Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: Nobel Peace Prize

  • Nobel Peace Prize for 2015

    “An encouragement to the Tunisian people” is fine, but Nobel had a much greater perspective. Indisputable evidence shows that he intended his prize to support a visionary reorganization of international affairs. The language in his will is a clear confirmation of this, says Tomas Magnusson of Sweden, on behalf of Nobel Peace Prize Watch. The committee continues reading the expressions of the testament as they like, instead of studying what type of “champions of peace” and what peace ideas Nobel had in mind signing his will on November 27, 1895. In February 2015, the Nobel Peace Prize Watch lifted the secrecy around the selection process when it published a list of 25 qualified candidates with the full nomination letters. By its choice of the Tunisian quartet for 2015, the Nobel committee has rejected the list and, again, is clearly outside the circle of recipients Nobel had in mind.

    In addition to not understanding the least bit of Nobel’s idea, the committee in Oslo has not understood the new situation in the committee’s relation to its principals in Stockholm, continues Tomas Magnusson. We must understand that the whole world today is under occupation, even our brains have become militarized to a degree where it is hard for people to imagine the alternative, demilitarized world that Nobel wished his prize to promote as a mandatory urgency. Nobel was a man of the world, able to transcend the national perspective and think of what would be best for the world as a whole. We have plenty for everyone´s needs on this green planet if the nations of the world could only learn to co-operate and stop wasting precious resources on the military.

    The members of the Board of the Nobel Foundation risk personal liability if a prize amount is paid over to the winner in violation of the purpose. As late as three weeks ago seven members of the Foundation’s Board were hit by initial steps in a lawsuit demanding that they repay to the Foundation the prize paid to the EU in December 2012. Among the plaintiffs are Mairead Maguire of Northern Ireland, a Nobel laureate; David Swanson, USA; Jan Oberg, Sweden, and the Nobel Peace Prize Watch (nobelwill.org). The lawsuit follows after a Norwegian attempt to regain the ultimate control of the peace prize was finally turned down by the Swedish Chamber Court in May 2014.

  • NAPF Congratulates Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) congratulates the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for receiving the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.

    OPCW is the body that enforces the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty that prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons. Since the Convention came into force in 1997, it has been ratified by 189 states and the OPCW has conducted more than 5,000 inspections in 86 countries. According to its statistics, 81.1 percent of the world’s declared stockpile of chemical agents has been verifiably destroyed.

    Syria is due to become the 190th member state to join the Chemical Weapons Convention on October 14, 2013. OPCW is the organization responsible for destroying its stockpiles of chemical weapons.

    Thorbjoern Jagland, the head of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, said in his announcement of this year’s peace laureate that the award is a reminder to other nations, including the United States and Russia, to eliminate their own stockpiles of chemical weapons, “especially because they are demanding that others do the same, like Syria.”  He added, “We now have the opportunity to get rid of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction… That would be a great event in history if we could achieve that.”

    The Norwegian Nobel Committee said, “The conventions and the work of the OPCW have defined the use of chemical weapons as a taboo under international law.” It also stated, “Disarmament figures prominently in Alfred Nobel’s will. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has through numerous prizes underlined the need to do away with nuclear weapons. By means of the present award to the OPCW, the Committee is seeking to contribute to the elimination of chemical weapons.”

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s vision is a just and peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons. The implementation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, which would make the manufacture, testing, possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons illegal under international law, would build on and expand what the OPCW has accomplished in enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention, making the world a safer place.

  • Ending Nuclear Evil

    Archbishop Desmond TutuEliminating nuclear weapons is the democratic wish of the world’s people. Yet no nuclear-armed country currently appears to be preparing for a future without these terrifying devices. In fact, all are squandering billions of dollars on modernization of their nuclear forces, making a mockery of United Nations disarmament pledges. If we allow this madness to continue, the eventual use of these instruments of terror seems all but inevitable.


    The nuclear power crisis at Japan’s Fukushima power plant has served as a dreadful reminder that events thought unlikely can and do happen. It has taken a tragedy of great proportions to prompt some leaders to act to avoid similar calamities at nuclear reactors elsewhere in the world. But it must not take another Hiroshima or Nagasaki – or an even greater disaster – before they finally wake up and recognize the urgent necessity of nuclear disarmament.


    This week, the foreign ministers of five nuclear-armed countries – the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China – will meet in Paris to discuss progress in implementing the nuclear-disarmament commitments that they made at last year’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference. It will be a test of their resolve to transform the vision of a future free of nuclear arms into reality.


    If they are serious about preventing the spread of these monstrous weapons – and averting their use – they will work energetically and expeditiously to eliminate them completely. One standard must apply to all countries: zero. Nuclear arms are wicked, regardless of who possesses them. The unspeakable human suffering that they inflict is the same whatever flag they may bear. So long as these weapons exist, the threat of their use – either by accident or through an act of sheer madness – will remain.


