Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: Nobel Peace Prize

  • Is It Just War?

    This article was originally published on the Waging Peace Today blog

    In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize today in Oslo, Norway, President Obama invoked the idea of “just war” to rationalize his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and the continued drone attacks against the people of Pakistan. The president rightly stated that certain criteria must be met for a war to be considered “just,” but did not proceed to examine his criteria as they relate to the wars he is continuing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    President Obama’s definition of a “just war,” according to his Nobel acceptance speech is a war that:

    1. Is waged as a last resort or in self-defense;
    2. Uses proportional force;
    3. Spares civilians from violence whenever possible.

    Even a cursory glance at this definition of a “just war” shows that what the US is doing in Afghanistan falls far short.

    Waged as a last resort or in self-defense

    This criterion was a stretch when the US invaded in 2001, but eight years later it’s downright silly. No other means of putting an end to this conflict have been reasonably attempted. Ongoing refusal by the United States to pursue a diplomatic solution through negotiations with the Taliban shows that this war has never been a “last resort.”

    Uses proportional force

    Since the 2001 invasion, the US Air Force has dropped around 31 million pounds of bombs on Afghanistan. There are countless examples of disproportionate force used, such as an aerial bombing raid in response to celebratory gunfire at a wedding.

    Spares civilians from violence whenever possible

    Sending drones to fire missiles at Pakistani villages, a strategy that has increased dramatically under President Obama’s watch, is a sure way to injure, traumatize and kill many civilians. In Afghanistan, estimates range from 12,000 to 32,000 civilians killed as a result of the current war. Over 200,000 are known to be living in Internally Displaced Persons camps in Afghanistan. With the upcoming escalation of US and NATO troops, deaths of both Afghan civilians and foreign troops are certain to rise.

    A war of choice with diplomacy “off the table” is not just. War is not peace, regardless of how you spin it.

  • Abolishing Nuclear Arms: It Can Be Done

    This article was originally published on CNN Opinion

    When President Obama called for a world free of nuclear weapons in Prague, Czech Republic, this spring, many dismissed this part of his speech as idealistic rhetoric.

    But the abolition of nuclear weapons is not an unrealistic fantasy. It is a practical necessity if the American people are to have a secure future. President Obama should use his Nobel speech this week to reaffirm his commitment to this essential and obtainable goal.

    It is essential because a world armed with nuclear weapons is simply too dangerous for us to countenance. Since the end of the Cold War we have tended to act as though the threat of nuclear war had gone away. It hasn’t. It is only our awareness of this danger that has faded. In fact, there are some 25,000 nuclear weapons in the world today; 95 percent of them are in the arsenals of the United States and Russia.

    Just this past weekend, the START treaty limiting the number of U.S. and Russian warheads expired. Negotiators in Geneva, Switzerland, have not yet been able to work out the details of a follow-up treaty.

    We must hope they will be able to agree to deep reductions. A recent study by Physicians for Social Responsibility showed that if only 300 of the weapons in the Russian arsenal attacked targets in American cities, 90 million people would die in the first half hour. A comparable U.S. attack on Russia would produce similar devastation.

    Further, these attacks would destroy the entire economic, communications and transportation infrastructure on which the rest of the population depends for survival. In the ensuing months the vast majority of people who survived the initial attacks in both countries would die of disease, exposure and starvation.

    The destruction of the United States and Russia would be only part of the story. An attack of this magnitude would lift millions of tons of soot and dust into the upper levels of the atmosphere, blocking out sunlight and dropping temperatures across the globe.

    In fact, if the entire Russian and U.S. strategic arsenals were involved in the fighting, average surface temperature worldwide would fall 10 degrees Centigrade to levels not seen on Earth since the depth of the last ice age 18,000 years ago.

    For three years there would not be a single day in the Northern Hemisphere free of frost. Agriculture would stop, ecosystems would collapse and many species, perhaps even our own, would become extinct. This is not just some theoretical scenario; it is a real and present danger.

    On January 25, 1995, we came within minutes of nuclear war when Russian military radar mistook a Norwegian-U.S. scientific rocket for a possible attack on Moscow. President Yeltsin, a man reportedly suffering from alcoholism and other major medical problems, was notified and given five minutes to decide how to respond.

    Then as now, both the United States and Russia maintained a policy of “launch on warning,” authorizing the launch of nuclear missiles when an enemy attack is believed to be under way. We don’t know exactly what happened in the Kremlin that morning, but someone decided not to launch Russian missiles and we did not have a nuclear war.

    January 25, 1995, was five years after the end of the Cold War. There were no unusual crises anywhere in the world that day. It was a relatively good day in a time much less dangerous than our own. And we almost blew up the world. That was 15 years ago and the United States and Russia still maintain more than 2,000 warheads on high alert ready to be launched in 15 minutes and to destroy each other’s cities 30 minutes later.

    Nuclear weapons are the only military threat from which U.S. armed forces cannot protect us. It is urgently in our national security interest to eliminate these instruments of mass annihilation from the arsenals of potential adversaries. If we have to get rid of our own nuclear weapons to achieve this, it is a deal well worth making.

    Make no mistake, the elimination of nuclear weapons is an attainable goal. These bombs are not some force of nature. They are the work of our hand. We built them and we can take them apart.

