Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: NPT

  • For a Nuclear Free, Peaceful, Just and Sustainable World

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

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

    Despite the global economic crisis, we face a situation in which global military spending – money for killing – far outstrips all other spending, at the expense of addressing urgent human needs.  Arms races in many parts of the world are escalating. More and larger foreign military bases are being built and space is being used for war. NATO is being enlarged to dominate the world.  All life is threatened by tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that can destroy our planet hundreds of times over. Aggressive nuclear strategies remain the brutal reality:

    • Despite its non-proliferation diplomacy, the United States has reaffirmed the central role of nuclear weapons in its defense policy, as has Russia, and increased spending for its nuclear weapons programs to an all-time high;
    • All of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nuclear weapon states – the U.S., Russia, U.K., France and China — are modernizing their nuclear arsenals;
    • While pledging to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. foreign and military policies, the Obama Administration has repeated its threats of first strike nuclear attacks first against North Korea and second, with Israel against Iran by reiterating that “all options are on the table;”
    • Dangerously since they are not signatories, India, Israel and Pakistan are not obligated under the NPT to abolish their nuclear weapons.
    • While Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs are the focus of broad international condemnation, the world continues to turn a blind eye to Israel’s large, sophisticated nuclear arsenal.
    • The South Asian nuclear arms race continues unabated;

    There is an urgent need for real change.

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

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

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

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

    To achieve a world free of war: Seeking, as expressed in the UN Charter, to end the scourge of war that has blighted succeeding generations, we will work to end all military conflicts and support peaceful dialogue and conflict resolution based on international law. International conflicts must be prevented and solved through diplomacy:

    • We call for an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the withdrawal of all foreign troops from those regions.
    • We call on Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories occupied since June 1967, to dismantle the settlements and to recognize the national rights of the Palestinian people.
    • We call on the U.S. to sign a peace treaty to finally end the Korean War, formalize diplomatic relations, lift sanctions and encourage meaningful exchange.
    • We call on the international community to normalize relations with Iran and North Korea.
    • We call for the blockade of Cuba to end.

    We will work for the end of military alliances and the closing of all foreign military bases, to end the militarization of space, and to greatly reduce the world’s military spending. Torn by the deaths of countless thousands of people as a result of the arms trade, we call for that trade in death to be banned. Putting people first, we call on governments with militarized economies to begin industrial conversion programmes so that our resources and energy are organized to meet human needs, not to end human lives. Let goverment structures promote peace instead of war. With imagination and creativity we will build relations between all countries on the basis of equality and respect.

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

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

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

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

    Time is short – we must seize the moment!

    1 May 2010

    International Planning Committee: Ray Acheson – Reaching Critical Will; Colin Archer – International Peace Bureau; Reiner Braun – International Network of Engineers andScientists for Global Responsibility; Jackie Cabasso – Western States Legal Foundation, United for Peace and Justice; Arielle Dennis – Le Mouvement de la Paix;Bruce Gagnon – Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space;Joseph Gerson – American Friends Service Committee; Socorro Gomes – Centro Brasileiro de Solidariedade aos Povos e Luta pela Paz; Kate Hudson – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Akira Kawasaki – Peace Boat; Hans Lammarent – Bombspotting; Margo LaZaro – Global Family; Thomas Magnusson – International Peace Bureau; Judith LeBlanc – Peace Action; Narae Lee – Peace Boat; Dominique Lalanne – Aboliton 2000; Henry Lowendorf – Greater New Haven Peace Council; Issam Makhoul – Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian and Israeli Studies; Al Marder – International Association of Peace Messenger Cities; George Martin – Peace Action; Kevin Martin – Peace Action; Alice Slater – Abolition 2000; Susi Snyder – Abolition 2000; Hiroshi Takakusaki – Gensuikyo; Yayoi Tsuchida – Gensuikyo; Pierre Villard – Le Mouvement de la Paix; Alyn Ware – Abolition 2000; Rick Wayman – Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Dave Webb – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; Cheryl Wertz – Peace Action NYS

  • A New Ground Zero

    This article was originally published by the International Herald Tribune.

    A few weeks ago, traveling in Kazakhstan, I had the sobering experience of standing at Ground Zero. This was the notorious test site at Semipalatinsk, where the Soviet Union detonated 456 nuclear weapons between 1947 and 1989.

    Apart from a circle of massive concrete plinths, designed to measure the destructive power of the blasts, there was little on the vast and featureless steppe to distinguish this place. Yet for decades it was an epicenter of the Cold War — like similar sites in the United States, a threat to life on our planet. Its dark legacy endures: poisoned rivers and lakes, children suffering from cancer and birth defects.

    Today, Semipalatinsk has become a powerful symbol of hope. On Aug. 29, 1991, shortly after independence, the president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, closed the site and abolished nuclear weapons. It was a tangible expression of a dream that has long eluded us — a world free of nuclear weapons.