    We must not tolerate a system of nuclear apartheid, in which it is considered legitimate for some states to possess nuclear arms but patently unacceptable for others to seek to acquire them. Such a double standard is no basis for peace and security in the world. The NPT is not a license for the five original nuclear powers to cling to these weapons indefinitely. The International Court of Justice has affirmed that they are legally obliged to negotiate in good faith for the complete elimination of their nuclear forces.


    The New START agreement between the US and Russia, while a step in the right direction, will only skim the surface off the former Cold War foes’ bloated nuclear arsenals – which account for 95% of the global total. Furthermore, these and other countries’ modernization activities cannot be reconciled with their professed support for a world free of nuclear weapons.


    It is deeply troubling that the US has allocated $185 billion to augment its nuclear stockpile over the next decade, on top of the ordinary annual nuclear-weapons budget of more than $50 billion. Just as unsettling is the Pentagon’s push for the development of nuclear-armed drones – H-bombs deliverable by remote control.


    Russia, too, has unveiled a massive nuclear-weapons modernization plan, which includes the deployment of various new delivery systems. British politicians, meanwhile, are seeking to renew their navy’s aging fleet of Trident submarines – at an estimated cost of £76 billion ($121 billion). In doing so, they are passing up an historic opportunity to take the lead on nuclear disarmament.


    Every dollar invested in bolstering a country’s nuclear arsenal is a diversion of resources from its schools, hospitals, and other social services, and a theft from the millions around the globe who go hungry or are denied access to basic medicines. Instead of investing in weapons of mass annihilation, governments must allocate resources towards meeting human needs.


    The only obstacle we face in abolishing nuclear weapons is a lack of political will, which can – and must – be overcome. Two-thirds of UN member states have called for a nuclear-weapons convention similar to existing treaties banning other categories of particularly inhumane and indiscriminate weapons, from biological and chemical arms to anti-personnel land mines and cluster munitions. Such a treaty is feasible and must be urgently pursued.


    It is true that nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented, but that does not mean that nuclear disarmament is an impossible dream. My own country, South Africa, gave up its nuclear arsenal in the 1990’s, realizing it was better off without these weapons. Around the same time, the newly independent states of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine voluntarily relinquished their nuclear arms, and then joined the NPT. Other countries have abandoned nuclear-weapons programs, recognizing that nothing good could possibly come from them. Global stockpiles have dropped from 68,000 warheads at the height of the Cold War to 20,000 today.


    In time, every government will come to accept the basic inhumanity of threatening to obliterate entire cities with nuclear weapons. They will work to achieve a world in which such weapons are no more – where the rule of law, not the rule of force, reigns supreme, and cooperation is seen as the best guarantor of international peace. But such a world will be possible only if people everywhere rise up and challenge the nuclear madness.

  • State Violence and Killing Is Not the Answer

    OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, NOBEL PEACE LAUREATE
    PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
    FROM:  MAIREAD CORRIGAN MAGUIRE, NOBEL PEACE LAUREATE.
    20th JUNE 20ll.


    DEAR MR. PRESIDENT,


    ‘STATE VIOLENCE & KILLING IS NOT THE ANSWER’


    Mairead MaguireAs you know, on lst May, 20ll, the NATO forces tried unsuccessfully to assassinate the Libyan Head of State, Moammer Gadaffi.  This attempt to assassinate the Libyan Head of State under US Army law, was a war crime and punishable as an International crime in its own right. During the attack by NATO forces one of President Gadaffi’s sons, and three of Gadaffi’s grandchildren were killed by NATO forces.


    The following day, 2nd May 20ll, the extra-judicial killing and assassination of Osama Bin Laden, and killings of a woman and two men who were with him, by the US Navy SEALs, continued the State Terrorism of the US Government. After the assassination you, Mr. President, addressed the media and attempted to make acceptable the idea that such violence is just and acceptable. Do you and your Government and Allies who support you, really believe that the vast majority of men and women around the world have lost all sense of what is right and what is wrong?  Do you really believe that we have all abandoned all sense of decency and ethical values exchanging them in support of your endorsed illegal, killing of unarmed civilians?  Do you really believe we will all remain silent whilst under your warrior leadership the US Government and its allies dismantle basic human rights and international laws, so long fought for by brave, courageous men and women (including Americans) replacing these with extrajudicial killings, torture and assassinations?


    Three months into the French, English, Italian led NATO/US campaign (never sanctioned by US Law) and shamefully agreed by U.N. (who identified the purpose of the operation to be for the protection of citizens!) people of conscience are horrified to hear that, yet again, on l9th June, NATO has carried out more air attacks on Libya, killing 15 unarmed civilians, including women and children.


    After 9/ll the whole world shared the grief of the American people, and many hoped that those who carried out such horrendous acts would be brought to justice through the Courts. We were moved by many of the families who lost loved ones on 9/ll when they started ‘Families for a peaceful tomorrow’ and called for justice not revenge. However, violence and revenge was the chosen path of the US Government and its Allies, who for ten years embarked on a path of violence and war.  In this time over 6,000 USA soldiers have needlessly died and countless thousands injured physically and mentally.  Wars in Iraq (over l million Iraqis killed) and Afghanistan (over 50,000 Afghans killed) were carried out by the US in their pursuit of vengeance.  The US-led so-called ‘war on terrorism’ in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan has ‘terrorised’ unarmed civilians by carrying out aerial bombardments, night raids, death squads, extra-judicial killings and drone attacks killing many unarmed civilians, including women and children, and tragically they continue to this day.