    Some governments falsely see these weapons as safeguards of their security. It will not be easy to convince them that true safety requires that we abolish them. Nor will it be easy to design the verification regime needed to assure that the weapons are dismantled and that no new weapons are built. Yet national security experts in the United States and around the world say that it can be done and it must be done.

    If politics is the art of the possible, then statesmanship is the art of the necessary. And if ever there was a time that cried out for statesmanship it is now.

    There are many important issues that demand our attention — health care reform, energy policy, creating more jobs — but none is as urgent as eliminating the threat of nuclear war.

  • What Should the President Say in Oslo?

    What Should the President Say in Oslo?

    President Obama will soon be traveling to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, one of the highest honors that can be bestowed upon an individual or organization. In Alfred Nobel’s will, he stated that the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who “during the preceding year…shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction or standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

    The president will be receiving the award while America remains engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to make drone incursions in a third country, Pakistan. While he seeks to disengage from the war in Iraq, he has recently announced his decision to expand the war in Afghanistan by sending an additional 30,000 American troops.

    Against this background, what might the president say in Oslo? He will, of course, have his own ideas, but here are some thoughts.

    First, acknowledge that militarism globally is making the world less secure for a majority of the inhabitants of the planet. The nearly $1.5 trillion spent for military purposes is taking food from the hungry, shelter from the homeless, healthcare from the impoverished, and education from hundreds of millions of the world’s children. He should pledge to reduce the military budget of the United States by half by the year 2015, and call upon other countries to do the same.

    Second, recognize the role of inequality in generating conflicts throughout the globe and pledge to use the savings from military budgets in the US to help meet the eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015, starting with dramatically reducing poverty and hunger and promoting education and health care.

    Third, call for major reductions in arms transfers that fuel wars throughout the world and pledge that the US will reduce its arms transfers by half by the year 2015.

    Fourth, reiterate his and America’s commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons, announcing new and urgent steps to reduce the reliance of the US on nuclear arms, including de-alerting the weapons currently on high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons, and convening the nine nuclear weapons states to begin negotiations on a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

    Fifth, recognize, as did Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, that the Nuclear Age demands not only the abolition of nuclear weapons, but the abolition of war. For too long, the US and other countries have sought to prevent war by preparing for it. Now, the time has come to prevent war by preparing for peace. Cultures of peace must be built upon foundations of justice and human dignity. This means that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the international law that supports these rights, must be respected and adhered to. It also means that human institutions must uphold these rights, and there must be accountability for leaders who violate international law.

    Finally, introduce the concept of trusteeship of the earth and its resources as a vital element of building cultures of peace. All of us share in the responsibility to pass the earth on intact to the generations that will follow us on the planet. We are trustees for future generations. We cannot allow global warming to change the climate, the ozone layer to be further damaged, our soil to be depleted, or our atmosphere, rivers and oceans to be polluted beyond recovery.

    President Obama might conclude his Nobel Lecture by noting that peace is a sacred right for children everywhere and that all countries, starting with his own, should end the barbaric practice of sacrificing their children at the altar of war. He might observe that if politicians cannot refrain from choosing war, they should themselves go off to fight and leave the young men and women at home to pursue their lives in peace. It would follow that if politicians were to fight their own wars, the institution of war would soon end, and peace would cease to be the intervals between wars. It would be celebrated in all seasons across the globe.

    Of course, these ideas and commitments are unlikely to be in the president’s Nobel Lecture and have been made more so by his recent announcement of his intention to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan. It is pleasant to dream, though, that this young president might make such a speech and carry out a commitment truly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

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

  • Hiroshima Beckons Obama

    This article was originally published by The Japan Times

    For the past 64 years the name “Hiroshima” has conjured a nightmare vision for all humanity: the unthinkable specter of instantaneous atomic annihilation. Only by personally visiting Hiroshima or Nagasaki, the two cities that have experienced atomic bombing, can one begin to grasp the threat posed by the world’s present arsenal of nuclear weapons.

    Just one bomb, dubbed “Little Boy,” devastated Hiroshima in a split second. By comparison, the potential destructive power of the more than 20,000 nuclear warheads deployed or stockpiled today by the United States, Russia, France, Britain, China, Israel, India and Pakistan gives bizarre new meaning to the term “overkill” — and proliferation continues.

    Under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the U.S. puts nuclear weapons in the hands of Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Israel is widely believed to have its own arsenal, North Korea has a test program, and R&D in Iran and reportedly Myanmar threatens to further destabilize already volatile regions.

    Today, who does not fear even a single atomic bomb in terrorist hands?

    While Hiroshima illuminates the world’s darkest forebodings, it is also a beacon of hope — a witness reminding us at every opportunity that nuclear weapons must never again be used. Hiroshima’s citizens stand certain in their knowledge of what the “atomic option” really means, and insist that our planet must be nuclear-free, a truth beyond politics or the ideology of nationalism.

    This message is now global: Mayors for Peace, a Hiroshima/Nagasaki- initiated international network of local authorities campaigning for the elimination by 2020 of all remaining nuclear weapons, is supported by more than 3,000 cities in 134 countries and regions. Every visitor to Hiroshima and its Peace Museum comes face to face with a history from which we must all learn — or risk repeating.

    Who better to visit Hiroshima, witness its message firsthand, and speak to the world’s nuclear fears, than the commander in chief of one of the world’s largest nuclear-equipped militaries?