    Now, for the first time in a generation, we can be optimistic. On the day I visited Semipalatinsk, President Barack Obama announced a review of the United States’ nuclear posture. Leading by example, it renounced the development of new nuclear weapons and foreswore their first use against nations in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT. Two days later, President Obama and the President of the Russian Federation, Dmitri Medvedev, signed a new START treaty in Prague — a fresh start on a truly noble aspiration.

    Momentum is building around the world. Governments and civil society groups, often at odds, have begun working in common cause.

    At the recent nuclear security summit in Washington, 47 world leaders agreed to do whatever is necessary to keep such weapons and materials safe. Their shared sense of urgency reflects an accepted reality. Nuclear terrorism is not a Hollywood fantasy. It can happen.

    The United Nations is destined to be at the center of these efforts. Just recently, the UN. General Assembly held a special debate on nuclear disarmament and security. This in itself grew out of a five-point nuclear action plan that I had proposed, in late 2008, as well as an historic summit meeting of the Security Council last September.

    On Monday, leaders come together at the United Nations for the periodic NPT review conference. Their last gathering, five years ago, was an acknowledged failure. This year, by contrast, we can look for advances on a range of issues.

    We should not be unrealistic in our expectations. But neither can we afford to lose this opportunity for progress: on disarmament; on compliance with non-proliferation commitments, including the pursuit of a nuclear weapons free-zone in the Middle East; on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

    Looking ahead, I have proposed a U.N. conference later this year to review the implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. We will host a ministerial-level meeting to push the pace on bringing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty into force, and I have urged leaders to begin negotiations for a binding treaty on fissile materials. In October, the General Assembly will consider more than 50 resolutions on various nuclear issues. Our aim: to take the many small steps, today, that will set the stage for a larger breakthrough tomorrow.

    All this work reflects the priorities of our member states, shaped in turn by public opinion. Everyone recognizes the catastrophic danger of nuclear weapons. Just as clearly, we know the threat will last as long as these weapons exist. The Earth’s very future leaves us no alternative but to pursue disarmament. And there is little prospect of that without global cooperation.

    Where, if not at the United Nations, could we look for such cooperation? Bilateral and regional negotiation can accomplish much, but long-lasting and effective cooperation on a global scale requires more. The United Nations is that forum, along with the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

    The U.N. is the world’s sole universally accepted arena for debate and concord, among nations as well as broader society. It serves not only as a repository of treaties but also of information documenting their implementation. It is a source of independent expertise, coordinating closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    The United Nations stands today at a new Ground Zero — a “ground zero” for global disarmament, no longer a place of dread but of hope. Those who stand with us share the vision of a nuclear-free world. If ever there were a time for the world’s people to demand change, to demand action beyond the cautious half measures of the past, it is now.

  • The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Past and Present

    This article was originally published on the History News Network

    The opening this May of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference at the United Nations seems likely to feature a conflict that has simmered for decades between nuclear nations and non-nuclear nations.

    By the mid-1960s, five nations had developed a nuclear weapons capability:  the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and, most recently, China.  But numerous other nations were giving serious consideration to joining the nuclear club.  They included Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, and West Germany.  Millions of people and many governments feared that the nuclear arms race — already dangerous enough — was on the verge of spiraling totally out of control.

    In this context, the U.S. and Soviet governments suddenly found something upon which they could both agree.  Having amassed vast nuclear arsenals for their Cold War confrontation with one another, both decided that it would be a good idea if other nations refrained from developing nuclear weapons.  Thus, in the fall of 1965, the two governments submitted nonproliferation treaties to the U.N. General Assembly.  “Both superpowers really got behind the Nonproliferation Treaty,” recalled U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “because we and the Soviets basically were on the same wavelength.”

    But the non-nuclear powers sharply objected to the U.S. and Soviet proposals, which they pointed out – correctly — would establish a two-tier system.  Alva Myrdal, Sweden’s disarmament minister and a leading proponent of nuclear disarmament, declared that “the non-aligned nations . . . strongly believe that disarmament measures should be a matter of mutual renunciation.”  They did not want a treaty that “would leave the present five nuclear-weapon parties free to continue to build up their arsenals.”  The governments of numerous NATO nations raised the same objection.  Willy Brandt, West Germany’s foreign minister, maintained that a nonproliferation treaty was justified “only if the nuclear states regard it as a step toward restrictions of their own armaments and toward disarmament.”  In short, non-nuclear nations were unwilling to forgo the nuclear option in the absence of a similar commitment by the nuclear nations.

    As a result, the NPT was reshaped to provide for mutual obligations on the part of non-nuclear and nuclear nations.  Under its terms, each non-nuclear signatory pledged “not to make or acquire nuclear weapons,” as well as to accept a safeguard system, administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, to prevent diversion of nuclear material from nuclear reactors to nuclear weapons development.  Furthermore, Article VI of the final version provided that nuclear signatories would “pursue negotiations in good faith at an early date on effective measures regarding cessation of the nuclear arms race and disarmament.”

    On June 12, 1968, this revised NPT, now incorporating provisions for both nonproliferation and disarmament, swept through the U.N. General Assembly by a vote of 95 to 4, with 21 abstentions.  Although, ominously, a number of nations with nuclear ambitions refused to ratify the treaty, the NPT did provide an important milestone in global efforts to avert nuclear catastrophe.