    In a world struggling to birth a new consciousness, it is not incredulous that the best the US Government, NATO and its allies can offer as a model to world citizens, is the outdated example of violence, militarism,  and war, destroying humans and their environment?


    I believe real change and leadership is coming from the people’s movements and what is happening around the world amongst the masses of extra-ordinary men and women rising up, mostly peacefully and non-violently, in country after country for human dignity, equality, freedom and democracy and against violence, oppression, injustice and war, is the real force for change. We all take great hope and inspiration from the ‘Arab Spring’ and join in solidarity with our courageous Arab brothers and sisters in working for change.


    A new dawn, a new age of civilization is coming. It will be an age of solidarity, of each person dedicated to ‘protective love’ of each other and our World. It will be an age of nonviolent evolution which shows we can solve our problems as the human family by peaceful means not by violence, nuclear weapons and war.


    The peoples of the world are sending a clear message to you Mr. President, to NATO, and all our Governments, and armed opposition groups, that there will be no military solutions to these ethnic/political/economic problems, but only through ending occupations (USA -Iraq/Afghanistan,   Israel/Palestine) declaring ceasefires (Libya, etc.,) and entering into dialogue and negotiations with all parties to the conflicts, can we begin to solve these problems, the roots of which are inequality and injustice.


    Mr. President, you came into office promising change and gave the world hope. You lit the passion in the hearts of many men and women longing for change, for dialogue and negotiation, to move beyond destructive militarism, nuclear weapons and war. That passion remains in the heart of humanity as can be seen in the mass nonviolent movements for social and political change taking place around the world. Will you, Mr. President, take this great opportunity in human history and help lead ,the world to a new beginning, so we can in the words of the late President John F. Kennedy ‘begin again the quest for peace?’ 


    Yours in Peace,  


    Mairead Corrigan Maguire
    (Nobel Peace Laureate)

  • The Case for a Group Nobel Peace Prize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s Global Survivors

    This article was originally published on the blog of Akio Matsumura.


    The survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki–a group that represents not just Japan but many nations–carry memories invaluable to bridging the gap between violence and peace.  Their stories as the sole witnesses and survivors of nuclear weapons used as an act of war are the most powerful deterrent to future nuclear war.  There is not much time to carry their message forward; the bombings were many decades ago. The group and its message are fading.


    Historically, the Nobel Peace Prize has only been awarded to an institution or an individual, precluding groups from winning the Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Committee should adjust its policies and bring renewed attention to the atrocities of nuclear weapons by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s global survivors.    


    The Grave Issue of Nuclear Security


    You wouldn’t have to be a betting man to say that nuclear security has been synonymous with international security for the past seven decades.  Today, other pressing concerns have crowded the top of the agenda, but nuclear security holds its weight among them.  The US Congress just passed the New START agreement to reduce nuclear stockpiles.  The international community is concerned with developments of programs and testing in several countries, including Iran and North Korea.  And the threat of proliferation among terrorists, especially in Pakistan, has the United States and other governments in panic.  Much of the world’s violent conflict directly relates to the perception of nuclear instability in South Asia and the Middle East.  While there are many safeguards in place to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation or attack, such an important issue deserves to be viewed from several perspectives.


    I am Japanese, and the two atomic bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—on August 6 and 9, 1945—have played a special role in my life.  I have spent much time investigating the horrific disaster, from watching documentary films of survivor stories and political movements against the atomic bomb to talking with survivors, politicians, and religious figures.


    Piecing the Puzzle Together


    Such a polarizing global event has many facets, and to gain a full perspective one must be able to see them all.  Because I worked at the UN and other international organizations for three decades, I was able to hear another side—the perspectives of those who suffered Japanese military aggression in China, Korea, the Philippines, and Dutch-Indonesians.


    Just as important a perspective came from the Americans who believe that dropping the atom bombs, while tragic, ended the war early and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.


    To be sure, the American use of the atom bomb in 1945 against the Japanese was terrible. Tens of thousands died instantly upon explosion, and many more died from radiation in the ensuing years.  The cities were razed.  But the memory has taken an enormous toll on the survivors, both the victims and the assailants.  How does one rebuild a country and life after such devastation?


    What about those who were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki in early August 1945 and managed to survive the explosions? Surely those who had lived through such carnage were unforgiving and resentful.  Understandably, many are.   But I was convinced that there was a different story.  I asked Mr. Tadayuki Takeda, a Hiroshima native and a friend from university, to help me find a new story: was there a victim who could transform that violent act into a promotion of peace?