    Now, as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Japan on Nov. 12 and 13 offers him an unprecedented opportunity to build already-established momentum toward the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    If Obama were to speak from Hiroshima (as no other sitting U.S. president ever has), this would allow the entire world to imagine a future no longer held hostage by fears of cold war, nuclear winter, or nuclear terrorism. As Obama has stated, political will and support for a nuclear-free world first requires imagination. An address from Hiroshima would be bold, historic and compelling.

    Obama’s groundbreaking April 5 speech in Prague — mentioned by many speakers at memorial events in Nagasaki and Hiroshima this past summer and widely reported in the Japanese media — shows just how closely attuned he is to the essence of Hiroshima’s viewpoint:

    “Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city — be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague — could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be — for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival.

    “Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked — that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.”

    Obama showed his determination to confront this vital issue Sept. 24 by chairing a head-of-state U.N. Security Council session that unanimously passed an unprecedented resolution for the abolition of nuclear weapons worldwide. As yet, Hiroshima is not known to be on the U.S. president’s November Japan itinerary. He already has, however, received an open invitation from Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, thousands of Hiroshima’s schoolchildren and many hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors).

    Such a visit would be well-timed: It would appeal to Japan’s eagerly progressive new administration, which has just swept the country’s long-dominant conservative Liberal Democratic Party out of office. It would signify to the international community that the U.S. once again embraces a more farsighted and responsible role in international diplomacy.

    It would demonstrate at a crucial juncture that the U.S. recognizes the horrific potential of nuclear weaponry (as President Harry Truman showed in his restraint during the Korean War) and is ready to join others, both in Japan and worldwide, in making much-needed efforts to eliminate that threat.

    A November “Hiroshima Address” need not dwell on the circumstances of the past. More constructively, it could affirm the potential for everyone to learn from Hiroshima’s experience and move decisively toward a nuclear-free future. Here is an opportunity to truly change history, dwarfing even U.S. President Richard Nixon’s journey to China — an embodiment of “the audacity of hope,” to which millions around the world have responded, and still yearn for.

    President Obama, fulfill the promise of your Nobel Peace Prize — speak to the world from Hiroshima!

    John Einarsen served in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War, and is the founding editor of the international quarterly Kyoto Journal (www.kyotojournal.org).

  • Another Nobel Controversy

    This article was originally published on the History News Network

    The swirling controversy over President Barack Obama’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize brings to mind another controversy that began in October 1985, when the Norwegian committee announced that that year’s prize would go to International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW).

    This global physicians’ movement was initiated in 1979 by Dr. Bernard Lown, a prominent American cardiologist deeply concerned about the spiraling nuclear confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union and what it portended for the future. Approaching the distinguished Soviet cardiologist, Dr. Evgenii Chazov, with whom he had had previous professional contacts, Lown sought to convince Chazov that they should build an international physicians’ movement that would alert the world to the nuclear peril. Chazov was initially reluctant to involve himself in this venture, for it seemed likely to lead to the sacrifice of the modern hospital he was building and, worst of all, engage him in political difficulties with the Soviet authorities. Even so, he succumbed to Lown’s pleas and, in late 1980, a small group of U.S. and Soviet physicians laid the groundwork for IPPNW, with Lown and Chazov and co-chairs.

    Riding the wave of antinuclear protest during the early 1980s, IPPNW grew dramatically. By 1985, it had affiliates in 41 nations, with a membership of 135,000 physicians. Its U.S. affiliate was Physicians for Social Responsibility, which claimed some 37,000 members. As doctors were figures of considerable prestige, the reports, conferences, speeches, and lobbying by IPPNW, its affiliates, and its members on behalf of nuclear disarmament had considerable credibility and impact. As Chazov feared, he did draw a sour response from Soviet party conservatives. But he was shielded from their wrath thanks to his role as the personal physician to aging and ill Soviet government officials.

    In October 1985, when it was announced that IPPNW had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the status of this global physicians’ movement soared. Irate at this turn of events, conservative parties and portions of the Western communications media launched a blistering attack upon it, charging that Chazov and other Soviet doctors were agents of the Kremlin and that Western doctors were hopeless dupes. In an editorial headed “The Nobel Peace Fraud,” the Wall Street Journal claimed that the Nobel committee had “hit a new low.” Forbes magazine—which advertised itself as “Capitalist Tool”—charged that “these medicine men are more eager to pounce on Uncle Sam than on the Red Bear.” It concluded: “The Norwegian Nobel committee blew it; this year they should’ve taken a powder.” A headline in the New York Daily News proclaimed “Soviet Propaganda Wins the Prize,” while the Detroit News assailed “Nobel Lunacies.” Chazov, particularly, was charged with everything from torturing Soviet dissidents to inventing the AIDS virus.

    The conservative governments of a number of NATO countries weighed in against IPPNW, with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl appealing to the Nobel Committee to rescind the prize. When Jakob Sverdrup, the secretary of the Nobel Committee, was asked on German national television if a government had ever before urged that the award be rescinded, he responded affirmatively. In 1935, he noted, Adolf Hitler had issued an appeal against giving the award to a German pacifist, Carl von Ossietzky, then imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp. Deeply embarrassed, the West German government dropped the issue.