    In some ways, the NPT was a success.  After it went into force in 1970, almost all nations capable of building nuclear weapons rejected this option.  Furthermore, through disarmament treaties and individual action, the nuclear nations divested themselves of a significant number of their nuclear weapons.

    Even so, thanks to a lingering belief that national security ultimately lies in military strength, nations have resisted honoring their full obligations under the NPT.  The nuclear powers delayed implementing their rhetorical commitment to full-scale nuclear disarmament.  Meanwhile, some non-nuclear nations, charging the nuclear powers with hypocrisy, began to develop nuclear weapons themselves.  Today, 42 years after the signing of the NPT, more than 23,000 nuclear weapons remain in existence and the number of nuclear powers has grown from five to nine.

    Thus, the NPT review conference this May could simply continue the old game of duplicity and delay.  Nuclear nations could avoid making plans to eliminate their very substantial nuclear arsenals, while demanding that other countries remain non-nuclear.  Non-nuclear nations could point to the failure of the nuclear nations to disarm and use that as their justification for joining the nuclear club.

    But there is an alternative.  The world public might decide that enough is enough — that it’s time to move beyond the cautious, half-way measures of the past and bring an end to the terrible danger of nuclear annihilation.  That would require a massive outpouring of public sentiment, this May and in the following months, demanding nothing less than the abolition of nuclear weapons.  Such an outpouring would provide a solid basis on which reluctant government officials might finally do what they should long ago have done:  take effective action to build a nuclear weapons-free world.

  • Securing a Nuclear Weapon-Free World Today

    2010_04_26_wfc_booklet.pdf

  • Moving from Omnicide to Abolition

    Nuclear weapons present humankind with an immense challenge, one far greater than most people understand.  Many people realize, of course, that nuclear weapons are dangerous and deadly, and that in the past they were used to destroy the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with a single weapon demolishing each city.  But few people have grappled with the proposition that these weapons are omnicidal; they go beyond suicide and genocide to omnicide, the death of all.  

    In a cataclysmic strike, resulting in the destruction of present life forms on the planet, these weapons would also obliterate the past and future, destroying both human memory and possibility.  They would obliterate every sacred part of being, leaving vast ruin and emptiness where once life, love, friendship, decency, hope and beauty had existed.

    Despite the omnicidal capacity of nuclear weapons, leaders of a small number of countries continue to maintain and develop nuclear arsenals and rely upon these weapons for national security.  They justify this reliance on the basis of nuclear deterrence, arguing that the weapons prevent war by the threat of retaliation with overwhelming destructive force.  This argument has many flaws, the most important being that deterrence is only a theory and is subject to human fallibility.  

    Deterrence theory posits rational decision makers, but it is highly unlikely that all political leaders will act rationally at all times, particularly under conditions of high stress.  Deterrence is also widely understood to be ineffective against non-state actors, such as extremist groups, which cannot be located and whose members are suicidal.  In other words, deterrence may fail, and such failure would be catastrophic.

    Unfortunately, leaders of the major nuclear weapon states are continuing to drag their feet on nuclear disarmament, sometimes rhetorically expressing the vision of a nuclear weapon-free world, but resisting serious actions toward the abolition of their arsenals that would provide assurance of their commitment.  For example, in his much heralded Prague speech in April 2009, President Obama said, “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  But he quickly followed this visionary statement with a lowering of expectations.  “I’m not naïve,” he said.  “This goal will not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime.  It will take patience and persistence.”  

    President Obama is a relatively young man, who is likely to have a long life.  He is to be commended for his vision of a nuclear weapon-free world, but his lack of urgency in seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons opens the door to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and their potential use.  There are still some 23,000 nuclear weapons in the world, far more than are needed to end civilization, the human species and other forms of complex life on the planet.  

    The next major international event at which the subject of nuclear weapons will be before the international community is the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which will take place in May 2010.  This treaty calls for both nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.  In their deliberations, the states parties to the treaty should bear in mind the following points in seeking a comprehensive solution to the omnicidal threat of nuclear weapons:

    • Nuclear weapons continue to present a real and present danger to humanity and other life on Earth.
    • Basing the security of one’s country on the threat to kill tens of millions of innocent people, perhaps billions, and risking the destruction of civilization, has no moral justification and deserves the strongest condemnation.
    • It will not be possible to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons without fulfilling existing legal obligations for total nuclear disarmament.
    • Preventing nuclear proliferation and achieving nuclear disarmament will both be made far more difficult, if not impossible, by expanding nuclear energy facilities throughout the world.
    • Putting the world on track for eliminating the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons will require new ways of thinking about this overarching danger to present and future generations.  