    A Fresh Perspective


    In December 2006 I flew to Hiroshima to meet with Mr. Yuuki Yoshida, a victim of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. His story is incredible, but his outlook is more so.  Mr. Yoshida’s duty as a survivor, in his words, is to share his story and instill the great fear that nuclear weapons deserve.  His goal is to make sure the disaster of August 1945, the use of atomic or nuclear weapons, never occurs again. His message, along with those of the other remaining survivors, is invaluable for this purpose.
    Mr. Yoshida, who is 79 years old and has been crippled by Polio since birth, miraculously escaped death when the atomic bomb exploded over the city of Hiroshima.  His younger brother died two weeks later, and his eldest sister narrowly survived after undergoing more than a dozen operations.  She gave birth to a son after fifteen years despite strong worries about radiation.  (Her son, Mr. Kazufumi Yamashita, studied in Berlin under the guidance of the famous conductor Mr. Herbert von Karajan and has become one of the most popular conductors in Japan.)


    Mr. Yoshida and his family are Japanese but have a surprising background.  Mr. Yoshida’s mother was American.  Born in Hawaii, she moved to Hiroshima before World War II and gave birth to her children there.  In 2008 Mr. Yoshida moved to Luzon, Philippines, to honor those who died there at the hands of the Japanese military.


    Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s Global Survivors


    It had always been my impression that the victims of the atomic bombs were Japanese. But, after hearing of Mr. Yoshida’s American mother, I have since learned that the United States didn’t just bomb the Japanese in August 1945, but also citizens of China, Korea, the United States, the Philippines, the Netherlands, and Brazil—perhaps even many other countries.  There were survivors from all of these nations as well.  I had completely missed this perspective.  Survivors from all countries are carrying forth their story to deter future nuclear disasters.  This global memory is a bridge from suffering to peace that we cannot lose.


    When I learned of the survivors from across the world, I thought perhaps there were other nuclear cases I should consider.  Were there other atomic weapons survivors to be included this message? How do victims of the 1986 Chernobyl accident, and other nuclear energy accidents, fit in with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims?  What about the victims of nuclear bomb tests in Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and other countries?


    In 2007 I visited Moscow to attend a conference chaired by my old friend, Dr. Evgeny Velikhov, former vice president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and oversaw the cleanup of the Chernobyl disaster.


    He made it very clear to me that Chernobyl was caused by human error.  An accident from the use of nuclear energy is tragic, but very different from the malicious and purposeful destruction of two cities.  He also told me that, although there were many victims of the bomb tests—especially many indigenous people in Nevada—they were not killed in an act of war, so their situation is not directly comparable to that of the survivors in Japan.


    Carrying Their Message Forward with the Nobel Peace Prize


    All survivors from so many nations have suffered so much and yet have demonstrated to society that we should provide a peaceful life for our children without hateful attitudes. The survivors are getting old and we could not have learned the valuable lessons they share if they had not continued to live or if they did not make such extraordinary efforts to live longer in order to pass their message on to us. I fear that they have little time left with us to continue sharing their message, and that we should work now to make sure it is known as widely as possible.


    How can we recognize their lofty mission and express our gratitude for their efforts to bridge hatred and create a peace that has its foundation in the non-use of nuclear weapons?


    Time Magazine named “YOU” as 2006’s Person of the Year.  What a powerful message. We each have the power to shape world.   If all of the atomic bomb survivors were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as a group, the impact of their message would reach new heights and the Committee would establish a new precedent in who—a group, not just an individual or institution—could receive the prize. And what better way to honor Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s global survivors’ great push for peace while bringing a powerful but fading message to the forefront of public consciousness?


    A copy of Nobel Peace Prize award and its citation would be presented to each survivor by governors or mayors in countries of Japan, America, China, Korea, Philippines, Netherlands, Brazil and any other countries with survivors. I have no doubt that such an occasion would promote a position that is against nuclear weapons in a non-political manner and do much for reducing violence and the serious nuclear threat we face.


    The epitaph carved into the stone coffin at the Hiroshima City Peace Memorial reads:


            “Let all souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the evils.”


    We the world have a moral obligation to pass the torch of positive force on to the next generations so that they may partake in our wisdom, not just our mistakes.  The survivors and victims of the atomic bombs have sacrificed much to pass on this torch.  By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to all of the atomic bombs’ survivors–a group from many nations–the Nobel Peace Committee would honor a generation devoted to creating peace rather than resenting harm, as well as underscore its commitment to stopping these evils from reoccurring.


    Response from Bill Wickersham


    I have recently read your very compelling article “The Powerful and Fading Message of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s Global Survivors:  The Case for a Group Nobel Prize.” As a long time professor of peace studies, and one who has promoted nuclear disarmament for almost 50 years, I think your blog and Nobel Peace Prize campaign are very critical elements for the promotion of a worldwide movement for the abolition of nuclear weapons from Planet Earth.