    IPPNW leaders defended the organization’s integrity, but the best rebuttal occurred at the Nobel ceremonies that December. Lown and Chazov were doing their best to respond to hostile questions at a crowded press conference when a Soviet journalist tumbled to the floor, felled by a cardiac arrest. Immediately, Lown, Chazov, and other doctors raced to the stricken man’s side, taking turns pounding on his chest and giving him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Ultimately, they saved his life. When the press conference resumed, Lown, shaken but quick-witted, said: “What you have just seen is a parable of our movement. When a crisis comes, when life is in danger, Soviet and American physicians cooperate. . . . We forget ideology, we forget our differences.” And “the big issue confronting humankind today is sudden nuclear death.”

    This dramatic incident rallied support for IPPNW, which pressed forward with its antinuclear campaign—a campaign that made a significant contribution to subsequent nuclear disarmament treaties signed by the major powers. By late 1988, IPPNW had grown to a federation of physicians’ groups in 61 countries, with over 200,000 members. It continues its efforts today, as does its U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

    With this incident in mind, we should be wary before assailing the considered judgment of the Nobel Committee today, as it once again presents an award to a strong advocate of nuclear disarmament. Indeed, we might ask the conservative critics of awarding the prize to Obama what they have done for peace lately. And, if they have done nothing—or worse—we might well question their motives.

    Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford University Press).
  • The 2005 Nobel Peace Prize

    The 2005 Nobel Peace Prize

    In this 60th anniversary year of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Nobel Committee chose to again focus its award, as it had in 1985 and again in 1995, on abolishing nuclear weapons. The Nobel Committee announced that its Peace Prize for 2005 will go to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei. Ten years ago, the Prize went to Joseph Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, and ten years before that to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

    The Nobel Committee is right to focus on nuclear dangers and the need to abolish these weapons, and Mohamed ElBaradei has been courageous in speaking out for both sides of the non-proliferation bargain: preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and achieving nuclear disarmament. He has repeatedly pointed to the hypocrisy of the nuclear weapons states for their double standards and their failure to move resolutely in fulfilling their nuclear disarmament obligations.

    ElBaradei has argued, for example, “We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security – and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.” For his outspokenness, he earned the wrath of the Bush administration, which tried unsuccessfully to block his appointment to a third four-year term at the IAEA.

    In making their announcement of the 2005 prize, the Nobel Committee stated: “At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation. This principle finds its clearest expression today in the work of the IAEA and its Director General. In the nuclear non-proliferation regime, it is the IAEA which controls that nuclear energy is not misused for military purposes, and the Director General has stood out as an unafraid advocate of new measures to strengthen that regime. At a time when disarmament efforts appear deadlocked, when there is a danger that nuclear arms will spread both to states and to terrorist groups, and when nuclear power again appears to be playing an increasingly significant role, IAEA’s work is of incalculable importance.”

    Mr. ElBaradei is deserving of the Nobel for his clear and persistent challenge to the policies of the nuclear weapons states. The Nobel Committee, however, sends the wrong message to the world in making the award to the IAEA. The IAEA is an international agency that serves two masters. On the one hand, it seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. But, on the other hand, it seeks to promote nuclear energy. Although these dual goals are enshrined in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are not compatible. The spread of nuclear reactors carries with it the potential for the spread of nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear reactors have always been, and remain, a preferred path to nuclear weapons. It was the path taken secretly by Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Africa. It is the path once pursued by Brazil, Argentina, Iraq and Libya, and which now raises concerns with Iran. It is the path that has made Japan a virtual nuclear weapons state.

    The Nobel Committee had another and, in my view, better choice before it than the IAEA to promote the abolition of nuclear weapons. Also nominated for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize was the Nihon Hidankyo, the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations. By selecting Nihon Hidankyo, along with Mr. ElBaradei, the Committee could have chosen to shine a light on the hibakusha, the aging victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who have devoted much of their lives to seeking to assure that no one in the future will ever again suffer their fate.

    In a letter sent in December 2004, I wrote to the Nobel Committee: “As individuals and collectively, the hibakusha, survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have reflected the spirit of peace in turning their personal tragedies into an enduring plea to rid the world of these most terrible weapons of mass destruction. To honor them with the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize in the 60th anniversary year of the bombings would, in a sense, be to honor all victims of war who fight for peace, but it would have special meaning for the aging hibakusha. It would recognize the human triumph in their alchemy of turning despair and bitterness into hope on the path to nuclear sanity and disarmament.”

    Once again, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been passed over for the world’s most prestigious peace prize. When the Nobel Committee chooses to make its award to the hibakusha, it will be a sign that there is an expanding recognition that the only safe number of nuclear weapons in the world is zero and that the fate of the world depends upon eliminating these omnicidal weapons as rapidly as possible. It will also recognize the truth of the oft-repeated position of the hibakusha that “human beings and nuclear weapons cannot co-exist,” and that we must eliminate these weapons before they eliminate us.

    David Krieger is the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the author of a recent book of peace poetry, Today Is Not a Good Day for War.

  • Ethics and Policy 4th Global Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates

    Final Statement*

    We are the first generation making decisions that will determine whether we will be the last generation. We have an ethical responsibility to future generations to ensure that we are not passing on a future of wars and ecological catastrophe. For policies to be in the interest of humanity, they must be based on ethical values.

    We express our profound anxiety that current policies are not creating a sufficiently secure and stable world for all. For this reason, we need to reset our course based on strong ethical foundations.

