Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear disarmament

  • Address at Hiroshima Peace Park

    Hiroshima no minasama konichiwa. Ohayo gozaimasu.

    We are here, on hallowed ground, to see, to feel, to absorb and reflect.

    I am honored to be the first UN Secretary-General to take part in this Peace Memorial Ceremony on the 65th anniversary of this tragic day. And I am deeply moved.

    When the atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I was one year old. Only later in life, could I begin to understand the full dimension of all that happened here. As a young boy, I lived through the Korean War. One of my earliest memories is marching along a muddy road into the mountains, my village burning behind me. All those lives lost, families destroyed — so much sadness. Ever since, I have devoted my life to peace. It has brought me here today.

    Watakushiwa sekai heiwa no tameni Hiroshima ni mairimashita.

    We gather to pay our solemn respects to those who perished, sixty-five years ago, and to the many more whose lives forever changed. Life is short, but memory is long.

    For many of you, that day endures, as vivid as the white light that seared the sky, as dark as the black rains that followed. To you, I offer a message of hope. To all of you, I offer my message of peace. A more peaceful world can be ours. You are helping to make it happen. You, the survivors, who inspired us with your courage and fortitude. You, the next generations, the young generation, striving for a better day.

    Together, you have made Hiroshima an epicentre of peace. Together, we are on a journey from ground zero to Global Zero ? a world free of weapons of mass destruction. That is the only sane path to a safer world. For as long as nuclear weapons exist, we will live under a nuclear shadow.

    And that is why I have made nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation a top priority for the United Nations – and put forward a five-point plan.

    Our moment has come. Everywhere, we find new friends and allies. We see new leadership from the most powerful nations. We see new engagement in the UN Security Council. We see new energy from civil society. Russia and the United States have a new START treaty. We made important progress at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington last April, which we will build upon in Korea.

    We must keep up the momentum. In September, I will convene a high-level meeting in support of the work of the Conference on Disarmament at the United Nations. We will push for negotiations towards nuclear disarmament. A Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. Disarmament education in our schools — including translating the testimonies of the survivors in the world’s major languages. We must teach an elemental truth: that status and prestige belong not to those who possess nuclear weapons, but to those who reject them.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    Sixty-five years ago, the fires of hell descended upon this place. Today, one fire burns, here in this Peace Park. That is the Flame of Peace ? a flame that will remain lit until nuclear weapons are no more. Together, let us work for that day ? in our lifetime, in the lifetimes of the survivors. Together, let us put out the last fire of Hiroshima. Let us replace that flame with the light of hope. Let us realize our dream of a world free of nuclear weapons so that our children and all succeeding generations can live in freedom, security and peace.

    Thank you. Domo arigato gozaimasu.

  • Veterans

    We take off our shoes. Japanese style.
    I’m glad I changed my socks.

    Tsunami-san, your name
    like the tidal
    wave, crashes over me.
    In Hokkaido I slept in your six-tatami room
    head on a rice pillow.

    You taught me to cook shabu-shabu:
    enhoki mushrooms,  chrysanthemum leaves
    in broth. Confused, I called it Basho-Basho.

    Knowing I loved poets and books,
    you took me to see paper-making.
    I expected kozo drying.
    Logs floated in one end,
    bales of newsprint tumbled out the other.

    When I married, you visited my home.
    You and my husband, young sailors,
    fought at Midway. Opposite sides.

    At night we went to the funeral
    of the Marine Colonel we knew.
    Someone said, “Those veterans are going out
    fast.”

    Tsunami-san, I was impatient at the time.
    But thank you for making me go through
    the whole factory. Thank you for signing
    my guestbook in kanji. That tanka
    about the plum tree that bloomed
    even when the master was far away.

  • Countdown to Zero: Your Role in Getting There

    In the Nuclear Age, the potential exists to end civilization and destroy complex life on Earth.  In the 20th century, we moved from homicide to genocide to the potential for omnicide – the death of all.

    A new documentary film, Countdown to Zero, by the producers of An Inconvenient Truth, stresses one core principle of the Nuclear Age: The only safe number of nuclear weapons in the world is zero.  Nuclear weapons do not make us safer; they leave us standing on the precipice of nuclear catastrophe.