    Over the years, my sub-specialty in educational psychology and peace studies has been the problem of social and psychological obstacles which hinder personal, group, national and international efforts to mobilize public demand for the elimination of the omnicidal threat.  Unfortunately, those obstacles, including ignorance, denial and apathy, have blocked most such mobilization, with the possible exception of the worldwide ” Nuclear Freeze ” movement of the 1980s, which was aimed more at arms control than truly deep cuts and abolition of nuclear weapons.


    Historically, hundreds of fine non-governmental organizations have provided excellent research, information and program/action recommendations aimed at citizen involvement on behalf of nuclear disarmament.  In so doing, the NGOs have provided essential data for the “head” but, in large measure, have failed to truly reach the “heart”  of their audiences in a way that strongly moves people to action.


    One major exception to this failing was the project initiated by my former boss, noted editor and peace advocate, the late Norman Cousins, who in 1955, brought 25 young female Japanese A-bomb survivors to the United States for plastic surgery, other medical treatment, and meetings with prominent U.S. leaders and other U.S. citizens.  The medical care was donated by New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital, and involved 125 operations on the women, rebuilding lips, noses, hands, and eyelids, thus allowing them a promising future. Other expenses were covered by the Quakers and other donors.  This project was important for two reasons.  It was a fine example of human reconciliation, and it also helped many Americans to concretely FEEL and understand the real human price of nuclear war.  The problem was no longer an abstraction for the Americans who met with, and interacted with the young Japanese women.  Philosopher Jean Paul Sartre has noted that the biggest crime of our time is to make that which is concrete into something that is abstract. And, of course, this is a major roadblock of the whole issue of nuclear extinction without representation.  It is the ultimate abstraction for many people.  Norman’s project overcame this obstacle, and for a brief period, his project stimulated several U.S. NGOs to step up their organizing efforts for nuclear disarmament.  It is unfortunate that he did not have a blog such as yours to reach the hearts of people everywhere.


    In the past few years, our Missouri University Nuclear Disarmament Education Team (MUNDET), other elements of our peace studies program and our Mid-Missouri chapter of Veterans for Peace, have used films and photographic exhibits of the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to reach the emotional core of our students, civic and faith groups, and other audiences.  We have found this approach to be very effective in terms of attitude change on the part of most participants.  We, like you, have steered clear of the U.S assailant/Japanese victim theme and “blame game” approach, and have instead stressed the incredible danger and insanity of the nuclear deterrence myth.


    Children and adults around the world are frequently taught that we must learn the lessons of history so we will not repeat the repeat the mistakes of the past.  This is precisely the approach you are so skillfully offering with your very attractive website, blog and carefully crafted campaign for the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, including several from countries other than Japan who were residents in those cities at the time of the atomic bombings. Their history and voices of reconciliation are truly the most important messages required by the human species if it is to survive the nuclear madness. Consequently, that history and their voices must not be allowed to fade away.


    It is my sincere hope that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee will accept your proposal for a group prize arrangement for the A-bomb survivors.  I believe such an arrangement could be a triggering mechanism for widespread mobilization of citizens everywhere on behalf of nuclear weapons abolition.  If there is any way that I and our MUNDET team may be of assistance in your campaign,  please let me know.

  • Nobel Summit: Final Declaration on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons

    The undersigned Nobel Peace Laureates and representatives of Nobel Peace Prize organizations, gathered in Hiroshima on November 12-14, 2010, after listening to the testimonies of the Hibakusha, have no doubt that the use of nuclear weapons against any people must be regarded as a crime against humanity and should henceforth be prohibited.

    We pay tribute to the courage and suffering of the Hibakusha who survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 and honour those that have dedicated their lives to teaching the rest of the world about the horrors of nuclear war. Like them, we pledge ourselves to work for a future committed to peace, justice and security without nuclear weapons and war.

    “Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity.” We strongly endorse this assessment by the International Committee of the Red Cross, three times recognised with the Nobel Peace Prize for its humanitarian work.

    Twenty-five years ago in Geneva, the leaders of the two largest nuclear powers declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” There has been some substantive progress since then. The agreements on intermediate range nuclear forces (INF); strategic arms reductions (START); and unilateral and bilateral initiatives on tactical nuclear weapons, have eliminated tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. We welcome the signing by the United States and Russia of the New START treaty and the consensus Nuclear Disarmament Action Plan that was adopted by the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.

    Nevertheless, there are still enough nuclear weapons to destroy life on Earth many times over. The proliferation of nuclear weapons and the possibility of their use for acts of terrorism are additional causes for deep concern. The threats posed by nuclear weapons did not disappear with the ending of the Cold War.

    Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented, but they can and must be outlawed, just as chemical and biological weapons, landmines and cluster munitions have been declared illegal. Nuclear weapons, the most inhumane threat of all, should likewise be outlawed in keeping with the 2010 NPT Review Conference final document, which reaffirmed “the need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law”.

    Efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons must proceed along with measures to strengthen international law, demilitarize international relations and political thinking and to address human and security needs. Nuclear deterrence, power projection and national prestige as arguments to justify acquiring and retaining nuclear weapons are totally outdated and must be rejected.