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation supports the following five priority actions for agreement at the 2010 NPT Review Conference:

    1. Each signatory nuclear weapon state should provide an accurate public accounting of its nuclear arsenal, conduct a public environmental and human assessment of its potential use, and devise and make public a roadmap for going to zero nuclear weapons.
    2. All signatory nuclear weapon states should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies by taking all nuclear forces off high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapon states and No Use against non-nuclear weapon states.
    3. All enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium – military and civilian – and their production facilities (including all uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technology) should be placed under strict and effective international safeguards.
    4. All signatory states should review Article IV of the NPT, promoting the “inalienable right” to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in light of the nuclear proliferation problems posed by nuclear electricity generation.
    5. All signatory states should comply with Article VI of the NPT, reinforced and clarified by the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion, by commencing negotiations in good faith on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons, and complete these negotiations by the year 2015.

    The most important action by the 2010 NPT Review Conference would be an agreement to commence good faith negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  Such an agreement would demonstrate the needed political will among the world’s countries to move forward toward a world without nuclear weapons.  If the United States fails to lead in convening these negotiations, I would urge Japan to do so.  Regardless of which countries provide the leadership, however, I would propose that the opening session of these negotiations be held in Hiroshima, the first city to have suffered nuclear devastation, and the final session of these negotiations be held in Nagasaki, the second and, hopefully, last city to have suffered atomic devastation.

    If agreement could be reached to begin these negotiations for a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, we would be on a serious path toward a nuclear weapon-free world, one that would allow the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to know that their pleas have been heard.

    If climate change is an “inconvenient truth,” as Al Gore argues, then the potentially omnicidal consequences of nuclear weapons are an even more critical inconvenient truth.  Perhaps the greatest contemporary challenge confronting humanity in the 21st century is urgently ending the nuclear weapons era.  To move from omnicide to abolition will require a major outpouring of support from people everywhere.  The task cannot be left to political leaders alone.  Without a strong foundation of public support, political leaders are unlikely to be courageous and persistent in seeking to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.  Ordinary citizens must overcome their disempowerment and propensity to defer to experts in order to act for the benefit of all humankind and demand the change they seek, in this case the abolition of nuclear weapons.

  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Shifting the Mindset (Executive Summary)

    To download a full copy of this briefing booklet, click here.

    Executive Summary

    Throughout the Nuclear Age, leaders of the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, known as the P5 – have been locked in old ways of thinking about security.  They believe that nuclear deterrence in a two-tier structure of nuclear haves and have-nots can hold indefinitely without significant nuclear proliferation and further use of nuclear weapons.  This way of thinking continues to place not only the P5 and their allies in danger of nuclear annihilation, but threatens global catastrophe for civilization, the human species and most forms of life. 

    The policies of the nuclear weapon states have favored going slow on achieving a world free of nuclear weapons, preferring arms control and non-proliferation measures to nuclear disarmament.  They have placed emphasis on small steps rather than taking a comprehensive approach to the elimination of nuclear weapons.  While reducing their nuclear arsenals, they have simultaneously modernized them, and thus have demonstrated their continued reliance upon these weapons in their security policies.

    However, cracks in this old and dangerous way of thinking have begun to show in the statements of former high-level policy makers in the United States and other countries and in the vision of a nuclear weapon-free world expressed by U.S. President Barack Obama.

    This briefing booklet explores new ways of thinking in relation to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference.  It presents the case that nuclear weapons abolition is the only rational and sane position to adopt toward current nuclear threats.  In light of the overwhelming threat posed by nuclear weapons, all conference participants are urged to bear in mind the following in preparing for their deliberations:

    •    Nuclear weapons continue to present a real and present danger to humanity and other life on Earth.

    •    Basing the security of one’s country on the threat to kill tens of millions of innocent people, perhaps billions, and risking the destruction of civilization, has no moral justification and deserves the strongest condemnation.

    •    It will not be possible to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons without fulfilling existing legal obligations for total nuclear disarmament. 

    •    Preventing nuclear proliferation and achieving nuclear disarmament will both be made far more difficult, if not impossible, by expanding nuclear energy facilities throughout the world. 

    •    Putting the world on track for eliminating the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons will require a shift in thinking about this overarching danger to present and future generations. 

    The briefing sets forth a spectrum of perspectives on nuclear weapons, from Nuclear Believers at one end to Nuclear Abolitionists at the other.  Between them are three other groups, the largest being the Nuclear Disempowered.  This group is composed of most of the general public who are often ignorant, confused and apathetic about nuclear weapons as a result of government secrecy and manipulation of information about the role of these weapons in security policies and the consequences of persisting plans for their use.  It is this critical group that must be made more aware of the nuclear threats to our common future and must make their voices heard in a new and vigorous global dialogue on nuclear policy. 

    The booklet reviews a number of proposals to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and sets forth five priorities for agreement at the 2010 NPT Review Conference:

    1.    Each signatory nuclear weapon state should provide an accurate public accounting of its nuclear arsenal, conduct a public environmental and human assessment of its potential use, and devise and make public a roadmap for going to zero nuclear weapons.

    2.    All signatory nuclear weapon states should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies by taking all nuclear forces off high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapon states and No Use against non-nuclear weapon states.

    3.    All enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium – military and civilian – and their production facilities (including all uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technology) should be placed under strict and effective international safeguards.