    What is still needed, however, is a sense of urgency and a plan to get from where we are, in a world with some 20,000 nuclear weapons, to zero.  

    President Obama, who favors a world without nuclear weapons, says, “This goal will not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my lifetime.”  Secretary of State Clinton has says that the goal may be reached “in some century.”  

    In the meantime, the US continues to rely upon nuclear weapons for its security and continues to spend more than $50 billion annually on its nuclear weapons program, including modernizing its nuclear arsenal.  The US plans to spend $80 billion on improving the US nuclear weapons infrastructure over the next decade and $100 billion on improving nuclear weapons delivery vehicles.  That does not seem like a serious path to zero.  It seems instead like a path for maintaining nuclear “superiority.”

    The problem with nuclear weapons is not just that terrorists or rogue states may acquire and use them.  The problem is that any state has nuclear weapons, including the nine states that currently do: US, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.   Nuclear weapons in any hands, including our own, pose a significant threat to humanity.

    A plan to get to zero nuclear weapons will require negotiations on a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons Convention, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.  Such good faith negotiations are a requirement of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Other indicators that the US is serious about achieving zero nuclear weapons would include:

    1. Ceasing to provide special favorable treatment to parties outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), such as the US-India Nuclear deal.
    2. Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and urging other countries to do so, so that the treaty may enter into force.
    3. Stopping to press for strategic advantage – weapons modernization, missile defenses, space weaponization, global strike force, etc.
    4. Recognizing publicly the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal as a starting point for achieving a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone in the Middle East.
    5. Taking all nuclear weapons off a quick-launch or launch-on-warning posture.
    6. Adopting a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons, with no exceptions, changing the current policy of reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states not in compliance with the NPT.

    Getting to zero will require US leadership and a sense of urgency.  How is that to happen?  In the way any significant change has always occurred; it will require the people to lead their leaders.  That means that each of us has a role to play.

    We can start by supporting ratification of New START, the new agreement between the US and Russia, lowering the number of nuclear weapons on each side to 1,550 each.  This is a step in the right direction.  It is a necessary step, but not sufficient. 

    Here are three steps you can take today to become part of the ongoing solution:

    First, educate yourself.  Sign up at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s website, www.wagingpeace.org, to receive our free monthly newsletter, The Sunflower.

    Second, take action.  Go to www.wagingpeace.org/goto/action to participate in the Foundation’s Action Alert Network.

    Third, educate others.  Speak out and be a force for ending complacency on this most critical of all issues confronting humanity.  Encourage others to see Countdown to Zero and to also sign up for The Sunflower and the Action Alert Network at www.wagingpeace.org. 

  • Message to Hiroshima Conference

    I am pleased to greet all the participants in the Hiroshima Conference for the Total Abolition of Nuclear Weapons by 2020.

    Nuclear disarmament is often dismissed as a dream, when the real fantasies are the claims that nuclear weapons guarantee security or increase a country’s status and prestige. The more often countries make such claims, the more likely it will be that others will adopt the same approach. The result will be insecurity for all. Let us be clear: the only guarantee of safety, and the only sure protection against the use of such weapons, is their elimination.

    I thank Mayors for Peace helping to point the way to a world free of nuclear threats. Most of the world’s population today lives in cities. If the mayors of the world are uniting, the world is uniting.

    My own five point plan, which I put forward in October 2008 offers a practical approach to the elimination of such weapons, including support for the idea of a nuclear weapons convention. We must also build on the momentum generated by the successful outcome of this year’s NPT Review Conference.

    The timeline in the 2020 Vision Campaign to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons is especially important. I have deep admiration for the hibakushas and their determination to tell the world about their experience of the horrors of nuclear weapons.

    I urge all leaders, especially those of the nuclear-weapon States, to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to see firsthand the drastic reality caused by nuclear war. I myself will go there in ten days’ time for this year’s peace memorial ceremony, at which I will appeal for urgent steps to advance the disarmament agenda.

    I urge you all to intensify your efforts even further. Let us work toward the day when governments no longer have a choice but to respond to the will of the people for a nuclear-free world. Thank you all for your commitment to this great cause.