    Compassion and conscience are essential to our humanity and compel us to care for one another. Cooperation amongst nations, multilateralism, is the logical outgrowth of this principle. A more equitable international order based on the rule of law is its needed expression.

    We reiterate our conviction that international politics need to be reformed to address effectively three critical challenges: ending wars and violence, eliminating poverty, and saving the environment.

    We call upon everyone to join us in working to replace the culture of war with a culture of peace. Let us ensure that no child is ever again exposed to the horrors of war.

    Recent events, such as the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, bloodshed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya, as well as in parts of Africa and Latin America, confirm that problems with deep economic, social, cultural or religious roots cannot be resolved unilaterally or by armed force.

    International terrorism is a threat to peace. Multilateral cooperation and the promotion of human rights under the rule of law are essential to address terrorism and its underlying sources.

    The threat of weapons of mass destruction remains with us. We call for an immediate end to the newly resurgent arms race, which is being fueled by a failure to universally ratify a treaty banning nuclear testing, and by doctrines that lower the threshold of use and promote the creation of new nuclear weapons. This is particularly dangerous when coupled with the doctrine of pre-emption.

    For some to say that nuclear weapons are good for them but not for others is simply not sustainable. The failure of the nuclear weapons states to abide by their legal pledge to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons, contained in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, is the greatest stimulus to their proliferation.

    Nuclear weapons are immoral and we call for their universal legal prohibition. They must be eliminated before they eliminate humanity.

    We support the treaty to ban landmines and call for effective agreements to limit conventional weapons and arms trade.

    Trillions of dollars have been spent since the end of the Cold War in developing military approaches to security. Yet, the daily lives of billions remain bereft of adequate health care, clean water, food and the benefits of education. These needs must be met.

    Humanity has developed sophisticated technologies for destruction. Appropriate social and human technologies based on cooperation are needed for survival.

    The international community has a proven tool, the universality of the United Nations. Its work can and must be improved and this can be done without undermining its core principles.

    We assert that unconditional adherence to international law is essential. Of course, law is a living institution that can change and grow to meet new circumstances. But, the principles that govern international relations must not be ignored or violated.

    Ethics in the relations between nations and in government policies is of paramount importance. Nations must treat other nations as they wish to be treated. The most powerful nations must remember that as they do, so shall others do.

    Economic hardship is often the result of corruption and lack of business ethics, both internationally and locally.

    Through utilizing more effective ethical codes of conduct the business community can contribute to protecting the environment and eliminating poverty. This is both a practical and moral necessity.

    The scientific community could serve human interests more fully by affirmatively adopting the ethical principle of doing no harm.

    The international community has recently recognized the importance of establishing an ethical framework. Leaders of States issued the Millennium Declaration at the United Nations and set forth common values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect for nature and shared responsibility. From these values, a plan to address sustainable development and poverty, the Millennium Development Goals, emerged. We urge all to join in implementation of these goals and prevent any retreat from specific commitments. Moreover, we share the principles of the Earth Charter and urge governments at all levels to support this important document.

    For globalization to enhance sustainable development, the international community needs to establish more democratic, transparent, and accountable forms of governance. We advocate extending the benefits of democracy and self governance but this goal cannot be achieved through coercion or force.

    After a special session, the Nobel Peace Prize Winners have agreed that the death penalty is a particularly cruel and unusual punishment that should be abolished. It is especially unconscionable when imposed on children.

    We affirm the unity of the human family. Our diversity is an enrichment, not a danger. Through dialogue we gain appreciation of the value of our differences. Our capacity to work together as a community of peoples and nations is the strongest antidote to violence and our reason for hope.

    Our commitment to serve the cause of peace compels us to continue working individually and together on this path. We urge you to join us.

    *FInal Statement released November 30, 2003.

  • ‘No way except understanding’

    This year, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to a woman from Iran, a Muslim country in the Middle East. My selection will make women in Iran, and much farther afield, believe in themselves. Women constitute half of the population of every country. To disregard women and bar them from active participation in political, social, economic and cultural life is tantamount to depriving the entire population of every society of half its capability. The patriarchal culture and the discrimination against women, particularly in the Islamic countries, cannot continue.

    Today coincides with the 55th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a declaration that begins with the recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Yet disasters distance humankind from the idealistic world of the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 2002, almost 1.2 billion human beings lived in glaring poverty, earning less than one dollar a day. More than 50 countries were caught up in war or natural disasters. AIDS has claimed 22 million lives, and orphaned 13 million children.

    And some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of Sept. 11 and the war on terrorism as a pretext. Several United Nations resolutions have underlined that all states must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, in particular international human- rights and humanitarian law. However, regulations restricting human rights and basic freedoms have been justified under the cloak of the war on terrorism.

    Worse, these principles are also violated in Western democracies, in other words countries that were themselves among the initial codifiers of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hundreds of individuals who were arrested in the course of military conflicts have been imprisoned in Guantanamo, without the benefit of the rights stipulated under the international Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    Why is it that some decisions and resolutions of the UN Security Council are binding, while other council resolutions have no binding force? Why is it that in the past 35 years, dozens of UN resolutions concerning the occupation of the Palestinian territories by the state of Israel have not been implemented — yet, in the past 12 years, the state and people of Iraq were twice subjected to attack, military assault, economic sanctions, and, ultimately, military occupation?

