Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: 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

  • NATO Goes Anti-Nuclear?

    This article was originally published by Foreign Policy in Focus.

    President Obama’s call
    for a nuclear-weapons-free world in Prague last April unleashed a great
    outpouring of support from international allies and grassroots
    activists demanding a process to actually eliminate nuclear weapons.
    One recent and unexpected initiative has come from America’s NATO
    allies. Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Norway have called
    on NATO to review its nuclear policy and remove all U.S. nuclear
    weapons currently on European soil under NATO’s  “nuclear sharing”
    policy. Despite U.S. insistence on strict adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
    (NPT), which prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear
    weapons states, several hundred U.S. nuclear bombs are housed in
    Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey.

    Citing Obama’s announcement in Prague of “America’s commitment to
    seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” the
    NATO allies have broken ranks with the United States. All five
    governments are experiencing domestic pressure to end the hypocrisy of
    the NPT, where nuclear “haves” disregard their disarmament requirements
    with impunity while using coercion, sanctions, threats of war, and even
    actual war (as in Iraq) to prevent the nuclear “have-nots” from
    acquiring nuclear bombs. Together with calls from major former political and military leaders to eliminate nuclear weapons, as well as UN Secretary General Ban-ki Moon’s proposal for a five-point program
    “to rid the world of nuclear bombs,” these NATO members have seized the
    political moment. They have decided to do their part to maintain the
    integrity of the NPT in advance of the five-year review conference this
    May at the UN in New York.

    The NATO five put NATO’s nuclear policy on the agenda
    for an April strategy meeting in Estonia. They have neither been
    dissuaded by Obama’s cautionary note that the goal of a
    nuclear-weapons-free world “will not be reached quickly — perhaps not
    in my lifetime,” nor discouraged by Secretary of State Hillary
    Clinton’s mistaken qualification of Obama’s remarks when she said that “we might not achieve the ambition of a world without nuclear weapons in our lifetime or successive lifetimes” (emphasis added).

    Progress Elsewhere

    Japan has also called for more rapid progress on nuclear
    disarmament. The new Democratic Party government, which ended 60 years
    of one-party rule, wrote Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to
    disavow the pro-nuclear advocacy of former Japanese officials. U.S.
    militarists often cited such advocacy as a rationale for maintaining
    the U.S. nuclear “umbrella” over Japan. Supporting Obama’s call for a
    nuclear-weapons-free world, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada urged the
    United States to declare that nuclear weapons would be used only for
    the “sole purpose” of deterring a nuclear attack. The declaration would
    end current U.S. policy, first expanded by the Clinton administration
    and maintained throughout the Bush presidency, to preemptively use
    nuclear weapons against the threat or use of chemical, biological, or
    conventional forces. Additionally, over 200 Japanese parliamentarians wrote to reassure
    Obama that, contrary to assertions by U.S. military hawks, Japan would
    not seek the possession of nuclear weapons were the United States to
    declare a “sole use” limitation on its nuclear arsenal.

    These promising anti-nuclear positions come at an important
    political moment. Obama has been expected shortly to deliver to
    Congress a new nuclear posture review setting forth U.S. policy for the
    use of nuclear weapons. Originally scheduled for a January release, the
    review has been delayed several times. News of conflicting views among
    the drafters and of Obama’s dissatisfaction with the most recent
    version, which promotes the status quo on outdated Cold War nuclear policies, has been prominently reported in the mainstream press.

    Pentagon Pushback

    Gates has defended existing nuclear policy and expressed dissatisfaction with our NATO allies. At a meeting to discuss NATO’s 21st Century Strategic Concept — and on the heels of the Dutch government’s collapse over the decision to extend its troop deployment in Afghanistan — Gates stated that:

    The demilitarization of Europe — where
    large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to
    military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing
    in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st.

    At the same meeting, U.S. National Security Advisor General James
    Jones said, “NATO must be prepared to address, deny, and deter the full
    spectrum of threats, whether emanating from within Europe at NATO’s
    boundaries, or far beyond NATO’s borders.”

    Clinton, furthermore, urged the exponential growth of “missile defense throughout the world and warned that:

    [N]uclear proliferation and the
    development of more sophisticated missiles in countries such as North
    Korea and Iran are reviving the specter of an interstate nuclear
    attack. So how do we in NATO do out part of ensure that such weapons
    never are unleashed on the world?

    Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, commenting on the new NATO
    strategic concept, raised Russia’s deep concerns that NATO’s assertion
    of a right to use military force globally violated the UN Charter.
    Russia views U.S. plans to ring Europe with missiles in Bulgaria,
    Poland, and Romania, with a missile command center in the Czech
    Republic, as a threat. The Obama-Medvedev negotiations on the first
    round of nuclear arms cuts on START (the Strategic Arms Reduction
    Treaty) have been delayed repeatedly by disagreements on U.S. plans for missile proliferation.

    Momentum Builds

    Nevertheless, there is extraordinary momentum behind calls to
    abolish nuclear weapons. Thousands of international visitors are
    expected to join U.S. citizens to assemble, march, and rally in New York during the NPT Review Conference in May. Mayors for Peace is working to enroll 5,000 mayors in its Vision 2020 Campaign to complete negotiations on a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2020. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Abolition 2000 Network
    are committed to work for a nuclear weapons convention regardless of
    the NPT outcome. Norway, host of the successful Oslo process to ban
    cluster bombs, noted that the Oslo and Ottawa processes banning
    landmines could be replicated to move forward on a nuclear disarmament based on
    “powerful alliances between civil society and governments.” There has
    been an unprecedented media focus on U.S. nuclear policy and debate
    about whether Obama can make good on his pledge and earn his Nobel
    Peace Prize.

    Nearly 25 years ago, Mikhail Gorbachev unleashed the forces of perestroika and glasnost
    in the Soviet Union. These forces kindled people’s aspirations for
    freedom, resulting in the fall of the Berlin Wall and dissolution of
    the Soviet empire. Despite the formidable array of powerful interests
    lawlessly brandishing their missiles and refurbishing their nuclear
    arsenals, Obama and Medvedev’s call for a nuclear-weapons-free world
    may similarly have unleashed forces that will transform the 20th-century paradigm of perpetual war and terror.

  • Jimmy Carter on Morality and Nuclear Weapons

    In January 2010 the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of eight international civil society organizations working for a world free of nuclear weapons, held a consultation at the Carter Center in Atlanta on the May 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  A highlight of the meeting was a session with President Carter in which he expressed his views on the need for stronger efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament and prevent nuclear proliferation.  In the question and answer period that followed his remarks, I posed a question to the former president about his own strong moral standards and his preparedness to use nuclear weapons in a counterattack against the Soviet Union.  Douglas Roche, the chair emeritus of the Middle Powers Initiative, called President Carter’s response “the most poignant moment I have ever experienced at an MPI meeting.”  The question and President Carter’s response follow.

    Q: President Carter, thank you so much. I was struck when you said in your remarks that you were prepared to launch a counterattack against the Soviet Union.  Knowing you as a deeply moral individual – this is a personal question – I wonder how you could in your own mind take your moral, religious, spiritual values and contemplate retaliation with nuclear weapons with all the results and consequences that this would have.

    President Carter: The most difficult issue I’ve ever had to face as a human being is what to do if a nuclear threat materialized when we were in the midst of the Cold War. I prayed constantly that I would not be faced with this decision. I didn’t see the rationality—it is difficult for me to talk about it. I couldn’t sit acquiescently and let the Soviet Union destroy my country without a response when we had the capability to do so.

    I had been a submarine officer and military professional. I was ready to take action that would take human life to protect the integrity of my country. At the same time, I did everything I could to avoid it. I bent over backwards to understand the partially paranoid concerns of the Soviet leaders. I would sit sometimes in my White House office—I had a large globe there and I would deliberately turn the globe to Moscow and I would imagine myself as Brezhnev.  I would imagine what things might cause me to resort to nuclear use and what might cause me to avoid it. We began to work with the Soviet Union in many ways, including on human rights.

    I can’t say in good conscience now that my decision to respond would have been the correct one. It would have cost millions of American lives if we were subject to attack and it would have cost millions of Russian lives if we attacked. I cannot answer your question adequately. It is incompatible with my basic Christian beliefs to do that. What Jesus Christ would have done, I don’t know. When I took the oath of office of President, before God, I took the oath to defend my country.  I felt that was the way I could prevent further destruction of my country. The fact that the Russians believed I would respond was the essence of the mutual deterrence.  If I made any sort of public insinuation that the Russians could attack us with nuclear weapons without being the recipient of a response—that would have been unacceptable, unimaginable for me to do.

  • New Think and Old Weapons

    Every four years the White House issues a “nuclear posture review.” That may sound like an anachronism. It isn’t. In a world where the United States and Russia still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons — and Iran, North Korea and others have seemingly unquenchable nuclear appetites — what the United States says about its arsenal matters enormously.