    4.    All signatory states should review Article IV of the NPT, promoting the “inalienable right” to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in light of the nuclear proliferation problems posed by nuclear electricity generation.

    5.    All signatory states should comply with Article VI of the NPT, reinforced and clarified by the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion, by commencing negotiations in good faith on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons, and complete these negotiations by the year 2015.

    The briefing then considers issues of double standards and concludes that such standards will result in predictable catastrophes.  A more just and secure future for humanity will require leaders of all countries, and especially those in the nuclear weapon states, to exercise sound judgment and act for the benefit of all humanity.  A thorough rethinking of nuclear policy is needed, with the goal of moving from minimal acceptable change to a comprehensive plan for achieving a nuclear weapon-free future.

    A full copy of the briefing booklet can be downloaded
    from our website at https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/goto/nptbooklet. To request a
    hard copy, please call our office at (805) 965-3443.

  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Shifting the Mindset

    2010_03_19_npt_briefing.pdf

  • A Nuclear Weapons Convention

    This speech was delivered by David Krieger to the 4th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

    A Nuclear Weapons Convention is a treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons.  Such a treaty does not yet exist, except in the form of a model treaty developed by non-governmental organizations and introduced by Costa Rica and Malaysia to the United Nations General Assembly.  The model treaty shows that a Nuclear Weapons Convention is possible from a technical perspective.  What it does not demonstrate is its feasibility from a political perspective.  

    If the goal is a world free of nuclear weapons, then a Nuclear Weapons Convention is the best vehicle for achieving this goal.  When speaking about a Nuclear Weapons Convention, I generally add “a treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.”  Let’s discuss those qualifiers.

    Many leaders express concern about nuclear disarmament occurring too rapidly, without sufficient preparation, and thus being potentially dangerous and destabilizing.  Of course, that concern must be compared to the considerable dangers of current nuclear weapons policies, including proliferation, terrorism, and inadvertent or intentional use.  However, to avoid destabilization in the process of nuclear disarmament, the proposal is for phased elimination of nuclear weapons, which would allow for confidence building in each phase.  As certain steps were accomplished in each phase, confidence in the system would be strengthened.  For example, reductions in numbers of weapons can be set out for the various phases.  Safeguards can be strengthened in phases, and so forth.  There are many ways in which the phases can be designed, related to the number of phases, their length, and what is to be accomplished in each phase.

    A principal concern related to nuclear weapons abolition is cheating.  Thus, any disarmament system must be subject to verification.  Ronald Reagan famously said, “Trust, but verify.”  There need to be systems of inspection and verification so that there is confidence that cheating is not occurring.  Individual states should not be allowed to control the methods of inspection and verification on their territories.  Verification must not have limiting factors.  It must allow for full inspections.  Countries must be prepared to open their facilities to challenge inspections at any time and in any place.  The right to full inspections to assure against cheating must be understood as a basic requirement for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  There are many ways in which verification procedures can be organized and designed, related to issues such as what entities would authorize and conduct inspections, and the timing and scope of the inspections.

    Making disarmament irreversible is an important element of the process of moving to zero nuclear weapons.  It is one of the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  Irreversibility is a matter of principle in order to hold on to the gains that are made in the process of disarmament and not allow for the possibility of backsliding.  Some technical questions may be involved, including the determination of what constitutes irreversibility.  

    The final element I would stress is transparency.  A Nuclear Weapons Convention should make the process of nuclear disarmament transparent so that all parties will have confidence that the required steps are actually being taken.  This is an element that must be carefully thought through, however, so as not to increase the vulnerability of states as the number of weapons is reduced.  There is a delicate balance between security and transparency that must be considered.  

    I view these four elements – phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent – as being essential for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  They are necessary for building confidence that the abolition of nuclear weapons can be accomplished.  They will be guideposts in negotiating the treaty, but before there can be a treaty we must first get to the negotiating table.

    Over the years, there have been many calls for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  In 1995, when the Abolition 2000 Global Network was formed following the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, they called in their founding statement for the NPT nuclear weapon states to “[i]nitiate immediately and conclude…negotiations on a nuclear weapons abolition convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.”

    In 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.  The Court stated unanimously: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”  In effect, the Court said there is a legal obligation to pursue a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  

    On the opening day of the of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation published an Appeal in the New York Times signed by, among others, 35 Nobel Laureates, including 14 Nobel Peace Laureates.  The Appeal called upon the nuclear weapon states to “[c]ommence good faith negotiations to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention requiring the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.”

    In 2008, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued an Action Plan for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament, emphasizing that the two are strongly interrelated.  The first of his five actions is “[a] call for all NPT parties to pursue negotiations in good faith – as required by the treaty – on nuclear disarmament either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.”

    The Mayors for Peace Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol calls for negotiations for a Nuclear weapons Convention or a comparable Framework Agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons by the year 2020.  They have promoted this among their 3,500 member cities.