    I am an Iranian, a descendent of Cyrus the Great. This emperor proclaimed at the pinnacle of power 2,500 years ago that “he would not reign over the people if they did not wish it.” He promised not to force any person to change his religion and faith and guaranteed freedom for all. The Charter of Cyrus the Great should be studied in the history of human rights.

    I am a Muslim. In the Koran, the Prophet of Islam has said: “Thou shalt believe in thy faith and I in my religion.” That same divine book sees the mission of all prophets as that of inviting all human beings to uphold justice. Since the advent of Islam, Iran’s civilization and culture have become imbued and infused with humanitarianism, respect for the life, belief and faith of others, propagation of tolerance and avoidance of violence, bloodshed and war.

    The luminaries of Iranian literature, such as Mowlavi [known in the West as Rumi], are emissaries of this humanitarian culture. Their message manifests itself in this poem by Saadi: “The sons of Adam are limbs of one another/Having been created of one essence.”

    The people of Iran have seen consecutive conflicts between tradition and modernity for more than 100 years. By resorting to ancient traditions, some are trying to see the world through the eyes of their predecessors and to deal with the problems and difficulties of the existing world by virtue of the values of the ancients. But many others, while respecting their cultural past and their religion, seek not to lag behind the caravan of civilization, development and progress. The people of Iran deem participation in public affairs to be their right; they want to be masters of their own destiny.

    This conflict can be seen in many Muslim states. Some Muslims, under the pretext that democracy and human rights are not compatible with the traditional structure of Islamic societies, have justified despotic governments, and continue to do so. Islam is a religion whose first sermon begins with the word “Recite!” Such a sermon and message cannot be in conflict with knowledge, wisdom, freedom of opinion and expression, and cultural pluralism.

    The discriminatory plight of women in Islamic states, whether in the sphere of civil law or in the realm of social, political and cultural justice, has its roots in the male-dominated culture prevailing in these societies, not in Islam. This patriarchal culture does not tolerate freedom and democracy or equal rights of men and women, because it would threaten the traditional position of the rulers of that culture.

    Some have mooted the idea of a clash of civilizations, or prescribed war and military intervention for this region. One must say to them, if you consider international human-rights laws, including a nation’s right to determine its own destiny, to be universal rights — and if you believe in the superiority of parliamentary democracy over other political systems — then you cannot selfishly think only of your own security and comfort.

    The decision by the Nobel peace committee to award the 2003 prize to me, as the first Iranian and the first woman from a Muslim country, inspires me and millions of Iranians and nationals of Islamic states with the hope that our efforts toward the realization of human rights and the establishment of democracy in our respective countries will enjoy the support of international civil society. This prize belongs to the people of Iran, Islamic states, and the people of the South.

    I have spoken of human rights as a guarantor of freedom, justice and peace. When human rights are not manifested in codified laws or put into effect by states, then human beings will be left with no choice but to rebel against oppression. If the 21st century wishes to free itself from the cycle of violence, and avoid repetition of the disasters of the 20th century, there is no other way except by understanding and putting into practice every human right, for all mankind — irrespective of race, gender, faith, nationality or social status. I anticipate that day.

    This article was orginally published in the Globe and Mail and has been adapted from the speech Shirin Ebadi in Oslo on formally accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

  • 1997 Nobel Lecture

    Your Majesties, Honorable Members of the Nobel Committee, Excellencies and Honored Guests:

    It is a privilege to be here today, together with other representatives of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, to receive jointly the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. Our appreciation goes to those who nominated us and to the Nobel Committee for chosing this year to recognize, from among so many other nominees who have worked diligently for peace, the work of the International Campaign.

    I am deeply honored — but whatever personal recognition derives from this award, I believe that this high tribute is the result of the truly historic achievement of this humanitarian effort to rid the world of one indiscriminate weapon. In the words of the Nobel Committee, the International Campaign “started a process which in the space of a few years changed a ban on antipersonnel mines from a vision to a feasible reality.” Further, the Committee noted that the Campaign has been able to “express and mediate a broad range of popular commitment in an unprecedented way. With the governments of several small and medium-sized countries taking the issue up…this work has grown into a convincing example of an effective policy for peace.”

    The desire to ban land mines is not new. In the late 1970s, the International Committee of the Red Cross, along with a handful of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), pressed the world to look at weapons that were particularly injurious and/or indiscriminate. One of the weapons of special concern was landmines. People often ask why the focus on this one weapon. How is the landmine different from any other conventional weapon?

    Landmines distinguish themselves because once they have been sown, once the soldier walks away from the weapon, the landmine cannot tell the difference between a soldier or a civilian — a woman, a child, a grandmother going out to collect firewood to make the family meal. The crux of the problem is that while the use of the weapon might be militarily justifiable during the day of the battle, or even the two weeks of the battle, or maybe even the two months of the battle, once peace is declared the landmine does not recognize that peace. The landmine is eternally prepared to take victims. In common parlance, it is the perfect soldier, the “eternal sentry.” The war ends, the landmine goes on killing.

    Since World War II most of the conflicts in the world have been internal conflicts. The weapon of choice in those wars has all too often been landmines — to such a degree that what we find today are tens of millions of landmines contaminating approximately 70 countries around the world. The overwhelming majority of those countries are found in the developing world, primarily in those countries that do not have the resources to clean up the mess, to care for the tens of thousands of landmine victims. The end result is an international community now faced with a global humanitarian crisis.