    President Obama’s review was due to Congress in December. That has been delayed, in part because of administration infighting. The president needs to get this right. It is his chance to finally jettison cold war doctrine and bolster America’s credibility as it presses to rein in Iran, North Korea and other proliferators.

    Mr. Obama has already committed rhetorically to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. But we are concerned that some of his advisers, especially at the Pentagon, are resisting his bold ambitions. He needs to stick with the ideas he articulated in his campaign and in speeches last year in Prague and at the United Nations.

    These are some of the important questions the posture review must address:

    THEIR PURPOSE: Current doctrine gives nuclear weapons a “critical role” in defending the United States and its allies. And it suggests they could be used against foes wielding chemical, biological or even conventional forces — not just nuclear arms. Mr. Obama’s aides have proposed changing that to say that the “primary” purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies. This still invites questions about whether Washington values — and might use — nuclear forces against non-nuclear targets.

    Given America’s vast conventional military superiority, broader uses are neither realistic nor necessary. Any ambiguity undercuts Washington’s credibility when it argues that other countries have no strategic reason to develop their own nuclear arms. The sole purpose of American nuclear forces should be to deter a nuclear attack against this country or its allies.

    HOW MANY: President George W. Bush disdained arms control as old think, and Washington and Moscow have not signed an arms reduction treaty since 2002. Mr. Obama launched negotiations on a new agreement that would slash the number of warheads each side has deployed from 2,200 to between 1,500 and 1,675. The talks are dragging on, but there is hope for an agreement soon. Both sides should go deeper.

    The review should make clear that the United States is ready to move, as a next step, down to 1,000 deployed warheads — military experts say half that number is enough to wipe out the assets of Russia, which is no longer an enemy. China, the only major nuclear power adding to its arsenal, is estimated to have 100 to 200 warheads. The treaty being negotiated says nothing about the nearly 15,000 warheads, in total, that the United States and Russia keep as backups — the so-called hedge. And it says nothing about America’s 500 short-range nuclear weapons, which are considered secure, or Russia’s 3,000 or more, which are chillingly vulnerable to theft.

    The review should make clear that there is no need for a huge hedge, and that tactical weapons have an utter lack of strategic value — as a prelude to reducing both. Certainly no general we know of could imagine exploding a warhead on a battlefield. Today’s greatest nuclear danger is that terrorists will steal or build a weapon. That is best countered by halting proliferation and securing and reducing stockpiles and other material.

    NEW WEAPONS: The United States built its last new warhead in 1989. So when aides to President George W. Bush called for building new weapons, with new designs and new capabilities, it opened this country to charges of hypocrisy and double standards when it demanded that North Korea and Iran end their nuclear programs.

    Mr. Obama has said that this country does not need new weapons. But we are concerned the review will open the door to just that by directing the labs to study options — including a new weapons design — for maintaining the arsenal. The government has a strong and hugely expensive system for ensuring that the stockpile is safe and reliable. Mr. Obama has already vastly increased the labs’ budgets. The review should make clear that there is no need for a new weapon.

    ALERT LEVELS: The United States and Russia each still have about 1,000 weapons ready to fire at a moment’s notice. Mr. Obama has rightly described this as a dangerous cold war relic. The review should commit to taking as many of those forces off hair-trigger alert as possible — and encourage Russia to do the same.

    •

    In April, Mr. Obama will host a much needed summit meeting on the need to better secure nuclear material from terrorists. In May, Washington will encourage a United Nations-led conference to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the bedrock, and battered, agreement for curbing the spread of nuclear arms.

    President Obama will also have to persuade the Senate to ratify the Start follow-on treaty, and we hope he will quickly press the Senate to approve the test ban treaty. He is also working with allies to revive nuclear talks with North Korea and to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. Getting the nuclear posture review right is essential for moving all of this ahead.

  • 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.

  • A Message to Youth: Live to Your Full Capacity and Save the Planet

    This speech was delivered to the youth of Soka Gakkai International in Japan on February 8, 2010.

    I want to talk with you as youth, as a group of youth who care about our world.  One thing is certain: You will inherit the world.  It will not be either the strong or the meek who will inherit the Earth; for better or for worse, it will be the youth.  You will inherit what we, the older generation, leave to you, and you will hopefully do better than we have done in preserving this beautiful planet and the diversity of its life forms.  You will hopefully do better in achieving and maintaining peace on our planet.  You will also have the eventual responsibility, as each generation does, to pass the world on in tact to the next generation.  