    The most important issue confronting us is not the elements of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  These can be worked out through negotiations.  The most important issue is how to generate the political will to commence negotiations.  I believe that such political will must come from demands by the people.  I also believe that the United States should lead the way, and this places a special responsibility upon the shoulders of Americans.  If the US does not lead, it is hard to imagine the Russians joining; if the Russians don’t join, it is hard to imagine the Chinese joining, and so forth.

    President Obama has called for the US, as the only country to have used nuclear weapons, to lead on achieving a nuclear weapons-free world.  Unfortunately, though, he doesn’t believe the goal can be achieved in his lifetime.  It is up to people everywhere to make their voices heard on this issue and to encourage him to convene negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention with a sense of urgency.  President Obama has expressed strong concern about nuclear terrorism.  He must be convinced that the threat of nuclear terrorism will only be eliminated when nuclear weapons are eliminated.

    If the United States does not act in convening negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, Japan could take the lead.  As the victims of the first atomic attacks, Japan has an equal, if not more valid, claim to leadership and responsibility on this issue.  Most important, the voices of the bomb survivors, the hibakusha, must be ever present in the debate on achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.  

    In a Briefing Booklet that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is preparing for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, we describe a spectrum of perspectives toward nuclear weapons.  At one end of the spectrum are the Nuclear Believers, those who believe the bomb has been a force for peace.  At the other end of the spectrum are the Nuclear Abolitionists, those who believe that nuclear weapons threaten the annihilation of the human species and most forms of life.  In the center is the category of the Nuclear Disempowered, those who are confused, ignorant and apathetic.  People in this category are often fatalistic and are inclined to defer to “experts.”  It is this enormous group of disempowered individuals that must be awakened, empowered and engaged in seeking a world free of nuclear weapons.   This is our challenge as abolitionists.  If we can succeed in building a solid base of support for nuclear weapons abolition, a Nuclear Weapons Convention will be the vehicle to take us to the destination.

  • Omnicide and Abolition

    This speech was delivered by David Krieger to the 4th Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on February 6, 2010.

    It is a great pleasure to be again in Nagasaki.  Thank you all for welcoming us so warmly to your beautiful city.  I have always been struck by the chance nature of the bombing of Nagasaki.  The target of the bomb that fateful day was another city, Kokura, but clouds prevented the bombing of that city.  If it hadn’t been for those clouds, Nagasaki might never have been bombed.  If there had not been a break in the clouds over Nagasaki, the city might never have been bombed.  Something as ordinary as clouds can change our lives in profound ways.  But so can our actions to build a world of peace and to eliminate nuclear weapons from our planet.  

    Over the years I have written a number of poems about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I would like to share one of these, entitled Echoes in the Sky.  It begins with a quote by the former mayor of Nagasaki, Iccho Itoh.

    ECHOES IN THE SKY

    “Today the bells of Nagasaki echo in the sky…”
    — Mayor Iccho Itoh

    The sky, bitter, blue, unyielding, holds promise.  The city, so welcoming,
    deserved far better.  Clouds opened making space for devastation.  Before
    anyone expected, the flowers returned.  Memories are painful, sometimes
    unbearable.  Words of apology never came.  Survivors grow old and feeble. 
    Generations pass.  The air above the sea is thick with sorrow.  The bells ring
    out for peace, echo in the sky.

    This is the first time I have been in Nagasaki since the tragic death of Mayor Itoh. I remember him vividly as a man of great charm and warmth.  He had a deep commitment to ending the nuclear weapons era and to assuring that Nagasaki’s past does not become any other city’s future.  Many of us throughout the world feel a debt of gratitude for the leadership he provided on this most critical issue of our time.

    Nagasaki is a city at once magical and poetic.  From the ashes of atomic devastation nearly 65 years ago, Nagasaki has arisen to become a leading global city in the movement for a world free of nuclear threat.  These Citizens’ Assemblies are models of engagement to involve ordinary citizens in the task of abolishing nuclear weapons.  The bells of Nagasaki echo in the sky’s embrace.  These bells send forth a call to people everywhere to awaken to the spirit of peace, to global cooperation and the transformative powers of forgiveness and love.  Nagasaki has always been an entry point for foreigners into Japan.  It has also been a gateway outward to the world, and your message is one that is critical for the world to hear.  

    I have worked for nuclear disarmament for four decades, and have done so with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation since its founding in 1982.  Our first and most important goal at the Foundation is the abolition of nuclear weapons.  We also seek to strengthen international law and to empower new generations of peace leaders.  These goals go together hand-in-hand.  We will not achieve abolition without strengthening international law and empowering new generations of peace leaders.  So we need to be firm in our demands for the total abolition of these monstrous weapons in accord with international law, and new generations of peace leaders must join in this demand and stand with us shoulder-to-shoulder.  We need to educate and mentor young leaders to carry forward this struggle until the last nuclear weapon is dismantled and destroyed.  