  • The 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference

    The principal message from the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, which concluded on May 28, 2010, is that the nuclear weapon states are still on a Snail Plan for eliminating their nuclear arsenals – moving slowly and not recognizing the vulnerability of their thin shells.  If a sense of urgency is to be instilled in the nuclear disarmament process, the people will need to press their leaders from below. 

    At five-year intervals, the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty meet for a Review Conference.  In 1995, on the 25th anniversary of the treaty, the parties extended the treaty indefinitely, with promises from the nuclear weapon states that they would pursue “systematic and progressive efforts” for nuclear disarmament.  Five years later, in 2000, the parties to the treaty agreed upon 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament.  These included an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament….” 

    Five years later, however, the parties were deadlocked, could not agree on a Final Document, and the 2005 NPT Review Conference ended in failure.  Since that time, the US has elected a new president, one who has expressed a vision of seeking “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  President Obama’s vision brought hope to the non-nuclear weapon states that are parties to the treaty that the 2010 Review Conference would produce a positive outcome. 

    The treaty is often referred to as having three significant pillars: nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear disarmament, and assistance with peaceful nuclear energy.  The principal tension among the parties to the treaty is over whether the nuclear weapon states have made sufficient progress toward their nuclear disarmament obligations.

    The initial draft Report of Main Committee I (on nuclear disarmament), which was released on May 14, contained some very promising text.  It called for “the need to implement Article VI [requiring nuclear disarmament] within a timebound framework.”  It has long been a goal of the non-nuclear weapon states to achieve a timebound commitment to nuclear disarmament from the nuclear weapon states.  Further, the draft called for the nuclear weapon states to “convene consultations not later than 2011 to accelerate concrete progress on nuclear disarmament….”

    In addition, this draft contained a provision inviting the Secretary-General of the United Nations “to convene an international conference in 2014 to consider ways and means to agree on a roadmap for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified timeframe, including by means of a universal, legal instrument.” 

    These provisions raised hopes among representatives of non-nuclear weapon states and civil society organizations that real progress on nuclear disarmament would come from the NPT Review Conference.  Unfortunately, this was not to be.  The Final Document of the Review Conference requires consensus from all parties, and consensus agreements tend to result in a watering down of key provisions.  Many of the key disarmament provisions were diluted by the US, UK, France and Russia. 

    Instead of a commitment to nuclear disarmament within a timebound framework, the Final Document simply affirmed that “the final phase of the nuclear disarmament process should be pursued within an agreed legal framework, which a majority of States parties believe should include specified timelines.”  [Emphasis added.]  In fact, the belief of the majority of states was clearly overridden by the nuclear weapon states, which did not want to be bound by timelines. 

    Many of the main nuclear disarmament points in the Final Document involved no more than the conference taking note of something, without commitment.  For example, “The Conference notes the proposals for nuclear disarmament of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to inter alia consider negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention or agreement on a framework of separate mutually reinforcing instruments, backed by a strong system of verification.”  This strong proposal by the UN Secretary-General would seem worthy of strong support rather than simply taking note. 

    Instead of committing to convene an international conference for nuclear disarmament in 2014, the Final Document called upon the nuclear weapon states only to report back on their progress in achieving a series of steps in 2014.  It further called upon the 2015 NPT Review Conference “to take stock and consider the next steps of the full implementation” of the Article VI disarmament obligation. 

    The Final Document of the Review Conference gave strong affirmation to the spread of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  While this is in accord with the treaty provisions referring to nuclear energy as an “inalienable right,” it would increase the possibilities of nuclear materials being used for weapons – as was the case with Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Africa – and would thus complicate the likelihood of actually achieving nuclear disarmament. 

    One very positive outcome of the Review Conference was its endorsement of practical steps to achieve a Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.  The Final Document called upon the UN Secretary-General, along with others, to convene a regional conference in 2012 for the establishment of a “Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.”

    The 2010 NPT Review Conference resulted in a reaffirmation by the nuclear weapon states of their “unequivocal undertaking to accomplish…the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.”  In the end, the Final Document was largely aspirational.  It brought the parties back to where they stood in the year 2000, but provided few specific guidelines for success to measure progress in 2015.  One such measure, albeit a difficult one, will be progress toward the attainment of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.