    New generations of youth keep coming, like waves against the shore.  Now it is your turn to reach the shore.  As animals once left the sea for the land, you now come of age to take responsibility in the world.  And you come of age at a time of great challenge.  The generations of your parents and grandparents have left you a world that is fraught with dangers and inequities.  The test of your generation will be in the way you create a more just and decent world.  But you will have another challenge as well.  You will have to navigate the dangers of nuclear weapons – weapons capable of ending civilization and destroying most life on Earth.

    The human future is not guaranteed.  That is the most profound meaning of the Nuclear Age.  It is an era in which we have created weapons that are capable of omnicide, the destruction of all.  Omnicide is an extension of suicide and genocide to the entire world.  We live in a time when it is possible to destroy everything.  We have proven our cleverness in creating tools of destruction.  Now it is up to us, and to you as youth in particular, to find the means to assure that these tools are not used and are abolished.

    How will you do this?  To start with, you must recognize the nature of the problem.  This is no ordinary problem that can be left to work itself out.  It requires a plan.  Who will create and implement such a plan?  Who will take the lead in assuring that we are progressing toward zero nuclear weapons?  The problem could become much worse than it is today.  Instead of nine nuclear weapon states, imagine a world in which there are 20 or 50 or 100.  What kind of world would that be?  

    We have a Non-Proliferation Treaty that seeks to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons.  That treaty has a provision for nuclear disarmament, so that there will not be permanent classes of nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.”  Everyone recognizes that such a world would not be fair, so Article VI of the treaty requires that the nuclear weapon states engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament.  The International Court of Justice interpreted this clause in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.  They said, “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.”

    I would like to share with you some additional reasons to abolish nuclear weapons:

    1. They are long-distance killing machines incapable of discriminating between soldiers and civilians, the aged and the newly born, or between men, women and children.   As such, they are instruments of dehumanization as well as annihilation.

    2. They threaten the destruction of cities, countries and civilization; of all that is sacred, of all that is human, of all that exists.  Nuclear war could cause deadly climate change, putting human existence at risk.  Here is what one researcher, Steven Starr, concluded from reviewing the recent literature on nuclear weapons and climate change: “The detonation of a tiny fraction of the operational nuclear arsenals within cities would generate enough smoke to cause catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of the protective stratospheric ozone layer.  Environmental devastation caused by a war fought with many thousands of strategic nuclear weapons would quickly leave the Earth uninhabitable.”

    3. They threaten to foreclose the future, negating our common responsibility to future generations.

    4. They make cowards of their possessors, and in their use there can be no decency or honor.  This was recognized by most of the leading US generals and admirals of World War II, including Dwight Eisenhower, Hap Arnold, Omar Bradley, and William Leahy.  Admiral Leahy, chief of staff to President Truman, said: “The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

    5. They divide the world’s nations into nuclear “haves” and “have-nots,” bestowing false and unwarranted prestige and privilege on those that possess them.  

    6. They are a distortion of science and technology, siphoning off our scientific and technological resources and twisting our knowledge of nature to destructive purposes.  On the 50th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a senior Manhattan Project scientist, Hans Bethe, called upon “…all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons – and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.”  

    7. They mock international law, displacing it with an allegiance to raw power.  The International Court of Justice has ruled that the threat of use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and any use that violated international humanitarian law would be illegal.  It is virtually impossible to imagine a threat or use of nuclear weapons that would not violate international humanitarian law by failing to discriminate between soldiers and civilians, causing unnecessary suffering or being disproportionate to a preceding attack.  

    8. They waste our resources on the development of instruments of annihilation.  The United States alone has spent over $7.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems since the onset of the Nuclear Age.

    9. They concentrate power in the hands of a small group of individuals and, in doing so, undermine democracy.  They give over to a few individuals, usually men, greater power of annihilation than at any previous time in history.

    10. They are morally abhorrent, as recognized by virtually every religious organization, and their mere existence corrupts our humanity.  If we are willing to tolerate these weapons and their indiscriminate power of annihilation, then who are we?  What do these weapons say about our humanity, our human decency?

    I think it should be clear that one primary goal for youth should be to act and to lead in abolishing nuclear weapons.  