    I would like to talk to you about Omnicide and Abolition.  Omnicide is a term coined by the philosopher John Somerville.  It is an extension of the concepts of suicide and genocide.  It means the destruction of all, of everything.  Nuclear weapons have the potential for omnicide.  They could destroy everything — civilization, the human species, other forms of life, art, music, memory, poetry, literature, the past, the future.   Anything you can imagine can be destroyed by nuclear weapons, even imagination itself.  How clever we humans are.  We are a tool-creating species, and we have created tools with which we are capable of annihilating ourselves and other forms of life.  This should be a frightening thought to all of us.  

    There is no doubt that the number of nuclear weapons on our planet is sufficient to end human life.  What can justify this risk?  Is it not insane to continue to run this risk?  Why does this seem to be something that our political leaders cannot see?  Where is the leadership for change?  

    One ray of hope is Barack Obama assuming the presidency of the United States.  He seeks “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  But he tells us that he is not naive, and that this is not likely to be achieved in his lifetime.  He tells us we must be patient.  But if he knew that patience might make nuclear proliferation more likely and lead to further nuclear catastrophes, would he not instill his goal with a greater sense of urgency?

    Another ray of hope is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has called for all parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty “to pursue negotiations in good faith – as required by the treaty – on nuclear disarmament either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.”  This is important leadership coming from the top international civil servant.

    Our task as global citizens is to become a strong enough voice that leaders seeking abolition, like President Obama and Ban Ki-moon, will feel a solid base of support behind them, providing them with the strength to seek to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity with a sense of urgency.    

    We have our work cut out for us.  There is no doubt it will be difficult to achieve our goal.  We face powerful forces.  We must make our demands heard.  As the 19th century anti-slavery abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, said: “Power concedes nothing without a demand.  It never has and it never will.”  

    We must encourage President Obama to act with greater urgency, but we must also encourage Kim Jong-Il to come to the negotiating table, give up his nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances and development assistance, and join a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone.  We must also bring the spirit of the hibakusha to the negotiating table.  If we can do this, we can use the transforming powers of forgiveness and love to infuse the negotiations with a new energy reflective of the changed “modes of thinking” that Albert Einstein saw as essential to avert “unparalleled catastrophe.”  

    The hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have given testimony to enough pain and suffering for many lifetimes.  Let their voices echo in the sky and throughout the Earth.  I would ask you to take five actions from this Citizens’ Assembly.  

    First, invite President Obama and other world leaders to visit your city.  Help them to see at first hand the nature of the nuclear power of annihilation and compare that to the transformative powers of forgiveness and love.  

    Second, send a strong delegation of hibakusha to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and lobby each of the delegates to the conference, encouraging them to approach the elimination of nuclear weapons with a sense of urgency.  

    Third, send delegations of hibakusha throughout the world to tell their stories to young people, to share with them the Appeal that will come from this Assembly, and to encourage their leadership in the struggle for a world without nuclear weapons.

    Fourth, lobby the Japanese government to step out from under the US nuclear umbrella and to end its reliance on extended nuclear deterrence.  

    Fifth, continue to lobby for a Nobel Peace Prize for the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  President Obama received the prize for what he might do; the hibakusha deserve the prize for what they have done in powerfully spreading the message, “Never again!”  

    Now I would like to focus on the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which will take place in May.  In their deliberations, states parties to the conference should bear in mind the following in seeking a comprehensive solution to the threat of nuclear weapons rather than narrow advantage:

    • Nuclear weapons continue to present a real and present danger to humanity and other life on Earth.
    • Basing the security of one’s country on the threat to kill tens of millions of innocent people, perhaps billions, and risking the destruction of civilization, has no moral justification and deserves the strongest condemnation.
    • It will not be possible to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons without fulfilling existing legal obligations for total nuclear disarmament.  
    • Preventing nuclear proliferation and achieving nuclear disarmament will both be made far more difficult, if not impossible, by expanding nuclear energy facilities throughout the world.  
    • Putting the world on track for eliminating the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons will require new ways of thinking about this overarching danger to present and future generations.  

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation supports the following five priority actions for agreement at the 2010 NPT Review Conference:

    1. Each signatory nuclear weapon state should provide an accurate public accounting of its nuclear arsenal, conduct a public environmental and human assessment of its potential use, and devise and make public a roadmap for going to zero nuclear weapons.
    2. All signatory nuclear weapon states should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies by taking all nuclear forces off high-alert status, pledging No First Use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapon states and No Use against non-nuclear weapon states.
    3. All enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium – military and civilian – and their production facilities (including all uranium enrichment and plutonium separation technology) should be placed under strict and effective international safeguards.
    4. All signatory states should review Article IV of the NPT, promoting the “inalienable right” to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in light of the nuclear proliferation problems posed by nuclear electricity generation.
    5. All signatory states should comply with Article VI of the NPT, reinforced and clarified by the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion, by commencing negotiations in good faith on a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons, and complete these negotiations by the year 2015.

    The most important action by the NPT Review Conference would be an agreement to commence good faith negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  Such an agreement would demonstrate the needed political will among the world’s countries to move forward toward a world without nuclear weapons.  If the United States fails to lead in convening these negotiations, I would urge Japan to do so.  Regardless of which countries provide the leadership, however, I would propose that the opening session of these negotiations be held in Hiroshima, the first city to have suffered nuclear devastation, and the final session of these negotiations be held in Nagasaki, the second and, hopefully, last city to have suffered atomic devastation.