    Most of the people of the world view the need to eliminate nuclear weapons, weapons capable of destroying civilization and ending most complex life on Earth, as urgent.  Clearly, though, that sense of urgency has not reached the upper levels of political authority in the nuclear weapon states.  The people throughout the world, and particularly those in the nuclear weapon states, will have to continue speaking out ever more forcibly in an attempt to move their governments to serious action.

  • Can We Live With the Bomb?

    This article was originally published on the History News Network.

    For some time now, it has been clear that nuclear weapons threaten the existence not only of humanity, but of all life on Earth.

    Thus, Barack Obama’s pledge to work for a nuclear weapons-free world—made during his 2008 presidential campaign and subsequently in public statements—has resonated nicely with supporters of nuclear disarmament and with the general public.

    But recent developments have called that commitment into question.  The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review does not indicate any dramatic departures in the use of nuclear weapons, while its nuclear weapons budget request for the next fiscal year represents a 14 percent increase over this year’s counterpart.  The most alarming sign that the administration might be preparing for a nuclear weapons-filled future is its proposal to spend $180 billion over the next ten years to upgrade the U.S. nuclear weapons production complex.

    From the standpoint of nuclear critics, the best interpretation of such measures—and one that might be accurate—is that they are designed to win support among hawkish Republican senators for the New START Treaty, which will reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.  After all, the political argument goes, if Obama is to secure the sixty-seven Senate votes necessary to ratify the treaty, he needs to pick up some Republican support.  Of course, these pro-nuclear measures might reflect a quite different scenario, one in which Obama is abandoning yet another political promise.

    In this context, we might ask:  would abandoning the promise of nuclear abolition be a bad idea?

    There are at least five good reasons why it would be:

    1. 1. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, they will be used in war.  Nations (and before them, competing territories) have engaged in war for thousands of years, and for these wars they have been tempted to draw upon the most powerful weapons in their arsenals.  Today, such weapons are nuclear weapons—some 23,000 of them.  Although supporters of these weapons maintain that they deter nuclear war, there is no reason to assume that nuclear deterrence works, or at least works in all cases.  This is indicated by the U.S. government’s pursuit of national missile defense and its attempts to head off other nations (e.g. Iran) from developing nuclear weapons.
    2. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is inevitable that additional nations will develop them.  When some nations maintain large, devastating nuclear arsenals, it is naïve to expect other nations to tamely sit back and accept their non-nuclear status.  Over the decades, this situation of military inequality has spurred on nuclear proliferation and, unless nuclear nations divest themselves of their nuclear weapons, it will continue to do so.
    3. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is likely that they will be used by terrorists.  Terrorists do not have the production facilities for building or testing nuclear weapons, but they have the possibility of obtaining them, though theft or bribery, from national arsenals.  While nuclear weapons exist in national arsenals, obtaining and using them against civilian populations will provide a constant temptation to terrorists.
    4. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, it is likely that they will be exploded accidentally.  Numerous nuclear accidents—from nuclear weapons dropped to mistaken nuclear war alerts—have already occurred, although so far without detonation.  In an age of BP oil explosions and other technological disasters, there are limits to how long we can press our luck with nuclear weapons technology.
    5. If nuclear weapons are not scrapped, they—and the uranium mining, warhead production, and testing they necessitate—will continue to pollute the earth with radioactive waste for thousands of years.  Nuclear waste disposal is already a very significant problem in the United States, and, not surprisingly, no state has yet volunteered to serve as the permanent dumping ground for it.

    In short, while nuclear weapons exist, we are living on the brink of an unprecedented catastrophe.

    Thus, if we are wise, we should draw back from the brink and address the problem posed by nuclear weapons.  If the U.S. government and others are serious about building a nuclear weapons-free world, they should begin negotiations on a nuclear abolition treaty.  And, if they are not serious about nuclear abolition, the public should raise enough of a ruckus so that they have no alternative to becoming serious.

    If we can’t live with the Bomb, we should begin planning to get rid it.

