not itself an occasion for justifiable war. After all, the United States, along with at least seven other countries, possesses, and continues to develop such weaponry. There is no good reason for supposing that Iraq cannot be deterred from ever using such weapons, or from transferring them to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. The government of Iraq, notwithstanding its record of brutality and regional aggression, has shown a consistent willingness to back down in the face of overwhelming force, as it did in the Gulf War and during the subsequent decade.

It is necessary to take seriously the possibility that al Qaeda operatives could gain access to weaponry of mass destruction, and would have little hesitation about using it against American targets. Unlike Iraq, al Qaeda cannot be deterred by threats of retaliatory force. Its absence of a territorial base, visionary worldview, and suicidal foot soldiers disclose a political disposition that would seek by any means to inflict maximum harm. The US government should guard against such risks, especially with respect to the rather loose control of nuclear materials in Russia. Going to war against Iraq is likely to accentuate, rather than reduce, these dire risks. It would produce the one set of conditions in which Saddam Hussein, faced with the certain death and the destruction of his country, would have the greatest incentive to strike back with any means at his disposal, including the arming of al Qaeda.

The recent hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did not provide an occasion for public debate, as the witnesses called accepted the premise of a regime change in Baghdad, disagreeing only with respect to the costs and feasibility of a war strategy. No principled criticism of the strategy itself was voiced, and thus the hearings are better understood as building a consensus in favor of war than of exploring doubts about the war option. As well, it is regrettable that the hearings paid no attention to the widely criticized punitive sanctions that have had such harsh consequences on Iraqi civilians for more than a decade.

Granting the concerns of the US government that Saddam Hussein possesses or may obtain weapons of mass destruction, there are available alternatives to war that are consistent with international law and are strongly preferred by America’s most trusted allies. These include the resumption of weapons inspections under United Nations auspices combined with multilateral diplomacy and a continued reliance on non-nuclear deterrence. This kind of approach has proved effective over the years in addressing comparable concerns about North Korea’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.

We are encouraged by the reported opposition to the proposed war by important US military leaders and most US allies. We urge the American people to exercise their responsibilities as citizens to join in raising their voices in opposition to waging war against Iraq.

August 23, 2002
Summer in Iraq Yields Lessons About War

Published in the Ventura County Star

Before we talk about a new war with Iraq, we must recognize that the “old war” never ended. Last month, an airstrike by the United States killed one Iraqi and injured 17 others — and we should not miss the significance of this fact. More than a thousand Iraqis have been killed and many more wounded since the illegal no-fly zones were imposed in 1991 — areas that we purportedly patrol to keep Iraqis safe.

In spite of the slanted testimony of the recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the potential for a renewed war with Iraq, where no dissenters were allowed to speak, the entire world seems to be sending a message to the United States that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein is an unequivocally bad idea.

Nations such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Germany have demonstrated outright disapproval and nonsupport for a U.S.-led war against Iraq.

Not invited to testify were Scott Ritter, the ex-U.S. Marine who led the UNSCOM weapons inspection team until December 1998 when the United Nations withdrew the group prior to a heavy bombing raid on Baghdad, and Dennis Halliday and Hans Graf von Sponeck, two career United Nations officials who resigned their posts as chief humanitarian coordinators in Iraq in protest of the devastating effects of the sanctions. These three would have provided vital information regarding the status of the Iraqi population, the deaths of more than half a million children due to preventable illnesses and malnutrition, and more than a million total people in Iraq since the Gulf War of 1991.

“I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the U.N. weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them. While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq’s proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90 to 95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq,” wrote Ritter July 20 for the Boston Globe.

Noticeably absent from the dialogue about Iraq is the impact a “new” war would have on the civilian population. A Los Angeles Times report states that much of the fighting this time around would be centered in cities and urban areas, increasing the likelihood of high numbers of civilian casualties.

Also unmentioned is the impact the war preparation is having on the children of Iraq whose lives are suspended in wait of more bombings. In a letter to American students in reference to the December 1998 bombing, “Please send us gifts and not bombs from Father Christmas.” We must consider the psychological toll that even the preparation for war takes on the children.