    We support the UN Secretary General’s five point proposal on nuclear disarmament and proposals by others to undertake work on a universal treaty to prohibit the use, development, production, stockpiling or transfer of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon technologies and components and to provide for their complete and verified elimination.

    • We call upon heads of government, parliaments, mayors and citizens to join us in affirming that the use of nuclear weapons is immoral and illegal.

    • We call for the ratification without delay of the START agreement by the United States and Russia and for follow-on negotiations for deeper cuts in all types of nuclear weapons.

    • We call on all nuclear weapon possessor states to make deep cuts in their existing arsenals.

    • We call on the relevant Governments to take urgent steps to implement the proposals agreed on in the 2010 NPT Review Conference Final Document towards realising the objectives of the 1995 resolution on the Middles East.

    • We call on China, the United States, Egypt, Iran, Israel and Indonesia to ratify, and on India, Pakistan and North Korea to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that has already been ratified by 153 nations so that the Treaty can be brought into full legal force.

    • We call on nations to negotiate an universal treaty to abolish nuclear weapons, in partnership with civil society

    To ensure that the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki never reoccur and to build a world based on cooperation and peace, we issue this call of conscience. We must all work together to achieve a common good that is practical, moral, legal and necessary – the abolition of nuclear weapons.

  • Mairead Maguire’s 10-Year Deportation from Israel

    Press Release – 8th October, 2010

    Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire was deported from Israel at 4 a.m., on Tuesday 5th October, 2010 and arrived back in Belfast later that afternoon. Maguire had arrived in Israel on Tuesday 27th September, to attend a Nobel Women’s Initiative visit, and support those working in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories – particularly women groups – for human rights and justice.

    On arrival she was detained in Ben Gurion Detention Centre, Tel Aviv. The Israeli security tried to forcefully deport Maguire the following day but she peacefully resisted sitting quietly on the tarmac beside the plane refusing to be forcefully deported. The KLM pilot refused to allow her to be forcefully taken on by Israeli guards, so she was taken back into detention, where she remained for seven days in solitary confinement under harsh conditions causing her to be hospitalized at the end of a week. During the seven days she had three court appearances to appeal her conviction of 10-year deportation from Israel.   

    At the Supreme Court appeal, Maguire spoke to the three judges saying that she loved the Israeli and Palestinian peoples and was saddened by their suffering. However, she insisted that peace will not come to Israel until the Israeli government end Apartheid. She also made in the Supreme Court an appeal, through the media, for the Israeli government to end apartheid and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.

    On arriving home Maguire said:

    “I am sorry to be deported for 10 years from Israel and have asked my attorney, Adalah, to challenge this order on my behalf, as I very much wish to return to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories to support all those working for change.   I do not feel I have been treated justly by the Israeli Court.  In June 2010, I and my colleagues on the “Rachel Corrie” boat were illegally hijacked in international waters by the Israeli navy, whilst trying to break the siege of Gaza and bring humanitarian aid to people suffering under illegal collective punishment by Israel.  I am not a criminal and ask, “How can I be deported from Israel when I had been taken at gunpoint and forced to come to Israel against my will in June, 2010?” I wish the three Supreme Court judges had been braver and upheld their proposal to the Israeli state prosecution that I be allowed to stay for a few days and join the NWI. However, they showed how little independence the Israeli judiciary have, and obeyed the Israeli security authorities that were determined to uphold my 10-year deportation from Israel, a form of silencing those who are critical of Israeli policies.

    “Sadly also, the Israeli media were very selective and negative regarding me, carrying misrepresentations such as reporting that I was in a plane and shouting and creating a scene, clearly Israeli propaganda against me. In truth I went to Israel in good faith, with nothing but love for Israelis and Palestinians, and wishing a good future for both peoples to live in justice and peace.   Being a voice critical of the Israeli government policies does not make me an enemy of Israel or her people, but an upholder of an ethic of human rights and nonviolence, and a believer that peace is possible between both peoples when justice reigns. It is my sincere hope that I can return to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories to meet my friends soon again.”

  • It’s Time to Rid the World of Nuclear Weapons

    This article was originally published by the Sunday Observer (UK)

    This year the nuclear bomb turns 65 – an appropriate age, by international standards, for compulsory retirement. But do our leaders have the courage and wisdom to rid the planet of this ultimate menace? The five-yearly review of the ailing nuclear non-proliferation treaty, currently under way at the United Nations in New York, will test the strength of governments’ commitment to a nuclear-weapon-free world.

    If they are serious about realising this vision, they will work now to shift the focus from the failed policy of nuclear arms control, which assumes that a select few states can be trusted with these weapons, to nuclear abolition. Just as we have outlawed other categories of particularly inhuman and indiscriminate weapons – from biological and chemical agents to anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions – we must now turn our attention to outlawing the most iniquitous weapons of all.