  • Report to UN Secretary-General on NAPF Disarmament Education Activities

    2010_05_28_disarmament_education.pdf

  • The Abolition of Nuclear Weapons and US Vulnerability

    At a recent meeting a question came up concerning how to respond to someone who asks, “Won’t the abolition of nuclear weapons leave the United States vulnerable?”  Here is my response.

    First, it is important to make clear that we are not asking for the US alone to disarm its nuclear arsenal.  Rather than seeking unilateral disarmament, we are calling for the US to lead a multilateral process for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.  We are convinced that all countries, and especially the US, would be safer and more secure in a world without nuclear weapons.

    Second, we are not calling for going to zero nuclear weapons overnight.  Rather, it would be done cautiously over time and in phases.  The term “phased” in the disarmament process is very important.  By proceeding in phases, it means there would be a plan in place that allows for confidence building in discrete steps.  Each phase would need to be completed before moving on to the next phase.  US military and security professionals would be involved in designing the phases.  If problems arise in a phase, attention can be given to working them out before proceeding to the next phase.

    Third, there would need to be means built into the disarmament process by which there is confidence that cheating is not occurring.  This would require verification of the disarmament process.  President Reagan reached the conclusion that “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”  He supported the abolition of nuclear weapons, but understood the necessity of verification procedures.  He said, “Trust, but verify.”  This makes sense and would be a key element of the disarmament plan.  

    Verification procedures would need to include not only technical means, such as remote sensing and satellite imagery, but also the ability to hold on-site inspections, including unscheduled challenge inspections.  All sides would have to feel sufficiently comfortable with the verification procedures to move forward into new phases of the disarmament process.

    Fourth, the process would be designed to be irreversible.  It would include provisions that weapons that are dismantled could not later be converted back to weaponry.  Verification procedures would ensure the irreversibility of the process.

    Fifth, transparency would be another key element of the disarmament process.  Countries would reveal what weapons and delivery systems they possess in their nuclear arsenals, and the process would be subject to confirmation by means of inspections and verification.  The US has recently taken an important step toward transparency by revealing that its nuclear arsenal contains 5,113 weapons deployed and in reserve (plus several thousand more awaiting dismantlement).

    Sixth, the question itself implies that currently the US nuclear arsenal prevents the country from being vulnerable to nuclear attack.  This is clearly not the case.  Nuclear weapons do not provide physical protection to their possessors.  Their power to defend against nuclear attack is based upon their ability to deter by threat of nuclear retaliation.  But deterrence is only a theory and one that cannot be proven.  Deterrence cannot protect against accidents or miscalculations.  Nor can it protect against nuclear armed terrorists.  Additionally, nuclear deterrence may simply fail if the threat of retaliation is not believed.  Nuclear deterrence theory requires leaders to behave rationally, and not all leaders do at all times.  

    Seventh, the nuclear status quo of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots” supports double standards that encourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.  Such proliferation makes accidents and proliferation to terrorist groups more likely, diminishing security for all.  The United States and the world would be safer and more secure in a world without nuclear weapons.  

    Finally, in a world without nuclear weapons, the US, with its strong conventional military forces, would be far more secure than in a world with many nuclear weapons states and the threat of nuclear terrorism.  Achieving a world without nuclear weapons would leave the US more secure and less vulnerable than it is at the present when the country remains subject to being destroyed by a nuclear attack.

    The choice before the US now is to continue to live with the vulnerability of the threats posed by weapons capable of destroying cities, countries, civilization and the human species along with other complex forms of life, or to proceed cautiously on the path to nuclear weapons abolition.  The nuclear status quo is filled with extreme risks.  The path to zero nuclear weapons may also contain risks, but of the options available, it is the safer and more secure path not only for the US but for the world.  To follow this path, which has legal, moral and practical imperatives, will require US leadership and the commitment of US citizens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • NAPF Report on the 2010 NPT Review Conference and Related Events

    The 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference comes at a key time for the future of nuclear disarmament. The 2005 NPT Review Conference ended in failure. The nuclear weapon states have yet to fulfill their Article VI obligations to negotiate in “good faith” for complete nuclear disarmament in the 40 years since the NPT entered into force in 1970.