The following stories attempt to humanize the lives of average Iraqis as I encountered them last summer. Not much has changed since then.

Scenes of war

Iraq is the cradle of civilization, home to the famed Garden of Eden, to Babylon, to the Tigris and Euphrates, to the Fertile Crescent. It houses the birthplace of Abraham, the mosque of Imam Ali and the most widely accepted evidence of the Great Flood — seashells atop a 4,000-year-old ziggurat in the middle of the desert. Yet, since the Gulf War, the sanctity of this historically significant land has been desecrated and its people demoralized, as I learned while visiting Iraq July and August 2001.

Daily calls to prayer broadcast throughout the city awakened me to the impact of the sanctions and the residual effects of the Gulf War. The call begins with “God is greater than all.” I quickly learned that since Aug. 6, 1990, the effects of war are even more far-reaching than God.

Omran

Omran was a 12-year-old shepherd boy walking through his family’s field in May 2000 when a stray bomb fell from a U.S. plane patrolling the illegal no-fly zones over the southern portion of Iraq. This bomb instantly killed him — and ripped apart the social fabric of his tiny village near Najaf.

I visited Omran’s family last summer. I tried my best to explain to Omran’s mother, father, brothers and entire village that the memory of their son is not forgotten. Omran’s story has been told hundreds of times to high school students, to colleges, to peace and justice and religious groups across the United States as part of a nationwide project to remember Omran.

I listened as Omran’s father told of his inexplicable loss, of the pain of losing a child, of no apology from anyone, save the five American pacifists sitting before him hot and dusty in the dry Iraq desert. Omran’s mother, who has scarcely spoken since he was killed and who is suffering from a serious heart condition, embraced me and we shed tears together over the helplessness of the situation.

Cancer ward

It is 140 degrees inside the hospital at Amara. The air conditioning does not work because the electrical facilities were bombed during the Gulf War and spare parts are routinely denied as dual-use items by the Sanctions Committee at the United Nations.

A mother sits cross-legged on her son’s bare hospital bed, a piece of torn cardboard in one hand, fanning her child. She is sobbing uncontrollably, rocking back and forth. Her son is unconscious, dying of cancer; he has no IV bag, no medicine, no painkillers. She has no tissue, so I ask for a handful and give them to her; she glances at me with tired appreciation.

She places the cardboard fan on the bed and begins to knead at her son’s body — his torso, his legs — in a desperate attempt to rouse him. He does not move. I sit helpless on the sheetless bed next to her, watching, invading this private moment, glued to this scene, futile tears rolling down my cheeks. I think, “This is my fault.” The guilt endures.

Across the room, the doctor escorting our group through the hospital pokes and prods at sleeping, sick babies causing them to wake up screaming in pain to demonstrate the malignancies, tumors and gross deformities that have mysteriously appeared since the Gulf War. All the children are crying now; all their mothers try to comfort them and not look annoyed that the gawking Americans have disturbed their lives.

The car accident

We fasted for a day across from the United Nations on Aug. 6, 2001, in the oppressive heat. At the end of the day, a blowout on the road a few feet from us caused a car to spin out of control and crash into our Iraqi friend’s car — our 70-year-old friend who is a taxi driver and who relies on his car for income. Both cars are totally wrecked, blood everywhere. Spare car parts and new tires are expensive. The transfer rate for the Iraqi dinar to U.S. dollars has been devalued from 3:1 to 2000:1, meaning average Iraqis have virtually no purchasing power.

I call out for our friend who miraculously emerges from the back seat of his smashed vehicle, banged, bruised and filled with glass in his eyes. He is dazed, then suddenly realizes that his livelihood has been instantaneously taken from him. He starts to cry. I try to negotiate with Kalashnikov-toting soldiers to let our friend get examined by a United Nations doctor for internal injuries before they take him to the police station. We ask another Iraqi how much to junk the car and buy a new one. He looks surprised. “Junk the car? In Iraq, we fix everything.”