    Gains in nuclear disarmament to date have come much too slowly. More than 23,000 nuclear arms remain in global stockpiles, breeding enmity and mistrust among nations, and casting a shadow over us all. None of the nuclear-armed countries appears to be preparing for a future without these terrifying devices. Their failure to disarm has spurred nuclear proliferation, and will continue to destabilise the planet unless we radically alter our trajectory now. Forty years after the NPT entered into force, we should seriously question whether we are on track to abolition.

    Disarmament is not an option for governments to take up or ignore. It is a moral duty owed by them to their own citizens, and to humanity as a whole. We must not await another Hiroshima or Nagasaki before finally mustering the political will to banish these weapons from global arsenals. Governments should agree at this NPT review conference to toss their nuclear arms into the dustbin of history, along with those other monstrous evils of our time – slavery and apartheid.

    Sceptics tell us, and have told us for many years, that we are wasting our time pursuing the dream of a world without nuclear weapons, as it can never be realised. But more than a few people said the same about ending entrenched racial segregation in South Africa and abolishing slavery in the United States. Often they had a perceived interest in maintaining the status quo. Systems and policies that devalue human life, and deprive us all of our right to live in peace with each other, are rarely able to withstand the pressure created by a highly organised public that is determined to see change.

    The most obvious and realistic path to a nuclear-weapon-free world is for nations to negotiate a legally binding ban, which would include a timeline for elimination and establish an institutional framework to ensure compliance. Two-thirds of all governments have called for such a treaty, known as a nuclear weapons convention, and UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has voiced his support for the idea. Only the nuclear weapon states and Nato members are holding us back.

    Successful efforts to prohibit other classes of weapons provide evidence that, where there is political momentum and widespread popular support, obstacles which may at first appear insurmountable can very often be torn down. Nuclear abolition is the democratic wish of the world’s people, and has been our goal almost since the dawn of the atomic age. Together, we have the power to decide whether the nuclear era ends in a bang or worldwide celebration.

    Last April in the Czech capital, Prague, President Barack Obama announced that the United States would seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, but he warned that nations probably would not eliminate their arsenals in his lifetime. I am three decades older than the US president, yet I am confident that both of us will live to see the day when the last nuclear weapon is dismantled. We just need to think outside the bomb.

  • Opportunity Lost: Obama in Oslo

    This article was originally published by Consortium News

    Whether
    Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize is not the point. He didn’t. The
    fact is he got it, and was gifted with the chance of a lifetime to make
    a classic speech on the politics of peace-making, a speech that in the
    glare of Nobel could have attained instant biblical standing.

    He failed miserably, producing a hodge-podge that resembled the work of a bright but undisciplined sophomore.

    He hoisted his petard on the classical
    “just war theory,” a theory that, properly understood, condemns his
    decision to send yet more kill-power into Afghanistan.

    This theory which is much misused and
    little understood is designed to build a wall of assumptions against
    state-sponsored violence, i.e. war. It puts the burden of proof on the
    warrior where it belongs.

    It gives six conditions necessary to justify a war. Fail one, and the war is immoral. The six are:

    (1) A just cause.
    The only just cause is defense against an attack, not a preemptive
    attack on those who might someday attack us. Obama flunked this one,
    saying our current military actions are “to defend ourselves and all
    nations from further [i.e. future] attacks.” President Bush speaks here
    through the mouth of President Obama.

    (2) Declaration by competent authority:
    Article one Section 8 of the Constitution which gives this power to the
    Congress has not been used since 1941. Congressional resolutions
    instead yield the power to the President.

    Obama: “I am
    responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to
    battle in a distant land.” Sorry. Not according to the Constitution.

    On top of that we are bound by treaty to
    the United Nations Charter. Article 2, Section 4 prohibits recourse to
    military force except in circumstances of self-defense which was
    restricted to responses to a prior “armed attack” (Article 51), and
    only then until the Security Council had the chance to review the
    claim.

    Obama fails twice on proper declaration
    of war. He violates the UN Charter by claiming the right to act
    “unilaterally” and “individually.” Again, faithful echoes of President
    Bush.

    (3) Right intention: This means that there is reasonable surety that the war will succeed in serving justice and making a way to real peace.

    Right intention is befouled by excessive
    secrecy, by putting the burdens of the war on the poor or future
    generations, by denying the right to conscientious object to soldiers
    who happen to know most of what is going on, and by a failure to
    understand the enemy’s grievances.

    Obama declares gratuitously:
    “Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their
    arms.” So all we can do is send soldiers to kill them? Really? What
    negotiations have been tried to find out why they hate us and not
    Sweden, or Argentina, or China?

    A pause for reflection might show that
    those and other countries are not bombing and killing civilians in
    three Muslim countries simultaneously. That could generate a little
    resentment. None of those countries not targeted by al Qaeda are
    financing Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands in violation
    of UN resolutions.

    The processes of negotiation allow light to shine in dark corners. Realpolitik eschews the light.

    (4) The principle of discrimination, or non-combatant immunity.
    The science of war has made this condition so unachievable that only
    the policing paradigm envisioned by the UN Charter could ever justify
    state-sponsored violence.