    Despite these failures, there are signs of hope. The New START agreement recently signed by the US and Russia represents the beginning of a new era of bilateral cooperation. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has repeatedly stated his uncompromising dedication to achieving the abolition of nuclear weapons. Most important, support for a world without nuclear weapons is gaining momentum among the people of the world, as represented by polling data and by the 1,700 NGO delegates attending NPT proceedings at the United Nations this year.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and Rick Wayman, NAPF Director of Programs, traveled to New York to take part in many events around the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

    Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Conference

    On Friday, April 30, Rick Wayman attended the Second Conference of States Parties and Signatories to Treaties that Establish Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones and Mongolia. He attended as a NGO observer at the invitation of the Chilean UN Mission.

    Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) cover all of Antarctica, Latin America, the South Pacific, Africa, Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Mongolia. A consistent theme throughout the conference was support for a Middle East NWFZ, which many believe will provide a needed measure of security in a volatile and dangerous region of the world.

    Speakers, including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Sergio Duarte and Mayor of Hiroshima Tadatoshi Akiba affirmed their strong support for the continued expansion of NWFZs around the world as a welcome step toward the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

    International Conference for Peace and Disarmament

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, together with many organizations around the world, co-organized a weekend conference at historic Riverside Church in New York City. Over 1,000 people from 25 countries participated in workshops and plenary sessions designed to educate, inspire and build lasting partnerships among people dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    David krieger and randy rydell

    The Foundation organized a workshop on May 1 together with the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy entitled Debunking Nuclear Deterrence. The workshop, moderated by Acronym’s Executive Director Rebecca Johnson, featured NAPF President David Krieger; Randy Rydell, Senior Political Affairs Officer at the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs; and retired British Navy Commander Robert Green.

    David Krieger argued that nuclear deterrence is a theory that cannot be proven. The assumptions on which nuclear deterrence are based, such as leaders acting rationally at all times, are themselves irrational and dangerous. Randy Rydell encouraged members of the audience to examine the logic and rationality of nuclear deterrence proponents and the motivations they have for using this flawed concept. Commander Robert Green discussed the indoctrination that he experienced as a nuclear weapons commander in the British Navy. He called nuclear deterrence “state-sponsored nuclear terrorism,” “unlawful,” and detrimental to national and global security.

    UN secretary-general ban ki-moon speaks at riverside church

    In the afternoon, there was an emotional workshop featuring the testimony of survivors of nuclear weapon explosions. Junko Kayashige, a survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing who visited the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in 2008, recounted her experience of the atomic bombing and the great losses she suffered on August 6, 1945 and in subsequent years. Matashichi Oishi told the audience of over 300 people about his experience on a fishing boat in the Pacific Ocean on March 1, 1954. His boat was in the vicinity when the United States conducted its massive Bravo nuclear test. Fourteen of the 20 crew members on the boat died from radiation-related conditions. Abbacca Anjain Madison of the Marshall Islands told of the devastation brought to the islands by the hundreds of nuclear weapon tests the United States conducted in the area. Countless Marshallese have lost their livelihoods, land and lives at the hands of these nuclear tests. Claudia Peterson, a resident of southern Utah, told a heart wrenching story about the effects US nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site have had on her family. Parents, siblings and even her children have died due to the radiation that came from hundreds of nuclear tests in Nevada. To conclude her tearful speech, she said, “My story never changes; I just add more loved ones to it each time I tell it.”

    Other workshops at the conference included “Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East,” “Youth Lobbying and Messaging,” “The Nuclear Cycle: The Negative Effects from Mining to Militarism,” “Modernization of the Nuclear Weapons Complex” and “Disarmament, Climate Change and Justice.”

    The evening plenary session featured a keynote address by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The Secretary-General opened his speech by thanking the grassroots activists and NGO representatives in the audience for their strong commitment and leadership for nuclear disarmament. Mr. Ban reminded the audience that “from my first day in office as Secretary-General, I made clear that nuclear disarmament is my top priority.” He lamented that “the world is over-armed and peace is under-funded.” The Secretary-General concluded his speech with words of encouragement for those in attendance. He said, “What I see on the horizon is a world free of nuclear weapons. What I see before me are the people who will help make it happen…We will rid the world of nuclear weapons. And when we do, it will be because of people like you. The world owes you its gratitude.” He was speaking to all of us committed to this goal.