    Let me take a moment to give a few examples of the degree of the epidemic. Today Cambodia has somewhere between four and six million landmines, which can be found in over 50 percent of its national territory. Afghanistan is littered with perhaps nine million landmines. The U.S. military has said that during the height of the Russian invasion and ensuing war in that country, up to 30 million mines were scattered throughout Afghanistan. In the few years of the fighting in the former Yugoslavia, some six million landmines were sown throughout various sections of the country — Angola nine million, Mozambique a million, Somalia a million — I could go on, but it gets tedious. Not only do we have to worry about the mines already in the ground, we must be concerned about those that are stockpiled and ready for use. Estimates range between one and two hundred million mines in stockpiles around the world.

    When the ICRC pressed in the ’70s for the governments of the world to consider increased restrictions or elimination of particularly injurious or indiscriminate weapons, there was little support for a ban of landmines. The end result of several years of negotiations was the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). What that treaty did was attempt to regulate the use of landmines. While the Convention tried to tell commanders in the field when it was okay to use the weapon and when it was not okay to use the weapon, it also allowed them to make decisions about the applicability of the law in the midst of battle. Unfortunately, in the heat of battle, the laws of war do not exactly come to mind. When you are trying to save your skin you use anything and everything at your disposal to do so.

    Throughout these years the Cold War raged on, and internal conflicts that often were proxy wars of the Super Powers proliferated. Finally with the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, people began to look at war and peace differently. Without the overarching threat of nuclear holocaust, people started to look at how wars had actually been fought during the Cold War. What they found was that in the internal conflcts fought during that time, the most insidious weapon of all was the antipersonnel landmine — and that it contaminated the globe in epidemic proportion.

    As relative peace broke out with the end of the Cold War, the U.N. was able to go into these nations that had been torn by internalstrife, and what they found when they got there were millions and millions of landmines which affected every aspect of post-conflict reconstruction of those societies. You know, if you are in Phnom Penh in Cambodia, and you are setting up the peacekeeping operations, it might seem relatively easy. But when you want to send your troops out into the hinterlands where four or six million landmines are, it becomes a problem, because the main routes are mined. Part of the peace agreement was to bring the hundreds of thousands of refugees back into the country so that they could participate in the voting, in the new democracy being forged in Cambodia. Part of the plan to bring them back included giving each family enough land so that they could be self-sufficient, so they wouldn’t be a drain on the country, so that they could contribute to reconstruction. What they found: So many landmines they couldn’t give land to the families. What did they get? Fifty dollars and a year’s supply of rice. That is the impact of landmines.

    It was the NGOs, the non-governmental organizations, who began to seriously think about trying to deal with the root of the problem — to eliminate the problem, it would be necessary to eliminate the weapon. The work of NGOs across the board was affected by the landmines in the developing world. Children’s groups, development organizations, refugee organizations, medical and humanitarian relief groups — all had to make huge adjustments in their programs to try to deal with the landmine crises and its impact on the people they were trying to help. It was also in this period that the first NGO humanitarian demining organizations were born — to try to return contaminated land to rural communities.

    It was a handful of NGOs, with their roots in humanitarian and human rights work, which began to come together, in late 1991 and early 1992, in an organized effort to ban antipersonnel landmines. In October of 1992, Handicap International, Human Rights Watch, medico international, Mines Advisory Group, Physicians for Human Rights and Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation came together to issue a “Joint Call to Ban Antipersonnel Landmines.” These organizations, which became the steering committee of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines called for an end to the use, production, trade and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. The call also pressed governments to increase resources for humanitarian mine clearance and for victim assistance.

    From this inauspicious beginning, the International Campaign has become an unprecedented coalition of 1,000 organizations working together in 60 countries to achieve the common goal of a ban of antipersonnel landmines. And as the Campaign grew, the steering committee was expanded to represent the continuing growth and diversity of those who had come together in this global movement. We added the Afghan and Cambodian Campaigns and Radda Barnen in 1996, and the South african Campaign and Kenya Coaltion early this year as we continued to press toward our goal. And in six years we did it. In September of this year, 89 countries came together — here in Oslo — and finished the negotiations of a ban treaty based on a draft drawn up by Austria only at the beginning of this year. Just last week in Ottawa, Canada, 121 countries came together again to sign that ban treaty. And as a clear indication of the political will to bring this treaty into force as soon as possible, three countries ratified the treaty upon signature — Canada, Mauritius and Ireland.

    In its first years, the International Campaign developed primarily in the North — in the countries which had been significant producers of antipersonnel landmines. The strategy was to press for national, regional and international measures to ban landmines. Part of this strategy was to get the governments of the world to review the CCW and in the review process — try to get them to ban the weapon through that convention. We did not succeed. But over the two and one-half years of the review process, with the pressure that we were able to generate — the heightened international attention to the issue — began to raise the stakes, so that different governments wanted to be seen as leaders on what the world was increasingly recognizing as a global humanitarian crisis.