    Police operate within the constraints of
    law, as a communitarian effort, with oversight and follow-up review to
    prevent undue violence. Obama’s allusion to “42 other countries”
    joining in our violent work in Afghanistan and Iraq mocks the true
    intent of the collective action envisioned by the UN under supervision
    of the Security Council.

    It is a mere disguise for our vigilante adventurism.

    (5) Last resort.
    If state-sponsored violence is not the last resort we stand morally
    with hoodlums who would solve problems by murder. Obama fails to see
    that modern warfare, including counterinsurgency, is not the last or
    best resort against an enemy that has four unmatchable advantages:
    invisibility, versatility, patience, and the ability to find safe haven
    anywhere.

    The idea of a single geographic safe haven
    is a myth and an anachronism reflecting the age of whole armies
    mobilizing in a definable locus.

    Obama’s speech showed no appreciation of
    the alternative of peace-making. A Department of Peace (which would be
    a better name for a revitalized and better-funded State Department)
    would have as its goal to address in concert with other nations
    tensions as they begin to build.

    Neglected crises can explode eventually
    into violence. This is used to assert the inevitability of war when it
    is only an indictment of improvident statecraft.

    (6) The principle of proportionality: Put
    simply, the violence of war must do more good than harm. In judging war
    the impact on other nations and the environment must also be assessed
    in the balance sheet of good and bad results.

    This is a hard test for modern warriors to
    pass. Victory in war is an oxymoron. No one wins a war: one side may
    lose less and may spin that as victory. Obama’s faith in the benefits
    of warring in three Muslim countries is delusional.

    President Obama in Oslo was more a
    theologian than a statesman. He gave a condescending nod to nonviolent
    power but his theology of original sin tilted him toward violence as
    the surest and final arbiter for a fallen humanity.

    It is “a pity beyond all telling” that the
    “just war theory” he invoked condemns the warring policies he
    anomalously defended as he accepted the Nobel Prize for Peace.

  • The Nobel War Lecture

    In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, President Obama, one of the world’s great orators and purveyors of hope, gave a speech that must reflect the divisions within himself and his personal struggles to reconcile them.  It was a surprising speech for the occasion.  Rather than a speech of vision and hope, it was a speech that sought to justify war and particularly America’s wars.  The speech was largely an infomercial for war, touting not only its necessity but its virtues, and might well be thought of as the “Nobel War Lecture.”

    How troubling it is to see this man of hope bogged down by war, not only on the ground but in his mind.  As he put it, “I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars.”  One of these wars he seeks to end, but the other he has made his own by recently committing 30,000 additional troops and justifying it as “an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.”  The president persists despite his recognition that “[i]n today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflicts are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.” 

    Where was the vision that was so hopeful in Barack Obama the campaigner for the presidency?  Has a year in office reduced him to a “reality” from which he cannot raise his sights to envision a more peaceful future – one without war or Predator drone attacks, one in which international cooperation in intelligence gathering and law enforcement could bring terrorists to justice? 

    The president tells the world, “I did not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.”  This is certain.  He tells his audience, “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.  There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”    Perhaps his decision to bow to the generals and increase the US presence in the war in Afghanistan is weighing heavily on him.  Perhaps he seeks a way to find it both “necessary” and “morally justified.” 

    President Obama acknowledges his debt to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., leading proponents of nonviolence, but he cannot find a way to follow their example.  He finds instead that “as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone.”  From the lofty visions and practical actions of Gandhi and King, the president brings us down to earth, to his reality that in his position he is fated to carry on with war.  “So yes,” he tells us, “the instruments of war have a role to play in preserving the peace.”

    What does he offer in the stead of peace?  He argues that there must be standards governing the use of force.  Yes, this is long established, although not often adhered to.  One such standard is no use of force without the approval of the United Nations, except in self-defense to repel an imminent attack.  But America and its NATO allies often take war into their own hands, ignoring this rule of international law to which all states are bound.

    Having justified war, the president offers three paths to building “a just and lasting peace.”  First, he argues for “alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior.”  This makes sense so long as it is applied to all states equally without double standards.  Second, he argues that peace must be based upon human dignity and human rights.  Of course, this is so.  Of course, America should stand for human rights rather than torture and the worst abuse of all – aggressive war.  Third, he makes the point that a just and lasting peace must also be based upon freedom from want.  There is nothing to argue with here.  Why not use our resources to help eliminate poverty and hunger and expand education and healthcare throughout the world, rather than pour these resources into waging war?

    President Obama barely mentioned nuclear disarmament in his speech.  When he did, he reiterated his commitment to upholding the Non-Proliferation Treaty, calling it “a centerpiece” of his foreign policy.  He then moved quickly to pointing a finger at Iran and North Korea.  “Those who seek peace,” he said, “cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.”  He is right; no nation should arm itself for nuclear war, including the United States and the other eight nations that have already done so.

    The President might have built a strong, positive and hopeful speech on the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons, instruments of omnicide, but he chose instead to offer up a laundry list of reasons for war.  When it came to peace, his message, sadly, was No, we can’t.