    March and Rally for Nuclear Abolition

    David krieger and rick wayman distributed briefing booklets to hundreds of participants in the peace festival

    On Sunday, May 2, over 15,000 people gathered in New York’s Times Square for a rally calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. They then marched to Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, across the street from the United Nations, for a peace festival.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation distributed hundreds of briefing booklets and DVDs and talked to many Foundation members who made the trip to New York for this inspiring event.

    Panel Discussion Inside the United Nations

    On Monday, May 3, the Foundation organized a panel discussion entitled From Omnicide to Abolition: Shifting the Mindset. The panel, which took place on the first day of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, was designed to set a progressive and positive tone for the four-week conference. It stressed the omnicidal dangers of nuclear weapons as a motivating force to achieve progress toward a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    The event started out with a screening of the short video The Nuclear Family by Angela How. The video was the winner of the Foundation’s 2010 Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest. All of the winning videos from the 2010 contest can be viewed here. 

    Speakers on the Foundation’s panel included NAPF President David Krieger, NAPF Associate Steven Starr, NAPF Associate Alice Slater, NAPF Associate Commander Robert Green and Kate Dewes. A report on the panel can be found here.

    Rick wayman listens as david krieger makes a presentation to the panel inside the united nations

    Action Inside the NPT Review Conference

    At the same time as our panel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to the plenary session. Among the proposals he made are:

    • Evolve the NPT to the “DNPT” – the Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Treaty;
    • Establish an independent group to oversee the disarmament process outlined in Article VI of the NPT;
    • Introduce legally-binding comprehensive security guarantees to non-nuclear weapon states;
    • Terminate all research and production of nuclear weapons worldwide;
    • Explicitly outlaw the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and
    • Implement the Middle East Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone as agreed at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.

    Ahmadinejad was also critical of the United States and Israel during his speech, which resulted in many delegates walking out on his talk. The full text of his speech is available here.

    On the afternoon of the first day of the Review Conference, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke. She was strong on non-proliferation initiatives such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, and promised further bilateral reductions with Russia. Clinton indicated that the US would seek to ratify the nuclear weapon-free zones in Africa and the South Pacific and was now ready to consult with other parties on the nuclear weapon-free zones in Central Asia and Southeast Asia. For the first time, the US revealed that the exact number of nuclear weapons in its deployed and reserve arsenal is 5,113 (plus “several thousand” more awaiting dismantlement). The full text of Secretary Clinton’s speech is available here. The document outlining the number of US nuclear weapons is available here.

    The US delegation interacted much more with NGOs this year than in years past. They gave a major briefing on May 5 with Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher and other senior administration officials and answered questions after the briefing. David Krieger asked three questions:

    1. How much plutonium and highly enriched uranium exists in the world, and how much remains “loose” after the accomplishments you described?
    2. You describe the need for the US nuclear arsenal to be “safe, secure and effective.” I can understand the terms “safe” and “secure,” but what do you mean by the term “effective?”
    3. Would you consider conducting an Environmental Impact Statement on the use of nuclear weapons to increase awareness among Americans of the potential damage that would be caused in order to increase support for the president’s goal of zero nuclear weapons?

    Their answers were as follows, with Thomas D’Agostino responding to the first two questions and Assistant Secretary of State Tauscher responding to the third:

    1. There is more nuclear material out there. That is why we need the rest of the world to join us in securing it.
    2. “Effective” means that the weapon will work as designed.
    3. We have no intention of doing this.

    UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made himself available to various NGO events and was very strong in his commitment to nuclear disarmament. Mr. Ban spoke at events by Mayors for Peace, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization and hibakusha (survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings). As mentioned earlier, he also delivered the keynote address at the conference that the Foundation co-sponsored on May 1.

    The Foundation’s NPT briefing booklet was distributed to all UN country missions one month before the start of the Review Conference. We also distributed copies of the briefing booklet to delegates during events and plenary meetings inside the UN during the Review Conference.