    Later this year, in May, there will be an eighth Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.  This is the only treaty that has provisions requiring the nuclear weapon states to pursue the goal of nuclear disarmament.  It will be an important meeting after the failure of the last NPT Review Conference in 2005.  To give you an idea of how much there is to accomplish, I want to share with you the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s priority recommendations for the 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. Each nuclear weapon state 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 problems may seem complex, but the bottom line is this: Nuclear weapons threaten the human future, and they must be abolished.  This is a human issue that is every bit as consequential as was the movement to abolish slavery in the 19th century.  There are some acts that cannot be tolerated, and slavery and the threat of nuclear omnicide are among them.

    You can be a voice for abolition by learning more, supporting the hibakusha, and speaking out for a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons.  Don’t be satisfied with anything less than a clear commitment to a world with zero nuclear weapons, and demand more from political leaders who say that the goal is too difficult or cannot be achieved within their lifetime.  

    In addition to working for the abolition of nuclear weapons, your generation faces many other challenges as well.  There is no major international problem in our world that does not require international cooperation to solve.  Thus, we need to work together.  With modern communications and transportation, your generation is well equipped to cooperate across all borders.  Really, borders exist primarily in our minds.  They are not drawn upon the Earth, only on maps.  And all borders are permeable to ideas and trade, as well as to pollution and disease.  The bottom line is that we live in a single unitary world.  We all share one Earth, and we can make of it a paradise or a nightmare.  We choose – by our actions or inaction.    

    We live in a world of some 200 nation states.  Most of these spend far too much on their military forces, so that in total the world spends some $1.5 trillion a year on its militaries.  We know that for a relatively small proportion of this amount – five or ten percent – it would be possible to make enormous progress on the eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals.  These goals include ending poverty and hunger, universal education, gender equality, child health, maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development.  The achievement of these goals would reflect real advances in human security, and with relatively small reductions in global military expenditures we could make them happen.

    As you go through life, you will have many challenges.  Each of you will have to find your own way in the world.  I want to share with you 12 ideas on how to meet these challenges.  These involve using all your miraculous gifts to live to your full capacity as human beings.

    1.    Learn from others, but think for yourself.  (Use your mind and judgment.)

    2.    Decide for yourself what is right or wrong.  (Use your conscience.)

    3.    Speak out for what you believe in.  (Use your voice.)

    4.    Stand up for what is right. (Use your power as an individual.)

    5.    Set goals and be persistent in working for them.  (Use your vision and determination.)

    6.    Live by the Golden Rule.  That is, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  (Use your feelings as a point of reference.)

    7.    Recognize the miracle that you are.  You are unique in the universe.  (Be spiritually aware.)

    8.    Never harm another miracle.  Choose to solve conflicts without resort to violence.  (Be nonviolent.)

    9.    Believe in yourself.  (Be trustworthy, even to yourself.)

    10.    Help others.  (Be giving.)

    11.    Be a citizen of the world.  (Be inclusive and embrace all life.)

    12.    Be a force for peace and justice.  (Be courageous and committed.)

    I hope you will find joy in life and also contribute to creating a more just and decent world.  If you care about life and recognize its preciousness, you are needed to create a better future.  Albert Camus, the great French writer and philosopher, said: “Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present.”

    Camus responded to the first atomic bombing in this way: “Our technical civilization has just reached its greatest level of savagery. We will have to choose, in the more or less near future, between collective suicide and the intelligent use of our scientific conquests. Before the terrifying prospects now available to humanity, we see even more clearly that peace is the only battle worth waging. This is no longer a prayer but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments – a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason.”  I stand with Albert Camus in choosing to wage peace.  I hope you will as well.

    As you may know, I engaged in a dialogue with SGI President Daisaku Ikeda.  We espoused the principle of choosing hope, rather than succumbing to ignorance, apathy or despair.  Hope gives rise to action, and action, in turn, gives rise to hope.  Our shared hope includes the goal of building a more peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons – a daunting but essential goal.  I stand with Daisaku Ikeda in choosing hope.  I’m sure that you stand with him as well.

    You are the future.  May each of you choose hope, wage peace, and live your lives fully and with a full measure of joy.  I wish you all much success.

    Let me conclude with a poem that I wrote for a Soka High School graduation some years ago.  I think its message remains valid today.

    ADVICE TO GRADUATES

    Always remember this:
    You are a miracle
    Made up of dancing atoms
    That can talk and sing,
    Listen and remember, and laugh,
    At times even at yourself.

    You are a miracle
    Whose atoms existed before time.
    Born of the Big Bang, you are connected
    To everything – to mountains and oceans,
    To the winds and wilderness, to the creatures
    Of the sea and air and land.
    You are a member of the human family.