While we in the United States live out foreign wars vicariously through our movies, through the news and through the threats of nuclear force made by those in power, I recall the people I met in Iraq whose lives are considerably less glamorous than the remote Hollywood versions we see and hear about. I often wonder if the case of Iraq is an example of the best our foreign policy can be.

Iraq is more than its one leader. It is a country of 23 million people who all have stories, hopes and fears.

Basketball and books

When 58-year-old Zuhair Matti moved to Los Angeles from Baghdad, Iraq, in March 1977, he hardly figured that returning to his homeland would be an intangible goal.

A member of the 1973 Iraqi Olympic basketball team, Matti played against athletes from all over the world in the games that symbolize internationalism, peace and sportsmanship. Held in Tehran, Iran, just a few years prior to the Iran-Iraq war, the 1973 Olympics were a chance for Matti to shine as a national celebrity for Iraq. His athletic ability and love of his country and people made him a national superhero with fame and status.

In 1977, Matti moved to Los Angeles at the behest of his wife, whose family lived here. Now an American citizen with two American-born sons, ages 23 and 14, Matti makes ends meet by working at Home Depot, still pining for a family half a globe away whom he has not seen for 24 years.

When Matti fled Iraq, he was an officer in the army; he took a vacation and never returned. That, compiled with travel made more difficult by the U.N.-imposed and U.S./U.K.-upheld economic sanctions, which disallow travel to and from Iraq, dims hopes that Zuhair will return to his native country soon. He explains: “Travel is so expensive and I don’t want to return with only a few dollars in my pocket. I want to be able to treat everyone very well when I go back. Iraqis are the most generous people on Earth. They are magnanimous people.”

Al-Mutannabi Street in Baghdad is a well-known book market there, which offers evidence to the academic and intellectual impact of embargo. Half a mile long, lined on both sides of the street with books ranging from 1980s computer manuals to linguistics textbooks to copies of the Qu’ran, the book market demonstrates the impact on the educated class through a persistent starvation of minds and deprivation of information.

The street is lined with children peddling comic books and middle-aged men selling novels, manuals and movie posters. The children ought to be in school and the men ought to be working in their professional capacities. Fifty-year-old shoe shiners were at one time physics professors. Taxi drivers were electrical engineers.

Since it is illegal to send anything weighing more than 12 ounces to Iraq through the U.S. Postal Service, medical textbooks and other professional journals cannot be sent. None of the books I saw was published later than 1989.

That hot day on Aug. 3, 2001, I met Matti’s brother Gassan selling books on Al-Mutannabi Street. Through a translator, he asked where I live. When I replied that I live near Los Angeles, his face lit up. “Please call my brother when you get back home,” he implored. “Tell him I am well! Tell him our mother is well! Tell him how I look; you see I look well, right? I have not seen him in more than 20 years!”

One of the few promises I can make to the Iraqis I met last summer is that upon my return, I will tell their stories to as many people as will listen. Upon returning to the United States, I called and subsequently met Zuhair Matti, fulfilling Gassan’s wish.

“You are a nice young woman, Leah,” Matti tells me. “Thank you for what you are doing for my people.” His gratitude surprises me, yet marks a quintessentially Arab sentiment that for however good you are to someone, the goodness will be returned tenfold to you.

Perhaps Zuhair Matti will be able to travel to Iraq, whether or not he violates the inhumane sanctions that divide families and isolate the Fertile Crescent from the rest of civilization. Perhaps he will see his aging mother before she passes away. He says that the most important thing is “to judge a person based on how nice he is,” and how important it is to have diverse friends. He believes that people are good, regardless of race and ethnicity.

Perhaps if more Americans knew Iraqis like Zuhair Matti, we would not be so quick to condemn all Iraqis to a slow death via sanctions or an even more expedient death in a new war.