    Greenwich Forum on War & Peace

    David krieger speaks to the greenwich forum

    On Wednesday, May 5, David and Rick traveled to Greenwich, CT at the invitation of the Greenwich Forum on War & Peace. To begin the evening, David and Rick met at an informal dinner with Board members of the Greenwich Forum to get to know one another and talk about issues of mutual interest. After the dinner, approximately 45 people at the Greenwich Library came to hear a lecture by David entitled Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Changing Our Modes of Thinking.

    The lecture was followed by a lively question and answer session, which focused in part on perspectives on the decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. David challenged the conventional way the atomic bombings are taught in American schools; he said that typically Americans are taught to think of the bombs from above – that is, as a technological innovation that resulted in ending World War II in the Pacific. The Japanese, on the other hand, view the bombings from below – that is, the massive death and severe physical, psychological and environmental effects wrought upon those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the US atomic bombings in August 1945. David also encouraged greater US leadership to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.

    Nearly everyone in attendance picked up copies of Foundation materials, including the NPT briefing booklet, the 2009 annual report and the DVD.

    Other Notable Events

    A key outcome of the trip to New York for the Foundation was strengthening the ties we have with other NGOs. We strengthened our existing ties with groups such as the Middle Powers Initiative, Mayors for Peace, Abolition 2000, INES, INESAP, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and the World Future Council. We created stronger ties with many key NGOs including Peace Action, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament and the Disarmament & Security Centre.

    David krieger moderates a panel on us nuclear weapons in europe

    On May 5, David served as moderator on a panel organized by INES on nuclear weapons in Europe. Panelists included Dave Webb (UK), Peter Becker (Germany) and Yves-Jean Gallas (France).

    On May 6, David and Rick had lunch with Foundation representatives Vernon Nichols and Masako London. The lunch was sponsored by Foundation supporters and UN representatives Frank and Nancy Colton, who were unable to attend due to health reasons.

    On May 6, David participated in a meeting of the International Steering Committee of the Middle Powers Initiative. Rick represented the Foundation at the Abolition 2000 Global Council dinner and the Abolition 2000 Annual General Meeting.

    During the conference, David did a television interview with NPT-TV, which can be viewed here and here.

    The Foundation strengthened its ties with Commander Robert Green, a retired member of the British Royal Navy who was in charge of nuclear weapons. Green was a panelist at the Foundation’s workshop during the May 1 conference and again at the Foundation’s panel discussion at the UN on May 3. His new book, Security Without Nuclear Deterrence, was released during the first week of the Review Conference. Commander Green accepted the invitation to become an Associate of the Foundation.

    Foundation Associates Jonathan Granoff, Alice Slater and Steven Starr were also active participants in panels and other activities at the 2010 Review Conference.

    Conclusion

    The NPT Review Conference will continue through May 28. There is no strong sense yet of the outcome, but there is a general sense of hopefulness that the outcome will be more positive than the failed 2005 Review Conference, and that perhaps countries will return to the 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

    During the first week of the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty
    (NPT) Review Conference there was a much more positive tone than in previous
    such conferences. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon participated in
    many civil society events during the conference, continuing to shine a light on
    the need for a concrete plan for nuclear disarmament. The United States was
    also more forthcoming with information on its nuclear arsenal, specifically in
    releasing details of the size of its nuclear arsenal (5,113 nuclear weapons
    deployed and in reserve plus several thousand awaiting dismantlement).

    The draft of the final document, to be released at the
    conclusion of the conference on May 28, contains some highly promising
    provisions. The draft document states, “The nuclear-weapon states shall convene
    consultations not later than 2011 to accelerate concrete progress on nuclear
    disarmament in a way that promotes international stability and is based on the
    principle of undiminished security for all.”

    The draft document continues, “Based on the outcome of these
    consultations, the Secretary-General of the United Nations is invited to
    convene an international conference in 2014 to consider ways and means to agree
    on a roadmap for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified
    timeframe, including by means of a universal legal instrument.”

    If these provisions make it into the final document of the
    NPT conference, they could pave the way for a new treaty, a Nuclear Weapons
    Convention, for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent
    elimination of nuclear weapons – one of the goals long sought by the Nuclear
    Age Peace Foundation and other civil society organizations.