    You are a miracle, entirely unique.
    There has never been another
    With your combination of talents, dreams,
    Desires and hopes.  You can create.
    You are capable of love and compassion.

    You are a miracle.
    You are a gift of creation to itself.
    You are here for a purpose, which you must find.
    Your presence here is sacred – and you will
    Change the world.

  • Deadly Climate Change from Nuclear War: A Threat to Human Existence

    2010_02_18_starr_climate_change.pdf

  • Steps Toward a Nuclear Free World

    This article was originally published by The Japan Times.

    In recent years there has been a growing chorus of calls for a world free from nuclear weapons. The Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference scheduled for this May will be a crucial test of the international community’s ability to unite toward this goal.

    Two keys to realizing a breakthrough will be creating institutional frameworks for pledges of nonuse of nuclear weapons and establishing clear norms for their prohibition.

    We should work, based on the existing NPT system, to expand the frameworks defining a legal obligation not to use nuclear weapons, in this way laying the institutional foundations for reducing their role in national security, while establishing international norms for their eventual prohibition. This can challenge the thinking that justifies nuclear weapons — the willingness to eliminate others for the sake of one’s own objectives — clearing the way for their abolition.

    U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has stated that nuclear weapons are immoral and should not be accorded any military value. As this indicates, nuclear weapons are not only an absolute evil, entirely impermissible from a humanitarian perspective; they epitomize the military spending that continues to absorb vast amounts of the world’s limited human and economic resources — resources that are needed to respond to the common challenges facing humankind, such as poverty and environmental destruction. Their continued existence represents a fundamental threat to humanity.

    Today, the thought of the possession, much less the use, of chemical or biological weapons inspires widespread revulsion in the international community. We need to give concrete form to a similar recognition regarding nuclear weapons, which are undoubtedly the most inhumane of all.

    As a concrete step toward this, I urge that the Statute of the International Criminal Court be amended to define the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons as a war crime. The objective here is obviously not to punish the actual use of nuclear weapons but to establish a clear norm that such use is always and under any circumstance unacceptable. This could in turn open the way to the eventual adoption of a convention comprehensively banning nuclear weapons.

    An indispensable aspect of this effort must be a redefinition of security policies. The nuclear-weapon states must develop a shared vision of a world without nuclear weapons and break free from the spell of deterrence — the illusory belief that security can somehow be realized through threats of mutual destruction and a balance of terror. A new kind of thinking is needed, one based on working together to reduce threats and creating ever-expanding circles of physical and psychological security until these embrace the entire world.

    In this context I urge the nuclear- weapon states to undertake the following three commitments at this May’s NPT Review Conference and to work to fully implement them by 2015:

    1. To reach a legally binding agreement to extend negative security assurances — the undertaking not to use nuclear weapons against any of the nonnuclear-weapon states fulfilling their NPT obligations.

    2. To initiate negotiation on a treaty codifying the promise not to use nuclear weapons against each other.

    3. Where nuclear-weapon-free zones have yet to be established, as a bridging measure, to declare these as nuclear nonuse regions.

    Declaring nuclear nonuse regions would encourage progress toward global denuclearization. It could be part of a comprehensive system to prevent the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and forestall the dire possibility of nuclear terrorism. The key aim would be to encourage shared efforts to reduce threats, which would in turn reduce motivations for countries to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.

    If progress can be made toward these goals, it will make even more obvious the benefits of participating in existing frameworks, as opposed to the further deepening of isolation on the outside. Overlapping assurances of physical and psychological security can encompass not only countries relying on the nuclear umbrellas of nuclear-weapon states, but also North Korea and Iran as well as countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel that are currently not part of the NPT framework.

    None of this will be easy. But no matter how great the divide between our ideals and reality, there is no need to give up hope or accept this with resignation. Instead, the ordinary citizens of the world should come together to create a new reality. The prohibitions on land mines and cluster weapons that have been realized in recent years are the fruit of such solidarity.

    To quote U.S. President John F. Kennedy: “There is no single, simple key to this peace — no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts.”

    We must remember that there is always a way, a path to the peak of even the most towering and forbidding mountain. Even when a sheer rock face looms before us, we should refuse to be disheartened, and instead continue the patient search for a way forward.

    What is most strongly required is the imagination that can appreciate the present crises as an opportunity to fundamentally transform the direction of history. Mustering the force of inner will and determination, we can convert challenges into the fuel for positive change.

  • 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.