Precarious situation

Prior to 1990, Iraq was deemed an emerging first-world country by the United Nations. The oil empire had brought Iraqi citizens great wealth and a prosperous society that boasted free medical care for every citizen as well as free education up through university. In many ways, the standard of living in Iraq once was comparable to middle-class American life.

Because of the sanctions, no currency flows in or out of Iraq. Any financial transactions must be approved by the Sanctions Committee 661 at the United Nations in New York. It is illegal to wire money from the United States — or anywhere else — to family inside Iraq’s borders. All goods and funds entering or leaving Iraq must have the approval of the five permanent members of the Security Council whose representatives sit on the 661 Committee. The economy has been at a standstill for 11 years, targeting the civilian population while a powerful few score illegal contracts to smuggle oil out of the country.

Yet for most Iraqis in 2002, many of the basic health and household amenities are far out of reach. Prior to the Gulf War in 1991, the transfer rate of dinar:dollars was 3:1. Now the transfer rate soars at nearly 2,000 dinar to $1, effectively stripping the average, middle-class Iraqis of any meaningful purchasing power.

During a visit to a pharmacy in Baghdad, I learned that only the wealthiest private sector can afford higher-quality toothpaste, costing 1,250 dinar (71 cents). The rest of the population buys lower-quality toothpaste at 250 dinar (14 cents). Prior to 1990, diapers cost 18 dinar and were widely used throughout Iraq. A box of 10 diapers in August 2001 cost between 2,000 to 4,000 dinar ($1.14 to $2.29). One bottle of shampoo costs 1,500 dinar, or $1.86.

An average salary in Iraq is roughly 5,000 dinar per month. The Iraqi government, dominated by the Ba’ath party, employs many people — doctors, teachers, engineers and other civil servants. Prior to the Gulf War, teachers in Iraq earned the equivalent of $300 to $400 per month. They now earn the equivalent of $3 to $4 per month.

Health care has gained a price tag as well in Iraq. Once-affordable medicines like aspirin are too expensive for people to buy now. Ibuprofen and vitamins cost 200 dinar each (11 cents) for 10 tablets. Twelve capsules of Erythromyacin, an antibiotic, cost 500 dinar (29 cents). Some health-care and household items are available in Iraq and to a certain extent are available to the general public. But, families must spend their money only on necessities such as rent and food rather than on aspirin and cough syrup or trips to the hospital.

Iraqi families finding themselves in financially precarious situations often take their children out of school and send them to beg, steal, peddle candy or cigarettes or shine shoes. I spent a great deal of time with Achmed and Saif, 13 and 12, respectively, who shined our shoes every day for 750 dinar, less than 50 cents. They arrived at our hotel long before we awoke and stayed until late at night.

Because of the devaluation of the dinar, often only one child per family will be able to attend school due to the cost of supplies such as books, shoes and clothes. A remarkable increase in both depression and juvenile delinquency has occurred in Iraq in the past 11 years. One 10-year-old boy had been sent by his father to sell cigarettes on the street to increase the family’s income rather than attend school. Many customers took advantage of his naivete, taking cigarettes and promising to return with payment later. At the end of the day, when the boy had no cigarettes and no money to show, his father scolded him and sent him to bed with no dinner. This young boy went to his room, wrapped himself in towels and set himself on fire.

Once-rare crimes like theft and vandalism are now more commonplace among the young, and because the onset of social problems only began within the last 11 years, state-supported social services have only a feeble infrastructure to deal with the ever-expanding magnitude of these issues.

Desperation and poverty have contributed to a breakdown in family structure and support. The hopelessness for a better future pervades the culture of Iraq, especially among the youth. Their scholastic apathy shows a scary trend signifying their awareness of their dim future. Regardless of how hard they study in school, they know they do not have promising prospects.

We must not allow Iraqis to take steps backward toward enforced child labor, divestment from quality education and further poverty. Justice and peace for Iraqis mean that they must have a sense of economic mobility and stability in their society.
*Leah C. Wells of Santa Paula serves as peace education coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. She also teaches at local high schools.

August 12, 2002