    If agreement could be reached to begin these negotiations for a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, we would be on a serious path toward a nuclear weapons-free world, one that would allow the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to know that their pleas have been heard.

    I would like to conclude by sharing another poem, “The Bells of Nagasaki.”

    THE BELLS OF NAGASAKI

    The bells of Nagasaki
    ring for those who suffered
    and those who suffer still.

    They draw old women to them
    and young couples
    with love-glazed eyes.

    They draw in small children
    walking awkwardly
    toward the epicenter.

    The Bells of Nagasaki,
    elusive as a flowing stream,
    ring for each of us, ring
    like falling leaves.

    Thank you, and let’s make sure that the echoes of the Nagasaki bells are heard throughout the world.  Never lose hope, and never give up the struggle for a safer and saner world, free of all nuclear weapons.

  • 2010 to Be Key Year in Fight Against Nuclear Arms

    This article was originally published by Reuters

    Next year will be crucial for global nuclear non-proliferation efforts and all eyes will be on the United States and Russia to see if the two top atomic powers can reach a deal to reduce their arsenals.

    In April, U.S. President Barack Obama declared in a speech in Prague that the United States was committed “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” In September he chaired a meeting of the U.N. Security Council that unanimously supported this vision.

    Analysts and Western government officials say Obama’s ability to begin
    delivering on his promise will be tested next year when Moscow and Washington resume haggling on an arms reduction pact and again at a key U.N. nuclear arms conference in May.

    They say success of a month-long review of the troubled 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
    (NPT) will depend largely on whether U.S. and Russian negotiators can
    first agree on a successor pact to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction
    Treaty (START I).

    START I, signed in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, officially expired on Dec. 5. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last week in Copenhagen that they would keep working for a deal in 2010.

    “The START follow-on agreement, which appears to be nearing a
    conclusion, won’t dramatically reduce arsenals on either side, but it
    will be an important demonstration of the will to move toward
    disarmament,” said Mark Fitzpatrick of the London-based International Institute For Strategic Studies.

    Fitzpatrick added that the “absolute deadline” for a new agreement was
    May, when the NPT review conference opens in New York. Otherwise it
    will “start off in a deep hole,” he said.

    The last NPT review conference in May 2005 ended in failure. Many delegates blamed the collapse on the the United States, Iran and Egypt, accusing them of forming an unholy alliance that divided delegations and wasted time bickering over procedure.

    They said the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush focused too much on the perceived atomic threats posed by Iran and North Korea while Tehran and other developing nations accused Washington and the other four nuclear powers of reneging on disarmament commitments.

    CONCERNS ABOUT IRAN AND NORTH KOREA

    If Russia and the United States can send the world a clear signal that they are serious about nuclear disarmament by getting a new pact to shrink their Cold War
    stockpiles, the NPT may get a new lease on life when its 189
    signatories gather to discuss ways of closing what some see as
    dangerous loopholes.

    The United States, Britain, France, Russia
    and China all have a special status under the NPT. They were allowed to
    keep their weapons but pledged to launch disarmament negotiations, a
    promise some non-nuclear weapons states say they have ignored.

    Western powers would like next year’s NPT review to agree on a plan of
    action for beefing up the treaty to make it harder for states like Iran
    and North Korea to acquire sensitive technology and the capability to
    produce nuclear weapons.

    But rich and poor nations have been at loggerheads for years. Poor states accuse the big powers of keeping a monopoly on nuclear technology and want that to end.

    Wealthy states worry about the threat of nuclear arms races in Asia and in the Middle East, where Israel
    is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal although it has not
    acknowledged it. They fear that a renaissance of atomic energy
    worldwide will increase nuclear proliferation risks.

    Many NPT signatories would also like the review conference to call for universality of the treaty — meaning that Israel, Pakistan
    and India should be pressured to sign and get rid of any warheads they
    have. North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and tested nuclear
    devices in 2006 and earlier this year.

    NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY

    Some analysts say it would be helpful for the Obama administration to
    resubmit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), a pact that would
    ban all nuclear testing, to the Senate for ratification before the NPT review begins.

    Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, a U.S.-based peace and security foundation, said ratification of the treaty was viewed by most nations as “the litmus test of U.S. commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.”

    The CTBT was rejected by a Republican-dominated Senate in 1999. The Bush administration
    never resubmitted it because it did not want to subscribe to a treaty
    that would limit its future testing options, a position Obama has
    reversed.

    A U.S. official told Reuters Obama was already sounding out
    Senators to gauge support for the test-ban treaty and believed a
    bipartisan consensus was emerging in favor of ratifying it.

    The head of the CTBT organization in Vienna, Tibor Toth, told
    Reuters U.S. ratification would send a strong signal to the other eight
    countries that need to ratify the treaty for it to come into force —
    China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan.

    “The U.S. ratification will be a game-changer,” Toth said.