    The early lead had been taken in the United States, with the first legislated moratorium on exports in 1992. And while the author of that legislation, Senator Leahy, has continued to fight tirelessly to ban the weapon in the U.S., increasingly other nations far surpassed that early leadership. In March of 1995, Belgium became the first country to ban the use, production, trade and stockpiling domestically. Other countries followed suit: Austria, Norway, Sweden, and others. So even as the CCW review was ending in failure, increasingly governments were calling for aban. What had once been called a utopian goal of NGOs was gaining in strength and momentum.

    While we still had that momentum, in the waning months of the CCW review, we decided to try to get the individual governments which had taken action or had called for a ban to come together in a self-identifying bloc. There is, after all, strength in numbers. So during the final days of the CCW we invited them to a meeting and they actually came. A handful of governments agreed to sit down with us and talk about where the movement to ban landmines would go next. Historically NGOs and governments have too often seen each other as adversaries, not colleagues, and we were shocked that they came. Seven or nine came to the first meeting, 14 to the second, and 17 to the third. By the time we had concluded the third meeting, with the conclusion of the Review Conference on May 3rd of 1996, the Canadian government had offered to host a governmental meeting in October of last year, in which pro-ban governments would come together and strategize about how to bring about a ban. The CCW review process had not produced the results we sought, so what do we do next?

    From the third to the fifth of October we met in Ottawa. It was a very fascinating meeting. There were 50 governments there as full participants and 24 observers. The International Campaign was also participating in the Conference. The primary objectives of the conference were to develop an Ottawa Declaration, which states would sign signalling their intention to ban landmines, and an “Agenda for Action,” which outlined concrete steps on the road to a ban. We were all prepared for that, but few were prepared for the concluding comments by Lloyd Axworthy, the Foreign Minister of Canada. Foreign Minister Axworthy stood up and congratulated everybody for formulating the Ottawa Declaration and the Agenda for Action, which were clearly seen as giving teeth to the ban movement. But the Foreign Minister did not end with congratulations. He ended with a challenge. The Canadian government challenged the world to return to Canada in a year to sign an international treaty banning antipersonnel landmines.

    Members of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines erupted into cheers. The silence of the governments in the room was defeaning. Even the truly pro-ban states were horrified by the challenge. Canada had stepped outside of diplomatic process and procedure and put them between a rock and a hard place. They had said they were pro-ban. They had come to Ottawa to develop a road map to create a ban treaty and had signed a Declaration of intent. What could they do? They had to respond. It was really breath-taking. We stood up and cheered while the governments were moaning. But once they recovered from that initial shock, the governments that really wanted to see a ban treaty as soon as possible, rose to the challenge and negotiated a ban treaty in record time.

    What has become known as the Ottawa Process began with the Axworthy Challenge. The treaty itself was based upon a ban treaty drafted by Austria and developed in a series of meetings in Vienna, in Bonn, in Brussels, which culminated in the three-week long treaty negotiating conference held in Oslo in September. The treaty negotiations were historic. They were historic for a number of reasons. For the first time, smaller and middle-sized powers had come together, to work in close cooperation with the nongovernmental organizations of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, to negotiate a treaty which would remove from the world’s arsenals a weapon in widespread use. For the first time, smaller and middle-sized powers had not yielded ground to intense pressure from a superpower to weaken the treaty to accomodate the policies of that one country. Perhaps for the first time, negotiations ended with a treaty stronger than the draft on which the negotiations were based! The treaty had not been held hostage to rule by consensus, which would have inevitably resulted in a gutted treaty.

    The Oslo negotiations gave the world a treaty banning antipersonnel landmines which is remarkably free of loopholes and exceptions. It is a treaty which bans the use, production, trade and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. It is a treaty which requires states to destroy their stockpiles within four years of its entering into force. It is a treaty which requires mine clearance within ten years. It calls upon states to increase assistance for mine clearance and for victim assistance. It is not a perfect treaty — the Campaign has concerns about the provision allowing for antihandling devices on antivehicle mines; we are concerned about mines kept for training purposes; we would like to see the treaty directly apply to nonstate actors and we would like stronger language regarding victim assistance. But, given the close cooperation with governments which resulted in the treaty itself, we are certain that these issues can be addressed through the annual meetings and review conferences provided for in the treaty.

    As I have already noted, last week in Ottawa, 121 countries signed the treaty. Three ratified it simultaneously — signalling the political will of the international community to bring this treaty into force as soon as possible. It is remarkable. Landmines have been used since the U.S. Civil War, since the Crimean War yet we are taking them out of arsenals of the world. It is amazing. It is historic. It proves that civil society and governments do not have to see themselves as adversaries. It demonstrates that small and middle powers can work together with civil society and address humanitarian concerns with breathtaking speed. It shows that such a partnership is a new kind of “superpower” in the post-Cold War world.

    It is fair to say that the International Campaign to Ban Landmines made a difference. And the real prize is the treaty. What we are most proud of is the treaty. It would be foolish to say we that we are not deeply honored by being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, we are. But the receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize is recognition of the accomplishment of this Campaign. It is recognition of the fact that NGOs have worked in close cooperation with governments for the first time on an arms control issue, with the United Nations, with the International Committee of the Red Cross. Together, we have set a precedent. Together, we have changed history. The closing remarks of the French ambassador in Oslo to me were the best. She said, “This is historic not just because of the treaty. This is historic because, for the first time, the leaders of states have come together to answer the will of civil society.”

    For that, the International Campaign thanks them — for together we have given the world the possibility of one day living on a truly mine-free planet.

    Thank you.